SOLID WASTE AND FIBER RECOVERY DEMON-
STRATION PLANT FOR THE CITY OF FRANKLIN,
OHIO: AN INTERIM REPORT
N. Thomas Neff
A. M. Kinney, Incorporated
Cincinnati, Ohio
1972
DISTRIBUTED BY:
KfiJl
National Technical Information Service
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield Va. 22151
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
4. Title and Subtitle
1. Report No.
EPA-SW-47D.I-72
2.
PB 213 646
5. Report Date
Solid Waste and Fiber Recovery Demonstration Plant for the
City of Franklin, Ohio; An Interim Report
1972
6.
7. Author(s)
N, Thomas Neff
8. Performing Organization Re pi
No.
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
A, M. Kinney, Inc.
Consulting Engineers
Cincinnati, Ohio 45219
10. Project/Task/Work Unit N.
11. XXKSiKac/Grant No.
G06-EC-00194
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
Interim
14.
lit. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts
The Franklin, Ohio, resource recovery demonstration project has elicited widespread
interest, so this interim report was prepared to: (1) present a preliminary analysis
of the solid waste disposal and fiber recovery portions of the project; (2) provide
preliminary data by which others may be guided in evaluating emerging solid waste
disposal and resource recovery technologies. The historical development of this
EPA-sponsored project and a general description and evaluation of the process used
are included. The preliminary plant economics presented are based on construction
costs and the first six months of operation. The plant began functioning in June
1971 and is now in regular operation recovering ferrous metals and paper fibers
which are sold to local industries. The final report is scheduled for submittal to
EPA in February 1973.
17. tCey Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors
*Refuse disposal, *Materials recovery, Incinerators--refuse disposal, Size reduction
(comminution), Wet mills, Magnetic separators, *Reclamation—salvage, Sludge disposal
| I b Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms
(
*Solid waste disposal, *Resource recovery, Fluid bed incinerator, Solid waste
separation technology, Liquid cyclone separator, Paper fiber recovery system, Sewage
sludge disposal, Franklin (Ohio)
17c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
Release to public *
t -l-
, IIL ,
19. Security Class (This
Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
20. Security Class (This
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
21. No. of Pages
9(7
22. Price
*H
-------
EPA-SW-4'7D.I-72
SOLID WASTE AND FIBER RECOVERY DEMONSTRATION PLANT
FOR THE CITY OF FRANKLIN, OHIO
An Interim Report
This interim report (SW-4?d.i) on work performed under
Federal solid waste management demonstration grant no. G06-EC-00194
to the City of Franklin} Ohio} was written by N. THOMAS NEFF
A. M. Kinneyf Ino.3 Consulting Engineers3 Cincinnati, Ohio
and isi reproduced as received from the grantee.
i •
-If-
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1972
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS SIGNIFICANT TO TEXT MATERIAL
HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED USING A DIFFERENT
r
PRINTING TECHNIQUE AND MAY APPEAR AGAIN IN
THE BACK OF THIS PUBLICATION
-------
This report has been reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency and approved for publication. Approval
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 or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication in the solid waste
management series (SW-47d.i).
-------
FOREWORD
The Franklin, Ohio, project was funded in 1968 to demonstrate an
innovative solid waste disposal technique utilizing wet grinding and
subsequent incineration. Later the scope of the project was expanded
to recycle portions of the solid waste stream. The facility presently
includes the capability to separate ferrous metals and reuseable paper
fibers for recycling prior to disposing of the remaining solid wastes.
Further construction is now in progress which will also add to the
plant the capability to recover color-sorted glass and aluminum. This
pilot plant now represents one of the first resource recovery facilities
in the country, and the project has become one of the most successful
projects ever funded by the solid waste demonstration program.
This small system is a completely unique environmental control
complex which has been toured by visitors from many parts of the world.
The project's contributions to solid waste processing and resource
recovery technology have been immense.
Due to the widespread interest in the project, this report has been
prepared as a preliminary effort to describe and evaluate the first seven
months of plant operation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency project
managers who have followed the development of this project are: R. Kent
Anderson, Dennis A. Huebner, Thomas C. Leslie, Ora E. Smith, and David G.
Arella.
-------
CONTENTS
SECTION
I
II
III
IV
VI
APPENDIX
PAGE
Preface 1
Abstract 4
History and Development of Project 7
Preliminary Operations Analysis 14
A. General Description of Process 14
B. Description and Evaluation of Process Streams 20
C. Operating Problems and Improvements Under Study ... 48
Preliminary Plant Economics 56
A. Construction Costs 56
B. Operating Costs 61
Summary and Conclusions 67
A. Summary 67
B. Conclusions 68
Operating Cost Elements for a 150 Ton Per Day Plant 70
Operating Cost Elements for a 500 Ton Per Day Plant 77
Preceding page blank
vii
-------
ILLUSTRATIONS
Frontispiece
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
Figure 11.
Figure 12.
•figure 13.
Figure 14.
Figure 15.
Figure 16.
Figure 17.
Figure 18.
Figure 19.
Figure 20.
PAGE
Aerial View of Franklin Plant iv
Environmental Control Complex Flow Diagram 9
Receiving Floor 13
Plant Layout 15
Hydrapulper 16
Magnetic Separator and Liquid Cyclone 18
Fluid Bed Reactor , 21
Waste Load Variation 24
Cyclone Rejects and Junk Remover Rejects 26
Cyclone Rejects Analysis 28
Reuseable Paper Fiber Recovered 30
Paper Fiber Being Loaded for Shipment 31
pH of Various Plant Waters 33
Biochemical Oxygen Demand of Various Plant Waters 34
Total Suspended Solids in Various Plant Waters 35
Total Dissolved Solids in Various Plant Waters 36
Settleable Solids in Various Plant Waters .., 37
Total Solids in Ash Slurry 38
Total Volatile Solids in Ash Slurry 39
Proximate Analysis of Reactor Feed 45
Rej ec ts to Landfill 49
viii
-------
SOLID WASTE AND FIBER RECOVERY DEMONSTRATION PLANT
FOR THE CITY OF FRANKLIN, OHIO
An Interim Report
This report was prepared for the
City of Franklin, Ohio, under Grant No. G06-EC-00194
SECTION I - PREFACE
This interim report was prepared in advance of the final demonstration
operations report because of the widespread interest that has been shown in
the Franklin, Ohio, solid waste and fiber recovery plant. Cost data is
reported for the period of June 1 to Dec. 31, 1971, and the operational data
is for the period from May 17, 1971, to Feb. 29, 1972.
This project has been supported by Grants No. 1-D01-UI-00194,
2-G06-EC-00194, and 3-G06-EC-00194-1S1 from the Environmental Protection
Agency, pursuant to the Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended. The plant is now
in regular operation, and the testing and evaluation phase of the project is
in progress. The final report is scheduled for submittal in February 1973.
The plant demonstrates: (1) the "Hydrasposal"* system developed by The
Black Clawson Company for the disposal of essentially unsorted municipal refuse,
in which metals and glass are separated for recycling; and (2) the "Fibreclaim"*
*Copyrighted trademarks of The Black Clawson Company, Middletown, Ohio,
for systems for the disposal of solid wastes and for the recovery of paper
therefrom, covered by various U.S. patents.
-------
process for the recovery of recyclable paper fiber. In addition, raw sludge
from an adjoining sewage treatment plant will be mixed with the organic
residue from the Hydrasposal and Fibreclaim processes and burned in the fluid
bed reactor which is an integral part of the Hydrasposal system.
The solid waste and fiber recovery plant is the first part of a total
environmental control project planned for the City of Franklin. The sewage
treatment plant will receive and treat municipal and industrial waste water
from the Franklin region, thus replacing an obsolete municipal sewage plant
and thereby preventing the discharge of sewage pollutants into a part of the
Great Miami River. This plant, being built by the Miami Conservancy District
with financial assistance from the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Hater Programs, is expected to be operational in July 1972.
In addition to the solid waste plant, a glass recovery system is now
being designed which will take one of the reject streams from the Hydrasposal
system and extract recyclable aluminum and glass cullet. The cullet will be
further sorted into brown, green, and clear colors. This addition is sponsored
jointly by the Glass Container Manufacturers Institute and the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Application has been made for Federal assistance to build an industrial
waste liquids disposal facility which would utilize the fluid bed reactor
portion of the Hydrasposal system to incinerate the collected and blended
wastes during time when the reactor is not being used to incinerate solid
waste. This facility is expected to safely dispose of more than 10,000
gallons per day of oils and solvents, which are now being dumped on the land,
-------
into streams, or are being burned improperly.
The intent of this report is to present a preliminary analysis of the
operation of the solid waste disposal and fiber recovery portions of the
Franklin Total Environmental Control Complex, and to provide preliminary data
by which others may be guided in evaluating emerging technology of solid waste
disposal and resource recovery.
-------
SECTION II - ABSTRACT
Title; System for total refuse disposal by fluid mechanical separation
of solid wastes and fluid bed oxidation of combustibles, and
reclamation of paper fibers.
Grantee; City of Franklin, Ohio
35 East Fourth Street
Franklin, Ohio 45005
Project Director: Bernard F. Eichholz, City Manager
Date Project Started; Sep. 24, 1968
DateProject Ends; Feb. 28, 1973
Objectives; To design, construct, operate, and evaluate a demonstration
plant utilizing an innovative system for disposal of municipal solid waste and
the recovery of metals, glass, and paper fibers therefrom. The system is
designed to receive virtually unsorted refuse and to separate it using a
fluid-mechanical process. Reuseable paper fibers, metals, and noncombustibles
are separated in the process, and the remaining combustible solids are mixed
with sewage sludge from an adjoining sewage treatment plant. This residual
mixture is then burned in a fluid bed reactor.
Procedures; The project has been conducted in three phases—design,
construction, and operation. The first two of these have been completed, and
initial operating data have been obtained.
The initial two-thirds Federal grant, awarded Sep. 24, 1968, encompassed
the design of a facility to receive unsorted municipal refuse, to wet-grind it
into an aqueous slurry using a Hydrapulper, to hydrodynamically remove metals,
glass, and other noncombustibles, and to burn the organic solid residue, along
with raw sewage sludge, in a fluid bed reactor. The City of Franklin retained
-------
A. M. Kinney, Inc., Consulting Engineers, Cincinnati, Ohio, to design the
plant, based on process design data supplied by The Black Clawson Company of
Middletown, Ohio. The one-third matching funds for this phase were supplied
by the City from the sale of bonds.
Before design was completed, an adjunctive process was developed by The
Black Clawson Company which would mechanically separate reclamable paper pulp
fibers from the aqueous slurry prior to its being mixed with the sewage sludge.
Further supplemental grant funds were received to add a method of magnetically
separating ferrous metals from the junk removed from the Hydrapulper. The
one-third matching funds for the fiber reclamation portion of the plant were
reimbursed to the grantee by The Black Clawson Company.
The second phase of the demonstration project was begun on July 24, 1970,
with the award of lump sum contracts for the construction of the solid waste
and fiber recovery plant; and for procurement of the process equipment.
Construction was essentially completed by May 17, 1971, when start-up personnel
reported to the jobsite. The ensuing month was spent in testing, making
operating adjustments, and training personnel. On June 14, 1971, the first
collection trucks were received, and on June 21, 1971, all municipal refuse
was routed to the new plant. The plant has been operating on one shift per
day, five to five-and-a-half days per week since that date, processing 40 to
50 tons per day. The plant is being operated for the City of Franklin under
a contract with Black Clawson Fibreclaim, Inc., a subsidiary of The Black
Clawson Company. The total cost of engineering and construction to this
stage is $1,988,000.
-------
The third phase of the project began with the initial operation of the
plant. The City of Franklin authorized A. M. Kinney, Inc., to obtain physical
and fiscal data on the plant during the demonstration period and to prepare
the interim and final reports on the project. The Federally-supported
demonstration period is for 15 months from initial operation (May 17, 1971, to
Aug. 17, 1972). The final report on the project is required to be submitted
by Feb. 17, 1973.
-------
SECTION III - HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT
The Franklin project was begun in 1967, when the City realized its
landfill would be full in another 3 to 4 years. Studies of new sites were
meeting the usual opposition from residents who did not want a landfill near
their properties.
One of the members of the Franklin City Council was Mr. Joe Baxter, Jr.,
an engineer employed by the Shartle-Pandia Division of The Black Clawson
Company, Middletown, Ohio, manufacturers of paper mill machinery. Mr. Baxter
conceived the idea of utilizing an array of this machinery to pulp solid waste,
automatically eject nonpulpable objects from the pulper, hydrodynamically
separate finely chopped noncombustibles, and burn the residual pulped
combustibles in a fluid bed reactor, in the same manner as sewage sludge is
burned.
Entirely at The Black Clawson Company's expense, a pilot plant was built
in the Research and Development Laboratory of their plant at Middletown, to
prove the idea was feasible. The Black Clawson Company retained the services
of A. M. Kinney, Inc., Consulting Engineers, to evaluate the process. Pilot
plant tests showed that municipal solid waste could be pulped in a Hydrapulper,
that the noncombustible content of the refuse could be separated from the
organic residue, that mixing sewage sludge with the combustible remainder
increased the filterability of the sludge, and that the remainder going to
landfill constituted a 90 to 95 percent reduction in landfill volume
requirements.
Since the Middletown pilot plant did not include a fluid bed reactor,
-------
other pilot operations were performed to determine the combustion
characteristics of the pulped organic residue. Pilot plant tests were
performed in a Copeland reactor and a full scale test was made in the
Dorr-Oliver, Inc., sludge-burning reactor at the Ocean City, Maryland, sewage
treatment plant, both using organic rejects from the Middletown pilot plant.
On the basis of the feasibility study, application was made, under the
Solid Haste Act of 1965, for a demonstration grant to design and build a full
scale plant in Franklin, Ohio, which would demonstrate this innovative method
at minimum cost, and at the same time would solve Franklin's solid waste
problem.
Grant No. 1-D01-UI-0019H was received on Sep. 2<+, 1968, and the City
retained A. M. Kinney, Inc., to prepare a preliminary Design Manual to
establish design concepts and estimated construction costs.
During this period, the Miami Conservancy District became responsible
for the water quality of the Great Miami River, and started planning a
regional sewage treatment plant for the Franklin area. They acquired a tract:
of land adjacent to the southwest edge of the City, and offered a part of
this property to the City as the site for the solid waste plant. The
inter-relationship of the two plants is shown in Figure 1. Provisions were
made in the construction of the solid waste plant for the connections to the
sewage treatment plant which is now under construction.
Also during this time, further development work was done by The Black
Clawson Company in the application of other paper mill-type equipment to the
separation of reuseable paper fiber from the aqueous slurry. The pilot plant
-------
Figure 1. Environmental control complex flow diagram.
-------
at Middletown was expanded to prove the feasibility of this process. On the
basis of the pilot plant results, a supplementary grant application was made
and funds were awarded to include the Fibreclaim process in the Franklin
plant.
The solid waste system Design Manual and the fiber recovery system Design
Manual, both prepared by A. M. Kinney, Inc., for the City of Franklin, formed
the bases for award of the construction grants No. 2-G06-EC-00194-02 and
3-G06-EC-0019f-lSl, which was made on Mar. 2, 1970. Final design drawings
and specifications were then prepared, and lump sum bids solicited, in
accordance with the laws of the State of Ohio governing bidding for municipal
projects.
While the solid waste and fiber recovery plant was being built, the Glass
Container Manufacturers Institute announced that it had completed a series of
tests and trial operations using the glass-rich fraction separated from the
pulped refuse by the liquid cyclone in the Middletown pilot plant. Using a
train of screening and classifying equipment to separate extraneous material,
the Glass Container Manufacturers Institute equipment train was capable of
recovering a stream of color-sorted cullet and an aluminum rich stream. The
cullet was separated by the use of a Sortex optical sorter.
The Glass Container Manufacturers Institute proposed that the City of
Franklin apply for a supplementary grant to add this equipment train to the
Franklin plant, on the condition that the Glass Container Manufacturers
Institute would reimburse the City for the matching funds. Award of this
grant (No. 3-G06-EC-00194-03S2) was made by the Environmental Protection
10
-------
Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs on June 8, 1971. Design of
this addition is now under way, and construction is expected to begin in the
summer of 1972, with completion scheduled before the end of the year.
Construction of the solid waste plant was completed on May 17, 1971, and
the fiber recovery plant was completed on June 28, 1971. The plant was
dedicated on Aug. 11, 1971, by Mr. Richard D. Vaughan, then Director of the
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Congressman Walter E. Powell of the
24th District of Ohio, and Mr. Bernard F. Eichholz, City Manager, City of
Franklin, Ohio.
The Miami Conservancy District, in expanding its role from flood control
of the Great Miami River to that of total water management of that stream,
recognized that a major source of pollution was industrial waste liquids being
dumped in sewers, streams, and land draining to the river. The District
commissioned a survey study of these pollutants and of possible alternative
disposal means for them. The result of this study was a recommendation that a
regional disposal center be built at Franklin to take advantage of the
Hydrasposal system's integral fluid bed reactor. The reactor at Franklin is
capable of incinerating many of the industrial liquid wastes, and is expected
to be used a maximum of two shifts per day, five-and-a-half days per week
through most of the 1980's.
The City of Franklin retained A. M. Kinney, Inc., to prepare
specifications for the design and construction of a receiving, storage, and
blending facility which would be added to the solid waste recyclinp-sewap.e
treatment complex. Proposals were received by public bidding, and a firm was
11
-------
selected to build the industrial liquid disposal facility, conditional upon
receipt of Federal assistance. Application for a Federal grant to build the
facility has been made by the City.
Even in its present, unfinished state the Franklin Environmental Control
Complex has attracted inquiries and visitors from many parts of the world.
Because it is a full scale commercial plant, operating in regular daily
service to the City and its environs, demonstrating a new approach to resource
recovery and solid waste disposal, visitors have come from nearly every state
of the Union, and from such foreign countries as Sweden, Australia, Italy,
Japan, and Great Britain to observe its operation.
The future of the plant is not only a function of the completion of the
other parts of the complex, but is largely dependent upon the economic
viability of its operation. The process lends itself to more innovation, so
that other recovery facilities may be added in the future to reduce its
operating costs.
12
-------
SECTION IV - PRELIMINARY OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
A. General Description of Process. The flow of material through the
plant is shown schematically in Figure 1, and the physical arrangement of
equipment is shown in Figure 3. As shown in these diagrams, refuse is
delivered to the plant by private contractors and individual citizens. All
incoming refuse is weighed and recorded at the scale, except that from
passenger vehicles and small pickup trucks. The vehicles dump their loads
onto the concrete receiving floor, from which the refuse is pushed onto the
feed conveyor by a front-end loader.
The conveyor feeds the refuse into the Hydrapulper at a controlled
rate. The Hydrapulper is a Black Clawson Model SW pulping machine, 12 feet
diameter, and equipped with a 300 horsepower motor. Recycled water is mixed
with the refuse, and all pulpable and friable materials are converted into a
water slurry (with approximately 4 percent solids content) by the action of
a high speed cutting rotor in the bottom of the Hydrapulper tub. Pieces of
metal, tin cans, and other nonpulpable and nonfriable materials are ejected
from the Hydrapulper through an opening in the side of the tub. These
materials pass down a chute which connects the tub opening to a specially
designed bucket elevator known as the junk remover. In this chute they
receive a preliminary washing by the water which is being recycled back into
the pulper. The junk remover discharges the materials into a rotating drum
washer, where they are again washed with the recycled water. They are then
conveyed under a magnetic separator where the cans and other ferrous objects
are separated for recycling. The nonferrous materials are collected for
-------
w
.J
S
M
«
g
« M
hi (0
>H O
S 3
Q (2
M "* O
< < co o
CO S5 H
O Q W O CO
H W S M
CO CO Ps H >J
co co ac < M
U W O H O
B 05 CJ CO
^
oa « w
M b p erf
fc H
r-i pg n
co «n co
i i i
^r m vo t^
PO « co <*>
J CJ < CO
I I I I
I I
00 O\ O i-H ro ^t *^* ^ *^
«-li-ti-li-lfHfM«MCM
-------
landfill burial.
The slurry is extracted from the Hydrapulper through a perforated
plate located beneath the rotor in the bottom of the tub. In addition to
paper fiber, the slurry contains almost all of the organic content of the
refuse, plus most of the glass, small pieces of metal, ceramics, and much of
the aluminum. To remove the inorganics, the slurry is pumped to the liquid
cyclone, where the heavier materials are separated by centrifugal action.
The heavier materials pass into a chamber in the bottom of the liquid
cyclone from which they are conveyed into hoppers for landfill disposal. The
waste glass recovery demonstration plant, to be built later in 1972, will
interface with the solid waste plant at the discharge of the liquid cyclone
conveyor.
After the metals and glass have been removed for recycling, the
slurry is pumped to the Fibreclaim process for extraction of paper fiber. In
this process, the long paper-making fibers are mechanically separated from the
coarse organics, such as rubber, textiles, leather, yard waste, and high wet
strength paper, paper coatings and fillers, paper fines, and very small pieces
of glass, dirt, and sand.
The coarse contaminants are removed in two stages of screening. The
first stage is a Black Clawson VR Classifiner, in which the acceptable
material is passed through a screen having 1/8 inch diameter openings. The
second stage screen is a Selectifier screen having 1/16 inch diameter openings.
The fine glass and dirt is removed by pumping the Selectifier screen
accepts through a battery of centrifugal cleaners. Separation of the organic
17
-------
fines from the long fibers is accomplished by passing the slurry over an
inclined, slotted fine screen known as a Hydrasieve, manufactured by the Bauer
division of Combustion Engineering Company. Long fibers are retained on the
screen, while the fines pass through the 0.020 inch slots.
Finally, the reclaimed long fibers are dewatered in two stages. The
first stage is a Black Clawson Hydraden£;er, which is an inclined screw
conveyor type thickener which removes most of the water. Additional water is
removed by squeezing the partially dewatered pulp in a cone press manufactured
by the Rietz Manufacturing Company. The pulp is delivered by screw conveyor
to a waiting truck or shipping container at HO to 50 percent moisture.
When the Miami Conservancy District completes installation of its
area waste water treatment plant, the dewatered recovered fiber will be
rediluted with the sewage plant effluent water, and pumped directly to the
Logan-Long Company, who now buy the recovered pulp for use in making dry felt
for asphalt roofing.
The unrecoverable organic rejects from the fiber recovery operations
are combined and pumped to a storage tank. From the storage tank they are
returned to the Hydrasposal system.
As the organic rejects are drawn from the storage tank at a desired
rate they are dewatered to 40 percent solids content in two stages. An
inclined screw thickener (Hydradenser) discharges to a Rietz cone press. The
press discharges to a screw conveyor which breaks the dewatered cake into
lumps 5/8 inch to 1-1/2 inches in size. These are then fed through a rotary
star-feeder into a pneumatic conveyor system which delivers the material to
the fluid bed reactor.
19
-------
The fluid bed reactor is a 25 foot inside diameter vertical
cylindrical unit supplied by Dorr-Oliver, Inc. In this unit, room temperature
air is blown by a 500 horsepower Spencer blower into a windbox at approximately
H-l/2 psig. The air flows upward through a perforated plate and gravel
dispersal layer into a layer of sand, which becomes fluidized by the air.
When starting up from a cold condition the fluidized bed is initially
preheated by oil burners. After the fluidized sand reaches operating
temperature of 1300 F to 1500 F, the injection of the organic rejects supplies
sufficient fuel to continue their combustion, so that no auxiliary fuel is
required in normal operation. For shutdown periods in excess of 24 hours,
small quantities of fuel are used to maintain bed temperature,.
The exhaust gases are cleaned of particulate matter in a venturi
scrubber, and are discharged through a gravity separator as a clean,
nonpolluting odorfree white plume.
Sludge from the adjoining sewage treatment plant will be mixed with
the organic rejects between the Hydradenser and the cone press so that it will
be dewatered without the aid of flocculating agents in the press, and burned
in the fluid bed reactor.
B. Description and Evaluation of Process Streams. The impact of the
Franklin plant on the environment can be measured only by comparison of the
inflows, which formerly were dumped or buried, with the outflows which are now
either recycled, passed on to downstream treatment facilities, or emitted into
the air. The process flows within the Hydrasposal and Fibreclaim processes
are actually of little importance to this report. This section of the report,
20
-------
therefore, is confined to the environmental impact concept.
1. Solid Waste Receipts. Between June 21, 1971, and Dec. 31, 1971,
a total of 6,299 tons of refuse were received at the plant. Of this amount,
6,140 tons were processed through the system.
Although no categories have been recorded, the plant operators
have estimated that 85 to 90 percent of the receipts are from residential
sources.
The tonnage received and not processed consisted primarily of
large items which are not grindable by a Hydrapulper, such as vehicle tires,
refrigerators, water heaters, iron and wooden furniture, industrial pallets,
automotive parts, kitchen and laundry appliances, building demolition waste,
dead tree trunks, and lumber.
Some items not originally considered as processable by a
Hydrapulper have proven to be, such as dead small animals, aluminum lawn
furniture, small appliances, television sets, and light drums.
Incoming refuse from commercial haulers is received from packer
trucks, and open dump trucks. Individuals and small haulers bring refuse in
pickup trucks, station wagons, rental trailers, and automobiles. Obviously
processable loads are dumped on the receiving floor and pushed onto the feed
conveyor by means of a front-end loader. One plant operator acts as
weighmaster, receiving clerk, cashier, and loader operator. It is incumbent
upon this operator to scan the incoming loads and the material being pushed
onto the conveyor to extract unprocessable materials. During early operations,
several instances occurred where ungrindable items were charged into the
22
-------
Hydrapulper with resulting downtime while the object was removed, and, if
necessary, repairs were made to the Hydrapulper. When these materials are
spotted, they are pulled out, set aside, and periodically sold as scrap to a
junk dealer. Unsaleable items must be landfilled, but these amount to only
about 1-1/2 percent of the tonnage received. A change in the baffle plate
has virtually eliminated Hydrapulper downtime resulting from damage by this
type of material.
Figure 7 shows the variations in refuse received and processed
during this report period.
2. Junk Remover Rejects. Of the tonnage processed, approximately
H percent is ejected by centrifugal action through the junk chute of the
Hydrapulper into the junk remover.
The magnetizable, or ferrous, fraction averages 68 percent of the
junk remover rejects, or 7.2 percent of the total refuse received. This
consists mostly of cans, but also contains bottle tops, spark plugs, nails,
bolts, and an infinite variety of unrecognizable pieces. This material is
dumped into detachable truck bodies in which it is hauled several times a week
to a nearby steel company (Armco) which pays the equivalent price of No. 2
bundles (presently $13.30 per short ton) for it.
No further recycling process is immediately contemplated for the
nonmagnetizable rejects. These rejects average 1.45 tons per day, or 3.5
percent of the refuse tonnage received. They are disposed of in the nearby
plant landfill.
Typical analyses of the junk remover reject streams are as
23
-------
Figure 7. Waste load variation.
-------
follows:
Sixty-eight percent of junk remover rejects are collected by th<;
magnetic separator. Approximately 80 per\cenX of this fraction is all steel
cans and steel cans with aluminum tops. The remaining 20 percent usually is
spark plugs, nuts, bolts, wire, and automobile and appliance parts. Of the 32
percent not collected by the magnetic separator 6 to 16 percent is nonferrous
metal, 1/2 to 2 percent is ferrous metal missed by the separator, and 82 to 94
percent is miscellaneous objects such as rubber, heavy plastics, stones, and
large pieces of glass.
3. Liquid Cyclone Rejects. Approximately 10.5 percent, by weight,
of the total refuse received is separated by the liquid cyclone.
• An average of analyses of the liquid cyclone rejects shows this
stream consists of:
Description Percent (Dry Basis)
Clear glass 38.4
Green glass 4.9
Amber glass 21.8 65.1
Magnetic metals 3.3
Aluminum 2.3
Other metals 0.8 6.4
Large stones (greater than No. 4 mesh) 4.6
Loss on ignition 6.0
Miscellaneous materials (plastics, rubber, etc.) 17.9
Total 100.0
The waste glass plant now being designed will receive its input
from the liquid cyclone discharge conveyor. At present, however, this
25
-------
material, along with the nonferrous junk remover rejects and the unsaleable,
unprocessable material, is buried in the plant landfill. The cyclone rejects
contain a higher percentage of adherent organic material than was anticipated.
The waste glass plant equipment train will include washing and screening
operations to remove this material before color sorting the glass, and will
return it to the main plant for burning.
Figure 9 shows the trends in cyclone rejects analyses during the
report period.
4. Recovered Fiber. Fiber recovery operation began during July 1971,
and continued through Aug. 28, 1971. During this period 76.3 tons of fiber
(air dried basis) were produced, which was sold to the Logan-Long Company of
Franklin, Ohio, manufacturers of roofing products.
On Aug. 28, 1971, fiber production for Logan-Long Company was
stopped because of operating problems on their paper machine. Between Sep. 1
and Sep. 15, 1971, Logan-Long Company evaluated the performance of their
machine using no reclaimed fiber. During this same period, The Black Clawson
Company and Logan-Long Company conducted laboratory investigations into the
cause of the problems. The results of these investigations are discussed in
this report under the heading of "Operating Problems and Improvements Under
Study".
Fiber recovery operations were resumed in September and Octouer
to produce fiber for a series of experimental papermaking tests being made by
the St. Regis Paper Company, and were again resumed in November for Logan-Long
Company after both they and The Black Clawson Company made process changes
27
-------
Figure
9. Cyclone rejects analysis.
28
-------
which enabled Logan-Long to use the recycled fiber.
The quality of recycled fiber, when processed in a paperboard
mill equipped to eliminate lipids and fines, is reported to be good. No
analytical data on the experimental paper and board manufactured from the
recovered fiber has been reported, because it is not considered conclusive in
view of the production difficulties encountered. The Logan-Long Company has
reported that the fiber is the equivalent of the corrugated board, old
newsprint, and mixed paper currently used by them in the production of roofing
felt.
The commercial viability of the fiber recovery process depends
not only on the physical usefulness of the fiber, but also on the financial
return which would result from the additional capital required for this
adjunct to the Hydrasposal system. Operating data indicates that the
oven-dried fiber yield at the Franklin plant was 5 to 7.6 percent of the
refuse tonnage as received compared to the 18 percent yield indicated by the
Middletown pilot plant operation and several experimental runs at Franklin.
Several modifications to the system are required to increase the yield. On
The Black Clawson Company's recommendation, the City has included the funds
for yield and quality improvement modifications in a supplementary grant
application.
The tonnage of fiber produced during the report period is shown
in Figure 10.
5. White Water Waste. An estimated 50 gpm of waste water was
routinely discharged from the process water system through December 1971.
29
-------
Figure 10. Reuseable paper fiber recovered.
-------
Under design conditions, with sewage sludge dewatered and burned in the fluid
bed reactor, part of the total discharge will be the water which will convey
the sludge. This will be done to prevent contamination of the plant process
water with untreated sewage water.
White water is constantly withdrawn from the system to reduce the
level of total and dissolved solids in the process water. This is replaced
with fresh water makeup.
An average analysis of the waste water is as follows:
pH 5.6
Five day BOD 3,148 mg/liter
Suspended solids 3,411 mg/liter
Total dissolved solids 3,315 mg/liter
Settleable solids 83 ml/liter
Temporarily, the waste water is piped to an aeration basin
installed by the Miami Conservancy District to serve until the sewage
treatment plant is completed. The treated water is now discharged to ground
absorption.
Figures 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 show the physical and chemical
characteristics of the various plant waters.
6. Sewage Sludge. Because the area waste water treatment plant
being built by the Miami Conservancy District has not been completed, no
sewage sludge has been burned to date in the process.
7. Ash Slurry. Approximately 40 gpm of ash slurry is bled from the
scrubber-separator water recirculating system. This quantity can be varied to
limit the amount of total solids in this system, but it is now run at a
*
constant rate because of failure of the flowmeter supplied with the scrubber.
32
-------
Figure 12. pH of vai.'
-------
Jit
Mi
14414411
i' 11 > m
1
ifJ-L-
Iff
14
Iff ft
w
I
m
-lit
*
I
i-t
I
trr
1' i J i'
liU iii
11'r t:'
&
•t
^T
tfr*
1
ap
3f w
HH
I
F+H
ii
m
i
IB
i
ifr
1
itk
Jit
.4---II
-t-
HH
Figure 13. Biochemical oxygen demand of various plant waters.
-------
•|; (i.j-.,T/«Hi sonos osttsaasns TVIOJL i; -I. -
Figure m. Total suspended solids in various plant waters
35
-------
Figure 15. Total dissolved solids in various plant waters.
-------
Ujjii'j.
SllL
ft
Si*
4*i-:
nrHf
1*
-i.^Li i:,.!];:.
ipvfc.frtr
^i^jfe
Figure 16. her i ;•
-------
Figure 17. Total solids in ash slurry,
38
-------
m
n.
I
ffi
«tei±
' T •;."
144:4- '
Figure 18. Total
39
-------
An average analysis of the ash slurry water is as follows:
pH 8.5
Total solids 16,100 ing/liter
Suspended solids 13,400 mg/liter
Dissolved solids 2,700 mg/liter
Settleable solids 25 ml/liter
Total volatile solids 1,500 mg/liter
Figures 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 illustrate variations in the
chemical and physical properties of the ash slurry.
Until the Miami Conservancy District sewage treatment plant is
completed, the ash slurry is being discharged to surface drainage. When the
sewage treatment plant is operational, this slurry will be piped to the
industrial primary clarifier where it is expected to be used as a settling
agent. (See Figure 1).
8. Stack Gases. The products of combustion from the fluid bed
reactor are conveyed through a downflow venturi scrubber, then up through a
gravity separator column before being discharged to atmosphere.
From Dec. 28, 1971, through Jan. 4, 1972, a field crew from
Environmental Sciences, Inc., of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, performed a series
of three tests covering simultaneous sampling of the emissions from the fluid
bed reactor and the emissions, from the.scrubber serving the reactor. The data
taken consisted of the collection and analysis of the particulate and gaseous
emissions in the stack gases» Also during each test, samples of the inlet and
outlet scrubber water, and of organic rejects fed to the reactor were
collected, so that a complete material balance could be performed on the
entire system.
The purpose of the testing program was to determine the air
-------
pollution emissions from the fluid bed reactor in order to certify to the City
of Franklin and to the State of Ohio the quantity and nature of the air
pollutants being emitted from the process. Tests of the fluid bed reactor and
the venturi scrubber were also needed by A. M. Kinney, Inc., to prepare a
comprehensive evaluation of the treatment process. The testing program
allowed for the determination of the emissions from the fluid bed reactor when
operating at normal operating capacity at steady state, as well as allowing
the determination of the collection efficiency of the venturi scrubber serving
the fluidized bed reactor.
Based upon the results of the three tests performed on the inlet
and outlet of the scrubber, the following average results were .reported by
Environmental Sciences, Inc.
Scrubber dry solids removal efficiency
Scrubber condensables removal efficiency
Solid particulate loss on ignition (900 C)
Parameter
Grain loadings - grains per
standard dry cu ft (SDCF) at
12 percent carbon dioxide
Grain loadings - grains per
SDCF - actual reading
Condensables - percent
Particulate flow - Ib/hr
Volumetric flow rate SDCF
per minute
Gas temperature - F
Water - percent
Inlet
4.5
2.542
1.0
358
16,500
moo
5.5
98.8 percent
23.5 percent
3.3 percent
Outlet
0.076
0.043
45.5
6.11
190
34.1
-------
Parameter Inlet Outlet
Sulfur dioxide—parts per 45 less than 7
million (ppra)
Nitrogen oxides—ppm 143 125
Aldehydes none none
Hydrocarbons none none
Carbon monoxide trace trace
Chlorides—Ib/hr 4.7 0.43
The data given above generally show that the effluent from the
fluid bed reactor contains only a trace of combustible material, either as
gases or solids. These results, coupled with an exit gas temperature of
1400 F, indicate that the reactor is efficient and operating well. The
venturi scrubber and mist separator remove about 98 percent of the dry and
condensable particulate. Considering that the scrubber system operates at a
differential of only 7 inches of water, its performance is excellent.
The analysis of the impinger water indicates undetectable amounts
of nitrates and fluorides, with most of the soluble, condensable material
being in the form of sulfates and chlorides. The impinger water was very
acidic (pH—2.5). The chemical analysis of the scrubber water indicated
large amounts of solid and dissolved particulate with high quantities of
sulfate and chlorides, and only minor contributions from other ions. The
scrubber water was only slightly acidic (pH—6.0).
The quality and quantity of the particulate and gases
theoretically emitted from the reactor and the measured quantities of material
picked up by the scrubber water system did not balance well with the measured
42
-------
concentrations of pollutants in the stack gas due to errors involved in:
(1) obtaining a representative sample of scrubber water; (2) estimating
scrubber water flows and refuse fuel consumption; (3) an accurate fuel
analysis; (H) not chemically analyzing the solid particulate collected during
the test, and (5) miscellaneous problems that could be isolated and solved
only by extensive research.
These tests show that the emissions from the scrubber are below
the limit of 0.1 grain per standard dry cubic foot of gas flow (corrected to
12 percent carbon dioxide) set by the specifications, which were based on
Federal guideline specifications which were in effect at that time.
However, regulations adopted by the State of Ohio, Air Pollution
Control Board, on Jan. 28, 1972, with an effective date of Feb. 15, 1972,
limit dust emissions from incinerators to 0.1 pounds of particulate per 100
pounds of combustible refuse charged, when operating at the manufacturer's
maximum rating. At the time this report was written, it was uncertain whether
the Franklin reactor would meet this requirement, since the plant does not
function like a conventional incinerator. The City's consulting engineers
have requested the State of Ohio to clarify whether the "combustible refuse
charged" should be measured at (1) the reactor inlet, excluding the
noncombustibles removed by the junk remover and liquid cyclone as at Franklin,
or (2) the plant receiving floor, as would be the case with a conventional
incinerator.
It is planned by the plant operating contractor to have another
stack test made as an acceptance test of the Dorr-Oliver equipment. These
-------
results will be included in the final report.
9. Organic Rejects. Although it is not an external stream, the fuel
feed to the fluid bed reactor also is being monitored during the evaluation
period in order to gather operating data on this key part of the Hydrasposal
system. The physical characteristics of the reactor sand bed and the ash from
the reactor fuel are also analyzed at regular intervals.
Typical analyses of the organic rejects are as follows:
Ultimate Analysis Percent
Moisture 54.36
Carbon 22.90
Hydrogen 2.84
Oxygen 15.18
Nitrogen 0.02
Sulfur 0.07
Ash 4.63
Proximate Analysis Percent
Moisture 54.36
Volatile 36.03
Ash 4.63
Fixed carbon 4.98
Heating value (oven dry basis) 8,345 Btu per pound
Figure 19 illustrates the variations in proximate analyses of the
reactor fuel.
10. Auxiliary Fuel. No. 2 commercial fuel oil is used to preheat the
bed sand in the fluid bed reactor in order to bring it up to minimum operating
temperature. When the bed reaches this temperature, feeding the dewatered
organic rejects is begun, and, under normal operation all of the rejects burn
autogenously. Under unusual or upset conditions, it has been necessary to
44
-------
Figure 19. Proximate .,-" ^.,,/si;: of reactor feed.
45
-------
fire supplementary fuel through oil guns located within the static bed level
to maintain minimum bed temperature. During the period of this report a total
of 22,120 gallons of fuel oil were used, including approximately 4,600 gallons
used during a period when organic rejects were drawn off intermittently for
test purposes, thus interrupting continuous feed to the reactor.
11. City Water. At the present time, city water is used as the sole
source of makeup water to the system. When the sewage treatment plant is
completed, its effluent will be recycled for use as process water. Process
usage of some city water may continue, as for example in the venturi scrubber
sprays and as seal water.
Actual quantities of city water used are not recorded, because
the plant operators removed the city water meter in an attempt to solve a
problem of low water pressure at the scrubber sprays, and replaced it after
the report period. The average water usage is calculated as follows:
Waste water to pond (measured) 50 gpm
Ash water to surface (measured) 40 gpm
Water evaporated by scrubber
(from stack analysis) 50 gpm
Total 140 gpm
Average consumption of water per ton of refuse processed is
calculated as follows:
Hydrapulper operating time 783.3 hours
Reactor and scrubber operating time 866.8 hours
Tons of refuse processed 6,140
Hydrapulper usage:
783.3 hours at 50 gpm x 60 minutes
per hour 2,349,900 gallons
Reactor usage:
866.8 hours at 90 gpm x 50 minutes
per hour 4,680,700 gallons
7,030,600 gallons
46
-------
The 7,030,000 gallons consumed, divided by the 6,140 tons
processed, equals 1,145 gallons per ton of refuse.
12. Electric Power. Electric power service to the plant is supplied
by The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, through a single 1,500 kilovolt-arnper-s
(kva) transformer and a meter serving both the Hydrosposal and Fibreclaiin
systems. A separate temporary connection is installed to serve the floating
aerator in the temporary waste water treatment basin. When the sewage
treatment plant is completed, it will be served by its own transformer and
meter.
Power consumption for the report period was a total of 935,600
kilowatt-hours (kwh). No measurement of the division between Hydrasposal and
Fibreclaim systems is available.
The unit consumption of electric power during report period is
computed as follows:
935,600 kwh consumed, divided by the 6,140 tons processed,
equals 153 kwh per ton of refuse. Because this quantity includes the start-up
period it is to be considered as order-of-magnitude only. Recent data has
indicated consumption of approximately 180 kwh per ton.
13. Rejects to Landfill. The three streams which go to landfill are
summarized as follows:
a. Unprocessable Refuse Received. Consists of large or heavy
ungrindable or unfriable items. This fraction averages approximately 0.66
tons per day or 1-1/2 percent (by weight) of refuse received.
b. Nonferrous Junk Remover Rejects. Consists of smaller
-------
ungrindable or unfriable materials. This fraction averages approximately
1.45 tons per day, or 3.5 percent (by weight) of the refuse received.
c. Liquid Cyclone Rejects. Consists of inorganic rejects,
3/4 in. and smaller, which have passed through the extractor plate of the
Hydrapulper. This stream contains 5 to 15 percent putrescible organics.
All of the cyclone rejects, which now go to landfill,
average approximately 10.5 percent (by weight) of the refuse received.
In the latter part of 1972, this stream will be diverted to
the waste glass recovery system, where the glass and aluminum between 1/8 in.
and 3/4 in. will be recovered for recycling. The remaining undersize and
oversize material, stones, plastics, and metals will continue to go to
landfill, but the putrescible organic will be returned to the Hydrasposal
system for incineration in its fluid bed reactor.
The total of reject streams going to landfill during the report
period average 15.5 percent of the tonnage received. No total measurement
of volume to landfill was made, but it is estimated at less than 5 percent
of the total volume received at this plant, or 8.3 percent of the volume
required for conventional landfill operation.
Figure 20 shows the variations in quantities and constituents
of the material taken to the plant landfill. Quantities are reported by the
plant operators on an oven-dried basis, in order to eliminate valuations in
actual tonnage due to varying moisture contents.
C. Operating Problems and Improvements Under Study. While, the physical
data in this report are concerned primarily with quantitative and qualitative
-------
Figure 20. Rejects ••
-------
analysis of external process streams, the overall effectiveness of the
Franklin demonstration plant is dependent on its internal operation.
The problems which have affected overall plant operation, and the
improvements which are being considered, are thus an integral part of this
analysis.
1. Refuse Receiving. For economy reasons, the refuse receiving area
was designed as an open-ended, high-walled shed. The basis for computation of
receiving floor space was that the entire area, except for walking aisle space,
would be used for receipts. This has proved impractical for operation of the
front-end loader. As a result, when a number of trucks arrive in a short time
span, it is necessary to accumulate the: refuse on the ramp leading to the
receiving floor until the peak is worked off. Although this has been
unsightly, and operation of the front-end loader outside during inclement
weather is inconvenient, the plant operators feel no remedial action is
economically justifiable.
Another operating problem was one of maggots in the apron
conveyor pit and sump, on the receiving floor, and on the operating floor.
This problem was worst during the warm weather, but it has been controlled by
use of insecticides.
A continuing problem is the tire wear on the front-end loader.
The operating conditions for this machine result in the need for replacement
of the tires approximately every 6 months despite switching to solid heavy-duLy
industrial tires.
To compensate for maintenance downtime on the front-end loader,
50
-------
the plant service truck was purchased with a snowplow blade, which permits
its use in pushing refuse onto the conveyor.
2. Hydrasposal System.
a. Hydrapulper.
(1) It was found in initial operation that the apron conveyor
caused large quantities of dust and dirt to fall out onto equipment and
personnel below it, and that the Hydrapulper was splashing dirty water over
the floor and visitors. Therefore, a fiber glass cover has been fitted over
the Hydrapulper and conveyor. The cover is equipped with access doors and a
monorail for access to the pulper. Rapid access is needed in order to remove
ungrindable materials and to work on the rotor.
(2) A high maintenance item is replacement of the swing
hammers on the rotor of the Hydrapulper. At the present time, life is about
300 operating hours, or about 1,800 tons. Hammer replacement time is
approximately one hour. Development work continues to improve the
effectiveness and service life of the hammers.
(3) Retrieval of unprocessable material that inadvertently
entered the Hydrapulper, and repair of damage caused by it, caused some minor
service interruptions during early operating periods. Changes in baffle
clearance have apparently corrected the problem. Outages of this type have
ranged from 1/2 hour to 2 days.
(4) Excessive vibration of the Hydrapulper occurred during
the initial operation period. Addition of heavy crossbracing to pulper
supporting structure has largely eliminated this problem.
51
-------
b. Hydradensers. The lack of consistent performance by the
solid waste plant Hydradensers (dewatering screws) has been the subject of
continuing developmental work. The erratic water removal characteristics and
the need for frequent adjustment has had an adverse effect on experimental
work on the burning of organic rejects, and on the plant maintenance costs.
Recent design changes have corrected this situation.
c. Fluid Bed Reactor.
(1) Two problems which have occurred during this report
period are related to the sand bed of the reactor.
A gradual attrition of the sand in the fluid bed, caused
by the mechanical agitation of the sand, has caused fine particles of silica
to be carried over into the scrubber-separator. The result has been a
buildup of silicon-rich scale in the separator. This was manifested as
stones which caused some damage to the scrubber water pump before the
operators began to inject a dispersion agent into the system. This chemical
tends to keep the scale soft and in suspension in the scrubber water.
The other problem related to the fluid bed is the gradual
agglomeration of the sand and its retention of mineral ash and glass particles.
From sieve analyses and increases in fluidizing air blower horsepower
requirements it became evident that the size of the bed sand particles was
increasing. In February 1972, it was necessary to replace the entire sand bed,
when large masses of agglomerated sand accumulated. The operating contractor
has instituted a program of periodic replacement of a portion of the sand
bed, and has reduced the maximum operating temperature limit.
52
-------
(2) The rotary feed valve which passes the pulped organic
rejects into the pneumatic feeder supply to the fluid bed reactor has
repeatedly plugged and constantly limited the firing rate. This feeder was
replaced with one of a different design to overcome this problem.
d. Miscellaneous. A number of relatively minor additions and
corrections were made during the start-up period, or are planned, to improve
the operation of the Hydrasposal process. Among these have been modifications
to the junk remover to eliminate excessive water carryover, relocating access
doors in the junk remover, instrument and control modifications, improvements
to platforms at the fluid bed reactor, and improvement of forklift tractor
access doors. In addition, it is planned to replace the present 1,500 kva
transformer with a 2,000 kva transformer in order to provide electrical power
capacity for the waste glass recovery plant and for changes in the fiber
recovery process.
e. Plant Design Limitations. The requirement of minimal first
cost placed limitations on the design of the Franklin plant which have
resulted in several operating problems which cannot be economically corrected,
but which should be considered in the design of future plants.
In addition to the previously mentioned space problem in the
receiving area, limited space in the Hydrasposal area has resulted in a
crowded equipment arrangement, making access to some areas for maintenance and
housekeeping difficult.
An operating problem which is somewhat annoying is an
excessive amount of process water spillage on the operating floor in the
53
-------
Hydrasposal area. While the amount of water on the floor would possibly not
be considered excessive by contemporary paper mill standards, it is excessive
from a housekeeping and sanitary standpoint. Consideration should be given,
in future designs, to improving drainage in this area.
Another problem for which there is no simple solution at the
Franklin plant is the high noise level around the Hydrapulper. Future plants
may overcome this problem, but the Franklin plant layout precludes construction
of sound-attenuating walls. The operator's station at Franklin is in the
control room where the sound level is below the 80 dbA continuous occupancy
limits of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. Occupancy of areas having
sound levels higher than 80 dbA is abnormal and for a relatively short time.
3. Fibreclaim System.
a. Fiber Quality. As stated heretofore, fiber recovery
production for the Logan-Long Company was stopped on Aug. 28, 1971, because of
problems experienced in using the Franklin recycled fiber on their paper
machine. The Black Clawson Company later reported that tests made by
Logan-Long Company with their paper machine, and tests made by The Black
Clawson Company in their laboratory indicated the cause of the problem was the
concentration of lipids and fines which occurred when the white water system
was closed up, i.e., when a higher percentage of the total white water flow
was recirculated. This caused an increased amount of lipids and fines to
adhere to the fiber.
In the papermaking operation, as at Logan-Long Company,
water is removed from the newly formed sheet by pressing it out through a
-------
series of wringers, called press rolls. The sheet of paper is supported at
the press rolls by a very porous woolen blanket, which also serves as a medium
by which the pressed out water may be removed, i.e., the water leaves through
the pores in the blanket. The excessive fines and lipids apparently filled up
these pores, resulting in very reduced life of the blankets.
The condition was corrected temporarily by employing an
excessive amount of fresh water in the fiber recovery operation, with
equivalent increased bleed-off from the system to reduce the equilibrium level
of fines and lipids in the white water, and by installation of a high pressure
shower to clean the blanket on the Logan-Long Company paper machine.
For a permanent correction, a supplemental grant request has
been made to install a flotation clarifier in the white water recycling system.
b. Fiber Yield. Primarily due to problems associated with
scaling up from pilot plant operation to full scale commercial operation, the
yield of recovered fiber has been substantially below expectations.
The screening system, which selectively sorts out the
recyclable long fibers, was sized according to secondary fiber paper mill
standards. The screens were found to be inadequate due to the much higher
quantities of plastics, leather, rubber, etc., present in the slurry. As a
result, the fiber recovery department can operate at only about one-half the
capacity of the balance of the plant, and much fiber is lost as a result.
Several experimental runs were made at reduced overall capacity., and the
anticipated yield (20% plus, air-dried basis) was realized.
A supplemental request has been made to install additional
screening capacity.
55
-------
SECTION V - PRELIMINARY PLANT ECONOMICS
A. Construction Costs. The following cost data are based on the latest
contract value for the process equipment and the final contract value for the
construction contracts for the Franklin plant. The final value given for the
mechanical contract includes $3,230 for installing additional nozzles and
temporary scaffolding to make the stack gas analysis. The process equipment
contract is being kept open to permit process changes.
The general construction work, including site development, grading,
foundations, structural and miscellaneous steel, building work, paving,
painting, and landscaping, was done by the Monarch Construction Company of
Cincinnati, Ohio.
The mechanical construction, including installation of all
Owner-furnished process equipment, contractor-furnished mechanical equipment,
piping, ductwork, instrumentation heating, ventilating, and plumbing was done
by Hughes-Bechtol, Inc., of Dayton, Ohio.
Electrical construction work, including furnishing and installing
temporary construction power and all lighting, electrical conduit, wire,
fixtures and equipment, grounding system, electrical controls, and
instrumentation was done by The Gustav Hirsch Organization, Inc., of Columbus,
Ohio.
Sprinkler construction work including furnishing and installing all
materials for the sprinkler system in the receiving area, was done by the
Cincinnati Sprinkler Company of Cincinnati, Ohio.
Process equipment includes the Hydrapulper liquid cyclone, tanks,
56
-------
pumps, fluid bed reactor, venturi scrubber and gravity separator, screens,
process instruments, and controls. This was supplied by the Shartle-Pandia
Division of The Black Clawson Company of Middletown, Ohio, who also supplied
the process design information, including flow rates, pressures, consistencies,
and equipment dimensions and weights.
The sound system for the project included furnishing of equipment
for an industrial page-party phone and speaker system. This was done by
J. W. Thompson Company of Middletown, Ohio. Installation was under the
electrical contract.
Construction costs are shown in the General Cost Summary on the
following pages.
57
-------
CITY OF FRANKLIN, OHIO
SOLID WASTE AND FIBER RECOVERY PLANT
COST ANALYSIS
GENERAL COST SUMMARY
Item
City
Unreimbursed
Solid Waste Plant
Federal Share City Share
Total
Process equipment
$ 2,500.00 $ 506,761.06 $ 253,380.55 $ 760,141.61
Construction
General construction
Mechanical construction $ 779.00
Electrical construction
Fire protection
Sound system —
Sub-total 1
779.00
Miscellaneous equipment
Present construction and
equipment contracts $ 3,279.00
Engineering (as of
Dec. 31, 1971) —
Total
$ 3,279.00
$ 152,260.34
179,075.33
66,765.15
2,900.00
445.11
$ 76,130.16
89,537.67
33,382.57
1,450.00
222.55
$ 228,390.50
268,613.00
100,147.72
4,350.00
667.66
!? 401,445.93
24,771.23
$ 200,722.95
12,385.59
$ 602,168.88
37,156.82
$ 932,978.22 $ 466,489.09 $1,399,467.31
81,994.12
40,997.06
122,991.18
$1,014,972.34 $ 507,486.15 $1,522,458.49
58
-------
Fiber Recovery Plant Sewage Plant
Federal Black Clawson Miami Conservancy Combined
Share Share Total District Share Totals
$ 126,962.67 $ 63,481.33 $ 190,444.00 $ — $ 953,085.61
$ 48,346.67 $ 24,173.33 $ 72,520.00 $ 3,465.50 $ 304,376.00
65,317.99 32,659.01 97,977.00 6,973.00 374,342.00
31,082.58 15,541.28 46,623.86 — 146,771.58
4,350.00
— — — — 667.66
$ 144,747.24 ~§ 72,373.62 $ 217,120.86 $ 10,438.50 $ 830,507.24
1,663.20 831.60 2,494.80 — 39,651.62
$ 273,373.11 $ 136,686.55 $ 410,059.66 $ 10,438.50 $1,823,244.47
41,138.55 41,138.55 — 164,129.73
$ 273,373.11 $ 177,825.10 $ 451,198.21 $ 10,438.50 $1,987,374.20
59
-------
The construction cost figures shown in the following table are
estimated for a 150 ton per day plant similar to the Franklin plant but built
today without Federal assistance. They are based on The Black Clawson Company
estimates that a complete, installed plant identical to the Franklin plant
would cost about $3,000,000. This estimate includes building, foundations,
process equipment, reactor, auxiliary equipment, instruments, controls, and
engineering for complete functional Hydrasposal and Fibreclaim plant, but does
not include cost of land, nor does it include cost of any standby equipment.
PROJECTED CONSTRUCTION COSTS
150 Ton per day plant
estimated at today's costs
Hydrasposal
Fibreclaim Total
Process equipment
Construction
General construction
Mechanical construction
Electrical construction
Sub -total
Miscellaneous equipment
Total construction and
equipment
Engineering
Total
$ 1,140
$ 340
400
150
$ 890
55
$ 2,085
165
$ 2,250
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
$
$
$
$
$
360
120
160
70
350
5
715
35
750
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
$
$
$
$
$
1,500
460
560
220
1,240
60
2,800
200
3,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
,000
60
-------
B. Operating Costs. The operating costs shown in the following table
are projected for a. hypothetical 150 ton per day plant constructed without the
2/3 Federal funding received by the Franklin plant and operating with the
efficiencies and yields predicted by The Black Clawson Company to be achieved
at Franklin by August 1973. By that time, the plant will have been operating
for one full year burning sewage sludge and recovering design quantities of
paper fiber.
The projected costs for a hypothetical 500 ton per day plant have
been made by A. M. Kinney, Inc., on the basis of previous studies, amended to
reflect projected Franklin unit costs.
It was assumed such a plant would operate 24 hours per day, 7 days
per week, 52 weeks per year. A detailed explanation of the elements of this
projection is given in Appendix A of this report.
The rate schedule charged for solid waste receipts as of Feb. 16,
1972, is as follows:
Loads received from trucks $6.00 per ton
Loads received from pickup trucks $2.25 each
Loads received from automobiles $0.75 each
Large appliances $2.50 each
Tires $0.25 each
61
-------
OPERATING COSTS
Load Rate
50 tons /day
13,000 tons/yr
per year per ton
Hydrasposal
Operating labor
Total maintenance
Fuel oil
Power — electrical
Office supplies
Telephone, etc.
Equipment rental
Plant security
Insurance
Debt service
Operating supplies
Water cost
Gross operating cost
Credit sludge
Credit metal
Net operating cost
Fibreclaim
Operating labor
Total maintenance
Power — electrical
Telephone, etc.
Plant security
Insurance
Makeup water cost
Waste water disposal
Debt service
Operating supplies
Gross operating cost
$ 44,600
46,900
3,100
HO, 100
100
360
2,400
480
6,900
175,500
5,200
730
$326,370
- 10,000
- 12,100
$304,270
$ 17,100
8,060
14,600
180
240
2,100
410
4,450
58,500
700
$106,340
$ 3.43
3.60
0.24
3.08
0.01
0.03
0.18
0.04
0.53
13.50
0.40
0.06
$25.10
- 0.77
- 0.93
$23.40
$ 1.32
0.62
1.12
0.01
0.02
0.16
0.03
0.34
4.50
0.05
$ 8.17
Load Rate
100 tons /day
26,000 tons/yr
per year per ton
$ 89,200
84,400
3,100
57,800
100
360
4,800
480
6,900
175,500
7,800
1,460
$431,900
- 20,000
- 24,200
$387,700
$ 34,200
14,570
21,700
180
240
2,100
820
8,900
58,500
1,050
$142,260
$ 3.43
3.24
0.12
2.22
--
0.01
0.18
0.02
0.27
6.75
0.30
0.06
$16.60
- 0.77
- 0.93
$14.90
$ 1.32
0.56
0.83
0.01
0.01
0.08
0.03
0.34
2.25
0.04
$ 5.47
62
-------
Load Rate
150 tons /day
39,000
per year
$133,800
126,600
3,100
75,000
100
360
7,200
HBO
6,900
175,500
10,400
2,190
$541,630
- 30,000
- 36,300
$475,330
$ 51,300
21,850
28,600
180
240
2,100
1,230
13,350
58,500
1,400
$178,750
tons/yr
per ton
$ 3.43
3.24
0.08
1.92
--
0.01
0.18
0.01
0.18
4.50
0.27
0.06
$13.88
- 0.77
- 0.93
$12.18
$ 1.32
0.56
0.73
—
0.01
0.05
0.03
0.34
1.50
0.04
$ 4.58
Load
500
Rate
tons /day
182,500 tons/yr
per year per ton
$ 290,000
298,000
5,000
313,000
500
1,080
70,000
960
15,300
398,000
16,000
11,000
$1,418,840
- 100,000
- 169,200
$1,149,640
$ 140,000
100,000
110,000
540
480
8,100
5,500
35,000
211,000
2,300
$ 612,920
$ 1.59
1.63
0.03
1.72
--
0.01
0.38
—
0.08
2.18
0.10
0.06
$ 7.78
- 0.55
- 0.93
$ 6.30
$ 0.77
0.55
0.60
--
--
0.04
0.03
0.19
1.15
0.01
$ 3.34
63
-------
OPERATING COSTS
Load Rate
50 tons /day
13,000 tons/yr
per year per ton
Fibreclaim gross operating
cost (see previous sheet)
Based on 15% fiber yield
Credit fiber sales
Net operating cost
fiber recovery
Net operating cost
Hydras posal
Combined Hydrasposal and
Fibreclaim net operating
cost
Tons of fiber produced
Based on 20% fiber yield
Credit fiber sales
Net operating cost
fiber recovery
Net operating cost
Hydrasposal
Combined Hydrasposal and
Fibreclaim net operating
cost
Tons of fiber produced
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
106,340
- 48,700
57,640
304,270
361,910
1,950
- 65,000
41,340
304,270
345,610
2,600
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
8.17
-3.75
4.42
23.40
27.82
—
-5.00
3.17
23.40
26.57
__
Load Rate
100 tons /day
26,000 tons/yr
per year per ton
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
142,260
- 97,400
44,860
387,700
432,560
3,900
-130,000
12,260
387,700
399,960
5,200
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
5.47
-3.75
1.72
14.90
16.62
—
-5.00
0.47
14.90
15.37
__
64
-------
Load Rate
150 tons/day
39,000 tons/yr
per year per ton
Load Rate
500 tons/day
182,500 tons/yr
per year per ton
$ 178.750
$ 1.58
$ 612,920
$ 3.34
$ -116,100
$ 32,650
$ 171,330
$ 506,980
5,850
$ -3.75
$ 0.83
$ 12.18
$ 13.01
$ -685,000
$ - 72,080
$1,119,610
$1,077,560
27,100
$ -3.76
$ -0.12
$__6_-JL°
$ 5.88
$ -195,000
$ - 16,250
$ 171,330
$ 158,080
7,800
$ -5.00
$ -0.12
$ 12.18
$ 11.76
$ -911,000
$ -5.00
$ -301,080 $ -1.66
$1,119,610 $ 6.30
$ 818,560
36,500
$ 1.61
65
-------
The cost data for the 500 ton per day plant in the foregoing
tabulation assumes public ownership of the plant. If the plant were privately
owned the annual operating costs would be increased as follows:
Hydrasposal Fibreclaim
Additional cost of money $ 398,000 $211,000
Taxes, etc. (1 percent capital) 39,000 30,000
Total $ 437,000 $241,000
With 15 percent fiber yield
Net operating cost $1,512,110 $163,775
Net cost per ton $ 8.29 $ 0.90
Combined operating cost per ton $9.19
With 20 percent fiber yield
Net operating cost $1,512,110 $ -65,225
Net cost per ton $ 8.2J $ - 0.36
Combined operating cost per ton $7.93
66
-------
SECTION VI - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Summary. The Franklin, Ohio, Solid Waste and Fiber Recovery Plant,
in its first seven months of operation has successfully demonstrated its basic
premises. On a commercial scale, essentially unsorted municipal refuse can be
successfully wet-ground in a Hydrapulper; relatively small ungrindable items
such as tin cans can be removed from the Hydrapulper slurry and separated into
ferrous and nonferrous fractions; the quantity of noncombustibles remaining in
the slurry can further be reduced by inertial separation in a liquid cyclone;
recyclable paper fiber can be successfully removed from the slurry by the
Fibreclaim process; and the nonrecoverable organic residue can be burned in a
fluid bed reactor.
While these objectives have been obtained, and technical feasibility
established in the first seven months of operation, the corollary objectives
of determining the economic viability of the Hydrasposal and Fibreclaim
processes have not been clearly obtained. The data on actual operating costs
during this initial period reflect not only the developmental nature of the
process, but also unforeseen start-up and training expenses, both of which
are fundamental to emerging technology. It is to be expected that the results
of the second eight months of operation will be more conclusive than the first
seven. When the necessary process changes are authorized, as requested, a
second year of operational evaluation could further improve the quality of
analytical results. Whether the target costs projected by the plant operators
for August 1973 are achieved depends on many unknowns, and it is felt that the
final report will reflect some modification as experience eliminates these
67
-------
unknowns.
B. Conclusions.
1. The technical successes achieved in operating this plant have
warranted the Federal support received so far, in advancing the technology
of resource recovery methods. They have also more than warranted the
enlightened action of the City Council and City Manager in pursuing the
project.
2. Continued Federal support in funding process and plant
modifications is warranted because the amounts requested represent a small
fraction of the total cost of the plant, and the results which they would
obtain would not only increase the cost effectiveness of the operation, but
provide significant technological advancement of an already innovative process,
By extending the demonstration support period, the opportunity to obtain
analytical data is increased.
3. The impact on the environment of the Franklin plant is already
favorable, and the planned expansion of the plant will make it even more
noteworthy.
4. The predicted economic viability of the Franklin plant is still
under study, and will not be accurately known until approximately mid-1973.
5. On the basis of data obtained at Franklin, the economics of a
500 ton per day, or larger, plant are indicated to be attractive, compared to
an incinerator for which adequate air pollution controls are provided.
68
-------
APPENDIX
69
-------
Each shift works basic 40 hours per week. Labor figures include
50 percent markup for fringe benefits and administrative burden.
6. Sludge credit is based on sludge load increasing in a straight line
ratio to refuse load.
7. Fibreclaim power costs include clarification of recirculating
Whitewater by air flotation, and aeration of waste water to reduce B.O.D. to
acceptable levels before discharging to existing sanitary sewers.
8. Waste water disposal costs include sewerage charges based on
approximate rates in effect in southwestern Ohio for "normal" sewage.
9. Capital investment is amortized over 25 year period at 6 percent
interest rate.
Calculations for 50 tons per day load rate are given as follows. Similar
calculations were used to obtain costs for other load rates.
Fifty tons per day (t/d) can be processed in one 8-hour shift.
(50 x 2,000 x .55)/480 = 114.5 Ib/min oven dried solids to
reactor (capacity: 132 Ib/min).
1. Operating labor—Hydrasposal
Assume: one control operator
one weighmaster
one material handler
two-thirds plant manager
Plant manager: 2/3 x $12,000 = $ 8,000
3 men at $3.48 per hour average = 21,750
$29,750
Fringe benefits and administrative burden = 50 percent
1.5 x $29,750 = $44,600 per year
71
-------
Operating labor - Fibreclaiin
One operator: $3.48 x 2,080 = $ 7,400
One-third plant manager = 4,000
$11,400
1.5 x $11,400 = $17,100 per year
2. Maintenance. The Black Clawson Company has projected a cost of
$3.60 per ton for Hydrasposal at Franklin. Similarly the maintenance cost
for Fibreclaim was projected at $0.62 per ton at Franklin.
Hydrasposal—13,000 x $3.60 = $46,900
Fibreclaim—13,000 x $0.62 = $ 8,060
3. Fuel Oil Costs. In the most recent 8-week period Franklin burned
3,395 gallons of No. 2 fuel oil to reheat reactor, or about 424 gallons per
week. Reactor is reheated once each week after being off on week-end.
424 x 52 = 22,000 gallons per year
22,000 gallons x $0.14 per gallon = $3,085 per year
4. Power—Electrical. Unit consumption of electrical power at
Franklin for first 28 weeks of operation is:
935,600 kwh/6,140 tons = 153 kwh per ton of refuse
If fiber recovery had been in full operation during that period, the
unit consumption would have been 180 kwh per ton of refuse according to the
plant operators. Additions planned for fiber recovery will increase this
figure to 204 kwh per ton.
The maximum demand experienced at Franklin is 1,152 kw.
72
-------
Demand charge—per month:
20 kw @ $2.00 = $ 40.00
80 kw @ $1.90 = 152.00
900 kw @ $1.45 = 1,330.00
152 kw @ $1.35 = 205.00
$1,727.00 Demand
Energy charge:
204 x 13,000 tons = 2,650,000 kwh per year
2,650,000/12 = 221,000 kwh per month
Per current Cincinnati Gas £ Electric rate schedule:
1,000 kwh @ 2.5$ = $ 25.00
5,000 kwh @ 1.45$ = 72.50
60 x 1,152 = 69,120 kwh @ 1.0$ = 691.20
120 x 1,152 = 138,240 kwh @ 0.8$ = 1,109.00
7,640 kwh @ 0.575$ = 44.00
$1,941.70 per month
Fuel adjustment: 221,000 kwh x .003545 $ 784.00
Demand charge $1,727.00
Total electrical cost $4,452.70 per month
Total annual power cost:
$4,452.70 x 12 = $53,500
The Black Clawson Company suggests split 25 percent Fibreclaim,
75 percent Hydrasposal.
$53,500 x 0.75 = $40,100 Hydrasposal
$53,500 x 0.25 = $13,400 Fibreclaim
See also water treatment cost calculation.
5. Office Supplies. Same as at Franklin—say $100 per year.
6. Telephone. Same as at Franklin.
Hydrasposal—$360 per year
Fibreclaim--$180 per year
73
-------
7. Equipment Rental. Detachable truck bodies to handle ferrous metal.
Same as at Franklin—$2,400 per year.
8. Plant Security. Same as at Franklin.
Hydrasposal—$480 per year
Fibreclaim—$240 per year
9. Insurance. Franklin cost totals $6,135 for $2,000,000 investment,
or 0.3 percent.
See construction cost estimate:
Hydrasposal: $2,250,000 x 0.003 = $6,750
Use $6,900
Fibreclaim: $ 750,000 x 0.003 = $2,250
Use $2,100
10. Debt Service. Assume money amortized at 6 percent for 25 years.
Capital recovery factor = 0.078.
$2,250,000 x 0.078 = $175,500 Hydrasposal
$ 750,000 x 0.078 = $ 58,500 Fibreclaim
11. Operating Supplies. Assume same cost per ton as at Franklin ($0.40
for Hydrasposal, $0.05 for Fibreclaim).
$13,000 x 0.40 = $5,200 Hydrasposal
$13,000 x 0.05 = $ 650 say $700 for Fibreclaim
It is assumed that this cost would increase by 50 percent with each
50 ton per day load increase.
12. Hater Cost. Water useage at Franklin for 10,000 ton per year load
rate is estimated to be 90 gpm for Hydrasposal system and 50 gpm for
Fibreclaim.
-------
Using the clarified effluent from the sewage treatment plant as
makeup process water, the cost is $0.05 per 1,000 gallons.
Water cost for 50 ton per day load rate:
Hydrasposal—(1.3 x 90 x 60 x 8 x 260 x .05)/1,000 = $730
Fibreclaim— (1.3 x 50 x 60 x 8 x 260 x ,05)/1,000 = $406 say $410
13. Credit for Sludge Burning. Assume sludge load equal to Franklin.
400 tons per year (oven dried solids) @ $25 per ton = $10,000 per
year
14. Credit for Metal Sales. Recoverable metal equals about 7 percent of
refuse processed. No. 2 bundles price about $13.27 per ton.
.07 x 13,000 = 910 tons
910 x $13.27 = $12,090 say $12,100
15. Water Treatment Costs. At Franklin it is not required to reduce the
B.O.D. in the waste water before discharging to sewage treatment plant.
Therefore, this cost is not included in 204 kwh per ton power requirement. In
most localities it will be necessary to reduce B.O.D. to approximately 300
parts per million (ppm).
65 gpm @ 3,200 ppm B.O.D.
(65 [3,200 - 300] x 60 x 8.3)/l,000,000 = 93.9 Ib B.O.D/hr
1 horsepower hour per 2 Ib B.O.D.
93.9/2 = 47 horsepower requirement
47 x 0.746 = 35 kw
35 x $1.40 = $ 49.00 demand per month
35 x 8 x 260/12 x .0085 = 51.40 energy per month (including
fuel adjustment)
$100,40 x 12 = $1,200 per year
75
-------
Add to power costs for Fibreclaim:
$13,400 + $1,200 = $14,600
16. Waste Water Disposal.
Estimated water to sewer =65 gpm
Approximate sewerage charges—"Normal"
Sewage—secondary treatment plant = $0.55 per 1,000 gallons
(65 x 60 x 8 x 260 x 0.55)/1,000 = $4,450 per year
17. Credit—Fiber Sales.
For 15 percent fiber yield:
Fiber recovered = .15 x 13,000 = 1,950 tons per year (air dry)
1,950 tons @ $25 per ton = $48,700
For 20 percent fiber yield:
Fiber recovered = .20 x 13,000 = 2,600 tons per year (air dry)
2,600 tons at $25 per ton = $65,000 per year
76
-------
OPERATING COST ELEMENTS FOR A 500 TON PER DAY PLANT
In computing the cost projections for an hypothetical 500 tons per day
plant, the following assumptions were made:
1. Total actual maintenance costs for Hydrasposal system at Franklin
equals about 14 percent per year of total electrical and mechanical capital
costs. Minimum predicted costs are approximately 5 percent. Therefore,
maintenance costs for the larger system have been projected at 10 percent of
estimated mechanical process equipment and electrical costs, and 5 percent of
reactor costs as a median rather than flat cost per ton. Similarly,
Fibreclaim costs are projected at 5 percent of electrical and mechanical
costs.
2. Power costs were calculated on kw per ton of capacity demand charges
and kwh per ton of refuse processed energy charge using Cincinnati Gas &
Electric rate schedule. One-fourth of total charged to Fibreclaim.
3. Plant is assumed to run continuously 24 hours per day, seven days
per week, 52 weeks per year.
4. Water costs are based on low cost water source such as at Franklin.
5. Operating labor includes the following personnel divided into four
shifts, each working a basic 42 hour week:
one plant manager
four shift supervisors
four crane operators
four weighmasters
ten laborers - operator trainees
thirteen Fibreclaim operators
77
-------
Labor figures include 50 percent markup for fringe benefits and
administrative burden.
6. Sludge credit is based on assumption that 500 tons per day plant
would have approximately ten times the sewage load.
7. Fibreclaim power costs include clarification of recirculating white
water by air flotation and aeration of waste water to reduce B.O.D. to
acceptable levels before discharging to existing sanitary sewers.
8. Waste water disposal costs include sewer charges based on approximate
rates in effect in southwestern Ohio for "normal" sewage.
9. Capital investment amortized over 25 year period at 6 percent
interest rate.
Calculations for a 500 ton per day plant are given as follows:
1. Operating Labor—Hydrasposal
Assume: one plant manager $ 12,000
four shift supervisors 40,000
four crane operators 36,000
four weighmasters 36,000
ten laborers 69,500
$193,500
Assume fringe benefits and administrative burden at 50 percent.
$193,500 x 1.5 = $290,000
Operating labor--Fibreclaim
3 men per shift = 12 men
Plus 1 man extra on day shift = 13 men
13 X $7,200 x 1.5 = $140,000
78
-------
2. Maintenance—Hydrasposal.
Installed capital costs:
Process equipment: $1,580,000
Electrical: 100,000
$1,980,000
Reactors: $2,000,000
Process equipment and
electrical maintenance
estimated at 10 per cent, or $ 198,000
Reactor maintenance
estimated at 5 percent, or $ 100,000
$ 298,000 per year
Maintenance—Fibreclaim
Total mechanical and electrical costs estimated at $2,000,000
.05 x 2,000,000 = $100,000
3. Fuel Oil. Reactors assumed to be running continuously. No fuel
requirement for preheating.
Allow: $4,000 building heating
1,000 reheat and support fuel
$5,000
4. Power—Electrical.
Total energy used at Franklin first 6 months = 935,600 kwh
Refuse processed: 6,140 tons
935,600/6,140 =153 kwh per ton
If fiber recovery had been operating full time The Black Clawson
Company estimates this number would be 180 kwh per ton.
With additional screening capacity and clarifier added to fiber
recovery, energy required per ton expected to be 204 kwh per ton.
79
-------
The maximum demand experienced at Franklin is 1,152 kw.
500 tons per day demand = 1,152 x 500/150 = 3,840 kw
500 tons per day energy = 204 x 182,500/12 = 3,100,000 kwh per month
Demand charge—3,840 kw:
20 kw @ $2.00 = $ 40.00
80 kw @ $1.90 = 152.00
900 kw @ $1.45 = 1,330.00
2,840 kw @ $1.35 = 3,835.00
Total demand $5,357.00 per month
Energy charge—3,100,000 kwh:
1,000 kwh @ 2.5* = $ 25.00
5,000 kwh @ 1.45* = 72.50
60 x 3,840 s 230,500 kwh @ 1.0$ = 2,300.00
120 x 3,840 = 461,000 kwh @ 0.8* = 3,690.00
461,000 kwh @ 0.575$ = 2,640.00
1,942,000 kwh @ 0.5$ = 9,710.00
Total energy $18,437.50
Fuel and tax adjustment = 3,100,000 x $0.003545 = $11,000.00
$5,357 plus $18,437 plus $11,000 = $34,794 per month—total
$34,794 x 12 = $417,000 per year—total
The Black Clawson Company suggests split 25 percent Fibreclaim and
75 percent Hydrasposal.
$417,000/4 = $104,000~Fibreclaim
$313,000—Hydrasposal
See also water treatment cost calculation.
5. Office Supplies. Say $500 per year.
80
-------
6. Telephone. Franklin—$360 per year—Hydrasposal
$180 per year—Fibreclaim
Say 3 x $360 = $1,080 per year—Hydrasposal
Say 3 x $180 = $540 per year—Fibreclaim
7. Equipment Rental or Disposal of Rejects to Landfill.
Rejects = 20 percent of refuse received
.2 x 182,500 a 365,000 tons per year at $2.00 per ton = $73,000
Say $70,000
8. Plant Security. Two times Franklin actual cost.
$960 per year—Hydrasposal
$U80 per year—Fibreclaim
9. Insurance. Insurance costs at Franklin are approximately 0.3 percent
of capital costs.
.003 x 5,no,000 = $15,300 for Hydrasposal
.003 x 2,700,000 = $ 8,100 for Fibreclaim
10. Debt Service.
Total cost Hydrasposal system, less reactor $3,110,000
Reactors 2,000,000
Total investment $5,110,000
Assume amortization at 6 percent for 25 years
Capital recovery factor = 0.078
$5,110,000 x 0.078 = $398,000
Total investment Fibreclaim = $2,700,000
$2,700,000 x 0.078 = $211,000
81
-------
11. Operating Supplies.
500/150 x $5,200 = $16,690 Say $16,000 Hydrasposal
500/150 x $700 = $2,340 Say $2,300 Fibreclaim
12. Hater Cost. See calculation for 150 tons per day plant.
Hater cost—Hydrasposal = $0.06 per ton
0.06 x $182,500 = $10,920 Say $11,000
Hater cost—Fibreclaim = $0.03 per ton
0.03 x $182,500 = $5,460 Say $5,500
13. Sludge Credit. Assumed 500 ton per day refuse load would mean
area sludge load equals 10 times 50 ton per day refuse load area.
10 x $10,000 = $100,000
14. Ferrous Metal. Recoverable ferrous metal equals about 7 percent of
refuse processed.
0.07 x 182,500 = 12,750 tons
12,750 tons at $13.27 per ton = $169,200
15. Hater Treatment Costs. See calculation for 50 ton per day load.
Previous studies by A. M. Kinney, Inc., indicate 130 gpm of waste
water must be discharged from 500 ton per day plant.
130 x 60 x 8.3 x (3200 - 300)/1,000,000 = 188 Ib B.O.D. per hour
@ 2 Ib B.O.D. per horsepower hour = 94 horsepower requirement
94 x 0.746 = 70 kw
70 kw x 1.40 = $98.00 demand charge
70 x 24 x 365/12 = 51,100 kwh
51,100 kwh @ $0.005 = $255
51,100 kwh @ $0.003545 = $181 fuel adjustment
$98 plus $255 plus $181 = $534 per month x 12 = $6,400 per year
82
-------
Add to power cost previously calculated
$104,000 plus $6,400 = $110,400 Say $110,000
16. Waste Water Disposal.
Estimated water flow to sewers per month:
130 gpm x 1,440 x 30 = 5,620,000 gallons
Based on Cincinnati, Ohio, current rate schedule:
Minimum $ 90.00
3,750,000 gallons @ $0.27 per 1,000 gallons 900.00
1,870,000 gallons @ $0.19 per 1,000 gallons 355.00
$1,345.00
Average $0.24 per 1,000 gallons
These rates are based on primary treatment only. Secondary
treatment will be required in future at approximately double this cost.
5,620,000 x 2 x $0.24/1,000 = $2,690 per month
$2,690 x 12 = $32,350 say $35,000
17. Credit—Fiber Sales.
For 15 percent fiber yield:
Fiber produced = .15 x 182,500 = 27,400 air dried tons
27,400 tons @ $25 per ton = $685,000 per year
For 20 percent yield:
Fiber produced = .20 x 182,500 = 36,500 air dried tons
36,500 tons @ $25 per ton = $914,000 per year
U0766
83
-------
Frontispiece - Aerial View of Franklin Plant
IV
-------
Figure ^. Receiving floor.
13
-------
Figure U. Hydrapulper.
-------
Fig. 5a —Magnetic Separator
Fig.5b— Liquid Cyclone
Figure 5. Magnetic separator and liquid cyclone
-------
Figure 6. Fluid bed reactor.
21
-------
Figure 8. Cyclone rejects and junk remover rejects,
-------
Figure 11. Paper fiber being loaded for shipment.
------- |