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
------- |