STUDY REPORT ON A PILOT-PLANT
CONICAL INCINERATOR
This report (_SW-14ts) was written by
Wi11iam C. Ach inger
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
Environmental Health Service
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
1970
-------
Single copies of this publication will be distributed as supplies
permit. Address requests to the Bureau of Solid Waste Management,
Office of Information, 5555 Ridge Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio 45213-
-------
FOREWORD
Incineration is an important method of solid waste processing
in the United States, and although over 300 incinerators are in
operation, little information on the performance of these units is
available. It is therefore not surprising that the effects of
incineration on the environment are little understood and frequently
ignored.
An incinerator discharges effluents into the environment in
three states: solid, liquid, and gaseous. The sources of these
effluents are the processes of combustion, gas cleaning, and residue
quenching. Any determination of the pollution contribution to the
environment by incineration must be concerned with all these
effluents.
The Bureau of Solid Waste Management, through the Division of
Technical Operations, has initiated a testing program to characterize
the performance of incinerators of different designs and configura-
tions. The primary objectives of this program are to produce basic
information that identifies the results of the incineration process
and to develop reliable sampling methodology.
During the studies it is considered necessary to make a complete
analysis of all features that affect the operation of the facility
i i i
-------
as well as those that influence its potential for environmental
pollution. The operation of the facility is not altered in any way
unless specific study objectives dictate a change. Therefore, no
special effort is made to operate the facility at its design
capacity; rather, it is tested at its "operating" capacity.
Reports from each study in this program will be prepared
primarily for use by the management of the facility, although they
will be available upon request to other interested technical
personnel. Each report will contain only the data obtained during
one individual study. Data comparisons with other studies will
not be made in individual study reports. Summaries and comparisons
of the data from all studies will be reported annually. Persons
interested in receiving these annual reports should contact the
Office of Information, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, 5555 Ridge
Avenue, Cincinnati, Ohio A5213-
--RICHARD D. VAUGHAN, Director
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
IV
-------
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ........................ 1
SUMMARY .......................... 3
FACILITY DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION ............. 5
STUDY PROCEDURES ...................... 13
Solid Waste ....................... 13
Residue ......................... 16
Fly Ash ......................... 17
Stack Effluents ..................... 18
Wastewater ....................... 21
Bacteriological Samples ................. 22
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................... 23
Particulate Emissions .................. 23
Air Pollution Control Equipment Efficiencies ....... 26
Test Results ....................... 30
REFERENCES ......................... 39
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ....................... 40
APPENDICES ......................... **1
A Example Calculations for Solid Waste
Proximate Analysis Results .............. 43
B Example Calculations for Residue
Proximate Analysis Results .............. 46
C Calculation of Air Pollution Control
Equipment Efficiencies ................ 50
-------
D Calculation of Combustion Efficiency ........ 51
TABLES
1 Summary of Stack Tests ................ 2b
2 Particulate Emissions to the Atmosphere ....... 25
3 Solid Waste Composition ................ 2?
k Efficiency of Particulate Air Pollution
Control Equipment ................... 29
5 Charging Rates .................... 31
6 Proximate Analysis of Solid Waste ........... 31
7 Quantity of Residue .................. 32
8 Residue Composition .................. 32
9 Proximate Analysis of Residue ............. 33
10 Proximate Analysis of Fly Ash ............. 33
11 Wastewater Solids Concentration ........... 35
12 Wastewater Chemical Characteristics .......... 36
13 Solid Waste Bacteriological Data ......... \ . 37
\k Residue Bacteriological Data ............. 37
15 Wastewater Total Bacterial Count ........... 38
16 Combustion Efficiency ................. 38
A-l Laboratory Data: Solid Waste Proximate Analysis ... J»3
A-2 Calculation of Percent of Dry Component:
Solid Wastes ..................... 4A
B-l Laboratory Data: Residue Proximate Analysis
B-2 Calculation of Percent of Dry Component:
Residue
D-l Calculation of Dry Component Weight .......... 52
D-2 Calculation of Daily Particulate Emissions ...... 53
vi
-------
D-3 Calculation of Weight of Dry Volatiles 55
D-4 Calculation of Total Heat Content 56
FIGURES
1 Plan View of Conical Incinerator 6
2 Underfire Air System 7
3 Water Scrubber and Afterburner Ductwork 9
^4 Electrostatic Precipitator Ductwork 12
5 Flow of Materials Into and Out of Incinerator
and Location of Sampling Points l*f
\Hi
-------
-------
STUDY REPORT ON A PILOT-PLANT CONICAL INCINERATOR
There is considerable interest in the conical incinerator as
a means of solid waste volume reduction because of the low capital
cost of the conical incinerator as compared to the capital expendi-
tures required to construct a refractory-1ined incinerator of equal
capacity. However, pollution abatement officials are concerned
about the impact such an incinerator would have on the environment,
particularly the air resource.
Aware of these concerns, the Burn-0-Matic Division, Steelcraft
Corp.,-' Memphis, Tennessee, has constructed a pilot-plant conical
incinerator for purposes of research and development. The pilot
plant was equipped with an afterburner and a water scrubber to
control the air pollution emissions. A request was made to the
Bureau of Solid Waste Management to evaluate the performance of
this pi lot uni t.
As a result of this request, a study was conducted from July 29
to August 2, 1968, to determine whether the conical incinerator can
process solid wastes efficiently without adversely affecting the
environment. In a further attempt to control air pollution, an
electrostatic precipitator was installed on the incinerator for
this study only.
"Mention of a company or commercial product does not imply
endorsement by the U.S. Public Health Service.
-------
-------
REPORT SUMMARY
The incinerator tested, a pilot plant designed to process
1,000 Ib of solid waste per hr, incorporated upper and lower duct
sprays, a water scrubber, an afterburner, and, for this study only,
an electrostatic precipitator. These air pollution control devices
could be operated independently or, to a degree, in series. During
this study, the incinerator operated with the water scrubber alone,
with the afterburner and water scrubber in series, and with the
electrostatic precipitator alone.
Approximately 13 tons of waste were processed through the
conical burner at a rate of 1,^30 Ib/hr. The waste as sampled
comprised paper products (30.2%), food waste (20.3%), ash, rocks,
and dirt (11.1%), garden waste (11.1%), glass and ceramics (10.5%),
and other components (less than 10% each). The heat content of
the solid waste was 3,790 Btu/lb and its moisture content was 26.5
percent.
After incineration, the total residue as sampled was approxi-
mately 6,800 Ib with a heat content of 180 Btu/lb. The residue
contained 1.3 percent unburned combustibles and, on a dry basis,
2.0 percent volatiles. Weight reduction efficiency was approximately
62 percent, reduction in volatiles was approximately 99 percent, and
-------
reduction in heat content was approximately 99 percent. Incineration
reduced the total bacterial count from 6.8 x 108/g of waste to 1.2 x
106/g of residue; heat resistant spores from 1.9 x 106 to 1.1 x 105;
total col iform from 5.1 x 107 to 18; and fecal conform from 8.2 x
106 to 11.
With the scrubber and lower duct spray operating, 18 gpm of
process water were used; with the scrubber and upper duct spray
operating, 23 gpm were used; and with the lower duct spray operating,
k gpm were used. The resultant wastewaters were acidic (2.6 pH).
The average conductivity was 907 ymhos/cm. On an average they
contained solids (637 mg/liter; 150 mg/liter were suspended solids),
no detectable alkalinity, chlorides (256 mg/liter), hardness
(107 mg/liter), sulfates (77 mg/liter), and phosphates (5-0 mg/liter)
The fly ash collected in the electrostatic precipitator had a
heat content of 3,^00 Btu/lb as sampled and contained 52.*t percent
moisture.
The gas-borne particulate emissions, expressed in gr/scf of dry
flue gas corrected to 12 percent CO-, were 0.56 with the water
scrubber operating, 0.1*1 with the afterburner and scrubber operating,
and 0.30 with the electrostatic precipitator operating.
The scrubber and the electrostatic precipitator collected re-
spectively, 70.6 and 8^.0 percent of the gas-borne particulates.
-------
FACILITY DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
The incinerator is a model C-20, double-walled, conical burner
equipped with air pollution control devices and designed to process
1,000 Ib/hr of solid waste. The Burn-0-Matic Division of the Steel-
craft Corp. operates the facility (Figure 1) as a pilot plant for
research and development purposes.
The combustion chamber is a 23-ft-high truncated cone with a
20-ft-diameter base. The combustion chamber wall consists of two
16-gauge steel shells a tightly sealed inner shell and an outer
shell for structural support that is open to the atmosphere at the
base. The space between the two shells permits air to circulate
freely around the inner shell and augments heat transfer from the
combustion chamber.
A forced-draft underfire air system (Figure 2) and an induced-
draft system provide combustion and cooling air to the combustion
chamber. Ambient air is drawn in between the inner and outer shells
of the combustion chamber, through an opening atop the inner shell,
and into a rectangular duct mounted inside the inner shell. The
air passes through this duct to the base of the combustion chamber
and through a second duct out of the chamber to the primary air fan.
This fan, capable of delivering 2,800 cfm at k in. of water, static
-------
CK f=j
°£
^S
ti
U <
£ z
ir~ "*£
O
I
Q.
U
LJJ
C*L
Q_
U
oo
O
U
LJJ ^i
CO U
co <
Qi <
Qi
Z5
CD
_l
<
y
z
O
U
o
4-1
fO
0)
c
o
c
ro
o
c
O
O
O
s
c
(D
(L)
L.
cn
-------
IS)
>*
in
-a
c
CXI
-------
pressure (actual flow during tests was less than 1,000 cfm, because
of throttling), forces the air to a distribution box in the floor of
the combustion chamber. This box distributes the air to three fixed
perforated steel grates, where it passes up through the pile of
burning waste. As the underfire air passes up between the combustion
chamber walls and down through the rectangular duct, it picks up
heat until it reaches approximately 220 F.
The combustion gases pass through a cap on the combustion
chamber, down a duct on the exterior of the unit, and then to the
air pollution control systems (Figure 3). The induced draft is
provided by the air pollution control equipment fans (Figure 1). A
3,600-cfm (12 in. water, static pressure) fan incorporated into the
scrubber provides the draft when the water scrubber is operating.
A 5,000-cfm (2 in. water, static pressure) fan located after the
precipitator provides the draft when the electrostatic precipitator
is operating.
Overfire air enters the combustion chamber by air infiltration
through seven 5~in.-diameter pipes extending through the chamber
wall at its base. Flow through the seven overfire air pipes is
regulated by sliding plate dampers, although they were not adjusted
during the tests. Total flow through the pipes during the tests
was less than 100 cfm. Overfire air also enters the combustion
chamber by means of air infiltration through leaks in the combustion
walls. This flow was not measured during the tests.
-------
o
4-J
O
3
0)
c
c
(D
CD
J3
_Q
3
L.
O
l/l
en
-------
The waste-charging system is a hopper (approximately 1 cu yd in
capacity) and a screw conveyor that transports the waste to the com-
bustion chamber, where it enters at about one-third the chamber
height and drops down a chute onto the pile of burning waste (Figure
3). Incoming waste is manually charged into the incinerator through
the hopper-screw conveyor system. Frequently during the tests the
screw conveyor jammed, and charging had to be halted (about 1 min)
until the conveyor was cleared. The unit is designed to be charged
for 10 to 12 hr per day. At the end of a day's charging, the
material remaining in the unit is allowed to burn down. The under-
fire air system is kept on during burndown.
During the tests, the unit was operated to maintain a prescribed
exit-gas temperature measured at the entrance to the air pollution
control equipment duct system. Both the quantity of waste charged
and the underfire air-flow rate were adjusted to maintain this
temperature.
Each morning, before the day's burning began, the cool residue
from the previous day was manually removed with a shovel and hauled
to a landf ill.
To control fly ash emissions to the atmosphere, the incinerator
is equipped with an afterburner, upper and lower duct sprays, a
water scrubber, and an electrostatic precipitator (Figure 1). Three
control system combinations were tested: lower duct spray and water
scrubber; afterburner, upper duct spray, and water scrubber; and
lower duct spray and electrostatic precipitator.
10
-------
The afterburner, located above the combustion chamber (Figure
3) is a natural-gas-fired unit designed to provide 2 million Btu/hr.
It was designed and constructed especially for this application and
is not available commercially.
Although the duct sprays function primarily to cool the effluent
gases and the duct work, they provide a degree of fly ash control
because of the abrupt change in direction the gases undergo at the
bottom of the duct work. Both spray systems provide a coarse water
spray. Water flow through the upper and lower duct spray systems
was approximately 9 gpm and k gpm, respectively.
The water scrubber is a 3&~in. Ducon Dynamic Gas Scrubber, Type
UW-4, Water flow through the scrubber was approximately ]k gpm.
Figure 3 shows the duct arrangement for this system.
A Research Cottrell electrostatic precipitator, designed to
treat 10,000 cfm of dust-laden flue gases, was installed for this
study (Figure 4). The unit is constructed of twelve 7~ft, 6-in.-high
ducts spaced 6 in. apart. Gases flow horizontally through the unit
with a treatment length of 7 ft 2 in. The inlet duct contains a
perforated flow distribution plate. Power requirements are 220-v,
single-phase, 60-Hertz current. The power supply is a 50-kv peak
voltage at 75 ma with a 20-amp maximum demand on the primary winding.
Wastewater from the duct spray drain and the water scrubber is
treated in a settling basin before being discharged into a drainage
ditch.
-------
QL
O
Q.
O
a.
<
g
o
-a
6
M
P3
o
0)
CX
O
in
o
-r
12
-------
STUDY PROCEDURES
This section discusses the methods used to collect and analyze
the following samples: solid waste, residue, fly ash, stack parti-
culate emissions, stack gases, and process water. Figure 5 shows
a flow diagram of the solid, liquid, and gaseous materials into and
out of the incinerator and the sampling locations used during the
study.
d Waste
All solid waste used during the study was obtained from the
city of Memphis. The waste, collected from residential routes, was
transferred from the collection vehicle to trailers so that the
weight of waste used during the study could be determined.
Seven 200- to 350-lb samples of the solid wastes were collected
during the study: one on the first day of the study and two o" edch
of the next 3 days (one in the morning end one in the afternoon) ,
The waste samples were obtained directly from the waste trailers,
using a wheelbarrow and pitchfork, then dumped onto a large plastic
sheet and manually separated into the following categories:
Combustibles: Noncombust ib les :
Food waste Metals
Paper products Glass and ceramics
Plastic, rubber, and leather Ash, rocks, and dirt
Wood
Garden waste
Textiles
13
-------
ATMOSPHERE
MUNICIPAL
WATER SUPPLY
ATMOSPHERE
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
SCREW
CONVEYOR
HOPPER
1
SCALE
'
WASTE
TRAILER
'
t
MUNICIPAL
COLLECTION
SYSTEM
ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATOR
SOURCE
FLOW
SAMPLING POINT
SOLID WASTE AND RESIDUE
PROCESS WATER
GASES AND P ARTICULATES
--- ;> --
Figure 5. Flow of materials into and out of incinerator and location
of sampli ng poi nts.
-------
The weight of material in each category was determined and the
total sample weight and percent by weight of material in each cate-
gory computed.
Also, 10- to 15~lb laboratory samples were prepared from four
of the samples taken to determine waste composition. A proportionate
amount of material by weight from each of the combustible categories
was placed in two plastic bags, one inside the other, and each bag
was knotted separately to prevent moisture loss. Noncombustibles
(metals, glass and ceramics, and ash, dirt, and rocks) were not in-
cluded.
The laboratory samples were analyzed for moisture content, heat
content, and volatile-' and ash contents.
These samples were prepared for analysis by processing them
through a hammermi11 and reducing them to about 1 in. maximum dimen-
sion. This ground product was spread on a plastic sheet, thoroughly
mixed manually, and quartered, with alternate quarters being dis-
carded. This quartering and discarding process was repeated until
3- to 4-lb samples were obtained.
To determine moisture content, several 100-g (approximate) por-
tions of each sample were dried in a mechanical convection oven at
70 C to constant weight. The moisture content was then calculated.
The dried samples were prepared for subsequent analyses by
being ground in a Wiley mill until they passed through a 2-mm mesh
s ieve.
'Material determined by laboratory analysis.
15
-------
The heat content of the dried samples was determined in a Parr
adiabatic calorimeter, using the method prescribed in the Parr In-
strument Company's Manual No. 130.1
The volatile and ash contents of the dried samples were deter-
mined in accordance with the American Public Works Association's
procedures outlined in "Tentative Methods of Analysis of Refuse and
Compost."2
Res idue
Because residue is removed manually with shovels in this facil-
ity, samples for a given day's tests had to be taken the following
morning, after the combustion chamber cooled.
To determine the quantity of residue from a day's operation, all
the residue was removed from the incinerator and weighed.
To obtain samples of the residue, a path (one shovel wide) was
shoveled through a representative area (determined by visual inspec-
tion) from the edge to the center of the pile. The residue samples
were placed in a 55~gal drum and weighed to determine total sample
wei ght.
The sample was then dumped on a large canvas sheet and manually
separated into four categories: metals; glass, ceramics, rocks,
bricks, etc.; unburned combustibles;5- and fines (unidentifiable
material passing a 1/2-in. wire mesh screen). After separation,
-Material that can be visually identified as being from one of
the six categories of combustible materials used to define the com-
position of incoming waste, such as charred paper, wood, orange
peels, etc.
16
-------
the weight of material in each category was determined and the per-
cent by weight in each category computed.
The unburned portion of combustible materials in the residue
sample was stored in a small plastic bag knotted at the top. The
fines, together with the bagged unburned combustibles, were placed
in another larger plastic bag also knotted at the top. To prevent
moisture loss, this bag was placed inside another bag and sealed in
a similar manner.
The laboratory samples were analyzed for moisture content, heat
content, and volatile and ash contents.
The unburned combustibles from each residue sample were prepared
for analysts in a manner identical to that used for the solid waste
samples. The fines from each residue sample, however, were only
ground in an ller pulverizer.
The moisture content, heat content, and volatile and ash con-
tents were determined in the same manner as for the solid waste
samples .
Fly Ash
A fly ash sample was taken when the water scrubber was operating
by collecting a sample of the sludge in the bottom of the settling
basin. Another fly ash sample was collected when the electrostatic
precipitator was operating by collecting the fly ash from the hopper
in a plastic bag.
17
-------
To determine the volatile and ash contents, the fly ash sample
from the scrubber settling basin was analyzed according to the pro-
cedures outlined in "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Waste Water."3 The fly ash sample from the electrostatic pre-
cipitator was ground in an Iler pulverizer and then analyzed for
moisture content, heat content, and volatile and ash contents by
the same procedures used to analyze the solid waste samples.
Stack Effluents
A series of nine tests was run during the week to determine the
operating efficiencies of the various air pollution control devices
installed on this unit. Three stack-emission tests were conducted
on each of the following collector combinations: lower duct spray
and water scrubber; afterburner, upper duct spray, and water scrubber;
lower duct spray and electrostatic precipitator. , In addition to
outlet measurements, measurements were made at the inlet to the
collectors. However, when the upper duct spray was operating, it
was impossible to collect samples at the inlet to the collectors.
Inlet and outlet tests were run simultaneously.
Particulates. The sampling methods and the equipment used to
determine the particulate emissions in this study are based on those
prescribed in "Specifications for Incinerator Testing at Federal
Facilities.nk
Samples were taken at the inlet to the fly ash control systems,
using a 6-point traverse, sampling two parallel rows of three points
18
-------
each in the 20-in.-sq duct. The sampling ports were located 5 duct
widths downstream and 2 duct widths upstream from any bend in the duct
work. Velocity data did not indicate a wide variation in flow across
the cross section (velocity pressure head varied from 0.16- to
0.31-in. HLO). Samples were taken using a 3/8-in. nozzle. Except
for the first test, which required 10 min, sampling time at each
point was 6 min. (Plugging of the sampling filter required the
sampling time to be reduced after the first test.)
Samples were taken at the scrubber outlet, using a 12-point
traverse sampling on two perpendicular diameters in a lA-3/** in. round
stack. The sampling ports were located 7 stack diameters downstream
from the scrubber outlet and 7 stack diameters upstream from the exit
point to the atmosphere. Velocity data did not indicate a wide varia-
tion in flow across the cross section (velocity pressure head varied
from 0.65- to 1.25~in. H-0 without the afterburner operating and from
0.73- to 1.5'In. H-0 with the afterburner operating). Samples were
taken using a 3/16-in. nozzle. Sampling time at each point was 5 min.
Samples were taken at the precipitator outlet, using a 12-point
traverse sampling on two perpendicular diameters in an 18-in. round
stack. The sampling ports were located 8 stack diameters downstream
from the precipitator fan outlet and 2-2/3 stack diameters upstream
from the exit point to the atmosphere. Velocity data indicated a
uniform flow pattern across the cross section (velocity pressure head
varied from 1.10- to l.^O-in. H-0) . Samples were taken using a 3/16-in,
nozzle. Sampling time at each point was 5 min.
19
-------
The particulate samples were analyzed according to the procedures
prescribed in "Specifications for Incinerator Testing at Federal
Facilities."1*
Stack Gas Composition. To determine the composition of dry stack
gases, integrated gas samples were collected in a flexible Tedlar bag
during each stack test, transferred to a flexible Tedlar transfer bag,
and transported to another area at the facility for analysis. The
samples were collected at approximately 0.8 liter/min; the total vol-
ume collected was approximately 40 liters. The samples were analyzed
for carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and oxygen, using a Barrel 1 Gas
Analysis Apparatus (Orsat) Model No. 39~505. The remainder was assumed
to be nitrogen.
During each stack test, a series of grab samples were taken to
determine the carbon dioxide concentration in the stack gases. These
samples were collected and analyzed in a Dwyer Model 1101 C0_ Indicator.
The moisture content of the stack gases was measured simultaneously
with each particulate sample extraction. To dry the gas stream passing
through the particulate sampling train, it was sent through three
Greenburg-Smith impingers immersed in an ice bath and then through
another Greenburg-Smith impinger filled with silica gel to remove any
remaining water vapor. The temperature of the gases leaving the final
impinger was approximately 70 to 80 F. The increase in volume of
liquid (assumed to be water) in the impingers was determined by meas-
uring the initial and final volumes in a 500-ml graduated cylinder.
The initial and final weights of the silica gel were measured and
20
-------
weight gain was attributed to water adsorption. These quantities
of water were used to calculate the moisture content of the stack
gases.
Wastewater
All liquid samples were collected and analyzed according to
the procedures outlined in "Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Waste Water,"3 with the exception of the analysis for
phosphates.5
Two grab samples from the water scrubber drain (when the
scrubber was operating), the water settling basin, and the water
overflow from the electrostatic precipitator hopper (when the
precipitator was operating) were collected during each stack test.
A composite sample was made from equal portions of the grab samples
collected during a given stack test and analyzed for biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD). Another composite sample for each source was
made for each day by combining equal portions of the composite
samples taken for BOD analysis. This daily composite sample was
analyzed for chemical oxygen demand (COD). A third composite
sample was made for the determination of the solids and chemical
characteristics of the wastewaters from each source. This last
sample was a daily composite made in the same manner as the com-
posite sample for COD analysis.
21
-------
Bacteriological Samples
Bacteriological samples were taken of the solid waste, residue,
fly ash emissions, and the wastewater. All samples were collected
aseptically. The samples were analyzed for total bacterial count,
total and fecal coliforms (using the Most Probable Number Tech-
nique), and total heat-resistant spores using analytical procedures
outlined in "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Waste Water."3
22
-------
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Participate Emissions
Because the outlet concentration of particulates during stack
test No. 1 appeared to be unreasonable when compared with the other
tests at the "same" operating conditions, it was omitted when calcu-
lating average emissions and collector efficiencies (see Table 1).
In the sampling train used in this study, particulates are
collected in the probe and cyclone, on the filter, and in the first
three impingers. A major portion of the total particulates collected
while sampling the effluent gases from the electrostatic precipitator
was trapped in the distilled water used in the impingers. In test
No. 7, this amounted to 64 percent of the total particulates; in
test No. 8, 35 percent; and in test No. 9, 60 percent. Thus, 35
to 6k percent of the particulate emissions from the electrostatic
precipitator (Tables 1 and 2) are materials that were trapped in the
impingers. The origin of these materials was questioned because, if
they are considered particulate emissions, the incinerator with an
electrostatic precipitator will not meet the Federal code for incin-
erators located at Federal facilities. If they are not considered
particulate emissions, the incinerator will meet this standard. The
samples from this study were discarded before the question arose, so
23
-------
CO
1
co
LU
y
0
^£
LU |-
_i to
CO
< LL.
1- 0
>-
OH
»"
.2-
oo
4)
^ i
(A
5
O
^
in
C 1-
O .C
(/) _Q
in
'i
0)
J3
4-1
fO O LU
O
3 CO <5^
OM i *
t i
._ _ LA
4-* *"*v
L. O 4-1
(D (D
Q-
CM
4- O
O O
in
L- r>O
o>
4-1
03
in
in
0) i- --^
u <^e
X (D -^
LU
CM in
0 C 0)
o in
nj
en c iS-e
L. 4-1 O
0) C (D
> O 4->
<: o m
a) c
E
E
1 ^^,
4-1
SO OO
LA CM vo PA oo
O ^^ O PA OO -ij"
LA LA o oo \o vo
XO ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ L^\
OO LAOO CM PA PA
"-
OO PA LA LA LA
o LAOO r^-3* p~«
CM CM O CM O
r OO r^ LA CA vO
O OO PA LA PA LA
0 0 0
000000
PA O O O -3- t
PA -3" LA -3" CM PA
VO PA PA v^ CM '
-3- PA PA CM LT\ pr\
O O VO O r^ O
LA vo PA vo CM ^o
l_
(U
-Q
~^S *-^ s-^ ^
1 s~*> 4-* * ^ 4-* * ^ 4-1
U 4J 0) 4-> 0) 4-1 (U
en ~ CM CM PA PO
CO
U 4-1 4-> 4-> 4-1 4-1 4-1
Q. in in in in in tn
(/) Q)
CM CM
CT» LA vD
CM -a- CM
000
vO \O vO
-
0)
c
1
_Q 4-1 4_l 4_)
1_ (U Q) Q)
D
4- 333
(D O O O
>. -3" LAvD
flj
L. L. 4-1 4-1 4-1
Q. (U in in in
in ja o oo r^oo CM
vO PA OO PA LA CM
LA O CM O O O
O O O O O O
OO OO -3- PA
PA PA -3" -3" -3- -3-
r , . .3- PA PA LA
PA rA PA CA -3- CA
-3-Q-3-O-3-O
CM v£> CM sO CM vO
l_
O
| t
^ J _ | i ^_^^ | i ^m ^ | i
. 4J 0) 4-J 0) 4J 0)
Q. * r^ r*^ oo oo o^ o^
(D U
l_._ 4J4J4-J4->4->4->
Q- 4-* in in in in in in
m(U4L)OQ)Q}Q)Q3
M 1- 1- 1- 1- 1- 1-
4-> in
0 0
3 1-
"O 4-*
O
1_ (]_)
-------
UJ
ce
UJ
cu
CO
i
^
UJ
t-
o
CM H-
UJ CO
CO O
1- CO
CO
y
LU
UJ
1
ce.
Q_
I/I
c
o
..
Ul
L
£
0)
0)
ra
"D
._
4-*
L.
ro
CU
0)
4-1
ra
3
c
0
4-»
-O
-C
ra
en
a)
3
14_
L.
-o
-O
o
o
o
,»
v^
-O
0
4-t UJ
<
CM
CM
O
4J O
01
4-*
4-1
C
01
E c
a. 3
3
CT J-"
0) VI
0)
O
L. -a
4-1 C
c ra
0
o
-3- LA CM
rA en
-3" CA CM
I-. LA rA
CA CM
LA vD CM
r -=r LA
O O 0
MD CO LA
o r-s LA
0 0
LA LA
CM CM
O 0 0
O rA -»
-3" CM CM
O O O
vO ^-" O
LA -T CA
O O O
-3- CO
0
O O O
l_ "Q .jQ d) IT]
0 C 1- tt) ~- *-'^-x
M (T) 1-
C OJ (U \O C -M C
fTJ *-> > fO *D fO
>- QJ >-^ C >, "
a) -M oj aj co CLOD
I- l_ L- U
0,14- a. a) * a. u -
ui O i/i -Q ^n m QJ r^-
-O ^~
4-l(U <4->^*> -MQ.l/1
O CD U l- -3- U +J
3 TO D U 3 U i/l
~ai- *o i/) wi ~o a)
d) -M 4-» 4-»
1- > 1- ~O ui 1_ fD
d)ITJ 1) C QJ Qj-MU-
2 o. ra *-* 3 tn O
60. o
1 o 1
^
o
0
OJ
*
X
.
-c
OsJ
o^
f1
CSJ
Li_
o
r^.
0)
l_
03
U)
c
o
.
4-J
-o
c
o
L)
-o
1_
fD
-a
c
fU
4-1
LO
l'
-------
analysis of the samples was impossible. In a subsequent study, how-
ever, the residue left after evaporation of the distilled water was
analyzed for metals. This analysis indicated that approximately 20
percent of the material were metals, and considering that these metals
are in the oxide form, the percentage of weight owing to metal oxides
would be even higher. The remaining materials in the residue have
not yet been identified, but they are probably inorganic salts. As
such, it is felt that these materials should be considered as par-
t i culates.
From Table 1, it can be seen that the inlet loading to the
electrostatic precipitator collector system decreased appreciably
during the course of the day's tests. This is probably because the
composition of the waste being incinerated during the day changed.
In the morning, the waste contained 32.2 percent ash, rocks, and
dirt, whereas in the afternoon this category had decreased to 13.9
percent (Table 3)- It is felt that much of the ash, rocks, and
dirt was entrained in the combustion gases as the waste being
charged fell from the charging point to the burning waste pile,
resulting in the changing inlet loading as the quantity of these
materials changed.
Air Pollution Control Equipment Efficiencies
Many measurements for ascertaining such things as carbon dioxide,
carbon monoxide, oxygen, and nitrogen concentrations in the flue gases,
waste charging rate, and the particulate emission rate are needed
26
-------
z
o
o
CO
Q.
TO
00
i- o
0) L.
> a)
E
Q. ,X>
O
OO _Q
s]
oo
c
o
o
CM
LT\ - .
CO
SO
CO
CM
O
O
CM O
CM
csj CM CM
OO LA
CM CM
CM OO CO OO
CM
SO T^-
|-~.
O
L.
C
O
4-»
a
TO
""
a)
~
~
{/i
3
J3
E
0
U
o
c
3
O
E
ID
(U
4-1
ra
c
o
'Zi
L_
o
Q.
O
l_
Q.
<
27
-------
to enable the efficiency of the air pollution control equipment to be
determined. For a given test run, comparison of the reported air
pollution collector efficiencies (Table k) yields an indication of
the precision of these measurements. Theoretically, the efficiencies
should be the same regardless of the measurements and methods used
to calculate them. However, because different measurements are used
to calculate particulate concentrations expressed in different units,
any error in the individual measurements will necessarily result in a
different reported collector efficiency. Therefore, any deviation in
collector efficiencies for a given test run is an indication of how
well all the measurements were made.
Because the water in the scrubber absorbs carbon dioxide, the
carbon dioxide content in the effluent gases is less than that enter-
ing the scrubber. In correcting the grain loading to 12 percent CC" ,
the grain loading at existing CO concentration and standard conditions
is multiplied by the ratio of 12 over the existing carbon dioxide con-
centration, resulting in a higher adjusted outlet grain loading than
would occur if all the carbon dioxide passed through the scrubber.
Comparison of inlet and outlet carbon dioxide concentrations (Table 1)
indicates that about one-third is removed by the scrubber. The effi-
ciencies (Table k) of this collector are, therefore, low when the
efficiency calculation is based upon inlet and outlet grain loadings
corrected to 12 percent CO.. No adjustment for this reduction in
carbon dioxide content is allowed when comparing emissions with the
standard for incinerators at Federal facilities.
28
-------
H-
Z
£.
o_
-=i
o
LU
_l
§
h-
z
0
o
z
o
1
=3
_J
_J ^-^
O 4-1
-a- o_ c
LU Cd O
1 I-
CD < U
< 0.
1- UJ ^
h
<
_J
^
O
h-
ce
<:
D_
o
>-
o
z.
o
1 1
LL
1 1 I
>-
O
c
QJ
O
"4-
U
UJ
c
O c
o
-a 4->
LU
<
i3-£
CM
' CM
O
4-" O
<
O1
C
4-»
in CM
0
X 0
0)
4->
<
+-
14-
u
in
\
L_
O!
C
O
-o
C
c ro
0
CJ
[ ^ \D O
1 . . . .
i oo ro o -a- r-»
O
(U
o
o
u
_D
4-*
Q
C
~D
1
0
0)
Q.
en
4-J
QJ
C
C
03
U
l/l
D
r**. r**s en co x^> co
.'^
T3
ii (D
lj
rC
i LJ*
i r^ CM o r^» \i> -=r CM
i c^ o CM ^r r-1 o -3-'
r^ r*^. r--. en oo r*-. co
^r
in
l_
(4- >.
!' LO L.
,i 1> ~O
i on en en r-^. CM o r*i
i en r-^. oo -3- p^ CM
LA LA LA en co ^ oo
1 -3" VO LA \D OO -T vO
1 OO -3" -cT [*-. i _^-
vO I**". p*. en co r*. co
O
u
o
<1J
(U ..
1_
TJ "O O
C C 4-»
fo fa ro
. -^
> >-
^ ro Q.
i- il .-
Q- CM tv-t Q-or-cocn
W> t/i 0)
4J 4-* 4-» !_4-J4->W
4-Jl- wi i/i vi tu j-» Q. i/i i/i (/i a>
oajojcuajcn u aJa)(Uai
3 -Q h- h- h- TO D0( l-l- ro
T3 X> t. -Q ._ i_
. =" CD 4-> fl)
^ > 1- TO >
a> o <
a
o ro
14-
o 01
a> z:
c
E c
(1)
4J CM
-a
C ~ in
c ro c
0) L. o
CL
O in 4-J
U- 4J -O
M- O C
<1J ^ O
"O O
l_
O i- -0
4-» (U 1-
o a. ro
-------
As can be seen from Table 4, the efficiency of the electrostatic
precipitator decreases from test No. 7 (3^.8%) to No. 9 (69.6%). No
positive explanation can be given for this, but it may be owing to
the changing inlet loading (Table 1), the changing composition of
wastes being incinerated, or a decreasing collector efficiency as
the plates become covered with fly ash.
Test Results
Approximately 13 tons of waste (Table 5) were processed through
the conical incinerator at a rate of 1,430 Ib/hr. The waste as
sampled comprised paper products (30.2%), food waste (20.3%), ash,
rocks, and dirt (11.1%), garden waste (11.1%), glass and ceramics
(10.5%), and other components (less than 10% each) (Table 3). The
heat content of the solid waste was 3,790 Btu/lb and its moisture
content was 26.5 percent (Table 6).
30
-------
TABLE 5
CHARGING RATES
Period charged
July 30, 1968:
9:30 am- 11 : 45 am
12:50 pm-4:00 pm
Total
July 31, 1968:
9:15 am- 1 : 20 pm
2:45 pm-5:40 pm
Total
August 1, 1968:
9:05 am- 12: 10 pm
1:10 pm-4: 10 pm
Total
Grand total
Date col lected
7-29-68
7-30-68
7-31-68
8-1-68
Average
Amount of time _ , . .
charged T^ $
mi n hr
135 2.25
190 3.16
325 5.41 9,040
245 4.08
175 2.92
420 7.00 10,200
185 3.08
180 3-00
365 6.08 7,250
1,110 18.49 26,490
TABLE 6
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF SOLID WASTE*
Character! stic
As sampled Dry bas
Moisture Heat Volatiles
U) (Btu/lb) (%)
21.5 3,540 46.0
27-4 3,890 57-2
32.2 3,620 57-5
24.8 4,020 50.8
26.5 3,790 52.9
Rate
Ib charged/hr)
1,670
1,460
1,190
1,430
is
Ash
(%)
54.0
42.8
42.5
49.2
47.1
See Appendix A.
-------
After incineration, the total residue as sampled was approximately
6,850 Ib (Table 7) The residue contained 1.3 percent unburned com-
bustibles (Table 8), and on a dry basis 2.0 percent volatiles, and a
heat content of 180 Btu/lb (Table 9).
TABLE 7
QUANTITY OF RESIDUE
Component
Metals
Rocks, bricks,
ceramics, and glass
Unburned combustibles
Fi nes
Total
Date
7-30-68
7-31-68
8-1-68
Total
TABLE 8
RESIDUE COMPOS
7-30-68* 7-
Weight Pe''cent Weight
(Ib) byh, (Ib)
weight
16.3 20.1 5-5
38.3 47.2 46.5
1.7 2.1 0.5
24.8 30.6 25.0
81.1 100.0 77-5
Quanti ty
(Ib)
2,000
2,450
2,400
6,850
IT ION
31-68* 8-1-68*
Percent .. . , Percent percent
, Weight , ^ ,
by /,£) by by
weight weight weight
7.1 10.5 11.7 13-0
60.0 29-9 33.4 46.8
0.6 1.0 1.1 1.3
32.3 48.2 53.8 38.9
100.0 89.6 100.0 100.0
^Samples were collected on following day.
32
-------
TABLE 9
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF RESIDUE*
Character! s t i c
Date col lected
7-30-68
7-31-68
8- 1-68
Average
As samp
Moi s ture
(*)
0.59
0.06
0.38
0.3^
led
Heat
(Btu/lb)
239
97
217
18**
Dry bas
Volati les
(%)
2.2
2.1
1.7
2.0
1 S
Ash
(%}
97.8
97-9
98.3
98.0
"See Appendix B.
The fly ash collected in the electrostatic precipitator had a
heat content of 3>^00 Btu/lb as sampled and contained 52.4 percent
moi sture (Table 10) .
TABLE 10
PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF FLY ASH
Character! s t i c
Source and date
collected
As sampled
Dry basis
Moi sture
U)
Heat
(Btu/lb)
Volatiles
(*)
Ash
Scrubber
(7-30-68)
Preci pi tator
(8-1-68)
52.4
3,400
16. k
27.5
83.6
72.5
33
-------
The gas-borne particulate emissions, expressed in gr/scf of dry
flue gas corrected to 12 percent C0_, were 0.56 with the water scrubber
operating, 0.41 with the afterburner and scrubber operating, and 0.30
with the electrostatic precipitator operating (Table 2). A summary
of individual stack test runs is presented in Table 1.
With the scrubber and lower duct spray operating, 18 gpm of
process water were used; with the scrubber and upper duct spray oper-
ating, 23 gpm were used; and with the lower duct spray operating, k
gpm were used. The resultant wastewaters on an average contained
solids (637 mg/liter; 150 mg/liter were suspended solids), no de-
tectable alkalinity, chlorides (256 mg/liter), hardness (10? mg/liter),
sulfates (77 mg/liter), and phosphates (5.0 mg/liter). They were
acidic (2.6 pH). The average conductivity was 907 ymhos/cm (Tables
11 and 12).
As shown in Tables 13 and 14, incineration reduced the total
bacterial count from 6.8 x 108/g of waste to 1.2 x 106/g of residue;
heat resistant spores from 1.9 x 105 to 1.1 x 105; total coliform
from 5.1 x 107 to 18; and fecal coliform from 8.2 x 106 to 11. The
total bacterial count in the wastewater is shown in Table 15.
The scrubber and the electrostatic precipitator collected re-
spectively, 70.6 and 84.0 percent of the gas-borne particulates (as
shown i n Table 4).
Weight reduction efficiency was approximately 62 percent, re-
duction in volatiles was approximately 99 percent, and reduction in
heat content was approximately 99 percent (Table 16).
-------
z
o
1-
5
z
tu
z
o
o
to
LU a
_ P
CO 1
< 0
1- to
ac
LU
1
LU
h-
CO
^
3
o
> in' j v
-a i-
o oJ w
in -- 1|4-.
in O I
Q " '
-o
"o
I/I
o
4>
c
t)
a.
in
a
to
x:
in
*
#4?
4)
E
in
t)
fO
"o
(^
1
15 1 «
O El*~
^~ ^1"".^
in
-o
*^
O
in
15
O
1-
i/l
d^*
*
i/l
V
ro
"o
>
e>P
1 V
Ol 4-1
El~
to 1 a>
£&.
-1*... »
4)
"a.
1
to
r~. o P*. LA
-3* cn LA ^^ \o
in -» -3-^3- CA
-3- f-. LA -3- CM
^ -3- oo' cn
LA -3" LA -3- P~-
LA LA oo co r^
LA IA LA OO CM
CM
\O t^^ L^ vO OO
»
oo in o oo
-3- LA -3- LA CM
CM CO -3- O LA
in \o PO cn cn
-3-
r^ PA CM oo CM
o CM cn t»s CM
r r r PS^
"
-3' CM PA \D »
in cn cn LA
-3- * -3- LA \o
-3- in r-. oo oo
cn o vo PO
CM PA CM PA Cn
LA
VD co r^. -3~ cn
-3- O O OO -3-
LA LA LA -3" PA
3" LA LA 1^^ O^\
LT> 1 vD
PA PA CM PA
OO O CM LA P-N
-3- CM -3- LA OO
\O ^O LA vO O
A
cn
^O C
T3 (0
c cn L-
c m c -a
U
-------
CN
LU
CQ
<.
1-
co
o
1-
co
-
cc.
LU
L_
<_>
2
<
o
_l
<
z
LLJ
X
o
1-
LU
1-
co
^
3.
>.
M , *
E
> L)
~v
M CO
0 O
3 -C
-a E
c. 3.
O «
L-
^ -M
4->
'c ^
O
ro o
^ ro
cn
U
U
Q .-
0
CJ -V.
cn
E
u
3' -M
Q
O
CD \
cn
E
I
CL
(U
O-
e
ro
CO
r*^ r^ r**- r*-* r^» r^^
cn ^o cr** -a* cn cn
r^ en cn oo cn cr\
LA
-a- o LA oo
-a~ -a* -a* \o m m
LA CM
IA LA -a- \X> LA CM
CM CM cn o CM
^ OO CT^ r^« \O CD
s£> CO CM VO OO OO
o cn LA IA oo cn
co m
,
CM m vD CT» \D
r~^ oo cn CM o *-o
CM CM CM CM -a-
ra
o o o o o o
-a- VO cn LA O LA
vi> cn m m CM o
cn -a* CM -a* \o cn
cn LA LTV CM LA ^O
co o r~^ o cn co
i CM
v^ \O OO O ^O Csl
CM CM CN cn cn cn
\o c
13 ro
c: cn i-
c ro c -o c
. T3
i/l « in c i- if,
co LA ro ro o ro
J3 JD *-* -Q
ro
i-cn -a"i-cn co-Men
mi-4-j intu-M
4->O(D -t-JOO) 4-tl_0)
U1COCO U1COCO 1/lQ.CO
0) . 0) (U
I- I- H-
13
c
ro
a) c
o ro
E
!= (!)
1) ~CJ
cn
>^ c;
X 0)
O cn
>~
ro o
o
. >__
E ro
(U O
-C
0 E
O 0)
-C
CD O
-:: +-
36
-------
TABLE 13
BACTERIOLOGICAL DATA FOR SOLID WASTE
Sample
7-29-68
7-30-68
7-31-68
8- 1-68
Average
*Mos t
Sampl e
7-29-68
7-30-68
7-31-68
8- 1-68
Average
Total
bacterial
count
(No./g)
4.5 x 108
4.0 x 108
1.2 x 109
6.8 x 108
probable number.
BACTERI
Total
bacter i al
count
(No./g)
5.0 x 106
6.0 x 10^
9.0 x 103
3.0 x 103
1.2 x 106
Heat-
res i s tant
spores
(No./g)
3.8 x 106
1.3 x 103
1 .9 x 106
TABLE 14
OLOGICAL DATA
Heat-
res i stant
spores
(No./g)
4.0 x 105
4.2 x ]Qk
9.0 x 103
3.0 x 102
1.1 x 105
Total
col i forms
(mpn-'Vg)
1.7 x 107
2.3 x 107
1.6 x 108
3-5 x 106
5.1 x 107
FOR RESIDUE
Total
col i forms
(mpn*/g)
33
2
33
2
18
Fecal
col i forms
(mpn--/g)
7.0 x 106
1 .3 x 107
1.1 x 107
1 .7 x 106
8.2 x 106
Fecal
col i forms
(mpn»/g)
33
2
8
2
11
-Most probable number.
37
-------
TABLE 15
TOTAL BACTERIAL COUNT OF WASTEWATER
Sample
7-29-68
7-30-68
7-31-68
8- 1-68
Source
Tapwater
Scrubber
Scrubber
Preci pi tator drai n
Count
(No. /ml)
0
1
15
0
TABLE 16
COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY*
Type of efficiency
Percent efficiency
Dry weight reduction
Reduction in volatiles
Reduction in heat content
62.5
98.6
98.8
-'See Appendix D.
38
-------
REFERENCES
1. Parr Instrument Company. Operating the adiabatic calorimeter. In
Oxygen bomb calorimetry and combustion methods. Technical Manual
No. 130. Moline, 111., I960. p. 30-32.
2. American Public Works Association. Municipal refuse disposal. 2nd
ed. Chicago, Public Administration Service, 1966. Appendix A.
P. 375-399-
3. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Associa-
tion, and Water Pollution Control Federation. Standard methods
for the examination of water and wastewater; including bottom
sediments and sludges. 12th ed. New York, American Public
Health Association, Inc., 1965. 769 p.
k. National Center for Air Pollution Control. Specifications for
incinerator testing at Federal facilities. Durham, N.C., U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Oct. 1967- 35 p.
5. Gales, M. E., Jr., E. C. Julian, and R. C. Kroner. Method for
quantitative determination of total phosphorus in water. Journal
American Water Works Association, 58(10):1363-1368, Oct. 1966.
39
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The excellent assistance and cooperation extended by the staff of
the Burn-0-Matic Division of the Steelcraft Corp. made the successful
completion of this study possible. Special thanks are extended to
David M. Franklin, whose efforts were essential in planning and con-
ducting the study.
Special thanks are also extended to James H. Chaney, Director of
the Division of Pollution Control, Memphis and Shelby County Health
Department, and his staff for their assistance in analyzing the waste-
water samples for BOD, COD, and pH.
Members of the field study team from the Bureau of Solid Waste
Management were:
William C. Achinger Tobias A. Hegdahl
David H. Armstrong Donald A. King
James S. Bridges John Klaas
Leland E. Daniels Albert E. O'Connor
William T. Dehn Ronald A. Perkins
John J. Giar Jon R. Perry
Morris G. Tucker
Sample analyses were performed by the Division of Research and
Development, Bureau of Solid Waste Management.
-------
APPENDICES
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
Example Calculations For Results of Solid
Waste Proximate Analysis
Based on the laboratory data from the proximate analysis of the
combustible fraction of the solid waste sample and field separation
data collected on July 29, 1968, these calculations show the methods
used to calculate the moisture content, ash and volatile contents, and
the heat content of the total sample. Table A-l shows the laboratory
data for the combustible fraction of the solid waste samples. The
assumptions were made that the noncombus t i b les contained no moisture?.,
no heat, and were considered as "ash." The field separation determined
a combustible content for this sample of 61.9 percent on an as-sampled
basis (Text Table 3)
TABLE A-l
LABORATORY DATA: SOLID WASTE PROXIMATE ANALYSIS
Character! s t i c
Date
7-29-68
7-30-68
7-31-68
8- 1-68
Average
As
Moi s ture
(%)
34.8
37-2
42.3
33.9
37.1
sampl ed
Heat
(Btu/lb)
8,765
8,405
8,260
8,298
8,432
Dry basis
Volati les
U)
89-4
89.8
88.6
78.8
86.7
Ash
U)
10.6
10.2
11.4
21 .2
13-3
43
-------
Moisture Content. Because the moisture in the total sample was
assumed to be in the combustible portion only, the percent of moisture
in the total sample is calculated by the following method:
Percent moisture _ /Ib combust iblesN / 1b moisture \
in total sample \ Ib waste / \lb combustibles/
000)- 21. 5
Volatile and Ash Contents. Because the volatile and ash fractions
are determined in the laboratory on a dry basis, the percent of combus-
tibles (Text Table 3) must be converted to a dry basis by the following
method:
Percent dry /weight of wet component minus the weight of water in component]
component \ dry weight of total sample /
For example
Percent dry /127.4 - 44.3
combustibles 'V TFTT5 ' 10° * 5K5
These calculations are summarized in Table A-2.
TABLE A-2
CALCULATION OF PERCENT OF DRY COMPONENT: SOLID WASTES
Component
Comb us
tibles
Noncombust ibles
Total
sample
Component
weight (wet)
(Ib)
127.
78.
205.
4
4
8
Weight of moisture
as sampled
%
34.8
0.0
21.5
1
44
0
44
b
.3
.0
.3
Component
weight (dry)
Ib %
83
78
161
.1
.4
.5
51
48
100
.5
5
.0
44
-------
The volatile content and ash content of the total sample are
calculated as follows:
Percent volatiles _/ 1b volat iles \ /Ib dry combustibles\ ]nn
in total sample \lb dry combustibles/ \ Ib waste /
Percent volatiles = ( g k) ( } ( } = ^
in total sample
Percent ash in ,nn . ,, , ^., . . ^ , ,
. ^ , , = 100 minus the percent volatiles in total sample
total sample K
Percent ash in = ]QQ _ ^^ = ^Q
total sample
Heat Content. The laboratory determined the heat content on a
dry basis for the combustibles only. Therefore, the moisture content
and noncombustibles present in the total sample must be accounted for
when calculating the heat content of the total on an as-sampled
basis. The heat content of the total sample is calculated as follows:
Heat content _ / Btu \
of total sample \lb dry combustibles/
percent moisture percent noncombustibles
. , in total sample in total sample
100
Heat content _ n 7/-r
of total sample ~ '
1-
21.5 + 38.1
100
Heat content = ^ ,
of total sample
-------
APPENDIX B
Example Calculations for Results of Residue
Proximate Analysis
Using the laboratory data from the proximate analysis of the
fines and unburned-combustible fractions of the residue sample and
field separation data from July 30, 1968, these calculations show the
methods used to calculate the moisture content, ash and volatile
contents, and the heat content of the total sample. Table B-l shows
the laboratory data for the residue samples. The assumptions were
made that the glass and rocks and metals contained no moisture, no
heat, and were considered as "ash." The field separation determined
the amount of unburned combustibles and fines to be 2.1 and 30.6
percent respectively on an as-sampled basis (Text Table 8).
Moisture Content. Because the moisture in the total sample was
assumed to be in the unburned combustibles and fines, the percent of
moisture in the total sample is calculated by the following method:
Percent moisture
in total sample
unburned combustibles\ / Ib moisture
Ib residue / Vlb unburned combustibles
fines \ /Ib moisture
residue/ V Ib fines
100
Percent moisture = [(0i021) (0 . 1 1 5) + (0 . 306) (0.0115)1 100 = 0.59
|_ J
in total sample
-------
oo
c/)
>-
i
s
<
UJ
t
3^
,~.
X
o
a:
D_
UJ
i 3
aa Q
.
uj oo
_l UJ
CO Oi
h-
-
o;
o
I
^
L_
Q
TJ
0)
(/>
< a
E
TO
in
.^1
1/1
TO
_Q
>~
1-
Q
^3
0)
l/l r
^ ^
"3: _Q
4-1 ,
H3 ""^
0) D
~l~ -t '
CO
» '
0)
l_
13
M v v
l/l c5^?
, -. ^
O
X
_f , N
(f) c^Q
^ ^
_Q
4-> .
Hj *^-«^
LA -C"
-cr cn r^ r-.
1 4-J
!' c
0'
-i .
', c:
0
'_>
O CM VO V^} :
-S- OO CTv O 4.J
LA P^. ^O O ' TO
-««-(!)
-3" oo ^- r^ .I r~
T-
!! O
, 0)
LA CM 0 CT\ i.-C
1 4-J
P-^ rA OA
CM ' 4-
O
-o
CD
in TO
0) CO C
CD U O
TO CO
CO CO CO i- CD 4-J
SO SO sO U) -X i/l
1 1 1 > 3
O < -O
OA OA E
111 O
r^-. r^. oo o
-------
Volatile and Ash Contents. Because the volatile and ash
fractions are determined in the laboratory on a dry basis, the
composition of the residue samples (Text Table 5) must be converted
to a dry basis by the following procedure:
Percent dry _|weight of wet component minus the weight: of water in component
component \ dry weight of total sample
component
For example
Percent dry / \
unburned = [ *' > I 100 = 1.9
, ., , \ OU.b /
combustibles \ '
These calculations are summarized in Table 13-2.
TABLE B-2
CALCULATION OF PERCENT OF DRY COMPONENT: RESIDUE
Component
Unburned
combust ib les
Fines
Glass and rocks
Metal
Total sample
Component
weight (wet)
(Ib)
1.7
24.8
38.3
16.3
81.1
Weight of moisture
as sampled
%
11.5
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.6
Ib
0.2
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.5
Component
weight (dry)
Ib
1.5
24.5
38.3
16.3
80.6
%
1.9
30.4
47.5
20.2
100.0
The volatile content and ash content of the total sample are calcu-
lated as follows:
Ib volatiles
Percent volatiles _/
in total sample \lb dry unburned combustibles
Ib volati 1es\ /Ib dry fines
Ib dry unburned combustibles^
Ib residue '
lb dry fines/ \ Ib residue
-------
Percent ash in ..~n . , , ., . , ,
_ _ , . = 100 minus the percent volatiles in total sample
total sample r
Percent ash in = ]QQ _ 2_2 =
total sample
Heat Content. The laboratory determined the heat content on a dry
basis for the unburned combustibles and fines portions of the residue
samples. Therefore, the moisture content and noncombustibles present in
the total sample must be accounted for when calculating the heat content
of the total sample on an as-sampled basis. The heat content of the
total sample is calculated as follows:
Heat content _ / Btu \/1b dry unburned combustibles^
in total sample \lb dry unburned combustibles A Ib residue >
Btu
>lb dry fines/\ Ib residue
(0.019) + (503) (0.304) = 239 Btu/lb residue
-------
APPENDIX C
Calculation of Air Pollution Control Equipment Efficiencies
The efficiency of the air pollution control equipment can be cal-
culated from the results of the simultaneous stack tests at the inlet
to and outlet from the equipment. Using the data from the stack tests
(Text Table 1), the collector efficiency is calculated in the following
manner:
cff. . (inlet concentration minus the outlet concentration) ,_n
Efficiency = I :5 : ) 100
x inlet concentration /
Using the data from stack test No. 2 and the particulate emissions
expressed in Ib/hr, the efficiency of the lower duct spray and scrubber
combination is calculated as follows:
Efficiency = (8'7°g" g'78-) 100 = 68.1 percent
The remainder of the efficiencies shown in Text Table 4 were cal-
culated in a like manner.
50
-------
APPENDIX D
Calculation of Combustion Efficiency
These calculations show the methods used to calculate the percent
of weight reduction, the percent of volatile reduction, and the percent
of heat released. In general, the efficiency of a device can be cal-
culated by:
..,;,;. . quantity in minus quantity out
Efficiency = J z r-? l
quantity in
Weight Reduction Efficiency. Specifically, the weight reduction
efficiency is calculated as follows:
Percent dry
we ight
reduction
wt waste charged] /._ moisture content of 1
per day / I waste for that day/
Iwt of1
res idue^
1-
moisture content of
res idue
/wt of particulates emitted!
\ to atmosphere I
[wt of sol ids in
\ wastewater- I
:I wt waste charged] /, moisture content of waste]
per day / \ for that day /
/ \ '
However, the weight of particulates emitted to the atmosphere plus
the weight of solids in the wastewater equal the weight of particulates
>Not measured.
51
-------
at the inlet to the air pollution control system. The determination
of the various items for this calculation is as follows:
Weight of dry
[percent moisture content
component
For example
Weight of dry
sol id waste =
(7-30-68)
These calcu
kvciyiit. wet UUMIJJUII
(9,040) 1- (
BIIL L' V 100
27.4\] _ , ,
100 ) 6'560
/]
lations are summarized in Table D- 1 .
TABLE D-l
Component and
date col lected
Sol i d waste:
7-30-68
7-31-68
8- 1-68
Total
Res i due:
7-30-68
7-31-68
8- 1-68
CALCULAT ON OF
Component
weight (wet)
(lb)
9,040
10,200
7,250
26,490
2,000
2,450
2,400
DRY COMPONENT WEIGHT
Moi s ture
content
U)
27.4
32.2
24.8
0.59
0.06
0.38
Component
weight (dry)
(lb)
6,560
6,910
5,450
18,920
1,990
2,450
2,390
Total
6,850
6,830
52
-------
The particulate emissions at the inlet to the air pollution control
system are determined as follows:
Weight of particulate
emissions per day
Weight of particulate
emissions (7~30-68)
Weight of particulate
emissions per ton of waste
= (10.6) (4.52) = 47.9 lb/day
Weight of waste
charged per day
These calculations are summarized in Table D-2.
TABLE D-2
CALCULATION OF DAILY PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
Date
7-30-68
7-31-68
8- 1-68
Total
Part iculate
emi ss ions
( Ib/ton waste)
10.6
18.2
30.4
Waste
charged
(ton/day)
4.52
5.10
3-63
Part i cu late
emi ss ions
(lb/day)
47-9
92.8
110.3
251.0
The weight of reduction efficiency is determined as follows
18'?20 ~ <6'
* 18,920
Percent dry weight ,_ ,.
reduction
Volatile Reduction Efficiency. The reduction in volatile content
is calculated by the following equation:
53
-------
[fJt 01
in
Percent volatile _ J wt of volatiles _ /wt of volatiles
reduction I in waste \ in residue
+ wt of volatiles in particulates wt of volatiles in \~| lf.J
emitted to atmosphere- wastewater solids*] (
T wt of volatiles in waste
The determination of the various items for this calculation is as
fol lows :
Weight of _ /Weight of dry] [Percent of dry] ._ ,
dry volatiles I component I I volatiles /
Weight of dry
volatiles in solid = (6,560) (57.2) * 100 = 3,750
waste (7-30-68)
These calculations are summarized in Table D-3.
The volatile reduction efficiency is determined as follows
n036 = (1°'5°° ' 135'8) °00) : 10'500
Percent volatile n0 t
j = 30 .D
reduct i on
Heat Reduction Efficiency. The efficiency of heat release is
determined as follows:
Percent heat _ Uheat content in _ /heat content heat content in particulates
released )| solid waste \ in residue emitted to atmosphere"
heat content in solids]
in wastewater" /
100
( ,_ heat content in
( ' solid waste
»Not measured.
-------
TABLE D-3
CALCULATION OF WEIGHT OF DRY VOLATILES
Component and
date col lected
Sol id waste:
7-30-68
7-31-68
8- 1-68
Total
Res i due:
7-30-68
7-31-68
8- 1-68
Total
Component weight
(lb)
6,560
6,910
5,450
18,920
1,990
2,^50
2,390
6,830
Volati les
% lb
57.2 3,750
57.5 3,980
50.8 2,770
10,500
2.2 43.8
2.1 51.4
1.7 40.6
135.8
Determination of the various items for this calculation is as
fo11ows:
Heat content = Btu/lb x weight of component
For example
Heat content of
solid waste = (3,890) (9,040) = 35.2 x 106 Btu
These calculations are summarized in Table D-4.
55
-------
TABLE D-4
CALCULATION OF TOTAL HEAT CONTENT
Component and
date col lected
Sol i d waste :
7-30-68
7-31-68
8 -1-68
Total
Res idue :
7-30-68
7-31-68
8- 1-68
Total
Component weight
(ib, as sampled)
9,040
10,200
7,250
26,490
2,000
2,450
2,400
6,850
Heat content
Btu/lb, as sampled
3,890
3,620
4,020
239
97
217
Total
35-2
35-9
29.2
100.3
47.8
23.8
52.1
123-7
Btu
x 106
x 106
x 106
x 106
x ]Qk
x \Qk
x 104
x 104
The heat reduction efficiency is determined as follows:
Percent heat released =
Percent heat released = 98.8
&00.3 x 106) - (1.2 x 106)] 100
100.3 x 10b
56
------- |