|PA-670/2-75-033d
May 1975
Environmental Protection Technology Series
-------
-------
EPA-670/2-75-033d
May 1975
CHARACTERIZATION AND UTILIZATION OF
MUNICIPAL AND UTILITY SLUDGES AND ASHES
Volume IV
Municipal Incinerator Residues
by
N. L. Hecht and D. S. Duvall
University of Dayton Research Institute
Dayton, Ohio 45469
Program Element No. 1DB064
Research Grant No. R800432
Project Officers
R. A. Games and D. F. Bender
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Laboratory
National Environmental Research Center
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
REVIEW NOTICE
The National Environmental Research Center--Cincinnati has reviewed
this report and approved its 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 trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
Man and his environment must be protected from
the adverse effects of pesticides, radiation, noise
and other forms of pollution, and the unwise manage-
ment of solid waste. Efforts to protect the environ-
ment require a focus that recognizes the interplay
between the components of our physical environment—
air, water, and land. The National Environmental
Research Centers provide this multidisciplinary focus
through programs engaged in
• studies on the effects of environmental
contaminants on man and the biosphere, and
• a search for ways to prevent contamination
and to recycle valuable resources.
This study involved the composition and current
disposal practices applicable to the residue from the
incineration of municipal refuse. The economic and
technical potential of utilizing these residues has
also been studied.
Andrew W. Breidenbach, Ph.D
Director
National Environmental
Research Center, Cincinnati
111
-------
ABSTRACT
The composition and current disposal practices for the residue
resulting from the incineration of urban refuse have been studied. In
addition, the characteristics of urban refuse are described, and the
location and capacity of the nation's municipal incinerators specified. The
economic and technical potential for utilizing materials recovered from the
residue have also been studied.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
INCINERATOR RESIDUE CHARACTERIZATION
INCINERATOR RESIDUE UTILIZATION
REFERENCES
Page
1
8
50
54
v
-------
-------
SUMMARY
Incineration is utilized for the disposal of approximately ten percent of the
collected municipal refuse, on a national basis. Annually, from 16 to 18
million tons of refuse are incinerated. A schematic representation of the
basic components for incineration is shown in Figure 1. It is estimated that
in 1972 about 193 incinerators were operating in the U.S. providing a total
capacity for approximately 71,000 tons af refuse per 24 hour day. From the
reported data, it appears that most incinerator facilities operate at about 70%
of their rated capacity. Most of the incinerators are located in the eastern
U.S. with New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Florida, and Ohio having
the largest number of incinerators. Since 1969, construction of new incinerators
or rebuilding of existing facilities has decreased significantly. It appears that
the major factors for this decrease are the higher costs of incinerator con-
struction, and higher operation costs due to the institution of stricter pollution
regulations for incinerator operations. Capital costs for an incinerator range
between $6,000 and $10,000 per daily ton and operating costs range between
$5 and $20 per daily ton.
During incineration, furnace temperatures are between 1800°F and 2000°F
with flame temperatures at approximately 2500°F. This process results in
the reduction of the refuse incinerated to between 25 to 35% of its original
weight; and, on the average, to less than 10% of its volume. The resultant
residue after quenching is a wet, complex mixture of metal, glass, slag,
charred and unburned paper, and ash. The typical range of values obtained
for the various residue components is presented below.
RESIDUE COMPOSITION (%)
Material
metals
glass
ceramics, stones
clinker
ash
organics
Range
20 - 40
10 - 55
1 - 5
15 - 25
10 - 20
1 - 10
On a national basis, 4 to 6| million tons of incinerated residue are generated
annually, containing about 1 \ to 2 million tons of ferrous metal, 100,000 to
200,000 tons of nonferrous metal and 2 to 3 million tons of glass. In addition
to the residue, about 1% of the refuse exits with the exhaust gases leaving
the furnace chamber. The particulate matter (or fly ash) retained, is pre-
dominately minus 200 microns in size, and consists of wood and paper ash,
aluminum foil, carbon particles, metal pins and wire, glass, sand and iron
scale. The chemical analysis of this material is very similar to fly ash from
coal burning boilers .
-------
2 _,
. — O
IT
— — J I —
< -i -z.
0 0
O_
_
o
o
cc
cn
«i
o
UJ
~
u.
cc
cc
C )
1—
UJ
_J
S =
*t LU —
H a.
tn cn
O
-r
W
**•
>.
j^ T1 ___ »T
u> tn £ "J
cr = < 5 i-
O uj i > ^^ > ^
cc *~ _j ™ ^
UJ ^ < U- — 1
UJ < ' l
tn |_ 1
o a f
X
cn '^
< M
u 3
O
^
£ I- uj
cc 5; cc cn [_
UJ 7 *- < <
i- ^ => -5
LU X
"D O
Q Z
in ^
UJ ^
cc 0
12 l — r < p - - 1
M 5i „§
W J3 U, UJ > -J 0
3. O 0
uj cn _
CJ ii T~:
^ r
u_ -
u cc uj Q tn
uJ i_ o fn
<> <£*-•
So tc
UJ ™
or o
ii|
H
y ^ "4
< cn CQ
Z D 5
CC CD <
r> 5 x
u. o O
U
uj C3
c_> z
- 55
UJ - ^ < V*^
cn 2 D x ^Jo
13 0 u. o 3> 2
m _ UJ ^
O
Z UJ
|i<
o < o
z K
i cc — "- A
cn
tu <
3 £
U_ J3
s
3
co ^^
& s
E ~
o
•o
CC
^ a
CN
O
(0
a
_c
S
(O
O
O
z
I
S
o
U
y
• iH
01
ai
CQ
a)
^
S
DO
•i-t
fc
<§
3 2
u- I-
UJ ^-
cc —
c
-------
The majority of the incinerator residue and fly ash is disposed of by burying.
However, some problems are associated with this method, of disposal because
of potential water pollution from the water soluble portion of the residue.
Depending on the specific residue, from 1 to 6% is water soluble. In addition
to land fill, some communities are using the residue as a filler for road
construction (road bed). The City of Baltimore is screening out the fine
fraction for use as aggregate in asphalt. Several cities are salvaging the
metal cans from the residue for the copper smelting industry and for use
in the manufacture of Rebar. Several studies are now in progress to develop
the technology for recovering the glass and metal fractions from incinerator
residue. A pilot project by the Bureau of Mines has been relatively successful
in developing a system for recovering the glass, ferrous metal, aluminum
and other nonferrous metals from the residue. A schematic of this system is
presented in Figure 2, and a breakdown of the various products which would
be recovered from a 250 ton per day facility is presented below:
QUANTITIES OF THE VARIOUS PRODUCTS RECOVERED
FROM THE BUREAU OF MINES' INCINERATOR RESIDUE RECOVERY
PROJECT*
Project Tons/Day
+4 mesh iron 41
-4 mesh iron 35
alum inum 4
copper and zinc 3
colorless glass 69
colored glass 50
waste solids 48
*for a plant processing 250 tons/day
A demonstration facility for residue recovery is scheduled for operation by
1975, at Lowell, Mass. The quality of the products recovered from the
residue and the economics of recovery have not been well determined.
Preliminary estimates indicate that a plant to process 50 tons per day in an
eight hour shift would cost about 2 million dollars and operating costs would
be 9 to 11 dollars per ton of residue processed.
The degradation of the metal and glass resulting from the incineration operation
may limit the market acceptance of these materials. During incineration the
ferrous metal is contaminated by copper and tin and undergoes considerable
oxidation. The glass is subjected to slagging and contamination from metal
and other minerals. Estimates for the revenue from the products of a ton
of residue have varied from $6 to $15. For distant markets, freight rates
become a major factor in the economics of the recovery process; and this is
further compounded by the higher rates for secondary materials . In the final
-------
U
4
CM*
o oTZ
z o
— *•<
oro
CO COUJ
(O
(O
o
-1
or
UJ
r
PERMANENT-MAGNET
DRUM SEPARATOR
X
CO
UJ
or 5
y ^
< CO
_l
a.
, J_
or
H •
u •
o
^ UI
» Q; I
X
CO
X i_
v ox
u
tr
o
SECONDARY S
— — (/) CO
=> ^^ tns
i 1 1§
^ 1 i 3
3 X -1- "*
§ J-, z S
s f_n ~ y
tt UJ ^ 0 »•
„ S — CO
o-* * -*i-* ,.
P o >
< ^ CO 5
or i- 3 5
UJ A Z —
z T 5 o:
o S °-
z 1 V
or a:
UJ UJ
i i
' r
*
| HAMMERMILL
g
Kz
z|p gio °^§
i§ 55 «zg
1 TERTIARY SCREEN]
— MINUS 20MESH —
ZCM
S
I
CO
UJ
S
o
CT
2
S
'
(OMAGNET
* y*
_ii
UJI
WATER
i
? £
3 d
4 CO
t CO
S f
iJ CJ
:%
D CE
5 85
, OVERFLOW
> '
i
z
UJ
UJ
cr"
d H
2 ^ ^
o ui
or £
0
CM
L
WATER -[
cr
COLL or
ZC/5 W
— CO Z
t OTrf UJ
t-o y
-------
analysis, the economic viability for these recovery processes has yet to be
firmly established and until an actual unit is in operation, it will not be possible
to make a final determination on this matter.
The high cost of incineration, the institution of stricter pollution codes, and
the increased need for the conservation of national resources suggests an un-
certain future for conventional incineration, as indicated by the reduction in
the construction of new facilities. The development of advanced combustion
processes for urban refuse would appear to have a more promising potential.
The advanced processes under development include: waste heat recovery
for steam generation; high temperature incineration; fluidized bed incineration;
pyrolysis and hydrogenation of refuse and the processing of refuse for use as
a low-sulfur fuel supplement for coal burning furnaces and boilers. The
residue from many of these processes will be considerably different from that
obtained by conventional incineration. In high temperature incineration, com-
bustion is more complete. All the organics are eliminated and the glass and
metal is melted forming a slag, which after quenching is a good aggregrate
material. In the fluidized bed process, the refuse is usually shredded and the
metal removed prior to combustion. The residue is a powdery inorganic ash.
Waste heat recovery for steam generation can be incorporated with conven-
tional incineration as well as with high temperature and fluidized bed in-
cineration. The nature of the residue will be determined by the .precombustion
processes (metal, glass removal, etc.) and the temperatue of combustion. In
the various pyrolysis processes the refuse is shredded and the metal and glass
removed prior to the destructive distillation of the organic materials. One ton
of refuse will yield from 154 to 230 pounds of char residue by this process. The
shredded refuse with the glass and metal removed can also be effectively used
as a low-sulfur fuel supplement. The residue from the refuse in this case
would be combined with the coal ash and recovered from the pit (bottom ash) and
from the air pollution equipment (fly ash). In all of these advanced processes,
the residue produced is primarily recovered as ash which can be used as fill
in various construction applications. Removal of the glass and metal prior to
combustion results in a residue that is easier to utilize and provides metal and
glass fractions of higher quality. The economics for the different refuse dis-
posal and recovery processes have been compiled by Midwept Research and are
presented next for purposes of comparison. These data were compiled
in 1972 and are based on the economic conditions at that time. Although the
specific numbers quoted are now out of date the economic ratio between systems
is still relatively valid.
-------
SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR REFUSE
DISPOSAL OR RECOVERY SYSTEMS
t. Incineration*
2". Incineration and
Steam Recovery*
3. Incineration and
Residue Recovery*
4. Incineration, with
Steam and Residue
Recovery-'-
5. Incineration and
Electrical Energy
Recovery*
6. High Temperature
Incineration with
Steam Recovery**
7. Fluidized-Bed
Incineration***
8. Pyrolysis*
9. Fuel Recovery*
10. Sanitary Land Fill
Close-in*
11. Sanitary Land
Fill Remote*
12, Composting*
Capital Cost
per Daily Ton
$ 9,299
$11,607
$10,676
$12,784
$17,717
$17,000
$12,000
$12,334
$ 7,577
$ 2,472
$ 2,817
$17,100
Operating Cost
per Ton
$ 7.68
$10.39
$ 8.96
$11.69
$12.97
$ 6.42
$10.00
$10.95
$ 5.77
$ 2.57
$ 5.94
$ 9.96
Revenue
pe r Ton
-0-
$3.34
$1.78
$5.12
$4.00
$3.01
$2.50
$5.54
$3.07
-0-
-0-
$3.68
Net Cost
per Ton
$7.68
$7.05
$7.18
$6.57
$8.97
$3.41
$7.50
$5.42
$2.70
$2.57
$5.94
$6.28
*Based on municipally-owned 1000 TPD plant with a 20-year economic life operating
300 days per year.
**Based on the American Thermogen system for a plant with 1650 TPD capacity,
economic data supplied by American Thermogen.
***Based on a 600 TPD plant.
From the foregoing compilation it is apparent that except for electrical energy
generation all of the systems cited have lower net operating cost per ton than
incineration. Fuel recovery, sanitary land fill, and high temperature incineration
also have lower total operating costs than conventional incineration. However,
the total operating cost of $6.42 listed for high temperature incineration would
appear low since the operation is similar to conventional incineration and it
requires the additions of lime for slagging and supplemental fuel (coal, oil or
gas) for achieving the higher temperatures. Similarly, the estimated revenues
for the products recovered from the refuse may also be somewhat high. In
-------
addition, it can be seen from the data presented that fuel recovery and sanitary
land fill facilities require lower capital costs than conventional incineration.
The data also show that recovery of metal and glass from the refuse and the
use of the organic fraction for a low-sulfur fuel supplement are economically
competitive with close-in sanitary land fill, when the facility is processing
more than 1000 tons per day. In addition to its good economy, fuel recovery
is a more desirable means for solid waste management because it is more
consistent with the need for conservation of energy and natural resources
and the improvement of the environmental quality of the community.
Conclusions and Recommendations
On a national level, incinerator residue is not a major solid waste as only
4 - 6-jr million tons per year are generated by some 193 incinerators. Most
of these incinerators are located in the eastern United States, with New York,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania having the
largest numbers. However, for communities with incinerators, there are
problems in disposing of the residue. Almost all of the residue is buried;
however, because of the potential for ground water pollution due to leaching,
better land fill disposal procedures are necessary. Techniques have been
developed for recovering the metal and glass from the residue; however, the
economics may not be favorable for their implementation.
From this study, it is apparent that conventional incineration is the least
desirable means for refuse disposal. The process is expensive and unless
very sophisticated equipment is employed, the process contributes to air
and water pollution. In addition, incineration is not consistent with the
national need for conservation of natural resources. Whenever possible,
resource recovery processes, consistent with the needs of the community, should
be employed. When incineration is the only viable option for refuse disposal,
the feasibility of shredding the refuse and recovering the glass and ferrous
metal, prior to incineration, should be investigated. The shredded refuse
will burn more completely reducing the leachate in the residue. In addition,
the metal and glass recovered will be of higher quality and have higher market
value.
It is recommended that the demonstration programs to evaluate the economic and
technical viability of recovering useful commodities from incinerator residue
be closely monitored. If these programs are successful, efforts to implement
them in other communities should be actively pursued.
-------
INCINERATOR RESIDUE CHARACTERIZATION
The incineration of urban refuse results in the generation of a residue derived
from the noncombustible constituents of the refuse, and those materials
which are not completely burned during incineration. The residue composition
will be dictated by the composition of the refuse, the type of incinerator, and
the efficiency of the incinerator. In addition to the residue produced and
collected from the bottom of the furnace, the incineration process also generates
particulate matter which is entrained in the effluent and is termed fly ash.
About 25-35 weight percent of the refuse remains as residue when complete
burnout is achieved. Incineration of refuse results in a volume reduction of
80 to 98% depending on the particular process employed. About 1 weight
percent of the refuse incinerated is entrained in the effluent as fly ash.
Since the incinerator residue and fly ash composition are largely dictated by
the refuse composition, the nature of urban refuse should first be evaluated.
The average composition of refuse and its description, on an "as discarded11
basis, is shown in Table I. The composition of refuse will vary both with
seasons of the year and locality as reflected by the differences reported
in the published literature. A summary of some of the more recent data
compiled by the National Center for Resource Recovery is in Table II. An
estimated ultimate analysis for each of the refuse categories is presented in
Table III. An estimated proximate analysis and ultimate analysis for refuse
is presented in Table IV. It can be anticipated that the refuse composition
will be changing with time. A projected analysis of refuse composition and
properties from 1968 to 2000 is presented in Table V. The projections
indicate that the fraction of glass in refuse will not change significantly in the
next 30 years. However, the glass fraction would be significantly reduced
if low-cost beverage and food grade, plastic containers are successfully
developed. The projections in Table V show a slight drop in the metal fraction
of the refuse and an increase in the paper and plastics fractions. The very
rapid growth expected for plastics may have some serious effects on
incinerator operations (1,2,3).
Projected compositional changes will also alter the physical characteristics of
the refuse as shown in Table VI. Projected heating rates (BTU/lb.) are
expected to increase as the paper and plastic fractions increase. Increased
heating value of the refuse will correspondingly result in a decrease in the
incinerator furnace capacity. Similarly, the indicated drop in moisture will
result in higher flue gas temperatures with corresponding decrease in
effective incinerator capacity.
The average per capita rate for the generation of municipal solid wastes
in the United States has been estimated at 3.32 pounds/day for 1971. It has
been estimated that in 1968 only 69% of the refuse generated was collected by
municipal agencies for disposal, and in 1969 about 76% was collected. The
-------
TABLE I
AVERAGE REFUSE COMPOSITION
AS DISCARDED
Category
Glass
Metal
Paper
Plastics
Wt %
Description
10.0 Bottles, jars, crockery, & other
ceramic products
10.1 Cans, Wire, Foil, broken furniture
and appliances
37.8 Newspapers, books, magazines
corrugated & other packaging
materials
3.8 Polyvinyl Chloride, Polyethylene,
Styrene, etc. as Found in Pack-
aging, Housewares, Furniture,
Toys and Non-woven Synthetics
Leather & Rubber 2.7 Shoes, Tires, Toys, etc.
Textiles
Wood
Food Wastes
Miscellaneous
Yard Wastes
1.6 Cellulosic, Protein, and Woven
Synthetics
3.7 Wooden Packaging, Furniture,
Logs, and Twigs
14.2 Garbage animal & vegetable waste
from food preparation
1.5 Inorganic Ash, Stones, Dust, Dirt
14.6 Grass, Brush, Shrub Trimmings
100.0
-------
W
J
CQ
<
H
O
U
H
H
H
O
<
CcJ
w
TJ
-4->
2 s
EH in
K 5
O ^
TJ
•I-I
I—t
O
CO
1—1
rt
ft
• iH
O
•H
fi
tn
O
I
O
U
o
CD
0)
CO
j «
tM vo r-
_ ^> IM
0 « ^
n m ~
•j;
CO QO O
o M r-
r- r- r-
o M r-
CO CO CO
r- in in
0^ ON t^
fl O 'f
M £"*
o M a-
(^ O CO
Oceanaide.N. Y.
Cincinnati, Ohio
•o
o
in o w>
— i — O
IM m
IM O
ON
o
f-1 O CO
o in in
cr.ro *
o m m
o •* r-
o-r- o
— N r-
•o
o
~> r- os
o -o o
(M
r- — — •
- S M
Oceans ide, N. Y.
Flint, Mich.
Johnaon City,
Tenn.
p- m
M1 O
•*
vo
m -•
m —
M ON
O -"
r- f^ fM
•o r- ao
r-. t- rvi
h- co <^
f> «-> C*
CO *-* •-*
r-
^j m •*
-* in
•a PI
•* in
-2
a* M
O Cl
in r-
o o
in 1*1
-t 0
-H O
M in
n
O
U
«* ^
** "o
5 •*<
CQ h
•*•
N
(M 00
(M O
0 00
M MM
•*
eo
, ,„
r- ON .-
•* •* (M
CO O (M
>O O (M
•* 0* CO
00
00 OO CO
ui t*i in
r- o ^)
•*•*•*
«1 <•> (0
m -o oo
ty- -- M
in ro m
f- fM r-
Alexandria, Va.
Atlanta, Ga.
•JD
O
in
^*
^> CO
rM M
CO *
to (M
o
O CO
iH O
CO CO
00 "f
w
-
rM
rM
MOO
*o m •*>
m --
- -o
N tn
°^ ?
c- ~
CO ON
New Orleans, La,
Tampa, Fla.
" "*
in in -H
M r- —
c-^^.
00 PI —
n wi
tn o
(O
o
vO
o
r-
in
,0 r-
o in
,0 t-
r-
O O (M
r- eo (M
o o --
o EN r-
t- in r-
o a- t-
CO -0 CO
o r- in
\U L1— iXf
*r o t-
Kl (M —
O CN sO
M ~O N
0^^.
(M 00 -O
ll|
o
*
0
in
o
o
«
in
t--
o
o-
o
*>
O
m
"*
m
CM
•o
*
Average!
10
-------
w
w
D
CM
W
W
IT i **™»s
0 £
CO —
1-1 CO
CO M
CO
h-1 ^
< cq
"7 i»
*^ 04
W Q
H ~
2l ^>
S ^"*
S m
H [i]
t-4 *-*
!D PH
§8
t~J
pt] **!
H ^
^j
2
S
H
W
|7|
M t3
C H >-
** fi. Q
01 *"*
ffi
c
o ^
,C .rt
In m
nl rt
o U CQ
^ -d >N
V h
.s a
t*
&)
w
1
o
*
A
fft
_
n.
C
b-0
s
U
t— i
01
w
JS
co
Z,
O
ffi
U
^
o
0)
m
U
ooo inoo o Oino
•Nf <*1 O I*-(*1O •* ONOO
r*— CT* in ^^ o ^* m fo in
t*"» -COCO CO f1- <*1
^ o
in f^ r-* ^< o** ^-* r*^ cn ^* in
o ^^ in NO ro ^ m o^1 o r^
0)
o
' a ' iii i tit
i 2 ' iii i iii
i H ' i.i , , , ,
1 1 O III I III
it. iii i iii
1 1 \O III 1 III
O 1 O 1 O O CO Oil
> . ' . .11
O i O i O O O Oil
NO 1 1 III | III
II III 1 III
O * 1 III | III
(M
Oil III I III
II III 1 1, ( 1
Oil ill i III
.11 Oil 1 ill
'I .11 1 III
II M 1 1 1 III
• rNi < • i ill
Oil 1(1 III
.It II 1 III
CO ' 1 II I III
*-< ' 1 II 1 III
.11 II 1 III
Oil II I III
rv3 i i it i 111
CO 1 1 II I III
'1 II 1 III
r- i t ii i 111
t~ t 1 II 1 III
— • PO ^ in NO i
O «-• r»l PO <\] -H (s) rO,i
ooo ooo o o'i
ro
m o NO NO co ^ o^ ooo
ONO*—1 •— ' ""i eg -H inoo
<^ -1 -* CJ r- como
•NTino^ CT-NOCO <~i o* o <*i
^* in in *p ^* ^^ 41 •— t
•O
C
nt
a t, i. co <° n
^ h .S « » JS S S J
5 a*S'a"i«Po'ofl)'s™ ™ y
^(S^Ol.SS^'O^rt^jS^
SCL.&J^H^h >. o2
X
o
P<
"S o
»~* d
« -2
•d "^
*I^ *0
2
S °
j -£S
'C o-
> 0
Tt
0) Q
4^ <•%
j W
-------
w
oo
CO
oo
04
00
O
CM
CO
CM
CM
CM
CO
O
CM
O
in
En
W
O
03
CO
O
CM
CO
CM
in
*
en
CM
CM
en
*
o
CM
•
o
CM
CO
CM
CO
f-«
w
H
> 1
HH H
H
J p
5 Q
H 2
W
H
i— i
a
c
<3
0)
4J
03
•H
X
o
Jj
p-
g S ^ S SS-*cQ00 8 S"
o h -rl g
_,_ ro oaffi-H"*?
«-> " *j B •<:
0) *H _ i, ^./ o -r)
^•ww «SoSn
Q>0)> UClCU-r4«I
S. B s « -rf H 5 BTJ* ^
JS2-T5 S KflS«6^m
~^ X tfl 4J *H (-1 *o £> *r *7J ^ ni o) <1) JJ fa
O O "^ ^^ *""* .9 , 2? 2S « « rn "sr* •rfSW 4i
St> Cij C3 *"^ E O 33 O SS **3 >•• i** ^ »** * T
^- !—•»-• ^- •—•
12
-------
5
to
Z
O
H
I-H
o
M 0
3
< i
fe
H
Q
W
O
g
o
o
o
-
o
w
-
\n
:
o
S i C -
° o c a
"Sit
o o o a
M CO W
* >
t) o ra
(O M
CI 1
2 o o «
Z. to m
i
"i ; c «
o « o a
OT (O M
i t
O O C
W W
£ 0 0 0
*% W n
V i* O O
i i
o o c
[- * •
.? W 0 0
•5 (/) W
•~ . .
u a o o
to « n
t. o a
Ci i
° w o a
S W w
v o o a
w « o
0 C —
0 O B
w «
S « c -
° 0 O «
*- OT ta
i
°S » >
0 O O »
1 1
Set
SOI
Refuse Category n
f>»<*>l*f»t*.O.f1
T ^ N
«
T ~ —
n »- 01
„
^ C^ fO *-* ^l ^4 ^ ^« CM
dco-"ii-.-«*r
rl t-i cS
\o r- -r t- *«• o «o o «»> ts
fO^*/10OiA^*Oo**^C^
5«-« -,
-------
^r
w
to
D
f*l
W
O
to [
O
i— i
t""i
_. to
tr •"*
H
w E-1
3 y
9 3
< 03
r , •
> 6 a c —
. y 41 o a
WWW
<
a C —
u o a
w «
v«
c
CB
M
u
t
8-8
0 JJ
£ M
s|
1
•- » v» r-. 0 C S «
2 « (4 ti in - ^ «
V> « •*
VI CM CM *^
tn ^ *-t
r^Miof- f* ** *" **!
O . • « • * * ^
U> r+ CM —•
O rt 0
o* ^. -* o d w> *^ o
T*--; • _I _1 <^
CO .V — O ^ •* "^ "
-« « ^
^o «r in — o m ro o
S d
o o ir o o «*> -; "^
r^-^O r* « O» — , O e*i
lO *D O* ^3 ^T ^— ** ^"^
eo r* «
o«ootn — — o CM
•«•-*• • • • _I
vo m o ^^ 'n ^ ^
-r CM cv CM
O» p* *"•
^TfO* (0 -^ ® ^
r^"idfM vj — -* -*
1- CM CM CM
m CM t
"we-*"1 — ° ° °
ci • • « • • • ^J
m c* t
0 ^ „> r* CM 0 0 0
i/it^cj\O in ^* ** ^
m CM E;
« . E > o « • — 7L J. £ fl°-
M> « « — — JjJ "a. S rt? 3-
c^ c c ? cci ""3 co— "5
-S S S u S^Vg .2 5) "« e
*''-•- *-*-S-'^ n
•i luutiu ti a ^
K CUO.C,CL. C. 2 (-
14
8
**
S
ci
«
o
CM
s
tO
+
«i u ffl
— o rj
B -" "e
ir S
(S " ta
via
V
D.
O
n
*
o
CI
(O
CO
CM
CM
^
in
*
r*
i/i
*
*^
W
^*
s
"
s
o
CO
o
*™
oo
o
^4
O
O
^4
O
**
^^
3
.5
w ^^
a >.
V .«
** __
s.e-_
- ^ «
2 E -a
o
t-
-------
amount of solid waste collected and categorized as to origin is summarized in
Table VII (4).
In 1971, approximately 125 million tons of refuse were generated and it is
expected that by 1980 more than 170 million tons of refuse will be generated.
The amount of refuse collected will increase due to three major factors:
(a) increasing population; (b) improved municipal collection practices; and
(c) continued increase in national consumption of manufactured products coupled
with a trend toward reduced service life.
It is projected that solid waste generation would have an annual growth rate of
3.5% per year. At the present time, the bulk of the refuse collected is
disposed of in land fills. However, approximately 13 percent of the urban
refuse collected is disposed of in municipal incinerators (10, 11).
The basic components of an incinerator are shown schematically in Figure 1.
Incinerators operate on both a continuous and/or a periodic batch basis.
Continuous feed incinerators , e.g., the traveling-grate , reciprocating-grate ,
ram-feed, and rotary-kiln are more commonly used for municipal incineration.
Several incinerators in the United States recover the waste heat generated
during incineration. The waste heat can be recovered by the use of high and
low pressure boilers or with waterwall systems. A summary evaluation,
by Niessen, of incinerator concepts based on existing technology is presented
in Table VIII (2,4,9,10,11,12,13,14).
From a compilation by Achinger & Baker(1), it was determined that since
1920 about 322 municipal-scale incinerators were built and about 193 of them,
having a total daily capacity of 70,667 tons, were reported operational as of
May 1972.
A summary of operating municipal incinerators in the United States is
presented in Table IX. From these data it would appear that most incinerator
facilities are operating at about 70% of rated capacity. (2)
Most of the incinerators are located in the eastern United States, with New York,
Massachusetts, Connecticut, Florida, and Ohio having the largest number of
incinerators. Since 1964, the number of new incinerators built and the number
of incinerators rebuilt or added to has decreased significantly, as shown
in Figures 3 and 4. Although total added annual capacity has decreased, the
average incinerator plant size has increased and is approaching 400 tons per
day. A major factor for decrease in incinerator construction may be the higher
costs resulting from the institution of stricter pollution regulations for
incinerator operations (2),
The proximate analysis and ultimate analysis for the combustible components is
presented in Table X. During incineration, furnace temperature is usually
between 1800 F and 2000 F and flame temperature is approximately 2500°F.
15
-------
TABLE VII
ORIGIN OF SOLID WASTES FOR MUNICIPAL COLLECTION
(9)
Source
Combined Household & Commercial
Refuse
Demolition & Construction
Street and Alley
Miscellaneous
Tree & Landscaping Refuse
Park & Beach Refuse
Catch Basin Refuse
TOTAL
Pounds/Person/Day
2.64
0.23
0:19
0.09
0.02
0.01
0.14
3.32
16
-------
HH
HH
HH
w
J
FQ
H
CO
H
W
U g
O .
r ^ r^
C3
^ p.
O J
M £\
H 2
< 2
j I-TH
PCJ E
W ^
A rj
io
t-t ^
h H
O co
t-H
O W
(•^
< 0
;~l
j Q
S ^
ri "^
W fQ
S
<
^
D
CO
•^ "S *
flj ** *£i
IP
o
U
*->
0)
VI
(4
cn
3 ^
•D •"
* 'w "(3
C OL Cl
I
o
"^ £"
m Tj
ft 5
VI (1)
O ^J
•S i*
M re
2
•H
h
O 4)
-rl
to 2
| |
co C
u O
1 °
W
a "3 2
£ 41 .S
-S £
Pk
! ! ! ! ! ! « w ! !
i i i i i i S S i i
^i t*} fl f*J ^J ^J ^J M l^ ^*
*v* S/* V V S* ^/* V V Sfi ^£
O OOOOO OO OO
M ^^^^.^ m^. *nm
tj. fi -v^f> ^->n fo-n
TT . 3 'C (S ° r3 ° y c
u *< *o 3 BJ '£> ,B ? . — r^*o
S5ew' ijQO**3 °
S S'><:':**1'l'cC<^Cc^4 u
<^ * **"-*fcao**o.M?i-H<0 s >« B)
^H 01 *rt frt fc 2 ^1 _d *" |^] g V tfj 1^
oo" 3Cc-^4ja;*ja«aa 5 ® ^
Tu S « Sf2o^^M«Eni£« '5 M >.
u IS 3 I"N"H*irtn]Cu^'ai3 (• w M
fe 0 S 5^-3^M»S^-S?5^.^ 0?
* § * £ M^ • i£ £ 9 *5
gPi|«Ktf>^>^ .^o,rt
« o i
n u co
•
•
o
in
<*
N
fl
O
n
-i-i
n
0)
ontinuous feed with r
U
«
1
O
ri
VI
X
^•i
H
jS
II
m
•— i
J3
at
O
rt
VI
C
3
J5
U
M
fi
*
17
-------
TABLE IX
SUMMARY OF OPERATING MUNICIPAL INCINERATORS - MAY 1972
(1)
Region Number of
Incinerators
National Sunury
Region I
Malm
Venoont
Hew Hampshire
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Region II
Hew York
New Jersey
Region III
Pennsylvania
Vest Virginia
Virginia
District of Columbia
Maryland
Delaware
Region IV
Kentucky
Tennessee
Georgia
Florida
North Carolina
South Carolina
Mississippi
Alabama
Region V
Ohio
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Region VI
New Mexico
Texas
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Louisiana
Region VII
Kansas
Nebraska
Missouri
lorn
Region VIII
South Dakota
Montana
Utah
Colorado
North Dakota
Region U
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nsvada
Region X
Idaho
VisMngton
Oregon
Alaska
193
45
0
0
3
4
21
17
50
4S
5
22
11
0
6
1
4
0
23
7
0
2
14
0
0
0
0
37
14
8
1
4
10
0
10
0
2
4
0
8
2
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dally design
c*pad ty
(tons)
70,667
12.518
0
0
250
960
5.994
5,314
18.570
17,240
1.330
11,012
4.272
0
2.320
1.500
2,520
0
8.025
1.525
0
1.100
5.400
0
0
0
0
15.392
5.050
6.200
450
1.750
1.942
0
3.450
0
1.150
0
0
2.3CO
800
0
0
800
0
300
0
0
300
0
0
coo
0
0
coo
0
•o
0
0
0
0
Average tonnaga processed
Dally Yearly
(tons) (10* tons)
49,932
5.700
0
0
68
560
2.410
2.662
14.058
13.167
891
8.138
3.529
0
1.550
1.000
2.059
0
6,034
1.525
0
990
3,519
0
0
0
0
12.279
3.887
6,311
100
1,180
801
0
2.355
0
850
0
0
1,505
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
300
0
0
300
0
0
coo
0
0
coo
0
0
0
0
0
0
16.66
2.1C
0
0.02
0.23
0.88
1.03
5.00
4.80
0.20
2.48
1.14
0
0.44
0.26
0.64
0
1.98
0.38
0
0.32
1.28
0
0
0
0
3.92
1.11
2.15
0.03
0.41
0.22
0
0.65
0
0.24
0
0
0.41
0.26
0
0
0.28
0
0.06
0
0
0.06
0
0
0.16
0
0
0.1C
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
-------
1000
500
1830 1934 1938 1942 1946 1950 1954 1958 1962 I9G6
v»
SOUIM:
Figure 3. Total Annual Additions to United States
Incinerator Capacity (2)
19
-------
1300
1000
800
§
400
200
NMIpn
1
I'M 1940
1945
I960
1055
1900
1965
1960
32 3 3 1 8 12 1 13 10 • • 10 U 13 14 72 1) 16 13 13 15 12 '* 21 15 13 8 6 4
Figure 4 . Range of Plant Capacities: rT3\v Rebuilt, and
Additions (2)
20
-------
c
a
Is
°
ffl
oo
w *o oo r- t^ oo **•
*"
Ill I
,|!!ii
i\\i
c n "
21
-------
The resultant residue taken from the quench pit is a wet complex mixture of
metal, glass, slag, charred and unhurried paper, and ash. The typical range
of values obtained for these various residue components is shown in Table XI
(9,15,16, 17).
On a national basis from 4 to 6f million tons of incinerated residue are
generated annually, containing about 1 % to 2 million tons of ferrous metal,
100,000 to 200,000 tons of nonferrous metal, and 2 to 3 million tons of glass.
A detailed compilation of the inorganic oxides (mineral) and metallic phases
resulting from the incineration of municipal refuse is presented in Table XII.
A comparison of residue analysis from a rotary-kiln incinerator and a grate-
type incinerator is presented in Table XIII. The differences in composition
are due to the higher temperatures attained in the rotary-kiln and hence greater
burn-out (3,20).
Potential water pollution from residue buried in land fill sites is of concern
since from 1 to 6% of the residue for a batch and continuous feed incinerator
is presented in Table XIV. Process water from incineration is also of
concern since both the quench water and the scrubber water come into contact
with the residue and fly ash and pick up pollutants . An analysis of the
scrubber water for a batch-feed incinerator is presented in Table XV and an
estimate of the total waste water discharges from U.S. municipal incinerators
is presented in Table XVI (7,9,17,21,22,23,24,25,26).
The exhaust gases leaving the furnace chamber contain not only the products
of combustion but also considerable particulate matter and other gasous com-
ponents released during refuse burning. A compilation of the typical emissions
from the furnace chamber and from the stack is presented in Table XVII.
Projected annual emissions estimated for U.S. municipal incinerator systems
from 1968 to the year 2000 are presented in Figure 5. An estimate of air
pollution from U.S. municipal incinerators in 19~2 is presented in Table XVIIL
The particulate matter retained by the air pollution control unit (the fly ash)
is one of the fractions from incinerator emissions of interest. The par-
ticulate matter retained, which is primarily less than 200y in size, consists of
wood and paper ash, aluminum foil, carbon particles, metal pins and wires,
glass and iron scale. A general analysis of the inorganic components found in
fly ash is presented in Table XIX. A comprehensive elemental analysis for
eight different municipal incinerator fly ashes is presented in Table XX and
the screen analysis for these fly ashes is presented in Table XXI (27, 28)
It has also been reported that small amounts of cadmium, lead and mercury
have been found in fly ash samples. (1)
The future of municipal incineration is somewhat uncertain at the present
time. Although the projected quantity of ubban refuse generated is expected
to increase and the availability of land fill sites around urban areas is
rapidly decreasing, the high cost of incineration, the extensive maintenance.
(Text continues on Page 35)
22
-------
TABLE XI
RESIDUE COMPOSITION* '
(PERCENT)
Material Range
Metals 19 to 30
Glass 9 to 44
Ceramics, Stones 1 to 5
Clinkers 17 to 24
Ash" 14 to 16
Organic 1. 5 to 9
•j,
Exclusive of other materials listed
23
-------
1— 1
1— 1
X
w
T
H
o
W
i/i
fc
w
fy^
(•H
J
PL,
U
i—,
jr.
D
s
h M
O 3
S r
o 5
H tf
H °
2 2
I — 1 /— >
Ovj
r,
i— I TpT1
S Q
o ^
Qi ^
S o
ri &
W ^-^
1— .
1— J
Q
i— ,
w
f*J
J
tf
|XJ
l__
K
§
-^
2 5 «
» rt 3
a 1 o «
s-o 5 w
c
* H
to
a
3
•o *
-i e -2
5~ S
^1-2
Q.
i £
!**
IX *T
0) ^
* -a
V ^
Z 4
•o
t» id
3 S
n X
O O
O rt
2S S^SSo^^2S2S«5*o?°
(M —
lo^ooi^ • • as i *o OIMO
t 41 (\l ^0 ' ^" ' ' N 1 ^* t** *0 CO
l ,..< -b'li* •'!«•>«•••
NMWOmv-^oo-co-o-tftrto
MO^cj-S^-1555^^^^^5*^^
cl —
2S S So 2 S2S2S
o (s» iJ O* tno o co o ir o ^
OtA oOQ^OOOoQ
<*» «
J3g? 55 3 -SS3SS
-Hooineo oo «*> ooov-rg—«
sss^ ss s ^ss?s
"S'*'* N-0 — eoo-^oo
OO-*^OOQO
*" ^O n oo-^jin
or-OO «-" O o fi o o o o
o«nvo -^ift r- -^ wicot-
d . . . .. . .(«...
(MOO OO O fs)*iOOO
o%oor<- NO fi P- o (M
f. ^ ,4 ^t O «ji O O O
• -••• *b » "fa***
il O O O Ou O O 3 O O O
NOOO «2 £ SSf:5S
O ^** M C4 MO O fOO'-'^Q
- « , 0 « 0
I t*) o cO t 1 ^" ^^ 00 I ^ ^ ^O
1... .> . ..I...
INOO o i o o-^iooo
^V«-J-* O» »* N ^^^o-*^1
o i1 is] rj rg o -• ino-^oo
d — d c> do o o d d d d
°N 0N O^1 °CO » 9 d ? 3 9 « i ? ° /^ °« -S
24
-------
X
w
u
H P
&s
<3 03
rt W
O a;
En
°«
S O
O H
a.
a
o
u
o
H
w
2
i— i
O
i
W
O W
o
l-l
H
O
u
fi
O
a
o
O
fcJD
0 ^>
•«->
ti
0)
C
o
a
S
o
u
CO
•2
§^
? a;
to* ^ to
f 1 s
aS g o
-H O
rt
o
• r-4
g CO
IH CJ
O ni
'O j^
at
. TJ
fc
'— "OOC
O^
IB
$ ri
I 1
CO ffi
00
fl
o
• rH
•W
O
ni
n
MH
^OJD O
0) *"*
>
Q O O
*
*
25
-------
TABLE XIV
AVERAGE ANALYSIS OF WATER-SOLUBLE
PORTION OF RESIDUE*9*
(percent by dry weight of sample)
Hydrocarbon concentration
Alkalinity
Nitrate nitrogen x 10
_4
Phosphate x 10
Chloride
Sulfate
Sodium
Potassium
Iron
-4
Batch-feed
incinerator
6.17
0.12
4.01
2.75
0. 12
0. 08
0.047
0.04
0.01
Continuous -feed
incinerator
9. 17
0.19
3.48
4.42
0.08
0. 24
0. 20
0.045
0.012
26
-------
TABLE XV
ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER WATER
FOR A
BATCH-FEED INCINERATOR
(9)
Chemical constituent
Iron (Fe) (mg/1)
Barium (Ba) (mg/1)
Cyanide (CN) (mg/1)
Chromium (Cr) (mg/1)
Lead(Pb) (mg/1)
Phenols (mg/1)
Copper (Cu) (mg/1)
Zinc (Zn) (mg/1)
Manganese (Mn) (mg/1)
Aluminum (Al) (mg/1)
Contribution
Raw
water
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
35
0
Z10
0
0
005
08
0
0
18
Scrubber from
effluent incineration
2.
5.
5.
0.
1.
1.
0.
2.
0.
20.
00
0
4
13
30
73
18
40
30
80
1.
5.
5.
0.
1.
1.
0.
2.
0.
20.
65
0
19
13
30
72
10
40
30
62
27
-------
X
CQ
*
CM
cn
i
l/»
0£
o
^
a:
UJ
^
z*
LU
— 1
^C
o
C/J
1
a.
•— i
»-H
^~
•y
^L '
O
cc
CO
LU
CD
a:
=c
O
CO
o
ftlf
LU
1—
3
LU
}—
O
LU
h-
£
t/>
UJ
(A
a>
«o
f w4
^^ ^
CLO
v) a.
o
-c in
CL ^O
(/)
o»
**- i7)
r—
4/5 rtJ
O)
2
o t3
J3 I/I
O of
TD
O) M
•— i-
tn O
t/> C/»
•^Bi
Q *
-a
C-r-
Q. O
3
00
s_
4_) dl
3 3
*O 41
•— U)
O
o
CD
in
CD
o
o
00
CD
CD
(^
^~
CD
O
CO
CO
o
in
cn
o
in
( t
, .
o
CM
O
O
r--.
o
o
cn
CO
o
CD
CO
CO
CM
o
o
•*
,
r^
*
oo
CM
t—t
t-i
O
CM
CM
O
O
to
CD
O
^
o
o
oo
•—
o
o
CO
CO
<0
r^*
CO
CO
cn
r_
^^
. .
o
CO
o
CD
r-
CM
O
O
*
O
o
CD
r^
CO
o
o
in
«>
in
^*
^
CM
cn
CO
-~^
o o o o
r^. co •— CM
80 o o
CD co en
O CO r- •*
CM
O CD CD O
O CO r— r^
^- cn CM m
CM
0 O 0 0
CD o o cn
CM *3~ IO *3-
tn CM »—
O O -O CD
O O O CD
,— *d- r— CO
•-
^j- cn i — CD
CM *3" •— CO
r- O CD O
m to to to
IO CM CD i—
O CD O O
t-t t-, t-l X
^ 1— 1 1— • 1— 1
^
o
CO
r-T
CD
^
in
CD
O
CD
to
O
CD
in
*
o
J^
CD
O
CM
to
CO
O
CO
ai r*^
c to
O*
w
"~
at
4-*
O
X *~
+-> c
^n °
c +^
C (0
ID
- O
di ^
*V ^y
tn ai
V) V)
ai
•UT3
v* ai
A cn
S3
^^
-o s-
^ -M
O (O
trt 3
•*— M—
0 0
c/> trt
0* O)
•M I-*
IZ C
Ol cn
•M 3
r~ J-
3 0)
0 -M
r— OS
fO S
o
* o
4->
X
/It
UJ
•M
C
*""
ai
4->
ii
o
•^
-a
-^
28
-------
TABLE XVII
TYPICAL EMISSION FACTORS FOR U.S.
(2)
INCINERATORS ACTIVE IN 1968
Furnace Emission Stack Emission
Pollutant Factor (Ib/ton of refuse) Factor (Ib/ton of refuse)
1. Mineral Particulate 15.1 9.5
2. Combustible Particulate 4.6 4. 1
3. Total Particulate 19.7 13.6
4. Carbon Monoxide 34.8 34.8
5. Nitrogen Oxides (as NO ) 3.0 2.6
LJ
6. Hydrocarbons 2.7 2.7
7. Sulfur Oxides (as SO ) 3.9 3.9
LJ
8. Hydrogen Chloride 1.0 0.8
-3 -3
9. Polynuclear Hydrocarbons 5.0 x 10 3.2 x 10
10. Volatile Metals (lead) 0.03 0.03
29
-------
1.00DJQQO
vajxo
lOjOOO
i r
IjDOO
Z. Gnph diowt uncomctod
3. tndnvMion oonttruction tnndt M
1970 1975 1980 1986 1990 10K 2000
Figure 5. Total Annual Furnace Emission Estimates
For U. S. Municipal Incineration Systems (2)
30
-------
>
*
CM
f^fc
O^
*
C£
CD
t—
<3^
o:
LL|
^^
i—i
CJ
2;
»— I
LiJ
_J
«3[
CJ
to
1
— to
•— CO *— t— CO CJ
r—
OOOOOOCDOCD O
CDCDOOOCDCDOO CD
incococDr— r%.com>— co
CO U> O* C\J ^ CO f— r— f**
f— *J- r— r— CM CM
^—
OOOOOOOOO O
OOOOOOOOO O
OOOOOOOOO o
OOOOOOOOO CO*
tOCDOOCOCJLOCOtOVO or^
•— o ^- en en to CM *— zlo
CM i— CO to
-,-
*
,
(0
o
l^l-tH-l^v^^l-ll-tl-HX X|—
H-l •— 1 •— 1 ^ •— 1 HH HH
»— i > »— 1
"D
ai
V)
v>
a> •
oco
o
S~ O)
Q> ffi
-Mi—
(A
(U C
"D re
r— re
OTJ
O)
»«- JC
(/> O
O -4->
•r- 'QJ
+J s-
c re
(O CX
3 E
cr o
c: cu
(O -C3
(/) C
i- re
O
•i— IO
tn a)
Ul ^T
S -M
fO
§*£
CO O
3 «
"a>
-------
TABLE XIX
OXIDE ANALYSIS OF INCINERATOR FLY ASH
(27)
Component
Si
2
A10O0
2 3
Fe,O,
2 3
CaO
MgO
Na 0
2
K O
2
TiO0
2
so,
3
"P O
P2°5
7nO
BaO
Computed for
Typical
Refuse
53.0
8.2
2.6
14. 8
9. 3
4. 3
3. 5
4.2
0. 1
1 r
. j
n 4
U . T
0. 1
100. 0
NYC Incinerators
73rd St. So. Shore
46. 4 55. 1
28.2 20.5
7. 1 6. 0
10.6 7.8
2. 9 1. 9
3. 0 7. 0
7 ^ _ _ _ -
£mtm J -» — *- —
3.0
2. 7 2. 3
„._.
32
-------
31
^ '53
o ^
w •>,
w £
— t
•-1
o
•£>
o
o
m
o
o
\o
o
o
in
o
o
o\
O
o
^D
o
o
f-
o
o
vD
o
o
•J3
O
o
c
CO
-H
o
-*
-J
o
n
t-l
o
co
1— 1
o
-J
CN
o
vC
•~t
o
fj
1-1
o
in
•a-
o
(VI
CM
O
CJ
O
O
O O vo co in -*
in
-------
?Nj
X
w
1^1
5
H
00
CM
""V3
H:
H-J
CO
fa
tf
O
t"j
*^I
H
U
^
i— i
fa
O
£.
o
I-H
"^
«!
ft
H
W
to
2
W
H
PH
O
CO
i— i fe-
ni
•*-> .
o •*-*
H &
CM .
m £
'
fM ,.,
ro &i
X .
-4^
o :>
o ^
CM
O
o e
CM fe-
?*l *
o t>
o •*•
1— 1
o
O ^e
«— * B^
X ^S
0 ^
NO
O
^o ^
^ 4J
O j^.
o 0
"Nf feN,
X
o t>
CM ^
O ^~
fM .
+ s
^
-H in in fM r~-
• •••**«
•""* ON 00 fM ^*^ C^ N.O
•-H i-H 1— 1 I— 1 f\] i-H r— 1
oo CM in co ^ co ON
• • • * • • *
NO ^^ CM 00 ^^ ^i^ 00
•—I i-H (\]
ro O NO 0s CO 00 T}*
m CM m ^ O~N •— i NO
i-H
»-i CM
""•" fM (*i *Nf ^ in vQ
i i i i i i i
IT I |Ti liT| LT_| i7t IT.* iTi
o o o
odd
o o o
m m •— '
* • *
^ If) i-H
.-I (SJ
m NO ON
•xf ON ON
CM
NO o r-
NO O NO
•-* fM — •
xO •-« CO
fM fM O
-H CM fM
Is- NO NO
ON d r-^
CM -1
•^ CO ON
* • •
fO ^* ON
i-H i-H
CM ON O
CM r^ W
•— 1
^-> CM
r- co oo
i i i
fa fa fa
34
-------
and the institution of pollution regulations severely limit the potential for
conventional municipal incineration. Daily operating costs vary from $5
to $20 per ton of refuse incinerated versus $2 to $6 per ton for disposal at
a sanitary land fill. This price differential permits the hauling of refuse
to distant land fills, before incineration becomes competitive. Although
conventional municipal incinerators do not appear to be the wave of the
future, it does appear that the use of special incinerators for industrial
wastes and the development of advanced combustion processes for urban
refuse have potential.
A number of processes have been developed for recovering the thermal
energy available from solid waste. Depending on their composition and
morphology, municipal solid wastes will have between 4000 and 9000 BTU/lb
The utilization of solid waste as a fuel has been the most effective means
to date for recovering this thermal energy. Municipal solid waste can be
processed into many different fuel forms and used -in a variety of furnaces.
The refuse can be used "as-received" or processed into a solid fuel, a
liquid fuel or a fuel gas. In most cases, the fuel produced is used for
steam generation; however, this fuel can be used in industrial furnaces
as well. The most commonly used process for the recovery of the thermal
energy in municipal solid waste is steam generation by incineration of the
refuse "as-received". These steam raising municipal incinerators are
quite common in Europe, Japan, and Canada, and have been used to a
limited extent in the United States.
The "as-received" refuse can be further processed to produce an upgraded
fuel for use in boilers and industrial furnaces. The refuse can be shredded
and most of the noncombustibles can be removed. The refuse can also be
dried to improve the heating value and ease of handling. Combustion
Equipment Associates (CEA) and Raytheon have reported the development
of processes for removing most of the inert fillers from the wastes and
commutation of the wastes to a fine powder. Liquid fuels can be produced
from the refuse by pyrolysis , hydrogenation or a combination of these
processes. The liquid fuel is usually compared to a heavy fuel oil.
Gasification can be accomplished by a number of thermochemical and
anaerobic digestive processes (38).
Although the refuse represents an energy source at a time when energy is
in high demand, there are a number of problems associated with its use.
The major problem is the day to day (if not minute to minute) variation of
the waste composition. Moisture content will fluctuate from 15 to 50
weight percent of the refuse, greatly affecting the BTU content and the
processifaility of the material. Yard waste with its seasonal fluctuations
is also a problem. Compared with other fuels, the fuels from wastes are
more difficult to transport, store, and process and they have very low
energy densities. Even when shredded refuse is briquetted its energy
density is only 1/4 that of coal. Most of the waste fuels are in a dilute
or partly oxidized form and as a result have relatively low energy levels
35
-------
and produce lower maximum flame temperatures. The lower flame
temperatures result in lower heat transfer rates and increased total gas
volumes. The greater gas volumes necessitate larger combustion zones.
Two other problems associated with the use of waste fuels are the ash
generation and corrosion. High temperature liquid phase corrosion
(above 900°F) and low temperature dew point corrosion are the two main
problems reported from the use of waste fuels. Corrosion due to
localized reduction has also been reported. Although the low-alloy steels
are more susceptible to the corrosion by the alkalies and chlorides in the
refuse, the stainless alloys are also severely attacked at the higher
temperatures (42). Most of the waste derived solid fuels have relatively
high ash content (approximately 20 weight percent on a BTU replacement basis)
and have to be fired in furnaces with ash handling systems. However, CEA
reports only 2% ash (by weight) in its new "Eco Fuel II". Higher ash content
will increase the soot blowing and air pollution control equipment requirements.
Also the ash builds up on the boiler tubes, and will reduce heat transfer rates
and limit operating capacities. However, the ash may have a synergistic
effect and reduce the sulfur emissions and some of the corrosion.
Because of these problems with waste fuels and the associated economic
considerations, -it would appear that using the refuse as a supplemental
fuel may be more desirable then using it as the primary fuel Ln boiler units.
The solid waste fuel can effectively be used as a 10 to 35% BTU replacement
for coal and the compositional variations, corrosion, and ash handling
problems would be minimized. It should also be noted that the average
community only produces about 25 to 30% of the BTU requirements of the local
electrical generating system.
Some of the more advanced combustion processes for recovering the thermal
energy from refuse under development include: a) pyrolysis and hydrogenation
of refuse, b) high temperature incineration, c) fluidized-bed incineration, and
d) direct use of refuse as a fuel supplement for steam generation.
A number of current pilot and advanced development projects are directed
toward the pyrolysis of urban refuse from which the metal and glass fractions
have been previously removed. By this process of destructive distillation
gaseous hydrocarbons, oils, tars, alcohols, and carbon-rich chars are
produced. A schematic arrangement of the refuse pyrolysis process is shown
in Figure 6- One ton of refuse will yield 154 to 230 Ibs . of char residue, 1/2
to 5 gallons tar and pitch, 1 i to 2 gallons light oil, 18 to 25 Ibs. of ammonium
sulfate, 80 to 133 gallons liquor and 1,000 to 17,000 cu. ft. of gas. A more
detailed analysis of the yield from the pyrolysis of municipal and industrial
refuse is presented in Table XXII. (2,29,30,31,32,33,41)
High temperature incineration (above 2500 F) is another advanced com-
bustion process receiving considerable attention. "With high temperature
incineration, more complete combustion occurs, resulting in the elimination
36
-------
MUM
In
Stnmn
1 SotidRBfuw
2 Volatit* Product! and
Entrairwd Rtrticulno
3 Solkf Product (char)
4 Volatile Product
S Liquid Product
6 GM Product
7 Gn lor Heeling
6 VohftilMfarHMting
Figure 6, Schematic Arrangement of Refuse
Pyrolysis Process. (2)
37
-------
X
X
w
to
W
rt
H
CQ
P
P
S
i-<
Q
O
o
o
I-H
H
U
D
Q
O
O
Q
W
i-<
^
jL-l
S « a
e ±i o
c "3 o
£w
<
sj
«: -I n
0 J W
•>
«
****** en
o: o to c
*'
•5 « u s
•5 H 0-2
s| s
U0b,
o
H
c
_cr
o
S § 2
3 £ 2
"S *
r
O 0>
^ rt
= ; SO
y ^
3*
5 n
J 0
•dj
W""l fj
a
•d
CB
V
>- O.
l*cf
0,
Refuse
p- r- ~*
*- **> in
- IM (M
1 •-« p->
-1 « —
n in r
co -o in
•V M O
O* CO •— '
O (VI "C1
in %o t—
— Cf- t~
O ^ ?vl
1- in r^
CTS - f.
O
o
o o o
o in o
Raw municipal
N ^" in
\^ CO •~l
-a rg r-
CJ* (vl <7*
r- .0 -o
M
vO (VI •!•
in (M —
in o co
T co in
in ^ o
— r- co
CM CM "1
f<"l *— I Irt
-o m •*>
o — • in
in f\j ^*
O o o
o o o
"*l O*- CM
"-" O O
^ 0 ^>
CM — • O
t~ fO ^<
r~ co o
fM --' -T
CM m •-<
CM —> •-«
o
o
coo
O U.1 O
PrccpBsed municipal
containing plastic film
in in f*
CM O- --
(M ~
. O .
r- i*i m
r-
-« O CO
in r- fi
O* O- CM
CT* in co
m CM O
vO -0 00
rf O .-
fO r-1 c\J
in M 'f
o o o
o o o
in O1- -o
o o o
0s F- fM
•-« O O
t~ to -V
(VI CM CM
— • in eo
rn £1 S
o
o
o~
o o o
o in o
Heil mill industrial
•* MO-
O i— CM
O ^* CO
P- ^ *ii
— (M ~
CM
r- oo o
~ ^ o
o -M in
t- in -a
P4 Cf O
^£2:
-o o o
T 0 (M
in in o
*vj 1*1 r*j
o o o
o o o
-a co ifl !
o o o
CO CO •-•
o o o
co m in
•-* in •-•
-------
of all organic phases and increased volume reduction of the slag-like residue
(up to 98% volume reduction of the refuse). The residue can be used for
soil or road stabilization with little danger of ground water pollution. At the
higher incineration temperatures (>300 F) phase separation between the metal
and glass components has been reported. Phase separation would signifi-
cantly increase the recovery potential of the slag consituents. A classi-
fication of the various high temperature incinerators is presented in Table
XXIII. A compilation of the slag analyses for the different high temperature
incinerators is presented in Table XXIV (2,34,35,42).
Although fluidized-bed furnaces have been used extensively for a number of
industrial processes, they are now being tested for refuse incineration. The
process offers a number of advantages, however, the projected per ton cost
is reported to be higher than conventional incineration (10).
Heat recovery incineration is the most commonly employed method for
directly utilizing the thermal energy from waste products. European countries
have pioneered in heat recovery from incineration of municipal solid waste
(MSW) and European engineers have led in the development of the refuse-
fired boiler plant utilizing waterwall furnaces. While demonstrated to be
highly successful in many installations in Europe, one difficulty has been
boiler-tube corrosion due to sulfates or chlorides on the fire side of the tubes
This attack has appeared to be a function of steam, increasing as temper-
atures increase above 1000 F.
European technology has been utilized in the design of incinerators recently
installed in the United States (Norfolk Naval Base, 1967; Braintree
Massachusetts, 1971; Chicago, Illinois, 1971; Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 1973).
A variety of furnace designs have been developed for burning refuse. Most
of the units are designed for mass burning the raw refuse and no special refuse
processing is required. The refuse is conveyed through the furnace by some
type of stoker system, which also agitates the bed permitting more complete
combustion. Air is introduced from both under the stoker and over the
refuse. The residue from combustion is normally carried by the stoker to
a water quench.
The most efficient steam generation has been in water wall boilers operating
with low excess air on a continuous basis. In general, to achieve satisfactory
heat generation, it has been necessary to provide auxiliary fuel to maintain
constant generation because of the varying moisture content and the varying
composition of refuse. A major economic advantage has been the volume effect
of the extraction of heat from exhaust gases in the furnace and the. use of less
excess air because of the completely water-cooled furnace.
The opportunities for marketing steam generated in heat recovery incinerators
appear to be limited because: a) the incinerator/steam generator must be
located continguous to the steam consumer; b)the steam generation and use
patterns must coincide or the steam supplied by the incineration of MSW
39
-------
TABLE XXIII
CLASSIFICATION OF HIGH TEMPERATURE
INCINERATORS (42)
Function
Type
Example s
Heating System
Feed Systems
Combustion System
Incinerator Output
1. Over draft
2. Under draft
3. Side fired
4. Cyclone fired
1. Direct change
2. Shredder
3. Conventional in-
cinerator grates
1. Self combustion
2. Coke combustion
3. Auxiliary heating
1. Granulated product
2. Molten separation
3. Pre -inc ine ration
separation
Melt-Zit
Dravo
Torrax
Ferro-Tech
Hartford
Melt-Zit
Torrax
Hartford
Dravo
Ferro-Tech
Melt-Zit
Ferro-Tech
Melt-Zit
Ferro-Tech
Torrax (silicon
carbide tubes)
Melt-Zit
Dravo
Torrax
Ferro-Tech
Hartford (magnetic sep)
40
-------
TABLE XXIV
CHEMICAL ANALYSES CITED FOR SLAGS
FROM HIGH TEMPERATURE INCINERATION
SiO_
L*
A12°3
Fe2°3
TiD
ilU2
CaO
MgO
BaO
ZnO
PbO
CuO
MnO
Na20 + K20
SO,
3
P2°5
Other
Eggen & Powell
61. 9%
13. 6
3. 7
6.6
2. 0
0. 2
1.7
0.5
0.4
9-4
— • •* *-
100. 0%
Melt-Zit
62.4
7.6
FeO 5. 2
07
. r
14.2
3. 3
0. 2
3. 8
0.7
1.9
100. 0%
Ferro-Tech
60
8
4
17
5
1
3
2
100. 0%
41
-------
must be a small fraction of the total steam requirements; and e) reliance
on a single consumer or a small group of closely located consumers would
be necessary.
Several pilot studies using refuse as a supplemental fuel with coal or oil
in boilers have also been initiated. The most extensive of these has been
at the Union Electric Company of St. Louis where a 125 MW pulverized
coal firing unit has been modified to fire shredded refuse supplied by the
city.
The city refuse processing facility, developed through an EPA demonstration grant
program, shreds the refuse to minus 1 J inch size and air classifies the refuse
into a combustible fraction and a heavies fraction containing the metal, glass,
rocks, heavy plastics, and rubber. The combustible fraction is trucked to
Union Electric for use as a fuel supplement replacing up to 20% of the coal
on a BTU basis. Ferrous metal is separated from the heavies for use as
blast furnace charge and the residue is landfilled.
A schematic for this process is shown in Figure 7. At Commonwealth
Edison of Chicago, bags of shredded refuse, with the ferrous metal removed,
were manually fed into a cyclone unit at 10% BTU replacement rate with very
encouraging results. At the General Motors Corporation plant in Pontiac,
Michigan, a spreader stoker unit has been built with two separate air-swept
chute feeders, using bark burners, for firing shredded refuse and coal
simultaneously. Cubetted, shredded refuse has been used as a supplemental fuel
in an underfed stoker-fired boiler at the Fort Wayne Municipal electric plant.
At Fort Wayne, the cubettes were prepared with an alfalfa cubetting machine.
Although preliminary results were very encouraging, there are still questions
to be resolved regarding the stability of these cubettes when subjected to coal
handling processes (bin storage, conveying, etc.). Storage of cubettes would
require extra facilities since the cubettes are half the density of coal and replace
half the BTU content of an equivalent weight of coal.
In East Bridgewater, Massachusetts, Combustion Equipment Associates, Inc.
is operating a recycling plant to produce fuel from shredded refuse. MSW
is delivered directly to a receiving floor. Front-end loaders transport the
waste to a conveying system feeding the primary shredder. After shredding, the
material is sent to a dryer where the moisture content is reduced in order to
facilitate processing and to provide a uniform moisture content. The solid
refuse is then sent to a horizontal air classifier where the light combustible
fraction is separated from the heavies fraction containing ferrous and non-
ferrous metals, glass, heavy plastics, rubber, and miscellaneous dirt. The
light fraction is reduced further in size and fed to a mechanical separator to
remove most remaining fine noncombustibles. The fuel product can be
stored for weeks without decay or odor and can be reclaimed readily from
storage. The heavy fraction is further shredded and classified to separate
42
-------
•REFUSE COLLECTION TRUCK
BELT SCALE
CONVEYORS
SURGE BIN
HAMMERMILL
FEEDER
CONVEYORS
'FEEDERS-
AIR DENSITY SEPARATOR
MAGNETIC SEPARATOR
NUGGETIZER
MAGNETIC SEPARATOR-,
AIR
HEAVY FRACTION
CONVEYOR
iONVEYOR
MAGNETIC METALS TRUCK
O
NON - MAGNETIC RESIDUE^
FAN
LIGHT FRACTION STORAGE BIN
CONVEYOR
CYCLONE SEPARATOR
CONVEYOR
BELT SCALE
STATIONARY PACKER
SELF-UNLOADING TRUCK
Figure 7. Solid Waste Processing Facilities.
43
-------
any remaining combustibles which are recycled to the first air separator.
The heavies are then combined with non-combustibles rejected from the
mechanical separator and fed to a magnetic separator for recovery of the
ferrous metals and the residue is discarded to land fill (38).
Hempstead Resource Recovery Corp. , utilizing equipment developed by
The Black Clawson Co. , a sister subsidiary of Parsons & Whittemore Inc. ,
plans on using the Kinney system for the 2,000 TPD,$44.6 million resource
recovery plant to be built in Hempstead, L. I. The wet portion of the
system has been developed in the Black Clawson Solid Waste Disposal Plant
in Franklin, Ohio. The Kinney system utilizes a hydrapulper to convert
all pulpable materials to an aqueous slurry. Nonpulpable materials are
ejected continuously from the hydrapulper, conveyed to a drum washer and
thence to a magnetic separator where ferrous metal is recoverH. Following
removal of nonfibrous materials in a liquid cyclone, the pulped slurry is
dewatered and compressed into a cake with 50% solids content. The dis-
charged cake is broken into small lumps and fed pneumatically into a fluid
bed reactor for combustion. A waste heat boiler converts the heat from the
reactor exhaust gases to steam. HRRC estimates the Hempstead facility
will reduce municipal refuse to less than 3% of its original volume, generate
400,000 pounds of steam per hour and produce annually 40,000 tons of
ferrous metafs, 23,000 tons of color-sorted glass and 5,000 tons of
aluminum (38).
The CPU-400 pilot plant system, developed by the Combustion Power Company
of Menlo, California, recovers energy from MSW in the form of electric
power through the use of a gas turbine driven electric generator. In this
system, the refuse is shredded, conveyed to an air classifier where the lighter
fibrous materials are carried upward and pneumatically transported to large
cyclones where the lights are separated from the air stream and stored. The
MSW fuel is burned in a high pressure fluid bed combuster, and the hot gases,
after passing through a particle clean-up train, drive a gas turbine/generator
to produce electricity. The heavies are processed for the magnetic separation
of iron and the recovery of aluminum. At this point, the process is still in the
pilot plant stage.
Based on the experiences to date, it would appear that refuse as a supplemental
fuel will burn well in a boiler and will not change significantly the fly ash
produced or the flue gases emitted. It would also appear that a safe upper
limit for the replacement of coal by refuse, on a BTU equivalent basis, is about
25 percent to avoid additional boiler tube corrosion. It should also be noted
that the use of refuse as a supplemental fuel results in the formation of boiler
tube slag which can be more easily removed than the slag formed on boiler
tubes in all-coal-fired units .
It also appears desirable to shred and air-classify the refuse prior to using
44
-------
it as a fuel supplement, since this facilitates recovery of the glass and
metal fractions, reduces the handling and feed problems, reduces the amount
of erosion encountered in the handling equipment, and results in a higher
quality bottom ash (which is a saleable commodity). Shredding and air
classification would also result in a reduction of the moisture content and
elimination of the noncombustibles, resulting in a higher BTU content for
the refuse (38,39,40),
A summary of the various energy recovery processes for refuse has been
compiled by Midwest Research Institute and is presented in Table XXV. A
comparison of the economics for the different resource recovery processes
has been compiled by Midwest Research Institute and is shown schematically
in FigureS and tabulated in Table XXVI. It is apparent from these data that
processing the refuse for ferrous metal recovery and fuel recovery is the
most economical and ecologically desirable approach provided sufficient
steam generating facilities are locally available (43), It should be recognized
that the Midwest data are based on 1972 economic conditions and the appropriate
adjustments would be necessary for use at a later time. However, the relative
economic relationship between recovery systems should be reasonably valid
at some later time.
45
-------
ro
w
CO
CO
W
O
O
£
r^
X
>
o
u
w
PH
>H
O
PH
W
^"2
w
ffl
3
ctj
to
C
V
£
D-
O
U
4J
D
+
"» C
™ o
o-^
z """
V
1 I
U -"-
4-
ee
~£ BI -p-
L, m O
5 o *"
0"° ~
4- "Z.
—I *
^
is §
rt ,, w
U i
It
oJ """^
S* c
u «.
CD
W
* •£!
f*l t*
0-
__, a
nl "•*
.s-t!
0 3
'C £
D-
V
E
«
2
d
Z
8
rt
a.
o
c
4J
C
a
IS.
CM
d r-
*4J """*
f~
"3. j,
°5
"^* r"
P.-
in
m
1
co
in
cS
W
m
o
o
^
•a"
u
n
O
a
0 O
O >4
o a.
n
rt
•31
| *. .
-4 0) co 'O
^*j rj r!
£ 6 3 w
S"
u
£
u
3
o
o
D
CU
U
^
Ameri
Therm
o
«
V
a.
o
.3
c
"a
c
o
rt
*
o
£
a
^
z
,£
z
<
o
o
o
in
u
n
O
O.
O
b
rt
r-
Q*
£
O
1
•d
OJ
"a.
E
o
u
c
fl
£
<;
^
Z
^
z
o
o
*r
2
o
o
1
0)
3
0)
U,
S
a
U 4J
1 1
O 0
u u
4J *J
c c
A
w w w
rC
M ** fc
3 0 o
i * z S
s g x e
r^- .5 O V
>. "3 "c .S
u O 3 U
co 5 5 C
n i-3 *4 f-i
CO ff-
r-
o-
-S
•8
V
«
"S.
E
o
u
+J
c
Ij
D.
<
Z
rf
Z
<
z
rf
z
o
xO
CT-
-ri
O
Is
u «
^
u
o
&
f. C
•13
1 2
A IQ
O
(U
TJ
C
0)
0)
•r-l
I—i
a
n)
Q
Econo
46
-------
CO
W
•s
-§
p-t
a
§
H
J
CQ
<
H
W
>
o
H
S
W
2
w
BO
•^
rd
u
O
*«
"??
id
O
10
Ul
o
S
z
s
c
>
u
tf
u
^
o
h
ft
01
s
nj
Z
6
•£)
ly-
.S
•o
V
a.
S
o
u
*•»
C
.•d
ft
^
Z
^
Z
J
z
z
o
M
£
n
u
w
^"
• rl
Electric
t*
c
»— I *J
Zurich I
Incinera
_*
o-
c
o
o
"3.
E
o
u
a
ft
d>
a a
6 E
0 0
u u
e c
flj flj
ft ft
55
r- . Z Z
o —
Mi sd
i " > ?
sis si
(0
J3
^ • -8
"10^ yj jj tjS<*
UOtt 55 O HUto
(D O
to rt
0 s3 °
^-1 *3 IH *«l
fl) *" ** (0 0}
S 3 u " I« 10 5
0 h w S O O »
S
ja
S 2 *°
a ^ gS ^ ^
« a S«f» 3 -3
E: -2 =1 « s
rt c 5 « w a
U p S J P CQ
,0 r- oo o- o
3)
O
h
O
1— 1
o
^*"""-
o
*
>>
• l-l
."
«
u
QJ
^H
0)
a
o
«w
OJ
^
c
u
QJ
(H
QJ
T3
,-j
U
.5
o
G
yj
(u
o
Q
-
CQ C
« <
JJ ^
2 "d
CO
^
1
X
w
--~.
.
Qj
CD
'rt
o
rrt
• r-J
T3
J-
o
4->
O
LO
•
in
•W-
co
T3
^
""1
^J
C
~oT
rt
'ft
Cv
0
tJC
•r-i
O
^
o
Ti
^u
T3
j3
(—• i
tj
C
• rJ
4-)
O
^
CO
O
Q
*
to
TO
"w
*
(U
la
rt
"rt
i^.
(0
-u
O
c
-------
14.00 r-
LEGEND:
A Incineration + Electric Generation
B Incineration Only
C Incineration + Residue Recovery
Incineration + Steam Recovery
12.00 -
10.00 -
Z
o
l/l
o
-------
TABLE XXVI
*{43)
SUMMARY OF RESOURCE RECOVERY PROCESS ECONOMICS
Investment
Process Concept ($000)
Incineration Only
Incineration and
Residue Recovery
Incineration and
Steam Recovery
Incineration -1- Steam
and Residue Recovery
Incineration and Electrical
Energy Recovery
Pyrolysis
Composting (mechanical)
Materials Recovery
Fuel Recovery
Sanitary Landfill
(close-in)
Sanitary Landfill
(remote)
9,299
10,676
11,607
12, 784
17,717
12, 334
17, 100
11,568
7,577
2,472
2,817
Total Net
Annual Resource Annual
Cost Value Cost
($000) ($000) ($000)
2,303 0
2,689 535
3, 116 1, 000
3,508 1,535
3,892 1,200
3,28,7 1,661
2,987 1, 103
2,759 1*328
1,731 920
770 0
1,781 0
2, 303
2, 154
2. 116
1,973
2,692
1,626
1,884
1,431
811
770
1,781
Net Cost
Per Input
Ton ($)
7.68
7. 18
7. 05
6.57
8.97
5.42
6.28
4.77
2. 70
2.57
5.94
*Based on municipally-owned 1000 TPD plant with 20-year economic life,
operating 300 days/year.
Source: Mid-west Research Institute.
49
-------
INCINERATOR RESIDUE UTILIZATION
Most of the incinerator residue is disposed of in land fills. However, some
communities use the residue as a fill material in road construction (road bed).
The city of Baltimore uses the fine fraction screened from the residue as a
fill material in asphalt. Some incinerator plants also salvage the metal cans
from the residue. Because of the high tin content a major use for this
scrap iron is for copper ore refining. However, this is a very limited
market since about 600,000 tons are used per year. The development of the
electric arc furnaces may generate a greater market for scrap iron from
urban refuse. Currently, only eleven incinerator plants and a few composting
plants are recovering scrap iron. Ferrous metal from incinerator residue
is usually contaminated by tin (from the plating and copper during incineration
and has undergone considerable oxidation. A project at the Bureau of Mines
has shown that ammonia bleach can be used to remove the copper, and
hydrochloric acid bleach or chloride roasting can be used to remove the tin
in order to meet market specifications. The Bureau of Mines has also been
very active in the development of a pilot process for the recovery of the
various metal and glass fractions in the incinerator residue. A schematic
of this process is shown in Figure 2. The quantities recovered for the various
fractions are compiled on a ton per day basis in Table XXVII (3,16,18,19,44).
Three separate economic analyses have been prepared for the cost and operation
of an incinerator residue recovery facility: one by the Bureau of Mines based on
their pilot studies, one by Raytheon for its EPA demonstration grant at
Lowell, Mass., (setup an operating residue recovery facility), and one by
L.S. Wegman Co., for the town of North Hemstead, New York. The results
of these studies are summarized in Table XXVIII. A review of the data used
to compile this table showed that a good deal of the variation in costs was
due to the use of different cost parameters in each analysis. The most com-
prehensive analysis appeared to be by the L.S. Wegman Company. From the
data it would seem that a plant to process 250 TPD (in an 8 hour shift) would
cost about $1,500,000 to build and about $9 per ton of residue to operate
(1971 - 1972 figures). The revenue from the products generated (glass, ferrous
metals, and nonferrous metals) will depend to a large degree on the quality
of the recovered material, the local markets, and the transportation costs when
distant markets have to be used. Estimates for the revenue from a ton of
incoming residue may vary from $6 to $15. For distant markets, freight rates
become a major factor in the economics of the recovery process. The higher
freight rates for secondary materials (scrap metals, etc.) can seriously
jeopardize the cost effectiveness of a recovery process. The quality of the
recovered products and the standards that can be met have not been well established
to date. The full-scale demonstration facility, scheduled for operation by
1975 at Lowell, Mass., should provide the most concefce information about
the economic and technical feasibility of incinerator residue recovery (45 46
47, 48). J
Preliminary discussions with representatives of the glass and metals in-
dustries have indicated considerable reluctance to accept the metal and glass
50
-------
TABLE XXVII
QUANTITIES OF THE VARIOUS FRACTIONS RECOVERED
BY THE BUREAU OF MINES PROCESS (16)
(TONS PER DAY)*
PLANT SIZE
250 tpd 400 tpd 670 tpd 1, OOP tpd
Plus 4-mesh
ferrous metal 41 66 111 166
Minus 4-plus 20-
mesh ferrous metal
35 56 93 139
Aluminum scrap 4 6 11 16
Copper-zinc scrap 35 8 12
Colorless glass 69 110 185 276
Colored glass 50 80 133 199
Waste solids 48 77 129 192
Data Projected from Bureau of Mines Pilot Plant Studies
51
-------
TABLE XXVIII
SUMMARY OF ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR RESIDUE RECOVERY**5
No.
1
2
3
Plant
Organization Capacity
(45)
Bureau of Mines 250 tpd
(48)
Raytheon Co. 230 tpd
(47)
L. S. Wegman 150 tpd
Capital
Cost
$1,500, 000
$2,750, 000
$1,400,000
Process
Cost**
$4. 03/Ton
$10. 60/Ton
$9. 21/Ton
Plant capacity based on one 8 hour/day shift
Process cost1 include plant operation and maintenance and
amortization costs.
* Data based on 1971- 1972 Economics
52
-------
fractions recovered from incinerator residue. The steel companies
contacted, indicated no interest in the ferrous fraction of the residue. In
fact, their interest in the ferrous fraction from raw refuse was limited.
The only immediately apparent market for the ferrous fraction from residue
is the copper industry. However, this market is limited to approximately
600,000 tons/year and not exclusively to incinerated ferrous metal. The
use of color sorted glass recovered from the residue for cullet has not
been very successful to date due to the difficulty in obtaining material of
high enough quality. However, a number of effective secondary uses for
this waste glass have been developed. The most effective products to date
are structural block, mineral wool, aggregate for Portland cement concrete,
Terrazzo, and "Glasphalt". However, the economic viability of these pro-
ducts is yet to be proven (44, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57,58, 59,
60, 61).
A number of studies have also been initiated for utilization of incinerator
fly ash. However, a major problem is the compositional variation in the
fly ash samples studied. Aerated concrete, brick, lightweight aggregate and
glass ceramics were produced from incinerator fly ash. Analysis of these
products showed that the best potential for fly ash utilization was as
lightweight aggregate (27, 28).
53
-------
REFERENCES
1. Achinger, W. C. & Baker, R. L., " Environmental Assessment
of Municipal - Scale Incinerators " EPA Report S W-lll, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1973
2. Niessen, W. R. , MSystems Study of Air Pollution from Municipal
Incineration", Vol. I and Vol. 2, PB- 192-378 and PB- 192-379, U.S.
Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare, March, 1970.
3. Drobny, N. L. et al., "Recovery and Utilization of Municipal Solid
"Waste", Report SW-IOC, Solid Waste Management Office, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1971
4. Landis, E. K., McKinley, M. D. , "Urban Refuse Incinerator
Design and Operation: State of the Art", BER Report No. 141-119,
College of Engineering, The University of Alabama, Nov. 1971.
5. Bell, J. M., "Characteristics of Municipal Refuse", Proceedings
of the National Conference on Solid Waste Research, December, 1963
6. Kaiser, E. R., "Chemical Analysis of Refuse Components", Pro-
ceedings of 1966 National Incinerator Conference, ASME, New York,
1966.
7. Kaiser, E. R. , et al. , "Municipal Incinerator Refuse and Residue",
Proceedings of the National Incinerator Conference, ASME, New
York, 1968.
8. Golueke, C. G., "Comprehensive Studies of Solid Waste Manage-
ment11, 3rd Annual Report, EPA, SW-lOrg, 1971.
9. Stear, J. R., "Municipal Incineration - A Review of Literature",
AP-79, Office of Air Programs Environmental Protection Agency,
1971.
10. Wilson, D. G. , "The Treatment and Management of Urban Solid
Waste", Technomic Publishing Co., Westport, Conn., 1972.
11. Anonymous, "Hard Road Ahead for City Incinerators", Environ-
mental Science and Technology, 6, (12), pp. 992-992, Nov., 1972
12. Anonymous, "Special Studies for Incinerators", PHS Publication
No. 1748, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
1968.
54
-------
13. DeMarco, J. , et al., "Incinerator Guidelines- 1969", SWISts
Bureau of Solid Waste Management, U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, 1969.
14. Anonymous, "Interim Guide of Good Practice for Incineration at
Federal Facilities", NAPCA Publication, No. AP-46, U.S. Dept.
of Health, Education, and Welfare, November, 1969.
15. Kaiser, E.R. et al. , "Sampling and Analysis of Solid Incinerator
Refuse and Residue", Proceedings of the 1970 National Incinerator
Conference, ASME, 1970.
16. Stanczyk, M. H. , "Recycling Materials in Urban Refuse- A Progress
Report", Proceedings of the Third Mineral Waste Utilization
Symposium, U.S. Bureau of Mines and Illinois Institute of Tech-
nology Research Institute, March, 1972.
17. Achinger, W. C. and Daniels, L. E. , "An Evaluation of Seven
Incinerators", Presented at the 1970 ASME Incinerator Conference,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1970.
18. Weaner, L., "Resource Recovery from Incinerator Residue, A
Project Report", Proceedings of the Second Mineral Waste Utiliza-
tion Symposium, U.S. Bureau of Mines and Illinois Institute of
Technology Research Institute, March, 1970.
19. Stanczyk, M.H., and Ruppert, J. A., "Continuous Physical Benefi-
ciation of Metals and Minerals Contained in Municipal Incinerator
Residues", Ibid.
20. Kaiser, E.R. and Carotti, A.A., "Plastics in Municipal Refuse
Incineration", Report to the Society of the Plastic Industry Inc. ,
New York, New York.
21. Schoenberger, R. J. and Purdom, P. W. , "A Study of Incinerator
Residue Analysis of Water Soluble Components", Vol. I, Project
UI-00509, Drexel University, September, 1971.
22. Schoenberger, R. J. and Purdom, P. W. , "Residue Characteriza-
tion", Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, Proceedings
of the American Society of Civil Engineers, SA3, pg. 387-397,
June, 1969.
23. Schoenberger, R. J., and Purdom, P. W. , "Classification of
Incinerator Residue", Proceedings of 1968 National Incinerator
Conference, ASME, May, 1968.
55
-------
24. Schoenberger, R. J. , et al. ."Special Techniques for Analyzing
Solid Waste of Incinerator Residue", Ibid.
25. Wilson, D.A. , and Brown, R. E., "Characterization of Several
Incinerator Process Waters", Proceedings of 1970 National Incinera-
tor Conference, ASME, May, 1970.
26. Schoenberger, R. J. et al. , "Characterization and Treatment of
Incinerator Process Water", Ibid.
27. Cockrell, C. F., Extraction of Metal and Mineral Values from
Municipal Incinerator Fly Ash", Grant G0100161 (SWD-25), School of
Mines, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia, 1971.
28. Buttermore, W. H. , et al. , "Characterization, Beneficiation and
Utilization of Municipal Incinerator Fly Ash", Proceedings of the
Third Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium, U.S. Bureau of Mines
and Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute, March, 1972.
29. Sanner, W.S. , et al. , "Conversion of Municipal and Industrial Refuse
Into Useful Materials by Pyrolysis", RI 7428, Bureau of Mines, U.S.
Department of the Interior.
30. Mallon, G.M. , and Finney, C.S., "New Techniques In The Pyrolysis
of Solid Wastes", Presented to the American Institute of Chemical
Engineers 73rd National Meeting, August, 1972.
31. Sharkey, A.G., et al. , "Investigating Products From Waste
Materials", Research and Development, August, 1971.
32. Schlesinger, M.S., et al. , "Pyrolysis of Waste Materials from
Urban and Rural Sources", Proceedings of the Third Mineral Waste
Utilization Symposium, U.S. Bureau of Mines and Illinois Institute
of Technology Research Institute, March, 1972.
33. Friedman, S. , et al. , "Continuous Processing of Urban Refuse to
Oil Using Carbon Monoxide", Ibid.
34. Kaiser, E. R. , "Evaluation of the Melt-Zit High-Temperature Incin-
erator", Grant No. DO1-UI-00076, Public Health Service, U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1969.
35. Zoller, R. H. and Holley, C. A. , "Total Reclamation of Environ-
mental Solid Waste", American Foundrymen's Society, Transactions,
79, 186-188, 1971.
56
-------
36. Sebastian, F. P, andlsbeim, M. C., "Advances in Incineration
and Resource Reclamation", Proceedings of 1970 National Incinerator
Conference, ASME, May, 1972.
37. Roberts, R. M., etal., "Systems Evaluation of Refuse as a Low
Sulfur Fuel", Contract CPA-2Z-69-22, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, November, 1971.
38. Cordiano, J. J. , "Refuse as a Supplement to Coal Firing". Presented at
the Industrial Fuel Conference, Purdue University, West Lafayette,
Ind. , Oct. 1974
39. Horner and Shifrin Inc., "Energy Recovery from Waste", SW-36 d.i.,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
40. Wisely, F. E., et. al. , "St. Louis Power Plant to Burn City Refuse",
Civil Engineering - ASCE, January, 1971.
41. Corey, R. C. , "Pyrolysis, Hydrogenation and Incineration of Municipal
Refuse - A Progress Report", Proceedings of the Second Mineral
Waste Utilization Symposium, U.S. Bureau of Mines and Illinois
Institute of Technology Research Institute, March, 1970.
42. Vaughan, D. A. etal., "Fireside Carrosion in Municipal Incinerators
Versus PVC content of the Refuse" Presented in Proceedings of the
1974 National Incinerator Conference - Miami, Florida, May 1974
ASME, New York, New York.
43. Franklin, W. E. etal., " Resource Recovery Processes for Mixed
Municipal Solid Wastes", Parti and Part II, MRI Project No. 3634-
D, U. S. EPA, 1973.
44. Commorata, A. V. , "Refining of Ferrous Metal Reclaimed from
Municipal Incinerator Residues", Proceedings of the Second Min-
eral Waste Utilization Symposium, U. S. Bureau of Mines and
Illinois Institute of Technology Research Institute, March, 1970.
45. Henn, J. J. and Peters, F. A. , "Cost Evaluation of a Metal and
Mineral Recovery Process for Treating Municipal Incinerator
Residues", I. C. 8533, Bureau of Mines, U. S. Department of the
Interior., 1971.
46. Weaver, L., et al., "Resource Recovery from Incinerator Residue",
Vol. 1, American Public Works Association, APWA-SR-33,
November, 1969-
47 Andrews, F. G., Commissioner Town of North Hemstead, L. I.,
New York, Private Communication, 1972.
57
-------
48. Levy, S. , Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, EPA,
Washington, D. C., Private Communication, 1973.
49. Tyrrell, M.E. and Feld, I. L. , "Structural Products Made from
High-Silica Fractions of Municipal Incinerator Residues", Pro-
ceedings of the Second Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium,
U.S. Bureau of Mines and Illinois Institute of Technology Research
Institute, March, 1970.
50. Abrahams, J. H. , "Utilization of Waste Glass", Ibid.
51. Malisch, W.R., "Use of Waste Glass for Urban Paving", Ibid.
52. Dean, K. C, et al., "Recovery of Values from Shredded Urban
Refuse", Proceedings of the Third Mineral Waste Utilization
Symposium, U.S. Bureau of Mines and Illinois Institute of Tech-
nology Research Institute, March, 197Z.
53. Moray, B. and Gummings, J. P. , "Glass Recovery from Municipal
Trash by Froth Flotation ", Ibid.
54. Palumbo, F. J. , "Concentrating Glass Gullet Recovered from
Unburned Urban Refuse and Incinerator Refuse", Ibid.
55. Bourcier, G. F. , et al. , "Recovery of Aluminum from Solid Waste",
Ibid.
56. Cahoon, H. P. and Cutler, I. B., "Feasibility of Making Insulation
Material by Foaming Waste Glass", Ibid.
57. Davis, R. L., et al. , "Extrusion - A Means of Recycling Waste
Plastic and Glass", Ibid.
58. Malisch, W. R., et al. , "Effect of Contaminants in Recycled Glass
Utilized for Glasphalt", Ibid.
59. Phillips, J. S., et al., "Refuse Glass Aggregate in Portland Cement
Concrete", Ibid.
60. Goode, A. H., et al. , "Mineral Wool from High-Glass Fractions
of Municipal Incinerators Residues", Ibid.
61. Shotts, R.Q., "Waste Glass as an Ingredient of Lightweight
Aggregate", Ibid.
58
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-670/2-75-033d
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Characterization and Utilization of Municipal
and Utility Sludges and Ashes. Volume IV -
Municipal Incinerator Residues
5. REPORT DATE
May 1975; issuing Date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Hecht, N. L. and Duvall, D. S.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO,
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
University of Dayton Research Institute
300 College Park Avenue
Dayton, Ohio 45469
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1DB064; ROAP 24AUH; Task 008
11. QOXXBSSCX/GRANT NO.
R800432
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
National Environmental Research Center
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Richard Carnes 513/684-4487
See also: Volumes I, II, and III, EPA-670/2-75-033a, b, and c
16. ABSTRACT
The composition and current disposal practices for the residue result-
ing^from the incineration of urban refuse have been studied. In
addition, the characteristics of urban refuse are described, and the
location and capacity of the nation's municipal incinerators specified
The economic and technical potential for utilizing materials recovered
from the residue have also been studied.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I Field/Group
*Residues, Composition, *Refuse,
Utilization, Economic analyses,
*Incinerators
Disposal practices,
Municipal inc.inera-
tors, Solid waste
13B
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
64
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
59
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFHCE: 1975-657-592/5373 Region No. 5-11
-------
-------
-------
-------
-------
tu
Cr
o
, CO
'to
tt
Q.
-i
CD
W
«
Co
CD
S
W
O
I
"i,
O
3s
m
31
rrl
D
P^W
ffl
m
. •
O
^
2T
Cr
o
J7~
CD
3
QL
._,'
CD
=
n
'S."
r-
"
^
CD
_
O
a
o
o
Q.
CD1
2
•CD
'o
O
o
. 3j'
C
CD
CD
CD
5.
13
"7~
5
tj
o
CD
01
O
CU
CL
w
c
3
o
CD1
01
a-
o
^
CD
0)
a.
9t
CD
VJ
Ul
x:
O
c:
or
CL
Ct,
~> • ,
Co
w"
5
, o
,o
-1
-• • .
a>"
o
ij.1
CD
m
en
CD
o
QJ
3
«a
CD
o
^L
CD
OJ
O
CD
aT.
Cr
CD
!^
------- |