United States Office of Water and SW 176C.11
Environmental Protection Waste Management October 1979
Agency Washington, D.C. 20460
Solid Waste
European Refuse Fired
Energy Systems
Evaluation of Design Practices
Volume 1 1
-------
Pn.tpu.bticat4.on >tAAue fan. EPA
and State. Sotid Itia&te, Management
EUROPEAN REFUSE FIRED ENERGY SYSTEMS
EVALUATION OF DESIGN PRACTICES
Co-Disposal Refuse and Sewage Sludge Plants
Dieppe and Deauville, France
Thib tnJip n.epont. (SW-/76c./7) deAcnibe* won.k
. the. O^xcce OjJ Sotid Wa&te. undeA contract no. 68-01-4376
and x-6 fLe.pn.odu.ced at> n.ec.ej,v'e,d faom the. c-ontsiacton..
Tke fi-LndingA Akoutd be attn^ibuted to the c.ontsia.cton.
and not to the O^lce o& Sotid Watte.
Copies will be available from the
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, VA 22161
Volume 11
U.S. C"",viron,r,GntaI Er.QtectiQtt
FI.:47:o:i \', Library
233 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604 •
*'•*
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1979
-------
This report was prepared by Battelle Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio,
under contract no. 68-01-4376.
Publication, does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of commercial products constitute endorsement by the U.S.
Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-176c.ll) in the solid waste
management series.
-------
TRIP REPORT
to
DIEPPE (AND DEAUVILLE), FRANCE,
PLANTS COFIRING REFUSE AND SEWAGE SLUDGE
on the contract
EVALUATION OF EUROPEAN REFUSE-FIRED
STEAM GENERATOR DESIGN PRACTICES
September 20-22, 1977
to
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
February 15, 1978
EPA Contract No. 68-01-4376
EPA RFP No. WA-76-B146
by
Richard Engdahl and Philip Beltz
BATTELLE
Columbus Laboratories
505 King Avenue
Columbus, Ohio 43201
-------
i
PREFACE
This trip report is one of a series of 15 trip reports on
European waste-to-energy systems prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. The overall objective of this investigation is to
describe and analyze European plants in such ways that the essential
factors in their successful operation can be interpreted and applied
in various U.S. communities. The plants visited are considered from
the standpoint of environment, economics and technology.
The material in this report has been carefully reviewed by the
European grate or boiler manufacturers and respective American licensees.
Nevertheless, Battelle Columbus Laboratories maintains ultimate responsi-
bility for the report content. The opinions set forth in this report are
those of the Battelle staff members and are not to be considered by EPA
policy.
The intent of the report is to provide decision making in-
formation. The reader is thus cautioned against believing that there is
enough information to design a system. Some proprietary information has
been deleted at the request of vendors. While the contents are detailed,
they represent only the tip of the iceberg of knowledge necessary to de-
velop a reliable, economical and environmentally beneficial system.
The selection of particular plants to visit was made by Battelle,
the American licensees, the European grate manufacturers, and EPA. Pur-
posely, the sampling is skewed to the "better" plants that are models of
what the parties would like to develop in America. Some plants were selected
because many features envolved at that plant. Others were chosen because
of strong American interest in co-disposal of refuse and sewage sludge.
The four volumes plus the trip reports for the 15 European
plants are available through The National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Virginia 22161. NTIS numbers for the volumes and ordering
information are contained in the back of this publication. Of the 19
volumes only the Executive Summary and Inventory have been prepared for
wide distribution.
-------
ii
ORGANIZATION
The four volumes and 15 trip reports are organized the the
following fashion:
VOLUME I
A EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
B INVENTORY OF WASTE-TO-ENERGY PLANTS
C DESCRIPTION OF COMMUNITIES VISITED
D SEPARABLE WASTE STREAMS
E REFUSE COLLECTION AND TRANSFER STATIONS
F COMPOSITION OF REFUSE
G HEATING VALUE OF REFUSE
H REFUSE GENERATION AND BURNING RATES PER PERSON
I DEVELOPMENT OF VISITED SYSTEMS
VOLUME II
J TOTAL OPERATING SYSTEM RESULTS
K ENERGY UTILIZATION
L ECONOMICS AND FINANCE
M OWNERSHIP, ORGANIZATION, PERSONNEL AND TRAINING
VOLUME III
P REFUSE HANDLING
Q GRATES AND PRIMARY AIR
R ASH HANDLING AND RECOVERY
S FURNACE WALL
T SECONDARY (OVERFIRE) AIR
VOLUME IV
U BOILERS
V SUPPLEMENTARY CO-FIRING WITH OIL, WASTE OIL AND SOLVENTS
W CO-DISPOSAL OF REFUSE AND SEWAGE SLUDGE
X AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
Y START-UP AND SHUT-DOWN
Z APPENDIX
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED 1
SUMMARY 2
STATISTICAL SUMMARY—DIEPPE ONLY 3
OVERALL SYSTEM SCHEMATIC 6
COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION 8
SOLID WASTE PRACTICES 9
Collection 9
Solid Waste Disposal 10
Sewage Treatment 10
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SYSTEM 12
PLANT ARCHITECTURE 14
REFUSE-FIRED STEAM GENERATING EQUIPMENT 17
Waste Input 17
Furnace Hoppers 22
Grate 23
Furnace Wall 24
Fire-Tube Boiler—Dieppe 25
Fire-Tube Boiler—Deauville 26
Primary Air 26
Secondary Air 27
Air Preheater 27
Boiler Water Treatment 27
COFIRING EQUIPMENT 29
POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT 37
Chimney 37
EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT 39
POLLUTION CONTROL ASSESSMENT 43
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
PERSONNEL AND MANAGEMENT 47
ECONOMICS 48
Capital Investment 49
Operating Costs , 49
Revenue 50
REFERENCES 51
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 10-1. APPROXIMATE COMPOSITION OF TWO SAMPLES OF REFUSE
RECEIVED AT DIEPPE IN 1975 '(COURTESY OF THERMICAL-INOR) 18
TABLE 10-2. RESULTS OF CALCULATION BY KRINGS OF HEAT BALANCE
FOR DIEPPE PLANT 33
TABLE 10-3. APPROXIMATE COMPOSITION AND LOWER HEAT VALUE OF SOME
TYPICAL RAW SEWAGE SLUDGES ACCORDING TO EBERHARDT 34
TABLE 10-4. SUMMARY FOR 1976 OF REFUSE-SLUDGE BURNING PLANT
OPERATION AT DIEPPE. TABULATION PREPARED BY PLANT OPERATORS,
THERMICAL-INOR, IN FULFILLMENT OF THEIR OPERATING CONTRACT WITH
THE CITY 40
TABLE 10-5. DIEPPE WASTEWATER PLANT SUMMARY FOR 1976. TABULATION
BY THERMICAL-INOR, IN FULFILLMENT OF THEIR OPERATING CONTRACT WITH
THE CITY 41
TABLE 10-6. ANNUAL REFUSE INCINERATOR OPERATING RESULTS FOR DIEPPE-
1972-1976 (COURTESY VON ROLL, LTD.) 42
LIST OF FIGURES
Paee
FIGURE 10-1. OVERALL SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE DIEPPE PLANT FOR
COMBINED PROCESSING OF COMMUNITY WASTEWATER AND REFUSE 7
FIGURE 10-2. DIEPPE REFUSE-SLUDGE COFIRINQ PLANT (COURTESY
VON ROLL, LTD.) 15
FIGURE 10-3. DEAUVILLE REFUSE-SLUDGE COFIRING PLANT (COURTESY ,
OF INOR S.A.) 16
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Page
FIGURE 10-4. COMPARATIVE CROSS SECTIONS OF DIEPPE AND DEAUVILLE
REFUSE-BURNING PLANTS (COURTESY OF CITIES OF DIEPPE, DEAUVILLE,
AND VON ROLL, LTD. AND INOR S.A 19
FIGURE 10-5. DIEPPE CONTROL ROOM WITH CRANE CONTROL PEDESTAL
AT REAR AT WINDOW OVERLOOKING REFUSE PIT 20
FIGURE 10-6. DESUVILLE CONTROL ROOM. THE CRANE CONTROL
PEDESTALS AT LEFT ARE AT A LARGE WINDOW OVERLOOKING THE REFUSE
PIT (COURTESY INOR, S.A 21
FIGURE 10-7. TOP OF TWO LUWA SLUDGE DRYERS AT DIEPPE
(COURTESY OF VON ROLL, LTD.) 30
FIGURE 10-8. CUTAWAY DRAWINGS SHOWING PRINCIPLE OF LUWA DRYER
(COURTESY OF VON ROLL, LTD.) 31
FIGURE 10-9. PLOT BY EBERHARDT OF RELATION OF COMBUSTIBLE
AND ASH CONTENT OF DRY SEWAGE SLUDGE TO ITS LOWER HEAT VALUE . . 35
FIGURE 10-10. KRINGS RESULTS OF TESTS IN 1973 AT DIEPPE ON
THE EFFECT OF TYPE OF SLUDGE AND SLUDGE FEED RATE ON THE
EFFICIENCY OF THE LUWA THIN-FILM DRYER 36
FIGURE 10-11. REPLACEABLE CAST ALLOY STEEL VANE WHICH IMPARTS
SPIN TO THE GASES ENTERING EACH COLLECTION TUBE OF THE PRAT
MULTIPLE CYCLONE DUST COLLECTOR 38
FIGURE 10-12. RESIDENTIAL AREA AND COUNTRYSIDE VIEWED FROM
ROOF OF DIEPPE PLANT 44
FIGURE 10-13. RESIDENCES VIEWED THROUGH TRUCK ENTRANCE AT
DEAUVILLE PLANT 45
-------
LIST OF PERSONS CONTACTED
M. Jean Fossey Dieppe Plant Manager
M. Bernard Montdesert Dieppe Plant Chief Engineer
M. Aime Marchand Director, General des Services
techniques, Dieppe
M. Hervee Asst. Manager, Deauville Plant
Beat C. Ochse Project Engineer, Von Roll, Ltd.,
Environ. Eng. Div., Zurich
John M. Kehoe, Jr. Vice President and General
Manager, Wheelabrator-Frye,
Inc., Energy Systems Div.,
Hampton, N.H.
David B. Sussman Project Monitor, U.S. EPA,
Resource Recovery Div.,
Washington, D.C.
The authors are pleased to acknowledge the considerable assistance
provided by the above individuals in the conduct of this visit and in
subsequent review of this report.
-------
SUMMARY
Although the Dieppe and Deauville plants are small, 120 metric
tons per day each, and do not use water-tube-wall boiler construction,
they are examples of a relatively new waste-to-energy system in which the
steam generated by burning refuse under very simple fire-tube boilers is
used in a patented system to dry sewage sludge in steam-heated, thin-film
dryers. When dried, the sludge then becomes a low-energy fuel. Thus, these
systems provide all of their own energy to dispose of both community
refuse and sludge in an environmentally clean manner.
The two plants are identical in many respects. However, they
differ significantly in three ways:
(1) The older plant, Dieppe (1971), uses mechanical dust
collectors; Deauville has electrostatic precipitators.
Although the Dieppe emissions meet current local
standards, the newer Deauville plant (1976) is equipped to
meet possibly more stringent regulations of the future.
(2) The Dieppe furnaces employ a sloping water-cooled baffle
in the furnace, the Deauville furnaces are open and not
baffled
(3) Dieppe uses two LUWA thin-film dryers for sludge but
Deauville relies on the high availability of one, larger
dryer of the same type.
-------
STATISTICAL SUMMARY—DIEPPE ONLY
Community Description:
Area (square kilometers)
Population (number of people)
Key terrain feature
60
8,000
Hilly
Solid Waste Practices:
Total waste generated per day (tonnes/day)
Waste generation rate (Kg/person/day)
Lower heating value of waste (Kcal/kg)
Collection period (days/week)
Cost of collection (local currency/tonne)
Use of transfer and/or pretreatment (yes or no)
Distance from generation centroid to:
Local landfill (kilometers)
Refuse-fired steam generator (kilometers)
Waste type input to system
Cofiring of sewage sludge (yes or no)
50
1.3
5
No
Resid., Indus.
Yes
Development of the System:
Date operation began (year)
1971
Plant Architecture:
Material of exterior construction
Stack height (meters)
Concrete, Steel
35
Refuse-Fired Steam Generator Equipment:
Mass burning (yes or no)
Waste conditions into feed chute:
Yes
-------
STATISTICAL SUMMARY—DIEPPE ONLY
Moisture (percent)
Lower heating value (Kcal/kg)
Volume burned:
Capacity per furnace (tonnes/day)
Number of furnaces constructed (number)
Capacity per system (tonnes/day)
Actual per furnace (tonnes/day)
Number of furnaces normally operating (number)
Actual per system (tonnes/day)
Use auxiliary reduction equipment (yes or no)
Pit capacity level full:
(tonnes)
(m3)
Crane capacity (one):
(tonnes)
(m3)
Feeder drive method
Burning grate:
Manufacturer
Type
Number of sections (number)
Length overall (m)
Width overall (m)
Primary air-max (Nm'/hr)
Secondary air-overfire air-max (nr/min)
Furnace volume (m )
Furnace wall tube diameter (cm)
o
Furnace heating surface (m )
Auxiliary fuel capability (yes or no)
Use of superheater (yes or no)
60
2
120
63
1
63
No
750
U.25
1.5
Hydraulic
Van Roll
Reciprocating
2
8
2
83
80
No wall tubes
Yes
No
-------
STATISTICAL SUMMARY-DIEPPE ONLY
Boiler
Manufacturer
Type
Firetube
Number of boiler passes
Steam production per boiler (kg/hr) (max)
Total plant steam production (kg/hr) (max)
Steam temperature ( C)
Steam pressure (bar)
Use of economizer (yes or no)'
Use of air preheater (yes or no)
Use of flue gas reheater (yes or no)
Cofire (fuel or waste) input
Use of electricity generator (yes or no)
Energy Utilization:
Medium of energy transfer
Temperature of medium ( C)
Population receiving energy (number)
Pressure cf medium (bar)
Energy return medium
Sacoma
Vertical
1
7,500
15,000
180
10
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Steam
180
Sludge Drying
Only
10
Pollution Control:
Air:
Furnace exit conditions:
Gas flow rate (Nm^/hr)
o
Furnace exit loading (mg/Nm )
Chimney particulate emission (mg/Nnr)
22,000
320
-------
OVERALL SYSTEM SCHEMATIC
Figure 10-1 shows a diagram of the Dieppe plant. As will be seen
throughout this report, the Deauville plant is not identical but is
similar to Figure 10-1 in many ways. The Dieppe refuse plant was started
up in November, 1971, the wastewater plant in February, 1971. The
Deauville refuse plant began regular operation in early 1976.
-------
1. Waste-water inlet meter 12.
2. Grit-oil separator 13.
3. Primary settling basin 1A.
U. Aeration tank 15.
5. Secondary settling basin 16.
6. Discharge water 17.
7. Rav sewage pump 18.
8. Digester 19.
9. Thickener 20.
10. Sludge pump 21.
11. Digester heater-punjps-gas 22.
meter
Gas holder
Refuse bunker
Refuse feed hopper
Sludge tank
Vertical thin-film dryer
Incineration grates
Waste oil burner
Quench channel for residue
Boiler
Dust collector
Chimney
FIGURE 10-1.
OVERALL SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE DIEPPE
FOR COMBINED PROCESSING OF COMMUNITY
WASTEWATER AND REFUSE
PLANT
-------
COMMUNITY DESCRIPTION
Both Dieppe and Deauville are small resort towns with beaches on
the English channel and are about 70 miles (110 km) apart . Dieppe,
permanent population of 26,000, has been an important industrial port
since Roman times because of its excellent harbor, "one of the safest and
deepest harbors on the English Channel". It has become an important port,
rail, and industrial manufacturing center. Deauville is a very clean
seaside resort town on rolling land near Trouville and Le Havre at the
mouth of the Seine.
It was natural that in order to preserve and enhance the resort
feature of their existence, the two towns would be especially interested
in handling their wastewater and solid wastes in a clean manner.
Solid waste at the Dieppe plant is received from a 12 km (7 mi)
radius area which includes Neuville and five other villages and many
industries in very hilly terrain. The total population served is about
48,000. Approximatey 10 percent of the refuse received is industrial.
Unique waste at the rate of 1.5 tonne/day comes as fiberglass, resin, and
paint wastes from the Renault Alpine Sportscar Body Factory. The paint
comes in 25 kg (55 Ib) plastic bags. Vinyl upholstery scraps did come from
a local plant but if too much is charged at once, it melts and clogs the
grate; hence, the amount of this material accepted had to be limited.
In Deauville (permanent population at 6,000) is surrounded by
adjacent communities with a permanent population of 20,000. However, in
the summer the wastes from 200,000 vacationers on a typical summer day
must be processed. There is no industrial waste in Deauville.
-------
SOLID WASTE PRACTICES
The total solid waste received at Dieppe is about 19,000
tonnes/yr (20,900 tons/yr), of which about 10 percent is industrial.
Sewage sludge handled is from 40,000 inhabitants, a rate of about 5,500
nr/day (1,903,000 gal/day) of digested sludge. The total receipt at
Deauville is unknown but because of the 10-fold increase in population
served during the few summer months, many difficult and variable operating
problems are posed for the plant staff.
At both plants in summer, there is a marked increase in empty
seashells from kitchen wastes.
Collection
For the Dieppe-Neuville area, there are eight city collection
trucks plus three small open trucks which, until October 1, 1977,
collected daily 6 days per week. After October 1, 1977, collections were
to be every 2 days. Other suburbs also send in truck loads irregularly,
and on Sunday mornings special collections are made from restaurants. The
past practice of picking up and dumping open bins at the collection point
was to be replaced October 1 by use of polyvinyl chloride bags provided by
the city.
Each household and business receives a separate charge on their
tax bill for refuse and sewage service which is based at their metered
water consumption.
No bulky refuse is accepted at Dieppe larger than 1 meter (3-3
ft).
-------
10
Solid Waste Disposal
Landfill is used for the combustion residue from Dieppe and for
bulky and demolition waste. Some industrial waste is collected by a
private contractor, shredded, and then landfilled. The city makes no
charge for use of the landfill.
Sewage Treatment
At both plants, Dieppe and Deauville, the waste burning plant is
adjacent to the modern sewage plant so that the energy released as steam
from the burning of refuse can be utilized in partially drying the
digested sludge which then can be disposed of by burning with the solid
waste.(1'2)
At Dieppe, the wastewater from a population of about 40,000 and
at a flow rate of about 5,500 nr/day (1,903,000 gal/day) is clarified,
aerated, digested for 30 days, and chlorinated in the following steps:
Volume
m gals
Primary Clarification Basin 950 328,700
Agitated Aeration Tank 815 281,990
Secondary Decanters 1,050 363,300
Digester 1,250 432,500
Thickener 280 96,880
Chlorination Basin 108 37,368
The water discharged from this system has a BOD of about 30
except in the mornings when discharges from the local abattoir raise the
final BOD to 15.
-------
11
Dieppe's sludge at about 96 percent water content is piped to two
steam-heated, thin-film dryers in the refuse plant where it is dried to
about 48 percent water and then burned as described later. At Deauville,
there is only one sludge dryer.
Methane-rich gas, collected from the digester, is stored in a 125
o 3
nr (4,412 ft ) gas holder. The 64 percent methane-rich gas is burned to
maintain the digester temperature at 80 C (176 P) and to provide space
heating in the plant and offices. The gas production rate is about 500
m3/day (17,650 ft3/day).
-------
12
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SYSTEM
Prior to the construction of the Dieppe plant in 1970-1971, the
city and surrounding communities deposited their solid wastes in various
uncontrolled landfills. Sewage treatment begun in 1934 was by primary
settling only. Because of smokey fires at the landfills and the growing
scarcity of available landfill area, discussions began in city council
late in 1967 on feasible means to upgrade their waste management
(2)
methods. Composting was considered but not pursued because of the lack
of assured local markets for the product. District heating was considered
but only two factories in the vicinity could have used the steam.
Electricity generation was discussed but Electricite de France could not
guarantee revenue for the electricity produced.
M. Jean Fossey, who is now plant manager, was, at the time of the
discussions, a member of city council. M. Marchand, then Director General
o-f Technical Services for the City of Dieppe, became interested in the
patented process developed by Von Roll, Ltd. This process uses the heat in
steam from waste-fired boilers to partially dry sewage sludge in vertical
thin film dryers and then to burn the sludge with the refuse. A decision
was made in November, 1968, to build a steam generating refuse burner to
begin operation in about 18 months or about May, 1970. Also, in April,
1969, it was decided to build, adjacent, a modern wastewater treatment
plant to begin operation about April, 1971. The plants were sized for a
community of about 18,000 people producing refuse and 10,000 people
producing sewage. INOR S. A. (Societe de Construction d'Usines
d'Incineration d'Ordures Menageres), the Von Roll licensee in France for
this type of combined system, was selected to build them. Because it was
the first full-scale combined plant of this type, Von Voll offered it at
an introductory price.
On the strength of the decision at Dieppe in 1969 to build this
pioneering plant, the city of Brive in southern France, population 55,000,
invited bids on a combined facility in late 1969. By December, 1970, eight
qualified bids had been received at Brive. In July, 1971. INOR S. A. was
-------
13
awarded a contract for the refuse burner and ODA (Omnium
d'Assainissement), a French water treatment firm, was given the contract
for the wastewater plant. The Brive refuse burner began operating in
September, 1973> 2 years after the Dieppe plant and the wastewater plant
in February, 1975.
The plants are operated for the city under a 20-year contract
with the group Thermical-INOR.
The prospect for clean handling of both solid and liquid wastes
at Dieppe and Brive probably were an important guide to Deauville, which
decided to follow suit. The new Deauville facility was built on the site
of the old city sewage treatment plant. The Deauville wastewater plant
began operating in 197U and the refuse burning plant early in 1976.
-------
PLANT ARCHITECTURE
The two Dieppe plants are located together in an industrial zone
on the site of an old landfill unused for 15 years along the small river
of Arques, about 2 km (1.3 mi) south of Dieppe. The site occupies 1.7
hectares (M.2 acres), about 3 or H m (7 to 13 ft) above sea level. Because
of the alluvial nature of the river valley and the site's history as a
landfill, 152 concrete piles, about 16 m (52 ft) deep had to be installed
to support the waste-burning structure and equipment. The building walls
and pit walls are relatively thin to minimize the total weight on the
piling.
Figure 10-2 shows the Dieppe waste-burning plant. It is partly
made of cellular concrete to minimize weight plus metal panels supported
on a steel structure. It is 26 m (85 ft) tall. The chimney is 35 m (115
ft) tall.
Figure 10-3 shows the Deauville plant which is also formed of
concrete and coated steel panels and located on a gently sloping hillside.
Inside and outside it is an unusually attractive plant with bright colors
used to give emphasis to the various types of equipment.
-------
15
FIGURE 10-2.
DIEPPE REFUSE-SLUDGE COFIRING PLANT
(COURTESY VON ROLL, LTD.)
-------
Pu
O
W ^
g«
& •
i-J OO
to
I OS
w o
W
W
W
g
ro
I
O
W
PS
^3
o
-------
17
REFUSE-FIRED STEAM GENERATING EQUIPMENT
Waste Input
The Dieppe plant receives principally household waste plus some
industrial waste. No waste is accepted larger than 1 m (3.3 ft), and there
is no shear or other pretreatmtnt. Refuse is delivered on public and
private vehicles on weekdays from 8:00 to 11:00 a.m., and from 2:00 to
5:00 p.m. One man is assigned to operate,the scale.
Table 10-1 shows the results of analysis of two typical samples
of refuse received in 2 winter months of 1975.
Figure 10-4 shows cross sections of the Dieppe and Deauville
re fuse-burning plants.
The Dieppe plant pit has a capacity when level full at 750 m
(26,475ft^). Above the pit is a single 4.25 tonne (4.7 ton) crane, built
by Reel, carrying a 1.5 m ( 53 ft ) clam shell bucket. The Deauville pit
capacity is 700 m . At both the Dieppe and Deauville plants, the crane is
controlled from the control room, a common feature to minimize manpower
needs at small plants in Europe. Figures 10-5 and 10-6 show the control
rooms.
At Deauville, it has been found that lack of a spare crane is a
distinct disadvantage when crane repairs are needed during the summer
period, when maximum operation is needed. At Dieppe, the crane cables
needed replacement after 1 year due to numerous startup problems in
learning to operate the crane in such a way as to minimize cable damage.
The new cables, made by Casar especially for the Dieppe plant, are
automatically lubricated and are formed of thick wires inside and finer
ones outside which are wound alternately in opposite directions to avoid
twisting.
-------
18
O
w
tJ
PQ
<
H
£
fH
•s
>»
I-,
CU
CU
o
01
Q
t_.
O
*4-4
V
B
to
w
in
OS
1-1
».
CO
>,
to
3
01
,_
O
U-l
cu
(->.
MH
CO
4-1
C
CU
o
(2
cu
M
3
11
co
•H
S
C
CU
o
M
01
PH
ft
4-1
£
60
CU
4J
C
CU
u
01
CU
V-i
3
to
o
S
C
CU
o
cu
PH
*
£
•H
01
P~ CM rH CO <•
so in co os in
i— 1 iH CM rH
o o o o m
o os os CM -*
rH OS O rH O
m
i— i Os in CM vD
i— i m «d- I-H m
3 0) to en
^H U 0
- rH -H
en to M jr 4-1 en
cu B 01 4-1 en 01
C en a. o to e
•H fO iH iH O
fc PL, U PH P3
r*^» c^ en
ro co oo
I— 1
o o o
os CM r--
CM m CM
00 i—l ~3-
co m co
f— i
o m m
vC OO CM
^
>4-H
•H
en
en
to
o
c
D
oo
oo
r^
m
vO
Os
CM
vO
CO
00
^o
^t
oo
CM
CO
cu
,_!
•H
a
CO
cu
M
4-1
3
PH
-------
19
2. Outdoor tipping area
2. Refuse pit
3. Ciane and bucket
4. Feed hopper
5. Sludge storage tink
6. Sludge pu*i.ps
7. Sludge dr>ers
8. Dried sludge conveyor
9. Incineration grates
10. Furnace
11. Oil burne
12. Blower fo dryer vapors
13. Primary a r blower
14. Residue q ench cn-innel
15. Residue c n
16. Boiler
17. Water-cooled condenser
18. Steam drum
19. Dust collector
20. Induced draft fan
21. Chimney
Dieppe, Started Operation in 1971
Deauville, Started Operation in 1976
6.
7.
S.
9.
10.
11.
12.
33.
14.
16.
17.
IB.
Cra.te
Refuse bur, -
Te&A hop pi.-
W .ter s ic r^^e
Sludge d^vct
Dr\ • i e? v. 11 st b- rwe:
SLJC.I 'ars a:r blov-c-r
}..rnjc
KesiOue qui ^c". clianncl
Stevn drum
Boiler
Shot c] oaning fetde-
Cnimnp.
Electrostatic prccipita'or
Ind-c^o draft fan
Transfcrrcr loom
Sludge sLora;t:
FIGURE 10-4.
COMPARATIVE CROSS SECTIONS OF DIEPPE AND DEAUVILLE REFUSE-
BURNING PLANTS (COURTESY OF CITIES OF DIEPPE DEAUVILLE
AND VON ROLL, LTD. AND INOR S.A.)
-------
20
<
H
to
w
Q
W
PM H
t—I
_] O.
o
Pi W
H W
Z 3
O f1*
O bJ
w
z o
" Z
2
o yi
c
EC O
H iJ
SCO.
O ^3
031-
PS c ec
o o
^•z. u
o i-1 o
o; s .c
H 0-
Z H
O < OJ
U i-i
W < 0)
CH W *J
p. fv^ j_i
W TO
i-i H CO
Q < ^
I
O
W
Od
o
-------
FIGURE 10-6.
DEAUVILLE CONTROL ROOM. THE CRANE CONTROL
PEDESTALS AT LEFT ARE AT A LARGE WINDOW
OVERLOOKING THE REFUSE PIT
(COURTESY INOR, S.A.)
-------
22
At Dieppe, the crane lifts a load and automatically positions the
bucket above one or another of the two furnace hoppers. At Deauville, a
similar automatic control system has been temporarily by-passed because
the bucket damaged a railing near the hoppers. Also at Deauville, the
winter load is so light that several days are required to accumulate
enough refuse to support one furnace operation. Thus, some refuse is
stored so long that fermentation begins in the pit. The resultant vapors
generated are corrosive when they condense on the electrical control
contacts which has caused control failures.
The lightweight cellular concrete pit walls at Dieppe are
reinforced by steel columns to withstand occasional impact from the loaded
bucket.
At Dieppe, there are five temperature sensors at door height,
above the pit to detect pit fires. Small pit fires are handled by using
the clam shell bucket to lift the burning material into one of the furnace
hoppers. Larger fires are controlled by internal or external (city)
fire-fighting equipment. When a temperature sensor detects a temperature
rise, it actuates a recording which announces, "There is a fire in the
pit".
The procedure for starting a fire in a furnace at Dieppe is to
ignite the bucket load of highly combustible refuse, drop it into the
furnace hopper, and then feed it onto the grate by opening the horizontal
flap doors at the bottom of the hopper. Once a fire erupted in a hopper
when 600 kg (1,320 Ib) of butter was charged at once. Well mixed with
other refuse, it would have caused less problem.
Furnace Hoppers
As seen in Figure 10-^, the hoppers at both plants are similar, 2
m by U m (6.5 by 13 ft) at top and at the base of the chute, the
dimensions are 1.6 m by 1.2 m (5.2 by U ft), with the juncture between
hopper and chute sealed by a flap damper to prevent burnback. This method
of feeding and sealing is impractical for much larger plants where Von
-------
23
Roll uses a vibrating feeder to feed from the chute to the furnace. At
both plants, the chute is water jacketed but a thermocouple in the jacket
at Deauville indicates that water flow to the jacket for cooling is seldom
needed. Some wet-type corrosion was visible on the jackets.
Although as shown in Figure 10-1, at Dieppe, the refuse appears
to fall directly on the main burning grate, actually there is the same
arrangement as at Deauville where a reciprocating type of feeder has been
placed in the furnace to feed the main burning grate. There is no
combustion air supplied to the feeder.
Grate
The grate used at Dieppe is the older Von Roll design using
alternately reciprocating parallel sections. The material is
nickel-chromium cast iron. Feed capacity is 3 tonnes/hr (3-3 tons/hr)
maximum, 2.8 tonnes/hr normal. The total grate is 2 m wide and a total of
8 m long in two steps. Steam-preheated air is used at both plants. There
are two air zones under each step, a total of four zones.
About one half of the Dieppe grate has been replaced in 7 years.
Some worn main grate bars can be moved to the burnout grate for less
strenuous service. Because of the moderate rate of receipt of refuse at
Dieppe, only one furnace is operated at a time, leaving ample time for
grate maintenance. Operation is switched between furnaces about every 3
weeks. There has not been any grate blockage by melted material and
neither grate has been cleaned for 3 years. The unburned carbon content of
the residue ranges from 3 to 4 percent except when large amounts of moist
waste such as grass cut'tings are burned. Grate wear is thought to be
accelerated by the relatively high proportion of sea shells in the refuse
during summer months.
There is no separation of ferrous or other material from the
quenched grate residue.
-------
24
Furnace Wall
There are two major reasons why the relatively new Dieppe and
Deauville furnaces are not water-tube walled:
(1) The burning of only partially dried sewage sludge has a
cooling effect in the furnace; hence, extensive wall
cooling is not needed.
(2) The steam generated for heating the sludge dryers needs to
be at only moderate pressure; hence, a much simpler
refractory wall furnace and cheaper firetube waste heat
boiler can be used.
Accordingly, the only furnace cooling at Dieppe is the diagonal
furnace baffle shown in Figure 10-U. This baffle is formed of spaced,
sloping tubes about 120 mm (U.7 in) apart, which supports bricks shaped to
fit the tubes. An estimated 100-150 C (180-170 F) gas temperature drop
occurs as the gases flow upward along the underside of the sloping baffle
then pass through the spaced tubes above the baffle and turn toward the
vertical firetube boiler inlet. It is estimated that about one sixth of
the total heat is absorbed by the baffle.
As the gases turn downward around the top of the baffle, they
decelerate causing the larger flyash particles to fall out and deposit on
the sloping baffle. The buildup of such deposits causes the top-side
cooling surface to become ineffective. Also, removal of the accumulated
deposit has been difficult. The top and bottom headers for the tubes in
the furnace baffle are studded with MO mm (1.6 in) studs and covered with
80 mm (3.1 in) of Plibrico castable refractory.
At Deauville, designed about 5 years later, there is no
water-cooled baffle. The furnace volume is also much less than at Dieppe,
which is about 80 m (2,823 ft3), and the furnace gases at Deauville pass
directly to the vertical firetube boiler.
The main furnace wall at both plants is 500 mm (1.6 ft) thick and
is enclosed in a 3 mm thick outer steel casing to minimize infiltration of
air. The fireside portion of the wall is built of 65 percent alumina
-------
25
brick. No bricks have had to be replaced except one row of brick in the
nose of the front arch after 5 year's operation. Occasionally, broken
bricks are patched with Plibrico plastic refractory rammed into place.
Explosions of some types of refuse cause some refractory damage and push
water out of the clinker quench channel under the furnace. Occasionally,
some of the formed bricks in the water-cooled sloping baffle need to be
replaced.
The use of refractory instead of water-tube walls entails some
loss of thermal efficiency but this loss is not important at either plant
so long as there is ample steam generated to dry the sludge.
Each furnace has a 6 million calorie/hr oil burner, but they are
never used.
Fire-Tube Boiler—Dieppe
The vertical boilers at Dieppe were built by Sacoma with a
heating surface of 240 m2 (2,582 ft2). They are 6 m (19-7 ft) tall and 1.8
m (5.9 ft) outside diameter. The 38? tubes are 52 mm (2 in) inside. The
boilers were designed to produce 7-5 tonne/hr (15,510 Ib/hr) of steam at
16 bar (1,600 kPa) 232 psia . The saturated steam temperature is 180 C
(356 F). Actually the boilers operate at a pressure of about 10 bar (1,000
kPa) 145 psia and an output of 6.5 tonnes/hr (14,000 Ib/hr). Feedwater
temperature is 140 C (284 F).
Design gas flow rate was 22,000 Nm3/hr (12,947 scfm) . The flue
gas temperature leaving the boiler was about 350 C (662 F) when the plant
started up. However, it was found necessary to inject 5,000nr/hr (2,943
cfm) of secondary air by means of six nozzles located in the front wall.
This air diluted the flue gas and caused the boiler exit gas temperature
to drop to about 280 C (536 F). Such a high exhaust temperature represents
a substantial thermal loss but since there is ample heat for drying the
sludge and, at present, no other use for the heat, the loss is not serious
for this particular plant.
-------
26
Every 3 months, each boiler is drained and completely cleaned
internally and externally by the plant staff using brushes and other small
tools.
Fire-Tube Boiler—Deauville
The Deauville boilers are of the same design, manufacture, and
capacity as at Dieppe but the flyash deposits are cleaned from the boiler
tubes by falling steel shot pellets which are fed periodically into the
top of the boiler. After the shot fall through the tubes, they then fall
along with the dislodged ash into a conical hopper situated directly
beneath the boiler. The shot are then separated by gravity from the
lighter flyash and the shot are recirculated in a high velocity air stream
to the top of the boiler for another cleaning cycle.
In addition to this cleaning process, the experience had been
that every 10 weeks it was necessary to hand clean persistent ash deposits
from the tube surfaces. However, in April, 1977, the staff began regularly
to blow into the furnace a fine inorganic dust known as Gamlenite 8 in
order to soften the ash deposits in the tubes so that the shot would
remove them and hand cleaning would not be necessary. About 2 to 3 kg (JJ.5
to 6.5 lb) is blown in with air every 2 or 3 hours. According to the
staff, this additive has so far been entirely successful in making the
tube deposits so friable that they are readily removed by the shot, thus
eliminating the need for hand cleaning.
At Deauville, the exhaust gas is continuously monitored for CO
content and will later also be monitored for 0 . An opacity meter is
unsatisfactory because the readings are in error due to rapid soot
accumulation on the instrument window.
Primary Air
At both plants, the combustion air is drawn from above the bunker
at a point shown in Figure 10-4 in the inner bunker wall a short distance
-------
27
below thehoppers. The Sovent centrifugal blowers provide a flow rate of
19,410 Nm /hr at 20 C (11,440 cfm at 68 F) at a maximum pressure of 150 mm
water (1,1)71 Pa). It is heated by means of a steam heated heat exchanger
to 150 C (302 F).
The negative pressure in the furnace ranges from 15 to 20 mm
water (147 to 196 Pa).
Secondary Air
Initially, the Dieppe furnaces were operated without overfire air
but later front-wall jets were added, supplied by a blower with maximum
capacity of 5,000 Nm3/hr (2,943 scfm) at 150 mm water (1,170 Pa).
The approximate point of injection of secondary air through six
jets in each sidewall at the Deauville plant is shown in Figure 10-4.
Air Preheater
At both plants, the primary air is preheated to about 150 C (302
F) by a steam-air heater made by Favier. At Dieppe, it uses an estimated
maximum of 600 kg/hr (1,320 Ib/hr) of saturated steam at 190 C (374 F) and
can heat up to 16,000 Nm /hr (9,416 scfm). The approximate heat exchanger
dimensions are 1 m by 1.5 m by 90 mm (3.3 ft by 4.9 ft by 3-5 in), and the
2 2
heating surface is 252 m (2,712 ft ). In one of the two heaters at
Dieppe, some tubes failed after 5 years, apparently due to a manufacturing
defect, and was replaced. There is evidently some erosion of some of the
tubes by excessive velocity of the condensing steam; hence, in future
modifications, 12 mm (0.5 in) diameter tubes would be replaced by 25 mm (1
in) tubes.
Boiler Water Treatment
At Dieppe, water analysis and treatment is handled by an outside
contractor (BEZ), which sends a specialist every 2 months to analyze the
water and replenish the treating chemicals. Flow rate through the
-------
28
feedwater treatment system is 2.5 m /hr (865 gal/hr). In March, 1973t the
following water analysis results were obtained:
Oxygen
Alkalinity
Total Allkalinity
Chloride Ion (mg/1)
pH
P2°5
N2H2
After
Treatment
Trace
0
27
17
7-5
—
— -
Feed-
Water
0.6
3
9
1
9.6
—
— -
Boiler
Water
0
260
298
234
11.7
100
1,000
Conden-
sate
0
1
3
0
9.3
—
__
-------
29
COFIRING EQUIPMENT
This cofiring system patented world-wide by Von Roll for
steam-drying and cofiring sewage sludge with refuse was guaranteed at
Dieppe to handle 75 percent refuse and 25 percent dried sludge (by
weight). At Dieppe, there are two vertical LUWA dryers about 0.6 m (1.9
ft) inside diameter having a nominal drying capacity of 900 liters/hr (238
gal/hr) of digested sludge having a water content of 92 percent. At
Deauville, there is only one larger LUWA dryer having a nominal capacity
of 1,100 liters/hr (271 gal/hr). Normally it operates at 900 liters/hr,
2'4-hours/day in the summer and M to 6 hours/day in the winter. Evidently,
for the newer Deauville plant, the reliability of the LUWA dryer was
deemed such that redundancy was unnecessary. Dieppe was the first to use
the LUWA dryer for sewage sludge.
Figure 10-7 shows the two dryers of the LUWA dryer. The inside of
p
the dryer is a smooth stainless steel cylinder having a surface of 5.3 m
(57 ft2) heated to about 180 C (356 F) by saturated steam. The sludge is
delivered to the dryers by a dosing pump which sprays it against the hot
surface which is rapidly scraped clean by vertical rotating blades
attached to a central shaft rotating at 250 rpm. Centrifugal force keeps
the boiling sludge against the hot steel surface as the blades force it to
rotate. Gravity causes the drying sludge particles to drift downward along
the steel heating surface. The product falling from the bottom of the
dryer onto a belt conveyor is partially dried sludge agglomerations having
UO to 15 percent moisture. A television camera sighted on the conveyor
enables the control room operator to monitor the sludge flow.
The conveyor delivers the granules to a chute leading to the
refuse pit from which the crane operator lifts a mixture of refuse and
sludge to the furnace hoppers. To eliminate dryer exhaust odor, the wet
vapor from the dryers is fed to the upper part of the furnaces. At the
Deauville plant, to avoid having droplets returned to the furnace with the
-------
30
FIGURE 10-7.
TOP OF TWO LUWA SLUDGE DRYERS AT
DIEPPE (COURTESY OF VON ROLL, LTD.)
-------
31
FIGURE 10-8. CUTAWAY DRAWINGS SHOWING PRINCIPLE OF LUWA
DRYER (COURTESY OF VON ROLL, LTD.)
-------
32
vapors, a steam-heated vapor reheater is used to dry the vapor before it
is injected into the furnace. At Dieppe, a radioactive sludge feed
indicator was installed but it is no longer used.
An unknown amount of excess steam is sent to a river water-cooled
condenser, the condensate from which is returned to the boiler.
Krings has prepared Table 10-2 in which he estimated the
amount of excess heat generated by the Dieppe plant under three different
rates of operation. In that calculation, no explicit allowance was made
for the heat value of the partially dried sludge. That is a realistic
policy for sludge having a moisture content of 40 percent or more. For
although the partially dried sludge does release some heat when burned,
the amount released from the sludge is not a large proportion of the total
liberated in the furnace.
Table 10-3, from Eberhardt , shows the heat value of various
raw sludges. Figure 10-9 from Eberhardt 3 shows the relation of heat
value to ash and combustible content. From this, it is evident that
although the combustible portion of dry sludge may have a lower heat value
of up to 10,000 Btu/lb (5,555 Kcal/kg), it is usually so diluted by ash
and water that the net heat value is low.
In 1973, tests were run at Dieppe, one result of which was Figure
10-10 by Krings showing the efficiency of the LUWA dryers. Three of the
lowest points near the center of the figure show the results from fresh,
undigested sludge. This indicates that this digested sludge was more
readily dried than the raw sludge.
Some difficulty is experienced at both plants when fibrous
materials clog the dryer feeding system.
-------
33
CQ
CM
I
O
w
J
pa
CO
01
o
C
3
fa
0
*
0)
o
TO
C
3
0>
C
o
4J
TO
01
EC
^
01
o
4-1
TO
01
EC
j^
0)
o
0)
o
TO
C
Jj
fa
0>
C
0
01
3
rH
TO
*,
01
3
TO
j>
4J
TO
01
3C
j_i
01
S
o
„
§
e
•3
X
r.
*
e
3
g
•H
x
TO
*
01
3
rH
TO
j>
60
pjyj
**^
,__)
O
O
0
o
CM
60
»^*<
"^^.
rH
TO
O
*j.
O
O
0
CM
00
fix*
•*N^
rH
CO
U
^
o
0
CM
rH
CM
•
rH
f*^
1-1
r^*.
•
00
vO
in
•
in
ro
TO
•o
TH
TO
o
O
C
O
•H
^ I
CO
3
^
e
o
C_}
g
O
fa
01
rH
o
TO
rH
•H
TO
^
4-1
TO
01
SC
4-1
0>
z
0
•
m
v£>
o
•
CM
CM
O
•
CM
CM
TO
T3
^
TO
O
O
60
C
•H
fx,
t-i
Q
01
60
3
i— 1
oo
^_1
o
U-4
4-1
C
0)
e
01
M
•H
3
cr
0)
&
4-1
TO
01
X
rH
TO
4-1
0
H
CM
•
SO
O
1-1
r-
•
sO
*^-
m
•
CO
rH
TO
•o
^f
TO
O
O
^j
0)
CO
C
0)
•u
C
o
p.
e
3
O
0
4-1
1 1
TO
01
ffi
CO
co
01
o
X
U
[x,
iH
01
4J O
TO O
B o
•H *
X to
O CM
VJ rH
"*
^
rH
0)
4J
§O
O
•H 0
X •
0 0
(-1 m
a
a
^3
0)
a
o
0)
PM
C
o
•H
4-1
TO
rH
3
D-
O
4J
C
01
,_)
TO
*H
3
cr
U
-------
34
W
m
o
w
rJ
1
4-1
CO
.0
6
0
°
0)
a
>
4-1
cd
01
S3
,_,
0)
,3
01
•H M
4-1 0)
Cd 4J
rH 4-1
O efl
> S
*
0) rl
,0 4-1
•H 4J
CO
^
^|
0)
4-1
cfl
•s
txO
•*--*
O
rO
r4
4-1
M
C
01
o
IH
01
PM
4-1
C
O
j-i
01
PM
4-1
C
0)
o
I-I
01
PU
4-1
C
0>
I-I
0)
PM
en t*^
CO \D
in en
rH
O O
m oo
o -*
rH CM
vO
•
1 *3*
1 rH
oo r~
rH O^
rH rH
0
•
0 1
"vf 1
ex] en
00 O
-d- oo
01
00
*"U
3
1—^
cn
^>
M r-l
JS P
P?
r~» r~ CM
en cy\ en
m st oo
rH en I-H
o o o
r- o o
r*^ ro PO
CN vo en
oo
•
i ct
r~. CM O
rH 00 C^
CM . &
C rl U
IH O CO
0> 6
pa w
p^
m
r-
en
0
f*
VD
en
•
CJN
rH
I"*-
!^
>^-
1
1
en
CM
m
^t
M
P
r^ CM
oo m
oo m
rH en
0 0
o o
en vo
m
•
1 r***
1 rH
*^" eo
\o «*
CM •^~
O
O 1
,
IH rl
Q) Q
•H
2
-------
35
a rtoo
5400
3COO
ItOO
0« ftlmitt rtw
t •
0* *<»••'•' «/•*§• ff»» l»4
rtw tltllt >l't ••> c»»c««fr«ri».
\
NJ
jR
\
X
V
^
n \
,
\
0
•c
\4
\
s
s
.i
e <
s
h
\
s
\
V
\
1
\
FIGURE 10-9. PLOT BY EBERHARDlO) OF RELATION OF
COMBUSTIBLE AND ASH CONTENT OF DRY
SEWAGE SLUDGE TO ITS LOWER HEAT VALUE
-------
36
-4_U
Efficiency ojf.the dryer1..+...
I ; i L ' L • i_
, -h-fT-r-;
FIGURE 10-10.
KRINGS(l) RESULTS OF TESTS IN 1973
AT DIEPPE ON THE EFFECT OF TYPE OF
SLUDGE AND SLUDGE FEED RATE ON THE
EFFICIENCY OF THE LUWA THIN-FILM
DRYER
7 Water
i! Fresh Sludge - 97 Percent Water
0 Digested Sludge - 98 Percent Water
A Digested Sludge - 95 Percent Water
Q Digested Sludge - 92 Percent Water
-------
37
POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
Flue gas dust is removed from the Dieppe gases by a vane-type
56-tube, multiple cyclone separator following each boiler built by Louis
Prat of Paris. The design flow rate is 22,000 Nm3/hr (12,947 scfm) Inlet
temperature was 350 C (662 F) but after secondary air jets were added in
the front wall, it dropped to 280 C (536 F). Pressure drop at 350 C is 62
mm water. Figure 10-11 shows a 155 mm diameter cast alloy vane for
imparting spin to the gases entering each of 5Jo collector tubes in the
dust collector. It is warranted to collect 92 percent of the dust, giving
an emission of 400 mg/m at M50 C (8H2 F). The initial measured emission
was 320 mg/Nm3 (0.27 lb/1,000 lb gas).
The collected dust falls continuously through a lock chamber
controlled by two cam-operated cast iron flap valves into a screw which
discharges it to the grate residue quench channel. The staff are well
aware that failure to keep this lock chamber gas tight will allow
reentrainment of the collected ash with consequent vane and tube erosion.
The flap valves are serviced every 6 months to assure their tightness.
The newer plant at Deauville does not have a multicyclone but
uses instead an electrostatic precipitator which has an inherently higher
collection efficiency.
Chimney
At Dieppe, the chimney is 1.4 m (H.6 ft) diameter steel, unlined,
reaching 35 m (115 ft) above ground. It is estimated that corrosion will
require stack replacement approximately every 7 years.
Chimney construction at Deauville is the same except that a
simple perforated wall muffler was added at the top because of local noise
complaints.
-------
38
W
O J
H (X
t—i
2 H
M J
Cu O
C/3 E*^
H <
D£ K
< OL, ^v
EL, £
S W 0.
M ac «a
H i-
X 60
O U, C
1-1 O -u
I O
S U £
W 3
z f-
a;
> 2 —
O 01
^3 1-1 4-i
U^ E—• 4-J
U O flj
H U cc
W t-3 >^
>• C OS
o o o
•J I U
< u u
< nJ
§08
u z °
CH H
W OS CO
J U 3
pa H Q
< 2
b2 U U
u z
< CO O
, T f,1 1
Bu C/J U
u < >
OS O U
C
-------
39
EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT
The operating group, Thermical-INOR, is required by its contract
with the city of Dieppe to gather and submit performance data for the
refuse and wastewater plants. Tables 10-M and 10-5 show the refuse plant
results for the year 1976. The total two-furnace operating time of 6,228
hours is 35 percent based on a total of two times 8,760 hours/year. Based
on a 5-1/2 day week, the operation time is M5 percent. As indicated early
in this report, the Dieppe plant was sized in anticipation of considerable
growth in load.
Table 10-6 summarizes the refuse plant operation over the 5
years, 1972-1976. Load and performance have been quite steady over that
period.
-------
40
IEPPE.
OPERATION AT E
\L-INOR, IN
E CITY
ZM £
KJ oi x
P- Ed H
CC 1-1
O H S
Z
M « H
Z 00 U
o; PS < i
& C CS
M H H
< Z
Ed K O
O W U
gp.i
0 0
.J Z j
to H M
i z H !
3 P- Ed
Ed >- O !
OS M ;
O W W
p^ £ri
vD < H
1 — . p_,
O"N Ed fo
iH oi o
IX
o z z
EK O Ed
OS < iJ
co H fc
1
•— 1
Ed
CQ
H
fO
o
H
1
U
01
4)
i
-C
c
E
£
C.
0-
I/*
^
c
-
r
.
c.
r
1
IV
u.
c
o
0
m
O
o
tn
(SJ
X
m
X
g
OC
c
c
o-
(—1
X
o
X
-J
0-
OC
X
c
c
o*
X
™
X
oc
c
in
c
in
*
(SI
X
o
c
I
to oi
oi v a
k. 3 TH
(8 <*
1
0
(SI
g
in
I
c
£
c
c
c
c
O"
c
1
u-
g
.
s
o
o
V
a
a.
01
o
01
01
3
z
o o
tn in
OO sO
(M
O 0
in oo
(SI
g 0
o c
(SI
C C
c c
c
c -
r-i
C C
C tsi
(SJ
C O
_ —
r-j
C C
5 i
X -J
P*J
c c
in c
.
O O
C O
(S|
0>
i 5
i i
1 «
S §
0 00
-T »9
rt *H
O O
in o
PM
o o
c ^
c c
c c
c c
c c
c c
(Si fl
(SJ —
c c
c c
c c
c c
f-1 —
c c
c c
c c
c c
vC O"
(SI
C 0
*
g g
(SI -H
X ^t
c -*
oe -^
£ £
o
m
o
g
g
c
c
c
^
c
c
ff
c
—
in
c
c
.
o
£
B
3
fl)
g 8
tn
I I
00
m
c o
iT 00
g 1
(SI
o c
X C
X
c c
u-
r-j
c c
c c
£ <-
c c
EC
c
^s
c • o
C in
c o
0 0
Bourgay
•nercial 156.
3 0
•0 U
a k.
s s
U 9
* 3
§
oo
CM
o
m.
(SI
O
O
m
X
|
sC
c
c
c
c
c
X
j£
C
c
^
^.
X
o
5
-
(S|
§
-"
P
^
§
tn
O
m
C
a-
in
C
y.
C
(-«
s
o
s
01
oc
"*•
V C
OC b
n «
1*4 "W
o e
«*
5S
O U
> a
o
in
s
in
8
sC
C
C
-3-
a-
in
C
C
X
m
C
c
sC
X
c
in
C
in
C
X
X
X
in
C*
i/-
c
in
(SI
3-
O
.
m
0
»n
i
^
a*
c
u
o
c
o
^
o
hi
a.
S 4 r*j (si
ff* tf- *NJ PM
tO P*4 r^] ^
in
C -4 -4 m
-j m rw in
O*
in
C »• r-. X
^
C C C C
m
in
C f — c ;
t
c c —, —
5 3 S !
- |j
r
X
e * — ' x '
X ~ ^7 , |
^n
i
1
g S S £
.
in
§•— m %c
a> o oc
3 - - C
« . «*- C 0> Oi U.
U tJ O O U U
1 1 ,r s g «
0 « •* 1- 3 3 O
0< C b Oi U* b. H>
U U A* O
-------
41
03
O H
W M
< ^
P-. H
W O
pi <;
PL, cc
H
2 2
O O
M CJ
H
2J 2
E3 M
pa H
2 ^3
fa1
CL,
• 0
vO
1^ ctf
i-t W
3^
o
pn fj_,
o
PrS H
< 2
S W
£ s
CO ,J
H fa
^ tr
i-J fa
OH
2
W
H -
< Pi
5 O
W 2
H M
CO 1
< HJ
U H
W M M
PH S O
WWW
M a as
O H H
•
1
0
i-H
hJ
PQ
H
<
4J
O
H
u
01
o
o
0
4J
ex
0)
00
,_<
3 .
^
01
C
3
flj
!_,
CX
.
X
JD
01
c
fl
o
.
o
^
o
o
00
rH
O
CO
es*
esi
m
rH
o
tsi
rH
O
*n
g"
rH
O
esi
"*.
rn
o
vO
.
o
rH
O
m
m
rH
o
v£
^
rH
O
eN
m
»
en
-1
o
CO
GO
rH
0
vO*
*n
rH
O
^
S
m
e
.
*s
n;
01
u
to
£
4J
CO
to
o
o
^
m
o
m
m
0
m
rH
O
^o
'*
m
en
m
»j
en
O
ON
en
m
en
m
<^-
m
o
2
m
e
-
0)
o
3 '-s
O cy
^ u
0. CO
0)
OCt^°
T3 es
rH
n *
X
ts o
o> u
u a
n a
a> a
do ^^
•H
o
00
*
in
rH
CO
rH
m
rH
rH
rH
00
rH
rH
\D
rH
ON
e>*
rH
4
*"*
rH
ON
en
rH
m
en
in
rH
O
CO
rH
5
ON
m
rH
in
esj
ON
m"
rH
m
'""„
rH
rH
,^
z?
e
i*
• in
01
o •
s x
C >H
I. CX
a ex
a
tn *-*
5,
o
o
m
r*
in
in
^
m
m
fN»
m
m
m
r*^
m
r-*
1C
m
in
00
T3
n
3
01
C
T-4
W
O
1— 1
6
8
.
OO
in
m
o
o
m
r^T
•*
o
o
00
-T
8
eN
O
O
^
00
O
0
ao
rH
"*
O
o
m
rH
o
o
*°.
r-j
"*
O
O
en
5
o
o
r-*
in
O
o
rH
oT
-3-
8
^
5
g
Jtf
«
"S
1
C
O
u
•H
U
•H
4J
u
4)
-------
06
O
CO •
H Q
,-J H
» -J
co
w •
Pi HJ
hJ
O O
Z 02
M
H Z
U
(X >->
O CO
U
OS H
O 06
H 3
O
<
06
W
z
Z ON
W CM
co rs.
S3 ON
En ^H
W
OS I
_3 W
< 0,
gO,
W
Z M
< Q
I
O
,-J
CQ
VO
r^
ON
m
rs.
ON
rH
S3-
P-*
ON
CO
r^
r-H
CM
r-^
ON
[
00 ON
CM >3-
-3- i-H
vO r-s
rH
vO 00
-3- ON
s3- CM
oo rs.
rH
in ON
oo in
""I '"I
ON r-.
rH
m m
OO vO
OO CM
00 rs
i— i
rH CM
CTN ^^
CM r-s
rs vO
rH
cn co
0> Ol
C C
C C
o o
11 1 J
CO
s^
rH
U-l
•o
C C
o to
•H
4-1 l-l
CO 01 Ol
3 01 ^
f, 3 C
E «H -n
O 0) iH
uoi u
ON
^
ON
ON
CM
f^.
CO
f>s
oo
^
.^
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
CM CO
CO
^4
3
O
M
c
•H
4J
CO
IH
0)
a,
o
in
CM
CO
CO
CO
oo
0
«3*
rH
oo
CM
CO
CO
CM
•sT^
CO
_£
rH
Ol
O
c
•3
CO
in
rH
CO
CO
s3-
CO
,3*
CO
m
CO
CO
m
OO
°\.
CO
J.
CM
01
o
CO
)H
2
b
,_,
f-l
Is-
oo
rH
ao
ON
r^
f~s
co
CO
r-.
£
*L
O
O
O
rH
X
c
o
•H
4J
CX
E
3
CO
c
0
o
^
01
^
o
a,
in
oo
CO
CM
vO
CM
-sT
CM
i— 1
»^-
CM
CM
4J
^
^t
•^
(_l
01
4-1
cfl
^
rH
CO
4J
O
H
vO
^^
CM
CO
m
rH
-3-
s»
rH
in
ao
r^
m
co
vO
00
ON
CM
CO
^J
CO
E
^1
0)
to
^
^
4J
•H
U
O
in
rH
-st
f"**
O
CM
OO
m
oo
O
ON
CO
rH
i-H
O
o
CM
OO
ON
oo
CO
E
IH
0)
4-1
CO
^
iH
CO
•H
l-l
4-1
CO
s
•a
c
M
vO
00
^
«^-
^
-»
fsl
*^-
ON
rH
rs
in
in
^*
m
4-1
CO
E
Ol
CO
3
UH
Ol
06
4-1
C
O
iH
4J
fNt
0
3
co
C
0
u
IH
ai
4-1
CO
3
rH
•
i-H CM
*
Xt vO
CM
i-H >>
T4
rH rH
3 Ou
e -H
1 t
CO rH
C 3
0 E
[ i
CO
•u C
l-i 0
0 rH
.C rH
CO CO
oo
o
4J O
co
01 co
C l-i
c at
o w
4-1 01
E
0
iH O
l-l -H
•U .C
0) 3
B o
4-1 4-1
V-< IH
0) Ol
^ ^
C C
0 0
a o
0 O
H H
• •
-------
POLLUTION CONTROL ASSESSMENT
The Dieppe and Deauville plants meet the French emission limits
for particulates which are on a sliding scale as follows:
Each
Furnace
Capacity,
tons/hr
Less than 1
1-4
1-7
Above 7
Particulate Emission,
at 7% CO2
mg/Nm
1,000
600
250
150
lb/1000 Ib gas
0.83
0.50
0.21
0.12
A plant operating at less than 100 tonnes/day must record only
opacity. Above 100 tonnes, CO, CO , and 0- must be recorded.
Compliance is established by an initial test by organizations
licensed to do testing. Such groups are Apave, Socotec, or CHERCHAR, the
research branch of Charbonnage de France (the French Bureau of Mines). In
addition, there is an annual plant inspection including examination of
clinker quality and stack opacity records. At Dieppe, the opacity meter
was made by Mobray.
Any wastewater from the refuse plant is sent to the adjacent
sewage treatment plant. The grate residue goes to a regularly covered
landfill. There is no leachate control.
There is no French regulation on plant noise. Some local areas
have regulations. Dieppe has none.
Both plants are in industrial areas but are also near some
residences. Figure 10-12 shows some nearby residences viewed from the roof
of the Dieppe plant. Figure 10-13 shows neighboring residences viewed
-------
44
3s e>c
u o
hH 4J
> O
.c
W PL,
Q
H 4-1
C cc
O v^
0 H
Z 2
W
< Pu
>J U3
< M
M Q
H
2 PH
W C
co o
W O
I
O
-------
45
W
o
z
cfl
S-i
U 4-1
CD O
OS j=
35 0)
O a;
Pi 4-1
35 4J
H J
OH
W
w w
u ,J
Z ,-J
W M
Q >
M t>
CO <
w w
Pi Q
I
O
w
pi
O
-------
46
through the truck entrance of the Deauville plant. At Deauville, some
noise complaints were raised; hence, a silencer was added to the top of
the chimney although the noise 100 m (328 ft) from the plant was said to
measure only 40 dB.
-------
47
PERSONNEL AND MANAGEMENT
M. Jean Fossey, Dieppe Plant Manager, is an employee of INOR S.
A. (Societe de construction d'usines, pour 1'incineration des ordures
menageres)(Firm for Construction of Facilities for the Incineration of
Community Refuse), the Paris industrial organization which built and,
along with Thermical, operates the plant for the city of Dieppe.
M. Fossey had experience in the merchant marine. His assistant
manager has pressure vessel experience and can also serve as a mechanic
and welder. They direct the work of 14 other staff as follows:
• Three control room and crane operators*
• Three furnace room operators*
• One electrician*
• One scale operator*
• One mechanic*
• One assistant mechanic
• Two aides (for cleaning and housekeeping)
• One driver (loads and hauls clinker)
• One wastewater plant operator
• Three furnace room operators.
Originally, the workweek was 48 hours. Now it is 42. There are
usually six men on a shift. French law requires that wherever high
pressure steam is used, at least two men must be on duty.
The total annual staff cost in 1976 was about 850,000 FFr
($178,500 § 4.76 FFr/$). To this must be added social benefit costs which
total about 50 to 55 percent.
* Can also serve as shift foreman.
-------
48
ECONOMICS
Capital Investment
The general contract in 1969 for building the refuse plant
structure without equipment or land was for 1,532,771 FFr ($294,764 § 5.20
FFr/$). The installed equipment raised the total refuse plant cost
including the sludge dryers to 6,400,000 FFr ($1,230,769 § 5.20 FFr/$).
From the time the tender was made in 1969 until the plant was
commissioned in 1970, the final price was up about 16 to 18 percent
because of inflation.
In Reference 2, M. Marchand reported that the wastewater
treatment plant cost 4,980,000 FFr ($957,692). The total cost? of
11,380,000 FFr ($2,188,462) was financed in 1970 as follows:
Dollars S
French Francs 5.2 FFr/$
State 30-Year Debentures 2,170,000 417,308
Federal Grants 3,202,528 615,871
Borrowed From National 5,000,000 961,538
"Caisse des Depots"
Dieppe Tax Reserve 1,000,000 192,308
TOTAL 11,372,528 2,187,025
The loan from Caisse des Depots was a 30-year loan at 4.5 percent.
In 1971, additional purchases were made of a'second crane, weigh
station, furniture, ash truck, refuse containers,and workshop and tools
for about 700-800,00(5 FFr. This money was advanced by INOR to be paid back
over 20 years at an annual charge for principal and interest of 75,873 FFr
($14,591).
-------
49
Operating Costs
The annual operating costs for 1976 to process 14,891 tonnes
(16,381 to-.j; of refuse were as follows (in terms of 1976 currency):
Payments to INOR to amortize 1971 loan
Fixed operating allowance
Proportional operating allowance up to
1,400 tonnes
Operating allowance for additional 892
tonnes
Fixed maintenance allowance
Variable maintenance allowance up to
14,000 tonnes
Maintenance allowance for additional 892
tonnes
SUBTOTAL*
Value added top of 17.6 percent
TOTAL
French
Francs
75,873
600,157
282,664
41,186
123,104
44,979
5.041
1,173,004
193.095
1,290,226
Cost in $
4.76 FFr/$
15,933
126,033
59,359
8,649
25,852
9,446
1.059
246,331
40,550
270,948
For 1976, this total operating cost was 86.64 FFr/tonne ($18.19 §
4.76 FFr/$). This is higher than the original charge, 53 FFr/tdnne because
of inflation over the past 6 years.
For operation of the wastewater treatment plant, the city
originally paid 0.24 FFr/m . At present, it pays Thermical-INOR 0.3189
FFr/m3 ($0.184/1,000 gal). For the 1,740,190 m3 treated in 1976, this came
-------
50
to 554,9^6.6 FFr ($116,539 § 4.76 FFr/$). Thus, the operation of the total
complex cost the city 1,845,189.4 FFr ($387,490 § 4.76 FFR/$) in 1976. A
city tax is adjusted to pay these costs. The participating towns pay
Dieppe in proportion to the amount of waste handled.
Revenue
Private haulers pay 110 FFr/tonne ($19.09/ton) to Thermical-INOR
to deliver refuse to the plant. Of this tipping fee, 8 FFr are then paid
by Thermical-INOR to the city.
-------
51
REFERENCES
(1) Krings, J., French experience with facilities for combined
processing of municipal refuse and sludge, Proceedings,
CRE-Conference on Conversion of Refuse to Energy, Montreaux,
Switzerland, November 3-5, 1975-
(2) Marchand, A., Boues d'egout + ordures = machefers (sludge plus
refuse equals clinkers), Reprinted by Von Roll AtJ, Zurich, From
T.S.M. - L'Eau, October, 1972, pp 381-391-
(3) Eberhardt, H., European practice in refuse and sewage sludge
disposal by incineration, Proceedings, 1966 National Incinerator
Conference, ASME, New York, May, 1966, pp 12H-143.
-------
TABLE . EXCHANGE RATES FOR SIX EUROPEAN COUNTRIES,
(NATIONAL MONETARY UNIT PER U.S. DOLLAR)
1948 TO FEBRUARY, 1978(a)
1943
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1955
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1963
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978 (Feb.)
Denmark
Kroner
(D.Kr.)
4.810
6.920
6.920
6.920
6.920
6.920
6.914
6.914
6.914
6.914
6.906
6.908
6.906
6.886
6.902
6.911
6.921
6.891
6.916
7.462
7.501
7.492
7.489
7.062
6.843
6.290
5.650
6.178
5.788
5.778
5.580
France
Francs
(F.Fr.)
2.662
3.490
3.499
3.500
3.500
3.500
3.500
3.500
3.500
4.199
4.906
4.909
4.903
4.900
4.900
4.902
4.900
4.902
4.952
4.908
4.948
5.558
5.520
5.224
5.125
4.708
4.444
4.486
4.970
4.705
4.766
W. Germany
Deutsch Mark
(D.M.)
3.333
4.200
4.200
4.200
«.200
4.200
4.200
4.215
4.199
4.202
4.178
4.170
4.171
3.996
3.998
3.975
3.977
4.006
3.977
3.999
4.000
3.690
3.648
3.268
3.202
2.703
2.410
2.622
2.363
2.105
2.036
Netherlands
Guilders
(Gl.)
2.653
3.800
3.800
3.800
3.800
3.786
3.794
3.829
3.830
3.791
3.775
3.770
3.770
3.600
3.600
3.600
3.592
3.611
3.614
3.596
3.606
3.624
3.597
3.254
3.226
2.824
2.507
2.689
2.457
2.280
2.176
Sweden
Kroner
(S.Kr.)
3.600
5.180
5.180
5.130
5.180
5.180
5.180
5.180
5.180
5.173
5.173
5.181
5.180
5.185
5.1S6
5.200
5..L48
5. 180
4.180
5.165
5.180
5.170
5.170
4.858
4.743
4.588
4.081
4 . 386
'4.127
4.670
4.615
Switzerland
Francs
(S.Fr.)
4.315
4.300
4.289
4.369
4.285
4.288
4.285
4.285
4.285
4.285
4.303
4.323
4.305
4.316
4.319
4.315
4.315
4.318
4.327
4.325
4.302
4,318
4,316
3.915
3.774
3.244
2.540
2.620
2.45.1
2.010
1.987
(a) Exchange Rate at end of period.
Line "ae" Market Rate/Par or Central Rate.
Source: International Financial Statistics: 1972 Supplement; April, 1978, Volume
XXXI, No. 4, Published by the International Monetary Fund.
ft US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1979 -620-007/6308
yo 1828k
------- |