United States Off ic e of Water & SW177c
Environmental Protection Wastt1 Management November 1979
Agency Washington DC 20460
Solid Waste
v>EPA Small Modular Incinerator
Systems with Heat Recovery
A Technical, Environmental, and
Economic Evaluation
-------
Prepublication issue for EPA libraries
and State Solid Waste Management Agencies
SMALL MODULAR INCINERATOR SYSTEMS WITH HEAT RECOVERY
A Technical, Environmental, and Economic Evaluation
This report (SW-l?7c) describee work performed
for the Office of Solid Waste under contract no. 68-01-3889
and is reproduced as received from the contractor.
The findings should be attributed to the contractor
and not to the Office of Solid Waste.
Copies will be available from the
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, VA 22161
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1979
-------
This report was prepared by Systems Technology Corporation, Xenia.Ohio under
contract no. 68-01-3889.
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-177c) in the solid waste
management series.
-------
FOREWORD
This report is a technical, environmental, and economic evaluation of
two small modular incineration-heat recovery facilities: one in the plant of
the Truck Axle Division of Rockwell International Corporation in Marysville,
Ohio, and the other in the Municipal North Shore Energy Plant in North Little
Rock, Arkansas. The evaluation program was sponsored and directed by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California State Solid Waste
Management Board and was conducted under EPA Contract No. 68-01-3889 by
Systems Technology Corporation (SYSTECH), Xenia, Ohio. The report was prepared
by Richard Frounfelker, Staff Engineer of SYSTECH, for submittal to EPA.
The report explains the controlled air concept of the modern two-chamber
incinerator, chronicles its development and application, and summarizes
currently available systems for small-scale usage. Then the report details
each of two facilities selected for the evaluation and presents the technical,
environmental, and economic evaluation for each facility. In addition, the
report projects the operating costs for the two facilities under optimum
operating conditions and for municipal and industrial facilities in general.
Since the two evaluated facilities operate under different conditions
with one burning municipal waste and the other industrial waste, they were
not compared. Moreover, the reader is cautioned not to draw comparative
conclusions.
111
-------
ABSTRACT
This program involved a technical, environmental, and economic assess-
ment of the feasibility of utilizing small modular incinerator systems for
solid waste disposal in municipal and industrial applications. The assess-
ment was implemented by (1) overviewing the state-of-the-art, (2) selecting
two operational sites (one municipal and one industrial) representative of
the state-of-the-art, and (3) subjecting these two sites to a rigorous field
evaluation. The two facilities selected for this study were a municipal
incinerator plant with a Consumat system in North Little Rock, Arkansas, and
an industrial incinerator facility with a Kelley system in the plant of the
Truck Axle Division of the Rockwell International Corporation in Marysville,
Ohio. This selection was the result of a nationwide survey to find those
two facilities which best satisfied several criteria. The principal selec-
tion requirements were a solid waste processing module with heat recovery
and a capacity of 50 tons or less per day and its being representative of
current technology, designs, and operational procedures.
Preparatory to the detailed description and evaluation of the two
facilities, the report explains the controlled air concept of the two-
chamber incinerator and briefly discribes its development and application.
In addition, as a technical guide for the review and selection of currently
available systems, the report details, according to available information,
the 17 sources whose modular incinerators represent state-of-the-art
technologies.
The technical evaluation presents the results of three weekly field
tests at each site. The data was used to calculate the following for each
system: the mass balance, the incinerator efficiency, the energy balance,
the heat recovery efficiency, and the overall effectiveness of the system as
a solid waste disposal facility.
The environmental evaluation presents the effects of the incinerator-
heat recovery operation on the environment, specifically the atmosphere, the
discharged process water, the landfills for refuse disposal, and the plant
areas. An EPA Level One assessment presents a detailed analysis of the
emissions.
The economic evaluation presents a detailed accounting of facility
(1) capital costs, (2) operating and maintenance costs, (3) revenues, and
(4) net operating costs.
Since the two systems differ in many respects and operate on dissimilar
waste streams, they are not compared.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract Number 68-01-3889
by Systems Technology Corporation under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. This report covers the period October 1977 to
March 1979.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword iii
Abstract iv
Figures viii
Tables xiii
List of Special Abbreviations xviii
Acknowledgment Xlx
1. Introduction and Summary 1
Program objective, background, and scope 1
Current modular incinerator technology 2
Concept 2
Current systems 2
Summary of selected systems 3
Technical capabilities 3
Environmental acceptability 4
Economic effectiveness 4
2. The Small Modular Incinerator 6
Controlled air incineration 6
Introduction 6
Feeding mechanism 7
Primary chamber 8
Secondary chamber 9
Temperature control 9
Residue removal 10
Energy recovery 10
Waste consumption 10
Stack emissions 11
History of controlled air incineration 11
Introduction 11
Design evaluation 13
Current small modular incinerator systems 14
Basic Environmental Engineering, Inc 14
Burn-Zol 17
C.E. Bartlett Snow 17
Clear air 18
Comptro 18
Consumat 19
Econo-Therm 19
Environmental Control Products 20
Environmental Services Corporation 21
Giery (Pyro-Cone) 21
Kelley 22
Lamb-Cargate, Industries Limited 22
Morse Boulger 23
Scientific Energy Engineering 24
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Simonds Company 25
U.S. Smelting Furnace Company 25
Wasburn and Granger 26
Summary 26
3. Site Selection and Test Methodology 32
Site selection 32
Technical evaluation 34
Environmental evaluation 35
Introduction 35
Affected environments 35
EPA Level One type of analysis 39
Economic evaluation 42
4. Overview of Facilities and Their Evaluations 44
North Little Rock facility 45
Description 45
Operation 58
Site preparation for testing 62
Refuse characterizing •. . . . -67
Residue characterizing 75
System mass balance 80
Energy balance 83
Combustion efficiency 84
Energy recovered 85
System effectiveness 88
Environmental analysis 93
EPA Level One analysis 104
Economic evaluation 110
Marysville facility 121
Description 121
Operation 130
Site preparation for testing 136
Refuse characterizing 138
Residue characterizing 142
System mass balance 143
Energy balance 146
Combustion efficiency 147
Energy recovered 148
System effectiveness 150
Environmental analysis 154
EPA Level One analysis 160
Economic evaluation 166
5. Operating Cost Projections 175
Introduction 175
Projected optimum annual operating costs
for plants evaluated 175
North Little Rock facility 175
Marysville facility ... 177
VI
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Projected annual operating costs for
municipal and industrial plants in general 178
Capital cost 179
Operation and maintenance costs 180
Revenues 184
Net cost of operation 184
Effect of operation variables 185
Appendices
A. Detailed Test Results 191
B. Calculations 236
vii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Operational ranges (stoichiometric air percentage and
temperature) for controlled air incinerators 8
2 Configuration of two horizontal cylindrical chambers
with one above the other 27
3 Configuration of two horizontal rectangular chambers
with one above the other 27
4 Configuration of Burn-Zol's two vertical cylindrical
chambers with one above the other 28
5 Configuration of Lamb-Cargate's two vertical cylindrical
chambers with one above the other 29
6 Configuration of Scientific Energy Engineering's
incinerator with an auger in the primary chamber 30
7 Configuration of Giery's incinerator with a rotary
grate in the primary chamber 30
8 Configuration of C. E. Bartlett's incinerator with
a rotary primary chamber 31
9 Configuration of Clear Air's incinerator-heat
recovery system with two horizontal rectangular
chambers aligned one after the other 31
10 Schematic of modified Method 5 gas train 37
11 Schematic of seven-stage cascade impactor 38
12 View of ambient air sorbent trap assembly 41
13 Sketch of stack sorbent trap assembly 42
14 Vicinity map of North Little Rock facility 45
15 Plant layout of North Little Rock facility 46
16 Three--dimensional drawing of incineration-heat recovery
module in North Little Rock facility 48
viii
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
17 Display panel for refuse loading instructions in
North Little Rock facility 49
18 Cross section of incinerator module in
North Little Rock facility 50
19 Side view of west-end combustion chambers with fan
and burner for primary chamber indicated 51
20 Two combustion air fans for each secondary chamber 53
21 View showing tee section at base of dump stack,
connecting secondary chamber breeches, control
panel, and loading platform 54
22 View of dump stack beside steam drum with
pneumatically closed dump cap indicated 54
23 Boiler tube soot-blowing assembly 55
24 View of steam drum with water level control and
pressure gage indicated 56
25 View of automatic residue removal system with
conveyor, movable dump chute, and residue removal
container indicated 57
26 Residue removal conveyor 58
27 Flow diagram of incineration-heat recovery processes
in North Little Rock facility 59
28 West-end view of tipping floor with loading display
panel in background 59
29 View of tee section and boiler with aspirator control
null switch and monitoring thermocouple indicated .... 61
30 View showing aspirator section at right with access
door and exiting gas sampling port indicated 63
31 View inside structure to sample boiler stack emissions
above the aspirator section. Five sampling ports
are visible 63
32 North view of North Little Rock facility showing
testing structure on roof and around boiler stack
of west-end module 64
ix
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
33 View inside SYSTECH mobile laboratory showing some
of the continuous gaseous emission monitoring equipment . . 64
34 Main electrical panel view showing thermocouple
connections and electrical timers 65
35 Locations of data collection points in west-end module
of North Little Rock facility 66
36 Mass balance for incineration-heat recovery processes in
North Little Rock facility during the 118.5-hour
October field test 81
37 Water balance for incineration-heat recovery processes
in North Little Rock facility during the 118.5-hour
October field test 82
38 Energy balance for incineration-heat recovery processes
in North Little Rock facility during the 118.5-hour
October field test 84
39 Steam output versus steam drum boiler pressure in
North Little Rock facility 86
40 System temperature versus loading sizes and events in
North Little Rock facility 91
41 Stack emissions during heavy and light loading periods
in North Little Rock facility 92
42 Particulate size distribution of stack emissions at
North Little Rock facility 97
43 In-plant noise-level plot for North Little Rock facility . . . 103
44 Outside-plant noise-level plot for North Little
Rock facility 104
45 Vicinity map of Marysville (Rockwell International)
facility 121
46 Plant layout of Marysville facility .... 122
47 Functional schematic of incineration-heat recovery
processes in Marysville facility 123
48 View of refuse loading system with fire door, hopper,
and hinged hopper door indicated 124
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
49 Three-dimensional, cutaway drawing of incinerator
module in Marysville facility 125
50 View showing one of the two spray nozzles installed
in ceiling of primary chamber to cool excessively
hot combustion gases 126
51 Side view of combustion chambers showing at left the
original automatic, residue removal system 128
52 Side view of hot water boiler with thermocouple in
boiler entrance duct indicated 129
53 View showing induced draft fan and thermocouple for
boiler exit gas temperature 130
54 Flow diagram of incineration-heat recovery processes
in Marysville facility 131
55 Fork-lift vehicle with refuse load beside refuse hopper . . . 132
56 View showing manual removal of bulky objects on fork-lift
vehicle for their placement in refuse hopper 132
57 Control panel for automatic cycling of incinerator
operations 133
58 Rear view of primary chamber with fire door and ram
face indicated 135
59 View of temporary scaffolding and platform for
stack emission testing 136
60 View of SYSTECH mobile trailer beside facility
housing and combustion chambers 137
61 View of boiler water lines with inlet and outlet
thermocouples and Btu flow meter indicated 137
62 Locations of data collection points in Marysville facility . . 138
63 Mass balance for incineration-heat recovery processes
in Marysville facility during the 120-hour (75.5-hour
heat recovery) July field test 144
64 Water balance for incineration-heat recovery processes
in Marysville facility during the 120-hour (75.5-hour
heat recovery) July field test 145
xi
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
65 Energy balance for incineration-heat recovery processes
in Marysville facility during the 120-hour (75.5-hour
heat recovery) July field test 147
66 System temperatures during peak loading periods in
Marysville facility 152
67 Stack emissions during peak loading periods in
Marysville facility 153
68 Temperature of combustion chamber during burndown
periods in Marysville facility 154
69 Carbon dioxide emissions during burndown periods in
Marysville facility 155
70 Particulate size distribution of stack emissions
at Marysville 159
71 In-plant noise-level plot for Marysville facility 161
72 Capital cost of small modular incinerators as a
function of rated capacity 179
73 Estimated net annual operating cost as a function of
operating percentage of rated capacity for municipal
small modular incinerators 186
74 Estimated net annual operating cost as a function of refuse
feed rate, shifts per week, and operating percentage of
rated capacity for municipal small modular incinerators . . 187
75 Estimated net annual operating cost as a function of
operating percentage of rated capacity for industrial
small modular incinerators 189
76 Estimated net annual operating cost as a function of refuse
feed rate, shifts per week, and operating percentage of
rated capacity for industrial small modular incinerators . . 190
xn
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Manufacturers of Modular Incinerators 15
2 Addresses and Telephone Numbers of Modular Incinerator
Manufacturers 16
3 Environmental Elements Sampled with Sampler and
Analysis Type for Each 36
4 North Little Rock Weekly Refuse Composition for March,
May, and October Tests 68
5 North Little Rock Weekly Refuse Moisture Content
for May and October Tests 69
6 North Little Rock Daily Refuse Composition for
October Tests 70
7 North Little Rock Daily Refuse Bulk Densities
for October Tests 71
8 North Little Rock Refuse Category Ultimate Analysis
for October Tests 72
9 North Little Rock Daily Refuse Category Heating Values
for October Tests 73
10 North Little Rock Refuse Category Energy Values
for October Tests 74
11 North Little Rock Daily Refuse Burning Rates for
October Tests 75
12 North Little Rock Weekly As-Received Residue
Characteristics for March, May, and October Tests .... 76
13 North Little Rock Daily Residue Generation Rates
for October Tests 77
14 North Little Rock Daily Residue Size Distributions
for March, May, and October Tests 78
Kill
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number ' Page
15 North Little Rock Daily Residue Composition for
March, May, and October Tests 79
16 North Little Rock Daily Residue Proximate Analysis
(Dry Basis) for October Tests 80
17 North Little Rock Combustion Products Balance
for October Tests 83
18 North Little Rock Monthly Total Plant Refuse
Feed Rates 89
19 North Little Rock Boiler Tube Fin Measurements
for Erosion Determination 92
20 North Little Rock Stack Emission Concentrations
for October Tests 94
21 North Little Rock Summary of Stack Emissions for
March, May, and October Tests 95
22 North Little Rock Pollutant Emission Rates for
October Tests 96
23 North Little Rock Total Emission Concentrations
for October Tests 96
24 North Little Rock Weekly Wash Water Pollutant Parameter
Values for March, May, and October Tests 99
25 North Little Rock Tipping Floor Water Pollutant
Parameter Values (5/25 Test) 100
26 North Little Rock Daily Fugitive Air Microbiological
Concentrations for March, May, and October Tests .... 101
27 North Little Rock Daily In-Plant Fugitive Dust
Concentrations for March, May, and October Tests .... 102
28 North Little Rock Tipping Floor Water Microbiological
Concentrations for March, May, and October Tests .... 105
29 North Little Rock Residue Component Concentrations .... 106
30 North Little Rock Residue Leachate Parameter and
Component Values 107
xiv
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Fa§e
31 North Little Rock Ambient Air Particulate
Size Distributions 108
32 North Little Rock Summary of Elements Detected
in EPA Level One Analysis 109
33 North Little Rock Summary of Elements Detected
in Stack Emission Filters 110
34 North Little Rock Actual Capital Costs 112
35 North Little Rock Capital Cost Allocations by
Cost Center 113
36 Cost, Cost Centers, and Estimated Useful Life for
Each Major Equipment Item in North Little
Rock Facility 114
37 North Little Rock Operating Parameter Values for
Cost Centers 115
38 North Little Rock Actual Annual Operating and
Maintenance Costs for Cost Centers 116
39 North Little Rock Projected Operating and
Maintenance Costs 117
40 North Little Rock Unit Cost Data 118
41 North Little Rock Annual Fixed and Variable Operating
and Maintenance Costs 119
42 North Little Rock Projected Annual Revenues 120
43 North Little Rock Projected Annual Net Operating Costs . . 120
44 Marysville Weekly Refuse Composition for April,
July, and August Tests 139
45 Marysville Weekly Moisture Content for April,
July, and August Tests 140
46 Marysville Daily Refuse Category Heating Values
for August Tests 141
47 Marysville Refuse Element Ultimate Analysis
for July Tests 142
xv
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
48 Marysville Weekly Residue Characteristics for
April, July, and August Tests 142
49 Marysville Residue Proximate Analysis for
August Tests 143
50 Marysville Combustion Products Balance for July Tests . . . 146
51 Marysville Daily Refuse Feed Rates for April, July,
and August Tests 151
52 Marysville Summary of Stack Emissions for July Tests . . . 157
53 Marysville Summary of Stack Emissions for April,
July, and August Tests 158
54 Marysville Emission Rates for July Tests 159
55 Marysville Daily In-Plant Fugitive Dust Concentrations
for July and August Tests 160
56 Marysville Residue Element Concentrations 163
57 Marysville Residue Leachate Parameter and
Component Values 164
58 Marysville Ambient Air Particulate Size Distributions . . . 165
59 Marysville Summary of Elements Detected in EPA
Level 1 Analysis 167
60 Marysville Summary of Elements Detected in
Stack Emission Filters 168
61 Marysville Capital Costs 169
62 Marysville Capital Cost Allocations by Cost Center .... 169
63 Cost, Cost Center, and Estimated Useful Life for
Each Major Equipment Item in Marysville Facility .... 170
64 Marysville Operating Parameter Values for Cost Centers . . 172
65 Marysville Unit Cost Data 172
66 Marysville Projected Annual Operating and Maintenance
Costs per Cost Center 173
xv i
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Page
67 Marysville Annual Fixed and Variable Operating
and Maintenance Costs 173
68 Marysville Net Operating Cost by System Function 174
69 North Little Rock Projected Optimum Operating
and Maintenance Costs 176
70 North Little Rock Projected Optimum Revenues 176
71 North Little Rock Projected Optimum Net Operation Costs . . 177
72 Marysville Projected Optimum Operating and
Maintenance Costs 178
73 Marysville Projected Optimum Net Operation Costs 178
xvii
-------
LIST OF SPECIAL ABBR"' TIONS
ABBREVIATIONS
ACFM
BOD
COD
dB
gr/DSCF
g/SCM
GJ
gpm
k£
MBtu
MCF
MgPD
MJ
SCFM
ORP
TDS
TOG
TPD
TS
TSI
actual cubic feet per minute
biochemical oxygen demand
chemical oxygen demand
decibles re 20 viN/m2
grains per dry standard cubic foot
grams per standard cubic meter
giga joule (10" joules)
gallons per minute
kilo liter (1000 liters)
liter per minute
million British thermal units
thousand cubic feet
megagrams per day
mega joules
standard cubic feet per minute
ortho-phosphate
total dissolved solids
total organic carbon
tons per day
total solids
Theta Sensors Incorporated
xvm
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This evaluation program was performed under EPA Contract No. 68-01-3889,
"Technical and Economic Evaluation of Small Modular Incinerator Systems with
Heat Recovery."
The EPA project officer was David B. Sussman of the Office of Solid
Waste, Washington, D.C. The coordinator for the California State Solid
Waste Management Board was Robert Harper, Waste Management Engineer.
On behalf of Systems Technology Corporation, the author is pleased to
acknowledge the guidance and support of David B. Sussman and Robert Harper
and the cooperation of the plant engineers and staff members and the manu-
facturer representatives who generously assisted with the testing at the
Rockwell International Corporation facility in Marysville, Ohio, and at the
North Shore Energy Plant in North Little Rock, Arkansas.
The author is also grateful to Arthur Young & Company for its collabo-
ration in the economic evaluation and to all his company colleagues who
contributed to the collection of the test data and the development of this
report. Of the latter, the author is particularly thankful to Gerald Degler,
Ned Kleinhenz, and Rick Haverland.
xix
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE, BACKGROUND, AND SCOPE
This study consisted of a technical, environmental, and economic evalua-
tion of small modular incinerator systems with the overall objective being to
determine the feasibility of their usage for solid waste disposal and heat
recovery in municipal and industrial environments. The evaluation aspects of
this report include (1) sufficient data and procedures to assess all technical,
environmental, and economic aspects of small modular incineration-heat recovery
systems; (2) a technical guide for the review and selection of currently
available systems; (3) sufficient manufacturer and field test data to apply
and/or adapt the current systems to particular needs; and (4) a data base for
the future analysis and appraisal of advanced systems.
Recent technological advances and economic arid environmental develop-
ments prompted the Office of Solid Waste Management of the Environmental
Protection Agency to initiate this study. Some of the more significant
advances are as follows: First, the incinerator manufacturers have success-
fully developed the two-chamber, controlled air incinerator for optimum
efficiency and significantly reduced particulate emissions. Second, they
have designed incinerators with integrated control systems to ensure their
economic feasibility and efficient operation. Third, the small modular
incinerator features simple and reliable operation, low maintenance costs,
and payback frequently within 3 to 4 years (primarily in an industrial
application).
Several economic and environmental factors have given added impetus to
the attractiveness of the small modular incinerator with heat recovery. For
example, municipalities are finding that such incinerators can address the
problems (1) of rising landfill costs or rapidly diminishing landfill sites,
(2) of complying with environmental pollution control regulations, and (3) of
offsetting capital costs for waste disposal equipment through the revenues of
recovered energy products and the savings of eliminated landfill expenses.
Similarly, industries are seeing the advantages of burning waste rather than
oil or gas (1) to recover the waste energy, (2) to save the expenditures for
landfill disposal, (3) to meet the threats of fuel curtailments and rising
costs, (4) to gain tax credits, and (5) to comply more readily with environmen-
tal control regulations. Furthermore, public opinion and government enactments
lend strong encouragement and support to the widespread usage of the small
modular incinerator with heat recovery because of its resource recovery and
environmental control potential.
-------
This report explains the controlled air concept of the modern two-
chamber incinerator, chronicles its development and application, and summarizes
currently available systems designed for small-scale usage. Then the report
details each of two selected small-scale facilities and presents the technical,
environmental, and economic evaluation of each, but in no way attempts to com-
pare the two different systems. Finally, the 1978 economic data of the two
evaluated facilities were adapted to estimate the operating costs at municipal
and industrial facilities in general.
The two small incinerator facilities selected for intensive evaluation
were a municipal incinerator plant in North Little Rock, Arkansas, and an
industrial incinerator in the plant of the Truck Axle Division of the Rockwell
International Corporation in Marysville, Ohio. In the selection of the two
facilities, each had to meet three criteria: (1) a capacity designed for
50 tons or less of solid waste per day; (2) its integration with heat recovery
equipment; and (3) its incorporation of the principles, designs, and operational
procedures of current technology.
CURRENT MODULAR INCINERATOR TECHNOLOGY
Concept
The modular incinerators, generally consisting of a primary and a second-
ary combustion chamber, employ controlled air techniques to reduce the amount
of air required for combustion in the primary chamber and to lower the level
of their particulate emissions. These incinerators originated in the late
1960's, and their technologies and applications expanded in the 1970's.
The name "modular" was derived from the following: (1) each unit is
identical, (2) each unit operates independently, and (3) one or more units
can be readily integrated in an existing system as the waste demand increases.
The terms "starved air," "substoichiometric," and "pyrolitic" denote the
different combustion processes in the primary chamber. Sometimes these terms
are used to denote the entire incinerator system.
Current Systems
A survey identified 16 manufacturers that produce incinerators capable of
processing 454 to 1816 kg/hr (1000 to 4000 Ib/hr) of industrial and/or munici-
pal solid waste and of recovering the heat for energy production. The primary
chambers in these incinerators operate under starved air (substoichiometric)
or excess air combustion conditions. The incinerator systems can be grouped i'u
five basic physical configurations. The la-rger systems have (1) automatic feeds
consisting of loading hoppers, conveyors, and screws; (2) loading rams, moving
grates, augers, and rotating chambers for continuous refuse flow through the
primary chamber; and (3) heat recovery systems with fire or water tube boilers
and other heat exchangers.
-------
SUMMARY OF SELECTED SYSTEMS
Technical Capabilities
P e r f o rmanc e—
At the North Little Rock municipal facility, where a Consumat incineration-
heat recovery system is operative, the Consumat module proved capable of
recovering 54 percent of the energy burned and of reducing the municipal solid
waste 55 percent by weight and 95 percent by volume. Over the past 3 years,
13 Consumat incinerators have been burning municipal waste. Four of these
incinerators are integrated with heat recovery equipment.
At the Marysville industrial facility, where a Kelley incineration-heat
recovery system is operative, the Kelley module proved capable of recovering
54 percent of the energy burned and of reducing industrial refuse 95 percent
by volume. Over the past four years, seven similar systems have been burning
industrial waste. In addition, four units are burning municipal waste but
without heat recovery.
The designs of both systems are still evolving. Each new facility
introduces technological advances based on the experience gained from the
previous installations. These technological improvements have advanced to the
stage where the systems can burn waste and produce energy with satisfactory
reliability.
Maintenance and Reliability—
The routine maintenance of both the Consumat and the Kelley systems
consists principally of small refractory repairs and replacement of thermo-
couples and other switches, door seals, and motors. The maintenance require-
ments specific to each system are the weekly removal of soot from the boiler
tubes in the Consumat system and the weekly cleaning of the induced draft fan
blades and at least the semiannual cleaning of the boiler tubes in the Kelley
system. The major maintenance requirement of both systems is the refractory
replacement in 3 to 8 years, depending on the operational mode. In addition,
because of its more extensive control system, the Consumat module requires
more maintenance on the automatic control, hydraulic, and residue removal
systems. In general, modules burning municipal waste require more maintenance
than those burning industrial refuse. In addition, more operational interrup-
tions must be anticipated when burning municipal waste because of the jams
caused by large metal objects in the waste and the greater frequency of the
above-mentioned routine maintenance. Moreover, the slag formed from the
fusion of glass and metals frequently plugs air injection ports and degrades
the refractory.
Operation—
The Consumat system with its 100-TPD capacity at the North Little Rock
facility required nine personnel: one supervisor, one clerk, one truck
driver, and two operators for each of three shifts. The Kelley system at the
Marysville facility with its capacity of 12 TPD and limited operational usage
of two shifts, 5 days per week, required only one full-time operator per
shift. As additional part-time assistance was required, it was usually supplied
by the plant maintenance staff. Neither facility required waste preprocessing,
-------
although operators at both facilities removed such materials as pipe and wire
before refuse loading and hand-loaded some materials into the incinerator
hopper to prevent jamming.
The Consumat system includes (1) a remotely controlled display panel to
instruct the loading operator on how large a load to collect and when to
deposit it into the incinerator hopper, (2) an automatically modulated air
control to maintain a desired temperature in each of the two combustion
chambers, and (3) an automatic ash removal system. The Kelley system allows
the operator to judge the size and frequency of each refusse loading. With
the airflow preset to handle a specific waste stream, only a high temperature
lockout on the Kelley system prevents extreme refuse overloading. In both
systems, overfeeding causes high temperatures in the secondary chamber,
excessive gaseous emissions, and wasted energy. On the other hand, under-
feeding reduces the system throughput rate and the resultant low chamber
temperatures may require burning auxiliary fuel. Therefore, proper feeding
o.f the incinerators to ensure proper combustion is essential for optimum
incinerator performance.
Environmental Acceptability
Emissions Compliance—
Neither facility had a high enough daily refuse consumption, i.e., over
50 tons per day per module or 250 tons per day per facility, to be considered
under the Federal standard of performance for new stationary sources or the
prevention of significant deterioration regulations. Therefore, a new source
review was not required during the preconstruction planning. Both plants
complied with their respective state-imposed emissions standards and building
permits. If either facility had more than a daily 250-ton throughput, it
would have been subject to a new source review and would have required the best
available emissions control such as an electrostatic precipitator or a fabric
filter.
At both facilities, the gaseous emissions related directly to the size
of the load fed into the incinerator. The sulfur and nitrogen oxide levels
in the stack emissions were negligible. At the North Little Rock facility,
the chloride emissions varied from 100 to 600 mg/m3. No direct relationship
was evidenced between the loading or sizing of the particulate emissions and
the modulating air supply.
EPA Level 1 Analysis—
At both facilities, 90 percent of the stack particulates were less than
7 micrometers in diameter; the stack emissions had a wide range of metals and
halogens in minute amounts; and the residue had a high pH and contained
traces of many metals such as zinc, tin, lead, and cadmium.
Economic Effectiveness
Capital Cost—
For an incinerator with heat recovery, the capital cost of refuse
processed daily was computed at $15,000 per ton (based on.1977 dollars).
-------
The relationship between the capital cost per ton and the incinerator capacity
was found to be nearly linear up to a 200-TPD capacity. A 12-TPD industrial
system would cost $220,000 to $300,000, while a 100-TPD municipal system with
a 300-meter steam/condensate return line would cost about $1,500,000 (based on
1977 dollars).
Operational Cost—
On the basis of the test data, the optimum annual operating cost (based
on 1978 dollars) of a 100-TPD municipal facility would be $370,000. With
optimum steam revenues and tipping fees of $305,000, the net annual operating
cost .of this facility would be $65,000 or $3.01/Mg ($2.72/ton) of refuse
processed. For a 12-TPD industrial facility, the optimum annual operating
cost (based on 1978 dollars) would be $117,944. Applying credits for disposal
savings and energy savings of $82,620 and $139,594, respectively, results in
a net savings of $104,270 or $31.94/Mg ($28.96/ton) of refuse processed. The
facility finances are highly sensitive to the refuse processing rate, the
operating time, and the steam sales price.
-------
SECTION 2
THE SMALL MODULAR INCINERATOR
CONTROLLED AIR INCINERATION
Introduction
During the 1960's virtually all operational incinerators were still
uncontrolled air units. To ensure a high degree of combustion in these
incinerators, air was supplied in fixed amounts with a volume considerably
more than that required for stoichiometric combustion. The conventional
grate incinerators also required large volumes of underfire air to cool the
refuse bed and thereby to prevent grate burnout. In turn, the high veloci-
ties and large volumes of air required large blowers with high horsepower
motors. Consequently, large quantities of both combustible and inert
particulates were discharged to atmosphere with the exiting flue gases.
The late 1960's introduced the controlled air incinerator, that is, an
incinerator with an afterburner or an incinerator with a primary and a
secondary combustion chamber. The term "controlled air" denotes the
control and regulation of the air flowing into the two combustion chambers.
Whereas the air supplied to the previous incinerators was uncontrolled, the
velocity and volume of the air supplied to the new units are kept at a
calculated minimum to improve the efficiency of the combustion process, to
lower the horsepower of the fan motors, and to reduce the amount of the
particulates entrained in the exiting flue gases. The airflow can be
either preset to a calculated level based on the amount; and type of the
waste burned or continuously modulated to produce the optimum combustion
with the varying system needs and chamber conditions.
The first, or primary, chamber is also called the lower chamber or the
combustion chamber. Similarly, the second, or secondary, chamber is also
called the upper chamber, the ignition chamber, the afterburner, or the
thermal reactor.
Some of the controlled air incinerators are called starved air incin-
erators because of the substoichiometric combustion in the primary chamber.
The term "pyrolytic" is also applied to the starved air incinerator, but
such a description is not correct. The process of partial oxidation of the
waste in the primary chamber is sometimes referred to as pyrolysis. How-
ever, pyrolytic combustion chambers use higher temperatures and a lower
amount of substoichiometric combustion air than the starved air incinerators.
-------
The term "modular" as a descriptor for the controlled air incinerator
developed as follows: The controlled air incinerators designed for burning
commercial and industrial waste have been constructed of integral components,
one for the primary chamber, one for the secondary chamber, and so on.
Each component has been assembled and packaged in the factory for immediate
on-site installation. Only electrical, fuel, water, and gas duct connections
are required at the installation site. When the waste volume has exceeded
the capacity of the installed units, additional incinerators are incorporated
to meet the increased demand. Since the additional incinerators are
constructed and function as modules, the integrated units became known as
modular incinerators. While the capacity of the modular incinerators has
increased from one to four tons of waste per hour, most of the components
are still completely assembled and packaged in the factory for immediate
on-site installation.
Controlled air incinerators are grouped under two main categories
according to the degree of combustion, complete or partial, in the primary
chamber. Since the complete combustion requires excess air and the partial
combustion needs substoichiometric conditions, the categories are excess
air incinerators and substoichiometric incinerators. While the airflow in
the excess air incinerators is limited, it is sufficient for excess
stoichiometric combustion in both chambers (see Figure 1). In the sub-
stoichiometric incinerators, the air introduced into the primary chamber
ranges from 30 to 40 percent of the amount required for stoichiometric
combustion, and the air fed to the secondary chamber ranges from 100 to 150
percent of the excess air needed to achieve complete combustion (see
Figure 1).
In addition to the airflow regulation, the combustion process is
controlled by varying the waste feed rate and, in some incinerators, by
spraying water into the primary chamber.
Feeding Mechanism
The waste to be burned is fed into the primary chamber in controlled
batches and at prescribed intervals. The batch size, usually between one
and four cubic yards, varies with the waste characteristics, particularly
particle size, bulk density, and Btu content, as well as with the inciner-
ator capacity. Except for the removal of white goods and large metals, the
waste stream usually need not be preprocessed before it enters the primary
chamber.
The appropriate type of feeding mechanism for a particular installation
depends on the waste characteristics. Most incinerators burning bulk and
heterogeneous waste have a hopper to receive the waste and a hydraulically
driven ram to push the waste from the hopper into the primary chamber. For
other types of waste, the feeding mechanisms include air lock hoppers,
screw augers, and liquid and pneumatic systems.
-------
EXCESS AIR —percent
0 100 200
300
4000
3000
LLJ
CC
ID
CC
LU
Q.
LLJ
2000
1000
STARVED AIR RANGE
PRIMARY COMBUSTION CHAMBER
SECONDARY COMBUSTON CHAMBER
EXCESS AIR RANGE
PRIMARY AND SECONDARY
COMBUSTION CHAMBERS
2000
1500
1000
o
LU
cn
=>
QC
LU
0_
3.
LU
500
100
200
300
400
STOICHIOMETRIC AIR — percent
Figure 1. Operational ranges (stoichiometric air percentage and
temperature) for controlled air incinerators.
Primary Chamber
During start-up of the substoichiometric incinerator, one or two
auxiliary burners in the primary chamber progressively dry, volatize, and
ignite the waste. When the combustion reactions start, the volatile gases
and carbons are released with most of the fixed carbons remaining in the
chars on the hearth. When the combustion rate is sufficient to sustain
partial oxidation reactions, the auxiliary burners are shut off. The
partial oxidation is maintained by supplying the primary chamber with less
air than that needed for the complete combustion of the gases and chars.
The combustible gases and particulates generated in the primary chamber
flew into the secondary chamber where they are combusted almost completely.
If the retention time in the primary chamber is long enough and air is
introduced from underneath the hearth, most of the fixed carbon in the
chars is also combusted. Any unburned carbon is removed with the ash and
other inert materials.
During start-up of the excess air incinerator, an auxiliary burner in
the primary chamber dries, volatizes, and ignites the waste. With excess
-------
air introduced under, over, and beside the waste, the combustion is sustained
sufficiently to turn off the burner and to burn both the gas by-products
and the combustible solids of the initial and subsequent waste batches. As
the gases flow into and through the secondary chamber, any remaining com-
bustibles are burned completely.
Secondary Chamber
In the substoichiometric incinerator, the secondary chamber is initially
heated by an auxiliary burner. When the partially oxidized combustibles
flow from the primary chamber into the secondary chamber, the burner
ignites them. Then as the burning gases mix with additional air, the heat
increases to temperatures between 760° and 871° C (1400° and 1600° F} for
complete combustion. As the combustion generating 'this heat is self-
sustaining, the burner is shut off.
In the excess air incinerator, no auxiliary burner is needed in the
secondary chamber since the temperature of the entering gases is high
enough to sustain combustion as more air is added. The excess air intro-
duced into both chambers ranges from 75 to 150 percent of the air needed
for combustion. The excess air supplied to the secondary chamber is injected
tangentially to produce turbulence which thoroughly mixes the air with the
combustible gases and particulates. Baffles in the secondary chamber and
over-and-under partitions between the chambers are installed to promote the
turbulence. The excess air, the turbulence, and the retention time collec-
tively provide the conditions for the nearly complete burning of all
combustible gases and particulates.
Temperature Control
The temperature in the primary chamber is sensed by thermocouples with
set temperature points and maintained at a set point with a 37.7° C (100° F)
control band by varying the waste feed rate and the amount of air injected
and by spraying the chamber with a water mist. While the set points vary
with the incinerator manufacturer and the waste to be burned, they generally
range from 694° to 982° C (1200° to 1800° F).
The temperature in the secondary chamber is also sensed by thermocouples
with set points. When the chamber temperature reaches the set points, the
thermocouples activate controllers which modulate airflow dampers and turn
the burner on and off. More air fed into the secondary chamber reduces the
temperature while less air increases the temperature. On the other hand,
more air fed into the primary chamber produces more volatile gas. The
combustion of the gas in the secondary chamber results in increased
temperatures.
In the substoichiometric incinerators, the thermocouple set points for
low temperatures range from 694° to 871° C (1200° to 1600° F) and those for
high temperatures range from 982° to 1093° C (1800° to 2000° F). When the
chamber temperature falls below the low temperature setting, the auxiliary
burner is reignited. When it exceeds the high temperature setting, the waste
loading system is locked out to prevent feeding more waste into the primary
-------
chamber. Also, in some incinerators a water spray is activated to suppress
the combustion reaction.
Residue Removal
Ash and other incombustible residue which settle on the hearth of the
primary chamber after the combustion process are periodically removed by
manually or automatically operated systems. In the manual system, the
operator scoops out the ash (by shovel or front-end loader) after the unit
has been shut off and cooled down. In the automatic system, the ash is
pushed or forced ahead of the burning waste until it exits the chamber,
generally through a drop chute into a water-sealed pit or an air lock chamber.
The automatic systems include the loading ram which pushes the residue out
as well as the raw waste in during the loading cycle; the chamber-incorporated
rams which push the residue out between loading cycles; and other internal
devices such as moving grates, conveyors, augers, and rotating kilns which
continuously force the ash through the primary chamber.
Energy Recovery
Several incinerator systems incorporate water or fire tube boilers to
recover the thermal energy from the flue gases exiting the secondary chamber.
The temperatures of these gases are generally between 871° and 982° C
(1600° and 1800° F). Either an induced draft fan or an aspiration fan draws
the flue gas through the boiler. Both fan types are downstream of the boiler.
While the induced draft fan is in the gas stream, the aspirator is outside
the gas stream. The latter fan injects fresh air through an aspirator section
of the exhaust stack where it produces a negative pressure within the boiler
such that the flue gas is drawn into and through the boiler without reaching
the fan. Since the induced draft fan is in the gas stream, it is subjected
to the damaging effects of high temperatures and to the abrasive and corro-
sive effects of the particulates and vapors within the flue gases.
Waste Consumption
The waste consumption capacity of the controlled air incinerators
varies greatly with the waste characteristics. The energy content is the
most important factor in determining the capacity. The modular units are
designed to burn a specific amount of energy per hour; therefore, the higher
the energy content per unit mass, the slower the feed rate. The incinerator
capacities in industrial plants and those in municipal plants are convention-
ally expressed in waste feed rates of kilograms (pounds) per hour and
megagrams (tons) per day, respectively.
Since industrial plants usually have a small volume of fairly homo-
geneous waste with a high energy content per unit mass, the waste is fed at
a slower rate. The capacity of the smallest incinerators is about 136 kg/hr
(300 Ib/hr) while that of the largest incinerators is up to 1335 kg/hr
(2500 Ib/hr). Manufacturers indicate that the 227 to 318 kg/hr (500 to
700 Ib/hr) range is the smallest incinerator capacity that would make heat
recovery systems economical. On the other hand, since municipal plants
10
-------
generally have a large volume of heterogeneous waste with a low energy content
per unit mass, the waste can be fed at a faster rate. The capacities of the
substoichiometric incinerators range from 10.9 to 45.5 Mg/day (12 to 50 TPD)
while those of the excess air incinerators range from 10.9 to 272.1 Mg/day
(12 to 300 TPD).
Stack Emissions
Although the controlled air combustion in the two chambers burns vir-
tually all the combustible gases and particulates, the stack emissions
contain some unburned carbon, as well as inert particles and vapors, entrained
in the flue gas stream.
If the waste is homogeneous and has a high carbon content and few small
inert particles, the combustion can be controlled sufficiently to discharge
the flue gas with emissions at acceptable levels. Consequently, industrial
incinerators up to 50 TPD capacity can generally be designed and operated so
that their stacks do not require emission control equipment. In contrast,
since the waste in municipal incinerators has a high inert particle content
as well as a heterogeneous make-up and a low carbon content, it is difficult
to maintain a steady-state combustion and consequently to keep the emissions
at acceptable levels. Therefore, stack emission control equipment is normally
incorporated in the larger controlled air incinerators burning municipal
waste. Since the modular units with a capacity of 50 TPD or less are not
subject to the Federal particulate emission standard of 0.08 gr/DSCF, only
the applicable state regulations on emission standards apply. When the
facility capacity is over 50 TPD, the new Federal stationary source emission
regulations under the Clear Air Act apply. The regulations can be found in
the Federal Register Volume 43 - No. 118, June 19, 1978.
HISTORY OF CONTROLLED AIR INCINERATION
Introduction
During the period from 1960 to 1970, incineration was a recognized
economical method of solid waste disposal. A reported 265 to 299 inciner-
ation plants were in operation across the United States.
The Incinerator Institute of America (IIA), an association of 30 to
35 excess air incinerator manufacturers, was considered the authority on
incineration. Consequently, virtually every city in the United States
adopted the IIA specifications as part of its building code. Therefore,
whenever an incinerator built to the IIA specifications smoked, the environ-
mental control official blamed the violation on its operation since the
incinerator construction would have complied with the building code. On
the other hand, the city codes restricted the amendment of the IIA specifica-
tions to allow new incinerator developments.
The enactment of the Clean Air Act in 1970 began the closure of the
incineration facilities because of the reluctance on the part of the facility
owners to add air pollution control equipment to meet the more stringent air
11
-------
emissions standards. During the next 4 years, an estimated 105 to 135 of
the facilities had been closed. In May 1978 a survey by the Operations
Committee, Solid Waste Processing Division, and the American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME) revealed that of the 106 plants responding,
52 had been closed down. Closure was again due to failure to meet air pollu-
tion standards. The excessive cost of installing air emission control devices
has led most of the cities to seek a more economical method of solid waste
disposal.
As the incineration facilities closed because of the Clean Air Act,
many of the IIA companies also folded. As the uncontrolled (excess) air
incinerator industry diminished, the controlled air incinerator business
correspondingly increased.
Many of the smaller modular incinerators were first developed by manu-
facturers of the larger uncontrolled air incinerators.
In the late 1950's Gordon Hoskinson, known as the father of modern
incineration, developed the controlled air incinerator, a smokeless unit
based on the principle of afterburning. Yet the new type of incinerator did
not materialize until 1964 when Hoskinson and George Flowers left Smokatrol
to patent the modified Hoskinson design with a two-phase afterburner. Then
they started Waste Combustion, now called Consumat Systems, in Richmond,
Virginia.
In the late 1960's Midland Ross and Combustion Engineering entered the
controlled air incinerator industry by adapting the Smokatrol design to
manufacture the Radicator and Combustall, respectively. While Midland Ross
contracted with Environmental Control Products in the early 1970's to manu-
facture the Radicator, both companies withdrew from incinerator manufacture
by 1975.
With its first controlled air incinerator manufactured in 1965, Consumat
Systems produced a prototype unit for municipal installation in 1969. This
unit was a single, noncontinuous-operation module that could process
11.3 Mg/day (12.5 TPD) of waste.
Formerly associated with Consumat Systems, Gene White founded Comtro in
1968 to market his variation of the Hoskinson design with a secondary after-
burner instead of a stack burner.
Upon joining Kelley in 1970, Hoskinson developed an incinerator similar
to the Smokatrol unit.
Econo-Therm entered the incinerator .industry when it bought out Heston
which had previously bought out Joseph Coder, the largest of the old IIA
companies.
In 1969 John Basic started as a Consumat Systems dealer. As he received
the company's incinerators, he customized them to suit particular applica-
tions. He later formed Basic Environmental Engineering to design and
manufacture his own incinerators.
12
-------
Plibrico manufactured starved air incinerators for 2 years. After the
company stopped its production, Simonds, a Plibrico distributor, improved
the design and continued the manufacture.
In 1973 Consumat Systems had its first waste-to-energy system installed
in a hospital. Also in the same year, the company built its first continuous-
operation unit. In 1975 the company's first municipal system with energy
recovery was installed.
Design Evolution
The first-generation models of the controlled air modular incinerator
were small refractory-brick-lined chambers with a vertical afterburner
chamber and stack combination. Capacities were in the range of 45.4 to
318 kg/hr (100 to 700 Ib/hr) of commercial or industrial waste. The controls
on these incinerators were minimal, i.e., on/off switches for the burner
and preset air blowers. The primary uses for the incinerators were to burn
waste generated from hospitals, stores, and restaurants.
Subsequently, the afterburner stack was replaced by a secondary chamber,
and the capacity of the units was increased up to 1135 kg/hr (2,500 Ib/hr).
The control of temperature and airflow in the secondary chamber allowed the
burner to be modulated or even shut off after a temperature high enough for
self-sustaining combustion of the gases was reached. This minimized the
consumption of auxiliary fuel.
The earlier units were loaded through a door before the unit was
ignited. Because of the positive pressure in the chamber and the presence
of pyrolysis gases, opening the door while the waste was burning resulted
in flames leaping out the door. Double doors and temperature lockouts were
developed to prevent the operator from being injured by these flames.
Later, a slight negative pressure was induced in some models to prevent
flame escape as the doors were opened. On the larger units, the loading
system advanced from the door loaders to an enclosed hopper and ram module.
The latter equipment allowed more waste to be quickly and safely loaded
into the primary chamber. Pneumatic feeds for small-particle waste and
pump feeds for liquid waste were also developed.
Ash in the primary chamber was originally removed manually after the
chamber had cooled sufficiently. While automatic, continuously operating
residue removal systems have been developed for the larger incinerators,
most of the smaller incinerators (those with capacities less than 318 kg/hr
[700 Ib/hr]) still have the ash removed manually.
Although the larger modular incinerators were integrated with heat
recovery systems, their high cost initially made their sale difficult.
However, when oil and gas costs rose with the recent energy crisis, the
waste incinerator with heat recovery became an economical alternative to
landfills and conventional fuels. Incorporating the heat recovery systems
with the incinerator necessitated the addition of expanded control systems.
13
-------
CURRENT SMALL MODULAR INCINERATOR SYSTEMS
This section briefly describes the principal small modular incinerator
systems currently available. Table 1 compares their major characteristics.
The data in this table and the following information on the 17 sources were
obtained from sales literature of the manufacturers and from conversations
with the manufacturer representatives. Table 2 lists the addresses and
telephone numbers of the 17 sources.
There are many more manufacturers of modular incinerators than those
listed here. Those that are discussed represent the different design
approaches and most have several incinerator and energy recovery units in
operation with capacities ranging from 10.9 to 90.7 Mg/day (12 to 100 TPD).
Wituin tne constraints of the available information, the following
paragraphs describe 'the small modular incinerator systems of the 17 sources
in the alphabetical order of the source name. After the individual (source)
descriptions, the systems, along with the corresponding sources and repre-
sentative illustrations (see Figures 2 through 9 on pages 27 through 31),
are grouped under five physical categories.
Basic Environmental Engineering, Inc.
The Basic incinerators are designed to burn industrial and municipal
waste. Capacities of these units range from 32.6 to 136.0 Mg/day (36 to
150 TPD). Information on units in operation is as follows: one
20,000,000 Btu/hr unit operating since 1972; one 8,000,000 Btu/hr and two
16,000,000 Btu/hr units operating since 1973; one 28,000,000 Btu/hr unit
operating since 1975; and one 48,000,000 Btu/hr unit operating since mid 1979.
This incinerator has three excess air combustion chambers. A rack-
and pinion-driven ram feeder pushes the waste into the rectangular-shaped
horizontal primary chamber. The water wall construction of this chamber
provides additional heat recovery. The chamber is kept at 982° C (1800° F)
to maintain stoichiometric conditions and is operated at a slight negative
pressure to prevent leakage of emissions. Modulated combustion air forced
through numerous high static, low velocity, and low volume jets on the
front of the chamber produce a laminar airflow through the ash bed. The
primary chamber has two burners which are used for start-up firing and
supplemental heat during operational firing. At the lower part of the
chamber, the two sides slope toward the middle where bomb bay doors form
the chamber bottom. These doors are opened for batch ash removal. The ash
is removed continuously through a vertical ash chute at the end of the
chamber. A horizontal ram at the bottom of the chute pushes the ash through
an airlock into a container. Basic now has a moving hearth floor to move
the burning refuse through the main chamber and drop it into a water seal
pit with automatic ash removal from the pit.
14
-------
(/)
o
H
W
H
rj
h-X
<~\
\ 1
Od
,
4-1
•H
O
CO
CU
C
•H
o
C
rH
(3
>^ PH
4J CU H
CJ C
O. S-l CO
CO *O
c_) ~~ —
oo
S
C
o cn
•H cn
4-1 CU
cn o
3 o
6 a.
o
o
c cu
CU X
S 0
cn O. rH
C -H O.
0 3 g
•H CT OJ
cn cj
cn P^
•H rH rH
6 0 rH
CU M CO
4-1 B
M C 1H
•H O O
,c cu o
rH 4-1 S^ O
CO -H 0)
-H 3 SH
4-1 O
co C >,
3 l-i
T3 X 4-1 0)
C 4-1 CO >
•H vH CU O
3 js o
Q)
h
4-1 1-1
3 4-1 01
O cfl >
J3 CU O
rH 4-1 J3 CJ
Cfl -H CU
(X 3 M
CJ O
•H G ^
C ^
3 J3 4-1
•H CU O
3 f. 0
CU
M
M
CU
1-1
3
4J
CJ
CO
"-t-H
3
S
S S 3 8 3 S 3 3 K S § S S S S £
^. v-^ ^ ^ *^
COCNfnr^cM^tCNl^^OCNQOCMrriCNtcOCNl
rH CNI rH 04 rH
oooooooooooooooo
^^ /-N ^^
vi) O.O.OO O.O.O.O.-J- O.O.O.O.O.O.O.
S 5 CN
:lt+-=S=:ifc-f--i-4-'-^::ft;H-+-::it-i-=fc -i- +-
X X X X X XX X
^OCT\OZ-Z2^O2 CN| ^H o r~~*. i-H o
1 — 1 -> Q) 1 SH
OJ IH cu
CJ CO g
X 4-1 3
We/13
=S= +- "Z.
15
-------
In the original incinerator, the secondary and tertiary chambers were
rectangular-shaped horizontal vessels equipped with a burner and modulating
air blowers. The chambers were maintained at 982° C (1800° F) with excess
air conditions. Presently the secondary and tertiary chambers are double-
wall, cylindrical chambers. All the excess air is heated from the inner
wall heat losses and acts as a heat recuperator.
The incinerator system can be integrated with gas-to-air, steam, and
hot water heat recovery systems such as those' supplied by Delta, IBW, and
Johnson with both fire and water tube boilers.
TABLE 2. ADDRESSES AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS OF MODULAR
INCINERATOR MANUFACTURERS
Basic Environmental Engineering, Inc.
21W161 Hill
Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60137
(312) 469-5340
Burn-Zol
P.O. Box 109
Dover, New Jersey 07801
(201) 361-5900
C. E. Bartlett-Snow
200 West Monroe
Chicago, Illinois 60606
(312) 236-4044
Clear Air, Inc.
P.O. Box 111
Ogden, Utah 84402
(801) 399-9828
Comtro Division
180 Mercer Street
Meadville, Pennsylvania
(814) 724-1456
16335
Consumat
P.O. Box 9574
Richmond, Virginia
(804) 746-4120
23228
Econo-Therm
1132 K-Tel Drive
Minnetonka, Minnesota
(612) 938-3100
55343
Environmental Control Products
P.O. Box 15753
Charlotte, North Carolina 28210
(704) 588-1620
Environmental Services Corporation
P.O. Box 765
Crossville, Tennessc 38555
(615) 484-7673
Giery Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 17335
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53217
(414) 351-0740
Kelley Company, Inc.
6720 N. Teutonia Avenue
Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53209
(414) 352-1000
Lamb-Cargate
P.O. Box 440
1135 Queens Avenue
New Westminster, British Columbia
V3L 4Y7 (604) 521-8821
Morse-Boulger
53-09 97th Place
Corona, New York
(212) 699-5000
11368
Scientific Energy Engineering, Inc.
1103 Blackstone Building
Jacksonville, Florida 32202
(904) 632-2102
Simonds Company
P.O. Drawer 32
Winter Haven, Florida 33880
(813) 293-2171
U.S. Smelting Furnace Company
(Smokatrol)
P.O. Box 217
Belleville, Illinois 62222
(618) 233-0129
Washburn and Granger
85 5th Avenue
Patterson, New Jersey
(201) 274-2522
16
-------
Burn-Zol
The Burn-Zol units are designed to burn solid and liquid industrial
wastes and hospital pathological wastes. The units can be designed to burn
from 454 to 1816 kg/hr (1,000 to 4,000 Ib/hr) of waste. Recent industrial
installations are located at Connelly GPM, Elizabeth, New Jersey; Allied
Chemical, Metropolis, Illinois; and Alcolac Corporation, Sedalin, Missouri.
The Alcolac facility has a hot water waste heat recovery system used in
conjunction with a gas-to-air heat exchanger to achieve hot air recovery.
The primary chamber in each of these incinerators is a substoichiometric
combustion unit. For each application, the manufacturer custom-designs the
refuse feeder. The primary chamber is a cylindrical vertical vessel whose
outer shell is air-cooled or insulated to a 52° C (125° F) maximum skin
temperature. This chamber has a modulating burner with a 20:1 turndown ratio
for better fuel economy. Substoichiometric conditions prevail when the
chamber is kept at 694° C (1200° F). The manufacturer also custom-designs
the ash removal equipment for each application. The vertical secondary
chamber is operated at 100 percent excess air and maintained at 760° C
(1400° F) by an afterburner. Unique to this system, all metal components are
made of 400 series stainless steel. Heat recovery equipment, which can be
integrated with the incinerator, is available for low pressure steam and hot
water.
C. E. Bartlett Snow
qrv*
The incinerator, called the C. E. Raymond Tumble Burner , is designed
to handle industrial waste. Capacities range from 45.4 kg/hr (100 Ib/hr)
to 1362 kg/hr (3,000 Ib/hr). There are 19 units in operation. Some of the
largest units are in the following plants: Rollins-Purle, Bridgeport, New
Jersey, burning chemical sludges and plastics; Eli Lilly, Clinton, Indiana,
burning wood, cardboard, and mixed waste; Amoco Chemicals, Decatur, Alabama,
burning chemical residue; Mill Creek Treatment Plant, Cincinnati, Ohio,
burning municipal sewerage sludge; and Richardson-Merrill, Swiftwater,
Pennsylvania, burning egg waste. The Tumble Burner is an excess air incin-
erator. An auto-cycle ram feeding system pushes the waste into a rotary kiln
primary chamber. A blower supplies the kiln with 140 percent excess air. A
burner at the discharge end provides the kiln with supplemental heat. The
fuel flow to the burner is modulated to maintain the kiln between 760° and
871° C (1400° and 1600° F) or higher for toxic materials. The ash is dis-
charged in batches through a knife gate or bomb bay doors.
The secondary chamber has a burner and an auxiliary air source. The
fuel flow to the burner is varied to keep the chamber between 871° and
982° C (1600° and 1800° F).
Since the system is not usually integrated with heat recovery equipment,
a precooler chamber is installed after the secondary chamber. In addition,
a scrubber is installed after the precooler so that the exhaust gases will
meet the air pollution standards. Finally, an induced draft fan and a stack
17
-------
are installed after the scrubber to maintain a slight negative pressure in
the system and to draw the flue gases through the system. The system may
incorporate heat recovery equipment if desired.
Clear Air
Both of the chambers in this incinerator are excess air combustion
units. An apron conveyor projecting into the primary chamber feeds the waste
into the incinerator system. A radiation screen wall hanging from the system
ceiling protects the conveyor. The combustion units in this system are
designed to burn municipal solid waste. Capacities of the modules range from
1.8 to 13.3 Mg/hr (2 to 12.5 TPH). Installations in full operation are
located at Weber County, Utah, and Hamilton, Montana, with capacities of
408.2 Mg/day (450 TPD) and 15.4 Mg/day (17 TPD), respectively. A 68.0 Mg/day
(75 TPD) unit in Martinsville, Indiana, is in operation only one day per
week. No heat recovery is provided at the sites.
The entire combustion system is contained in a horizontal rectangular
vessel with baffle walls separating the various chambers. The primary
chamber is maintained at 1010° C (1850° F) and stoichiometric conditions.
Patented reciprocating grates move the refuse through the primary chamber and
discharge the ash into a water quench tank. With the tank providing an air
seal, a drag conveyor removes the discharged ash. The temperature in the
primary chamber controls the feed rate and the amount of underfire air.
The secondary chamber is operated at the same conditions as the primary
chamber, i.e., 150 percent excess air and a temperature of 982° C (1800° F).
There are no burners in either combustion chamber.
The incinerator system is integrated with heat recovery equipment. Upon
leaving the secondary combustion chamber, the gases pass through a waste heat
watertube boiler with the tubes arranged vertically. The emissions are
controlled by passing the gases through an electrostatic precipitator.
Comtro
The Comtro incinerator, with the primary chamber being a substoichio-
metric combustion unit, was designed to burn industrial, commercial, and
municipal wastes. The capacity of the modules range from 45.4 to 1362 kg/hr
(100 to 3,000 Ib/hr). Installations that are burning 10.9 to 13.6 Mg/day
(12 to 15 TPD) per unit of municipal waste without heat recovery are located
in Pelham, New Hampshire; Prudhoe Bay, Alaska; Caracas, Venezuela; and Riyadh
City, Saudi Arabia. A new facility has recently been constructed at
Jacksonville, Florida, for the U.S. Navy. The facility processes the Navy
base municipal waste and then burns it in four units each with a capacity of
908 kg/hr (2000 Ib/hr). Industrial installations with capacities of 545 to
908 kg/hr (1200 to 2000 Ib/hr) with heat recovery systems are located at Moore
Business Forms, Honesdale, Pennsylvania; Milprint, Downington, Pennsylvania;
Knoll International, East Greenville, Pennsylvania; Waste Research, Eau Claire,
Wisconsin; Thomp Linen, Fargo, North Dakota; and Douglas Furniture, Chicago,
Illinois.
18
-------
The primary chamber in this incinerator is a substoichiometric combustion
unit. As an automatic hydraulic ram feeds waste into a horizontal cylindrical
primary chamber, it forces previous waste deposits through the chamber. The
ash is removed by either a dry or a wet system. The normal operating
temperature for the primary chamber is between 982° and 1093° C (1800° and
2000° F). Supplementary heat is supplied when the temperature drops below
871° C (1600° F), and excess air and a water spray are introduced when the
temperature approaches 1093° C (2000° F). With an internal construction to
promote combustion and a controlled airflow to regulate temperature, the
horizontal secondary chamber normally operates at 982° C (1800° F). Combus-
tion air to both chambers is supplied through underfire ports.
The incinerator system can be integrated with a firetube boiler for heat
recovery. When the boiler is installed, an induced draft fan above the
boiler draws the hot gases across the incinerator stack, through the boiler,
and then back to the incinerator stack for discharge to atmosphere.
Consumat
The Consumat incinerators are designed to burn industrial, commercial,
and municipal solid waste. Capacities of single modules range from 227 to
908 kg/hr (500 to 2000 Ib/hr). Municipal installations are located in
Blytheville, Arkansas, 63.5 Mg/day (70 TPD) with steam generation; Siloan
Springs, Arkansas, 18.1 Mg/day (20 TPD) with steam generation; North Little
Rock, Arkansas, 90.7 Mg/day (100 TPD) with steam generation; and Salem,
Virginia, 90.7 Mg/day (100 TPD) with steam generation. Industrial sites with
steam generation are the Pentagon, Washington, D.C., and John Deere, Dubuque,
Iowa, each burning 908 kg/hr (2000 Ib/hr).
The primary chamber in each of these incinerator systems is a substoi-
chiometric combustion unit. A multiple hydraulic ram and terraced hearth
system pushes the waste into and through the primary combustion chamber.
This chamber is operated at approximately 694° C (1200° F) to maintain
substoichiometric conditions. A ram discharges the residue into a water
quench seal tank where a drag conveyor removes the residue for subsequent
disposal. The temperature in the secondary chamber is kept between 982° and
1010° C (1800° and 1850° F) by modulating the air into the primary and
secondary chambers. An auxiliary burner in the secondary chamber is
automatically activated when the temperature in this chamber falls below
927° C (1700° F).
For heat recovery, the incinerator system is integrated with a watertube
waste heat boiler and a soot blowing system. When the boiler is operating,
airflow produced by an aspirator fan draws the hot gases through the boiler
and then to a separate boiler stack.
A schematic layout of the system is shown in Section 4.
Econo-Therm
Econo-Therm specializes in custom-designed incinerators including small
modular systems to burn industrial, hospital, and commercial wastes.
19
-------
Capacities of the units range from 45.4 to 1335 kg/hr (100 to 2500 Ib/hr).
Installations with heat recovery are located in Panoply Corporation, Lexington,
Tennessee; Midwest City Hospital, Midwest City, Oklahoma; and Rincon High
School, Tucson, Arizona.
In the larger basic design, a ram feeder pushes the waste into and
through the substoichiometric primary combustion chamber., with the residue
being removed by a custom-designed ash removal system. Unique to the Econo-
Therm modular incinerator systems is the large two-pass secondary chamber. A
single fan supplies combustion air to both the primary and the secondary
chamber. Air is introduced into the secondary chamber through a series of
holes.
The small modular system can be integrated with a firetube waste heat
boiler for heat recovery. When the boiler is installed, an induced draft fan
draws the hot gases through the boiler and then discharges them to atmosphere
through a boiler stack.
Environmental Control Products
Environmental Control Products designs and builds incinerators to burn
industrial, commercial, and municipal waste. The units have a capacity range
of 45.4 to 1816 kg/hr (100 to 4000 Ib/hr). Industrial installations with
waste heat recovery are at Nationwide Tire Co., Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania;
Groveton Papers Co., Groveton, New Hampshire; Pen Dairies, Lancaster,
Pennsylvania; Funk Seeds International, Bloomington, Illinois; West Co.,
Mellville, New Jersey; Trane Company, Clarksville, Tennessee; and Pratt and
Whitney, East Hartford, Connecticut. The Groveton, New Hampshire, facility
burns municipal waste one day per week.
The primary chamber in each of these incinerators is a substoichiometric
combustion unit. A hydraulic ram feeder pushes the waste into and through a
horizontal cylindrical primary chamber. This chamber is operated at
40 percent theoretical air and at temperatures between 8156 and 982° C
(1500° and 1800° F). The variation of the waste feed and the modulation of
the underfire air controls the temperature of the primary chamber. Action of
the loading ram pushes the ash through a hole at the end of the chamber where
a wet module system with a drag chain conveyor removes the ash. A dry module
ash removal system is available as an option.
The secondary chamber is a horizontal cylindrical vessel mounted above
the primary chamber. Auxiliary burners in this chamber are modulated to
maintain chamber temperatures between 871° and 1204° C (1600° and 2200° F).
The incinerator system can be integrated with a firetube or watertube
waste heat boiler for heat recoyery. When the boiler is installed, an
induced draft fan draws the hot gases from the incinerator stack, through
the boiler, and then to the boiler stack.
20
-------
Environmental Services Corporation
Although not a manufacturer, the Environmental Services Corporation
constructs and operates small resource recovery facilities for municipalities.
Currently the company is modifying and testing in Crossville, Tennessee,
a system consisting of two modified Farrier, Inc., Model 2500 incinerator
modules, each with a capacity of 27.2 Mg/day (30 TPD), and two York-Shipley
350-hp packaged firetube boilers. The principal components modified were the
ram loader and the continuous residue removal system. Although not as yet
fully operational at the date of this report, the'Crossville facility is
designed to burn 54.4 Mg/day (60 TPD) of refuse with the following composition:
industrial and commercial refuse, 50 percent; rubber waste, 25 percent; and
municipal waste, 25 percent. The main building houses the tipping floor,
the office, and the front-end processing system consisting of a Saturn 100-hp
shredder and automatic feed converyors. The two incinerators are outside and
on each side of an attached building enclosing the two boilers.
The primary chamber in each of these incinerators is a substoichiometric
combustion unit. The waste is shredded and fed by a conveyor into the
hopper of a hydraulic ram feeder. A preset timer control activates the ram
injection of waste into the primary chamber. The primary chamber is operated
near 1903°C (2000° F) at substoichiometric combustion conditions.
Excessive temperatures are prevented by locking out the feeder ram and
by water spraying the hot gases. A blower supplies underfire air through air
tubes in the sides of the hearth. The center of the hearth was modified to
contain a drag conveyor that transports the residue from the front to the
rear of the unit. The ash residue drops into a water sealed pit and is then
removed by another drag conveyor to a container.
The secondary chamber is a 1.8m (6-ft)-diameter, 3.6m (12-ft)-long
cylinder. A minimum temperature of 871° C (1600° F) is maintained by a
burner while the normal operation temperatures, ranging from 982° to 1093° C
(1800° to 2000° F), are controlled by modulating the combustion air.
The incineration system is integrated with a fire tube boiler. An
induced draft fan draws the flue gases from the exhaust stack, through the
boiler, and then back into the stack.
Giery (Pyro-Cone)
The Pyro-Cone incinerator is designed to burn industrial and municipal
solid waste. Capacities range from 0.9 to 2.7 Mg/day (1 to 3 TPD). A
0.9 Mg/day (1 TPH) installation to burn municipal waste was constructed in
Grafton, Wisconsin, in 1968. The system was designed to recover the heat
from the combustion of the municipal waste.
The primary chamber in this incinerator is an excess air combustion
unit. A vertical, double door, lock hopper feeds the waste into the primary
21
-------
chamber which contains a rotary cone grate. This chamber is operated at
694° C (1200° F) by regulating the combustion and secondary air and by
controlling the refuse feed rate.
The secondary chamber is a vertical, cyclonic flow vessel. Excess air
is injected into this chamber to maintain the outlet temperature desired.
The incinerator system can be integrated with a firetube waste heat
boiler for heat recovery. An induced draft fan draws the hot gases through
the boiler, an air filter, a wet scrubber, and then to the boiler stack.
Kelley
The Kelley incinerators are designed to handle industrial, commercial,
and municipal waste. Capacities of the units range from 45.4 to 908 kg/hr
(100 to 2000 Ib/hr). Municipal installations with capacities of 10.8 to
13.6 Mg/day (12 to 15 TPD) without heat recovery are located in Notingham,
Bridgewater, Meredith, Wolfboro, Pitsfield, and Auburn, New Hampshire.
Industrial installations with heat recovery are in the following plants:
Danskin, Inc., York, Pennsylvania; Xerox Corporation, Columbus, Ohio; John
Deere Company, Horicon, Wisconsin; Rockwell International Corp., Marysville,
Ohio; Smith Loveless, Lenexa, Kansas; TFC Industries, Omaha, Nebraska; and K.
W. Muth Company, Sheboygan, Wisconsin.
The primary chamber in each of these incinerators is a substoichiometric
combustion unit. A hydraulic ram feeder pushes the waste into and through
the primary chamber. The chamber is operated at 33 percent stoichiometric
combustion air and at temperatures between 694° and 871° C (1200° and
1600° F). A burner provides supplemental heat to keep the temperature above
694° C (1200° F). The reduction of the refuse feed rate and the introduction
of water sprays keep the temperature below 871° C (1600° F).
The secondary or inspirator chamber is installed as a part of the stack
system. This chamber is operated at temperatures cycling between
538° and 1093°C (1000° and 2000° F) by modulating excess air to 150 percent
and heat input from an auxiliary burner.
The incinerator system is integrated with a triple-pass firetube waste
heat boiler. An induced draft fan draws the hot gases through the boiler in
three passes with the last exiting into the incinerator stack. The schematic
layout of the incinerator is shown in Section 4.
Lamb-Cargate, Industries Limited
The primary chamber in this incinerator, which is called the Lamb Wet
Cell Burner, is a substoichiometric combustion unit. The system was designed
to burn moist waste, such as wood, pulp, and saw dust, with a moisture
content up to 65 percent. The waste is metered from a storage bin into a
cylinder by a variable speed hydraulic motor. The motor speed is regulated
to meet the Btu demand of the burning process.
-------
The units have a capacity of 21.8 to 181.4 Mg/day (24 to 200 TPD). A
21.8 Mg/day (24 TPD) unit is in operation in Egen, British Columbia, at the
Plateau Sawmills, Ltd. The recovered heat is directed to two lumber drying
kilns. A second unit of the same size is firing a pulp flash dryer at a new
TMP pulp mill in Karioi, New Zealand. The facility is owned by Winstone
Samsung, Inc.
The primary combustion chamber, a vertical vessel, is located above the
refuse injection cylinder. A hydraulic ram forces the waste in the cylinder
through a hole in the grate that forms the chamber floor. The waste forced
into the chamber forms a conical pile which is initially ignited by an
auxiliary burner. The chamber is operated at temperatures between 694° and
871° C (1200° and 1600° F) with underfire combustion air preheated to 260° C
(500° F). Overfire air is also provided while still maintaining substoichio-
metric conditions. Near the top of the chamber is a series of air jets whose
centrifugal force on the rising hot combustion gases carries the particulates
to the outer walls such that the heavier ash and sand particles fall near the
edges. The relatively low chamber temperature prevents slagging.
The ash is continuously removed by a Detroit Stoker carrousel system
whose rotating grate moves the ash into a double air lock removal system.
The secondary chamber, a vertical refractory vessel, operates under
finely controlled excess stoichiometric air conditions. Preheated between
the outer shell and the refractory, the combustion air is injected tangen-
tially into the secondary chamber through ports in the inner shell. The
vortex caused by the spiralling air completely mixes the combustion gases and
the air. The flue gases are between 1093° and 1335° C (2000° and 2500° F).
Process demands control the burner, the refuse feed, and the combustion air
to maintain the desired air-to-fuel ratio. The burner can function at 10 to
15 percent excess air. A 30-second response time from the low capacity of
52,7uO llJ/hr (5 MBtu/hr) to the peak capacity of 26,000 MJ/hr (25 HBtu/hr)
makes this unit ideally suited for process heat applications.
Morse Boulger
Morse Boulger makes small substoichiometric incinerators for industries
and larger excess air incinerator systems for municipalities. Capacities of
the substoichiometric units vary from 45.4 to 2270 kg/hr (100 to 5000 Ib/hr).
The municipal unit capacities vary from 22.6 to 226 Mg/day (25 to 250 TPD).
An industrial system with a fire tube waste heat recovery boiler has been
installed in Nassau Hospital in Mineola, New York. New York City has in-
stalled four 226-Mg/day (250-TPD) municipal units.
The hydraulically operated ram feeds the industrial waste into the
cylindrical primary chamber from a charging, hopper. An auxiliary dual-fueled
burner located beneath the raised hearth ignites the waste. A blower, also
mounted beneath the raised hearth, provides only enough air for substoichio-
metric combustion in the primary chamber. Since there is no overfire air,
entrainment of particulates in the flue gases is minimized. The ash moves
23
-------
through the unit by action of the charging ram and falls through a drop chute
in the floor at the rear of the unit. The back of the primary chamber swings
•open to permit access for inspection, repairs, and removal of bulk ash.
The temperature in the primary chamber is maintained at 760° C (1400° F)
Lockout of the feed system prevents over temperatures. The cylindrical sec-
ondary chamber mounts on top of the primary chamber. Excess combustion air is
injected tangentially. A secondary dual burner system provides temperature
control at 927° C (1700° F). Both chambers are lined with fire brick to
maximize the time between refractory repairs. Packaged boilers and heat
exchangers can be provided for recovery of energy. An induced draft fan draws
the flue gases through the heat recovery unit and then to the incinerator
stack.
The municipal unit is an excess air incinerator. A drop chute feeds the
waste into a rectangular primary chamber. Cascading grates move the waste
through the combustion chamber. A blower provides underfire air for cooling
the grates and for combusting most of the organics in the waste. Overfire air
is provided for gas combustion. A conveyor removes the ash through the floor
of the unit.
The burning gases from the primary chamber flow under baffles and over an
archway to the parallel secondary chamber. An induced draft fan then draws the
gases through a series of cyclonic water scrubbers to lower the particulate
level to emission standards. For heat recovery, the incinerators can be
integrated with boilers and other suitable heat exchangers.
Scientific Energy Engineering
The Scientific Energy Engineering incinerator is designed to burn
shredded municipal solid waste. The capacity of this system ranges from
60 to 136 Mg/day (75 to 150 TPD). An experimental 226.8 Mg/day (250 TPD)
unit in Jacksonville, Florida, has been operational for 2 years. The
facility is currently undergoing testing and evaluation.
The primary chamber in this incinerator is a substoichiometric combus-
tion unit. An auger conveyor system feeds the refuse into a horizontal
cylindrical chamber, moves the waste through the chamber, discharges the
residue into a water quench tank, and conveys the discharged residue from
the tank to a truck-loading site. The primary chamber is supplied with
about 40 percent of stoichiometric air to maintain a temperature of 815° C
(1500° F).
Excess air is injected into the secondary chamber to maintain a tempera-
ture between 982° to 1093° C (1800° and 2000° F).
Although the prototype system does not include heat recovery equipment,
future systems will incorporate such equipment.
24
-------
Simonds Company
The Simonds incinerators are designed to burn solid and liquid wastes
from commercial and industrial sites and pathalogical wastes from hospitals.
Capacities range from 45.4 to 1335 kg (100 to 2500 Ib) per hour. Hospital
installations with waste heat recovery are located at Boca Roton, Daytona
Beach, Pensacola, and Orlando, Florida; Charleston, South Carolina; and
Donnelson, Tennessee. An industrial facility at Plough, Incorporated,
Memphis, Tennessee, has a burning capacity of 908 kg (2000 Ib) per hour.
This facility has waste heat recovery.
In the Simonds units the waste is fed from a hopper into a rectangular
substoichiometric primary chamber by a hydraul^cally operated ram. In
nearly all the installations, the residue is removed manually in batches
through a clean-out door. A recently designed automatic system consists of
a series of rams that enter the primary chamber and push the residue out of
the chamber through an air lock door.
The primary chamber is lined with castable refractory. A blower supplies
sufficient air to allow combustion of the waste under stoichiometric
conditions. The air is introduced into the primary chamber through manifolds
along both sides of the flat hearth. Temperature is maintained at about
787° C (1450° F) by regulating the airflow and controlling the introduction
of waste.
A smaller rectangular secondary chamber is located on top of the
primary chamber. A modulating burner maintains a minimum temperature at
787° C (1450° F). Sufficient air is introduced to ensure completion of tne
combustion process under excess air conditions.
The system is integrated with heat recovery equipment. A prefabricated
module for either hot water generation or steam generation is available.
An induced draft fan draws gases from the incinerator breeching to and
through the heat recovery module, and then through the boiler exhaust stack
U.S. Smelting Furnace Company
The units manufactured by this firm are called Smokatrol incinerators.
They are designed to burn industrial and commercial waste. Capacities of
che units range from 45.4 to 1335 kg (100 to 2500 Ib) per hour. The firm
has just begun to actively market the newly acquired Smokatrol line of
incinerators.
The primary chamber in each of these incinerators is a substoichiometric
combustion unit. A hydraulic ram feeder pushes the refuse into and through
the primary chamber. This chamber is a horizontal cylindrical vessel with
a burner for start-up firing and for maintaining combustion temperatures of
approximately 815° to 871° C (1500° to 1600° F). The temperature is also
maintained by controlling the refuse feed rate through a temperature lock-
out. Unmodulated combustion air enters the chamber through perforated
tubes in the floor. The ash at the exit end of the chamber falls through a
25
-------
drop chute into a water quench pit (which forms the air seal) where a drag
conveyor pulls it into a drop box.
The secondary chamber is a horizontal cylindrical vessel with baffles
to promote combustion. This chamber is operated at temperatures about
1093° C. ^2000° F) by modulating the a^r supply.
The incinerator system is integrated with a triple-pass firetube waste
heat boiler. An induced draft fan pulls the hot gases through the boiler
in three passes with the last exiting into the incinerator stack.
Wasburn and Granger
The incineration units are custom-designed to burn municipal solid
waste. Under construction in Mayport, Florida, is a unit for the Navy that
will burn 1.8 Mg/hr (2 TPH) of municipal waste and also have heat recovery.
The primary chamber in each of these incinerators is a substoichiometric
combustion unit. In the large systems, a ram feeder pushes the refuse into
and through a rectangular primary chamber. Air flows at a constant rate
into this chamber with the burners modulated to maintain a temperature of
538° C (1000° F). The ash is removed continuously through a vertical drop
chute at the end of the chamber. A horizontal ram at the bottom of the
chute pushes the ash through an air lock into a container.
The secondary chamber receives air at a constant flow rate. Chamber
temperature is maintained at 760° C (1400° F) by modulating a burner.
The incinerator system can be integrated with heat recovery equipment.
SUMMARY
In summary of the foregoing 17 incinerator system sources, the follow-
ing presents the five incinerator system categories along with the corres-
ponding sources and representative illustrations for each category.
(1) Two horizontal cylindrical chambers with one above the other,
as manufactured by Environmental Control Products, Comtro, Morse
Boulger, Econo-Therm, Kelley, Consumat, and Smokatrol (see
Figure 2).
(2) Two horizontal rectangular chambers with one above the other,
as manufactured by Washburn & Granger, Basic, and Simonds (see
Figure 3).
(3) Two vertical cylindrical chambers with one above the other, as
manufactured by Burn-Zol and Lamb-Cargate (see Figures 4 and 5).
(4) A rotary primary chamber or fixed primary chamber with a rotary
grate or auger and a fixed secondary chamber, as manufactured by
Scientific Energy Engineering, Giery, and C. E. Bartlett (see
Figures 6, 7, and 8).
26
-------
(5) Two horizontal rectangular chambers with one after the other, as
manufactured by Clear Air (see Figure 9).
SPARK ARRESTOR
FIRE DOOR-
LOADING HOPPER
PRIMARY CHAMBER
[©]
BURNER
-BURNER
- ACCESS DOOR
RESIDUE CHUTE
BLOWER
Figure 2. Configuration of two horizontal cylindrical chambers
with one above the other.
BURNER -
ACCESS DOOR -
SPARK ARRESTOR
BLOWER
SECONDARY CHAMBER
PRIMARY CHAMBER
HL
5]
BURNERS'
- FIRE DOOR
LOADER
BLOWER
Figure 3.
Configuration of two horizontal rectangular chambers
with one above the other.
27
-------
BLOWER-
BURNER -
BLOWER -
T
C
SE
C
F
C
ERTIARY
HAMBER
i
DONDARY
HAMBER
i
'RIMARY
HAMBER f
o
J
I-
[
l
LOADER
I " 1
Li -ll
ACCESS DOOR
Figure 4. Configuration of Burn-Zol's two vertical cylindrical
chambers with one above the other.
28
-------
Figure 5. Configuration of Lamb-Cargate's two vertical cylindrical
chambers with one above the other.
29
-------
SHREDDER/AIR CLASSIFIER
STEAM GENERATING SYSTEM/SEE INCINERATOR
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
Figure 6. Configuration of Scientific Energy Engineering's
incinerator with an auger in the primary chamber.
HOPPER
GATES
REFUSE CHUTE
GATES
IGNITION BURNER
FLUE GAS OUTLET
TO SCRUBBER
ROTARY BASKET
GRATE
RESIDUE
Figure 7. Configuration of Giery's incinerator with a rotary
grate in the primary chamber.
30
-------
SECONDARY
CHAMBER
LOADING
RAM
RESIDUE PIT
Figure 8. Configuration of C. E. Bartlett's incinerator with
a rotary primary chamber.
ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATOR
PRIMARY CHAMBER
WITH MOVING GRATE
WATER TUBE BOILER
Figure 9. Configuration of Clear Air's incinerator-heat
recovery system with two horizontal rectangular
chambers aligned one after the other.
31
-------
SECTION 3
SITE SELECTION AND TEST METHODOLOGY
SITE SELECTION
The program objective was to evaluate the potential of the small modular
incinerator system with heat recovery as a viable means for handling the
municipal solid waste of small cities. To this end, the program called for
(1) the identification of all existing incinerator systems which would meet
four basic criteria, (2) the screening of the identified systems according to
an additional four criteria, and (3) the selection of two of the systems
meeting all eight criteria for detailed evaluation.
The initial four criteria to identify candidate systems were as follows:
(1) A system whose capacity per unit and per system were
under 45.3 and 90.7 Mg/day (50 and 100 TPD) , respectively.
(2) A system with integrated heat recovery equipment.
(3) A system representative of current technology.
(4) A system burning principally municipal solid waste.
The second four criteria were as follows:
(1) A system whose management would cooperate with the
evaluation.
(2) A system which would be readily accessible and suitable
for the system evaluation testing.
(3) A system which would be fully operational and available to
gather maintenance and economic data before the testing.
(4) A system which would be fully operational and available to
collect sample data during the testing.
The investigation of the systems according to the eight criteria
required the following four steps. In the first step, Systems Technology
Corporation (SYSTECH) identified the sites of candidate systems through
consultations with the manufacturers of the 17 systems discussed in Section 2.
In the second step, SYSTECH engineers visited the principal sites of the
candidate systems to analyze and document their potential for meeting the
eight criteria. With the information collected during the site visits, the
third step involved rating the candidate sites according to the degree to
which they met each of the eight criteria. The fourth step, the selection of
two sites to be evaluated, required approvals from the site management, the
EPA, and the incinerator manufacturer.
32
-------
The site management had to permit SYSTECH to install test equipment and
to conduct the tests during normal operating conditions. The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) approval was required to confirm that the selected
sites met the criteria specified in the contract. The incinerator manufac-
turer had to provide equipment layout details, manufacturing and design
information, and operational data. As will be discussed, the four steps were
performed twice in two separate investigations.
In the first investigation, five municipal sites were identified as
evaluation candidates and were rated in the given order according to their
meeting the criteria:
(1) North Little Rock, Arkansas, with a Consumat facility.
(2) Crossville, Tennesse, with a Farrier facility.
(3) Siloam Springs, Arkansas, with a Consumat facility.
(4) Blythville, Arkansas, with a Consumat facility.
(5) Groveton, New Hampshire, with an Environmental Control
Products facility.
Of the five sites, only North Little Rock had a facility which satis-
factorily met all criteria. This facility has four Consumat 22.7 Mg/day
(25 TPD) modules with two heat recovery modules. Each heat recovery module
can generate 4540 kg/hr (10,000 Ib/hr) of steam at 150 psi for delivery to a
nearby manufacturer.
Therefore, to acquire a second site for the comprehensive evaluation,
the EPA modified the requirement for the type of refuse burned to include
industrial waste. Accordingly, a second investigation was conducted with the
four steps applied to incinerator systems burning industrial waste. As a
result, four additional sites were identified as evaluation candidates. They
were visited for the preliminary candidate evaluation and rated in the given
order according to their meeting the eight criteria:
(1) Rockwell International, Marysville, Ohio, with a Kelley
facility.
(2) Moore Business Forms, Homesdale, Pennsylvania, with a
Comptro facility.
(3) John Deere, Dubuque, Iowa, with a Consumat facility.
(4) Pentagon, Washington, D.C., with a Consumat facility.
The last two sites were given the lowest ratings principally to avoid
evaluating sites with the same type of equipment as the municipal facility.
Of the four sites burning industrial waste, Rockwell International was
selected as the second site to be evaluated. The facility at this site
includes a Kelley incinerator, a York-Shipley firetube boiler, and a Trane
absorption chiller. Capable of burning 545 kg/hr (1200 Ib/hr) of Type 0
industrial waste, the facility produces hot water whose thermal energy is used
for both heating and cooling the plant's main building.
33
-------
TECHNICAL EVALUATION
The technical evaluation was based on the results from the three field
tests at each of the two selected sites. The North Little Rock facility was
first tested during the week of March 20 to 24, 1978. The units were then
not at full capacity and were still undergoing equipment modification. The
second field test was conducted during the week of May 22 to 26, 1978. The
units were still not at operating capacity and were undergoing further changes.
The third field test was held during the week of October 9 to 13, 1978, when
the units were operating near capacity and the changes had been completed.
The Marysville facility was first tested during the week of April 24 to 28,
1978. During this period refractory repairs interfered with the stack
emissions testing. In addition, the system did not operate under steady-
state conditions because of mild weather and the consequent low heating
demand. The second field test was held during the week of July 17 to 21, 1978,
when the system was operating in a steady-state condition with daily burndown
periods. The third test was conducted during the week of August 21 to 25, 1978,
when the daily waste loading varied widely.
The efficiencies of refuse combustion and of the incineration system
were determined and analyzed. The efficiency of the steam generating boiler
at North Little Rock was determined by two methods: (1) the input-output
method which is expressed as
useable energy out
total energy in
and (2) the heat loss method which is expressed as
sum of heat losses
n = 1 -
total energy in
According to ASME codes, the efficiency of the hot water boiler at Marysville
was determined only by the heat loss method.
The heat losses in the following sources or causes were negligible and
therefore not considered in the energy balance or efficiency calculations:
(1) unburned carbon monoxide, (2) unburned hydrocarbons, (3) radiation to
sump plus latent heat lost in the fusion of slag, (4) sensible heat in flue
dust, and (5) heat removed by cooling water around the sump and air tubes
(this water was part of the boiler make-up water heating system).
Both methods required measuring or determining the following: the
quantity and heating values of the refuse and residue, the auxiliary fuel
used, the amount and enthalpy of the steam generated, and the heat losses
such as those due to radiation, convection, and sensible heat in the flue
gas.
A mass balance was completed to verify the accuracy of these data so
that the data could be validly used in the energy efficiency and balance
calculations. In the mass balance, the mass inputs to the system were
calculated and compared with the measured mass outputs from the system. In
the combustion gas balance, the measured inputs were analyzed to determine
34
-------
their carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulfur, ash (inert), and water
components. The total mass of these components was compared with the
measured mass exiting the stack in the flue gas. In the energy balance,
the measured input energies were compared with the measured output energies.
While the input and output values in each of the three balances should be
equal, values close to equality, i.e., less than a 5 percent difference
between them, are normally the optimum results.
As mentioned, the most continuous and stable operating conditions were
during the third test period at the North Little Rock facility and during the
second test period at the Marysville facility. Therefore, except for some
test period comparisons, the technical evaluation'for the two facilities is
based on the. optimum test period for each. Appendix A presents the technical
evaluation data for the other two test periods at each site.
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Introduction
The effects of the incinerator-heat recovery operation on the environ-
ment, specifically the atmosphere, the discharged process water, the landfills
for refuse disposal, and the plant areas were evaluated. At each of the two
plant sites, these four environments were monitored and analyzed during three
periods of normal operation. Table 3 summarizes the environmental aspects
monitored and the method used to analyze each.
Affected Environments
Atmosphere—
The stack emissions monitored were particulates, heavy metals (in both
particulate and vapor form), and the following gases and vapors: chlorine,
fluorine, sulfur and nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and the standard com-
bustion products (oxygen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide). Emission
samples were collected from both the exhaust stack and the ambient area around
the plant.
The mass flow rate and chemical composition of the particulate heavy
metals and some of the gases and vapors were investigated by a modified EPA
Method 5 train which is illustrated in Figure 10 and described in the Federal
Register of December 23, 1971. As shown in this figure, the train included a
filter to capture particulates and three impingers to capture the gases and
vapors. The first impinger, which contained hydrogen peroxide, scrubbed out
most of the metals that were in vapor form. Then the second impinger con-
tained a dilute nitric acid silver nitrate solution to capture the gases and
vapors that passed through the first impinger, and the third impinger was
empty.
The mass of the particulates captured on the filter was weighed and then
divided by the recorded volume of gas sampled to yield the particulate mass
concentration per gas volume. In addition, these particulates were analyzed
for chemical composition. The impinger solutions were analyzed for concen-
trations of sulfur dioxide, chlorine, fluorine, and water vapor.
35
-------
TABLE 3. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS SAMPLED WITH SAMPLER AND
ANALYSIS TYPE FOR EACH
Element sampled
1. Particulates
2. Flue gases
3. Ambient air
4. Water
(a) Filter in modified
EPA Method 5 train
(b) 7-stage cascade
impactor
(a) Impinger solution in
modified EPA Method 5
(b) Tri-gas monitor
(c) Orsat analyzer
(d) Tedlar bag sampler
(e) Infrared analyzer
(a) Respirable fraction
personnel sampler
(b) Staff monitors
(c) Hand-held Ecolyzer
(d) Sound-level meter
(a) Manual grab sampler
Analysis
(1) particulate concentration
(1) particulate size distribution
(1) metals concentration
(2) chlorine concentration
(3) fluorine concentration
(4) moisture concentration
(5) sulfur dioxide concentration
(1) nitrogen dioxide concentration
(2) oxygen concentration
(3) sulfur dioxide concentration
(1) oxygen concentration
(2) carbon monoxide concentration
(3) carbon dioxide concentration
(1) hydrocarbon composition and
concentration
(1) carbon dioxide concentration
(2) carbon monoxide concentration
(1) fugitive dust levels
(2) viable organism concentration
(1) odor
(1) carbon monoxide concentration
(1) noise levels
(1) chemical composition
(2) biological organisms
(3) physical properties
A wet-catch sample of the stack particulate was also taken by the
modified Method 5 gas train. All three impingers were filled with distilled
water. The vapors drawn through the water condensed and the particulates went
into solution. The impinger water was then evaporated and the weight of the
remaining solids was added to the filter particulate weight to determine the
total particulate weight.
To determine the size distribution of the particulates, a seven-stage
inertial cascade impactor was inserted in the gas stream (see Figure 11).
The weight of the particulates captured on each stage provided the data for
computing the particulate size distributions.
36
-------
PROBE
REVERSE
TYPE
PITOT
TUBE
MANOMETER DRY TEST METER AIR TIGHT PUMP
Figure 10. Schematic of modified Method 5 gas train.
The oxides of nitrogen and sulfur in the stack emissions were analyzed
by a continuously recording TSI Monitor and by EPA wet chemistry methods.
The TSI Monitor alternately drew samples from the boiler outlet and the
exhaust stack. Incorporating electro-chemical cells, the monitor was daily
calibrated against standard gases by EPA wet chemistry methods.
The hydrocarbons in the Ci to C6 ranges were analyzed by periodically
drawing flue gas samples from the boiler exhaust stack and passing them
through a gas chromatograph. The monitoring and analysis of the hydrocarbons
in the C7 to C12 ranges is described in the discussion of the EPA Level One
analysis.
An Orsat analyzer continuously monitored stack-drawn flue gases for the
analysis of oxygen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide gases. Two Beckman
infrared analyzers also continuously monitored stack-drawn gases to determine
the carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide levels in the flue gases.
Opacity was measured by a Leads & Northrup single-pass transmissometer
which spanned the stack and was calibrated with neutral density filters.
Attempts to measure the particulate resistivity in the stack by a
WAHLCO resistivity probe assembly failed because of the small particulate
size which would not collect in the sampling cyclone.
37
-------
1
1/2 INCH c/) STAINLESS STEEL PROBE I
CHECK
.[ VALVE
CASCADE
IMPACTOR
HEAD
V7
t
GAS
FLOW
W
STACK
MANOMETER
DRY TEST METER AIR TIGHT PUMP
Figure 11. Schematic of seven-stage cascade impactor.
Process Water—
Of the process water discharged from an incinerator-heat recovery unit,
two effluents could have high pollution levels: (1) water pumped from the
residue removal sumps and (2) water used to clean the plant and equipment.
Consequently, the parameters monitored and evaluated in these effluents
included flow rate, pH content, temperature, total coliform, BOD, COD, sus-
pended solids, total solids, and chemical composition.
Landfills for Waste Disposal—
Two plant process streams, combustion residue and bulky refuse rejects,
could adversely affect the landfills used for their disposal. Accordingly,
to determine the leachate characteristics of the residue, landfill condi-
tions were simulated by preparing laboratory lysimeters in which 'residue
samples were deposited and controlled amounts of moisture were added at
regular intervals.
After the leachate had been formed and filtered, the filtrate was
analyzed for material content (iron, copper, cadmium, nickel, lead, chrome,
fecal strep, total coliform, Cl, ORP, IDS, and TS) and qualities (color,
conductivity, density, hardness, odor, pH, COD, and TOG).
38
-------
Plant Areas—
The ambient elements and conditions monitored inside the plant were
fugitive dust, carbon monoxide emitted by the incinerators and vehicles,
odors, and noise.
To investigate the fugitive dust, the air was sampled at selected
positions by a respirable fraction personnel sampler. The dust captured in
the filters'of this sampler was analyzed for dust concentrations and viable
biological organisms according to the methods recommended in the American
Public Health Association (APHA) Standard Methods, 14th Edition. Odors were
investigated to determine their source and degree of offensiveness. Carbon
monoxide levels were measured by a hand-held Ecolyzer monitoring instrument.
Noise levels were measured at sufficient points to prepare a noise contour
uiap that could indicate areas where the levels exceeded 90 dBA. In addition
to the in-plant readings, the noise levels at the property boundaries were
measured to compare them with the noise limits prescribed by local ordinances.
The ambient air sampling outside the plant is described in the discussion
of the EPA Level One analysis.
EPA Level One Type of Analysis
Analysis Rationale and Procedure—
The EPA Level One type of analysis is designed to detect the presence
of organic and inorganic contaminants in the mass emissions.
As the first of three levels of sampling and analyzing, Level One has a
threefold objective: (1) to yield preliminary environmental data, that is,
broad approximations of the concentrations and emission rates of inorganic
elements, selected inorganic unions, and organic compounds in particular
categories; (2) to identify pollution sources; and (3) to assign priorities
to elements that should be investigated further. Level Two further defines
the organic and inorganic elements, and Level Three defines the Level Two
data to provide information leading to the design and development of control
devices.
In the current program, the Level One sampling and analysis methods were
adapted to specially investigate the emissions that have a high potential for
adversely affecting the environment.
According to the Level One analysis methods, the inorganic elements were
analyzed by spark source mass spectrometry, wet chemistry, and gas chromatog-
raphy of compounds in the C7 to Ci2 ranges. The organic elements were
analyzed by low-resolution mass spectrometry, liquid chromatography, infrared
analysis, and gas chromatography of compounds in the Ci to C6 and C7 to C12
ranges.
39
-------
Elements Sampled—
Outside Ambient Air—At about 300-meter distances both upwind and down-
wind of the plant, the air samples were taken by a high-volume sampler to
analyze the particulate size distributions and chemical compositions. A
sorbent trap was also used to analyze the gas chemical composition.
A high-volume sampler was set up twice for a 24-hour period with a
570-Jipm (20-cfm) draw rate to sample 816 m3 (28,.800 cubic feet) of air each
time. The first setup with an Anderson impactor head installed was to collect
particulates for the size distribution analysis. The second setup with an
8- x 10-in. filter installed was to collect particulates for the chemical
analysis.
The sorbent trap, which contained XAD-2 resin, was installed in a
weatherproof box with only the sampling port protruding, as shown in
Figure 12. A vacuum pump drew air through the trap.
Stack Emissions—The flue gases in the boiler exhaust stack were sampled
with Tedlar bags for off-site chemical analysis. They were also sampled by
the filter in the modified EPA Method 5 train and by the resin sorbent trap
installed in series with the filter in the Method 5 train. Figure 13
illustrates the modified EPA Method 5 train with the trap installed.
Process Water—The process water was sampled only at the North Little
Rock plant since the Marysvills incinerator-heat recovery unit does not
discharge any water.
The water samples were analyzed for chemical and bacteriological
composition according to the methods recommended in the APHA Standard
Methods, 14th Edition.
Residue and Leachate—As described in Section 4, the incinerator residue
was sampled daily. Both the original samples and the leachate formed from
these samples were analyzed for chemical composition. The leachate was
formed in two different runs. In one run, the residue was leached at ambient
temperature with distilled water and a phosphate buffer on a vibrating table
for 3 days. The phosphate buffer (H2P04 - KH2 - PO^,) was added to lower the
pH to 5.0 for rain water simulation. In the other run, the residue was
leached as in the first run but with only distilled water with a pH of 5.5.
This was done to determine the interference effects of the phosphate buffer.
After the leachate from both runs was filtered, the filtrate was analyzed for
chemical composition.
In addition, the landfill-deposited residue was inspected to determine
its leaching characteristics.
40
-------
SORBENT TRAP
HOUSING
HIGH-VOLUME
SAMPLER
Downwind assembly at North Little Rock
Upwind assembly at North Little Rock
Figure 12. View of ambient air sorbent trap assembly.
41
-------
— HOT WATER
BATTELLE TENEX TRAP
CuECK
VALVE
iCE BATri
THERMOMETERS
ORIFICE
BY-PASS
VALVE
VACUUM
iGAGE
VACUUM LifvE
MMOMETER
DRY TEST METER AIR TiGhT PUMP
Figure 13. Sketch of stack sorbent trap assembly.
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
Arthur Young & Company, an international accounting firm subcontracted
to perform the basic economic evaluation, defined the costs associated with
the construction and operation of the North Little Rock and Marysville
facilities. On the basis of these costs, the annual costs of the various
plant operating and system aspects were projected. With some specific
deviations in which costs are presented in accordance with the generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP), this evaluation includes the accounting
format prescribed by the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs.
The evaluation was designed to present a detailed accounting of
(1) capital costs, (2) operating and maintenance costs, (3) revenues,
(4) net operating costs.
and
The capital cost categories are land, site preparation, design, con-
struction, real equipment, other equipment, other costs, and modifications.
The operating and maintenance cost categories are salaries, employee benefits,
fuel, electricity, water and sewer, maintenance, replacement equipment,
42
-------
residue removal, chemicals, interest, depreciation, and other overhead. The
revenue categories are steam revenue and tipping fees. In addition to line
costs, the following tables include (1) total capital investment, (2) total
operating cost per Mg of refuse processed, (3) total operating and maintenance
costs, (4) total revenues, and (5) net operating costs.
The economic evaluations for the two facilities have major sections ac
follows: (1) accounting system, (2) capital costs and their financing,
(3) operating and maintenence costs, (4) revenues, (5) net operating costs,
and (6) summary.
43
-------
SECTION 4
OVERVIEW OF FACILITIES AND THEIR EVALUATIONS
EVALUATION OVERVIEW
The current program was designed to evaluate small modular incinerators
in terms of operational data that would reflect the state of the art of their
technologies. Since incinerators burning municipal solid waste have different
operating conditions than those burning industrial waste, a unit of each type
was separately evaluated. Although the two evaluations are documented
together, they are not compared since each typifies a discrete set of condi-
tions. Consequently, the reader is cautioned against drawing any comparative
conclusions.
The two selected facilities were each tested over three 1-week periods
to gather data for technical, environmental, and economic evaluations. The
technical evaluati6n consisted of (1) refuse and residue analyses,
(2) efficiency analyses of the incinerator and the heat recovery boiler,
(3) an operational data summary, and (4) a maintenance data summary. For
each facility, a mass balance was prepared for the weekly field test with the
most continuous and stable operating conditions to verify the accuracy of the
data used in the energy efficiency and balance calculations. In the mass
balance, the mass inputs to the system were calculated and compared with the
measured mass outputs from the system. In the energy balance, the measured
input energies were compared with the measured output energies. While the
input and output values in each of these balances should be equal, values
close to equality, i.e., less than a 5 percent difference between them, are
normally considered the best achievable.
The environmental evaluation consisted of analyses of the stack flue
gases, the residue, the process water, and the general plant environment. In
addition, an EPA Level 1 type of anlysis was designed to identify the organic
and inorganic elements in the system emissions. The EPA-recommended analysis-
methods and sampling techniques were applied to investigate the emissions
that had a high potential for adversely affecting the environment. The
economic evaluation consisted of capital cost, actual operational cost, and
projected operational cost summaries.
44
-------
NORTH LITTLE ROCK FACILITY
Description
General—
The North Little Rock facility, formally called the North Shore Energy
Facility, is located in an industrial area of North Little Rock, Arkansas
(see Figure 14). During the time of this evaluation, the city was collecting
an average of 63.5 Mg (70 tons) of solid waste per day with eight rear-
loading packing trucks. The city collects the residential refuse from some
20,000 homes and the industrial refuse from 20 percent of the approximate
2,000 commercial and manufacturing firms. A private hauler, with a 23m3
(30-yd3) front-loading truck and a container system, collects the othef~~
80 percent of the industrial waste. Only a small portion of this industrial
waste is taken to the energy facility. The remainder goes to the sanitary
landfill. The estimated 1978 waste throughput of the North Little Rock Plant
was 13,721 Mg (15,125 tons). Four Consumat Model CS-1200 modular incinerators
integrated with heat recovery equipment burn the waste and produce steam
which is delivered under contract to the nearby Koppers Corporation, a
manufacturer of creosote-treated wood products. The contract calls for an
average 6804 kg/hr (15,000 Ib/hr) of steam at 150 psi to be delivered
24 hours per day, 5 days per week.
NORTH LITTLE
ROCK
Figure 14. Vicinity map of North Little Rock facility.
45
-------
The plant lies on a relatively flat 2-acre site adjacent to the Koppers1
plant and a railroad line. Koppers leases the site to the city for a nominal
yearly sum. A grade crossing, which is an extension of a street, provides
access to the plant.
There are two structures on the site: a main building with a wing on
each side, one facing east and the other west, and an administration building
southwest of the main building and nearer to the plant access (see Figure 15).
The traffic routing to and through the main building starts at the grade
crossing, proceeds to the truck scale about llm (35 ft) north of the admin-
istration building, passes the west wing, continues through the centrally
located north door for the refuse deposit, and concludes with the exit through
the opposite south door to the departure lane. Although the incoming and
outgoing lanes cross, the truck traffic proceeds smoothly because of the
clear visibility in the area and the usually sufficient time intervals between
truck deliveries and departures.
SETTLING
POND
WEST
BOILER \
TIPPING FLOOR BUILDING
1 EAST
SCALES
OFFICE
BLDG
Figure 15. Plant layout of North Little Rock facility.
In addition to management and locker room areas, the administration
building includes the digital readout for the truck scale and a 24-hour chart
recorder and a digital integrator of the steam production. The truck scale
is a Toledo Model 8030 with a Honeywell recorder. With each truck identified
by a prominently displayed number, a secretary daily records the following
information: arrival time, identification number, gross weight, tare weight,
46
-------
and net weight of each truck, and the totals for the number of trucks and
their weights.
The central part of the main building is the tipping floor. Each of the
two wings contains an identical waste-to-heat energy module. Each module
consists of two identical incinerator systems with a common heat recovery
system.
Although integrated into a single building complex, both the central
tipping floor building and each of the two incinerator-heat recovery wings
are separately enclosed by prefabricated steel walls with integral roofing
for each enclosure. While each of the wing walls rests on a concrete floor
2.13m (7 ft) below the tipping floor, the tipping area walls are supported by
a 1.07m (3 l/2-ft)-high by 15.24-cm (6-in.)-thick wall (wainscotting). At
the entrance to each wing, a loading platform aligned level with the tipping
floor extends into the waste-to-heat energy module area.
Tipping Floor—
Constructed of 15.24-cm (6-in.)-thick concrete, the tipping floor is
36.58m x 24.38m (120 x 80 ft). The floor areas immediately in front of the
two loading platforms have a specified 34.5-Pa (5000-psi), 28-day compressive
strength for additional wear. The wainscotting, which also protects the
walls from vehicle contact, is continuous except for the entrances for the
trucks and to the loading platforms. Each of the truck doors is an overhead
type 5.5m x 5.5m (18 x 18 ft). Within the tipping floor area, the minimum
clearances are 5.5m (18 ft) near the walls and 6.10m (20 ft) under steam
lines. The tipping floor area was designed so that a skid-steer loader could
push the truck-deposited refuse into each of the four corners for temporary
storage and then could push the piled refuse alternately to each of the two
loading platforms.
Waste-to-Energy Module—
As mentioned, the waste-to-energy modules in the two wings are identical.
Except for the configuration to integrate with the common heat recovery
system, the two incinerator systems in each module are also identical.
Figure 16 presents a 3-dimensional drawing of the basic module. The following
subsections describe the module components generally in the order of the
waste-to-energy flow.
Waste loading System—This system consists of a hopper, a ram, a loading
display panel, and a control panel. The hopper is 1.8m (6 ft) long, 1.2m
(4 ft) wide, and 1m (3 ft) deep and is covered by a hinged door that aligns
with the loading platform. The hinged door is activated by the operator of
the skid-steer loader when the charge light comes on. A hydraulic cylinder
opens and closes the door. The switch for the cylinder activation is at the
end of the electrical line that extends from the main control panel in the
module area to the tipping area ceiling and then is suspended to a convenient
height for the operator on the tractor over the loading platform.
Hydraulically operated by one cylinder and a cable system, the refuse
injection ram is a double-acting reciprocating unit that alternately pushes
the refuse in the hopper into the primary combustion chamber on each side of
47
-------
O
S-i
CU
O
,
bO 4J
C -H
•H H
^ -rl
tO O
!-i CO
T) 4-1
CO O
a o
O PS
•H
en
-------
the hopper. A preset timer controls the ram-loading cycle. The fire door on
each of the primary chambers is a 1m x 1.2m (3- x 4-ft)-guillotine type that
is raised by two hydraulic cylinders. All hydraulic cylinders are powered by
a Deyhco Model 130 F, 11-kilowatt (15-hp) motor and hydraulic pump system.
The lighting of lamps and messages on the loading display panel informs
the loading operator of the following: (1) when to load the hopper, (2) which
of the two primary chambers to load next, and (3) how much refuse to put into
the hopper. The amount of the load (heavy, medium, or light) is a function
of the temperature in the primary chamber. Figure 17 shows the panel.
READY-TO-LOAD LIGHTS
Figure 17. Display panel for refuse loading instructions in
North Little Rock facility.
Primary chamber—Incorporating a 3-tiered hearth, the primary chamber
(see Figure 18) is a 7.3m (24-ft)-long, 2.7m (9-ft)-diameter cylinder. It is
constucted in two sections of 6.5-mm (1/4-in.) rolled steel and stands on a
steel leg framework in a large concrete pit outside the building. The
transition section from the hopper to the combustion area passes through the
building wall.'
Both the transition section and the upper half of the chamber are lined
with 12.7-cm (5-in.)-thick Plibrico Plicant Steel Mix castable refractory
which is designed for operating temperatures up to 1454° C (2650° F). A
5.08-cm (2-in.)-thick block insulation lies between the refractory and the
steel shell. Stainless steel anchors secure the refractory to the shell.
Each of the three tiers forming the hearth is flat and is lined with refrac-
tory brick. This brick, which is an A. P. Green Type MC-22 and is rated as
a high duty rotary kiln block, also covers the lower half of the primary
chamber.
49
-------
TO
HEAT
RECOVEf
BOILER
•x
{ 1 SECONDARY CHAMBER
Figure 18. Cross section of incinerator module in North Little
Rock facility.
The first tier at the chamber front aligns with the bottom of the
hopper. The second and the third tier each drop several feet. The third
tier ends at the entrance to a dry ash sump below the primary chamber end.
On both the second and the third tiers, a ram pushes the ash forward.
Stationary water-jacketed tubes in each ram both guide the ram movement and
supply underfire air to the chamber. Each ram face is water-jacketed, is
half the height of the drop, and extends the width of the hearth. Actuated
automatically by a timer in the central control panel, each ram is hydrauli-
cally driven by a cylinder that is powered by the motor-hydraulic pump
assembly for the waste loading system. The air tubes in the two rams are
individually coupled to flexible tubes extending from a combustion air plenum,
beneath the front of the chamber. A Dayton Model 4C330 3.7-kilowatt (5-hp)
blower supplies air to the plenum.
The underfire air is automatically regulated to keep the primary chamber
temperature at the designed level and to permit such mechanical operations as
ash removal. To complement the combustion air regulation for the temperature
control, two nozzles for spraying water mist into the chamber were installed
at the one-third and two-thirds distances along the chamber.
Two burners near the front of the chamber, one on each side at the mid
height and both pointed down slightly, fire the chamber to the 316° C (600° F)
start-up temperature. These burners, North American Model 6427-3 dual-fuel
units, automatically shut off at 316° C (600° F). A high pressure fan, a
50
-------
North American Model 2316-26-1-5 unit, supplies air for the burners. After
the start-up, the fan remains on to protect the burners from the operating
temperatures (see Figure 19).
As the combustion gases leave the top of the primary chamber to enter
the bottom of the secondary chamber above, they pass through a short duct
called the throat. The throat is near the center of the primary chamber and
the front of the secondary chamber. With a 5-cm (2-in.)-thick block insula-
tion next to the steel shell, the throat is lined with a 13-cm (5-in.)-thick
Plibrico Plicart K-L Mix castable refractory. The throat has a ring of holes
through which preheated air from the secondary chamber plenum is tangentially
mixed with the combustion gases exiting the primary chamber.
Figure 19. Side view of west-end combustion chambers with fan
and burner for primary chamber indicated.
The cooling system for the primary chamber includes the water jacket for
the dry ash sump (discussed la,:er) as well as those for the ram tubes and
faces. In addition to preventing the distortion and deterioration of the
foregoing water-jacketed components, the cooled surfaces help restrict
excessive slag formations by lowering temperatures of the refuse in the
primary chamber. The water used in the cooling process is routed to the
51
-------
boiler deaerator tank which subsequently supplies water to the boiler. A
water softener system treats all the water ultimately fed to the boiler.
Besides the water jackets, the cooling system consists of a temperature
regulating valve, a pressure relief valve, manual valves, and interconnecting
water lines.
The entire rear of the primary chamber swings completely open on a
counterweighted hinge. This unrestricted access permits inspection and re-
pair of the refractory, the rams, and the underfire air tubes and removal of
slag and residual ash during the weekend shutdown. A 0.6m x lm (2- x 3-ft)
door in the center of the rear structure provides the means for periodically
inspecting the residue accumulations and slag formations during operation.
Secondary chamber—With its front end mounted on top pf the primary
chamber, the secondary chamber (see Figure 18) extends obliquely to the heat
recovery system common to the two incinerator systems. The secondary chamber
is a cylinder constructed of 6.5-mm (1/4-in.) rolled steel, and is 4.88m
(16 ft) long, and 1.52m (5 ft) in diameter. It is lined with 13-cm
(5-in.)-thick Plibrico Plicant K-L Mix castable refractory that is rated up
to 1650° C (3000° F).
Two Dayton Model 2C652 3.7-kilowatt (5-hp) blowers (see Figure 20)
supply combustion air to a double-walled plenum surrounding the secondary
chamber. The preheated plenum air is then injected tangentially into the
chamber through holes in the refractory. According to preset temperatures,
the central control panel automatically modulates dampers on the fan intakes
to maintain set point control temperatures.
During start-up a North American Model 6422-7A dual-fuel burner heats
the chamber to 927° C (1700° F) and then automatically shuts off. During
operation a temperature-sensing control automatically turns the burner on and
off to maintain the 927° C (1700° F). A blower at the front and toward the
bottom of the chamber supplies the combustion air for the burner. This
ulower is the same North American Model 2316-26-15 that serves the burners
for the primary chamber.
As the hot gases exit the secondary chamber, they pass through a
refractory-lined breech that directs the gases to a refractory-lined tee
section at the base of the dump stack (see Figure 21). A hydraulically
operated guillotine door at the breech entrance into the stack base permits
shutting down one incinerator system while operating the other.
Dump stack—The dump stack provides the means for either discharging the
hot flue gases to atmosphere or directing them to the heat recovery boiler.
Constructed of stainless steel, the dump stack is 9m (30 ft) high and lm (3 ft)
in diameter. A structural platform, consisting of prefabricated sections
bolted together, supports both the stack and the heat recovery sections. It
also provides inspection and maintenance access to the heat recovery equipment.
The stack base is a large refractory-lined box. A refractory-lined cap
(see Figure 22) at the entrance to the stack proper controls the flue gas
flow, i.e., either vertically up the dump stack or horizontally through the
52
-------
Figure 20. Two combustion air fans for each secondary chamber.
53
-------
Figure 21. View showing tee section at base of dump stack, connecting
secondary chamber breeches, control panel, and loading platform.
Figure 22. View of dump stack beside steam drum with
pneumatically closed dump cap indicated.
54
-------
heat exchanger. When there is a steam demand, the cap is pneumatically
closed; when there is no steam demand, the cap is held open by a counter-
weight. A large door on a side of the stack base provides inspection and
maintenance access to the heat recovery sections.
Heat recovery system—The flue gases directed into the heat recovery
system pass through a heat exchanger consisting of five banks of vertical
water tubes. In the first bank the tubes have no fins, in the second and
third banks they have large fins, and in the fourth and fifth banks they have
small fins. Each bank is a module that can be individually removed for
maintenance and repair. A soot blower (Figure 23) directs compressed air
over each tube bank in a top-to-bottom cycle. Soot blowing is automatically
controlled by a timer with time intervals ranging from 4 to 6 hours.
Approximately 35 minutes is required for one soot-blowing operation. An
Ingersol Rand Model 71T2-T30117M 7.5-kilowatt (10-hp) air compressor supplies
the blower with air at 220 psig.
Figure 23. Boiler tube soot-blowing assembly.
The feed water to the heat exchanger tubes is delivered by two Burks
Model E23SP pumps each powered by a 3.7-kilowatt (5-hp) motor. An identical
third pump serves as a backup. At the outset, the water supply from the city
is softened by a Hydro-Max Model 5M 1201 1/2 unit. The softened water is
55
-------
then metered into a Cochrane 2.07- * 105-Pa (30~psi) deaerater tank where two
separate small mixing tanks add water-treatment chemicals. As mentioned
above, the feedwater is partially preheated in the cooling process from the
water-jacketed ram faces and air tubes in the primary chamber and from the
water-jacketed dry ash sump, The feedwater is further heated and deaerated
by injecting steam into it.
The steam generated in the boiler flows to a steam separator drum which
is mounted above and across the boiler enclosure. With 2.1m (7-ft)-long and
1.2m (4-ft)-diameter dimensions, the steam drum has such standard and safety
equipment as pump-on and pump-ofl controls, high and low water-level alarms,
a low water cutoff, dual pressure relief valves, and blowdown drains (see
Figure 24).
At the east end of the plant, a York-Shippley Model 5PH-300-N2-FAH-6781
dual-fired boiler serves as a backup for the heat recovery system. The
boiler can produce 4695 kg/hr (10,350 Ib/hr) of steam at 1.03 x 106 Pa
(150 psi). A fourth Burks Model E23SP pump supplies the feedwater to this
boiler.
WATER LEVEL CONTROLE
a^m^msi^mmi^siif ' - s-• if i
Figure 24. View of steam drum with water level control and
pressure gage indicated.
56
-------
As the flue gases exit the boiler, they flow into the exhaust system
consisting of a stack and an aspirator section in the stack base. Beside the
stack base, a 14.9-kilowatt (20-hp) aspirator fan blows high velocity air
into the boiler outlet section. As the air rises into the stack proper, it
creates sufficient draft to aspirate the flue gases through the boiler.
Constructed of stainless steel, the stack is 6.1m (20 ft) high and 1m (3 ft)
in diameter.
Residue removal system—The transfer rams push the residue toward the
rear of the primary chamber where it falls through the hearth floor exit to
the water-jacketed dry ash sump. After several refuse-loading cycles, another
hydraulically driven ram pushes the dry residue deposit into a water sump
below and outside the chamber enclosure. As the dry residue falls toward the
water sump, nozzles spray water mist on it to prevent its producing steam
when it enters the water. In addition to preventing a steam blowback through
the hearth residue bed (that would agitate particulates into the combustion
gases), a pipe connecting the water sump to the chamber equalizes the pressure
and further minimizes particulate agitation.
After the residue has remained in the water sump for about 15 minutes,
a drag chain conveyor transports the residue to the top of an incline where
the residue is dumped into a drop box container (see Figures 25 and 26). A
Delta Power Model C21 hydraulic pump with a 2.2~kilowatt (3-hp) motor powers
the conveyor and the container-loading spill chute. A load-lugging lifter
mounted on an International truck periodically replaces the filled container
with an empty one.
MOVABLE!
DUMP I.
CHUTE
SYSTECH
MOBILE
2 LABORATORY
rs*****^!
RESIDUE
REMOVAL
CONTAINER
Figure 25. View of automatic residue removal system with conveyor,
movable dump chute, and residue removal container indicated,
57
-------
Figure 26. Residue removal conveyor.
Operation
Figure 27 shows a flow diagram of the incineration-heat recovery
processes.
Refuse Loading—
The operator of the skid-steer tractor on the tipping floor has the two-
fold task of pushing the truck-deposited refuse into each of the four floor
corners for temporary storage and of pushing the piled waste along the
loading platform to the hopper in both the east and the west waste-to-energy
modules (see Figure 28).
When the lighting of the loading display panel indicates the need for
refuse, the" operator performs the following:
1. Gathering a light, medium, or heavy load as directed by the
illuminated LOAD sign.
2. Turning on the ceiling-suspended switch to actuate the opening
of the hopper door.
3. Dumping the collected refuse into the hopper.
4. Turning off the switch to actuate the closing of the hopper door.
58
-------
Flue Gas To
Atmosphere
Primary Chamber
Number 3
1, f
Solids To Water la
Landfill Drainage
Ditch
Water To
Drainage
Ditch
Solids To
Landfill
Solid Waste
Figure 27. Flow diagram of incineration-heat recovery processes
in North Little Rock facility.
Figure 28. West-end view of tipping floor with loading display
panel in background.
59
-------
At the completion of the fourth step, the following operations are
performed automatically in the hopper and the primary chamber areas:
1. The mechanical functions within the primary chamber shut off.
2. The fire door opens.
3. A nozzle close to the fire door entrance sprays a water mist to
prevent flashing in the hopper.
4. The ram in the hopper pushes the refuse beyond the fire door and
then withdraws from the door.
5. The fire door closes.
6. The mechanical functions within the primary chamber resume.
The entire cycle of the ram movement requires about 1/2 minute. The ram
is then reactivated to push refuse into the opposite chamber. The entire
cycle for refuse injection is automatically timed.
The load-size indicators on the loading display panel are automatically
lighted according to the correlation of the primary chamber temperature with
preset lower and upper limits. The three load sizes, namely, LOAD HEAVY,
LOAD MEDIUM, and LOAD LIGHT, refer only to the quantity, that is, cubic yards
of the refuse. Therefore, there is no need to vary the quality of the refuse
gathered for any one of the three load sizes indicated. When the chamber
temperature is above the high set point, the LOAD HEAVY frame, which represents
the largest load, illuminates so that the next load will lower the temperature
below the maximum level. When the chamber temperature is at the desired
operating level, the LOAD MEDIUM frame, which represents the intermediate
load, illuminates so that the next load will maintain the current temperature.
When the chamber temperature is below the low set point, the LOAD LIGHT
frame, which represents the smallest load, illuminates so that the next load
will raise the temperature above the minimum level.
Controlled Air Incineration—
The controlled air incineration process is performed by regulating the
interacting combustion variables in the primary and secondary chambers.
Several factors affect the combustion gas production in the primary
chamber. The gases developed in this chamber are produced primarily by the
interaction of the air with the oxidized and volatilized products from the
waste. The amount of gas produced varies substantially with changes in the
temperature and in the quantity and type of the waste being burned. To make
the gas production as uniform as possible, the airflow controls in the two
chambers are closely correlated to restrict gas and particulate velocities
and to complete the combustion of large particulates. When either the hopper
ram or the hearth rams are cycling, the combustion air blower in the primary
chamber is shut off as a cycle begins and remains off until after the cycle
completion.
60
-------
As in the primary chamber, the combustion air and the auxiliary fuel
introduced into the secondary chamber are controlled by a central control
system. The air and fuel regulations for the secondary chamber govern the
controls for the combustion parameters in the primary chamber.
At incinerator start-up, the burner in the secondary chamber is turned
on and the damper on the air supply blower is closed by its air modulation
motor so that without the air and its cooling effect the chamber temperature
can rise more rapidly. When the temperature approaches the 927° C (1700° F)
operating temperature as sensed by a thermocouple, the damper motor pro-
gressively opens the damper to the approximate full-open position until
927° C (1700° F) is reached. While the damper is opening, the burner is
simultaneously turned down and ultimately off.
Steam Production—
In order to recover a high percentage of heat in the flue gases exiting
the secondary chamber, the gases are slowly drawn through the heat exchanger
by a negative pressure between 350 and 700 Pa (0.05 and 0.10 psi) at the
inlet side. While the aspirator fan located adjacent to the boiler exhaust
stack produces the negative pressure, the magnitude of the pressure is a
function of the aspirator fan inlet damper modulation. A pressure-sensing
device, a small null switch (see Figure 29) at the inlet side of the boiler,
actuates the aspirator fan inlet damper modulator to maintain the preset
pressure (and therefore a constant mass flow) through the system.
MONITORING
THERMOCOUPLE
Figure 29. View of tee section and boiler with aspirator control
null switch and monitoring thermocouple indicated.
61
-------
During steam production, the cap at the base of the dump stack is pneu-
matically closed. Since the cap is normally held open by a counterweight as
a fail-safe design, the flue gases are automatically discharged through the
dump stack whenever the power fails, the flue gas control system malfunctions,
or the water in the steam drum or deaerator tank drops too low.
The steam separator drum is monitored by a pressure control to prevent
excessive steam and water pressures. The pressure of the steam available for
delivery is a function of the rate at which steam is generated (the recovery
rate) and the system pressure. When the recovery rate exceeds the steam
demand rate, the rising pressure activates the automatic open-close cycling
of the dump stack cap. The flue gas discharged through the dump stack is
that amount which will make the recovery rate equal to the steam demand rate.
When the steam demand rate exceeds the recovery rate, the cap remains closed
and the steam production continues constantly.
Residue Transfer and Removal—
The two rams on the hearth of the primary chamber are cycled to push the
residue forward and to break up clinker formations.
The residue removal ram is automatically cycled after a fixed number of
loading cycles. The operator periodically opens the small rear door of the
primary chamber to visually check the level of the residue bed. If the bed
is too deep, he manually cycles the rams. The residue is sprayed with water
as it falls into the wet sump. After a delay period the drag chain lifts the
residue from the sump and deposits it into the residue removal container.
Site Preparation for Testing
The purpose of the testing was to provide detailed data on the facility
performance. Since both wings of the plant are identical and operate under
the same conditions, only one set of incinerators and its common steam
module were tested. The west end of the plant was chosen.
To monitor the stack emissions, ports for air sampling probes were
installed in the boiler stack before and after the aspirator section (see
Figures 30 and 31). Since the upper ports were outside the building, a
structure to protect the equipment and technicians from the weather was
constructed (see Figure 32). Since the facility generated steam 99 percent
of the time, no ports were installed on the dump stack. SYSTECH's mobile
test laboratory, which housed air emission monitors and recorders,
chemicals, other test equipment (see Figure 33), and test records, was
parked alongside the building.
The system's energy recovery capability was monitored by installing
various meters, timers, and thermocouples throughout the system. Auxiliary
fuel was monitored by a rotory gas meter on the natural gas line, and water
usage (for calculation of steam production) was monitored by a water meter on
the condensate return line and by the existing meter and thermometer in the
62
-------
ASPIRATOR
SECTION
Figure 30. View showing aspirator section at right with access
door and exiting gas sampling port indicated.
Figure 31. View inside structure to sample boiler stack emissions above
the aspirator section. Five sampling ports are visible.
63
-------
Figure 32. North view of North Little Rock facility showing testing
structure on roof and around boiler stack of west-end module,
Figure 33. View inside SYSTECH mobile laboratory showing some of the
continuous gaseous emission monitoring equipment.
64
-------
water make-up system. Cycle counters and timers (see Figure 34) were installed
in appropriate electrical control boxes to record such events as load cycles
and the operating time of the aspirator blower fan and the hydraulic system.
A recording ammeter with a continuous recording strip chart was installed on
the main power line.
The system outputs were measured by a multipoint strip chart recorder,
which received sensor signals from thermocouples installed on the boiler
inlet and outlet and existing thermocouples in both of the primary and
secondary chambers; a calorimeter installed in the steam line; and existing
pressure, temperature, and water-level gauges on the boiler steam drum and
deaerator tank. Figure 35 shows the locations of the data collection points
on the west end of the facility.
Consumat Systems, Inc., provided a list of the changes made in the
equipment during the testing and operational start-up period. They are
presented in Appendix A along with changes observed by SYSTECH engineers.
Figure 34. Main electrical panel view showing thermocouple
connections and electrical timers.
65
-------
3
-d
§
CJ
QJ
I
•H
en
4-1
C
•H
O
a,
o •
•H >,
4-J 4-)
a -H
C1J iH
^ -H
rH O
O cfl
O M-)
a
o
14-1 0)
O .H
4->
cn 4-i
G -rl
O >_]
•H
•P ^J
Cfl 4-1
O t-t
O O
nJ a
3
bO
•H
66
-------
Refuse Characterizing
Refuse Sampling and Analysis—
Throughout each of the three weekly field tests, the refuse delivered by
each truck was sampled and its weight was recorded. Since the plant personnel
routinely registered the total and tare weights of each incoming truck, the
refuse weight for each truck was simply extracted from the plant records. As
each truck dumped its refuse at the west end of the tipping floor, a 55-gal
drum was filled with a refuse sample. After the drum was weighed, the
sample was dumped at the east end of the tipping floor where it was hand-
sorted into 11 refuse categories, and each sort was placed in a separate
30-gal can. When each 30-gal can was filled, the can was weighed and its
contents were mixed to ensure a uniform sample. Then a-small sample, a tray
full, was withdrawn for on-site moisture analysis, and a larger sample was
put into a plastic garbage bag to be sent to the SYSTECH laboratory for
further processing and laboratory analysis. For the on-site moisture analysis,
each of the small samples was immediately weighed, dried overnight at 105° C,
and reweighed. The remaining refuse in each of the 30-gal cans was returned
to the west end of the tipping floor.
The feed rate was determined by dividing the weight of the refuse
delivered by the duration of the test. This procedure worked well for the
daily computations during the first two field tests. During the third test,
however, the daily computations were complicated by the need to dump incoming
refuse on Wednesday and FrLday in the same corner as that used on the previous
day. Since both corners were clear on early Tuesday and Thursday, the pounds
of refuse dumped in three time increments, namely (1) Monday, (2) Tuesday and
Wednesday, and (3) Thursday and Friday, were totaled and averaged to yield
the pounds per day for each of the three time increments. Then the pounds of
refuse for all three time increments were totaled and averaged to yield the
pounds per week. In addition, the daily characteristics of the refuse were
averaged to minimize variations in the sampling procedures.
Upon arrival at the SYSTECH laboratory, each of the larger samples was
dried overnight at 105° C and then milled until the refuse passed through a
5-mm screen. Next a portion of the milled samples was forwarded to a commer-
cial laboratory which conducted a heat content and an ultimate analysis. In
the heat content analysis, a bomb calorimeter test yielded values that were
compared with the published values.* The heat content of the refuse in each
category and consequently the heat content of the weekly refuse supply were
calculated from the test data and the published values.
Refuse Characteristics—
For each of the three field tests, Table 4 shows the weekly distribution
of the hand-sorted refuse into the 11 refuse categories. Appendix A lists
the refuse distribution and moisture content 'for the daily samples. Except
for the March test which had insufficient data, Table 5 shows the weekly
moisture content of each of the refuse categories.
*A table of the composition and analysis of average municipal solid waste
published by Purdue University. This table is presented in Appendix A.
67
-------
TABLE 4. NORTH LITTLE ROCK WEEKLY REFUSE COMPOSITION FOR MARCH,
MAY, AND OCTOBER TESTS
Test Period
Category
Food waste
Garden
Paper
Plastic
Textiles
Wood
Ferrous
Aluminum
Glass
Inert
Fines
Weekly %
by weight
8.
7.
48.
6.
3.
1.
8.
1.
10.
1.
3.
8
2
1
1
4
4
3
1
9
6
2
March
Category weight
kg(lb)
13,104(
10,722(
28,890)
23,638)
71,692(157,914)
9,084(
5,063(
2,085(
12,360(
1,638(
16,232(
2,383(
4,765(
20,027)
11,162)
4,596)
27,249)
3,611)
35,785)
5,253)
10,506)
Weekly %
by weight
6.
4.
49.
7.
1.
1.
9.
1.
11.
0.
5.
.7
.2
6
4
5
1
,8
8
8
.4
,7
May
Category weight
kg(lb)
10,332(
6,477(
22,779)
14,279)
76,489(168,630)
11,412(
2,313(
1,696(
15,113(
2,776(
18,197(
617(
8,791(
25,159)
5,100)
3,740)
33,318)
6,120)
40,118)
1,360)
19,380)
October
Weekly % Category weight
by weight kg(lb)
6.8
3.0
54.1
8.7
2.2
1.0
8.8
3.2
7.6
0.3
4.1
13,880(
6,123(
30,600)
13,500)
110,019(242,550)
17,758(
4,491(
2,041(
17,962(
6,532(
15,513(
612(
8,369(
39,150)
9,900)
4,500)
39,600)
14,400)
34,200)
1,350)
18,450)
Total*
100.1
149,198(328,631)
100.0
154,350(339,980)
203,483(448,200)
Totals do not equal weighed refuse total due to rou.iding arid averaging.
68
-------
TABLE 5. NORTH LITTLE ROCK WEEKLY REFUSE MOISTURE CONTENT
FOR MAY AND OCTOBER TESTS*
Test period - May
Category
Food waste
Garden
Paper
Plastic
Textiles
Wood
Ferrous
Aluminum
Glass
Inert
Fines
Total
Weekly average
moisture*
(%)
54.4
43.5
30.4
16.1
10.0
14.4
5.9
3.8
1.3
—
23.7
24.0
Weekly total
weight
kg(lb)
10,332( 22,779)
6,477( 14,279)
76,489(168,630)
11,412( 25,159)
2,313( 5,100)
1,696( 3,740)
15,113( 33,318)
2,776( 6,120)
18,197( 40,118)
617( 1,360)
8,791( 19,380)
154,213(339,980)
moisture
weight
kg(lb)
5,621(12,392)
2,&17( 6,211)
23,253(51,264)
1,837( 4,051)
231( 510)
244( 539)
892( 1,966)
105 ( 233)
237( 522)
( — )
2,083( 4,593)
37,320(82,278)
Dry weight
kg(lb)
4,711( 10,387)
3,660( 8,068)
53,236(117,367)
9,575( 21,108)
2,082( 4,590)
1,452( 3,201)
14,221( 31,352)
2,671( 5,887)
17,960( 39,596)
( — )
6,708( 14,786)
116,276(256,342)
Test period - October
Category
Food waste
Garden
Paper
Plastic
Textiles
Wood
Ferrous
Aluminum
Glass
Inert
Fines
Total
Weekly average
moisture*
(%)
62.7
54.2
21.7
13.3
15.2
12.2
7.0
11.8
4.0
1.0
34.7
22.0
Weekly total
weight
kg(lb)
13,880( 30,600)
6,123( 13,500)
110,019(242,550)
17,758( 39,150)
4.49K 9,900)
2,041( 4,500)
17,962( 39,600)
6,532( 14,400)
15,513( 34,200)
612( 1,350)
8,369( 18,450)
203,300(448,200)
moisture
weight
kg(lb)
8,703(19,186)
3,319( 7,317)
23,874(52,633)
2,362( 5,207)
683( 1,505)
249 ( 549)
1,257( 2,772)
771( 1,699)
621( 1,368)
6( 14)
2,904( 6,402)
44,748(98,652)
Dry weight
kg(lb)
5,177( 11,414)
2,805( 6,183)
86,145(189,917)
15,396( 33,943)
3,808( 8,395)
1,792( 3,951)
16,705( 36,828)
5,761( 12,701)
14,892( 32,832)
606( 1,337)
5,465( 12,048)
158,553(349,549)
* Weekly averages computed from Table A-2, Daily Refuse Moisture Samples,
in Appendix A.
69
-------
As shown in Tables 5 and 6, the refuse in the October tests had more
paper and plastic (the refuse categories affecting the heating value the
most) per pound of refuse than the refuse in both the March and May tests,
but less moisture than the refuse in the May tests (22 percent for October
and 24 percent for May). The lesser moisture in the October tests was due
principally to the lower moisture in the paper category.
TABLE 6. NORTH LITTLE ROCK DAILY REFUSE COMPOSITION FOR OCTOBER TESTS
Category
Food waste
Garden waste
Paper waste
1'lasl ics
I'extiles
Wood
Ferrous
Alum mum
Cljs.s
Inert
Fines
10
6.
0.
55.
6.
0.
0.
8.
0.
11.
0.
9.
/16__
3
4
4
9
2
6
4
3
2
6
5
Daily
10/9
12.
4.
47.
8.
2.
0.
10.
2.
7.
0.
3.
3
9
3
8
1
7
1
8
2
1
6
Percentage Standard Total Weekly vt
Deviation (kg) (Ib)
( o)
10/10
6.9
4,2
53.1
7.7
3.8
0.8
9.9
2.0
3.8
0.7
7.1
10/11 10/12 Avg
6.5 1.8 6.8
.1.2 0.3 2.6
56.6 58.3 54.1
8.9 11.0 8.7
1.9 1.3 1.9
0.2 2.3 0.9
7.6 7.5 8.7
2.6 7.7 3.0
10.} 8.2 8.]
0 0.1 .3
2.4 1.3 4.8
99.9
13,
5,
3.8 110,
17,
1 .2 3,
0.7 1 ,
1.1 17,
6,
2.6 16,
-
3.1 9,
880
307
631
774
878
837
758
123
738
612
798
204,367
30,600
11,700
243,960
39,150
8,550
4,050
39,150
13,500
36,900
1,350
21,600
450,450
On the average, the city collected 1 1/2 truck loads per day of waste
from businesses and commercial establishments throughout the week. The waste
averaged 3405 kg/day (7500 Ib/day) and constituted 10 percent of the total
refuse per week.
While the foregoing characteristics are for the March, May, and October
tests, those following are for the detailed October tests only, as mentioned
in the introduction.
As shown in Table 7, the daily bulk densities averaged 97.7 kg/m3
(164.6 lb/yd3).
70
-------
TABLE 7. NORTH LITTLE ROCK DAILY REFUSE BULK
DENSITIES FOR OCTOBER TESTS
Bulk density
(Average of ten samples)
Date (kg/m3) ~~
10/09/78
10/10/78
10/11/78
10/12/78
101.40
86.29
102.86
100.17
170.90
H5.40
173.40
168.80
Weekly average 97.70 ]64.60
Table 8 lists the results of the ultimate analysis of a refuse sample
taken on October 9. This table shows that the sample carbon, oxygen, and
sulfur percentages were close to the corresponding published values.
Again with the published values given for comparison, Table 9 lists the
daily heating values of the refuse categories. Similarly, Table 10 compares
the weekly heating values with the published values. The difference between
the respective weekly totals is only 12,660 MJ (12 MBtu). The refuse cate-
gories that contributed most to the total heat value were paper and plastics
with 68 and 18 percent, respectively, of the total percentage. Since the
published values fall within the range of the laboratory-derived heating
values, the latter were used in the efficiency analysis whenever possible.
The heating values for the entire refuse samples averaged 14.3 MJ/kg
(6151 Btu/lb) on a dry basis and 11.1 MJ/kg (4777 Btu/lb) on an as-received
basis. These values are higher than those found in most other refuse studies
and can be attributed to the high percentage of paper and plastics in the
refuse delivered to the North Little Rock plant.
The refuse burned during the Ocotber test totaled 204,300 kg (450,000 Ib).
Although the daily waste delivered was recorded, the daily feed rate had to
be averaged as discussed above. During the October tests, the feed rate
varied between 1552 and 1652 kg/hr (3420 and 3640 Ib/hr) or 826 and 890 kg/unit
(1820 and 1960 Ib/unit) (see Table 11).
71
-------
CO
H
CO
w
H
PS
w
PQ
O
H
O
O
Pi
O
CO
H
CO
53
^J
**<
w
H
— '
-!
PC!
o
C3
w
<£
u
w
CO
p
w
CJ
o
fy]
w
h— I
EfH
H
M
^
1
O
^
00
w
1-1
H
4J
C
0)
6
OJ
H
jH
U) -^
-.
^j
O
oC
0)
4_)
crj
U
rH rH m CTi
m m oo o
^£> CN \£> - O O
CN rH rH CN
0> ^D 00 ^0
CO CN r-- - CO r-H
r-* VD co tTi
t, An
CN CN CO
CO
in o m r-
co CN r~* in
m CN co CN
C3"> CO in CN
rH CN CN CN
^O CN rH rH
„
^) CO rH CT^
CT> rH rH CN
>H oo r-- r-
r—\
r~^ to co r^*
CO r-- O^ rH
°^ ^ ^ ^
rH O CO
^J-
s s s s
00 ON r- in
rH in -
,_, 00 rH CO
b~l CN \£) Ln
CO rH
CO
o
C -H
QJ }-l U
•~O T3 ru u)
o J-i ex ca
O (tf Cd rH
ON O vO CO co QO
CN CO 00 CO O 00
rH r--. o o co
cO i — t CO ON O> ON
1^- rH rH 1 | |
rH 1 t 1
ON r- O 1 1 1 ,
rH O CN 1 1 1
^D CO r— 1 1 1
m r^ | | |
'-O in O
*3" <* 0 0 0
co m oo kD ^O CO <3" ON
rH ON O rH
CN rH
m oo in oo co \£>
^O cO ON O O O
in in rH
co CN m m rH CN
O ON ^ O ^D ON
oo r- i_n
*x> -, >,
^ r-l
Tj rCj
CO
AJ rH tH
1-j r; crj
CU -U 4-»
Ci O O
M H H
m
0 rH
rH CO
- OJ
rH > >
cd -H T3 -H
4-) 0) 0) 0)
O 0 X 0
;->
-------
TABLE 9. NORTH LITTLE ROCK DAILY REFUSE CATEGORY HEATING
VALUES FOR OCTOBER TESTS
Heating value
MJ/kg(Btu/lb)
Date
Category
Garden
Food
Paper
Wood
Fines
Plastics
Textiles
15.
19.
18.
19.
12.
29.
18.
10/9
25 ( 6,
86 ( 8,
28( 7,
44( 8,
00 ( 5,
46(12,
78( 8,
555)
539)
859)
358)
159)
667)
074)
10/10
18. 01( 7,
17.04( 7,
17.08( 7,
20.1K 8,
8.45( 3,
27.12(11,
19. 74( 8,
10/11
742)
327)
345)
644)
631)
661)
485)
16.84(
14.73(
18. 71(
19.6K
8.34(
7,239)
6,334)
8,042)
8,431)
3,587)
33.48(14,394)
19.34(
8,315)
10/12
18.58( 7
18.74( 8
16.33( 7
15.33( 6
4.38( 1
26.44(11
23.49(10
,988)
,058)
,021)
,590)
,884)
,367)
,100)
Average
17.17(
17.60(
17.60(
18.62(
8.29(
7,381)
7,565)
7,567)
8,006)
3,565)
29.13(12,522)
20.34(
8,744)
Published value
17.45(
19.73(
17.6K
20.03(
6.98(
7,500)
8,484)
7,572)
8,613)
3,000)
28.36(12,194)
17.80(
7,652)
73
-------
CO
H
CO
w
H
Pi
P5
o
H
u
o
O
Pn
co
w
Pi
w
w
Pi
o
o
w
H
CO
Fn
w
Pi
W
o
o
Pi
w
j
H
H
33
£
O
2
1— 1
TO
4-1
O
£_|
OC
c
•H
±j
TO
OJ
i— I
TO
O
H
OT
C
•H
4-J
OJ
PS
4-J
3
>-
Q
u OC O
C l-i 4-J
Qj CD TO
U C rJ
V- S CO
O O
bO
U < X
D
C ^ 3
^~'
^
OJ -D
3 CO rH
TO --. 3
"^ S-
^ rH
r~ i o cc m o cc
c\i --d" ^c I-H CN ON
vD rH
ON CN O^ CN i — 1 r^-
O r~- CN m rn cn m
^ c. ^5
in o cn ^d1 rH CN en m co o VD ON
• in • CN -^~. en c^ x-v co '"^
O -*3" O in O
in \o r^i rv I-H CN in
-d~ cc *" cn cn , — ,
-------
TABLE 11. NORTH LITTLE ROCK DAILY REFUSE BURNING RATES FOR
OCTOBER TESTS*
Test period
Date Time
10/08 23:00
10/10 10:30
10/12 12:00
Refuse burned
kg(lb)
21,183( 46,701 )
37,494( 82,660 }
46,539(102,600 )
41,558( 91,620 )
41,522( 91,540 )
23,151( 51,040 )
-6,804(-15,000*)
Refuse
delivery
date
10/06
10/09
10/10
10/11
10/12
10/13
10/14
Test
time Refuse processed
(hr) kg(lb)
0
35.5 58,681(129,370)
49.5 88,097(194,220)
Burning rate
Mg/hr(TPH)
1.65(1.82)
1.78(1.96)
10/13 21:30
33.5 57,869(127,580) 1.72(1.90)
Total
204,647(451,170 )
118.5 204,647(451,170)
1.72(1.90)
* Weight of refuse not burned calculated by dividing estimated remaining volume by
average bulk density from sort data.
Residue Characterizing
Residue Sampling and Analysis—
The residue discharged by each of the two residue conveyor drop chutes
was dumped into containers. The residue weight was determined by weighing
the residue removal truck with a full container and again with the container
empty after the truck returned from the landfill. With each container having
an identification number, the following record was kept: its placement under
one or the other of the two drop chutes and its time of residue receipt and
removal onto a truck.
At both of the drop chutes, residue samples were taken as follows:
First the drop chute was pulled beyond the container area so that residue
would fall onto the concrete floor. Large clinkers were broken into small
pieces by a sledge hammer. Next the residue was mixed by shoveling the edges
toward the center until the pile was completely turned over. Then the pile
was quartered and the residue in opposite corners was shoveled into a con-
tainer. After the remaining residue was mixed, the procedure was repeated
until there was only enough residue to fill a 5-gal can. Then after the can
was weighed to determine the residue bulk density, the sample was screened
with a 1-in. mesh to separate the residue into a large fraction, which was
mostly cans and glass, and a fine fraction, which was mostly the combusted
refuse.
75
-------
The moisture content of both fractions was determined on site by weigh-
ing a small tray full sample of each fraction, drying it overnight at 105° C,
and then reweighing it.
Several larger samples of the fine fraction were placed in 1-qt sealed
containers and retained for analysis. At the SYSTECH laboratory, the residue
in each container was dried overnight at 105° C and then milled until the
residue passed through a 5-mm mesh screen. One batch of the milled residue
was used to conduct a total combustibles test for unburned volatiles and
carbon. A small portion of a second batch was retained while the larger part
was placed in a lysimeter to produce leachate. Then the second batch with
its two-fold content of intact residue and leachate was sent to a commercial
laboratory for the chemical and physical analysis of both the residue and the
leachate. Finally, a third batch was sent to another commercial laboratory
for the proximate analysis of the residue to determine its ash, carbon,
volatile, sulfur, and Btu'content.
Residue Characteristics—
Table 12 summarizes the residue characteristics for each of the three
field tests.
The daily residue weights are summarized in Table 13. This table
reflects the start-up effect on the rate of residue generation.
As seen in Table 14 for the residue size distribution, the fine fraction
averaged 69 percent by weight of the residue generated during the three field
tests. The bulk densities of the residue samples averaged 896 kg/m3
(1510 lb/yd3) with a standard deviation of 145 kg/m3 over the 24 samples.
TABLE 12. NORTH LITTLE ROCK WEEKLY AS-RECEIVED RESIDUE CHARACTERISTICS
FOR MARCH, MAY, AND OCTOBER TESTS
Refuse
Residue
Test Refuse burned Residue removed reduction Percent Percent Percent
period kg(lb) kg(lb) by weight water ash combustibles
March 148,916( 328,304) 115,630(254,920) 27.4 35.7 58.3
May 154,212( 339,980) 78,651(173,396) 49.0 35.5 57.7
October 204,117( 450,000) 91,834(202,460) 55.1 32.4 61.7
5.9
6.8
5.9
Total
507,245(1,118,284) 286,115(630,776)
76
-------
cfl .-3
-O 4-J
OJ O fi •
-U 4-J
H
c/o
w ,;
H
fyr|
F -1
)-*-(
O
H
U
0
P*]
O
r-*H ^-j.
w . tl
H , c
fv^
!z;
o
h-i
H
W
W
O
W
Q
M
W |
^
.
'-i
i — ^ '
h- 1 ||
<^
Q
K^
O
O "
a! ,,
W "
H •
H ,; <">
i — i H ^
h-3 " j_l
•H
M » =
H ! =
ftJ 1
O
• "
CO I
i — 1 i
w ;;
H-] i
CQ
<£ '
H :
"--.
OJ X
3 4-J ^~
•H "OCrS
CO -H ^
OJ QJ V-i
fX 3 .c
^^,
^
-X
QJ ,—,
e ^
• H ,1:
f-H ^-^ '
1
4-J
CJ _^
•H '',?
3
QJ -^
X
33
QJ
E
•H
H
^~-
OJ ,C
TI ,r; ,o
0] -H — '
tS 3 £
SO
•^
"OJ x-x
H ,r;
H ^-"
x:
-H 'Tr
a) i:
3 3-
-C
-U ,j
OJ
S^
X
0
CQ
QJ
E
•H
H
r~>
ro
m
' — •
Oi
•-H'
01
a-*
^D
•^^
c
^c"
^
r-.
O
OJ
O]
CO
^JD
"~1
• — -
O
rn
m
OJ
•v-r
,— i
o
CO
m
rH
rH
f.
^
OJ
m
O
CO
O
O
rH
CO
m
x; oj
oj m
f. *•
m ^i
m
OJ
OJ
^ ^~
1
1
1
1
1
1 0
1
1
O
1 CO
c^
,_!
( !
| r— I
I OJ
iJ-T
1 I-H
1 >
1
|
1 0
1
77
-------
TABLE 14. NORTH LITTLE ROCK DAILY RESIDUE SIZE
DISTRIBUTIONS FOR MARCH, MAY, AND
OCTOBER TESTS
Fraction
Date
03/20/78
03/20/78
03/21/78
03/21/78
03/22/78
03/22/78
05/22/78
05/22/78
05/23/78
05/23/78
05/24/78
05/24/78
05/25/78
05/25/78
10/09/78
10/09/78
10/10/78
10/10/78
10/11/78
10/11/78
10/12/78
10/12/78
10/13/78
10/13/78
Total
Percent
Large
kg(lb)
4
3
2
2
5
1
6
3
10
15
9
10
6
7
4
7
22
24
18
23
17
34
28
12
284
• 42(
•74(
.67(
• 15(
.33(
.81(
.44(
.63(
.16(
.60(
.03(
.93(
• 21(
.53(
.40(
.36(
• 91(
.72(
.82(
.81(
• 51(
.70(
.85(
.16(
9
8
5
4
11
4
14
8
22
34
19
24
13
16
9
16
50
54
41
52
38
76
63
26
.50(627
.75)
.25)
.00)
.75)
-75)
.00)
.20)
.00)
.40)
.40)
.90)
.10)
.70)
.60)
.70)
.22)
.50)
.50)
.50)
.50)
.60)
.50)
.60)
.80)
.22)
31
7
5
10
8
11
8
14
7
19
19
19
23
16
19
11
23
58
44
38
68
48
59
67
33
643
Small
kg(lb)
.03(
.10(
.32(
.85(
.00(
.39(
.02(
.89(
.50(
.46(
.05(
.63(
.33(
.32(
• 19(
.28(
.74(
.23(
.10(
.95(
• 17(
.60(
• 72(
.70(
.57(1
15
11
22
19
24
18
30
17
43
42
42
52
36
42
24
51
129
97
84
152
106
131
149
74
,418
.50)
.25)
.75)
.50)
.25)
.50)
.90)
.40)
.00)
.90)
.00)
.10)
.00)
.60)
.66)
.32)
.50)
.50)
.00)
.00)
.20)
.40)
.30)
.30)
,83)
69
The effectiveness of refuse reduction is the percentage of incinerator-
fed combustibles that are burned. From the field test data and laboratory
results, the following values were calculated: (1) the total dry residue wat>
62,043 kg (136,660 Ib), (2) 69 percent or 42,810 kg (94,295 Ib) of the residue
was the small fraction (less than 1 inch), (3) 12.7 percent or 5437 kg
(11,975 Ib) of the residue small fraction was combustibles, (4) 24.5 percent
or 50,048 kg (110,238 Ib) of the refuse was ash and, (5) 154,252 kg
(339,762 Ib) of the refuse was combustibles. These calculations are found in
Appendix B.
From this data the amount of ash in the residue was computed by sub-
tracting the weight of unburned combustibles from the total dry weight of
residue measured. This value was 56,607 kg (124,685 Ib). The effectiveness
was expressed as follows:
E = 1 -
unburned combustibles weight
input combustibles weight
Substituting the foregoing calculated values yields an effectiveness of
96 percent.
78
-------
The 56,607 kg (124,685 Ib) of ash is more than the calculated input ash
of 50,048 kg (110,238 Ib) from the ultimate analysis. The difference could
be due to errors in measuring the residue moisture or to the large fraction
residue containing some combustibles. If the residue moisture was 40 rather
than 32.5 percent, then (1) the dry weight would be 55,150 kg (121,476 Ib),
(2) the combustibles in the small fraction would be 4833 kg (10,645 Ib), and
(3) the weight of ash in the refuse would be 50,317 kg (110,831 Ib) or about
that calculated in the refuse.
With these values substituted in the above equation, the effectiveness
would be 97 percent.
If the large fraction contains the balance of combustibles, then the
effectiveness would be 93 percent.
TABLE 15. NORTH LITTLE ROCK DAILY RESIDUE COMPOSITION FOR MARCH, MAY,
AND OCTOBER TESTS
Moisture content
(%)*
Date
03/20
03/21
03/22
03/23
05/22
05/23
05/24
05/25
10/09
10/10
10/11
10/12
10/13
Average
Unit
31.
44.
50.
36.
36.
24.
21.
54.
40.
—
16.
31.
35.
33.
3
6
7
0
0
6
9
5
2
3
0
3
4
4
Unit
24.
40.
37.
38.
43.
33.
36.
37.
49.
—
30.
20.
36.
34.
4
1
2
0
5
8
4
7
4
9
3
0
2
6
Unit
62.
44.
40.
48.
57.
69.
64.
39.
47.
—
76.
51.
48.
57.
Ash content
(%)#
3
0
8
5
3
5
1
5
7
8
4
0
0
7
Unit
62.
44.
40.
48.
50.
62.
56.
52.
43.
—
60.
68.
49.
56.
4
0
8
5
3
8
8
6
5
6
9
9
6
9
Combustible content
(%)#
Unit
10.
12.
16.
14.
5.
6.
14.
6.
11.
13.
7.
17.
16.
11.
3
1
7
0
4
9
1
0
1
9
3
6
7
6
7
Unit 4
10.1
12.7
16.0
14.4
5.4
3.8
6.7
10.1
16.5
9.5
8.8
11.1
14.2
10.7
* Values for 3/20 through 5/25 are based on large fraction moisture data of 3/20; values
for 10/09 through 10/13 are direct measurements of large fraction.
# Values for 3/20 through 3/23 are the same for Units 3 and 4 since they were obtained
from a combined Unit 3 and Unit 4 sample.
79
-------
The SYSTECH laboratory analysis shown in Table 15 and the commercial
laboratory proximate analysis shown in Table 16 found closely agreeing
results of 12.6 and 12.7 percent by weight, respectively, of unburned com-
bustibles in the dry small residue fraction. The proximate analysis also
revealed that the average heating value of the residue was 3.17 MJ/kg
(1363 Btu/lb) with 2.86 and 9.7 percent of the residue being carbon and
volatiles, respectively.
TABLE 16.
NORTH LITTLE ROCK DAILY RESIDUE PROXIMATE
ANALYSIS (DRY BASIS) FOR OCTOBER TESTS
Date
Component
10-9
10-10 10-11 10-12 10-13 Average
Moisture
Volatile matter
Ash
Fixed carbon
Sulfur
Heating value
Total
combustibles
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
MJ/kg
(Btu/lb)
(7.)
1.19
11.62
83.39
3.80
0
4.74
(2038)
15.42
1.38
7.73
88.13
2.76
0
2.04
(875)
10.49
0.98
5.87
90.44
2.71
0
1.66
(714)
8.58
1.90
11.89
86.21
0
0
2.12
(913)
11.89
1.32
12.08
81.57
5.03
0
5.29
(2274)
17.11
1.35
9.8
85.95
2.86
0
3.17
(1363)
12.66
System Mass Balance
The system mass balance compares the mass flows entering and leaving the
incinerator-heat recovery system. While the system inputs measured were the
refuse, the combustion air, the auxiliary gas, the residue cooling water, and
the aspirator fan air, the system outputs measured were the residue, the
boiler exhaust stack flue gas, and the dump stack flue gas. With Appendix B
detailing the mass calculations, the mass balance diagram in Figure 36
summarizes the results on a per ton of refuse input basis. Over the 118.5-
hour test, the mass input was 4127 Mg (4550 tons) and the mass output was
4199 Mg (4629 tons). The difference, namely 71.7 Mg (79 tons) or 2 percent
of the output, was not accounted for.
Water Balance—
Since the system mass balance can be divided into balances on each of
the components entering and leaving the system, the water balance was cal-
culated to confirm the validity of the moisture values used in the energy
efficiency calculations.
The water inputs were moisture in the refuse, moisture in the combustion
air, and hydrogen in the refuse which combined with oxygen to form water.
The water output in the stack flow was measured by taking the difference
between the final and the initial weight of the liquid in the impingers of
the modified Method 5 gas train. This additional weight represents condensed
water or the moisture captured in the impingers.
80
-------
Mass balance 118.5-huur test*
Input
Output
Mg per Mg refuse 7, of Total Mg per Mg refuse % of Total
Source or or
Ton per ton refuse Ton per ton refuse
Refuse
Natural gas
Residue,
cooling water
Aspirator air
Blower air
Residue, wet
Flue gases
1.0
0.002
0.157
10.26
8.88
4.92
0.01
0.77
50.54
43.76
0.45 2.19
20.13 97.81
Total
20.299
100.00
20.58
100.00
Total refuse input 204 Mg (225 tons)
Figure 36.
BOILER STACK
FLUE GAS
BLOWER
REFUSE
ASPIRATOR
v—RESIDUE-
Mass balance for incineration-heat recovery processes in
North Little Rock facility during the 118.5-hour
October field test.
As shown in the water balance in Figure 37, the water input weight was
132.6 Mg (146.2 tons) and the water output weight was 148.9 Mg (164.2 tons).
That the output weight was 16.3 Mg (18 tons) or 11 percent more than the
input weight was due to variations in the amounts of the samples measured.
The stack gas samples monitored were a small part of the total flow, and they
varied from 5 to 7 percent of moisture by volume. Therefore, the water
entrained in the stack gases could have been 10 percent higher or lower by
weight than the average value used.
Combustion Product Balance—
The combustion product balance was calculated to verify (1) the measure-
ments used to compute the stack flow in the system mass balance, namely, the
gas flow rate and the percentage of water by volume as measured by the Method 5
train and the percentages of oxygen, carbon monoxide, and carbon dioxide in
81
-------
the flue gas as measured by the tri-gas, Orsat, and infrared monitors; and
(2) the amounts of carbon, hydrogen, sulfur, nitrogen, a.nd oxygen in the
refuse as determined by the sort characteristic analysis and the ultimate
analysis.
Since the elements found in the ultimate analysis combine with oxygen to
form carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, water vapor, nitrogen oxides, and
sulfur oxides, the comparison of the combined weight of the elements with the
measured weight of the stack flow is the expression for the combustion
product balance.
148.8 (164)
A Flue Gas
Balance
23.
44.
78.
147.
In Out
5 (25.9)
9 (49.5)
6 (86.6) 148.8 (164.
0 (162.0) 148
rfg (ton)
23.5 (25.9)
Blowers
44.9 (49.5) ^
Refuse
8 (164.
2)
2)
.. r
i F
Combustion of
Hydrogen
(86.6)
78.6
Figure 37. Water balance for incineration-heat recovery processes
in North Little Rock facility during the 118.5-hour
October field test.
The combustion product balance in Table 17 shows the amounts of the
elements and their combustion products. The stack mass flow of 3827 Mg
(4218 tons) was taken from the system mass balance. The total calculated
mass flow into the incinerator was 3816 Mg (4205 tons) with 1782 Mg
(1964 tons) from the combustion product gases and 2045 Mg (2254 tons) from
the aspirator fan.
Excess Air—
The amount of oxygen in the flue gases exiting the boiler reflects the
condition of the combustion processes within the incinerator. Any oxygen
content obviously indicates that more oxygen,was introduced than needed (an
excess air condition) and that sensible heat was lost in the stack gases.
The excess air was calculated by substituting data from the flue gas analysis
in the following equation:
Excess air = 100 x
02 - CO/2
0.264N2 - (02 - CO/2)
82
-------
During the third field test the average values obtained by the tri-gas and
NDIR recorder for the dry flue gas analysis were as follows:
C02 = 9.5%
02 = 10.7%
CO = 0
N2 = [100 - (CO + C02 + Oa)l = 79.8%
Substituting these values in the equation above yields an average excess air
amount of 103 percent. Daily values of excess air ranged from 92 to
117 percent.
TABLE 17. NORTH LITTLE ROCK COMBUSTION PRODUCTS
BALANCE FOR OCTOBER TESTS
Source
Refuse
Moisture
C
H
0
N
Combustion air
Moisture
0
N
Natural gas
Aspirator air
Flue gases*
H20
C02
0
N
Mg
46
57
9
42
1
25
373
1218
<1
2045
Input
(ton)
(51)
(63)
(10)
(46)
(1)
(27)
(411)
(1343)
«D
(2254)
Output
Mg (ton)
2045 (2254)
149 (164)
228 (251)
187 (206)
1218 (1343)
Total 3816 (4205) 3827 (4218)
*SO , NO , and CO were all less than 0.1 percent
Energy Balance
The energy balance compares the measured energy inputs and outputs. For
this balance, the inputs were refuse, electricity, and auxiliary fuel while
the outputs were steam, sensible heat and remaining energy in the residue,
heat lost by radiation and convection, and sensible heat in the flue gases.
Appendix B details the energy input and output calculations, and Figure 38
summarizes the results on an MBtu per 1 ton of refuse input basis. The
energy inputs and outputs for the 118.5-hour test totaled 2298 and 2350 GJ
(2178 and 2228 MBtu), respectively. The larger energy ouput of 52 GJ
(50 MBtu) or 2 percent of the energy input was well within the expected
±5 percent range.
83
-------
Energy balance 118.5-hour test*
Input
Source
GJ per
Mg of refuse
MBtu per
Ton of refuse
7, of total
GJ per
Mg of refuse
Output
MBtu per
Ton of refuse
of total
Refuse
Electricity
Natural gas
Unburned
combustibles
Steam
Flue gases
Radiation and
Convection
Total
11.12
.09
.052
(9.56 )
( .08 )
( .044)
98.71
0.83
0.46
11.262
(9.684)
100.00
.661
5.99
4.30
' 0.56
11.51
( .569)
(5.15 )
(3.70 )
*Total refuse input 204 Mg (225 ton)
BOILER STACK
FLUE . GAS
DUMP STACK
FLUE GAS
JL
t
R/C LOSSES
BOILER
GAS-
A.B.
-STEAM'-
ELECTRICITY-
REFUSE-
PRIHARY
UNBURNED
COMBUSTIBLES
5.74
52.05
37.36
4.85
100.00
Figure 38.
Energy balance for incineration-heat recovery processes
in North Little Rock facility during the 118.5-hour
October field test.
Combustion Efficiency
Efficiency of Refuse Combustion—
The combustion efficiency of the refuse on a dry basis was calculated as
follows:
n = i - Qr/Qt
where Q = total refuse energy
Q = sensible heat and remaining energy in the residue
84
-------
Substituting the values for Qr and Qt, as given in the energy balance in
Figure 38, in the equation gives an efficiency of 94 percent. This value
compares well with the effectiveness of refuse reduction calculated earlier.
Efficiency of Incinerator System —
The efficiency of the incinerator system is that percentage of the total
energy in the refuse and combustion air which after its conversion to hot
gases was available for the heat recovery system. Using the heat loss
method, the efficiency was computed by:
Q + 0 + Q
.. r v re
n-! -- -
and the net efficiency was computed by:
Q + Q
r x
where Q = sensible heat and remaining energy in the residue because of
unburned combustibles
Qw = latent heat of vaporization of moisture in the refuse plus the
energy loss due to hydrogen combination
Q = heat lost by radiation and convection up to the boiler section
Hrc J *
Q = total input energy
The substitution of the energy balance values in the above equation
yields an incinerator efficiency of 76 percent and a net efficiency of
87 percent.
Energy Recovered
Steam Quantity and Quality —
The quantity of steam produced per unit time was determined as follows:
Readings of the meter in the incoming city water line and of the meter in the
condensate return line were recorded to determine the volume rate of the
water converted into steam.
When the meter in the condensate return line malfunctioned during the
third field test, the valve in this line was closed to the units being tested.
Therefore, all water to the boiler was make-up water. The water lost during
blowdowns was negligible and therefore ignored in the calculations.
During the 118.5 hours of the third field test, the boiler produced
443,703 kg (977,321 Ib) of steam with an hourly average of 3744 kg (8,250 Ib).
The pressure in the steam drum, as shown in Figure 39, varied from
120 psi at peak steam demand to 130 psi at the average steam demand to a
high of 140 psi at the low steam demand.
85
-------
— - 15,000 Ib/hr
r^Jr= Steam Curve
-10,000 Ib/hr
Figure 39.
/ 120 psig
Pressure Curve
140 psig
Steam output versus steam drum boiler pressure in
North Little Rock facility.
The quality of the steam was periodically determined by taking readings
from a calorimeter installed in a straight run of the steam line just after
the line leaves the boiler. The calorimeter readings indicated that the
steam enthalapy ranged from 2.72 to 2.73 MJ/kg (1172.5 to 1175 Btu/lb). The
application of these calorimeter readings to the Mollier diagram revealed
that the steam quality ranged from 98.75 to 99 percent.
In addition, during the third test run, steam was slowly bled from the
calorimeter until a sample of condensate was captured. A 100-m£ sample of
86
-------
the condensate was extracted for quality analysis. The condensate was
analyzed, and no measurable solids were found.
System Energy Efficiency—
In the calculation of the system energy efficiency by the input-output
method, the inputs were the energy in the refuse, the auxiliary fuel, and the
electricity consumed by the incinerator and boiler; and the output was the
energy in the steam generated. During the third test period, steam was
generated during 95 percent of the test time. Consequently, to represent the
optimum system performance, the input energy should be adjusted to 95 percent
of its total value. Accordingly, the efficiency was calculated as follows:
_ steam energy „ ^,
input energy (0.95)
Therefore, the system energy efficiency during the third field test was
56 percent.
In the calculation of the system energy efficiency by the heat loss
method, the quotient of the sum of the heat losses divided by the total heat
input was subtracted from unity, that is,
, Z heat losses
n = 1 -
total heat input
From the energy balance for the test week, the heat losses were 1040 GJ
(989 MBtu) and the total heat input was 2298 GJ (2178 MBtu). Substituting
these values in the equation for the heat loss method gives an efficiency of
54 percent.
To compare the performance of this system more reasonably with the
performance of other systems using refuse with less moisture and hydrogen
content, the net efficiency with a lower heating value was calculated. The
lower heating value is the heat input from combustion of refuse minus the
heat lost in evaporating both the refuse moisture and the water formed by
burning the hydrogen in the waste. During the third field test, the input
mass of the refuse moisture was 44,946 kg (99,000 Ib), and the water formed
from the hydrogen weighed 78,542 kg (173,000 Ib). The energy consumed in
evaporating the moisture was 286,960 MJ (272 MBtu). The energy lost in the
wet flue gases was 335,912 MJ (318 MBtu). Therefore, subtracting these
values from the input and output totals in the energy balance yields the
adjusted values of 2,026,000 MJ (1920 MBtu) and 2,032,000 MJ (1926 MBtu).
Consequently, the net efficiency as calculated by the input-output
method was 61 percent, and as calculated by the heat loss method, the net
efficiency was 61 percent.
In summary, the net efficiency is about 8 to 11 percent more than the
efficiency for the as-received refuse.
Effectiveness of Boiler—
The effectiveness of the boiler is the ratio of the actual heat transfer
rate in the exchanger to the thermodynamically limited maximum possible heat
transfer rate which could be realized only in a counterflow heat exchanger of
infinite heat transfer area. This can be expressed as follows:
87
-------
T, - T.
E =
hi X
T, - T
hi Ci
where T = temperature of flue gas entering the boiler
HI
T, = temperature of flue gas exiting the boiler
\\2
T = temperature of feedwater entering the boiler
During the third field test, the T, , T, , and T temperatures averaged
hi h2 GI
982°, 232°, and 138° C (1800°, 450°, and 280° F), respectively. Consequentlyx
the boiler effectiveness was 89 percent.
Thermal Efficiency of Boiler—
While the effectiveness is the theoretical maximum performance of the
boiler, the actual operational efficiency was calculated as follows:
heat transferred to steam
n =
sensible heat of gases into boiler
or
M (ha - hi)
M c (Tl - T2)
O r
where M = mass of water entering
h2 = enthalpy of water leaving
hi = enthalpy of water entering
M = mass of flue gases entering
O
C = mean specific heat of flue gases
Ti = temperature of flue gases entering
T2 = temperature of flue gases leaving
The calculations are found in Appendix B. As calculated with the
higher heating value of the flue gas, the efficiency was 71 percent, and as
calculated with the lower heating value of the flue gas, the efficiency was
76 percent.
System Effectiveness
Refuse Handling Capability —
The Consumat incinerators proved capable of handling a wide variety of
refuse sizes and components.
-------
While the moisture content of the refuse ranged from 16 to 35 percent
over the three field tests, the composition of the refuse varied little with
no one component differing by more than 5 percent.
As the refuse was pushed into the loader hopper, most of it remained in
plastic bags. Glass was a frequent operational hazard because of bottles
broken during dumping, moving, and loading. In addition to manually removing
such materials as pipe lengths, wire rolls, scrap metal, and compressed gas
tanks from the floor-deposited refuse, the operator occasionally had to
manually adjust large cardboard boxes dumped into the hopper. During the
first two tests, clinkers formed by slag and metal jammed the residue transfer
rams and the residue removal conveyor. However, when equipment modifications
and operational changes were made after the first and second tests, there
were few such jams during the third test.
Design and Actual Capacities—
Each of the incinerators was designed to handle 22.67 Mg/day (25 TPD) of
municipal solid waste with a minimum of refuse sorting and handling before
hopper loading. During the third field test, the refuse throughputs averaged
1725 kg/hr (3800 Ib/hr). However, the loading rate varied somewhat because
of two factors: (1) delays in the operators' responses to the ready-to-load
light, and (2) various operators' interpretations of what constituted light,
medium, and heavy loads. In addition, since there was no loading during
shift changes, periods between loadings occasionally extended to 20 minutes.
Table 18 shows the refuse throughput averages for each of the three
field tests. While the greater throughputs during the third test reflect the
equipment and operational changes made after the second test, no significant
changes were made after the third test to further increase the throughput
rate.
TABLE 18. NORTH LITTLE ROCK MONTHLY TOTAL PLANT REFUSE
FEED RATES
Average weight
Total weight processed
Period
12/13/77 -
1/02/78 -
2/01/78 -
3/02/78 -
4/03/78 -
5/01/78 -
6/01/78 -
7/05/78 -
8/01/78 -
9/01/78 -
9/27/78 -
12/30/77
1/31/78
2/28/78
3/31/78
4/28/78
5/31/78
6/30/78
7/31/78
8/31/78
9/26/78
10/16/78
Mg
406.62
615.93
655.43
976.69
1,006.89
1,221. 98
1,185.69
1,060.87
1,442.89
1,115.92
999.60
(Tons)
(448.22)
(678.95)
(722.49)
(1,076.62)
(1,109.91)
(1,347.00)
(1, 307.00)
(1,169.41)
(1, 590.51)
(1,230.09)
(1,101.87)
Days
11
14
17
19
18
21
21
18
23
17
14
per
Mg
36.9
44.0
38.6
51.4
56.0
58.2
56.5
59.0
62.8
65.7
71.4
day
(Tons)
(40.7)
(48.5)
(42.5)
(56.7)
(61.7)
(64.1)
(62.3)
(65.0)
(69.2)
(72.4)
(78.7)
10,688.51 (11,782.07)
193
55.4
(61.0)
89
-------
Each of the two Consumat heat recovery modules was designed to produce
4540 kg/hr (10,000 Ib/hr) of steam. During the first two test periods,
mechanical deficiencies required using the auxiliary boiler to meet the steam
demand. However, the equipment and operational changes made after the second
test period were so effective that there has been no need for the auxiliary
boiler after August 1978.
During the third field test, the total plant steam demand, as measured
by the Honeywell steam flow integrator, averaged 4,994 kg/hr (11,000 Ib/hr)
with a maximum and minimum of 6,356 and 2724 kg/hr (14,000 and 6,000 Ib/hr)
On the average, the steam demand was 79 percent of the original anticipated
demand of 6810 kg/hr (15,000 Ib/hr). Also during the third field test, the
west-end boiler steam outputs averaged 3746 kg/hr (8250 Ib/hr) and reached
levels between 4994 and 5357 kg/hr (11,000 and 11,800 Ib/hr) during peak
demand periods. These demands lasted for only 30 to 60 minutes.
Operation—
The operation of the facility required a total of nine personnel, i.e.,
one supervisor, one office manager, one truck driver, and six operators, two
per shift for each of the three shifts. The supervisor position was critical
to the successful operation of the plant. The office manager maintained all
plant records such as utilities, refuse delivery, and steam consumption. The
iruck driver transported the residue to the city-owned disposal site. The
two operators shared routine maintenance and incinerator loading operations.
At the end of their shifts, the operators completed an operation summary
which included (1) the number of loads put into each incinerator; (2) gas and
water meter readings; and (3) comments on each incinerator's performance, the
boiler performance, and the skid-steer loader's condition.
The effects on the system temperatures and gaseous emissions from
varying the hopper loads from light to heavy are shown in Figures 40 and 41.
The steady-state, efficient operation of the system requires that the
operators closely follow the start-up procedures, the automatic loading
instructions, and the burndown procedures.
Maintenance—
The routine maintenance of the facility required a working knowledge of
the hydraulic, electronic, and mechanical systems. A supply of small spare
parts, such as switches, thermocouples, hydraulic parts, and motors, was
essential for continuous 24-hour operation. While major maintenance during
the week required shutting down the incinerator, much maintenance could be
performed during an hour or two with the incinerator still operating but at
reduced capacity.
Normally, the following were performed during the weekend: system
inspection, major maintenance (if required), and removal of soot deposits in
the boiler.
90
-------
I LEGEND
[ f&Temperature in Primary Chamber No. 3.
©l Temperature in Secondary Chamber No. 3.
@. Temperature in Primary Chamber No. 4.
t Temperature in Secondary Chamber No. 4.
Temperature at Boiler Entrance.
EVENTS "
1. Load, light No. 4 6. Load, medium No. 4
2. Load, light No. 3 ' 7. Load, light No. 3
3. Load, medium No. 4 8. Load, medium No. 4
4. Residue dump No. 4 9. Load, medium No. 3
5. Load, light No. 3 10. Load, medium No. 4
Figure 40. System temperature versus loading sizes and events
in North Little Rock facility.
The boiler was opened and cleaned with a high pressure hose on the
weekend. This action removed any soot buildup on the tubes and on the floor
of the boiler. The fins on the boiler tubes were measured during the October
test to determine the erosion effects. The results are shown in Table 19.
Although the original depth of the fins was not available, the difference
between the leading edge and the trailing edge dimensions shows the erosion
that had occurred in less than a calendar year.
91
-------
X10 = ppm
X 5 = ppm
= percent
ORSAT
T 4 = percent
Figure 41. Stack emissions during heavy and light loading periods
in North Little Rock facility.
TABLE 19. NORTH LITTLE ROCK BOILER TUBE FIN MEASUREMENTS
FOR EROSION DETERMINATION
Fin depth
(mm)
Tube bank
Date
New
October 1978
Erosion*
Edge 123
None NA NA
Leading None ,10 12
Trailing None 12 14
None 2 2
4
NA
15
17
2
5
NA
16
17
1
NA Not available.
* Erosion assumed to be difference between leading and
trailing edge.
92
-------
Environmental Analysis
Stack Emissions—
Except for periods when soot was blown off the boiler tubes, the flue
gases exiting the boiler exhaust stack were sampled as follows: (1) periodi-
cally by the filter in the modified EPA Method 5 train to capture particulates
and heavy metals in particulate form for mass flow rate and chemical compo-
sition analyses; (2) periodically by the impingers in the EPA Method 5, 7, or
8 train to capture heavy metal vapors, other vapors, and gases for mass flow
rate and chemical composition analyses; (3) periodically by the 7-stage
inertial cascade impactor to capture particulates for size distribution
analysis; (4) continuously by the TSI Electro-Chemical Cell Monitor to analyze
the concentrations of oxygen and nitrogen and sulfur oxides; (5) periodically
by an Orsat analyzer; (6) periodically by the gas chromatograph to capture
hydrocarbons for chemical composition and concentration analyses of the
hydrocarbons in the G! to C6 ranges; and (7) continuously by two Beckman
nondispersive infrared analyzers to determine the levels of carbon dioxide and
carbon monoxide.
To supply the foregoing monitors with flue gas samples, the EPA trains
and the 7-stage cascade impactor were inserted in the boiler exhaust stack
near the top; and flue gases were drawn through two ports, a condensation
trap, and then through heated lines to the monitoring devices in the instru-
mentation trailer. Of these ports, one was near the top of the stack for
continuous flue gas sampling during the day, and the other was at the ducting
between the boiler gas outlet and the aspirator section gas inlet for
continuous flue gas sampling during the night.
The emission sampling results for the October field tests are presented
in Table 20, with all of the field tests summarized in Table 21. The emission
factors for the October field test in pounds per ton of refuse charged are
given in Table 22. Appendix A gives the results for the individual tests not
presented here.
The flue gas velocities and temperatures averaged 22,860 ACFM and 141° C
(286° F). On the average, the moisture in the flue gas was 6 percent of the
total gas volume. Corrected to 12 percent C02, the particulate concentra-
tions averaged 0.1553 gr/DSCF over 24 tests with the maximum and minimum
being 0.2779 and 0.0669 gr/SCF. The size distribution analyses (see
Figure 42) revealed that 95 percent by weight of the particulates were
smaller than 7 ym, and 50 percent by weight were smaller than 0.3 ym. During
the third test period, the total particulates, including wet-catch, as shown
in Table 23, averaged 0.1740 gr/SCF with a maximum of 0.219 gr/SCF and a
minimum of 0.119 gr/SCF.
During the third test period, a probe continuously monitored the flue
gas opacity, but the measurements were recorded only periodically since
particulates which quickly covered the optical surfaces had to be removed
before each reading. The opacities averaged 24 percent with the maximum and
minimum being 42 and 12 percent.
93
-------
CO
H
CO
Ed
EH
Ed
PQ
O
H
U
O
Pn
O
rlH
CO
O
H
<
B
3
B
•H
x
CO
S
rl
0)
0)
1
rrt
&.
,*— s
r-*
0
^
CO
LO
rH
O
CO
1 — 1
^-^
1 — 1
CO
, — 1
CN
•
^
o~\
CN
^~^
U
CO
)-l
•2
e
00
•K
(U
CO
rH
3
CJ
£
CO
*— N /• — S
ON CN
O 00 vO O
00 • C-O rH
^ ^-- •— •-• •-'
in co r^* uo r^* i \o co
CN
• O> • rH j • i— 1
rH 00 rH rH CN lO
• CN CN
,-N
E
ex
ex
C" me
C/3 00
^- /-^ G
oo t 9" 9" +-
•—--—- ex ex en
ex ex t-1
on QJ -^ x_^ Q
EN ^-s -^ .n
-~~^ -H -.QJ
3 3 'O ^ ^- -- ffi U
CJ CJ -H -H 00 00 i-i
•U -W O O CO CU
M ^j iH 3 X X -U
COCOXrHOOO N
PMPMOPMr^WHO
^
Oi
^•^
\o o CN CN
. . . rH
CN rH ,
CD --^ cy 4-J
B o
M o co
o o N ex
U CJ 33 O
.
o
CN
rH
o
"O
0)
4-t •
CJ J
CD EC
Vi U
O co
* H-
94
-------
*
o
CO
53
0
M
CO
CO
M
cti
HN
CJ
H
CO
CO
fi-i H
O CO
w
>-i H
J
[-H p- 1
'
. __T
H CJ
O *5j
3 S
1
^J
X
>
0
•o
4J
Cfl
C
•H
2
00
<
X
1
•o
4J
CO
C
-H
2
00
•£
X
1
^
CO
U
•H
C
3
CO
•H
CO
CO
•H
pa
u
LOcn^ in CO 1 CN OO U3 1 1 1 II
o H CN 1-1 en CM in
ON rH .* ui oo in »o o co o CM oo m o cj\ o ^ J5 2 S ot oo
\o in r~ en en CM rH r^ en -3- oor^i-HcMcn o* rMr-t*^
O tH CM (H rH IO rH rH C7N rH V rH •* M
rH CM
r~v£>oocr,CT\ rH-a-vor^otH r-in-*o\cn °°°2 "* OOCOCN
CMrH>tf- *G >S-^-rHaNrnv£> Ocn O» CMrHOO
rHtniOrH CNCMrH rHCOCO rH "•
• . rH rH,V CO vO CM
rH CM
cncMfniHCO ^vO^Ocncnr^- CNrHrHOvO OOlTl CM\OCM
• . rH CM V -3- 00 \O
i-l CM
-d- rH 1 • ... II II
O rH CO rH rH rH
* * rH
r~CT\-*vOrH CT\ vOOOCO CM OOvDO COvO r—OOO
>3-O..» " .... . ... -o rH^OrH
OrHrH i-( COrHrHrH COCNt^-rH VO 4-> ""
.. 4JVV 4JV Cd CM r^
t8 a Q rH rH
O O CM CM en
OO... 'O''1' * S " " " "^ ^ "^^S
. . CM in CM
rH CN
c^avo\r^o m -*otnr^ m r^oo ocr, ocn-*
r^m... « .... . ... .rH vococo
CM *G en rH vO r^ en iH vO T— ) GO CM O " "
. . rH in 00 vO
rH CM
CNCMOOOOOcn CMO rncM
00 00 ... • 1 1 >.|l III
CNvOvDrH p-l 1 >OCJ\II III
O O CM in -3-
• • rH
(53°^"? ™ ^""1 i "? " "^! SSen
Q\ CM F^« rH vO CM LO CO -^" 1 rH CO O • CM CT\ *^"
OCMrH rH tfltdCTirH CdCdOOrH VO (fl "«
••CM 4J4J 4JUrH 4J COOO
CO Cd Cd Cd Cfl rH iH
Q Q Q Q Q
O 00 r*"« CO CM rH CO CO O VO CM LO O ^O &\ rH lO
CO in • • • . o O • • • -OO-. *rH O -^-r*-OO
• • CO rH CM LO rH
rH CM
r*P^CTirOcO m QOcOr^ fOfO OOX (T^fOvO
QOCMCT\- -^ °
-K 4- >, 4- ^ -0-
pt]* * ^ IX x-v *ZT ^.aT^ 2 2? -^*.
Wcn^-sx->jj eg ^-x^^cJ CO) ^x<*T'aP -^ ^N jj CJ E
H "^* S0CU CJCJro 6 S O O VJ S >^- "v. N E d M ^^ ^^
'*•*' s^' 00 00 M 0) 0) ***. 00 60 0) -irH3{0 cdtdCCjtdctJcd -H-H-H-H-H V4-O flj 333
CM PLI o fe w c/icncAcncoc/i pQpQpqpqpq PH K O ft, fc pq
0)
O Q>
}-i a)
4-> 0) *H H
0 CO *O O
0) ,>, *J
O rH C 0 -H
M cd td n c
o) C aj w Q
a. cd E •» S
CM 4J M | PH
rH Cd CO •* H
o )-« e u 2
4J CD
CQ M-4 CO
T3 0 -H 0 3
0) O O
4-1 H 0) 0) 3
CJ <4-l 00 60 fl
a) co cd -H
M 4J 0) 0) fi
o cd > > 5
o Q «3 < a
"*" 4-
95
-------
TABLE 22. NORTH LITTLE ROCK POLLUTANT EMISSION RATES FOR
OCTOBER TESTS
Emission rate
Pollutant
Participate
sox
NOX
CO
HC
Pb
Maximum Average
.231t gr/SCF .130t gr/SCF
<10 ppm
99 ppm 82 ppm
36 ppm 29 ppm
40 ppm 28 ppm
4.49 mg/m3
Ib/ton refuse
Minimum charged*
.067t gr/SCF 3.03
<0.78
69 ppm 3.68
16 ppm 1.00
20 ppm 0.55
0.14
* Based on an average flow of 15,198 DSCFM including aspirator air and a feed
rate of 1.9 TPH.
t Corrected to 12 percent C02.
TABLE 23. NORTH LITTLE ROCK TOTAL EMISSION CONCENTRATIONS FOR
OCTOBER TESTS
Particulate, gr/SCF
Date
10/09/78
10/10/78*
10/11/78
10/11/78*
10/11/78
10/12/78*
10/12/78
10/12/78*
10/13/78*
10/13/78
Dry
.0383
.0713
.0530
.0379
.0195
.0332
.0404
.0380
.0517
.0582
Inpinger
Extract H20 Total
.00230 .00910 .0497
—
.00517 .0130 .0712
—
.00680 .0237 .0500
—
.00200 .00912 .0516
—
—
.00812 .00907 .0681
Percent
C02
5.0
5.3
3.9
3.9
3.7
3.9
4.0
4.0
3.4
3.8
Particulate, gr/SCF @ 12% C02
Dry
.0919
.2312
.163
.0968
.0632
.0949
.121
.1036
.1443
.184
Impinger
Extract H20 Total
.00552 .0218 .119
—
.0159 .0400 .219
—
.0221 .0769 .162
_-.
.0060 .0274 .155
—
—
.00256 .0286 .215
* Alternate tests were run with poroyide solution.
96
-------
3 4 567891
1 0
1.0 10
PARTICLE SIZE D, MICRONS
100
Figure 42. Particulate size distribution of stack emissions at
North Little Rock facility.
The soot was blown off the boiler tubes about every 4 hours. The air,
which was pressurized to 220 psi, was blown on the tubes in a top-to-bottom
sequence. During this soot blowing, large aggregated particulates exited the
boiler stack. The quantity and characteristics of the soot were not deter-
mined. Most of the particulates fell on the roof and within the site
boundaries.
The SOX concentrations averaged 13 mg/m3 (5 ppm) and had a maximum of
136.6 mg/m3 (52.2 ppm), a minimum of 3.7 mg/m3 (1.4. ppm), and a standard
deviation of 9 mg/m3. The NOX concentrations averaged 130 mg/m3 (68 ppm)
and had a maximum of 214 mg/m3 (112 ppm), a minimum of 57 mg/m3 (30 ppm),
and a standard deviation of 38 mg/m3.
97
-------
The chloride concentrations varied in each of the three tests and from
test to test more than any of the other gas concentrations. The concentration
ranges in the three tests were successively 217 to 610 mg/m3, 19 to 35 mg/m3,
and 128 to 193 mg/m3. In contrast, the fluorine concentrations in the three
tests averaged 1.6 mg/m3 (2.6 ppm) and had a maximum of 4.3 mg/m3 (5.5 ppm),
a minimum of 0.5 mg/m3 (0.6 ppm), and a standard deviation of. only 0.6 mg/m3.
Gas chromotograph analysis of the samples for Ci - Ce hydrocarbons found
levels of Ci, C2, C3, and C* compounds just above the detection limit.
Process Water—
During each 24-hour operational period, the following water was dis-
charged to the environment: (1) water pumped from the residue removal sump
and (2) water used to wash the tipping floor, the residue removal conveyor,
and other equipment such as trucks and loaders. While the tipping floor
water was discharged through floor drains to a sanitary sewer, the residue
sump water and the other wash waters were discharged into an open drainage
ditch. This ditch extends westerly from the front of the plant to a wet-
weather swamp and then into an open storm drain in an industrial section
1/4 mile from the plant. The drain has a high water level throughout the
year and much aquatic life.
Process water samples were taken at the following locations: (1) at one
of the tipping floor drains and (2) in the residue removal sump.
The amount of the discharged water, which varied from 10,000 to
30,000 gallons per day, was computed by subtracting the water equivalent of
the steam generated from the main plant water meter reading.
The tipping floor water had a pH of 5.8, a BOD of 1140 mg/£, a COD of
1880 mg/£, and a total coliform of 7.26 x 105/100 mA. The residue sump water
had a pH of 12, a temperature of 39° C, a COD of 378 rng/A, and settlable
(total-suspended) solids of 5 mg/£. Tables 24 and 25 list the data for the
process water analyses.
Residue Effects on Actual Landfill—
The residue was dumped on a site (see Figure 14) that was approved by
the State of Arkansas. When the site was inspected, there were many piles
that evidenced about a month interim since the piles had been covered with
dirt. Rain and weather had washed away the finer ash to completely expose
rusting metal, glass, and clinkers. While no leachate pools were visible,
much of the drainage area could not be inspected because of its being covered
with flattened brush and tree debris.
The chemical analyses of the original residue samples and the simulated
leachate filtrate are presented in the later discussions of the EPA Level One
analysis.
98
-------
TABLE 24. NORTH LITTLE ROCK WEEKLY WASH WATER POLLUTANT PARAMETER
VALUES FOR MARCH, MAY, AND OCTOBER TESTS
Parameter
Date
pH
Total solids
(mgM)
Settable solids
(rng/H)
Hardness CaC03
(mg/S,)
Fecal streptococcus
(106/100 mJ.)
Total coliform
(106/100 mJ.)
Fecal coliform
(106/100 mi)
COD
(mg/H)
BOD
(mg/A)
WASH WATER SOURCE
Residue
Removal Skid-Steer
Tipping Floor Equipment Loader
3/22 5/25 10/10 3/21 3/23
5.8 5.2 12.7
362 2020 5520 362
200 1070 19 5 10
295
.0278 .48 5.3 .016
.726 .75 4.7 .605
.121 .007 .300 .009
1880 2710 378 193
1140 1780 126
99
-------
TABLE 25. NORTH LITTLE ROCK TIPPING 'FLOOR WATER POLLUTANT
PARAMETER VALUES (5/25 TEST)
Parameter
Concentration
pH
Acidity
Alkalinity
Total dissolved solids
Total suspended solids
Total solids
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Hardness
Ammonia nitrogen
Biochemical oxygen demand
Total organic carbon
Chemical oxygen demand
Boron
Bromide
Chloride
Oil and grease
Phenols
0-phosphate
Total phosphate
Total volatile solids
MBAS
Sulfate
Sulf ide
5.8
0.0
243.
950.
1070.
2020.
27.6
295.
0.9
1780.
597.
2710.
0.27
15.8
237.
22.0
0.0747
0.412
0.673
930.
0.663
33.8
<1
mg/£
mg/l
mg/l
mg/£
mg/l
mg/£
mg/l CaC03
mg/£
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/C
Plant Areas—
With the respirable fraction personnel sampler attached to the skid-
steer loader, the ambient air inside the plant was sampled for dust content
while both the packer trucks and the loader were working the refuse, that is,
dumping, mixing, and moving the refuse. A second sample was taken while only
the loader was operative. The microbiological analysis of the two sets of
samples revealed that the truck dumping did not appreciably increase the
amount of viable organisms per cubic foot of air sampled. These analyses are
summarized in Table 26. The health effects at different levels and with
different types of microorganisms could not be determined because of
insufficient data relating the levels to human health. Most of the micro-
organisms were likely attached to the dust particles. The dust concentrations
ranged from 0.30 to 1.19 mg/m3 with an average of 0.82 mg/m3 and a standard
deviation of 0.23 mg/m3. These concentrations are detailed in Table 27.
100
-------
A hand-held Ecolyzer, a carbon monoxide level indicator, was carried
throughout the plant. Carbon monoxide levels in the tipping floor and in the
boiler room were below the detection limit of 10 ppm even when the garbage
packer trucks were dumping. The large entrance and exit doors and the
boiler room doors were always open. The ventilation was good.
TABLE 26. NORTH LITTLE ROCK DAILY FUGITIVE AIR MICROBIOLOGICAL
CONCENTRATIONS FOR MARCH, MAY, AND OCTOBER TESTS
Date
03/06
03/22
03/22
05/23
05/23
05/25
10/10
10/12
Number of
organisms per ft
29
158
80
235
360
318
335
188
Remarks
Average of 5 samples taken during
refuse truck dumping
Average of 2 samples taken during
refuse truck dumping
One sample taken while working
refuse
One sample taken during truck
dumping
Average of 3 samples taken while
working refuse
Average of 2 samples during
loading cycles
Average of 3 samples during
loading cycles
Average of 3 samples during
loading cycles
101
-------
The carbon monoxide levels around the incinerators were also undetectable
except for the period when the residue removal ram was cycling. During this
period, the pit under the incinerator and the passageway alongside the
building had carbon monoxide levels of about 50 ppm that lasted for 30 to
60 seconds. This CO level was caused by the burning chars being pulled out
from the ash sump on top of the removal ram and by gases escaping around the
ram when residue fell into the water.
TABLE 27. NORTH LITTLE ROCK DAILY IN-PLANT FUGITIVE DUST
CONCENTRATIONS FOR MARCH, MAY, AND OCTOBER TESTS
Concentration (mg/m )
03/6
03/21
03/22
03/23
05/22
05/23
05/24
05/25
10/10
10/13
1.19
0.98
1.06
0.89
1.11
0.68
0.66
0.55
0.74
0.30
Average
Standard Deviation a =
0.82
C.23
102
-------
As shown by the noise-level plot in Figure 43, no area in the plant had
a noise level above 90 dB on the A band. The noise levels at the plant
boundaries were normally between 62 and 66 dB. When a train passed by, the
dB level at the boundary adjacent to the railroad tracks rose to between
75 and 80 dB, as illustrated in Figure 44.
AIR COMPRESSOR
CONTROL
PANEL
88(84) 105
88(87) 100
82 94
84 - 88(81)
84
83
82
88
79 93
Near Compressor on(off)
Soot Blower on(off)
Boiler
Hydraulic Loader on(off)
Storage Area
Near Electrical Panel
Loading Area
W/Skid-Steer Loader
Near Residue Conveyor
RESIDUE
CONTAINER
Figure 43. In-plant noise-level plot for North Little Rock facility.
103
-------
(__) SAMPLE LOCATION
70) dBA LEVEL
Figure 44. Outside-plant noise-level plot for North Little Rock facility.
EPA Level One Analysis
This section briefly discusses the EPA Level One analysis and presents
the significant pollutants detected in this analysis.
The EPA Level One tests were run during the week of May 22 to 26, 1978.
The ambient air tests were run as follows: the particulate size distribution
test was run for a 24-hour period over the 23rd and 24th, the filter for
chemical analysis was installed for a 24-hour period over the 25th and 26th,
the ambient sorbent trap Nos. 1 and 3 were installed for a 24-hour period
over the 24th and 25th, and the Tedlar grab sampler was installed on the
23rd. The stack sorbent traps were installed as follows: trap No. 5 on the
23rd, trap No. 4 on the 24th, and trap No. 2 on the 25th. The Method 5
filter and impinger tests were run at the same time as the installation of
sorbent trap No. 5. The grab sample was taken on the 24th.
Stack Emissions—
The flue gases in the boiler exhaust stack were periodically sampled and
subjected to various types of analyses to reveal the organic and inorganic
contaminants in the gases exiting to atmosphere.
104
-------
In the gas chromatograph analysis of the filter samples for organic
contaminants, no C7 - Ci2 hydrocarbons, chlorinated hydrocarbons, or organic
sulfur compounds were detected. However, in the analysis for inorganic
contaminants, arsenic and mercury were detected. Moreover, spark source mass
spectrometry analysis found detectable levels of lead, tin, copper, zinc,
nickel, phosphorus, and sulfur.
When the impinger solutions were tested for arsenic, antimony, and
mercury, none of these contaminants were detected. However, further tests of
these solutions detected boron, chlorine, iron, copper, manganese, sulfur,
and the halogens chlorine, benzine, and iodine.
In the gas chromatograph analysis of the resin in the sorbent trap, no
chlorinated or sulfur compounds were detected. Octane (C8) and dodecane
(C12) vapors were detected in only one sample. However, liquid chromato-
graphy and infrared analysis detected heavy hydrocarbons, most probably
esters of a high molecular weight organic acid. In addition, atomic absorption
analysis detected arsenic, antimony, and mercury. Moreover, spark source
mass spectrometry analysis found detectable levels of chromium, copper, zinc,
lead, iron, and chlorine.
The Tedlar bag samples were analyzed for hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and
carbonyl (COS) sulfide by spark source mass spectrometry. With detection
levels of 10 ppm for H2S and 25 ppm for COS, neither of the sulfides were
found.
Process Water—
Samples of the tipping floor wash water were divided into liquid and
solid fractions. In the tests for organic contaminants and chlorinated
hydrocarbons, only the liquid fraction was analyzed because of the known
organic content of the solid fraction. No contaminants were detected in
these tests. In the tests for inorganic contaminants, both fractions had
detectable arsenic and mercury, but the levels in the liquid fraction were
much higher than those in the solid fraction. Samples of the tipping floor
wash water were also tested for total colifortn and fecal streptococcus
counts. Table 28 summarizes the results.
TABLE 28. NORTH LITTLE ROCK TIPPING FLOOR WATER MICROBIOLOGICAL
CONCENTRATIONS FOR MARCH, MAY, AND OCTOBER TESTS
Colony Concentration per 100 ml
Date Total Coliforrn
03/22
03/23*
05/25
10/10
726,000
605,000
750,000
4,700,000
Fecal Coliform
121,000
8,600
7,000
300,000
Fecal Streptococcus
27,800
15,900
480,000
5,300,000
* Wash water from skid-steer loader included.
105
-------
Residue and Leachate—
In the gas chromatography analysis of the residue samples for chlori-
nated hydrocarbons and sulfur compounds, none of these contaminants were
detected. However, in the gas chromatograph analysis for C7 - C12
hydrocarbons, the test found 63.0 yg/m3 of decane (Ci0) and 19.0 yg/m3 of
undecane (Cn). In addition, the atomic absorption analysis found 1.96 yg/m3
of arsenic and 6.20 yg/m3 of antimony; the infrared analysis detected a
functional group of a medium C-H stretch; and the spark source mass spec-
trometry analysis detected many elements in high concentration, the most
significant being lead with 5000 Mg/g, tin and chromium each with 1000 yg/g,
and phosphorus and iron each with more than 1000 yg/g. The significant
results are summarized in Table 29.
TABLE 29. NORTH LITTLE ROCK RESIDUE
COMPONENT CONCENTRATIONS
Component
Decane
Undecane
Arsenic
Antimony
Sulfur
Chlorine
Potassium
Phosphorus
Chromium
Iron
Zinc
Copper
Fluorine
Tin
Molybdenum
Barium
Lead
Cadmium
Bromide
Boron
Mercury
Concentration
Mg/g
63.0
19.0
1.96
6.20
1000
100
High*
High
1000
High
High
500
0
1000
0
500
5000
High
0
100
0
* High > 1000
106
-------
In the chemical analysis of the leachate filtrate from the run with only
distilled water with a 5.5 pH, the pH, hardness, alkalinity dissolved solids,
and the chloride, sulfate, fluoride, and antimony concentrations increased.
In the analysis of the filtrate from the run with both distilled water and a
phosphate buffer to lower the pH to 5.0, the pH, alkalinity, disso'lved
solids, and the chloride, sulfate, and bromide concentrations also increased.
However, in the filtrate of the latter run, the pH increase was less and the
alkalinity and dissolved solid increases were more than those in the filtrate
of the former run. The phosphate buffer did interfere with the ortho and
total phosphate test. The results are presented in Table 30.
TABLE 30. NORTH LITTLE ROCK RESIDUE LEACHATE PARAMETER AND
COMPONENT VALUES
Water Blank
Test 1
Phosphate Buffer
Test 2
PH
Conductivity
Alkalinity
TKN
Hardness
TOC
Ortho-Phosphate
Total Phosphate
Sulfide
Chloride
Acidity
Total Dissolved
Solids
Ammonia as N
COD
Sulfate
Bromide
Fluoride
Boron
Mercury
Cadmium
Antimony
Lead
Chromium
Arsenic
Cyanide
Phenols
MBAS
umhos
mg/Jl
mg/SL
mg/S>
mg/S,
mg/S.
mg/£
mg/S.
mg/£
mg/S.
mg/S,
mg/SL
mg/l
mg/i
mg/i
mg/i
ug/s.
yg/£
Mg/8.
ug/£
Ug/S.
ug/£
mg/S,
mg/S,
mg/S.
5.52
2.78
1.10
6.95
2.00
3.10
0.005
0.01
<0.002
ND
5
<1
0.216
ND
<1.00
<0.100
0.058
<0.1
<0.1
<1
<1.0
<1
<1
ND
-
-
—
8.65
185.00
43.50
5.25
70.00
5.70
0.025
0.044
0.002
0.71
ND
80
0.183
ND
34.30
<0.100
0.099
<0.1
<0.1
<1
5.4
<1
<1
ND
-
-
—
6.05
2800
144
'11.6
ND
2.2
1400
1975
ND
12
1841
5770
0.23
ND
16.6
1.0
.07
127
-
-
-
-
-
-
.002
.005
0.12
ND None detected.
Outside Ambient Air—
The ambient air outside the plant was sampled upwind and downwind by the
high-volume sampler, the sorbent trap enclosed in a weatherproof box, and the
Tedlar bags. With the prevailing wind given by the Little Rock airport, the
upwind sample site was positioned outside the plant boundary in a wet-weather
swamp some 100 meters from the plant. The downward sample site was located a
like distance away but within the plant boundary adjacent to the Koppers'
plant.
107
-------
The chemical analysis of the filters in the high-volume sampler detected
no heavy hydrocarbons, chlorinated hydrocarbons, sulfur compounds, mercury,
arsenic, or antimony. In addition, the spark source mass spectrometry
•analysis detected no inorganic elements. Table 31 lists the weights of the
particulates captured on each of the three stages of the Anderson head
impactor.
While the gas chromatograph analysis of the resin in the sorbent trap
also did not detect any heavy hydrocarbons, chlorinated hydrocarbons, or
sulfur compounds, the spark source mass spectrometry analysis found some
traces of inorganic elements.
The Tedlar bag samples were analyzed for carbonyl, hydrogen sulfide.,.
organic sulfur compounds, ammonia, prussic acid, and cyanide with none being
detected.
TABLE 31. NORTH LITTLE ROCK AMBIENT AIR PARTICULATE
SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS
UPWIND
Particle Size y
Weight gm
Concentration yg/m3
>7
1.1 - 7
TOTAL
0.0234
0.0179
0.0228
28.7
22.0
28.0
78.7
DOWNWIND
Particle Size y
Weight gm
Concentration
>7
1.1 - 7
TOTAL
0.0362
0.0302
0.0355
44.4
37.0
43.5
125.9
Summary—
Of the major pollutants detected in the EPA Level One analysis, antimony,
arsenic, lead, and mercury were consistently found in small amounts. Other
metals and heavy organics were found occasionally in smaller amounts.
Table 32 summarizes the air emissions findings, and Table 33 quantifies the
high values found in the emissions filters as given in Table 32.
The contaminates were found in the stack emission, the tipping floor
wash water, the residue, and the water that came in contact with the residue.
108
-------
TABLE 32. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SUMMARY OF ELEMENTS DETECTED IN EPA
LEVEL ONE ANALYSIS
Element Source
Ambient Air
Sorbent
Filter
Element
Li
Be
B
F
Na
Mg
Al
Si
P
S
Cl
K
Ca
Sc
Tu
U
Cr
Mn
Fe
Co
Ni
Cu
Zn
Ga
Ge
Se
Br
Rb
Ag
Sn
Cs
Pb
Bi
I
As
Sb
Hg
NH3
HCN
CH20
Upwind
N
N
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
N
D
N
D
D
D
N
N
D
D
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
-
D
N
N
N
N
N
-
-
-
Downwind
D
N
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
N
D
N
D
D
D
N
N
D
D
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
-
D
N
N
N
N
N
_
-
-
Trap
Upwind
D
N
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
N
D
D
N
N
N
N
N
D
N
N
D
D
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
D
_
-
-
Downwind
D
N
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
N
D
D
N
N
N
N
N
D
D
D
D
D
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
_
-
-
Stack Emissions
..Sorbent
Trap
2
D
N
D
N
D
D
D
D
D
D
N
D
D
N
D
N
D
D
D
N
N
D
D
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
D
D
_
-
-
4'
D
N
D
N
D
D
D
D
D
D
N
D
D
N
D
N
D
D
D
N
N
D
D
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
D
N
N
D
N
D
_
-
-
Method 5
Filter
5
D
N
D
N
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
N
D
N
D
D
D
N
N
D
D
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
D
N
D
_
-
-
N
N
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
N
D
N
N
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
N
N
N
D
D
D
D.
D
D
N
D
N
D
_
-
-
Impingers
1
N
N
D
N
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
N
D
N
N
D
D
N
N
D
D
N
N
N
N
N
D
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
D
N
D
2 & 3
D
N
D
N
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
N
D
N
N
D
D
N
N
D
D
N
N
N
D
N
A
N
N
N
N
D
N
N
N
N
N
D
N Not Detected D Detected
* Test interference - No test
33 other elements tested for were not detected.
109
-------
TABLE 33. NORTH LITTLE ROCK SUMMARY OF ELEMENTS DETECTED
IN STACK EMISSION FILTERS
Emission rate
Element
Concentration in gas
(yg/m3)*
Emission factor
g/Mg of refuser
Silicon
Iron
Aluminum
Sodium
Calcium
Potassium
Magnesium
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Beryllium
Titanium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Manganese
Lithium
Antimony
Boron
Tin
Vanadium
3.22
261.
331.
9,363.
894.
381.
331.
4,280.
9,071.
123.
0.114
.333
1.105
62.57
1.97
8.02
2.48
13.26
105.0
3.81
2.26
.0505
4.10
5.20
147.0
14.0
5.98
5.20
67.2
142.
1.93
.0018
.0052
.0173
.982
.031
.126
.039
.208
1.640
.0598
.0354
* Concentrations based on a composite of six filters from
October test period.
t g/Mg T 500 = Ib/ton
The tipping floor water is treated by a municipal treatment plant.
Concentrations of the pollutants are not high enough to affect the treatment
plant's operation. Many trace elements were found in small amounts, with
the small particulate size (<7ym) emissions common to small modular incinerator
operation. The residue could also become a pollutant by its surface drainage
at the local site and by its leachate formation at the disposal site.
Economic Evaluation
Accounting System—
The City's accounting system is organized and operated on a fund basis
and is typical of that found in a municipal environment. In the accounting
sense, a fund is defined as an independent fiscal and accounting entity with
a self-balancing set of accounts in which all financial activities related to
specific objectives are segregated and recorded. The segregation and record-
ing of financial activities for specific objectives are performed according
to special regulations, restrictions, or limitations.
110
-------
The City maintains several funds within its accounting structure. Funds
which specifically relate to the construction and maintenance of the solid
waste plant include (1) the general fund which is used primarily to account
for the expenditures of general government, (2) special revenue funds which
are used to account for particular revenues such as Federal revenue sharing
and grant funds and funds assigned for specific purposes, and (3) capital
project funds which are funds allocated for the construction of various
facilities.
All plant operating and maintenance costs are recorded and accounted for
in the general fund, while plant capital expenditures are recorded in the
1971 and 1976 Sanitation Funds (which are capital project funds). A special
revenue fund was also established to account for the plant steam revenues and
to retire plant principal and interest payments for construction.
The City of North Little Rock accounting records are prepared or main-
tained on a cash basis of accounting. Under the cash basis no adjustments
are made for prepaid, unearned, and accrued items. Revenues in cash are
reported as being earned in the accounting period in which they are received,
and expenses are deducted from revenues in the accounting period in which
cash is disbursed for their payment. As a result, operating and maintenance
costs or steam revenues recorded during a given time period may not represent
actual incurred costs or revenues of that period but rather may cover expenses
and income attributed to other time periods.
The City of North Little Rock maintains a chart of accounts for the
general fund. This chart permits identifying operating and maintenance costs
in the following classifications: (1) personnel services, (2) salaries,
(3) overtime wages, (4) holiday pay, (5) FICA, (6) employee benefits,
(7) employee retirement pension, (8) maintenance, (9) utilities and communica-
tion, and (10) gasoline and oil.
The City anticipates that additional cost classifications will be added
as it becomes more experienced in the plant operation.
Because of the City's cash basis of accounting, the plant's revenues and
operating expenses cannot be properly correlated with time periods. Accord-
ingly, to make the costs more representative of the time periods, the project
team maintained independent records of all operating and maintenance costs on
an accrual basis of accounting.
Capital Costs and Their Financing—
The capital costs expended on the incinerator plant were identified by
examining the City's accounting records and related contractual agreements
and by interviewing City personnel.
All recorded capital expenditures related to the incinerator plant were
charged to the capital project funds accounts (the 1971 and 1976 Sanitation
Funds). From these accounts, vouchers covering the recorded expenditures
were identified. Source documents relating to the vouchers were reviewed to
determine whether the expenditures were (1) properly chargeable to the project,
(2) properly classified as capital expenditures, (3) materially accurate for
111
-------
reclassification per EPA guidelines and cost centers, and (4) in need of
adjustment according to supporting documentation examination.
This review revealed that $1,454,846 for the plant construction was
charged to the capital project funds but that an additional $64,558 ($43,158
for site preparation and $21,400 for plant design) was not formally charged
to these funds. In addition, while two acres of land for the plant site were
donated and are leased at a nominal cost, an estimated land value of $10,000
was added to the capital cost to make the total cost more realistic. The
total capital cost, therefore, was $1,529,404. Table 34 presents the total
capital cost breakdown which generally agrees with the EPA cost categories.
TABLE 34. NORTH LITTLE ROCK ACTUAL CAPITAL COSTS*
Land $ 10,000
Site preparation 101,093
Design 37,583
Construction 311,383
Real equipment 968,929
Other equipment 62,886
Other costs 37,530
Total capital investment $1,529,404
*Based on actual costs in 1977.
After the incurred costs as specified in the contract requirements and
as evidenced in the documents for supporting items were reviewed, the total
capital cost was distributed among four cost centers: the three functional
areas, namely receiving, incineration, and heat recovery, and the general
plant. In addition to the distribution among the four cost centers, Table 35
presents a distribution of the total capital cost among the three functional
areas. The latter distribution was prepared by allocating to each functional
area that part of the $126,020 for the general plant which was in proportion'
to its amount in the first distribution. ,The reason for the second distri-
bution was that the general plant cost covers miscellaneous depreciable items
that are applicable to the functional areas.
112
-------
TABLE 35. NORTH LITTLE ROCK CAPITAL COST ALLOCATIONS
BY COST CENTER
Cost center
Receiving
Incineration
Heat recovery
General plant
Capital cost
$ 245,650
789,690
368,044
126,020
Reallocated
capital cost
$ 267,709
860,602
401,093
Total $1,529,404 $1,529,404
Then for each depreciable item, Table 36 lists the initial cost,
including as applicable the freight, insurance, and installation costs; the
related cost center; and the estimated useful life. The estimated useful
lives, namely 15 to 20 years for real equipment items and generally 20 years
for the other items, were used in computing the annual depreciation expenses
which are presented under the operating and maintenance costs.
Although the actual total capital cost of the facility was $1,519,404,
$64,559 (as discussed above) was allocated for the facility but not formally
charged to the capital project funds and $103,846 was acquired as a trade-in
allowance for previously used incinerators. Consequently, $1,351,000 was
acquired by a 20-year bond issue with interest rates ranging from 5.75 to
6.75 percent. Semiannual unadjusted interest payments over the life of the
bond issue will equal $1,287,194.
Operating and Maintenance Costs—
Preparatory to distributing the annual operating and maintenance costs
among the four cost centers, SYSTECH provided data for the operating para-
meters that affect these costs. Based on the facility monitoring between
September 1 and 26 of 1978, the first period of normal plant operation, the
parameter data were extrapolated to represent a 24-hour day, 250-day year
operation. Then the annual parameter data.were distributed among the four
cost centers as shown in Table 37.
Table 38 presents the unit cost data which was used in conjunction with
the operating parameter data in Table 37 to arrive at the estimated operating
costs. These unit costs are based on averages of the actual unit costs over
the evaluation period.
The preparation of the projected operating cost required estimating the
maintenance costs and including the interest and depreciation costs to make
the evaluation complete and reasonable.
113
-------
TABLE 36. COST, COST CENTERS, AND ESTIMATED USEFUL LIFE FOR EACH
MAJOR EQUIPMENT ITEM IN NORTH LITTLE ROCK FACILITY
Equipment Item Cost
4 Incinerator Units $ 532,651
(includes pressure
regulators and ad-
ditional connection
pedestals
4 Ash Conveyor 72,536
Systems
2 Energy Recovery 195,492
Systems
2 Steel Platforms 37,708
Cost Center Estimated
Useful Life
(Yrs)
Incineration 15 - 20
Incineration 15 - 20
Peat Recovery 15 - 20
40% Heat Recovery 15 - 20
railings, ladder,
stairs, etc
Auxiliary Boiler
(includes oil system,
vent stack, exhaust
fan)
4 Dual Fuel Systems
High Pressure Steam Cleaner
Truck Scale
Steam Flow Meter
Timber Piles
Air Pollution Control
Office Building
Plant Shell
3 Loaders
Slowdown Installation Heating
Ash Removal Truck
5 Metal Containers
Design Costs Identified
Miscellaneous Depreciable
Costs Not Itemized
Total
48,005
60% Incineration
heat Recovery
20 - 30
21,587
7,088
19,801
4,130
11,380
5,132
20,107
279,896
27,540
24,799
25,137
8,472
37,583
39,267
$1,418,311
Incineration 15
Heat Recovery 15
Receiving
Heat Recovery 15
General Plant
Incineration 15
General Plant
65% Receiving
17 1/2% Incinerator
17 1/2% Heat. Recovery
Receiving 15
Heat Recovery 15
Incineration 15
Incineration 15
General Plant
General Plant 15
- 20
- 20
20
--20
20
- 20
20
20
- 20
- 20
- 20
- 20
20
- 20
114
-------
O
E3
W
P3
H
m o O
O rH rH
CO
CO
O !'
.z !;
§ '
P5 ' to
S :: °
o ;
u •
O "
^ ?
tq ''
H !'
H
>^i-i r^o co moooooo , " - rH 00
1-1 01 rH ,
CN
0
CM
^
\/
O
o
o
o
o
o
OO •£>
^G ^
schedule:
00
d
•H
4_J
tfl
i-l
QJ
a
o
•H
U
CL
U
U-(
0
in
QJ
4-1
1-1
-a
0)
QJ
IH
1-1 r-l
QJ r£- ^>
01 --.--.
3 00 00
u_i ^ y|
Q)
duction operating aver;
o
1-,
o.
e
to
0)
4-1
U}
r of sanitation
uperintendent
ance superintendent
r
ry
river
e
rHOWldOCOtJE
QJ 4J QJ 4-1 4-1 -H
C!cJ4-'4-lCrjCl)rii4_l
CQJdC^4^O&-<
O^cO'HDO^QJ
01-HrHCOO.Q)l-J>
M O f i 2j O C/l E-H O
QJ
Q*
umption:
01
£j
0
O
rH
0)
3
.£ 13 — ,
-~ ^ X
C^J «^ tO
to Q) -—
00 3
U-l Q)
rH d
tO rH -H
1-, 0) rH
3 M O
4-1 OJ 01
fO -H CO
a o o
power consumption (kwh,
u
•H
^j
4-J
U
QJ
, — 1
w
nj
TJ
C
o
-H
D.
3
01
d
o
CJ
J_J
QJ
4-1
<$
3
-^
01
rH
CO
U
•H
e
0)
^£J
U
--^
v>
s^
tl)
d
0
CH
V4
QJ
U
C
to
1-1
3
tfl
M
01
Q)
0)
^
00 QJ
•H ^
cx ^^.
CX
•H
E-*
115
-------
TABLE 38. NORTH LITTLE ROCK ACTUAL ANNUAL OPERATING AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS FOR COST CENTERS
Cost Classification
Salaries
Employee benefits
Fuel - No. 2 Diesel
-Natural Gas
-Gasoline
Electricity
Water and sewec
Maintenance
Total
Cost
$111,284
15,750
3,456
16,704
2,916
19,237
6,402
65,656
Receiving
$27,048
3,744
3,456
693
10,614
Incineration
$ 38,912
5,244
16,704
2,916
9,349
258
34,123
Heat
recovery
$ 6,165
870
8,157
2,054
15,904
General
plant
$ 39,159
5,892
1,038
4,090
5,015
Residue Removal
Chemicals 3,400 3,400
Interest 44,050 44,050
Depreciation 78,070 11,661 41,771 18,940 5,698
Other overhead 3,209 1,050 2,159
Sub total $370,134 57,216 149,277 56,540 107,101
General Plant Allocations 22,237 58,018 21,975
Grand Total $370,134 $79,453 $207,295 $78,515
During the monitoring period, the plant was under warranty by the
builder who performed all maintenance, much of which was developmental
modifications. Therefore, since the actual maintenance costs could not be
determined, estimated costs were derived by applying the Internal Revenue
Service guideline for maintenance costs, namely 5.5 percent of the total
depreciable assets, to the $1,418,311 given in Table 36. Although a survey
of existing small modular incinerator plants revealed that their maintenance
costs ranged from 2 to 3 percent of the total depreciable assets, the
5.5 percent is reasonable since the estimated costs include maintenance labor
and reasonably anticipate higher maintenance expenses as the facility gets
older. However, since the salary of the maintenance supervisor was included
with the other salaries and the employee benefits, it was excluded from the
maintenance costs.
In addition to the bond issue, the computation to determine the total
annual interest included the estimated $10,000 value of the donated land and
the $64,558 allocated by the City for the plant construction but not formally
charged to the capital project funds. In this computation, the present net
116
-------
values of all interest payments were totaled and the sum was averaged over
the 20-year life of the bond issue. The resultant total annual interest was
$'•4,050 ($39,179 for the $1,351,000 bond issue and $4,872 for both the
^64,558 City's cash outlay and the $10,000 land value).
In the computation of the annual depreciation cost of the items listed
in Table 36, a straight line depreciation was used with 17.5 years as the
life for the real equipment items and 20 years as the life for all other
items.
Then the annual costs for maintenance, interest, and depreciation, as
computed above, were combined with the data in Tables 37 and 38 to derive the
projected annual operating and maintenance costs. Table 39 lists the result-
ant costs. As seen in that table, the total annual costs are $365,263 or
$22.55 per Mg of refuse processed. Except for interest and depreciation, the
cost categories in Table 39 generally agree with those in the EPA accounting
format.
TABLE 39. NORTH LITTLE ROCK PROJECTED OPERATING
AND MAINTENANCE COSTS*
Item
Salaries
Employee benefits
Fuel - no. 2 diesel
Natural gas
Gasoline
Electricity
Water and sewer
Maintenance
Replacement equipment
Residue removal
Chemicals
Interest
Depreciation
Other overhead
Total operating and
maintenance costs
($/yr)
$111, 28A
15,750
3,456
16,704
2,916
19,237
6,402
65,656
—
t
3,400
39,179
78,070
3,209
$365,263
Cost
($/Mg)
$ 6.87
0.97
0.21
1.03
0.18
1.19
0.40
4.05
—
t
0.21
2.42
4.82
0.20
$22.55
* Based on costs incurred during September 1978.
t Cost included in salaries and employee benefit categories.
117
-------
Next, in Table 40, the annual costs in Table 39 were distributed among
the four cost centers according to the cost center allocations in Table 37.
As noted in Table 39, the residue removal costs in Table 40 were also included
in the salaries and employee benefit categories. Similarly as in Table 39,
the other overhead category in Table 40 includes telephone, insurance, and
other miscellaneous costs.
TABLE 40. NORTH LITTLE ROCK UNIT COST DATA*
Annual salary rates:
Director of sanitation $19,000
Plant superintendent 13,290
Maintenance superintendent 10,800
Operator 9,442
Truck driver 8,086
Secretary 7,956
Overtime 5,000
Employee benefits:
Health insurance (each employee) $29.70/month
Retirement 5.00%
FICA 6.05%
Fuel rates:
Natural gas $0.056/1000 i
Number 2 diesel oil $0.122/£
Gasoline $0.140/£
Electricity: $0.034/kwh
Water and sewer: $0.0918/1000 I
*Based on cost projections from costs incurred during September 1978.
As shown in Table 41, the annual costs in Table 39 were also broken down
into fixed and variable costs. The rationale for the breakdown was as follows:
Whenever the plant may be shut down, some salaries and employee benefits,
sucn as those for the sanitation director, plant superintendent, and mainte-
nance superintendent, will continue and therefore are fixed, while those for
the other employees will be modified and therefore are variable. Obviously,
the costs for fuel, electricity, water and sewer, and chemicals will be
minimal during plant shutdowns. Therefore they were all considered variable.
Regardless of the plant operation, some maintenance must be performed periodi-
cally; therefore, 50 percent of the maintenance cost was considered fixed.
Since most of the costs in the other overhead category will continue during
plant shutdowns, 70 percent of these costs were considered fixed. Obviously,
interest and depreciation are pure fixed costs since they will continue until
the corresponding assets have been fully depreciated.
118
-------
TABLE 41. NORTH KITTLE ROCK ANNUAL FIXED
AND VARIABLE OPERATING AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS
Item Total Fixed Variable
Salaries
Employee benefits
Fuel - No. 2 diesel
- Natural gas
- Gasoline
Electricity
Water and sewer
Maintenance
Replacement equipment
Residue removal
Chemicals
Interest
Depreciation
Other overhead
Total costs
* Based on 1978 dollars
t Assumes that salaries
$ 111,284
15,750
3,456
16,704
2,916
19,237
6,402
65,656
3,400
39,179
78,070
3,209
$ 365,263
of Sanitation
$ 33,590
4,741
32,828
39,179
78,070
2,238
$ 190,646
Director, Pla
$ 77,694t
ll,009t
3,4560
16, 704 0
2.916//
19,2370
6,402#
32,828
3,400
971
$ 174,617
,nt Super-
intendent, and Maintenance Superintendent are incurred if the
plant is not operating.
# A minimal amount of these expenses would be incurred even if
plant was not operating.
Revenues—
Table 42 presents the estimated annual revenues based on the September
operation conditions.
llet Operating Costs—
With $365,263 as the projected annual operating and maintenance cost and
$177,335 as the estimated annual revenue, the net annual operating cost will
be $187,928. Table 43 presents the costs, revenues, and net costs per unit
of refuse processed.
Dunmary—
With the facility requiring an initial capital investment of $1,529,404,
its anticipated annual operation will cost $187,928 or $11.67 per Mg ($10.53
per ton) of refuse processed.
During the evaluation period, the net operating cost approached the
alternative landfill cost of $4.86 per Mg ($4.41 per ton) of refuse processed
partly because of increasing efficiency but mostly because the builder
defrayed the maintenance costs under the warranty and the salaries of 3 of the
11 employees were paid through a Federal program. Nevertheless, the projected
net annual operating cost remains $11.67 per Mg ($10.53 per ton) of refuse
processed.
119
-------
TABLE 42. NORTH LITTLE ROCK PROJECTED ANNUAL REVENUES*
Sources Revenue
Steam production $152,999
Commercial dumping fees 24,336
lotal $177,335
Per Mg of refuse processed (per ton) $10.94 (9.92)
* Based on 1978 dollars.
TABLE 43. NORTH LITTLE ROCK PROJECTED ANNUAL
NET OPERATING COSTS*
Cost
($/Mg) ($7 ton)
Operating and maintenance costs (22.55 ) 120.45 I
Revenue 10.94 9.92
Net cost of operation ( 11.67; 110.531
fUnninc. fppl ' * '
(tipping fee)
* Based on costs incurred during September 1978.
120
-------
MARYSVILLE FACILITY
Description
General—
This facility is located at the Truck Axle Division of the Rockwell
International Corporation in Marysville, Ohio (see Figure 45). Since most of
the division's energy supply is propane gas, the natural gas shortage in the
winter of 1976-77 prompted the decision to install a solid waste incinerator
system with heat recovery. The system was intended for the twofold purpose
of burning the division's solid waste, mostly packing and shipping scraps,
and of providing energy for both heating and cooling the main building by
recovering the combustion gas heat in the form of hot water.
SITE LOCATION
ROCKWELL
INTERNATIONAL
71
Figure 45. Vicinity map of Marysville (Rockwell International) facility,
To accommodate the waste-to-heat facility, a 9m (30-ft) x 15m (50-ft)
structure was added alongside the assembly area of the main building. This
structure consists of prefabricated steel walls with an integral roof and a
concrete floor. The waste-to-energy system includes a Kelley Model 1280
incinerator with a Kelley Model 72 feeder, a York-Shipley Series 565 firetube
121
-------
boiler, and a Trane absorption chiller. Figures 46 arid 47 show the layout
and a cross section of the system, respectively. Both the primary and
secondary chambers of the incinerator are outside the facility housing so
that the main building is remote from excessive heat radiating from the
incinerator.
WAREHOUSE
J>
PC^
ASSEMBLY PLANT
GUARD HOUSE
VISITOR PARKING
OFFICE
B
CT
S
A
L
C
PC
TR
BOILER
COOLING TOWER
STACK
ASH CONTAINER
LOADER
CHILLING UNIT
PRIMARY CHAMBER
THERMAL REACTOR
MARYSVILLE
Figure 46. Plant layout of Marysville facility.
122
-------
EXHAUST STACK
RETURN WATER
RETURN WATER
HOT WATER TO
HEATING SYSTEM
THERMAL REACTOR
BURNERS ASPIRATOR
ASH
REMOVAL DOOR
I
Figure 47. Functional schematic of incineration-heat recovery
processes in Marysville facility.
While the refuse is burned 16 hours a day throughout the year, the hot
water is generated only as needed to maintain the prescribed temperature-
humidity conditions in the main building. As part of the plant's original
heating and air-conditioning system, the current heating-cooling equipment
includes nine roof-mounted units. Each unit contains a blower and one coil.
Plant air is recirculated through ducts across the coils to achieve the
desired heating and/or air conditioning. When the plant needs to be heated,
the hot water is delivered to overhead pipes and then circulated through each
of the hot water coils. When the plant needs to be cooled, the hot water is
routed to an absorption chiller which produces refrigerated water. Then the
water, chilled to temperatures between 7° C (45° F) and 16° C (60° F), is
circulated through each of the cold water coils.
Waste Loading System—
This system (see Figure 43) includes a hopper with a hinged door, a
charging ram, a guillotine type of fire door, and a hydraulic power assembly
with a control panel. Fabricated of hot rolled steel plate, the hopper is
1.8m (72 in.) long, 1.3m (51 in.) wide, and 0.8m (32 in.) deep for a capacity
of 1.9m3 (72 ft3). Its door, also fabricated of hot rolled steel with formed
steel structural members, is opened and closed hydraulically by a 6.4-cm
123
-------
(2 1/2-in.)-diameter double-acting cylinder. Thie charging ram, a rectangular
steel structure with a 1.2m x 0.6m (49- by 22-in.) face, is driven by two
8.9-cm (3 1/2-in.)-diameter double-acting cylinders operating in series.
Fabricated of low carbon steel and lined with a 12.7-cm (5-in.)-thick A. P.
Green Type KS4 castable refractory, the fire door is raised and lowered along
a structural steel guide frame by a 6.4-cm (2 1/2-in.)-diameter double-acting
cylinder. All hydraulic cylinders are powered by a 2.2-kilowatt (3-hp) motor
and hydraulic pump system. An NEMA-4 enclosure includes the relays and
switches for the automatic or manual control of the feeding cycle.
HINGED
HOPPER
DOOR
Figure 48. View of refuse loading system with fire door, hopper,
and hinged hopper door indicated.
The transition section from the hopper to the primary combustion area
passes through the facility wall. Constructed of 0.6-cm (1/4-in.) hot
rolled steel and lined with a 12.7-cm (5-in.)-thick Riser refractory, this
section is l.lm (42 in.) high, 1.6m (62 in.) wide, and approximately 0.5m
(20 in.) long.
Primary Chamber—
The primary combustion chamber, called the pyrolysis chamber, is a
horizontal cylindrical vessel constructed of 6.5-mm (1/4-in.)-thick hot
rolled steel plate (see Figure 49). It has a 2.5m (100-in.) diameter and a
3.1m (123-in.) length. The vessel is supported by a 2.8m x 1.7m
(112- x 68 1/2-in.) steel pad which is welded to the vessel and is mounted on
a concrete pad outside the facility wall. The vessel shell is lined first
with a 5.1-cm (2-in.)-thick fiber glass insulation and then with a 15.2-cm
(6-in.)-thick A. P. Green Type KS4 refractory. Steel anchors welded to the
124
-------
shell about 45.7 cm (18 in.) apart secure the refractory to the shell. The
lower one-third of the vessel interior, the hearth area, is lined with
refractory brick.
Figure 49. Three-dimensional, cutaway drawing of incinerator
module in Marysville facility.
125
-------
An Insicomite Model JS40 natural gas burner at the front of the pyrolysis
chamber heats the chamber to 315° C (600° F) during start-up and automatically
shuts off when the temperature exceeds 315° C (600° F). Although designed for
422 MJ/hr (400,000 Btu/hr), the burner was adjusted for 158 MJ/hr
(150,000 Btu/hr).
A blower supplies combustion air at approximately 0.3m3/sec (680 cfm)
through a 15.2-cm (6-in.)-diameter flexible tube to a manifold below the
burner. The air injected into the pyrolysis chamber passes through 132 5.5-mm
(0.218-in.)-diameter holes in two tubes, one along each of the hearth side
walls.
Nozzles at the one-third and two-thirds ceiling locations (see Figure 50)
of the pyrolysis chamber provide the means for spraying water mist to cool
the combustion gases when their temperatures exceed 649° C (1200° F). When
the nozzles are not spraying, water drips continuously to keep them from
overheating.
Figure 50. View showing one of the two spray nozzles installed
in ceiling of primary chamber to cool excessively
hot combustion gases.
As the combustion gases leave the top of the pyrolytic chamber to enter
the secondary combustion chamber, they pass through an elbow duct called the
throat. With a 43.2-cm (17-in.) inside diameter, the throat is constructed
of 6.5-mm (1/4-in.) mild steel and lined with 7.6 cm (3 in.) of refractory.
The entire rear of the primary chamber swings completely open on a
hinge. This unrestricted access permits bulk residue removal and refractory,
air tube, and residue reroval ram inspection and repair during shutdown.
126
-------
Residue Removal System—
The residue accumulating on the hearth of the pyrolytic chamber is
periodically pushed along the hearth length, through a vertically raised
door, and into an ash hopper by a cylindrical ram. On the same carriage
supporting the refuse-charging ram but below it, the residue removal ram
(see Figure 49) has a 30.5-cm (12-in.) diameter and is also driven by a
double-acting cylinder. Like the fire door, the residue door is a guillotine
type operated by a double-acting cylinder. The residue door opening is
66.0-cm (26-in.) wide and 81.3-cm (32-in.) high. These hydraulic cylinders
are powered by the same 2.2-kilowatt (3-hp) motor and hydraulic pump system
that serves the hydraulic cylinders in the waste loading system.
At the removal end of the ash hopper is a manually opened door which is
hinged at the top. A nozzle at the top of the hopper sprays water mist to
cool the residue before it is manually shoveled into refuse containers. At
the left of the side view of the combustion chambers in Figure 51 is the
original automatic residue removal system which contained a magnet to recover
ferrous materials in the residue. However, the system was removed when the
smaller than anticipated metal amounts and residue quantities did not warrant
its continued operation.
Secondary Chamber—
The secondary combustion chamber, called the thermal reactor, is an
integral part of the horizontal cylindrical flue gas duct which extends from
the elbow duct, through the wall of the building, and to the duct leading to
the exhaust stack inside the building (see Figures 49 and 51). With a
constant 53.3-cm (21-in.) inside diameter, the flue gas duct is constructed
of mild steel and lined with a 7.6-cm (3-in.)-thick castable refractory rated
up to 1649° C (3000° F). This duct has two flanged sections bolted together.
The first, which extends 0.9m (3 ft) from the elbow duct, contains three
burners; and the second, which extends from the end of the first section to
the stack gas inlet duct, contains a 96.5-cm (38-in.)-long inspirator section
with a concentric aspirator around its length.
The three burners are mounted in the same plane perpendicular to the
duct longitudinal axis and are equidistant from each other. Like the burner
for the pyrolytic chamber, each of the three burners is an Insicomite Model
JS40 designed for 422 MJ/hr (400,000 Btu/hr) but adjusted for 158 MJ/hr
(150,000 Btu/hr). Combustion air is supplied to the burners at approximately
0.3m3/sec (680 cfm) by the same blower which supplies air to the pyrolytic
chamber. These burners ignite the pyrolytic gases from the primary chamber
and maintain the temperature at 649° C (1200° F). Above each of the three
burners is a refractory-lined inspection port.
The inspirator section consists of a series of equally spaced 1.8-cm
(21/32-in.)-diameter holes arranged in equidistant longitudinal lines around
the duct circumference. The air entering at each end of the aspirator is
drawn through the holes by natural aspiration. Additional air enters the flue
gas stream through a 1.3-cm (1/2-in.)-wide slit in the duct downstream of the
inspirator section. A moveable ring around the slit controls the amount of
additional air introduced through the slit.
127
-------
Figure 51. Side view of combustion chambers showing at left the
original automatic residue removal system.
Exhaust Stack—
The gas exiting the flue gas duct flows into the exhaust stack where it
is either discharged to the atmosphere or drawn into the heat recovery boiler.
Based inside the building, the exhaust stack extends through the roof to a
total height of 12m (40 ft). The stack has an inside diameter of 53 cm
(24 in.) and is constructed of mild steel with a 7.6-cm (3-in.)-thick lining
of A. P. Green refractory.
Heat Recoveiy System—
The heat recovery system consists primarily of a York-Shipley Series
No. 565 firetube boiler (see Figure 52). Rated at 131 kilowatts (175 hp) the
boiler is a 3-pass design and has fireside heating and waterside surfaces of
81.3m2 (875 ft?) and 89.1m2 (959 ft2), respectively. The boiler produces hot
water at L04° C (220° F) and 30 psig.
128
-------
Figure 52. Side view of hot water boiler with thermocouple for
boiler entrance duct indicated.
The Trane absorption chiller, rated at 219.5 Mg (242 tons) of cooling,
requires 0.02m3/sec (320 gpm) with a temperature difference of 121° C
(250° F) in and 104° C (220° F) out.
When hot water is required, the combined action of a motor-modulated
damper and an induced draft fan in the boiler gas outlet duct draws the flue
gas down the stack from the level where it enters the stack to the boiler gas
inlet duct. From there the gas flows to the boiler gas inlet at the near
end, makes three passes through the boiler, then exits the boiler through the
gas outlet at the boiler far end. After passing through the induced draft
fan (see Figure 53), the gases flow through the boiler outlet gas duct to the
stack at a level above the flue gas inlet to the stack for its discharge to
the atmosphere. The flue gas flow rate is controlled by a thermocouple in
the stack gas inlet duct and by temperature sensors in the boiler inlet and
129
-------
outlet water lines. These temperature sensors modulate a damper located at
the induced draft fan inlet. The water inlet to the firetubes is at the top
and near the center of the boiler, and the water outlet is at the bottom of
the firetubes near the boiler gas inlet duct.
BOILER GAS OUTLET
THERMOCOUPLE
Figure 53. View showing induced draft fan and thermocouple for
boiler exit gas temperature.
Operation
Figure 54 shows a flow diagram of the incineration-heat recovery
processes.
Refuse Loading—
A fork-lift vehicle transports the packing and shipping scraps and other
solid waste in small containers to the refuse hopper (see Figures 55 and 56).
When the hopper door is opened after the previous loading cycle, the vehicle
operator lifts the containers and dumps the refuse into the hopper. Then the
operator depresses the START button on the control panel (see Figure 57) to
activate the following automatic operations in the given sequence:
(1) The hopper door closes.
(2) If the temperature in the pyrolysis chamber is below 649° C
(1200° F), the fire door opens.
(3) If the temperature at the exit of the inspirator chamber is
above 982° C (1800° F), the fire door opening is delayed until
the temperature falls below 982° C (1800° F).
130
-------
(4) As the fire door opens, the charging ram pushes the refuse
into the pyrolytic chamber and then partially withdraws 10.2 cm
(4 in.) from the door until the fire door closes completely.
(5) If. refuse blocks the complete door closing, the door rises and the
ram moves forward again to clear the obstruction. If the door does
not completely close after two more ram thrusts, an alarm sounds
for the manual removal of the obstruction.
(6) When the fire door closes completely, the ram returns to its
starting position and the hopper door opens.
The normal loading cycle takes about 100 seconds.
Flue Gas
To Atmosphere
Heat ing/Cooling
System
Municipal
Water
Solid Waste
Figure 54.
Flow diagram of incineration-heat recovery processes
in Marysville facility.
131
-------
Figure 55. Fork-lift vehicle with refuse load beside refuse hopper.
Figure 56. View showing manual removal of bulky objects on fork-lift
vehicle for their placement in refuse hopper.
132
-------
Figure 57. Control panel for automatic cycling
of incinerator operations.
Chamber Operations—
During start-up, the burner in the pyrolysis chamber heats this chamber
to 316° C (600° F). The refuse near the orifices of the two underfire air
tubes along the hearth side walls combust rapidly at a very high temperature.
As the combustion products are agitated upward through the waste, they
promote additional gasification. When the temperature reaches 649° C
(1200° F), all refuse volatiLes become gasified. While carbon—rich char
residuals settle on the hearth, the retention time is long enough to even-
tually reduce them to ash. If the temperature exceeds 649° C (1200° F), the
nozzle at the top of the pyrolysis chamber sprays a water mist into the hot
gas to lower the temperature. The manufacturer supplied performance data
indicates that the pyrolysis chamber operates at 30 percent of the air
required for stoichiometric combustion.
The combustion gases leave the pyrolysis chamber at about 649° C
(1200° F). As the gases enter the burner section of the thermal reactor,
they are ignited by the three burners in this section. Then as the gases
pass through the inspirator section, the aspirated air intensifies the
combustion and elevates the temperatures to between 982° C (1800° F) and
1093° C (2000° F). When the temperature reaches 982° C (1800° F), the three
burners are turned off and not turned on again until the temperature of the
133
-------
combustion gas leaving the pyrolysis chamber drops below 649° C (1200° F).
The thermal reactor operates at a maximum of 150 percent of stoichiometric
air.
The amount of excess air supplied to the inspirator section is controlled
by plugging the 1.8-cm (21/32-in.)-diameter holes. This control technique is
principally suited to a waste stream which has a constant composition.
As the flue gases reach the 1.3-cm (1/2-in.)-wide split in the duct
downstream of the inspirator section, they receive additional air to carry
the combustion process to completion and to provide the amount of air mass
needed for the gas flow drawn through the boiler by the induced draft fan.
The amount of air introduced through the split is controlled by manually
adjusting the coverage of the moveable ring over the split.
A single thermocouple in the pyrolysis chamber activates the following
automatic operations: (1) the retiring of the burner in the pyrolysis
chamber when the chamber temperature drops below 316° C (600° F), (2) the
lockout of the refuse loading system when the chamber temperature is above
982° C (1800° F), (3) the turn-on of the water spray system in the pyrolysis
chamber when the chamber temperature exceeds 649° C (1200° F), and (4) the
refiring of the three burners in the thermal reactor when the temperature of
the combustion gases leaving the pyrolysis chamber falls below 649° C
(1200° F).
Residue Removal—
Periodically the ash and other residue accumulating on the hearth of the
pyrolysis chamber are automatically removed by depressing the ASH RAM button
on the control panel beside the refuse loading system. As the guillotine-
type door leading to the ash hopper is raised, the ash ram (see Figure 58)
pushes the residue along the hearth until its face is 20.3 cm (8 in.) away
from the door entrance. Then the ram withdraws to its starting position and
the door is closed to complete the cycle. The complete cycle requires about
60 seconds. The 20.3 cm (8 in.) of residue left in front of the ash door
serves as a seal to prevent cold air from entering the pyrolysis chamber when
the ash door is opened.
As the residue is discharged into the ash hopper, the nozzle at the top
of the hopper sprays a water mist so that the residue can be sufficiently
cooled for its manual shoveling into refuse containers.
In addition to ash removal, the ram is also used periodically to stir
the ash bed for better combustion.
Hot Water Production—
The heat recovery system is integrated with the incinerator system by a
Honeywell temperature control in the boiler control panel. Connected to a
thermocouple in the stack gas inlet duct, the temperature control is set at
260° C (500° F). When the flue gas temperature exceeds 260° C (500° F) , the
134
-------
temperature control allows the boiler controls to activate the damper-
modulating motor to open the damper and turn on the induced draft fan to draw
the flue gases through the boiler system. Conversely, when the flue gas
temperature falls below 260° C (500° F), the temperature control activates
the motor to close the damper and turns off the fan.
Figure 58. Rear view of primary chamber with fire door and ram
face indicated.
While the flue gas temperature is over 260° C (500° F), the temperature
sensors controlling the damper and fan operations are the operating and high
temperature limit switches in the boiler inlet and outlet water. While the
operating temperature limit switch and the high temperature limit switch for
the inlet water are set at 71° C (160° F) and 82° C (180° F), respectively,
those for the outlet water are set at 110° C (230° F) and 116° C (240° F).
The switches for the boiler inlet water are the normal operating controllers.
When the water temperature reaches either operating temperature limit, the
damper partially closes to limit the flow of the flue gas through the boiler
system. If the water temperature reaches either high temperature limit, the
damper closes and the fan turns off. In addition to the temperature sensors,
a boiler water level sensor also activates the damper closing and the fan
shutdown when the water falls below the minimum level.
135
-------
•Site Preparation for Testing
The purpose of the testing was to provide detailed data on the facility
performance. Various testing equipment was installed to provide the needed
data. To facilitate collecting air emissions samples, a large scaffolding
system was erected around the exhaust stack (see Figure 59). Test ports were
installed in the stack to permit insertion of test probes into the stack. A
tarpaulin over the scaffolding provided shelter for the test equipment and
technicians. The SYSTECH mobile test laboratory, which housed continuous
emission monitoring instrumentation, chemicals, other test equipment, and
test records, was parked next to the building (see Figure 60).
To measure the energy input and output of the incinerator and boiler, a
Btu meter (a flow meter and two temperature probes coupled to a readout, as
shown in Figure 61) was installed. One thermocouple was installed in the
boiler inlet water pipe. The other thermocouple and the flow meter were
installed in the boiler outlet pipe. A multipoint strip chart recorder was
connected to the existing thermocouples to monitor the flue gas temperature.
The existing gas and water meter were monitored. Timers and counters were
installed in the quench water, hydraulic, and induced draft fan electrical
systems to measure power consumption and heat recovery time. The locations
of the test probes are shown in Figure 62.
Figure 59. View of temporary scaffolding and platform for
stack emission testing.
136
-------
Figure 60. View of SYSTECH mobile trailer beside facility
housing and combustion chambers.
WATER INLET
THERMOCOUPLE
-jWATER OUTLET
THERMOCOUPLE
Figure 61. View of boiler water lines with inlet and outlet
thermocouples and Btu flow meter indicated.
137
-------
EXHAUST STACK
Natural gas and water meter
Residue samples
Stack flue gas
Btu flow meter
Timer and counter in control panel
Thermocouple locations
RETURN WATER
RETURN WATER
HOT WATER TO
HEATING SYSTEM
Figure 62. Locations of data coilection points in Marysville facility.
Refuse Characterizing
Refuse Sampling and Analysis—
Throughout each, of the three weekly field tests, each load of refuse
delivered to the incinerator was weighed on a portable scale. Then the
gross, tare, and net weights were recorded along with the refuse composition
and the weighing and charging times.
At the outset of the first test, several loads were visually scanned to
estimate their composition. Then these loads were hand-sorted and the
components in each category were weighed to determine the accuracy of the
visually estimated composition. Since the refuse was mostly wood and paper
and the visually estimated composition differed by only 5 percent from that
found by the hand-sorting and weighing method, the visual estimating method
was used thereafter in the three tests.
Daily samples of the refuse were withdrawn for on-site moisture analysis.
After the gross and tare weights were recorded, the samples were dried
overnight at 105° C and the gross weights of the dried samples were recorded.
The water percentage was computed by the following equation:
138
-------
gross wt
H20% =
- gross wt
tare wt
x 100
During the first field test, a composite refuse sample was sent to a
commercial laboratory for an ultimate analysis. During the third field test,
individual refuse samples were collected and sent to another commercial
laboratory for the heat content and ultimate analysis of the wood and paper
refuse components.
Refuse Characteristics—
Over the period of the three tests, the refuse burned totaled 51,768 kg
(114,027 Ib). Of this total, 34,024 kg (74,943 Ib) or 65.7 percent was wood;
17,505 kg (38,557 Ib) or 33.5 percent was paper; and the remaining 239 kg
(527 Ib) or about 0.5 percent was plastics, paint, inerts, textiles, and
rubber. Table 44 summarizes the composition for each of the three test
periods.
TABLE 44. MARYSVILLE WEEKLY REFUSE COMPOSITION FOR APRIL, JULY, AND
AUGUST TESTS
Test Period
Category April July
kg (Ib) kg (Ib)
Total 13,151 (28,994) 2r- o52 (56,552)
Wood 7,324 (16,147 18,684 (41,191)
Paper 5,768 (12,717) 6,940 (13,300)
Plastics 17 (38)
Paint 59 (130)
Crease 12 (26)
Inert
Text lies
Rubber
August
kg (Ib)
12,919
7,985
4,782
14
20
82
13
22
(28,481)
(17,605)
(10,543)
(31)
(45)
(181)
(28)
(48)
Total Percent
kg (Ib) of Total
51,722
33,993
17,490
31
59
32
83
13
22
(114,027)
(74,943)
(38,557)
(69)
(130)
(71)
(181)
(28)
(48)
65.7
33.8
<-l
<-l
.1
<-l
^
The moisture content of the wood ranged from 7 to 11 percent with the
average being 9.3 percent. The moisture content of the paper ranged from
6 to 11 percent with the average being 7.6 percent. Table 45 summarizes the
moisture content results for each of the three field tests.
139
-------
t/)
H
to
w
H
H
C/D
p
S
^
Q
Z
"^
**
s^
5
i— ^
i-j
n
| 1
H
Pi
%
<
Pi
O
tu -a
^ ,1 °
H
Z
'C
QJ
n.
W "~
H !l u
13 " w
S i H
pa
p
^ '
LfJ i
M ,!
§ !!
t« ::
i_J i
2 S
w ;:
W |j
^ !
i-^ 'i
i|
W !'
h4
>-4
r- 1
>
CO
KJ
S
K
>s~'
H 00
a .^
4J /-^,
^ XI
i — 1
QJ 00
35 r^
U-(
O QJ
-U ^ £
C ±J
QJ Cfi >-,
a -H x>
^ o
QJ g
P-i
+j
3
^
(D ^-v
> J3
a) — •
U bC
a) 4«i
n
i
w
^~
, — |
•H
i-i
ex
fj'
t-i >~-~
"f ^
i — i
C a,
a ^
4-J -^N
3 ^3
1 1
•U '^-'
QJ OC
^ -^
O QJ
S-* -U
4-J 3 5
C 4J
oj en >>
U -H JD
n o
QJ g
P-.
4-*
3
"d
> X)
•H -H
a) ^
(J GO
QJ ^
M
I
to
<
•I &
'! o
'
00
QJ
4J
! rd
" O
iH O -H
O ^D ^-D
^D
rH O "H
a> o cr.
i — 1 ""O rH
vi3 m CM
. — i
Lf™> LO ^^
CM 'O LO
-o- co r-~
m
ro r-^ O
r r f
r- m co
rH
J-l -H
13 OJ CO
O ' CX 4-1
on] o
S CM H
4-1
cn
3
GO
3
<
s 2
, — i
>, ^-'
l-j GO
Q ^
4-1 ,X~N
S xi
rH
QJ CD
[2 -^
M-t
O QJ
^ U
4-> 3 £
G w
QJ to >^
U -H Xi
M G
oj a
p^
4_J
s
TJ
QJ x—
> Xi
•H -H
0) ^-'
U GO
0) ^
^
1
CO
<
>->
V-i
o
GO
QJ
4-1
CO
U
iH
CO
CM
i — 1
r^-
iH
O
CT-i
i — 1
CM
^0
CO
00
0
LA
O
^0
r~~
i — i
s f
uo
CO
a*>
r-.
T3
o
o
3
o
CO
-------
During the second field test, the Btu content of the wood ranged from
17.7 to 18.39 MJ/kg (7612 to 7906 Btu/lb) with the average being 18.1 MJ/kg
(7758 Btu/lb). The Btu content of the paper ranged from 17.1 to 18.9 MJ/kg
(7370 to 8126 Btu/lb) with the average being 17.9 MJ/kg (7693 Btu/lb).
Table 46 compares the wood and paper Btu results with the values published by
Purdue University. While the Btu results for wood differed by 10 percent
from the published values, the Btu results for paper differed by only 2 percent
from the published values. The laboratory values were used for the detailed
analysis.
Table 47 summarizes the ultimate analysis of the refuse.
TABLE 46. MARYSVILLE DAILY REFUSE CATEGORY HEATING VALUES FOR
AUGUST TESTS
Heating value
MJ/kg(Btu/lb)
Category
Paper
Wood
8/22
8.58(8126)
18.40(7906)
8/23
17.5(7525)
17.7(7612)
8/24
18.0(7751)
18.1(7760)
8/25
17.1(7370)
18.0(7753)
Average
value
17.9(7693)
18.0(7758)
Published
value
17.6(7572)
20.0(8613)
TABLE 47. MARYSVILLE REFUSE ELEMENT ULTIMATE
ANALYSIS FOR JULY TESTS*
Element
Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Inert
Water
Percent
total by
43.
5.
38.
0.
0.
5.
6.
of
weight
9
6
2
26
15
2
7
Element weight
kgdb)
11,261(24,826)
1,436( 3,167)
9,799(21,603)
67( 147)
38( 85)
1 ,334( 2,941)
1 ,719( 3,789)
Total
100.0
25,652(56,552)
* Based on laboratory analysis of composite April
test samples.
141
-------
Residue Characterizing
Residue Sampling and Analysis—
Whenever the residue was removed from the incinerator during each of the
three field tests, it was weighed, and the residue removal time and the gross
and tare weights were recorded. Then with any large metal pieces extracted,
several 1-gallon jars were filled and sent to SYSTECH for further analysis.
At the SYSTECH laboratory, samples were first taken from each of the
gallon jars for bulk density analysis and returned to the jars. Next the
residue in each jar was dried overnight at 105° C and then milled until the
residue passed through a 5-mm mesh screen. One batch of the milled residue
was used to conduct a total combustibles test for unburned volatiles and
carbon. A small portion of a second batch was retained while the larger part
was placed in a lysimeter to produce leachate. Then the second batch with
its twofold content of intact residue and leachate was sent to a commercial
laboratory for the chemical and physical analysis of both the residue and the
leachate. Finally, a third batch was sent to another commercial laboratory
for the proximate analysis of the residue to determine its ash, carbon,
volatile, sulfur, and Btu content.
Residue Characteristics—
Table 48 summarizes the residue characteristics for each of the three
field tests. The bulk density was found to be 428 kg/m3 (726 lb/yd3). The
residue was very white and contained metal pieces such as bolts, nails, and
pieces of cans and glass. In the proximate analysis (see Table 49) with two
samples and in the SYSTECH analysis with another two samples, the volatiles
and carbon were between 0 and 10 percent of the residue content. Because of
the color and long burndown cycle time, the percentage of unburned combus-
tibles in most of the ash was likely closer to 0 percent than to 10 percent.
The refuse reduction by weight was 94.6 percent.
TABLE 48. MARYSVILLE WEEKLY RESIDUE CHARACTERISTICS FOR APRIL, JULY,
AND AUGUST TESTS
Test
period
April
July
August
Refuse burned
kg(lb)
13,053( 28,777)
25,652( 56,552)
14,762( 32,516)
Residue removed
kg(lb)
786(1,732)
924(2,038)
1,156(2,548)
Refuse
reduction
by weight
94.0
96.4
92.2
Residue %
of inert s
by weight*
97.25
% of unburned
combustibles
by weight*
2.75
Total
53,454(117,845)
2,866(6,318)
94.6
* Average of two test samples.
142
-------
TABLE 49. MARYSVILLE RESIDUE PROXIMATE ANALYSIS
FOR AUGUST TESTS*
Percent of total by weight
(dry basis)
Element Sample //I Sample #2
Moisture
Volatiles
Ash
Fixed carbon
Sulfur
0.09
1.12
98.79
0
0
2.85
6.25
80.56
10.34
0
Total 100.00 100.00
* Two samples taken on 8/22/79.
System Mass Balance
The system mass balance compares the mass flow entering and leaving the
incinerator-heat recovery system. The system inputs were the refuse, the
combustion fan air, the auxiliary gas, the quench water, and the aspirator
section air. The system outputs were the residue and the boiler exhaust flue
gas.
With the weekly test of July 17 to 21, 1978, the second field test,
chosen for the mass balance calculation, Appendix B details the input and
output calculations, arid Figure 63 presents the results based upon a 1-ton
refuse input. The mass balance in this figure covers two time periods: one
for 75.35 hours while the system was in full heat recovery operation and the
other for 44.62 hours while the system was in burndown cycles. Excluding the
combustion fan and the inspirator air, the measured inputs over the 120-hour
test totaled 42.6 Mg (47 tons). The air input could not be measured and had
to be computed by the difference method.
Water Balance—
The water balance was calculated to confirm the validity of the moisture
values used in the energy efficiency calculations. Except for the addition
of the quench water to the inputs, the water input and output sources were
the same as those at North Little Rock and were similarly measured.
With the input and output calculations detailed in Appendix B, Figure 64
presents the resultant mass balance for water. As shown in this figure, the
inputs and outputs totaled 36.61 Mg (40.36 tons) and 35.86 Mg (39.53 tons),
respectively.
143
-------
Mass balance 120-hour test*
Input
Output
Mg per Mg refuse
Source or
Ton per ton refuse
of Total Mg per Mg refuse
or
Ton per ton refuse
Refuse
Cooling spray
water
Natural gas
Combustion air
Flue gases
Residue, dry
Total
1.00
0.65
0.02
18.39
20.06
4.99
3.24
0.10
91.67
100.00
20.01
.04
20.05
* Total refuse input 25.6 Mg (28.3 tons)
GAS
WATER
REFUSE
of Total
99.80
0.20
Figure 63. Mass balance for incineration-heat recovery processes
in Marysville facility during the 120-hour (75.5-hour
heat recovery) July field test.
Combustion Product Balance—
The combustion product balance was calculated to verify (1) the measure-
ments used to compute the stack flow in the system mass balance, namely, the
gas flow rate and the percentage of water by volume as measured by the
Method 5 train and the percentages of oxygen, carbon monoxide, and carbon
dioxide in the flue gas as measured by the tri-gas monitor and (2) the
amounts of carbon, hydrogen, sulfur, nitrogen, and oxygen in the refuse as
determined by the sort characteristic analysis and the ultimate analysis.
Since the elements found in the ultimate analysis combine with oxygen to
form carbon dioxide, water vapor, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur oxides, the
comparison of the combined weight of the elements with the measured weight of
the stack flow is the expression for the combustion product balance.
144
-------
Balance
In
Out
16.59
2.20
1.70
1A.80
(18.29)
( 2.42)
( 1.90)
(16.30)
35.29 (38.91) 35.86 (39.52)
16.59 (18.29)
Water
Quench
Mg (tons)
1.7 (1.9)
Air
2.20 (2.42)
Refuse
I
Combustion of
Hydrogen
14.8 (16.3)
35.86 (39.53)
Flue Gas
Figure 64. Water balance for incineration-heat recovery processes
in Marysville facility during the 120-hour (75.5-hour
heat recovery ) July field test.
The combustion product balance in Table 50 shows the amounts of the
elements and their combustion products and of the stack mass flow as taken
from the system mass balance.
The total calculated mass input was 511 Mg (563 tons) with 25 Mg
(27 tons) of fuels, 469 Mg (517 tons) of air, and 17 Mg (19 tons) of quench
water. The measured flue gas output was 514 Mg (567 tons).
Excess Air—
The excess air level can be expressed in percent as
02 - CO/2
Excess air = 100 x
0.264N2 - (02 - CO/2)
1'he dry flue gas analysis for the second test was
CO
C02
02
N2
0
9.4
10.5
[100 - (CO + C02 + 02)j = 80.1
Substituting these values in the above expression yields an average excess
air level of 98.6 percent.
145
-------
TABLE 50. MARYSVILLE COMBUSTION PRODUCTS BALANCE FOR
JULY TESTS
Source
Refuse
Moisture
C
H2
02
Input
Mg
2
11
1
10
(ton)
(2)
(12)
(1)
(11)
Output
Mg (ton)
N2 <1 (<1)
Natural gas <1 (<1)
Combustion air
Moisture 3 (3)
02 109 (120)
N2 357 (394)
Quench Water 17 (19)
Flue gases*
H20 36 (40)
C02 111 (122)
02 9 (10)
N2 358 (395)
Total 511 (563) 514 (567)
*SO , NO , and CO were all less than 0.1 percent
x x
Energy Balance
The energy balance compares the measured energy inputs and outputs. For
this balance, the inputs were refuse, quench water, auxiliary fuel, and
electricity. The outputs were the hot water generated, sensible heat and
remaining energy in the residue, heat lost by radiation and convection, and
sensible heat in the flue gases. While Appendix B details the input and
output calculations, Figure 65 presents the resultant energy balance on an
MBtu per ton of refuse input bases. Over the 120-hour test, the energy
inputs and outputs totaled 436 and 409 MJ (413 and 388 MBtu), respectively.
The difference of 27 GJ (25 MBtu) or 6 percent of the energy input was not
accounted for.
The difference could be in the Btu water values, the radiation and
convection losses, or the burndown cycle losses. Since the Btu meter cannot
measure pockets of steam that could be generated in the boiler, it does not
record all the energy. The radiation and convention losses and the burndown
cycle losses were both calculated from average temperatures and conditions.
Since these losses represent 38 percent of the total losses, errors from
averaging and making assumptions could account for most of the energy
difference.
146
-------
Energy balance 120-hour test*
Source
GJ per
Mg of refuse
MBtu per
Ton of refuse
GJ per / MBtu per
Mg of refuse \Ton of refuse
Refuse
Electric!tv
Natural gas
Heat recovery
Burndown
Residue
Radiation and
Convection
Heat recovery
Burndown
Flue gases
Heat recovers
Burndown
+Hot water
(measured)
16.36
0.12
96.4
0 7
FLUE GAS
GAS
ELECTRICITY
REFUSE
Figure 65.
of total
HOT WATER
Energy balance for incineration-heat recovery processes
in MarysvilLe facility during the 120-hour (75.5-hour
heat recovery) July field test.
Combustion Efficiency
Efficiency of Refuse Combustion—
The combustion efficiency of the refuse on a dry basis was calculated as
follows by the heat loss method:
n = l - Qr/Qt
where Q = sensible heat and remaining energy in the residue
Q = total refuse energy
Substituting the values for Q and Q , as given in the energy balance in
F'gure 65, in the above equation yields an efficiency of 98 percent.
147
-------
Efficiency of Incinerator System—
The efficiency of the incinerator system was that percentage of the
total energy in the refuse and combustion air which after its conversion to
hot gases was available to the heat recovery system. Using the heat loss
method, the efficiency was computed by:
Q + Q + Q
.. r V xrc
n = 1 ^
and the net efficiency was computed by:
Q. + Q,
where Q = sensible heat and energy remaining in the residue
0 = latent heat of vaporization of refuse moisture and
losses due to hydrogen combination
Q = heat lost by radiation and convection up to the boiler
xrc J r
operation
Q = total input energy
The substitution of the values from the energy balance in the above
equations gives an incinerator efficiency of 75 percent and a net efficiency
of 83 percent.
Energy Recovered
Hot Water Generated—
The volume and temperature of the hot water generated depends on the
heating and cooling demands of the plant. To measure the heat generated in
the hot water production of each weekly field test, a Btu meter was used. In
addition, a timer was connected to the induced draft fan on the boiler to
determine the time that flue gases were being drawn through the boiler.
During the second field test, the induced draft fan was on during 95 percent
of the two-shift operating time. The Btu meter indicated that 149,810 MJ
(142 MBtu) were delivered to the heating and cooling system.
Because of the steam pockets that would not be measured by a Btu meter,
the ASME Power Test Codes for hot water boilers require that the heat trans-
ferred in hot water production be calculated by the heat loss method.
The heat generated is the difference between the C£ilculated total heat
input and the calculated heat losses. Therefore, the usable energy delivered
for the July test would be 182,515 MJ (173 MBtu) as taken from the energy
balance.
148
-------
As mentioned earlier in the discussion of the energy balance, not all
this difference should be assigned to the usable energy output because of the
possible calculation error in the radiation and convection losses and the
burndown cycle losses. Consequently, the usable energy delivered lies
between the measured 149,810 MJ (142 MBtu) and the calculated 182,515 MJ
(173 MBtu).
System Energy Efficiency—
The system energy efficiency was calculated by the following equation
for the heat loss method:
heat losses
n = l -
total heat input
The total heat losses for the 120-hour energy balance shown in Figure 65 were
252,145 MJ (239 MBtu) and the total heat input was 435,715 MJ (413 MBtu).
Consequently, the system energy efficiency was 42 percent for the week.
For the period that the system was being used for hot water recovery
(75 hours), the energy inputs were gas, 7385 MJ (7 MBTU); electricity,
3165 MJ (3 MBtu); and refuse, 361,865 MJ (343 MBtu); and the losses were
flue gases, 107,610 MJ (102 MBtu); radiation and convection losses,
58,025 MJ (55 MBTU); and residue, 1055 MJ (1 MBtu). Substituting these
values in the heat loss equation yields a thermal efficiency of 53 percent.
The net thermal efficiency was 52 percent for the total time period and
64 percent for the heat recovery time period. The net thermal efficiency
was 10 to 11 percent more than the thermal efficiency based on the as-
received refuse.
Effectiveness of Boiler —
The boiler effectiveness was computed by the following equation:
- T
- T
hx "ha
where T = temperature of flue gas entering the boiler
HI
T, = temperature of flue gas exiting the boiler
n2
T = temperature of feedwater entering the boiler
During the second test period, the T, , T, , and T temperatures
hi n2 Ci
averaged 1400°, 275°, and 160° F, respectively. Consequently, the boiler
effectiveness was 90 percent.
149
-------
Thermal Efficiency of Boiler—
While the effectiveness is the maximum theoretical performance of the
boiler, the actual operational efficiency may be calculated by:
heat transferred to water
specific heat of gases into boiler
M (ha -
w
' M C (Ti - T2)
g P
where M = mass of water entering
w
h2 = enthalpy of water leaving
hi = enthalpy of water entering
M = mass of flue gas entering
o
C = specific heat of flue gas entering
T! = temperature of flue gas entering
T2 = temperature of flue gas leaving
The efficiency of the boiler with the higher heating value of the flue
gas was 80 percent and that with the lower heating value of the flue gas was
84 percent.
System Effectiveness
Refuse Handling Capability—
The incinerator was capable of handling a wide variety of wood, paper,
garbage, and other refuse produced, in the assembly plant. While most of the
refuse loads delivered by the fork-lift truck were dumped directly into the
loading hopper, some with visible metal, such as banding straps, were
manually sorted for the metal removal. In addition, bulky loose waste and
the refuse in cans were hand-loaded to prevent spillage and load jamming.
Design and Actual Capacities—
The incinerator has a design capacity of 545 kg/hr (1200 Ib/hr) of
refuse input or 9.5 GJ/hr (9 MBtu/hr) energy input. The actual loading rates
over the three test periods averaged 272.4 kg/hr (600 Ib/hr), 50 percent of
the design capacity, and the minimum and maximum feed rates were 180 and
635 kg/hr (400 and 1400 Ib/hr). Table 51 shows the loading rates during each
of the three field tests.
150
-------
TABLE 51. MARYSVILLE DAILY REFUSE FEED RATES FOR APRIL, JULY
AND AUGUST TESTS
Date
4/24
4/25
4/26
It/27
4/28
7/17
7/18
7/19
7/20
7/21
8/21
8/22
8/23
8/24
8/25
Total
Average
Time
7:20
7:42
7:20
8:10
7:32
7:14
7:20
7:20
7:10
7:10
7:43
5:20
7:15
7:15
7:24
period
- 22:
- 22:
- 16:
- 21:
- ]7:
- 22:
- 22:
- 22:
- 22 :
- 10:
- 23:
- 17:
- 20:
- 20:
-15:
45
00
42
45
50
20
27
25
15
10
31
31
50
32
13
A Time
hr :min
15:
14:
9:
13:
10:
15:
15:
15:
15:
15:
15:
12:
13:
13:
8:
187:
12:
25
18
22
35
18
06
07
05
05
00
48
11
35
17
49
01
28
Weight fed
Mg(lb)
3.
2.
1.
3.
9
z. .
4.
4.
5.
5.
4.
3.
1.
2.
2.
2 ,
51.
3.
37 (
69(
64(
29(
18(
66(
89(
74(
61 (
77(
87(
87 (
63(
53(
04 (
7
5
3
7
4
10
]0
12
12
10
8
4
5
5
4
77(114
45(
7
,4?1)
,921)
,608)
,246)
,807)
,262)
,775)
,653)
,345)
,516)
,518)
,120)
,796)
,5b5)
,482)
,036)
,602)
Feed rate
Mg/hr(lb/hr)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
22(481)
19(414)
17(385)
24(533)
21(467)
31(680)
31(713)
38(839)
37(818)
32(701)
24(539)
15(338)
19(427)
19(419)
23(508)
- ( )
,28(610)
Operation—
The incinerator is designed to function with minimum supervision and
periodic preventive maintenance. At the Marysville facility, one man can
readily operate the incinerator at the designed capacity during each shift.
Most of the time only 50 percent of his time is required to operate the unit.
The delivery of waste varied widely in amounts and times. The unit was
underfed most of the time, but occasionally it was so overfed (one large load
fed to a cool incinerator) that flames passed through the boiler and out the
stack. This is evidenced by Figure 66 which shows an overload period when
the boiler entrance temperature was higher than the secondary chamber temper-
ature. Figure 67 shows gas emission peaks caused by overfeeding.
Although the automatic residue removal ram in the primary chamber left
most of the residue along the hearth sides, the remaining residue was easily
removed manually through the rear access door. Since the incinerator was
operated at only half of its capacity, it used more auxiliary fuel to main-
tain temperature in the secondary chamber.
151
-------
1. Primary Chamber Temperature '
2. Secondary Chamber Temperature'
3. Boiler Entrance Temperature
2000 I 2200
Figure 66. System temperatures during peak loading periods in
Marysville facility.
152
-------
5 = ppra
10 = ppm
5 = ppm
= percent
A = percent
Figure 67. Stack emissions during peak loading periods in
Marysville facility.
The daily burndown periods normally began about 10:30 p.m. During the
last 1 to 2 hours before burndown, the incinerator was operated at near
capacity rates. Since the boiler was inoperative during the burndown, much
of the refuse energy was lost. 'During the July test it took about 8 hours in
the burndown cycle for the temperature in the secondary chamber to fall from
760° to 204° C (1400° to 400° F) while the temperature of the primary chamber
usually retained its normal operating level of 537.8° C (1000° F). During
the April test, the operating temperature of the primary chamber was generally
above 537.8° C (1000° F). Therefore, during the April test, more carbon was
burned by the start of the burndown cycle. Consequently, during the burndown,
the temperature of the primary chamber fell and the temperature of the
secondary chamber dropped more rapidly than it had in the July test (see
Figure 68). Similarly during the burndown, the carbon dioxide emissions in
the April test dropped more rapidly than they had in the July test (see
Figure 69).
Maintenance—•
Except for scheduled preventive maintenance, such as oil-level checking,
the only maintenance required during the three field tests was the cleaning
of the induced draft fan blades. Weekly cleaning was necessary because the
fan became unbalanced as particulates accumulated on the blades.
153
-------
538
1000
JB
W
H
o 100
Primary Chamber
• April
• July
Secondary Chamber
OApril
D July
TIME, HOURS
Figure 68. Temperature of combustion chamber during burndown
periods in Marysville facility.
When the boiler was opened for tube cleaning and inspection in the
second field test of July 1978, boiler tube test slips were inserted. When
the boiler was reopened for the same purposes in January 1979, the test slips
were removed. They exhibited a significant amount of particulate and slag
buildup.
The refractory in the primary chamber required minor patching on the
fire door, the throat area, and the ash removal door and area. The refrac-
tory around the water sprays (see Figure 50) was damaged by the constant
water drip required for protection of the spray nozzle. The fire-brick floor
proved sufficiently resistant to the abrasion of the ash ram and the residue
removal tools.
Environmental Analysis
Stack Emissions—
During the three monitoring periods while the heat recovery system was
operative, the flue gases exiting the exhaust stack were sampled periodically
by (1) the filter in the modified EPA Method 5 train to capture particulates
for mass flow rate and chemical composition analyses; (2) the impingers in
the EPA Method 5, 7, or 8 trains to capture vapors and gases for mass flow
rate and chemical composition analyses; and (3) the seven-stage inertial
cascade impactor to capture particulates for size distribution analysis. When
the heat recovery system was inoperative, the flue gases were too hot to
allow sampling with the impactor and the EPA trains.
154
-------
TIME,HOURS
Figure 69. Carbon dioxide emissions during burndown periods in
Marysville facility.
In additon, regardless of the heat recovery system operation, the flue
gases were sampled as follows: (1) continuously by the TSI Electro-Chemical
Cell Monitor to analyze the concentrations of oxygen and nitrogen and sulfur
oxides; (2) periodically by an Orsat analyzer to analyze for oxygen, carbon
monoxide, and carbon dioxide; (3) periodically by the gas chromatograph to
capture hydrocarbons for chemical composition and concentration analyses of
the hydrocarbons in the Ci to C6 ranges; and (4) continuously by two
Beckman nondispersive infrared analyzers to determine the levels of carbon
dioxide and carbon monoxide.
While the EPA trains and the seven-stage impactor were inserted inside
and near the top of the exhaust stack to acquire flue gas samples, the other
monitoring devices obtained samples by drawing flue gases from a port near
the top of the stack, to a condensate trap, through a heated hose, and then
to the SYSTECH mobile laboratory.
155
-------
The emissions sampling results for the July field tests are presented in
Table 52 and the other field tests are summarized in Table 53. Appendix A
gives the results for the individual tests. The emission factors for July in
pounds per ton of refuse charged are given in Table 54.
The flue gas flow rate averaged 4075 ACFM and 163.3° C (326° F) for all
tests. On the average, the moisture in the flue gas was; 12.1 percent of the
total gas volume. Corrected to 12 percent C02, the particulate concentrations
averaged 0.1586 g/m3 (0.0693 gr/DSCF) over 16 tests with the maximum and
minimum being 0.3401 g/m3 (0.1547 gr/DSCF) and 0.0757 g/m3 (0.0331 gr/DSCF).
The size distribution analyses (see Figure 70) revealed that about 85 percent
by weight of the particulates were smaller than 7 ym, and 50 percent by weight
of the particulates were smaller than 0.5 ym.
Although the opacimeter functioned during the heat recovery periods,
stack flames with the frequent heat recovery shutdowns damaged several
probes. Since the opacimeter had to be recalibrated after each damaged
probe was replaced, data could not be acquired for the successive heat
recovery cycles. Some short-period results indicated that the opacity ranged
from 15 percent at low loading to 45 percent at peak loading.
For the three test periods, the SOX concentrations averaged 72.1 mg/m3
(27.1 ppm) and had a maximum of 137.3 mg/m3 (51.6 ppm), a minimum of
42.0 mg/m3 (1.2 ppm), and a standard deviation of 24.6 mg/m3. The NOX
concentrations averaged 176.3 mg/m3 (92.3 ppm) and had a maximum of
223.9 mg/m3 (117.2 ppm), a minimum of 94.9 mg/m3, and a standard deviation of
37.7 mg/m3.
The chloride concentrations averaged 37.6 mg/m3 (25.6 ppm) and had a
maximum of 138.3 mg/m3 (94.1 ppm), a minimum of 4.3 mg/ra3 (2.9 ppm), and a
standard deviation of 36.7 mg/m3. The fluoride concentrations averaged
0.9 mg/m3 (0.3 ppm) and had a maximum of 2.1 mg/m3 (2.6 ppm), a minimum of
0.2 mg/m3 (0.3 ppm), and a standard deviation of 0.3 mg/m3. The gas
chromatograph analysis for the Ci to C6 hydrocarbons revealed that their
amounts varied from sample to sample and day to day. Over the three test
periods, the sums of the Ci to C6 hydrocarbons ranged from 1.8 to 1423 mg/m3
and averaged 18mg/m3, 476 mg/m3, and 70 mg/m3 in the first, second, and third
tests, respectively.
Residue Effects on Actual Landfill—
The residue was dumped in a large, deep, open pit on the plant site
which will be covered when it is full.
The chemical analysis of the original residue samples and the simulated
leachate filtrate are presented in the following discussion of the EPA Level
One analysis.
Plant Areas—
To sample the ambient air inside the plant, the respirable fraction
personnel sampler was mounted on the ram loader so that the effects of
lifting the refuse and then dumping it into the loading hopper could be
determined.
156
-------
CO
H
CO
w
,H
^H
"1
£3
Pi
0
Pn
CO
o
M
CO
CO
a
w
y;
^J
^£
CO
PH
0
i
CO
w
I-J
hJ
1 — 1
CO
><
3
*rp
&-\
,
CM
LO
rJ
^^
H
w
0
•H
CO
(0
•H
t|
B
3
G
•H
^
0)
00
a)
HI
>
<
£3
g
•H
1
j-i
o-i
0)
B
CO
co
PM
CO
O
"^
U~)
r^
0
ON
o
^
^
rH
I— t
rH
rH
rH
ro
un
CN
~
O
en
~-~.
60
m
B
00
.)(
cu
%
3
o
-H
4-)
>j
n)
P-i
00
CN
O
•
^^
-cf ro
\^ •
0 0
V
o
o
rH CO
ON
0 O
CO"
ON
o
CN ON
rH CN
CM
fu
u
C/N
>-> 6
00 3
ro el)
B N
oo tn
0) 0)
C^ C^
iH rH
3 D
O 0
-H -H
-U .U
CO cQ
Pi fX,
-•d" f~\ <3" «^^
• -3" • LO
\o • r-*. v
^ ^ ^ ^s
ro co I~H co
. iH rH
^ V
^_^ •p ^^ ^
? • "3
C d S i2
ON ON CJN LO
r-. . u-i rH
^v ^^
^-^, LTi rH /^ — \
•«d" • ^ rH
O> CM rH CO
^O O O^1 ^J
co • ro oo
rH CM CM
*& ^
cx cx
CX P-
v— ' ^-s
S~*\ f — \
m m B B
B 6 C± D.
\ <1 0. D.
00 00 — ' --'
B 6
cu OJ E B
"O T3 — ^ "~^~
•H -rH 00 00
r. H B B
o o
rH 3 X X
X rH O O
u fn ;2 co
Sx
o
CM
^
r-. --O
rH
-
CM
^
LO CO
r^. •
^ 3
Co
CO
rH
CN
O 10
5 »
B
D.
a
B
00
B
+-
Cfi
C
o -u
M QJ
rt u
U V-t
o a)
I>1 M
3G O
r^
rH
^
CM O cO
CM
r^- ro
-H
CM
^j-
CM
r~*- o~i LO
• r-^ •
o> CM -J U
o en
U TO
•SC i
157
-------
H
CO
W
H
H
CO
o
£D
^N
Q
•s
r^
|J
>-)
^
r— 1
M
5!
-j
o
ff-t
CO
1
CO
M
s
t-M
CJ
*^
H
CO
E£J
o
K^
B5
yj)
Cg
s
00
rJ
i__l
CO
f^
*2
^"^
,
p_
'
W
<]
H
4J
CO
CU
•a
iH
CD
-H
ft.
03
CTi
*"*
in
CN
1
CN
4-1
CO
M
en
4_l
0)
CD
H
03
r*^
a\
T-t
r^"
rH
1
-H
t-}
CN
^j
CO
CU
H
a)
a
w
CO
£
60
3
x
Jr]
CU
O
•a
w
C
-H
CO
£>
>$
1
00
rH
00
CM
1
CN
rH
•H
^1
Q
"*<
..
T-H
4-1
cfl
cu
H
^
CU
Q
4_l
fl
-H
s
^
t"i
n)
2
ij
.T-,
fj
3
CO
o
CO
•H
r--. i-H vO m ON CO m • • ON cn rH 1 | | | III
O O 00 O i— t rH
0 0
O r-*. CM r-*- -3" vj oo o cn r*^ r-n in oo ON o in
^o en • • • • rH I-H • • rH • in o cn
O rH -3" O CN cn V V O G"\ rH ^ f^« C-l
• ' r-H V rH fs|
O O
aOi-H-JO ON\Doomo r^- O 1 ^o ^ooiri
coo1* • • o en • • r^ i • cMin-j-
OCNrHrH ininrH C7\ O Q*i cnCM-^'
• • rH rH CN C1*"!
O O
+-
m tn r~- r~* o >n r~- v o cn cn CN CM rH
• • V rH rH CN CO
O O
4-1
CJN rH ^o o~\ cn r — ON ON in cn in to in o o in
-^ rH • • • • !"••»• CNOOc*-)
• * i-HrHrH t-H rH \DO~i
O O A
r-HcNr^r^QOO 1 1 1 III
• • CM cn I I i III
r^ O H r-
O
•H oo CN r*- ^o o cn oo oo f"*- in LTI
4J •• 'CMrHrH • 'CMinC'
QJinOO VV rH rHCNrHCNl
C3 rH Cn CN[
•H
O cd cO cfl
co ON>n ouoo^T^ -u ON 4-> - oo O rH r*»- in >3" O O u~i
cndr^OrH170 3 -^rH^S!
CN rH rH rH rH O")
A
fa
=fe CU "•— '
S~\ 0 r-N 3 (U ^- " •
fa* 3.m rH H £ £
cn m s~^ '"^ "'^ •'"^ ^ -U o ^)
**«* Snof^ CU004-1 COC/^^J
V-i ^^. £ S N E C ^ M ^— ^ ^— '
00 00 -~^ "*N* *H ^^ OJ -O IJ
^-'^-'0000 >~* W O p, ^ 3c
QJdJsS-^-' 4J C! ^-N^-N 0) C Q> (3 ^ 0) cOcOtiJ
OCJ-H*'-' CUD-OOSS O CJ 4-1 CU 00 00 00
4J U 0 0 ^5 ^ >5 "^ ^^ *U 8 *U ^ CU CU
rt H r-| 3 » X X H T) cO O 333
Cfl Cfl ,cl i-H w O O O O Cfl ^ CU w T-H T-H i-4
P-tpMcjtq OOUZcn ex, 33 o 33 Cutxilx,
a)
rt 4-1
O >i 41
U T-H g
G cfl
4-» O -H
co co
O T-l CJ
T-I 3 CO
a) o ai
O.X B o
CN ClO Ul ,X
rH C CO 4
O M g |
•U rl 4
CO CO 3!
^ pC "rH U
CU CJ
4J CU CU
U 60 00 00
cu c3 cO cfl
M -H M M
rl M CU CU
0 3 > >
CJ Q
-------
TABLE 54. MARYSVILLE EMISSION RATES FOR JULY TEST
Pollutant
Particulate
SOX
NOX
CO
HC
Lead
Emission rate
Ib/ton refuse
Maximum Average Minimum charged
0.111 gr/SCF* .049 gr/SCF* .033 gr/SCF*
31 ppm 15 ppm <5 ppm
125 ppm 30 ppm 6 ppm
>1000 ppm 240 ppm 17 ppm
2285 ppm 765 ppm 21 ppm
624 yg/m3
2.01
.44
1.19
5.81
10.4
0.02
* Corrected to 12 percent C02.
1 2 34567891 2
.1 1.0 10 100
PARTICLE SIZE D, MICRONS
Figure 70. Particulate size distribution of stack emissions at Marysville.
159
-------
No microbiological tests were conducted since the refuse burned included
only wood and paper.
As summarized in Table 55, the dust concentrations averaged 1.17 mg/m3
and had a standard deviation of 0.66 mg/m3. Although the average dust
concentrations were higher than those at North Little Rock, they were below
objectionable levels. The higher dust levels at the Marysville plant were
attributed to the low moisture content and other characteristics of the
refuse burned.
TABLE 55. MARYSVILLE DAILY IN-PLANT FUGITIVE DUST
CONCENTRATIONS FOR JULY AND AUGUST TESTS
Date CONCENTRATION
7/19
7/20
7/21
8/22
8/23
8/24
Average
Standard Deviation a =
1.16
0.60
0.83
0.12
2.39
1.93
1.17
0.66
The carbon monoxide levels inside the facility and around the outside
primary chamber were monitored by a hand-held Ecolyzer air sampler. Inside
the building, the readings varied from 20 to 40 ppm in the boiler-chiller
area, from 15 to 30 ppm in the assembly plant area, and from 25 to 30 ppm in
the areas behind the running fork-lift vehicle. The outside readings ranged
from 4 to 10 ppm. These levels were attributed to the trucks that frequently
passed alongside the building as well as to the gaseous escape from the
primary chamber.
As shown by the noise-level plot in Figure 71, no area in the plant had
a noise level above 90 dB on the A band. The noise levels outside the plant
were not measured because of the remoteness of the nearest inhabited buildings.
EPA Level One Analysis
This section briefly discusses the EPA Level One analysis and presents
the pollutants detected in this analysis.
160
-------
PRIMARY CHAMBER
LOADER
BUILDING
BOILER
ID FAN
LOCATION
1 LOADER
2 LOADER
3 WORK FLOOR
4 BOILER FRONT
5 BOILER REAR
SOUND LEVEL, dB
77
78
78
83
83
6 ELECTRICAL PANELS 80
Figure 71. In-plant noise-level plot for Marsyville facility.
The EPA Level One tests were run during the week of July 17 to 21, 1978.
The ambient air tests were run as follows: the particulate size distribution
test was run for a 24-hr period over the 18th and 19th, the filter for chemical
analysis was installed for a 24-hr period on the 21st, sorbent trap Nos. 3
and 5 were installed for a 24-hr period over the 19th and 20th, and the grab
sampler was installed on the 20th. The stack sorbent* trap tests were run as
follows: trap No. 1 on the 18th, trap No. 4 on the 19th, and trap No. 2 on
the 20th. The grab sample was taken on the 20th. The Method 5 filter and
impinger tests, run No. 6 on the data sheets, were taken on the 20th.
Stack Emissions—
The flue gases in the exhaust stack were periodically sampled as follows
for various types of analyses to reveal the organic and inorganic contaminants
in' the gases exiting to atmosphere: (1) by the filter in the modified EPA
Method 5 train, (2) by the sorbent trap installed with the filter in the
Method 5 train, (3) by the impingers in the Method 5 train,' and (4) by Tedlar
grab bags.
161
-------
In the gas chromatography analysis of the filter samples, for organic
contaminants, no C7 - Ci2 hydrocarbons, chlorinated hydrocarbons, or organic
sulfur compounds were found with their respective detection thresholds being
42, 21, and 40 yg/m3. Similarly, infrared analysis detected none of these
contaminants. In the atomic absorption analysis for inorganic contaminents,
arsenic, mercury, and antimony were found with concentrations of 15.63, 1.25,
and 2.41 yg/m3, respectively. In addition, spark source mass spectrometry
analysis found manganese, zinc, cadmium, and lead with concentrations of 40,
400, 26.5, and 66.25 yg/m3, respectively.
The sorbent trap resin for each of three tests was analyzed as follows:
in the gas chromatography analysis for C7 - Ci2 hydrocarbons, nonane (C9) was
found in the first test with a concentration of 104 yg/in3; octane (C8) and
dodecane (C12) were found in the second test with concentrations of 2275 and
100 yg/m3, respectively; undecane (Cn) and dodecane (CL2) were found in the
third test with each having a concentration greater than 1360 yg/m3; chlori-
nated hydrocarbon tetrochloreothane was found in the first and second tests
with concentrations of 29 and 30 yg/m3, respectively; and 'sulfur compounds
were not detected in any of the three tests with a detection threshold of
3 yg/m3. The infrared ayalysis detected the following functional groups:
weak C=0, weak NH2+ NH3+ or N=N stretch, weak C=C and/or C=N stretch, and
medium C-OH and/or S=0 stretch.
Gravimetric analysis of the liquid chromatography fractions and subse-
quent infrared analysis found additional weak C=C and weak C-OH or R-D-R
stretch compounds in the third test. Low-resolution mass spectrometry
analysis detected aromatic compounds and other general compounds such as
aldehydes, alcohols, and amines in the third test. Atomic absorption
analysis found arsenic and mercury with concentrations of 1.57 and 1.02 yg/m3,
respectively, in the third test. Finally, spark source mass spectrography
analysis detected lead in the first test; fluorine, cadmium, barium, and
chromium in the second test; but no elements in the third test.
In the atomic absorption analysis of the impinger solutions, no mercury
or antimony was detected in any of the three impingers, but 0.32 yg/m3 of
arsenic was found in the first impinger. In the spark source mass spectrom-
etry analysis, barium, sulfur, chlorine, bromide, and tin were found in the
second and third impingers. In the inorganic analysis for ammonia (NH3) and
prussic acid (HCN) compounds, no HCN was detected, but 3.44 and 7.60 ppm
concentrations of NH3 were found in the second and third impingers, respec-
tively. In the chemical analysis for carbonyl compounds, 80.1 and 9.0 mg/£
of these compounds were found in the impinger solutions for the July 19 and
July 20 tests, respectively.
The Tedlar bag samples were analyzed for hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and
carbonyl sulfide (COS) by spark source massr spectrometry. With detection
levels of 10 ppm for H2S and 25 ppm for COD, neither of the sulfides was
found.
Residue and Leachate—
In the gas chromatography analysis of the residue samples to detect
C7 - Ci2 hydrocarbons, chlorinated hydr.ocarbons, and sulfur compounds with
162
-------
detection thresholds of 5.7, 3.0, and 8.0 yg/g, respectively, only
1,1,2-Trochlorethane was detected. Infrared analysis did not find any carbonyl
functional groups. Atomic absorption analysis detected arsenic and antimony
with concentrations of 7.96 and 0.80 yg/m3, respectively, but no mercury.
The spark source mass spectrometry analysis detected many elements in high
concentration, the most significant being phosphorus, chromium, iron, copper,
zinc, and tin each with concentrations greater than 1000 yg/g, and lead with
a concentration of 5000 yg/g. Table 56 presents the residue analysis results.
TABLE 56. MARYSVILLE RESIDUE ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS
Component
Decane
Undecane
Arsenic
Antimony
Sulfur
Chlorine
Potassium
Phosphorus
Chromium
Iron
Zinc
Copper
Fluorine
Tin
Molybdenum
Barium
Lead
Cadmium
Bromide
Boron
Mercury
Concentration
yg/g
ND*
ND
7.96
.80
1000
100
High*
High
High
High
High
High
1000
1000
High
10
5000
High
0
1000
0
* Not detectable.
# High > 1000.
163
-------
In the chemical analysis of the leachate filtrate from the run with only
distilled water with a 5.5 pH, the pH, conductivity, alkalinity, hardness,
and dissolved solids increased. In addition, from less than 1.0 mg/£, sulfate
increased to 68 mg/£; from less than 0.1 mg/Jl, boron increased to 2.6 mg/£;
and from less than 1.0 yg/&, antimony, lead, and chromium increased to 18.7,
1.3, and 3280 yg/£, respectively. In the analysis of the filtrate from the
run with both distilled water and the phosphate buffer to lower the pH to
5.0, the pH had a small increase while the conductivity, alkalinity, and
dissolved solids increased more than they had in the former run. In addition,
the chloride, bromide, and boron concentrations increased while the sulfate
and fluoride concentrations decreased. The phosphate buffer caused high
levels of phosphate that interfered with the ortho and total phosphate test.
The results are shown in Table 57.
TABLE 57. MARYSVILLE RESIDUE LEACHATE PARAMETER AND COMPONENT VALUES
Water Blank
Test 1
Phosphate Buffer
Test 2
pH
Conductivity
Alkalinity
TKN
Hardness
TOC
Ortho-Phosphate
Total Phosphate
Sulfide
Chloride
Acidity
Total Dissolved
Solids
Ammonia as N
COD
Sulfate
Bromide
Fluoride
Boron
Mercury
Cadmium
Antimony
Lead
Chromium
Arsenic
MBAS
Phenols
Cyanide
umhos
mg/£
mg/£
mg/£
mg/£
mg/£
mg/£
mg/£
mg/£
mg/£
mg/£
mg/£
mg/£
mg/£
mg/JJ,
mg/£
Pg/«.
Ug/1
Pg/£
ug/Ji
ug/s.
mg/£
mg/£
mg/£
5.52
2.78
1.10
6.95
2.00
3.10
0.005
0.01
<0.002
ND
5
<1
0.216
ND
<1.00
<0.1uO
0.058
<0.1
<0.1
<1
<1.0
<1
<1
ND
-
-
—
10.24
379.00
78.10
2.59
112.30
5.00
0.002
0.063
<0.002
1.51
ND
236
0.170
ND
68.00
<0.100
0.662
2.6
<0.1
<1
18.7
1.3
3280
ND
-
-
—
6.2
3700
232
7.05
<0.1
<1
1230
1360
< .003
43
1938
6012
0.076
52.5
0.19
0.64
0-363
65.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
.121
.080
.002
ND = None detected
Outside Ambient Air—
The ambient air outside the plant was sampled upwind and downwind by the
high-volume sampler equipped in turn with the filter and the Anderson head
impactor, by the sorbent trap enclosed in the weatherproof box, and by the
Tedlar bags.
164
-------
The positioning of the upwind and downwind sample sites, each about 91m
(300 ft) from the exhaust stack, posed the following difficulties: On the
upwind side, the nearest available power outlet was -such that the extension
cord extended to a corner of the plant warehouse. While this site was the
proper direction and distance from the stack, it was not an optimum sampling
position since it was beside a road where heavy truck traffic frequently
generated dust and exhaust fumes. On the downwind side, the plant building
extended some 97.5m (320 ft) from the stack so that the downwind site had to
extend a total of 189m (620 ft) from the stack to provide an uninterrupted
91m (300-ft) distance between the stack and the site.
In the gas chromatography analysis of the filters, no C7 - C12 hydro-
carbons, chlorinated hydrocarbons, or sulfur compounds were found with
detection thresholds of 10, 1.0, and 1.0 yg/m3, respectively. Similarly,
infrared and gravimetric analyses did not detect any of these compounds. In
the atomic absorption analysis to detect arsenic, antimony, and mercury with
a detection threshold of 0.1 yig/m3, only arsenic was found in the upwind
filter and just at the threshold level. Spark source mass spectrometry
revealed no measurable difference between the upwind and downwind filters.
The size distribution analysis of the particulates captured on the three
stages of the impactor is summarized in Table 58.
TABLE 58. MARYSVILLE AMBIENT AIR PARTICULATE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS
Upwind
Particle Si?
1.1 - 7
TOTAL
Weight gm Concentration ug/m3
0.0242
0.0157
0.0287
29.7
19.3
35.2
84.2
Downwind
TOTAL
0.0185
0.0149
0.0220
22.7
18.3
27.0
68.0
In the gas chromatography analysis of the resin sorbent trap, no C7 - C12
hydrocarbons, chlorinated hydrocarbons, or sulfur compounds were found with
detection thresholds of 10, 1, and 3 yg/m , respectively. Similarly, infrared
analysis did not detect any of these compounds. In the atomic absorption
analysis to detect arsenic, antimony, and mercury, only 0.3 vig/m3 of mercury
was found in the upwind filter. In the spark source mass spectrometry
165
-------
analysis for metallic elements with a detection threshold of 0.1 yg/m3,
none of the elments were found in the downwind resin, but the following
elements and their concentrations were found in the upwind resins: chromium,
7.00 pg/m3; copper, 0.14 yg/m3; zinc, 0.14 yg/m3; and tin, 4.20 yg/m3.
In the chemical analysis of the Tedlar bag samples to detect carbonyl-
oxygen-sulfur compounds, H2S, organic sulfur compounds, NH3, HCN, and (CN)2,
none of the pollutants were found.
Summary—
Of the major contaminants detected in the EPA Level One analysis of the
liquid, gaseous, and solid effluents caused by the plant, antimony, arsenic,
mercury, and heavy organic compounds were found consistently in small
amounts. Other metals such as lead, cadmium, chromuim, and barium were found
occasionally in small amounts. Table 59 summarizes the air emissions findings
and Table 60 quantifies the high values found in the emissions filters as
given in Table 59.
Economic Evaluation
The Rockwell International Truck Axle Division in Marysville, Ohio, uses
a standard cost accounting system, which is commonly employed by commercial
manufacturers. With such a system, normal (standard) cost rates are estab-
lished for units of material, labor, and overhead. The rates for these three
categories are determined by analyzing the unit prices paid for materials
used in production as well as the unit labor costs and the indirect operating
costs.
The Marysville plant accounting records are maintained on an accrual
basis of accounting whereby each revenue and expense is recorded during the
period when the revenue is earned or the expense is incurred.
Although the accounting records reflect various operating cost areas,
these cost areas are used to account for the normal commercial activity of
the plant. Consequently, a separate cost area for operating the incinerator-
heat recovery facility was not established. The operating costs of the
facility, therefore, are intermingled with other types of direct and indirect
cost accounts.
The capital costs incurred for the incinerator-heat recovery facility,
such as those for the construction of the facility shell and the acquisition
of major equipment items, have been capitalized and are reflected in the
asset accounts of the plant. These assets, therefore, were subjected to
annual depreciation rather than charged as operating expenses at the time of
construction or acquisition.
The Truck Axle Division maintains an accounting system which yields
adequate financial information for managing its daily commercial activities.
However, because of the lack of specific accounts or cost centers for the
incinerator-heat recovery facility, SYSTECH maintained independent records
for the operating and maintenance costs applicable to the facility operation.
In addition, with the Truck Axle Division comprising only one operating
166
-------
division among many within the Rockwell International Corporation structure,
many applicable costs of the facility such as the true financing costs, other
overhead items such as insurance, and a share of professional fees could not
be determined. Such costs are allocated to the Truck Axle Division without
identifying the specific cost area. However, the accounting of such costs to
the facility should be immaterial because of the facility's relatively little
part within the plant.
TABLE 59. MARYSVILLE SUMMARY OF ELEMENTS DETECTED IN EPA LEVEL ONE ANALYSIS
Element Source
Ambient Air
Filter
Element
Li
Be
B
F
Na
Mg
Al
Si
P
S
Cl
K
Ca
Sc
Ti
U
Cr
Mn
Fe
Co
Ni
Cu
Zn
Ga
Ge
Se
Br
Rb
Ba
Pb
Sn
Cd
Upwind
N
N
*
N
*
*
N
*
*
*
*
*
*
N
D
N
N
D
*
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
D
N
N
Downwind
N
N
*
N
*
*
N
*
*
*
*
*
*
N
D
N
N
D
*
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
D
N
N
Sorbent trap
Upwind
N
N
N
N
*
*
N
*
*
*
*
D
D
N
N
N
N
N
*
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
D
N
N
N
Downwind
N
N
N
N
*
*
N
*
*
*
*
D
D
N
N
N
D
N
*
N
N
D
D
N
N
N
N
N
D
N
D
N
Method 5
filter
N
N
*
N
*
*
N
*
*
*
*
A
*
N
N
N
N
D
*
N
N
N
D
N
N
N
N
N
N
D
N
D
Stack emissions
Sorbent
1
N
N
*
N
*
*
N
*
*
*
*
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
*
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
D
N
N
2
N
N
*
D
*
*
N
A
*
*
*
N
N
N
N
N
D
N
*
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
D
N
N
N
trap
3
N
N
*
N
*
*
N
A
*
*
*
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
A
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Impingers
1
N
N
D
N
A
N
N
D
N
D
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
2 S 3
N
N
D
N
A
N
N
N
N
D
D
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
D
N
N
N
D
N
* Test interference
N Not detected
D Detected
167
-------
TABLE 60. MARYSVILLE SUMMARY OF ELEMENTS DETECTED IN STACK
EMISSION FILTERS
Emission rate
Concentration in gas Emission factor
Element (pg/m3)* g/Mg of refuset
Silicon
Iron
Aluminum
Sodium
Calcium
Potassium
Magnesium
Lead
Zinc
Cadmium
Beryllium
Titanium
Chromium
Copper
Nickel
Manganese
Lithium
Antimony
Boron
Tin
Vanadium
2.95
520.
2,202.
13,839.
1,749.
450.
640.
624.
2,724.
428.
0.09
0.419
1.66
19.3
1.78
11.4
2.10
1.69
98.1
3.33
2.30
.042
7.45
31.5
198.0
25.0
6.44
9.17
8.93
39.0
6.14
.0014
.0060
.0237
.277
.0255
.164
.030
.0243
1.41
.0477
.033
* Concentrations based on a composite of five filters from
JuJy test period.
t g/Mg 4 500 = Ib/ton
Capiual Costs and Their Financing—
The capital costs incurred for the facility construction were ascertained
by identifying payments made to major contractors and suppliers, by examining
supporting purchase order agreements, and by acquiring information from the
plant's accounting personnel. The source documents were reviewed to determine
whether the expenditures were (1) properly chargeable to the facility,
(2) properly classified as capital expenditures, and (3) were materially
accurate for reclassification per EPA guidelines and cost centers. The
resultant costs were divided into those associated with just the incineration
system and those identified with the heating and cooling system modifications
to accommodate the incineration system.
The plant accounting personnel were not certain whether all capital
costs had been identified as capital assets in the accounting records. The
accounting records showed that $509,949 had been expended as the total
capital costs for the facility. The costs incurred in modifying the building
and the plant's existing heating and air conditioning systems amounted to
$380,616 of this total. In addition, the new boiler cost $49,245. Therefore,
the cost of the incineration system was $80,088. In addition, since an ash
removal and magnetic separation conveyor had been disposed of, the capital
cost had to be reduced to reflect the capital cost of the operating facility.
With the conveyor cost estimated at $4,379, the incineration capital cost was
therefore reduced to a final figure of $75,709.
168
-------
According to the plant accounting personnel, the land is valued at
approximately $3,000. This amount was excluded from the depreciable asset
base which is further discussed under the operating and maintenance costs.
Table 61 presents the capital cost breakdown which generally agrees with
the EPA cost categories. The site preparation costs are included in the
construction costs since they could not be distinguished from the other
construction costs in the plant accounting records.
TABLE 61. MARYSVILLE CAPITAL COSTS*
Incineration Heat Recovery
Land
Site preparation
Design
Construction
Real equipment
Total capital investment
$ 1,000
t
7,000
69,302
77,302
$ 2,000
t
12,500
82,166
335,081
432,647
* Based on 1977 dollars.
t Site preparation costs were not identified in Rockwell
International Corporation accounting records.
After a review of the incurred costs, the total capital cost was dis-
tri1 uted among the four cost centers: the three functional areas, namely
receiving, incineration, and heat recovery, and the general plant. Besides
this distribution, Table 62 also distributes the total capital cost among
just the three functional areas with the $88,364 for the general plant
allocated to each of the functional areas according to their proportional
amounts in the first distribution. The general plant cost includes the land
value and the expenditure for the construction of the facility shell.
TABLE 62. MARYSVILLE CAPITAL COST ALLOCATIONS
BY COST CENTER*
Cost center
Receiving
Incineration
Heat recovery
General plant
Total
Capital costs
$ 652
63,263
357,670
88,364
$509,949
Reallocated
capital costs
$ 789
76,523
432,638
$509,949
* Based on 1977 dollars.
169
-------
Then for each depreciable item, Table 63 lists the initial cost,
including as applicable the freight, insurance, and installation costs, the
related cost center, and the estimated useful life. The estimated useful
lives, namely 12 years for real equipment items and 4 to 35 years for the
respective general plant items, were used in computing the annual depre-
ciation expenses which are presented under the operating and maintenance
costs.
TABLE 63. COST, COST CENTER, AND ESTIMATED USEFUL LIFE FOR EACH
MAJOR EQUIPMENT ITEM IN MARYSVILLE FACILITY*
Equipment item
Cost**
Cost center
Useful life
(yr)
9 Starter coils, starter
combination $ 3,033 General plant
Plant shell 65,779 General plant
Bussway 665 General plant
Internal work 12,500 General plant
1 KH model 1280/72
pyrolysis system 49,195 Incineration
1 Ash removal ram system 11,183 Incineration
1 Primary chamber burner 2,006 Incineration
1 Primary chamber water
spray 879 Incineration
TP-4 Turbo motor
1 Low-pressure boiler
Heating and coolingt
1 RAM recycle
Total*
12
35
35
35
12
12
12
12
573
49,245
307,852
652
$509,949
Heat recovery
Heat recovery
Heat recovery
Receiving
12
12
12
12
* Based on 1977 dollars.
** Includes cost of freight, insurance, and installation.
t Contracted total cost of cooling tower, piping, and absorption chiller.
// Initial capital investment less cost of land.
The capital cost of the incinerator-heat recovery facility was financed
through retained earnings. The Rockwell International home office allocates
such by internally generated funds.
The corporate cost of capital, which is theoretically a weighted mixture
of the cost of debt, equity, and internal financing, is a reasonable measure-
ment of what it costs a corporation to make capital investment decisions such
as those for the Marysville facility. The Rockwell International cost of
capital approximates 10 percent. This percentage is subsequently reflected
in this report under the interest costs within the operating and maintenance
costs.
Operating and Maintenance Costs—
The major operating costs for the facility operation are labor, utilities,
materials, interest, and depreciation. As mentioned previously, separate
170
-------
cost centers are not maintained for the facility operation. Consequently,
for this evaluation, the plant engineer estimated the manpower requirements,
and SYSTECH estimated the manpower for the cost centers by observing the
tasks performed by the facility personnel.
The natural gas consumption of the facility was determined by taking the
difference between the April 24 and August 25, 1978, readings on a gas meter
which only measures the gas flow to the facility. Then the corresponding
cost for this period was extropolated to a year to determine the annual gas
cost allocation to the incineration cost center.
The electricity costs were allocated to the cost centers according to
the ammeter readings and timers on the various motors.
Since water is only used for flame quenching, the operating cost for
water was allocated to the incineration cost center. The water consumption
rate was determined by measuring the water quench flow rate during a down
period and by timing the periods when the quench was spraying between
April 24 and August 25, 1978.
The chemical costs were obtained from records maintained by the plant
engineer. Since these chemicals are used to treat the boiler water, the
entire cost of chemicals was allocated to the heat recovery cost center.
After the foregoing parameter data were extrapolated to represent a
16-hour day, 250-day year, the annual parameter data were distributed among
the cost centers of the three functional areas as shown in Table 64.
Table 65 presents the unit cost data which was used in conjunction with the
operating parameter data to derive the estimated operating costs. The unit
costs were obtained from records maintained by the plant engineer.
A comprehensive economic evaluation was based on the actual operating
conditions, i.e., firing at half the rated capacity, a two-shift operation,
and a system efficiency of 42 percent.
The preparation of the evaluation required estimating the maintenance
costs and including the interest and depreciation costs to make the evalu-
ation complete and reasonable.
The annual maintenance cost was estimated by taking 5.5 percent (the IRS
guideline for maintenance costs) of the total depreciable assets in Table 63.
In addition, the annual cost for equipment replacement was added to this
estimate. As stated above, the corporate cost of capital is 10 percent.
This percentage is likely used to represent the interest that could be acquired
if capital allocated for plant and equipment expenditures were rather invested
in a revenue-providing project. Consequently, to compute the total annual
interest, the net book value (cost less accumulated depreciation) of each of
the items in Table 63 was multiplied by 10 percent over the respective useful
lives as given in this table. In the computation of the annual depreciation
cost of the items in Table' 63, a straight line depreciation was used with
12 years as the life for the real equipment items and 4 to 35 years for the
respective general plant items.
171
-------
TABLE 64. MARYSVILLE OPERATING PARAMETER VALUES FOR COST CENTERS
Parameter
Cost center
Total
Receiving
Incineration Heat Recovery
Operating schedule:
Incinerator
Heating
Cooling
Refuse feed rate:
Mg/hr
Mg/yr
Heat recovered:
MJ/day
Staffing:
General helper
Natural gas consumption:
k«,/day
Electric power demand:
kwh/day
Water consumption (£/day)
Sewer flow («,/day)
Chemicals (NC-1) U/yr)
16 hr/day
250 days/year
128 days/year
122 days/year
0.28
875
23,025
1
419
113.1
2611
none
28.4
6.2
40%
419
30.2
2611
10%
74. <
28.4
TABLE 65. MARYSVILLE UNIT COST DATA*
Salary rates (annual, FY 78):
General helper
Employee benefits rate
Natural gas
Electricity rate
Water rate
Sewer
Chemical (NC-1) costs
$14,500
$5,800
$0.091/k£
$0.0282/kwh
$0.24/1000£
t
$2.30/£
*Based on costs incurred in 1978.
tOn-site disposal (septic system).
Then the annual costs for maintenance, interest, and depreciation, as
computed above, were combined with the data in Tables 64 and 65 to derive the
projected annual operating and maintenance costs by the four cost centers.
Table 66 lists the resultant costs. In the development of this table, the
salary and employee benefits related to residue removal were included under
the salaries and employee benefits cost categories. While other overhead
172
-------
costs could not be ascertained, they should be minimal. Except for interest
and depreciation, the cost categories in Table 66 generally agree with those
-ii the EPA accounting format.
TABLE 66. MARYSVILLE PROJECTED ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE
COSTS PER COST CENTER*
Cost Center
Cost classification
Salaries
Employee benefits
Fuel
Water and sewer
Electricity
Maintenance
Chemicals
Interest
Depreciation
Sub total
General plant allocation:
Total
Total
cost
$ 14,500
5,800
9,914
163
829
15,004
65
24,480
34,815
$105,570
$105,570
Receiving
$ 7,250
2,900
45
828
687
1,255
$12,965
3,045
$16,010
Incineration
$ 5,800
2,320
9,914
163
235
3,498
2,918
5,300
$30,148
4,084
$34,232
Heat
recovery
$ 1,450
580
549
5,818
65
16,592
24,499
$49,553
5,775
$55,328
General
plant
$ 4,860
4,283
3,671
$12,904
*Based on 1978 dollars.
As shown in Table 67, the annual costs in Table 66 were also broken down
into fixed and variable costs. All costs in the salaries and employee
benefits categories were variable since all facility employees at Marysville
would be assigned to other plant areas during facility shutdowns.
TABLE 67. MARYSVILLE ANNUAL FIXED AND VARIABLE OPERATING
AND MAINTENANCE COSTS*
Item
Total
Fixed
Variable
Salaries
Employee benefits
Fuel
Electricity
Water and sewer
Maintenancet
Chemicals
Interest
Depreciation
$ 14,500
5,800
9,914
829
163
15,004
65
24,480
34,815
$ 7,502
24,480
34,815
$14,500
5,800
9,914
829
163
7,502
65
Total costs
$105,570
$66,797
$37,234
* Based on 1978 dollars.
t Since some maintenance continues during plant shutdowns,
one-half the estimated annual maintenance cost was
assumed to be filxed.
173
-------
Revenues (Savings)—
Although the incinerator-heat recovery facility was installed to provide
an assured energy supply for the plant's heating and air conditioning systems,
and not to produce revenue by itself, it indirectly produces a revenue by
eliminating the costs previously expended for the propane used during the
winter and for the electricity used during the summer.
During the three test periods, the average heat recovery rate was
23,025 GJ/day (21,825 MBtu/day). With estimated heating and cooling seasons
of 120 and 70 days, respectively, and with the previous propane and electricity
costs of $0.00404 and $0.00769 per MJ ($4.26 and $8.11 per MBtu), respectively,
the facility yields an annual savings, or annual revenue equivalent, of
$23,557.
Net Operating Cost—
With $105,570 as the projected annual operating and maintenance cost
and $23,557 as the estimated annual energy savings (revenues) and $27,500
as
the annual disposal cost savings, the net annual operating cost will be
$54,513. Table 68 compares the costs, savings (revenues), and net costs or
savings per unit of refuse processed.
TABLE 68. MARYSVILLE NET OPERATING COST BY SYSTEM FUNCTION*
Incineration and
Incineration Heat recovery
Operating and
maintenance
Disposal savings
Energy savings
($/yr)
(34,232)
27,500
($/Mg) ($/ton) ($/yr)
(28.53) (105,570)
22.95 27,500
23,557
($/Mg) ($/ton)
(87.98)
22.95
19.63
Net savings (cost)
of operation ( 6,732) (5.92) ( 5.61) ( 54,513) (47.93) (45.43)
* Based on 1978 dollars, 1200 tons annually.
Operating cost includes interest and depreciation.
Summary—
With the facility requiring an initial capital investment of $509,949,
its anticipated annual operation will cost $54,513 or $47.93 per Mg
($45.43 per ton) of refuse processed. In comparison with the net cost per
unit of refuse processed the cost for landfill disposal is $25.30/Mg
($22.95/ton).
The after tax positive cash flow would be $85,400 the first year and
$7,600 for each year thereafter. The first year value includes all of the
10 percent investment tax credit and the additional 10 percent energy credit
effective in 1978.
174
-------
SECTION 5
OPERATING COST PROJECTIONS
INTRODUCTION
This section projects (1) the optimum annual operating and maintenance
costs for the North Little Rock and Marysville facilities and (2) the capital
costs and the net annual operating costs for municipal and industrial plants
in general. While the preceding section presents the annual operating and
maintenance costs for the two evaluated facilities, these costs were them-
selves projections based on limited monitoring periods of as-operated
conditions during the early operational phases of the facilities. Therefore,
to represent the evaluated facilities at maximum design capabilities, this
section presents the costs on the basis of optimum operating conditions. In
the treatment of the municipal and industrial plants in general, the net
annual operating costs are presented as (1) a function of the operating
percentage of rated capacity and (2) a function of refuse feed rate and
shifts per week as well as of the operating percentage of rated capacity.
PROJECTED OPTIMUM ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR PLANTS EVALUATED
North Little Rock Facility
The optimum operating conditions for the North Little Rock facility
would be (1) a refuse feed rate equal to the design capacity of 3.6 Mg/hr
(4 TPH), (2) a steam production rate of 8.181 kg/hr (18,000 Ib/hr) , (3) diesel
fuel and gasoline usage rates proportional to the refuse feed rate, and
(4) water and chemical usage rates proportional to the steam generation rate.
Under these conditions and as summarized in Table 69, the total annual
operating and maintenance costs would be $370,739 or $17.03/Mg ($15.45/ton)
of refuse processed.
Revenues—
Table 70 presents the estimated annual revenues for the optimum operating
conditions. Since the commercial tipping fees charged would remain the same,
the greater revenue, as compared with the as-operated conditions, would be
due to the sale of all steam produced with all flue gases passing through the
boilers. The optimum operating conditions would yield a total revenue and a
revenue per Mg of refuse processed that would be respectively $127,773 and
$3.00 more than those produced under the as-operated conditions.
175
-------
TABLE 69. NORTH LITTLE ROCK PROJECTED OPTIMUM OPERATING AND
MAINTENANCE COSTS*
Item
Salaries
Employee benefits
Fuel - no. 2 diesel
Natural gas
Gasoline
Electricity
Water and sewer
Maintenance
Replacement equipment
Residue removal
Chemicals
Interest
Depreciation
Other overhead
Total operating and
maintenance costs
Cost
($/yr)
$111,284
15,750
4,608
16,704
3,888
19,237
8,121
65,656
—
t
5,033
39,179
78,070
3,209
$370,739
($/Mg)
$ 5.11
0.72
0.21
0.77
0.18
0.88
0.37
3.02
—
t
0.23
1.80
3.59
0.15
$17.03
* Based on 1978 dollars.
t Cost included in salaries and employee benefit categories.
TABLE 70. NORTH LITTLE ROCK PROJECTED OPTIMUM REVENUES*
Revenues
Cost
Steam production
Tipping fees
Total
$280,772
24,336
$305,103
Per Mg of refuse processed (per ton) $14.02 (17.07)
* Based on 1978 dollars.
176
-------
Net Operating Costs—
The optimum operating conditions would yield an annual net operating
cost of $65,631 since the revenue would increase to $305,108 with the
operating and maintenance costs increasing to only $370,739. Table 71
presents the costs, revenues, and net costs per unit of refuse processed.
Under the optimum operating conditions, the annual net operating and mainte-•
nance costs would be $65,631 or $3.01/Mg ($2.72/ton) of refuse processed.
TABLE 71. NORTH LITTLE ROCK PROJECTED OPTIMUM
NET OPERATION COSTS*
$/Mg $/Ton
Operating and maintenance i \ \
costs U7.03 ) ( 15.45 J
Revenue 14.02 12.72
Net cost of operation ( 3.01 ) ( 2.72 j
* Based on 1978 dollars.
Marysville Facility
The optimum operating conditions for the Marysville facility would be
(1) firing at rated capacity of 1200 Ib/hr, (2) operating at three shifts,
and (3) utilizing all the recoverable heat. While these conditions would
require another operator and increase the natural gas, electric, water and
sewer, and chemical costs by about 50 percent, the maintenance costs would
likely remain the same. The assumed constant maintenance cost was based on
the fact that the smaller refractory costs (the major maintenance cost)
because of less refractory damage with fewer shutdowns would offset the
higher costs of other maintenance items with increased throughput.
Under the optimum operating conditions and as summmarized in Table 72,
the total annual operating and maintenance costs would be $117,944 or $36.12/Mg
($32.77/ton) of refuse processed.
Revenues (Savings)—
The daily 138,167 MJ (131 MBtu) output would eliminate the need for
propane energy and thereby provide a savings of $139,549.
Net Operating Costs—
While the total operating and maintenance costs would be $117,944, the
twofold savings of $139,549 for energy costs and $82,620 for solid waste
disposal costs would result in a net savings of $104,270. Table 73 presents
the costs, savings (revenues), and net savings per unit of refuse processed.
177
-------
TABLE 72. MARYSVILLE PROJECTED OPTIMUM OPERATING
AND MAINTENANCE COSTS*
Item
Salaries
Employee benefits
Fuel
Electricity
Water and sewer
Maintenance
Chemicals
Interest
Depreciation
Total
Cost
($/yr)
21,750
5,438
14,871
1,244
244
15,004
98
24,480
34,815
117,944
($/Mg)
6.66
1.66
4.55
0.38
0.07
4.59
0.03
7.49
10.66
36.12
* Based on 1978 dollars.
TABLE 73. MARYSVILLE PROJECTED OPTIMUM NET OPERATION COSTS*
Cost:
Item ($/yr) ($/Mg) ($/ton)
Operating and maintenance f 117,944 ] f 36.12J f 32.76]
Disposal savings 82,620 42.75 38.77
Energy savings 139,594 25.30 22.95
Net savings 104,270 31.94 28.96
* Based on 1978 dollars.
PROJECTED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS FOR MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL
PLANTS IN GENERAL
In order to present the effects of various operation variables on the
cost of operation and to estimate the operational costs of future small
modular incinerator facilities, an empirical method for estimating cost was
developed as follows:
178
-------
Capital Cost
The capital cost of small modular incinerator facilities is a function
of the heat release rate or the capacity and the heat content of the refuse.
Based on the Marysville and the North Little Rock facility costs and the
vendor-estimated costs for a 180 MgPD (megagrams per day) (200 TPD) facility,
the capital cost of a small modular incinerator facility with heat recovery
may be estimated by the following equation
Capital cost = $17,500 x capacity (MgPD)
Figure 72 illustrates this relationship.
3500
2500
o
c
o
2000
1500
1000
500
Estimated by Consumat
North Little Rock
45 90 135
(50) (100) (150)
Capacity (Mg (tons) per day)
180
(200)
Figure 72.
Capital cost of small modular incinerators as a
function of rated capacity.
179
-------
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Labor—
The labor costs for small modular incinerator facilities are a function
of many factors including the type of facility (industrial or municipal),
hours of operation, and local labor rates. For safety reasons, the minimum
number of operators per shift is two for a municipal facility but one for an
industrial facility if production workers are nearby. Also, an industrial
facility requires minimal supervisory and clerical labor which can be provided
by the production area. Also because of the low ash content of commercial
refuse, the labor for ash disposal in an industrial facility is minimal
compared with that in a municipal facility. Based on a minimal number of
incinerators in a system, the labor requirements are estimated as follows:
one operator per shift for an industrial facility and one supervisor, one
clerical worker, one truck driver, and two operators per shift for a municipal
facility.
The number of operators required for a facility is a function of the
number of operating shifts per week. Therefore, the number of operators
required for an industrial facility may be calculated by dividing the number
of operating shifts per week by 5 and then increasing the quotient to the
next highest whole number. The number of operators required for a municipal
facility may be estimated similarly except for the division by 2.5.
After the employee requirements are determined, the annual labor cost
may be estimated by multiplying the number of employees by the annual salary
including benefits. While wages will vary considerably from site to site, an
average wage of $10/hr or $20,800/yr including benefits may be used for
estimating purposes.
Auxiliary Fuel—
The amount of auxiliary fuel used is a function of the system chosen and
the number of start-ups and shutdowns. Some systems, including the Marysville
facility, operate the afterburner after start-up while other systems,
including the North Little Rock facility, use auxiliary fuel only during
start-up and shutdown. The auxiliary fuel used during start-up and shutdown
is a function of the capacity.
The optimum auxiliary fuel usage at North Little Rock per unit of
capacity was 3.1 k£/MgPD (0.1 MCF/TPD) for one start-up and shutdown. The
daily auxiliary fuel usage at Marysville per unit of capacity was 32.1 k£/MgPD
(1.0 MCF/TPD) for one start-up and shutdown along with intermittent operation
of the afterburner. The high usage at the Marysville facility was due to the
facility operation at one-half of capacity.
Using the above information, the auxiliary fuel usage may be estimated
empirically. The annual auxiliary fuel usage in kiloliters per year for
start-up and shutdown may be estimated by the following equation:
c -, start-ups 3.1 k£/MgPD . . .
Annual fuel usage = *— * —~-^— >< capacity (MgPD)
to year start-up
180
-------
The auxiliary fuel usage for maintaining the afterburner temperature
when operating below capacity may be estimated on a proportional basis by the
following equation:
a
Annual fuel usage = [(0.64 x % of rated capacity) + 64.2] —
Me
x capacity -r—a
day
operating days
year
The sum of the last two equations gives an estimate of the annual
auxiliary fuel costs. While fuel oil, natural gas, propane, or other fuel
can be used, a reasonable unit cost for natural gas would be $0.088/k£
($2.50/MCF).
Electric Power—
The electric power usage should be a function of capacity since approxi-
mately 85 percent of the electric power is used by the various fans and
blowers. Since the blowers also operate during start-up and burndown, there
is very little difference in the electric usage between a 2- and a 3-shift
operation. The electric power demands per unit capacity for the Marysville
and North Little Rock facilities were 0.4 kw/MgPD (0.3 kw/TPD) and 1.0 kw/MgPD
(0.9 kw/TPD). The difference in the electric demand per unit capacity between
these two facilities was principally due to the Marysville facility operating
at 50 percent of capacity and having the hot water heat recovery which has
lower pumping costs than the steam heat recovery. On the basis of the above
information, the electric usage at a small modular facility may be estimated
by the following equation (which is slightly conservative):
Annual electric usage
operation days
year
24 hours 1.0 kw
day
MgPD
x capacity (MgPD)
The annual electric cost may then be estimated by multiplying the
annual electric usage rate by the unit electric costs. A representative
value for the unit electric costs is approximately $0.035/kw-hr.
Water—
The water usage at a small modular incinerator facility is a function of
the heat recovery method, the heat recovery rate, the flame quench rate, and
the residue quench rate. Since the water cost is a small percentage of the
total annual plant costs, a conservative estimate of water usage will be
sufficient. The most water-intensive heat recovery method is steam production
with no condensate return. Assuming an industrial refuse (16.2 MJ/kg,
7000 Btu/lb), a 60 percent energy recovery, a 10 percent blowdown, and no
condensate return, the annual water usage for steam production may be
estimated by the following equation:
181
-------
Water usage — = operating days x Mg refuse boiler efficiency %
year 1 year day 100
1 Kg water 1 liter „ MJ heat
X — O ™^»i-v.i.
2.257 MJ 1 Kg water ' 1 Mg refuse
Although the annual water usage for flame quenching in the primary
chamber should be low, it may be estimated by the following equation which is
based on the Marysville data:
Water usage —^- = "Plating days >( 200£ water
year year Mg refuse
x Mg refuse
day
Assuming a wet-to-wet residue/refuse ratio of 45 percent (worst case for
municipal refuse) and a residue moisture content of 30 percent, the annual
water usage for residue quenching may be estimated by the following equation:
„ £ operating days Mg refuse
Wauer usage = —c £2 i— x —o
year year day
x 130£ water
Mg refuse
The total annual estimated water usage is the sum of the three water
usages. The annual water cost may be estimated by multiplying the total
annual usage by the unit costs. A conservative unit water cost based on the
Marysville data would be $0.24/1000£.
Chemicals—
The cost of chemicals is an extremely small portion of the operating
cost and is a function of many factors. Therefore, on the basis of the
chemical costs at the North Little Rock facility, the chemical costs may be
estimated conservatively by the following equation:
Cost ($) = Mg waste x operating days x $._25
day year Mg waste
182
-------
Residue Disposal—
The amount of residue requiring disposal is a function of the ash
content of the refuse, and the degree of burnout. In some instances, the
residue disposal costs will be negligible if the residue can be used as a
fill material as at North Little Rock or can be buried on site as at Marysville.
Assuming a wet-to-wet residue/refuse ratio, the annual amount of residue
requiring disposal may be estimated conservatively by the following equation:
„ . , n& Actual Mg refuse ^ Mg residue
Residue —°— = T—6 x Burnout -^
day Mg refuse
operating days
year
If a landfill is owned by the owner of the incineration facility, the
cost of residue disposal would be on a volume basis, but most landfill
operators charge on a weight basis. On a weight basis, a reasonable unit
cost is $4.00/Mg ($4.44/ton).
Maintenance—
Assuming that the annual maintenance costs are 3.5 percent of the
depreciable capital assets, the annual maintenance costs for materials may be
estimated by the following equation:
Cost ($) = $17,500 x capacity (MgPD) x 0.035
The 3.5 percent value was used rather than the 5.5 percent, which is an
IRS guideline for a solid waste processing plant, because of the small number
of moving parts. Also, it may be assumed that the operators will have
sufficient time to do some maintenance work.
Depreciation and Interest—
For a given capital cost and interest rate and an estimated useful life,
the depreciation and interest may be calculated by the amortization (capital
recovery) method. Most industrial facilities would probably use an estimated
life of 3 to 8 years and an interest rate of 10 to 15 percent. For most
municipal facilities, an estimated useful life of 10 to 20 years and an
interest rate of 6 to 10 percent would be used. For a given estimated life
in years (n) and a given interest rate expressed as a decimal (i), the annual
depreciation and interest cost may be estimated by the following formula:
,ost ($) = $17,500 x capacity (MgPD)
183
-------
Revenues
The revenues from energy recovery are a function of the heat content of
the refuse, the thermal efficiency of the system, and the recovered value of
the energy. Typical refuse heat content values are 10.4 and 17.4 MJ/kg
(4500 and 7500 Btu/lb) for municipal and industrial refuse, respectively.
The efficiencies of the systems are approximately 60 percent for a 3-shift
operation but only 35 percent for a 2-shift operation because of burndown
losses. While the efficiencies for different capacities and systems vary,
the variations are minimal. Assuming that none of the flue gases bypass .the
boiler, the energy recovery rate for the 2- and 3-shift operations may be
estimated by the following equation:
Recovered energy I I = capacity (MgPD) x % of rated capacity
yyear i
„ ,- . operation days
* S * refuse heat content x —c ^—
year
where S = 350 for the two shifts and 600 for the three shifts
When the recovered energy is used to replace other fuels, the savings
may be calculated by using the costs for the other fuels.
Value
Fuel ($/MJ) ($/MBtu)
Fuel oil $0.00311 $3.28
Electric 0.00769 8.11
Natural gas 0.00245 2.59
Propane 0.00404 4.25
Steam 0.00427 4.50
However, if the energy is sold, it is usually sold at a discounted
price. The cost of steam production is usually assumed to be $11.00/1000 kg
($5.00/1000 Ib), but the steam produced at North Little Rock was sold for
$5.72/1000 kg ($2.60/1000 Ib).
Net Cost of Operation
The net cost of operation is the difference between the operating and
maintenance costs and the revenues.
184
-------
Effect of Operation Variables
Of the variables that affect net operation cost, the capacity of the
unit, the percentage of capacity at which the system is operated, and the
percentage of operating time are the variables that can most likely be
controlled. To determine the effects of these variables on net operating
costs, the net operating costs were estimated by applying the previously
developed equations to the following six modes of operation.
A:
B:
C:
D:
E:
F:
2
2
3
3
3
3
shifts
shifts
shifts
shifts
shifts
shifts
per
per
per
per
per
per
day,
day,
day,
day,
day,
day,
5
5
5
5
7
7
days
days
days
days
days
days
per
per
per
per
per
per
week,
week,
week,
week,
week,
week,
50%
100%
50%
100%
50%
100%
of
of
of
of
of
of
rated capacity
rated capacity
rated capacity
rated capacity
rated capacity
rated capacity
Municipal Facilities—
To determine the net operating costs of the municipal facilities, the
following assumptions were made: (1) the average employee salary is
$20,800 per year including benefits, (2) the auxiliary fuel used is natural
gas at a unit cost of $0.088/k£ ($2.50 MCF), (3) the electric power unit cost
is $0.035/kwhr, (4) the unit cost of water is $0.24/k£ ($0.91/1000 gal), (5)
the wet-to-wet residue/refuse ratio is 0.40, (6) the cost of residue disposal
is $4/Mg, (7) the interest rate is 7 percent, (8) the estimated life of the
facility is 15 years, (9) the heat content of the refuse is 10.4 MJ/kg
(4500 Btu/lb), and (10) the recovered energy value is $0.00245/MJ ($2.60/MBtu).
The net annual operating costs for the six operating modes are shown in
Figure 73 and the net costs per megagram (ton) of refuse processed are shown
in Figure 74.
Both of these curves illustrate the benefit of operating the units at
capacity to reduce operating costs. Therefore, before a facility is designed,
the amount of refuse to be processed should be accurately determined before
the capacity of the facility is chosen. The estimated net operating costs
shown in Figure 74 indicate that the chosen operation modes are not optimum
when the capacities are less than 45 MgPD. Figure 74 also indicates that as
the percentage of operating time increases, the net operating cost decreases.
At the higher capacities, Mode F becomes less expensive, but the small
difference is probably not worth the additional effort for the 7-day week
operation. Although the curves in Figures 73 and 74 will not likely match an
actual operation because they are based on several assumptions, they are
sufficiently representative to indicate trends and average costs.
185
-------
o
o
o
w
o
w
PL,
o
w
2
D
Z
z
600
500
400
300
200
100
I
I
45
(50)
90
(100)
135
(150)
180
(200)
REFUSE GENERATION RATE IN MgPD5 (TPD5)
Figure 73. Estimated net annual operating cost as a function of
operating percentage of rated capacity for municipal
small modular incinerators.
186
-------
JO (27.0)
15
JO (9.0)
5 (A.5)
A-OFF GRAPH
45 90 135
(50) (100) (150)
REFUSE GENERATION RATE IN MgPI). (TI'D. )
Figure 74. Estimated net annual operating cost as a function of refuse
feed rate, shifts per week, and operating percentage of rated
capacity for municipal small modular incinerators.
187
-------
Industrial Facilities—
To determine the net operating cost of the industrial facilities, the
•following assumptions were made: (1) the average employee salary is
$20,800 per year including benefits, (2) the auxiliary fuel used is natural
gas at a unit cost of $0.088/k£ ($2.50 MCF), (3) the electric power unit
cost is $0.035/kwhr, (4) the unit cost of water is $0.24/k£ ($0.91/1000 gal),
(5) the wet-to-wet residue/refuse ratio is 0.10, (6) the cost of residue
disposal is $4/Mg, (7) the interest rate is 12 percent, (8) the depreciation
period is 7 years, (9) the heat content of the refuse is 17.4 MJ/kg
(7500 Btu/lb), and (10) the recovered energy value is $0.00311/MJ ($3.28/MBtu).
The higher energy value can be used because the industry is the energy user
and does not have to sell energy at a derated price. The net annual -operating
costs for the same six operating modes are shown in Figure 75 and the net
costs per megagram. (ton) of refuse processed are shown in Figure 76.
Figures 75 and 76 also illustrate the benefit of operating the facility
at the rated capacity to reduce the operation costs. Like Figure 74,
Figure 76 illustrates that the chosen operation modes are not optimum when
the capacities are less than 45 MgPD (50 TPD), as indicated by the rapid
increase in the curve slopes at the low capacities. Figure 76 also indicates
that as the percentage of operating time increases, the net operating cost
decreases. Again because of the small difference in net operating costs
between the 5- and 7-day week operation, the 7-day week operation is probably
not worth the additional effort.
188
-------
o
o
o
w
o
-------
40 (36.0)
z
o
H
w
u
z
<
,-J
<
PQ
O
z
w
PJ
o
H
W
Z
H
en
O
30 (27.0) -
20 (18.0)
10 (9.0)
u 10 (9.0)
z
20 (18.0)
LLOO% OF RATFn CAPACITY
J_
J_
_L
J
A5
(50)
90
(100)
175
(150)
180
(200)
REFUSE GENERATION RATE IN MgPIX, (TPD5)
Figure 76. Estimated net annual operating'cost as a function of refuse
feed rate, shifts per week, and operating percentage of rated
capacity for industrial small modular incinerators.
190
-------
APPENDIX A
DETAILED TEST RESULTS
191
-------
TABLE A-l. LIST OF EQUIPMENT MODIFICATIONS IN NORTH LITTLE ROCK
FACILITY BEFORE OCTOBER 1978 TEST
Modifications reported by Consumat Systems, Inc.
1. Conveyor drive:
2.
Ash chute:
3. Ash removal system:
4. Ash removal ram:
5. Cooling system:
6. Orifices:
7. Underfire air ports:
8. Draft control:
The original mechanical drive was converted
to a hydraulic drive to make the conveyor
operation more reliable.
A retractable extension was incorporated in the
chute to reduce secondary pollution.
A quench water spray was installed in the ash
discharge shroud to prevent build-up of» excess
pressure. The subsequent spray effect
minimized blow-back into the incinerator.
The cycle time was increased to make the
retention time in the primary chamber longer.
The longer retention time improved the ash
quality.
A cooling system for the primary chamber
was added to control the temperature of the
ash removal sump, ash transfer rams, and
underfire air tubes. The consequent benefits
were a positive primary chamber ash pile
temperature, reduced slagging, and a heat
source that was utilized for feedwater heating.
The air control to the orifices was improved
to better the airflow to the primary chamber.
The ports were redesigned to introduce underfire
air more reliably and without port plugging.
A draft control was installed to make the
draft throughout the entire system more
uniform and efficient.
(continued)
192
-------
TABLE A-l (continued)
Modifications observed by SYSTECH
1. Residue transfer rams:
2. Temperature control:
3. Soot blower system:
4. Flue gas flow controls:
5. Residue removal system:
The air tubes in each ram were increased
from two to four.
The operational temperature of the primary
chamber was lowered to 1200° F; the water
sprays in the primary chamber were removed,
and a refuse load indicator panel was added
to the central control system.
The air pressure was increased; more tubes
were added to the soot blower assembly;
and the airflow control system was improved.
The damper valve in the boiler exhaust
stack was removed, and the dump stack cap
was replaced with one of an improved design.
A pipe extending from the residue water pit
to the primary chamber was installed so that
gas would bypass the residue bed and thereby
prevent residue blow-back.
193
-------
c/>
W
5
<3
c/3
H
<&
O
CO
Q
2;
PQ
2;
o
t-i
H
(73
0
g
0
w
en
p
w
pj
^
u
o
PH
w
hJ
H
H
K
H
O
.
CNJ
1
W
aa
^
H
--t
4J ,O
O rH
CO
9)
•H
CO
£
0)
H
CO
a
r-H
O
1
g
•H
Si
CO
o
CU
pw
o
o
a)
*'-'
X
H
O
•H
,_|
PJ
11
&
CL,
at
'S
o
o
o
ta
•o
QJ a)
'o S^'m
° \o
CS vD vD «S
0 0 00 r.
o^ ox in o
rH fO MD
in m co «H
CS rH CO st
^ "^ ^ ^
cs] m m rH
^H r-j LO
O O oo r^
O ''D 00 00
. . • .
° ^ S rH
O in rH 'O
oo in in o
vo in r~< in
rH rg
in o o o
O
O r-t CN
rH rH iH
O O O
194
-------
ac
u
erf
-l
>-4
^
Q
prf
U
O
prf
w
H
H
1 — |
_1
W
Prf
O
2:
co
1
^
W
M
H
/-^
f>
4-J i — 1
IS ^
|>s,
rH
(1)
0)
**
rH
CO
4-1 ^
O 60
M F^
Vw/
cu
00
cd
4J
c
cu
o
d)
CX
>^
rH
"rH
cd
o
60
1
CO
CM
CO
CM
^
rH
CM
H^
O
CM
*^^
ro
j-j
O
60
0)
4-1
cd
o
*»O ^3" Os O Os O Os CO in 00 rH
co Oscor^rH^fr^^ooOCM
oscMoocooooscMOsr^cMin
u-\~*cMOsrHcomcoLnooos
CM CM VD rH rH CM CO
vj O CO vO rH r^ ^O *«O CM CO Os
vDCMvOOOvOOO^DOOCOCMrH
r^, co oo r^ co ^ ^3* r — • CM r^- co
rH rHCOOOmrHrHrHvOCO^-
rH rH r- rH rH
Os^^DOSvOCMr^CMOSLnOs
p-r^OsincOrHr^rHOcMCM
CO CN| v£)
• ••• ooooin^'^o
>x> co r^- in o o . • . • •
rH roMEcoHaJ
oj-ip-cdxoi-iscrjaic!
OCdCdrHCUOCUrHrHfi'H
faOP-iP-iHSfa<3OMfn
o
CO
oo
CM
CO
r-.
0
rH
o
m
rH
195
-------
i
o
Fn
2;
O
1 1
H
CO
O
FM
a
o
C_>
W
CO
w
ffj
>-l
hJ
M
Q
K^
QJ
0
w
H
H
H
^
pd
s
o
1
<3
w
m
H
4J
& j^*\
43
>> rH
1 — ) N"-'
Vj
I)
co
H
cd
4-1
O r~*
H M
C-
•
in
cxl
In
OJ
00
cd -xi*
4-i rxl
o> m
o
^-i
cu
P*
>i ro
•— 1 CN
•H * —
cd m
n
0
-^^
m
j_j
o
60
0)
cd
u
oo -3- CN r»
in vo r^ r^^ ON ON
*^ vO in CN ON ON
•. f, « « O ro
ro CN vo m « •>
CN rH vo CN in ro
rH
O 3"
vo i — in ~* ro m
O m in rH CN rH
rH r^ rH
ON r^- ON ro oo r~- i— 1 rH
^
oo rH o r- ON m
in vo ro ^> O i — 1
m
rH in O rH O- O
m vo CN r~- CN rH
in
CN VO OO CT> CO CO
00 rH in OO rH rH
OO OO CN O f> ft ^ ^
i— 1
ON vo O
O • O
ro vo
f,
ON
ro
ro
r^
vO
ON
ro
in
rH
196
-------
w
en
W
u
M
&
<
W
_c
MJ
'5
d
a
»2
3 ~""i
3 3
» .0
2 m
2 • —
'S
L.
•M.
"3
d
0>
bC
|
a
^
X
O
c
OJ
bO
O
"!>
M
C
0
a
O
IS
- "5
2-
1^* bo
J'£
^
g^>
- ^
i^
XI
^
a>
c
o
a.
3
O
f
CO
«
IS
3
CV.COCOOI-COOOOC
§iO CO c£
OO CO C'
OOOOCOOo»o»oiooo
odooo'od"
COCNCMOOCN O i
I— «
CO •<* f- CM O ~« *O CO
^ CM — « — 4 Cl iO — ICM
1)4 ^* --q* >^« f*^ >^ -^ CS
CCOOC^COOO^Cv.
*OCOCO*OiOCOOOOt^
•*iOCOlOCOU5Ot~O
•^lO'H't^-^'^tOt^-cc
COOl CO O — « O*
-'^C'J CO TP CO O «-i
o^otooococor^-
CMtM-^— «^-tiOOOO
•*
1- k. 03
^"o §*« S >^^'^
fl3-fc-k.*-2§'-'a
^^O^^J^^C^
§o c
r- C
cooor^ co coco
CO Tf IO OCOUO
cOr-CS iOCN CM
<-< CM CM f-. CO
oco o — • m
•^ ^H CM OO
oo ooo
lit
O '-•CO — « IO O
C*J O -^ OOO
CM t-CM CM O Tf
m oo — « *o ^ 06
•-H CO CO ""^
t^- CO CO OO CO lO
Oi »O CO *•*< CM CM
Oi —«O t-cOcO
CO 30 iO ^* O cO
O^*O CO CN T— *
QQCO tf CM
lO CO h~ — « I
CO C7J CO CM
O — « O O
00
•S2
d d
Ofc
6?
^,
CM
W
C
_c
on
_Q
0
P5
0
^;
-* kOCM
CM cor-
t-H •-
O COCM
CTi Oi O
o> o> t-*-
1 *^
'o
1
1
0) -JOO
o o o
0 00
0 00
OO COO
o oon
iO tf O
O O CO
O O 0
CO 04 0
o o o
OO COO
^
00
•o.^
C c
5 S J; 2
^ — w 03
So <
•x:
>
—
c.
OJ
fy
o;
a
aT
(T
CJ
2
• —
c
c
£
o
o
CO
o
CN
to
01
•4*
OJ
to
o
CO
CO
o
rC
01
^
CO
o
00
N
^
O
o
o
V
n
£
—
<
m
-— ,
e
a
-a
Q
tf
;f"S>
~E~*
2 *j
*— E
c3 •*
-•s
O ^s
« A
197
-------
H
Pi
0
to
Q
IS
^
>> \
^-J
M
Q
En
O
H
W
H
O
U
w
Pi
p
H
C/3
1— 1
0
g
w
CO
p
h
w
Pi
u
c
Pi
w
H
H
1— 1
i-J
PC!
H
Pi
O
Z
t
^D
1
w
M
<^
H
^^
5^8
^
c
0)
4-1
c
o
o
01
0) 4-1
r< Cfl
3 Q
4-1
03
•rH
O
1
!
CM
, — |
^^
O
rH
rH
rH
0
rH
iH
--^
o
rH
o>
— ^
o
1—1
^.J.
CM
LO
CM
CM
LO
j.
CM
CO
CO
CM
ro
O
Cl
ro
>,
i_j
O
00
0)
4-1
ra
CJ
OO>roOLOcoOvO
v£>rOrHCMr-HrH rH rH
• LO rH rH rH rH LO
-J-COlO-J-rHCOr^CMCOOOO
i — ir^rocM^D<±^O! — lsO LO CM rH rO rH CN
<3~ oo o^ CM CM r^« CM r^ oo LO o*\
-X
O> O LO ^D rH r^ *sO ro rH ^
LO VO rO rH rH rH CM
-^TroOCMOO^OO i — 1 <3"
* • *
O^ vo >vj" 00
• • •
O **O LO
^rOrH-K-K-X-K-A-JC-K*
rH
•
•K-KO-K-K-K-K-K-JC-K-K
rH
ro ro
CN-KO^-K-JC-K-K-K-K-K-K
LO
03 g
0 01 03 3
C! -H rH 3 C
0)rl4->-H OT-I034-J03
T3T3
-------
TABLE A-7. NORTH LITTLE ROCK PARTICULATE EMISSION DATA
Particulate
Date
03/21
03/21
03/22
03/22
03/23
05/22
05/22
05/23
05/23
05/24
05/24
05/25
05/25
05/26
10/09
10/10
10/11
10/11
10/11
10/12
10/12
10/12
10/13
10/13
Average
Standard
Deviation
<8/8cm>
0.0986
0.0817
0.1000
0.0666
0.0641
0.0984
0.1030
0.0892
0.0824
0.1007
0.0915
0.0870
0.0664
0.0524
0.0876
0.1632
0.1213
0.0867
0.0446
0.0760
0.0924
0.0870
0.1183
0.1291
0.0918
= 0.0105
(gr/scf)
0.0431
0.0357
0.0437
0.0291
0.0281
0.0430
0.0450
0.0390
0.0360
0.0440
0.0400
0.0380
0.0290
0.023
0.0383
0.0713
0.0530
0.0379
0.0195
0.0332
0.0404
0.0380
0.0517
0.0564
0.0401
Isokinetic
111.0
106.8
118.8
114.4
126.0
129.0
139.0
136.0
134.0
134.0
129.0
109.0
137.0
136.0
95.5
100.3
99.7
101.3
101.7
103.5
99.8
97.6
107.4
98.4
CO 2
2.8
2.8
3.5
3.5
2.8
2.8
2.7
2.5
2.5
1.9
1.9
2.2
2.2
4.4
3.8
3.7
3.9
4.7
3.5
4.2
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.1
3.3
a =
Particulate*
(g/scm)
0.4227
0.3501
0.3428
0.2284
0.2747
0.4217
0.4577
0.4284
0.3954
0.6359
0.5780
0.4744
0.3620
0.1416
0.2767
0.5291
0.3732
0.2215
0.1531
0.2172
0.2522
0.2371
0.3302
0.3778
0.3554
0.0549
(gr/scf)
0.1847
0.1530
0.1498
0.0998
0.1205
0.1843
0.2000
0.1872
0.1728
0.2779
0.2526
0.2073
0.1582
0.0621
0.1209
0.2312
0.1631
0.0968
0.0669
0.0949
0.1102
0.1036
0.1443
0.1650
0.1553
Corrected to 12% CO,
199
-------
§
I
"O
gS
U s
if I
^ ® W'%
Jv-^ X ^Knl
?4 SH
*'2,'G >• H|J«S
£'£**•- * IB
<;
H
<^
Q
(£
3
f^
CO
CO
o
h- 1
CO
CO
M
§
w
H
J oo
I—. !
U -H
'"""' -d
H u
Cli r-l
-t
jj
^
*~>
tJ
i_i
n
o
-•H
H j
H
n
P
T
—- .
^
T)
o
CJ
.
^
XT
x
•—)
H
m
- — -
jj
-j
p
pi
M
p-)
p-i
CQ
^~.
•
V-l
^
tn
^-)
^^«
TJ
rd
n
p
fTl
f])
p
rO
ff)
m
rr!
n
Q)
>
.
m
>
^3-
iH
5
CO
rH
,H
- — .
tr
h
•— '
'CJ
QJ
U
rH
rH
o
r )
QJ
p
Ti
, — 1
"J
t)
-H
P
V-j
rd
Or
rH
n3
P
o
H
"
cr,
ON
S
CN
c^
•3-
^o
^D
rsl
un
3
CN
cr,
r^
in
CJ
t/)
'
.
•n
f.
u
CJ
•
T3
p
t/J
rd
n
QJ
i — 1
n
fd
CO
ui
rd
(j
>^
l_i
Q
H)
e
D
fH
o
U>
s
m
oo
CNI
in
m
rn
m
rH
^
iH
,-j.
^
0
CO
" — '
.
T1
^
f j
_
T3
Jj
rn
P
rd
rH
U
n3
CO
M
o
p
fTl
^>
i^
OJ
p
rd
^
t]}
3
r-H
o
^>
n
00
CO
,o
CN
m
vO
in
m
S
S
,
U-i
^
^-^
TJ
c^
(1
C J
•
'(>
a
-U
fd
QJ
p
D
rH
Q
!*>
Tl
(1)
rH
a.
f.-
rd
ro
r-H
rd
P
o
H
CO
CJ\
CN
O
O
CO
CN
O
0
iH
rr>
CN
O
Q
0
0
o
o
,_,
o
r-1
^^
fj-"
CJ
UJ
\
•
iH
o
• — -
o
-H
rd
V-l
p
£
QJ
(J
C
o
r )
OJ
P
rd
. — 1
lJ
r j
-H
P
VH
rd
(i.
"CD"
1
c :
r-H
X
^
1
1—
X
CN
~i
--H
05
1
r-i
rH
i
a\
T
0
rN
^D
iO
1
O
X
0
in
I
0
X
'O
'•f?
UJ
1
o
X
^^
Ti)
r j
CO
\
.
to
.Q
rH
•— '
O
p
rd
V-t
p
£
QJ
u
C
n
r^j
QJ
P
rd
, — 1
;3
CJ
••H
P
M
rd
(Jj
u~l
en
CN
rn
c^
rH
m
^
m
en
^,
.
M
x:
\
.
Ul
il
1 — 1
~—
p
s
f-1
0
Ul
wl
r-H
"^^
•
0")
X3
r-H
'
J-J
s
c*
0
0")
I/)
-H
h
fi 1
a>
4-'
rd
r— I
'Jl
( }
r-l
4-1
i-l
rc>
a..
m
CN
r-
°
•^
r-l
00
no
r-H
rH
CO
^o
0
rH
iH
- —
C*P
—
rH
U
tJ
CO
u
H
p
d)
C
^
o
f)
M
p
f-J
OJ
(J
V-i
QJ
a,
~" ~
<
£n
<£,
a
CO
D
O
w
7^
ri*
I-J
J
(jj
CJ
CO
M
-^
>„
rs
O
0
ex
n
rn
rj\
0
' ,
r-^
CTi
CN
n
CO
1
o
0
QJ
a
o
OJ
c
n
c?
-^,
cl
o
"
__.
"
a)
•H
•U
0
Cj
200
-------
—
CM
io
CN
r-.
r--
•
CT,
CN
r^-
r-.
(T>
CN
r-
r~-
ON
CN
in
r-
rsj
LO
r^.
ON
CN
LO
i—
00
CN
CN
O",
•
r-.
CN
O
O
CO
CN
CN
CN
00
CN
CTv
CT.
CN
CT*
,— )
CXI
CN
—
1
xD
«o
o
i— i
-
r"
C*"
CN
CTi
vO
CN
t>
O
o\
oo
LO
CN
CN
r-
CN
r^.
iH
,
CN
CN
in
vO
CN
CN
^D
ON
m
CN
CN
CO
o
CN
Q
*O
00
rO
CN
1^,
,
m
CN
tH
O
CN
CO
CN
O\
m
CN
m
-3-
CN
in
to
CN
CN;
IO
CN
C7\
•
LT
r-
T~
^O
IT
,
LT
*~
LT
CC
LP
o
CN
CO
CO
iO
CN
vJD
.H
^£>
^
LO
CO
vD
CO
LO
~
cr.
•j
"
i
4-J
c
J-l
£
a
M
a
_c
c.
C
i— t
CN ^
C_
4-1 O
o pc
rH QJ
t—
OJ 4-1
C£ U
cd -H
D5
N rH
N
-• C
n 3
PH
LO
r^
CN
o-\
r— |
00
CN
t-l
•H
^C
O
4-1
T3
CU
^
cu
^ lj_j
en cu
~ ^
• tn
tn cu
C tn
-H rfl
— O
CU t-t
>-, O
tn >i
aj tn -u
O QJ H
M M >
p a, -l £H ---
^3 CQ • "^
O — ' *tf
s
CM
fel
—
U)
c
o
•H
-p
•H
T3
C
O
CJ
X
o
tO
4J
in
-^o —
OJ 0) \ J CN 4J
4J 3 D .4-> to
CO rH E-1 S *^
PS CO n CO EH
> — CU <
CU 4-) Q
tn4J 4-> in
CO CO 3 2
in cu a, cu o
3 X C U> •-!
n iO t-l
rH rH M
ca tfl 3 CU c/)
0 O EH > <
u L> ca < u
14-1
4J
CO -H
cu o
r-l O
<^ r-H
cu
V >
0 •
fT3 0^
4J >
CO •=£
CN
tH
o
CN
fr
CN
o
CN
r-
^o
ir
"~
o
CN
CC
00
^
o
v£>
^
• — ,
s
u
~ —
tn
c
o
•H
4-)
•H
•a
c
o
o
y
O
trj
4J
in
. — ,
S
fcl
CJ
en
Q
^"^
tn
C
O
-rH
4J
•H
•a
c
o
0
, — .
fc-i 13
o M
— tO
•a
cu c
M cd
3 4J
4J U3
O
fc,
U •
in 'O
— ' C
o
• CJ
T3
C
0
" U
•
T3
4->
O"1 co
g •
— -a
4J
4-)
CO
T) in
CU T3
^
EH
<^
Q
^
O
M
in
i/)
i—i
S
cd W
4J >-l 4J
CO 0) CO W
P, fH
cu e cu <
4J QJ 4-> i-l
tO EH CO 3
K 05 U
X M
sos [-1
o ca o a
T— 1 4-> -— ( <
t, in fc. tx
4-) 4J CU
O 10 rH
0) D_
' — ' T3 E
rH CU (0
o rH in
CO QJ
tO CO
.-i tn >
3 iO
0 U M
H CU
4-> >i 4J
M ^ to
tO Q 3
cu
cu cu
•-i E E
CO 3 3
4-) rH ,H
0 O 0
E-i > >
in
00
CO
O
CN
^O
- — .
Pu
CJ
10
- —
1
r-H
X
—
— . (u
• Pn U
T3
C
0
o
CJ CO
CO \
\ •
• tn
M X3
•H <"71'H
3
lol C G
O O
4-> -H -H
CO 4J 4-1
tO cd
CU >H M
E 4-1 4-1
3 C C
.H cu cu
QUO
> C C
0 0
T) O CJ
OJ
rH (1) CD
D-,4-1 4J
E iO to
fTj rH . (
CO 3 3
0 0
1 1 -H -rH
Cd 4J 4J
-U in IH
O <0 co
~i Oi dj
00
m
—
IH
£,
^
.
tn
XI
rH
CU
4->
cfl
Ctf
c
o
rH
in
in
H
e
w
cu
4J
cd
rH
3
0
H
4J
IH
rO
CU
CN
CO
*
O
E-H
CQ
^0
O
r— 1
\
tn
XI
rH
CU
4J
to
K
c
o
-rH
UI
UI
•H
e
w
0)
4->
CO
^H
3
0
r-l
4-J
VH
tfl
CU
CTv
CM
r_|
O
LT
CC
r—
O
, —
OP
cu
rH
a
E
co
in
0 <
-H EH
cu Q
G
•H CO
X ' — i
0 O
ui W
M "Z.
{£
4J ,_.]
d t-5
OJ W
u u
V-l t/1
QJ M
0, 2
c
^
V
a
CJ
q
D
,_
O
4-1
'a
4.
c.
Q
£
C
^;
c/:
cr
c
CC
}-
O
I
201
-------
T3
1)
0)
- 00
(0
cu
CT
1)
^
C
3
p^
00
£
P-.
_^
§
£-£,
r-.
cr
r-
r-.
CN
O
O"v
CN
CM
^
"
CN
CN
OC
r-
O
^
cr.
QC
CN
o\
CN
!— t
00
CM
\q
u"
%
_•
*H
•H
CM
5
rH
O
^
(
CN
CO
vO
1-1
rr
co
i-H
CT.
CO
CM
CN
CN
CO
m
•— t
-j-
0
^jO
CN
^
m
S
5
O
CM
-cr
C-J
•
rs
CM
I-:
CM
-cr
CM
^
CN
CN
CO
in
$
r—
CO
on
CO
i-H
0>
CM
^H
3
•vT
OM
vCJ
O
r-.
m
r-.
i— I
o
^-j-
,— i
O
CO
0
l~\
CO
CM
m
P^
^o
•H
0
in
rH
CO
00
VJD
CO
CM
-.T
m
m
s 2 <
4J Q
4-1 4-1 CO
id 3 2
cu a cu o
X C Cn r-3
rH Id CU
rH M
rd O 0) CO
O H > <
CJ CQ ,
>H
Q
cu
E
^
-H
O
>
PM
U
CO
.
T3
£
c
u
'C
4J
CO
4-1
id
73
cu
rH
a
e
id
CO
VH
0
a
id
j>
VH
CU
4J
id
S
CD
3
rH
O
>
CO
Cu
U
co
•
TJ
c
o
CJ
-A
4-1
CO
4J
id
cu
e
3
rH
o
T3
cu
rH
a
g
id
co
rH
id
4J
o
EH
, — .
Cu
CJ
CO
\
•
. — .
Cu
CJ
CO
\
en
>H S3
Cn rH
c
o
-rH
4-1
id
V4
4J
C
CU
o
c
o
u
cu
-p
id
rH
3
u
-rH
-p
VH
id
cu
C
0
-rH
-P
id
VH
4-1
C
CU
U
C
O
u
cu
4J
id
r-l
3
O
H
-p
In
id
a.
, —
.
Vj
x;
\
•
en
J3
rH
CU
4-1
id
K
c
o
•rH
cn
CO
•rH
g
w
cu
4-1
id
rH
3
U
H
4J
VH
id
cu
^
J^
9-
B
VXD
C
r-
\
U)
r^
a)
4-J
id
K
c
o
-H
cn
U)
•rH
£=
Li]
CU
4.J
nj
r-H
3
U
-H
4-J
VH
id
Q-,
O
0
CN
O
3P
CU
rH
Qi
e
id
CO
0 <
•H fH
-n <
0) Q
c
-^ CO
,* a
0 0
ui CO
M 'Z
f$
±> vJ
c: J
aj ro
u u
U CO
OJ M
a, S
IN
O
^
JJ
a
a)
o
cu
Q.
CN
O
4-1
^
4-)
O
CJ
£
o
o
C*!
^
—
U)
•H
qj
J-i
O
>
202
-------
0)
c
o
a
-a
cu
3
•H
4-1
C
O
U
^-^
CO
1
w
HH
P3 00
<; S
<— 1
1
C
£
o
•
f£
tt
cc
-^
-S
•
-^
O
Q
OJ
•"J
u
•H
i-l
^
4J
O
^
•--,
O
1—
ON
O
o
rH
ON
CM
in
ON
•
ON
CM
CO
CM
rH
ON
CO
CM
i-J
,
3 CU IB
O V4
CO U U
C V4 O
O 4-> -H
H 0) «H
Ul E H
OJ Ul O O
4-1 --H SH 0)
"B E n) CL,
Q W ffl co
.0
.
O
i-H
•-
CM
r^
OJ
.
CN
. ,
.
S-i
x:
.
en
_Q
i-H
- — -
-P
W
OJ ^
-Q
CPr- 1
C \
•H ID
. — .
•
_^
^\
.
Ul
_Q
r-H
M H -—
j3 CQ • T3
Q *— ' " rt3
. — ,
s
a,
6-,
- —
Ul
c
0
H
4->
-H
T3
C
O
u
^
u
fO
-P
CO
-Co —
~- ai <
nj -P a
Ln 4-1 4-1 CO
IB IB 3 2
ui aj a aj o
3 K C CT> J
M IB CL,
rH rH M
iB iB H3 <11 CO
O O H > <
U CJ CQ < U
tw
— >.
-P
rfl -H
0) U
M O
O •
r3 tr»
4.J >
00 <
CN
CN
CN
.
cr
r^
.
rH
CM
co
•sD
CM
CM
CO
^3-
rH
CO
*o
in
ON
m
ON
in
>£
^j
!
NC
CN
Cu
. CJ
, — .
s
Cu
3 IB
U O V4
•H OJ
4-1 >, 4-1
V-i M (B
IB Q 3
Cu
(U OJ
4-1 rH rH
O O 0
EH > >
i — 1 ' — I • — I
3
col C C O <1)
O O 4-1 4-1
4J -H -H IB IB
IB 4-1 4J « «
IB !B
(1) !H M G C
E 4-1 4-> O O
3 C d -H -H
rH OJ Q) Ul Ul
O O U U) Ul
> C C H -H
o o E e
13 u u w u
OJ
rH O 01 Q) CJ
a-p -P 4J 4-1
£ rd fQ TJ fd
ft] rH .— 1 1— 1 >— t
co a a D 3
u u u u
r-t H -H H H
n3 4J 4J 4J jj
-U V-j V-j V-j 1M
O fTJ ft3 fO (TJ
EH Qj Cu Qj QJ
C^J
O
O
rH
•
r-
^
r^
!-
^-^
dP
OJ
^H
a
e
rti
CO
0 <
•H EH
-P ><|
OJ Q
c:
-H CO
^ ^3
o o
ui W
M 2
I
-------
CN
0
00
CN
CS
CN
0
°^
CN
00*
CN
T,
in
no
CN
rH
00
CN
OO
^
CO
CN
LT
O
rH
G<
^
CN
CN
CC
^
oc
c-j
^
c
rs
C~H
CN
r-
0"
CN
CO
CN
CN
m
•--
rH
o
o
o
o
o
in
1 ..
0
rH
X
d
oc5
1
o,
X
1
r^
1
c:
X
-*
IT)
o
X
^
CN,
st
CO
s
^
CN
0-
rH
^
00
<,
r-*
rH
vD
^
r-
o-
a
;
i_n
rH
O
o
"
O
o
00
1
3
« 00
EH ^
r~
.j
d
rTJ
O
,J
o
*
cfl
CO
ct)
^
QJ ^H
VH O
en t>-
0) cn -P
U CU H
a a. 03
O VH
LO U U
rH
C V-i U
O J-> -H
H 0) ^
y) £ H
cj in b u
-U -H in QJ
rd £ ftJ QJ
Q W CQ CO
^
.
j_,
_j
N^
.
in
rH
•
-P
C/1
H
tT>
C
-H
j_,
^J
Q
QJ
03
CC
QJ
tr>
to
rH
(fl
O
U
O
rH
OC
.
.
Q
^H]
V^
^3
^-^
•
x:
.
Ul
r-)
r,
CQ • T?
- — • " (TJ
. — .
2^
cx
PH
— -
in
C
0
rH
-P
rH
T3
C
O
u
y
0
03
-p
LO
x: o ~
(1) \ J CN JJ
3 n -P 03
1 — 1 EH £ '=C
ra 03 ra EH
> ~— Q) r<
4J Q
-P -P LO
03 3 3
cu a, cu o
X C CP J
M ra t,
rH M
ra [ID Q) LO
O EH > <
U CQ <£ (J
4H
•— >i
-p
ra rH
0) CJ
rH O
< rH
QJ
^ >
U •
ra en
-p ^>
LO <
CN
00
(T*
OO
CN
H
rH
rH
2
PM
CJ
en
C
O
-H
4->
-rH
•a
c
o
o
y
o
rO
4J
LO
,-^
^
Pu,
O
- —
in
C
O
-rH"
JJ
T3
c;
o
u
, — .
tn ID
o M
— - a
T3
0) C
U rO
3 4J
-P CO
— ,
LT
E
— •
'O
_]
ra EH ra ID
« a u
V M
3 U 3 EH
0 10 0 K
rH 4-1 rH <
U, LO tu (X
-P
O
0)
rH
1 — 1
0
0
o
4J
ra
rH
3
O
•H
4-1
^
ra
^
rH
ra
4-1
0
EH
S
Pu
U
LO
• — -
•
""O
c
0
o
.
•o
4-1
LO
4J
ra
T3
cu
rH
Q,
£
ra
LO
w
ra
u
>,
in
Q
0)
3
rH
O
>
rH
U
LO
•
T3
C
o
C_)
.
TlS
-pi
LT3
-p
ra
TJ
a)
rH
a
e
ra
LO
V-l
o
a
ra
^>
V-4
CU
-p
ra
5:
CU
3
rH
O
>
rH
. — .
tu,
U
LO
.
•a
c
o
o
•
w
LO
4U
t8
CU
e
a
, — i
o
>
T3
CU
rH
a
g
fl
LO
rH
ra
-p
O
EH
O
O
^
fcj
U
LO
\
)-4
CT
C
O
-rH
-P
ra
M
-p
C
CD
U
C
o
o
cu
4-1
ra
r-H
3
O
-H
4J
In
ra
(X
X
.
IJH
U
LO
\
in
^
•-i
C
0
-H
4-1
ra
M
4-1
c
0)
0
c
0
u
cu
-p
ra
rH
3
U
H
4-J
V-l
ra
rx
rH
.
IH
r]
\
,
tn
^Q
•H
CU
4-1
ra
K
c
o
-H
U)
in
-H
e
w
cu
4J
rO
rH
3
O
H
4J
IH
ra
tx
^-~
o
EH
m
£)
O
rH
\
•
01
q
•H
QJ
4J
ra
p^
c
o
-H
U)
01
-H
g
W
CU
4-1
«J
rH
3
O
H
4-1
M
ra
rx
r--
a
a
o
. —
dP
0)
rH
a
e
ra
LO
u <
-rH £H
4J <
QJ Q
C
-H CO
-^ n>
0 O
VI t-ij
rH S
f-5
-U J
C J
U O
Vn CO
0) M
a< S
N
O
O
"c
cu
CJ
!H
Q
rH
o
-U
T3
4-J
U
CU
^j
o
te-t
OO
CO
c
'ctl
(_,
CD
204
-------
H
w
W
H
Pi
w
PQ
O
H
U
O
O
!3
M
OH
P
Q
>^
H
M
U
1
<;
w
,-j
PQ
.
4J
•H
O
cd
a
o
at
4-J
td
Q
CM O CM 00 CT>
m CM co
•O- CO rH CM rH
m *£> o^ m m
CO CO rH rH
rH CM v£> C^ 00
CM
rH CM
rH CO
VO rH
rH CM
CM CO
rH rH
O O
rH T— 1
tn
a
(L)
rH
00
c
•H
C
cd
0)
rH
U
^
<1)
4J
4H
cd
Cfl
rH
cd
;>
S-i
0)
4-J
C
•rl
13
o
a
OJ
cp
o
CO
4J
cd
c
ID
J*
cd
4_)
tn
4-1
c
•H
O
a.
cd
u
cd
p
*
205
-------
1 10 10 100
PARTICLE SIZE D, MICRONS
• 3/23/78
D 3/22/78
• 3/21/78
A 3/21/78
Figure A-l. Particulate size distribution of stack emissions at North Little
Rock facility during March.
206
-------
3 4 567891
3 4 567891
3 4 567891
1 10 10 100
PARTICLE SIZE D. MICRONS
• 5/26/78
D 5/23/78
• 5/24/78
O 5/25/78
A 5/22/78
Figure A-2. Particulate size distribution of stack emissions at North Little
Rock facility during May.
207
-------
TABLE A-10. NORTH LITTLE ROCK HOURLY CONCENTRATION OF BOILER EXIT GASES
NDIR monitor
Date
03/20
03/21
03/22
03/23
05/22
05/23
05/24
05/25
05/26
10/09
10/09
10/10
Time
1000
1500
2300
0300
0700
0900
1700
2200
0400
0700
1400
1900
2300
2400
0500
1300
1400
1100
1200
0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
1200
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
C02
(%)
11.6
11.4
11.0
9.4
7.5
11.0
8.4
9.0
9.6
10.0
10. 2
10.4
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
8.8
10.2
10.2
(mg/rn3)
52.9
54.9
25.8
34.1
45.1
37.7
54.8
51.4
32.5
42.7
41.6
61.7
91. .6
67.3
67.3
54.5
78.9
78.9
58.0
11.6
11.6
11.6
11.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.6
11.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
CO
(ppm)
45.6
47.3
22.2
29.4
38.9
32.5
47.2
44.3
28.0
36.8
35.9
53.2
79.0
58.0
58.0
47.0
68.0
68.0
50.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
10.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
02
(%)
10.8
12.0
11.8
11.8
10.1
12.7
9.2
9.2
10.5
10.2
13.8
11.5
9.7
10.4
10.8
11.5
10.8
11.9
12.4
13.8
14.5
14.5
8.8
9.3
10.3
11.5
12.8
10.6
12.6
11.1
10.9
10.6
10.4
10.1
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.6
10.4
11.1
10.4
10.4
Trl-gas monitor
NO
X
(mg/m3)
181.5
334.3
277.0
296.1
200.6
93.6
315.2
326.6
240.0
98.7
510.0
165.6
433.6
391.6
284.6
251.2
76.6
206.5
238.4
236.8
240.7
170.8
139.2
261.7
307.5
330.4
307.5
206.3
284.6
192.9
240.7
307.5
336.2
393.5
403.0
450.8
450.8
450.8
450.8
460.3
412.6
403.0
412.6
(ppm)
95
175
145
155
105
49
165
171
178
51.7
267
86.7
227
205
149
131.5
40.1
108.1
124.8
124.0
126.0
89.4
72.9
137.0
161.0
173.0
161.0
108 . 0
149.0
101.0
126.0
161 . 0
176.0
206.0
211.0
236.0
236.0
236.0
236.0
241.0
216.0
211.0
216.0
(mg/m3)
13.3
133.0
13.3
66.5
<13
<13
88.0
<13
16.8
13.3
35.6
33.3
27.4
27.9
41.5
25.3
<13
23.4
23.1
27.9
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
SO
X
(ppm)
5
50
5
25
<5
<5
33.1
<5
6.3
5.0
13.4
12.5
10.3
10.5
15.6
9.5
<5
8.8
8.7
10.5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
(continued)
208
-------
TABLE A-10. (continued)
Date Time
0700
0800
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
10/11 0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
10/12 0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
10/13 0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
0800
0900
C02
9.0
9.2
9.0
8.8
9.0
9.0
9.0
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.2
9.4
9.4
9.0
9.2
9.4
9.4
9.2
9.4
9.4
9.2
10.0
9.6
9.6
10.0
9.6
9.6
9.4
9.6
10.2
9.6
9.4
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.4
9.2
9.4
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.2
9.2
NDIR
monitor
(mg/m3)
0.
0.
46.
46.
34.
34.
34.
46.
46.
46.
34.
34.
46.
46.
46.
69.
58.
58.
58.
58.
58.
58.
58.
58.
58.
58.
58.
58.
58.
34.
34.
34.
34.
34.
34.
34.
23.
2i.
23.
23.
23.
23.
23.
23.
2>.
0
0
4
4
8
3
3
4
4
4
8
8
4
4
4
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
,°,
8
8
8
8
8
2
2
2
2
n
2
')
2
2
CO
(ppm)
0
0
40
40
30
30
30
40
40
40
30
30
40
40
40
60
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
50
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0
. 0
02
10.9
10.9
10.9
10.9
10.9
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.4
10.7
10.7
10.9
10.9
10.9
10.7
10.9
10.4
10.7
10.7
10.4
10.7
10.2
11.3
11.1
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.8
11.1
10.8
10.8
11.1
10.8
11.1
11.1
Tri-gas monitor
NO SO
X X
(mg/m3) (ppm) (mg/m3) (ppm)
355
364
427
406
416
439
439
406
427
439
416
427
427
439
427
341
351
351
341
341
361
380
418
418
408
399
427
427
408
395
395
416
450
450
427
416
416
416
383
383
372
404
404
361
349
.3
.8
.8
.8
.4
.3
.3
.8
.8
.3
.4
.8
.8
.3
.8
.9
.4
.4
.9
.9
.0
.1
.3
.3
.7
2
.8
.8
.7
.4
.4
.4
.8
.8
.8
.4
.4
.4
.9
.9
.5
.9
.9
.0
.5
186.
191.
224.
213.
218.
230.
230.
213.
224.
230.
218.
224.
224.
230.
224.
179.
184.
184.
179.
179.
189.
199.
219.
219.
214.
209.
224.
224.
214.
207.
207.
218.
236.
236.
224.
218.
218.
218.
201
201.
195.
212.
212.
189.
183.
0 <13
0 <13
0 <13
0 13.3
0 <13
0 13.3
0 <13
0 <13
0 <13
0 <13
0 <13
0 <13
0 <13
0 <13
0 <13
0 13.3
0 13.3
0 13.3
0 <13
0 <13
0 <13
0 <13
0 <13
0 <13
0 <13
0 <13
0 <13
0 <13
0 <13
0 26.6
0 13.3
0 13.3
0 13.3
0 13.3
0 13.3
0 13.3
0 13.3
0 13.3
.0 13.3
0 <13
0 <13
0 <13
0 <13
0 <13
0 <13
<5
<5
<5
5.0
<5
5.0
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
5.0
5.0
5.0
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
10.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
< 5
<5
< 5
< 5
<5
< 5
209
-------
TABLE A-ll. NORTH LITTLE ROCK HOURLY AVERAGES OF STACK EMISSIONS
Date Time
03/20
03/22
03/23
05/22 1100
1200
1300
1400
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2400
05/23 0100
0500
0600
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1800
1900
2100
2300
2400
05/24 0100
0300
0500
0600
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1500
1600
1700
1800
2100
2200
2300
NDIR
monitor
CO 02
(mg/m3) (ppm) (%)
52
61
44
37
26
37
35
36
24
27
35
34
16
42
42
39
36
43
34
39
30
23
30
35
23
31
33
25
25
35
42
23
54
42
38
24
.9
.4
.5
.0
.7
.4
.6
.4
.2
.4
.3
.3
.6
.0
.0
.4
.5
.8
.7
.4
.4
.2
.0
.8
.1
.8
.5
.4
.3
.8
.0
.8
.4
.0
.3
.7
45
62
38
31
23
32
30
31
20
23
30
29
14
36
36
34
31
37
29
34
26
20
25
30
19
27
28
21
21
30
36
20
46
36
33
21
.6
.9
.4
.9
.0
.2
.7
.4
.9
.6
.4
.6
.3
.2
.2
.0
.5
.8
.9
.0
.2
.0
.9
.9
.9
.4
.9
.9
.8
.9
.2
.5
.9
.2
.0
.3
16.8
18.3
16.5
15.5
15.3
16.1
17.8
17.3
18.2
17.4
15.9
16.6
16.8
16.8
15.1
16.5
16.6
17.4
17.4
17.5
17.5
17.7
17.6
17.2
17.4
16.7
16.7
16.8
17.2
17.3
17.1
17.1
18.0
17.3
16.5
18.3
18.2
18.4
17.1
15.8
16.9
15.1
Tri-gas monitor
NO
X
(mg/m3) (ppm)
95.6
105.2
95.6
84.2
117.2
94.9
43.0
63.5
112.1
151.1
131.2
109.8
112.1
128.9
105.4
130.6
123.0
140.8
149.7
170.8
175.0
154.5
134.1
56.7
33.6
81.6
115.6
138.7
62.5
63.0
138.7
104.5
121.5
113.1
82.1
100.5
55.2
52.5
70.3
56.5
127.8
0.0
50
55
50
SO
X
(mg/m3) (ppm)
13
13
13
.3
.3
.3
44 <13
61.
49.
22.
33.
58.
79.
68.
57.
58.
67.
55.
68.
64.
73.
78.
89.
91.
80.
70.
29.
17.
42.
60.
72.
32.
33.
72.
54.
63.
59.
43.
52.
28.
27.
36.
29.
66.
0.
3
6
5
2
7
1
7
5
7
5
2
4
4
7
4
4
6
9
2
7
6
7
5
6
7
0
6
7
6
2
0
6
9
5
8
6
9
0
<13
13
<13
<13
<13
20
33
31
16
20
<13
16
16
13
13
21
33
<13
20
<13
<13
<13
19
<13
18
13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
21
16
16
<13
<13
<13
<13
.3
.0
.3
.9
.5
.0
.5
.5
.3
.3
.3
.3
.0
.4
.6
.3
.3
.5
.5
5
5
5
2.5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
7.5
12.5
12.0
6.2
7.5
<5
6.2
6.2
5.0
5.0
8.0
12.5
<5
7.5
<5
<5
<5
7.3
<5
7.0
5.0
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
8.0
6.2
6.2
<5
<5
<5
<5
(continued)
210
-------
TABLE A-ll. (continued)
Tri-gas monitor
Date
05/25
05/26
10/5
10/6
Time
0100
0300
0600
0700
0800
1000
1100
1200
1500
1600
0900
1000
1300
1400
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
02
(%)
15.9
18.2
17.9
19.0
16.7
17.3
16.8
18.3
18.1
17.7
17.3
15.9
16.6
16.6
17.3
17.0
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.8
17.8
17.8
17.8
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.3
16.9
16.9
16.7
17.4
17.7
17.7
17.7
17.7
17.7
17.4
17.2
17.2
NO
X
(mg/m3)
98.0
0.0
75.4
42.8
61.5
90.3
27.3
78.7
98.9
84.8
81.2
119.0
64.2
95.7
114.6
133.7
124.2
133.7
133.7
133.7
124.2
114.6
86.0
57.3
76.4
76.4
57.3
86.0
76.4
76.4
95.5
114.6
124.2
114.6
105.1
105.1
86.0
86.0
86.0
95.5
76.4
.76.4
(ppm)
51.3
0.0
39.5
22.4
32.2
47.3
14.3
41.2
51.8
44.4
42.5
62.3
33.6
50.1
60.0
70.0
65.0
70.0
70.0
70.0
65.0
60.0
45.0
30.0
40.0
40.0
30.0
45.0
40.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
65.0
60.0
55.0
55.0
45.0
45.0
45.0
50.0
40.0
40.0
SO
X
(mg/m3) (ppm)
<13 <5
20.0 7.5
<13 <5
16.8 6.3
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
<13 <5
(continued)
211
-------
TABLE A-ll.
Date
10/9
10/10
10/11
10/12
10/13
Time
0900
1000
1100
1300
1400
1500
1600
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
0800
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
140J
15CO
1600
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1700
1800
1900
2000
C02
5.0
6.0
6.8
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.0
4.8
5.0
5.2
5.5
5.2
5.2
5.0
3.9
4.0
3.9
3.9
3.8
3.9
3.9
3.6
3.6
3.9
3.9
3.9
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.2
3.5
3.8
3.8
3.8
3.8
8.9
8.7
8.7
8.7
NDIR
(continued)
monitor
CO 02
(mg/m3) (ppm) (%)
34
41
41
34
34
34
34
<11
11
11
23
23
34
23
34
34
34
34
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
34
46
34
46
46
46
46
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
30
40
40
30
30
30
30
<10
10
10
20
20
30
20
30
30
30
30
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
40
30
40
40
40
40
15.8
14.8
13.8
15.3
15.6
15.6
15.8
15.7
16.2
15.9
16.2
15.9
16.4
16.6
16.8
17.1
17.1
16.8
17.1
17.1
16.8
17.1
17.3
16.6
16.6
16.9
16.9
17.1
17.4
18.0
17.8
17.5
17.2
17.5
17.8
(mg/m
124.
152.
181.
124.
124.
114.
114.
171.
162.
162.
192.
183.
192.
183.
143.
143.
143.
152.
133.
112.
112.
122.
122.
162.
141.
152.
152.
141.
141.
158.
202.
191.
202.
213.
170.
Tri-gas monitor
NO SO
X X
3) (ppm) (mg/m3) (ppm)
2
8
5
2
2
6
6
9
4
4
9
4
9
4
3
3
3
8
7
7
7
2
2
4
3
8
8
3
3
5
5
0
5
9
0
65
80
95
65
65
60
60
90
85
85
101
96
101
96
75
75
75
80
70
59
59
64
64
85
74
80
80
74
74
83
106
100
106
112
89
.0
-------
*
o
M
CO
CO
M
S
CO
o
w
CO
fn
V-*
N/
U
2i
CO
oi
W
rJ
M
0
&
Ci3
3
H
H
T
K
r~ j
§
CM
rH
1
"^
W
m
H
o
CO
1
. r/1
-«J
0)
*T3
•H
O
3
fri
CO
0)
•u
•H
t-i
O
J3
u
/•— s
P-
3
/-N
m
60
^
,— ^
B
o,
a
V— "
ro
E
toC
g3
Nta-*'
/•"V
§.
V-M
a,
*~s
rT
e
60
e
v— '
'— >
a.
a
* — '
/-**.
60
B
v— '
cu
4J
cfl
Q
c^| r**" 0*4 O^ *vT o^
CN m ro r^ rH co
in CO CM CM CM CM
vo in r^ vO co vo
vO ro O ro vO CM
ro ON vO I — « in vO
1-1
O O ^
in CM -*
rH rH rH
OOOrHrHCMCMCNCNCMCMCOrO
rHiHiHHiHrHrHrHiHrHrHrHrH
*^^ ^^^ **-* "^ "*^^ *^«* ^^ "^^ *^*% '**%. ****» ^*», *****
ooooooooooooo
rHrHiHrHrHrHrHrHrHrHiHiHrH
ON
CM
CN
ON
ON
m
ON
•
CN
vO
in.
ON
rH
rH
O
CM
vO
rH
VO
ON
CN
rH
00
p^
OO
rH
01
bO
n)
01
r-
vO
CO
II
D
O
•
CO
m
n
D
ON
O
II
o
vO
ON
in
rH
II
O
c
*O O
M -H
cd U
T3 CO
C -H
ctt >
£g
9
CO
a
0
•H
4-1
3
O
CO
0)
60
(=
-' I
*rt
a
'H
c
0
ca
0)
•3
tr
•H
J3
U
N
4-1
0)
•H
a
cu
0
4J
01
oO
c
•H
CO
•K
213
-------
TABLE A-13. NORTH LITTLE ROCK STACK GASES HYDROCARBON ANALYSIS
Date
03/23
05/25
05/26
10/11
10/11
10/12
Time
1030
1050
1100
1120
1130
1645
1655
1700
1015
1022
1255
1430
1303
1710
0910
Cl C2 C3
(ppm) (ppm) (ppm)
1.4 1.0
1.8 0.2 1.0
1.7 1.0
1.6 1.0
1.6 1.0
3.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
30.0 10.0*
20.0 5.0*
15.0 5.0*
Total
(ppm)
2.5
2.1
2.1
* Greater than
214
-------
C/3
1— 1
^
O
BQ
OS
U
o
OS
o
ffi
co
w
en
*O LO LO LO CN
iH r-i O O O O O
CS
«
o
v£> ro vo ro en oo
• • • • • •
O O O O O O
oooooooo
CM CM ^d"
-------
TABLE A-15. NORTH LITTLE ROCK BOILER WATER GENERAL PARAMETERS
Parameter
PH
Acidity
Alkalinity
Total dissolved solids
Total suspended solids
Total solids
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Hardness as CaCO
Chloride
Fluoride
Concentration
Makeup Water
8.7
0.0 mg/l
45.3 mg/l
5.0 mg/l
15.0 mg/l
20.0 mg/t
0.05 mg/l
40 mg/l
5 . 7 mg/£
1.23 mg/l
found
Blowdoxwi Water
12.4
0.0 mg/£
1050 mg/£
2800 mg/£
596 mg/£
3400 mg/£
1.34 mg/i
24.0 mg/l
253 mg/£
-
216
-------
Q
O
W
s
c/2
en
O
(J
H
W
ffi
pq
O
Z
W
M
M
fn
pL|
w
S
H
to
^>H
CO
|>H
! "]
M
<3^
Q
W
J
M
I
1
w
pq
H
^
g
O
*T3
c
M
3
rJ3
J^
) t
•H
0)
'O
0
e
,_!
cfl
C
O fr-S
•H
4J 0)
03 4J
(-1 tfl
0) 4J
a co
0
>!
nj
OJ
4-J
LO
cu
03
Q
m
oo
oo
cN
oo
oo
217
-------
TABLE A-17. MARYSVILLE REFUSE ULTIMATE ANALYSIS
BY COMPONENT*
Percent of total by weight
(dry basis)
Element
Hydrogen
Carbon
Nitrogen
Oxygen
Sulfur
Chlorine
Ash
Total
Wood
7.08
53.74
0.58
38.08
0.04
N.D.
0.48
100.00
Paper
6.85
49.71
4.54
36.13
0.19
N.D.
2.58
100.00
* Analysis of samples from 8/22/78.
N.D. None Detected
218
-------
TABLE A-18. MARYSVILLE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS DATA
Date
07/17
07/18
07/19
07/19
07/20
07/20
07/21
07/21
07/22
08/18
08/21
08/24
08/24
08/24
08/25
08/25
Average
Standard a
Deviation
Particulate
(g/dscm)
0.0764
0.2124
0.0666
0.0766
0.0698
0.0643
0.0842
0.1055
0.0636
0.1288
0.0902
0.1023
0.0860
0.0675
0.0664
0.0735
0.0896
- 0.0362
(gr/dscm)
0.0334
0.0928
0.0291
0.0335
0.0305
0.0281
0.0368
0.0461
0.0278
0.0563
0.0394
0.0447
0.0376
0.0295
0.0290
0.0321
0.0392
CO
(%)
7.2
10.0
10.5
10.5
10.2
10.2
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.0
6.5
5.0
3.4
3.4
5.8
5.8
7.7
a
Particulate*
(g/dscm)
0.1275
0.2538
0.0762
0.0876
0.0822
0.0757
0.1064
0.1332
0.0803
0.1719
0.1664
0.2455
0.3037
0.2382
0.1373
0.1519
0.1586
= 0.0825
(gr/dscf)
0.0557
0.1113
0.0333
0.0383
0.0359
0.0331
0.0465
0.0582
0.0351
0.0751
0.0727
0.1073
0.1327
0.1041
0.0600
0.0664
0.0693
''Corrected to 12% C02
219
-------
TABLE A-19. MARYSVILLE BURNDOWN PARTICULATE EMISSION DATA
Particulate
Date
08/22
08/23
08/23
(g/scm)
0.2355
0.0169
0.0973
(gr/scf)
0.1029
0.0074
0.0425
C02 Particulate*
W (g/scm)
1.8 1.5698
1.8 0.1128
0.2 5.8352
(gr/scf)
0.6860
0.0493
2.5500
^Corrected to 12% C0:
220
-------
00
•^
CO
CN|
-3-
r^
r-.
CN
•
vO
r-.
in
ON
O
rH
rH
in
a
cN
CN
01
f
^
CN
in
m
CM
CM
F--
CN
CM
CO
0
CO
rH
O
0>
CN
CM
CN
0
M
O
O
H
O
o>
r-
CN
0
CN
,0
OC
o
r-t
rH
CM
m
CO
Oi
rn
v£
i—
CM
CO
CO
CO
ex.
CT
c
r-
o
CO
CM
CM
rH
5
ON
O
rH
m
?
cc
c
CO
in
r-*.
-3-
"
ro
CO
o
in
CO
CO
m
rO
m
ro
u"
r^
CM
CN
0"
o
°^
on
CM
o
CT\
CM
CO
O
m
CO
o
CN
00
CN
O
J-
1
O
1—
00
^
o
4.
r> n
^r* (•
W 2
.
rjj c
3 >
"— ^ T—
C_2 iH
^
% 5
PH g
o
4-1
tO
i £
i QJ
* 4-1
< G
rH
W ^
CO
C Ul
•H tO
— 0
O) M-l
M 0
3
Ul >i
01 U) 4-1
U Ol -H
M M >
3 £X to
O Vj
Ul U O
H
C t-i 0
O 4J -H
•H Ol H Vl 0)
ifl g tO CX
Q w m ui
. ,
•
V-4
J2
U)
rH
in
01
cr>
c
•H
73
Q
01
4-1
rO
rH
•H
.
J3
rH
^
^^
•
x:
•
Ul
JQ
rH
EH . —
ca .• -a
— M nj
, ,
s
p !
fe
in
C
O
•H
4J
C
O
U
y
O
rfl
4J
co
•G o ^
0) ^^ lj tN 4-1
3D 4J to
rH EH g <
tO CQ rO E-i
> — 01 <
Ol 4J Q
CP4-I 4-1 U)
ra
Ul
D
,—4
to
o
o
to a :s
oi a. >-)
M rO &-
rH . M
to n> o) ui
O H > <
O CQ < O
t4_|
— >1
4J
ro -H
01 U
VH O
< -H
0)
y ^>
O •
tfl Oi
4-1 >
Ul <
CO
CO
u-
^^
S
U
Ul
C
O
•H
4-1
-H
•a
c
0
o
y
U
nj
4J
Ul
^-^
S
fc,
U
U)
in
C
O
•H
4-1
-a
o
u
, — .
fc, TD
o VH
— rfl
-a
U C
M tfl
3 4J
4-1 Ul
u
g
—
rf
r-H
Pt)
Q
^
O
M
Ul
Ul
H
•£
rd W
4J VH 4-1
rfl Ol to U
a H
01 g 01 <
4-1 01 4-1 ^)
rO EH ifl [D
CEJ Q* rj
^ M
303 EH
O fO O «
rH 4J rH <
t, ui t, a.
u
Ol
4-1
O
CU
rH
rH
O
U
0>
4-1
tO
rH
3
O
H
4-1
10
Ol
rH
Ifl
4J
O
*~-
U
C/3
- — -
•
rrj
•
•a
CO
4-1
ro
T3
QJ
rH
a
g
Ifl
Ul
Ul
10
o
M
Q
01
g
3
rH
O
1-1
^
U
Ul
^"""
•
("0
J^
o
£_)
1
4J
Ifl
•a
OJ
rH
a,
g
to
Ul
M
O
a.
tO
^i
01
4J
to
s
01
9
rH
O
"
^-s
[•TI
O
Ul
»^
13
g
U
•.
W
4->
Ifl
Ol
g
3
rH
0
•o
,_,
LT)
1
o
H
^^
0,
Cu U
U Ul
Ul \
\ •
•
VH
O
c
o
4-1
rO
M
4-1
fi
01
O
C
o
u
rH 0>
CX4J
g 10
rO
Ul
rH
rO
4-1
O
rH
3
O
•H
4J
VH
ra
Ul
S3
rH
C
O
;H
4-1
tO
M
4-1
C
01
0
0
u
01
4J
rO
^H
3
U
-H
4-1
VJ
10
Cu
^-^
V4
\
Ul
JQ
rH
01
4-1
rfl
$£
C
O
H
in
Ul
•H
g
W
01
4-1
tO
rH
3
0
• H
4J
v^
rO
, — .
D
rn
to
o
rH
\
Ul
r\
rH
0>
4-1
rO
DH
C
O
•H
Ul
QJ t
o, a
I
a
^
4-J
a
QJ
a
o
cc
4-1
O
^
*
^o
o
o
1—
c
&-S
c
1
"
o
•H
4-1
QJ
•H
O
U)
^
fr-S
G
£
Q)
rH
cO
&.
QJ
U
U
<*
^
-K
utes
4J
4-1
G
cc
r-
a
o
4-1
QJ
rH
C ccj
•H 3
3
m c
CM
in
!-M
0
r-
ct
0
4_t
CC
OJ
3
-H
U
4_l
CO
QJ
H
•K
-K
•K
?~>
QJ
G
O
4-1
CO
t-4
QJ
P.
o
14-4
O
c
o
•H
4-1
'a
c
o
CJ
C
4J
4-
P
c
n
4-1
n
a
,G
4_
C
o
s-
c
J_l
Q
r-
(^
U-l
o
"O
p3
CO
g
QJ
Of
5
4-J
cd
QJ
J^
n
4-
JL
jl
C
-------
00
CO
c
o
S> £
0 o
a *> 7:
0 „ C r
, o Od r-
8"*£
g £8
^ -= m _
o 5 ** «
i® 0 «
t— s: 2 uo •*.
gs6 c -
1 * S P? ;
§.§ §
W OJ X -—
•pia| -^i
"3§ •
S-3S (j)
b.'jL' *** L
1 ""
»r a
»c -~
J» r-
J*
oc
r^
^ 5
C r-
P-J r-
00
r-.
~ N cS
T3 C rH
<1J 3 *~~
^
•H
•^ oo
C r-
Q rH --..
^~^
•
O
1
<^
W '~"v
H- ] c
PQ 4-
s
a)
r~
aj
v— '
03
C
o
•H
cd
C
rJ
a)
(H
rH
0)
3
o
o
pi r-
g
LJ OJ
m "^ P
O u CN
CD TH
H«H
U
q
£* CN
0) TH
-H O
QJ CO
W
C.
U~l
> CO
aj r—
rH •
iH QO
W
U
£
CO
QJ •
iH 00
iH CN
CU
CN
CO
CN
CN
00
CN
o
o^ o>
rs) >>D
TH ^O
o CN
o <±
-TH ***
uO ON
^C CO
vO LTl
r-- (H
0
CN r
cn
LO
rH
o
f,
rH
l~-
O
en
^
ON
CO
^
CO
•£j
^
5
o
00
CM
O
O
m
o
en
o
o
m
cn
O
O
rH
O
n
3
c^ »n
^P
J
0
CM
O
O
CO
o>
o
o
cn
en
0
0
t
r
LP|
^H
^
QJ ^ \4 H —
J-( O D CQ .• T3
D Q — - *-» ta
^-^
2
P-)
[M —
— s
CM
in U
C * "
o
-H in
•P C
rH 0
TD -H
C P
O -H
CJ t)
c
A; o
0 O
•p *i
in o
in >i -Go '— *0
QJ in -U QJ d) \ J CNJ -(J 4-J
U 0) -M 4-1 a -D 4-
V-i M > rtf •— t H £ • ^-" (1) t/) a
cnUfflfO:? 12 i-
o-u-r-tv)(ija.aj o<
HCU^O^CCCn ,-1
in 6 H M nj Uj -v
cn O O ^ ^t - n c
HV-tQJiTjn3D <^-t-
j
, — ,
2£
En
U
- —
w
c
0
•H
-p
-H
T3
c
o
U
j-j 'O
0 U
- — n3
'd
QJ C
M nj
^ -u
jj LO
IT)
CJ
in
^~^ —
CM
u _j "^
cn TJ CM
— ' CJ L)
o] in
• C_J( ' — •
C •) • Cn O M o
o rd'O
^~ U! 4-1 C
cn irt O
e •
— -o
4J
-a in
o
O in -C rH
cn ^\ *\ ^x
~~x - • •
• 10 in in
-P M J3 XI .Q —
rrjj .
a) -a -PI
rH P rH <
< c_ in CM a,
-p-ptDiolccaiiua)
On)r-H OO-P-PrH
QJ CX-PrH--Hrrir(3Q.
rHT3£irjjJ~J-)|-t;«E
rH 1) rO (fl rg rd
o>-CCH-H OOEEC
3iB tJCJUWrM'rH u
U O U OJ .V p
H QJrHQJflJQJlDO t-
P^J-ia-P-P-P-PW K
IflQSrcJrHrHrHrH *?
di W3333-P ^
ma) uouuc f-:
^HEErHrHHrHHH) J1-
fd33rri-Pi-JPPrj ^>
PrHrHPi-ljHlHMM ^
OOOQecJrJtx3n3rj ^
[H > > E-i a, n, n, ci, CK *>
Q)
4J
O
C
13
0)
^J
U
cO
4-1
03
QJ
CO
Crt
•K
•a
a)
C
o
o
222
-------
C
o
5
Q.
>, J
^ OJ cn
F ~~ *o
^ £ 1
g B o
W lO C
CO OJ ^
H5
H
U)
n
•
-,
•n
0)
3
c
•H
C
0
a
N /
•
O
Csl
1
W t
j-i S
CP a
^ *"
H S
c.
C
K
^x
01
•"
a
^
"7
c
o
-r~
_
p
^4
0)
p
M
, — j
CN 0)
S
U-< rX
O 0
o
CM r/t
OJ
00
fcj
..
03
o
>->
CT>
£
pi
CO
^5
^
e
3i
— -
"
a
c
CO r—
r^-.
~^~- r*
CN i—
•^, r-
r>. a
^
u
C
00 M
^"- r*
rH OJ
CM t—
•-^, r—
r-- a
L
H >
•M aj
•^ rH
0)
—
"
o
CT\
CN
O
O^
CN
O
CM
-—
~
o
00
CN
CO
CM
CO
CN
CO
OO
CN
"
—
~
—
~"
- - -
LO
CN
rH
rH
rH
O
o
' '
-i 0^
1 CO
cr>
"
v£)
ro
t^
^-j.
QJ
x cc: 4->
to
• in QJ --^
tn QJ EH
C 01 .£)
•H rd CT1 -H
~ 0 C \
-H H3
. — .
*
M
x:
-x^
•
in
^Q
rH
- —
QJ M-l M H ,— ,
iH O D CQ • T3
D Q — ^ rd
. — ,
g
[n ~—*
— S!
[L.
10 U
C """"
o
H1 in i
-P C
•^ 0
*"O H
C JJ
O H
U T3
C
.V O
u o
-t-1 ^
to u
en >i -^ O — . fd
QJ t/1 4-1 QJ QJ ^\ t— 3 OJ -P -P
UQJ-H4-J3O -PrOtO
V-t V< £> n3 « — Ifn^ -— aj <
to U O fOJ -P Q 't
H tP 4~> 4-> tO a
c ^ u fd fd 3 u v
O P H m QJ QJ QJ O *'-
rHOJ^M^D^CCr1 r-J
LT) E H M fd [ij J^
J tfi O U rH rH - H Ll
JHi-lQjrdtimd) CQ-l
~— * rd
T3
QJ C
h fd
P -P
-P CO
^ ro
- >, jj l-i jj
-U rfl 01 rri
-H 0,
o a) £ a)
O 4J 0) i->
• — \ fT3 EH ^
(U « n;
> >;
•5U3
tr* O ^ O
> ^H P ' H
< L, to fu
r
ON
o
rH
CM
O
O
c^
CO
1
J
^
O
o
CO
o
o
Q^
1O
vo
CN
in
CO
O
^j.
00
o
CO
vC
O
00
in
&
!~~
o
ON
^
en
Cn
o
w
, — . "• — *
fn
u •,—
" q U
d to
c
o
' — CJ
^
l
o
rH
X
_
_
"
f_,
CQ
i • U< O M o
TS T3
-H C
Cn toj o
e •
— ID
<
EH
<£
Q
2
O
M
^
w
w
^
^
o
M
P:
c".
'U U J
QJ
-P -P
u fd
CJ
U IS) £. -H
CO v\ ^\ ^v
^\ • • •
- to in (/)
•p M xi ja ja —
n3 • tr1 ' — i ' — I ' — f &P
tlj co( C c^ Q) Q) Q)
r-t O O -P -P <-\
QJ Q., 4_J H~ ,-H rd rd Q-
i — 1 rO £ rd -M -P OH D£ £
i — ( QJ fd fd fd fd
QI — 1 CO QJ M M C C to
o a E-P-Poo ,
fd rd > c: c H H ooeec
D n3 'OOOtJ-lW-'H ^
O O l-( QJ ^ £
H OJ r— ( QJ QJ QJ QJ O ^
rO Q ^5 fTj rH -H .H .H **
a, to 3 3 2 D 4J ^
Q) QJ U U U U C $~.
rH e g rH H H H H QJ £
3;5rH3ii£t!u" ^
„ < > > e < Qv a, a, ex, a< ^
^
C
C
O
O
223
-------
(U
3
C
•H
4-1
C
O
O
O
OJ
I
w
r^l
00
cd
Pu
1
0
6
CO
0)
-
rH
3
O
4-1
r<
p
0)
4J
C
iH
rH
(U
s
^
O
O
ftf
i*
o
c
r
c
c
0
r~
x,
c
a
a
r-
*v
c-
a
a
r-
CN
-> in
^
00
D \C
•^
D "-
•a-
- o
^ -j
"> N
SJ
n
TI
H
N
5
M
H
CO CO
ir r^
CNl
r- r-
co r-.
CO
in n"
^0 O
cr co
Ln CN
•si r^
-n 4H — '
ON 0)
X A -P
• 01 01 "
0] QJ EH •
cm j^
-H nj crirH
—- O C \
-H 3
^j
M
4_t
OO
4-1
CO
(U
,_^
•
M
s:
.
in
£t
rH
0) MH >H EH „
M O 3 ttl .• 13
•3 Q — £ ra-
, — .
s
0.
- — S
fjn
in U
c
o
-H 01
4J C
H O
•a -H
C 4J
O -H
U TD
c -
>; o &
U O o
id ~-
i/i u a
in >i -CQ •— -l M > CO rH E-< E <**-
o ^ > — < 4-
u: en c/i o u cr>
r--
O
CM
;*
0
in
o
iH
Q
o
a\
-K
m
a>
*
c^
rH
CT>
;
m
m
o>
0
0
-n
n
n
o
r— )
W
,
ID
B
crj
. — .
T3| ^. &H -, P Vj 4J t
4J id CD rd W r-
! H O, E-1 4-
) U 0) g 0) < »-
O 4-> 0) 4J ij it
. rH id EH it! Da
a) « a: u
• 3 U 3 EH it
UN O ItJ O K 4-
> rH P rH < C
<£ Cij t/) Cn tx t
•J -t-1 fl) t/j C C QJ ooeec v t-
J O M D ^ p ^
i eUrHdJOiOJiuo Jr ^
OSfOrHrHrHrH < %
, L033334J >-: c
OJCU OOUOC J- c.
r^rHpt^^t!^" ^
OOO1^'Xif^rOQJ y
>>HOJQJOiCX({i,
T3
(U
M C
"H
C 4J
3 C
«. Q
! /T
U
**»^
rH
C
3
ctf
o
rH
3
CTi
3
CO
3
Oi
^
s
3
rt
224
-------
g
I
s ^
Its
f a? 8
p*
g 5 §
§ 2 co"
l/i U} £
> it 3 E
>-> O 0 M
m c-o
CO CO
l_t
jCj-
o •
-jj kf
r1
TJ \.
QJ -
*-l 10
VJ O
QJ --H
„ — , MH --'
Cn OJ
en
• in QJ -— -
in iH ^-
0 O
1-1 n
, ,
s
a,
— S
D_,
en U
C ~
O
H in
-U C
T3 -H
C 4-1
0 H
o -a
c
^ o
o o
~o
CNl
O 00
O CO
C-J
f
S
fi ,
U
CO
- —
in
C
O
-H
4-1
C
0
CJ
j-< t3
V-i
rO — fcl
4-> X
CO O
in >i -Co -— fO
tn -U QJ cu \ tj oj -U4J
4Jn3(_o
V-j>rfliHE-t£ sC1-!-.
CUr^QCfOrnn] fr1""
M > — OJ Q m
H cr> JJ -P c/i a.
u u ra ra D 3: ^
4_J rH CO UJ Qj QJ O *~S
x c en vj
EH n nj u. .^
O O rH rH . M C
^GJr^ftfOdl c/)n:
TjQ-OOH> -cCJ-1
ratnuoc3< O -0
TD
0) C
-i nj
a 4-1
tJ CO
,-H
- CO
si CM
H
.H
tH ON
l«
^_i
o • —
• £j CJ
d co
* ui % — '
T3
c
(J
— CJ
rH
CSJ
o m
o -T
^D
1
o
1-1
X
rh
m
,.— ,
^
^3
[IH
ca
. „ . — .
— Cti -^0
^ • Cu U M o
T^ TJ
-M C
Cn co! o
e •
4J
a
i 4J 1-1 4J C
4-J fd CD cd co H
-HO, H 4J
U CD £ Q) ^C V-
O 4J OJ 4-1 >J a
*— i cd £-< cd 3 tx
0) CS « U
"> ^ M ~<
• 3 O 3 H t
Cn o id o cd 4J
> ,--( 4J -H <; o
< Du in fu Cu L-i
J
J JJ
O
u to x: ^
in ^x. ^« \.
x, . . «
• in in tn
-P M J3 _Q J3 —
n3 . O"i i — i i — 1 i — \ dp
•°^
aj o^ c c OJ OO£Gc ^
(13 'OOOWW-H ^
O M QJ X — QJ
aj--H(Ud)QjaJO c >-
X-ua-UjJ^J-Pm ^ -5
V^rQErtin3nifTJM 2 _™
Q^r^rH. — (• — I rH ^ o
LOPD^JD-tJ ^ OJ
QJQJ OUUUC •- °
§rM,HHHH(i> ^ y
rd-i-J-iJJ-J-LJU ^- ^
^Hr— (4JMMl-lWiH ^
OOO|t)ftIrO<^CU ^~
>>t-«^C^CVi(XC^ ^
j
1
_ !
o-
r—
a
225
-------
3 4 567891
1 0 10
PARTICLE SIZE D, MICRONS
1 0
• 8/18/78
O 8/21/78
A 8/24/78
• 8/25/78
A 8/22/78
D 8/24/78
Figure A-3. Particulate size distribution of stack emissions at Marysville
facility during August.
226
-------
TABLE A-21. MARYSVILLE HOURLY AVERAGES OF STACK GAS COMPOSITION
NDIR monitor
Date
04/25
04/26
04/27
04/28
07/17
Time
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
0800
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
?100
2200
2300
2400
(ppm)
44
22
39
32
45
50
53
29
47
70
37
35
59
>1000
140
63
84
57
47
53
>1000
56
47
46
>1000
319
CO
(mg/m3)
51
26
45
37
52
58
61
34
55
81
43
41
68
>1160
162
73
97
66
55
61
>1160
65
55
53
53
> 1160
370
02
(%)
12.6
12.9
13.6
13.7
14.7
13.4
14.4
17.8
17.5
17.2
13.5
15.2
13.9
12.2
14.9
15.2
12.5
12.9
10.7
13.0
12.2
13.8
13.4
15.3
14.2
11.3
18.5
13.9
14.1
13.9
14.8
15.2
14.5
16.3
17.2
(ppm)
36
42
28
33
25
28
23
>5
>5
10
33
13
19
57
40
18
100
53
57
40
34
39
45
21
32
23
20
35
33
35
35
28
33
23
16
Tri-gas monitor
NO
X
(mg/m3)
69
80
53
63
48
53
44
<10
<10
19
63
25
36
109
76
34
191
101
109
76
65
74
86
40
61
44
38
67
63
67
67
53
63
44
31
(ppm)
5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
14
14
<5
5
<5
<5
<5
28
22
25
23
30
17
15
15
17
12
SO
X
(mg/m3)
13
13
13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
37
37
<13
13
<13
<13
<13
74
59
67
61
80
45
40
40
45
32
227
Continued
-------
TABLE A-21. (continued)
NDIR monitor
Date Time
07/18 0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
07/19 1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
07/20 0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
0800
0900
(ppm)
248
163
81
25
22
19
126
>1000
>1000
>1000
56
41
50
>1000
100
95
>1000
>1000
>1000
436
324
249
286
214
411
203
29
CO
(mg/m3)
288
189
94
29
26
22
146
>1160
>1160
>1160
65
48
58
>1160
116
110
>1160
>1160
>1160
506
376
289
332
248
477
235
34
02
(%)
17.3
17.6
17.8
18.1
18.3
18.6
16.9
13.9
13.3
13.9
14.0
9.9
12.6
15.5
11.6
13.8
12.4
13.8
11.8
15.1
13.3
13.9
12.9
14.7
13.1
13.5
16.2
17.4
17.7
17.6
17.4
17.4
17.6
17.6
15.2
6.8
5.4
(ppm)
11
9
8
7
6
6
22
19
92
75
49
125
46
25
68
80
57
63
66
50
48
50
60
48
63
64
35
19
15
12
12
11
9
8
21
21
29
Tri-gas monitor
NO
X
(mg/m3)
21
17
15
13
11
11
42
36
176
143
94
239
88
48
130
153
109
120
126
96
92
96
115
92
120
122
67
36
29
23
23
21
17
15
40
40
55
(ppm)
9
9
8
7
6
6
14
20
31
21
9
11
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
5
5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
SO
X
(mg/m3)
24
24
21
19
16
16
37
53
82
56
24
29
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
13
13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
Continued
228
-------
TABLE A-21. (continued)
NDIR monitor
Date
07/20
07/21
08/21
Time
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
0800
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
(ppm)
49
71
61
17
53
58
32
34
31
28
39
22
20
18
21
23
23
27
3]
126
57
44
139
214
72
94
37
32
171
33
18
119
CO
(mg/m3)
57
82
71
20
61
67
37
39
36
32
45
26
23
21
24
27
27
31
36
146
66
51
161
248
84
109
43
37
198
38
21
138
02
11.2
12.8
11.7
11.0
12.1
5.9
7.4
13.3
13.6
14.1
14.3
12.0
13.7
15.7
16.6
16.8
16.8
16.9
17.0
17.2
17.3
14.8
15.2
14.1
11.9
13.0
13.6
11.9
13.9
13.8
14.1
13.2
15.7
17.3
16.3
17.4
17.5
16.4
Tri-gas monitor
NO
X
(ppm)
47
50
57
80
65
30
8
19
18
16
11
17
18
8
8
6
6
6
6
6
6
8
16
12
25
18
16
24
14
40
48
51
23
7
15
9
5
9
(mg/m3)
90
96
109
153
124
57
15
36
34
31
21
32
34
15
15
11
11
11
11
11
11
15
31
23
48
34
31
46
27
76
92
97
44
13
29
17
10
17
SO
X
(ppm) (mg/m3)
6 16
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
5 13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
8 21
<5 <13
5 13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
Continued
229
-------
TABLE A-21. (continued)
NDIR monitor
Date
08/21
08/22
08/23
Time
2300
2400
0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0800
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2300
2400
0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
0800
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
(ppm)
99
15
11
7
9
9
52
25
100
73
54
53
107
86
248
253
25
106
15
33
60
97
181
313
229
229
251
237
225
233
320
60
35
30
21
20
23
36
CO
(mg/m3)
115
17
13
8
10
10
60
29
116
85
63
61
124
100
287
293
29
123
17
38
70
113
210
363
266
266
291
275
261
270
371
70
41
35
24
23
27
42
02
(%)
16.1
17.1
18.4
18.5
18.8
19.1
16.5
14.6
13.9
14.9
16.0
18.1
17.8
15.9
15.8
18.3
17.6
19.2
19.4
19.4
19.7
19.8
20.1
20.1
20.0
19.9
19.8
20.0
20.3
17.6
15.5
13.9
13.7
16.0
13.9
13.5
12.4
Tri-gas monitor
NO
X
(ppm)
16
12
6
4
1
0
15
15
30
40
47
23
9
15
21
25
11
15
9
5
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
15
31
38
42
22
57
54
68
(mg/m3)
31
23
11
8
2
0
29
29
57
76
90
44
17
29
40
48
21
29
17
10
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
29
59
73
80
42
109
103
130
SO
X
(ppm) (mg/m3)
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 16
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
13 36
7 19
5 13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
5 13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
<5 <13
5 33
6 16
230
-------
TABLE A-21. (continued)
NDIR monitor
Date
08/23
08/24
08/25
Time
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
0800
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
2300
2400
0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
0800
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
(ppm)
16
20
31
17
15
24
16
15
26
76
124
139
139
138
137
138
242
150
50
65
148
149
79
18
19
48
33
22
38
10
10
19
53
107
146
152
154
160
154
304
128
139
135
112
64
74
CO
(mg/m3)
19
23
36
20
17
29
19
17
30
88
144
161
161
160
160
160
281
174
58
75
172
173
92
21
22
56
38
26
44
12
12
22
61
124
162
176
179
186
179
353
148
161
157
130
74
86
02
15.4
17.9
16.2
17.9
18.2
17.3
18.0
18.9
19.0
20.6
19.9
20.1
20.3
20.3
20.3
20.4
20.0
16.5
14.4
16.1
17.2
14.8
13.6
12.8
14.7
17.8
17.9
18.0
17.8
18.1
18.4
18.6
19.0
19.5
19.6
19.7
19.8
19.8
19.8
17.7
16.4
13.0
14.6
15.3
16.7
14.3
(ppm)
35
14
20
11
8
12
11
6
6
3
0
0
3
3
1
0
0
20
36
22
19
42
60
66
49
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
15
34
75
38
28
18
5
Tri-gas monitor
NO
X
(mg/m3)
67
27
38
21
15
23
21
11
0
6
0
0
6
6
2
0
0
38
69
42
36
80
115
126
94
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
29
65
143
73
53
34
10
(ppm)
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
7
6
5
9
10
12
7
6
6
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
7
16
21
12
7
6
7
SO
X
(mg/m3)
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
19
16
13
24
27
32
19
16
16
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
<13
19
43
56
32
19
16
19
231
-------
TABLE A-22. MARYSVILLE BOILER STACK GASEOUS MISSION DATA*
Chlorides
Date
04/26
04/27
04/28
07/17
07/18
07/19
07/19
07/20
07/21
08/18
08/21
08/24
08/24
08/24
08/25
08/25
Average
Standard
Deviation
(mg/mj)
23,0
13.0
5.8
9.3
130.5
20.1
101.4
73.8
136.4
31.7
8.8
4.2
10.1
9-2
5.5
10.3
37.1
a = 44.7
(ppm)
15.9
9.0
4.0
6.4
90.0
14.2
70.0
50.9
94.1
21.9
6.1
2.9
7.0
6.4
3.8
7.1
25.6
a
Fluorides
(mg/nr1 )
0.5
0.2
0.7
0.3
2.0
0.5
1.1
0.6
1.0
1.1
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.7
0.9
= 0.5
(ppm)
0.6
0.3
0.9
0.3
2.6
0.7
1.4
0.7
1.3
1.4
0.9
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.1
NO
(mg/nr1 )
157.3
93.3
156.6
195.6
217.4
220.3
173.4
a = 43.9
x SO,
(ppm) (mg/m3 )
130.4
135.1
123.3
64.2
91.1
66.1
50.7
83.7 41.3
49.7 45.4
71.7
44.5
83.3 56.6
104.1 42.9
62.9
115.6 45.5
117.2 62.8
92.3 70.9
a = 30.9
c
(ppm)
19.8
51.6
47.1
24.5
34.8
25.2
19.4
15.8
17.3
27.4
17.0
20.1
16.4
24.0
17.4
24.0
27.1
*Using wet chemistry techniques.
232
-------
TABLE A-23. MARYSVILLE BOILER STACK GASEOUS EMISSION DATA DURING BURNDOWN*
Chlorides
Florides
NO,
Date (mg/m^) (ppm) (mg/rn^) (ppm) (mg/m^) (ppm) (mg/m^) (ppm)
08/22
08/22
08/22
08/23
08/23
08/23
0.9
1.7
0.1
0.3
0.1
2.3
0.6
1.2
0.1
0.2
0.1
1.6
2.3
1.6
0.2
<0.2
0.6
2.9
2.1
0.3
<0.2
0.8
26.2
73.8
2.6
40.4 21.5 17.8
551.8
10.0
28.2
1.0
6.8
210.8
*Using wet chemistry techniques on impinger solutions.
233
-------
TABLE A-24. MARYSVILLE TOTAL HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS
Date
4/24
4/26
4/28
7/17
7/18
Time
1400
1500
1600
1630
1400
1410
1420
1430
1440
1500
1520
1540
1600
1630
0800
0900
1000
1500
1600
1630
1700
0910
Total
hydrocarbons
(ppm) Date
62.3 7/20
69.2
24.2
10.4
5.1 7/21
2.0
3.7
2.7
1.6
2.9 8/21
1.8
1.2
5.9
1.2
1.9
3.0
1.7 8/21*
44.0 8/22*
94.0
10.0
24.0 8/24
260.0
8/25
Time
1345
1347
1355
1515
0926
0927
0928
0942
0947
1046
1048
1050
1052
1054
1100
1108
2320
0040
0432
2320
1135
1138
0722
1335
Total
hydrocarbons
(ppm)
47.0
9.0
137.0
52.0
899.0
807.0
624.0
440.0
936.0
34.0
134.0
104.0
81.0
31.0
10.0
6.0
26.0
1.0
4.0
30.0
30.0
43.0
19.0
10.0
Average
121.1
* during burndown period
23A
-------
CO
I—I
CO
O
PQ
&
<
CJ
O
oi
Q
>-l
ffi
CO
U
H
CO
w
CO
LA
CNJ
I
W
-------
APPENDIX B
CALCULATIONS
236
-------
CALCULATION B-l. VOLUME AND WEIGHT REDUCTION OF OCTOBER
REFUSE AT NORTH LITTLE ROCK
Data Input
1. As-received weight of refuse burned = 450,000 Ib
2. Refuse density = 165 lb/yd3
3. Average refuse moisture = 22%
4, Residue wet weight - 202,460 Ib
5. Residue density (wet basis) = 1,510 lb/yd3
6. Residue moisture = 32.5%
7. Combustible percent residue
(wet basis) = 5.9%
8. Inert percent of residue
(wet basis) = 61.7%
9. Small fraction percent of residue = 69.0%
10. Percent (dry basis) of combustibles
in residue small fraction = 12.7%
11. As-received percent of inerts in refuse = 24.5%
Calculations
1. Volume of residue (V ):
V = 202,460 lb/1510 lb/yd3 = 134 yd;
2. Volume of refuse (V ):
R
Vn = 450,000 lb/165 lb/yd3 = 2727 yd3
237
-------
CALCULATION B-l. (continued)
3. Volume reduction of refuse (R ):
v
R = 1 - V /V = 1 - 134/2727 = 0.95
v r K
4. Weight reduction of refuse (R ):
u • D i 202,400 (1 - .325) n ,,
Dry basis: RW - 1 - 450^00 (1 - .22) = °'61
Wet basis: R = 1 - = Q.55
238
-------
CALCULATION B-2. TOTAL HEATING VALUE OF OCTOBER RESIDUE
AT NORTH LITTLE ROCK
SYSTECH Data Calculation
1. Residue wet weight
2. Moisture in residue
3. Residue dry weight
4. Small fraction in
residue
5. Combustibles in
residue
202,000 Ib
32.5% (202,000 Ib) = 65,650 Ib
202,000 Ib -.65,650 Ib = 136,350 Ib
69% (136,350 Ib) = 94,082 Ib
12.7% (94,082 Ib) = 11,948 Ib
Commercial Laboratory Data Calculation
1. Small fraction in
residue
2. Btu/lb of small fraction
(average)
3. Heating value
94,082 Ib
1363 Btu
94,082 Ib (1363 Btu/lb)
128 MBtu
239
-------
CALCULATION B-3. NORTH LITTLE ROCK OCTOBER MASS FLOW RATES
1. Data from Field Tests
Average stack flow rate (V ) = 22,860 ACFM
s
C02 in stack C02(s) = 4.4%
C02 in boiler C02(B) = 9.5%
Average temperature of stack gases = 286° F
Average temperature of boiler
gases T.v = 450° F
Average temperature of ambient
air T = 66° F
2. To calculate aspirator (V ) and combustion (V ) fans:
A Jj
% COa(A) (V.) + %C02(B) (V..) = %C02(S) (V,)
A jj ^
3. To calculate mass flow rate of stack gases:
(Ib/min)
IXV-L T HUU^
where
R = 0.7302 at"*' ft0p gas constant
mole., R 6
Ib
P = 1 atm.
T = temperature °F
M = molecular weight of gas
V = % concentration (by volume) x ^ (ACFM)
_L \J\J -X.
V - total gas flow rate at boiler, aspirator, or stack
X
240
-------
CALCULATION B-4. MARYSVILLE MASS BALANCE JULY TEST
1. Refuse Input
From tables in text 28.28 tons
2. Quench Water Input
gallons from data sheets
4387 gal x 8.34 Ib/gal = 18.3 tons
3. Natural Gas Input „_ .
12 MCF @ 20 psig x .045 —§• x ZU 7". ^ = .64 ton
it _L^f • /
4. Air Flow in by Difference 323 tons
5. Residue Out
From tables in text 1 ton
6. Flue Gas Out
Heat recovery 369 tons
Burndown 197 tons
241
-------
CALCULATION B-5. NORTH LITTLE ROCK ENERGY LOSSES
1. Refuse Input
From Table 10 in text 2150 MBtu
2 . Natural Gas Input
14. /
3. Electricity Input
Measured in previous tests,
40 Btu/lb of refuse fired as received x 450,000 Ib = 18 MBtu
4. Flue Gas Losses
Q = M C (AT) = 832 MBtu
M = masses obtained from mass balance
C = specific heat for each component used
5. R/C Losses
From Calculation B-ll. 0.82 MBtu
6. Residue losses
From Table 12 in test
1 ton @ 5.9% C = .059 ton of carbon
14.500 Btu/lb x .059 = 1.71 MBtu
7. Steam output
From steam recorder integrator
977,000 Ib x 1183 Btu/lb = 1159 MBtu
242
-------
CALCULATION B-6. MARYSVILLE JULY ENERGY BALANCE-
1. Refuse Energy Input
Wood: 37,401 Ib x 7,700 Btu/lb = 287.9 MBtu
Paper: 14,260 Ib x 7,700 Btu/lb = 109.8 MBtu
2. Natural Gas Input
From field data
12 MCF x 14.7 FBia+20 psig
Electricity Input
From computer program
57 Btu/lb of waste fired as received
57 Btu/lb x 55,560 Ib = 3.2 MBtu
4, Burndown losses
From Calculation B-12
R/C losses: 530,057 Btu/hr x 40 hr = 21.2 MBtu
Stack heat loss: 10.64 MBtu/cycle x 5 cycles = 53.2 MBtu
74.4 MBtu
5. Residue losses
From Table 48 in the text
1 ton @ 2.75% C = .0275 ton of carbon
14,500 Btu/lb x .0275 = .79 MBtu
6. Flue gas losses
From computer program of ASME codes 102 MBtu
7. Hot water out
148 MBtu during test period adjusted to 142 MBtu after
calibrating meter
243
-------
CALCULATION B-6. (continued)
8. Radiation and convection losses
From Calculation B-12
730,000 Btu/hr x 75.38 hr = 55 MBtu
9. Time
From field data
75.38 hr for heat recovery
44.62 hr for burndown
120.00 hr
244
-------
CALCULATION B-7. NORTH LITTLE ROCK OCTOBER WATER BALANCE
Moisture H20 (Ib)
1. Moisture in refuse
From Tables 4 and 5 in the text
450,000 Ib x .22 percent moisture = 99,000 Ib
2. Moisture in combustion air from aspirator and
blower as calculated in Calculation B-3 51,974 Ib
3. Burning of hydrogen
Hydrogen in refuse from ultimate analysis
Table 8 in the main text
2H2 + 02 + 4H20
19,848 + 8 (19,848) + 173,250 Ib
4. Total 324,224 Ib
5. Measured stack flow
From field data 328,542 Ib
245
-------
CALCULATION B-8. MARYSVILLE JULY WATER BALANCE
Moisture H20 (Ib)
1. Moisture in refuse
From Table 21 in text 4,830
2. Moisture in combustion air
% by wt x airflow moles/min x time = wt
Airflow by difference
H20 during heat recovery 3,800
H20 during burndown 2,225
3. Water quench spray
Measured from field data 36,580
4. Moisture from hydrogen combination
2H2 + 02 -> 4H20
Wood: 7.082 H x 37,401 Ib = 2,648
Paper: 6.85% H x 14,260 Ib = 977
3,625 Ib H
3625 Ib + 8 (3625 Ib) = 32,624
5. Total 70,059 Ib
6. Measured stack flow
From field data
% H20 x flow rate (moles/min) x M.W. * time = 73,036 Ib
246
-------
CALCULATION B-9. MARYSVILLE BOILER THERMAL EFFICIENCY FOR JULY TEST
FLUE GAS
i = 1400° F
HOT WATER
142 MBtu (meter)
173 MBtu (loss method)
HOT WATER
BOILER
COOL WATER
T2 = 275° F
heat transferred to hot water _ MW (h2 - hi)
where
n =
(ha - hi)
sensible heat in gases
Mg Cp (Ta - T
Mg (HHV)
Mg (NET)
C
P
HHV n
HHV n
Net n
Net n
142 MBtu by Btu meter
= 173 MBtu by loss method balance
700,560 Ib
738,000 Ib
0.26 Btu/lb ° F
142 MBtu
738,000 Ib (0.26 Btu/lb ° F) (1400 - 275)° F
173 MBtu
738,000 Ib (0.26 Btu/lb °F) (1400 - 275)° F
142 MBtu
700,560 Ib (0.26 Btu/lb0 F) (1400 - 275) ° F
173 MBtu
700,560 Ib (0.26 Btu/lb0 F) (1400 - 275) ° F
= 0.66
= 0.80
= 0.69
= 0.84
247
-------
CALCULATION B-10. NORTH LITTLE ROCK BOILER THERMAL EFFICIENCY FOR OCTOBER TEST
FLUE GAS
i = 1800° F
STEAM
= 924 Btu/lb
BOILER
MAKEUP WATER
hi = 38 Btu/lb @ 75° F
T2 = 450°
Mw = 977,000 Ib
n =
heat transferee! to steam
sensible heat in gases
(h;2 - hi)
Mg C (Ta -
where
Mg (HHV)
Mg (NET)
0.27 Btu/lb ° F
4,374,514 Ib
4,018,299 Ib
HHV
977.000 Ib (1174 - 38) Btu/lb
4,314,514 Ib (0.270 Btu/lb ° F) (1800 - 450)° F
= 0.71
NET
977.000 Ib (1174 - 38) Btu/lb
4,018,239 Ib (0.270 Btu/lb0 F) (1800 - 450)° F
= 0.76
248
-------
CALCULATION B-ll. RADIATION AND CONVECTION LOSSES AT
NORTH LITTLE ROCK FACILITY
Object
A3
Au
B3
B4
C3
CM
D3
Du
E
F
G
Description
Primary Combination Chamber
Primary Combination Chamber
Duct
Duct
Secondary Combination Chamber
Secondary Combination Chamber
Duct
Duct
Plenum
Boiler
Aspirator
Qc (Btu/hr)
90,757
94,900
1,316
1,316
5,894
5,894
28,392
30,737
52,814
16,953
32,010
QD (Btu/hr)
K
131,584
137,442
2,305
2,305
10,338
10,338
43,273
47,721
90,366
28,476
51,562
Total
360,983
555,710
249
-------
CALCULATION B-12. RADIATION AND CONVECTION LOSSES AT MARYSVILLE FACILITY
Object
A
B
C
D
E
F
Fi
G
H
Description
Primary Chamber
Duct, Elbow
Duct
Inspirator
Duct
Stack
Duct
Boiler
Duct
QC
64,897
4,215
14,523
14,842
105,627
42,847
11,764
4,578
16,320
QR
95,023
9,608
22,432
21,700
177,190
71,852
19,742
8,375
24,026
250
-------
^ *<^ ««^' co
1
PQ
&
O
M
E-i
J
>5
u
<
4-1
d
•H
O
O.
0)
1
r~i
a.
S
CO
PQ
cu
•H
H
a)
3
4J
nj
^
tlJ
CX
S
cu
H
Pn
o O O
m o o
m oo oo
II II II
.-Q LO
e o .
H H H
0 0
O O
o in
n II
o o
, .
rH CM
— ^ "-^
H H
O O O O
OO 00 ^O CO
S
r-- n M .. ..
\ O N M
H O' U O 13
251
-------
CALCULATION B-13. (continued)
Mass flow at point A
V = (1801)(.4719)(60) = 50,994 £/min
PV = NRT, P = 1 atm
50,994 = N(.08205)(294) = N(24.12)
V _ V _ 50,994
N =
(.08205)(294)
M n , .
Moles/mln
C02:
02:
N2:
H20:
%_ g/mole m/min
.018 x 44 x 2114
.188 x 32 x 2114
.794 x 28 x 2114
.0179 x 18 x 2114
1,674 g/min
12,718 g/min
/
46,998 g/min
618 g/min
221 Ib/hr
1,680 Ib/hr
•*
6,211 Ib/hr
90 Ib/hr
Mass flow at point B
V = (2151) (.4719) (60) = 60,903 £/min
PV = NRT, P = 1 atm
6
N =
24L2"
Moles/min
C02:
02:
N2:
H20:
% g/mole m/min
.018 x 44 x 2525
.188 x 32 x 2525
.794 x 28 x 2525
.0293 x 18 x 2525
1,999 g/min
15,190 g/min
56,136 g/min
1,332 g/min
264 Ib/hr
2,007 Ib/hr
7,418 Ib/hr
175 lb/'hr
9,866 Ib/hr
252
-------
CALCULATION B-13, (continued)
Mass flow at point C
V = (2200) (.4719) (60) = 62,290 £/min
62,290 „,„„ - , .
= o/ m = 2583 moles/mm
Ik, 12
C02:
02:
N2:
H20:
1
.018 x
.188 x
.794 x
,0704 x
g/moles
44
32
28
18
moles/min
x 2583
x 2583
x 2583
x 2583
g/min
2,046
= 15,539
- 57,425
3,273
Ib/hr
270.362
= 2,053.655
= 7,589.241
432.578
Heat loss at point A
Q = MCpAT
C02: 221 x .2015 x 745
02: 1680 x .2191 x 745
N2: 6211 x .2483 x 745
H20: 90 x 1170 Btu/lb @ 274° F
Heat loss at point B
MBtu/hr
.033
.274
1.148
.105
1.561
C02: 264 x
02: 2007 x
N2: 7418 x
.2015
.2191
.2483
x 445
x 445
x 445
.023
.195
.819
H20: 175
1204 Btu/lb
.211
1.25
253
-------
CALCULATION B-13, (continued)
Heat loss at point C
C02:
02:
N2:
H20:
270 x
2053 x
7589 x
432 x
.2015 x
.2191 x
.2483 x
1194
375
375
375
Btu/lb
.202
=- .168
:706
.516
1.412
Total heat loss from stack/period
Q = MCpAT
A x Ihr + B x 5hr + C x 2hr = 1.561 + 6.255 + 2.824
= 10.641 MBtu
Heat loss by R/C see Calculation B-12/period
P.C
A.B
C = 69,112 Btu/hr R = 104,631 Btu/hr
Total/hr
173,743 Btu
C = 134,992 Btu/hr R = 221,322 Btu/hr = 356,314
530,057 Btu
Total/period = 4.24 MBtu = 8 hr x 530,057 Btu
Total/week = 14.88 MBtu/period * 5 periods = 74.4 MBtu
- US GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1979 -311-132/155
UCjl 834
SW-177C
254
------- |