MUNICIPAL INCINERATION
     A REVIEW OF LITERATURE
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

-------
     MUNICIPAL INCINERATION:

          A Review of Literature
                      by
                 James R. Stear
  Office of Technical Information and Publications
   ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
             Office of Air Programs
       Research Triangle F&rk, North Carolina
                   June 1971
For sale by tho Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402- Price $1.00
                  Slock Numl}cr5503-000n

-------
The author, Mr. James R. Stear,  is an employee of the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce.  He compiled this report while on assignment with
the Office of Air Programs, Environmental Protection Agency.
The AP series of reports is issued by the Office of Air Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency,  to report the results of scien-
tific and engineering  studies, and information of general interest
in the field of air pollution.  Information reported in this series
includes coverage of Air Program intramural activities and of co-
operative  studies conducted in  conjunction with state and local
agencies,   research  institutes,   and industrial   organizations.
Copies  of AP reports are available  free of charge to  Federal em -
ployees, current contractors and grantees, and nonprofit organiza-
tions  - as  supplies permit - from  the Office of Technical Informa -
tion and Publications,  Office of Air Programs,  Environmental
Protection Agency,  P. O. Box 12055,  Research  Triangle  Park,
North Carolina   27709.   Other requestors may purchase copies
from the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, D.C. 20402.
        Office of Air Programs Publication No. AP- 79.

-------
                              FOREWORD

    This review is limited to municipal refuse incineration as it is practiced in
the United States and several foreign countries. The review discusses incineration
of municipal refuse  in incinerators that are owned and/or operated either by
governmental  or  non-governmental groups. Such  incinerators  are large  when
compared to most non-municipal such as domestic, industrial, and special pur-
pose incinerators. The quantity of refuse generated and its present and future
composition, as it relates to the incineration  disposal method, is reviewed. A
study of incinerators in operation and under construction shows that in the past
the United States concentrated mainly on volume reduction. At the same time,
European countries  were  not only  concerned with volume reduction, but also
the use of refuse  as a fuel for steam and power generation. Air pollution control
devices for  removal  of particulate matter are the concern of every country.
Electrostatic precipitators, used extensively in Europe, seem to offer one of the
better solutions for highly efficient emission control on municipal incinerators in
this country.
    Alternative refuse disposal methods are mentioned briefly, along with ad-
vantages  and disadvantages of each method compared to incineration. Such a
comparison  should be of assistance in the  evaluation of the method of incinera-
tion for a given locality.
    Undoubtedly practices, methods, ideas, and equipment applicable to muni-
cipal refuse incineration have been left undiscussed. It is hoped that the cited
references and the general bibliography of some 400 entries will lead readers to
their special literature needs.
    The  literature selected for this review is limited generally to that published
after 1961. However, some earlier literature, which determined to be an in; ^ral
part of such a review, is included. Of the several hundred technical publications
dealing with municipal incineration that  were reviewed, 88 were selected as
references for the present study. Additional pertinent references, which were not
cited in the text  because  of constraints of time and space, are included in the
appendix. The glossary of incinerator terms at the end of the text includes most
of the terms commonly used in discussions of incinerators.
    Inclusion  of illustrations provided through the courtesy  of various manu-
facturing  companies is neither  intended to be nor should  be construed  as an
endorsement by the  Environmental  Protection Agency of  the product or
company represented.
                                    111

-------
                          CONTENTS
                                                           Page
LIST OF FIGURES	  xi

LIST OF TABLES	xiii

 1.  MUNICIPAL REFUSE  	   1
     1.1 QUANTITY	   1
         1.1.1   Weight	   1
         1.1.2   Volume  	   3
         1.1.3   Geographical Areas and Collection Procedures	   3
         1.1.4   Seasonal Influences  	   3
         1.1.5   Projections	   4
     1.2 COMPOSITION	   5
         1.2.1   Chemical Composition 	   5
         1.2.2   Physical Composition	   6
     1.3 HEATING VALUE  	   7
     1.4 BULKDENSITY	   9
     1.5 SAMPLING METHODS  	   9

 2.  MUNICIPAL INCINERATOR TYPES 	  11
     2.1 CONTINUOUS-FEED INCINERATORS 	  11
         2.1.1   Traveling-Grate Incinerator  	  11
         2.1.2   Reciprocating-Grate Incinerator	  11
         2.1.3   Rotary-Kiln Incinerator	„ . . .  11
         2.1.4   Barrel-Grate Incinerator  	  13
     2.2 BATCH-FEED INCINERATOR  	  13
     2,3 RAM-FEED INCINERATOR	  15
     2.4 METAL CONICAL INCINERATOR	  15
     2.5 WASTE-HEAT-RECOVERY INCINERATORS	  16
         2.5.1   Low-Pressure Boilers	  17
         2.5.2   High-Pressure Boilers  	  17
         2.5.3   Water-Wall Furnace  	  17
         2.5.4   Salt Water Distillation	  19
         2.5.5   Sewage Sludge Disposal	  20

 3.  MUNICIPAL INCINERATOR DESIGN 	  23
     3.1 BASIC INCINERATOR  	  23
         3.1.1   Scales  	  23
         3.1.2   Storage Pits	  23

-------
        3.1.3   Cranes	  26
        3.1.4   Charging Hoppers and Gates	  28
        3.1.5   Furnace Grates 	  28
               3.1.5.1 Traveling Grates	  28
               3.1.5.2 Reciprocating Grate  	  30
               3.1.5.3 Rocker-Arm Grates  	  33
               3.1.5.4 Barrel Grate (Drum Grate)	  33
               3.1.5.5 Rotary-Kiln Grate  	  33
               3.1.5.6 Batch Incinerator Design	  33
               3.1.5.7 Trends in Grate Design	  33
               3.1.5.8 Grate-Burning Rate  	  34
        3.1.6   Combustion Chambers	  36
               3.1.6.1 Water-Walled Combustion Chamber	  36
               3.1.6.2 Refractory Combustion Chamber 	  38
               3.1.6.3 Incinerator  Slag	  39
        3.1.7   Heat-Recovery Boilers	  41
        3.1.8   Auxiliary Heat	  41

4.  AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT	  45
    4.1  SETTLING CHAMBER (EXPANSION CHAMBER)	  45
    4.2  BAFFLED COLLECTORS  	  48
    4.3  SCRUBBERS  	  48
        4.3.1   Spray "Walls"	  49
        4.3.2   Venturi Scrubber	  49
        4.3.3   Cyclonic Spray Scrubber	  50
        4.3.4   Packed Scrubber  	  50
        4.3.5   Flooded-Plate Scrubber	  51
    4.4  CYCLONE COLLECTORS  	  51
        4.4.1   Multicyclone Collector	  51
        4.4.2   Involute Cyclone	  53
    4.5  FABRIC FILTER COLLECTORS	  54
    4.6  ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR	  55
        4.6.1   Operating Principles	  55
        4.6.2   Combustion Gas Conditioning 	  56
        4.6.3   Efficiency	  56
        4.6.4   Physical Characteristics	  57
    4.7  COMPARISON OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT  59

5.  AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT  	  61
    5.1  RESIDUE-HANDLING EQUIPMENT 	  61
    5.2  AIR AND FAN REQUIREMENTS 	  61
                              VI

-------
    5.3 INCINERATOR STACKS	   65
    5.4 CLOSED-CIRCUIT TELEVISION 	   67
    5.5 BUILDING AND FACILITIES	   67

6.  OPERATION OF MUNICIPAL INCINERATORS	   69
    6.1 OPERATING TEMPERATURES AND THEIR MEASUREMENT  69
    6.2 OPERATING PRESSURES AND DRAFT REQUIREMENTS ..   71
    6.3 MANAGEMENT	   71
       6.3.1   Schedules	   71
       6.3.2   Personnel	   72
       6.3.2.1 Rockville, Maryland, Incinerator	   72
       6.3.2.2 Detroit, Michigan, Incinerator	   73
       6.3.2.3 Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Incinerator	   73
       6.3.2.4 Washington, D.C., Incinerator  	   74
    6.4 MAINTENANCE  	   75
       6.4.1   Plant Maintenance	   75
       6.4.2   Maintenance Facilities	   76
       6.4.3   Preventive Maintenance	   76
       6.4.4   Plant Safety	   76

7.  INCINERATOR EMISSIONS	   79
    7.1 PARTICIPATE EMISSIONS	   79
       7.1.1   Particle Size	   79
       7.1.2   Particle Concentration Standards	   81
       7.1.3   Particulate Emission Control Regulations  	   82
       7.1.4   Particle Concentration Measurements  	   82
       7.1.4.1 Particle Measurements of Furnace Outlet	   83
       •7.1.4.2 Stack Emission Measurements	   83
       7.1.5   Particle Chemical Composition 	   84
    7.2 GASEOUS EMISSIONS  	   85
       7.2.1   Oxides of Nitrogen	   85
       7.2.2   Carbon Dioxide	   87
       7.2.3   Carbon Monoxide  	   87
       7.2.4   Oxides of Sulfur	   88
       7.2.5   Formaldehyde	   88
       7.2.6   Hydrocarbon	   88
       7.2.7   Chlorine	   89
    7.3 MEASUREMENT METHODS	   91
       7.3.1   Smoke Measurement 	   91
       7.3.2   Particulate Matter and Gas Sampling	   91
       7.3.3   Particulate Matter and Gas Measurement	   94
                               vu

-------
    7.4 RESIDUE	   95
    7.5 EFFLUENT WATER 	   98

 8. COST OF MUNICIPAL INCINERATION  	  101
    8.1 INITIAL PLANT CONSTRUCTION COSTS 	  101
       8.1.1   Air Pollution Control Equipment Cost	  103
       8.1.2   Land Cost  	  104
    8.2 REFUSE INCINERATION COSTS	  104
    8.3 EXPANSION AND REMODELING COSTS	  104
    8.4 BY-PRODUCT RECOVERY	  106

 9. LOCATIONS OF MUNICIPAL INCINERATORS	  109
    9.1 SITE LOCATION	  109
    9.2 GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATIONS  	  109

10. EVALUATION OF MUNICIPAL INCINERATION	  Ill
   10.1 ADVANTAGES OF MUNICIPAL INCINERATION	  Ill
   10.2 DISADVANTAGES OF MUNICIPAL INCINERATION	  Ill
   10.3 OTHER DISPOSAL METHODS	  112
       10.3.1  Dumping  	  112
       10.3.2  Open Burning	  112
       10.3.3  Sanitary Landfill 	  113
       10.3.4  Composting	  113
       10.3.5  Dumping at Sea	  114
       10.3.6  Disposal in Sewer	  114
       10.3.7  Unit Trains	  114
       10.3.8  Swine Feeding	  115
       10.3.9  Nuclear Energy 	  115

11. INCINERATOR RESEARCH AND PILOT PROJECTS	  117
   11.1 INCINERATION AT SEA  	  117
   11.2 BASIC INCINERATION PROCESSES AND EMISSIONS 	  117
   11.3 PILOT AND DEMONSTRATION INCINERATORS 	  118
   11.4 SYSTEMS ANALYSIS	  119
   11.5 RESIDUE ANALYSIS AND CLASSIFICATION	  119
   11.6 PYROLYSIS OF REFUSE	  119
   11.7 REFUSE CRUSHING	  121
   11.8 INCINERATOR WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM	  121
                           Vlll

-------
12. REFERENCES	  123
13. GLOSSARY	  129
14. BIBLIOGRAPHY	  155
15. APPENDIX  	  173
                            IX

-------
                         LIST OF FIGURES

Figure                                                             Page
 1         Seasonal Differences in Amounts of Refuse Incinerated
             in Hartford, Connecticut, and Cincinnati, Ohio	    4
 2         Cross Section of Typical Municipal Incinerator 	   12
 3         Municipal Incinerator in the City of Dusseldorf, Germany ....   13
 4         Longitudinal Section of a Cell Furnace 	   14
 5         Cross Section of Ram-Feed Incinerator, Clearwater, Florida...   15
 6         Conveyor-Fed Municipal Refuse Burner During Startup	   16
 7         Cross Section of a Large European Incinerator, Showing
             Path of Furnace Gases through Heat Recovery Boiler  	   18
 8         Water-Wall Incinerator at Navy Base, Norfolk, Virginia	   19
 9         Flow Diagram Traces Waste Heat at Work Generating Steam
             for Power and Desalting	   20
10         Schematic of Typical Municipal Incinerator	   24
11-A       Refuse Truck being Weighed Upon Entering the Tipping Floor   25
11-B       Operator Reads Scales ..'	   25
12         Combination Turntable and Car Dumper Empties Refuse
             from Railroad Cars into the Storage Bin of the Stuttgart
             Incinerator	   26
13         Dust Control at the Govan Incinerator in Glasgow	   27
14         Traveling-Grate Stoker	   29
15         Partially Assembled Traveling-Grate Stoker	   30
16         Boiler with Multiple Traveling-Grate Stoker	   31
17         Reciprocating Stoker of American Incinerator	   32
18         Incineration of Garbage that Has Been Dried and Partly
            Burned on Reciprocating-Grate Stoker	   34
19         Stoker Type and Furnace Feed  	,	   35
20         Chart Showing Gas Temperature Versus Excess Air Rates
             for Municipal Refuse  	   37
21         Locations of Temperature-Measuring Instruments in the
             Oceanside Refuse Disposal Plant, New York 	   38
22         Typical Refractory Temperature Versus Time Chart for
             Selected Locations in the Oceanside Refuse Disposal
             Plant, New York	   39
23         Elaborate Boiler with Auxiliary Oil Burners in Dusseldorf,
             Germany, Incinerator	   42
24         Power Plant in Munich Uses Auxiliary Burners to Combine
             Refuse Incineration and Pulverized-Coal Burning	   43
25         Primary Flyash Removal Facilities	   46
26         Special Features of the North Hempstead Incinerator  	   47
27         Venturi Scrubber	   49
28         Cyclonic Spray Scrubber  	   50
                                XI

-------
29        Packed Scrubbers	   51
30        Flooded-Plate Scrubber  	   52
31        Multicyclone Collector	   52
32        Cyclone Dust Collector, Involute	   53
33        Fabric Filter Dust Collector	   54
34        Electrostatic Precipitator	   58
35        Collector Efficiency Versus Stack Dust Emissions	   59
36        Drag Bottom Residue Conveyor Carrying Steam-Wetted
             Residue  	   62
37        Dump Truck Receiving Residue from Conveyor	   63
38        Residue Landfill Site  	   63
39        Electric Motor of Induced-Draft Fan	   64
40        Induced-Draft Fan Enclosure Elevated Platform Is Mounted
             on Springs for Vibrational Control	   65
41        Attractive Steel Stacks Used at the Montgomery County
             Incinerator in Rockville Maryland 	   66
42        Modern Municipal Incinerator  	   68
43        Relationship of Moisture, Excess Air, and Furnace Temperature   70
44        Central Vacuum System Installed at a Municipal Incinerator ..   75
45        Relationship between Oxides of Nitrogen and Excess Air
             in 50-ton-per-day Units 	   86
46        Relationship between Oxides of Nitrogen and Underfire
             Air in 250-ton-per-day Unit	   87
47        SO2 Concentration in Municipal Incinerator Flue Gases 	   89
48        Particulate Sampling Train	   92
49        Furnace Outlet Particulate Matter Sampling Arrangement ....   93
50        Stack Particulate Matter and Humidity Sampling
             Arrangement  	   94
51        Block Diagram for  Solid Waste Management Shows
             Alternative Paths that May Be Followed 	  120
                                   xu

-------
                          LIST OF TABLES

Table                                                              Page

 1         Average Solid Waste Collected	     1
 2         Refuse Produced, Collected, and Disposed of in New York City
             in 1959 and 1960	     2
 3         Refuse Output in United States and Western Europe	     3
 4         Proximate Analysis of Combustible Components of Municipal
             Refuse as Discarded by Householders	     5
 5         Ultimate Analysis of Combustible Components of Municipal
             Refuse, Dry Basis	     6
 6         Refuse Composition and Moisture Content of Each Component     7
 7         Composite Analysis of Average Municipal Refuse, As-Received
             Basis	     8
 8         Higher Heating Values  	     8
 9         Pit Densities of Refuse at Oceanside Refuse Disposal Plant,N.Y     9
10         Specifications for Each Boiler-Furnace Unit in Water-Wall
             Incinerator, Navy Base, Norfolk, Virginia	    18
11         Average Sewage Sludge Characteristics	    21
12         Grate-Burning Rates	    36
13         Average Spectrochemical Analysis of All Incinerator Slags
             Tested  	    40
14         Range of Spectrochemical Analysis of all Incinerator Slags
             Tested  	    40
15         Comparison of Conditioning Systems	    57
16         Design Elements of European Electrostatic Precipitators	    57
17         Estimated Costs of Gas-Cleaning Equipment 	    60
18         Comparative Air Pollution Control Data for Municipal
             Incinerator	    60
19         Air Required for Combustion of Selected Materials	    61
20         Summary of Operating Schedules of 154 Incinerators	    71
21         Daily Operation of 154 Municipal Incinerators 	    72
22         Lincoln Avenue Plant Operating Personnel	    73
23         Mount Olivet Incinerator Operating Personnel	    74
24         Physical Properties of Particles Leaving Furnace 	    80
25         Size and Density of Incinerator Stack Gas Particles	    80
26         Particle Size and Density for Design of Electrostatic
             Precipitators in European Incinerators	    80
27         Selected Particulate Matter Emission Regulations for Refuse-
             Burning Equipment  	    82
28         Particulate Emissions at Furnace Outlet	    83
29         Particulate Measurements of Stack Gases	    84
                                   xui

-------
30         Chemical Analysis of Flyash Samples From South Shore
             Incinerator, New York City, by Source  	    84
31         Spectrographic Analysis of Ashed Incinerator Particulate
             Matter 	    85
32         Polynuclear Hydrocarbon Emission Summary by Incineration
             Sources	    90
33         Incinerator Emission Measurement Methods  	    95
34         Sifting Weights and Percentages	    95
35         Siftings from Feeder Grate with No Underfire Air Supply  ....    96
36         Siftings from Burner Grate Sections	    96
37         Combined Siftings from Stoker Grates	    97
38         Classification of Incinerator Residue	    97
39         Residue Composition	    98
40         Average Analysis of Water-Soluble Portion of Residue	    98
41         Characteristics of Incinerator Waste Water	    99
42         Analyses of Scrubber Water at Ft. Lauderdale Incinerator,
             Broward County, Florida	  100
43         Incinerator Plant Capital Cost  	  102
44         Ranges of Incinerator Construction — Costs Per Ton-Day  ....  103
45         Costs of Constructing, Owning, and Operating Air Pollution
             Control Equipment to meet Municipal Incinerator Stack
             Emissions	  103
46         Personnel Requirements of Plants Burning Mixed, Unsegregated
             Refuse 	  105
47         Cost of Refuse Disposal by Incineration	  106
48         Incinerator Waste Heat Utilizations 	  108
49         Estimated Distribution of Incinerators in 1965 by State 	  110
50         Estimated Distribution of the Number of Incinerators by
             Community Size in 1965 	  110
Al         Incinerator Plant Summary  	  174
A2         Additional Incinerator Installations,  1945 to Date	  179
                                   xiv

-------
           MUNICIPAL INCINERATION:
           A  REVIEW OF  LITERATURE
                     1.  MUNICIPAL REFUSE

 1.1 QUANTITY
    The amount of refuse to be disposed of is a basic consideration in the design
 and operation of a city's refuse disposal facilities. The amount of municipally
 collected refuse is the total amount produced less the amount disposed of by
 on-site methods and nonmunicipal methods.
    Until recently there has been a lack of information on refuse generation for
 large areas within the United States. Most of the information has dealt with
 selected metropolitan areas  that are not necessarily representative of other cities
 or other areas on  a nationwide scale. Recently, the first national survey of solid
 wastes was made  by representatives of the Solid Wastes Program of the Public
 Health Service, state agencies, and consultants.1 The survey was based on a large
 sample consisting of 92.5 million people (46 percent of the population of the
 United States) from 33 states.

 1.1.1  Weight
    Results of  the national survey show that approximately 5.32 pounds of
 solid wastes per person is collected each day. Table 11 summarizes the amount
 of solid wastes collected in  urban and rural areas by category of origin. Because
 the urban  population is  much larger than the rural population, the national
 averages more nearly approximate the urban average than the rural  average.

               Table 1.  AVERAGE SOLID WASTE COLLECTED1
                           (Ib/person-day)
Solid wastes
Household
Commercial
Combined
Industrial
Demolition, construction
Street and alley
Miscellaneous
Totals
Urban
1.26
0.46
2.63
0.65
0.23
0.11
0.38
5.72
Rural
0.72
0.11
2.60
0.37
0.02
0.03
0.08
3.93
National
1.14
0.38
2.63
0.59
0.18
0.09
0.31
5.32
Some communities do not collect household and commercial wastes separately,
in which case a combined (household and commercial) average is reported.

-------
                               Table 2. REFUSE PRODUCED, COLLECTED, AND DISPOSED OF IN NEW YORK CITY IN 1959 AND 1960
                                                                         (tons/yr)
M
?S
>
H
O
z
Handled by

Depart™ en t of



Private mdu stry


Federal and
State agen cies
tons
Ib/capita-doy
Type produced
Garbage and rubbish
erators. (Only 163,000
tons residue collected)
Ashes (about 10% collect-
ed separately for sale;
garbage and rubbish)
Grit and screenings from
Deportment of Public
Works sewage treatment
works
Burnable construction
wastes (90% self-dis-
posed of by onsite
burning)
Fats, bones, animols,
and so forth (collected
and disposed of by manu-
facturers of fertilizers.
Garbage and rubbish
Ashes (about 50% collect-
balance collected with
Swill (collected separate-
ly for disposal at pig-
Series)


Amount
2,287,000
739,000
250 000

40,000

227,000
1,250,000
500,000
37,000
168,000
6,638,000
4.54
Type coll ected
separated ashes, and
domestic in'cinerator
residue
Separated domestic


Grit and screenings from
Department of Public
Works sewage treatment
works
nil
wastes (about 10% of
total produced in city)
Fats, bones, an i ma Is,
and so forth (collected
glues, oil, ferti lizer)
separated ashes
Swill


Amount
2,628,000
47,000
25 000

40,000

227,000
1,500,000
250,000
37,000
168,000
5,036,000
1.44
Type disposed of
domes c incinerator
residu
Separa ed domestic

Deportment of Public
works
R hi t t'

Garbage, rubbish, un-
separated ashes



Amount
2,628,000
47,000
40 000




1,500,000

168,000
4,497,000
3.08

-------
    The amount of refuse produced, collected, and disposed of for New York
City is given in Table 2.2 Even though the New York study is relatively old, and
New  York  is not necessarily typical of other  cities, the need for studies
applicable to local conditions is emphasized. The figures in Table 2 show clearly
how  the  refuse  is produced and processed.  Of the  4.54  pounds per  capita
produced per day, 3.44 pounds are collected and 3.08 pounds  are disposed of.
Refuse that is disposed of in domestic incinerators is obviously not municipally
collected or disposed of. Some wastes such as ashes, swill, fats, and bones are
collected but are then sold and/or used in various commercial operations.
    More refuse  is produced per capita in  the  United States than in Western
Europe. Table 3 gives the output of refuse per capita, based on data from large,
representative cities both in the United States and Europe.3

     Table 3.  REFUSE OUTPUT IN UNITED STATES AND WESTERN EUROPE3
                                 (Id/person)
              Yearly output
   United States
      Range  	1,100-1,700
      Average 	1,450

   Western Europe
      Range  	  400 -  900
      Average 	
           Daily output
3.0 - 4.7
4.0 (Some authors quote an average
    considerably higher)

1.1 -2.5
    2.1
1.1.2 Volume
    The  quantity  of  refuse  produced  is also  expressed  as volume. An
approximate  figure often used is 108  cubic feet of uncompacted  refuse per
capita per year,4 which is equivalent to 30 cubic feet of compacted refuse.

1.1.3 Geographical Areas and Collection Procedures
    Table 3 does not delineate how the refuse output varies with geographical
area or with local collection procedures. Generally, more refuse is produced
annually in warmer climates where there is more yard rubbish. Cities that charge
for refuse collection on the basis of quantity are notorious for low production
figures.2

1.1.4 Seasonal Influences
    Seasonal variations in refuse production can be of great importance in the
design and operation of municipal incinerators. Peak loads may be the result of
spring  clean-up  campaigns,  autumn leaf coEection, or the tourist season in a
resort  town. A  plot  of seasonal variations  of the  refuse  incinerated  in two
American cities, shown in Figure 1, shows  two different regimes.2 Hartford,
Connecticut, has an  annual clean-up campaign that accounts for the peak in
Municipal Refuse

-------
 April and May. In  the autumn, great  quantities of leaves are collected and
 incinerated. The minimum  during July and August  is perhaps a reflection  of
 summer vacations. The pattern for Cincinnati, where there isn't an organized
 spring clean-up campaign, indicates that a more gradual increase in refuse occurs
 with the onset of spring and  summer activities.

           J    F    M    A    M    J     J    A
                                     MONTH
0    N     D
Figure 1.  Seasonal differences in amounts of  refuse incinerated in Hartford,
           Connecticut, and Cincinnati, Ohio, 1957.2

1.1.5 Projections
    A projection of refuse generation and collections entail many considerations
such as changes in packing technology, changes in collection procedures, changes
in disposal costs, changes in per capita expenditure for consumption of goods,
and  perhaps  most important, the projection of population. One of the  most
recent projections on a nationwide scale,1 which assumes that per capita waste
production increases  at a  rate  similar to  the per capita expenditure for
consumption  of durable  and nondurable  goods,  shows that  the amount of
material to be collected through  municipal and private  agencies will rise to 8
pounds per capita  per day  by the year 1980 based on a 1968  per capita
production of 5.32  pounds. A  projection for Kenosha, Wisconsin, (population
estimated  at  75,000)  shows that refuse production  will increase  from  276
pounds per capita in 1965 to 4 pounds by 1976.5 The per capita projection
coupled with the population projection would  provide  a projection of  daily
refuse disposal requirements.
                                            MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
1.2 COMPOSITION
    The composition of refuse to be incinerated is a major consideration in the
design of  modern municipal incinerators.  The  composition of the  refuse
determines such important quantities as the calorific value, the amount of air
required for combustion, the amount of heat released, the characteristics of the
exhaust gases produced, and the amount of residue.

1.2.1  Chemical Composition
    Refuse can be considered as a  combination of moisture,  dry combustible
material, and noncombustible material. The moisture content  of refuse can be
either free (visible) or bound (nonvisible). Moisture content fluctuates with the
weather, particularly with rain and humidity. A proximate analysis of 20 of the
most common combustible components of municipal refuse (see Table 4) shows
that vegetable and citrus wastes  are highest in moisture content and paper is
quite low in moisture  content.6 All samples showed a high loss of combustible
carbon. The fixed carbon is that  portion of the refuse that has to be burned out
on the incinerator grate.
      Table 4.  PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF COMBUSTIBLE COMPONENTS OF
           MUNICIPAL REFUSE AS DISCARDED BY HOUSEHOLDERS6
                             (percent by weight)
Refuse
component
Newspaper
Brown paper
Trade magazine
Corrugated paper boxes
Plastic coated paper
Waxed milk cartons
Paper food cartons
Junk mail
Vegetable food wastes
Citrus rinds and seeds
Meat scraps, cooked
Fried fats
Leather shoe
Heel and sole composition
Vacuum cleaner catch
Evergreen shrub cuttings
Balsam spruce
Flower garden plants
Lawn grass
Ripe tree leaves
Moisture
5.97
5.83
4.11
5.20
4.71
3.45
6.11
4.56
78.29
78.70
38.74
0.00
7.46
1.15
5.47
69.00
74.35
53.94
75.24
9.97
Volatile
matter
81.12
8332
66.39
77.47
84.20
90.92
75.59
73.32
17.10
16.55
56.34
97.64
57.12
67.03
55.68
25.18
20.70
35.64
18.64
66.92
Fixed
carbon
11.48
9.24
7.03
12.27
8.45
4.46
11.80
9.03
3.55
4.01
1.81
2.36
14.26
2.08
8.51
5.01
4.13
8.08
4.50
19.29
Ash
1.43
1.01
22.47
5.06
2.64
1.17
6.50
13.09
1.06
0.74
3.11
0.00
21.16
29.74
30.34
0.81
0.82
2.34
1.62
3.82
Btu/lb
As
discarded
7,974
7,256
5,254
7,043
7,341
1 1 ,327
7,258
6,088
1,795
1,707
7,623
16,466
7,243
10,899
6,386
2,708
2,447
3,697
2,058
7,984
Dry
basis
8,480
7.706
5,480
7,429
7,703
11,732
7,730
6,378
8,270
8,015
12,443
16,466
7,826
1 1 ,026
6,756
8,735
9,541
8,027
8,312
8,869
Municipal Refuse

-------
    The ultimate analysis for the same samples on a dry basis is given in Table 5.

        Table 5.  ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF COMBUSTIBLE COMPONENTS
                    OF MUNICIPAL REFUSE, DRY BASIS6
                            (percent by weight)
Refuse component
Newspaper
Brown paper
Trade magazine
Corrugated paper boxes
Plastic coated paper
Waxed milk cartons
Paper food cartons
Junk mail
Vegetable food wastes
Citrus rinds and seeds
Meat scraps, cooked
Fried fats
Leather shoe
Heel and sole composition
Vacuum cleaner catch
Evergreen trimmings
Balsam spruce
Flower garden plants
Lawn grass, green
Ripe tree leaves
Carbon
49.14
44.90
32.91
43.73
45.30
59.18
44.74
37.87
49.06
47.96
59.59
73.14
42.01
53.22
35.69
48.51
53.30
46.65
46.18
52.15
Hydrogen
6.10
6.08
4.95
5.70
6.17
9.25
6.10
5.41
6.62
5.68
9.47
11.54
5.32
7.09
4.73
6.54
6.66
6.61
5.96
6.11
Oxygen
43.03
47.84
38.55
44.93
45.50
30.13
41.92
42.74
37.55
41.67
24.65
14.82
22.83
7.76
20.08
40.44
35.17
40.18
36.43
30.34
Nitrogen
0.05
0.00
0.07
0.09
0.18
0.12
0.15
0.17
1.68
1.11
1.02
0.43
5.98
0.50
6.26
1.71
1.49
1.21
4.46
6.99
Sulfur
0.16
0.11
0.09
0.21
0.08
0.10
0.16
0.09
0.20
0.12
0.19
0.07
1.00
1.34
1.15
0.19
0.20
0.26
0.42
0.16
Ash
1.52
1.07
23.43
5.34
2.77
1.22
6.93
13.72
4.89
3.46
5.08
0.00
22.86
30.09
32.09
2.61
3.18
5.09
6.55
4.25
    Carbon is plentiful and is the principal fuel element. Sufficient hydrogen is
present in most cases to burn all of the oxygen to water. Nitrogen is present in
rather insignificant  quantities  except  in  leather, vacuum  cleaner catch,  lawn
grass, and ripe tree leaves.  Sulfur is  present  in most refuse  in  rather small
quantities, particularly when compared to the sulfur content of coal and fuel
oils.

1.2.2 Physical Composition
    Up to this point we have been concerned solely with the chemical analyses
of separate refuse components. These analyses  can be used to simulate the total
chemical composition for municipalities where accurate estimates of the  com-
ponents can be made. In those areas  where component measurements are not
feasible or practical, analyses from other municipalities can be useful in making a
first estimate. One  such analysis was made for Oceanside, Long Island, New
York.7 Refuse composition  and moisture content for three tests are shown in
Table 6. Large variations are apparent in both the  components and moisture
content.  Results from these  tests and others show that  refuse composition and
moisture content (as previously stated) both vary from day to day, season to
                                            MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
season, on holidays, and with geographical area. The  consuming patterns and
uniformity of the standard of living throughout the United States are the main
factors in creating uniformity in refuse.
    A brief review of Table 6  shows that  paper products are the main refuse
components, generally comprising from 30 to 55 percent, of the total refuse at
the Oceanside  Refuse Disposal Plant. Grass and  dirt obviously  showed  the
greatest variance, ranging from 33 percent in June to essentially zero percent in
February. Moisture content varies over a wide range of values depending upon
the category of the refuse. The high moisture content of the paper products was
explained by Kaiser,7 as a result of absorption from other refuse  components
and weather elements.
          Table 6. REFUSE COMPOSITION AND MOISTURE CONTENT
                          OF EACH COMPONENT7
Component
Cardboard 	

Miscellaneous paper . . .
Plastic film 	
Other plastics 	
Garbage 	
Grass and dirt 	
Textiles 	
Wood 	
Minerals 	
Metal 	

Totals 	

Test 1
June 1, 1966
Weight,
percent
1.59
8.88
22.25
1.76
0.69
9.58
33.33
3.00
1.22
9.74
7.96
100.00
Moisture,
percent
23.78
37.77
36.98
18.80
20.50
65.25
62.20
31.40
24.98
6.00
10.83

Test 2
June 23, 1966
Weight,
percent
6.75
11.27
21.78
1.77
1.67
10.21
19.00
3,33
6.58
9.49
8.15
100.00
Moisture,
percent
13.22
19.20
24.68
20.47
29.60
73.45
44.80
22.40
8.70
1.99
2.76

TestS
February 21, 1967
Weight,
percent
5.78
21.35
26.20
1.20
2.34
16.70
0.26
2.24
1.46
11.87
10.60
100.00
Moisture,
percent
16.10
18.00
21.90
2.85
4.38
59.80
21.08
26.05
13.20
1.64
4.46

1.3 HEATING VALUE
    The calorific value is considered one of the most important factors of refuse
composition for  the incineration process. The overall calorific value of refuse is
affected by the  amount of moisture and the  percentages of combustible and
noncombustible elements in the refuse.
    The heat  value of refuse varies widely from country to  country. Japanese
refuse  contains  large  amounts of moisture and, therefore, has a much lower
calorific value than refuse in Europe and the United States.8  The high moisture
content in Japanese refuse is due mainly to the presence of more garbage and
less paper. The current estimate of the average higher heating value (HHV) of the
United States  municipal refuse is 5,000 Btu per pound.9 Average calorific values
Municipal Refuse

-------
may be difficult to determine because values of from 2,000 to  10,000 Btu per
pound can exist.
    The heating  value  of refuse  is normally  determined by determining the
components and  their quantities in a representative sample of the refuse. By
applying known heating values to the components, a reasonable calorific value of
the refuse can be computed. Such an analysis, based on refuse composition from
a number of incinerators during the 1950 to 1962 period, gives a calorific value
of 4,917 Btu  per pound  as fired.10 Table 7 gives the composite analysis from
which the calorific value was determined.
       Table 7.  COMPOSITE ANALYSIS OF AVERAGE MUNICIPAL REFUSE,
                               AS-RECEIVED BASIS10

Moisture 	 	
Carbon 	
Hydrogen 	
Oxygen 	
Nitrogen ...
Sulfur . . 	
Noncombustibleb ... 	
Total 	
Percent
20.73
28.00
3.50(0.71)a
22.35
0.33
0.16
24.93
100.00
Theoretical combustion air,
Ib/lb refuse

x 11.53 = 3.2284
x 34.34 = 0.2438


x 4.29 = 0.0069

3.4791
Calorific value, Btu/lb:  4,917 as fired; 6,203 dry basis; 9,048 dry-ash-free basis
aThe net hydrogen available for combustion (0.71 percent) equals the total hydrogen (3.50
 percent) less 1/8 of the oxygen (22.35 percent/[8]).
bNoncombustibles: Ash, glass, ceramics, metals.
    In  his  study  of refuse  at the  Oceanside, N. Y.,  incinerator,  Kaiser7
computed the  average calorific values (HHV) of  the  various  components of
refuse  by using  a bomb  calorimeter. The results  are  presented  in  Table 8.

                 Table 8.  HIGHER HEATING VALUES (Btu/lb)7
Component
Cardboard 	
Newspaper 	
Miscellaneous paper 	
Plastic film 	
Other plastics 	
Garbage 	
Grass and dirt 	
Textiles 	
Wood 	
Minerals3 	
Metallic3
As-received
basis
6 389
5927
5390
11 128
6 778
2 226
2970
5 876
6 850
79
683
Dry
basis
7 841
8 266
7 793
13 846
9 049
7 246
6 284
8 036
8 236
84
742
Moisture- and
ash-free basis
8 131
8 518
8 439
14 849
1 1 332
9 287
9 002
8 299
8 482
9 438
8,439
aBtu in labels, coatings, and remains of contents.
                                              MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
Because the heat produced by the oxidation of metals is highly variable among
incinerators, it was not included.

1.4  BULK DENSITY
    Density is perhaps most important to sanitary landfill operations, and will,
therefore, not be discussed in detail. (One application of density important to
municipal incineration is in determining average grapple loads, a figure that may
be used in crane design and the estimation of furnace loading.) Density of refuse
as collected has  been decreasing in recent years because  of the change in refuse
composition.2 However, this trend  may be somewhat affected by  some col-
lection vehicles  that have been  designed to carry  larger loads by the use of a
compacting device. Density of refuse in an incinerator pit is obviously greater in
the lower half than in the upper half because of compaction by the refuse itself.
Studies at  the Oceanside Refuse Disposal Plant, Hempstead, N. Y., show that
350 pounds per  cubic yard may be a useful figure for pit design.11 Table 9 gives
the average pit densities of refuse for the Oceanside Refuse Disposal Plant. The
lower  density and moisture content in March reflect drier weather conditions,
absence of dense, high-moisture-content yard  wastes, and the drying effect of
refuse during the domestic heating season.

              Table 9.  PIT DENSITIES OF REFUSE AT OCEANSIDE
                     REFUSE DISPOSAL PLANT, N. Y.11

March 18 19 	
June 13, 14 	
Average density in pit, Ib/yd3
Moisture content,
percent
26
42
Before
settling
349
480
After
settling
375
523
1.5 SAMPLING METHODS
    There are apparently no standard procedures used in the sampling of refuse.
Most  methods have been developed to  help  a city determine  what type of
disposal method to use, and after selection of the method, to determine how the
particular disposal system should be designed and operated. If a city has decided
to build an incinerator,  some  characteristics  of  interest will  be the amount,
calorific value, density, physical composition, and chemical composition of the
refuse. Representative samples are difficult to find because of the heterogeneity
of the  chemical and  physical composition of the refuse. Heterogeneity  is
introduced also  by day-to-day  changes in composition, weather, and seasonal
changes.  Preparation of refuse  as received at the  incinerator may help provide
more  representative samples. The Swiss Federal Institute of Technology plans to
obtain more representative samples of refuse by the use of a portable hammer
mill that will grind, homogenize, and mix unsorted refuse.12
Municipal Refuse

-------
               2. MUNICIPAL INCINERATOR TYPES


    Numerous methods of classification of municipal incinerators are available.
One classification system is based on refuse disposal capacity. Another classifi-
cation system is based on use of by-products. The discussion  of incinerators
herein will be according to the method used to feed refuse to the furnace. A
separate discussion of waste-heat-recovery incinerators will be included.

2.1 CONTINUOUS-FEED INCINERATORS
    The  continuous-feed incinerator is used almost exclusively for municipal
incineration. Such an incinerator moves the refuse automatically from a hopper
through the furnace  on a grate (stoker). Refuse burns  on the stoker as it passes
through the  furnace. Refuse is ignited while on the feeder  grate, then tumbles
off the feeder grate onto the burner grate  where rapid combustion takes place.
Some incinerators have more than one burner grate, each of which is successively
lower  so  that tumbling of  the refuse from  grate to  grate further exposes
unburned portions of  the  refuse to the combustion process, thereby assuring
more complete combustion. A cross section of a continuous-feed incinerator is
shown in Figure  2.

2.1.1 Traveling-Grate Incinerator
    The  traveling-grate continuous-feed incinerator  consists of  a continuously
moving feeder grate and one or more burner grates.  The feeder grate is located
directly under a charging hopper from which refuse falls onto the grate. The
refuse can be partially dried while it is on the feeder grate.

2.1.2 Reciprocating-Grate Incinerator
    The  reciprocating-grate incinerator moves refuse through the furnace from
the  hopper  while  the  grate  is actually stationary, except  for  alternating
reciprocating movements of component stoker bars. The action of the stoker
bars turns the refuse over  and then tumbles it forward to  the  next successive
stoker bar. Burning rate is adjusted by  controlling the  speed of the stoker bars.

2.1.3 Rotary-Kiln Incinerator
    Refuse  is dried  and charged into  the rotary-kiln incinerator in  the same
manner as  for  the  traveling-grate  incinerator.  The difference in the two
incinerators is in the burner grate. The refuse is dumped from the feeder grate
into a rotary kiln that provides constant tumbling of the burning refuse. The kiln
is continuously charged and provides continuous residue removal.
                                   11

-------
 2
 n

 2
 m

>
H

5
                                            Figure 2.  Cross section of typical municipal incinerator.

-------
 2.1.4 Barrel-Grate Incinerator
     The barrel-grate incinerator is relatively new in design. Refuse is burned as it
 is moved by a series of rotating barrels. One such incinerator is now in operation
 in Dusseldorf, Germany (see Figure 3).
                                                                  LAI
                                                           ASH HOPPER
Figure 3.  Municipal incinerator in the city of Dusseldorf, Germany. Garbage is
          first burned  on barrel  grates,  then delivered to a traveling-grate
          stoker.14

2.2 BATCH-FEED INCINERATOR
    The batch-feed incinerator is as its name implies, noncontinuous. Refuse is
charged to the furnace through the furnace roof at periodic intervals to allow the
previous batch to be almost completely burned, when a new batch is introduced.
The residue is normally removed from the furnace in the batch method, but at a
frequency much  lower than the batch charging. Some installations have pro-
visions  for  automatic  removal  of  residue and  incombustible components.
Automatic agitators often provide  constant overturning  and mixing of the
burning refuse to allow a minimum of hand stoking.
    Cell incinerators, used more extensively in Great Britain and Europe than in
other countries, can be considered batch incinerators. Normally, the furnace (see
Figure 4) is made up of from two to six cells.15 Each cell receives a premeasured
charge of refuse through the charging gate. This refuse is then dropped onto the
Municipal Incinerator Types
13

-------
 o
 £
 §
 n
 I.
5
H
C
                                     ,\'A:  A  '
Figure 4.  Longitudinal section of a cell furnace: (1) charging gate; (2) sliding cover; (3) hori-
          zontal grate; (4) clinker grate; (5) refractory lined drum; (6) combustion chamber;
          (7) ash conveyor.15

-------
 horizontal gate where  it can be  stoked by hand while burning. The grate is
 mechanically controlled for residue removal. Air for combustion is heated as it
 passes over the hot residue that has been removed from the horizontal grate. All
 cells are open to each other, and adjacent to the last cell in the direction of the
 combustion gas stream  is a combustion chamber where the combustion of  the
 gases is completed.

 2.3 RAM-FEED INCINERATOR
    The ram-feed incinerator uses a ram  to move  the refuse  from a charging
 hopper to the burner grate. The  burner grate then moves the burning refuse
 continuously through the furnace. Residue and noncombustibles are  removed
 continuously at  the  end of the burner grate. A cross  section  of a  ram-feed
 incinerator in Clearwater, Florida, is depicted in Figure 5.16
                           SECTION THROUGH INCINERATOR
     Figure 5.  Cross section of ram-feed incinerator, Clearwater, Florida,16

2.4 METAL CONICAL INCINERATOR
    Although of the "batch" type,  conical incinerators are discussed separately
because  of their  distinctive design and  undesirability for municipal  refuse
incineration.  Metal conical burners  are similar in shape to an Indian tepee  (see
Figure 6). A survey of 15 burners in six states found that the size of the burners
range from 10 feet in diameter by 12 feet high to 90 feet in diameter by 97  feet
high.17 The base of the conical incinerator is usually secured to a concrete  ring
foundation. Walls  are usually made of 16-gauge steel. Some also have an inner
lining of steel. The dome is usually fitted with a mesh wire for collection of large
particles of flyash. Many draft doors are located at the base of the burner. Most
conical burners are equipped with forced-draft blowers. Charging may be done
by conveyor belt, bulldozer, or elevated truck chute.
Municipal Incinerator Types
15

-------
Figure 6.  Conveyor-fed municipal refuse  burner during startup. Charge is dry
          paper, wood, and small amount of garbage.  Represents peak emis-
          sions during field visits to this site.' 7

2.5 WASTE-HEAT-RECOVERY INCINERATORS
    The calorific value of refuse in the United States averages about 5,000 Btu
per pound. Of this amount, about 45 percent is usually released as waste heat to
the atmosphere through the stack.18  Only a very few incinerators in the United
States are designed to recover waste heat. In Europe, however, most of the large
modern municipal incinerators built since World War II are designed  to recover
waste heat. Waste heat is recovered by use of low-pressure boilers, high-pressure
boilers, and, most recently, water-walls. Four elements  that have made waste-
heat recovery practical, efficient, and economical in Europe are:
    1. Development of more  effective and efficient incinerators  to handle
       refuse that is difficult to burn and low in heat value.
    2. Development of more effective heat-recovery systems.
    3. Recognition of  the considerable aid given to  the  alleviation of  air
       pollution from the incineration of refuse. Approximately 50  percent of
       the paniculate  matter is removed by the  average  waste-heat system.
       Furnace gases of from 1,800° F are cooled to the required 400° to 500°
       F, and gas volumes are reduced by at least one-half.
    4. Continued unavailability of economically competitive fuels.1 8
16
                                            MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
     Recovered waste heat can be used to produce steam for heating or for the
 production of electricity  and hot water  for  heating, personnel services,  and
 process requirements. Waste heat can be used to  dry sewage sludge, which can
 then be sold as a fertilizer, and at coastal sites it can be used to desalt salt water
 from the ocean to supply communities with potable water.
     Waste-heat-recovery incinerators are generally of the continuous type that
 burn large amounts of refuse, the waste heat output of which is fairly constant
 and dependable.

 2.5.1  Low-Pressure Boilers
     Hot water can be generated in low-pressure boilers that are heated by hot
 gases that pass from the furnace to  the boilers and then back to the stack. In
 refuse plants that use the hot water for  internal heating and  service require-
 ments, only a small portion of waste heat is recovered. Because there is always a
 demand for hot  water,  external demands of municipal buildings and factories
 should not be overlooked.

 2.5.2  High-Pressure Boilers
     Early designs of waste-heat-recovery incinerators placed boilers in the com-
 bustion chamber with direct exposure to the burning refuse. The absorption of
 heat by the boiler, together with lower calorific value of refuse at that time,
 lowered furnace  temperatures and thus the effectiveness of the combustion. To
 alleviate this problem, boilers built directly above the burning refuse are shielded
 to prevent excessive cooling of the furnace by radiation.
     Many refractory incinerators that pass  combustion gases through a series of
 boilers have been designed (Figure 7). Not  only is waste heat recovered, but the
 volume of the  combustion gases needing cleaning  is reduced  considerably.
 Boilers may be used to reduce flue gas temperature to within the range (482° to
 572° F) that such high-grade dust collectors as electrostatic precipitators (to be
 discussed in Chapter 3) cannot be subjected.19

 2.5.3  Water-Wall Furnace
     Water walls are used in furnaces in various European incinerators, a practice
 that is not new. The only operational water-wall incinerator in the United States
 is located at the Norfolk, Virginia, Navy Base.
     Water walls are constructed of interconnected steel tubes welded together to
 form an integral  wall. Circulating water is converted to steam almost entirely by
 radiation  supplemented by  some convection. Obviously,  many factors  are
 involved in the amount of heat that is transferred from the furnace chamber to
 the water walls. If too much water-wall area is installed, the furnace may operate
 at temperatures  below  deoderizing temperatures, resulting in  an undesirable
 situation.2 ° As with boilers, the cooling of the furnace by water walls means a
Municipal Incinerator Types                                              17

-------
Figure 7.  Cross section of a large European incinerator,  showing path of fur-
           nace gases through heat recovery boiler.18

lower  requirement for  the quantity of excess  air,  resulting in less flue  gas
requiring air pollution control treatment.
    A cross section of the Norfolk refuse incinerator is  shown in Figure 8. The
specifications for each boiler-furnace unit  are given in Table 10.
Table 10.  SPECIFICATIONS  FOR  EACH BOILER-FURNACE UNIT IN WATER-WALL
          INCINERATOR, NAVY BASE, NORFOLK, VIRGINIA20
Mixed refuse capacity., tons/day  	
   Heat content, Btu/lb as-fired	
   Moisture, percent  	
   Noncombustible material, percent  	
Steam production
   With refuse at 5,000 Btu/lb, Ib/hr  	
   With drier refuse or with refuse plus oil, Ib/hr	
   With oil only, Ib/hr	
Design stoker loading,
   Ib refuse/ft2-hr of effective grate surface   	
Heat release
   Btu/hr-ft2 effective grate surface  	
   Btu/ft3 primary furnace volume maximum   	
Minimum gas temperature leaving primary furnace at 50 percent of rated load c
Steam pressure, psig	
Steam quality	
Feedwater temperature, °F  	
Exit gas temperature from boiler at design refuse capacity, °F.  ........ .
    180
.   5,000
     25
     12.5

.  50,000
.  60,000
.  50,000

     65

.325,000
.  25,000
   1,400
    275
. Saturated
    228
    580
 18
                                                MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
  WATER-COOLED
    FEED CHUTE
        Figure 8  Water-wall incinerator at Navy Base Norfolk, Virginia20

     A new water-wall incinerator that is noteworthy will soon be placed into
 service in Paris, France.21 Steam produced will be used to generate electricity
 and heat for both internal use and sale to local consumers.

 2.5.4 Salt Water Distillation
     Waste heat can be used effectively to desalinate water. Its use in providing a
 future water supply for coastal areas should not be underestimated. Experience
 gained from the Oceanside Refuse Disposal Plant22 shows that waste heat from
Municipal Incinerator Types
19

-------
the incineration of refuse from half a million people could supply one-four
one-third of their domestic water requirements.
    The basic principle is that steam is generated from waste heat. The steam is
used to convert the salt water, pumped from a nearby source, to steam. The salt
water steam is then  condensed  to  fresh water  on tubes that are cooled with
unheated salt water.  A flow diagram of the Oceanside Refuse Disposal Plant is
given in Figure 9.
           OVERFIRE
            AIR FAN
               i
     REFUSE
                                       STACK     TURBINE-GENERATORS
                                                            *^v
                                                           CONDENSATE
                                                              PUMP
LOW-PRESSURE
 SALT WATER
    PUMP     TO STORAGE
                TANK
                                        SINGLE-STAGE SUBMERGED-
                                           TUBE EVAPORATOR
 Figure 9.  Flow diagram traces waste heat at work generating steam for power
           and desalting.

 2.5.5 Sewage Sludge Disposal
    Refuse  incinerators can be located adjacent  to  sewage  treatment  plants
 where waste heat can be used to dry sludge or where dewatered sludge can be
 mixed with the refuse  and burned. Dried sludge  can  be sold as a fertilizer.
 Effluent  water can be used for cooling the incinerator furnace walls and for gas
 scrubbing. Raw sludge is dewatered by a vacuum filter. The resulting sludge cake
 contains  65 to 75  percent moisture.23  The moisture content can be further
 reduced  by  storing  the sludge for several days. Heating values, ash content, and
 percentage of volatile matter for a typical sludge cake are given  in Table  11
 20
                                            MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
     One  such sludge-burning incinerator is located in a suburb of Philadelphia,
Pa.24  Oscillating  conveyors are  used  for  mixing  the refuse and  sludge.  A
performance  test conducted on this incinerator showed that for 381.4 tons of
refuse burned, 32.0 tons of sludge was burned. Combustible material that was
not destroyed amounted to 4.36 percent.


          Table 11.  AVERAGE SEWAGE SLUDGE CHARACTERISTICS23

Moisture, percent of sludge cake
    Range 	          65 to 70
    Average for design	               70
Volatile matter including chemicals, percent of dry solids
    Range 	          50 to 85
    Average for design	               70
Ash content including chemicals and combustibles, percent of dry solids
    Range 	          50 to 15
    Average for design	               30
Heating values, Btu per pound
    Dry solids,  range  	    5,600 to 10,000
    Combustible, design average	            11,500
Combustible in ash, percent of ash
    Maximum allowable	                 4
Municipal Incinerator Types                                                21

-------
              3. MUNICIPAL INCINERATOR DESIGN
3.1 BASIC INCINERATOR
    Trucks deliver refuse to a storage pit at most modern municipal incinerators.
Figure 10 illustrates a typical municipal incinerator. The size of the storage pit at
such an incinerator  is dependent on  such factors as  capacity  of the furnace,
emergency storage required in the event of furnace breakdowns, and refuse truck
pickup schedules. The refuse trucks enter the tipping floor and normally back up
to the pit and dump the refuse. Elevated cranes deliver the refuse to a charging
hopper that feeds the refuse automatically through a chute to the feeder  and
drier  stoker. The  refuse is usually ignited on the feeder stoker before it is
dumped onto the burner stoker. Air is supplied for combustion and temperature
control through  the grate,  sidewalls, and roof of the combustion chamber.
Residue is discharged from the end of the stoker into mechanical conveyors that
transfer the  residue to  storage bins or  trucks.  Residue  is wetted occasionally to
control dust. In some incinerators, combustion gases  are passed into a  second
combustion  chamber (secondary  combustion chamber) to complete combustion
of  gases and  entrained  solids.  Combustion  gases are then cleaned prior to
exhausting through the stack.

3.1.1  Scales
    Many incinerators  maintain  accurate  records of the  amount  of refuse
processed. Weight  is the usual record maintained and can be estimated by two
methods. An accurate record  is kept where a scale is installed (see Figure  11), so
that trucks  can be weighed prior to discharging. If a scale is not available, the
number of truck loads multiplied by the estimated weight per load will  give an
approximate figure. This method  is not considered to be good practice, however.

3.1.2 Storage Pits
    Several  factors  must  be considered in  the  design of storage pits. As
previously mentioned,  furnace capacity, emergency storage,  and truck  pickup
schedules are important factors to be considered in determining the size of the
storage pit. Refuse can be dumped directly into the pit from the trucks or onto a
conveyor belt that carries the refuse to  the  pit. Some charging hoppers are
designed to receive truck loads directly, thereby eliminating the use of a  storage
pit  except when the  charging hoppers are full. An advantage of direct loading of
the charging hoppers is that old refuse on the bottom of the hopper is burned
first. Refuse would not build  up  in corners of storage  pits where cranes  cannot
reach.
    Trucks  are almost exclusively the means by which refuse is delivered to
                                   23

-------
 o
 ^
 >
 r
 z
 o
 z
 tn
 73
 >
H
O
Z
 1. INCINERATOR
 2. STORAGE PIT
 3. GRAB BUCKET
 4. BRIDGE CRANE
5. CHARGING HOPPER
6. HOPPER GATE
 7. WATER-COOLED HOPPER
 8. FEEDING AND DRYING STOKER
 9. BURNING STOKER
10. PRIMARY COMBUSTION CHAMBER
11. SECONDARY COMBUSTION CHAMBER
12. GAS-CLEANING CHAMBER
13.  FLUE
14.  DAMPER
IS.  CHIMNEY
16.  ASH CONVEYOR
17.  FORCED-DRAFT  FAN
18.  REFRACTORY ENCLOSURES
                     Figure 10.  Schematic of Typical Municipal Incinerator.

-------
    .
   Figure 11-A.  Refuse truck being weighed upon entering the tipping floor.
                     Figure 11-B.  Operator reads scales.
Municipal Incinerator Design
                                                                        25

-------
municipal incinerators in the United States In toreign countnesjK
 s  delivered to some plants  by ships  and railroad  cars.  So, m  V a
variables exist in the design of receiving systems for ships  and railroad cars tnat
 ,  re    no  one generalized detign.  An  example  of  a  custom  de.gn „  the
turntable and car  dumper  illustrated  m F.gure 12 that empties refuse mto the
storage pit at the Stuttgart incinerator.26
 Figure 12.  Combination turntable and car dumper empties refuse from railroad
            cars into the storage bin of the Stuttgart incinerator.26

     Dust generated during refuse dumping, crane loading, and hopper charging
 can be troublesome. Some plants furnish their employees with breathing masks
 if dust  control methods  are not used or  are ineffective. Exhaust  hoods over
 dumping areas (illustrated in Figure 13) can reduce  the dust. Another method
 uses air inlet ports around the top and  bottom of the pit.27 The upper ports
 draw  in dust-laden air and the lower ports (near the bottom of the pit) "drain
 off dangerous gases that occasionally form in the bottom of pits.

 3.1.3  Cranes
     Refuse is transferred from the storage pit to the  charging hoppers by means
 ot  overhead, traveling  cranes that  can be  equipped with either grapple or
 clamshell buckets. The  refuse can be rearranged in  the  storage  pits to permit
 truck dumprng space.  In the United States, grapples  are more widely used than
 26
                                              MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
 Figure 13.  Dust control at the Govan Incinerator in Glasgow includes hoods over
           the dumping  area; the ductwork leads  to a large bag house that
           removes the dust from air before discharge to the atmosphere.2 6

 clamshell buckets are. Clamshells do  not have the grappling ability of grapples
 but are useful for cleaning the bottom of the pit. Buckets must have  sufficient
 digging ability to pick up  the  refuse, and cranes  should  provide a  means of
 preventing  bucket twist and have a desirable operating speed. A steel  grating in
 the floor can provide a wearproof parking place for buckets not in use.2 7
    In  Europe both orange peel (polyp) and clamshell buckets are  used, but
 polyp  buckets are the more popular.28 Polyp buckets are more expensive, but
 have the ability to pick up different types of refuse more positively. Bucket
 capacities of European incinerators range from 5 to 7 cubic yards, which is larger
 than the 2- to 3-cubic-yard capacity of buckets in the United States.  European
 cranes  work at slower operating cycles, which may cause them to use less power.
 This slower speed results  in less damage to pit walls and hoppers, and makes a
 crane-weighing operation more practical.
    At  least two  cranes are  needed for the average refuse incinerator. The need
 for a third  crane  as a standby is stressed by some, debated by others, and denied
by still  others.28'29 Emergency  crane repairs can be made  in a short  time by a
well-trained crew  with available spare parts.
    There are two different types of crane installations. The bridge crane affords
the most versatility by allowing movement in both directions over the storage pit
and  charging-hopper  area. The  second type, the more inexpensive  monorail
Municipal Incinerator Design
27

-------
crane moves only in one direction, that is, along the centerline of the bin The
width of the bin for this type of crane should not exceed by 2 or 3  teet the
width of the bucket in its wide-open position.30
    The value of a good crane operator must not be overlooked. He can select
the refuse  from the pit to provide the most  suitable  mixture for incineration
when the pit refuse is usually nonhomogeneous. He can remove large pieces of
refuse that may not feed or burn satisfactorily. In some instances, the number of
crane loads are counted or a crane is fitted with a scale to determine the amount
of refuse fed to the incinerator.

3.1.4 Charging Hoppers and Gates
     The charging hopper is the beginning of the completely mechanized portion
of the incinerator. Hoppers of either metal or concrete are constructed in such a
manner that they "funnel" the refuse by gravity through a chute to the furnace-
charging mechanism. The flow of refuse can be  shut off or regulated  by a
charging (hopper) gate (see Figure 10). Hoppers can be fitted with eccentrically
weighted rotors that make the hoppers oscillate, thereby controlling the flow of
refuse to the furnace-charging mechanism.30 This method  is particularly appro-
priate in ram-fed incinerators where the oscillating hopper can be syncronized
with the furnace-charging cycle.
     In continuous-feed furnaces the refuse in the charging hopper and chute
seals off the heat  of the furnace. To prevent  fires in the charging hoppers the
lower  portions of the hoppers are connected  to a water-cooled feeding chute
through which the refuse passes to the charging grate.

3.1.5 Furnace Grate s
     The  grates  in a furnace  are one  of the  most important  parts  of a
continuous-feed  incinerator.  If refuse were  merely  dumped on a grate and
burned without turning or agitation, burning would take place only on the top.
Refuse  not exposed  to the flame and  that next to the grate would leave the
furnace incompletely burned. Well-designed grates turn and agitate refuse as they
move it through  the furnace  so that (1) a high percentage of the moisture is
evaporated, (2) volatiles are  gasified, (3) burnable solids are heated to ignition
temperature, and (4) nonburnable refuse is heated to approximately 1,500° F to
make it nonputrescible.31

3.1.5.1  Traveling Grates
    Traveling grates, perhaps used more widely  in  the  United  States than
elsewhere,  provide movement of  refuse through  the furnace  by means of
continuous, conveyor-type movement (see Figures 14 and 15). They are installed
in line, usually in numbers of two or more.

    The first  section of a traveling-grate system is sometimes called the feeder


28                                           MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
 I	«//
\\\\\\\\\\\\c^X
                     Figure 14.  Traveling-grate stoker.
                    (Courtesy Combustion Engineering, Inc.)

grate. It is  inclined and drops  the  refuse onto the burner grate (the second
section) to provide  turning and agitation of the refuse. Ignition of the refuse on
the feeder grate normally takes place at about the middle of the grate. The speed
of the feeder grate is controlled  to provide sufficient drying and timely ignition
of the refuse.
    The burner grate (or grates) is horizontal; its speed is adjustable to fit the
combustion  nature  of the refuse. The speed can be adjusted independently of
the feeder grate. One of the later developments in traveling grates has been the
Municipal Incinerator Design
                      29

-------
 Figure 15.  Partially assembled traveling-grate stoker. Overlapping cast iron keys
            reduce sifting of refuse through grate.  (Courtesy combustion Eng., me.)

 addition  of more  burner grates  to  provide additional dropoffs, and thus
 additional turnover to provide  more complete combustion.31  An incinerator
 with an inclined feeder grate and three burner grates is shown in Figure 16.

 3.1.5.2 Reciprocating Grate
    Another  popular grate is the  reciprocating grate,  which advances and
 agitates the refuse by means of alternate rows of grates sliding  back and forth
 over a stationary row of like  grates.  An interior view  of  a 250-ton-per-day
 reciprocating-grate incinerator is shown in Figure 17.
    The  Von Roll System, which is widely used in Europe, uses a reciprocating
grate. Because improvements are constantly being made in each new installation,
no one installation can be classified as typical. In a recent installation, the drying
stoker  is inclined 20 percent. There is a 5-foot  drop from the drier stoker to the
first burner stoker, which is inclined 30 percent. Another drop of 5 feet moves
30
                                              MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
            Figure 16.  Boiler with multiple traveling-grate stoker.31
Municipal Incinerator Design
31

-------
           Figure 17.  Reciprocating stoker of American incinerator.
                      (Courtesy Detroit Stoker Company)

the refuse to the  second burner grate, which is inclined 33 percent. Rogus28
states:
    The three stokers or grates are comprised of stepped-down special-cast
    steel pallets.  These  are alternately of solid  and  perforated bar key
    construction.  The solid pallets have large swiveled arched inserts. The
    slow reciprocating downward movement, about a 5- to 6-inch stroke, of
    the individual pallets combined with the relative motion between them
    is augmented by the upward lifting  action of the normally recessed
    segments. The overall  effect  provides a  thorough  intermixing and
    agitating action which  promotes  a  near-complete burndown  of the
    refuse. The  siftings that pass through the grate system are discharged
    into  zoned   hoppers and  thence through gravity  chutes  into  the
    underlying residue troughs.
    Another European grate design, known as the Martin System, is a reverse
reciprocating-grate system.28 This grate has a high efficiency, permitting the use
of a single grate  per furnace. The drying and burning is accomplished on a single
short, but wide inclined grate. The stepped-down  grate is sloped at  an angle of
approximately 30 degrees. The grate consists of heavy serrated cast-steel bars of
32
                                             MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
chrome iron that  can withstand temperatures up to 1,600° to 1,700° F. The
grate consists of alternate reciprocating and stationary bars. The stoking bars
actually push the  refuse uphill against the downhill, gravity-induced movement
of the refuse. This system has been used successfully in many countries with
refuse of several types and widely varying calorific value and composition.

3.1.5.3 Rocker-Arm Grates
     Rocker-arm stokers  consist of  rows of  grates that pivot up from  the
horizontal through an angle of 90 degrees and then back to the horizontal. The
pivoting  motion is alternated  between odd and  even numbered rows, which
provides agitation and movement of the refuse through the furnace.

3.1.5.4 Barrel Grate (Drum Grate)
     One  of the more recent designs that is being used  in Europe  is  the
barrel-grate  incinerator.  In  an incinerator  in Dusseldorf,  Germany,28  each
furnace is equipped with seven contiguous cylinders set at progressively  lower
levels toward  the  discharge end at a slope of about 30 degrees from the hori-
zontal. Figure 3 depicts a  similar grate system  except  the traveling grate is
replaced by drums. In actuality, this  design simulates a series of traveling grates,
equal in  length to the exposed perimeter of the barrel grate. The speed of the
barrels is  independently variable; the first grate rotates at a speed of 50 feet per
hour and the last grate rotates at 15  feet per hour. The grates are 5 feet in
diameter and 10 feet long. They are made of serrated cast iron arched segements
that are keyed to a structural steel frame.

3.1.5.5 Rotary-Kiln Grate
     Rotary  kilns can be used for both drying and burning refuse. The refuse is
constantly tumbled  as it moves slowly under the action  of gravity through
inclined rotating kilns. Rotary kilns are used in combination with other types of
grates, such as in the incinerator depicted in Figure 18, where the refuse is dried
and  partially  burned on a  reciprocating grate that  then delivers the burning
refuse to a rotary kiln for final burning.14

3.1.5.6 Batch Incinerator Design
    There are many grate designs, particularly for batch-feed incinerators, which,
although not discussed previously, should be mentioned. Batch-feed furnaces are
usually equipped  with one of  five different  grate designs:  manually stoked,
circular manually stoked, rocking cell, reciprocating, and oscillating.32

3.1.5.7 Trends in Grate Design
     The  results of a survey of 204 municipal incinerator installations designed
from 1945 through 1965 and those under construction as of November 1965 are
shown in Figure 19.32
Municipal Incinerator Design                                             33

-------
     Some generalizations concerning United States incinerators are in order. The
 concept of municipal incineration grew rapidly following World War II. Batch-
 feed incinerators were built more often than continuous-feed incinerators until
 1963,  after which the trend was reversed. The three most popular continuous-
 grate designs are the traveling grate, reciprocating grate, and the rocking grate.
 The most significant trends for batch-feed grates are the replacement of the
 hand-stoked grates with mechanically stoked reciprocating and rocking grates.

     CHARGING
      CHUTE
Figure 18.  Incineration of garbage that has been dried and partly burned on re-
           ciprocating-grate stoker.14

3.1.5.8 Grate-Burning Rate
    The burning rate for grates is determined by the amount of refuse that can
be burned  per unit grate area per  unit time  and is  commonly expressed as
pounds of refuse per square foot per hour. The Incinerator Institute of America
has adopted a burning rate of 60 to 65 pounds per square foot per hour as being
a  generally  allowable" standard.33  Table  12  presents grate-burning rates for
157 municipal incinerators of various design in the United States 32 The year-

                             and latest year of incinerator design for whfch a
34
                                             MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
•g
s?
f
                                  CIZl MANUAL

                                  B22 CIRCULAR

                                      ROCKING CELL EIS RECIPROCATING

                                                        OSCILLATING
                                                    I	i TRAVEL GRATE
                                                    1	' a, 2 OR 3 STOKERS/FURNACE)
                                       ROCKING
                                       CONSTANT
                                       FLOW TYPE
                                                                                                                 TOTAL
                  PLANTS^ REPORTING   340   64    8   10  9   7  13  11  18  7  11  13  6   9  10  10  18  11   14*   204

                        YEAR        |,  I S  1  |  |  |  «   |  |  |  » *  |  |  |  I |  lllS

                                  *ONE PLAflf REPORTS DOTH ROCKING AN& DOUBLE TRAVELLIWJ GRATE STOKgSS

                                                Figure 19.   Stoker type and furnace feed.

-------
                   Table 12. GRATE-BURNING RATES
==^=^
Manual
Circular

Rocking
Rocking
Traveling

Reciprocating

Reciprocating
Oscillating

—
Feed
type
Batch
Batch

Batch
a
a

Batch

a
Batch

-
Year to year
1946- 1958
1945- 1965
1961 - 1965
1949 -U.C.
1961 1965
1963 -U.C.
1954 -U.C.
1961 -U.C.
1959 - 1965
1961 - 1965
1963 - U.C.
1958- 1964
1961 1964
=^==
Number
reporting
8
59
2
37
10
9
23
15
11
9
8
2
1
Refuse burned,
Ih/ft? grate surface-nr
Max.
91
110
70
71
60
67.5
70
70
87
60
75
69.5
—
Min.
37.7
45.4
70
32.4
43
50
55.5
55.5
35
35
55.5
60
—
Median
47/67
84
—
57.5
57/57.5
58
65
65
57
57
60
-
69.5
Average
59
83.3
70
56.8
56.0
58.7
64.3
63.7
57
53.6
62.9
64.8
-
aContinuous feed.

3.1.6 Combustion Chambers
    There  are basically two types of furnace wall construction, refractory and
water-cooled structural steel, the choice of which can depend to a large extent
on the sophistication of the gas-cleaning equipment used and on whether a large
amount of waste heat is to be recovered. For these reasons, refractories have
been used  almost  exclusively in the United States, while other countries with
sophisticated gas-cleaning equipment and more emphasis on waste-heat recovery
have made extensive use of structural steel (water walls). There are, of course,
many other considerations in the choice between these two types of furnace wall
construction.

3.1.6.1  Water-Walled Combustion Chamber
    Combustion chambers of water-walled furnaces, as mentioned in an earlier
section, are normally lined with structural steel tubes through which water is
circulated for the generation of steam. In most incinerators the tubes are welded
together to form  an  integral wall. Water walls are heated almost entirely by
radiation  supplemented by some  convection, and their presence has a tre-
mendous cooling effect on furnace temperatures and  substantially reduces the
amount of excess air required for cooling the furnace. Incinerators in which the
stoker and boiler are coordinated can require as little as 30 percent excess air.3'
The  use of small  amounts  of  excess air has two major advantages.  The first
advantage is that the temperature  of combustion of the refuse increases with
decreasing  amounts of excess air  as illustrated in  Figure  20. Obviously, the
higher the temperature the more complete will be the combustion of the refuse.
From Figure  20,  the combustion temperature for 30  percent  excess  air is
approximately 2,500° F, which is substantially higher than that for refractory
 36
                                             MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
furnaces requiring larger amounts of excess air for cooling. A second advantage is
that small amounts of excess air mean smaller amounts of gases that must be
expensively cleaned in areas with strict air pollution control codes.
                                                   2,500   3,000
                         GAS TEMPERATURE, °F (above ambient)
                 A = Gas temperature for 50 percent air = 2,400" F
                 B = Excess air for furnace
                    Exit temperature = 1,800° F = 110%
                 C = Excess air for gas temperature
                    At dust collector = 550%
      Figure 20.  Chart showing gas temperature versus excess air rates for
                 municipal refuse.

    A cost comparison study of a water wall versus a refractory furnace for the
Norfolk, Virginia, Naval Base installation showed that initial cost for the water-
wall installation using  100 percent excess air was nearly equal to the initial cost
of a refractory furnace using 200 percent excess air.20 Steam production from a
given amount of refuse can be increased by approximately 38 percent with water
walls.
    The use of water walls in other countries is extensive principally because of
the requirement of low gas temperature for sophisticated gas-cleaning equipment
(electrostatic precipitators) and the  emphasis on waste-heat recovery. A  rela-
tively large water-wall incinerator built at Issy-Les-Moulineaux, a suburb of Paris,
uses four 17-ton-per-hour furnaces.21  Another noteworthy,  water-wall incin-
erator that  will  soon  be placed  into  operation at  Ivry,  a suburb of Paris, is
discussed in Chapter 2.
Municipal Incinerator Design
37

-------
3162 Refractory Combustion Chamber
 '  ' As with the water-wall combustion chamber, the primary function oi he
refractory combustion chamber is to provide an enclosure wherern controlled
combustL of refuse can take place. Because of the increasing size of today s
municipal incinerators, refractory enclosures for large installations become quite
large and sophisticated in design.
    Widely fluctuating temperatures inside the  combustion chamber, resulting
for the most  part from the varying calorific value of charged refuse, cause
uneven expansions and contractions resulting in thermal shocks to  the refractory
lining. Measurements of the temperature variations of the refractory lining at
                                          T.C. 14
                                                  CONTROL
                                 OVERFIRE AIR1
                                   NOZZLES
              _ . N..SW * F:!--.  SILICON,       Tnp nF
           ^ AREA OF HEAVY   CARBIDE      mimvSr
                 QinPlWAI I *  o*"r'    ~      bUKNmb
                 ilUCWHUL,	£_         /DCCIICC
                 DEPOSITSk;-,,^-V^ ?   "
         10'-8" ^^^^S^. """laBRACKEtS'	
    36 STEAM JETS
  Figure 21.  Locations of temperature-measuring instruments in the Oceanside
             Refuse Disposal Plant, New York.34

various locations (see Figure 21) in the Oceanside Refuse Disposal Plant, New
York, show that variations of several hundred degrees Fahrenheit (see Figure 22)
do  indeed occur in periods of less than 1 hour and that temperature differences
from one  location in the furnace to another  frequently amount  to several
hundred degrees.34
     Refractories in common use are super-duty fireclay, high alumina, chrome
magnesite, and plastics. Plastics are made from  clays similar to those used in
bricks.  However, the plastics are  prepared at the factory and shipped in a wet
mix form. After  the plastics are placed in the incinerator they are uniformly
heated  to  a specified temperature during  which  time  they develop into a
ceramic-like  structure  and bond. For all refractories, uneven  expansion and
 38
                                             MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
 contraction can and must be appropriately accounted for. The refractory can be
 either self-supporting or be hung from a structural steel  superstructure. Arches
 and walls supported by structural steel superstructures have proven successful in
 large incinerators.3 s Refractories can be constructed in sections so that the load
 for each section is independently carried through support castings to the super-
 structure,  eliminating  cumulative loading. Expansion joints for each section
 permit independent expansion and contraction eliminating the accumulation of
 thermal stresses. In the sectional design, refractory thickness is not required for
 wall stability and support; it is determined basically by temperatures and the
 operating conditions of the furnace. Thicker refractories are  used when higher
 temperatures occur and when heat  storage is necessary to control widely fluc-
 tuating temperatures. Refractory linings can be either air-cooled or insulated.
 Air-cooled walls can be used as ducts for delivery of "over-fired" air into the
 combustion chamber.
    2,400

    2,000

    1,600

 °F 1,200

      800

      400,
I  ,A^V>Vv
    1,j/^iARCHT.C.14
      '  r.»
                         "'''
         INNER SURFACE OF WALL T.C. 688
                 WITHOUT STEAM SPRAYS
                             12
    16     20
    TIME, hours
24     28
32'   36
  Figure 22. Typical refractory temperature versus time chart for selected loca-
            tions in the Oceanside Refuse Disposal Plant, New York.34

3.1.6.3 Incinerator Slag
    The buildup of slag on the side walls of combustion chambers of refractory
incinerators has become  an  increasing problem with the advent of continuous-
feed incinerators. Long operating periods of several days at a time result in high
wall temperatures that  enhance  slag buildup. Slag buildup is greatest on the
lower, side walls of the furnace where it causes  obstruction of the grates and
Municipal Incinerator Design
                                       39

-------
burning  refuse. The composition  of slag varies over a wide range from one
incinerator to  another. This fact is  apparent  from a chemical analysis ol slags
from 25 incinerators in the New York, New Jersey,  and Connecticut area
Tables 13 and  14 give the average and range of spectro chemical analysis for the
25 slag samples tested.

          Table 13.  AVERAGE SPECTROCHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF ALL
                       INCINERATOR SLAGS TESTED36
   ~                                                      Average analysis
                                                         of 25 slag samples,
Chemical	Percent	
Silica (Si02)a	         44.73
Alumina (AI2O3)  	         17.44
Titania (TiO2)       	          2.92
Iron oxide (Fe2O3)	          9.26
Copper oxide (CuO)  	           Trace
Calcium (CaO)  	         10.52
Magnesia (MgO)     	            2.1
Sulfate (SO3)	          3.69 (Avg. 6)
Zinc oxide (ZnO)  	          1.54 (Avg. 6)
Lead oxide (PbO)	         Trace
Phosphorus pentoxide (P^Os)	          1.52
Soda (Na2O)  	          6.09
Potash (K2O)    	          1.99
Lithia (Li2O)	          0.06
Manganese oxide (MnO2)  	          0.29
Barium oxide (BaO)	         Trace
aAll samples reported on a calcined basis.

          Table 14.  RANGE OF SPECTROCHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF ALL
                        INCINERATOR SLAGS TESTED36
                                                          Range of analysis
                                                         of 25 slag samples,
Chemical                                                     percent
Silica (SiO2)a	      20.9  - 76.0
Alumina (AI2O3)  	           0.2  - 28.3
Titania (TiO2)  	         0.33 —  4.9
Iron oxide (Fe2O3)	       1.8  - 40.0
Copper oxide (CuO)  	         Trace
Calcium (CaO)  	       7.3—17.0
Magnesia  (MgO)    	                          11—26
Sulfate (S03)    	  '.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'..'.'.'.'.'.'.       o!l7 - 2o'.4(Avg.6)
Zinc oxide (ZnO)  	               020-  6 3 (Avg. 6)
Lead oxide (PbO)    	                                 'Trace
Phosphorus pentoxide (P2os)  ...'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'..'.'.'.'.'.'.'.       0.6-2.2 (Avg.6)
Soda (Na2O)   	                                      ncufi
Potash (K20)	       J?  -  "f
Lithia (Li20)	;;  	       "  -  8.1
Manganese oxide (MnO2) . .             	       "'I"      '
Barium oxide (BaO)  . .  	       0.04—  0.9
Change on Ignition   	...'.'.'.	       o Trace
aAII samples reported on a calcined basis.                                  :	

40
                                               MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
    Several methods for reducing or preventing the formation of slag deposits
on furnace walls have been used. Silicon carbide in conjunction with air cooling
of the furnace walls has been used in some incinerators.3 7 The use of steam
spray nozzles in a steam pipe mounted just above the grate has proven successful
at the Oceanside Refuse Disposal Plant.34 Water walls in some of the European
incinerators have alleviated this problem.31

3.1.7 Heat-Recovery Boilers
    Boilers placed in the path of combustion gases can be both an effective and
economical method of cooling the gases.  For example, heat absorption by
water-walled  furnaces with well-designed boilers can cause a gas temperature
reduction of from 2,500° to 450° F.31
    There are two basic boiler  sections in the modern water-wall, waste-heat-
recovery incinerator.31  The first of these is the convection section, which is
located immediately beyond the combustion chamber. In this section the gases
move vertically upward passing through a  series of boiler tubes. The velocity of
the gases normally does not exceed 30 feet per second in  this section.  Since
there is still a large amount of entrained flyash, and temperatures are high, the
boiler tubes must be spaced far enough apart to prevent foul bridging across the
tubes. On  leaving  the  convection section, the  gases  have been reduced in
temperature  to  nearly  1,000°  F and  are  then usually channeled to  move
downward through the second boiler section, which is  called the economizer.
The tubes in  the economizer are much more closely spaced because the fouling
problem is reduced (flyash is less sticky) at the lower gas temperature.  On
leaving the economizer, the gases are ready for the gas-cleaning operation.

3.1.8 Auxiliary Heat
    Auxiliary heat is sometimes  used to attain high temperatures for the drying,
ignition, and complete combustion of high-moisture-content refuse. Auxiliary
burners may  be installed in waste-heat-recovery incinerators to augment steam
production on an as-needed basis when  steam  production  from refuse drops
below a specified amount. Oil and gas, and sometimes coal, are used for fuel. No
one location for the burner is universally accepted. It may be located directly in
the incinerator furnace as illustrated in  Figure 23, or  installed in a separate
combustion chamber as in Figure 24, in which case the combustion gases from
the burner and the incinerator come together at the boiler inlet.
Municipal Incinerator Design                                             41

-------
     ELECTROSTATIC
     DUST SEPARATOR
   Figure 23.    Elaborate boiler with auxiliary oil burners in  Dusseldorf,
               Germany, incinerator.14
42
                                          MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
   REFUSE PIT, 5,300-yd0 CAPACITY
   HOPPER AND FEEDING CHUTE
   MARTIN STOKER
   MARTIN RESIDUE DISCHARGER
   APRON AND BELT CONVEYORS FOR
   RESIDUE
   OPERATING FLOOR
   COMBUSTION CHAMBER, NO. 1
   COMBUSTION CHAMBER, NO. 2
   PULVERIZED COAL BURNERS
10 STEAM SUPERHEATERS
11 STEAM RESUPERHEATERS
12 ECONOMIZER AND PREHEATER
13 ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
14 OIL-FIRED BOILER FOR HEATING
15 TURBINE ROOM (TURBINES NOT
   SHOWN)
16 TURBINE-DRIVEN BOILER FEED
   PUMP
17 DEAERATOR
Figure 24.  Power plant in Munich uses auxiliary burners to combine refuse in-
          cineration and pulverized-coal burning.3
Municipal Incinerator Design
                             43

-------
           4.  AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT

    Up to  this point we have been concerned with the municipal incineration
process from the generation and collection of refuse to the burning of refuse and
recovery of waste heat. Incineration of refuse always produces at least two waste
products, residue and combustion gases. Except for low "burnout" of the refuse,
the residue is usually not a significant disposal problem because it is low in
volume, sterile, and its offensive odors have  been removed. Sufficient landfill
areas are usually available to handle the residue produced. The combustion gases,
however, can  be a significant  problem because  of their contribution to air
pollution. The primary air pollution concern is with particulate emissions rather
than gases  and odors. At  present, air  pollution control devices are  basically
designed for the removal of particulate matter, with some incidental removal of
pollutant gases by   certain types  of control  processes.*  Stephenson  and
Cafiero,32  in  an extensive survey of  incinerators, presented a summary  of
primary flyash removal facilities, shown in Figure 25.

4.1 SETTLING CHAMBER (EXPANSION CHAMBER)
    A settling chamber, one of the early and simple methods for flyash control,
is  located  immediately beyond the  combustion  chambers.  Large particles  of
flyash settle out if the gas expansion chamber is large enough in size  to
substantially lower the gas velocity. For example, a 30-micron particle settles at
the rate of 10  feet per minute, and a  1-micron particle settles at  1A inch per
minute.40  It is apparent from these figures  that, from a practical viewpoint,
settling chambers are effective only for the extremely large flyash particles. The
chambers are constructed of either refractory brick or  steel, and are designed
and fitted with devices to keep internal turbulence to a minimum to keep flyash
from becoming  reentrained in the gas stream. Reentrainment can also be reduced
by using a wet bottom chamber. Deflecting dampers are installed in some wet
bottom chambers to  force the flyash-laden air against the water surface. Gravity
settling is effective only for particle sizes of 200 microns or more,39 and settling
chamber efficiency usually averages only 15 to 25 percent. Such chambers are
therefore desirable  only for the  removal of large  particles prior to further
cleaning by more sophisticated devices. Such a  scheme is used  in the North
Hempstead incinerator, which uses two other gas-cleaning devices in addition to
a wet bottom settling chamber (see Figure 26). In anticipation of more stringent
codes, provisional space was provided for more efficient cleaning equipment.
'A third waste product, effluent water, can be a problem for municipal incinerators that
 utilize wet gas-cleaning devices. In areas where water pollution is a major consideration, it
 may be well to emphasize dry gas-cleaning systems rather than wet systems.
                                    45

-------
 i
 r

 I
 s
 w
i
            CC
            LU

            03
                18
     15 L
                       NONE     WET SYSTEMS ELECTR. PRECIP



                     DRY CHBR.    CYCLONES  FLY ASH SCREEN



                     WET BOTT.    SCRUBBER
     0 	

            1   2   0   5   3   5   9   5   5   9   8   18   6   8   12   8  8   8   8   16  11* 14 TOTAL

PLANTS     ^^^"SSSainSLnSKSSSSaSSSd   169
DpprjpTIMp  O">  G*   O">  °"*  O">   O">  CT^   O^   O^  O>  O">   O^  CT>  O^   CT1)   O">  °^   O^   O1  O^  O*  _^
              *ONE PLANT REPORTS SPRAY CHAMBER FOR RUBBISH FURNACE, CYCLONE FOR REFUSE FURNACES



                               Figure 25.  Primary flyash removal facilities.32

-------
o
n
o
w
ft
I
I
A -  DUAL CRANES
B -  HOPPER WITH LARGE OPENING
C -  FEED CHUTE
D -  SAFETY JACKET
E -  HIGH-TEMPERATURE REFRACTORY
F -  GRATE
G -
H -
I  -

J  -

K -
L -

M -
FURNACE                       N  -
RESIDUE HOPPER                 0  -
SECONDARY COMBUSTION CHAMBER   P  -
AND DOWNPASS FLUE              Q  -
FINAL BURNING AND SETTLING      R  -
CHAMBER                       S  -
NOZZLE-CLEARED WET BOTTOM
HIGH-PRESSURE OPPOSED SPRAY     T  -
CURTAIN
FLYASH  SLUICEWAYS
"FAIL-SAFE" DAMPER ARRANGEMENT
SEQUENTIAL CYCLONE COLLECTORS
FLYASH HOPPER
INDUCED-DRAFT FAN
BYPASS FLUE
PROVISION FOR ADDED FILTERS OR
PRECIPITATORS
CHIMNEY
       Figure 26.  Special features of the North Hempstead incinerator include an unusual amount of air pollution control equipment,
                 provision for additional equipment if needed, and an emergency bypass flue.37

-------
4.2 BAFFLED COLLECTORS
    In some incinerators, baffled collectors are installed separately from settling
chambers. They are  usually made  of brick or metal and  can be either wet or
dry.1 8 There are many collector designs and collectors can be placed in several
locations within the  post combustion chamber area of the incinerator. Particles
are removed by direct impingement, velocity reduction, or centrifugal action.
Removal efficiencies are quite  low and only larger flyash particles, mostly 50
microns or larger can be removed.

4.3 SCRUBBERS
    Scrubbers  clean the combustion gases by  carrying wetted  flyash to the
bottom of the scrubber. To be incorporated into the water, flyash particles must
impact on a water droplet. The impaction efficiency is primarily a  function of
the relative velocity  between the flyash particle  and the water droplet, the  size
and density of the flyash, the number of water droplets, and the fineness of the
water spray. Most of these factors are  a  function of the pressure  drop in the
scrubber and the energy input to  the scrubber system.38  In some incinerators,
fresh water is used  continuously  for the  scrubbing process, which  necessitates
disposal of the slurry leaving the scrubber.  Because the amount of water required
by scrubbers is high, however, and economy is of interest, the scrubber water
can be recirculated after  removal of the wetted flyash.  Corrosion from the
acidity of the  scrubber water, caused by the absorption  of acid-forming com-
bustion gases,  can be  a serious design and maintenance problem. Some instal-
lations use the slurry for quenching the hot residue as it falls from  the burning
grate. After the quenching, the  slurry may  or may not be recirculated.
     Scrubbers  are  usually made  of stainless and carbon steels. Maintenance
usually consists of repair and replacement of spray nozzles or flow valves.
Efficiency is related to the pressure drop in that higher  efficiencies require
higher pressure  drops.  In the venturi scrubber, pressure drops of from 20 to 40
inches of water can be required.40
    White stack plumes are common, particularly in cold weather when  effi-
ciently scrubbed gases are laden with large amounts of moisture added during
the scrubbing process.  Indicative of moisture, rather than  pollutants, the plume
has the appearance of being a  pollutant, and codes with given opacity require-
ments can require elimination  of  such a plume. The most obvious  method for
elimination of the  steam plume  is to  use a dry gas -cleaning method. Many
methods have been suggested for suppression of the steam plume. Some of them
are:  electrostatic precipitation  of  the water droplets, mechanical separation of
the water droplets, absorption or adsorption of water vapor, mixing of the moist
gases  with relatively dry  heated air, condensation of the moisture by direct
contact with water  on cold surfaces,  and reheat of scrubber exhaust gases.
Studies show that costs of these steam plume suppression methods, when the

                                 2°° F Mn be as ™ch  « the «>«  of a wet
48
                                             MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
4.3.1  Spray "Walls"
    Perhaps the simplest scrubber design (some may question its classification as
a scrubber)  consists of a water  spray "wall" in  which the spray is arranged to
permit maximum contact between the water and the dirty gas. The sprays can be
placed in several locations, such  as the settling chamber, the baffle collector, the
breaching ducts, or a chamber specifically designed for scrubbing.

4.3.2  Venturi Scrubber
    Both flyash and gaseous  pollutants  are  removed in a venturi scrubber in
which  water is supplied peripherally at the top  of the venturi (see Figure 27).
Gases passing through the venturi tube are accelerated at the throat to a velocity
that fragments the  water into a mass of fine droplets. Impaction efficiency is
high because  of high  relative velocities, small  water droplet size,  and  large
number of  droplets in the throat of the venturi tube. Downstream  from the
throat, the cleaned  gases decelerate and the water droplets agglomerate to a size
easily separated from the gas stream.
               Figure 27.  Venturi scrubber. (Courtesy chemico)

    Venturi scrubbers have a high collection efficiency, usually 90 percent or
greater, and can process untreated gases directly from the combustion chamber.
Recirculation of scrubber water permits less consumption of water and ensures a
minimum, but concentrated production of slurry.
Air Pollution Control Equipment
49

-------
   4.3.3 Cyclonic Spray Scrubber
       The configuration  of one  style of cyclonic spray scrubber is illustrated in
   Figure 28. Gases enter the lower portion of the scrubber peripherally and make a
   helical motion through a water spray until they exit the top of the scrubber.
   Water  is supplied  to a spray manifold, which is located  in the center of the
   scrubber.  Slurry is drained from the bottom of the scrubber. Impaction effi-
   ciencies here depend on the velocity of the gases and the atomization of the
   water by the spray manifold. Efficiencies of cyclonic scrubbers range from 85 to
   94 percent.39

                                   GAS OUT
          ANTI-SPAN VANES
        AND MIST ELIMINATOR
            DAMPER
                                                 CORE BUSTER DISK
                                                SPRAY MANIFOLD
              GAS IN
OUT IN
 WATER
                    Figure 28. "Cyclonic spray scrubber.

4.3.4 Packed Scrubber
cover portion of the scrubbe  (see       29              ^ ^ "**
                           (.see Mgure 29)
50
          and pass through a series of packed


             MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
beds that are  wetted from the top by water sprays. Flyash is carried to the
bottom of the scrubber where it is removed.
    ENTRAINMENT
     SEPARATOR
      BAFFLES
   DIRTY GAS IN-
 CLEAN GAS
-OUT
                                                  TYPICAL
                                                  PACKING
                                                     BED
                                                     TYPICAL WATER
                                                         SPRAY
                                                        WATER INLET
                                              *- DIRTY WATER OUT
                      Figure 29.  Packed scrubbers.38

4.3.5 Flooded-Plate Scrubber
    Another  scrubber type is the flooded-plate scrubber shown in Figure 30.
Gases enter the bottom  of the  scrubber and pass through a series of water-
flooded plates containing a myriad of water-covered holes. Clean gases exit at
the top of the  scrubber and the slurry is drained from the bottom. Collection
efficiency ranges from 90 to 95 percent and water requirements range from 3 to
5 gallons for 1,000 cubic feet of gas treated.46

4.4 CYCLONE COLLECTORS
    Cyclones are able  to remove particulate matter from the exhaust gases
without the use of water  by means of centrifugal separation of the particles and
gases. There are two basic types of cyclone collectors, the multicyclone (Figure
31) and  the involute cyclone (Figure 32). Gases miist be cooled to within the
range of 400° to 700°  F  to permit standard construction of cyclone collectors
and induced-draft fans.

4.4.1  Multicyclone Coflector
    Polluted gases enter the collector through a spinning vane, which sets up an
intense vortex. Particles are centrifugally thrown against the walls of the col-
lector and fall to the bottom where they are removed. The cleaned gases exit
Air Pollution Control Equipment
              51

-------
                CLEAN GAS OUT
               timiL
                 )  sari
                             .WATER
    DIRTY GAS IN
                           1	WATER
                   TO DRAIN



         Figure 30.  Flooded-plate scrubber.
           Figure 31. Multicyclone collector.
52
MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
vertically  through the outlet  tube. The tubes of a multicyclone  collector are
usually from 9 to  10 inches in diameter and are mounted in two common tube
sheets. One  sheet is for incoming dirty gases and the second tube sheet is for the
exit of the cleaned gases.
    Multicyclones are more efficient for larger particles than they are for smaller
particles. Efficiency  drops off rapidly for particles smaller than 20 microns.38
For 10-micron particles, only 35 percent (by weight) can be collected.  For a
pressure drop of 3.5 inches of water, a multicyclone collector can obtain an
efficiency of about  80 percent.38 Plugging  of  the  cyclone,  which can be a
serious problem in this type of collector, can lower efficiency significantly.
Figure 32.  Cyclone dust collector, involute. (Courtesy of Research-Cottrell, Inc.)

4A.2  Involute Cyclone
    Involute cyclones, which are much larger than multicyclones, are usually 2
to 5 feet in diameter. They operate on the same principle as the multicyclone,
but are not subject to the plugging. Erosion of the lower cone can occur and is
 Air Pollution Control Equipment
53

-------
                             lining or water  flushing to remove  collected
                             TL involute cyclone  solves this problem by
  rduc                      at the top  of the cyclone walL An ^additional
advantage of this design is that it  permits the water to carry the flyash down the
waUs  eliminating reentrainment of the ash. In addition, the temperature of the
eas  may  be reduced by as much as 200 Fahrenheit degrees by passing the gas
through a wet cyclone. The moisture added to the gas is usually not sufficient to
create a steam plume.

4.5  FABRIC FILTER COLLECTORS
    Fabric filter collection of flyash from  incinerators has potential of being an
effective and appropriate method of flyash control, but at present the method is
still in its preliminary stages of  development.  Slow development can be attri-
buted to the high-temperature gases that must be filtered and the characteristics
of the flyash.3 8 The efficiency of fabric filtration is high. Fabric filters cannot
be  overloaded during  periods of excessive dust loadings as is common with other
types of control equipment. Tests of fabric filters installed at an incinerator in
Pasadena, California, show that they have an efficiency of 99.77 percent.42 The
filters are usually arranged as tubular  bags so that they can be cleaned by
 shaking, bag collapse, reverse jet blowing,  and reverse flow backwash. The bags
 are connected to a dust hopper into which the caked dust falls for removal (see
 Figure 33). Pressure losses for bag filters range from  3 to 7 inches of water. Glass
                 INLET DAMPER CLOSED
                    FOR CLEANING
  BAG
  FILTERS IN!
  OPERATION
             JE
               f / \
        Ey
  CLEAN AIR
  OUTLET TO
   I.D. FAN,
H 11 II

=
>


fl
Z\
|T
>


6
FILTER

S
COLLAPSED
FOR
CLEANS
\
G














ni
l\
IN




                   SCREW
                 CONVEYOR
SUCTION DAMPER OPEN
    FOR CLEANING
                               AUXILIARY
                                  FAN
                                                                TO DUST
                                                               DISPOSAL
                   Figure 33.  Fabric filter dust collector.3
 54
                                            MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
fabrics used can withstand temperatures up to 500° F. A disadvantage of fabric
filters is that they require more room than any other one air pollution control
device. The initial cost of such filters and their maintenance is high.38  Extensive
gas conditioning and  control is required for proper performance of the  filter
fabric.

4.6 ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
    What is perhaps the first electrostatic precipitator installed in an incinerator
was installed in the late 1920's in Zurich, Switzerland. Since that time  electro-
static precipitator,s have become widely  used  throughout most of Europe. All
municipal  incinerators located in large cities in Japan use electrostatic precip-
itators for gas cleaning.44  England has used electrostatic precipitators in only a
few  of its incinerators  to  date, but the planned Deephams' Refuse Disposal
Works in London, with a planned  capacity  of  1,667 tons per day,  will be
equipped with electrostatic precipitators.45  The first two  incinerators in  the
United States to be equipped with electrostatic precipitators are located in New
York City.46 As a pilot  project, two precipitators  will be  supplied  by two
different manufacturers and placed in two different existing incinerators. Only
one furnace at each of the two New York incinerators will be equipped with the
new cleaning  device. The city of Montreal, Canada is following  the lead of the
Europeans in the design of a 1,200-ton-per-day capacity incinerator that will be
equipped for steam production and will use an electrostatic precipitator for each
of its four furnaces.4 7

4.6.1 Operating Principles
    The basic process  by  which electrostatic precipitators separate dust  or
moisture from a gas  stream is relatively simple and has been quite adequately
and briefly described by Robert L. Bump.43
    An electrostatic  precipitator consists of  discharge wires  of relatively
    small diameter and collecting surfaces, such as plates or  tubes, between
    which gases  pass  carrying entrained  particles. The discharge wires  are
    the pole of negative polarity while the collecting surfaces are positive
    and at ground potential. A unidirectional, high-potential field is set up
    between them. At and above a critical voltage, a corona  discharge takes
    place near the  surface  of the  negative wire. The  corona is a visible
    manifestation of the ionization of the gas between the  poles resulting in
    the formation of positive and negative gas ions in the region near the
    negative wires. These ions are attracted to the pole of opposite polarity.
    In moving toward the opposite pole the ions attach themselves to the
    dust particles entrained in the  gas, charging the particle positive or
    negative as the case may be. The particles themselves are then attracted
    to the pole of opposite polarity on which they are deposited. Since the
    ions are formed  in the immediate  vicinity  of the negative wire the
Air Pollution Control Equipment                                          55

-------
     negative ions  have a  much longer distance to  travel;  hence, more
     entrained particles are charged  negative  than positive, resulting in a
     greater  collection on  the  positive collecting  surfaces than  on  the
     negative wires. On reaching  the collecting surface, the particles give up
     their charge and  adhere to  it lightly until dislodged by rapping. From
     this it can be  seen that there are four steps necessary for electrostatic
     precipitation:  (1) charging the particles by means of gaseous ions or
     electrons; (2) transporting the charged particles through the gas to the
     collecting  surfaces;  (3) discharging  the  charged  particles; and  (4)
     removing  the precipitated  material from the wires and collecting
     surface.

 4.6.2  Combustion Gas Conditioning
     Combustion gas must be properly conditioned prior to entering electrostatic
 precipitators. Design criteria of precipitators limit  the temperature of the inlet
 gases to a range of from 450° to 600° F. Another factor is the efficiency of a
 precipitator, which is related  to the temperature and moisture content of the
 gases. In installations using waste heat boilers, the  temperature reduction is
 handled by  the  heat recovery process.  Installations not incorporating a waste-
 heat recovery process can condition the gases in three ways.4 8 The first system
 is a separate evaporation cooling  tower that  is installed immediately following
 the last combustion chamber. Cooling of the gases is  accomplished entirely by
 water. The second method is an  air-water system in which air and water infiltrate
 and cool the gases. The third  system cools entirely by water that is injected  at
 the end of the furnace rather  than in a separate cooling tower. A comparison of
 the "water only" and "water and air" conditioning systems for a typical 250-ton
 furnace is given in Table 15.
     The table indicates that the "water and air" conditioning system results  in
 57 percent more gas volume to  be treated. This factor, in addition to the effect
 of the dew point on the precipitation process in the "water only" system, results
 in a precipitator that  is 77  percent larger for a "water and air" system than for a
 ' Vater only" system. The dust load at the precipitator  outlet for the "water and
 air" system must be lower to account for the effect of the "diluting air."

 4.6.3 Efficiency
     Electrostatic precipitators can be  designed for nearly any efficiency  re-
 quired, with a pressure drop of only 0.5 to  1  inch of water.38 Experience with
 precipitation of flyash from American refuse incineration is limited to only one
 pilot plant for which test results yielded a collection efficiency  (by weight and
 50 percent excess air) of up to  94.4 percent.49 The precipitators that will be
installed in New York are designed for 95 percent efficiency.48 In Europe,
because of more stringent codes or  the anticipation of more stringent codes,
installations with guaranteed efficiencies of over 99  percent are common.43


                                              MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
            Table 15.  COMPARISON OF CONDITIONING SYSTEMS48
System
Incinerator exhaust
Gas volume, cfm 	
(250-ton furnace) 	
HjOdewpdint, °F 	
Dust load, g/acf 	
Conditioning system
Spray water, gpm 	
Ambient air, cfm 	
Precipitator inlet
Gas volume, cfm 	
H2O dewpoint, °F 	
Dust load, g/acf 	
Precipitator size 	
Precipitator outlet
Gas volume, cfm 	
H2 O dewpoint F 	
Dust load, g/acf (Residual dust) ....
Power required — Precipitator fans, pumps .
Water only
1 69 500
at 1310°F
104
0.241
80

1 30,1 50 at 560° F
150
0.314
x
130,1 50 at 560 °F
150
0.018
350 IcW
Water and air
1 69 500
at 1310°F
104
0241
40
45,400 at 68 ° F
205,200 at 572 ° F
120
0.20
x times 1.77
205 200 at 572 ° F
120
0.010
640 kW
Table  16 presents some of the basic design elements for 52 precipitator units
that are installed in 27 European incinerators. The range of efficiency is 92.0 to
99.5 percent, but the average is 98.0 percent.18
 Table 16.  DESIGN ELEMENTS OF EUROPEAN ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS
                             27 incinerator plants
                             52 precipitator units
                                                                         18
Characteristic
Size of furnaces, tpd 	
Raw gas volume, cfs 	
Dust load in raw gas lb/1 000 Ib 	 ...
Gas entry temperature, °F 	
Overall paniculate cleansing efficiency, percent 	

Range
42 to 1 ,060
350 to 7,200
2.7 to 12.3
285 to 520
92.0 to 99.5

Average
median
270
1,450
5.43
490
98.0

4.6.4 Physical Characteristics
    Electrostatic precipitators are quite large. Except for fabric filter baghouses,
they are perhaps the largest control devices used for municipal incineration. In
view of the increased concern with air pollution, when such devices are not made
a part of the original  design, designers of new  plants should  consider making
allowances for their future installation. The arrangement of the collecting plates
and hoppers is shown in Figure 34.
Air Pollution Control Equipment
57

-------
     Figure 34.  Electrostatic
58
Precipitator.  (Courtesy of Research-Cottrell, Inc.)









                 MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
4.7 COMPARISON OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
    Innumerable comparisons may be made among air pollution control devices.
One comparison may point out the advantage of system A over system B while
another comparison may point out the advantage of system B over system A.
    Perhaps in the end, the single most important element of a control device is
its collection efficiency. From previous discussions, perhaps  a relative rating of
efficiencies can be surmised.  Figure 35 presents the ranges of collection effi-
ciency for the various classes of control devices.38 This figure  also presents the
stack emissions for a given dust loading and coEector efficiency.
100

 90

 80

 70

 60
  S
  5  50,
  o
Si   40
cc
e3o;
LU
    20
 o
 o
     10
                     n^       i        I        I
                         INCINERATOR AIR POLLUTION
                      CONTROL EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE
                                .99.9
                                 97
                                 96
                                 90'
       ASSUMED CONDITIONS:
         150 % EXCESS AIR
         WATER QUENCH FROM FURNACE'
           TEMPERATURE
         600 °F ENTERING COLLECTOR
             HIGHER HEATING VALUE-
              5000 Btu/lb
            33 Ib DUST ENTERING COLLECTOR
                  PER TON OF REFUSE	
       0      0.50     1.00      1.50.     2.00     2.50
       |   Ib DUST/1000 Ib OF GAS CORRECTED TO 50% EXCESS AIR
            0.50
1.00    1.50     2.00     2.50
    Ib DUST/MILLION Btu
                                             3.0
                                                     3.50
             0.25     0.50      0.75      1.00     1.25     1.501.58
             GRAINS DUST/scf CORRECTED TO 50% EXCESS AIR
                       STACK DUST EMISSION
                                                             CLASS OF
                                                            EQUIPMENT
                                                            FABRIC
                                                            FILTER
                                                            ELECTROSTATIC
                                                            PRECIPITATOR
                                                            SCRUBBER
                                                            MECHANICAL
                                                            'COLLECTOR
                                           SETTLING
                                           CHAMBER
                                           WET OR DRY
          Figure 35.  Collector efficiency versus stack dust emissions.

    Costs of control equipment  are difficult to estimate because of variations
among manufacturers, the effect of efficiency and  reliability on the cost, and
differences in design permitted by local climate. Gas-cleaning costs generally
depend on the amount of excess air used, the inlet gas temperature, and the
heating value of the refuse.38 One of the most recent rule-of-thumb estimates of
costs of gas-cleaning equipment  is presented in Table 17.50 These figures are
based on  collectors constructed  of mild  steel.  It has been suggested38 that,
because of  the difficulties encountered with  the  collection of  flyash from
Air Pollution Control Equipment
                                                                        59

-------
        Table 17.  ESTIMATED COSTS OF GAS-CLEAIMING EQUIPMENT
                                  ($/cfm)
                                                               50
Type of collector
.


Wet scrubber 	
Equipment
0.07-0.25
0.25 - 1 .00
0.35 - 1 .25
0.10-0.40
Erection
0.03-0.12
0.12-0.50
0.25 - 0.50
0.04-0.16
maintenance
and repair
0.005 - 0.02
0.01 - 0.025
0.02 -0.08
0.02 -0.05
incinerators, air pollution control equipment costs would be found in the higher
ranges given in Table 17. The economics of decrease in price per  volume of gas
treated with increase in unit size is reflected in this table. Table 18 compares the
relative cost, space, efficiency, water usage, pressure drop, and operating costs
for the various types of incinerator air pollution control equipment. It  can be
seen that in some instances initial cost savings can be lost to high operating costs.
High pressure  drops mean higher costs because of increased fan loading. Water
usage  or space requirements can make an otherwise  attractive device become
quite unattractive.

           Table 18.  COMPARATIVE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DATA
                      FOR MUNICIPAL INCINERATOR38



Collector
Settling chamber

Multicyclone
Tangential inlet
Cyclones to
60-in. diameter
Scrubber3
Electrostatic
precipitator
Fabric filter
Relative
capital
cost factor
(F.O.B.)
Not
applicable
1

1.5

3
6

6


Relative
space, %
60

20

30

30
100

100


Collection
efficiency, %
0-30

30-80

30-70

80-96
90 - 97 ,

97 - 99.9
Water to
collector.
gpm/1,000
cfm
2-3

None

None

4-8
None

None
Pressure
drop, in.
water
column
0.5-1

3 -4

1 -2

6 -8
0.5- 1

5 -7
Relative
operating
cost
factor
0.25

1.0

0.5

2.5
0.75

2.5
     All of these estimates and comparisons are first approximations that must
be  used only in that respect. More meaningful estimates can be quoted by
architects, engineers, and equipment manufacturers when a certain type of
incinerator is under consideration.
60
                                             MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
                    5. AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT


5.1 RESIDUE-HANDLING EQUIPMENT
    From 5 to 25 percent by weight of the refuse charged into an incinerator
remains as residue after combustion.2 Devices to handle this  residue differ,
depending on the type and design of the incinerator.
    Batch-feed furnaces are usually fitted  with  ash  hoppers located  directly
below the grates. The hoppers are usually large enough to store the residue from
several hours' burning. The residue is usually quenched or sprayed with water to
reduce fire hazards and to control its entrainment in the air. Many incinerators
are designed to allow dump trucks to load the residue directly from the hoppers
for delivery to a landfill or other disposal site.
    The residue from continuous-feed furnaces falls from the burning grate into
ash removal devices that are usually automated. The residue is usually quenched
in a bath for dust and fire control. A drag or  apron pan conveyor then carries the
wet residue to dump trucks that deliver the residue to the disposal site. Figures
36 and 37, respectively, show a drag bottom conveyor carrying wet, steaming
residue and a dump truck receiving the residue from the conveyor belt. Figure
38 is a view of an operational residue landfill site.

5.2 AIR AND FAN REQUIREMENTS
    Forced-draft and induced-draft fans required for  air supply and exhaust of
the combustion gases are  a most important factor in the  design of municipal
                                    incinerators. Air requirements  are  dif-
            Table 19.                ficult to calculate because of the heter-
 AIR REQUIRED FOR COMBUSTION     ogeneous nature of refuse. Required air
    OF SELECTED MATERIALS2        can     ^   begt  be  estimated  by
          (Ib/lb of refuse)                 ,       /                 -
==___===_=========    analyses of representative  refuse  sam-
Paper	   5.9    pies.  The  amount  of theoretical  air
Wood	   6.3    needed   for  combustion  of  various
Leaves and grass	   6.5       ,   . ,            . ,        ,   ,  f
Wool rags                      6 7    materials on a  moisture- and ash-tree
Cotton rags	   5.4    basis is given in Table 19.
Rubber6	   94        ^  suPPlied  to  tne  combustion
Suet	  12.1    chamber can be classed as either pri-
           "     "                    mary or secondary  air. Primary air is
supplied under the grates and, basically, controls the rate of burning. Primary air
can be preheated if the moisture content of the refuse is high enough to make it
desirable. Generally, heating of the primary air is not required because of the
higher values  of today's refuse. Instead, excess air is usually required to cool the
furnace to a temperature compatible with the furnace lining.
                                   61

-------
   Figure 36.  Drag bottom residue
                                conveyor carrying steam-wetted residue.
62
                                          MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
          Figure 37.  Dump truck receiving residue from conveyor.

                     Figure 38.  Residue landfill site.
Auxiliary Equipment
                                                                      63

-------
     Secondary air is  supplied above the burning refuse  to  provide turbulence
 and  oxygen  for furthering  the  combustion  of combustible gases, vapors and
 particles within the combustion chamber. Secondary air can  also be used as
 excess air for temperature control of the furnace.
     Induced-draft  fans are extremely large fans that provide air to move com-
 bustion  gases  through the  furnace, through  the  gas-cleaning  devices and
 breachings, and out the stack. Figures 39 and 40 show the electric motor and fan
 enclosure for one  of  the 350-ton-per-day furnaces at the Montgomery County
 incinerator in Rockville, Maryland.
     Performance "characteristics" of both induced-draft and forced-draft fans
 for incinerator application are discussed in a report by Silva.5' The formulas and
 guidelines presented in the  report can be helpful in  plant design and modifi-
 cation.
               Figure 39.  Electric motor of induced-draft fan.
64
                                             MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
 Figure 40.  Induced-draft fan enclosure elevated platform is mounted on springs
           for vibrational control.

 5.3 INCINERATOR STACKS
    An incinerator stack is a vertical flue that transports combustion gases to a
 level in the atmosphere where the gases can be emitted, hopefully, with mini-
 mum pollution of the immediate environs of the  stack. The height  of the stack
 as a factor in air pollution  control is an extensive subject in its own  right. In
 some incinerators with highly sophisticated gas-cleaning equipment, the stack
 height is not  significant  except in considering ak pollution in the immediate
 vicinity of the plant. A stack  should  be high enough to permit sufficient
 dispersion of the effluent pollutants before they  reach a receptor in objection-
 able concentrations. The local meteorological elements and topography and their
 interactions are a major factor in the dispersion of the stack effluent. Generally,
 high stacks are good draft producers and less power is required to operate draft
 fans. Three types of stacks are used for incinerators: steel, masonry, or concrete.
 Masonry and steel chimneys are the most widely used.
    Masonry construction is used extensively for high, natural-draft chimneys.
 Masonry chimneys  can be attractively designed  to blend with building archi-
 tecture  and ruggedly constructed to support  their  weight and withstand high
Auxiliary Equipment
65

-------
   winds. Masonry chimneys  usually consist  of an outer structural shell  and a
   heat-resistant lining that can withstand temperatures up to 1,000° F, depending
   on the incinerator.2 The outer shell and inner lining are usually separated by an
   annular air space.
       Steel chimneys are much less expensive and usually require less space than
   masonry chimneys. Because tall  steel  chimneys require unsightly guy wires for
   structural support,  short steel self-supporting  chimneys (see  Figure 41)  with
   induced-draft fans have become popular.
       Stack height and diameter are dependent on the temperature, velocity, and
   amount of flue gas to be handled.
       The number  of stacks used at  a plant is basically a  matter of design
   Recently constructed  incinerators and some that  are  under construction use
   from one stack per furnace to one stack for all the furnaces of the incinerator A
   single 328-foot stack is being constructed at the Ivry Plant in a suburb of Paris
   France.
66
                                             MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
5.4 CLOSED-CIRCUIT TELEVISION
    Closed-circuit  television (CCTV) has many  uses and advantages at large
municipal incinerators where a  multitude of operations that  must be closely
coordinated take place on  four  or five  floors. The use  of CCTV in municipal
incinerators is obviously a rather recent  innovation that has not yet found wide
acceptance. What is perhaps the first CCTV installed in a municipal incinerator is
in use at  the  newer  Oyster  Bay, New  York,  incinerator.52  In  this plant,
television cameras  are located on the charging floor to monitor the storage bin
and crane operation,  and two cameras, one for each of two furnaces, are located
in the rear  walls of the furnaces  to monitor the final grate section, which is the
best indicator of the furnace performance. By  viewing the television monitor,
the supervisor can  affect  the critical operations of the plant by use of fingertip
controls.
    The  advantages of such a CCTV system are, indeed, immediately apparent.
The Oyster Bay plant installed  the complete CCTV system for $25,000 and
eliminated  two men per  shift (a total of six men per  24-hour day) from the
operating floor. The  speed  of the grates  can be varied when the furnace monitor
shows either  insufficient  or excess burning time. Large pieces of incombustible
material  that  can  jam the grates or  residue conveyors  can be detected and
removed before damage occurs. In the future, monitoring cameras may be used
to monitor residue  conveyors, stack  emissions, weighing stations, and other
activities at incinerators.

5.5 BUILDING AND FACILITIES
    The  trend toward large, mechanized incinerators with flyash control over
the past 15  to 20  years  has brought about  changes in building design to
accommodate larger  furnaces and flyash-removal equipment. Building sites close
to the refuse source  are becoming more difficult to find because of scarcity of
land, sensitivity of a community to the very thought of a refuse disposal facility
in their community, and community sensitivity to air pollution.
    Many  objections to  a  municipal  incinerator can be lessened by enclosing
objectionable operations  within an attractive  well-designed building (see Figure
42). Landscaping and litter policing can  be used to make the grounds attractive.
    Another  interesting  trend is the  increasing similiarity of design of incin-
erators.   There are,  of  course,  still  major  differences, but  increased com-
munication among design engineers and consultants has brought about a more
universal design that  does not include previous design mistakes and inadequacies.
Auxiliary Equipment                                                    67

-------
  Figure 42.  Modern municipal incinerator. (Courtesy Combustion Engineering, Inc.)
68
                                              MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
         6. OPERATION OF MUNICIPAL INCINERATORS

61  OPERATING TEMPERATURES AND THEIR MEASUREMENT
    Actual flame temperature inside of the combustion chambers of municipal
incinerators is approximately 2,400°  F.53  The "furnace temperature" com-
monly referred to is the temperature of combustion gases exiting the combus-
tion chamber. Except in water-walled furnaces, furnace temperature is usually
controlled to the range of 1,800°  F to  2,000° F.53  If truck loads of refuse
with unusually high or low calorific value are not mixed with the normal refuse
by  the crane operator, this approximate range of  temperatures can be several
hundred  degrees too low  or  too high.  "A load of sawdust in a  charge, for
example, could increase the normal operating temperature of 1,800° to  over
2,000° F in approximately 15 seconds. While this temperature fluctuation may
be  most  prevalent in batch-feed furnaces, it  also exists in continuous-feed
furnaces."5 3
    When furnace temperatures are referred to, the precise location at which the
temperature is taken in the furnace should be noted. As already discussed,
furnace temperatures are usually controlled by using excess air, that is, air in
excess of that needed to completely burn the combustible portion of the refuse.
The effect of excess air on  furnace temperatures for various moisture contents is
shown in Figure 43 .s 4
    From the combustion  chamber, the gases enter either a waste-heat boiler
area, gas-cleaning devices, or cooling  towers. At this point, the gas has cooled
usually to within the range  from 1,400° to 1,800° F.5 3 In incinerators equipped
with waste-heat| boilers or cooling towers, the temperature of the gases is from
500°  to 700°  F after passing through the  device.  On leaving the gas-cleaning
devices, the temperature of gases that have not previously been cooled by waste-
heat recovery or by passage through cooling towers is usually less than 1,000° F.
    Incinerator temperatures  are usually measured with either electrical  or
filled-bulb sensing devices.  Among the electrical types applicable to incinerators
are  the thermocouple,  thermopile, radiation pyrometer, and thermistor. The
thermocouple and the thermopile, which is  made of thermocouples arranged to
produce a higher electrical output, are perhaps the most  widely used tempera-
ture-measuring devices used in incinerators. They can measure temperatures of
from  2,000°  to 2,300° F. Radiation pyrometers  can withstand higher  tem-
peratures than thermocouples, and are, therefore, normally used for measuring
actual flame temperature in the combustion chamber. Pyrometers normally  have
effective temperature-sensing ranges of from  1,000° to 4,000° F. Thermistors of
platinum wire are applicable for temperatures ranging from 400° to 1,000° F.
                                   69

-------
          800                    	.
             0    20   40    60    80   100  120   140   160   180   200   220

                                 EXCESS AIR, percent
    Figure 43.  Relationship of moisture, excess air, and furnace temperature.54

      Filled-bulb temperature-sensing devices using the expansion properties of a
  liquid,  vapor,  or  gas are  not  used as widely  as electrical-sensing devices in
  incinerators. Compared to  the electrical devices, they are quite large and bulky
  and  require  extensive shielding to protect them from  corrosion, erosion, and
  deposition. Filled-bulb devices can measure temperatures up to 1,200° F.
     Thermocouples are usually recommended for temperature measurements at
  the combustion chamber exits and in the flues just prior to waste-heat boilers or
 cooling  towers. Protecting  wells must  be provided for  the thermocouple. The
 wells are often  coated with silicon carbide to protect them from corrosion from
 slag.

     Thermistors and filled-tube  devices can be  used between either waste-heat
 boilers or gas-cleaning devices and stacks.
    Pyrometers are the only practical devices for measurement  of actual  flame
 temperature. Because pyrometers are expensive and the relationship  among fire
temperature, refractory life, and combustion is not well understood the fired
temperatures are not usually measured.
70
                                             MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
6.2 OPERATING PRESSURES AND DRAFT REQUIREMENTS
    The  air supply  and combustion gases  in  incinerators are controlled  by
forced, natural, and induced  drafts. A forced draft is  created by the pressure
difference generated by a mechanical device that  supplies air at a pressure greater
than atmospheric pressure. Forced drafts are used to supply primary combustion
air to the drier and burner grates of incinerators. Natural draft results from the
pressure difference created by a stack and is a function of the stack height and
temperature difference between the flue gases and the ambient air.33 Natural
drafts are normally neither sufficient nor consistent enough to remove  com-
bustion gases from large incinerators, particularly those that are equipped with
gas-cleaning devices.
    Induced drafts are the  result  of the  pressure difference  created  by a
mechanical device located between the furnace and the top of the stack. Short
stacks require induced drafts. Air pollution control devices have various ranges
of pressure drops that must be taken care of by induced-draft fans. The  draft
requirements for  air pollution  control  equipment are shown in Table 18 in
inches of water column.
    Operational  pressures differ  from one  incinerator to another  in such a
manner  that average  pressures would  have little meaning. Draft  gauges are
usually located to measure primary and secondary air pressure, furnace pressure,
induced-draft suction pressure, and pressures at the inlet  and outlet of various air
pollution control devices.

6.3 MANAGEMENT

6.3.1  Schedules
    Municipal incinerators are routinely  operated for periods of from 8 to  24
hours a day and for 5, 6, or 7 days per week. A survey in which 154 incinerators
in the United States reported operating schedules is summarized in Table 20.32
              Table 20. SUMMARY OF OPERATING SCHEDULES
                          OF 154 INCINERATORS
Operating period, hr/day
8
9
10
12
16
18
20
24
Number of plants
55
2
2
1
g
1
2
82
Percent of total
36
1
1
1
6
1
1
53
Operation of Municipal Incinerators
                                                                       71

-------
     The current  trend  in  operating schedules is  toward 24-hour-a-day opera-
 tion 32 Table ?1  shows operating schedules of two groups of incinerators, based
 on year of  construction.  The table  indicates that this trend  perhaps  began
 around the year 1964.
       Table 21.  DAILY OPERATION OF 154 MUNICIPAL INCINERATORS
                                                                 32
Year of
incinerator
construction
1945 through
1963
1964 through
1966
Number of
reporting
117

37

8 hours
Number
48

7

Percent
41

19

9 - 20 hours
Number
13

4

Percent
11

11

24 hours
Number
56

26

Percent
48

70

 6.3.2 Personnel
     The  number  and  types of personnel vary with the operating  schedule,
 design, and degree of automation of the incineration plant. One versatile main-
 tenance man can sometimes perform tasks normally requiring knowledge in two
 or more diverse fields.
     Operating personnel of some modern incinerator plants are discussed in the
 following paragraphs.

 6.3.2.1 Rockville, Maryland, Incinerator
     The Montgomery County, Maryland, (Rockville) incinerator has a capacity
 of 1,050 tons per day. It operates 24  hours a day, 6 days a week. The 44
 operating personnel include:
               1 Plant supervisor
               4 Foremen
               9 Equipment operators (bulldozer and crane operators)
               3 Truck drivers
               8 Furnace stokers
              12 Laborers
               1 Clerk
               1 Weighmaster
               1 Electrician
               1 Plumber
               1 Mason
               1 General maintenance man
               1 Janitor
72
                                            MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
6,3.2.2 Detroit, Michigan, Incinerator
    Northwest  Incinerator Plant at Detroit has two furnaces, each of which is
capable of burning 425 tons of refuse every 24 hours. The plant operates three
shifts a day, 5 days a week. The 51 employees at the plant include:55
             Operating crew per shift
                   1 Incinerator foreman
                   3 Electric crane operators
                   6 Incinerator firemen
                   1 Charging floor man
                   1 Ash tunnel man
                   3 Semi-truck drivers
             Additional personnel on day shift
                   1 Scaleman
                   1 Tipping floor man
                   1 Mechanical tradesman
                   3 Janitors
6.3.2.3 Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Incinerator

    The Lincoln Avenue Plant in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, has a rated capacity of
300 tons  per 24  hours. The plant  is operated on a 5-day-a-week schedule.
Machinery operator service is provided on a 7-day-a-week basis. Table 22 shows
how personnel at the plant are used.
        Table 22.  LINCOLN AVENUE PLANT OPERATING PERSONNEL
                                                               55
Job title
Operating engineer II
Craneman 	
Furnacernen .... 	
Disposal division laborers 	
Machinery operator 	
Collection division laborers . 	
Electrical mechanic 	
Maintenance mechanic 	
Truck driver 	


Total 	

Number of employees
1st shift
1
1
3
4
1
2
1
1
1
15
2nd shift
1
1
3
3
1
1
1
11
3rd shift
1
1
3
3
1
1
10
   Engineer-in-charge —  In  charge  of all Disposal Department activities.
   Asst. Engineer-in-charge — Assistant to above,  and directly responsible
   for all maintenance and repair. Firebrick Mason — Maintenance and
   repair of all refractories. Electrical Mechanic — Maintenance and repair
Operation of Municipal Incinerators
73

-------
     of all  electrical equipment. Operating Engineer II - In charge of one
     plant shift. Maintenance Mechanic Foreman  - In charge of all main-
     tenance  and repair  activities. Boiler  Repairman  - Maintenance and
     repair  of waste-heat boilers. Craneman - Operation of 'overhead trav-
     eling cranes. Machinery  Operator  - Operation of waste-heat boilers,
     feed water pumps, oil burners,  etc. Maintenance Mechanic  I — Main-
     tenance  and  repair  of all mechanical  equipment.  Furnaceman  —
     Operation  of  furnaces, dampers,  temperature controls, draft  fans,
     charging  gates, etc. Truck Driver —  Operation of incinerator ash re-
     moval truck. Mechanic Helper — Assistant to maintenance  mechanic,
     electrical mechanic, boiler repairman, or firebrick mason.5 s

 6.3.2.4 Washington, D. C., Incinerator
     Mount Olivet incinerator in Washington, D. C. has a 500-ton capacity. The
 incinerator consists of four 125-ton  furnaces of the mutual-assistance type with
 rocking grates. It has a peak capacity of 700 tons.

       Table 23.  MOUNT OLIVET INCINERATOR OPERATING PERSONNEL
Job title
Plant foreman . . . 	
Mechanic 	
Overhead crane operators
Incinerator firemen
Equipment lubricator 	
Weighmaster 	 ....

Laborer (ash tunnel) 	
Laborer (janitor) 	 	
Laborer (watchman)
Refuse transfer operator (platform) 	
Incinerator drivers 	

Total 	

8-4
1
1
2
4
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2

19

4- 12
1

2
4

1
2
2
1

2

15

12-8
1

2
4


2
2
1



12

     The St. Quen incinerator in Paris, France, consists of four furnaces with a
 total annual capacity of 407,000 tons and recovers waste heat. Approximately
 160 people  are employed.21 The  Stuttgart incinerator  in  Germany, with an
 annual capacity of 220,000 tons, has a staff of 55 employees.56
     Municipal  incineration is usually organized under a municipal government
 but  is  occasionally  a function of a  county government or an autonomous
 incinerator  authority operating under a governmental  charter. Usually  plant
 supervisors, and sometimes the maintenance men, are hired during the planning
 or construction phases so that they become intimately familiar with the plant.
74
                                             MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
Immediately prior to the opening of a  plant at least one  person for each job
classification is hired and  instructed on  the  operation of the  plant.  Actual
performance tests are usually made by the manufacturer on the individual pieces
of equipment.

6.4 MAINTENANCE

6.4.1 Plant Maintenance
    Neatness and proper maintenance of  building and grounds are at least as
important  to the aesthetic  quality of incinerators as  they  are  to the aesthetic
quality of other industrial buildings.  Refuse disposal facilities are not generally
held  in esteem by any community, and a  littered, unmaintained facility can
provide justification for such sentiment.
    Janitors are usually a part of the full-time staff at most incinerators. Their
duties are  usually routine, but very important  to  the cleanliness of the plants
since incinerators' environments  can  be  quite dusty. Some  plants use a  central
vacuum system (see Figure 44), with connecting outlets throughout the building.
The central vacuum system can  be connected so that it disposes of collected
wastes directly  into the residue-handling system.
    Figure 44.  Central vacuum system installed at a municipal incinerator.
Operation of Municipal Incinerators
75

-------
 6.4.2  Maintenance Facilities
     Some incinerators  are  equipped with maintenance  shops that  are  fully
 equipped with the power tools and equipment necessary to repair various types
 of incinerator equipment.  Spare parts  for cranes, stokers, fans,  and motors,
 which are not  always readily available  as  shelf items,  are sometimes kept on
 hand. Most operational maintenance is performed by regular staff employees.

 6.4.3  Preventive Maintenance
     Serious  problems  can be prevented by frequent preventive maintenance.
 Weekend shutdowns provide an excellent opportunity to inspect for and detect
 future problem areas. Refractory maintenance, boiler  care, slag removal, and
 grate  maintenance are just a few of the important areas that should be serviced
 frequently. The maintenance facility of  the plant is usually able to perform
 routine preventive maintenance.

 6.4.4 Plant Safety
     Plant safety is a continuing concern of incinerator designers and supervisors.
 Serious accidents, including loss  of life, have occurred at  some older plants.
 Incinerator hazards have been attacked on two fronts. One method of attack is
 to incorporate  safety design features into the construction of the plant. Some of
 the safety features included  when plants are constructed are:57
       1. Brick  and concrete building materials, automatic or manual sprinkler
         systems  for storage pits and charging floors, and fire  hose stations at
         strategic locations for fire  protection.
       2. More space on stoking floors to avoid crowded conditions.
       3. More adequate lighting from large windows and artificial lights.
       4. Lunch rooms, locker rooms, and  showers for more  sanitary conditions
         for employees.
       5. Drinking fountains with salt tablet dispensers to reduce the number of
         cases of heat exhaustion during warm weather.
       6. Better pitching of floors with adequate drains to aid in cleanliness and
         prevent falls.
      7. Improved building  ventilation.  The use of outdoor  suction intakes for
         forced-draft fans avoids the possibility of creating a vacuum on stoking
         floors that can cause blow-outs of flame through the stoking doors of
         ignition chambers with serious hazard to employees.
      8. Chimneys equipped with airplane  lights, lightning rods, and safety
         ladders as standard equipment.
      9. Two-way radio systems for signaling between the charging and stoking
         floors to supplement  other signaling devices and avoid confusion and
         mistakes  in directions.  For  safe  operation it  is important  that  the
         charging doors be closed when stoking.

76
                                             MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
    10. Refuse storage pits with access ladders, and either forced fresh air inlets
        or mechanical exhaust systems  with air ports located near the bottom
        of the pits. Decomposing garbage may deplete the oxygen necessary for
        life and cause oxygen deficiency in men entering such pits. Pit drains
        are also standard practice to permit hosing of pits for thorough cleaning
        to avoid nuisance and free the pits of vermin.
    11. Elevators to carry  heavy equipment from one floor to another and for
        employee convenience.
    12. Stationary  vacuum pumps having port outlets at convenient locations
        for suction cleaning of floors, stairs, and flues.
    The second method for attacking safety hazards is to practice and enforce
such operational safety practices as:
     1. Keeping truck stops at the tipping  edge of refuse storage pits in good
        repair, and  prohibiting employees  or others  from  standing on them
        when trucks are unloading.
     2. Using mechanical ventilation when refuse  pits  containing decomposing
        refuse must be  entered by employees. Portable air blowers are used
        when provisions for  mechanical ventilation have not been provided.
        (Safety belts  should  be  worn  when persons are  descending  long
        ladders.)
     3. With  floor-charge  furnaces, protecting the men charging the furnaces
        with safety belts or guards placed around the charging openings.
     4. Using an alarm in the crane housing of bucket-charged furnaces to warn
        employees, as necessary, of descending loads of refuse.
     5. Wearing of protective clothing, including safety shoes, heavy gloves, and
        goggles or face shields by stokers.
     6. Restricting entrance of flues for removal of flyash to times when the
        temperature is below 100° F. Respirators are worn for comfort.
     7. Providing first-aid kits and posting emergency instructions for employee
        information.
     8. Proper housekeeping.
Operation of Municipal Incinerators                                      77

-------
                   7.  INCINERATOR EMISSIONS

    Municipal incinerator emissions, especially participate emissions, are being
scrutinized more closely as new and more stringent air pollution codes are being
formulated and put into effect in many states and municipalities. This increasing
scrutiny is perhaps due in part to two factors:  (1)  emissions from incinerators
can make  a substantial contribution to air pollution, and (2) these emissions can
be reduced effectively by some of the air pollution control devices now available
on the market. The very nature of the particulate and gaseous pollutants emitted
and the methods by which they are sampled and measured are the basis for the
following discussion.

7.1  PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
7.1.1  Particle Size
    Particulate  matter that has been identified in incinerator effluents consists
of smoke, soot, flyash, grit, dirt, carbonaceous  flakes, aldehydes, organic acids,
esters, fats, fatty materials, phenols, hydrocarbons, and  polynuclear hydro-
carbons. The size of the particles ranges from less than 5 microns to 200 microns
and larger. The ease with which  the  large  particles break up during and after
capture makes their measurement difficult. Very limited data have  been pub-
lished  on  incinerator emissions.  Walker and Schmitz58 performed extensive
studies on emissions from three incinerators,  each with a different grate system.
Furnace capacity ranged from 120 to 250 tons per day.
    Table 24 gives the breakdown of particle size and other physical properties
of particulate matter gathered in the area between the combustion chambers  and
the gas-cleaning devices for  the  three test  incinerators. Tests  performed on
another incinerator having a  furnace  capacity  of  150 tons per day  provide
particle size data for  stack gases  that  had  been previously cleaned by a com-
bustion settling  chamber  and wet baffle  system.59  The  sizes  of particles
measured by a Coulter Counter are presented in Table 25.
    Particle sizes recommended by Bump4 3  for proper application of electro-
static  precipitators to  European incinerators are given in Table 26. In comparing
Tables 25  and 26, several inconsistencies seem to appear. It is important to keep
in mind, however, that Table 25 reports actual measurements from an  incin-
erator stack in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where the stack gases had been previously
cleaned by a settling chamber and  a wet baffle  system, whereas Table 26
presents typical values, based  on European data, of particle  sizes that can be
used for design of electrostatic precipitators. The particulate sizes in Table 26
are representative of those particles that have passed through a waste-heat-boiler
system at some point just prior to entry into the precipitator.
                                    79

-------
     Table
         24.  PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF PARTICLES LEAVING FURNACE
                                                                   58

Total sample in cyclone, % . . 	



Analysis

% by weight less than 6 microns .... 	
% by weight less than 8 microns . . ...
% by weight less than 10 microns 	
% by weight less than 15 microns 	
% by weight less than 20 microns 	
% by weight less than 30 microns ...


1
77.0
23.0
2.65
18.5
13.5
16.0
19.0
21.0
23.0
25.0
27.5
30.0
2
77.5
22.5
2.70
30.87
8.15
14.6
19.2
22.3
24.8
26.8
31.1
34.6
40.4
3
63.0
37.0
3.77
9.4
30.4
23.5
30.0
33.7
36.3
38.1
42.1
45.0
50.0
   Table 25. SIZE AND DENSITY OF INCINERATOR STACK GAS PARTICLES359

                                                        Percent by weight
 Microns                                               greater than stated size
30
20
10
5 	
31.3
	 52.8
79 5
	 94.0
 Density is 1.85 grams per cubic centimeter
   Table 26.  PARTICLE SIZE AND DENSITY FOR DESIGN OF ELECTROSTATIC
               PRECIPITATORS IN  EUROPEAN INCINERATORS43

Particle diameter,
    microns                                                        Percent
   < 5
   < 7
   < 10
   < 14
   < 19
   <27
   <39
   <59
   >59
11.1
21.7
30.1
40.2
46.9
55.1
67.5
90.5
 9.5
80
                                             MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
7.1.2  Particle Concentration Standards
    Particle concentrations are normally expressed in one of three ways. Dust
loading, a term frequently used, expresses particulate concentration in grains
(7,000 grains equals 1 pound) per cubic foot of gas normally corrected to either
12 percent CO2  or  50 percent excess air. A second method expresses dust
loading in pounds per 1 ,000 pounds of gas corrected to either 1 2 percent C02 or
50 percent excess air. A third method is to express  concentration in terms of
weight of  particulate matter emitted per  weight of refuse  burned.  Carbon
dioxide produced by the use of auxiliary  fuels should be excluded from the
calculation to 12 percent C02. Samplings of particulate matter can be taken at
various gas temperatures and atmospheric pressures.  To make various samples
comparable, a correction to standard conditions of 68° F and 29.92 inches of Hg
can be accomplished by use of the following equation:

                                (t + 460)  (29.92)                      (1)
                   Dl~D°     (68 + 460)  ~(FT
Where:
    DI is the dust loading in grains per standard cubic foot (gr/scf), D0 is the
dust loading in grains per cubic foot (gr/cf),  t is the sampling temperature in
degrees Fahrenheit, and P is the atmospheric pressure in inches  of mercury.
    To connect dust loading in grains per cubic foot to pounds of dust per
1 ,000  pounds of flue gas at standard conditions the following formulas can be
used:60
                              3.12 (t + 460)
                   D2~D°       MxP                               (2)
Where:
    D2 is the  number  of pounds of dust per  1,000 pounds of flue  gas at
standard conditions and M is the molecular weight of the flue gas.
    After a dust loading has been corrected to standard conditions, it  must be
further corrected to a standard amount of excess air. This is necessary because
particle concentrations are dependent on the amount of excess air used. Quite
obviously,  as more excess air is used, a greater amount of dilution of the
combustion gases occurs, which lowers the particulate concentration.  Most air
pollution control agencies now use a 50 percent excess air or 12 percent CO2
correction standard.  The  dust loading correction to 50  percent excess air is
accomplished by the equation:60
_ D
    u
                                Ib flue gas/lb refuse (actual)
                            Ib flue gas/lb refuse (50%) excess air)
Where:
    Dc is the corrected dust loading and Du is the uncorrected dust loading.
Incinerator Emissions                                                   81

-------
     The alternative method for correcting dust loading to  12 percent C02  can
 be accomplished by the following equation:60

                             DC=DU      |g                         (4)

 Where:
     CO2 is expressed in a decimal percentage.

 7.1.3  Particulate Emission Control Regulations
     Control regulations imposed by many state and local governments are much
 more  strict than the earlier accepted value of 0.85 pound per 1,000  pounds of
 flue'gas corrected  to either 50 percent excess air or  12 percent C02 (excluding
 auxiliary fuel  contributions). Many  control agencies are watching the two
 electrostatic precipitators in New York City to see exactly what the capabilities
 of this type of control device are and whether this type of control system might
 be applicable to incinerators in their jurisdictions. Past and future development
 of cyclonic collectors, scrubbers, and perhaps baghouses will determine new and
 future trends in particulate emission regulations as  applied  to  incinerators. A
 summary  of some of the  present particulate emission regulations  for refuse
 burning  equipment is  given in Table 27.61

      Table 27.  SELECTED PARTICULATE MATTER EMISSION REGULATIONS
                       FOR REFUSE-BURNING EQUIPMENT
 Jurisdiction
                         Maximum particulate matter emission
 Allegheny County, Pa.
 Cincinnati, Ohio
 Detroit, Mich.
 Los Angeles County, Cal.

 New York City
 San Francisco
 State of Illinois
0.2 Ib per 1,000 Ib of gas
0.4 Ib per 1,000 Ib of gas corrected to 12 percent CO.,
0.3 Ib per 1,000 Ib of gas corrected to 50 percent excess air
0.3 grain per standard cubic foot of gas, corrected to 12 percent
CO2  (excluding CO3 contributions by auxiliary fuels)
0.65  Ib per 1,000 Ib of dry gas corrected to 50 percent
excess air or 13 percent COj, not to exceed 250 Ib
in any 60-minute period
0.2 grain per standard dry cubic foot of gas, corrected to
6 percent 02
0.2 grain per standard cubic foot corrected to 50 percent
excess air
7.1.4 Particle Concentration Measurements
    Measurements of  particulate emissions are usually made at  some point
within the incinerator or in the stack. Air pollution control equipment manufac-
turers are  concerned with particle  concentrations  at the combustion chamber
outlets or at the location of the entrance to their gas-cleaning equipment. They
are also interested in stack concentrations which indicate collection ability. Air
pollution control authorities  are primarily interested in the  stack  emissions
rather than internal particulate measurements.
82
                                               MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
7.1.4.1 Particle Measurements at Furnace Outlet
    Tests have been performed at the furnace outlets of several types and sizes
of incinerators.58'S9> 62 Table 28 summarizes particulate loadings corrected to
50 percent excess air.
    The  method of supplying air to the combustion chamber is one of the major
factors affecting the creation of flyash. This factor is indeed apparent in Table
28, which shows, as previously  found  in  experimental incinerators, that  the
greater the  percentage of  underfire  air supplied,  the higher  the  particulate
loading.

          Table 28.  PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AT FURNACE OUTLET2
Furnace type
50-ton-per-day batch
50-ton-per-day batch
50-ton-per-day batch
250-ton-per-day continuous 	
250-ton-per-day continuous 	
250-ton-per-day continuous 	
250-ton-per-day continuous 	
(traveling grate)
250-ton-per-day continuous 	
(reciprocating grate)
120-ton-per-day continuous 	
(rocking grate)
1 50-ton-per-day continuous 	
(rocking grate)
Excess air,
percent
235
110
100
190
180
150
(6.0% CO2 )
(5.0% CO2 )
(7.0% CO2)


Underfire air,
percent
20
50
70
20
50
100
41 8 scfm/sq ft
grate area
105 scfm/sq ft
grate area
175 scfm/sq ft
grate area

Average
dust loading,
Ib/ton
of charge
0 78
1 04
1 79
3.8 a
2.8
4.6
12.4
25.1
9.1
30.8

 See original article for a special discussion and explanation of this unexpected value

    European design and performance  factors presented by Bump give a dust
loading of from 0.8 to 4.0 grains per standard cubic foot at the entry point of
the combustion gases into an electrostatic precipitator.43  At this point, the gases
have been cooled to 400° to 650° F by the waste-heat-recovery boilers. Some of
the particles settle out  or  collect  on the boiler tubes; this range of values is,
therefore, not truly representative of the dust loading at the furnace outlet.

7.1.4.2 Stack Emission Measurements
    Stack  emission  measurements are obviously very  closely related to  the
excess air supplied to the furnace and the efficiency of the gas-cleaning equip-
ment. Measurements of stack emissions are necessary to determine compliance
with local codes and to check efficiency of the air pollution control equipment.
The samples are generally taken from  some convenient stack location. Some
stack  particulate matter measurements  for incinerators  equipped with various
types of cleaning systems are presented in Table 29.S8>  59> 62
Incinerator Emissions
                                                                        83

-------
          Table 29.  PARTICULATE MEASUREMENTS OF STACK GASES
Furnace type
50-ton-per-day batch
50-ton-per-day batch
50-ton-per-day batch
250-ton-per-day continuous
(reciprocating grate)
120-ton-per-day continuous
(rocking grate)
1 50-ton-per-day continuous
(rocking grate)
Control
equipment
Scrubber
Scrubber
Scrubber
Settling chamber
and wet baffle
Settling chamber
and wet baffle
Wet baffle

Excess
air,
percent
235
110
100
-

—

—

Underfire
air,
percent
20
50
70
—

—

—

Average
dust loading,
Ib/ton charge
in stack gases
0.57
0.55
0.61
11.8

8.2

8.24

 7.1.5 Particle Chemical Composition
     Very little data have been published on chemical composition of incinerator
 participate matter. The few results that have been published show that flyash
 can consist of an average of from 5 to 30 percent organic matter and from 70 to
 95 percent inorganic matter. A chemical analysis that gives the various inorganic
 constituents of incinerator flyash from the South Shore incinerator in New York
 City is presented in Table 30.2

      Table 30.  CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF FLYASH SAMPLES FROM SOUTH
             SHORE INCINERATOR, NEW YORK CITY, BY SOURCE2
                             (percent by weight)
Component
Organic 	
Inorganic 	
Silica asSiO2 	
Iron as Fe203 . . ...
Alumina asAI2O3
Calcium as CaO 	
Magnesium as MgO 	
Sulfur as SO3 	
Sodium and potassium oxides 	

Upper flue
0.5
99.5
50.1
5.3
225
7.9
1.8
4.3
8.1

Expansion chamber
0.6
99.4
54.6
6.0
20.4
7.8
1.9
2.3
7.0

Emitted
10.4
89.6
36.1
4.2
22.4
8.6
2.1
7.6
19.0

                                                 Source of sample
    A rather detailed elemental analysis of ashed incinerator stack effluent and
collector catch was presented by Jens and Rehm.5 9 The incinerator tested was
equipped  with an impingement wet baffle system. Results of two test runs are
summarized in Table 31.
    Jens and Rehm found the pH  of stack effluents to be 7.7 and 8.3. A much
higher pH of 12.3 was found for the collector catch.5 9
84
                                             MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
                  Table 31.  SPECTROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
              OF ASHED INCINERATOR PARTICULATE MATTER
Element



Nickel 	
Copper 	
Vanadium 	
Iron 	
Tin 	
Aluminum 	 	
Zinc 	
Magnesium 	

Silver 	

Barium
Beryllium
Calcium
Sodium
Lead 	
Sulfur 	
Phosphorus 	
Silicate 	

Stack effluent,
percent ashed material
5+ -
0.1 — 1 0
01 — 1 0
1.0 -10+
0.1 — 1 0
0.001 — 0.01
0.1 - 5.0
0.001 - 0.5
0.1 - 10
1 - 10
1 - 10
0.5 — 5.0
0.0001 - 0.01
0.01 - 0.1
0.1 — 1.0
0.001 - 0.01
10+ -
1 - 10
0.01 - 0.5

1.140 - 1.460
5.4 -

Collector catch,
percent ashed material
10+ —
01 — 1 0
01 10
0001 — 001
001 - 01
001 — 01
0.5 - 5.0
0.05 - 0.5
1 - 10
1 - 10
1 - 10
0.5 - 5.0
0.001 - 0.1
0.01 - 0.1
0.1 - 1 .0
0.001 - 0.01
10+ —
1 -
0.1 - 1.0
0.620 -
1 .760 -


7.2 GASEOUS EMISSIONS
    Gaseous incinerator emissions are not, at least at the present, of primary
concern as a source of air'pollution. When compared to other gaseous emission
sources, the contribution of incinerators is relatively small. It is for this reason
that incinerator air pollution  control equipment is adapted to the removal of
particulate  matter rather than gases. Some published data show  that the wet
collecting devices can remove  small amounts of gases. The number of measure-
ments of gaseous emissions, although not plentiful, is sufficient to  provide some
idea of the types and amounts of such emissions emitted from a  municipal
incinerator. Oxides of nitrogen, oxides of sulfur, aldehydes, hydrocarbons, and
ammonia are emissions that have been detected and have been discussed in  the
literature.

7.2.1 Oxides of Nitrogen
    Both batch- and continuous-feed incinerators emit nitrogen oxide (NO) in
small amounts that are not significantly different for a given amount of charged
refuse.  Actual tests indicated amounts ranging from 1.4 to 3.3 pounds per ton of
refuse charged for a 50-ton-per-daybatch-feedincinerator and a 250-ton-per-day
Incinerator Emissions
                                                                      85

-------
  !2
 cc
 o
  «SJ
 o
        0.500
        0.400
         0.300
        0.200
        0.100
   FURNACE - BEFORE SCRUBBER
• N02 = 0.081 + 0.00144 (% EXCESS)
   STACK - AFTER SCRUBBER
• N02 =0.093 +0.00156 (% EXCESS)
                               100                200
                                  EXCESS AIR, percent
                                            300
 Figure 45. Relationship between oxides of nitrogen and excess air in 50-ton-per-
           day units.62

 continuous-feed incinerator.62 Nitrogen dioxide (N02) emissions increase with
 increasing amounts of excess air as shown in Figure 45. Wet cleaning processes
 tend to increase slightly the amount of NO2 produced. The amount of underfire
 air has a significant effect  on NO2  production (see Figure 46), an occurrence
 that has  been explained by St'enburg, et al. as being a result of the variance in
 oxygen consumption and its residence time with underfire air.62
86
                                            MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
     0.4
 y,
 s
     0.300  —
 g
 -  0.200
 LL.
 §  O.IOP
                       N02 =0.365-0.00183 (% UNDERFIRE AIR)
                     20          40          60

                              UNDERFIRE AIR, percent
80
100
Figure 46.  Relationship between oxides of nitrogen and underfire air in 250-ton-
           per-day unit.62

7.2.2  Carbon Dioxide
    Stack emissions of carbon dioxide (C02) usually amount to only 1 to 6
percent of the dry volume.9-S9 At the furnace exit, however, the amount of
C02 is larger, ranging from approximately 4 to 16percent.9'58 Carbon dioxide
content  in these concentrations  is of little,  if any, interest other than the
information  it can provide  on the efficiency and rate of combustion of the
refuse.

7.2.3  Carbon Monoxide
    The  concentration of  carbon monoxide  (CO) in gaseous incinerator ef-
fluents is  so  small that it  is nearly impossible to detect. One of the largest
recorded  concentrations of carbon monoxide  (1.0 Ib per 1,000 Ib of dry flue
gas) was  at  a  50-ton-per-daybatch-feed incinerator62  during a firing  that
Incinerator Emissions
                                                                       87

-------
produced a low operating temperature. Carbon monoxide emitted from a 250-
ton-per-day continuous-feed incinerator62  ranged from 0.03 to 0.07  pound per
1,000 pounds of dry flue gas.

7.2.4 Oxides of Sulfur
    Sulfur  oxide (SO)  emissions from municipal incinerators are  practically
negligible because the sulfur content in refuse generally averages only about 0.1
percent.63  For comparison, the sulfur content of coals  fired in power plants
averages approximately  1.0 to 2.5  percent. If the  stack gas concentration of
sulfur dioxide  (SO2) is measured in parts per million by volume, the amount of
diluting excess air supplied to  the furnace will directly effect the concentration
of the SO2. Published data of SO2  emissions from municipal incinerators range
from 0 to  100 parts per  million  by weight. Figure 47 is a plot of S02 versus
excess air data for incinerators in California and New York.63 The solid line
gives  the relationship between the  SO2 emission and excess air assuming the
refuse contains 0.1 percent sulfur and conversion of sulfur into S02 is complete.
The  data suggest, however, that only a fraction of the sulfur is converted into
S02, assuming the 01  percent sulfur content is approximately  correct. The
remaining sulfur can  be  contained in the residue, as has been confirmed by
analyses.
    Incinerators equipped with auxiliary burners for either waste-heat-recovery
boilers or for  burning low-calorific-value refuse often use high-sulfur-content
fuels  such  as  coal and oil.  In this type of  incinerator, S02  emissions are
considerably higher and  can be of considerable concern.

7.2.5 Formaldehyde
    Formaldehyde is generated in municipal incinerators in minute quantities.
The amount generated has been shown to be related to the temperature of the
furnace gases,  which in  turn is related to  the amount of excess air supplied and
the amount of underfire  air.62'64  For a  50-ton-per-day batch-feed incinerator
operating at 108 percent  excess air, no formaldehyde was produced. However,
when the excess air was  increased, which decreased furnace temperature by 400°
F, up  to 0.021 pound of formaldehyde per ton of charged refuse was formed.
For  a 250-ton-per-day  continuous-feed incinerator operating at  185  percent
excess air, 0.0014 pound of formaldehyde per ton of refuse was formed.
7.2.6 Hydrocarbon
    Hydrocarbon content  of incinerator flue gases is usually well below the limit
of detectability  of  the  measuring instruments. Measurement of hydrocarbon
emissions from a 50-ton-per-day batch-feed  incinerator shows that less than 0.003
pound per 1,000 pounds of dry flue gas is emitted when 110 percent excess air is
used.62 For a 250-ton-per-day continuous-feed incinerator using  150 to 190
percent excess air, less  than 0.08 pound per pound of dry flue gas was mea-
sured.62

88                                           MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
    110

    100

     90

     80
     70!-
 p  60
 o
 o
50;

40

30

20

10

 0
                                        CALIFORNIA DATA
                                        N. Y. CITY DATA
                                   MAXIMUM POSSIBLE
                                 (0.1% SULFUR REFUSE)
        0    50    100          200          300
                             EXCESS AIR, percent
       19.6  12.8   9.6          6.4          4.8
                            FLUE GAS C02> percent
                                                  3.8
500

12
                                                                 63
     Figure 47.  SO2 concentration in municipal incinerator flue gases.

    Polynuclear hydrocarbons have been detected in incinerator flue gases.64
Table 32 summarizes the measurements of the various emissions produced in a
50-ton-per-day and a 250-ton-per-day incinerator.

7.2.7  Chlorine
    Chlorine has been found to be present in incinerator stack gases in rather
minute quantities in the form of hydrogen chloride (HC1). Its concentration is
dependent on the proportion of plastics (polyvinyl  chloride) in the refuse, which
proportion  in turn may  be  influenced rather  strongly by the  amount  of
Incinerator Emissions
                                                                       89

-------
   VO
   o
                                              Table 32.  POLYNUCLEAR  HYDROCARBON EMISSION SUMMARY BY INCINERATION SOURCES64
O
g
aMrcrograms per 1,000 cubic meters of flue gas at standard conditions (70 °F, 1 atmosphere) .
bA blank In the table for a particular compound indicates it was not detected in the sample.





Municipal
250-ton/day
multiple chamber
50-ton/doy
multiple chamber


Commercial
5.3-ton/doy
single chamber
3-t on/day
multiple chamber



Sampling
point

Breeching (ahead of
settling chamber)
scrubber)
Stack (behind
scrubber)

Stack

Stack



B
M9/1000
3

19


17


11,000

52,000







0.075


0.089


53

260




1 	 . 	 1


8.0


2.1


320

4,200



Bonzole)-



0.34


0.58


45

260

Group 1











3.1

60


Benzo-
(9.H,i>-

(10/lb

b


0.63


90

870



Anthon-

of rsluse c







6.6

79





Barged

0.24


0.63


21

210



Anthro-









47

86

Gr

Ph.nan.



b


b


140

59

up 2

Fluoron-



9.8


3.3


220

3,900


B.nz(.)-
onlhro.



0.37


0.15


4.6

290

w
I

-------
 industrial refuse processed by an incinerator. Maximum HC1 content in Euro-
 pean municipal incinerators is abour 0.02 volume percent in wet flue gases.19
 An increase in use of polyvinyl chlorides would make this emission become of
 more concern in municipal incinerator operations.

 7.3  MEASUREMENT METHODS

 7.3.1 Smoke Measurement
     There are basically two methods—Ringelmann and soiling index—for mea-
 surement of smoke. The Ringelmann method is  a system whereby graduated
 shades of gray, ranging in five equal steps from white to black, may be accu-
 rately reproduced by means of a rectangular grill of black lines of definite width
 and spacing on a white background; these shades of gray are then compared to
 an actual smoke emission.66 Many air pollution emission control regulations are
 based on  the Ringelmann  Chart  even though the  chart  was not  originally
 designed for regulatory purposes.
     Several tests may be used to  determine  the  soiling  index. One is the
 Bacharach spot smoke test. In the test 2,250 cubic inches of stack gas is drawn
 through a filter paper by means of a hand pump.65 The resulting soiled spot is
 compared  to a chart containing nine  shades of  gray. A similar method, the
 A.I.S.I. automatic  smoke filter, works  on the same principle as the Bacharach
 method except the air is  drawn through the filter paper automatically. The spot
 formed gives the average soiling for the sampling time, which is adjustable.
     One of the most sophisticated  new devices for smoke measurement  is the
 Van Brand Recorder. The Van Brand System automatically filters the sampled
 gas through a filter tape that can be stationary or moving to provide either spot
 or trace  soilings. The speed of the tape is adjustable and is marked for timing
 purposes. From  one to  three recording heads  can be used  simultaneously to
 sample smoke before and after control devices. The spot or traces are side by
 side on the filter tape so that comparisons can be easily made. The system can be
 fitted with a Rudds System  device, which  expresses the comparisons on a
 numerical basis that eliminates subjective and observational errors.
     A photoelectric  device  also may be used  for smoke measurement. Such
 devices have apparently had very little usage in the incinerator field. Some new,
 modern municipal incinerators, however,  incorporate this  type of measuring
 device into their designs.67 It is expensive and lacks portability.

 7.3.2 Particulate Matter and Gas Sampling
    As previously  discussed, particulate  matter and gases  can be sampled at
 various locations  in  municipal incinerators. They may  be sampled anywhere
 from the combustion chamber exit to  the top  of the stack depending on the
 purpose  of the  sampling. Samples must be taken  during normal operating
 conditions  and be representative of the  parent medium. Three fairly widely
Incinerator Emissions                                                   91

-------
 VO
 to
o
§
w
1
                                                    HEATED BOX
                                STACK WALL
              PROBE
                                     MANOMETER
                               IVlANOItflETER
                               IMPINGERS

                                      ICE "BATH

                                         VACUUM GAUGE
                                      VACUUM PUWP
Figure 48.  Particulate sampling train.6

-------
accepted particulate testing guides are available. They are the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Test Code, the WP-50 Bulletin of the Western
Precipitation  Corporation,  and the Source Testing Manual  of the Los Angeles
County Air Pollution Control District. Rehm has discussed the ASME Test Code
and the WP-50 Bulletin and their application to incinerator testing.6 7
    When samples are taken, the  sampling nozzle should be as large as possible,
but not so large as to prevent isokinetic sampling. It is usually best to sample in
vertical flow  ducts to minimize errors caused by stratification. Water-jacketed
stainless steel probes reduce errors caused by corrosion and reduce combustion
losses of glowing particles.
    Filtration inside of stacks is not recommended because of combustion losses
that can result from high stack  temperatures. Some of the considerations in the
selection of a filtration device  are the high-volume sampling rate required to
obtain a  fairly representative sample,  low particulate concentrations, high
moisture content  of the  combustion gases, the need for high efficiency at low
pressure drop, the weight stability of the filter, the durability required for field
use, portability  required, and high gas temperatures.
    The sampling train used for incinerator testing at Federal facilities is shown
in Figure 48.68 The train basically consists of a probe, cyclone, glass filter, four
impingers, vacuum pump, dry gas meter, and flow meter.
    Occasionally used is a dual filtration system in which a cyclone located just
prior  to the  fabric filter precipitates  the  larger size particles and  condensed
moisture.  This  type of system, illustrated in Figure  49, substantially reduces
                       DRAFT GAUGE  DRAFT GAUGE
                           Ap            Ap
                           NULL          FLOW

STAINLESS
STEEL WATER-
COOLED
SAMPLING
PROBE
4* S/l-in.'OD NOZZLE
(MINIMUM)

r
1
11
COOLING
WATER
L


>
it
\^


Yll

1
1
I 1
C BAG II 1
JflWl 1 WB
\°
«Jj

1
1
	 1
HEATING
DB BLOWER
CONTROL
VALVE
                                       115V  ,
                                      60CPS1
                                                  MANTLE
    Figure 49.  Furnace outlet particulate matter sampling arrangement.
                                                                   58
Incinerator Emissions
93

-------
filter pressure buildup due to condensation. It is particularly useful in evaluating
wet  scrubber systems. Figure 50 illustrates a stack-sampling arrangement for
particulate matter  and humidity. Because of lower temperatures, the nozzle is
not water-cooled.  A provision for maintenance of isokinetic conditions is not
included in the system. Sampling rates should be based on gas velocities deter-
mined by pitot tubes.
             THIMBLE
 NOZZLE
                             2-1/2-in. COUPLING AND PLUG
        DRILL PLUG WITH 1-1/16-in. DRILL
              •in. SAMPLING PIPE
                              3/4-in. ELBOW
 GAS FLOW
RUBBER
 TUBING
     NJ
                                       MERCURY GAUGE
                 KNOCK-OUT JAR'
                      CONDENSATE
 1/8-in. NIPPLE



THERMOMETER
     HOSE CLAMP
                                   RUBBER
                                   TUBING
                                                     HIGH-PRESSURE AIR
                              ASPIRATOR     VALVE
   Figure 50.  Stack particulate matter and humidity sampling arrangement.58

7.3.3 Particulate Matter and Gas Measurement
    After particulate matter and gases have been sampled, they are collected
using sampling trains suitable for the desired analyses. Measurement methods are
not standardized. The selection of the method is the judgment of the tester.
Table 33 summarizes some of the measurement methods that have been used for
incinerator  tests. No effort is made to describe the methods in detail because
there are many references available on this subject.
94
                                            MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
         Table 33.  INCINERATOR EMISSION MEASUREMENT METHODS
Emission
                                         Method of measurement
Particle mass
Particle size
Particle composition
Hydrocarbons
Polynuclear hydrocarbons

Organic acids
Aldehydes
Ammonia (rarely present)
Carbon dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Oxides of sulfur

Oxygen
Nitrogen
Oxides of nitrogen
Chlorine
Water
                        Filtration gravimetric
                        Sieve analysis, coulter counter, microscopic analysis
                        Chemical analysis
                        Infrared spectrophotometry, flame ionization analyzer
                        Separated by benzene extraction and column chromatography,
                        and then analyzed by spectrophotometry, fluorometric
                        Acid-base titration
                        Colorimetric (bisulfite analysis and modified Ripper's method
                        Modified Kjeldahl distillation method
                        Orsat analysis, infrared analyzer
                        Orsat analysis, infrared analyzer, gas detector
                        Gravimetric and volumetric analysis (barium
                        perchlorite titration)
                        Orsat analysis, portable gas analyzer
                        Indirect by Orsat analysis
                        Saltzman, phenoldisulfonicacid method
                        Gravimetric (Volhard)
                        Condensate method, wet and  dry bulb thermometer (wetting
                        temperature limitation)
                         ,69
7.4 RESIDUE
    The characteristics of the residue can determine the means and location of
its ultimate disposal. The residue should be of a nature, or disposed of in such a
manner, that insect and rodent attraction, dust, odor, and water pollution from
leaching are at a minimum.
    Residue  consists  of siftings that  fall through the  grates, as well  as  the
"burned-out" refuse that remains at the end of the burning grate. The amount of
residue that  sifts through the grates is obviously dependent on the design and
                                      type  of the grate. Some grates  such as
                                      the rocking grate are designed to achieve
                                      as much sifting through the grate as is
                                      possible. Other grates are designed only
                                      with  underfire air supply in mind and
                                      have  much lower sifting rates. A study
                                      performed by Kaiser, Zeit, and McCaf-
                                      fery  on  two  200-ton-per-day rocking-
                                      grate  stokers  showed that 177  pounds
                                      of  siftings  was   produced per ton  of
refuse burned.69  Table 34 summarizes the  sifting weight and percentages for
325,100 pounds of fired refuse.
    The composition of siftings varies with the position along the grate at which
the sifting took place. Less ash, clinker, glass, ceramic material, stone, and metal
sift through  the feeder grate that  sift through the burner grate. Feeder grate
      Table 34.
 SIFTING WEIGHTS
AND PERCENTAGES
Grate
Feeder
Burner
Total
Sifting weight,
Ib
1,160
27,600
28,760
Percent
of refuse
0.36
8.49
8.85
Incinerator Emissions
                                                                           95

-------
sittings contain more combustible  material, moisture, and organic matter than
burning-grate sittings. Tables 35, 36, and 3769 are results of the analyses of
sittings from a feeder grate, a burner grate, and the combined feeder and burner
grate system, respectively.

 Table 35.  SIFTINGS FROM FEEDER GRATE WITH NO  UNDERFIRE AIR SUPPLY69

Residue




Glass + ceramic + stones 	
Clinker 	


Combustible, including ash
Nonputrescible ...
Putrescible 	
Total 	
Moisture 	
Dry organic (ash free) 	
Ash glass metal

Total 	

> 1/4 in.

1.08
0.00
0.32
23.28
0.49
0 79

1.46
0.75
28.17
0.70
6.03
93 27

100.00
Sieve opening
1/4 in. x 10 mesh
Percent by weight
1.35
0.00




23 55


24.90
3.84
31.70
6446

100.00

< 10 mesh

3.14





4379


46.93
4.65
29.00
66.35

100.00
Combined analysis, percent: Moisture 3.34; dry organic 23.20; ash, glass, metal 73.46.
            Table 36. SIFTINGS FROM BURNER GRATE SECTIONS
                                                             69
                                                  Sieve opening
Residue

Ferrous metal 	
Magnetic oxide 	
Nonferrous metal
Glass + ceramics + stones
Clinker .
Bones shells .
Nonmagnetic 	
Combustible, including ash
Nonputrescible 	
Putrescible 	
Total 	
Moisture 	
Dry organic (ash free) ....
Ash, glass, metal, etc.
Total . . .
>1/4 in.

7.92
0.00
1 98
3973
5 75
1 17

1 37
0.19
58.11
0 00
1 60
98.40
100.00
1/4 in. x 10 mesh
Percent by weight
1.03
1.56
099
5 55
308
1.79


0.96
14.96
0 00
1 61
98.39
100.00
<10mesh

3.40





23.53


26.93
0.00
5.35
94.65
100.00
Combined analysis, percent: Moisture 0.00; dry organic 2.61; ash, glass, metal 97.39.
96
                                              MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
           Table 37.  COMBINED SIFTINGS FROM STOKER GRATES1
                                                                  .69
Residue
                                                      Sieve Opening
> 1/4 in.
                                                     1/4 in. x 10 mesh   < 10 mesh
                                                    Percent by weight
Ferrous metal 	
Magnetic oxide	
Nonferrous metal 	
Glass + ceramics + stones .
Clinker  	
Bones, shells	
Nonmagnetic	
Combustible, including ash
  Nonputrescible	
  Putrescible	
  7.65
  0.00
  1.91
 39.06
  5.54
  1.15
   1.38
  0.21
 1.04
 1.50
 0.95
 5.33
 2.95
 1.72
 0.95

 0.92
                 3.39
                                 24.35
   Total
                                          56.90
                                                          15.36
                                                                         27.74
 Moisture	
 Dry organic (ash free)
 Ash, glass, metal
  0.03
  1.78
 98.19
 0.16
 2.82
97.02
 0.19
 ,6.31
93.50
   Total
                                        100.00
                                                         100.00
                                100.00
 Combined analysis, percent: Moisture 0.10; dry organic 3.19; ash, glass, metal 96.71
    The physical analysis of total residue from a 300-ton-per-day continuous-feed
 incinerator is presented in Table 38. The data presented in this table are not meant
 to represent average or typical residue compositions. Rather, they identify the
 residue constituents for  one specific municipal  incinerator. They can be useful
            Table 38.  CLASSIFICATION OF INCINERATOR RESIDUE
                                                                   69
                                                 Dry weight, Ib
                                                                  Percent of total
 Ferrous metal 	
  Tin cans 	
  Other	
 Magnetic flakes	
 Nonferrous metal 	
 Glass over 1/4 inch 	
 Ceramics, stones	
 Clinker over'3 inch	
  1/4x3 inch	
 Ash, nonmagnetic
  1/4 x 10 mesh 	
  Minus 10 mesh	
 Combustible
  Paper, wood, char
  Putrescible  (visual)
  Bones, pits	
 In conveyor water	
 Total	~

 Less salt  	
 Net residue	
 Combustible-free residue .
             943.97
            (828.25)
            (115.72)
             227.32
              18.04
             567.72
              90.53
             487.76
             956.50

             373.23
             590.79

             107.43
               4.11
               1.82
           1,620.90
             15.75
            (13.82)
            ( 1.93)
              3.80
              0.30
              9.48
              1.51
              8.15
             15.96

              6.23
              9.87

              1.79
              0.07
              0.03
             27.06
           5,990.12
                              100.00
              -26.5
           5,963.6
           5,209.1
Incinerator Emissions
                                        97

-------
as a "first guess" in  estimating residue composition. Table 39 presents typical
ranges of values for the various residual constituents.

                      Table 39.  RESIDUE COMPOSITION
                                  (percent)
Material

Glass 	


Ash3 	
Organic 	
Range
	 19 to 30
	 9 to 44
	 1 to 5
	 17 to 24
	 14 to 16
	 1.5 to 9
aExclusive of other materials listed.

    Potential water pollution from residue landfill sites by leaching  can be a
major consideration in selecting a location for a site. From 4.75 to 5.75 percent
(by dry weight) of the residue is water soluble.70 Again, the variation can be the
result of a complexity of factors such as incinerator design, incinerator opera-
tion,  and refuse heteorogeneity. An  analysis of the water-soluble portion of
residue for a batch-and continuous-feed incinerator is presented in Table 40.

   Table 40. AVERAGE ANALYSIS OF WATER-SOLUBLE PORTION OF RESIDUE70
                        (percent by dry weight of sample)

Hydrocarbon concentration 	
Alkalinity . 	
Nitrate nitrogen x 10"4 	
Phosphate x 1CT4 	
Chloride 	
Sulfate 	
Sodium 	
Potassium 	 	
Iron

Batch-feed
incinerator
6.1666
0.1156
4 0078
2.75
0.1221
0 0813
0.04675
0.04230
000617

Continuous-feed
incinerator
9.1666
0.1865
3.48
4.416
0.0771
0.2447
0.197
0.048
0.015

7.5 EFFLUENT WATER
    Water is used  in various parts of the incineration process and, as it is used, it
usually becomes contaminated with dissolved and suspended matter. The con-
tamination of the  waste water is generally great enough that the water must be
treated prior to discharge  to  prevent  or  control pollution of rivers and under-
ground water  streams. Characteristics of  waste water  from  five types of
incinerators are given  in  Table 41.  For comparison purposes some  average
characteristics of river water and sewage are also included in the table.
    Cross and Ross reported interesting studies of scrubber effluent waters from
incinerators in  Jacksonville  and Ft.  Lauderdale, Florida.72  For a batch-feed
incinerator,  they found that both the effluent water temperature and  acidity
98
                                              MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
                            Table 41.  CHARACTERISTICS OF  INCINERATOR WASTE WATER71
Source
River
Sewage
Incinerator wastes
Batch-fed incinerator
(rectangular)
Ash hopper
Fly ash disposal
Lagoon
Continuous-feed
traveling grate
Residue conveyor
Batch-fed (circular)
Residue conveyor
Continuous-feed
rocking grates
Residue conveyor
Continuous-feed reci-
procating grate
Residue conveyor
Odora
0
4M



3M
1M
2S


2M

3M


3M


1S
pH
7.0
6.8




7.2
7.3


11.6

4.6


-


6.4
Alkalinity,
PPm
50
100




50
134


424

330


—


410
Total
solids,
ppm
100
500



1,327
11,846
9,580


1,830

6,302


—


—
Total volatile
suspended
solids,
ppm
10
300



69
11
13


236

56


45


14
Percent
trace
50



70
31
24


71

78


47


43
5-day
biochemical
oxygen
demand at
20 °C, ppm
2
200



700
3.2
54


618

750


560


605
VO
SO
aM - Moldy; S - Sulfuretted; Scale of 1 (no odor) to 5 (very strong).

-------
varied widely. The pH ranged from 3 to 5 and the water temperature fluctuated
from 140° to 180° F. Maximum values of pH were noted when the temperature
of the effluent water was at or  near a  minimum.  Table 42 summarizes the
contributions of various chemical constituents made by a scrubber system in the
Ft. Lauderdale incinerator.72
    Cyanide and  phenols  show the  largest increase, with  rather substantial
increases in many of the other constituents.
               Table 42. ANALYSES OF SCRUBBER WATER AT
                     FT. LAUDERDALE INCINERATOR,
                BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA (JUNE 1966)72
Chemical constitutent
Iron (Fe) (mg/l) 	
Barium (Ba) (mg/l) . . ...
Cyanide (CN) (jllg/l) 	
Chromium (Cr) (mg/l) 	
Lead (Pb) (mg/l) 	
Phenols (|Ug/l)
Copper (Cu) (mg/l) 	
Zinc (Zn) (mg/l)
Manganese (IVln) (mg/l)
Aluminum (AD (mq/l) 	
Raw
water
035
00
2100
00
0.0
5 0
0.08
0 0
00
0.18
Scrubber
effluent
2.00
50
54000
0 13
1.30
1 7260
0.18
240
0 30
20.80
Contribution
from
incineration
1 65
50
5 1900
0.13
1.30
1 721 0
0.10
240
0 30
20.62
100
                                           MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
            8. COSTS OF MUNICIPAL INCINERATION
    There are innumerable ways in which  cost  data may be presented. The
method that is best suited to the need at hand is usually chosen. Rather than try
to interpret  the needs of prospective readers, cost data will be discussed and
presented in this chapter to a large extent in the manner in which they appear in
the published literature. Certain precautions are necessary for users of such data.
For comparative purposes, costs should be reduced to a base year to adjust for
inflationary  trends. Cost  differences  of utilities, materials, and labor from one
area to another or one country to another should be taken into consideration.
Design specifications such as  control equipment emission  criteria may have a
very significant effect on  the price of a plant. Sometimes expensive construction
design is necessary because of unusual soil conditions or climate. The economy
of building one large incinerator instead of two  incinerators half the size can be
significant even though transportation distance  of the refuse may be  increased
and vulnerability of the overall operation to breakdowns is increased. These are
just a few of many  factors that make an accurate determination of costs, and
comparisons of costs in one area of the country to those of another, difficult, if
not impossible.

8.1 INITIAL PLANT CONSTRUCTION COSTS
    Plant costs are most commonly given either as total cost or in cost per ton
capacity per day.  The total cost price can range anywhere from $52,000  for a
simple 140-ton-per-week  conical  burner  serving  a  town of approximately
15,000™  to $30,600,000 for a 660,000-ton-per-year, steam-generating, con-
tinuous-feed incinerator.21  Rogus presented some capital costs for  recently
constructed modern incinerators.74 His figures were corrected to  a 1965 index
and are shown in Table 43. Added to this table are costs (uncorrected) of new
incinerators either built or being built in Rockville, Maryland; Oyster Bay, New
York; London, England; and Paris, France.
    Many  authors have given ranges  for  construction costs per ton dry plant
capacity. Table 44 summarizes the ranges of combustion costs per ton dry plant
capacity that have been  reported in  recent literature. Foreign  costs have been
directly converted to dollars and do  not reflect the  differences in purchasing
power of the dollars  in foreign countries. The  high cost per ton-day of some
foreign incinerators is because of their sophisticated gas-cleaning equipment and
extensive  waste-heat-recovery apparatus. These dual-purpose incinerators not
only burn refuse but supply steam and electricity, the value of which more than
recovers the extra construction costs.
                                   101

-------
                                                              Table 43.  INCINERATOR PLANT CAPITAL COSTS
2


o
o
2
1



Location


V,.n»
Munich

Dusseldorf


Pens (l,,y.|«.
Lausanne
Montreal
N.Y.C. (6 modern



London (Dsephoms)
Paris (Ivry)



Furnace
types,
and size.
tons/day


Von Roll
3 @ 200
Martin
2 @ 660
1 g 1,060


4 8 385
Martin
4 0450
Van Roll
2 g 200
Roll, 4@300
Traveling grat.

3 § 350
2 § 250
1333 tons par day
Martin

per year


Supple.
fuels


Waste oil
Pulverized
caal
coal
-


-
-
-
-


"
Unknown
Unknown





"o"
0 -^
3: S
-
X

X


X
-
X




-
X




=
5
>.
1
ce
X
-

-


-
X
-
X


X
-
-





•5
1 £
£ £
X
X

X

X
X
X
X



X
-
X





s 1
2 1
m S.
X
X

X

X
X
X
X
_



-
X


Specia

1
1
01
E _
& ~L
>
X

X

X
>
X
X
_


-
-
X






'c
in ~E.
X
X

X

X
X
X
-
_



_
X




i
s

o ?
-
X

X

X
-
-
X


~
-
_
Un-
known



•o
•o °
•1 "
U OJ
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X


-
-
_
Un-
known




s.
E £
•E -5

1

1

2
2

2
2

3
2
_
1


Capital c

Total cost
plant


$ 9,600,000


7,500,000

9,250,000
20,000,000
4,000,000
12,000,000

y
4,874,973b
2,493,000b
25,200,000b
30,600,000b




Unit cost
per ton
per day


$16,000


7,500

6,000
11 ,1 00
10,000
1 0,000


4,640
5,000
18,900






Remarks0


Difficult foundations



total oFsix furnace units
St.om(fMon.»ifaonly.t
Highly sophisticated
Handsome plant in midst of
Bids taken November 2, 1965


Land cast ($297,580) in-
Equipped with CCTV




°AII plants burn mixed,!

bNot corrected to 1965 i

-------
 Table 44.  RANGES OF INCINERATOR CONSTRUCTION - COSTS PER TON-DAY
  Location
    Cost, $
United Kingdom
W. Europe   . . .
United States . .
1,500 to 18,900
6,000 to 16,000
3,000 to 8,000+
8.1.1  Air Pollution Control Equipment Cost
    The costs of air  pollution control equipment are closely related to the
efficiency of the equipment. It is  the more sophisticated, high-efficiency equip-
ment  that is  more  costly. The rather  simple  nonmechanical  types of control
equipment such  as settling chambers,  baffle  collectors, and  scrubbers do not
require pretreatment of the furnace gases and are generally less costly. Scrub-
bers, however, are perhaps the most expensive of the group. Cyclones, electro-
static  precipitators,  and fabric  filters  all  require pretreatment of the furnace
gases  and are the most expensive, but most efficient type of control systems.
Cyclones are not quite as expensive on the average as fabric filters and electro-
static  precipitators.  The first electrostatic precipitators to be installed in the
United States had an estimated cost of approximately $450,000 each. Fife and
Boyer have  presented (Table 45)  estimated  construction costs in 1966 of
several combinations  of air  pollution control equipment for a hypothetical
500-ton-per-day  incinerator equipped  with two 250-ton-per-day furnaces.75
Dust  loading to the collector was assumed to  be 3.5 pounds of dust per 1,000
pounds of flue gas corrected to  50 percent excess air. Five combinations are
given  for refractory-lined furnaces and three combinations are given for steam-
generating,  water-walled  furnaces.  It  can be  seen that reduced gas volumes
resulting from  water-walled furnaces lower the  costs of a given control  system to
less than one-half the value for a refractory furnace.

       Table 45.   COSTS OF CONSTRUCTING, OWNING, AND OPERATING
                   AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
           TO MEET MUNICIPAL INCINERATOR STACK EMISSIONS
                                                             ,75
Equipment
Baffled spray chamber 	
Spray chamber-cyclone collector ....
Wet scrubber .
Spray chamber-electrostatic
precipitator 	
Spray chamber-fabric filter 	
Water-cooled furnace-cyclone 	
Water-cooled furnace-electrostatic
precipitation . . 	
Water-cooled furnace-fabric filter ....
Average
construction
cost, dollars
$188,200
270,360
400,900
501 ,770
712,190
91 ,800
210,300
243,000
Unit cost,
dollars/ton of
refuse burned
$0.77
1.23
2.10
1.21
2.00
0.38
0.39
0.65
Stack emissions,
lb/1, 000 Ib flue
gas at 50%
excess gas
1.75
0.77
0.14
0.175
0.035
0.77
0.175
0.035
Costs of Municipal Incineration
           103

-------
8.1.2 Land Cost
    Land cost is sometimes one of the reasons a community decides to adopt
municipal incineration as opposed  to a landfill for its refuse  disposal. Incin-
eration reduces substantially  the volume of the refuse to be disposed, but the
desire to locate an incinerator as close as possible to the source of the refuse still
requires the purchase of expensive land. Some municipalities have been able to
buy state- or county-owned land for as little as $1.00 while other municipalities
have not been as fortunate and have had to pay current real estate market values.
When choosing among several sites, the costs of long hauling distances must be
carefully weighed against some of  the  other factors  involved,  such  as overall
community acceptance.

8.2 REFUSE INCINERATION COS1S
    The overall cost of incineration usually consists of personnel, maintenance,
repair, replacement, utility, and amortization costs.
    Rogus has summarized personnel costs for four European incinerators and
six incinerators in the United States.2 8 His computations of cost in man-hours
per ton of refuse are given hi  Table  46.  All of the European incinerators are
equipped with by-product recovery and  salvaging operations for which extra
man-hours are required.
    A comparison of the overall costs from this limited data strongly indicates
that,  on the average, European operating costs are  substantially lower than
operating costs in the United States. This is even more indicative when income
from by-product recovery and salvage operation is included.
    An earlier cost analysis (1958 cost index) for refuse incineration is pre-
sented in Table  47.  Improvements  that  have been made in continuous-feed
incinerator design may make these figures obsolete; however, the various cost
factors involved and their relative magnitudes are of interest.

8.3 EXPANSION AND REMODELING COSTS
    Substantial savings can be realized  by remodeling and  expanding some of
the older incinerators in lieu  of replacement with new installations. Many of the
recently constructed incinerators  have allotted  space  for  the  installation of
additional furnaces and air pollution control equipment. In such an installation,
there is no question as to whether it is more economical to expand and remodel
or to build  a new plant. It appears from the published literature that rehabili-
tating old plants can be economically attractive. The New York Department of
Sanitation operates 11 incinerators that were built between 1934 and 1962.77
Four  of these  are batch-feed units  built  before  1938. Two of the batch-feed
furnaces will be  converted to  continuous-feed  furnaces and the remaining 7
continuous-feed incinerators  are  being rehabilitated. Construction  costs for
sophisticated air pollution  control systems are estimated  to range from $1 to
$1% million.

104                                          MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
            Table 46.  PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS OF PLANTS BURNING MIXED, UNSEGREGATED REFUSE
Plan*
Design capacity
per plant,
tons /day
Operating
period,
hr/week
Operating
factors
Refuse
processed,
tons/ working day
Manpower,
man-hours/
working day
Cost/man-
hr-ton, $
Cost.b
dollars/ton
t
 N*
 8
 o
European
A
B
C
D
600
1,000
1,540
400
168
168
126

70
85
70
50
420
850
980
200
384
564
592

0.91
0.66
0.60

—
-
2.50 net
3.50 gross
1.50 net
                                                        U.S.A.
6 modern con-
tinuous-feed
plants0
1,000


128


80


800


576


0.72


4.30


        Note: All European incinerators are equipped and operated to include steam and power generation, residue pro-
              cessing, and metal salvage.
         aOperating Factors = Average actual production 4- Design Capacity.
         '•'Total cost exclusive of amortization.
         cAverage values per plant for 6 modern plants for 3 years of 300 working days each-refuse incineration only.

-------
           Table 47.  COST OF REFUSE DISPOSAL BY INCINERATION76
                (dollars per ton of refuse destroyed-1958 Cost Index)


capacity (exclusive of land)
Unit costs
(exclusive of residue disposal)



Amortization 	
Total unit costs 	
Average of three
continuous-feed,
modern, mechanized
incinerators
$5,500.00
$2.40
1.05
0.50
0.60
0.05
0.95
$5.55
Average of four
batch-fed,
manually-stoked
incinerators
$3,750.00
$4.20
1.05
0.65
0.90
0.05
0.65
$7.50
    The city of Philadelphia is presently considering the conversion of some of
its  batch-feed incinerators to a continuous-feed type.78 The  city presently is
operating two continuous-feed and four batch-feed incinerators. Rehabilitation
and conversion of the batch-feed incinerators will cost an estimated $2.1 to $2.2
million.79 Replacement of one of the batch-feed units will cost approximately
$6 to $7 million, assuming a capacity of 600 tons per day.
    The city of Kenosha, Wisconsin, is studying the possibility of converting its
city incinerator plant from a garbage-only incinerator  operation to a modern,
mixed-refuse incineration plant.5  An entirely new 240-ton-per-day incinerator
plant, including air pollution control equipment, would  cost approximately $1.7
million, but cost  estimates for  rehabilitation of the old plant  range from only
$333,200 to $661,900, depending on design features and air pollution control
equipment.

8.4 BY-PRODUCT RECOVERY
    Waste heat, metals, slag, and residue can all be  valuable by-products of
municipal incineration.  Refuse  as a fuel  is quite  attractive. It  is free and, in
contrast to other fuels, contains  small amounts of sulfur. Nearly 2 pounds of
steam can be generated per pound of refuse incinerated.21 The new Ivry Plant
being  built in Paris, France, will produce 277,000 pounds of steam per hour at
1,378 pounds per square inch and 878° F.21 Thus a rather significant income
can result from the sale of steam or electricity to a nearby market. A modern
refuse incinerator in Germany56  receives  $1.99 per ton of refuse  incinerated
from  the sale of steam. Sale of steam from a 720-ton-per-day incinerator in
Chicago, Illinois, is estimated to net $125,000 to $150,000 annually. Waste-heat
recovery on  a smaller scale for internal use only by the incinerator plant is fairly
106
                                             MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
common throughout the United States. This type of operation can be reflected
in significant savings in utility bills. The use of incineration waste heat for the
desalinization of salt water is  another cost recovery method for  incinerators
located in coastal areas. The Oceanside Refuse Disposal Plant in New York22
desalts ocean water for internal use. Table 48 summarizes the uses of waste heat
for  43  municipal incinerators in the United  States.32 Each  use, except the
preheating of combustion air, has direct economic value resulting in lower total
incineration cost.
    Salvage of residue  and metal is perhaps more widely practiced in foreign
countries than it is in the United States. The price received for salvage metal in
Europe and England ranges from $2.15 to $18.50 per ton.26 Similar variations
in the price of salvage metals in the United States are common.
    With increasing flyash collection in municipal incineration, sintering opera-
tions to produce building blocks, such as those found at some power companies,
may find wider application. Further profitable uses of residue and flyash are the
objectives  of some  current research programs. Some incinerator  salvage op-
erations in the United States have had to be abandoned because they were not
economically practical. Many incinerators have successful  salvaging operations,
however,  such  as one incinerator in  Chicago, Illinois, that burns  500 tons of
refuse per day, of which approximately  170 cubic yards of reclaimable metal is
sold daily.8' Based on  1 year of operational data, 38 cents worth of metal per
ton of raw refuse is  recovered. Tin cans account for 23 cents per ton and the
remaining  15 cents per ton is received from the sale of scrap metal.82 Cinders
are  sold  for fill,  and the  remaining residue can be mixed with lime to form a
product that is used in the construction of streets, parking lots, and playgrounds.
This product, even though proven useful, has not been financially successful.
Costs of Municipal Incineration

-------
o
00
                               Table 48.  INCINERATOR WASTE HEAT UTILIZATION
Construction
year
1945--J950
1951-1955
1956-1960
1961-1965
Total
Plants
reporting
use
2
10a
17*>
14C
43
Heat use
Building heat
and/or
hot water
1
4
10
9
24
Electric
power
1
2
1
1
5
Sewage
sludge
drying
0
2
3
1
6
Steam production
For
sale
0
1
0
1
2
Outside
heating
0
0
1
1
2
Other
use
0
0
d,g
h
3
Use not
stated
0
2
1
1
4
Preheat
combustion
air
0
1
1
0
2
Other
use
0
0
e,f
i
3
o
I
o
z
aOne plant reports building heat, hot water, and preheating combustion air. Another reports building heat and
 sludge drying.
bOne plant each reports:  hot water and power generation, hot water and air preheating, hot water and sludge
 drying, and steam for equipment drives and heating nearby hospital.
C0ne plant reports building heat and steam for sale. One reports power generation and desalination.
^Equipment drives.
eSludge furnace.
f Heat for sludge digester.
9por sewage treatment plant.
"Desalination  of sea water.
' Tubuler gas reheater cools combustion-chamber outlet gas and rehats  scrubber exit gas.

-------
        9.  LOCATIONS OF MUNICIPAL INCINERATORS

9.1  SITE LOCATION
    Municipal incinerators are usually located as near as feasible to the  pop-
ulation centers served, except  for instances in which bias is sometimes given in
the  direction of the maximum projected  population growth. Convenient  road
access to the incinerator from all areas to be served is important. If a decision
must be made between a "close-in" site or a more remote site, hauling distances
can  be a major consideration. Normally, residue is more economical to haul  than
raw  refuse, if great distances are involved.  Industrial areas are  usually more
receptive to incinerators than are nonindustrial areas. Purchase of a generous
amount of acreage assures  room  for future expansion and is  usually a good
investment. Locating incinerators near sewage plants for sludge  treatment  or
incineration of odorous  gases emitted during sewage  treatment  can have  its
merits. Municipal  burning of refuse  at sea  has been  under consideration  in
Boston.83  Such a  plan requires, among other things,  a determination  of the
possible effects of the residue on marine environment.

9.2  GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION
    Municipal incineration  is  practiced rather widely  throughout  the United
States, England, Japan, and most of the western European countries, and  may
be practiced  in other countries for which little or  no technical information is
available. Information  on extensive studies or surveys of incinerator locations
other than in the United States and Canada has not been found; therefore, the
following discussion will be limited to the countries for which  information  on
studies is available.
    In  November  1965, 289  incinerators that burn municipal refuse  in the
United States were identified.32  Incinerators that were installed prior to 1945
and not rebuilt or added to since 1945 were not included. The Appendix presents,
in its entirety, Stephenson and Cafieros' plant  summary  for all 289 incin-
erators.32 At the time of Stephenson  and Cafieros'  survey, there were approxi-
mately 1,000 to  1,250  noncaptive sanitary landfills  and  17,500 to 21,300
noncaptive open dumps.84
    The estimated distribution of incinerators by  states is given in Table 49.84
Most of the municipal incinerators are found in the eastern United  States  with
New York, New Jersey, and Ohio having the largest percentages  of all the states.
    The estimated distribution of incinerators, by community size as of 1965, is
given in Table  50.84  Cities with a population of 1 million or more have the
lowest percentage of incinerators, while cities with populations  of 10,000  to
24,900 have the highest-25.2 percent.
                                109

-------
  Table 49.  ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF INCINERATORS IN 1965 BY STATE
                                                                84
State






in- •










Total for states with less than 0
Total 	
Percent
of total
1.6
4.3
0 2
3.7
1.6
0 5
4.8
1.6
1.0
2 1
2 1
2 1
60
2 7
1.6
0.5

1 percent of tr
State
Nebraska 	
New Jersey 	
New York 	
North Carolina 	
North Dakota 	
Ohio 	
Oregon 	
Pennsylvania 	
Rhode Island 	
South Carolina 	
Tennessee 	
Texas 	
Virginia 	
Washington 	
West Virginia 	
Wisconsin 	

e U S totals


Percent
of total
	 0.5
	 1 1 .9
	 151
	 2.1
	 0.5
	 9.2
	 0.5
	 7.6
	 1 .6
	 05
	 10
	 16
	 37
	 05
	 16
	 5.4

03

	 100.0
Source: APWA estimates and calculations.
   Table 50.  ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF THE NUMBER OF INCINERATORS
                    BY COMMUNITY SIZE IN 196584

Community
thousands
1 ,000 or over . . .
500 to 999.9 . . .
250 to 499.9 . . .
100 to 249.9 . . .
50 to 99.9 . .

Number of
communities
in United
1960
5
16
30
81
201

Percentage of
communities
incinerators
80.0
75.0
50.0
30.0
25.0
Average
number of
incinerators
community
4
2
1.5
1
1
Distribution
of incinerators by
community size
Number
16
24
22
24
50
Percent
5.1
7.6
7.0
7.6
15.9
110
                                         MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
       10.  EVALUATION OF MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

    Many factors are involved in the evaluation of municipal incineration as a
basic refuse disposal method. Some of the factors  are dependent on the city in
which an incinerator is used, and the remaining factors are an inherent part of
the basic incineration process. Municipal incineration is generally considered to
be an economical, nuisance-free, sanitary refuse disposal method. The determi-
nation of whether incineration is the best solution to a city's refuse problem is
perhaps best  reached after a careful consideration of its advantages and dis-
advantages, followed by an investigation of the advantages and disadvantages of
other refuse disposal methods.

10.1 ADVANTAGES OF MUNICIPAL INCINERATION
    Many of the advantages of  municipal  incineration are  apparent from a
review  of the previous  chapters.  There are  ten basic advantages expressed by
various authors in the refuse disposal field:
     1. Municipal incinerators require relatively small plots of land as compared
        to sanitary landfills.
     2. Incinerators can usually be located in industrial areas near the  center of
        the service area and near collection routes.
     3. The incinerator operation is not interrupted by inclement weather.
     4. The operating time of a municipal incinerator can range up  to 24 hours
        a day to accommodate the variations in refuse generation.
     5. The residue from an incinerator is generally stable and nearly inorganic.
     6. An incinerator can be designed to  be inconspicuous to allow it to  be
        located in or near residential areas.
     7. Incinerators located near sewage treatment plants can complement the
        plants by burning malodorous gases and drying and burning sludge.
     8. Incinerators can be less expensive than sanitary landfills.
     9. Incinerators can burn practically any kind of refuse.
    10. Income  can be realized if there is a market for  steam,  hot water,
        electricity, salvage metals, residue, and incineration service to  industry.
    Other advantages undoubtedly have been realized in municipal incineration.

10,2 DISADVANTAGES OF MUNICIPAL INCINERATION
    Little  has been written on the disadvantages of municipal incineration,
which indicates the disadvantages may be few.
    Perhaps the biggest disadvantage to incineration is the high initial cost of an
incinerator facility. Even though long-term landfill cost has been reported to be
as much or more than incineration, the initial cost of a plant can be a substantial
burden to a municipality.
                                Ill

-------
    Municipal incinerators emit poUutants into the atmosphere. Adherence to
air pollution control requirements are becoming mandatory nearly everywhere in
the world. Efficient means to control air pollutants released to the atmosphere
are available, but are relatively expensive.
    Operating costs are relatively  high. Although the number  of employees
required to run an incineration plant may be smaller than it is for other methods
of disposal,  the wages for the  skilled employees who operate, maintain, and
repair an incinerator are higher, for instance,  than for  men who work on  a
landfill. Maintenance and repair  costs may be high because of the high temper-
atures necessary for the burning  and the dirty and damaging nature of the refuse
and residue.  Equipment and machinery are frequently damaged by wires; tramp
metals; and  fusible, abrasive, and explosive objects  in the refuse.  The  combi-
nation  of large capital investment,  higher labor costs, and costly maintenance
and repairs can produce a cost per ton for refuse disposal  greater than for other
acceptable methods.
    It is sometimes difficult to get a site for an incineration plant because refuse
disposal operations in any form  are offensive to many people. Moreover, truck
traffic  to and from the  plant  may be considered  a hazard  and  a  nuisance,
particularly in residential neighborhoods.
    Incineration is not a complete disposal method. Ash and other residue from
the burning process, including flyash, must be disposed of by other means.2

10.3 OTHER DISPOSAL METHODS
    A  brief review of dumping, open  burning, sanitary  landfill, composting,
burial at sea, disposal in  sewer, and hog-feeding will provide some perspective in
the evaluation of municipal incineration. Some  of these methods could provide
for  the complete  disposal of  municipal refuse while others would provide
disposal of only a fraction of the  refuse.

10.3.1  Dumping
    One of the first refuse disposal methods used was open dumping of refuse
on land. This method is still widely used and is obviously very inexpensive, but
extremely objectionable and offensive in and near populated areas. Such a site is
a breeding ground for insects and rodents; odors can pollute the air for consid-
erable distances from the dump. Long hauling distances  are required to reach
areas where few people live, and even then objections still arise.

10.3.2  Open Burning
    Open burning  has  all of the disadvantages of dumping without burning,
except  that  the volume  of the  refuse is reduced and less  land is required. The
insect and rodent problem is reduced somewhat; however, the burning produces
extensive amounts of smoke and  increased odors.
112                                          MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
10.3.3 Sanitary Landfill
    A sanitary landfill can be an economical and nuisance-free method of refuse
disposal. A sanitary landfill  involves burying refuse in a sanitary manner. Un-
sightly refuse is hidden from view by a layer of earth that controls the insect and
rodent problem found in open dumps. Sufficient land at a reasonable price and
in close proximity to the refuse collection area must be available to make a
landfill successful. Public acceptance is sometimes difficult to achieve because a
sanitary landfill is often associated with open  burning and dumps  or landfill
operations that are not  sanitary. Sanitary landfills can be an excellent method
for filling  depressions, canyons, tidal areas, swamps, and marshes. Some of the
problems associated with landfills are adverse weather conditions, dust, odors,
water pollution due to  leaching, settlement of the landfill, and formation of
explosive gases in the decomposing section of the fill.  A completed landfill can
be successfully used for recreational  purposes, parking areas, and construction
provided some important precautions are taken.

10.3.4 Composting
    Composting is the biochemical degradation  of organic materials to a  sani-
tary, nuisance-free, humus-like material.2 Composting has potential as a refuse
disposal method,  but has not been  used  extensively enough to permit  an
evaluation of its operational effectiveness. Advantages of composting based on
pilot plants operating in  Europe and the United States during the 1950's are as
follows?
    1.   A composting plant produces a usable  end product that may be  sold,
        thus either paying for, or at least reducing, costs.
    2.   Composting can be  used to  dispose of such industrial wastes as those
        from meat packing plants, paper mills, saw mills, tanneries, stockyards,
        and canneries. Dewatered sewage solids, especially if they are mixed
       with ground refuse, may be disposed, and cans and bottles that have no
        salvage value can be economically ground with the remaining refuse.
       When  large grinders are used (plants capable of processing more  than
        100 tons a day), even large, bulky objects may be handled. A municipal
       refuse  composting plant can dispose of all these wastes.
    3.  Normally,  composting offers  favorable  conditions  for  salvage of rags,
       glass, cardboard, paper, cans, and metals.
    4.  A well-located refuse composting plant  may reduce the cost of hauling
       refuse  to the point of disposal.
    5.  Flexibility of operation permits a 100 to 200 percent overload in design
       capacity for several  days by  increasing the time the receiving bins and
       grinders operate.
    6.  Weather does not affect an enclosed composting plant, although heavy
       rain adversely affects most kinds of outdoor composting.
Evaluation of Municipal Incineration                                      113

-------
    Disadvantages to composting include:2
    1.  Capital and operating costs apparently are relatively high.
    2.  Marketability of composted refuse has not yet been proved and sea-
        sonal use of the end product may require special marketing procedures
        or outdoor storage.
    3.  Trained personnel to  operate composting plants are not readily avail-
        able.
    4.  Refuse that  damages  grinders, such as tires, pipes, heavy  stones, and
        mattresses, must be removed and disposed of separately.
    5.  If cans and bottles have no local salvage value, they must  either be
        removed and disposed of separately or ground with the organic matter,
        thus somewhat reducing the quality of the finished compost.
    6.  Site procurement for  a  composting plant is difficult because any type
        of refuse disposal facility is considered a nuisance in most  neighbor-
        hoods.
    7.  Odors can become a problem during periods when a compost plant is
        not functioning properly.

10.3.5 Dumping at Sea
    Dumping of raw refuse at  sea was practiced rather widely prior to 1953 by
New York City and other communities. After many communities were recipients
of floating refuse, however, a  United States Supreme Court decision in 1953
prohibited dumping of the raw refuse at sea. Some consideration has been given
in recent years to incineration aboard ships at sea, with residue disposal in the
sea. Unknown effects of the residue on  sea life and the possibility of floating
debris make this method questionable.

10.3.6 Disposal in Sewer
    This method, which is practiced ever more widely in private homes, consists
of grinding the refuse on a municipal scale, metal and glass  excluded, and then
disposing the ground refuse into a city's sewage system. This method is generally
not considered to be very feasible. Most  sewage systems are  already over-
burdened. Additional equipment and experimentation  that would  have  to be
performed to put such a system into operation would be quite costly.

10.3.7 Unit Trains
    The use of a special train  carrying only refuse as cargo  (unit train) has
potential as  a city's refuse disposal system. Such a train would  carry the refuse
to an unpopulated area such as a desert, swamp, or mountainous area where it
would be dumped. This  type of system may still meet with some of the serious
problems encountered with local open dumps.
1!4                                          MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
10.3.8 Swine Feeding
    Feeding of cooked food wastes to swine can accommodate only a fraction
of the total refuse produced by a municipality. Opposition to hog-feeding has
grown, as evidenced by increased zoning restrictions and the elimination of this
garbage disposal method in many areas. All garbage must be cooked before it is
fed  to swine to  help  prevent  vesicular  exanthema, hog  cholera, and enteritis
diseases.2 A high  correlation  exists between trichinosis in humans and the
feeding of raw garbage to swine.2

10.3.9 Nuclear Energy
    Perhaps future nuclear technology will provide an answer to the increasing
problems of waste disposal faced  by the entire world. At present there are  no
practiced means to use this method for disposal of solid wastes.
Evaluation of Municipal Incineration                                      115

-------
    11.  INCINERATOR RESEARCH AND PILOT PROJECTS

   This chapter is a review of some current incinerator demonstration, pilot,
and research projects. Many of these are either demonstration grants, research
contracts, or research grants awarded by the Public Health Service to various
universities and to state, county, and city governments. Although some literature
has been published on some of these projects, no effort is made herein to present
any of the research findings.

11.1 INCINERATION AT SEA
   The idea of burning refuse aboard ships at sea and disposing of the residue
there originated at Harvard University, where the idea is being researched. The
ability of the  atmosphere 10 to 30 miles off shore  to  diffuse  the incinerator
emissions  without  coastal pollution is being studied.  The deposition and distri-
bution of residue on the ocean floor, as well as its possible effects on marine life,
are being investigated.  The application of systems analysis and  operations re-
search methods in the overall operation is also being studied.

11.2 BASIC INCINERATION PROCESSES AND EMISSIONS
   A study of basic incineration processes such as combustion,  gasification,
heat transfer, and furnace aerodynamics that take place in a full-scale incinerator
and in laboratory models, is being performed by Pennsylvania State University in
an effort to provide the necessary information for the  design of incinerators with
higher performances and lower stack emissions. An additional expectation is that
this research may  lead to the development of analytical and control instrumen-
tation that will make good incinerator control possible at a feasible cost.
   New York University is conducting research in  an effort to establish en-
gineering design data for the handling, charging, and smokeless burning of bulky
refuse. It is planned that additional data will be obtained on refuse composition,
bulk density, calorific values, residue flyash, and the  location of overfire air jets
for the combustion of hydrocarbons. Tests on a batch-feed prototype incinerator
will be performed. Available incinerators  will also be observed while burning
bulky refuse.
   New York University is also studying the composition of stack  effluents
from  domestic municipal incinerators and has  compiled an annotated bibli-
ography of foreign and domestic publications relevant to municipal incinerator
emissions.
   The City of San Francisco plans to design, develop, and construct a 100- to
150-ton-per-day incinerator that will meet the requirements of the several air
pollution control districts along the Pacific Coast with a minimum amount of air
                                   117

-------
pollution control equipment. Various features that will be studied, developed,
fabricated, and tested include:
     1.   A mechanical grate  that is capable of operating with a low amount of
         excess air.
     2.   A secondary chamber located to  provide sufficient turbulence for
         complete burnout of gases.
     3.   Air jets for inducing turbulence  and mixing at the entrance of the
         secondary chamber.
     4.   A flyash scrubber in conjunction with other gas-cleaning components to
         provide compliance with air pollution emission regulations.
Information  on construction, maintenance, and  operating  costs will  also be
provided.
     Another research project at New York  University will  endeavor to inves-
tigate a wide  range  of characteristics of a  modern continuous-feed incinerator.
The incinerator has rocking-grate stokers and cyclone dust collectors. Waste-heat
boilers are incorporated for generation of electricity and conversion of sea water
to  potable water. The  composition of refuse, residue, slag, flyash, and waste
water will be studied also. A material balance will be made  to include  residue,
flyash, slag deposits, waste-water pollutants, and  flue gas emissions. A  furnace
heat balance will be determined,  and air pollution control  efficiencies will be
calculated for this incinerator.

11.3 PILOT AND DEMONSTRATION INCINERATORS
     The  City  of Bridgeport,  Connecticut, is experimenting with a brush burner
and an  open-pit incinerator to  study  the  feasibility of  disposing of those
components of municipal refuse that cannot be burned  in conventional incin-
erators.  Information will be gathered as  to the practicability, safety, costs,
hazards, and the types of materials that can be incinerated  in such a device.
     The  possibility  of  using fluidized beds for  the disposition of refuse and
sewage sludge is being investigated by West Virginia University. The process of
using a fluidized bed will be evaluated by using a pilot plant.
     The  feasibility and  costs of incorporating such special features as advanced
air  pollution control devices, heat-recovery boilers, a metal-recovery operation, a
control laboratory,  a chipper installation, and a  compression press into the
construction and design of an incinerator are being determined by the District of
Columbia. The feasibility of using a Melt-Zit high-temperature incinerator for
the municipal refuse of Brockton, Massachusetts, is being  determined by using a
pilot incinerator at  Whitman, Massachusetts. In Shippensburg, Pennsylvania, an
effort  is being made to  demonstrate that a mechanically  stoked rotary-grate
incinerator can be a feasible means of municipal refuse disposal that can meet air
pollution regulations for  a small  community. Western Jefferson County, Wis-
consin, is determining the feasibility of a  joint solid waste disposal system for


118                                         MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
five communities. Projections of population and refuse and a review of available
methods of disposal, including incineration, will be included.
    The demonstration incinerator being constructed in  San Francisco to show
that  an incinerator can meet air pollution control regulations  in a feasible
manner has already been discussed. The adaptation of electrostatic precipitators
to two incinerator furnaces in New York City is  also considered a research
project that will  demonstrate the feasibility of this type of control system for
domestic incinerators.

11.4 SYSTEMS ANALYSIS
    Santa  Clara County is making a systems analysis approach to demonstrate
whether a  solid waste disposal system that basically employs incineration can be
a feasible method for solid waste disposal on a county-wide basis.
    Systems analysis is a fairly recent development, particularly as it is applied
to refuse disposal. Wolf and Zinn have presented a block diagram for solid waste
management, which is shown in Figure 51. In addition, they state:85
    Systems analysis can provide the means for the officials responsible for
    solid waste management in metropolitan areas, counties, and states with
    the information necessary to develop a  comprehensive disposal plan.
    Knowing  the costs and benefits associated with a wide range of alter-
    natives, they can seek public support for their recommendations with
    full confidence  that their proposals  are not simply reactions to im-
    mediate,  pressing  problems, but rather represent the  combination of
    waste  disposal methods that offers the greatest long-term benefit to the
    community.

11.5 RESIDUE ANALYSIS AND CLASSIFICATION
    Several studies of incinerator residue are secondary objectives of some of
the previously discussed projects. Drexel Institute has performed several studies
primarily concerned with incinerator residue. The studies include the classifi-
cation, chemical  composition, and biological properties of residue. Biological
studies include, for the purpose  of  control, determining nutrient thresholds
necessary for propagation of flies and rats.

11.6 PYROLYSIS OF REFUSE
    New York University is undertaking a project of which the main objectives
are: (1) the gasification potential of refuse  components; (2) the development
and demonstration  of continuous refuse gasification with  air; and (3)  the
determination of energy necessary to dry, heat, and ignite refuse components.
Incinerator Research and Pilot Projects                                   119

-------
 N)
 O
                      INPUTS
ON-SITE
S

n

r
o


1
                                                         TRANSFER
                                                       OR SEPARATION
                                                         STATION
TRANSPORT
AND TRANSFER
1



CENTRAL
PROCESSING



UCUI







1 '


PRODUCTS
ANIMAL
FEED

(TTHFR
                                                                           PROCESSES
                                                   PRODUCTS
                                                                          INCINERATION
                                                                                           LAND-FILL
— ^


r*
_

SALVAGE
f
i

COMPOSTING













INDUSTRY

















OCEAN OR
ISOLATED
AREAS



         Figure 51.  Block diagram for solid waste management shows alternative paths that may be followed. Note that transportation
                    may take place between any two stages; only those transportation systems requiring major investment are shown.

-------
11.7  REFUSE CRUSHING
   The city  of Buffalo, New York, in its proposal to install a bulk-refuse
crusher as an addition to its municipal incinerator, has begun a demonstration to
determine the feasibility of pre-sizing bulky municipal refuse prior to incin-
eration.  Accurate  records  will determine if this  procedure  is economically
feasible for other communities with the problem of excessively bulky refuse.

11.8  INCINERATOR WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
   The Whitemarsh  Township  Authority, Lafayette Hill, Pennsylvania, has
been concerned with the effectiveness of a waste-water treatment system. Such a
system would permit the reuse  of waste water. The construction of a new
treatment system may demonstrate that waste water, indeed, can be successfully
treated and reused.
Incinerator Research and Pilot Projects                                  121

-------
                             12. REFERENCES


 1.  Black, R. J. et al. The National Solid Waste Survey Interim Report. Proceedings of the
    Institute for Solid  Wastes  of the American Public Works Association  Chicago, 111.
    1968. pp. 24-43.

 2.  Municipal Refuse Disposal, 2d. ed. Chicago, American Public Works, 1966. 528p.
 3.  Rogus, C. A. Incineration Can  Be Clean and Efficient. Power. 111:81-85. December
    1967.
 4.  When Should a Community Consider Incineration  as a Method of  Refuse Disposal?
    Public Health News. 41:351-354. October 1960.

 5.  Engineering Report  to the City  of Kenosha, Wisconsin, on Modernization of the City
    Incinerator Plant. Consoer, Townsend and Associates, Consulting Engineers. Chicago,
    Illinois. November 1966.
 6.  Kaiser, E. R. Chemical Analyses of Refuse Compounds. In: Proceedings of National
    Incinerator Conference. New York, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1966.
    p. 84-88.
 7.  Kaiser, E.  R. Composition and Combustion of Refuse. In: Proceedings of MECAR
    Symposium; Incineration of Solid Wastes, New York, March 21, 1967, Fox, R. A.
    (ed.). New York, Metropolitan Engineers Council on Air Resources, 1967. p. 1-9.
 8.  Matsumoto, K., R. Asukata, and T. Kawashima. The Practice of Refuse Incineration in
    Japan: Burning of Refuse with High Moisture Content and Low Calorific Value. In:
    Proceedings of 1968 National Incinerator Conference. New York, American Society of
    Mechanical Engineers, 1968. p. 180-197.
 9.  Kalika, P. W. Influence Coefficients to Relate  Municipal Refuse Variations to Incin-
    erator Design. In: Proceedings of 1968 National Incinerator Conference. New York,
    American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1968. p. 154-170.
10.  Kaiser, E. R. Refuse Composition and Flue-Gas Analyses from Municipal Incinerators.
    In:  Proceedings of 1964 National Incinerator Conference. New  York, American
    Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1964. p. 35-51.
11.  Kaiser, E.  R., C. D. Zeit,  and J. B. McCaffery. Municipal Incinerator Refuse and
    Residue. In: Proceedings of 1968 National Incinerator Conference. New York, Ameri-
    can Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1968. p. 142-153.
12.  Braun, R. Comments on Characteristics of Incinerator Residue by P. Walton Purdom.
    In:  1966 Proceedings  of the  Institute for Solid  Wastes, Chicago, 111. pp. 4346.
    September 1966.
13.  Municipal Incinerator Gas  Scrubber. Peabody  Engineering Corporation. New York.
    1967.
14.  Squeezing Heat from Garbage with Modern Municipal Incinerators. Power. 108:68-70.
    March 1964.
15.  Tanner, R. The New Refuse Incinerator of L. von Roll A. -G. J. Air Pollution Control
    Assoc. 72:285-290. June 1962.
16.  A Ram-Fed Incinerator. Amer. City. 79:69-72. December 1964.
17.  Kreichelt, T. E. Air Pollution Aspects of Tepee Burners Used for Disposal of Municipal
    Refuse. Division  of Air Pollution. Cincinnati, O. Publication  Number 999-AP-28.
    September 1966. 39p.
18.  Rogus, C. A. Control of Air  Pollution and Waste Heat Recovery from Incineration.
    Pub. Works. 97:100-105. June 1966.
                                      123

-------
 19   Eberhardt, H. and W. Mayer. Experiences with Refuse Incinerators in Europe. Preven-
     tion of Air and Water Pollution, Operation  of Refuse Incineration Plants Combined
     with Steam Boilers, Design and Planning. In:  Proceedings of 1968 National Incinerator
     Conference. New York, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1968. p. 73-86.
 20.  Moore, H. C. Refuse Fired Steam Generator at Navy Base, Norfolk, Va. In: Proceedings
     of MECAR Symposium; Incineration of  Solid Wastes, New  York, March 21,  1967,
     Fox, R. A. (ed.). New York, Metropolitan Engineers Council  on Air Resources, 1967.
     p. 10-21.
 21.  Rousseau,  H. The Large Plants for Incineration of  Domestic Refuse in  the Paris
     Metropolitan Area. In:  Proceedings  of 1968 National Incinerator Conference. New
     York, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1968. p. 225-231.
 22.  Refuse Furnace to Desalt Water. Eng. News-Rec. 775:23, 27. August 19, 1965.
 23.  Hopkins, G.  J. and R. L. Jackson. Solids Handling and Disposal. Pub.  Works. 99(1):
     67-70. January 1968.
 24.  Reilly, B.  B.  Incinerator and  Sewage Treatment Plant Work Together. Pub. Works.
     92:109-110. July 1961.
 25.  Municipal Incineration. Detrick Heat Enclosures. Bulletin D-61.
 26.  Fife, J. A. European Refuse-Disposal. Amer. City. 81:125-128. September 1966.
 27.  A Dust-Free Incinerator. Amer. City. 75:92-95. January 1958.
 28.  Rogus, C. A. European Developments in Refuse Incineration. Pub. Works. 97:113-117.
     May 1966.
 29.  Meissner,  H. G. Municipal Incinerator Selection. Pub. Works. 90:99-105. November
     1959.
 30.  Incinerator Near Residential Area is Community Showplace. Pub. Works. 97:117-118 .
     February 1960.
 31.  Stabenow, G. Survey of European Experience with High Pressure Boiler Operation
     Burning Wastes and Fuel. In:  Proceedings of 1966 National  Incinerator Conference.
     New York, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1966. p. 144-160.
32.  Stephenson,  J. W. and  A. S. Cafiero. Municipal Incinerator  Design  Practices and
     Trends. In:  Proceedings of 1966 National Incinerator Conference. New York, Ameri-
     can Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1966. p. 1-38.
33.  IIA Incinerator  Standards. New York, Incinerator Institute of America. November
     1968.
34.  Kaiser, E. R. and W. B. Trautwein. Prevention of Fused Deposits on Incinerator Lower
     Side Walls. In:  Proceedings of  1968 National Incinerator Conference. New York,
     American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1968. p. 136-141.
35.  Link, P. F.  Incinerator Refractory  Enclosures. In:  Proceedings  of  1964  National
     Incinerator Conference.  New York, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1964.
     p. 58-60.

 36.  Criss,  G.  H.  and  A.  R.  Olsen. The  Chemistry of Incinerator Slags and  Their
     Compatibility with Fireclay and High Alumina Refractories. In: Proceedings of 1968
     National  Incinerator Conference. New  York,   American   Society  of Mechanical
     Engineers, 1968. p. 53-60.
 37.  Wegman,  L.  S.  An Incinerator  with  Refractory Furnaces and Advanced  Stack Gas
     Cleaning Systems. In:  Proceedings of MECAR  Symposium;  Incineration of Solid
     Wastes, New  York,  March 21,  1967, Fox. R. A. (ed.). New York, Metropolitan
     Engineers Council on Air Resources, 1967. p. 34-42.
 38.  Fernandes, J. H. Incinerator Air Pollution Control. In: Proceedings of  1968 National
     Incinerator Conference, New York, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1968.
     p. 101-116.

 124                                               MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
39.  Kirov, N. Y. Emissions from Large Municipal Incinerators and Control of Air Pollution.
    Clean Air. 1(2): 19-25, September 1967.

40.  Lenehan, J. W.  Air Pollution  Control  in  Municipal Incineration. J.  Air  Pollution
    Control Assoc. 72:414417, 430. September  1962.
41.  Rohr, F. W. Suppression of the  Steam Plume from Incinerator Stacks. In: Proceedings
    of 1968 National Incinerator Conference. New York, American Society of Mechanical
    Engineers, 1968.  p. 216-224.

42.  Baghouse Cures Stack Effluent. Power Eng. p. 58-59. May  1961.

43.  Bumb, R. L. The Use of Electrostatic Precipitators for  Incinerator Gas Cleaning in
    Europe. In: Proceedings of 1966 National Incinerator Conference. New York, Ameri-
    can Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1966. p. 161-166.
44.  Matsumoto, J., R. Asukata, and  T. Kawashima. The Practice of Refuse Incineration in
    Japan Burning of Refuse with High Moisture Content and Low Calorific Value. In:
    Proceedings of 1968 National Incinerator Conference. New York, American Society of
    Mechanical Engineers, 1968. p. 180-197.

45.  Sebastian, F. P.  San Francisco's Solid Wastes Crisis. Civil Eng. 57:53-55.  October
    1967.
46.  New Precipitators for Old Incinerators. Amer. City. S2(8):40. August 1967.
47.  Hotti, G. Montreal Incinerator is  Twofold Innovator. Power. 112:63-65. January 1968.
48.  Bump, R. L. Conditioning Refractory Furnace Gases for Electrostatic Precipitator
    Application. In:  Proceedings  of 1968 National Incinerator Conference. New York,
    American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1968. p. 23-33.

49.  Walker, A. B. Electrostatic  Fly Ash Precipitation for Municipal Incinerators — A Pilot
    Plant Study.  In: Proceedings  of 1964 National Incinerator Conference. New York,
    American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1964. p. 13-19.
50.  U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee  on Public works. Statement of E. L. Wilson,
    Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute, Inc. Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, May
    1967.
51.  Silva, A. Mechanical Draft  Fans  for the Modern Incinerator. In: Proceedings of 1968
    National Incinerator Conference. New York, American Society of Mechanical Engi-
    neers, 1968. p. 273-277.
52.  Cerniglia, V. J. Closed-Circuit Television and Its Application in Municipal Incineration.
    In: Proceedings  of 1966  National  Incinerator Conference. New  York, American
    Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1966. p. 187-190.
53.  Lauer,  J. L. Incinerator Temperature Measurement — How, What and Where. In:
    Proceedings of 1964 National Incinerator Conference. New York, American Society of
    Mechanical Engineers, 1964. p. 165-169.
54.  Meissner, H. G. Incinerator Furnace Temperature - How  to Calculate and Control It.
    J. Air Pollution Control Assoc. 11:479-482. October 1961.
55.  Fox, E. B., Jr.  Incinerator Operating Personnel.  In: Proceedings of 1964 National
    Incinerator Conference. New York, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1964.
    p. 143-147.
56.  Fichtner, W., K. Majurer and H. Muller. The Stuttgart  Refuse  Incineration  Plant:
    Layout and Experience (ASME Paper No. 66-WA/PID-10). Presented at the American
    Society  of Mechanical Engineering  Winter  Annual Meeting. New  York. November
    27-December 1,1966.
5.7.  Van Kleeek, L. W. A| Modern Look  at Refuse Incineration. Pub. Works. 90:123-125,
    184-186,188. September 1959.	.	
References                                                                   125

-------
 58  Walker  A  B  and F. W. Schmitz.  Characteristics of Furnace Emissions from Large,
     Mechanically-Stoked  Municipal Incinerators. In: Proceedings of 1966 National Incin-
     erator Conference. New York, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1966. p.
     64-73.

59   Jens, W. and  F.  R.  Rehm. Municipal Incineration and Air  Pollution Control  In:
     Proceedings of 1966 National Incinerator Conference. New York, American Society of
     Mechanical Engineers, 1966. p. 74-83.
60.  Marshella, A., G. Crawford, and M. Nolan. Conversion Factors for  Source Emission
     Measurements of Incinerator Flue Gases.  In: Proceedings of 1968 National Incinerator
     Conference, New York, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1968. p. 176-179.
61.  A Compilation of Selected Air Pollution Emission Control Regulations and Ordinances.
     National Center for Air Pollution Control. Washington, D. C. PHS Publication Number
     999-AP-43. 1968. 146p.
62.  Stenburg, R.  L. et al. Field Evaluation of Combustion Air  Effects  on Atmospheric
     Emissions from Municipal  Incinerators.  J. Air  Pollution Control Assoc. 72:83-89.
     February 1962.
63.  Kaiser,  E. R. The  Sulfur Balance of Incinerators.  J. Air Pollution Control Assoc.
     ;
-------
76. Rogus, C. A. Refuse Incineration-Trends and Developments. Amer. City. 74:94-98.
    July 1959.

77. Air Pollution Control in New York City. Council of the City of New York. M-970, An
    Interim Technical Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Air Pollution. June
    22,1965.

78. Air Pollution  Problems from Refuse Disposal Operations in Philadelphia  and the
    Delaware Valley. Department of Public Health, Air Pollution Control Section. Phila-
    delphia, Pa. November 1965.
79, Private communication with D. Damiano. 1968.
80. Gerhardt, P., Jr. Incinerator to Utilize Waste Heat for Steam Generation. Pub. Works.
    94:100-101. May 1963.
81. Chicago Incinerator Turns Rubbish into Saleable Products. Refuse Removal J. 7:18,
    28. February 1964.
82. Private communication with H. Huizenga. 1968
83. Fishermen Fight Boston Plan to  Incinerate Refuse on Ships at Sea. Refuse Removal J.
    7:16. November 1964.
84. Wolf, K. W. Solid Wastes Collection and Disposal Facilities. In: State and Local Public
    Facility Needs and Financing, Study Prepared for Sub-committee on Economic Pro-
    gress of the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee, Joint Committee Print, 89th
    Congress, 2d  Session, Diamond, A. H. (ed.). Vol. 1. Washington, D. C. U.S. Govern-
    ment Printing Office, December 1966. p. 184-207.
85. Wolfe, H. B. and R. E. Zinn. Systems Analysis of Solid Waste Disposal Problems. Pub.
    Works. 95:99-102. September  1967.
86. Schwartz, D.  Lexicon of Incinerator Terminology. In: Proceedings of 1964 National
    Incinerator  Conference. New York,, American  Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1964.
    p. 20-31.

87. Incinerators. New Jersey State Department of Health. Trenton, N. J. Chapter 11. June
    1968.

88. Control  Techniques for Particulate Air Pollutants. National Air Pollution Control
    Admin. Washington, D. C. Publication Number AP-51. January 1969. 215p.
References

-------
                           13.  GLOSSARY

  The following glossary is compiled from four sources: Incinerator Institute of
America Incinerator Standards,3 3  Lexicon of Incinerator Terminology by Dan
Schwartz,86 Chapter 11  of the New Jersey Air Pollution Control Code,87 and
Chapter 2 of "Control Techniques for Particulate Air Pollutants," National Air
Pollution Control Administration Publication No. AP-51.88

                                  -A-
AIR
  All air supplied  to  incinerator equipment for combustion, ventilation, and
cooling. Standard air is air at standard temperature and pressure, that is, 70° F
and 29.92 inches of mercury.
  1. Air jets—Streams  of high  velocity  air  issuing from  nozzles  in the
     incinerator enclosure to  provide turbulence.  Air  jets, depending on their
     location, may be used to provide excess, primary, secondary, and overfire
     air.
  2. Excess air—Air remaining after a fuel has been completely burned, or that
     air supplied in addition to the theoretical quantity.
  3. Overfire air—Any air controlled with respect to  quantity and direction,
     supplied beyond the fuel bed, as through ports in the walls of the primary
     combustion  chamber, for  the  purpose  of  completing combustion of
     combustible  materials in the gases from the fuel bed,  or  to reduce
     operating temperatures within the incinerator. (Sometimes referred to as
     secondary air.)
  4. Primary  air—Any air controlled with respect to  quantity and direction,
     forced or induced, supplied through or adjacent to the fuel bed for the
     purpose  of promoting combustion of the combustible materials in the fuel
     bed.
  5. Secondary air—Any air controlled with respect to quantity and direction,
     supplied beyond the fuel bed, as through ports in the walls or bridge wall
     of the  primary combustion chamber (overfire air)  or the  secondary
     combustion  chamber  for  the purpose  of  completing combustion of
     combustible  materials in the gases from the  fuel bed,  or  to reduce
     operating temperature within the incinerator.
  6. Theoretical air-The exact amount of air required  to  supply oxygen for
     complete combustion of a given quantity of a  specific fuel.
  7. Underfire air-Any air controlled with respect to quantity and direction,
     forced or induced, supplied beneath the grate, that passes through the fuel
     bed.
                                  129

-------
ABRASION
   Wearing away of refractory surfaces by the scouring action of moving solids
such as refuse, residue, or flyash.
ABSORPTION
   The ratio of the weight of water a refractory can absorb to the weight of the
dry refractory. The ratio is expressed as a percentage.
ABUTMENT
   In furnace construction, the structural member that withstands the thrust of
an  arch. In general, an abutment consists of a brick skewback and  a steel
supporting member.
ALUMINA
   A1203 , the oxide of aluminum. In combination with H20 alumina forms the
minerals  bauxite, diaspore, and gibbsite. In combination with Si02, alumina
forms kaolinite and other clay minerals.
ANCHOR
   A metal or refractory  device inserted between the  outer supports and the
refractory wall, arch, or roof to hold the refractory lining in place.
APRON CONVEYOR
   A conveyor with steel  pans suspended between  two strands  of chain with
rollers, having fixed vertical  sides  to  contain the material inside the extended
chain side bars.
ARCH
   The roof of a furnace, chamber or flue.
   1. Bonded arch—A  sprung arch in which the transverse joints are staggered to
     tie the construction together.
   2. Flat arch—An arch in which  both outer and inner surfaces are horizontal.
   3. Ignition arch—A  refractory roof over or in a furnace near the zone of fuel
     entrance that promotes ignition by reflection of heat.
   4. Jack arch—A flat arch held in place by compressive forces from the edges,
     similar to a sprung arch.
   5. Sprung arch—An arch that is supported by abutments at the sides or end
     only. A cross section of a sprung arch, taken at right angles to its axis,
     usually consists of a segment of a circular ring, in' which  the inner and
     outer arch surfaces are represented by arcs of concentric circles.
   6. Relieving arch—A sprung arch in a wall to reduce the gravity load  over a
     section below.
   7. Ring arch—A sprung arch formed of separate courses or rings not bonded
     together.
   8. Wall arch—A relieving arch or an arch  over a door opening or port in a
     wall.
ASH
   Solid mineral remains after complete burning of refuse.


130                                        MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
 ASHES
   Residue from solid-fuel fires used for cooking and on-site incineration usually
 containing some  combustible  constituents. (When collected with  municipal
 refuse, ashes are part of the refuse charged to municipal incinerators.)
 ASH GATE
   A horizontal gate used to close the bottom of ash hoppers. Such a gate is
 normally supported on rollers. Some ash gates have a special drain arrangement
 to allow quenching water to be retained to provide an air seal for the furnace.
 ASH PIT
   A pit or hopper located below a furnace in which residue is accumulated and
 from which it is removed at intervals.
 AUTOMATIC (RECYCLING) BURNER
   A burner that  is purged,  started, ignited, modulated, and stopped automa-
 tically and recycles on a preset operating range.
 AUXILIARY FUEL
   Fuel other than waste materials used to attain temperatures sufficiently high
 (1) to dry and ignite waste materials, (2) to maintain ignition thereof, and (3) to
 effect complete combustion of combustible solids, vapors, and gases.
 AUXILIARY-FUEL-FIRING EQUIPMENT
   Equipment to supply additional heat by the combustion of an auxiliary fuel
 for the purpose of attaining temperatures sufficiently high (1) to dry and ignite
 the waste  material, (2) to maintain ignition thereof, and (3) to effect complete
 combustion of combustible solids, vapors, and gases.
 AUXILIARY GIRDER
   A girder on a crane (parallel to the main girder) for supporting the platform,
 motor base, operator's cab, and control panels to reduce the torsional forces
 such loads would otherwise impose on the main girder.
 AVAILABLE HEAT
   The quantity of useful heat per unit of fuel available from complete combus-
 tion after deducting dry flue gas and water vapor losses.

                                  -B-
 BAFFLE
   Any refractory construction  intended to change the direction  of flow of the
 products of combustion.
 BAFFLE CHAMBER
   A chamber designed to promote the settling of flyash and coarse particulate
 matter  by changing the direction and/or reducing  the velocity of  the  gases
 produced by the combustion of refuse.
 BAROMETRIC  DAMPER
   A hinged or pivoted  balanced  blade, placed so as to  admit air to the
breeching, flue  connection, or stack, thereby automatically maintaining a con-
 stant draft in the incinerator.


Glossary                                                             131

-------
BATCH-FED INCINERATOR
   An incinerator  that is  charged with refuse  periodically, the charge being
allowed to burn down or burn out before another charge is added.
BATTER
   The decrease in thickness of a wall as it ascends. Also, the slope of the face of
a wall; the angle at which the face of a wall slopes from the vertical.
BLAST GATE
   A sliding metal damper in a duct, usually used to regulate the flow of forced
air.
BLOWER
   A fan used to force air under pressure.
BODY
   (1) A ceramic shape; (2) the blend of raw materials used for the production
of a ceramic shape; (3) more specifically, the most important mineral consti-
tuent of a ceramic shape.
BOND
   1.  Ceramic bond—The  mechanical strength developed by a heat treatment
   that causes cohesion of adjacent particles.
   2. Hydraulic bond—The mechanical  strength developed in a  ceramic material
   by the combination of water with the mineral to form hydrate crystals.
BREECHING OR FLUE CONNECTION
   The connection between the incinerator  and auxiliary equipment, between
the incinerator and stack or chimney, or between auxiliary equipment and stack
or chimney.
BRIDGE
   That part of an overhead crane consisting of girders, trucks, end ties, walk-
way, and drive mechanism, which carries the trolley and travels in a direction
parallel to the runway.
BRIDGE WALL
   A partition wall between chambers over which pass the products of com-
bustion.
BRITISH THERMAL UNIT
   The quantity  of  heat  required to raise one  pound of water one degree
Fahrenheit, abbreviated B.T.U. and Btu.
BUCKSTAYS
   Pairs  of vertical steel beams, one  on each  side of a furnace  or flue  and
connected near the top, for the purpose of sustaining-the thrust  of a sprung arch.
BULKY REFUSE OR BULKY WASTE
   Waste  unsuitable for charging into  conventional incinerators because of its
size.


132                                       MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
 BURNER
   A device to  introduce a flame by delivering fuel and its combustion air at
 desired velocities and turbulence to establish and maintain proper ignition and
 combustion of the fuel.
   1. Afterburner—A burner installed in the secondary combustion chamber or
     in chambers separated from the incinerator proper. (Sometimes referred to
     as a secondary burner.)
   2. Primary burner—A burner installed in the primary combustion chamber to
     dry out and ignite the material to be burned.
   3. Secondary burner—A burner  installed  in  the secondary combustion
     chamber to maintain temperature and complete the combustion process.
     (Sometimes referred to as an afterburner.)
 BURNING AREA
   The horizontal projected area of grate, hearth, or combination thereof on
 which burning takes  place.
 BURNING RATE
   The amount  of waste incinerated per unit time, usually expressed in pounds
 per hour.
 BUTTERFLY DAMPER
   A plate or  blade installed  in a duct, breeching, flue  connection, or  stack,
 which rotates on an axis in its plane to regulate flow.
 BYPASS
   An arrangement of breechings or flue connections and dampers to permit the
 alternate use of two or  more pieces of equipment by  directing or diverting the
 flow of the product of combustion.

                                  -C-

 CALCINING
   The heat treatment of raw refractory materials for the purpose of eliminating
 volatile chemically combined constituents and for reducing volume changes.
 CALORIFIC VALUE
   See heating value.
 CAPACITY
   The amount  of waste incinerated, usually expressed in pounds per hour, with
 the characteristics or type of waste stipulated.
 CARBONACEOUS MATTER
   Carbon compounds or pure carbon associated with the fuel or residue of a
 combustion process.
Glossary

-------
CASTABLE REFRACTORY
   A hydraulic-setting refractory suitable for casting, ramming, or gunniting into
heat-resistant shapes or walls.
CHAIN-GRATE STOKER
   A stoker that has a moving chain as a grate surface; the grate consisting of
links mounted on rods to form a continuous surface that is usually driven by
sprockets on the front shaft.
CHARGE
   The quantity of refuse  introduced  to  the furnace at one time, as in  a
batch-fed incinerator.
CHARGING CHUTE
   A vertical passage through which waste materials are conveyed from above to
the primary combustion chamber.
CHARGING CUTOFF  GATE
   A modification of charging gate used in continuous-feed furnaces that do not
have high temperatures near  the charging hopper. It  consists of a steel cutoff
plate at the bottom of the charging hopper that closes on a machined seat at the
top of the charging chute.
CHARGING GATE
   A horizontal, moving  cover that closes the charging opening on top-charging
furnaces. It usually consists  of a  steel  cutoff plate  for  sealing the charging
hopper, a  refractory-lined  cover that fits into the frame in  the top of the
furnace, and mechanical means for opening and closing.
CHARGING RAM
   A reciprocating device  to meter and force refuse into a furnace.
CHECKERWORK
   A pattern of multiple openings in  refractory through which  the products of
combustion pass to promote turbulent mixing of the gases.
CHIMNEY, STACK, OR FLUE
   A vertical passage for  conducting products of combustion to the atmosphere.
CHUTE-FED INCINERATOR
   A multiple-chamber,  Class IIA incinerator.  The incinerator is top charged
through a charging chute  extending two or more floors above the incinerator.
CLINKER
   Hard, sintered, or fused material formed in the fire by agglomeration of ash,
metals, glass, and ceramic from the residue.
CLOSING MOTION
   The hoist motion that closes and opens the bucket or grapple and also is used
in raising and lowering the load.
134                                        MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
 COLD SET
   The hardening or "setting" of a mortar that takes place at room temperature.
 See mortar, air-setting.
 COMBUSTION
   The rapid reaction of the combustible material with oxygen, with the resul-
 tant generation of heat.
 COMBUSTION CHAMBER
   In  municipal incinerators, the  chamber immediately following the furnace in
 which gaseous and suspended particles continue to burn. In other incinerators,
 the furnace or primary combustion chamber.
 COMBUSTION GASES
   The mixture of gases and vapors produced in  the furnace and combustion
 chamber.
 CONTINUOUS-FEED INCINERATOR
   An incinerator into which refuse is charged in a nearly continuous manner so
 as to maintain a steady rate of burning.
 CONSTRUCTION WASTE
   Scrap lumber, pipe, and other  discarded materials from new construction and
 remodeling.
 CONTROLLER
   A  device for regulating in a  predetermined way the power delivered to a
 motor or other equipment.
 CONTROL POINT
   The value of the controller variable which the controller operates to maintain.
 COMPLETE COMBUSTION
   The complete oxidation of the fuel, regardless of whether it is accomplished
 with an excess amount of oxygen or air or the theoretical amount required for
 perfect combustion.
 COOLING AIR
   Ambient air added to  the combustion gases for cooling by dilution. Also
 called "tempering air."
 COOLING SPRAYS
   Water sprays directed into the flue gases for the purpose  of cooling the gases
 and, in most cases, to effect a partial separation of flyash from the gases.
 CORBEL
   In  a wall,  the projection from the vertical formed by placing each  course
 beyond the course just below.
 CORE WALL
   In a battery wall, those courses of brick, none of which are exposed on either
 side.

Glossary                                                           13S

-------
COURSE
   A horizontal layer or row of bricks in a structure.
   1.  Header course—A course laid flat with the longest dimension of the bricks
      perpendicular to the face of the wall.
   2.  Row lock course—A course laid on edge with the longest dimension of the
      bricks perpendicular to the face of the wall.
   3.  Soldier course—A course with bricks set vertically.
   4.  Stretcher course—A course laid flat with its length  parallel to the face of
      the wall.
CRANE STOP
   A block secured to the runway to limit movement of the crane.
CROWN
   The highest point of an arch. Also, a dome-shaped furnace roof.
CURTAIN WALL
   A partition wall between chambers that  serves to deflect gases in a downward
direction. (Sometimes referred to as a drop arch.)

                                   -D-

DAMPER
   A manually or automatically controlled  device to regulate draft or the rate of
flow of air or combustion gases.
   1.  Barometric damper—A hinged or pivoted balanced  blade placed to admit
      air to  the breeching,  flue connection, or  stack, thereby automatically
      maintaining a constant draft in the incinerator.
   2.  Butterfly damper—A plate or blade installed  in a duct, breeching, flue
      connection, or stack, which rotates on its axis.
   3.  Guillotine damper—An adjustable blade installed vertically in a breeching
      or flue connection, arranged to move vertically across the breeching or flue
      connection, usually counterbalanced for easy operation.
   4.  Sliding damper—An  adjustable blade installed  in a duct, breeching, flue
      connection, or  stack,  arranged  to move horizontally across  the  duct,
      breeching, flue connection, or stack.
DEAD PLATE GRATE
   A stationary grate through which no air passes.
DEAD PLATES
   Castings supporting walls and extending into door openings  to provide sills.
DEMOLITION WASTE
   Construction materials from the razing of buildings and structures.
136                                          MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
DESTRUCTIVE DISTILLATION
   The heating of organic matter when air is  not present, resulting in the
evolution of volatile matter and leaving solid char consisting of fixed carbon and
ash.
DESTRUCTOR
   A Class III, Class IV, Class VI, or Class VII incinerator.
DEVITRIFICATION
   The change from a glassy to a crystalline condition.
DIRECT-FEED INCINERATOR
   A Class I, Class IA, Class III, Class IV, Class VI, or Class VII incinerator. The
incinerator may be  side,  end,  and/or top charged. When  top  charged, the
charging chute shall serve not more than one floor.
DOME
   See Crown.
DOWNPASS
   Chamber or gas passage  placed between two chambers to carry the products
of combustion in a downward direction.
DRAFT
   The pressure difference  existing between the incinerator or any of its  com-
ponent parts and the  atmosphere, which pressure difference causes a continuous
flow  of air and products of combustion through  the  gas  passages of the
incinerator to the atmosphere.
   1.  Forced draft—The  pressure difference created  by  the  action of a  fan,
      blower, or ejector that  supplies  primary  combustion air  at more  than
      atmospheric pressure.
   2.  Induced draft—The pressure difference  created by the action of a fan,
      blower, or ejector located between the incinerator and the stack or at the
      stack exit.
   3.  Natural draft—The pressure difference created  by  stack or chimney be-
      cause of its height and the temperature difference between the flue  gases
      and the atmosphere.
DRAFT CONTROLLER
   An automatic device to  maintain a uniform furnace draft by regulation  of an
internal damper.
DRAG CONVEYOR
   A  conveyor  normally used for  residue, consisting of vertical steel plates
known as flights, fastened at intervals between two strands of chain.
DRAG PLATE
   A  plate beneath a traveling- or chain-grate stoker used to support the re-
turning grates.

Glossary

-------
DROP ARCH
   Any vertical refractory wall supported by arch construction, which serves to
deflect gases in a downward direction. (Sometimes referred to as a curtain wall.)
DRY-PRESS PROCESS
   A method of forming brick from slightly moistened granular materials by
charging the materials into molds and compressing by machines into rigid shapes.
DUMP PLATE
   An  ash-supporting hinged  plate from which ashes may be discharged by
rotation from one side of the plate.

DUST LOADING
   The amount of dust in  a gas, usually expressed in grains per cubic foot or
pounds per thousand pounds of gas.
DUTCH OVEN
   A combustion chamber built outside of and connected to a furnace.

                                 -E-

EFFLUENT
   The flue gas or products of combustion that reach the atmosphere from the
burning process.
ELECTRIC OVERHEAD TRAVELING CRANE
   An electrically operated  machine for lifting, lowering, and transporting loads,
consisting  of a movable bridge carrying a fixed or movable hoisting mechanism
and traveling on an overhead runway structure.
ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR
   A device for collecting dust from  a gas stream by placing an electrical charge
on the particle and removing that particle onto a collecting electrode.
EROSION
   The wearing away of refractory surfaces by the washing action  of moving
liquids, such as molten slags or metals; or the action of moving gases.
EXCESS AIR
   The air supplied to burn a fuel or  refuse in addition to that theoretically
(stoichiometrically)  necessary  for complete  combustion. Usually expressed as a
percentage of theoretical air, as "130 percent excess air." (See Air.)
EXPANSION OR SETTLING CHAMBER
   Any chamber designed to reduce the velocity of the products of combustion
to promote the settling of flyash from the gas stream.
138                                        MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
                                   -F-
 FIREBRICK
   Refractory brick of any type.
 FIRE CLAY
   A sedimentary clay containing only small amounts of fluxing impurities, but
 high in hydrous aluminum silicates, and therefore capable of withstanding high
 temperature.
 FIRECLAY BRICK
   A refractory brick manufactured substantially or entirely from fire clay.
   1. Alumina-diaspore fireclay brick—Brick made  essentially of diaspore or
      nodule clay and having an alumina content of 50, 60, or 70 percent plus or
      minus 2.5 percent.
   2. Low-duty fireclay brick—Fireclay brick that have a pyrometric cone equiv-
      alent (PCE) not lower than Cone 19.
   3. Intermediate-duty fireclay brick—Fireclay brick that have a PCE not lower
      than Cone  29, or that deform not more than 3  percent at 2460° F (1350°
      C) in the standard load test.
   4. High-duty fireclay brick—Fireclay brick that have a PCE not lower than
      Cone 31 to 32, or that deform not more than 1.5 percent at 2460° F
      (1350° C) in the standard load test.
   5. Super-duty fireclay brick—A fireclay brick having a PCE not lower than
      Cone 33 on the fire product, and not more than 1 percent linear shrinkage
      in the permanent linear ASTM change test, Schedule C (2910° F) and not
      more than 4 percent loss in the panel spalling test (preheated at 3000° F).

 FIRECLAY REFRACTORY
   Brick, shapes or specialties made principally or entirely of fire clays.
 FIXED CARBON
   The ash-free combustible matter remaining in a  sample of refuse after the
 sample has been heated by a prescribed method to red heat in a closed crucible.
 FIXED GRATE
   A grate that does not move. A stationary grate.
 FLAREBACK
   A burst of flame from a furnace  in a direction opposite to the  normal flow,
 usually caused by the ignition of an accumulation of combustible gases.
 FLIGHT CONVEYOR
   A conveyor often used as a drag conveyor, but having rollers interspersed in
the chains to eliminate friction.
FLUE, STACK, OR CHIMNEY
   A vertical passage for conducting products of combustion to the atmosphere.
Glossary

-------
FLUE-FED INCINERATOR
   A single-chamber Class II incinerator. The incinerator is  charged through a
vertical flue that also serves as a charging chute.
FLUE CONNECTION OR BREECHING
   The connection between the incinerator and auxiliary  equipment, between
the incinerator and the stack or chimney, or between auxiliary equipment and
the stack or chimney.
FLUE-GAS WASHER
   Equipment for removing flyash and other objectionable materials from the
products of combustion by such means as sprays and wet baffles.
FLUE GAS
   All gases  that leave the incinerator by way of the flue, including gaseous
products of  combustion, water  vapor, excess air and nitrogen. (Sometimes
referred to as the products of combustion.)
FLYASH
   Suspended ash particles, charred paper, dust, soot, or other partially incin-
erated matter, carried in the products of combustion. (Sometimes referred to as
particulate matter, or pollutants.)
FLYASH COLLECTOR
   Auxiliary  equipment designed to  remove  flyash in dry form from the pro-
ducts of combustion.
FORCED DRAFT
   Pressure greater than atmospheric pressure created by the action of the fan or
blower that supplies the primary air.
FORCED-DRAFT FAN
   A fan supplying air under pressure to the fuel-burning equipment.
FURNACE
   The chamber of the incinerator into which the refuse is charged, ignited, and
burned. The primary combustion chamber.
FURNACE VOLUME
   The amount of space within the furnace above the grate,  expressed in cubic
feet.
FUSION POINT
   The temperature at which a particular complex mixture of minerals becomes
sufficiently fluid to flow  under the weight of its own mass. As most refractory
materials have no definite fusion points, but soften gradually over  a range of
temperatures, the  conditions of  measurement have been  standardized  by the
American Society for  Testing and Materials. (See Pyrometric Cone Equivalent.)
140                                        MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
                                   -G-
 GAS WASHER OR SCRUBBER
   Equipment for removing flyash and other objectionable materials from the
 products of combustion by such means as sprays and wet baffles.
 GAGE PRESSURE
   The pressure above atmospheric pressure.
 GARBAGE
   Vegetable  and animal food wastes from the preparation, cooking, and serving
 of food; market wastes; and wastes from handling, storage, and sale of produce.
 GASES
   Formless fluids that occupy the space of enclosure and that can be changed
 to a liquid or solid state only  by the combined  effect of increased pressure and
 decreased temperature.
 GRAINS PER CUBIC FOOT
   The term for expressing dust loading in weight (grains) per unit of gas volume
 (cubic foot). 7,000 grains equals 1 pound.
 GRAPPLE
   Used for the same purpose as the grab bucket, but has long tines  for better
 digging action.
 GRATE
   Surface with suitable opening to support the fuel bed and permit  passage of
 air through the burning  fuel.  It is usually located in the primary combustion
 chamber and is designed to permit removal of unburned residue, and may be
 horizontal or  inclined, stationary or movable.
 GROG
   Calcined fire clay or clean broken fireclay brick, ground to suitable fineness.
 It is added to a refractory batch to  reduce shrinkage in drying and firing.
 GUILLOTINE DAMPER
   An adjustable blade installed vertically in a breeching and arranged to move
 vertically across the breeching; usually counter-balanced for easy operation.
 GUNNITING
   The placement of hydraulic setting refractory concrete at a high velocity by
 compressed air.

                                   -H-

HEARTH
   A solid surface on which waste  material with high moisture content, liquids,
or waste material that may turn to liquid before burning is placed for drying or
burning.
Glossary                                                             141

-------
   1. Cold hearth-A surface on which waste material is placed to dry and/or
     burn, aided by the action of hot combustion gases passing only over the
     waste material.
   2. Hot hearth-A surface on which waste material is placed to dry and/or
     bum by the action of hot combustion gases that pass first over the waste
     materials and then under the hearth.
HEAT OF COMBUSTION
   The heat released by combustion of a unit quantity  of waste or  fuel,
measured in British Thermal Units.
HEAT RELEASE RATE
   The amount of heat liberated during the process of complete combustion and
expressed in Btu per hour per cubic foot of internal furnace  volume in which
such combustion takes place.
HEATING VALUE
   The heat released by combustion of a unit quantity  of waste or  fuel,
measured in British Thermal Units.
HIGH-ALUMINA REFRACTORIES
   Refractory products containing 47.5 percent or more of alumina.
HOT DRYING HEARTH
   A surface on which wet material is  placed to dry by  the action of hot
combustion gases that  pass successively  over the wet material and under the
hearth.
HYDRAULIC FLYASH HANDLING
   A system using water-filled pipes or troughs in which flyash is conveyed by
means of gravity, water jets, or centrifugal pumps.

                                  -I-

INCINERATION
   The  process of igniting and burning solid, semi-solid, or gaseous combustible
waste to carbon dioxide  and water vapor.
INCINERATOR
   An engineered apparatus capable  of withstanding heat and designed to ef-
ficiently reduce solid, semi-solid, liquid, or gaseous waste at specified rates, and
from which the residues  contain little or no combustible material.
INCINERATOR CLASSES
Class I   - Portable, packaged, direct-feed incinerator with a capacity of up to
          25 pounds per hour of Type 1 or Type 2 refuse.
Class IA - Portable, packaged, or site assembled direct-feed incinerator with a
          capacity of from 25 to 100 pounds per hour of Type 1 or Type 2
          refuse.

142                                        MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
 Class II  — Chute-fed  apartment house incinerator in which the refuse chute
           also acts as the flue for the products of combustion.
 Class IIA- Chute-fed  apartment house  incinerator  having a separate  refuse
           chute and a separate flue for the products of combustion.
 Class III — Direct-feed incinerator with a burning rate of 100 pounds or more
           per hour, suitable for Type 1 or Type 2 refuse.
 Class IV - Direct-feed incinerator with a burning rate of 75 pounds or more per
           hour, suitable for Type 3 refuse.
 Class V  — Municipal incinerator with a burning rate  of 1 ton or more per hour.
 Class VI — Crematory and pathological  incinerator  suitable for only Type 4
           refuse.
 Class VII— Incinerator designed for specific Type 5 or Type 6 by-product waste.
 INCINERATOR STOKER
   A mechanically operable moving-grate arrangement  for  supporting, burning
 and transporting the refuse in a furnace and  discharging the residue. A mechan-
 ical stoker for the burning of refuse in an incinerator.
 INDUCED DRAFT
   The  pressure less than atmospheric pressure created by the action of a blower
 or  ejector that  is located between the incinerator and the stack or at the stack
 exit. Induced draft is measured in inches of water column (in.w.c.).
 INDUCED-DRAFT FAN
   A fan exhausting  hot  gases from  the heat-absorbing equipment, dust  col-
 lector, or scrubber.
 INSULATION
   A material having a low thermal conductivity used on the exterior of heated
 constructions and capable of withstanding  the temperatures to  which it  is
 subjected.
   1. Insulating (backup) block—A  shaped product having a low thermal con-
      ductivity  and a bulk density of less than 70 pounds per cubic foot, suitable
      for lining  industrial furnaces.
   2. Insulating firebrick—A firebrick  having a low thermal conductivity and a
      bulk density of less than  70 pounds  per  cubic  foot, suitable  for lining
      industrial furnaces.
   3.  Plastic insulation-Insulation,  plastic enough when mixed with water, to
      adhere to outer furnace walls to be placed over arches.

                                   -J-
JAMB
  The vertical  or upright  structural'member forming  the side of a door or other
opening in a furnace wall. Also a brick shape with one  short edge rounded.
Glossary                                                              143

-------
 JOINT
   1. Buttered joint-In laying up firebrick, a joint formed by troweling mortar
      on the faces of the brick.
   2. Dip joint-In laying up firebrick, a joint formed by dipping the brick into
      the mortar and either rubbing or tapping the brick into place.
   3. Expansion joint-An open joint left for thermal or permanent expansion
      of refractories. Also, small spaces or gaps built into a refractory structure
      to permit sections of masonry to expand  and contract  freely and to
      prevent distortion or buckling of furnace structures from excessive  ex-
      pansion stresses.  These joints are built in such forms as to permit move-
      ment of masonry but to limit  or prevent air or gas leakage  through the
      masonry.
                                   -K-
KEY
   In furnace construction, the uppermost or the closing brick of a curved arch.
K-FACTOR
   The thermal conductivity of a material, expressed in Btu per hr (sq ft) (° F)
(in.).
                                   -L-
LEDGE PLATE
   A form of plate that is adjacent to, or overlaps, the edge of a stoker.
LIFT
   Maximum safe vertical distance through which a crane bucket can move.
LINTEL
   A  horizontal  structural  member spanning  an  opening to  carry a  super-
structure.
LIPIDS
   The oils, greases, fats, and waxes in a refuse  sample as determined by Soxlet
extraction with anhydrous ethyl ether.
LOW-GAS-PRESSURE SWITCH
   A pressure-actuated device arranged to effect a safety shutdown of a burner
or prevent it  from  starting when the gas supply pressure falls  to below a
predetermined low supply pressure.
LUMNITE CEMENT
   A tri-calcium aluminate with hydraulic setting properties.
144                                         MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
                                  -M-
MANOMETER
   A U-shaped tube or an inclined tube filled with a liquid used to measure
pressure difference.
MANUAL BURNER
   A burner that is purged, started, ignited, modulated, and stopped manually.
MATERIAL BALANCE
   An accounting of the weights of material entering and leaving a process, such
as an incinerator, usually on an hourly basis.
MINERAL WOOL
   An artificial product composed of fine, fused, silicate fibers used as insulation
and soft packing.
MIXING CHAMBER
   Chamber usually placed between the primary  combustion  chamber and the
secondary combustion chamber where thorough mixing of the products of
combustion is accomplished by turbulence created by increased velocities of
gases, checkerwork and/or turns in direction of the gas flow.
MOISTURE CONTENT OF REFUSE
   The weight loss  on  drying  a sample to constant weight under standard
conditions, tentatively 75° C for refuse.
MONOLITHIC LINING (OR CONSTRUCTION)
   A refractory lining construction made in large sections on the site without the
conventional layers and joints of brick construction. The lining or construction
may be formed  by casting,  gunniting, ramming,  or sintering  of a  granular
material into place.
MORTARS
   A combination of fine-grained refractory materials, which, on mixing with
water, develops a plasticity that makes it suitable for spreading easily with a
trowel or for dipping and adhering to brick.
   1. Air-setting refractory mortar—A  finely ground  refractory material that
     forms a wet mortar that  will, on drying, develop  a  strong air-set bond
     between refractory  shapes  and maintain a bond when heated to working
     furnace temperatures.
  2. Cold-setting refractory mortar-Same as air-setting refractory mortar.
  3. Fireclay mortar-A mortar  of high-fusion-point fire clay and water, often
     used to fill joints to stop air or gas leakage without forming a strong bond.
  4. Grout-A mortar thin enough to flow  into -unfilled joints in firebrick
     construction.
  5. Heat-setting refractory mortar-A mortar in which the bond is developed
r
-------
     by relatively high temperatures. The hardening of the mortar is the result
     of the vitrification of part of its constituents.
   6. Hot-setting refractory mortar—Same as heat-setting refractory mortar.
   7. Hydraulic-setting  mortar—A mortar that hardens or sets  as  a result of
     hydration, a chemical reaction with water. As the working furnace tem-
     perature is applied, the water evaporates and a ceramic bond develops.

MULTICYCLONE
   A dust collector  consisting of a number  of cyclones, operating  in parallel,
through which the volume and velocity of gas can be  regulated by means of
dampers to maintain dust-collectorefficiency over the load range.

MUNICIPAL INCINERATOR
   An  incinerator owned or  operated  by  government or by a person who
provides incinerator service to government or others, that is designed for and
used to burn waste materials of any and all types, 0 to 6 inclusive.


                                  -N-
NATURAL DRAFT
   The negative pressure difference created by a stack or chimney because of its
height  and the temperature difference between  the flue gases and the atmo-
sphere.
                                  -O-
ODORANT
   A gaseous nuisance that is offensive or objectionable to the olfactory sense.

OPERATOR'S CAB
   The operator's compartment from which movements of  the crane are con-
trolled.

ORSAT
   An apparatus used  for analyzing flue gases volumetrically by measuring the
amounts of carbon dioxide, oxygen, and carbon monoxide.

OSCILLATING GRATE STOKER
   A stoker,  the entire grate surface of which oscillates to move the refuse and
residue over the grate surface.

OVERFIRE AIR JETS
   Streams of high-velocity air issuing from  nozzles in the furnace enclosure to
provide turbulence and oxygen to aid combustion or to provide cooling air.
146                                         MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
                                  -p-
PANEL SPALLING TEST
   A standardized test to provide an index to the spalling behavior of refrac-
tories.
PARTICULATE MATTER OR PARTICULATES
   (As  related to control technology) any material, except uncombined water,
that exists as a solid or liquid in the  atmosphere or in a gas stream at standard
conditions.
PEEP DOOR
   A small door usually  provided with a shielded  glass opening through which
combustion may be observed.
PEEP HOLE
   A small observation port with cover on an incinerator door.
PENETRATION OF SLAG
   The action of slag in soaking into a refractory.
PILOT
   A burner smaller than the main burner that is ignited by a spark or other
independent and stable ignition source, and that  provides ignition energy re-
quired to immediately light off the main burner.
PILOT TUBE
   An instrument that will sense the total pressure and the static pressure in a
gas stream. It is used to determine gas velocity.
PLASTIC REFRACTORY
   A blend of ground fire clay materials in plastic form, suitable for ramming
into place to form monolithic linings or special shapes. It may be air-setting or
heat setting, and is available in different qualities of heat resistance.
PNEUMATIC ASH HANDLING
   A system of pipes and cyclone separators that conveys flyash or floor dust in
an air stream to a bin.
POLLUTANTS
   Any solid, liquid, or gaseous matter in the effluent that tends to pollute the
atmosphere!
POTENTIOMETER
   A temperature-measuring  device made of a number of turns of resistance wire
wound  in a cylindrical form and constructed with three connections; the center
connection is a movable finger or wiper that rides over the length of the coil
completing the circuit wherever it touches.
 Glossary                                                            147

-------
POWER PRESSING
   The forming,  in molds by  means of high pressures  applied vertically,  of
refractory brick shapes from ground refractory material containing an optimum
amount of added water.
PRESSURE-COMPENSATED PUMP
   A  rotary-vane pump  with  variable displacement  by means of a pressure
compensating governor that  enables the pump to maintain relatively constant
pressure from zero to rated volume capacity without the use of a relief valve or
other bypass arrangement.
PRIMARY AIR
   Any air controlled with respect to quantity and direction, forced or induced,
supplied through or adjacent to the fuel bed for the purpose of promoting the
combustion of combustible materials in the fuel bed.
PRIMARY COMBUSTION CHAMBER
   See Furnace.
PUFF
   A minor combustion explosion within the furnace.
PURGE
   Scavenging of the furnace and boiler passes with air. Purge airflow must reach
not less than 70 percent of the airflow required at maximum continuous capa-
city of the unit and be sufficient for at least eight air  changes.
PUTRESCIBLE MATTER IN RESIDUE
   Unburned organic  matter in the residue  that  is fermentable or capable of
decaying or  assimilation by animals and microorganisms.
PYROMETER
   An instrument for measuring and/or recording temperature.

                                 -IR-
RADIATION PYROMETER
   A  pyrometer  that determines temperature by measuring  the  intensity of
radiation from a hot body.
RAMMING MIX
   A  ground  refractory material mixed with water to a stiff consistency and
rammed or hammered into place to form monolithic furnace linings or patches.
RATED LOAD
   The maximum load a crane is designed to handle safety.
RECIPROCATING GRATE
   A  forced-draft grate, the sections of which move continuously and slowly,
forward and rearward, for the  purpose of agitating, compressing,  moving, and


148                                       MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
burning refuse  material from  the charging end to the discharge end of an
incinerator furnace.
REFRACTORY (REFRACTORIES)
   Nonmetallic  substances  capable of enduring high temperatures and used in
linings of furnaces. While their primary function is  resistance to high temper-
ature,  they  are usually called on to resist  one or more of the following
destructive influences: abrasion, pressure, chemical attack, and rapid tempera-
ture change.
REFUSE
   All  waste composed of  garbage, rubbish, liquids, gases, and noncombustible
material.
RESIDUE
   Solid materials remaining after burning comprised of ash, metal, glass, ce-
ramics, and unburned organic substances.
RESIDUE CONVEYOR
   A conveyor,  usually drag- or flight-type, running in a water-filled trough that
quenches and dewaters as it elevates the residue to a discharge point.
RINGLEMANN CHART
   A series of four rectangular grids of black lines of varying widths printed on a
white background, and used as a criterion of blackness for determining smoke
density.
ROCKING GRATE
   An  incinerator stoker with moving (and stationary) trunnion-supported grate
bars.  In  operation,  the moving bars  oscillate  on the trunnions, imparting  a
rocking motion  to the bars, and thus agitating and moving the refuse and residue
along the grate.
RUBBISH
   All solid waste having combustibles, exclusive of garbage.
RUBBISH CHUTE
   A pipe, duct, or  trough  through which waste materials are conveyed by
gravity from the upper floors of a building to a storage room below preparatory
to burning.
RUNWAY
   The rails, beams, brackets, and framework on which the crane operates.
RUNWAY CONDUCTORS
   The conductors mounted on or parallel to the runway that supply current to
the crane.
RUNWAY RAIL
   The rail supported by the runway beams, on which the bridge of the crane
travels.

-,                                                                 149
Glossary

-------
                                 -s-

SCRUBBER OR GAS WASHER
   Equipment for removing  flyash and other objectionable materials from the
products of combustion by such means as  sprays and wet baffles.
SECONDARY AIR
   Any  air, controlled  with respect to quantity and direction, supplied beyond
the fuel bed, for the  purpose of completing the combustion of combustible
materials in the gases from the fuel bed, or to reduce the operating temperature
within the incinerator.
SECONDARY COMBUSTION CHAMBER
   Chamber where unburned combustible materials from the primary chamber
are completely burned.

SEPARATION CHAMBER
   A chamber beyond  the combustion chamber in which particulate matter may
be removed from the gas stream by gravity and reversal of gas flow.
SETTLING OR EXPANSION CHAMBER
   Any  chamber designed to reduce the velocity of the products of combustion
to promote the settling of flyash from the gas stream.
SILICA
   SiO2, the oxide of silicon, a major constituent in fire clay refractories, alone
or in chemical combinations.
SILICON CARBIDE
   SiC,  a refractory  material of high melting point, high density, high thermal
conductivity, and high resistance to abrasion.
SINTERING
   A heat treatment that causes adjacent particles of material to cohere at a
temperature below that of complete melting.
SLAG
   A liquid mineral substance formed by  chemical action and fusion at furnace
operating temperatures.
SLAGGING OF REFRACTORIES
   Destructive chemical action on refractories at high temperatures, resulting in
the formation of slag. Also, the coating of refractories by ash particles, that form
a molten or viscous slag on the refractories.

SLIDING DAMPER
   An adjustable blade installed and arranged to move in a horizontal plane
across a duct, breeching, flue connection, or stack to control the flow of flue
gases.
150                                       MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
SPALLING OF REFRACTORIES
   The breaking or crushing  of a refractory unit by thermal, mechanical, or
structural causes, thus presenting newly exposed surfaces or the residual mass.
   1. Mechanical Spalling  — Spalling resulting from stresses caused by  rapid
     heating of wet refractory, abuse in removing slag and clinkers, no provision
     for expansions, and pinching.
   2. Thermal  Spalling — Spalling caused by stresses set up in a refractory body
     during heating and  cooling,  vitrification, contamination by slags and
     fluxes, tightness of joints, and degree and uniformity of reversible thermal
     expansion.
   3. Structural Spalling - Spalling caused by materials in joints, degree of
     burning,  and shrinkage.

SPARK ARRESTER
   A screen-like device  to  prevent sparks, embers, and other ignited materials
larger than a given size from being expelled to the atmosphere.
STACK, CHIMNEY, OR FLUE
   A vertical passage for conducting products of combustion to the atmosphere.
STATIONARY GRATE
   A grate with no moving parts. A fixed grate.


                                  -T-
THEORETICAL AIR
   The exact amount of air (stoichiometric air) required to  supply the oxygen
necessary for the complete combustion of a given  quantity of a specific fuel or
refuse.
THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY
   The specific rate  of heat flow per hour through refractories, expressed in Btu
per square foot of area, for a temperature difference of one degree Fahrenheit,
and for a thickness of one inch. Btu/(ft2 ) (hr) (°F). (in.)
THERMAL SHOCK  RESISTANCE
   The ability  of a  refractory to withstand  sudden heating  or cooling or both
without cracking or spalling.

THERMOCOUPLE
   Two  lengths of  wire, made from  different metals,  connected to form a
complete electric circuit that  develops an electromotive force (emf) when one
junction is at a different temperature than the other.

THERMODYNAMICS
   The science  that deals with the mechanical actions or relations of heat.
Glossary

-------
TIPPING FLOOR
   Unloading area for vehicles that are delivering refuse to an incinerator.
TRASH
   Waste materials small enough for conventional incineration.
TRAVELING-GRATE STOKER
   A traveling-grate stoker consists of an endless grate similar to a chain grate,
but with grate keys mounted on transverse bars. The lead  nose of each key on
one bar overlaps the rear end of the keys on the preceding bar. The transverse
bars are mounted on chains and are driven by sprockets.
TROLLEY
   The unit that carries the crane-hoisting mechanism and  travels on the bridge
rails.
TUYERES
   Air openings or ports in a forced-draft grate.
TYPE 0 WASTE
   Trash. A mixture of highly combustible waste such as paper, cardboard car-
tons, wood boxes, and combustible floor sweepings containing approximately 10
percent  moisture and 5 percent incombustible solids, having a heating value of
approximately  8500 Btu per  pound as fired, derived from commercial  and
industrial activities. The mixtures contain up to 10 percent by weight of plastic
bags, coated paper, laminated paper, treated corrugated cardboard, oily rags, and
plastic or rubber scraps.

TYPE 1 WASTE
   Rubbish. A mixture of combustible waste such as paper,  cardboard cartons,
wood scraps,  foliage, and combustible floor sweepings containing approximately
25 percent moisture and 10 percent incombustible solids, having a heating value
of approximately 6500 Btu  per pound as  fired, derived from domestic,  com-
mercial  and  industrial  activities. The mixture contains up  to  20  percent by
weight of restaurant  or cafeteria waste, but contains little  or no treated paper,
plastic, or rubber wastes.

TYPE 2 WASTE
   Refuse. An approximately even mixture by weight of  rubbish and garbage
containing up to 50  percent  moisture and  approximately  7 percent incom-
bustible solids, having a heating value of approximately 4300 Btu per pound as
fired, commonly derived from apartment and residential occupancy.
TYPE 3 WASTE
   Garbage. Animal and vegetable wastes containing up to 70 percent moisture
and up  to 5  percent incombustible  solids, having a heating value of approxi-
mately 2500 Btu per pound as fired, derived from restaurants, cafeterias, hotels,
hospitals, markets, and similar installations.


152                                          MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
TYPE 4 WASTE
   Human and animal remains. Carcasses, organs, and solid organic wastes from
hospitals, laboratories, abattoirs, animal pounds, and similar sources, consisting
of up to 85 percent moisture and approximately 5 percent incombustible solids,
having a heating value of approximately 1000 Btu per pound as fired.
TYPE 5 WASTE
   By-product waste. Gaseous, liquid, or semi-liquid materials such as tar, paints,
solvents, sludge, and fumes from industrial operations.
TYPE 6 WASTE
   Solid by-product waste  such as rubber,  plastics, and wood waste, from
industrial operation.

                                  -U-
UNDERFIRE
   Any air, controlled with respect to quantity and direction, that is supplied
beneath the grate and that passes through the fuel bed.

                                  -V-
VAPOR PLUME
   The stack effluent consisting of flue gas made visible by condensed water
droplets or mist.
VITRIFICATION
   A process of permanent chemical and physical change in a ceramic body at
high temperatures, with the development of a substantial proportion of glass.
VOLATILE MATTER OF REFUSE
   The weight loss of a dry sample on heating to red heat in a closed crucible.
                                  -W-

WALL
  A vertical side or end of a chamber including refractory, insulation, brick, and
steel.
  1.  Air-cooled wall — A  wall  in which there is a lane for the  flow of air
     directly in back of the refractory.
  2. Battery wall - A double or common wall between two incinerators, both
     faces of which are exposed to heat.
  3. Bridge wall  - The furnace wall that separates the fuel-burning portion
   ' from  the  rest of the furnace or system. Also, a partition wall between
     chambers over which the combustion gases flow.
Glossary                                                            153

-------
    4. Core wall — In a battery wall, those courses of brick none of which are
      exposed on either side.
    5. Gravity wall — A wall supported directly by the foundation or floor of a
      structure.
    6. Insulated wall  — A wall in which insulation is placed directly behind the
      refractory.
    7. Supported wall — A furnace wall that is anchored to -and has- its weight
      transferred to  a  structure (usually steelwork and castings) outside of the
      high-temperature zone.
    8. Unit suspended wall — A furnace wall  or panel that is supported by
      hanging  from overhead  steel.

 WORKABILITY
   The  combination  of properties that permits refractory mortars, plastic refrac-
 tories, and ramming mixes to be placed or shaped with a minimum of effort.
 WHEEL LOAD
   The  load on any crane  wheel with the trolley and lifted load (rated capacity)
 positioned on the bridge to give maximum loading.
 WINDBOX
   A chamber below the grate or surrounding a burner, through which air- under
 pressure is supplied for combustion of the fuel.
154                                         MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
                             14.  BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Abplanalp, G. H. "Specifications and  Legal Responsibility,"  Proc. 1966  Nat. Incinerator
 Conf., New York, N. Y., May 1966.
 Abplanalp, G. H.  and Stephenson, J. W.  "Regulation of Refuse Incinerator Design by
 Public Agencies," Amer. J. Public Health, 50(8), pp. 1155-1162, August 1960.
 Adams, D. F.  "European Air Pollution,  1964," J. Air Poll. Control Assoc., 75(8), pp.
 375-379, August 1965.
 "Incinerator Plants Closed Circuit TV Cuts Labor Costs," Air Engineering, 7(7), July 1965.
 Albinus, G.  (Incineration of Refuse-Fundamental Considerations on the Problem of Trash
 Disposal by Incineration),  Brennstoff-Waerme-Kraft, 14(5), pp.  215-217, May 15, 1962
 (Eng. Trans.).
                          •
 "A Dust-Free Incinerator," The Amer. City, pp. 92-95, January 1958.
 "Bridgeport Incinerator Utilizes Sewage Plant Effluent," The Amer. City, 74(1), pp. 82-84,
 January 1959.
 "A Regional Approach to Refuse Disposal," The Amer. City, 79, pp. 94-95, June 1964.
 "A Ram-Fed Incinerator," The Amer. City, 79, pp. 69-72, December 1964.
 'TV to Monitor Incinerator Operation," The Amer. City, 8(1), p. 34, January 1965.
 "Incinerator-Residue Study Under Way," The Amer. City, March  1965.
 "Incinerator Fly-Ash Meter Under Development," The Amer. City,  80(4), p. 21, April
 1965.
 "Precautions for Tepee-Type Burners," The Amer. City, 52(5), p. 44, May  1967.
 "London to Generate Power from Refuse," The Amer. City, 82(5), p. 52, May  1967.
 "Refuse is the Sweetest Fuel," The Amer. City, 82(5), pp. 116-118, May 1967.
 "New Precipitators for Old Incinerators," The Amer. City, 82(8), August  1967.
 "Tests Promise Better Incinerators," The Amer. City, 82 August 1967.
 Municipal Refuse Disposal, Amer. Public Works Assoc., 2nd ed., 528 pp., 1966.
 "The  Munich Refuse  Incineration Power Plant,"APWA Reporter, 30(9), September  1963.
 "Test Code for Determining the Properties of Fine Particulate Matter," Power Test Lodes
 PTC 28-1965, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, N. Y., July  1965.
 Andritzky, M. (Garbage Power Plant Munich), Brennstoff-Waerme-Kraft, 14(5), pp. 232-
 233, 1962 (Eng. trans.).
 Andritzky,  M., (Second Stage  of the Munich Refuse Power Station, Brennstoff-Waerme-
 Kraft, 16(8), p. 403, August 1964  (Eng. trans.).
 Angenend, F.  (The State  of Refuse Incineration in  the USA), Brennstoff-Waerme-Kraft,
 17(8), pp. 396-398, August  1965 (Eng.  trans.).
 Baeher,  J. H.  and Ranard, E. D. "Use of  Mathematics Planning Models to Predict
 Incineration Requirements," Proc.  1968 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May
 1968.
Bachl  H  and Maikranz F. (Experience with Refuse Incineration In A High Pressure  Steam
Power Station), Energie, 17(8), pp. 317-326, August 1965 (Eng. trans.).
Bailie, R. C., Donner, D.  M. and Galli, A. F.  "Potential Advantages of Incineration in
                                       155

-------
Fluidized Beds," Proc. 1968 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May  1968.
"Regulation 2. Bay Area Air Pollution District," San Francisco, California, 51 pp., May 4,
1960.
Belyea, H. A., Johns, R. W., Taylor, F. W.  and Surh, W.  "Stack Emission Collector, " Air
Pollution Control Division of the Department of Works of the Municipality of Metropolitan
Toronto, Preprint, 1962.
Bender, B. J.  "Incineration Plant-Plus," Power 111(1), pp. 62-64, January  1967.
Beorse,  B., Kurtz, P.,  Mizushima,  J., Chipman,  R. D.  and Bush, A. F.  "Incineration
Studies: A Study of Air Pollution Control Aspects of Refuse Incineration," Calif. Univ., Los
Angeles, Dept. Eng., Rept. No. 55-27, 68 pp., July 1955.
Bishop,  John W.  and Deming,  L.  F.  "Economics  of Solid Waste Incineration of Solid
Wastes, New York City, pp. 51-59, 1967.
Black, R. J. and Davis,  P. J. "Refuse Collection and Disposal—An  Annotated Bibliography
1960-1961,"  U.S. Dept. Health, Education,  and Welfare, Div. Environ. Eng. and Food
Protection, Washington, D. C,pp. 1-63, 1963.
Black, Ralph  J., Muchick, Anton J., Klee, Albert J., Hickman, H. Lanier, Jr. and Vaughan,
Richard D.  'The National  Solid  Waste Survey, An Interim Report," Public Health Service,
Environmental Control Administration, Rockviile, Maryland, 1968.
Blakeney, B. C. and High,  M. D.  "Cleaner Air for North Carolina  (A Survey and Appraisal
for Air Pollution Problems)," N. C. State Board of Health, Raleigh Div. of San. Eng. and
Public Health Service, Div. of Air Poll., Washington, D. C., 62 pp., Sept.  1959.
Blanke, J. H.  D.  "Stokers for Incinerators—New Trend to Travelling Grates," Power Eng.,
64(2), pp. 82-83, February 1960.
Bloomfield, B.  D.  "Costs, Efficiencies and Unsolved Problems of Air Pollution Control
Assoc.," 17(1), pp. 28-32, January 1967.
Bopp, R.  (Considerations on Refuse Incineration), Aufbereitungs Tech., 6, pp. 271-278,
1965  (Eng. trans.).
Bowen, I. G.  and Brealey,  L.  "Incinerator Ash-Criteria of Performance," Proc. 1968 Nat.
Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May  1968.
Brancato, Biagio, (The  Incineration of Urban Solid Refuse in the Milan Plant), Fumi and
Polveri, 7(4), pp. 70-78, April  1967  (Eng. trans.).
Brown, Rudolf, "Comments on Characteristics of Incinerator Residue by P. Walton Pur-
don," 1966 Proceedings Institute for Solid Wastes, Chicago, Illinois, September 1966.
Bremser, L. W.  "Incineration," Proceedings National Conference on Solid Waste Research,
American Public Works Assoc.-Special Report, pp.  108-109, Chicago Illinois, December
1963.

(Garbage Incineration Plant Combined With  the Drying and Burning  of Sewage Sludge),
Brennstoff-Waerme-Kraft, 14(5), p. 231, 1962 (Eng. trans.).
(On the  State of Refuse Incineration in Germany), Brenstoff-Waerme-Kraft, 77(12), pp.
594-595, Dec. 1965. (Eng. trans.).
Brickie,  F.  J. "The Incinerator Crane," Proc. 1964 Nat. Incinerator Conf. New York, N. Y.,
pp. 61-68, May 1964.

Brickie,  F.  J. "The Incinerator Crane and Its  Application in the Building," Proc. 1966 Nat.
Incinerator Conf., New York, N.  Y., pp. 54-59, May 1966.
Bump, R.  L. "The  Use  of  Electrostatic  Precipitation for  Incinerator  Gas Cleaning in
Europe," Proc. 1966 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York N. Y., May 1966.
Bump, R. L.  "Conditioning Refractory Furnace Gases for Electrostatic Precipitator Appli-
cation," Proc. 1968 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May 1968.
156                                               MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
Bunyard, Francis L. and Williams, James D. "Interstate Ak Pollution Study-St. Louis Area
Air Pollutant Emissions Related to Actual Land Use," J. Air Poll. Control Assoc., 17(4), pp.
215-219, April 1967

Burkle, J. O., Dorsey, J. A. and Riley, B. T.  "The Effects  of the Operating Variables and
Refuse Types on the Emissions from a  Pilot-Scale Trench Incinerator," Proc. 1968 Nat.
Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May  1968.

Bush, Albert F.  "Physical Characteristics of Municipal Incinerator Emissions, Session II,"
19 p., Report No. 3, Conference on Incineration, Rubbish Disposal, and Air Pollution.
Caine, J. B.  "Some Metallurgical Aspects  of Incinerator Construction," Proc. 1964 Nat.
Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., pp. 99-104, May 1964.

Campbell, H. J. and Friedland, A. L.  "Considerations in Incinerator Design with Respect to
Community Acceptance," Proc. 1968 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May 1968.
Cannella, Albert A.  "The Refuse Disposal Problem," Public Works, February 1968.
Cederholm, C._ "Collection of Dust from Refuse Incinerators in Electrostatic Precipitators
Provided with Multicyclone After-Collectors," Proc. 1966 Intern. Clean Air Cong., London,
Part I, pp. 122-125,1966.
Cerniglia, V. J. "Closed-Circuit Television and Its Application in Municipal Incineration,"
Proc. 1966 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May 1966.
Cerniglia, V. J., "The Consultants Role in Furnace Design and Selection," Proc. 1968 Nat.
Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May  1968.
Cerniglia, V. J. and Campbell, H. J.  "We  Borrow from Steel  Industry to Reduce Problem of
Incinerator Maintenance," The Amer. City, 79, pp. 89-91, May 1964.
Challis, J. A.. "Three Industrial Incinerator Problems," Proc. 1966 Nat. Incinerator Conf.,
New York, N. Y., May 1966.
Chass, R. L.  "The Status of Engineering Knowledge for the Control of Air Pollution," Proc.
1962 Nat. Conf. Ak Poll., Washington, D.  C., pp. 272-280, 1963.
Chesarek,  R. F.  "Incinerator  Buckets and Grapples,"  Proc. 1964 Nat. Incinerator Conf.,
New York, N. Y!, May 1964.

Chesarek, R. F. "How to Select an Incinerator Bucket," The Amer. City, 79(8), pp. 80-82,
August. 1964.

"European Practice in Refuse Burning," Civil Engineering, pp. 40-41, September  1964.
"Planning for Incineration: Abstract of Papers," Civil Eng., 34:35, September 1964.
Clarke, J. F. and Faoro, R. B. "An Evaluation of CO2  Measurements as an Indicator of Air
Pollution," J. Ak Poll. Control Assoc., 16(4), pp. 212-218, April  1966.
Clarke, Samuel M. "Incinerating Plant Costs," Public Works, 95(9), pp. 122-123,  September
1962.

Cohan, L. J. and Fernandes, J. H.. "Potential Energy-Conversion Aspects of Refuse," Amer.
Society Mech. Eng., United Eng. Center,67-WA/PID-6, pp. 1-8,1967.
Cohan, L. J. and Sherrill, R. C.  "An Investigation of Combustion Air for Refuse burning,"
Proc. 1964 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May 1964.
Compton, C. R. and Bowerman, F. R.  "Waste Disposal Without Air Pollution," J. Ak Poll.
Control Assoc., 10, pp. 57-59, 95, February 1960.
"Modernization of the City Incinerator Plant (Eng. Report  to the City of Kenosha, Wis.),"
Consoer, Townsend and Assoc., Chicago, 111., 45 pp., November  1966.
Corey  Richard C  "Basic Studies in Incinerator Design," Report No.  3, Conference on
Incineration, Rubbish Disposal and Air  Pollution, 1(3), pp. 21-24, Ak Pollution Founda-
tion, Los Angeles, California.
Corey R C  "Definitions of Terms Used  in Incinerator Technology Informative Report No.
1," J. Ak Poll. Control Assoc., 75(3), pp.  125-126, March 1965.


Bibliography                                                                  157

-------
Cotton, Robert A. "In Incinerator Construction Refractories Make the Difference," Plant
Engineering, 1 7(11), pp. 118-119, November 1963.
Criss, G. H. and Olsen, A. R.  "Further Investigation of Refractory Compatibilities with
Selected Incinerator Slags, Part II," Proc. 1968 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y.,
May 1968.
Criss, G. H. and Olsen, A. R.  "The Chemistry of Incineration Slags and Their Compatibility
with Fireclay and High Alumina,"  Proc. 1968 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y.,
May 1968.
Cross, F. L. and Ross, R. W. "Effluent Water from Incinerator Flue-Gas Scrubbers," Proc.
1968 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May 1968.
Dahlmeyer, F.  "Inexpensive Method Solves Fly Ash Problems," Public Works, 93(8), pp.
105-106, August 1962.
Dammkoehler, A. R. "Inventory of Emissions for the City of Chicago," J. Air Poll. Control
Assoc., 16(3), pp.  151-155, March 1966.
"Darien, Connecticut Enlarges its Incinerator," Refuse Removal  J.,5(3), pp. 28-29, March
1962.
Decker, L. D. "Incineration Techniques for Controlling Emissions  of Nitrogen Oxides,"
Preprint...60th Annual Meeting, Air Poll. Control  Assoc., Cleveland, Ohio,  Paper No.
67-148, June 1967.
Deming, L. F.  "Navy Contemplates Steam Generating Incinerator," Public Works, 96(7),
pp. 92-94, July  1965.
Deming, LeRoy F. and Connell, John M.  "The Steam Generating Incinerator Plant," In:
Proceedings of the American Power Conference 28th  Annual Meeting, Chicago, 111., 28, pp.
652-660, April 1966.
Devorkin, Howard,  Chass,  Robert L., Fudurick, Albert  P.  and Kanter,  Carl V.  "Air
Pollution Source Testing  Manual,"  Air Pollution Control District, Los Angeles, California,
179 pp., November 1963.
Diamant, R. M. E.  "Modern Methods of Refuse Disposal  on the Continent," Heat, and
Ventilating Eng., 38(449), p. 329, December 1964.
Dickinson, J. E. "Air Quality of Los Angeles County (Technical Progress Report Volume
II)," Los Angeles County Air Poll. Control Dist., 306 pp., February 1961.
Droege, Henry  F.  "The Effect of  Using the  Auxiliary Gas  Correction  as Defined in
Regulation 2 of the Bay Area Air Pollution Control District for the Calculation of Pollutant
Concentrations from Incinerator Emissions," Information Bulletin, Bay Area Air Pollution
Control District, San Francisco, California, September 1962.
Duffee, R.  A..  "Appraisal  of Odor-Measurement Techniques," Preprint...60th  Annual
Meeting, Air Poll. Control Assoc., Cleveland, Ohio, Paper No. 67-12, June 1967.
Dvirka,  M. and Zanft, A. B.  "Another Look at  European Incineration Practices," Public
Works, 98(7), pp. 99-100, July  1967.

Easterlin, J. D.  "Complete Combustion with Minimum Excess Air," The Amer. City, 80,
pp. 99-101, February, 1965.

Eberhardt, H.. "European Practice in Refuse and  Sewage Sludge Disposal by Incineration,"
Proc. 1966 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May 1966.

Eberhardt, H.  "European Practice  in Refuse and Sewage Disposal by Incineration-  II,"
Combustion, 38(4), pp. 23-29, October. 1966.

Eberhardt, H. and Mayer, W. "Experiences with Refuse Incineration in Europe. Prevention
of Air and Water Pollution, Operation of Refuse Incineration Plants Combined with Steam
Boilers, Design and  Planning," Proc. 1968 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York N Y May,
1968.
158                                              MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
Edwards, L. V., "Smoke Density Measurement in Municipal Incinerators," Proc. 1966 Nat.
Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May 1966.

Engdahl, R. B.  "Combustion in Furnaces, Incinerators, and Open Fires," In: Air Pollution,
Vol. II, Pt. IV, pp. 3-36, ed. by A. C. Stern, 1962.

Engdahl, R. B.  and Sullivan,  J. D. "Municipal Incinerator Refractories Practice," ASTM
Bulletin, pp. 52-56, September, 1959.

Engel, W. and Von Weike, A. (Experimental Refuse Incineration Plant of the Dusseldorf
Municipal Works, Flingern Power Plant), Brennstoff-Waerme-Kraft,  14(5), pp. 234-236,
1962  (Eng. trans.).

"Philadelphia Keeps Building to Stop  Open Burning," Eng. News Record, 158(61), pp.
56-58, 61, July,  1957.

"Trash Burner Desalts Water Too," Eng. News Record, 171, pp. 19,23,  November. 1963.
" Refuse Furnace to Desalt Water," Eng. News Record, 175, pp. 23-27, August 1965.
Essenhigh, R. H.  "Burning Rate in Incinerators, Part I: A Simple Relation Between Total
Volumetric and Area Firing Rates. Part II: The Influence of Moisture on the Combustion
Intensity," Proc. 1968 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May 1968.
Essenhigh,  R. H.  and  Gelernter,  "Systematic Appraisal  of Incinerator Research Require-
ments," Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, 1967.

Ettinger, I., Braverman, M. M. and Jacobs,  M. B., "The  Use of the  Von Brand Filtering
Recorder in Evaluation of Incinerators and Smoke Abatement Devices," J. Air Poll. Control
Assoc., 8(2), pp. 120-123, August, 1958.
Favor, A. B.  "Record Keeping for Incinerator Plants," Proc. 1966 Nat. Incinerator Conf.,
New York, N. Y., pp. 107-113, 1966.
Feldstein, M., Coons, J. D., Johnson, H. C. and Yocom, J. E., "The Collection and Infrared
Analysis of Low  Molecular  Weight Hydrocarbons from  Combustion Effluents," Amer.
Industr.  Hyg. Assoc. J., 20, pp. 374-378, 1959.
Feldstein, M. "Studies on  the Analysis of Hydrocarbons from Incinerator Effluents with a
Combustible Gas Indicator," Amer. Industr.  Hyg. Assoc. J.,22, pp. 286-291, August 1961.
Feldstein, Milton. "Studies on the Analysis of Hydrocarbons from Incinerator Effluents
with a Flame lonization Detector," J. Air Poll. Control Assoc., 72(3), March 1962.
Fernandes,  J. H. "Incineration Air Pollution Control," Proc. 1968 Nat. Incinerator Conf.,
New York, N. Y., May  1968.
Fichtner, W. and Martin, F. "Service Requirements of a Modern, Large Refuse Incineration
Plant," Proc. 1968 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May  1968.
Fichtner, Wolfgang, Maurer, Karl-Georg and Muller,  Harold. "The Stuttgart Refuse Incin-
eration Plant,":  Layout and Operation Experience,"  The American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, 66-WA/PID-10, July  1966.
Fife, J.  A..  "Control of  Air Pollution  from Municipal Incinerators,"  Proc. Nat. Conf. Air
Poll., Washington, D. C., pp. 317-326, 1966.
Fife, J.  A.,  "Controlled Combustion for Solid Wastes Disposal," Heating, Piping, and Air
Conditioning, 40(3), 232, pp.  140-147, March. 1968.
Fife, J. A.. "European Refuse-Disposal," The Amer. City, pp. 125-128, September 1966.
Fife, J.  A.  "Refuse Disposal and the Mechanical Engineer," Heat., Piping, and Air Condi-
tioning, 38(11), pp. 93-100, November.  1966.
Fife, J. A. and Boyer, R. H. "What Price Incineration Air Pollution Control?" Proc. 1966
Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May 1966.
Bibliography

-------
First, M. W.  "Control of Haze and Odours from Curing of Plastics," Proc. Int. Clean Air
Cong., Part I, London, pp. 188-191, 1966.
Fischer,  F. (Die  Wiener Mullverbrennungsanlage. The Refuse Burning  Plant  Vienna.)
Brennstoff-Waerme-Kraft, 76(8), pp. 392-396, August. 1964 (Eng. trans.).
Fisher, M.  A.  and Langer, G.  "New Instrumentation in Municipal Incinerators,'' Refuse
Removal J., 5(1), pp. 10,12,28, January  1962.
Fleeming, Rodney R.  "Solid-Waste  Disposal. Part II.," The Amer. City, 81, pp.  94-96,
February 1966.
Flood, Leo P.  "Air Pollution from Incinerators - Causes and Cures," Civil Eng., pp. 44-48,
December  1965.
"Air Pollution in  Hillsborough County,  Florida," Fla. State Board of Health, Jacksonville,
Bureau of San. Eng., 39 pp., 1962.
"Rules of State Board of Health  (The  Sanitary Code of Florida Air Pollution- Chapter
170C-9)," Fla. State Board of Health, Jacksonville, (Supp. 27), 101-2A, October 1965.
Foster, W.  S.  "Follow the Charted Trail," Report No.  3, Conf. on Incineration, Rubbish
Disposal and Air Poll., 1(3), pp. 45-50, 1954.
Fox,  Earle B.  "49  Municipalities Join in County-Wide Incineration Plan, Public Works,
94(2), pp. 100-104, February  1963.
Fox, Earle  B.  "Cooperation Spells Economical Incineration," APWA Reporter, pp. 4,18,
July 1963.
Fox,  E.  B. "Incinerator  Operating Personnel," Proc.  1964 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New
York, N. Y., May  1964.
Frankel,  J. I.  "Incineration  of Process Wastes," Chem. Eng., 75(18),  pp. 91-96, August
1966.
Franz, N..  (Experiences with the Stuttgart Refuse  Incineration Plant), Brennstoff-Waerme-
Kraft, 79(2), pp. 71-76, February,  1967, (Eng. trans.).
Gerhardt, P.  "Incinerator to  Utilize Waste  Heat for Steam,"  Public  Works, 94(5),  pp.
100-101, May  1963.
Gilbett, Arthur N.  "CPM Assists Construction of Automated Incinerator," Public Works,
pp. 106-108, September 1966.
Gilbertson, W. E., Black, R. J. and Flieger, K.  "Meeting the  Challenge of Solid Waste
Disposal," Proceedings of 1966 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May  1966.
Coder, R.  "Bibliography on Incineration of Refuse," J. Air Poll. Control Assoc., 12(1), pp.
334-338, July  1962.
Coder, R.  "Incinerator Testing Programs," Proc. 1964 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York,
N. Y., pp.  157-160, May  1964.
Coder, R.  and Marshalla, A.  "Incinerator Testing Programs 1966," Proc. 1966 Nat. In-
cinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., pp. 231-234, May 1966.
Greeley,  A., Clarke, S. M.,  and Gould,  R.  H., "Design  and Performance  of Municipal
Incinerators in Relation to Air Pollution," Summary of the  Conference  on Incineration,
Rubbish Disposal  and Air Pollution, ed by F. R. Bowerman, 7(3), pp. 25-26, January, 1955.
Greenburg,  Leonard  "Problems of Rubbish  Disposal as Affecting  Air Pollution in New
York," Report No. 3, Conference on Incineration, Rubbish Disposal and Air Pollution, 7(3),
pp. 3-4, Air pollution Foundation, Los Angeles.
Gruber,  C.  W. and Schumann, C. E. "The Use  of Adhesive-Coated Paper for Estimating
Incinerator  Particulate Emissions,"  J.  Air Poll. Control Assoc. 72(8) pp 376-378 August,
1962.
Gruetzky, Werner  (Heat Technological  Measurements in a Refuse Incinerating Plant), 4(6),
pp. 211-214, June, 1963, (Eng. trans.).
Gruetsky, W.  (Thermal Measurements  on a  Refuse Incinerating Plant), Technische Uber-
wackung, 4, pp. 211-214, June 1966, (Eng.  trans.).


160                                              MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
Hampton, R.  K.  "Trends in Charging  Refuse into and Conveying Residue from  the
Furnace, Proc. 1964 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., pp. 69-75, May  1964.
Hangebrauck, R. P., Von Lehmden,  D. J. and Meeker, J. E.  "Emissions of Polynuclear
Hydrocarbons and  other  Pollutants from  Heat-Generation and Incineration Processes," J.
Air Poll. Control Assoc., 14(7), pp. 267-278, July 1964.

Hangebrauck, R. P., Von Lehmden, D. J. and Meeker,  J. E.  "Sources of Polynuclear
Hydrocarbons in the Atmosphere," Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio, Nat. Center for
Air Poll. Control, (PHS Publ. No. 999-AP-33>, pp. 48, 1967.

Hanstedt, W. (Planning of Refuse Removal and Utilization Plant in the Ruhr Region from
the View of Air Purity), Staub, 25(3), pp. 218-225, March, 1963 (Eng. trans.).
Harrington, W. M.  "Public Relations Considerations in Incinerator Plant Location," Proc.
1966 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., pp. 105-106, May 1966.

Harris, D.N., Huffman, J. R.  and Weiland, J. H.  "Another Look at New York City's Ak
Pollution Problem," 60th Annual Meeting, Air Poll. Control Assoc., Cleveland, O., Paper
No. 67-155, June 1967.

Hayden, J. L.  "New Incinerator Gives Complete Fly-Ash Control," Public Works, 90(10),
pp. 135-136, October. 1959.

Hayden, J. L. "Incinerator Model Convinces Public," Public Works, 95(1), pp. 94-95, July.
1964.
Heaney, F. L. "Furnace Configuration," Proc. 1964 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N.
Y., pp. 52-57, May  1964.

Heaney, F. L.  "Regional Districts for Incineration,''  Proc. 1968 Nat. Incinerator Conf.,
New York, N. Y., May 1968.

Hubert,  D. B. "The Nature of Incinerator Slags," Proc. 1966 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New
York, N. Y., pp. 191-194, May 1966.
Hopkins, Glen J. and Jackson, Roy L. "Solids Handling and Disposal," Public Works, pp.
67-72, January 1968.

Hotti, G. "Montreal Incinerator is Twofold Innovator," Power, pp. 63-65, January  1968.
Hovey, H. H. "Air Pollution  in Westchester," Westchester Cooperative Air Poll. Control
Study, Westchester County, N. Y., 86 pp., 1965.
Huch, R.  (Corrosion by  Hydrogen  Chloride  in Refuse Incineration  Plants), Brennstoff-
Waerme-Kraft, 18(2), pp. 76-79, February 1966 (Eng.  trans.).
Hume, N. B.  "History  of Efforts at  Incineration in the Los Angeles Area,"  J. Air Poll.
Control Assoc., 17(5), pp.  308-309, May  1967.
"I.I.A. Incinerator Standards," Incinerator Inst. of Amer., New York, N. Y., pp. 32, May
1966.
"Special Institute of America, Bulletin T-6 Incinerator Testing," Incinerator Inst. of Amer.,
pp. 17, June  1967.
"Bi-State Study of Air Pollution in the Chicago Metropolitan Area," Indiana State Board of
Health, 111. Dept. of Public Health and Purdue Univ., 151 pp., 1959.
Ingram,  W. T.  "Sampling and Monitoring Incinerator Gases," Amer. Public Works Assoc.
Yearbook, pp.'214-217, 1963.
Iversen, N  S  "District Heating and Incineration in a Danish Town; Their Role in Reducing
Air Pollution^" Proc. Int. Clean Air Cong., Part I, Paper III/ll, London, pp. 71-72, 1966.

Jacobson, Alvin R. "Incinerator Hoist," Public Works, 93(1), p. 130, January 1962.
Jacobson, Alvin R.  "Cyclones Clean Incinerator Stack Discharge," Public Works, 93(5), p.
170, May 1962.
Bibliography

-------
Jacobson, Alvin R. "Refuse Collection and Disposal in Europe," Public Works, 93(5), p. 170,
May 1962.
Jacobson, A. R.  "Sewerage and Refuse Digest," Public Works, 93(10), p. 150, October
1962.
Jager, B.  (New General Directions for the Testing of Refuse), Aufbereitungs Tech., 5(5),
pp. 257-261, 1965 (Eng. trans.).
Jenkins, H. N. and Harris, T. O. "Interstate Air Pollution Study. Phase II Project Report IV.
Odors-Results of Surveys," Public Health Service, Div. of Air Poll., Cincinnati, Ohio, 53
pp., June  1966.
Jens, W. and Rehm, F. R.  "Municipal Incineration and Air Pollution Control," Proc. 1966
Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., pp. 74-83, May. 1966.
Johnson, H. C., Coons, J. D. and Keagy, D. M. "Can Municipal Incinerators Meet  Tomor-
row's Regulations?" 59th Annual Meeting Air Poll. Control Assoc., Paper No. 66-131, San
Francisco, Calif., June 1966.
Johnson, H. C., Ping, A. Y., Clayton, L. and McEwen, T. "Emissions and Performance
Characteristics of Various Incinerators in the San Francisco Bay Area," Bay Area Air Poll.
Control Dist., San Francisco, Calif.,  p. 13, August  1964.
"State and Local  Public Facility Needs and Financing-Chapter 7-Solid Wastes Collection
and Disposal Facilities," Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Cong., December  1966.
Kachulle, C. (Refuse Incinerating Plants With or Without Heat Utilization.  A Main  Subject
of the Third Conference of the International Working Group for Refuse Research, Trient,
1965), Brennstoff-Waerme-Kraft, 17(%), pp. 391-395, August 1965 (Eng. trans.).
Kaiser, E. R.  "Refuse Composition and Flue-Gas Analysis from Municipal Incinerators,"
Proc. 1964 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., pp. 35-51, May 1964.
Kaiser, E.  R.   "Combustion  and Heat Calculations for  Incinerators," Proc. 1964 Nat.
Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., pp. 81-89, May 1964.
Kaiser, E. R.  "Chemical Analyses  of Refuse Components," Proc. 1966 Nat. Incinerator
Conf., New York, N. Y., pp. 84-88, May 1966.
Kaiser, E. R.  "A New Incinerator Control Meter is Needed," Proc.  1966 Nat. Incinerator
Conf., New York,  N. Y., pp. 176-182, May 1966.
Kaiser, E. R.  "The Incineration of Bulky Refuse," Proceedings of  1966 Nat. Incinerator
Conf., New York, N. Y., May 1966.
Kaiser, E. R.  "Prospects for Reducing Particulate Emissions  from Large Incinerators," J.
Air Poll. Control Assoc., 16(6),  p. 324, June  1966.
Kaiser, Elmer  R.  "The  Need for  a Test  Code  for  Large  Incinerators, 67-WA/PTC-4,
American Society  of Mechanical Engineers, United Engineering  Center, New York, N. Y.
Kaiser, E. R.  "Composition and Combustion of Refuse," Proc. MECAR Sympos., Incin-
eration of Solid Wastes, New York, N. Y., pp.  1-9, 1967.
Kaiser, E. R. "The Sulfur Balance of Incinerators,"  J. of the Air Poll. Control Assoc., 18(3),
pp. 171-174, March  1968.
Kaiser, E. R.  "The Incineration of Bulky Refuse II," Proc. 1968 Nat. Incinerator Conf.,
New York, N.Y., May 1968.
Kaiser, E. R. and Eriedman, S. B. "The Pyrolysis  of Refuse Components," Preprint, New
York Univ., N. Y., 18 p., 5 refs., 1967.
Kaiser, E. R. and Trautwein, W. B.. "Prevention of Fuse Deposits on Incineration Walls,"
Proc. 1968 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May 1968.
Kaiser, E.  R.,  Zeit, C. D.  and  McCaffery, J.  B.  "Municipal  Incinerator  Refuse  and
Residue," Proc. 1968 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N.  Y.,  May  1968.
Kalika, P. W. "The Effects of Variations in Municipal Refuse  on Some Incinerator Design
Parameters," J. Eng. Power, 90(2), pp. 1-8, April 1968.
162                                              MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
 Kalika, P. W.  "Influence Coefficients to Relate Municipal Refuse Variations to Incinerator
 Design,' Proc. 1968 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May 1968.
 Kalkhoff, A. W. "Incineration vs Air Pollution-A Necessary Divorce," Proc. of 1966 Nat.
 Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May 1968.

 Kallenbach, K.  (Trash Incineration  on Plant with Roller  Grate Firing for the City of
 Hagen), Brennstoff-Waerme-Kraft, J6(8), pp. 406-407, August 1964  (Eng. trans.).
 Kammerer, H. F. (Waste Incineration Plant with Heat Utilization in Stuttgart), Brennstoff-
 Waerme-Kraft, 14(10), pp. 476-478, 1967  (Eng. trans.).
 Kampschulte,  J.  (Garbage  Incinerators in  Hamburg and  their Extension Through  the
 Addition  of Von-Roll-Incinerators),  Brennstoff-Waerme-Kraft,  14(5), pp.  228-231,1962
 (Eng. trans.).

 Ranter, C.  V.,  Lunche, R. G.   and Fudwick,  A. P.  "Techniques of Testing for  Air
 Contaminants from Combustion  Sources," J. Air Poll. Control Assoc., 6(4), pp.  191-199,
 February  1957.

 Katz, M. "Air Pollution in Canada-Current Status Report," Amer. J. Public Health, 53, pp.
 173-184, February  1963.
 Rearing, Samuel J.  "Solid Waste Disposal:  Where do we go from Here?" Department of
 Sanitation, New York, N. Y.

 Kern,  A.  (Views on the Design of  Modern Incineration Installations for  Urban Trash),
 Brennstoff-Waerme-Kraft, 14(5), pp. 226-227, 1962 (Eng. trans.).

 Kirov, N. Y. "Emissions from Large Municipal Incinerators and Control of Air Pollution,"
 Clean Air (2), pp. 19-25, September 1967.
 Kmoch, H.,  "Automatische Steuerung Von Mullverbrennungsanlagen," (Automatic Control
 of Refuse Incineration  Plants), Brennstoff-Waerme-Kraft, 16, pp. 402^403,  August. 1964
 (Eng. trans.).

 Knoll, H. (Refuse  Incinerating Plant  of the City of Nuernberg), Brennstoff-Waerme-Kraft,
 17(12), p. 595, December 1965  (Eng. trans.).
 Kreichelt, Thomas E.   "Air Pollution Aspects  of Tepee Burners  Used for Disposal  of
 Municipal Refuse," Public  Health Service, Division of Air Pollution, Cincinnati, Ohio,
 999-AP-28, 39 pp,,, September 1966.
 Larkin, J. F. "Waste Heat Utilization at Hempstead-Merrick  Refuse  Disposal Plant," Proc.
 1964 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., pp. 95-98, May 1964.
 Lauer, J. L.  "Incinerator Temperature Measurement How, What, and Where," Proc. 1964
 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., pp. 165-169, May 1964.
 Lenehan, Joseph W. "Air Pollution Control in Municipal Incineration," J. Air Poll. Control
 Assoc., 72(9), pp. 414^17, September 1962.
 Lieberg, Owen S. "Heat Recovery from Incinerators, Part 2,"  Air Conditioning, Heating and
 Ventilating, 62(1),  pp. 73-74, July 1965.
 Link, P. F.  "Incinerator Refractory Enclosures," Proc. 1964 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New
 York, N.Y., pp. 58-60, May  1964.
 "Session II,  Incineration: Advantages and Disadvantages,"  Report  No.  3, Conference on
 Incineration, Rubbish Disposal and Air Pollution, 1(3), p. 28, Air  Poll. Foundation, Los
 Angeles, Calif.
 Ludwig J H  "Status  of Current Technology in the Control of Emissions to the Atmo-
 sphere," 90th  Cong. (Air Pollution  - 1967, Part IV (Air  Quality Act), Hearings before
Subcommittee on Air and Water  Poll, of the Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate, pp.
2274-2277, May  1967.
Ludwig J H and Spaite, P. W.   "Control of Sulfur Oxides Pollution: The Challenge to the
Bibliography

-------
Chemical Engineer," Chem. Eng. Progr., 63(6), pp. 82-86, June  1967.
Lynch, F. J.  "Problems Encountered in the Operation of a Large Incinerator Plant," Proc.
1964 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., pp. 132-134, May  1964.
Maga, J. A.  "Air Resource Management in the San Francisco Bay Area," (Calif. State Dept.
of Public  Health, Bureau  of Air Sanitation),  Calif. Univ.,  Berkley, Inst. of Governmental
Studies, 42 pp., 1965.
Manchester,  Harland "Refuse is Reusable," Nation Civic Review, 57(2),  pp. 81-87,  Feb-
ruary  1968.
Mandelbaum, H.. "Air Pollution Studies at the New Plant in the Town of North Hempstead
Prove that Incinerators can Meet Tougher Standards," The Amer. City, 82(8), pp. 97-98,
August 1967.
Marshalla, A., Crawford, and Nolan, M.  "Conversion Factors for Source Emission Measure-
ments of Incinerator Flue Gases," Proc. 1968 Nat. Incinerator  Conf., New York, N. Y.,
May 1968.
Matsumoto,  K., Asukata, and  Kawashima, T.  "The Practice of Refuse  Incineration in
Japan," Proc. 1968 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May 1968.
Matusky, F. E. and Hampton, R. K.  "Incinerator Waste Water," Proc. 1968  Nat. Incinerator
Conf., New York, N. Y., May 1968.
Mayer, M.  "A Compilation of Air Pollution Emission  Factors for Combustion Processes,
Gasoline Evaporation, and Selected Industrial Processes," Public Health Service, Cincinnati,
Ohio, Div. of Air Poll.,  64 pp., January 1965.)
McGrath,  William H. "Garbage Can Burn Clean with Engineered Incineration," Consulting
Engineer, 17(2), pp.  106-112, August 1961.
Meissner,  H. G.  "Municipal Incinerator Selection,'" Public Works, 90(11), pp.  99-105,
November 1959.
Meissner, H. G. "Available Heat from Incineration," Power, pp. 80-83, May. 1960.
Meissner, H. G. "Incinerator Furnace Temperature—How to Calculate and Control It," J.
Air Poll. Control Assoc., 11(10), pp. 479-482, October 1961.
Meissner,  H.  G.  "The  Effect  of Furnace Design  and Operation  on Air Pollution from
Incinerators," Proc.  1964 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., pp. 126-J.27, May
1964.

Meissner, Harold G., "Air Pollution from Incinerators," Civil Eng., 34, pp. 40^1,  Septem-
ber. 1964.

Meyer, G. (Design and Operation of an MS Combustion-Cone Plant with Refuse Crushing
Installation), Aufbereitungs Tech., 5(3), pp. 135-138, March 1964 (Eng. trans.).

Michaels, A. "Problems of Rubbish Disposal as Affecting Air Pollution," Conf. on Incinera-
tion, Rubbish Disposal and Air Poll., Report No. 3,1(3), pp. 9-10, Los Angeles, Calif.

"Proposed Rules and Regulations," No. 1 Preprint, Mich. Dept. of Public Health,  Air Poll.
Control Section, 1966.

Mills,  J. L.,  Leudthe, K.  D., Wookich,  P. F.  and Perry, L. B.  "Emissions of Oxides of
Nitrogen from Stationary Sources in Los Angeles County (Report No. 3: Oxides of Nitrogen
Emitted by Medium  and Large Sources)," Los Angeles County Air Poll. Control Dist., Calif.,
61 pp., April 1961.

Mitchell, Robert J.  "Incinerator Program," Civil Eng. 33(6), p. 64, June, 1963.
Mitchell,  Robert J.   "Pa. County Selects Incinerators Over Landfill Operation," Refuse
Removal J., 6(8), pp. 10,26,28, August, 1963.
Moegling,  Oberhausen,  E.  (Practical  Aspects of Refuse Incineration on  the Example of
Essen Karnap), Brennstoff-Waerme-Kraft, 77(8), pp. 383-391, August  1965  (Eng. trans.).
164                                              MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
Moore,  H. Carlton  "Refuse Fired  Steam Generator at  Navy Base, Norfolk, Va.," Proc.
MECAP Sympos., Incineration of Solid Wastes, New York, N. Y., pp. 10-21, 1967.
Moore,  H. C. and Reardon, F. X.   "A Salvage  Fuel Boiler Plant  for  Maximum Steam
Production," Proc. 1966 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., pp. 252-258, May  1966.
Mueller, H. J. (Trash Incineration According to the Volund System), Brennstoff-Waerme-
Kraft, 14(5), pp. 219-223, 1962  (Eng. trans.).
Munson, James S. "Incinerator Helps Heat Shopping Center," Air  Eng., 5(2), February
1963.
Nader, J. S.  "Problems and Developments in Monitoring  Air Pollution Sources," Preprint,
Public Health Service, Nat. Center for Air Poll. Control, Cincinnati, Ohio, 16 pp., 1967.
"New Jersey Air  Pollution  Control  Code, Chapter II-Incinerators," New  Jersey State
Department of Health, Trenton, N. J., June  1968.
"Blueprint for Cleaner Air (Final  Report M-10)," New York City Council, Special Com-
mittee to Investigate Air Poll., 54 pp., December 1965.
"Air Pollution in Erie County (Comprehensive Area Survey Report Number  Two)," New
York State Air Poll. Control Board, Albany, N. Y., 96 pp., 1964.
"Air Pollution-Niagara County (Comprehensive Area Survey Report Number Three)," New
York State Air Poll. Control Board, Albany, N. Y., 96 pp., 1964.
"Air Pollutkm/Chemung County  [(Supplement  to Comprehensive  Area Survey Report
Number One (Greater Elmira)]," New York State Air Poll. Control Board, Albany, N. Y.,
15pp., 1965.
"Air Pollution/The Mid-Hudson: Greene, Ulster, Rockland, Columbia, Dutchess (Compre-
hensive  Area Survey Report Number Six)," New York  State  Air  Poll. Control Board,
Albany, N. Y., 132 pp., February 1966.
"Air Pollution in New York City, " Council of the City of New York, M-970, An Interim
Technical Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Air Pollution, June 1965.
Nickelsporn, H.  B.  "Factors in Incinerator Design," Public Works, 95(3), pp.  123-125,
March 1962.
Norwark, H. R. "The Measurement of Air and Gas Flow and Pressure as Applied to Modern
Municipal Incinerators," Proc. 1966 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y.,  pp. 171-175,
May 1966.
Novotny, J. J. "Incinerator Burns  Liquid Waste Safely," Plant Eng.,  18(12), pp. 116-117,
December 1964.
Nowak,  Franz  (Experiences With the  Stuttgart Refuse  Incineration Plant), Brennstoff-
Waerme-Kraft,7P(2), pp. 71-76, February 1967 (Eng. trans.).
Dates, E. T.  "Development in Refuse Disposal," The Sanitarian, 71(2), p. 61, November
1962.
Ochs, Hans-Joachim (The Use of Air Filters in Refuse Incineration Plants), Wasser Luft und
Betrieb, 8(9), pp. 535-537, September  1964 (Eng. trans.).
O'Malley, W.  R.  "Special Factors Involved in Specifying Incinerator Cranes," Proc. 1968
Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May  1968.
"Criteria for Incinerator Design and Operation," Air Poll.  Control Service, Ontario Depart-
ment of Health, May 1966.
"Air Pollution in the Portland Metropolitan Area," A Report of the Oregon State Sanitary
Authority, Oregon State Board of Health, pp. 21-22, September  1963.
Ostle, E. J. "Industrial and Municipal  Incineration of Refuse," Proc. of the Clean Air Conf.,
October  1967, National Society for Clean Air, London, pp. 141-159, 1967.
Palm, R.  (Composition of Refuse and Refuse Incineration), Aufbereitungs-Technik, 4(12),
pp. 561-565, December 1963 (Eng. trans.).
Bibliography

-------
Pascual, S. J. and Pieratti, A. "Flyash Control Equipment for Municipal Incinerators," Proc.
1964 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May  1964.
"Engineering Guides," Pennsylvania State Dept. of Health, Harrisburg, Air Pollution Com-
mission, March 1964.
Peters, Wulf (Methods of Refuse Incineration with Particular Consideration of the Condi-
tions in Germany), Aufbereitungs-Technik, 7(8), pp. 329-339, August. 1960  (Eng. trans.).
Phelps, G. J. "Removing Cinders from Municipal Incinerators," Amer. Public Works Assoc.
Yearbook, pp. 208-210, 1963.
"Air Pollution Problems from Refuse Disposal Operations in Philadelphia Dept. of Public
Health, Pa. Div. of Environmental Health, 8 pp., 1965.
Pope, M. and Deming, L. F. "Refuse for Fuel Makes Economical Saline Water Conversion,"
Combustion, 37(1), pp. 20-21, January. 1966.
Porteous, A.  "Towards a Profitable Means of Municipal Refuse Disposal," Amer. Society
Mechanical Eng,67-WA/PID-2, pp. 1-17, 1967.
Postman, B. F.  "Air Pollution Control in the City of New York," Amer. Industr. Hyg.
Assoc. J., 26(4), pp. 394-399, August, 1965.
"Squeezing Heat from Garbage with Modern Municipal Incinerators," Power, 108(3), pp.
68-70, March  1964.
"Barrel Grate Incinerator Rounds Out Third Test Year," Power, 168(78), May  1964.
"Montreal Incinerator is Twofold Innovator," Power, pp. 63-65, January 1968.
"Baghouse Cures Stack Effluent," Power Eng., 65, pp. 58-59, May  1961.
Preske, P. (Industrial Preparation of Municipal Refuse for Use as  a Fuel in Berlin), Silikat.
Tech., 72(11), pp. 502-508, 1961. (Eng. trans.).
Pritchard, W. L., Schumann, C. E.  and Gruber, C. W.  "Particulate Sampling by Adhesive-
Coated  Materials  (Progress Report  No. 1), Cincinnati Division of Air Pollution Control,
Ohio  Department of Safety, October 1965.
Pritchard, W. L., Schumann, C. E., and Gruber, C. W.  "Particulate Sampling by Adhesive-
Coated Materials (Progress Report No. 2)," Cincinnati Div. of Air Poll. Control, Ohio Dept.
of Safety, 111 pp., October 1966.
Pritchard, W. L.  Schumann,  C. E.  and Gruber, C.  W.  "A Procedure for the Rapid
Evaluation  of Incinerator Particulate Emissions by  Adhesive-Surface Sampling," 60th
Annual Meeting, Air Poll. Control Assoc., Cleveland, Ohio, Paper No. 67-53, June  1967.
"Europe's Latest Plant," Public Cleansing, 52(2), pp. 80-82, February  1962.
"100-Tons-a-Day-Plant for Bradford," Public Cleansing, 52,p. 390, September. 1962.
"New Incinerator for Frankfurt," Public Cleansing, 52(10), p. 436,  October  1962.
"Von Roll Blaze a Trail Round the World," Public Cleansing, 53(2), p. 59, February  1963.
"Incinerator for Hong Kong," Public Cleansing, 53(5), p. 230, May  1963.
"A New Grate for Refuse Burning," Public Cleansing, 53,pp. 270-271, June  1963.
"A Revolutionary Method of Refuse Incineration," Public  Cleansing, 55(11),  p.  532,
November 1963.
"When Should a Community Consider Incineration as a Method of  Refuse Disposal?" Public
Health, 41,pp. 351-354, October 1960.
"Control Techniques for Particulate Air Pollutants," Public Health  Service, National Air
Pollution Control  Administration, Washington, D.  C., Publication  No  AP-51  January
1969.
166                                              MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
"Solid Waste Handling in Metropolitan Areas," Public Health Service Publication No. 1554,
National Center for Urban and Industrial Health, February. 1964.
"Specifications for Incinerator Testing at Federal Facilities," Public Health Service, Nat.
Center for Air Poll. Control, Durham, N. C., October  1967.
"Washington, D. C.,  Metropolitan Area Air Pollution Abatement Activity," Public Health
Service, Nat. Center for Air Poll. Control, 212 pp., November 1967.
"A Compilation of Selected Air Pollution Emission Control Regulations and Ordinances,"
Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-43, National Center for  Air Poll. Control,
Washington, D. C., 1968.
"Incinerator Near Residential Area is Nuisance Free," Public Works.(SP(6), pp. 90-91, June
1958.
"Incinerator Near Residential Area is Community Showplace," Public Works, 91(2), pp.
117-118, February  1960.
"Backhoe Solves Incinerator Problem," Public Works, 92(3), pp. 123-124, March 1961.
"Modification  of Incinerator Precipitator Baffle Saves $15,000 Per Unit,"  Public Works,
92(7), p.  174, July  1961.
"Refuse Disposal by Incineration," Public Works, 93(8), p. 138, August  1962.
"Pneumatic Conveyor Speeds Fly Ash Removal," Public Works, 96(4), p. 115, April  1965.
"An Incinerator for New Orleans," Public Works, 95(10), p. 150, October  1962.
"Bucket and Grapple Combination Add to Incinerator Efficiency," Public Works, P7(ll), p.
123, November 1966.
Purdom, P. Walton "Characteristics of Incinerator Residue," 1966 Proceedings Institute for
Solid Wastes, Chicago, 111., 1966.
Purdom, P. W., Schoenberger, R. J., Michaels, A.  and Bergsten, A.. "Incinerator Residue-A
Study of Its Characteristics," Preprint, Public Works Cong, and Equipment Show, Chicago,
111., September 1966.
Quirk, T.  P.  "Economic Aspects  of  Incineration vs Incineration Drying," Water Poll.
Control Fed. J., 36(1955), November 1964.
Quillen, Bill D.  "Low-Cost Refuse Burner  Eliminates Dump," Public  Work, 96(3), pp.
96-97, March  1965.
"Algiers Incinerator  Has a Modern Stoker System," Refuse Removal  J., 5(9), pp. 42-43,
September  1962.
"Baltimore Uses New Lift Trucks at Incinerator," Refuse Removal J., 6(1), p. 30, January
1963.
"Stockholm Uses Conical Burners to Aid Disposal," Refuse Removal J., 6(4), p. 16, April
1963.
"Arizona Supreme Court Rules for Private Haulers,"  Refuse Removal J., 7(2), pp. 18,28,
February 1964.
"Approaching World's Fair Opening Spurs New York Clean-Up," Refuse Removal J.,7(4),
pp. 14,22, April 1964.
"Berne  Switzerland, Makes  Thermal Power  from Waste," Refuse Removal J., 7(4), April
1964.
"Chicago Incinerator  Turns  Rubbish  into Saleable Products," Refuse Removal J., 7(2), pp.
18,28, February  1964.
"Darien, Conn.  Enlarges Its Incinerator," Refuse Removal J.,5(3), March 1962.
"Long I'sland Incinerator to Convert Salt Water," Refuse Removal J., 7(3), pp. 12,16,25,
March  1964.
"Boston Turning to Marine Incinerators" Refuse Removal J. 7(7), p. 4, July 1964.

Bibliography                                                                 167

-------
"Boston Seeks Federal Aid to Construct Two Incinerators," Refuse Removal J.,7(8), pp.
22-23, August  1964.
"Fishermen Fight Boston Plan to Incinerate Refuse on Ships at Sea," Refuse Removal J.,
7(11), p. 16, November 1964.
"Incinerate Refuse on Ships at Sea," Refuse Removal J.,7 (11), November 1964.
"From Modest Operation  to Three Incinerators...Contractor  Serves Cincinnati," Refuse
Removal J.,70(4), pp.  30-31, April 1967.
Regis, A. J.  "X-ray Spectographic  Analysis of Incinerator Slags," Proc. 1966 Nat. Incin-
erator Conf., New York, N. Y., pp. 195-198, May  1966.
Rehm, F.  R.  "Test Methods for Determining Emission Characteristics of Incinerators," J.
Air Poll. Control Assoc., 15 (3), pp. 127-135, March  1965.
Reilly, B.  B.  "Incinerator  and Sewage Treatment Plant Work Together," Public Works,
92(1), pp.  109-110, July  1961.
"Report of  the Governor's  Task Force on Refuse  Disposal," Rhode Island Statewide
Comprehensive Transportation and Land Use Planning Program, Providence,  R. I., February
1968.
Rispoli, J. A. "Continental Report: South America," Proc. (Part I) Intern, Clean Air Cong.,
London, 1966. (Paper  II/3), pp. 19-21. Also J. Air Poll. Control Assoc., 7(5(2), pp. 591-593,
November 1966.
Rogus, C.  A.  "Refuse Incinerator-Trends and Developments," The Amer. City, 75(7), pp.
94,98, July 1959.
Rogus, C.  A.  "Municipal Solid-Waste Disposal. Part IV. Incinerator Design," The Amer.
City, 77(5), pp. 106-108, May  1962.
Rogus, C. A. "Refuse Collection and Disposal in Western Europe, Part II. Refuse Collection
and Street Cleaning—Operating Techniques  and  Equipment," Public Works, 93(5), pp.
99-104, May 1962.
Rogus, C. A.  "Refuse Collection and Disposal  in Western  Europe, Part III. Salvaging,
Landfilling, and Composting," Public Works,P5(6), pp.  139-143, June 1962.
Rogus, C. A. "Refuse Collection and Disposal in Western Europe, Part IV.  Refuse Disposal
by Incineration," Public Works, 93(7)tpp. 71-76, July 1962.
Rogus, C. A.  "Municipal Incineration of Refuse," Proc. Amer. Society of Civil Eng. J. San.
Eng., 90(SA3), pp. 13-26, June 1964.

Rogus, C.  A.  "An Appraisal of Refuse Incineration in Western Europe," Proc. 1966 Nat.
Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., pp. 114-123, May  1966.
Rogus, C.  A.  "European Developments in Refuse Incineration," Public Works, P7(5), pp.
113-117, May  1966.

Rogus, C.  A.  "Control of Air Pollution  and Waste Heat Recovery from Incineration,"
Public Works, 97(6), pp. 100,103, June  1966.

Rogus, C. A.  "Incineration Can be Clean and  Efficient," Power, 111(11), pp. 81-85,
December. 1967.

Rohr, F. W.  "Suppression of the  Steam Plume from Incinerator Stacks," Proc. 1968 Nat.
Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May 1968.

Rohrman,  F. Z. and Ludwig, J. H.  "Sources of Sulfur Dioxide Pollution," Chem. Eng.
Prog., 61(9), pp. 59-63, September  1965.

Rousseau,  H.  "The Large  Plants  for Incineration of Domestic Refuse in the Paris Metro-
politan Area," Proc. 1968 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May  1968.
"Centralized Waste Disposal: An Answer to Air Pollution," Safety Maintenance 135(4) pp
43,44,57, April  1968.                                                   '



168                                               MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
 Salkowski, M. J. "Prototype Fly Ash Monitor for Incinerator Stacks," (Final Report April
 1963,-July 1964), IIT Research Inst, Technology Center, Chicago, IE., 54 pp., Report No.
 IITRI-C8015-5), July 1964.
 Salkowski, M. J. "Prototype Fly Ash Monitor for Incinerator Stacks," (Addendum to Final
 Report). IIT Research Inst., Chicago, 111., 23 pp., January  1965.
 "Statistics  on Particulate Contaminants-San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
 (Fast Quarter 1966)," San Diego Dept. of Public Health, Calif., 7 pp., March 1966.
 "Municipal Incineration of Refuse: Forward and Introduction," Progress Report  of the
 Committee on Municipal Practices. J. San. Eng.  Div.,  Proc. ASCE, P0(SA3), p. 13, June
 1964.
 Satyanarayana, R., Gelernter, T. R.  and Essenhigh, R. H.  "Scale up of Combustion Pot
 Behavior by Dimensional Analysis," Proc.  1968 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y.,
 May. 1968.
 Sawicki, E., Meeker, J. E.. and Morgan,  M. J.s  "The Quantitative  Composition  of Air
 Pollution Source Effluents in  Terms of Aza Heterocyclic  Compounds and Polynuclear
 Aromatic Hydrocarbons," Int. J. Air Water Poll., 9, pp. 291-298, 1965.
 Schneider,  C.  "A  Modern Incinerator  for $2,280  a Ton," The Amer. City,  77(9), pp.
 104-106, September 1962.
 Schoenberger, R. J. and Purdom, P. W.  "Classification of Incinerator Residue," Proc. 1968
 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May  1968.
 Schoenberger, R. J., Trieff, N.  M.  and Purdom, P. W.  "Special Techniques for Analyzing
 Solid Waste or Incinerated Residue," Proc.  1968 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y.,
 May 1968.
 Schroder, C. H. and Prowse, E. C.. "Silicon Carbide Refractories in Incinerator," Proc. 1966
 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., pp. 199-201, May 1966.
 Schueneman, J. J.  "The New Jersey Air Sanitation Program—A Review and Proposals for
 the Future," Preprint, 1964.
 Schulz,  J. F.  "Prefabricated Chimneys," Proc. of  1966  Nat.  Incinerator Conf., New York,
 N.Y.,May  1966.
 Schulz,  J. F.  "Factors Involved in the Design of High Rise Chimney and Chute Systems,"
 Proc. 1968 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May 1968.
 Schwartz, D.  "Lexicon of Incinerator Terminology," Proc.  1964 Nat. Incinerator  Conf.,
 New York, N. Y., pp. 20-31, May 1964.
 Sebastian, Frank P. "San Francisco's Solid  Waste Crisis," Civil Engineering, October  1967.
 Shequine, E. R. "Steam Generation from Incineration," Proc.  1964 Nat. Incineration
 Conf., New York, N. Y., pp. 90-94, May  1964.
 Shequine, E. R.. "Steam Generation from  Incineration," Public Works, 95(8), pp. 92-94,
 August  1964.
 Silva, A. "Mechanical Draft Fans for the Modern Incinerator," Proc. 1968 Nat. Incinerator
 Conf., New York, N. Y., May 1968.
 Smith,  H. K.  and Steinbacher, B.  C.  "Municipal  Incineration  in Southern California,"
 Report No.  3, Conf. on Incineration, Rubbish Disposal and Air Poll., 1(3), p. 27.
 "A Continuous Automated Incinerator," Smokeless Air,  57(140), Winter 1966.
 "Trouble Free Waste Incineration;" Southern Eng., 84(6), pp. 54-55, June 1966.
Spitzer,  E. F. "European Incinerators," 79(11), pp. 85-87, November 1964.
Stabenow, G.  "European Practice in Refuse Burning,"  Proc. 1964 Nat. Incinerator  Conf.,
New York, N. Y., pp. 105-113, May 1964.
Bibliography                                                                 169

-------
Stabenow,  G.  "Survey  of European  Experience  with High  Pressure Boiler Operation
Burning Wastes and Fuel," Proc. 1966  Nat.  Incinerator Conf., New York, N.  Y., pp.
144-160, May  1966.
Stabenow, G.  "Performance and Design Data for Large European Refuse Incinerators with
Heat Recovery," Proc. 1968 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May  1968.
Stellwagen, R. H.  "Calumet Incinerator-Chicago's Second,  Nation's Largest," The Amer.
City, 75, pp. 96-98, February 1960.
Stenburg, R. L., Hangebrauck, T P., Von Lehmden, D. J. and Rose, A. H.  "Effects of High
Volatile Fuel  on  Incinerator Effluents," J. Ail Poll. Control Assoc., 11, pp. 376-383,
August  1961.
Stenburg, R.  L. "Incineration of  Community Wastes," Amer. Public  Works Assoc.  Year-
book, pp. 212-215, 1962.
Stenburg, R. L.  "Modern Methods  of Incineration," Air Eng., 6, pp. 20-21,34, March
1964.
Stenburg, R. L. "Modern Incineration of Community Wastes," Proc. 1964 Nat. Incinerator
Conf., New York, N. Y., pp. 114-117, May  1964, also Civil  Eng., p. 40, September 1964.
Stenburg,  R.  L.,  Hangebrauck, R.  P., Von Lehmden,  D.  J.  and Rose,  A. H.  "Field
Evaluation  of  Combustion Air  Effects on Atmospheric Emissions from Municipal  Inciner-
ators," J. Air Poll. Control Assoc.,  72(2), pp. 83-89, February 1962.
Stenburg, R.  L., Horsley, R. R.,  Herrick, R. A. and Rose,  A. H.  "Effects of Design and
Fuel Moisture on  Incinerator Effluents," J.  Air Poll. Control Assoc.,  10(2), pp. 114-120,
April  1960.
Stephenson, J. W. "Get the Best  Incinerator for Your Engineering Dollar,'' Amer. Public
Works Assoc. Yearbook, pp. 198-203, 1964.
Stephenson, J. W. "Specifications and Responsibility for Incinerator Plant  Performance,"
Proc. 1964 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., pp. 8-12, May 1964.
Stephenson, J. W. "Incinerator Design with Operator in Mind," Proc. 1968 Nat. Incinerator
Conf., New York,  N.Y., May  1968.
Stephenson, J. W. and Cafiero, A. S.  "Municipal Incinerator Design Practices and Trends,"
Proc. 1966 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., pp. 1-38, May 1966.
Sternitzke,  R.  F. and Dvirka, M. "Temperatures and Air Distributions in Large Rectangular
Incinerator  Furnaces," Proc. 1968  Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May 1968.
Stickley, J. D.  "Instrumentation Specifications-The Key to a Good System," Proc. 1966
Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N.  Y., pp. 167-170, May 1966.
Stickley, J. D.  "Instrumentation  Systems for Municipal Refuse Incinerators," Proc. 1968
Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N.  Y., May 1968.
Stickley, J. D. and Orths, H. B.  "Instrumentation of an Incinerator:  Two  Case Studies,''
Proc. 1964 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., pp. 161-164, 1964.
Stockman,  R.  L.  and Hildebrandt, P.  W.  "Evaluation of  Air Pollution  in  the  Greater
Spokane Area (Spokane, Washington), " Washington State Dept. of Health, Olympia, Div. of
Eng. and San.,  94 pp., 1961.

Stratton, Melvin  "Efficient and Economical Disposal  of Combustible Waste Materials by
Burning in Suspension," Preprint, 1963.

Syrovatka, Z.  "New Incineration System for Town Refuse,"  Czeck  Heavy Industr  11 pp
15-18, 1966.                                                              "  '

Tanner, R.  "The New Refuse Incinerator of L. Von Roll A. -G," J. Air Poll. Control Assoc
12(6), pp. 285-290, June  1962.

Tanzer,  E.  K.. "Pneumatic Conveying for Incineration of Paper Trim," Proc. 1968 Nat.
Incinerator Conf.,  New York, N. Y., May 1968.


170                                              MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
Turk, A.  "Analytical and Odor Studies of Organic Gases in Air (Final Report Sept. 1 - Aug.
1966),  Preprint, 1966.

Van Keeck, L. W.. "A Modern Look at Refuse Incineration," Public Works, 90(9), pp.
123-125,184-186,188, September  1959.
Vaughn, D. and Black, J. "The Federal Solid Wastes Program," Proc. 1968 Nat. Incinerator
Conf., New York, N. Y., May  1968.

Velzy, C. R. and Velzy, C. O. "Unique Incinerator Develops Power and Provides Salt Water
Conversion," Public Works, 95(4), pp. 90-95, April  1964.

Venezia, R. and  Ozolins, G.  "Interstate Air Pollution Study-Phase II Project Report II.
Air Pollutant Emission Inventory," Public Health Service, Div. of Air Poll., Cincinnati, Ohio,
54pp., May 1966.
Voelker, Edward M. "Incinerator Standards," J. Air Poll. Control Assoc., 72(10), October
1962.
Voelker, E. M. "Essentials of Good Planning," Proc. 1964 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York,
N. Y., pp. 148-152, May 1964.
Voelker, E. M.  "The  Problems of  Applying Incinerator Criteria," J. Air Poll. Control
Assoc., 14(9), pp.  363-365, September 1964.
Walker, A. B. "Electrostatic Fly Ash Precipitation for Municipal Incinerators—A Pilot Plant
Study," Proc. 1964 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May 1964.
Walker, Alan B. "Air Pollution Control Equipment for Incinerators," Proc. MECAR Symp.,
Incineration of Solid Wastes, New York, N. Y., 1967.

Walker,  A. B. and Schmitz, F. W.  "Characteristics of Furnace Emissions  from Large
Mechanically Stoked Municipal Incinerators," Proc. 1966 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York,
N.Y., pp. 64-73, May 1966.

Walker, M. S. and O'Connell, W. J. "Enforcement  of Performance  Requirements with
Injunctive  Procedure,"  Proc. Tech. Meeting West Coast Section, Air Poll. Control Assoc.
3rd., Monterey, Calif., pp. 119-139, 1963.
Walton, P. P.  "Characteristics of Incinerator Residue," Proc. 1966 Inst. for Solid Wastes,
pp. 3849,1966.
Weber, C. E. "Experience in Conducting an Incinerator Technology Course," Proc. 1968
Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., May 1968.
Wegman, L. S. "Planning a New Incinerator," Proc. 1964 Nat.  Incinerator Conf., New York,
N. Y., pp.  1,7, May 1964.

Wegman, L. S. "Planning for Incineration," Civil Engineering, pp. 35-37, September 1964.

Wegman,  L. S.  "The  Cleanest Incinerator  Stack  Gases,"  The Amer. City, 82(5), pp.
89-91,142, May. 1967.
Wegman, L. S,. "An Incinerator with Refractory Furnaces and Advanced Stack Gas Cleaning
Systems,"  Proc. MECAR  Sympos., Incineration of Solid Wastes, New York, N. Y., pp.
3442,1967.
Weintraub, M., Orning,  A.  and Schwartz, C.  "Experimental Studies of Incineration in a
Cylindrical  Combustion Chamber,"  Bureau  of Mines (Report  of Investigations 6908),
Washington, D. C., 44 pp., 1967.
Weisburd, M.  I.  "Air Pollution Control Field Operations Manual (A Guide for Inspection
and Enforcement)," Public Health Service, Div. of  Air Poll., Washington, D. C., 291 pp.,
1962.
Westergaard V and Fife, J. A. "Flue Gas Cooling," Proc. 1964 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New
York, N. Y., pp. 170-180, May 1964.
Bibliography

-------
Williams, J. D., Ozolins, G., Sadler, J. W.,, Farmer, J. R.  "Interstate Air Pollution Study
Phase II Project Report VIII. A Proposal for an Air Resource Management Program," Public
Health Service, National Center for Air Poll. Control, May  1967.
Willet, H. P.  "Cutting Air Pollution Control Costs," Chemical Engineering Progress, 63(3),
March 1967.
Williams, R. E.  "Incineration Practice and Design Standards," Proc. Clean Air Conf., Univ.
New So. Wales, 2(27), p. 26, 1962.
Wilson, E. L.  "Statement before  the U.S. Senate Committee on Public Works, Subcom-
mittee on Air and Water Pollution, May 1962," Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute Inc.
Winkler, T. E. "Suburban Communities Join to Plan Refuse Disposal," Public Works, 96(2),
pp. 88-90, February 1965.
Winkler, T. E.  "Incinerator Serves Suburban Communities," Public Works,  9(5(12), pp.
74-77, December 1965.
Wise, K. R. "An Emission Sampling Device Installed, Operated, and Retrieved from Ground
Level," (Master's Thesis), for the Degree of Master of Science in Mechanical Eng., Oregon
State Univ., 32 pp., 1966.
Wolf, Karl  W.  "State and  Local  Public Facility  Needs and Financing,"  Joint Economic
Committee, 89th Congress, Volume I, Public Facilities Needs, Chapt. 7, December 1966.
Wolf, M. and Jacobi, J. W.. (Refuse Burning), Mullverbrennung. Brennstoff-Waerme-Kraft,
18(4), pp. 169-170, April 1966. (Eng. trans.).
Wolf, M. and Jocobi, J. W. (Refuse Incineration), Mullverbrennung. Brennstoff-Waerme-
Kraft, 19(4), pp. 191-193, April 1967 (Eng. trans.).
Wolfe, Harry B. and Zinn, Robert E. "Systems Analysis of Solid Waste Disposal Problems,''
Public Works, September 1967.
Woodland,  R. G.,  Hall, M.  C. and Russel,  R. R.  "Process for Disposal of  Chlorinated
Organic Residues," J. Air Poll. Control Assoc., 75(2), pp. 56-58, February  1965.
Woodruff, P.  H. and  Larson, G. P. "Combustion Profile of a Grate-Rotary Kiln Inciner-
ator," Proc. 1968 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New  York, N. Y., May  1966.
Woodruff, P.  H. and Wene,  A. W. "General Overall Approach to Industrial Incineration,"
Proc. 1966 Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., pp. 219-225, May 1966.
Wotschke, J.  (Universal Waste Removal and Its Realization with the Flame Chamber
Melting Process), Brennstoff-Waerme-Kraft, J6(&), pp. 383-391, August  1964 (Eng. trans.).
Wronski, W., Anderson, E. W., Berry, A. E., Bernhart, A. P. and Belyea, H. A. "Air Pollution
Considerations in the Planning and Zoning of a Large Rapidly Growing Municipality," J. Air
Poll. Control Assoc.,7i5(3), pp. 157-158, March 1966.

Wuhrmann, K.  A.  (Possibilities and Limits of Refuse Incineration), Aufberetungstechnik
Zeitshrift fur die fester Rohstoffe, 5(9), pp. 506-507, September 1964 (Eng. trans.).
Wuhrmann, K. "Which Method for Rural Areas—Incineration or Composting?" Compost.
Sci., 6(1),  pp. 1-18, Spring, 1965.
Wuhrmann, K. A.  "Pros and Cons of Heat  Recovery in Waste Incineration," 1967 Pro-
ceedings Institute for Solid Wastes, Chicago, 111.
Wylemann,  E. H., Stahlechmidt and Hug, F. O. (Refuse Disposal by the Combination of
Composting and Incineration), Aufbereitungs Tech., 6(5), pp. 289-291, 1965. (Eng. Trans.).
Zankl, W,  (The Cell Grate Trash Disposal Installation), Brennstoff-Waerme-Kraft, 14(5), pp.
224-225, 1962 (Eng. trans.).

Zinn, R. E. "Progress  in Municipal Incineration Through Process Engineering," Proc. 1966
Nat. Incinerator Conf., New York, N. Y., pp. 259-266, May  1966.
172                                              MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
                    15.  APPENDIX
          INCINERATOR PLANT SUMMARY
    Data reported in questionnaires and from manufacturers' instal-
lation lists for 289 new and rebuilt plants and plant additions are
included in this Appendix. A blank space or (-) indicates no infor-
mation given in questionnaire.

    To fully understand this Appendix, please see Legend and Notes
at end of Appendix.
                            173

-------
                                                                            Table A-l.  INCINERATOR PLANT SUMMARY

:
5
'
a
,,
13
IS
"
3I

25
2 S
z "
n
NH M
"d
>
r
z
n >;
2
tn

?::.7.:t~.
Lib.,,,. N. V.
„.„,.„.„.,.
Cl.velo'iK) K'l., Or,,o
Pl,,il..ld.M....
!::!!
Alhombra, Colif.
Fl. V.. Ilium, Or'.
M,ddl.»«.n. Conn.
N«ir. Y«k, dm.
PDF' A-lhur, Onl.
BulMa, N.Y.

'orao-KJ, Colll.
Pvl Cheilgi, N.Y.
,..!.„.».,.
0 .-.I.. C.M.












..„„-.
c.«., a.




V..,
}',"""
"«
„,.
1918
1949
1948
1949
1950
195D
1950
1950
1951 (D)
WS1 (D]
1951 (D)
1951
1951
1952
1952

S7r
QM
00
OB
00
QM
OB
OB
PD-2
P & S
OM
OB
00
00
OD
OM
QD
PD-3, A
OD


"°"
N°"
H.,
N"
*,„
,N:
U:
»<(,.,«
N-
fle-
N«
N.~
S::
Now
N«-

=.„..„.
200
30
100
150
ISO
30
14°
60
dao

ADO
340
200
120
450
£0
300

«.!«..
B a c
FO
FD
FO
FD
B a c
FD
FO
FO
FD
B & C

B C
B C
I c
B C
B C

c,.




I





1
1
•'

2

~,
B;.



B,



B..

Br.
B..
B..
Br.
Br.


":•



Bu.



BL>.

Cr.
Bu.
Bu.
B-.
Bu.

Tiwn*
:::
»••
,.,
?.\
i..
I"
/..
Y.,
'"

vl.
«.
»:
'••
N.

	 COPJCI,.. 	 1
IM B°!^
» »"'h
100 Bo'ch
JO 6o,=h
,0 B.,ch
30 an,ch
JO Qalth
72 Bol=h
,0 B.,.b
!» £"!

133 Balcb
120 Balcb
100 Balch
113.5 Bfllch
150 Botch
" B°"h

T^7
C..t.
Mor,
Clrc.
ClFC.
Mo..
ClfC.
Man.
C.re.
C.rc.
C,rc.
ClFC.
Circ.

Cue.
c,«.
ClfC.
Cue.
Cue.
Clrc.

coXTo-
)

;
i
2
!
;
i
2
1
;
2
2
3


""•'"
?

«
J
2
'•
0
0

0
1
2
'
1
0




•
s
0
0
0
„

0


"°

„

Ch
:"
1

,'
,
i
;
,
t
1
i
1
i
1
i

—'•*
".'
70

100
165
;.
125

160
125
;«
146
90
120
1B5
7B
Stub

"'"."



as
140

125

170
140



160
75



'".


S

u
u''
u
u
u
•til
r"
u
V.,
yeil i

Fl,
0

°
«...
0
Nil no
NDIU
Han*

Nora.
0
D
O.'F
D
c





Mono


N:,.


No".


"•""







Noiw


No™


Nona


»'•-



..„.
,;.


None
BH
».;.
None
N«»
"-•
Noni


BH.BHw,
N™
E


sr.:S
Dir. Dump

)u. Dump
DIF. Dump
E'EE
si:: ;:::
«,...!
0,,. o™.
OlF. D>>mp
3if. Pump
DIF. Pump
D... Dump
DIF. Pump
Dir. Pump







Hon,



Non.
























o
z

-------
Table A-1 (continued).  INCINERATOR PLANT SUMMARY

L.M
41


45
46

4B

50




54

55
56
57
SB
59
60

61
4,





70
71
72
7:

75
76

77
7B
79
BO

Location
ilchanor, Onl.
.gma, Soik.
onto Monica, Calil.

dmonlon! Alia.
Ha m. an, N.Y.

4.w York Cily
Niagara Falli, N.Y.
S.E. Oakland Caunly
(« Ciy.J. Mich.
W.ilmounl Qua


Fl. Laudardola.Fla.

Hor.iord, Conn.
N*« York Clly
Dmaha, Nab.
Ph.lodglphla, Panno.
Provid.ne., R.I.
Rocin., Vflic.
P Minn
South Euclid, Ohio
Waihlnglan, D. C.
Young it o«n, Ohio
Ablnglon, P.nna.





Mil-auk.., Wltc.
Philodolphlo, P.nno

Pan Anhur, Ont,
Ouab.c, P.O.
Roeh..t.r, N.Y.
Bab len N Y

miTm'on^N.Y.
Chicago III
Eo.1°Ha!llo-'d,Conr..

Plant






Goniovoo.1









Saulh Shor,
Harro.gal.
Flotd Poinl
Rubblih

.3 M,. Oliv.l






Lmcaln Av..
Bariiarn
Saulhaa.1


Woil Sid.


5,™ Fl...
Modlll


bY;,i,
19S2
1952 (D)
1952
1952
1953 (D)
1953
1953
1953
1953 (D)
1953 (D)

1953
1954 (0)
1954
1954

1954
1954
1954
1954
1954
1954
1954
1954
1954
1955

1 955 (D
1955
195S
1955
1955
1955
1955
1955
195S
1955
1956

1956
1956
1956
SO..CO
dl
QD
PD-5

00
QD
QM

QD
QD

QM

OM
QD,
PD-6
OD
I.PD-7
QM
OM
OM,MD
QD
OD
OM
QM

PD-B*
00
OM
PO-9
QM

QM
QM
OE

I.PD.1
PD-1

PD-11,
PD-12
PD-13

S.OIU1


Now
He-
Now

M.w

No*

No*
H.«
N.w
Now

N.~
N.w
R.-"bu,l,
Ra-buii,
New
EL..
N.w

N.w
New


N.~
Addition
Add, 1, on


Now
R.. built

N.w
N.«
Nan

,0.1/24 hr

300
300
340
150
300
1,000
240
450

ISO
200
500
250

600
1,000
375
300
160
60
150
100
500
100
200

ISO
200

35
300
250
300

360
450
390

300
720
2QO

handling
B a c
FD
B & C
B &C
FD
B &C
B a, c
B & C
sac

FD

B a c
B & C

B a c
B a c
sac
FD
FO
B & C
FD
B a C

B a c
sac
B a c

Bac



B B, C
B a c
B & C

sac
sac
B a c

No.



1




2


1
2
1

2
2
1


3
1

,

1

1




1


'
3


Typo
Br.

Br.
Br.

Br.
Br.
Br.
Br.


Br.
Br.
Br.

Br.
Br.
Br.


Br.
Br.

Br.
Br.


Br.



Br.
Br.
Br.

Br.
Br.
Br.

Buck.l.
Bu.


Bu.



Bu.
Bu.


Bu.

Bu.

Bu.
Gi.
Bu.


Bu.
Bu.

Bu.
Bu.
Bu.

Bu.



Bu.
Gr.
Bu.

Bu.
2Bu.,lGr.
Bu.
Tipping
.nclo.od
Yo.

No
No
Y.i
Ya.
Yo»

Y.i

Y..


No

Y.,
Ye.
No
No
Yo.
Ye.
si
No

No
Y.I
No

Yo!



Y.i
Y«
no

No
Y«.
No

Na.






































F..
Capacity,
120
75

120
75
150
250
120
150

75
100
155
125

150
250
125
150
50
75
50
125
100

90
10D
150
35
150
125
150
95
120
150
90
150
150
BO
100

Food
Batch

Botch
Balch
Balch
Batch
Conlin
Balch
Balch

Balch
Balch
Batch
Batch

Balch
Canlm.
Balch
lltob
Balsh
Balch
Balch

Balch

Batch

Balch
Botch



Botch
Botch
Botch
Botch
Batch
Bolch

*'£'
Circ.
Man.
Circ.
Clrc.
Clrc.
Clrc.
Trav.
Cue.
Clrc.

Circ,

Clrc.
Cue.

Circ.
Trov.2
Rock
Circ.
Rock
Rock
Rack
Rack
Man.
Rock

Rack
Tiav.l
Rock
Rock
Rock
C.re.
Circ,
Circ.
Circ.
Clrc.
Circ.
Circ.
Circ,
Rack
Rocfc
Soparalo
combu.lion
ctmmb.r
]


3
,
2

2
3

I


2

*
4
3
1
2

«
2

2
0


2


1

3


2
4
2
Spr0. o,
TIT
0
1

1
0
0



1




2

2
i
1
0

0
1

2



1


0
1
1
Y.i

?

1

£±
0
0
Y.s
No

0
0




o




0
0

0

0
0



0


D


0

0





Chi
Na.
1


1
,


1
1

1
1
3
1

2
2
1
\
,
1
2
1

,


1
1


E,

1
!
1
?
2
1
nnayi-h.
Total
130
150
129
120
150
100


175
175

150
175
175
100

179.5
200
150
B,
125
BO
165
125

175


BO
175




165


us'*
250
100
)gh.(.
Above
120



B5










1«5±


s:
120J
751
145


















Mechonico
draft
U
U,0,l

Ya»
U



Yn.

u
Yai



U
u,o
u,o
u
Y.i
Yo.,1
U,0

Yo.


Yo.
U,0


U




u'
Yo.
J,0
Fly
"olol"
Non.



F


D
D

SB
D
D


0
D.F
D
D.WB.S

D.SC
D

C
S.St


SB




WB,S,
D

D
5
D

Tr.a.^0
Nonn




Nona




Nono







Sgltling

Nona



lilting


5.11 ling











Dl.po.o
Hon.




Sowo,




Nona







Sa'^r

Norw
Rocirc.






Raci.c.


Nono







Wn.to
hoot
Nor»

BH.SD

None
BH.BKW




Nt,™

Nan.


None

Nona
E

None
Nona
Nono


He-no


BH





BMW


p


Ro.lduo
hondlin,
Dir. Dun
Dir. Dual

Dir. Dum
Dtr Oum

Cany.yor

Dlrl Dam

Dir Dump
Dir. DUIM
Dir. Dump
Dir. Duma

Dir. Dump
Com.
Dii. Dump
Cow.ro.
Dir. Dump
Dir. Dump
Dir. Dump
Oil. Dump

Dli. Dump

Dir. Dump

Dit, Dump


Dir. Dump
Dir. Dump
Oir. 0«mp
Con-oyor

Dir. Dump
Dtr. Dump
Dir. Dump

Salvoo.































M.lol







Nol«

































x





-------
                                                                                             Table A-1 (continued), INCINERATOR PLANT SUMMARY
                                                                                                                                                                                                                  In. Dump





                                                                                                                                                                                                                  >.,. Dump
O

-------
Table A-1 (continued).  INCINERATOR PLANT SUMMARY

121
123

135
126


129



114


137
13S



142
141


1«<
HE
149
151
152
153


15i
151
159
160

162
163

W.ll.iley, Man.

Man
BrodloTj.'p.a™.
Cl«**1dng, Ohio


Ph.lad.lph^Po.






Norwood, Ohio
Pommoulh, Va.
Ill, Ohio


Darl.n, Conn.
0.1a»



b"l
1 959 [D)
1959
1959
1959 (D)
1960
I960
1960

1960



1961
1961
1961
1961
1961 (D)
1961


1962
1962
1962
1963
1962
1963
1)67
1962
1963
,963


,963
,963
,963

1964
ef
data
QD
QD
PD-24,
QD
QD
PD-25
OD
QM
PO-26
OD
OD
OD
PD-25
QE
QD
QD
QD
QD
QM
QD

PD-35,
27
QD

QE
PD-28
QD
OD
OD
MD,I
QO
PD-29
QO
QD
QM.MD
OD
OE
QD
00
Slalul
N.w
N.w
N.w
Addilion
N«w
»"

»..
«I



N.H
N.w
Now
N.w
Now
N.w
N.w

Addition
N..
N.w

N.w
Now
N.w
""
N—
N „

Addition
Maw
Addition
Rebuilt

N.-
Copooiir,
165
300
200
200
5«
300
600
450


100
500
220
1000
150
350
225
500

70
500
200

220
300
400
1000
360
200
500
1200
175
250
60
720

60
600
240
100
100
R.ium.
handling
B S.C
B & C
OSC
B &C
BiC
SAC
B* C
BS, C
B & C

FD
B & C
B & C
B & C

BB.C
a &c
B & C
6 S.C
B &C
B & C
B & C
B JVC
B & C

B & C
B & C
B & C
B & C
B& C
B & C
B &VC
B S, C
B 6 C
B S C
a & c
FD
B & C
B & C
B & C

No.
1


1
2
1
2
,



2


1
1


1
2
1

j
2
*
3
3
,

2


,
'
T«P«
Br.
Br.

Br.
Br.
Br.
Br.
Br.


Br.
M
Br.

Br.
Br.
Br.
Br.
Br.
Br.
M
'"
Bi.

Br.
Br.
Br.
Br.
Br.

Br.
Br.
Br.


Br.
B..
B>.
Bucko |J
Gr.
Bu.


Bu.
Gr"

1 Bu.,
IGr.



Gr.

Gr.
Bu.
Bu.
Bu.

Bu.
'"
Bu.

Gr.
Gr.
Gr.
Gr.
Bu.

Bu.
Bu.
Gr
Gr.

Gi.
Gi.
Gr.
Tipping
floor
No
Y«j
Y«.
Y.i
£1

No

Voi
No
No
Yet

Y»
;:•
No


No
.•
Yoa

No
No
No*
E

No

No
No
Y"
No
Ne

No.
2
1
1
2
4
2

J
3
2
2

2
2

2
1

2
1

2

2
2
2
J
2
3

2

2
1
2
2
2

toni/24hr
75
300
200
100
125
250

300
150
SO
BO

250
110
250
175
225
125
50
70

100

110
150
200
250
100
250

57.S
250
240
200
to
300
130
SO
100

F«d
Botch
Batch
Baleh
Balch
Botch
Botch

Conrin
Botch
Baleh
Batch
Batch
Conrin.

Conlin,
Balch
Baleh
Canlin.
Balch
Botch



Batch
latch
latch
Con,!""
Can"":

Conlin.

Batch
Coniln.

Canlin.
lalch

'TP«
Rock
R«IP.
Rock
Rock
^.2
Rot."
Kiln

).clp.

Rock
Trav.J

Tra».2
!>cip.
Rock
Tro..2
Rock
Rock
lock
rav.
lack
l.clp.
l.cip.
lock
'rav. 2
•?r
KMn
R.clP.
iockC
'rav. 2
Fro».2
B.ciP.
Trov. 1
|oek
S.po.al.
2
2

,
2
0
1

3
2
2

0


2
2
D

3
1

3


1
0
0
3
2

2
1
2
0
0

0
2
chombir
1
1
,
1
'


t
2


2


1
2
|

1
1

1

0
1
J
1
2

1

3
1

2
3
1
Cooling
chanbgr

0



1


2




0
1
1

1
0



2

0


Q

0
1


0
Chlmn*yi.hBl9ht,Ii
No.
1
1
2
1
1
4


1



I

2
!
i
2

E
'
1

\
2
}
!

,

2
1

,
1
Total
175
Stub
175
ISO
160
200
40
175
5
150
125
155

200
80
175
40
165
60
In.

140


125
140
!£

140
130
55
40

143
150
46
Abova
131


130


9B


1361



127
60
35
145
44





106
137
,90

,50
137
,50
67

,40
46
dlr. Dump
Conv.vot
Mr. Dump
lit. Dump

CoiH.iror
Oil. Dump

Ir. Dump

cr.*y«'
Ir. Dump

onv.yor

!on,™la,
an..vor
,r. Dump
gm,,rol
Mr. Dump















Man.
Nen.









«.,.,.



Nan.


Non,
OM































"




-------
                                                                                       Tabla A-l (conlinued).  INCINERATOR PLANT SUMMARY

                                                                                                                                                            u.o,i
i

-------
Table A-2. ADDITIONAL INCINERATOR INSTALLATIONS, 1945 TO DATE3
              New and Rebuilt Plants and Plant Additions
City
Amarillo, Tex.
Ambridge, Pa.
Amsterdam, N.Y.
Arlington Co., Va.
Arlington Co.
Bedford, 0.
Bedfbrd, O.
Beverly Hills, Calif.
Berea, 0.
Bessemer, Ala.
Cheektowaga, N.Y.
Cheviot, 0.
Collingswood, N.J.
Columbus, O.
Corning, N.Y.
DePere, Wise.
Derby, Conn.
Detroit, Mich.
Detroit
Detroit
Detroit
Detroit
East Cleveland, O.
Ecorse, Mich.
Erie, Pa.
Ft. Worth, Tex.
Ft. Worth
Ft. Worth
Fall River, Mass.
Gloucester City, N.J.
Green Bay, Wise.
Huntington, N.Y.
Jacksonville, Fla.
Jacksonville
Kenosha, Wise.
Kowaskum, Wise.
Long Beach, N.Y.
Lima O
Lachine, Que.
Lexington, Va.
Maple Heights, O.
Mimico, Ont.
Plant





Garbage
Rubbish










24 St.
24 ST
Northwest
St. Jean
Central





Berry St.




5 St.
Riverside



_— — — ^— —
Year
U.C.
1960
1946
1949
1955
1946
1954
1946

1946
1946
1953
1949
1948
1947
1961

1955-56
1963
1-956-57
1957
'58, '60, '61
1946
1954
1953
1951
1955
1958
U.C.
1950
1963
1958
1947
1950
1952
1954
1951
1953
1945
1955
____ ^— — .— — • •
Capacity,
ons/day
250
150
120
300
300
60

300
50
60
150
60
60
150
80
75

510
235
850
300
1,200
100
90
200
245
190
125
600
60
60
150
350
300
120
24
200
200
150
30
150
150
^^•^^^^^•^^
Number
of
furnaces
2
2






1






1

2
1
2
1
4

1

2
2
2
2


1




2
2
2
Type stoker
Reciprocating
Rocking
vlanual
Circular
Circular
Circular

Circular
vlanual
vlanual
Circular

Circular
Circular
Circular
Rocking

Rocking
Rocking
Rocking
Rocking
Rocking
Circular
Circular
Circular
Circular
Circular
Rocking

Circular

Rocking
Circular
Circular
Circular
Circular

Reciprocating
Manual
Rocking
Reciprocating

 Appendix
                                                              179

-------
  Table A-2 (continued). ADDITIONAL INCINERATOR INSTALLATIONS,

                             1945 TO DATE3
City
Morgan City, La.
Melrose Park, III.
North Tonawanda, N.Y.
North Hempstead, N.Y.
New Rochelle, N.Y.
New Milford, Conn.
North York, Ont.
Newton, Mass.
Oshkosh, Wise.
Providence, R.I.
Pennsaucken, N.J.
Princeton, N.J.
Paris, Ky.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Red Lion Borough, Pa.
River Rouge, Mich.
Regina, Sask.
Rocky River, O.
St. Louis, Mo.
Salisbury, Md.
Sidney, 0.
Staunton, Va.
Skokie, III.
Sharonville, O.
Shelton, Conn.
Tonawanda, N.Y.
Tonawanda, N.Y.
Tonawanda
Troy, N.Y.
Trenton, Mich.
Troy, O.
Tampa, Fla.
Woodbridge, N.J.
Worcester, Mass.
Watertown, Mass.
West Seneca, N.Y.
Warren, O.
Wash. Sub. San. Dist., Md.
Wash. Sub. San. Dist.
West Allis, Wise.
Waltham, Mass.
Woodville, O.
Plant

VanDerMol











Bart ram




North Side




Clark's


Town
Town














Year
1950

1958
1952
1959

U.C.
1954

1949
1952
1954
U.C.
1950
1954
1961
1961
1952
1956
1949
1946
1948

U.C.

1944
1948
1950
1947
1963

U.C.
1954
1953
1958
1949
1949
1946
1950
1955
1959

Capacity,
tons/day
30
400
100
200
150

450
240
36
160
60
100
100
200
60
60
150
50
400
125
50
60
150
150

100
90
90
250
100

1,200
300
450
250
60
195
150
75
200
150
12
Number
of
furnaces

2

2
1

3
2
1



2

1
1
1

4

1
1
2
2


1
1



4



1



2
2
1
Type stoker
Manual
Impact
Reciprocating
Circular
Rocking

Circular
Rocking
Manual

Circular

Reciprocating
Circular
Circular
Rocking
Rocking

Rocking
Circular
Circular
Circular
I mpact
Reciprocating

Circular
Circular
Circular
Circular
Reciprocating

Rotary kiln

Circular
Circular
Circular

Circular
Circular
Rocking
Rocking
Manual
 The above data are largely from manufacturers' installation lists. The years shown are, in
most cases, the year of equipment order, usually one to two years prior to completion of
construction. All the above are believed to be batch feed except Amarillo (ram feed), Fall
River (continuous), and Tampa (continuous).
 180
                                              MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
                             LEGEND AND NOTES
Year Built - Reported year of completion, except (D) indicates reported year of design and
            U.D. indicates under construction, under contract, or in bidding stage as of
            November, 1965.
Source of Data
A       Proc. ASCE, Vol. 80, Separate No. 497, Sept. 195-.
I        Plant inspection and/or interview with operating personnel or municipal officials.
MD      Equipment manufacturer's data sheets.
P&S     Examination 'of plans and specifications.
QB      Questionnaire completed by incinerator builder.
QD      Questionnaire completed by designer including municipal officials  where plant
         was designed by municipal personnel.
QM      Questionnaire completed by municipal personnel other than as noted  for QD.
PD-1    "433% Larger," The American City, Feb. 1956.
PD-2    L. C. Larson, "Mechanically Stoked Incinerator Alhambra's Waste," Public Works,
         Jan. 1950.
PD-3    "New Incinerator Promises Less Smog" Engineer News-Record, Oct. 11, 1956.
PD-4    "The Incinerator  Has to be Big and It has to be Tidy", The American City, July
         1953.
PD-5    M. M. King. "A Double Grate Incinerator," The American City, Nov.  1952.
PD-6    W. H. Sleeger, "Three Florida Incinerators," The American City, July 1957.
PD-7    Tour information sheet prepared by New York City Department of Sanitation.
PD-8    C. F. Hettenbach, "An Extra Feature Incinerator," The American City, July 1957.
PD-9    G. H. Scudder, "The Town of Huntington Looks Ahead-With Incineration," The
        American City, April 1956.
PD-10   Lewis & Nussbaumer,  "Two New Incinerators,'' The American City, Sept. 1956.
PD-11   Leonard S. Wegman,  "Binghamton's Incinerator After  One Year," Civil Engi-
        neering, June 1958.
PD-12  P. Gerhardt, "Chicago Completes First of Four  Incinerators,"  The American
        City, June 1958.
PD-13   "Incinerator Near Residential Area Is Nuisance-Free," Public Works, June 1958.
PD-14   R. F. Sternitzke, "Municipal Incinerator Trends,"Public Works, Sept. 1958.
PD-15  F. J. Lynch, "Jersey  City Solves Its Refuse Disposal Problem," The American
        City, Sept. 1959.
PD-16  J W  Leake,  "Louisville Incinerator Operates on  Production Line Basis," The
        American C/iy,Nov. 1957.
       A-                                                                     181
.Appendix

-------
 PD-17  H. J. Gates, "Operation of Louisville's New Incinerator," Public Works, April
         1958.

 PD-18  C  F  Wheeler  "Direct Charge Incinerator Can Do A Good Job," The American
         City,May 1959.

 PD-19  J. W. Watson, "A Custom Designed Incinerator,''  The American City, Feb. 1959;
         and J. W. Watson, "New Incinerator Designed to Reduce Fly  Ash Emission,"
         Public Works, April 1958.

 PD-20  D. O. Bender, "We Incinerate Our Refuse Now," The American City, April 1958.

 PD-21  J. L. Hayden, "Belmont, Mass. Incinerator Gives Complete Fly Ash Control," The
         American City,  Jan. 1960; and J. L.  Hayden, "New  Incinerator Gives Complete
         Fly Ash Control,"Public Works, Oct.  1959.

 PD-22  "Calumet Incinerator-Chicago's Second, Nation's Largest," The American City,
         Feb. 1960.

 PD-23  Vincent Baum, "Something Different in Incinerator Design," The American City,
         Nov. 1960.

 PD-24  I. M. Chace, Jr., "A New Type of Municipal Incinerator," The American City,
         Nov. 1959; and "Whitemarsh," Publication of Dravo Corp.

 PD—25  R. I.  Mitchell,  "Penna. County Selects Incineration Over  Landfill Operation,"
         Refuse Removal Journal,  Aug. 1963;  and E. B. Fox,  Jr., "49 Municipalities Join
         in County-Wide Incineration Plan," Public Works,  1963.

 PD-26  "Sumerville Builds An Incinerator," The American City, May 1960.

 PD—27  "Tour Information," prepared by Delaware County Disposal Department.

 PD-28  Gordon Gewecke, "Built To Fit The Site," The American City, June 1963.

 PD-29  M. A.  Noel,  "Southwest Incinerator,"  National Incinerator Conference, May
         1964; and Paul  Gerhardt, Jr., "Incinerator to  Utilize  Waste Heat for Steam
         Generation,"Public Works, May 1963.

 PD-30  C. R. Velzy and C. O. Velzy, "Unique  Incinerator Develops Power & Provides Salt
         Water Conversion," Public Works, April 1964; C. R. Velzy, "An Incinerator With
         Power and Other Unusual  Features,"  ASME Winter Annual  Meeting 1964, Paper
         No. 64-WA/PID-2;  "Hempstead-Oceanside  Refuse Disposal Plant,"  Printed des-
         cription of ASME tour, Dec. 1, 1964.


 Refuse Handling

 B&C     Bin and crane

 FD      Floor Dump

 Osc      Direct dump to oscillating conveyor

Cranes

Br       Bridge crane

M       Monorail Hoist

Buckets

Bu       Clamshell bucket

Gr       Grapple
 182                                              MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
Stokers

Circ.       Circular, mechanically stoked
Man.       Manually stoked
Osc.       Oscillating grate
Recip.     Reciprocating grate
Rock      Rocking grate, constant flow type
Rot. Kiln  Rotary kiln
Trav.  1     Single travelling grate
Trav.  2     Double travelling grate
Trav.  3     Triple travelling grate

Mechanical Draft
Yes       Forced draft reported, but distribution not indicated
U         Forced underfire. Includes cone cooling air for circular furnaces.
0         Forced overfire
S          Forced side fire
|          Induced draft

Flyash Removal
C         Cyclones
D         Dry expansion chamber
E         Electrostatic precipitators
F         Flyash screen
S          Water sprays
SB        Spray or wet baffles
Sc        Scrubber
ST        Spray towers
WB        Water bottoms or ponds in chambers

Water Treatment and Disposal
Recirc.     Recirculated
S.T.P.      Discharged to nearby water pollution control plant

Waste Heat Use
BH        Building heat
BHW       Building hot water
Des        Steam used in desalination units
E          Generating electricity
P          Preheating combustion air
SD        Sewage sludge drying
SE         Steam for equipment drives
 A       ,.                                                                        183
Appendix

-------
                                     NOTES
Line        Plant

  5   Liberty

 11   Pittsfield

 12   Providence


 15   Mt. Kisco


 17   St. Louis


 26   Atlanta



 28   Calgary

 30   Los Angeles

 31   Miami


 33   Port Chester



 36   Bloom sburg

 5 2   Alexandria

 53   Cincinnati

 57   Omaha


 59   Providence



 61   St. Louis Park

 67   Framingham

 69   Merrill



 70   Milwaukee



 74   Quebec

 76   Babylon


 83   Glendale
Nye odorless incinerator.

Plant no longer operating.

Power from waste heat drives sewage
pumps and S.T.P. blowers.

Ash to carts on tracks to disposal
area, later removed.

North side plant is similar to South
Side.

Annual revenue from sale of steam
and reclaimed metal approximately
$200,000.

Stack sized for 360-ton capacity.

Operation indefinitely  suspended.

Daily steam production 1,500,000
Ib. Use of steam not reported.

Special hearth at base of combustion
chamber for disposal of dead animals
and bulky, slow burning materials.

Monorail hoist for ash buggy.

Stack sized for 300-ton capacity.

Residue conveyors installed 1960.

Metal now reclaimed from residue
by private operator.

This unit replaced a  1936 unit.
By-pass provided around boiler and
ID fan.

Residue used for land filling.

Water-cooled furnace walls.

Use of waste heat abandoned because
of availability only 7 hours per
day. Use of steam not reported.

Waste heat also used for heating
adjacent garage and for hot water
for truck washing and sanitary use.

Metal salvaged from residue dump.

Waste heat hot water also used to
heat nearby sludge digestion tanks.

Ram feed to furnace. Spray tower
between combustion chamber and
spray chamber.
184
                                                  MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
  84   Los Angeles





  86   New Canaan


  87   Oyster Bay





  89   Poughkeepsie



  96   Lexington

  97   Louisville




  99   Parma


 100   Tonawanda


 101   Bridgeport



 102   Durham

 105   Indianapolis


 108   New Orleans

 113   Boston



 123   Whitemarsh


 128   Miami


 141   Winchester, Mass.



 142   Darien





144  Eastchester




Appendix
 DeCarie basket grate plant rated
 32 T/day with 7500 Btu/lb refuse,
 and 400 T/day with 6000 Btu/lb
 refuse. Operation indefinitely
 suspended.

 Expansion chamber and stack
 designed for 100-ton capacity.

 Small bin provided for unburnables.
 Ash removal system includes
 clarifier and 1,000,000 gallon
 reservoir. Forced draft air drawn
 from refuse pit area for dust control.

 Original chimney used with new
 furnaces. Tipping area enclosure
 added later.

 Stack sized for 300-ton capacity.

 Stacks and building designed for
 1000-ton capacity. Plant has
hammermill and chipper to reduce
bulky materials before burning.

Plant has provision for direct
charge from trucks.

Ash dumped to carts which are
lifted to grade.

Sewage treatment plant effluent
used in flyash removal system.
Residue used for fill.

 "Beehive" furnaces.

Steam used in sewage treatment
plant.

Ash conveyors added later.

Heat used for adjacent hospital.
By-passes around boilers through
cooling chambers.

Water-cooled refractory furnace
walls.

Water recirculation unsatisfactory
 due to clogging.

Apron conveyor, for receiving refuse
 during peak delivery period,
 discharges to pit.

 New monorail hoist and bucket serves
 130T plant, replacing two old hoists
 with single line buckets. Existing
 75  ft chimney serves new 70T and two
 existing SOT furnaces.

 Tubular conveyor for flyash removal
 from expansion chamber.
                                                ,185

-------
148   New Orleans

152   Atlanta



4     Garden City



155   Greenwich
158   New Orleans





164   Broward County No. 11





165   Broward County No. 2





166   Canajoharie



168   Clearwater

169   Dearborn Heights




170   DeKalb County


173   Freeport

174   Jefferson Parish



181   Hempstead



184   Montgomery County


186   Oyster Bay
Ash conveyors added later.

Residue used for fill and road
sub-base. Reclaimed metal sold for
+$6.00/ton.

Two refuse bins. Forced draft air
drawn from bins for dust control.
Water sprays in bins for dust control.

New bin and crane serve new
furnace. Existing bin and crane
serve two existing  furnaces.
Tubular conveyor  for flyash
removal. Bin ventilation and
sprays for dust control. Animal
hearth in combustion chamber.

Automatic  control of furnace draft
and temperature, forced draft pressure,
and ID fan  inlet temp.erature.
Adjustable  set points in all
controls.

Ram feed to furnaces. Preliminary
settling of water in quench-tank
followed by rotary screen, then
pressure filter.  Magnetic
separation of metal in ash.

Ram feed to furnaces. Preliminary
settling of water in quench tank
followed by rotary screen, then
pressure filter.  Magnetic
separation of metal in ash.

Vertical monohearth. Spray chamber
and stack also serve multiple-
hearth sludge furnace.

Ram feed to furnaces.

Combined combustion and flyash
removal chamber for each furnace.
Building has provision for third
furnace.

Residue is good fill and road
sub-base material.

Existing stack retained.

Automatic  control of furnace draft
and temperature, forced draft, and
ID fan inlet temperature.

Two 300-ton refuse  furnaces with
waste-heat boilers  and one 150-ton
rubbish  furnace.

Flyash settling chambers designed
for cleaning by front end loader.

Closed-circuit TV  for observing
fire bed and charging floor.
 186
                                                   MUNICIPAL INCINERATION

-------
187   Port Washington


188   Ramapo


189   Sheboygan

193   Ft. Lauderdale

194   Houston
 195   Lexington
 196   Montreal
 199  Norfolk
200   North Hempstead
205   New Orleans
By-pass stack for startup and shut-
down, sized for future unit.

New crane and stack serve 300-ton
total plant capacity.

Flyash from spray areas to lagoon.

Ram feed to furnaces.

Spray chambers integral with
combustion chambers. Tubular gas
reheaters cool combustion chamber
outlet gas and heat scrubber outlet
gas. Screen separator at conveyor
discharge.

New furnace utilizes existing
expansion chamber and stack.
Furnace designed with standby
capacity.

Designed for Martin or VonRoll
(Canada) stokers. One boiler unit
integrally with each furnace.
Use of steam not reported.

Salvage fuel boiler plant with water-
wall furnaces and waste-heat boilers.
Steam to be used on destroyer and
submarine piers and general heating
distribution system for base.
Recirculated water used to convey
flyash to conveyor troughs.

Two rocking-grate refuse furnaces
and one double travelling-grate
rubbish furnace.

Number of cranes and type of stoker
not determined when questionnaire
submitted.
Appendix
                                                                               187

-------