v»EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
& Waste Management
Washington, DC 20460
SW 175C.3
June 1979
Solid Waste
A Technical and
Economic Evaluation
Of the Project
In Baltimore, Maryland
Volume
-------
Prepublication issue for EPA libraries
and State Solid Waste Management Agencies
A TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE
PROJECT IN BALTIMORE, MARYLAND
Volume III
This report (SW-175c) describes work performed
for the Office of Solid Waste under contract no. 68-01-4359
and is reproduced in four volumes as received from the contractor.
The findings should be attributed to the contractor
and not to the Office of Solid Waste.
Volume I of this report is the executive summary
and is available from the Office of Solid Waste (order no. 719).
Volumes II, III, and IV will be available from the
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, VA 22161
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1979
-------
This report was prepared by Systems Technology Corporation, Xenia, Ohio,
under Contract No. 68-01-4359.
Publication does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views
and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention
of commercial products constitute endorsement by the U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-175C) in the solid waste
management series.
-------
PREFACE
This report is a complete technical, economic, and environmental
evaluation of the Landgard® Demonstration Plant at Baltimore, Maryland.
Because of its bulk and to serve a twofold purpose, the report is presented
in four volumes: an executive summary, the report proper, an analysis of
the problems, and the appendices. Intended particularly for resource
recovery planners and administrators, the executive summary briefly and
succintly describes the Landgard® concept and Baltimore application for the
state-of-the-art advancement in the processing of municipal mixed solid
waste. In addition, it presents an introductory problem analysis of most
of the major innovations that proved ineffective, caused serious shutdowns,
and required redesign or abandonment. As the second, third, and fourth
volumes are detailed in-depth accounts of the evaluation, they were
prepared primarily for the designer. Of the four volumes, only the
executive summary has been prepared for wide distribution in a paper copy
format. The second, third, and fourth volumes are reproduced on microfiche,
which is readily available through NTIS.
-------
ABSTRACT
One of the first efforts in this country to demonstrate solid waste
resource recovery technology was the Baltimore Landgard® project which was
a joint venture between the City of Baltimore, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Maryland Environmental Service, and Monsanto
EnviroChem. The Baltimore plant was designed and built by Monsanto
EnviroChem to thermally process (pyrolyze) 907 Mg (1000 tons) per day of
mixed municipal solid waste, convert it to energy (in the form of steam),
and recover magnetic metals and glassy aggregate. Although the plant has
never been fully operational in its original design configuration, con-
siderable knowledge has been gained from it concerning resource recovery
from municipal solid waste. The numerous equipment breakdowns and the
inability of the plant to comply with air pollution standards accounted for
the major difficulties encountered during the project. Major equipment
problems were encountered with the storage and recovery unit, the refrac-
tory in the thermal processing vessels, the main induced-draft fan, the
residue discharge drag conveyor, and the slag discharge screw conveyor.
Despite the fact that the designer recommended converting the plant to a
conventional incinerator, plant performance has been sufficiently encour-
aging to warrant continued investment and operation by the City of Baltimore.
One of the primary reasons for this attitude by the City is that the rotary
processing kiln has been demonstrated to be an excellent primary reaction
vessel. Although the present plant is not environmentally acceptable
because of high particulate emissions, this problem will be resolved by the
installation of two electrostatic precipitators.
The thermal efficiency of the plant was determined to be approximately
56 percent for an average feed rate of 454 kg per minute (30 tph). The plant
has a capital cost of approximately $22 million, an annual operating and
maintenance cost of $3 million, and an annual steam revenue of $1 million.
The net operating cost, based on historical operating data, is $64.10 per Mg
($58.20 per ton) of refuse processed. However, if the annual throughput of
67,000 Mg (74,000 tons) could be substantially increased to 270,000 Mg
(300,000 tons), operating cost could be reduced to $7.80 per Mg ($7.10 per
ton) of refuse processed.
This report is submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-01-4359 by
Systems Technology Corporation (SYSTECH) under the sponsorship of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report covers a period from
October 1, 1975 to April 30, 1978.
ii
-------
CONTENTS
Preface i
Abstract ii
Figures iv
Tables vi
List of Unit Conversions xiv
List of Symbols xv
Acknowledgement xvii
Appendices
A. Kiln model description 1
B. Mass and energy balance 18
C. Economic evaluation 234
D. Kiln model computer program 369
iii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
A-l Simplified Kiln Flow Diagram 3
A-2 Mass Flow Relative to the Rotary Kiln 4
A-3 Model of Mass Flow Through the Kiln 6
A-4 Mass Fluxes Through Lower Elements 7
A-5 Energy Fluxes in the Lower Elements 9
A-6 Mass Fluxes Through Upper Elements 10
A-7 Energy Fluxes in the Upper Elements 12
A-8 Finite Element Numbering Scheme 13
A-9 Computer Program Flow Diagram 15
B-l Photo Sort Picture 4°
B-2 Refuse Size Distribution 57
B-3 Anemometer Calibration Curve 71
B-4 Refuse Combustion Air Fan Field Fan Curve 81
B-5 Turbine Driven Kiln Combustion Air Fan Field Fan Curve ... 82
B-6 Motor Driven Kiln Combustion Air Fan Field Fan Curve .... 83
B-7 Gas Purifier Combustion Air Fan Field Fan Curve 84
B-8 Crossover Combustion Air Fan Field Fan Curve 85
B-9 Refuse Combustion Air Fan Curves 86
B-10 Turbine Driven Kiln Combustion Air Fan Curve 87
B-ll Motor Driven Kiln Combustion Air Fan Curve 88
B-12 Gas Purifier Combustion Air Fan Curve 89
iv
-------
Figures (continued)
Number Page
B-13 Gas Purifier Combustion Air Fan Curves 90
B-14 Crossover Combustion Air Fan Curves 91
B-15 Crossover Combustion Air Fan Curves 92
B-16 Flow Through Slotted Quench Damper (100% open) 94
B-17 Flow Through Butterfly Quench Damper 96
B-18 Kiln Skin Temperature Profile 98
B-19 Kiln Skin Temperature Profile 99
B-20 Kiln Skin Temperature Profile 100
B-21 Kiln Skin Temperature Profile 101
B-22 Kiln Skin Temperature Profile 102
B-23 A Combined-reverse Static Pitot Tube 103
B-24 Standby Test Mass Balance 104
B-25 Standby Test Energy Balance 171
B-26 On-steam Test Mass Balance 172
B-27 On-steam Test Energy Balance 173
B-28 Scrubber Solids Settling Curves 194
-------
TABLES
Number Page
B-l Total Plant Electrical Energy Demand 21
B-2 Receiving Module Electirc Power Demand 22
B-3 Size Reduction Module Electric Power Demand 22
B-4 Storage and Recovery Module Electric Power Demand .... 23
B-5 Thermal Processing Module Electric Power Demand 24
B-6 Residue Separation Module Electric Power Demands 25
B-7 Energy Module Electric Power Demand 25
B-8 General Plant Module Electric Power Demand 26
B-9 Water Consumption 27
B-10 Analysis of City Water 28
B-ll Wastewater Effluent Flow Measurements 30
B-12 Steam, Water and Sewer 35
B-13 Temperature and pH of Wastewater Effluent 36
B-14 Analysis of the Wastewater Effluent 38
B-15 A Comparison of Manual and Photo Sort 41
B-16 Manual Sort of Refuse Fines 43
B-17 Baltimore Refuse Average Component Properties 44
B-18 Shredded Refuse Moisture Content 45
B-19 Proximate Analysis of Refuse 46
B-20 Ultimate Analysis of Refuse 49
vi
-------
Tables (continued)
Number
B-21
B-22
B-23
B-24
B-25
B-26
B-27
B-28
B-29
B-30
B-31
B-32
B-33
B-34
B-35
B-36
B-37
B-38
B-39
B-40
B-40a
B-41
B-42
Page
Calculated Refuse Composition ............... 50
Ash Analysis of Refuse .................. 51
Optical Emissions Spectography Analysis of Feed Sample . .
Refuse Bulk Densities ...................
Refuse Bulk Densities ...................
Refuse Bulk Densities After Shredding and Storage .....
Baltimore Refuse Size Distribution ............
Diesel Fuel Consumption While Processing .........
Diesel Fule Consumption During Downtime ..........
Dust Collection System Flows ...............
Composition of Magnetic Drum Discharge ..........
Atlas Runout Data .....................
Operation Summary .....................
Daily Fuel Oil Consumption ................
Standby Hourly Fuel Oil Consumption ............
Operating Hourly Fuel Oil Consumption ...........
Analyses of No. 2 Fuel Oil ................
Propane Consumption ....................
C18 Fan Flow Measurements .................
Gas Purifier Skin Temperature ...............
Feedhood Orstats .....................
52
53
54
55
56
58
58
60
61
62
64
70
72
73
76
78
93
108
114
115
Feedhood Particulate Loadings ...............
Particle 'Size Analysis of Feedhood Particulate ...... 116
vii
-------
Tables (continued)
Number Page
B-43 Ultimate Analysis of 4 Buell Filters and
Sample Collected from Feed Hood .............
B-44 Ultimate Analysis of Feed Hood Particulates
B-45 Spectrographic Analysis of 4 Buell Filters and
Sample Collected from Feed Hood ............. 118
B-46 Spectrographic Emission of Feed Hood Particulate ..... 119
B-47 X-ray Diffraction Analysis of Feed Hood Composit Particulate 120
B-48 X-ray Diffraction Analysis of Feed Hood Particulate .... 121
B-49 X-ray Fluorescence Analysis of Feed Hood Particulate
Sample Collected 5/27/75 ................ 122
B-50 X-ray Fluorescence Analysis of Feed Hood Particulate
Collected 6/28/78, 1435 HRS ............... 122
B-51 Mass Spectrometric Analysis of Kiln Off-Gas ........ 123
B-52 Total Hydrocarbon Analysis of Kiln Off-Gas ........ 124
B-53 Crossover Duct Orstats .................. 125
B-54 Flame lonization Detection Analysis of Crossover Duct Gases 127
B-55 Thermal Conductivity Analysis of Crossover Duct Gases . . . 128
B-56 Long Chain Hydrocarbon Analysis of Crossover Duct Gases . . 128
B-57 Total Hydrocarbon Analysis of Gas Purifier Exit Gases . . . 130
B-58 Mass Spectrographic Analysis of Gas Purifier Exit Gases . . 130
B-59 Gas Purifier Discharge Duct Orstats ............ 131
B-60 ESP Results for Gas Purifier Exhaust Gases Passed Through
a Gas Cooler ...................... 132
B-61 Boiler Inlet Orstats ................... 133
B-62 Boiler Outlet Orstats ................. . . 134
viii
-------
Tables (continued)
Numbers Page
B-63 Moisture Content of Boiler Exit Gases l35
B-64 Dry ESP Test of Boiler Exit Gases 136
B-65 Ash Analysis of Boiler Exit Gas Particulate I38
B-66 Residue Weight Calculations 14°
B-67 Residue Weight Calculations 140
B-68 Residue Moisture Content and Bulk Density 141
B-69 Proximate Analysis of Residue 1^2
B-70 Ultimate Analysis of Residue 147
B-71 Ash Analysis of Residue 148
B-72 Residue Size Distribution 150
B-73 Refuse Ash Fusion Temperatures 151
B-74 Residue Ash Fusion Temperatures 151
B-75 Gasoline Consumption While Prodcessing 152
B-76 Gasoline Consumption During Downtime 152
B-77 Analysis of Residue Quench Tank Process Water 153
B-78 Analysis of Residue Truck Drainage 154
B-79 slag Weight Calculations 155
B-80 Slag Moisture Content and Bulk Density 156
B-81 Ash Analysis of Gas Purifier Slag 157
B-82 Slag Size Distribution 159
B-83 Slag Ash Fusion Temperatures 160
B-84 Analysis of Slag Quench Tank Process Water 162
B-85 Fly Ash Weights 163
ix
-------
Tables (continued)
Numbers Page
B-86 Boiler Fly Ash Fusion Temperatures 163
B-87 Boiler Water Analysis 166
B-88 Monsanto Energy Balance Summary 176
B-89 Mass Spectrophotometric Analysis of Gas Sampled at the
Scrubber Inlet 179
B-90 Scrubber Inlet Particulate Loadings 180
B-91 Anderson Particle Size Distribution of Scurbber Inlet Gases 181
B-92 Electron Probe Micro Analysis of Scrubber Inlet Particulate 182
B-93 Caustic Consumption 183
B-94 Temperature of Scrubber System Process Waters 184
B-95 Solids Content of Scrubber Process Waters 185
B-96 Emission Spectrographic Analysis of Scrubber System Process
Waters and Their Filterable Solids 195
B-97 Analysis of Scrubber Process Waters 196
B-98 pH of Scrubber Process Water and Dehumidifier Condensate . . 197
B-99 pH of Scrubber System Process Waters 200
B-100 Corrosion Rates Based on Ultrasonic Measurement 201
B-101 Evaluation of Alloys for Incinerator Scrubbers 202
B-102 Flocculant Efficiencies 203
B-103 Clarifier Efficiency 204
B-104 Spark Source Mass Spectrometric Analysis of Scrubber Inlet
and Exit Particulate 205
B-105 Nitrous Oxide Emission Data 206
B-106 Scrubber Outlet Orsats 207
B-107 Mass Spectrophotometric Analysis of Scrubber outlet Gas . . 208
B-108 Analysis of Boiler and Scrubber Outlet Gases 209
-------
Tables (continued)
Numbers Page
B-109 Moisture Content of Scrubber Outlet Gases 211
B-110 EPA Method 5 Particulate Loadings of Scurbber Outlet Gases 212
B-lll Anderson Particle Size Analysis of Scrubber Outlet Gases . 213
B-112 BMS-11 Particulate Size Analysis of Scrubber Outlet .... 220
B-113 Analysis of Scrubber Outlet Particulate 221
B-li4 Electron Probe Micro Analysis of Scrubber Outlet Particulate 222
B-115 Dehumidifier Bay Temperature and Velocity Data 223
B-116 Mass Spectrophotometric Analysis of Dehumidifier Gases . . 224
B-117 Anderson Particle Size Analysis of Dehumidifier Ministack . 225
B-118 Electron Probe Micro Analysis (E.P.M.) of Dehumidifier
Particulate 227
B-119 Dehumidifier Condensate Flow 228
B-120 Analysis of Dehumidifier Condensate 229
B-121 Moisture Content of Various Residue Recovery Process Streams 230
B-122 Solids Analysis of Various Residue Recovery Process Streams 231
B-123 Proximate and Ultimate Analysis of Char 232
B-124 Proximate and Ultimate Analysis of Glassy Aggretates . . . 233
C-l Research Summary Capital Expenditure Extract as of 3/31/77 244
C-2 A Summary of EPA Capital Cost Classifications 246
C-3 Summary Cost Center Distributions 247
C-4 1977 Dollar Conversion Factors 251
C-5 Capital Costs (Exclusions/Additions) 252
C-6 Equipment Costs and Useful Life Reported by Select Vendors 253
C-7 Projected Scenario Capital Cost Summary 254
xi
-------
Tables (continued)
Numbers Page
C-8 Exclusions/Additions Per EPA Cost Center 256
C-9 Capital Costs Per EPS Cost Center Including Adjustments . . 257
C-10 Subsystem Capital Costs 258
C-ll Normalized Scenario Capital Costs Summary 259
C-12 Scenario Operating Parameters 261
C-13 Operating & Maintenance Unit Cost Data 263
C-14 Annual Salries (FY 1977-78) 266
C-15 Total Scenario Salary Costs 267
C-16 Scenario Fuel Costs 267
C-17 Estimated Electrical Demand 268
C-18 Projected Maintenance Costs 270
C-19 Annual Residue Disposal Costs ,. 272
C-20 Indirect City Cost Allocation 274
C-21 Other Overhead Costs 275
C-22 Projected Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs 276
C-23 Projected Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs per Mg of
Refuse Processed 277
C-24 Operating and Maintenance Costs per Cost Center (Scenario 1) 278
•
C-25 Fixed Vs. Variable Operating and Maintenance Costs 281
C-26 Normalized Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs 282
C-27 Projected Cost Summary 285
C-28 Normalized Cost Summary 286
C-29 Capital Costs - Actual (Costs in 19 $) 289
xii
-------
Tables (continued)
Number Page
C-30 Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs - Actual
(Cost in 19_$) ..................... 29°
C-31 Product Revenues - Actual (Revenues in 19 _ $) ....... 291
C-32 Capital Cost - Normalized (Cost in 1975 $) ........ 292
C-33 Annual Opearting and Maintenance Costs - Normalized
(Cost in 1975 $) .................... 293
C-34 Product Revenues - Normalized (Revenue in 1975 $) .....
C-35 Summary ($ Per Throughput Ton) .............. 295
C-36 Actual Capital Costs ................... 304
C-37 Actual Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs ....... 307
C-38 Allocation and Identification of Supplemental Construction
Costs .......................... 309
C-39 Allocation of Landfill Costs ............... 317
C-40 Monsanto Cost Coding Definitions ............. 319
C-41 Major Equipment List ................... 320
C-42 Original Contract Costs .................. 324
C-43 Original Contract Capital Costs .............. 340
C-44 Non Specific Costs . . ....... ........... 358
C-45 Original Contract Capital Costs by Cost Center ...... 359
C-46 Supplemental Agreement Capital Costs by Cost Center .... 367
xiii
-------
LIST OP UNIT CONVERSIONS
DESCRIPTION
SI-
ENGLISH EQUIVALENTS
X
LENGTH
AREA
VOLUME
MASS
PRESSURE
TEMPERATURE
ENERGY
DENSITY
ENERGY/MASS
MASS LOADING
CONCENTRATION
POWER
UNIT
meter
centimeter
millimeter
micrometer
square meter
cubic meter
liter
kilogram
megagrams
kiiopasca.1
celȣu*
joule
fctlowatt
SYMBOL
Cm).
Ccml
Cmml
Cjiml
Cm2l
Cm3!
Qfel
(kPal
CO.
01
(kg/rn3!
(MJ/kgl
Cg/DSCMl
WlL
Cbrl
UNIT
3,28 feet
01,394 inches
39., 37 mils
1 , 0. -micron
10,76 square feet
35.31 cubic feet
0..264 gallons
2,20 pounds
1,10. tons
Q.145
5 Fahrenheit/ 9X17,8
9,48 x 1Q-1*
.0.624
431
0,437
1,0.
a. 0.6
SYMBOL
CJt)_
Oft2!
Cft3l
Cgal.l
W..1
Clbs./in2)
CP1
(Btu)
Qbs./ft3!
(Btu/lb.l
Cgr/DSCPl
(ppml
(MJ/min)
-------
LIST OF SYMBOLS
A Inlet Area for Fan X Cm2)
Ag Surface Area (m2)
C Constant
D Duct Diameter (m)
e/D Ratio of Duct Surface Roughness to Duct Diameter
E/> Line Voltage (volts)
f Flow Resistance Coefficient
F Gas Purifier Fuel Oil Heat Input (MJ/£)
FJ! Kiln Fuel Oil Flow Rate (£/min)
F^ Main Totalizer Differential Readings/Unit Time (£/min)
FY2 Totalizer Differential Readings For #1 and #2 Burners/Unit
Time (£/min)
g Gravitational Constant (m/sec2)
Gr Grashof Number
h Steam Enthalpy (MJ/kg)
h,. Enthalpy of Dry Air at Fan X Inlet (kg/min)
h Convective Heat Transfer Coefficient (BTU or MJ )
ftzmin°R mzmin°K
h Duct Internal Convective Heat Transfer Coefficient
h Duct External Convective Heat Transfer Coefficient
h^ Enthalpy of Inlet Cold Water (MJ/kg)
h.p Flow Inducing Differential Pressure (kg/m2)
H Gas Purifier Fuel Oil Heat Input (MJ/£)
H£ Kiln Fuel Oil Heat Input (MJ/£)
h Enthalpy of Water Vapor Referenced to 273°K (MJ/kg)
h Enthalpy of Gas Constituent y Referenced to 273°K (MJ/kg)
r« Line Current (amps)
k Thermal Conductivity of Air (BTU or MJ )
ft*min°R mzmin°K
L Duct Length or Surface Length (m)
MAY Mass Flow Rate of Dry Air at Fan X Inlet (kg/min)
Air Mixture Flow Rate (kg/min)
Raw Kiln Crossover Duct Mass Flow Calculation (kg/min)
Corrected Kiln Crossover Duct Mass Flow (kg/min)
Raw Gas Purifier Discharge Mass Flow Calculations (kg/min)
Corrected Gas Purifier Discharge Mass Flow Calculation (kg/min)
Refuse Feed Rate (mg/hr)
Residue Mass Flow Rate (kg/min)
Mass Flow Rate of Vent Steam (kg/min)
Molecular Weight (kg/kg-mole)
Mass Flow* Rate of Vaporized Water in Quench Pit (kg/min)
xv
-------
M Mass Flow Rate of Moisture at Fan X Inlet
M** Mass Flow Rate of Gas Constituent Y Referenced at 273° (MJ/kg)
My_ Steam Flow To Kiln Burners #1 & #2 Ckg/min)
M1^2 Steam Flow To Gas Purifier Burners #7 & #8 Ckg/min)
N7 8 Nusselt Number
Pu Power Ckw)
P Air Ambient Density (kg/m3)
P Barometric Pressure (kg/m2)
P Power Factor
Pr Prandtl Number
Q Volume Flow Rate Cm3/mini
q Sensible Heat of Dry Air at Fan X Inlet (MJ/min)
q^ Convective Heat Transfer Rate CMJ/min).
q Boiler/Economizer Discharge Duct Heat Loss (MJ/min)
qGP-S 6as Purifier Burner Steam Heat Input (MJ/min).
qR_s Kiln Burner Steam Heat Input CMJ/i»in)
q Gas Purifier Heat Loss CMJ/min)
q ~ Quench Pit Taporized Water Sensible Heat (MJ/min)
q Heat Transferred by Radiation CMJ/mini.
q Sensible Heat In Residue CMJ/min)
q Lost Heat of Combustion in Residue Char QU/min)
qJT Sensible Heat in Slag CMJ/min)
qg Sensible Heat in Kiln Spillage (MJ/minl
q Sensible Heat of Dry Air at Fan X Inlet (MJ/min)
q:r Kiln Heat Loss Rate (MJ/min).
q Sensible Heat Flow Rate of Gas Constituent Y (MJ/minl
R Gas Constant Ckg-m/kg'K)
Rr Duct Internal Convective Heat Resistance
R_0 Duct External Convective Heat Resistance
Re Reynolds Number
R^ Conductive Heat Resistance
Sp. ht. Specific Heat CMJ/kg"K)
T Temperature C°Kl
t Material Thickness
T Ambient Temperature (°K or °R)
Ta Corrected Temperature C°K)
T^ Gas Purifier Gas Temperature C°K)
T Internal Bulk Temperature C°K>
T. Indicated Facility Temperature C°K)
T1 Surface Temperature C°K or °R)
T? Reference Temperature C°K)
U1 Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient
V Gas Velocity 6a/secl
v Specific Volume of Steam Gn3/kg)
Vj, Kiln O-erall Heat Transfer Coefficient CMJ/min m°Kl
VT,, Air Velocity at Fan X Inlet On/min)
0) Humidity Ratio
AT Temperature Differential C°K>
Ji Absolute Viscosity Ckg/n-sec)
V Kinematic Viscosity Cfn2/sec)
p. Material Density CKG/M3)
p g Density of Vent Steam CKG/M3) a
CT Steffan-Boltzman Constant 1.714 x 10~ CBTU/hr ft2°R1*)
xvi
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This evaluation program was performed under EPA Contract No. 68-01-4359,
"Technical and Economic Evaluation of the EPA Demonstration Resource Recovery
Project in Baltimore, Maryland."
The EPA Project Officer was Mr. David B. Sussman of the Office of Solid
Waste, Washington, D.C.
Testing was carried out at the demonstration facility in Baltimore,
Maryland with the cooperation of the City plant staff and the Monsanto
on-site engineering staff. The contribution of both of these groups has
been greatly appreciated. The contribution of Dr. H. G. Rigo and
Richard Eckels, along with other staff members, is also acknowledged.
Systems Technology Corporation would like to express its gratitude to
the above named individuals and all others associated with this evaluation.
xvii
-------
APPENDIX A
KILN MODEL DESCRIPTION
INTRODUCTION
The heart of the Landgard Waste Disposal Process is the rotating kiln.
The processing of waste within the kiln is an exceedingly complicated process
with many phase changes, combustion and complicated chemical reactions taking
place in different portions of the kiln. Specific areas in which these take
place and the speed and efficiency with which they occur are all important
aspects of the operation of the kiln and have a direct bearing on the con-
trollable operating parameters of the kiln.
Because of the inability to physically vary many of the parameters
affecting the operation of the kiln at Baltimore, it was decided to develop a
mathematical simulation model of the processing kiln. The model was designed
to be flexible enough to permit parametric changes of values in the mathemat-
ical equations. This would enable the use of the model to predict kiln per-
formance at various scale factors and modes of operation. The ability of the
model to accurately simulate the actual operation of the kiln was assessed by
entering field measured inputs and comparing the computed outputs to field
measured outputs.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE MODEL
A common approach to mathematical simulation of any complicated process
is to begin with the complex process and make simplifications to achieve a
workable level of realistic engineering relationships. Stepwise sophistication
is then added to this simplified version until the mathematical simulation
adequately describes the real life situation. What is adequate in any parti-
cular case depends upon the level of sophistication desired on the part of the
evaluator.
Kiln Process
The kiln process has been discussed previously but will be summarized
again. The major inputs and outputs of the kiln are: refuse entering the
kiln at the feed end and residue exiting the kiln at the discharge end, air
and fuel oil entering the discharge end, the kiln off gases exiting the feed
end, and surface heat loss. Some other minor inputs include fuel oil from the
safety burners at the feed end, burner atomizing steam at both ends, vaporized
water from the seal tanks at both ends, and leakage air through the kiln seals
at each end and- through the ram tubes at the feed end.
-------
As the shredded refuse tumbles down the kiln, it undergoes thermal pro-
cessing in three stages where the temperatures progressively increase. The
three stages are drying, pyrolysis, and combustion. In the drying process, an
endothermic reaction, the heat is supplied by hot gases formed in the combus-
tion stage. In the pyrolysis process, also an endothermic reaction with the
heat similarly supplied by the hot gases from the combustion stage but at a
higher temperature, the refuse is decomposed into combustible gases such as
CO, H2, Cm, and other hydrocarbons. In the combustion process, an exothermic
reaction, carbon char and pyrolytic gases are combusted to provide the heat
for the endothermic drying and pryolysis reactions making the entire proces-
sing sequence self-sustaining. The three thermal processes are controlled by
limiting the combustion air, supplied by the fans in the kiln feed hood, to a
fraction of the stoichiometric requirement. The main method of heat transfer
in the kiln is radiation but some convective and conductive heat transfer
occurs between the refuse, the gases, and the refractory within the kiln.
Simplification of the Kiln Process
The first simplification was to consider all minor inputs negligible,
resulting in a simplified flow diagram (Figure A-l). This is a valid as-
sumption, since these flows are only a small percentage of the total input
flow. The kiln process can be further simplified by considering it to be two
separate streams flowing in opposite directions with mass and energy transfer
between these two streams. Because the kiln is rotating horizontally, the
flow pattern of the two streams are theoretically helical (Figure A-2). This
flow pattern, which is extremely complicated and difficult to model, was
simplified by assuming the mass flow of the solid material is maintained in
the lower segment of the kiln while the mass flow of gases is maintained in
the upper segment of the kiln. Therefore, the analytical procedure presumes
plug flow of the mass through the kiln.
Convection from the gas flow, radiation, and conduction from the kiln
wall transfer heat to the solid mass tumbling through the kiln. This heat
provides the energy required for the drying, pyrolysis and vaporization
occurring in the lower segment.
It was resolved that the mathematical simulation should provide mass as
well as energy balance capability. A search of the literature for acceptable
formulations disclosed a publication which treated the energy balance within a
furnace chamber by predicting the effect of allowance for radiation exchange
on the distribution of temperature and heat transfer*. This technique did not
provide for mass balance; nor did any reference appear in the literature where
both energy and mass balances had been simultaneously treated. Other problems
associated with the use of the Hottle-Cohen technique to simulate the kiln
were that their combustion chamber was fixed rather than rotational and their
fuel was coal as opposed to highly variable, heterogeneous solid waste. It
was, therefore, decided to modify this technique and to extend it to calculate
mass as well as energy balances.
*Hottel, H. C., and E. S. Cohen. Radiant Heat Exchange in a Gas Filled
Enclosure: Allowance for Nonuniformity of Gas Temperature. A.I.C.E.
Journal 4 (11): 3-14, 1958.
-------
PRODUCTS OF
COMBUSTION
REFUSE FEED
DIRECTION
_ \
KILN
ROTATION
AIR a
FUEL OIL
RESIDUE
Figure A-l. Simplified kiln flow diagram.
-------
GASES
AND
PARTICULATE
REFUSE
AIR AND
FUEL OIL
RESIDUE
Figure A-2. Mass flow relative to the rotating kiln.
-------
Since this technique used the finite element approach, the kiln model was
further simplified by approximating the actual cylindrical kiln as a rectangu-
lar box with approximately the same dimensions as the actual kiln. To approx-
imate the two streams, the box was divided horizontally to represent conditions
along the length of the kiln and the box was divided vertically into various
finite elements (Figure A-3). The dimension of the element was a function of
the rotational speed of the kiln, the feed rate of refuse, the density of the
refuse, and the number of elements selected for analysis. The resulting
length of the imaginary element is, therefore, not simply an integral portion
of the true kiln length but is representative of retention time of mass in
each Imaginary element.
The retention time is dependent upon how many points are selected to re-
present the length of the kiln. The number of points selected is the number
of finite elements to be used in the analysis. The elements are considered
to be cubic, having a side demension based upon the retention time given by
the equation:
B = L 4 V2 + w2 D2 2 L 2 °-5
nV 60
where
L = Length of kiln in feet
n = Number of analytical elements
V = Velocity of incoming refuse (feed stock) in feet per second
D = The diameter of the kiln in feet
-------
GASES AND
PARTICULATES
REFUSE -»
AIR &
FUEL OIL
- RESIDUE
Figure A-3. Model of mass flow through the kiln.
-------
MOISTURE
ASH
MOISTURE
VOLATILE MATTER
FIXED CARBON
VOLATILE
MATTER
CARBON
ASH
MOISTURE
VOLATILE MATTER
FIXED CARBON
Figure A-4, Mass fluxes through lower elements.
-------
order to simulate reality to the highest possible degree, the pyrolytic pro-
cess was patterned after published data for the pyrolysis of the lignite
fuel*. The volatile material is approximated as pure cellulose (C6Hi005) and
is pyrolyzed at a rate that varies exponentially with time and lineary with
temperature:
m = f (Temperature) exp im
The products of pyrolysis are carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, methane, ethane,
and volatile matter. The "volatile matter" is a collective term that is
allowed to include all products with molecular weights higher than ethane,
including vaporized cellulose.
The volatilization of carbon from the fixed carbon state in the lower
elements to the dissociated state in the upper elements is defined in the
model as a linear function of the temperature of the lower element:
m = f (Temperature)
The conservation of mass is applied to each element in order to predict
the percentages of each component in each element. The upper elements are in
every case the receptors of mass from the physical changes in the lower elements,
These mass transfers include evaporated water, volatile matter, and volatilized
carbon.
The energy transfers to and from a lower element are illustrated in
Figure A-5. The energy of the solids entering a lower element is defined as
the enthalpies of the various components (moisture, volatile matter, fixed
carbon, ash) using the temperature of the previous element. In a similar
manner the energy of the solids exiting the element can be determined using
the temperature of the element. The energy of the mass lost to the upper
element is similarly determined using the temperature of the element and the
heats of vaporizationt. Radiative heat transfer occurs between all elements
and the kiln wall while conductive heat transfer occurs with the kiln wall.
Upper Elements—
The upper elements, which contain air, vaporized solids, and the products
of combustion, are the receptors of the evaporated water, volatilized carbon
and pyrolytic products. By definition combustion is allowed to occur only in
the upper elements. The combustibles are fuel oil, carbon, and volatile
matter (pyrolytic products), (Figure A-6). It was assumed that fuel oil
behaves as methane and that products of combustion consist of carbon dioxide,
*Lowery, H. H. Chemistry of Coal Utilization. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,
New York, New York, 1963.
tPerry, R. H., and C. H. Chilton. Chemical Engineers' Handbook. McGraw-
Hill, New York, New York, 1973.
-------
LOSSES TO UPPER ELEMENT
ENTHALPIES:
, MOISTURE + VOLATILE MATTER + CARBON
ENTHALPIES:
ASH
MOISTURE
VOLATILE MATTER
FIXED CARBON
RADIATIVE — CONDUCTIVE
HEAT TRANSFER
WITH KILN WALL
ENTHALPIES:
ASH
MOISTURE
VOLATILE MATTER
FIXED CARBON
RADIATIVE HEAT TRANSFER
WITH OTHER ELEMENTS
Figure A-5. Energy fluxes in the lower elements.
-------
N2
02
H2
H20
CH4 >
C2H6
CO2
CO
CARBON
VOLATILE MATTER J
MOISTURE VOLATILE
MATTER
CARBON
N2
02
H2
H2O
CH4
C2H6
CO2
CO
CARBON
VOLATILE MATTER
Figure A-6. Mass fluxes through upper elements.
-------
water, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen*. The fixed carbon is considered to oxi-
dize in a manner that results in products consisting of carbon dioxide, carbon
monoxide, and fixed carbon. For purposes of computation all unidentified
volatile matter, which is assumed to be cellulose (CeHioOs)* is allowed to
react in the presence of available exygen, to yield carbon monoxide, carbon
dioxide, carbon, hydrogen, methane, ethane, water, and uncombusted cellulose.
The vaporization of fixed carbon, and the total pyrolysis of cellulose
from the lower element directly below into an oxygen-starved atmosphere of the
upper element contribute to the carbon content of the upper region. The
carbon and fly ash, in the kiln coagulate to form a particulate component in
the otherwise gaseous discharge. The kiln model disregards the fly ash, and
treats the particulate as free carbon.
Carbon dioxide is formed from the volatilized carbon whenever oxygen is
available. The carbon contends with the free hydrogen for the available
oxygen. Simultaneous solution of model balance equations for carbon, hydrogen
and oxygen are used to predict the amounts of each respective species.
The energy fluxes in the upper elements are illustrated in Figure A-7-
The energy of the inlet gases was determined by summing the individual en-
thalpies of the various component gases at the temperature of the previous
element. The energy of the outlet gases is determined in a similar manner
using the temperature of the element. The energy input due to the mass gain
from the lower elements is equal to the value obtained in the lower elements
analysis.
Any energy release in an upper element due to combustion is added to that
element. Radiative and convective heat transfer occurs with the kiln wall.
Radiative heat transfer occurs with all other elements and is temperature
dependent.
Conservation of Mass—
The conservation of mass principle is applied as mass is transferred from
element to element due to physical and chemical changes and the normal flow
pattern. As shown in Figure A-8,. mass is introduced into the kiln model at
two locations. Solid refuse enters the first lower element (1) while air and
fuel oil are introduced in the upper element at the opposite end (n). The
flow of gases in the upper elements is initialized by the air and the fuel oil
injected into the kiln and is combusted to completion in the nth element with
very little, if any, oxygen remaining. As the gas stream flows from element
to element its mass is increased by the mass lost in the lower elements due to
the thermal processes of evaporation and volatization. Therefore, as the
refuse flows from element to element its mass correspondingly decreases.
Combustion of the vaporized/volatilized material in an upper element does not
effect the total mass in an element, but does change the mass of the specific
species, so each chemical reaction results in the conversion of mass from the
previous to the present chemical species.
*American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Combustion Fundamentals for
Waste Incineration. 'New York, New York,
11
-------
ENERGY RELEASE
DUE TO
COMBUSTION
RADIATIVE — CONVECTIVE
HEAT TRANSFER WITH
KILN WALL
ENTHALPIES OF
OUTLET GASES
ENTHALPIES OF
INLET GASES
RADIATIVE
HEAT TRANSFER WITH
OTHER ELEMENTS
GAIN FROM LOWER ELEMENT
ENTHALPIES
< ~~ ~ '
MOISTURE + VOLATILE MATTER + CARBON
Figure A-7. Energy fluxes in the upper elements.
-------
PRODUCTS OF
COMBUSTION
REFUSE
c —
/\
/ 1
X i
l
i
A —
/\2
/ \
i
j
//1
X
4
3
6 %
5
n
n-1
/
/
/
-^
i
/
/
AIR &
FUEL OIL
RESIDUE
Figure A-8. Finite element numbering scheme.
-------
Since the mass transfer rates can be defined as functions of the temp-
erature, it is possible to calculate the mass flow into and out of each
element, for a given temperature. Thus, the conservation of mass through the
kiln is effected element by element, resulting in the calculated percentage of
each material component in each element.
By performing the appropriate calculation to conserve mass in each of the
lower elements as the refuse progresses to its ultimate discharge, the analysis
of the residue can be determined. In the same manner, by tracking the mass
into and out of each of the upper elements and considering the chemical reac-
tions involved in each element, the composition of the outlet gas can be
defined.
Conservation of Energy—
The conservation of energy principle is used to verify or negate the
temperature assumptions used for the conservation of mass. An average temper-
ature for each element is calculated considering the temperature of its
neighbors, and an average energy flux due to radiation is derived from this
temperature.
The heat transfer due to radiation is the dominant energy transfer
mechanism in the balance. Consequently, the element temperatures are the
basis for the calculations of energy transfer into and out of each element.
The net radiation is algebraically added to the energy gained from net mass
transfers into the element and to energy released by chemical reactions
occurring within the element. The inside temperature of the kiln wall is
calculated using the element temperatures, and from the resultant value, the
convective energy transfer between the lower and the upper elements is
calculated.
By summing all energies entering and generated in each element and sub- ,
tracting the energies leaving the element, the imbalance can be used to adjust
the temperature for that element. By performing a sufficient number of
iterations for the entire set of elements, the imbalance can be reduced to any
non-zero value desired. Thus, the temperature profile can be determined to
the desired accuracy by using a computer iteration technique.
COMPUTER PROGRAM
A fortran program was written to permit rapid, repetitive numerical
analyses based on this mathematical model, while providing the opportunity to
selectively alter parameters of the kiln design and/or operation to study the
impact of the changes on kiln temperature and reaction products.
The flow diagram for the computer program is shown in Figure A-9. The
inputs required for the program and their symbols are as follows:
14
-------
c
START
I
INPUTS •• oi,D,L
n, mr, mf , Wu[
PROX.ANAL. OFREFUSE
READ ANY
CHANGES
IN KILN
DEFINITION
READ TEMPERATURE
OF REFUSE, ASH, AIR,
AND OFF-GASES
CALCULATE
HEAT OF
COMBUSTION
OF FUEL OIL
CALCULATE Ti FOR
ELEMENTS
i
CALCULATE AVERAGE
TEMPERATURES
CALCULATE
DRYING RATES
PYROLYSIS
CARBON RATES
FOR LOWER
ELEMENTS
CALCULATE
COMBUSTION HEAT,
C02, CO AND C
FOR CARBON
CALCULATE
COMBUSTION HEAT,
C02, CO, H20, C,
02,H2,CH4, C2H6,
FOR VM
Figure £-9. Computer program flow diagram. (Continued)
15
-------
CALCULATE
MASS FLOW
RATES
CALCULATE
CONVECTION H.T.
CALCULATE
ENTHALPIES OF
FLOW TERMS
CALCULATE RADIATION H.T.
^QRAD/WALL + SQRAD/ELEM
ENERGY BALANCE
PRINT
MASS FLOWS
-T.^ E
C
STOP
Figure A-9. (Concluded)
16
-------
Symbol
rotational speed u
kiln diameter D
kiln length L
number of elements n
refuse mass rate m
fuel oil mass rate m
air mass rate m
ambient air relative humidity
outside kiln wall temperature
proximate analysis of the refuse
approximate temperature of element at each in/out port of kiln
Each of these values, except the last four temperature approximations,
affect the results of the model outputs and may be varied in order to
study their effects on the kiln operation. In addition to the operational
variables that would influence the operation of a defined kiln, the kiln
itself may be redefined as to its length, diameter, rotational speed,
wall thickness, and thermal properties.
To reduce the number of iterations the approximate temperatures at the
refuse inlet, the air and fuel oil inlet, the residue outlet, and the off
gas outlet are read into the program. Using this data the program generates
two linear temperature profiles, for the upper and lower elements based upon
the four assumed temperatures. These temperatures (T ), at the interface of
element, are averaged to obtain an internal element temperature. The program
then subjects the data to a finite element analysis constrained by conserva-
tion of mass and energy. The energy imbalance of each element (E) is com-
pared to a predetermined value the temperature approximations are incrementally
adjusted to correct the discrepancy and another iteration is performed with
the new temperatures.
If the net energy contained within an element is correct within the
predetermined limits that element is in balance. When this conservation of
energy criterium has been met for each element the program has reached
completion and the Temperature Profile and Chemical Analyses are printed.
The degree of accuracy obtained is, therefore, controlled by the limit of
allowable error in the temperature profile, and the number of elements used
for the analysis.
The outputs of the program are temperature profiles for each of the
upper and lower regions of the kiln, and chemical analyses of the outlet
gasses, entrained particulates, and the solid residue. The foregoing dis-
cussion has shown how these outputs are mathematically attained and how
they are dependent upon certain user supplied starting conditions.
While this model was specifically designed after the Baltimore system,
it is flexible enough to realistically analyze and predict the performance
of rotary kilns of other types and configurations. A listing of the computer
program is provided as Appendix D.
17
-------
APPENDIX B
MASS AND ENERGY BALANCE
18
-------
SECTION B-l
INTRODUCTION
This appendix presents the data acquisition techniques, stream character-
izations, and the mass and energy balances in more detail than Volume II.
Also included are the methods of calculating the balances.
All general plant stream characterizations such as electricity, water
and sewer will be included at the beginning of this section. The receiving,
size reduction, and storage and recovery modules will then be discussed
together as the waste preparation subsystem. The next section will be a
detailed discussion of the thermal processing and energy recovery modules.
Besides the detailed stream characterizations and detailed sampling techniques,
the numerous balances generated from SYSTECH and Monsanto data will be pre-
sented. The final section will contain data acquisition techniques and stream
characterization data for the residue separation module and the gas scrubber
system.
The information is presented to explain sampling techniques employed in
this study, and to present the necessary data for those who wish to examine
the process in more detail.
As mentioned previously in Volume II, much of the data was collected by
Monsanto, the City of Baltimore, TRW, and Environmental Elements Corporation.
19
-------
SECTION B-2
GENERAL PLANT
ELECTRICAL POWER DEMAND
The total plant power demand for the three levels of operation (downtime,
standby, and operating) was determined from a computer printout supplied by
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company. The computer printout gave a 15 minute
average of the power demand. Using the operational status during the period,
Table B-l was generated.
The electrical energy demand for each module was measured in order to
allocate the cost of electricity to each module, and for use in the unit
process and subsystem balances. The module electric power demand was cal-
culated by summing the electric power demand of the major pieces of equipment
and facilities that comprise the module. The line current for each piece of
equipment was measured at the power box in the motor control center by using
a recording clamp-on, split core ammeter. The electrical power demand (P)
was then calculated using the measured line current (In), the known line
voltage (E«), and estimated power factor (Pf), and the following equation:
P - 3 E£ It Pf
The power factor was estimated based upon the specific facility or equip-
ment being considered. Building power factors were estimated between 0.95
and 1.00 because lights and heating elements have a power factor of 1.0 while
the small motors (0-5 hp) within the building circuit have a power factor of
0.8 to 0.95. The larger motors were estimated to have power factors of 0.5
to 0.8 with the largest motors having the smallest power factor. The electric
power demand for the individual modules is shown in Tables B-2 through B-8.
WATER CONSUMPTION
The plant water consumption was determined by daily readings of the
main plant water meter. This data, shown in Table B-9, was collected both
during periods when the scrubber was off and during periods when it was on.
Similarly measurements were made both when the gas purifier was water cooled
and when it wasn't. This data was collected during periods when the plant
was operating at different throughput rates.
The supply water composition measured by the City is compared to the
grab sample analyses performed by SYSTECH in Table B-10. The water generally
has low concentrations of most of the commonly measured parameters that
indicate a water of high quality. However, with a hardness of approximately
75 mg/£ the water does require softening before use in the boilers.
20
-------
TABLE B-l. TOTAL PLANT ELECTRICAL ENERGY DEMAND*
Date
Downtime
Average Demand
Ckw)
4/14/77
4/15/77
4/16/77
4/17/77
4/18/77
Average
Date
Standby
165
138
135
124
150
142
Average Demand
(kw)
5/01/77
5/02/77
5/08/77
Average
Date
Operating
Hours Operating
1,230
980
1,118
1,109
Average Demand
(kw)
4/26/77
4/27/77
4/28/77
4/29/77
5/04/77
5/05/77
5/06/77
5/10/77
5/11/77
5/12/77
5/13/77
Average
22.3
23.3
22.2
22.8
21.8
21.3
23.5
23.5
22.5
23.0
23.0
22.7
1,768
1,744
1,796
1,794
1,782
1,695
1,849
1,926
1,753
1,857
1,808
1,797
*Data supplied by Baltimore Gas and Electric Company.
21
-------
TABLE B-2. RECEIVING MODULE ELECTRIC POWER DEMAND
Current Voltage Power Operating Standby Downtime
Description (amperes) (volts) (kw) (kw) (kw) (kw)
Receiving building 16.6 440. 39 39 . 39
Sump pump Int. 440 00 Q
Total 39 39 39
10 TABLE B-3. SIZE REDUCTION MODULE ELECTRIC POWER DEMAND
Description
Current
(amperes)
Voltage
(volts)
Power
(kw) ,
Operating
(kw)
Standby
(kw)
Downtime
(kw)
Storage pit conveyor 4.9 440 3.0 3.0
Storage pit conveyor 4.8 440 3.0
Shredder feed Conveyor 8.25 440 5.3 5.1
Shredder feed conveyor 7.70 440 5.1
Shredder (new hammers) 58.9 4160 382.0 382.0
Shredder (idle) 42.0 4160 272.0
Shredder discharge conveyor 12.8 440 8.2 8.6
Shredder discharge conveyor 14.25 440 9.2
Shredder building 16.6 440 10.7 10.7 10.7 10.7
Total 409.3 10.7 10.7
-------
TABLE B-4. STORAGE AND RECOVERY MODULE ELECTRIC POWER DEMAND
N>
Description
Shredded refuse collection
conveyor
Shredded refuse elevating
conveyor
Shredded refuse transfer
conveyor
Storage and recovery unit
Storage and recovery unit
out feed conveyor
Stored material spreader
Transfer tower
Total
Current
(amperes)
10.3
13.4
10.7
64.7
11.4
2.0
18.6
Voltage
(volts)
440
440
440
440
440
440
440
Power
(kw)
6.8
8.9
7.0
43.4
7.4
1.2
12.4
Operating
(kw)
6.8
8.9.
12.4
28.0
Standby Downtime
(kw) (kw)
12.4 12.4
12.4 12.4
-------
TABLE B-5. THERMAL PROCESSING MODULE ELECTRIC POWER DEMAND
N>
Description
Kiln feed conveyor
Ram feeders
Ram feeders
Kiln drive
Refuse combustion air fan
Kiln combustion air fan
Gas purifier combustion air fan
Combustion fan
Dust collection fan
Induced draft fan
Scrubber pump
Sludge pump
Dehumidifier fan
Dehumidifier fan
Dehumidifier fan
Dehumidifier fan
Dehumidifier fan
Dehumidifier fan
Clarifier
Spillback screw conveyor
Slag screw conveyor
Transfer screw conveyor
Residue quench tank conveyor
C02 analyzer
Fuel "oil pump
Total
Current
(amperes)
6.15
39.55
34.9
55.5
11.4
21.3
—
—
55.5
135
52
2.4
22.0
19.5
22.2
18.6
22.0
22.0
1.35
3.6
3.6
4.5
14.0
3.0
15.0
Voltage
(volts)
440
440
440
440
440
440
440
440
440
4160
4160
440
440
440
440
440
440
440
440
440
440
440
440
440
440
Power
(kw)
4.0
26.2
23.1
36.8
7.6
13.9
—
— —
36.4
875.4.
337.2
1.4
14.1
12.5
14.2
11.9
14.1
14.1
0.8
2.2
2.2
2.8
8.9
1.9
10.2
Operating
(kw)
4.0
26.2
23.1
36.8
7.6
13.9
—
—
36.4
875.4
—
—
14.1
12.5
14.2
11.9
14.1
14.1
—
2.2
2.2
2.8
8.9
1.9
10.2
1,132.5
Standby
(kw)
, —
—
36.8
7.6
13.9
7.5
—
36.4
875.4
—
—
14.1 -
12.5
14.2
11.9
14.1
14.1
—
2.2
2.2
2.8
8.9
1.9
102.0*
1,178.5
Downtime
(kw)
—
— —
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Estimated
-------
TABLE B-6. RESIDUE SEPARATION MODULE ELECTRIC POWER DEMAND
Description
Separation screen conveyor
Residue building
Glassy aggregate screen conveyor
Glassy aggregate stacker conveyor
Residue flotation unit
Sinks discharge conveyor
Total
Current
(amperes)
2.11
9.45
2,7
3.15
1.5
1.2
Voltage
(volts)
440
440
440
440
440
440
Power
Ckw)
1.3
6.8
1.7
2.0
0.9
0.7
13.5
Operation
(kw)
1.3
6.8
1.7
2.0
0.9
0.7
13.5
Standby
(kw)
1.3
6.8
1.7
2.0
0.9
0.7
13.5
Downtime
(kw)
•M^
6.8
—
—
—
—
6.8
to
l/l
TABLE B-7. ENERGY MODULE ELECTRIC POWER DEMAND
Description
Jag valve
Feed water pump
Degas if ier pump
Water treatment building
Water treatment heater
Current
(amperes)
1.2
153
13.2
19.5
25.2
Voltage
(volts)
440
440
440
440
440
Power
(kw)
0.7
104.9
8.7
14.2
19.2
Operating
(kw)
•F-,^1
8,7
14.2
19., 2
Standby
(kw)
—
8.7
14.2
19.2
Downtime
(kw)
—
14.2
19.2
Total
42.1
42.1
33.4
-------
TABLE B-8. GENERAL PLANT MODULE ELECTRIC POWER DEMAND
Description
Office building
Control panel
Uninterrrup table power
Service building
Street lights
Heat tracing
Air compressor
Maintenance
Cooling water pump
Cooling water pump
Wastewater lift station
Total
Current
(amperes)
9.3
3.15
9.7
10.0
16.2
2.7
21. a
33.0
3.9
10.6
9,6
Voltage
(volts)
440
440
440
440
440
440
440
440
440
440
440
Power
(kw)
7.1
2.4
7.0
7.2
12.3
2.1
14.2
24.0
2.4
6.5
6.1
Operating
(kw)
3.6
2.4
7.0
7.2
6.1
2.1
14.2
15.9
2.4
6.5
2.0
69.4
Standby
(kw)
3.6
2.4
7.0
7.2
6.1
2.1
14.2
15.9
2.4
6.5
'2.0
69.4
Downtime
(kw)
3.6
2.4
7.0
7.2
6.1
2.1
15.9
2.4
6.5
1.0
54.2
-------
TABLE B-9. WATER CONSUMPTION
r-o
Date
11/15/76
11/16/76
12/07/76
12/10/76
12/11/76
12/12/76
12/13/76
12/14/76
12/15/76
12/16/76
12/17/76
12/18/76
12/19/76
12/20/76
01/14/77
01/15/77
01/16/77
01/17/77
Liters /Day
2,188,866
2,594,803
1,356,923
1,836,187
1,727,160
2,347,105
2,345,504
2,345,504
2,325,277
1,130,405
2,432,041
2,058,778
2,004,392
2,021,179
2,042,666
1,653,947
1,562,104
1,875,687
Date
1/18/77
1/19/77
1/20/77
1/23/77
1/24/77
1/31/77
2/01/77
2/03/77
2/04/77
2/05/77
2/22/77
2/23/77
2/24/77
2/28/77
3/01/77
3/02/77
3/03/77-3/11/77
3/11/77-3/18/77
Liters /Day
1,958,799
1,956,542
2,744,038
2,107,106
2,345,349
2,899,696
2,429,122
3,175,055
2,627,903
2,627,903
1,963,677
2,054,755
2,311,912
2,088,393
2,277,484
1,783,954
1,972,905
1,990,497
Minimum
(Liters/Day)
Average
(Liters/Day)
Maximum
(Liters/Day)
1,130,405
2,084,822
3,175,055
-------
TABLE B-10. ANALYSIS OF CITY WATER
Date
pH
Alkalinity
Bicarbonates
Volatile Solids
Total Solids
Hardness, EDTA
Calcium
Magnesium
Iron
Manganese
Silica
Aluminum
Sodium
Potassium
Nitrates
Sulfates
Chlorides
Fluorides
BOD 5
COD
TKN
Total Phosphorous
Suspended Solids
Dissolved Solids
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
7/75-6/76*
7.7
44.0
53.0
36.5
105.3
71.0
20.2
5.4
0.02
0.01
5.5
0.04
5.3
1.4
1.2
15.2
14.4
0.93
-
-
-
-
-
~
12/1/76
^m
60.0
-
-
-
81.6
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.1
0.0
70.0
1/31/77 Average
6.4 7.05
60.0 54.7
53.0
36.5
170.0 137.7
78.0 76.9
20.2
5.4
0.02
0.01
5.5
0.04
5.3
1.4
1.2
15.2
18.0 16.2
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.1
0.0
70.0
City of Baltimore, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Operations, Water
Division-Purification Section.
28
-------
WASTEWATER EFFLUENT
The wastewater effluent is pumped by the wastewater lift station to the
city sewer system. This wastewater flow was measured by timing the filling
cycle of the lift station wet well. The actual flow measurements shown in
Table B-ll are directly related to the rate of steam production and therefore
the refuse feed rate. The maximum flows occur during manual blowdown of the
boilers.
The wastewater is mainly comprised of boilerwater blowdown, process
cooling water, and recycled cooling water system blowdown. The method of
calculating the respective flows of each of these wastewaters was discussed in-..
Volume II. To briefly recap that discussion the boilerwater constant blow-
down rate was determined by comparing the design rate of 10 percent of the
boiler feedwater flow to the percentage calculated from the feedwater and
boilerwater total solids concentration. The 10 percent rate was confirmed by
this method, indicating that the boiler blowdown rate is dependent upon the
steam production and therefore the refuse feed rate. The boiler feedwater and
blowdown analysis is included in the discussion of the thermal processing
subsystem. The manual blowdown rate was estimated from process design data
to be 75,600 liters per day independent of the steam production and refuse
feed rate. The various cooling water flow rates were determined by measuring
the time required to fill a known volume at the discharge of each stream
flowing to the sewer. The flow rates of the various cooling waters are as
follows:
Water Flow Rate (1pm)
Shredder bearing cooling water (each) 25.4
Induced draft fan (inboard bearing) 1.9
Induced draft fan (outboard bearing) 1.0
The blowdown and make-up for the recycled cooling water system was estimated
from design data to be 75.6 1pm (20 gpm). Based upon the above data and
estimated steam rates discussed in the thermal processing section, water and
sewer rates were generated for each scenario for use in the economic evalua-
tion (Table B-12).
The composition of the wastewater effluent, which is mainly concentrated
city water, was determined by analyzing a composite of grab samples taken
over an eight hour period. Often when the grab samples were taken the pH
and temperature were measured with the data shown in Table B-13. The
effluent is generally hot due to the boiler blowdown, and has a high pH.
Chemical analysis of the wastewater revealed that it was low in all
parameters measured except for total solids, which are high due to the
solids concentration in the boiler blowdown (Table B-14).
29
-------
TABLE B-ll. WASTEWATER EFFLUENT FLOW MEASUREMENTS
DATE
TIME FLOW
(LITERS/MIN.)
DATE
TIME FLOW
(LITERS/MIN,)
2/23/77
2/23/77
2/23/77
2/23/77
2/23/77
2/23/77
2/23/77
2/23/77
2/23/77
2/23/77
2/23/77
2/23/77
2/23/77
2/23/77
2/23/77
2/23/77
2/23/77
2/23/77
2/23/77
2/23/77
2/23/77
2/23/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
1351
1358
1404
1410
1417
1423
1429
1435
1441
1447
1453
•1459
1505
1510
1517
1524
1530
1536
1542
1549
1553
1600
0816
0822
0828
0834
0841
0847
0856
0900
0907
0912
0918
0924
0930
0936
0949
0955
1001
1007
1013
1019
1025
1031
166.5
170.0
162.3
163.9
174.2
177.2
180.3
180.9
227.1
178.3
178.7
174.8
178.3
156.5
161.3
162.7
180.9
177.2
175.2
181.7
185.1
185.1
160.5
162.3
159.0
166.5
160.5
162.0
164.3
174.2
168.1
169.2
174.2
178.3
171.0
141.9
168.1
173.4
170.7
173.4
153.6
163.9
165.1
167.7
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/25/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
1027
1046
1050
1056
1003
1108
1115
1120
1127
0759
0812
0819
0826
0832
0839
0847
0854
0901
0909
0916
0923
0931
0938
0942
0950
0957
1005
1018
1027
1034
1042
1050
1059
1107
1114
1121
1128
1205
1211
1218
1225
1223 "
1246
1250
170.7
174.8
163.1
166.5
165.4
166.5
185.1
152.2
170.7
146.9
143.6
148.7
156.2
158.6
158.6
140.7
141.6
143.6
135.9
136.9
136.6
133.2
136.6
136.1
140.7
138,8
140^5
140/5
137.6
137.1
134.7
123.0
111.4
125.8
137.6
120.3
140.7
142.3
153.4
141.6
138.3
139.5
168.9
276.6
(continued)
30
-------
TABLE B-ll. (Continued)
DATE
TIME FLOW
(LITERS/MIN.)
DATE
TIME FLOW
(LITERS/MIN.)
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
1/14/77
"""^"^^^^^••"••^•^•^
1256
1304
1310
1317
1324
1332
1341
1350
1402
1407
1415
1424
1450
1459
1500
1515
1523
1525
1530
1536
1542
1549
1554
1600
1606
1509
1511
1513
1514
1516
1517
1522
1524
1526
1528
1529
1531
1533
1534
1536
1538
1540
1541 •
165.9
141.6
140.7
136.9
130.1
118.1
115.4
111.1
115.7
112.8
113.8
112.2
113.0
116.1
116.1
112.0
109.6
354.4
248.6
188.4
161.1
188.4
187.1
184.2
181.0
297.4
293.2
287.2
301.7
289.1
240.7
308.4
291.2
293.2
293.2
297.4
293.2
297.4
293.2
295.3
297.4
293.2
291.2
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
1543
1545
1546
1549
1550
1552
1554
1556
1558
1559
1601
1602
1605
1606
1609
1612
1614
1615
1617
1619
1621
1623
1625
1626
1627
1629
1631
1633
1634
1636
1638
1642
1644
1645
1647
1649
1650
1652
1654
1656
1658
1700
1702
297.4
283.3
306.1
295.3
295.3
285.2
295.3
293.2
279.5
260.2
1040.9
186.7
310.7
185.0
175.7
320.3
289.1
295.3
182.7
287.2
295.3
287.2
287.2
303.9
277.6
295.3
263.5
693.9
189.3
301.7
270.4
293.2
283.3
299.6
277.6
297.4
295.3
297.4
281.3
291.2
308.4
281.3
293.2
31
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-ll. (Continued)
DATE
TIME FLOW •
(LITERS/MIN.)
DATE
TIME FLOW
(LITERS/MIN.)
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
1703
1705
1706
1708
1710
1711
1713
1715
1716
1718
1720
•1721
1723
1725
1727
1729
1731
1733
1735
1737
1739
1740
1742
1744
1746
1748
1749
1750
1753
1755
1757
1804
1805
1807
1809
islo
1812
1814
1815
1817
1819
1820
1822
1824
297.4
260.2
991.3
182.7
308.4
291.1
308.4
275.7
310.7
295.3
301.7
287.2
308.4
289.1
191.8
313.1
187.5
306.1
289.0
299.6
297.4
291.2
301.7
293.2
299.6
297.4
303.9
293.2
297.4
258.6
195.5
301.7
333.1
308 i 5
258.6
272.1
308*4
291.2
301.7
297.4
273.9
832.7
191.0
297.4
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
1825
1827
1909
1910
1912
1914
1915
1917
1918
1920
1921
1924
1924
1927
1929
1931
1932
1934
1936
1937
1940
1941
1943
1944
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1955
1958
2000
2002
2004
2006
2007
2009
2010
2012
2014
2015
2016 *
2019
2020
293.2
289.1
194.6
287.2
265.2
289.1
281.3
293.2
297.4
322.7
297.4
265.2
946.3
195.0
315.4
308.4
335.8
297.5
301.7
313.1
297.4
297.4
313.1
310.7
313.1
325.3
320.3
313.1
313.1
306.1
201.1
215.8
301.7
325.3
301.7
320.3
277.6
1095.6
205.1
315.4
258.6
1261.7
203.1
297.4
32
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-ll. (Continued)
DATE
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14./77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
TIME FLOW
(LITERS /MIN.)
2022
2025
2026
2028
2031
2034
2035
2037
2039
2042
2044
2046
2049
2050
2052
2054
2056
2058
2059
2101
2102
2104
2107
2110
2112
2115
2117
2119
2121
2124
2126
2128
2130
2132
2135
2137
2139
2140
2142
2144
2145
2148
2149
2151
277.6
157.1
333.1
289.1
198.3
187.5
308.4
263.5
317.8
219.1
289.1
196.4
178.7
717.8
203.1
306.1
273.9
242.0
717.8
195.5
826.1
185.9
195.5
195.5
198.3
200.1
202.1
201.1
203.1
202.1
260.2
293.2
310.7
191.8
183.4
287.2
293.2
289.1
322.7
308.4
301.7
303.9
299.6
315.4
DATE
3/14/77
3/14/77
3/14/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/2/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
TIME FLOW
(LITERS /MIN.)
2153
2155
2156
1223
1227
1231
1236
1240
1244
1248
1252
1256
1300
1303
1307
1311
1315
1319
1323
1327
1331
1335
1340
1344
1347
1352
1355
1359
1403
1407
1410
1414
1417
1421
1425
1429
1434
1438
1441
1445
1450
1454
1022
1025
317.8
315.4
315.4
115.1
115.1
113.8
115.1
113.4
114.4
113.8
114.4
113.4
113.8
113.4
115.0
114.1
112.8
118.3
111.9
121.4
115.7
115.7
116.6
116.3
115.7
115.7
119.0
119.0
118.0
118.6
118.3
118.0
117.3
116.9
118.0
115.7
117.3
117.3
118.6
119.9
119.3
116.9
174.2
175.8
33
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-ll. (Continued)
DATE
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
TIME FLOW
(LITERS /MIN.) '
1028
1031
1034
1037
1039
1042
1045
1048
1050
1054
1056
1059
1101
1102
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
185.0
175.7
175.7
175.7
175.7
174.9
175.7
176.4
171.3
165.9
173.5
163.6
991.3
1387.8
1343.1
1387.8
1343.1
1343.1
1387.8
1486.9
1435.8
1301.1
DATE
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
5/16/77
MINIMUM
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
TIME FLOW
(LITERS /MIN.)
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1119
1120
1121
1122
1125
1127
1130
1132
1134
1135
1136
1137
1139
1139
1139
1140
1301.1
1387.8
1387.8
1261.7
1435.7
1387.8
1387.8
1435.7
1387.8
1892.5
1810.3
1542.0
1486.9
1387.8
1486.9
1665.4
1343.1
1261.7
1261.7
1387.8
885.8
130. .1
i
109.2
241.9
1968.5
34
-------
TABLE B-12. STEAM, WATER, AND SEWER
u>
REFUSE PROCESSED (Mg/hr)
STEAM PRODUCED (Mg/hr)
WATER (I/day)
Boiler Feedwater
Steam
Constant Slowdown
Manual Slowdown
Fan Cooling
Shredder Cooling
Make Up
TOTAL
SEWER (I/day)
Constant Slowdown
Manual Slowdown
Fan Cooling
Shredder Cooling
Cooling System Slowdown
DOWNTIME
0
0
0
0
0
5,440
73,480
108,860
187,780
0
0
5,440
73,480
108,860
STANDBY
— f~, r^\ r*
0
35
840,000
92,400
75,600
5,440
73,480
108,860
1,195,780
92,400
75,600
5,440
73,480
108,860
SCENARIO 1
27
50
1,200,000
132,000
75,600
5,440
73,480
108,860
1,595,380
132,000
75,600
5,440
73,480
108,860
SCENARIO 2
32
59
1,416,000
155,760
75,600
5,440
73,480
108,860
1.835,140
155,760
75,600
5,440
73,480
108,860
SCENARIO 3
36
66
1,584,000
174,240
75,600
5,440
73,480
108,860
2,021,620
174,240
75,600
5,440
73,480
108,860
TOTAL
187,780
355,780
395,380
419,140
437,620
-------
TABLE B-13. TEMPERATURE AND pH OF WASTEWATER EFFLUENT
DATE
1/31/77
1/31/77
1/31/77
1/31/77
1/31/77
1/31/77
1/31/77
1/31/77
2/01/77
2/01/77
2/01/77
2/01/77
2/01/77
2/01/77
2/01/77
2/01/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
2/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
TIME
1400
1430
1500
1530
1600
1630
1700
1730
730
800
830
900
930
1000
1030
1100
1030
1100
1130
1200
1230
1300
1330
1400
1430
1500
1530
1600
1630
1700
1730
1800
1035
1038
1041
1045
1046
1049
1053
1056
1058
1100
PH
10.7
10.2
10.5
10.5
10.6
10.4
10.6
10.8
6.5
6.5
6.8
6.9
7.2
6.8
7.0
-
9.2
9.2
9.1
8.9
9.1
8.9
8.8
8.8
9.0
8.9
8.9
8.1
7.9
8.9
8.8
8.7
10.8
10.8
10.6
10.6
10.5
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
°C
41.7
41.7
41.7
41.7
41.7
41.7
41.7
41.7
41.7
41.7
(continued)
36
-------
TABLE B-13. (Continued)
DATE
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
ft/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
4/28/77
TIME
1103
1106
1109
1112
1114
1115
1117
1118
1122
1124
1127
1132
1134
1137
1140
1142
1145
1149
1150
1154
1157
1159
1202
1204
1207
pH
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.4
10.4
10.3
10.3
10.4
10.4
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.5
oc
42.2
42.2
42.2
42.2
42.2
37.2
35.6
35.0
34.4
35.0
36.7
38.3
37.2
38.3
38.3
41.7
41.7
40.6
41.1
41.1
41.1
41.1
41.1
41.1
41.1
37
-------
TABLE B-14. ANALYSIS OF THE WASTEWATER EFFLUENT
Date
Alkalinity
BOD5
COD
Chlorides
Suspended Solids
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Volatile Suspended
Solids
Hardness
Sulfide
Sulfite
Sulfate
Iron
TKN
Total Phosphorous
Standard Plate Count
Total Coliform
Fecal Streptococci
Lead
Mercury
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(Organism/ml)
(MPN/100 ml)
(MPN/100 ml)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
2/1/77
110
4
30
54
101
1240
68
39
-
0.0
0.7
250
7.6
1.8
0.74
7600
5
79
-
-
3/1/77
30
3
30
418
76
1080
785
15
370
0.0
0.0
45
0.89
0.8
0.0
200,000
460
14
0.1
0.0
4/29/77
102
64
184
268
152
962
250
54
84
0.0
-
89
1.75
8.1
0.57
700
0
460
0.1
0.004
Average
81
24
81
247
110
1094
368
36
227
0.0
0.4
127
3.4
3.6
0.4
69,000
155
184
0.1
0.002
38
-------
SECTION B-3
WASTE PREPARATION SUBSYSTEM
REFUSE COMPOSITION
The composition of the refuse was determined by two different methods at
different locations in the process stream. The composition of the refuse in
the storage pit was determined by manual and photosorts, and by moisture and
bulk density analysis of the manually sorted categories. The shredded refuse
on the kiln feed conveyor was subjected to moisture, proximate and ultimate
analyses.
Sorting Methods
A 45 - 90 kg (100 - 200 Ib) sample for sorting was obtained from the
storage pit by using a front endloader, or alternately by placing the refuse
within a randomly chosen area on a canvas tarp. The sample was then placed
on a tarp between two rows of 5 - 208 liter (55 gallon) drums. Each drum
was labeled for a specific waste category. All the trash bags were then
split open, the contents dumped back onto the pile and the bag placed back
into the pile. This point 2 photo slides of the sample pile of refuse were
taken (Figure B-l). The sample pile of refuse was then sorted into
categories until the pile contained only small fines less than 2.5 cm (1 in.).
The total mass of each category was determined by weighing, and the bulk
density was determined selectively by measuring the volume of sample for
each category. The photo sort slides were analyzed by projecting the
slide on a backlighted screen marked.with a 2.5 cm (1 in.) grid. The
type of waste (category) under each mode (cross in the grid) was observed
and recorded. The number of counts for each category was multiplied by
the material bulk density to obtain a relative weight. This relative
weight was divided by the sum of all the relative weights to obtain the
mass percent for that category. The photo sort did not compare directly
to the manual sort, as shown in Table B-15, and should not be relied
upon as a precise method for determining refuse composition.
The glass and iron may be low in the photo sorts due to settling within
the pile or misreading due to attached paper. Organics are small and hard
to see in a photo sort, often wrapped in paper or placed in cans.
The "other metals" category typically included in composition analyses
was eliminated because there is usually only a trace amount (less than 1
percent) in a 90 kg (200 Ib) sample.
39
-------
Figure B-l. Photo sort picture,
-------
TABLE B-15. A COMPARISON OF MANUAL AND PHOTO SORT
Percent of Total Mass
Sample A Sample B
Category Manual Photo Manual Photo
Paper
Organics
Wood
Magnetics
Aluminum
Glass
Plastic
Textiles
Inert
34
19
3
8
3
14
16
3
1
73
5
0
3
1
3
14
0
0
43
14
3
9
2
19
7
3
0
67
0
0
4
2
8
7
13
0
41
-------
An attempt was made to determine the composition of the "fines" category
by manually sorting the fines in the size range of 0.5 cm (0.2 in.) to 2.5 cm
(1 in.) (Table B-16).
The fines from Sample B with a size of less than 0.5 cm (0.2 in.) had an
estimated composition of 60 percent organics and 40 percent glass. While the
omission of the fines from sorting would result in a systematic error of
lower organic and glass concentrations. The average component properties
of the refuse as measured by manual sorts are shown in Table B-17.
Physical and Chemical Analysis
Shredded refuse samples from the kiln feed conveyor were collected and
dried in an oven at a temperature of 103°C (217°F). The shredded refuse
samples were weighed before and after drying, and the results are shown in
Table B-18. The dried shredded refuse samples were combined to form a weekly
composite sample which was sent to an outside lab for proximate, ultimate,
and ash analysis. The proximate analyses, including some reported by Monsanto,
are shown in Table B-19. The actual analyses reported by the labs were
corrected to include the separated matter (metal and glass) as ash, and to
the average, "as received" moisture content. The ultimate analyses including
those reported by Monsanto, are shown in Table B-20. In order to compare
the proximate and ultimate analyses with the manual sort data, the results
of the manual sorts were used to back calculate a hypothetical proximate and
ultimate analysis. The results, shown in Table B-21, reveal that the two
techniques yield different compositions. Both techniques are questionable
because of the relatively small sample size and heterogeneity of the refuse.
The ash analyses of the refuse are shown in Table B-22, while the optical
emission spectography analysis of the refuse is shown in Table B-23.
REFUSE BULK DENSITY
As discussed in Volume II, the refuse bulk densities were measured at
various stages of preparation. Tables B-24 through B-26 detail the bulk
density values presented in Section 3 of Volume II. Table B-25 also presents
bulk densities measured in the storage and recovery unit. The bulk densities
were measured by filling a 0.04 m3 (1.5 ft.3) box with the samples and then
weighing the sample.
The size distribution of the refuse before and after shredding was mea-
sured by sieve analysis. Five sieves were used; 152.4 mm (6 in.), 101.6 mm
(4 in.), 50.8 mm (2 in.), 25.4 mm (1 in.), and 5.1 mm (0.2 in.)- The results
of the sieve analysis are shown in Table B-27. Figure B-2 reveals that the
refuse lacks an uniform size distribution both before and after shredding.
Tables B-28 and B-29 detail diesel fuel consumption data that were
presented as averages in Section 3, Volume II of the report. Total-consump-
tion was measured by daily readings of the totalizer on the diesel fuel pump.
Some of the readings were taken from the city daily log, but the majority
were recorded by SYSTECH. The consumption of diesel fuel is not presented on
42
-------
TABLE B-16. MANUAL SORT OF REFUSE FINES
Percent of Total Mass
Category Sample A Sample B
Paper 10 2
Organics 34 23
Plastics 5 1
Textiles 1 0
Wood 1 0
Glass 39 71
Magnetics 2 0
Aluminum 2 0
Inerts 7 2
43
-------
TABLE B-17- BALTIMORE REFUSE .'AVERAGE COMPONENT PROPERTIES
Component
Paper
Organics
Plastics
Textiles '
Wood
Glass
Iron
Aluminum
Inert s
Weight %
of Total
43
17
7
6
2
15
7
2
1
Moisture
(Weight%)
21.4
56.7
5.5
16.4
8.9
0.0
10.4
8.5
3.0
Bulk Density
(kg/m3)
60.9
272.3
33.6
110.5
144.2
408.5
128.1
142.6
929.1
44
-------
TABLE B-18. SHREDDED REFUSE MOISTURE CONTENT
Date
11/12/76
11/15/76
11/16/76
11/29/76
12/07/76
12/09/76
12/10/76
12/12/76
12/13/76
12/14/76
12/16/76
12/17/76
01/18/77
01/19/77
01/20/77
01/23/77
01/24/77
01/31/77
02/01/77
02/03/77
02/04/77
02/05/77
% Moisture
26
18
16
28
25
21
21
15
9
3
12
27
14
24
26
25
27
18
20
19
20
20
Date
2/06/77
2/22/77
2/25/77
2/28/77
3/08/77
3/09/77
3/11/77
3/14/77
3/15/77
3/17/77
4/27/77
4/28/77
4/29/77
5/02/77
5/03/77
5/05/77
6/06/77
5/09/77
5/10/77
5/11/77
5/12/77
5/13/77
% Moisture
21
19
21
24
16
23
21
28
27
24
22
16
27
22
23
26
5
18
20
20
15
21
Average
Standard Deviation
20.30
5.65
45
-------
TABLE B-19. PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF REFUSE
DATE
TIME
Moisture
Volatile Matter
Fixed Carbon
Ash
Sulfur
Heat Content
Total Seperated
DATE
TIKE
Moisture
Volatile Matter
.•Fixed Carbon
Ash
Sulf-ur
Heat Content
Total Seperated
3/25/75t
1030
AS REC'D DRY
% 39.70
% 29.19 48.40
% 4.08 6.76
% 27.04 44.84
% 0.05 0.09
MJ/kg 7.14 11.85
Matter % - 9.20
4/13/75t
1400
AS REC'D DRY
% 24.09
% 35.24 46.42
% 6.43 8.47
% 34.24 45.11
% 0.12 0.16
MJ/kg 8.33 10.97
Matter *% 1.80
AS REC'D
10.79
42.72
4.30
42.20
0.12
.9.46
—
t
DRY
_
47.89
4.81
47.30
0.14
10.57
11.00
4/18/75 t
1520
AS REC'D
16.96
40.30
5.96
36.78
0.12
9.10
4.07
4/
1
AS REC1
27.89
34.93
4.11
33.11
0.14
8.10
2.10
2/75t
500
D; DRY
fm
48.44
5.70
45.92
0.19
11.23
—
4/22/75t
1030
DRY
_
48.53
7.12
44.29
0.14
10.96
—
AS REC'
22.22
39.80
8.42
29.55
0.18
9.87
1.72
D DRY
mm
51.17
10.83
37.99
0.23
12.69
—
4/12/75t
1500
AS REC'D DRY
16.88
49.65 59.73
9.68 11.65
23.79 28.62
0.12 0.14
11.25 13.53
1.53
4/22/75t
1315
AS REC'D DRY
11.74
51.02 57.81
8.52 9.65
28.72 32.54
0.16 0.18
10.27 11.64
5.04
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-19, (Continued!
DATE
TIME
.Moisture
Volatile
Fixed Carbon
Ash
Sulfur
Heat Content
Total Seperated
DATE
TIME
'
Moisture
Volatile
Fixed Carbon
Ash
Sulfur
Heat Content
Total Seperated
4/22/7 5t
2300
AS REC'D
% 25.68
% 37.81
% 6.23
% 30.27
% 0.11
MJ/kg 8.90
Matter *% 5.28
DRY
_
50.87
8.38
40.73
0.15
11.98
-
6/20/75§
0335
AS REC'D
% 11.57
% 43.30
% 9.09
% 36.40
% 0.11
MJ/kg 12.27
Matter *% 13.26
DRY
48.97
10.28
41.16
0.12
13.88
-
5/10/75t
1000
AS REC'D
8.55
33.61
3.10
54.73
0.14
7.70
1.14
DRY
_
36.75
3.39
59.85
0.15
8.42
-
6/21/75§
0820
AS REC'D
27.42
32.10
3.18
37.29
0.11
8.89
8.04
5/12/75*
0210
AS REC'D
22.25
33.56
6.99
37.21
0.15
9.34
7.33
DRY
—
43.16
8.99
47.86
0.19
12.01
-
6/ll/75§
5/12/75t
1950
AS REC'D
16.08
33.00
3.14
48.13
0.17
7.87
12.60
DRY
^
39.32
3.74
57.35
0.20
9.38
-
11/15/76-11/21/76
COMPOSITE
DRY
44.23
4.38
51.38
0.15
12.25
-
AS REC'D
23.50
57.51
10.72
8.27
0.15
13.06
-
DRY
75.18
14.01
10.31
0.20
17.07
-
AS REC'D
11.45
25.40
6.19
56.10
0.06
6.02
46.72
DRY
.
28.68
6.99
63.35
6.80
6.80
-
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-19. (Continued)
00
DATE
TIME
Moisture
Volatile Matter
Fixed Carbon
Ash
Sulfur
Heat Content
Total Separated
Matter
12/12/76-12/18/761T
COMPOSITE
% 12.00
% 40.31
% 1.13
% 46.56
% 0.13
MJ/kg 12.75
*%
.
45.81
1.28
52.91
0.15
14.49
™ *
1/16/77-1/22/771
COMPOSITE
21.33
33.36
4.36
40.95
0.14
7.80
^
„
42.40
5.54
52.05
0.18
9.91
™l
2/1/77-2/5/77H
COMPOSITE
19.75
20.46
21.55
38.26
0.13
8.83
«•
_
25.49
26.85
47.67
0.16
11.00
27.79
* Included as Ash.
t Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward, Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No, 7240, St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 35.
§ Herrington, R. C., T. F. Buss, and D. E. Honaker. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No, 7250. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 1.
IF Moisture corrected to moisture measured on site.
-------
TABLE B-20. ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF REFUSE
DATE 6/20/75* 6/21/75* 6/ll/76t 11/15/76-11/21/76
TIME 0335 0820 0515 COMPOSITE
Carbon % 31.42 24.99 40.67 20.31
Hydrogen % 0.53 0.46 5.58 1.94
Nitrogen % 4.47 3.68 6.65 0.19
Oxygen % 22.78 19.33 42.09 13.65
DATE 2/1/77-2/5/77
TIME COMPOSITE
Carbon % 32.42
Hydrogen % 2.14
Nitrogen % 0.40
Oxygen % 17 . 21
12/12/76-12/18/76 1/16/77-1/22/77
COMPOSITE COMPOSITE
38.60 29.10
2.00 1.00
0.58 0.26
5.80 17.40
* Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 35.
t Herrington, R. C., T. F. Buss, and D. E. Honaker. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7250. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 1.
-------
TABLE B-21. CALCULATED REFUSE COMPOSITION
Category
Paper
Organics
Plastics
Textiles
Wood
Glass
Magnetics
Aluminum
Inert s
Total
Total
(Wt. %)
43
17
7
6
2
15
7
2
1
100
Moisture*
(Wt. %)
10.2
72.0
5.5
10.0
20.0
2.0
3.0
3.0
2.0
18.61
Volatile
Matter*
(Wt. %)
75.9
20.3
80.0
84.3
67.9
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
48.21
Fixed
Carbon*
(Wt. %)
8.4
3.3
4.5
3.5
11.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
5.03
Ash*
(Wt. %)
5.4
4.5
10.0
2.2
0.8
97.2
96.0
96.0
97.2
28.13
Heat
Content*
(MJ/kg)
15.8
25.5
31.6
16.0
16.0
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
11.3
Paper
Organics
Plastics
Textiles
Wood
Glass
Magnetics
Aluminum
Inerts
Total
Carbon*
(Wt. %)
43.4
45. 0/
WO
/' "55.0
50.5
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.6
26.81
Hydrogen*
(Wt. %)
^5.8
6.4
7.2
6.6
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.12
Oxygen*
(Wt. %)
44.3
28.8
22.6
31.2
42.4
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
22.36
Nitrogen*
(Wt. %)
0.3
3.3
0.0
4.6
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.52
Sulfur*
(Wt. %)
0.2
0.5
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.10
J. M. Bell, "Characteristics of Municipal Refuse", Proceedings of the
National Conference on Solid Waste Resources, American Public Works
Association, February, 1964.
50
-------
TABLE B-22. ASH ANALYSIS OF REFUSE
Cn
DATE
TIME
3/25/75*
1030
11/15/76-11/21/76
COMPOSITE
12/12/76-12/18/76
COMPOSITE
1/16/77-1/22/77
COMPOSITE
2/1/77-2/5/77
COMPOSITE
•
Aluminla
Chromic Oxide
Cupric Oxide
Ferric Oxide
Lead Oxide
Lime
Manganese Dioxide
Magnesia
Nickel Oxide
Phosphorous Pentoxide
Potassium Oxide
Silica
Sodium Oxide
Sulfur Trioxide
Titania
Zinc Oxide
5.02
0.04
0.11
1.73
0.11
11.51
0.11
1.60
0.01
-
1.02
62.10
9.00
_
0.47
2.02
1.11
-
-
64.78
-
2.51
-
0.29
—
0.35
0.22
26.12
2.05
0.29
0.75
^
3.10
-
-
4.14
—
5.71
-
0.66
_
0.66
0.60
74.30
6.04
0.57
0.40
™~
3.50
—
-
1.92
—
3.57
—
0.68
_
0.66
0.46
74.80
7.08
0.63
0.47
^
44.85
-
-
1.28
—
5.43
-
0.72
_
0.51
0.61
38.74
3.82
0.54
0.50
^
* Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 36.
-------
TABLE B-23. OPTICAL EMISSION SPECTOGRAPHY ANALYSIS OF FEED SAMPLE*
Element
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Bery ilium
Bismuth
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Germanium
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Potassium
Silicon
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
0.100
0.030
0.010
0.001
0.100
0.050
0.100
0.050
0.005
0.010
0.010
0.500
0.001
0.000
0.010
0.100
0.001
0.500
1-10
0.005
0.005
- l.OCO
0.001
0.001
- 0.300
0.001
1-10
- 0.100
- 0.010
- 1.000
0.001
1-10
- 0.500
- 1.000
- 0.500
- 0.050
- 0.100
- 0.100
- 5.000
3 - 30
- 0.010
3-30
- 0.100
0.001
- 0.100
- 1.000
- 0.010
- 5.000
* Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard®
Process Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240.
St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 36. 3/25/75, 1030.
52
-------
TABLE B-24. REFUSE BULK DENSITIES
Before Shredding
Date
4/27/77
4/27/77
4/28/77
4/29/77
5/02/77
5/03/77
5/04/77
5/05/77
5/06/77
5/09/77
5/10/77
5/11/77
5/12/77
5/13/77
Mean
Standard deviation
Minimum
Maximum
kg/mj
165.0
96.1
133.0
84.9
100.9
176,2
165.0
116.9
105.7
96.1
121.7
112.1
96.1
137.8
122.0
28.4
84.9
176.2
After Shredding
Date
11/16/76
12/07/76
12/09/76
12/10/76
12/11/76
12/13/76
12/14/76
12/15/76
12/17/76
12/18/76
12/19/76
Mean
Standard deviation
Minimum
Maximum
kg/m*
48.1
76.9
49.7
38.4
38.4
73.7
59.3
68.9
40.0
22.4
40.0
50.5
16.3
22.4
73.7
53
-------
TABLE B-25. REFUSE BULK DENSITIES
DATE
4/15/75
4/15/75
4/15/75
12/22/76
12/22/76
12/22/76
4/4/76
4/4/76
LOCATION
Outfeed Conveyor*
Atlas Bucket Chain*
Atlas Pile*
Outfeed Conveyor
Atlas Pile
Atlas Pile (bottom core)
Storage Pit (loose)
Storage Pit (dense)
Kgyto:3
201.8
128.0
193.8
102.5
205.0
397.3
144.2
498.2
* Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore
Landgard® Process Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems,
Inc. No. 7240. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 34.
54
-------
TABLE B-26. REFUSE BULK DENSITIES AFTER SHREDDING AND STORAGE
Storage*
(450 - 720 Mg)
Storage
(180 - 450 Mg)
No Storage
Date
4/18/75
4/21/75
4/27/75
4/27/75
4/28/75
4/28/75
4/28/75
4/28/75
4/28/75
5/10/75
5/12/75
5/12/75
5/19/75
5/29/75
5/31/75
6/01/75
6/02/75
6/16/75
6/20/75
6/21/75
6/28/75
7/02/75
7/17/75
7/23/75
Mean
Standard Deviation
Minimum
Maximum
kg/m3
143.7
143.7
192.2
167.7
120.1
185.8
173.0
129.7
198.6
125.7
149.8
131.8
133.0
145.8
126.5
120.1
122.9
154.4
119.8
205.0
176.2
155.7
101.9
161.8
148.3
27.4
101.9
205.0
Date
1/18/77
1/19/77
1/20/77
1/23/77
1/24/77
1/31/77
2/01/77
2/03/77
2/04/77
2/22/77
2/25/77
2/28/77
3/08/77
3/09/77
3/11/77
3/14/77
3/15/77
3/17/77
kg/m3
68.8
104.0
104.0
120.0
104.0
104.0
128.0
80.0
48.0
105.6
160.0
112.0
112.0
224.0
144.0
160.0
112.0
144.0
117.5
39.4
48.0
224.0
Date
4/27/77
4/28/77
4/29/77
5/02/77
5/04/77
5/05/77
5/06/77
5/09/77
5/10/77
5/11/77
5/12/77
5/13/77
kg/m3
41.6
105.7
112.1
105.7
105.7
89.7
80.1
80.1
100.9
80.1
64.1
126.5
91.0
22.3
41.6
126.5
* Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard®
Process Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240.
St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 34.
55
-------
TABLE B-27. BALTIMORE REFUSE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Ln
Before Shredding
Size
101.6 <
50.8 <
25.4 <
5.1 <
Date
Range
Size >
Size <
Size <
Size <
Size <
Size <
(mm)
152.4
152.4
101.6
50.8
25.4
5.1
4/28/77
Weight in Grams
2043.0
908.0
908.0
454.0
908.0
454.0
' 5/5/77
999.8
1362.0
2133.8
1089.6
817.2
454.0
Weight %
24
18
24
12
14
7
After Shredding
Date
11/29/76
12/7/76
12/8/76
Size Range (mm)
101.6
50.8
25.4
5.1
Size >
< Size <
< Size <
< Size <
< Size <
Size <
152.4
152.4
101.6
50.8
25.4
5.1
0
0
276.9
172.5
172.5
149.8
0
13.6
195.2
272.4
290.6
227.0
0
31,8
45.4
86.3
95.3
72.6
12/10/76
1/23/77
3/11/77
5/6/77
Weight in Grams
0
0
9.1
4.5
63.6
40.9
109.0
31.8
149.8
431.3
426.8
245.2
0
13.6
136.2
267.9
622.0
444.9
0
18.2
286.0
295.1
617.4
967.0
5/13/77
Weight %
0
0
467.6
190.7
903.5
2120,2
1
1
14
16
29
38
-------
Ln
100
80
g
in
>
co
cc
LU
z
20
BEFORE SHREDDING
AFTER SHREDDING
1888888 8 8
3 S K * K> 5 S N
8§g 2 § S S g S
PARTICLE SIZE (mm)
o o> oo
CO CM
Figure B-2. Refuse size distribution.
-------
TABLE B-28. DIESEL FUEL CONSUMPTION WHILE PROCESSING*
PERIOD DAYS
ll/ 6/76-11/ 7/76 2
11/12/76-11/16/76 5
11/25/76-11/29/76 5
12/ 7/76-12/19/76 18
I/ 8/77- 1/24/77 17
1/31/77- 2/6/77 7
2/22/77- 3/17/77 24
TOTAL 78
REFUSE TOTAL CONSUMPTION CONSUMPTION
PROCESSED
(Mg)
299
2560
1751
5365
5817
3341
10,560
29,693
(LITERS)
462
1,457
1,018
2,979
3,592
1,647
5,088
16,243
PER Mg
(LITERS /MG)
1.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.55
CONSUMPTION
PER DAY
(LITERS /DAY)
231
291
204
165
211
235
212
208
* City Daily Log.
TABLE B-29. DIESEL FUEL CONSUMPTION DURING DOWNTIME*
PERIOD
DAYS
TOTAL CONSUMPTION
(LITERS)
CONSUMPTION
PER DAY
(LITERS/DAY)
ll/ 4/76-11/ 5/76 2
11/19/76-11/24/76 6
11/30/76-12/ 5/76 6
12/24/76- I/ 7/77 15
1/25/77- 1/27/77 3
2/10/77- 2/21/77 12
TOTAL
44
0
333
159
1,473
231
621
2,816
0
56
26
98
77
52
64
* City Daily Log.
58
-------
a daily basis because it is meaningless because filling of the bulldozer fuel
tanks was only done every 3 days. The amount of refuse processed was deter-
mined from city daily operation reports.
Table B-30 lists the duct flows within the dust collection system as
measured by Monsanto when initially balancing the system.
Table B-31 details the composition data of the magnetic drum discharge
summarized in Section 2 of Volume II. As indicated by the table, only one
manual sort was obtainable due to the short operating period of the magnet.
The amount of shredded refuse separated during operation was determined by
weighing the separated refuse contained in the metal transfer truck using the truck
scale. This data along with the amount of shredded refuse fed to the magnetic
drum was obtained from the city daily operation report. The total separated
magnetic material was calculated to be 5.4 percent of the feed stream. The
percent of material in each category removed by the magnetic drum separator
was calculated as follows:
Wt. % of category "A" in separated refuse x Total % of refuse separated
Wt. % of category "A" in incoming stream
The power demand of various motors of the storage and recovery unit as
a function of various output parameters is shown in Table B-32.
59
-------
TABLE B-30. DUST COLLECTION SYSTEM FLOWS*
Air Flow
Sample Point (m3/min)
Shredder feed conveyor discharge 40.8
Shredded refuse collecting conveyor 90.9
Shredder dust collector 135.1
Shredder feed conveyor discharge 35.4
Shredded refuse collecting conveyor 78.7
Shredded refuse elevating conveyor 20.1
Shredder dust collector 134.8
Shredders ' 266.2
Storage and recovery unit 26.9
Storage and recovery unit dust collector
Transfer tower inlet 258.3
Shredded refuse elevating conveyor 13.6
Shredded refuse transfer conveyor 13.6
Magnetic drum separator 33.1
Storage and recovery unit 13.6
Kiln feed conveyor 13.6
Storage and recovery unit drag conveyor 22.4
Transfer tower dust collector 54.1
Transfer tower outlet 342.6
Ram feeders
Kiln feed dust collector
Dust collection fan inlet 365.3
Dust collection fan outlet 351.1
* Monsanto Modification Evaluation, F01-201, 11/1/76, Unpublished data.
60
-------
TABLE B-31. COMPOSITION OF MAGNETIC DRUM DISCHARGE
Category Weight %* % Removedt
Paper
Organics
Plastics
Textiles
Wood
Glass
Magnetic metals
Aluminum
Inert s
6.8
2.8
0.3
0.8
0.0
0.6
88.5
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.9
0.2
0.7
0.0
0.2
68.5
0.0
0.0
* Systech Manual Sort, 11/7/76.
t 5.4 percent of shredded refuse separated (City Daily Operation Report,
11/6/76 - 11/7/76).
61
-------
TABLE B-32. ATLAS RUNOUT DATA*
K>
Date
6/07/76
6/08/76
6/09/76
6/10/76
Time
1725
1830
2000
2200
1300
1400
1515
1620
1840
2115
2315
0300
1500
1600
1700
19X10
2045
0000
0200
0400
0600
0800
1030
2130
0100
0310
0700
1200
Rate
(Mg/hr)
27.2
27.2
27.2
27.2
22.7
27.2
24.5
26.3
28.1
28.1
26.3
27.2
24.5
26.3
25.4
25.4
27.2
30.8
25.4
30.8
29. Q
25.4
26.3
23.6
24.5
19.0
22.7
26.3
Buckets Con- Refuse
Waste Age Shredder tacting Pile in Silo
(Days) (on/off) (Per Chain) (Mg)
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
?. 0 -
2.0
3.0
On
On
On
On
Off
Off
Off
Off
Both On
Both On
Both On
Both On
Off
Off
On
Both On
Both On
Both On
Both On
Off
Off
Off
On
Off
Off
Off
Off
On
13
12
12
13
11
11
9
12
10
9
10
10
11
11
10
11
12
12
13
11
10
10
11
9
7
7
7
10
540
540
540
635
635
610
540
590
590
650
635
610
580
635
680
635
450
635
Pile Sweep
Diameter Master
(m) (kw)
22
30
33
30
21
21
21
21
21
18
20
20
21
21
21
22
21
23
21
20
18
16
17
18
17
15
15
17
36.8
38.7
42.6
38.7
29.0
30.2
32.9
34.8
27.1
27.1
31.0
21.3
34.8
31.0
29,0
32.9
31.0
31.0
32.9
29.0
33.7
21.3
29.0
27.1
19.4
19.4
19.4
29.0
Sweep
Slave
(kw)
36.8
40.7
44.9
40.7
36.8
32.9
36.8
38.7
29.0
31.0
34.8
29.0
38.7
32.9
34.8
34.8
32.9
34.8
36.8
31.0
38.7
27.1
32.9
31.0
21.3
23.2
23.2
32.9
Drag
(kw)
12.7
12.0
11.6
11.2
10.5
9.7
12.0
11.2
10.1
10.8
11.2
9.7
12.7
12.0
11.6
11.6
11.2
10.5
11.2
12.7
11.2
12.0
11.2
13.1
9.7
11.2
11.2
10.8
* Monsanto Modification Evaluation, A09-103, 6/12/76, Unpublished data.
-------
SECTION B-4
THERMAL PROCESSING SUBSYSTEM
PLANT AVAILABILITY AND THROUGHPUT
The plant throughput was shown graphically in Figure 8 of Volume I, a
cumulative plot of refuse processed versus time. The data used to develop
this graph is detailed in the operation summary shown in Table B-33. The
plant availability is shown by the daily operating time which increases gen-
erally throughout the periods. All dates not shown are periods of downtime.
FUEL OIL CONSUMPTION
The daily fuel oil consumption (Table B-34) was determined from the
daily totalizer readings. These readings were made at or shortly after
7:00 a.m. The daily fuel oil consumption was from 7:00 a.m. of one day to
7:00 a.m. of the next day. This does not correlate with the operation
summary (Table B-33) which has a daily period beginning and ending at midnight.
The amount of refuse fired daily and the number of standby hours per day in
Table B-34 are taken from Table B-33 to show the relationship between fuel
oil consumption and the amount of refuse fired daily and the number of standby
hours.
Using the hourly readings of the fuel oil totalizer and the city daily
data sheets the hourly fuel oil consumption during both standby and operating
conditions is shown in Tables B-35 and B-36 respectively. Table B-36 reveals
that the fuel oil consumption during operating conditions is independent of
the feed rate. The consumption depends upon the minimum firing rate of the
burners. During the period from November 12 to December 14, 1976 the con-
sumption averaged 723 liters per hour (194 gph). The minimum firing rates of
certain burners was reduced and the operating fuel oil consumption dropped to
an average of 262 liters per hour (69 gph) during the period of January 13 to
March 13, 1977. The city then raised the minimum firing rates of the burners
to maintain a stable flame. During the period from March 17 to May 13, 1977.
the operating fuel oil consumption averaged 639 liters per hour (169 gph).
Two analyses of the No. 2 fuel oil are shown in Table B-37.
63
-------
TABLE B-33. OPERATION SUMMARY
Date
01/05/75
01/07/75
01/09/75
01/30/75
02/19/75
02/21/75
03/03/75
03/13/75
03/14/75
03/24/75
03/25/75
03/31/75
04/01/75
04/09/75
04/10/75
04/14/75
04/15/75
04/18/75
04/22/75
04/23/75
04/27/73
04/28/75
05/10/75
05/11/75
05/12/75
05/14/75
05/15/75
05/19/75
05/20/75
05/30/75
05/31/75
06/01/75
06/02/75
06/03/75
06/12/75
06/13/75
06/14/75
06/15/75
06/16/75
06/19/75
06/20/75
06/21/75
Operating
Time
(Hours)
1.0
1.0
3.0
1.0
1.3
0.5
6.5
11.0
10.5
12.0
12.0
2.0
1.5
7.0
6.0
3.0
3.0
7.5
7.0
6.0
16.0
16.0
15*0
8.5
8.0
4.5
3.0
11.0
10.0
14.0
11.0
6.5
21.5
10.0
20.0
20.0
0.5
8.2
10.0
10.2
14.5
4.5
Amount
Fired
(Mg)
18.1
22.7
90.7
27.2
51.7
15.4
205.9
379.2
362.0
402.8
402.8
68.9
51.7
2.05.0
176.0
95.3
95.3
272.2
203.2
174.2
420.9
420.9
340.2
238.6
225.0
95.3
81.6
297.6
271.3
300.3
325.7
130.6
673.1
83.5
515.3
514.4
13.6
205.0
280.3
286.7
306.6
80.7
Feed
Rate
(Mg/hr.)
18.1
22.7
30.2
27.2
41.4
30.8
31.7
34.5
34.5
33.6
33.6
34.5
34.5
29.3
29.3
31.3
31.8
36.3
29.0
29.0
26.3
26.3
22.7
28.1
28.1
27.2
27.2
27.1
27.1
21.4
29.6
20.1
31.3
8.4
25.8
25.7
27.2
25.0
28.0
28.1
21.1
17.9
Cumulative
Amount Fired
(Mg)
18.1
40.8
131.5
158.7
210.4
225.8
431.7
810.9
1,172.9
1,575.7
1,978.5
2,047.4
2,099.1
2,304.1
2,480.1
2,575.4
2,670.7
c 2,942.9
; 3,146.1
r 3,320.3
3,741.2
; 4,162.1
4,502.3
c 4, 740. 9
4,965.9
5,061.2
5,142.8
5,440.4
i. 5,711.7
-• 6,012.0
6,337.7
6,468.3
7,141.4
7,224.9
7,740.2
8,254.6
8,268.2
8,473.2
8,753.2
9,039.9
9,346.5
9,427.2
64
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-33. (Continued)
Date
06/27/75
06/28/75
07/01/75
07/02/75
07/07/75
07/08/75
07/09/75
07/10/75
07/14/75
07/17/75
07/18/75
07/19/75
07/23/75
07/24/75
07/25/75
07/26/75
07/29/75
07/30/75
07/31/75
08/24/75
08/25/75
08/29/^5
08/30/75
08A31/75
09/01/75
09/10A75
09/11/75
09/12/75
09/13/75
09/14/75
09/15/75
09/16/75
09/17/75
09/25/75
09/26/75
05/10/76
06/07/76
06/08/76
06/09/76
06/10/76
06/11/76
06/13/76
06/14/76
Operating
Time
(Hours)
14.0
12.0
3.0
15.3
20.0
11.2
24.0
7.5
2.0
19.5
14.0
3.0
11.3
14.5
20.7
12.0
8.7
21.7
14.5
14.0
3.0
7.5
15.0
6.0
21.0
21.3
9.5
9.0
12.5
8.0
11.3
5.2
12.2
20.0
19.4
8.0
8.0
14.0
16.0
20.0
0.5
6.0
* 13.0
Amount
Fired
(Mg)
383.7
307.5
80.7
388.3
359.3
67.1
126.1
29.0
50.8
480.8
342.9
85.3
280.3
386.5
558.8
352.0
237.7
519.8
444.5
454.5
119.8
271.3
468.1
209.6
682.2
747.5
319.3
316.6
455.4
269.4
352.0
69.1
411.9
352.9
342.9
136.1
213.2
414.6
423.7
490.8
13.6
164.2
341.1
Feed
Rate
(Mg/hr.)
27.4
25.6
26.9
25.4
18.0
6.0
5.3
3.9
25.4
24.7
24.5
28.4
24.8
26.7
27.0
29.3
27.3
35.9
30.7
32.5
39.9
36.2
31.2
34.9
32.5
35.1
33.6
35.2
36.4
33.7
31.1
13.4
33.8
17.6
17.7
17.0
26.6
29.6
26.5
24.5
27.2
27.4
26.2
Cumulative
Amount Fired
(Mg)
9,810.9
10,118.4
10,198.4
10,586.7
10,946.0
11,013.1
11,139.2
11,168.2
11,219.0
11,699.8
12,042.7
12,128.0
12,408.3
12,794.8
13,353.6
13,705.6
13,943.3
14,463.1
14,907.6
15,362.1
15,481.9
15,753.2
16,221.3
16,430.9
17,113.1
17,860.6
18,179.9
18,496.5
18,951.9
19,221.3
19,573.3
19,642.4
20,054.3
20,407.2
20,750.1
20,886.2
21,099.4
21,514.0
21,937.7
22,428.5
22,442.1
22,606.3
22,947.4
65 (continued)
-------
TABLE B-33. (Continued)
Date
06/21/76
06/22/76
06/23/76
06/24/76
06/25/76
07/07/76
07/08/76
07/09/76
07/21/76
07/22/76
07/23/76
07/24/76
07/26/76
07/27/76
07/28/76
08/05/76
08/06/76
08/07/76
11/06/76
11/07/76
11/08/76
11/11/76
11/12/76
11/13/76
11/14/76
11/15/76
11/16/76
11/17/76
11/25/76
11/26/76
11/27/76
11/28/76
11/29/76
12/06/76
12/07/76
12/08/76
12/09/76
12/10/76
12/11/76
12/12/76
12/13/76
12/14/76
12/15/76
Operating
Time
(Hours)
11.5
14.0
20.0
4.0
6.0
4.0
17.8
1.0
18.7
17.5
19.5
6.0
14.5
9.5
9.0
17.0
22.5
16.0
7.0
4.5
8.5
15.0
23.0
23.0
18.0
10.0
23.5
7.0
4.0
8.5
23.5
18.5
4.0
2.5
16.0
1.0
4.0
20.7
8.9
18.0
23.4
23.2
14.8
Amount
Fired
(Mg)
303.0
445.4
506.2
88.0
167.8
102.5
520.4
24.8
559.7
395.6
626.9
186.9
524.4
297.6
228.6
512.6
684.0
487.2
186.0
113.4
236.8
404.6
606.0
575.2
430.0
283.0
665.1
196.0
92.5
251.3
748.4
542.5
116.1
76.2
446.3
30.8
109.8
460.9
211.4
548.9
714.9
687.7
440.0
Feed
Rate
(Mg/hr.)
26.3
31.8
25.3
22.0
28.0
25.6
29.2
24.8
29.9
22.6
32.1
31.1
36.2
31.3
25.4
30.2
30.4
30.4
26.6
25.2
27.9
27.0
26.3
25.0
23.9
28.3
28.3
28.0
23.1
29.6
31.8
29.3
29.0
30.5
27.9
30.8
27.4
22.3
23.8
30.5
30.6
29.6
29.7
Cumulative
Amount Fired
(Mg)
23,250.4
23,695.8
24,202.0
24,290.0
24,457.8
24,560.3
25,080.7
25,105.5
25,665.2
26,060.8
26,687.7
26,874.6
27,399.0
27,696.6
27,925.2
28,437.8
29,121.8
29,609.0
29,795.0
29,908.4
30,145.2
30,549.8
31,155.8
31,721.0
32,161.0
32,444.0
33,109.9
33,305.9
33,398.4
33,649.7
34,398.1
34,940.6
35,056.7
35,132.9
35,579.2
35,610.0
35,719.8
36,180.7
36,392.1
36," 941.0
37,655.9
38,343.6
38,783.6
66
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-33. (Continued)
Date
12/16/76
12/17/76
12/18/76
12/19/76
12/20/76
12/21/76
12/22/76
12/23/76
01/08/77
01/09/77
01/10/77
01/11/77
01/12/77
01/13/77
01/14/77
01/15/77
01/16/77
01/17/77
01/18/77
01/19/77
01/20/77
01/21/77
01/22/77
01/23/77
01/24/77
01/30/77
01/31/77
02/01/77
02/03/77
02/04/77
02/05/77
02/06/77
02/07/77
02/22/77
02/23/77
02/24/77
02/25/77
02/26/77
02/28/77
03/01/77
03/02/77
03/03/77
03/04/77
Operating
Time
(Hours)
11.0
13.6
16.7
16.2
17.7
15.8
20.8
11.7
11.5
21.0
9.0
23.3
1.8
12.2
10.5
9.7
0.7
8.0
19.6
• 12.3
13.4
7.4
9.0
23.2
11.5
4.5
21.1
17.1
6.0
24.0
19.8
22.4
3.0
13.5
14.7
23.9
23.6
18.5
16.0
23.8
21.8
14.9.
11.7
Amount
Fired
(Mg)
382.8
426.4
450.9
454.5
416.4
371.0
498.3
230.4
318.4
749.3
283.0
739.4
43.5
410.1
341.2
262.2
21.8
173.3
458.1
288.5
371.0
254.9
218.6
604.2
279.4
142.4
554.3
529.8
196.0
718.5
554.3
645.9
67.1
417.3
502.5
774.7
753.0
556.1
522.5
733.8
588.8
398.3
310.3
Feed
Rate
(Mg/hr.)
34.8
31.4
27.0
28.1
23.5
23.5
19.1
19.7
27.7
35.7
31.4
31.7
24.2
33.6
32.5
27.0
31.1
21.7
23.4
23.5
27.7
34.4
24.3
26.0
23.7
' 31.7
26.3
31.0
32.7
29.9
28.0
20.8
22.4
30.9
34.2
32.4
31.9
30.1
32.7
32.5
27.0
26.7
26.5
Cumulative
Amount Fired
(Mg)
39,166.4
39,592.8
40,043.7
40,498.2
40,914.6
41,231.6
41,729.9
41,960.3
42,278.7
43,028.0
43,311.0
44,050.4
44,093.9
44,504.0
44,845.2
45,107.4
45,129.2
45,302.5
45,760.6
46,049.1
45,420.1
46,675.0
46,893.6
47,497.8
47,777.2
47,919.6
48,473.9
49,003.7
49,199.7
49,918.2
50,472.5
51,118.5
51,185.5
51,602.8
52,105.3
52,800.0
53,663.0
54,189.1
54,711.6
55,485.4
56,074.2
56,472.5
56,782.8
(•-, (continued)
-------
TABLE B-33. (Continued)
Date
03/05/77
03/06/77
03/07/77
03/08/77
03/09/77
03/10/77
03/11/77
03/12/77
03/13/77
03/14/77
03/15/77
03/16/77
03/17/77
03/18/77
04/25/77
04/26/77
04/27/77
04/28/77
04/29/77
04/30/77
05/02/77
05/03/77
05/04/77
05/05/77
05/06/77
05/07/77
05/09/77
05/10/77
05/11/77
05/12/77
05/13/77
05/14/77
06/20/77
06/21/77
06/22/77
06/24/77
06/25/77
06/29/77
06/30/77
07/01/77
07/02/77
07/11/77
07/12/77
Operating
Time
(Hours)
12.0
8.0
15.3
16.2
18.2
12.6
19.7
21.8
5.5
11.6
21.7
13.2
21.6
10.7
11.0
22.3
23.3
22.2
22.8
17.5
16.3
12.0
21.8
21.3
23.5
19.5
14.5
23.5
22.5
23.0
23.0
22.5
13.3
21.8
22.5
16.0
23.0
23.0
22.0
23.0
9.5
8.0
23.0
Amount
Fired
(Mg)
331.1
200.5
406.4
365.6
452.7
312.1
465.4
538.9
127.9
293.9
544.3
376.5
548.1
289.4
304.8
617.8
645.9
615.1
632.3
485.3
486.3
358.3
650.5
635.9
701.3
581.5
432.7
694.9
671.3
685.8
685.8
671.3
453.6
743.9
768.4
546.1
784.7
820.1
784.7
820.1
338.4
331.1
952.6
Feed
Rate
(Mg/hr.)
27.6
25.1
26.6
22.6
24.9
24.8
23.6
24.7
23.3
25.3
25.1
28.5
25.4
27.1
27.7
27.7
27.7
27.7
27.7
27.7
29.8
29.9
29.8
29.9
29.8
29.8
29.8
29.6
29.8
29.8
29.8
29.8
34.1
34.1
34.2
34.1
34.1
35.7
35.7
35.7
35.6
41.4
41.4
Cumulative
Amount Fired
(Mg)
57,113.9
57,314.4
57,720.8
58,086.4
58,539.1
58,851.2
59,316.6
59,855.5
59,983.4
60,277.3
60,821.6
61,198.1
61,746.2
62,035.6
62,340.4
62,958.2
63,604.1
64,219.2
64,851.5
65,336.8
65,823.1
66,181.4
66,831.9
67,467.8
68,169.1
68,750.6
69,183.3
69,878.2
70,549.5
71,235.3
71,921.1
72,592.4
73,046.0
73,789.9
74,558.3
75,104.4
75,889.1
76,709.2
77,493.9
78,314.0
78,652.4
78,983.5
79,936.1
(continued)
68
-------
TABLE B-33. (Continued)
Date
07/13/77
07/14/77
07/15/77
07/23/77
07/24/77
07/26/77
07/27/77
07/28/77
07/29/77
07/30/77
08/01/77
08/02/77
08/03/77
08/04/77
08/05/77
08/18/77
08/19/77
08/20/77
08/22/77
08/23/77
08/24/77
08/25/77
OB/26/77
08/27/77
08/29/77
09/06/77
09/07/77
09/08/77
09/09/77
09/10/77
09/12/77
09/14/77
09/15/77
09/16/77
09/17/77
09/19/77
09/20/77
09/21/77
Operating
Time
(Hours)
22.0
21.5
11.0
7.5
14.0
11.0
22.0
23.5
21.0
16.0
16.0
23.0
22.5
22.5
22.5
5.0
21.5
22.0
13.0
22.0
23.0
21.5
18.0
15.0
5.0
12.5
23.0
23.0
23.0
22.0
7.5
7.0
23.0
23.0
14.0
16.0
21.0
14.0
Amount
Fired
(Mg)
911.7
890.0
455.4
204.1
381.0
259.1
518.2
553.6
494.5
377.3
344.5
495.5
484.5
484.5
484.5
55.5
238.2
243.6
366.4
620.1
648.2
606.4
507.3
422.8
6.4
295.5
543.7
543.7
543.7
520.1
142.7
133.6
439.1
439.1
267.3
180.0
236.4
158.2
Feed
Rate
(Mg/hr.)
41.4
41.4
41.4
27.2
27.2
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
21.5
11.2
11.2
11.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
28.2
1.3
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
23.6
19.0
19.1
19.1
19.1
19.1
11.3
11.3
11.3
Cumulative
Amount Fired
(Mg)
80,847.8
81,737.8
82,193.2
82,397.3
82,778.3
83,165.5
83,683.6
84,237.3
84,731.8
85,109.1
85,453.6
85,949.1
86,433.6
86,918.2
87,402.7
87,458.2
87,696.4
87,940.0
88,306.4
88,926.5
89,574.7
90,181.1
90,688.4
91,111.2
91,117.6
91,413.1
91,956.8
92,500.5
93,044.2
93,564.3
93,707.0
93,840.6
94,279.7
94,718.8
94,986.1
95,166.1
95,402.5
95,560.7
69
-------
TABLE B-34. DAILY FUEL OIL CONSUMPTION
Date
11/04/76
11/05/76
11/06/76
11/07/76
11/08/76
11/09/76
11/10/76
11/11/76
11/12/76
11/13/76
11/14/76
11/15/76
11/16/76
11/26/76
11/27/76
11/28/76
11/29/76
11/30/76
12/01/76
12/06/76
12/07/76
12/08/76
12/09/76
12/10/76
12/11/76
12/12/76
12/13/76
12/14/76
12/15/76
12/16/76
12/17/76
12/18/76
12/19/76
12/20/76
12/21/76
12/22/76
01/05/77
01/08/77
01/09/77
01/10/77
01/13/77
01/14/77
01/15/77
01/16/77
Consumption
(liters)
52,316
92,812
58,842
64,792
55,643
2,971
47,006
23,467
17,116
15,976
55,980
28,690
30,042
45,378
25,647
37,634
46,881
651
1,113
58,864
47,426
16,855
56,722
37,699
56,824
15,132
18,713
23,482
30,772
36,268
24,735
22,854
41,313
28,232
38.111
16,972
49,478
25,821
39,697
38,115
23,107
79,602
55,238
50,992
Refuse fired
(Mg)
0
0
186
113
237
0
0
405
606
575
430
283
665
251
748
543
116
0
0
76
446
31
110
461
211
549
715
688
440
383
426
451
455
416
371
498
0
318
749
283
410
341
262
22
Standby time
(hours)
24,0
24.0
17.0
19.5
15.5
24.0
24.0
9.0
1.0
1.0
6.0
14.0
0.5
15.5
0.5
5.5
20.0
24.0
24.0
21.5
8.0
23.0
20.0
3.3
15.1
6.0
0.6
0.8
9.2
13.0
10.4
7.3
7.8
6.3
8.2
3.2
24.0
12.5
3.0
15.0
11.8
13.5
14.3
23.3
70
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-34. (Continued)
Date
01/17/77
01/18/77
01/19/77
01/20/77
02/04/77
02/05/77
02/06/77
02/07/77
02/08/77
02/20/77
02/21/77
02/22/77
02/25/77
03/02/77
03/03/77
02/07/77
03/08/77
03/09/77
03/10/77
03/11/77
03/12/77
03/13/77
03/14/77
03/15/77
03/16/77
03/17/77
03/18/77
03/19/77
04/25/77
04/26/77
04/27/77
04/28/77
04/29/77
04/30/77
05/01/77
05/02/77
05/05/77
05/06/77
05/07/77
05/08/77
05/09/77
05/10/77
05/12/77
Consumption
(liters)
55,935
42,774
44,038
. 25,791
8,766
21,041
30,462
61,699
753
53,925
72,630
24,383
6,836
15,704
37,960
20,814
27,350
22,415
57,354
6,938
20,061
75,628
28,660
21,366
33,967
14,160
57,577
8,463
32,460
15,363
16,877
15,492
29,667
36,631
50,575
25,927
27,347
22,842
45,647
61,101
20,325
17,191
• 17,407
Refuse fired
(Mg)
173
458
288
371
718
554
646
67
0
0
0
417
753
589
398
406
366
453
312
465
539
128
294
544
376
548
289
0
305
618
646
615
632
485
0
486
636
701
581
0
433
695
686
Standby time
(hours)
16.0
4.4
11.7
10.6
20.0
4.2
1.6
21.0
24.0
24.0
24.0
10.5
0.4
2.2
9.1
8.7
7.8
5.8
11.4
4.3
2.2
18.5
12.4
2.3
10.8
2.4
13.3
24.0
13.0
1.7
0.7
1.8
1.2
6.5
24.0
7.7
2.7
0.5
4.5
24.0
9.5
0.5
1.0
71
-------
TABLE B-35. STANDBY HOURLY FUEL OIL CONSUMPTION
Date
Time Period
Consumption
d/hr)
11/07/76
11/15/76
11/15/76
11/17/76
11/17/76
11/29/76
11/29/76
11/29/76
11/29/76
12/07/76
12/07/76
12/15/76
12/15/76
12/15/76
12/17/76
12/17/76
12/19/76
01/19/77
01/19/77
01/19/77
01/21/77
01/21/77
01/24/77
01/25/77
03/09/77
03/09/77
03/10/77
03/10/77
700 -
700 -
900 -
1200 -
1300 -
1300 -
1400 -
1500 -
1600 -
700 -
1100 -
1000 -
1100 -
1200 -
1300 -
1400 -
1100 -
800 -
900 -
1000 -
1300 -
1400 -
1200 -
000 -
700 -
1000 -
1200 -
1300 -
1200
900
12QO
1300
1500
1400
1500
1600
1700
1000
1200
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1200
900
1000
1100
1400
1500
2400
700
1000
1100
1300
1400
3592
2672
3235
3388
3242
3270
4129
2926
3611
3316
3637
3837
3671
3804
3081
3115
3069
3512
3796
4027
3743
3815
3603
3603
3112
3085
3388
3429
Weighted average
3466
72
-------
TABLE B-36. OPERATING HOURLY FUEL OIL CONSUMPTION
Date
11/12/76
11/12/76
11/12/76
11/13/76
11/13/76
11/15/76
11/15/76
11/15/76
11/15/76
11/16/76
11/16/76
11/29/76
12/07/76
12/07/76
12/07/76
12/12/76
12/13/76
12/13/76
12/13/76
12/13/76
12/13/76
12/13/76
12/14/76
12/14/76
12/14/76
12/14/76
12/14/76
12/16/76
12/16/76
12/17/76
12/18/76
12/18/76
12/18/76
12/21/76
12/21/76
12/21/76
01/13/77
01/13/77
01/13/77
01/18/77
01/18/77
01/18/77
01/18/77
01/18/77
Time Period
800 - 900
900 - 1300
1300 - 2400
000 - 700
700 - 1400
1500 - 1700
1700 - 1800
1800 - 2400
000 - 900
900 - 1600
1700 - 1800
1100 - 1200
1400 - 1500
1500 - 1700
1700 - 1800
1100 - 1300
1300 - 1400
1400 - 1500
1500 - 1600
1600 - 1700
1700 - 1800
1900 - 2400
000 - 700
1000 - 1100
1300 - 1600
1600 - 1700
1700 - 1800
700 - 1000
1000 - 1100
1000 - 1100
1200 - 1300
1300 - 1400
1600 - 1700
800 - 900
900 - 1000
1000 - 1100
1500 - 1600
1600 - 1700
1700 - 1800
1000 - 1100
1100 - 1300
1300 - 1400
1400 - 1500
1500 - 1600
Feed Rate
(Mg/hr)
23.25
28.12
29.71
29.71
23.74
29.04
27.51
29.24
29.24
30.76
25.00
34.12
33.26
32.83
32.53
31.00
36.33
30.68
41.17
31.58
30.65
31.21
31.88
31.69
34.13
35.76
37.38
37.38
34.38
26.20
21.83
22.09
27.81
34.31
36.63
30.92
31.94
34.88
34.57
26.83
Consumption
(1/hr)
738
728
749
749
727
770
738
735
735
735
738
787
753
687
734
672
780
746
708
681
693
716
716
730
766
825
746
482
462
526
352
363
322
333
397
360
257
269
265
291
308
326
299
295
73
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-36. (Continued)
Date
01/18/77
01/20/77
01/20/77
01/20/77
01/23/77
01/24/77
01/31/77
01/31/77
01/31/77
02/01/77
02/01/77
02/01/77
02/01/77
02/01/77
02/01/77
02/01/77
02/03/77
02/03/77
02/03/77
02/03/77
02/04/77
02/04/77
02/04/77
02/04/77
02/04/77
02/04/77
02/05/77
02/05/77
02/05/77
02/22/77
02/22/77
02/22/77
02/25/77
02/25/77
02/25/77
02/25/77
02/25/77
02/25/77
02/25/77
02/28/77
02/28/77
02/28/77
02/28/77
02/28/77
Time Period
1600 - 1700
1200 - 1300
1300 - 1400
1400 - 1500
1100 - 1200
900 - 1000
900 - 1000
1500 - 1600
1600 - 1700
800 - 900
' 900 - 1000
1000 - 1100
1100 - 1200
1200 - 1300
1300 - 1400
1400 - 1500
1700 - 1800
2100 - 2200
2200 - 2300
2300 - 2400
000 - 700
700 - 1000
1000 - 1100
1100 - 1200
1200 - 1400
1400 - 1500
1400 - 1500
1500 - 1600
1600 - 1700
1100 - 1200
1200 - 1300
1300 - 1500
700 - 800
800 - 900
900 - 1000
1000 - 1100
1100 - 1200
1200 - 1300
1300 - 1400
1000 - 1100
1100 - 1200
1200 - 1400
1400 - 1500
1500 - 1600
Feed Rate
(Mg/hr)
26.83
34.27
34.79
40.26
23.77
22.81
28.61
24.31
30.62
37.33
33.16
30.25
35.72
28.80
32.00
44.13
31.27
34.52
34.52
29.60
28.66
20.41
26.52
29.02
22.57
29.79
34.98
33.40
32.76
35.43
39.73
34.32
37.19
38.18
37.81
31.97
33.80
33.97
39.26
36.81
34.31
45.61
Consumption
d/hr)
291
344
329
314
291
227
280
265
276
303
269
299
280
276
291
257
261
254
261
278
278
227
269
280
257
265
284
291
257
265
265
260
307
223
242
295
216
288
246
291
303
259
250
303
74
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-36. (Continued)
Date
02/28/77
02/28/77
03/10/77
03/10/77
03/11/77
03/11/77
03/11/77
03/11/77
03/11/77
03/11/77
03/15/77
03/15/77
03/15/77
03/15/77
03/15/77
03/15/77
03/15/77
03/17/77
04/27/77
04/27/77
04/29/77
04/29/77
04/29/77
04/29/77
04/29/77
•05/09/77
05/09/77
05/09/77
05/13/77
05/13/77
Time
1600
1700
700
1000
700
800
900
1000
1100
1400
1500
1600
1700
1800
1900
2100
2200
1600
1500
1600
1500
1700
1800
1900
2000
1200
1700
1800
1100
1200
Period
- 1700
- 1800
- 1000
- 1100
- 800
- 900
- 1000
- 1100
- 1400
- 1500
- 1600
- 1700
- 1800
- 1900
- 2000
- 2200
- 2300
- 1700
- 1600
- 1700
- 1600
- 1800
- 1900
- 2000
- 2100
- 1300
- 1800
- 1900
- 1200
- 1300
Feed Rate
(Mg/hr)
31.54
38.96
29.09
26.99
28.92
24.30
26.20
28.60
29.60
29.60
35.67
20.92
28.56
26.79
29.55
26.29
32.24
26.12
18.75
39.15
21.43
41.03
22.28
26.71
39.87
33.50
30.58
33.74
Consumption
d/hr)
307
231
233
235
246
197
227
227
178
144
318
394
326
284
231
341
352
689
731
496
579
556
553
492
606
708
617
640
897
749
75
-------
TABLE B-37. ANALYSIS OF NO. 2 FUEL OIL
Date
Time
Ash C%)
Sulfur (%)
Heat content (MJ/kg)
Carbon (%)
Hydrogen (%)
Nitrogen (%)
Oxygen (%)
8/5/76*
1400
.00
.22
45.3
83.65
12.09
.002
4.04
4/29/77
1530
.00
.30
45.8
85.91
13.75
.03
.01
Herrington, R. C., T. F. Buss, and D. E. Honaker. Baltimore Landgard®
Process Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7250
St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 3A.
76
-------
Burner Fuel Flow
No direct measurement of fuel oil flow to any individual burner nozzle
is available. Hence, the only possible fuel oil flow measurements are made
at the flow meter supplying the two main kiln burners and the totalizing
meter, discussed previously, which supplies the fuel oil for all the burners.
The meter registering the fuel oil flow to the two main kiln burners has an
indicator on the main control panel. Since the kiln standby and heat-up
burner is off during normal operation the flow of the on-stream lead burner
is determined by reading the indicator on the control panel. This data is
recorded hourly by city personnel. The four kiln safety burners are identical
and each has a fixed firing rate of 0.032 1/min. The burners are on at all
times from heat-up to shutdown.
The gas purifier pilot burner has a fixed firing rate of 0.63 1/min.
The gas purifier standby burner has a variable firing rate with a maximum fuel
oil firing rate of 70.0 1/min. This burner is off during normal operation and
its fuel oil flow rate can be determined by subtracting the sum of the other
burner flows from the total. The fuel oil burner in the slag tap hole also
has a fixed firing rate.
The main purpose of known individual burner firing rates is to determine
the fuel oil flow rates to the kiln and the gas purifier for balance purposes.
The kiln fuel oil flow rate is therefore the sum of the reading on the control
room indicator and the flow to the four safety burners. The flow rate to the
gas purifier is the difference between the total fuel oil consumption and
the kiln fuel oil consumption.
Energy input calculations are made by converting the mass flow rate to
energy flow rate by multiplying the mass flow rate by the average higher
heating value of the No. 2 fuel oil (Table B-37), the density of the fuel oil
(assumed from standard tables to be .892 kg/1), and assuming a .985 combus-
tion efficiency.
Propane Consumption
The propane consumption was discussed in detail in Volume II, and the
propane consumption data is shown in Table B-38.
COMBUSTION AIR FLOW RATES
Combustion air enters the thermal processing vessels by three methods.
Some combustion air is blown into the kiln and gas purifier by six combustion
air fans. Additional air enters the gas purifier exit duct through the
quench air openings due to subatmospheric pressure within the duct. Finally
unmeasurable amounts of leakage air enter the thermal processing vessels
due to their internal subatmospheric pressure, through the kiln seals, ram
feeders, and through the boiler shell.
77
-------
TABLE B-38. PROPANE CONSUMPTION
Date
12/08/76
12/15/76
12/15/76
12/16/76
12/16/76
12/16/76
12/17/76
12/23/76
12/23/76
Time
1200
1030
1300
0830
1030
1415
0830
0840
1430
Propane Used
(L)
91
318
420
3407
473
750
3312
1230
265
No. of
Burners
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Propane Rate
(L/Hr)
2
2
170
174
238
201
182
76
45
t Unpublished Monsanto data.
Combustion Air Fans
/
The process air flow delivered by the five combustion air fans was
determined for the mass balance by either direct fan inlet velocity measure-
ment or fan inlet damper correlation curves. Air flow velocity at the inlet
was determined using a hand-held, totalizing, vane anemometer in each of the
fan inlets. The anemometer was held in a series of eight positions for
fifteen seconds at each position. Four of the positions were equal area
points along a vertical radial line and the other four points were on a
horizontal radial line. The anemometer totalizer was turned off for fifteen
seconds between points to allow for velocity stabilization of the anemometer
at each point. The reading on the totalizer was divided by the time (2
minutes) to calculate the indicated average velocity. The actual velocity was
determined from the indicated velocity by using the calibration curve shown
in Figure B-3 which was developed from a calibration chart supplied by the
manufacturer.
The volumetric flow rate was determined from the velocity measurements
by using the area of the fan inlet. The inlet areas for each of the fans are
as follows:
Fan
Refuse combustion air fan
Kiln combustion air fan (turbine)
Kiln combustion air fan (motor)
Gas purifier combustion air fan
Crossover combustion air fan
Area (m2)
0.94
0.67
0.67
0.94
2.16
78
-------
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
TRUE VELOCITY (MPM)
F,igure B-3. Anemometer calibration curve.
79
-------
The field fan curves for each of these fans are shown in Figures B-4
through B-8. These figures also include the results of Monsanto fan curve
tests during a shutdown period and Monsanto field fan curve tests.
In order to calculate the mass flow rate using the volumetric flow rate
the density of the air must be known. Ambient air density, p , was calculated
from the ambient temperature, pressure, and relative humidity as follows.
Using the relative humidity and ambient temperatures (dry bulb) the ASHRAE
psychrometric charts (either No. 1 or No. 2 depending upon ambient temperature)
are entered and a humidity ratio, o>, is determined which has the units of
mass of water vapor per unit mass of dry air. From the equation
= PB Cl + a))
a (1 + 1.61 u>) RT
ambient air density can be is barometric pressure. R is the gas constant,
and T is the absolute temperature. The mass flow rate for each fan was
calculated by multiplying the air density by the volumetric flow rate.
Often field damper settings and inlet velocity measurements were not
available for balance calculations. The control room indicator which displayed
damper position was recorded hourly by the city. In order to use this data
fan curves were plotted for both field and control room damper settings.
These fan curves are shown in Figures B-9 through B-15. The gas purifier and
crossover combustion air fans are frequently off during refuse processing and
air is drawn through the fan inlets by the subatmospheric pressures existing
within the process vessels. As a result .of this induced flow, with no indi-
cated control variation, the air flow can be observed to shift radically.
Naturally the control variable in these cases is process pressure which does
not appear in the curves, nor is there sufficient data to develop an inlet
flow map which would also correlate process pressure.
The dust collection fan discharges into the crossover duct providing a
portion of the process combustion air. Its use as a dust collection device
dictates that the fan can be operated at a constant volume flow. The
volumetric flow rate of the fan discharge (Table B-39) was determined by
measuring the velocity of the air in the discharge duct which has a known
cross sectional area. The velocity was measured using a standard pitot tube
and horizontal manometer. This method is discussed in detail later. This
air density was determined by the method discussed previously.
Mass flow through the fan varies only with the ambient air density.
Multiplying the volume flow rate by the ambient density derived as previously
described yields the fan mass flow rate.
Quench Air Flow
The air flow through the quench air openings and dampers, previously
described in Volume II, is dependent upon the cross-sectional area of the
opening in the duct and the pressure differential between the duct and the
atmosphere. Figure B-16 shows the ideal (calculated) air flow into the duct
through the slotted quench air damper opening under various differential
80
-------
600
00
75
100
FIELD DAMPER SETTINGS (% OPEN)
• 10/28/76
D 11/3/76-1/20/77
A 5/12/77-7/1/77
FAN CURVE TEST, PYROLYSIS PLANT UPDATE MANUAL
(MOTOR ON) MONSANTO FIELD DATA SHEETS
(MOTOR ON) SYSTECH ANEMOMETER READINGS
Figure B-4. Refuse combustion air fan field fan curve.
-------
400 •
CO
Pk
CJ
H
M
U
100
25 50
FIELD DAMPER SETTINGS (% OPEN)
100
• 10/28/76
D 11/3/76-1/20/77
A 5/12/77-7/1/77
FAN CURVE TEST, PYROLYSIS PLANT UPDATE MANUAL
(MOTOR ON) MONSANTO FIELD DATA SHEETS
(MOTOR ON) SYSTECH ANEMOMETER READINGS
Figure B-5. Turbine driven kiln combustion air fan field fan curve.
-------
800^
00
CO
w
PH
w
H
M
PQ
S3
U
700
600
500
400
>•
300 -
200 -
100 J
50
FIELD PAMPER SETTINGS (7, OPEN)
• 10/28/76
D 11/3/76-1/20/77
A 5/12/77-7/1/77
FAN CURVE TEST, PYROLYSIS PLANT UPDATE MANUAL
(MOTOR ON) MONSANTO FIELD DATA SHEETS
(MOTOR ON) SYSTECH ANEMOMETER READINGS
100
Figure B-6. Motor driven kiln combustion air fan field fan curve.
-------
00
900 4
750 .
25 50
FIELD DAMPER SETTINGS (% OPEN)
75
100
• 5/2/76
Q 11/3/76-1/20/77
• 11/3/76-1/20/77
A 5/12/77-7/1/77
5/12/77-7/1/77
FAN CURVE TEST, PYROLYSIS PLANT UPDATE MANUAL
(MOTOR ON) MONSANTO FIELD DATA SHEETS
(MOTOR OFF) MONSANTO FIELD DATA SHEETS
(MOTOR ON) SYSTECH ANEMOMETER READINGS
(MOTOR OFF) SYSTECH ANEMOMETER READINGS
Figure B-7. Gas purifier combustion air fan field fan curve.
-------
00
675
300
525
450 •
275 •
w300
2 225
I
^150-4
w
o
H
g
O
75 -
a
a
a
a
25 50
FIELD DAMPER SETTINGS (% OPEN)
100
• 5/2/76
a 11/3/76-1/20/77
• 11/3/76-1/20/77
A 5/12/77-7/1/77
A 5/12/77-7/1/77
FAN CURVE TEST, PYROLYSIS PLANT UPDATE MANUAL
(MOTOR ON) MONSANTO FIELD DATA SHEETS
(MOTOR OFF) MONSANTO FIELD DATA SHEETS
(MOTOR ON) SYSTECH ANEMOMETER READINGS
(MOTOR OFF) SYSTECH ANEMOMETER READINGS
Figure B-8. Crossover combustion air fan field fan curve.
-------
00
Q.
O
QC
UJ
Q.
<
O
10
20
AIR FLOW (kg/min) *10"f
Figure B-9. Refuse combustion air fan curves.
-------
00
111
(L
O
CO
O
Q.
DC
til
(L
10 20
AIR FLOW(kg/min)*10-a
Figure B-10. Turbine driven kiln combustion air fan curves.
-------
00
00
40
UJ
0.
o
o
I
QL
CC
UJ
a.
2 3
AIR FLOW (kg/min)*10-*
Figure B-ll. Motor<-driven kiln combustion air fan curve.
-------
00
400
.9
300
I
li.
CC.
200
100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
DAMPER POSITION (% OPEN)
q:
-5£~
400;
E i
^> 300r
tt
100
MOTOR OFF
—* ii(t
T~ nit
^t
ffrr'-H
:-
0 10 20 30 40 50
DAMPER POSITION (% OPEN)
Figure B-12. Gas purifier combustion air fan curve.
-------
400
vo
o
c
E
1
O
LL
c
300
200
100
[^INDICATED
i • ! •
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
DAMPER POSITION (% OPEN)
Figure B-13. Gas purifier combustion air fan curves.
-------
VO
3
o
li-
CC
<
800
700
600
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
DAMPER POSITION (% OPEN)
Figure B-14. Crossover combustion air fan curves.
-------
VO
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
DAMPER POSITION (% OPEN)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
DAMPER POSITION (% OPEN)
Figure B-15. Crossover combustion air fan curve.
-------
TABLE B-39. C18 FAN PLOW MEASUREMENTS
VO
U>
DATE
»
10/25/76*
10/25/76*
10/26/76*
10/27/76*
10/27/76*
10/27/76*
10/27/76*
5/14/77
F= ,
TIME
1500
1500
1500
0930
0930
0930
0930
1400
SLIDE A
POSITION
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
IN 7.6cm
IN 15cm
IN 22cm
OPEN
SLIDE B
POSITION
OPEN
CLOSED
CLOSED
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
OPEN
FAN INLET
FLOW
(m /min.)
353
353
365
365
365
365
365
FAN OUTLET
FLOW
(m /min.)
365
259
POINT A POINT B
FLOW FljOW
(m /min.) (m /min.)
196 254
315
311
195
190
204
201
*Monsanto Field Data (not published)
-------
VO
100
UJ
cc
D
CO
CO
UJ
CC
CL
UJ
CC
HI
80 -i-r-
0.0
400
AIR FLOW (kg/min)
500
600
700
Figure B-16. Flow through slotted quench damper (100% open).
-------
pressures. Only the 100 percent open damper position is shown because it is
stuck at this position. From this curve the air flow through this opening
can be determined based on the estimated differential pressure.
The butterfly valve damper opening is the same size as the slotted
damper opening and when the butterfly valve is open full the flow is the same
as the slotted damper opening. When the butterfly valve is fully closed,
there is still an open area of 0.056 m2 (0.6 ft.2) resulting in some air
flow. Figure B-17 shows the calculated air flow curves for 0, 20, 40, 60,
80, and 100 percent open areas for the butterfly valve damper opening. The
percentage open is recorded hourly by the city and can be read easily in the
field.
Leakage Air Flow
The leakage air through the ram snouts, kiln seals, and boiler shell was
determined using two test points when all the major inputs to the system were
known except for the leakage air. During the standby test of June 28, 1977
at 1530 hours and the on-stream test of July 1, 1977 at 0900 hours, the
refuse in the ram snouts did not provide a good seal. As a result, the kiln
mass balance could not be determined by measuring and summing the known in-
puts and outputs. By determining the total system input flows, and subtract-
ing them and the residue and slag outputs from the flow at the boiler discharge,
the leakage air was determined. The leakage rate during the standby test was
156.5 kg/min. (344.3 Ibs./min.) and 113.4 kg/min. (249.5 Ibs./min.) during
the on-stream measured refuse test.
Verification of this leakage air rate was made by calculating the
necessary flow area required to pass those quantities of air. The flow area
required to accommodate the standby leakage rate, assuming a flow coefficient
of 0.6 is 0.1 m2 (1.1 ft.2). This magnitude of area when split between the
two ram tubes is considered to be a reasonable value since it indicates an
average gap between the waste plug and the ram walls of slightly more than
1 cm (0.4 in.). Naturally there was not a uniform gap between the refuse and
the ram snout, but the magnitude of the dimension is reasonable. A similar
check of the on-stream test indicated a leakage area of approximately half
that estimated for the standby test.
During subsequent tests, the refuse feed rate was estimated, introducing
a margin of error into the balance calculation which precluded a determination
of the leakage air flow. Since there was no means of estimating the leakage
air flow for subsequent tests, the leakage flow for the subsequent tests was
assumed to be zero although in actuality some leakage existed.
Heat Input of Combustion Air
The sensible heat input of the combustion air to the process was cal-
culated as follows. Using the previously determined humidity ratio (to), and
the total air mixture flow, the mass of dry air and the mass of water vapor
were determined from the following equations:
95
-------
SO
100
n
o%
j j DAMPER POSITION (%OPE:N)
! 100%
0.0
AIR FLOW (kg/min)
Figure B-17. Flow through butterfly quench damper.
-------
MA = M /(I + w)
Ax axf
and
M » M - M.
wx ax Ax
Sensible heat is then calculated from
q. = M. . h.
Ax Ax A
q = M . h
0)X UX U
Where h. and h are the enthalpies of dry air and water vapor at the
ambient temperature referenced to 273°K.
For simplicity of presentation, the sum of all q for the kiln is pre-
sented, with the kiln balance and the sum of all q for the gas purifier is
presented with the gas purifier balance.
HEAT LOSS THROUGH VESSEL WALLS
The loss through the vessel walls was originally to be calculated by
multiplying the surface area of the vessel by the differential temperature
between the vessel surface and the ambient air, and overall heat transfer
coefficient. To measure the surface temperature of the various vessels a
surface contact and an optical pyrometer were- used. Only the thermal vessels
and ducts between the kiln and boiler-economizer discharge duct were measured
since losses beyond this point were not important. For various reasons the
surface heat loss from each of the vessels was determined differently as
discussed below.
Kiln Heat Loss
Calculation of the kiln heat loss was performed using both an analytical
and an empirical approach to provide a check on the validity of the results.
Figures B-18 through B-24 present various temperature profiles along the
length of the kiln.
"i
Analytical Method
At any point that a temperature differential and a heat transfer co-
efficient can be determined the heat transfer rate can be calculated. The
total heat transferred from the kiln surface must pass through three inter-
faces between the internal gas and the outside air. The temperature differ-
ential between the ambient air and the kiln surface are kno'wn, and therefore,
it is the simplest interface to use. The overall heat transfer at this point
is a summation of the radiant and convective heat transfer. To further
simplify calculations the kiln was divided into a series of heat transfer
surfaces. First, the kiln itself is a rotating cylinder whose axis is
approximately horizontal. Then both the feed and fire hoods consist of flat
vertical and horizontal surfaces. At the time of the skin temperature
measurements there was a wind, changing the situation from free convection to
97
-------
256
20Q
o
159
vo
00
100
10
15
20
25
METERS FROM FIRE END
D MONSANTO
• MONSANTO
OMONSANTO
•MONSANTO
7/22/76
8/ 6/76
8/ 7/76
7/21/76
1000 30MgPH FLAME BACK 3m
1700 30MgPH FLAME BACK 5m
30MgPH FLAME BACK 6m
1700 HEAT UP FLAME BACK Om
FIREHOOD 460°C FEEDHOOD
FIREHOOD 538°C FEEDHOOD
30
793°C
749°C
FIREHOOD 716°C FEEDHOOD 771°C
Figure B-18. Kiln skin temperature profile.
-------
250
200,
o
150
VO
100
T
5
10
15 20
METERS FROM FIRE END
25
75"
A MONSANTO
D MONSANTO
• MONSANTO
O MONSANTO
AMONSANTO
11/27/76
11/16/76
12/10/76
11/12/76
11/12/76
1430
1545
1600
1330
1530
24MgPH
33MgPH
29MgPH
25MgPH
25MgPH
RAYOTUBE
RAYOTUBE
1079
843
°C
°C
FIREHOOD
FIREHOOD
FIREHOOD
FIREHOOD
FIREHOOD
510°C
682°C
660°C
649°C
649°C
FEEEHOOD
FEEDHOOD
FEEDHOOD
FEEDHOOD
FEEDHOOD
849°C
804°C
771°C
871°C
871°C
Figure B-19. Kiln skin temperature profile.
-------
25Q
o
o
100
10
15
vfOTT?Pc;
20
25
FTRTT
• MONSANTO
• MONSANTO
O MONSANTO
-------
25Q
o
200
150
100
10
15 20
METERS FROM FIRE END
25
ASYSTECH 12/14/77
DSYSTECH 12/17/77
•SYSTECH 12/18/77
32 MgPH FIREHOOD 1205°C FEEDHOOD 855°C
ON STANDBY
23 MgPH FIREHOOD 760°C FEEDHOOD 793°C
30
Figure B-21. Kiln skin temperature profile.
-------
250-
200
o
15ft
o
ro
109
• SYSTECH
DSYSTECH
OSYSTECH
ASYSTECH
10
1/20/77
3/ 9/77
3/17/77
5/12/77
15 20
METERS FROM FIRE END
25
30
1630 34MgPH
1230 24MgPH
1830 27MgPH
33MgPH
FIREHOOD
FIREHOOD
FIREHOOD
FIREHOOD
1205°C
1210°C
1066°C
799°C
FEEDHOOD
FEEDHOOD
FEEDHOOD
FEEDHOOD
855°C
855°C
849°C
877°C
Figure B-22. Kiln skin temperature profile.
-------
o
OJ
TO DIFFERENTIAL
PRESSURE GAUGE
H GAS
_ FLOW
Figure B-23. A combined-reverse static pitot tube,
-------
FUEL OIL
67 kg/min
AIR
2374 kg/min
STEAM
. 25 kg/min
WATER VAPOR
7 kg/min
BOILER FEED WATER
724 kg/min
THERMAL
PROCESSING
MODULE
BOILER INLET GAS
2473 kg/min
HEAT
RECOVERY
MODULE
BOILER OUTLET GAS
2473 kg/min
DELIVERED STEAM
613 kg/min
STEAM LOSS
27 kg/min
ATOMIZING STEAM
25 kg/min
SLOWDOWN
82 kg/min
VENT STEAM
5 kg/min
Figure B-24. Standby test mass balance.
104
-------
forced convection. All the equations used and shown here utilize coefficients
and exponents based on English units. Hence, all calculations presented here
were made in Engligh engineering units and subsequently converted to metric
units.
Radiant Heat Transfer
The first requirement is to determine the surface radiation heat loss
component. The equation for this is:
1010
-
N L - 0.024 (: - - ^ - Gr )
U 1 = .454 Pr 2/3 L
2/5
Gr = 1.469 x 1013
-»
Substituting NtL = 3328
105
-------
then h = NuLk » .0241 """ or 4,93 x 10
c
L ft2 min °R m2 min °K
therefore q = .208 x 105 Btu/min or 21.9 MJ/min
for those vertical surfaces perpendicular to the wind velocity vector.
Convective heat transfer from a rotating cylinder is calculated from:
H D
0.11 [(o.5 Re 2 + Gr) Pr]°-35
w
if Re > 8000
w
where Re is the Reynolds number for a rotating cylinder
calculated from: W
Re =
wirD2
w v
substituting Re = 2.00 x 106
w
then Nu = 2491
_4
and h =0.036 Btu/min ft2 °R or 7.36 x 10 MS
mz min °K
then q = 0.613 x 105 Btu/min or 64.7 MJ/min
Summing all of the heat transfer components
q = 318.7 MJ/min
Empirical Method
The alternative approach used to determine kiln heat loss was to
calculate the total input heat and determine the output heat flow based
on measured kiln discharge temperature and calculated mass flow. The
difference must be heat lost by the kiln.
The test used for this purpose was the standby test of Jun 28, 1977
at 1530. In this test, the fuel heat input is well known and the fuel
at the kiln exit is assumed to be completely combusted based upon the
high oxygen levels (14 percent). The important point in this statement
is that during pyrolysis of refuse, the refuse is not completely combusted
and a similar balance of heat input and discharge of sensible heat from
the kiln would not provide information leading to a true kiln skin heat
loss evaluation. There are two reasons for this; heat input would not
be accurately known, and potential heat discharged as uncombusted gas
would not be evaluated. For these reasons only a standby test can be
used to determine heat lost through a heat balance.
106
-------
According to the standby test the energy inputs to the kiln are air
(26.3 MJ/min), atomizing steam (17.7 MJ/min), and fuel oil (758 MJ/min)
for a total energy input of 802.2 MJ/min. The only energy output besides
surface heat loss is the kiln-off gas which has an energy output rate of
426.7 MJ/min. The difference of 375.5 MJ/min is therefore the surface
heat loss.
Comparing the heat losses estimated by analytical heat transfer and
empirical heat balancing there is reasonably good agreement of the two
values with a deviation of 15 percent assuming that the heat balance is
considered accurate.
Gas Purifier Heat Loss
The gas purifier has had a tendency as a result of both thinned
refractory and high heat loading to have rather high skin temperatures
(Table B-40). As a means of lowering skin temperatures, a water manifold
was installed which sprayed water onto the top of the gas purifier and
that water was allowed to run around the perimeter to a point where that
water which was not vaporized ran off of the under side of the cylindrical
shell. This means of lowering the skin temperature is effective but
develops a random pattern of flow over the shell surface. The gas purifier
heat loss cannot be determined analytically because of high, but unknown,
tangential internal gas velocities, uneven thickness of refractory
insulation, and random patterns of cooling water flow on the shell
surface. The only possible means of calculating heat loss is to calculate
or measure all heat inputs to the process and calculate or measure all
lost or delivered heat outputs. The difference between the two numbers
should be representative of the gas purifier heat loss.
The only case in which all inputs are reasonably well known is the
standby test of June 28, 1977 at 1530 hours. Based upon this balance
which is discussed in detail in a subsequent section, the gas purifier
surface heat loss rate is 617.2 MJ/min.
Boiler-Economizer Heat Loss
Since the actual calculation of the boiler surface heat loss rate
requires the evaluation of parameters not easily determined, it was
decided to assume that the boilers have typical losses. Therefore,
while boiler surface temperatures were measured and found to be in the range
of 316°K, the boiler surface heat loss was estimated to be 1 percent of the
incoming heat flow based upon the curves reported by the American Boiler
Manufacturers Association.*
The economizer surface heat loss was conservatively estimated to be
2.5 percent of the incoming heat flow for lack of better information. This
is quite possible since the surface temperature of the economizers was much
hotter, generally in the range of 466°K.
*The Babcock a"nd Wilcox Company. Steam—Its Generation and Use.
38th Ed. Babcock and Wilcox Company, New York, New York, 1972.
107
-------
TABLE B-40. GAS PURIFIER SKIN TEMPERATURE
DATE
9/25/75*
9/25/75*
12/14/76
12/18/76
1/20/77
2/22/77
3/9/77
3/17/77
5/3/77
AMBIENT
TEMP.
TIME (°C)
18
18
2
9
,
1500 1
1600 16
1230 16
1800 14
1600 24
AMBIENT RELATIVE
HUMIDITY
(%)
Rain
Rain
42
40
52
36
58
31
30
WIND METERS FROM
VELOCITY BURNER END
(m/min . ) (m)
.3
7.6
15.2
.3
7.6
15.2
375 .3
4.6
10.7
13.7
321 .3
4.6
10.7
13.7
321 .3
2.1
4.6
6.1
7.6
10.7
13.7
321 .3
2.1
10.7
80 .3
2.1
4.6
6.1
7.6
10.7
13.7
15.2
2.1
4.6
7.6
10.7
13.7
321 .3
2.1
3.0
4.5
6.1
7. =6
10.7
T\.7
SURFACE
TEMP.
204
218
204
273
273
273
271
296
266
238
256
351
353
283
239
262
266
366
297
282
267
276
287
374
288
299
288
399
343
327
327
293
350
388
360
321
310
279
299
318
368
427
382
371
321
* Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard®
Process Characterization, Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240.
St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 45..
108
-------
Deaerating Heater Heat Loss
The deaerating heater had an uniform and consistent average surface
temperature of 466°K. The skin heat loss is calculated based on a free
convection over a horizontal cylinder. The heat loss was calculated using
English units and the results were converted to metric. In order to know
which equation to use for calculating the convective heat transfer coefficient
(h ) the Grashof number (Gr) must be calculated using the following formula:
rr - S3P2ATL3
Gr = *2
Pz
The diameter of the cylinder (L), and the temperature differential
between the deaerating heater surface and the ambient air (AT) are known. As
taken from a reference table* the unit g3p2/y2 is equal to 1.35 x 106 for a
mean air temperature of 38°C (100°F). The Grashof number can then be calcu-
lated to be approximately 1.35 x 1011- Since the Grashof number is between
102 and 10^ the equation for determining the convective heat transfer coef-
ficient for long cylinders is h = 0.18 AT 1/3. For the deaerating heater
the convective heat transfer coefficient is equal to 1.95 x 10 2 MJ/m20K.
Since the equation for the heat loss rate is q = h A AT the heat loss rate
is equal to 1.53 MJ/min. This value remains relatively fixed, varying only
in response to changes in AT. Since the internal temperature and the surface
temperature change very little, the ambient temperature are factored into a
AT for each test and the resulting q is calculated.
Duct Heat Loss
Because of the methods used to calculate the heat loss from the various
vessels all of the duct heat losses have been included with one vessel or
another except for the boiler-economizer discharge duct. The following
analysis estimates the heat loss rate from this section of ducting based
on free convection from a horizontal cylinder, forced convection inside the
duct, and radiation from a grey steel surface.
The total heat transfer can therefore be calculated by summing the
convective and radiation heat losses as shown by the following equation:
qdL = A (U AT + oc (Ts* - T^)
The overall heat transfer coefficient (U) can be calculated by the
following equation:
U
Rci + \ + Rco
The various heat resistences can be calculated using the following
formulas:
109
-------
R ~~
CI hci
"K "
co hco
To determine the heat transfer coefficient for forced convection in a
duct (hpr)> the Reynolds number (Re) must be determined from the average film
temperature which was estimated to be 422°K. Since the Reynolds number was
approximately 8.42 x 105 the flow is turbulent. The equation for heat trans-
fer coefficient in a duct with turbulent flow is:
hci =
From the equation h equals (0.05 Btu/ft2 min °R) 1.02 x 10~3 MJ/m2 min °K.
R can then be calculated to equal 978.4 m2 min °K/MJ.
LJ.
The conductive thermal resistance is:
t .05 ft2 min °R 2.446 °K min m2
8
k Btu " MJ
The coefficient for convective heat transfer from the outside duct is
determined after first determining the flow characteristics from the Grashof
number (Gr) which equals 2.2 x Hr°- Therefore the equation for h_n is:
hcf) = 0.18 AT 1/3
CO
Evaluating the equation h = (0.011 Btu/ft2 min °R) 2.26 x 10"^ MJ/m2
min °K. R can then be calculated and R = <4.425 x 103 m2 min °K/MJ. The
overall heat transfer coefficient (U) can then be calculated and found to
equal 1.85 x 10 ** MJ/m2 min °K. The convective heat transfer can then be
calculated using the following equation, q = UA AT to equal 4.96 MJ/min.
Since all the heat leaving the duct must pass all interface surfaces,
the surface temperature can be determined from:
RfT + ^K }
T* T ••• ^T T1 ^ ( *^" *
I - .8 - I ~ A \T + RK + Rco
Evaluating the equation T - Tg = 23.4°K or Tg equals 391°K. Then
calculating the radiation component of the duct heat loss from
where e for the surface is approximately 0.42 the radiant heat transfer rate
qR equals (4.187 x 103 Btu/min) 4.417/MJ min.
110
-------
Summing the total heat loss by the duct qdL = q + q = 9.38 MJ/min.
A simplified means of determining the heat transfer for other tests is to
utilize the value obtained and evaluate an overall heat transfer coefficient
as q, = C AT which assumes that the heat transfer coefficients do not
change appreciably and the absolute temperature levels remain relatively
constant. If this is true, then q = 7.278 x 10 2 AT is the equation for
use in calculating the boiler-economize discharge duct heat loss for the
remaining tests.
DUCT GAS FLOW MEASUREMENTS
Gas flows at the kiln crossover duct, the gas purifier exit duct, and
the boiler-economizer outlet duct were calculated by using a combined-
reverse static (S-type) pitot tube velocity measurements, orsat gas analyses,
and gas temperature measurements. All measurements were made in English
units and the results were subsequently converted to metric units.
The pitot tubes used (Figure B-23) were approximately 1.5 m (5 ft.)
long, and were made of stainless steel tubing. The pitot tubes were
tested to determine the calibration pressure constant Cp. Because of the
turbulent flow in the ducts the velocity was fairly uniform across the
cross section of the duct. Therefore, only the estimated average pitot
tube measurement was used. To determine the pressure differential in
inches of water, the measured differential pressure was multiplied by the
calibration pressure constant, and the specific gravity of the oil in the
manometer.
When possible, the duct static pressure was measured, otherwise, an
estimated value of 101 kPa (2110 lbs./ft.2) was used.
The moisture content of the gas was measured using water traps and a
dry gas meter. When the moisture content was not available, it was estimated
by calculating the moisture entering the process from those locations where
moisture content was available. The relative impact caused by a moisture
content estimate error on the total gas.flow calculation was investigated
using a method of partial differentiation. It was determined that a 5 percent
error in the moisture content would cause a 0.7 percent error in the total
mass flow. Similarly, a 10 percent error in the moisture content results
in a 1.4 percent total mass flow error. The consequence of these statements
is that relatively large errors in the measurement and estimation of the
water content of the gas results in insignificant mass flow errors.
The composition of the gases at the various measurement points was
determined by a variety of techniques. Monsanto used orsat, firite and
mass spectrographic analyses, while Systech used orsat and gas chromatograph
analyses to determine the volume percentage of each gas.
During all operations, temperature measurements were made by either a
calibrated thermocouple probe, fixed facility thermocouple probes, or both,
depending upon the temperature level being measured. If gas temperatures
111
-------
were below 1090°K Q.0600R) , then measurements were made with both the
calibrated thermocouple and facility probes at those locations where facility
probes existed. When temperatures were above 1090°K, measurements were
obtained only through permanent facility thermocouple probes.
During the standby test, it was noted that measurements at the crossover
duct made by the calibrated thermocouple and facility probe differed by
64K° or nearly 8 percent. This is sufficiently high to indicate error in
the facility measurement system.
Thermocouple temperature measurements at relatively steady state
conditions can include only a few simple errors. This does not infer that
correction of those errors is a simple task. For example, the thermocouple
junction itself suffers very little degradation with usage and as long as
the junction is intact, it functions satisfactorily. Errors generally are
found in the reference junction temperature, secondary junction temperatures
(caused by insertion of readout instruments in the circuit) , and readout
instrument errors. In the Baltimore pyrolysis plant, temperatures are not
referenced to the ice point (273°K) or the standard reference (339°),
but rather are left to float with the ambient temperature. This is normal
heavy industry practice since the result, especially for very high temperatures
(>1100°K) usually represents an error of less than 5 percent which is quite
acceptable in most instances. The thermocouple lead wire composition is
not known, i.e., copper conductor or alloy conductor, therefore the error
potential of secondary junctions cannot be evaluated. The readout instrument
is located in the control room which is temperature controlled to 294° - 300 °K
but it is anticipated that the interior of the instrumentation cabinets
reaches 310° - 325 °K due to heat generated by the process control electronics.
No specific evaluation of the readout instrument error has been made, but
comparisons can be made.
To estimate this error, the kiln-off gas temperature, as measured by
the calibrated thermocouple and the permanent facility thermocouple were
compared. The facility thermocouple was consistently 78K° higher than the
calibrated thermocouple. It was therefore assumed that the facility thermo-
couple had a systematic error of 78K° which should be subtracted to obtain
the correct temperature.
Using the molar weight of each gas, the mass percentage of each gas
was calculated from the volume percentage along with the molar weight of
the mixture. The density, of the gas mixture was then determined using the
ideal gas law. The velocity of the gas flow in each duct was then calculated
using the following formula:
Having determined the velocity, the volumetric gas flow rate in each duct
was determined by multiplying the velocity by the crossectional area of
each duct. The mass flow rate for each duct was calculated by multiplying
the volumetric flow rate by the density of the gas mixture. Descriptions
112
-------
of the various duct sampling crossections along with the flow coefficient
and temperature measurements of each crossection, are reported in following
separate subsections.
Calculation of the heat flow at the various duct measurement points
progressed similar to the method used to calculate the sensible heat of the
air entering the process through the fans. The measured total temperature
enthalpy of each gas constituent was determined and referenced to 273°K
The heat flow rate for each constituent was calculated by multiplying the
mass flow rate by the enthalpu for each constituent. The total heat flow
rate was then equal to the sum of the heat flow rates for the constituents.
Kiln Feedhood and Crossover Duct
Measurements were taken at the kiln feedhood and the kiln crossover
duct to characterize the kiln-off gases which is an output from the kiln
and an input to the gas purifier. All of the feedhood data was collected
by Monsanto. Because of the irregular flow patterns within the feedhood,
very little can be ascertained from the data. However, for completeness,
the data is presented.
The feedhood orsats are shown in Table B-40a. These values are from
early in the demonstration and do not reflect the present kiln operation.
The feedhood particulate loadings, shown in Table B-41, reveal that
the kiln-off gas composition varies considerably. The particle size distribu-
tion of the feedhood particulate is shown in Table B-42.
Various methods were used to analyze the composition of the feedhood
particulate. The ultimate analysis of the particulate is shown in Table B-43,
while the particulate ultimate analysis by size distribution is shown in
Table B-44. Spectrographic analysis of the feedhood particulate are shown
in Table B-45, and the spectrographic analysis by size distribution is
shown in Table B-46. X-ray diffraction analyses of feedhood particulate
are shown in Tables B-47 and B-48 with Table B-48 revealing the analysis
according to size distribution. Tables B-49 and B-50 present the X-ray
flourescence analyses of feedhood particulate by size distribution.
As discussed in Volume II of this report, there were many methods used
to characterize the composition. Since only the mean value from each
method was shown in that volume, the remaining data will be presented. The
mass spectrographic analysis data is presented in Table B-51 and the hydro-
carbon analysis data is shown in Table B-52. All of this data was collected
by Monsanto EnviroChem while the remaining kiln-off gas data was collected
by Systech.
Table B-53 is the crossover orsat data. This data was obtained using
both a stainless steel tube and a stainless steel water-cooled tube as the
collection probe. The use of a water-cooled probe had little effect on the
results. The flame ionization detection (FID) gas chromatograph data is
113
-------
TABLE B-40a. FEEDHOOD ORSTATS
Date
4/09/75*
4/10/75*
4/22/75*
4/27/75*
4/28/75*
4/28/75*
5/ll/75t
5/12/75t
5/l2/75t
5/19/75t
5/19/75t
5/19/75t
Time
2345
1215
1215
1338
0350
1720
2350
1135
1908
1310
1400
2334
C02%
11.20
10.50
4.00
9.40
13.00
2.90
13.30
11.05
10.65
15.50
15.50
13.00
02%
3.30
6.50.
14.70
7.00
1.30
16.20
3.40
4.80
5.70
1.20
1.20
2.20
co%
8.50
5.00
2.50
5.00
10.00
1.7Q
7.30
4.90
4.55
5.20
5.20
6.60
Date
5/20/75t
5/30/75t
5/31/75t
6/01/75t
6/02/75t
6/13/75t
6/13/75t
6/20/75*
6/21/75*
6/28/75*
7/02/75*
7/02/75*
Average
Standard Deviation
Time
1757
1446
1208
1920
1515
1146
1623
0425
0802
1435
1018
1907
C02%
13.05
13.40
13.40
13.55
12.10
15.00
10.20
11.00
12.95
12.70
13.10
13.25
11.66
2.93
02%
2.35
2.50
2.60
2.55
2.65
1.80
7.80
6.00
2.50
2.20
3.00
4.35
4.49
3.78
C0%
7.15
5.60
4.85
5.00
8.50
1.40
3.10
2.90
7.50
5.10
4.20
6.00
5.32
2.10
* Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward, Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 3.
t Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 2.
-------
TABLE B-41. FEEDHOOD PARTICULATE LOADINGS
Date
Time
Method
Loadings
g/DSCM (21°C)
4/09/75
4/10/75
4/10/75
4/22/75
4/27/75
4/27/75
4/28/75
4/28/75
4/28/75
5/11/75
5/12/75
5/12/75
5/19/75
5/19/75
5/19/75
5/20/75
5/30/75
5/31/75
6/01/75
6/02/75
6/13/75
6/13/75
6/16/75
6/20/75
6/21/75
6/28/75
7/02/75
7/02/75
2345
1215
1305
1215
0628
1338
0350
1720
2110
2350
1135
1908
1310
1400
2334
1757
1446
1208
1920
1515
1146
1623
0830
0425
0802
1435
1018
1907
Modified Buell*
Modified Buell*
Modified Buell*
Modified Buell*
Modified Buell*
Modified Buell*
Modified Buell*
Modified Buell*
Modified Buell*
ASMEt
ASMEt
ASMEt
ASMEt
Modified Buell*
ASMEt
ASMEt
ASMEt
ASMEt
ASMEt
ASMEt
ASMEt
ASMEt
Modified Buell*
Modified Buell*
Modified Buell*
Modified Buell*
Modified Buell*
Modified Buell*
48.22
25.78
32.01
43.55
42.29
43.57
36.06
41.60
67.41
15.57
28.60
23.90
15.07
55.90
20.52
13.72
114.62
124.13
155.31
56.76
29.99
42.93
26.81
34.05
37.64
37.91
31.14
94.11
* Harrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard®
Process Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240.
St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 3.
t Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard®
Process Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240.
St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 2.
115
-------
TABLE B-42. PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF FEED HOOD PARTICULATE
Collected 5/27/75*
Particle Size
(microns)
0 - 1.45
1.45 - 2.36
2.36 - 5.09
5.09 - 8.25
8.25 - 13.64
13.64 - 26.21
26.21 - 40.03
40.03 - 80 Mesh
4-80 Mesh
Particle Size
(microns)
0 - 1.53
1.53 - 2.49
2.49 - 5.39
5.39 - 8.72
8.72 - 14.43
14.43 - 27.72
27.72 - 42.34
42.34 - 80.00
+80
Weight
(grams)
0.343
0.497
0.803
0.909
0.941
0.806
0.355
1.215
0.500
Collected 6/28/75 (1435)+
Weight
(grams)
0.467
0.630
1.073
0.923
0.747
0.521
0.232
1.242
0.000
%
5.36
7.77
12.56
14.21
14.70
12.61
5.55
19.08
7.85
%
8.0
10.8
18.4
15.8
12.8
8.9
4.0
21.3
0.0
* Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard®
Process Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240.
St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 6.
t Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard®
Process Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240.
Table 9.
116
-------
TABLE B-43. ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF 4 BUELL FILTERS AND
SAMPLE COLLECTED FROM FEED HOOD*
Date 4/9/75 4/10/75 4/10/75 4/22/75
Time 2345 1215 1305 1215
Nitrogen
Carbon
Hydrogen
Ash
Sodium as is
Sodium in ash
Chloride as is
Chloride in ash
0.17 0.12 0.20 0.18
56.83 35.37 58.03 44.51
0.48 0.38 0.48 0.88
- 46.92
- - - 1.30
- 2.24
- 0.74
- <0.08
* Herrington, R. D., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard®
Process Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240.
St. Louis, Missouri, 19J6. Table 4.
TABLE B-44. ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF FEED HOOD PARTICULATES*f
Sample
%C %H
%N
(microns)
0
1.53
2.49
5.39
8.72
14.43
27.72
42.34
- 1.53
- 2.49
- 5.39
- 8.72
- 14.43
- 27.72
- 42.34
- 80.00
87.84
81.72 0.63
67.73 0.51
53.93 0.35
38.67
00.49 0.14
9.94 0.04
7.13
0.30
0.27
0.51
_
0.37
0.24
*-
— „
* Sample collected 6/28/75
t Hei
rrington, R. C., D. E.
at 1435.
Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Li
mdgard®
Process Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240.
St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 10.
117
-------
TABLE B-45.
SPECTROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF 4 BUELL FILTERS
AND SAMPLE COLLECTED FROM FEED HOOD*
ELEMENT
Titanium
Nickel
Potassium
Cobalt
Zinc
Copper
Sodium
Molybdenum
Tin
Vanadium
Calcium
Iron
Aluminum
Bismuth
Silicon
Magnesium
Manganese
Chromium
Lead
Boron
Phosphorus
Beryllium
Cadmium
Thallium
Germanium
Arsenic
Antimony
Silver
Strontium
Barium
4/9/75
(%)
0.100-1.000
0.100-1.000
0.500-5.000
0.001-0.010
0.100-1.000
0.010-0.100
1-10
0.001-0.010
0.010-0.100
o.ooi-o.oio
3-30
1-10
3-30
< 0.001
3-30
0.500-5.000
0.010-0.100
0.050-0.500
0.010-0.100
0.010-0.100
0.010-0.100
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.005
<0.005
0.001-0.010
0.010-0.100
0.010-0.100
4/10/75
(%)
0.100-1.000
0.100-1.000
0.500-5.000
0.001-0.010
0.500-5.000
0.010-0.100
1-10
0.001-0.010
0.010-0.100
0.001-0.010
3-30
1-10
3-30
<0.001
3-30
0.500-5.000
0.010-0.100
0.050-0.500
0.010-0.100
0.010-0.100
0.010-0.100
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.005
<0.005
0.001-0.010
0.010-0.100
0.010-0.100
4/10/75
(%)
0.100-1.000
0.100-1.000
0.500-5.000
0.001-0.010
0.500-5.000
0.010-0.100
1-10
0.001-0.010
0.010-0.100
0.001-0.010
3-30
1-10
3-30
<0.001
5-50
0.500-5.000
0.010-0.100
0.050-0.500
0.001-0.010
0.010-0.100
0.010-0.100
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
< 0.005
<0.005
0.001-0.010
0.010-0.100
0.010-0.100
4/22/75
(%)
0.100-1.000
0.010-0.100
0.500-5.000
0.001-0.010
0.500-5.000
0.010-0.100
1-10
0.005-0.050
0.050-0.500
0.001-0.010
1-10
1-10
1-10
<0.001
3-30
0.100-1.000
0.010-0.100
0.100-1.000
0.030-0.300
0.010-0.100
0.010-0.100
< 0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.001
<0.005
<0.005
0.001-0.010
0.010-0.100
0.010-0.100
* Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard®
Process Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240
St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 4.
118
-------
TABLE B-46. SPECTROGRAPHIC EMISSION OF FEED HOOD PARTICULATE*t
Element
<1.45]3
Si
Al
Mg
Mh
Ca
B
Fe
Cr
Cu
Ni
Mo
Sn
Na
Ti
Zn
Pb
Sb
V
Zr
K
Ba
>0.100
>0.100
0.080
0.040
Major
0.005
Major
0.007
0.080
>0.010
0.001
0.007
>0.100
0.100
Major
0.060
0,010
0.004
0.002
§
IT
1.45-
2.36v
>0.100
>0.100
0.080
0.050
Major
0.006
Major
0.007
0.080
0.020
O.Q01
0.007
>0. 100
0.100
Major
0.050
0.010
0.005
0.004
§
ir
2.36-
5.09u
>0.100
Major
>0.100
0.070
Major
0.010
Major
0.008
0.080
0.020
0.005
0.010
>0.100
Major
Major
0.050
0.020
0.008
0.005
§
IT
Particle Size
5.09- 8.25-
8.25U 13.64y
>0.100
Major
>0.100
0.080
Major
0.010
Major
0.008
0.080
0.010
0.008
0.010
Major
Major
Major
0.030
0.008
0.010
0.007
§
IT
>0.100
Major
0.100
0.080
Major
0.020
Major
0.008
0.080
0.010
0.008
0.010
Major
Major
Major
0.030
0.008
0.008
0.007
§
ir
13.64-
26.21p
>0.100
Major
0.100
0.100
Major
0.020
Major
0.008
0.080
0.008
0.008
0.020
Major
Major
Major
0.040
0.007
0.008
0.007
§
IT
26.21-
40.0311
>0.100
Major
>0.100
0.100
Major
0.020
Major
0.008
0.080
0.008
0.008
0.010
Major
Major
Major
0.030
0.007
0.008
0.007
§
f
40.30p +80
80 Mesh Mesh
Major
Major
>0.100
0.100
Major
0.020
Major
0.008
0.080
0.008
0.007
0.010
Major
Major
Major
0.030
0.008
0.008
0.008
§
ir
Major
Major
0.100
0.008
>0.100
0.002
Major
0.010
0.030
0.004
N.D.
0.001
>0.100
0.100
0,060
0.020
0.020
0.004
0.008
§
ir
—
* Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard®
Process Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240.
St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 8.
t Sample collected 5/27/75. Detection limits: 0.0001% - 0.1000%.
Major indicates a concentration of 1% or greater.
Interference indicates that the spectral background is too high for
determination of Ba at its wavelength.
This is a semi-quantitative technique; therefore, the above results may
vary by +20% - 50%.
§ Present.
H Interference.
119
-------
TABLE B-47. X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS OF FEED HOOD COMPOSITE PARTICULATE*t
Compound Peak Height
Ca-quartzl . 65
Amorphous 25
NaCl 15
* Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard®
Process Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240.
St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 11.
t Sample collected 4/28/75, 1435.
120
-------
TABLE B-48. X-RAY DIFFRACTION ANALYSIS- OF FEED HOOD PARTICULATE*t
Sample
0- 1.45
*
1.45- 2.36
2.36- 5.09
5.09- 8.25
8.25-13.64
13.64-26.21
26.21-40.03
40.03-80 Mesh
+80 Mesh
Amorphous A1203
175
• 10.0
55
35
25+
25
25-
10
30 100+
SiO, Ha,
80.
100+(30)§
100+(70)§
100+(55)§
100
45
fxlSiOtt
30
30
30
35
40
10
Unknown Unknown
5 30
10.
20
20
FeaOi, Fe203
30
30
30
20
20
30
* Herrington,
R. C., D. E. Honaker,
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc.
and B. G. Ward.
No. 7240. St.
Baltimore Landgard® Process
Louis
Characterization .
, Missouri, 1976, Table 7.
t Sample collected 5/27/75.
§ Numbers in ]
parenthesis are second
phase peak heights.
Numbers give a measure
of amount of material
present of a relative scale. They are useful in comparison between amounts of like materials in
different samples only.
-------
TABLE B-49. X-RAY FLUORESCENCE ANALYSIS OF FEED HOOD PARTICULATE SAMPLE COLLECTED 5/27/75*
SAMPLE
(MICRONS)
MAJOR (>1%)
MINOR (0.1-1%)
Pb, Sb, Ni, Cu, Sr, Al
Pb, Ba, Cu, Sr, Mn, Cl, Al
Pb, Ba, Cu, Ni, Sr
Pb. Ba. Cu. Ni. Sr. Mn. Cl
ro, aa, VAI, or, cm, i>J., AJ.
Pb, Ba, Cu, Ni, Sr
Pb, Ba, Cu, Ni, Sr, Mn, Cl, Al
Zn, Ca, Ti, K, Si
TRACE (0-0.1%)
NJ
0- 1.45
1.45- 2.36
2.36- 5.09
5.09- 8.25
8.25-13.64
13.64-26.21
26.21-40.03
Zn, Fe, Ca, Ti, K
Zn, Fe, Ca, Ti, K
Zn, Fe, Ca, Ti, K, Cl
Zn, Fe, K, Cl
Zn, Fe, Cu, Ti, Cl, K, Si
Zn, Fe, Ca, Ti, K, Si
Zn, Fe, Ca, Ti, Si
40.03-80 Mesh Zn, Fe, Ca, Ti, K, Si
+80 Mesh Fe, Al
Cr, Sn, Al, Si
Cr, Al
Sn, Cr, Zr, S
Ba, Zr, Cr, Sr, S
Ba, Sn, Zr, Cr
Sn, Cr, Zr
Sn, Cr, Zr
Sn, Cr, Zr
Cr, Zr, Cu, Sr, Mn, S
* Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 7.
TABLE B-50. X-RAY FLUORESCENCE ANALYSIS OF FEED HOOD PARTICULATE COLLECTED 6/28/75, 1435 HRS.*
SAMPLE
(MICRONS)
MAJOR (>1.0%)
MINOR (0.1-1.0%)
TRACE (<0.1%)
Pb, Sr, Ni, Cr, Cl, Al, Si
Pb, Sr, Sn, Ni, Cr, Cl, S, Si, Al
Pb, Sr, Zr, Ba, Ni, Cr, Cl, Sn, S
Pb, Sr, Zr, Ba, Ni, Cu, Cr, Cl, S
Pb, Sr, Ba, Ni, Cu, Cr, Cl, S
Pb, Sr, Ba, Zr, Sn, Cu, Ni, Cr, S, Cl
b, Sr, Ba, Sn, Ni, Cu, Zr, Cr, Cl
b, Sr, Ba, Ni, Cu, Sn, Zr, Cr, Cl
0- 1.53
1.53- 2.49
2.49- 5.39
5.39- 8.72
8.72-14.43
14.43-27.72
27.72-42.34
42.34-<80
Zn, Fe, Ca, Ti, K
Zn, Fe, Ca, Ti, K
Zn, Fe, Ca, Ti, K
Zn, Fe, Ca, Ti, K
Zn, Fe, Ca, Ti, Si,
Zn, Fe, Ca, Ti, K, Si
Zn, Fe, Ca, Ti, K, Si
K
Si
Mn, Cu, S
Mn, Cu
Mn, Al, Cu, Si
Mn, Al, Si
Mn, Si, Al
Mn, Al
Mn, Al
Mn, Al
Pb
Pb
Pb
* Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 11.
-------
TABLE B-51. MASS SPECTROMETRIC ANALYSIS OF KILN OFF-GAS* (VOLUME %)
U)
DATE
TIME
Methane
Oxygen
Carbon Dioxide
Hydrogen
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Benzene
Carbon Monoxide
Argon
Nitrogen
DATE
TIME
Methane
Oxygen
Carbon Dioxide
Hydrogen
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Benzene
Carbon Monoxide
Argon
Nitrogen
4/ 9/75
—
0170
1.70
15.10
6.10
0.50
0.10
0.05
0.04
4/10/75
—
0.60
2.20
12.60
6.20
0.50
0.10
0.04
0.05
INTERFERENCE
-
BAL.
5/31/75
1215
1.72
-
15.15
10.80
0.23
—
0.11
—
12.29
0.66
59.04
-
BAL.
6/ 1/75
1930
1.64
0.93
15.44
9.32
0.29
—
—
—
10.03
0.69
61.66
4/22/75
1225
2.20
2.00
13.10
11.50
0.50
-
0.10
13.00
0.60
57.00
6/ 2/75
1530
1.91
0.22
13.25
12.98
0.35
—
0.14
—
15.26
0.64
55.26
4/27/75
0635
1.40
3.20
12.80
7.90
0.30
-
0.10
-
7.50
0.70
66.10
6/13/75
1150
0.53
0.14
17.09
3.66
-
—
-
-
6.50
0.77
71.30
4/27/75
1345
1.90
.60
14.90
9.50
0.50
-
TRACE
-
14.50
0.70
57.40
6/13/75
1630
0.87
3.49
12.20
9.05
0.13
-
0.08
-
9.79
0.68
63.71
4/28/75
0400
1.80
8.40'
8.90
5.90
0.50
-
0.10
-
6.60
0.70
67.10
6/16/75
0837
0.91
2.73
13.33
10.72
0.14
-
-
-
10.57
0.66
60.95
5/30/75
1500
2.33
-
15.66
12.96
0.36
-
0.12
-
12.94
0.63
54.99
6/20/75
—
1.11
1.48
14.49
10.35
0.19
-
0.10
-
8.40
0.67
63.22
5/30/75
1900
0.01
16.43
4.19
-
-
-
-
-
1.15
0.76
77.46
6/21/75
-
1.38
2.07
13.16
11.27
0.31
-
0.11
-
9.86
0.65
61.18
-------
TABLE B-51. (Continued)
H
N)
DATE
TIME
Methane
Oxygen
Carbon Dioxide
Hydrogen
Ethylene
Acetylene
Ethane
Benzene
Carbon Monoxide
Argon
Nitrogen
6/28/75
1445
1.32
2.11
12.43
11.71
0.19
-
0.10
—
10.66
0.65
60.83
7/02/75
1915
2.45
0.02
14.89
11.39
. 0.53
-
0.13
—
11.13
0.65
58.82
7/02/75
1930
2.19
0.50
16.75
11.27
0.49
-
0.13
—
9.78
0.63
58.26
7/02/75
0830
1.86
0.13
14.64
9.94
0.33
-
0.13
—
10.52
0.67
61.78
7/02/75
0830
1.83
0.11
15.11
9.87
0.37'
-
0.14
-
10.06
0.67
61.84
MINIMUM
0.01
-
4.19
-
-
0.10
TRACE
0.04
1.15
0.60
54.99
MAXIMUM
2.45
16.43
17.09
12.98
0.53
0.10
0.14
0.05
12.29
0.77
77.46
MEAN
1.46
2.21
13.57
9.16
0.32
0.10
0.09
0.04
10.03
0.67
61.99
* Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 12.
TABLE B-52. TOTAL HYDROCARBON ANALYSIS OF KILN OFF-GAS*
DATE
TIME
TOTAL HYDROCARBON
AS CHit (ppm)
CH4 CONTENT (ppm)
CO CONTENT (%)
3/14/75
4/10/75
4/19/75
2320
-
"~
>6,500
15,000
15,000
4,780
t
t
—
>2
>2
* Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 5.
t Not measured due to CO interference.
-------
TABLE Br53. CROSSOVER DUCT ORSATS
N)
Ul
Date
11/15/76
11/15/76
11/16/76
12/07/76
12/07/76
12/09/76
12/10/76
12/10/76
12/12/76
12/13/76
12/13/76
12/18/76
12/21/76
01/18/77
Time
1215
1530
1400
1530
1745
1845
1330
1900
1340
1310
1710
1315
0745
1315
C02%
15.5
12.0
12.4
14.6
14.6
15.6
14.6
14.4
13.8
14.4
14.2
14.0
15.6
14,6
02%
.6
.2
1.6
1.6
.4
.8
.0
.0
.6
1.0
1.0
1.8
2.4
1.2
C0%
5.0
6.8
7.0
5.6
5.8
4.6
5.4
6.0
5.8
8.8
8.2
6.0
4.2
Date
1/13/7J
1/15/JJ
1/19/J7
1/20/77
1/23/77
1/31/77
2/01/77
2/22/77
2/24/77
5/10/77
5/12/77
5/13/77
5/14/77
Time
1700
1530
1455
1250
1145
0800
1430
1430
1330
1430
1400
C02%
15.2
14.8
16.2
14,6
14.8
14.6
13.8
13.8
13.4
14.8
14.0
14.0
15.0
02%
1.4
1.0
1.2
1.6
1.2
.4
1.0
.2
1.0
.6
.4
.8
.4
C0%
5.8
7.0
5.2
5.8
7.0
5.6
4.6
7.4
6.6
3.0
2.4
2.6
4.0
Average
Standard Deviation
14.42
.89
.90
.58
5.62
1.55
-------
shown in Table B-54. The thermal conductivity (TC) gas chromatograph data
is shown in Table B-55. The oil and grease (long chain hydrocarbons)
analyses are shown in Table B-56.
The kiln crossover duct measurement port is located approximately 1-2 m
(3-6 ft) upstream of the point where the crossover combustion air fan and
the dust collection fan air enters the duct. The duct itself is a steel
sheel 2.1 m (7 ft.) diameter lined with refractory brick 0.115 mm (4.5 in.)
thick. The refractory is coated with a slag layer averaging 7.6 cm (3 in.)
thick. In the bottom of the duct, the slag has piled up to form a somewhat,
flat surface having a maximum depth of approximately 0.3 m (1 ft) in the
center. In addition, along the wall numerous stalactites and stalagmites
combine to form a highly irregular wall surface. This type of deposit, is
indicative of highly distorted flow patterns within the crossover duct.
For this reason, the flow measurements at this point cannot be relied upon
for accuracy. The duct configuration at the crossover measuring station
#12 is not ideal for flow measurements for another reason. Immediately
downstream of the measurement station gas purifier combustion air enters
the duct perpendicularly to the main flow. Flow from these two fans is
injected at three points circumferentially around the duct. When the air
is injected into the duct perpendicularly to the main flow, the influence
of the injected flow is noticeable five to ten duct diameters upstream of
the injection point depending upon the flow momentum ratio. In this case,
the airflow injected only slightly downstream of a measurement point defi-
nitely distort the flow measurement. Although the injection flow distortion
is not measured; its influence on measurements is present to some unknown
extent and renders those measurements unreliable.
)3.
However, from a statistical aspect, the flow measurement results are
consistent and correctable. No conclusion can be made concerning a flow
coefficient at this location since this reflects, in effect, a change in
flow area. Considering the highly irregular flow surface, no evaluation
except on a statistical basis is possible. The gas flow at this point must
be determined by summing all of the material inputs into the kiln immediately
upstream of the duct.
Gas Purifier Discharge Duct
Gas flow calculations at the gas purifier discharge duct are made in
the same manner as those at the kiln crossover duct. The gas purifier duct
measurement port is located in a straight section of duct approximately 1-2 m
(3-6 ft) long, and having an inside diameter of 2.6 m (8.5 ft). A straight
duct section starts at the exit of the gas purifier which has an entrance
contraction ratio of 1.63. At the end of the straight duct section, there
is a chamber elbow and two quench air ports allowing high rates of flow
into the duct. The measurements at this point, therefore, are made immedi-
ately downstream of a duct contraction and just prior to an elbow at which
point two high flow air masses enter the main duct. As a result, the flow
velocity vector cannot be accurately measured due to normal pressure fluctua-
tions which mask the "Peakins" effect of rotating the probe to some offset
angle in an attempt to intercept the actual velocity vector. The conclusion
126
-------
TABLE B-54. FLAME IONIZATION DETECTION ANALYSIS OF CROSSOVER DUCT GASES
Acetylene
Date Time Methane Ethane Propane Isobutane N-Butane Ethylene*
6/30/77
6/30/77
6/30/77
6/30/77
7/01/77
7/01/77
7/01/77
7/01/77
7/01/77
Average
1600
1630
1700
1705
1300
1325
1340
1430
1500
t
t
t
1800
1970
t
t
2130
2164
2020
t
134
144
149
41
38
113
-
-
103
t
205
-
246
—
-
91
10
27
116
§
§
-
§
—
—
§
§
§
§
— —
123
-
-
—
-
70
10
22
56
t
t
t
813
640
499
t
567
591
622
- —
* Standard for calibration was run in the lab on 9/22/77
number.
This is a composite
'resent.
§ Not detectable.
127
-------
TABLE B-55. THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY ANALYSIS OF CROSSOVER DUCT GASES
Date
Carbon Carbon
Time Nitrogen Dioxide Monoxide Oxygen Methane Hydrogen
* Interference, not yet quantified.
8/23/77
8/23/77
8/23/77
8/23/77
8/23/77
8/23/77
8/23/77
8/23/77
8/23/77
8/23/77
8/23/77
8/23/77
8/23/77
1205
—
—
1525
1540
—
1555
1600
1610.
1615
1620
1705
1710
61.1
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
60.0
60.0
13.3
—
—
—
12.5
9.1
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.1
—
12.1
6.8
4.8
—
—
7.5
5.5
7.9
7.9
7.0
7.9
7.9
7.9
8.8
1.0
—
—
—
—
—
1.0
1.0
1.3
0.9
1.3
1.8
1.2
1.24
—
0.85
1.05
1.12
0.70
0.85
0.85
0.85
1.09
0.95
0.89
1.16
*
*
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
TABLE B-56. LONG CHAIN HYDROCARBON ANALYSIS OF CROSSOVER DUCTJ£ASES
Date
Volume of
Gas
(DSCM)
Total Oil
And Grease
(mg) ~
Concentrat ion
(mg/DSCM)
6/29/77*
6/29/77
6/30/77
0.75
0.21
0.18
2,460
1,566
1,390
3280
7483
7575
* Bad test (saturated).
128
-------
again must be that the gas flow measurements at this point are unreliable.
Subsequent statistical analysis indicates that the measurements are somewhat
consistent though not to the extent noted in the crossover duct. Again,
the most reliable flow calculation at this station results from a summation
of all input flow upstream of the sampling point.
Again for completeness, the composition data for the gas purifier dis-
charge duct gases are shown in Tables B-57 through B-59. A pilot electro-
static precipitator was tested on the gas purifier discharge duct gases.
The gas were first passed through a water quench gas cooler and the results
are shown in Table B-60.
Boiler Inlet Duct
While no velocity measurements were possible at this point, facility
temperature and orsat measurements were made to aid in the determination of
boiler efficiencies. The boiler inlet orsats are shown in Table B-61.
Boiler/Economizer Discharge Duct
Measurement of gas flow at this point is calculated in the same manner
as discussed for the kiln crossover and gas purifier exit ducts. The
measurement station is located approximately 24 m (78 ft.) downstream of
the economizer discharge in a refractory lined section of straight steel
wall duct. The straight section is approximately 18.3 m (60 ft) long and
has an inner diameter of approximately 2.2 m (7.33 ft). The configuration
of this duct, and the low temperature of the gas flow stream (allowing use
of a calibrated thermocouple) combine to make this the most ideal gas flow
measurement section of those available. Subsequently, experience has shown
that measurements agree quite well with flows calculated from measured
inputs. This measurement station, therefore, is the only one that can be
relied upon- as a check on the _input flows. The orsat measurements taken at
this point are shown in Table B-62. The moisture content of gas at this
point was measured and the data is shown in Table B-63. The complete data
for the dry electrostatic precipitator tests on the gases at this point is
shown in Table B-64. This data was summarized and discussed in the Environ-
mental Assessment Section of Volume II of this report. An ash analysis of
the particulate at this point is shown in Table B-65.
129
-------
TABLE B-57. TOTAL HYDROCARBON ANALYSIS OF GAS PURIFIER EXIT GASES*
Date
3/14/75
3/14/75
3/14/75
4/19/75
4/10/75
Time
0320
0320
1130
-
Total HC Content
As CH4 (y£/£)
3
8
16
35
128
CH4
(vl/i)
1
3
2
<1
<1
CO
(u£/£)
_
—
—
-------
TABLE B-59. GAS PURIFIER DISCHARGE DUCT ORSATS
u>
.
DATE
11/15/76
11/15/76
il/16/76
12/10/76
12/13/76
12/21/76
1/18/77
1/13/77
1/15/77
1/20/77
1/31/77
2/ 5/77
2/24/77
5/10/77
5/12/77
5/13/77
5/1A/77
6/29/77
6/29/77
6/29/77
6/29/77
6/29/77
6/30/77
6/30/77
6/30/77
6/30/77
6/30/77
11 1/77
Average
Maximum
Minimum
TIME
1230
1545
1420
-
1730
0815
1415
1730
1545
1320
0845
1620
1440
1400
1140
1330
1400
0845
1045
1345
1420
1645
0845
0915
1150
1540
1610
1445
CQ,%
-V
3:5.6
18.0
16.8
12.6
11.4
14.0
9.4
15.2
7.0
9.2
9.8
11.8
4.6
15.8
14.0
14.6
16.2
9.4
13.4
17.0
13.02
12.00
8.00
11.20
9.20
15.80
13.80
14.20
12.6
18.0
4.6
0 %
3.9
0.0
2.1
0.2
0.0
0.6
1.4
0.6
0.0
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.0
1.2
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.2
1.2
-
0.0
0.0
-
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.8
0.30
3.9
0.0
C0%
1.5
3.3
1.8
1.0
1.6
0.2
3.6
0.6
7.0
2.6
1.2
2.4
7.4
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.0
-
2.2
3.6
-
2.9
5.2
0.6
0.0
0.0
1.8
7.4
0.0
-------
TABLE B-60. ESP RESULTS FOR GAS PURIFIER EXHAUST GASES PASSED THROUGH A GAS COOLER*
CO
N3
DATE
8/5/76
8/5/76
8/5/76
8/5/76
8/6/76
8/6/76
8/6/76
8/6/76
8/6/76
8/6/76
8/7/76
8/7/76
8/7/76
8/7/76
KILN FEED
(MG/HR)
18-27
29
27-31
21-28
27-31
29
28
28
29
27
29
28
28
30
TREATMENT
ZONE VELOCITY
(M/SEC)
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
.91
.91
.91
.91
.91
.91
.91
.91
.91
.91
INLET/OUTLET
TEMPERATURE
<°0
195/180
192/179
192/177
192/178
192/178
191/179
196/183
196/182
193/181
194/180
195/181
194/180
194/176
194/179
% MOISTURE
BY VOLUME
47
55
56
55
52
56
56
58
58
56
55
56
58
58
.3
.6
.6
.8
.0
.7
.8
.2
.4
.9
.6
.8
.6
.4
INLET
LOADING
(G/DSCM)
2.915
3.032
3.517
3.705
4.048
3.398
3.503
3.741
3.838
4.009
3.492
3.448
3.054
3.208
OUTLET
LOADING
(G/DSCM)
.0526
.0666
.0575
.0536
.0895
.0588
.0843
.0517
.0808
.1259
.0405
.0489
.0742
.0334
EFFICIENCY
(%
98.
97.
98.
98.
97.
98.
97.
98.
97.
96.
98.
98.
97.
98.
:)
2
8
4
6
8
3
6
6
9
9
8
6
6
9
VOLTS
(KV)
55
53
53
53
54
53
53
53
52
52
52
51
52
53
CURRENT
(MA)
22
24
23
23
23
24
24
24
23
24
24
24
24
23
* White, S. J., Jr., Environmental Elements Corporation. Precipitator Application Survey City of
Baltimore Pyrolysis Plant. No. 7364. Baltimore, Maryland, 1976. p. v:10, 10/20/76.
-------
TABLE B-61. BOILER INLET ORSATS
U)
DATE
12/09/76
12/12/76
12/21/76
1/15/77
1/18/77
1/23/77
1/31/77
2/05/77
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
TIME
1915
1400
0845
1657
1445
1445
0935
1615
C02%
11.0
10.0
5.4
7.8
10.6
8.4
5.8
9.0
8.5
11.0
5.4
02%
7.0
6.2
11.6
9.6
4.0
10.0
12.6
— —
8.7
11.6
4.0
C0%
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
0.0
0.4
0.0
-------
TABLE B-62. BOILER OUTLET ORSATS
U>
DATE
12/07/76
1/05/77
1/18/77
5/06/77
5/10/77
5/12/77
5/13/77
5/14/77
6/29/77
6729/77
6/29/77
6/29/77
6/30/77
6/30/77
6/30/77
7/01/77
7/01/77
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
MINIMUM
TIME
1815
1720
1520
1530
1400
1100
1100
1400
0845
1045
1420
0915
1130
1150
1540
0930
1445
C02%
9.0
8.4
7.8
7.8
7.6
9.2
9.0
8.0
9.4
8.4
8.2
7.4
8.6
7.6
9.0
6.0
6.8
8.1
9.4.
6.0
02%
9.5
10.4
11.0
8.0
4.2
4.2
7.4
10.8
9.8
9.4
11.2
12.2
10.8
10.6
8.8
12.6
11.0
9.5
12.6
4.2
C0%
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
2.8
4.4
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.6
0.6
4.4
0.0
-------
TABLE B-63. MOISTURE CONTENT OF BOILER EXIT GASES
DATE
6/14/76*
6/14/76*
6/22/76*
6/22/76*
6/22/76*
6/22/76*
6/22/76*
6/23/76*
6/23/76*
6/23/76*
6/25/76*
7/21/76*
7/21/76*
7/21/76*
7/21/76*
7/22/76*
7/22/76*
7/22/76*
7/22/76*
7/23/76*
7/23/76*
7/23/76*
7/23/76*
7/24/76*
7/24/76*
7/24/76*
7/26/76*
7/26/76*
7/26/76*
7/26/76*
7/26/76*
7/27/76*
7/27/76*
7/27/76*
7/27/76*
7/28/76*
8/05/76*
8/05/76*
8/05/76*
6/30/77
6/30/77
6/30/77
AVERAGE
KILN FEED
(Mg/hr.)
32.7
25.0
27.2
27.2
25.4-29.9
25.0-27.2
29.0
27.2-39.0-30.8
38.1-25.4-29.9
20.9-25.0
28.1-0
36.3-26.3
28.1
28.1
28.1
27.2
27.2
28.1
27.2
35.4
36.3
33.6
39.0
36.3
34.5
34.5-41.7
35.4
29.0-38.1
34.5
38.1
37.2
27.2
30.8
32.7
31.8
35.0-45.4-0
35.0
33.6
31.8
Moisture
(% Volume)
15.5
20.5
18.5
17.2
21.3
23.8
23.4
21.4
21.7
19.6
20.7
18.8
21.5
22.2
25.0
23.8
21.9
21.7
21.9
21.0
21.4
23.2
22.0
23.7
23.9
23.3
20.7
22.1
23.6
21.5
21.6
19.9
21.5
21.4
22.7
19.7
16.3
17.2
18.4
10.4
12.1
12.0
20.5
White, S. J,., Jr., Environmental Elements Corporation. Precipitator
Application Survey City of Baltimore Pyrolysis Plant. No. 7364. Baltimore,
Maryland, 1976. pp. V9, V10.
135
-------
TABLE B-64. DRY ESP TEST OF BOILER EXIT GASES*
CO
DATE
6/14/76
6/14/76
6/22/76
6/22/76
6/22/76
6/22/76
6/22/76
6/23/76
6/23/76
6/23/76
6/25/76
7/21/76
7/21/76
7/21/76
7/21/76
7/22/76
7/22/76
7/22/76
7/22/76
7/23/76
7/23/76
7/23/76
7/23/76
7/24/76
7/24/76
7/24/76
7/26/76
7/26/76
7/26/76
KILN FEED TREATMENT
ZONE VELOCITY
(Mg/HR) (M/SEC)
32.7
25.0
27.2
27.2
25.4-29.9
25.0-27.2
29.0
27.0-39.0-30.8
38.1-25.4-29.9
20.9-25.0
28.1- 0.0
36.3-26.3
28.1
28.1
28.1
27.2
27.2
28.1
27.2
35.4
36.3-
33.6
39.0
36.3
34.5
34.5-41.7
32.7- 0.0
35.4
29.0-38.1
1.28
1.19
1.28
1.25
1.22
1.22
1.31
.88
.94
.94
.91
.64
.64
.64
.64
.67
.67
.67
.67
.67
.67
.67
.67
.94
.91
.94
.91
.91
.91
INLET /OUTLET
TEMPERATURE
(°c)
152/144
154/144
160/143
170/156
174/160
190/165
176/159
171/141
182/171
194/176
149/136
194/170
182/163
185/166
194/171
193/172
190/170
175/159
182/164
203/172
212/183
207/183
192/170
194/174
204/185
170/159
181/161
183/162
184/172
% MOISTURE INLET OUTLET EFFICIENCY
BY VOLUME LOADING LOADING
(g/DSCM) (g/DSCM) (%)
15.5
20.5
18.5
17.2
21.3
23.8
23.4
21.4
21.7
19.6
20.7
18.8
21.5
22.2
25.0
23.8
21.9
21.7
21.9
21.0
21.4
23.2
22.0
23.7
23.9
23.3
—
20.7
22.1
_.
.7405
.5021
.4845
.6182
.4032
4.9231
.5053
.4154
1.1378
.4522
.5024
.4419
.4545
.5898
.4685
.6729
.6478
.5305
.6292
.5553
3.8522
.5266
.4172
5.4873
.3819
.8280
.6842
3.4783
__
.1106
.1181
.1076
.0545
.0632
.1662
.0467
—
.0591
.0414
.0586
.0339
.0504
.0410
.0437
.0378
.0586
.0524
.0325
.0188
.0307
.0444
.0387
.0373
.0341
.1365
.0637
.0872
IH^
85.1
76.5
77.8
91.2
84.3
96.6
90.8
—
94.8
90.8
88.3
92.3
88.9
93.1
90.7
94.4
91.0
90.1
94.8
96.6
99.2
91.6
90.7
99.3
91.1
83.5
90.7
97.5
VOLTS
(KV)
48
54
52
48
50
48
54
48
48
46
49
48
49
49
49
50
50
47
47
43
43
43
46
44
45
49
47
47
50
CURRENT
(MA)
15
13
14
15
15
16
14
14
16
16
14
16
15
15
15
15
15
18
18
23
23
22
19
22
19
14
16
16
12
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-64. (Continued)
DATE
7/26/76
7/26/76
7/26/76
7/27/76
7/27/76
7/27/76
7/27/76
7/28/76
8/ 5/76
8/ 5/76
8/ 5/76
KILN FEED
(Mg/HR)
34.5
38.1
37.2
27.2
30.8
32.7
31.8
35.0-45.4-0
35.0
33.6
31.8
TREATMENT
ZONE VELOCITY
(M/SEC)
.91
.91
.61
.91
.91
.91
.91
.91
.91
.91
.91
INLET/OUTLET
TEMPERATURE
(°c)
186/167
206/182
216/189
175/159
179/166
181/160
1 190/174
' 171/159
182/157
197/175
190/176
% MOISTURE
BY VOLUME
23.6
21.5
21.6
19.9
21.5
21.4
22.7
19.7
16.3
17.2
18.4
INLET
LOADING
(g/DSCM)
.5692
3.2550
.6681
.5873
2.1681
.6106
.5997
.7409
.4877
.6045
3.5078
OUTLET
LOADING
(g/DSCM)
.0504
.0506
.0247
.0627
.1012
.0756
.0600
.0646
.0804
.0504
.0746
EFFICIENCY
(%)
91.2
98.4
96.2
89.3
95.3
87.6
90.0
91.3
83.6
91.7
97.9
VOLTS
(KV)
46
45
45
47
50
49
48
47
47
44
45
CURRENT
(MA)
16
20
21
17
14
15
16
16
15
19
15
* White, S. J., Jr., Environmental Elements Corporation. Precipitator Application Survey City of
Baltimore Pyrolysis Plant. No. 7364. Baltimore, Maryland, 1976. pp. V9, V10.
-------
TABLE B-65. ASH ANALYSIS OF BOILER EXIT GAS PARTICIPATE*
DATE
COMPONENT
Alumina
Calcium Oxide
Ferric Oxide
Lithium Oxide
Magnesium Oxide
Potassium Monoxide
Silicon Dioxide
Sodium Monoxide
Sulfur Trioxide
Titanium Dioxide
Lost on Ignition
MASS MEDIAN
PARTICLE SIZE (MICRONS)
6/15
11.84
4.99
5.36
0.40
0.45
6.25
12.47
16.88
10.17
1.62
29.24
6
6/24
16.78
13.16
6.37
0.30
3.56
6.25
36.61
13.50
6.38
3.42
22.39
8
7/22
% BY
16.05
13.70
4.57
0.47
3.81
6.32
38.82
13.20
8.18
2.98
23.81
10
7/22
WEIGHT
12.18
5.38
1.61
0.72
0.25
9.60
8.50
16.20
6.68
1.27
37.41
4
7/27
11.45
8.38
3.12
0.22
2.74
4.08
24.60
8.59
8.83
2.13
25.85
16
7/28
7.22
6.38
1.51
0.30
2.50
8.00
13.90
14.55
8.93
1.59
34.96
11
* White, S. J., Jr., Environmental Elements Corporation. Precipitator
Application Survey City of Baltimore Pyrolysis Plant. No. 7364.
Baltimore, Maryland, 1976. pp. VI 1.
138
-------
CHARACTERIZATION OF SOLID MATERIAL STREAMS
Refuse
Since the composition of the refuse was discussed previously only the
refuse feed rates requires further discussion. The refuse feed rate to the
kiln was normally determined by the belt scale on the kiln feed conveyor.
However, during most of the Systech test, the storage and recovery unit was
bypassed, thereby bypassing the belt scale. As a result, only one test was
taken when the refuse feed rate was measured by the belt scale. For all
other tests the flow rate was estimated based upon the average shredding
rate of 27 Mg/hr (30 tph), and the level of the refuse on the conveyors. The
energy flow rates for the refuse was determined by multiplying the mass flow
rate by the heat of combustion of the refuse (Table B-19).
Kiln Residue
Kiln residue mass flow rate measurements were made on an intermittent
basis. The total residue weight for a known period of time was measured and
compared to the total refuse input weight during the corresponding time
period. The residue flow rate was calculated as a percentage of the refuse
feed rate on a wet basis (Table B-66). This percentage varies considerably
with the degree of processing. At one point when all the char was being
combusted the percentage was much lower (Table B-67).
The moisture content of the residue was measured daily on site using a
drying oven at 103°C (217°F). The moisture content was inversely dependent
upon the degree of refuse processing. The moisture content data is shown in
Table B-68. The average moisture content of 31 percent was used to calculate
the residue flow rate on a dry basis as it comes out of the kiln. Multiplying
the wet flow percentage by the solids content (1 - moisture content) the dry
kiln residue discharge is 30 percent of the incoming refuse.
The bulk density of the refuse was measured by weighing a known volume
of residue. This data is also shown in Table B-68.
Proximate analyses (Table B-69) of numerous residue samples were conducted
both by Monsanto and SYSTECH. All SYSTECH data was corrected to reflect the
moisture content measured on-site, and all data was corrected to reflect
unshreddable materials which were separated from the sample. These separated
materials were included as ash. The heat output rate due to the heat of
combustidn of the char in the residue was then calculated by multiplying the
mass rate by the heat content (Table B-69).
Ultimate analysis of the residue is shown in Table B-70 and ash analysis
of the residue is shown in Table B-71. This data was used to determine the
specific heat of the residue and thereby the sensible heat loss due to the
residue discharge. This loss is calculated by multiplying the mass rate by
the specific heat and a temperature differential. The specific heat,
(estimated to be .33 cal/g°C) was calculated as a weighted average of the
component specific heats. The component percentages were obtained from the
proximate (Table B-69) and ash analyses (B-71), while the component specific
139
-------
TABLE B-66. RESIDUE WEIGHT CALCULATIONS
Date
Time
Start Stop
Refuse
(kg)
Residue %
(kg)
12/22/76 1547 2129 110934 41484 37
21 3/77 1400 1745 54109 21013 39
21 3/77 2005 2310 97067 46682 48
3/17/77 1602 2122 135318 64650 48
Total 397429 173830 44
TABLE B-67. RESIDUE WEIGHT CALCULATIONS*
Date Time Refuse Residue %
Start Stop (kg) (kg)
3/14/77 1708 2300 144045 46095 32
3/15/77 1555 2205 155545 49136 32
3/16/77 1526 1646 37727 14309 38
Total 337318 109541 32.5
*No Char
140
-------
TABLE B-68. RESIDUE MOISTURE CONTENT AND BULK DENSITY
Date
Moisture
Bulk Density
(kg/m3)
Date
Moisture
Bulk Density
(kg/m3)
ll/ 8/76
11/12/76
11/15/76
11/16/76
11/17/76
11/29/76
12/ 7/76
12/ 9/76
12/10/76
12/12/76
12/13/76
12/14/76
12/16/76
12/17/76
12/18/76
12/21/76
1/18/77
1/19/77
1/20/77
1/23/77
1/24/77
1/31/77
2/ 1/77
2/ 3/77
%Moisture
Average
Standard
33
22
28
15
14
21
21
39
34
33
52
30
31
32
26
24
36
25
32
19
33
24
23
25
Deviation
1169
1522
1778
1650
1474
2275
1426
1185
1938
1842
1586
1602
1842
1842
1762
1986
1698
1986
1778
1314
1922
1506
1618
1874
30.6
12.4
21 4/77
21 5/77
2/ 6/77
2/22/77
2/25/77
2/28/77
3/ 8/77
3/ 9/77
3/11/77
3/14/77
3/15/77
3/17/77
3/27/77
4/28/77
4/29/77
5/ 2/77
5/ 3/77
5/ 5/77
5/ 6/77
5/ 9/77
5/10/77
5/11/77
5/12/77
5/13/77
Bulk Density
Average
33
22
22
36
74
21
21
37
25
16
16
30
47
75
26
44
29
31
27
49
38
28
24
27
Standard Deviation
1554
1746
2162
1378
1474
2210
1378
1217
1297
1041
1586
1286
1586
1474
1938
1474
1682
1458
1510
1,630.0
282.7
141
-------
TABLE B-69. PROXIMATE ANALYSIS OF RESIDUE
DATE
TIME
Moisture %
Volatile Matter %
Fixed Carbon %
Ash %
Sulfur %
Heat Content MJ/kg
Total Separated Matter *%
DATE
TIME
Moisture %
Volatile Matter %
Fixed Carbon %
Ash %
Sulfur %
Heat Content MJ/kg
Total Seperated Matter *%
3/13/75t
0800
AS REC'D DRY
32.48
4.87 7.22
3.88 5.75
58.76 87.02
0.14 0.20
1.76 2.61
0.79
3/13/75t
1000
AS REC'D DRY
26.37
2.25 3.05
1.68 2.28
69.71 94.68
15.37
3/13/75t
0830
AS REC'D DRY
20.26
3.54 4.44
1.52 1.90
74.68 93.66
0,67
3/13/75t
1405
AS REC'D DRY
18.13
2.93 3.58
0.31 0.38
78.63 96.04
2.00
3/13/75t
0900
AS REC'D DRY
21.76
2.74 3.50
1.24 1.58
74.27 94.93
1.46
3/13/75t
1452
AS REC'D DRY
10.92
1.57 1.76
2.93 3.29
84.58 94.95
10.64
3/13/75t
0930
AS REC'D DRY
22.96
2.45 3.18
1.29 1.67
73.30 95.14
24.60
3/13/75t
1530
AS REC'D DRY
11.08
2.21 2.49
0.28 0.32
86.42 97.19
9.21
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-69. (Continued)
to
DATE
TIME
Moisture
Volatile Matter
Fixed Carbon
Ash
Sulfur
Heat Content
Total Seperated
r»ATi?
U&llH
TIME
Moisture
Volatile Matter
Fixed Carbon
Ash
Sulfur
Heat Content
Total Seperated
3/13/75t
1630
AS REC'D DRY
% 8.99
% 2.86 3.15
% 0.24 0.26
% 87.91 96.59
%
MJ/kg
Matter % - 11.88
3/14/75*
0500
AS REC'D DRY
% 50.66
% 5.25 10.64
% 5.65 11.46
% 38.44 77.90
% 0.08 0.16
MJ/kg 2.99 6.06
Matter *% - 17.97
3/13/75t
1830
AS REC'D DRY
7.87
1.26 1.37
0.09 0.10
90.77 98.53
24.08
3/l4/75t
0535
AS REC'D DRY
29.33
4.39 6.21
2.30 3.25
63.98 90.53
0.08 0.12
0.64 0.91
26.38
3/14/75t
0330
AS REC'D DRY
43.98
6.72 12.00
6.04 10.79
43.26 77.22
0.11 0.20
3.36 6.00
20.32
3/14/75t
0600
AS REC'D DRY
51.66
5.13 10.62
4.45 9.20
38.76 80.18
0.09 0.18
2.60 5.37
24.47
3/l4/75t
0430
AS REC'D DRY
18.68
2.74 3.37
1.42 1.75
77.15 94.87
0.04 0.05
0.59 0.73
32.50
3/l4/75t
0630
AS REC'D DRY
51.12
5.25 10.75
4.55 9/31
39.07 79.94
0.09 0.18
2.65 5.43
23.56
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-69. (Continued)
DATE
TIME
Moisture
Volatile Matter
Fixed Carbon
Ash
Sulfur
Heat Content
Total Seperated Matter
DATE
TIME
Moisture
Volatile Matter
Fixed Carbon
Ash
Sulfur
Heat Content
Total Seperated Matter
. 3/14/75t
1030
AS REC'D DRY
% 18.89
% 2.17 2.67
% 1.56 1.92
% 77.38 95.41
%
MJ/kg
% - 12.24
4/ l/75t
0100
- AS REC'D DRY
% 43.19
% 3.74 6.59
% 3.99 7.03
% 49.08 86.39
% 0.01 0.01
MJ/kg 1.65 2.91
*% - 3.72
3/14/75t
1100
AS REC'D DRY
17.51
2.25 2.73
.68 0.82
79.56 96.45
25.18
4/10/75t
0320
AS REC'D DRY
26.10
6.80 9.20
5.36 7.25
61.74 83.55
0.14 0.19
3.78 5.12
- -
3/25/75t
COMPOSITE
AS REC'D DRY
0.21
7.72 7.74
8.50 8.52
83.57 83.75
0.14 0.14
4.71 4.72
10.64
4/13/75t
1900
AS REC'D DRY
29.95
7.02 10.02
9.28 13.25
53.75 76.73
0.08 0.12
4.07 5.81
- —
3/31/75t
2300
AS REC*D DRY
48.81
4.45 8.70
6.42 12.54
40.32 78.77
0.12 0.23
2.86 5.58
1.60
4/22/75f
1000
AS REC'D DRY
26.00
3.15 4.26
5.28 7.14
65.58 88.62
0.09 0.12
0.91 1.23
2.26
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-69, (Continued)
DATE
TIME
+
Moisture
Volatile Matter
Fixed Carbon
Ash
Sulfur
Heat Content
Total Seperated
DATE
TIME
Moisture
Volatile Matter
Fixed Carbon
Ash
Sulfur
Heat Content
Total Seperated
4/22/75t
1310
AS REC'D DRY
% 38.00
% 4.50 7.26
% 5.21 8,40
% 52.29 84.34
% 0.10 0.16
MJ/kg 2.50 4.03
Matter *% 3.33
5/12/75f
1207
AS REC'D DRY
% 16.14
% 3.31 3.95
% 5.37 6.40
% 75.18 89.65
% 0.09 0.11
MJ/kg 1-67 1.99
Matter % -
4/22/75t
2315
AS REC'D DRY
49.65
5.41 10.75
6.72 13.35
38.23 75.93
0.11 0.22
3.54 7.03
3.24
6/20/75f
0400
AS REC*D DRY
40.25
7.29 12.20
3.89 6.51
48.58 81.30
0.06 0.10
3.79 6.35
1.57
4/23/75t
0420
AS REC'D DRY
47.97
8.33 16.01
28.62 55.01
15.08 28.98
0.10 0.19
3.38 6.50
9.83
6/21/75f
0845
AS REC'D DRY
11.07
3.09 3.47
1.24 1.39
84.62 95.15
1.25
5/12/75t
0315
AS REC'D DRY
12.82
3.68 4.22
3.83 4.39
79.67 91.39
0.10 0.11
1.37 1.57
- -
8/ 7/75§
1400
AS REC'D DRY
21.61
1.55 1.98
1.34 1.71
75.55 96.31
— —
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-69.. (Continued)
DATE
TIME
Moisture
Volatile Matter
Fixed Carbon
Ash
Sulfur
Heat Content
Total Seperated
11/15/76-11/21/761F
COMPOSITE
AS REC'D
% 19.00
% 1.38
% 4.29
% 75.33
% 0.22
MJ/kg 1:92
*%
DRY
1.70
5.30
93.00
0.27
2.37
"~
12/12/76-12/18/76H
COMPOSITE
AS REC'D
34.00
3.47
0.77
61.76
0.17
0.81
~
DRY
5.26
1.16
93.58
0.25
1.22
4.37
1/16/77-1/22/77H
COMPOSITE
AS REC'D
31.00
0.00
8.94
60.06
0.17
2.98
""
DRY
_
0.00
12.96
87.04
0.24
4.32
6.17
2/1/77-2/5/77H
COMPOSITE
AS REC'D
25.75
0.34
3.42
70.49
0.13
1.25
•
DRY
.
0.46
4.61
94.93
0.17
1.69
7.95
* Included as ash.
t Herrington, R. D., D, E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 37.
§ Herrington, R. C., T. F. Buss, and D, E. Honaker, Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No, 7250. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 19.
IT Moisture corrected to moisture content measured on site.
-------
TABLE B-70. ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF RESIDUE
DATE
TIME
Carbon %
Hydrogen %
Nitrogen %
Oxygen %
DATE
TIME
Carbon %
Hydrogen %
Nitrogen %
Oxygen %
6/20/76* 6/21/75*
0400 0845
15.48 3.16
0.35 0.08
1.23 .39
1.55 1.24
1/16/77-1/22/77
COMPOSITE
12.66
<0.09
0.47
<0.09
8/07/76t 11/15/76-11/21/76 12/12/76-12/18/76
1400 COMPOSITE COMPOSITE
3.00 5.57 3.63
0.19 0.34 0.33
0.07 0.23 0.11
0.43 0.59 2.08
2/1/77-2/5/77
COMPOSITE
4.49
0.10
0.11
0.19
* Harrington, R. D., D, E. Honkker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No, 7240, St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 37.
t Herrington, R. C., T. F. Buss, and D. E. Honaker. Baltimore Landgard<£> Process Characterization,
• * Monsarito EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7250. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 19.
-------
TABLE B-71. ASH ANALYSIS OF RESIDUE
CO
DATE
TIME
11/15/76-11/21/76
COMPOSITE
12/12/76-12/18/76 1/16/77-1/22/77
COMPOSITE COMPOSITE
2/1/77-2/5/77
COMPOSITE
% % ' % %
Aluminia
Ferric Oxide
Lime
Magnesia
Phosphorous Pentoxide
Potassium Oxide
Silica
Sodium Oxide
Sulfur Trioxide
Titania
Aluminia
Ferric Oxide
Lime
Magnesia
Phosphorous Pentoxide
Potassium Oxide
Silica
Sodium Oxide
Sulfur Trioxide
Titania
4.61
7.87
5.40
0.85
0.80
0.29
68.30
4.92
0.58
2.03
MINIMUM %
2.58
1.61
2.89
0.46
0.30
0.29
38.76
3.82
0.51
0.18
3.09
1.91
6.15
0.73
0.89
0.43
75.40
6.04
0.55
0.28
AVERAGES
3.80
13.74
4.97
0.69
0.63
0.52
62.67
6.73
0.55
0.75
4.91
1.61
2.89
0.46
0.30
0.74
68.23
12.12
0.51
0.18
2.58
43.58
5.44
0.72
0.51
0.61
38.76
3.82
0.54
0.50
MAXIMUM %
4.91
43.58
6.15
0.85
0.89
0.74
75.40
12.12
0.58
2.03
-------
heats were typical handbook values. The temperature differential is the
difference between the residue temperature, as measured by the optical
pyrometer, and the reference temperature 273°K.
Table B-72 presents all the residue size data discussed previously in
Volume II of this report.
Tables B-73 and B-74 present the refuse and residue ash fusion tempera-
ture data respectively. These tables should be and are very similar.
The gasoline consumption was discussed previously in the Mass and Energy
Balance Section of Volume II. The complete data is presented in Tables B-75
and B-76.
The residue quench tank process water and the residue truck drainage
were summarized and discussed in the Environmental Assessment Section of
Volume II. The complete data is presented in Tables B-77 and B-78.
Gas Purifier Slag and Kiln Spillback
Because of the continuous seal tank and the single transfer screw con-
veyor only the combined spillage and slag flow rates could be measured nor-
mally. On one occasion when the slag tap hole plugged, the spillage flow was
estimated to be less than 0.5 kg/min. (1.1 Ibs./min.) or 0.13 percent of the
input refuse flow which is insignificant. Therefore, most of the flow is
slag, and all will be considered as such.
Unlike residue, the city records the weight of all the slag discharged
continuously. When this data is compared to the total refuse input over the
same time period, the slag flow, as a percentage of refuse input, can be
calculated (Table B-79).
In order to calculate the amount of slag discharged from the gas purifier
before it enters the water quench the moisture content must be known. The
moisture content was measured on-site similarly to the kiln residue. Using
the average wet slag flow percentage of 1.77 (Table B-79) and the average
moisture content of 14 percent (Table B-80) the average dry slag flow per-
centage is 1.52 percent. The slag bulk density was measured similarly to the
kiln residue and the data is presented in Table B-80.
The ash analyses of the gas purifier slag are shown in Table B-81. It
should be noted that the blue and grey slag are not included in the average.
These are separate because they are samples of the slag that were found in
the sealed slag tap hole. The grey slag with the high alumina and low silica
percentages caused most of the slag hole plugging. The ash analyses were
used to determine the composite specific heat of the slag by the same method
used to calculate the kiln residue specific heat. The specific heat of the
slag was estimated to be 0.4 cal./g°C. The temperature differential for the
sensible heat loss by the slag was calculated using the gas temperature in
the gas purifier and the reference temperature of 273°K.
149
-------
TABLE B-72. RESIDUE SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Date
Size
(mm)
SIZE>152.4
101.6
-------
TABLE B-73. REFUSE ASH FUSION TEMPERATURES (°C)
Date
11/15-12/76 12/12-18/76
1/16-22/77
2/1-5/77
Average
Initial Deformation 1004
Softening Temperature 1037
Hemispherical Temperature 1060
Fluid Temperature 1093
1093
1127
1171
1204
1066
1104
1149
1177
1004
1038
1054
1093
1042
1076
1108
1142
TABLE B-74. RESIDUE ASH FUSION TEMPERATURES (°C)
Date
11/15-12/76
12/12-18/76
1/16-22/77
2/1-5/77
Average
Initial Deformation 982
Softening Temperature 1021
Hemispherical Temperature 1043
Fluid Temperature 1071
988
1016
1038
1060
1066
1104
1149
1177
982
1015
1037
1077
1004
1039
1067
1096
-------
TABLE B-75. GASOLINE CONSUMPTION WHILE PROCESSING*
PERIOD DAYS
ll/ 6/76-11/ 7/76 2
11/12/76-11/16/76 5
11/25/76-11/29/76 5
12, 7/76-12/19/76 13
I/ 8/77- 1/24/77 17
1/31/77- 2/ 6/77 7
2/22/77- 3/17/77 24
TOTAL 73
REFUSE
PROCESSED
(MB)
299
2,560
1,751
5,365
5,817
3,341
10,560
29,693
TOTAL CONSUMPTION
(LITERS)
840
3,172
2,373
8,135
11,587
5,512
13,612
45,232
CONSUMPTION
PER Mg
(LITERS /MG)
2.8
1.2
1.4
1.5
2.0
1.6
1.3
1.52
CONSUMPTION
PER DAY
(LITERS/DAY)
420
634
475
626
682
787
567
620
*City Daily Log
TABLE B-76. GASOLINE CONSUMPTION DURING DOWNTIME*
PERIOD DAYS
ll/ 4/76-11/ 5/76 2
11/19/76-11/24/76 6
11/30/76-12/' 3/76 4
12/24/76- I/ 7/76 15
1/25/77- 1/27/77 3
2/10/77- 2/21/77 12
TOTAL 42
TOTAL CONSUMPTION
(LITERS)
8
609
481
1,889
310
609
3,907
CONSUMPTION
PER DAY
(LITERS /DAY)
4
101
120
126
103
51
93
*City Daily Log,,
152
-------
TABLE B-77- ANALYSIS OF RESIDUE QUENCH TANK PROCESS WATER
DATE
pH
Alkalinity
BOD 5
COD
Suspended Solids
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Volatile Suspended
Iron
TKN
Total Phosphorous
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
Solids (mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
Standard Plate Count (Organism/ml)
Total Coliform
Fecal Streptococci
Lead
Mercury
(MPN/inl)
(MPN/ml)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
2/1/77 3/1/77
9.7
680 800
48
9200
8830
13500
4670
985
98
0.9
16.2 15.2
0 45
0
210
_ _
- -
4/29/77
9.6
530
1020
3440
6700
10300
4450
2320
67
-
-
77
0
0
70
0.019
AVERAGE
9.7
670
534
6320
7765
11900
4560
1653
82
0.9
15.7
41
0
105
70
0.019
153
-------
TABLE B-78. ANALYSIS OF RESIDUE TRUCK DRAINAGE
Date
pH
Alkalinity
Acidity
BOD5
COD
Chlorides
Suspended Solids
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Volatile Suspended Solids
Hardness
Sulfide
Sulfite
Sulfate
Iron
TKN
Total Phosphorous
Standard Plate Count
Total Coliform
Fecal Streptococci
Lead
Mercury
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/D
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1) .
(Organism/ml)
(MPN) /ml)
(MPN/ml)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
3/1/77
^
276
-
53
596
3890
315
10200
7176
111
-
-
-
-
2.1
5.3
0.47
16
0
17
0.7
0.001
4/29/77
10.3
350
-
1200
2570
2540
675
7580
1880
435
-
-
-
-
800
-
-
74000
0
5
0.8
0.008
Average
10.3
313
-
626
1583
3207
495
8890
4528
273
-
-
-
-
401
5.3
0.47
37000
0
11
.75
.004
154
-------
TABLE B-79. SLAG WEIGHT CALCULATIONS
Period Refuse Slag Weight
Mg. Mg. %
ll/ 7/76-11/ 9/76 593.90 8.13 1.4
11/26/76-11/30/76 1872.67 36.85 1.9
12/ 7/76 599.58 7.45 1.2
12/10/76-12/27/76 6616.81 120.54 1.8
I/ 8/77- 1/25/77 5921.54 99.91 1.7
21 3/77- 2/ 7/77 / 2182.39 26.90 1.2
2/22/77- 3/17/77 10561.00 182.23 1.7
4/25/77- 5/15/77 10563.00 197.04 1.8
Total 38344.72 679.05 1.77
155
-------
TABLE B-80. SLAG MOISTURE CONTENT AND BULK DENSITY*
Date
11/08/76
11/12/76
11/15/76
11/16/76
11/17/76
11/29/76
12/07/76
12/09/76
12/10/76.
12/12/76
12/13/76
12/14/76
12/16/76
12/17/76
12/18/76
12/19/76
12/21/76
01/18/77
01/19/77
01/20/77 .
01/23/77
01/24/77
Moisture
Content
(%)
5
11
12-
10
20
12
47
32
12
21
8
10
9
18
12
23
14
15
25
22
14
13
Bulk
Density
(kg/m3)
1602
1362
1730
1490
1666
1842
1954
1217
2002
1650
1650
1650
1602
1698
1794
1922
1586
1922
1330
1730
2130
Date
2/01/77
2/03/77
2/04/77
2/22/77
2/28/77
3/08/77
3/09/77
3/11/77
3/14/77
3/15/77
4/27/77
4/28/77
4/29/77
5/02/77
5/03/77
5/04/77
5/05/77
5/06/77
5/09/77
5/10/77
5/11/77
5/12/77
Minimum
Maximum
Average
Moisture
Content
(%)
9
13
8
12
11
16
10
12
13
10
8
9
14
11
12
7
9
11
14
18
13
7
47
14
Bulk
Density
(kg/m3)
1569
1650
1442
2066
2082
1570
1954
1826
1538
1426
1666
1544
2018
1698
1394
1506
1906
1986
1714
1842
1153
1490
1153
2130
1690
156
-------
TABLE B-81. ASH ANALYSIS OF GAS PURIFIER SLAG
Date
Time
Cblor
Component
Alumina
Carbon
Chromic Oxide
Ferric Oxide
Lime
Magnesia
Nickel Oxide
Phosphorous
Pentoxide
Potassium Oxide
Silica
Sodium Oxide
Stannic Oxide
Sulfur Trioxide
Tttania
Zinc Oxide
5/13/76*
GREY
23.50
0.22
Q.04
3.30
11,50
2.30
0,03
1,6Q
48.10
4,90.
0,16
2.30
0.53
5/13/76*
BLACK
"
12.10
0.14
0,04
3.20
10.10
2,10
0.08
1,80
60.20
6,70
0.29
1,60
0.36
5/13/76*
BLUE
14.20
O.Q6
0.04
3.30
9.70
2.00
0.07
1.60
58.30
6.40
0.13
1.6Q
0.39-
6/9/76t
0130
BLACK
PERCENT
11. sa
1,78
0.05
3.00
11.40
2.20
1.60
57.9.0
6,50
a. 16.
1.80
0,32
12/12-18/76
COMPOSITE
BLACK
BY WEIGHT
18,00
4,99.
8.74
1.67
2.9JQ
0.94
53.00
0.54
0. 20
3, .04
12/19-23/76
COMPOSITE
BLACK
13.50
3.35
8.80
1.72
2.00
3.24
53,10
5,81
Q,15
2.4Q
1/16-22/76
COMPOSITE
BLACK
15 . 90
3.21
7.20
1.51
2.55
0.84
60.00
3.78
0.18
2.26
2/1-5/76
COMPOSITE
BLACK
19.80
3.64
9.05
1.76
1.64
0.91
51.65
3.64
0.10
3.18
Average
BLACK
15.13
0.10
0.05
3.57
9.22
1.83
0.06
2.27
1.56
55.98
4.50
0.23
0.16
2.38
0.34
*Herrington, R.C., T.F. Buss, and DUE. Honaker, Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization. Monsanto
EnviroChem Systems, Inc., No. 7250, St. Louis, Missouri, 1976, Table 4,
tHerrington, R.F., T.F. Buss, and D.E. HOnaker, Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization. Monsanto
EnytroChem Systems, Inc., No. 7250, St. Lousi, Missouri, 1976, Table 5,
-------
The size distribution of the gas purifier slag is shown in Table B-82.
Table B-83 presents all the slag ash fusion temperature data. Table B-84 is
the complete data set of the slag quench tank process water which was sum-
marized and discussed in the Environmental Assessment Section of Volume II of
this report.
Boiler Fly Ash
Most of the boiler fly ash data was presented and discussed in the
Environmental Assessment section of Volume II of this report. The fly ash
mass flow rate was calculated using the same technique as the kiln residue
and the gas purifier slag (Table B-85). The ash fusion temperature data for
the boiler fly ash is presented in Table B-86.
QUENCH WATER VAPORIZATION
No direct measurement of the quantity of water vaporized from the
residue quench and seal tanks to the process gas flow was possible. Overall
water flow to the tanks was measured periodically, but this also includes
water removed with the residue and slag. Since both the slag and residue
were analyzed for moisture content, the quantity of water removed with the
residue and slag was subtracted from the total flow to the tanks to calculate
an estimated average water vaporization rate for each. The actual flow rate
varies with gas temperature, and, in the case of the seal tank, the amount of
slag tap hole plugging which has occurred to reduce the flow of heat into the
tank from the process. The average flow rate of water vapor entering the
kiln from the residue and spillback quench water was estimated to be 4.5 kg
(10 Ibs) per minute. The slag quench water vaporization into the gas pur-
ifier had an estimated average between 2.3 and 4.5 kg (5 and 10 Ibs) per
minute.
The quench water vaporized has absorbed heat from the kiln and the gas
purifier, respectively. The heat used to vaporize the water is returned to
the process as the water vaporizes with an additional input of the sensible
heat of the supply water. Therefore, the sensible heat input is calculated
by multiplying the mass input rate by the enthalpy of the cold water.
BOILER WATER INPUTS AND OUTPUTS
Cold Water Supply
While instantaneous supply water flow measurements were made, the more
reliable differential readings of the totalizers on the softeners was used to
determine boiler feedwater flow rates.
The cold water heat content was calculated by multiplying the mass flow
rate by the enthalpy of the softened water before the deaerating heater. The
heat added in the deaerating heater is closed looped within the boiler
system.
158
-------
TABLE B-82. SLAG SIZE DISTRIBUTION
Size - J Weight
(mm) * *•
11/29/76 12/7/76 1/23/77 3/11/77 3/18/77 5/6/77 5/13/77 Average
5.08 < Size < 101.6 0000 500 1
25.4 < Size <50.8 0 50 0 00 0 1
5.1 < Size < 25.4 6 55 11 14 7 13 15 17
Size < 5.1 94 40 89 86 88 87 85 81
VO
-------
TABLE B-83. SLAG ASH FUSION TEMPERATURES (°C)
Date
Time
Color
Initial Deformation
Softening
Hemispherical
Fluid
Blue
Reducing Oxidising
Grey
Reducing Oxidizing
6/20/75*
1500
Black
Reducing Oxidizing
1065
1121
1138
1177
1116
1166
1188
1227
1038
1121
1138
1171
1110
1171
1193
1221
1038
1132
1154
1371
1099
1177
1204
1443
Date
Time
Color
CT*
O
6/21/75*
0800
Black
Reducing Oxidizing
5/13/76t
Grey
Reducing Oxidizing
5/13/76t
Black
Reducing Oxidizing
Initial Deformation
Softening
Hemispherical
Fluid
1071
1154
1177
1343
1110
1182
1204
1360
<1480
1398
Date
Time
Color
Initial Deformation
Softening
Hemispherical
Fluid
5/13/76t
Black
Reducing Oxidizing
1/16/77 - 1/22/77
Black
Reducing Oxidizing
1398
1188
1210
1238
1287
1271
1299
1321
1366
2/1/77 - 2/5/77
Black
Reducing Oxidizing
1010
1038
1082
1132
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-83. (Continued)
Date 12/19/76 - 12/23/76 1/16/77 - 1/22/77 2/1/77 - 2/5/77
Time
Color Black ' Black Black
^ Reducing Oxidizing Reducing Oxidizing Reducing Oxidizing
Initial Deformation <982 <982 <982
Softening <982 <982 <982
Hemispherical 1010 1021 1010
Fluid 1066 1066 1066
*Herringtpn, R.C., D.E. Honaker, and B.C. Ward. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization. Monsanto
EnviroChem Systems Inc., No. 7240. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976, Table 39.
K tHerrington, R.C., T.F. Buss, and D.E. Honaker. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization. Monsanto
H EnviroChem Systems Inc., No. 7250. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976, Table 4.
§Herrington, R.C., T.F. Buss, and D.E. Honaker. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization. Monsanto
EnviroChem Systems INc., No. 7250. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976, Table 5.
-------
TABLE B-84. ANALYSIS OF SLAG QUENCH TANK PROCESS WATER
DATE
PH
Alkalinity
Acidity
BOD 5
COD
Chlorides
Suspended Solids
Total Solids
Volatile Solids
Volatile Suspended
Hardness
Sulfide
Sulfite
Sulfate
Iron
TKN
Total Phosphorous
Ong/D
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/D
(mg/D
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
Solids (mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
Standard Plate Count (Organism/ml;
Total Coliform
Fecal Streptococci
Lead
Mercury
(MPN/ml)
(MPN/ml)
(mg/1)
(mg/1)
2/1/77 3/1/77
10.1
100 116
- -
8
179
- -
187
708
496
76
-
-
- -
-
- -
1.5
0.98 1.24
0 12
0 0
2 0
- -
— —
4/29/77
9.4
66
-
24
340
-
356
856
277
108
-
-
-
-
7.0
-
-
6
0
0
0.35
0.001
AVERAGE
9.7
94
-
16
260
-
272
782
386
92
-
-
-
-
7.0
1.5
1.11
6
0
1
0.35
0.001
162
-------
TABLE B-85. FLY ASH WEIGHTS
Collection Fly Ash Refuse Weight %
Period (kg) (kg) (wet)
12/09/76 - 12/10/76 350.7 399223 .09
12/17/76 - 12/18/76 307.0 453675 .07
01/03/77 - 01/04/77 595.4 559379 .11
03/07/77 - 03/11/77 1383.0 1610156 .09
Total 2636.1 3025069 .087
TABLE B-86. BOILER FLY ASH FUSION TEMPERATURES
6/25/76* 7/30/77
Reducing Oxidizing Reducing Oxidizing
Initial Deformation
Softening Temperature
Hemispherical Temperature
Fluid Temperature
°C
°C
°C
°C
1049
1077
1116
1160
1099
1132
1160
1232
1088
1135
1143
1188
1104
1127
1138
1182
* Herring ton, R. C., T. F. Buss, and D. E. Honaker. Baltimore Landgard®
Process Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7250.
St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 6.
163
-------
Feedwater Pump Work
During all tests monitored by SYSTECH the feedwater pump was driven by
an electric motor. During some of the tests conducted by Monsanto the steam
turbine driven pump was utilized. In Table B-7 the electric pump is shown to
have an electric energy demand of approximately 104.9 kw. A portion of this
electrical energy input enters the thermal cycle and appears as pump work on
the feedwater. The pump work, shown as an input to the feedwater prior to
entering the economizer/boiler, is calculated as follows. Since the water is
highly incompressible, the equation P = m/vdp becomes P = m[v(p2-pi)]. To
account for units, the equation takes the form of: P = 0.102 m vAp, where P
is in joules/min. As an overall approximation, only an estimated 0.25 per-
cent of the input power enters the thermal cycle as pump work. Similarly, in
the case of the steam driven pump, the pump work entering the cycle is
calculated in the same manner, and the percentage is the same. The remaining
pump work is converted to heat and is rejected to the surroundings.
Delivered Steam
Steam delivered to the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company was measured
using a totalizer meter located at the inlet to the utility steam main
located approximately one mile from the plant. Readings were taken every
hour, hence only averaged steam flow values over a one hour time period are
available. Measurements used were obtained by taking the difference between
two sequential readings.
Steam Line Losses
Steam line losses is a quantity which is very difficult to measure; it
was determined based on an accounting of inputs and discharges. The
resulting differential was ascribed to losses. The losses take the form of
steam actually lost through leaks and steam lost by condensation in the
delivery lines and vented to the sewers through water traps. Since no
accounting can be made on a regular basis, the lost steam was calculated on a
differential basis and reduced to a ratio based on line pressure and temper-
ature. This approach accounts for losses considering that the total leakage
area remains constant and that losses due to condensation are effected only
by the steam temperature since the overall heat transfer coefficient remains
constant. The mass flow of the steam loss was calculated by multiplying the
boiler steam pressure by 1.5 x lO"1*.
Deaerating Heater Vented Steam Loss
To prevent a buildup of pressure, excess steam is vented through a
nominal 3.81 cm pipe (1.5 in.) after the steam has bubbled to the water sur-
face. The steam had been injected into the water from a pipe submerged in
the water. The steam leaving the water is, naturally, not saturated at
222°F and 35 kPa (5 psig); but, during its progress through the vent pipe,
it expands and is assumed to be saturated at 379°K and 25 kPa (3.6 psig).
At the vent exit the steam is assumed to be superheated at 379°K and
atmospheric pressure.
164
-------
Assuming the pressure drop in the vent is due to friction pipe flow
losses, the flow can be calculated to be 4.8 kg (10.6 Ib) per minute.
Heat lost in the vented steam is calculated by multiplying the vent
steam flow rate by the enthalpy of saturated steam at 379°K. This value of
12.9 MJ/min was used for all the tests since the temperature and pressure
within the deaerating heater varies slightly.
Atomizing Steam Flow
No instrumentation was available to measure the atomizing steam flow to
the fuel oil burners and, therefore, the steam flow was estimated based upon
design values.
Each of the main kiln burners requires 6 kg (13.2 Ib) of steam per
minute at a burner head pressure of 725 kPa (105 psig). The gas purifier
start-up burner requires 4.5 kg (10 Ib) of steam per minute while the steam
flow to the gas purifier pilot burner is 2 kg (4.5 Ib) per minute. The
atomizing steam flow is constant since the steam flow to all burners is
maintained at all times during operation even when a burner is off.
The heat input of the atomizing steam was determined by multiplying the
mass rate of the steam by its enthalpy.
Slowdown
While not determined regularly, feedwater and boiler solids concentra-
tions (Table B-87) were measured to verify the design blowdown rate. The
blowdown rates, calculated as a percentage of the feedwater rate, agreed well
with the design 10 percent blowdown rate.
For purposes of determining the boiler blowdown heat loss, the blowdown
was considered to consist of water only, and the enthalpy value assumed was
that for saturated water at the boiler operating pressure.
THERMAL PROCESSING SUBSYSTEM BALANCES
The purpose of this section is to describe the approach used to deter-
mine representative mass and energy balances from all the data collected. In
this section data from two sources are considered, that taken by Systems
Technology Corporation and that taken during an earlier stage of the project
by Monsanto EnviroChem Corporation. Two test points obtained by Systems
Technology Corporation are analyzed in detail to obtain an understanding of
the process mass and energy flows. The two tests are the standby test of
6/28/77 at 1530 and the refuse on-stream measured feed test of 7/1/77 at
0900.
The remaining data taken by Systems Technology is analyzed as a data set
to verify assumptions generated with the two previously mentioned data points
and to obtain statistical understanding of process variability. The Monsanto
data are also treated as a data set and used to determine how well the
assumptions' made on earlier data sets fit this data, how well the data voids
165
-------
TABLE B-87. BOILER WATER ANALYSIS
DATE
2/1/77
3/1/77
4/29/77
5/10/77
5/12/77
5/13/77
5/14/77
TOTAL TOTAL CHLORIDES pH ALKALINITY HARDNESS IRON
SOLIDS DISSOLVED SOLIDS
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
Boiler Feedwater
Boiler Water
Constant Slowdown
Boiler Feedwater
Boiler Water
Constant Slowdown
Boiler Feedwater
Boiler Water
Constant Slowdown
Boiler Feedwater
Constant Slowdown
Boiler Feedwater
Constant Slowdown
Boiler Feedwater
Constant Slowdown
Boiler Feedwater
Constant Slowdown
759
772
123
1130
1140
129
1140
20 - 0
178 10.2 420 0
158 10.6 400 0
2
184 416
188 428 0.95
6.9 0
182 10.8 350 6.45
102
815
105
1130
97
1130
91
1080
-------
can be filled by these assumptions, and the extent to which the process
varied from the operational character during Monsanto supervision of opera-
tions and subsequent operation by the City of Baltimore.
The standby and on-stream tests are presented as a series of independent
measurements of various parameters, flow calculations, and analytical pro-
cesses to verify assumptions made concerning the process. The standby and
on-stream tests are used together as complimentary data points although the
majority of the analysis is based on the standby test. The standby and on-
stream summary section ties together the independent measurement sections
indicating how these data points compliment each other.
Standby and Measured Refuse On-Stream Test Discussion
The lack of measured refuse flow test data makes the standby and single
measured refuse flow tests of paramount importance in the process and thermal
cycle analysis. The standby test because of the elimination of unknown
process characteristics (waste heating value, mass flow, etc.) allows the
calculation of otherwise unattainable heat transfer losses. The single
measured refuse flow test point is important from the standpoint that it
verifies the assumptions and generalized thermal calculations based on
standby operation. The following narrative explains in general terms why
measurements were made the way they were, why certain assumptions had to be
made, and how the specific detailed measurement and calculation segments
included in this section fit together.
The first objective was to define gas flows at the kiln crossover
duct, gas purifier discharge, and boiler/economizer discharge using the
methods discussed previously since air is the major flow material. It became
apparent during initial calculation comparisons that both the kiln crossover
duct and gas purifier discharge plans were not suitable measurement stations
and alternative methods were required to determine the gas flows at those
points. Fortunately, the boiler/economizer discharge duct provided an ideal
measurement station. The measurement at this plane was, therefore, used as
the standard of comparison for other flow measurements. It was determined
that if the inputs were all measured or estimated accurately enough, the
sum did in fact approximate the boiler discharge measurement. Substantial
time was spent in correlating and determining procedures for evaluating
combustion air flows and quench air flows. Discharged material, residue,
slag, and spillback were estimated for the refuse on-stream case as well as
the minor inputs such as atomization steam and quench pit water vaporization.
The pressure of leakage air around the ram feeder plug was estimated to be
the difference between the inputs and the measured boiler discharge duct
flow. Both fuel flow and refuse flows were measured for the two tests under
consideration. It must be admitted that a material balance of these two
tests has an inherent inaccuracy since ram leakage flows were estimated from
"forced" balances. A better evaluation of material flow estimates is seen in
the remainder of the data obtained by SYSTECH where no leakage flow was
assumed.
167
-------
Heat flow for the standby test case although not simple, was completed
assuming a balance could be accurately made and thus pinpoint otherwise
incalculable heat flow rates. Heat flow into the kiln for the standby test
consisted of sensible heat of the combustion air referenced to 273°K and the
higher heating value of the No. 2 fuel oil multiplied by the quantity of oil
was the major heat input to the kiln. Other heat inputs were atomization
steam, quench pit water vapor, and ram leakage air. All were evaluated as
shown in sections already discussed. The kiln heat loss was estimated by
first calculating the heat transfer rate to determine the relative magnitude
of the loss rate, and more precisely calculated by balancing the discharge
heat flow at the crossover duct against the input heat flow. The difference
was considered to be the kiln heat loss and was incorporated into a general-
ized heat loss equation based on the difference between kiln discharge
temperature and the ambient air temperature.
Normally the heat loss from the gas purifier would be the next calcu-
lation, but since the temperature at the discharge of the gas purifier has
been established to be in error, no meaningful estimate of gas purifier
discharge heat can be obtained. Hence, it was necessary to start at the
boiler discharge sampling station, and work upstream to determine this loss.
The boiler discharge heat is easily calculated from the gas constituent
enthalpies and the gas component flow rates. Moving upstream, the boiler/
economizer discharge duct heat loss was calculated and added to the discharge
heat flow. The economizer surface heat loss rate was estimated to be 2.5
percent of the incoming heat flow based on experience with similar size and
types of economizers. The heat flow from the boiler in the flue gas was
calculated algebraically from the estimated economizer heat loss rate and the
calculated economizer discharge heat rate, yielding a ratio of 1.0256 of the
incoming heat to the discharge heat. The heat loss rate is then 0.0256 times
the calculated economizer inlet heat flow. The boiler heat loss rate is
estimated to be approximately 1 percent of the boiler inlet heat flow, but
the heat transferred from the flue gas to the boiler water must first be
calculated.
The preheater was balanced by calculating the heater skin losses and the
vent steam lost. The cold feedwater heat was calculated based on flow rate
and its inlet enthalpy. The two preheater losses are subtracted from the
feedwater inlet heat content indicating normal progression of feedwater
through the preheater. At the same time, steam is condensed into the feed-
water raising its temperature inspite of losses caused by the elevated skin
temperatures. The preheater steam essentially enters and leaves the pre-
heater without loss, effectively making a loop of the boiler and preheater.
After leaving the preheater, the hot water is pumped to boiler operating
pressure, picking up the pump work sensible heat, which is added to the
feedwater inlet heat content minus losses. In the boiler, heat transferred
from the flue gas raises the water temperature creating steam. In the
process, dissolved solids are precipitated and discharged in the blowdown
liquid. The blowdown liquid represents a boiler heat loss. The remaining
water is converted to steam and splits into three parts. The first part is
preheater steam again, effectively making a cycle of the boiler and preheater
168
-------
without loss. The second part of the steam is used for burner fuel atom-
ization and was previously calculated. The remainder enters the export steam
main for delivery to the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company. The steam flow
meter at this point unfortunately is not an accurate measurement and, there-
fore, export steam must be calculated in two parts. Since the total feed-
water is well known, the preheater vent loss is known and the blowdown liquid
and atomization steam are known the remaining difference must be export
steam, but this value does not agree with steam flow arriving at the
B. G. & E. meter. The reason for the discrepancy is line losses. The line
losses are calculated from a generalized equation developed from the known
steam flow rate and the export steam calculated by differences from the
feedwater.
At this point, all of the steam and water inputs and discharge rates for
the boiler are calculated a summation results in the net heat transferred in
the boiler. By summing the heat transferred and the heat discharged the
inlet heat minus losses is known. Hence, the boiler inlet heat equals 1.0101
multiplied by the heat transferred and the heat discharged. The boiler loss
heat is 1 percent of this value.
Moving to the next station upstream, there is a set of quench air ports
which admit cooling air for the purpose of reducing gas temperatures to below
the slag melting temperature. This air carries sensible heat calculated from
the ambient temperature and mass flow rate. The difference between the
quench air sensible heat and boiler inlet calculation heat flow rates is the
gas purifier discharge heat flow. The difference between gas purifier inlet
and discharge heat flows is the heat loss, and a generalized loss equation is
developed. At the same time since the gas purifier discharge mean temperature
is not evaluated by the facility thermocouple directly the mean temperature
can be determined from the average gas enthalpy. A trial and error solution
determines the gas purifier mean discharge temperature. A generalized
equation can be developed from this information to correct the indicated
facility measurements.
An assumption made in all of the foregoing discussions has been the
knowledge of the steam quality produced. In fact, no steam quality measure-
ments have been made at any time. The steam generated by the boiler,
according to vendor specifications, is saturated at 99.5 percent quality
steam at the rated heat load, but no measurements have been made to verify
this. Also at heat loads below the rated value, the boilers produce steam of
some again unknown quality. As a result, it was necessary to assume that the
boiler is relatively typical of its type and performs so. It was further
assumed that the design is conservative enough to assure steam at heat loads
somewhat below rated. A level of 90 percent of rated was decided upon as the
level at which saturated steam will be produced. This may be somewhat
generous. It was further decided that the boiler as a typical boiler would
not produce steam having less than 95 percent quality at normally encountered
reduced heat loads. For lack of better data these two points were connected
by a straight line to define a steam quality curve based on input heat
loading. All results presented here use this curve to predict the steam
quality.
169
-------
In the final analysis, the information desired about the boiler and
processing kiln is the efficiency. The mass and energy balances for the
standby test are shown in Figures B-24 and B-25, respectively. During the
standby test case the apparent efficiency of the thermal processing module
was 69 percent. Of the heat reaching the boilers, 76 percent appeared as
useable heat in the form of steam. By definition, the useable steam included
delivered steam, steam lost in the export steam line, and atomization steam.
The atomization steam would not be included as output steam when calculating
the efficiency of the thermal processing subsystem since it remains internal
to the system. The overall thermal processing subsystem efficiency was
51 percent, not accounting for electrical power consumed by the subsystem.
The best test of the validity of the estimates made using standby data
is analysis of a measured refuse feed test. Figures B-26 and B-27 show the
mass and energy balances for this test. Using the standby data to estimate
the heat loss, the energy imbalance is -800 MJ/min (758,000 Btu/min) or
20 percent of the total input heat. The minus sign indicates that estimated
energy outputs were higher than the inputs. This imbalance can be attributed
to numerous factors: 1) the actual heat content of the refuse may have been
higher than the laboratory analysis value, 2) the heat losses may have been
overestimated, 3) the actual steam production was very likely lower than the
measured value, and 4) the heat content and mass flow rate of the discharged
residue could have been less than the assumed average values, due to complete
combustion.
The calculated on-stream test efficiencies were; 54 percent for the
thermal processing module, 98 percent for the heat recovery module (boiler)
and 52 percent for the total thermal processing subsystem. The overall
subsystem efficiency is a realistic value but- the calculated boiler efficiency
is well above 80 percent, the design level for the waste heat boilers. The
efficiency calculated for the thermal processing module is extremely low,
with the calculated outputs more than the inputs. The magnitudes of error
introduced by the variables discussed above could reasonably account for this
occurrence. The maximum variations from the average values used in the
balances for the refuse heat content, residue mass rate, and the residue heat
content were 40, 27 and 76 percent, respectively.
On-Stream Refuse Feed Tests Using Estimated Feed Rates
A total of eight additional full data sets were obtained by Systems
Technology during the testing period 6/28/77 to 7/1/77. During these tests,
no measured refuse flow data was obtained and all refuse flows were estimated
based on the average shredding rate and the height of refuse piled on the
conveyors. This naturally does not allow for packing factor or density of
the refuse; resulting in inherent errors of unknown magnitude.
In all of the eight estimated refuse feed tests no ram leak air was
assumed although it was present to some unknown degree in all cases. Refuse
feed rate was estimated to be 530 kg/min. (35 tph) in all but the last case.
In that case, the refuse feed rate was noticeably lower and was estimated to
be 302 kg/min. (20 tph).
170
-------
FUEL OIL
3012MJ/min
AIR
74 MJ/min
STEAM
67 MJ/min
WATER VAPOR
1 MJ/min
THERMAL
PROCESSING
MODULE
BOILER FEEDWATER
63 MJ/min
PUMP WORK
1 MJ/min
SURFACE LOSSES
966 MJ/min
BOILER INLET GAS
2188 MJ/min
HEAT
RECOVERY
MODULE
BOILER OUTLET GAS
412 MJ/min
DELIVERED STEAM
1574 MJ/min
STEAM LOSS
73 MJ/min
ATOMIZING STEAM
69 MJ/min
SLOWDOWN
72 MJ/min
VENT STEAM
12 MJ/min
SURFACE LOSSES
42 MJ/min
Figure B-25. Standby test energy balance.
171
-------
REFUSE
333kg/min
FUEL OIL
17.3 kg/min
AIR
2985 kg/min
STEAM
25 kg/min
WATER VAPOR
7 kg/mln
BOILER FEEDWATER
925 kg/min
THERMAL
PROCESSING
MODULE
KILN RESIDUE
101 kg/min
KILN SPILLBACK
1 kg/min
GAS PURIFIER SLAG
5 kg/min
BOILER INLET GAS
3010 kg/min
HEAT
RECOVERY
MODULE
BOILER OUTLET GAS
3010 kg/min
DELIVERED STEAM
760 kg/mln
STEAM LOSS
32 kg/min
ATOMIZING STEAM
25 kg/min
SLOWDOWN
103 kg/min
VENT STEAM
5 kg/min
Figure B-26. On-steam test mass balance.
172
-------
REFUSE
3096 MJ/min
FUEL OIL
778 MJ/min
AIR
78 MJ/min
STEAM
69 MJ/min
WATER VAPOR
2 MJ/min
BOILER FEEDWATER
82 MJ/min
PUMP WORK
1 MJ/min
THERMAL
PROCESSING
MODULE
KILN RESIDUE
504 MJ/min
KILN SPILLBACK
5 MJ/min
GAS PURIFIER SLAG
11 MJ/min
SURFACE LOSSES
1329 MJ/min
BOILER INLET GAS
2176 MJ/min
HEAT
RECOVERY
MODULE
BOILER OUTLET GAS
684 MJ/min
DELIVERED STEAM
2062 MJ/min
STEAM LOSS
87 MJ/min
ATOMIZING STEAM
69 MJ/min
SLOWDOWN
94 MJ/min
VENT STEAM
12 MJ/min
SURFACE LOSSES
53 MJ/min
Figure B-27. On-steam test energy balance.
173
-------
In each test, the mass and energy balances were determined in the
manner already described. The absolute value of the difference between the
summed inputs and the boiler/economizer discharge plane flow measurement for
seven of the eight mass balances averaged 3.6 percent. The eighth case did
not have boiler/economizer discharge plane data for use as a standard. The
standard deviation of this data is 2.5 percent with four of the seven cases
showing differences of less than 3 percent and no test having a difference
greater than 8 percent.
Data of this caliber suggested that a statistical basis for correction
of the kiln and gas purifier measurements might be possible. The deviation
of summed inputs from measured values was determined using the summed inputs
as a "true" value. For the kiln crossover duct gas flow measurement the
average multiplication factor was 1.3526. This means that the gas flow
values calculated from duct measurements should be multiplied by 1.3526 to
obtain actual flow values. The standard deviation of error of the results
will be 12.6 percent. For the gas purifier discharge measurement plane, the
measurement values should be multiplied by 0.6898 to obtain actual values.
The standard deviation of this calculation will be 7.1 percent.
The energy balances of the eight refuse processing data sets had an
average difference of 7.9 percent with a standard deviation of 5.2 percent.
Four data sets exceeded the 10 percent limit normally considered to be
an acceptable balance. All but one of the data sets indicated that calcu-
lated outputs were higher than the inputs due to one or a combination of the
reasons discussed earlier.
Calculated efficiency of the thermal processing module ranges from
50 to 64 percent. The average efficiency was 61 percent with a standard
deviation of 4.6 percent. The average calculated efficiency of the boilers
was 79 percent with a 7.8 percent standard deviation. These data are biased
because all but one data set shows more heat leaving the system than
entering. Thermal processing subsystem efficiencies range from 42 percent to
55 percent. The average overall efficiency is 49 percent with a standard
deviation of 4.8 percent.
Analysis of Process Data Taken by Monsanto EnviroChem
During the period from 11/3/76 to 1/24/77 Monsanto EnviroChem obtained a
total of 44 sets of operational data from the Baltimore Landgard® plant.
This included both standby and on-stream refuse feed tests. None of the data
sets are complete in all respects though some are useable if reasonable
assumptions concerning similarity of operation are made. In many cases, fuel
oil flows had to be assumed. In numerous cases, steam flow had to be assumed
the same as a similar test point several hours apart. Process airflow
through the fans in most cases was well documented. In those cases where it
was not, the curves of flow vs. damper position were used to estimate the air
flow. Quench air was varied using both the slotted control ring and the
butterfly valve. When the slotted control ring was closed, it was assumed
that a minimal amount of leakage air still entered the port although this is
174
-------
not an important percentage. No leakage air around the ram plug was assumed
although it was probably present to some degree in all cases. Burner ato-
mization steam and quench water were estimated in the same manner as during
tests documented by Systems Technology. Boiler steam generation, and boiler
and duct losses were estimated using the equations developed using the standby
data obtained by Systems Technology. Kiln and gas purifier heat losses and
temperatures were estimated in the same manner. Refuse feed rate for these
tests is better documented than data obtained by Systems Technology.
During several of the tests, the feedwater pump was driven by a steam
turbine. The steam for this purpose was not measured in any way, and had to
be calculated by first determining the feedwater flow rate and the pressure
rise. Using this information, the feedwater pump performance curve was
entered to determine pump efficiency. Pump work output was then divided by
the efficiency factor to obtain pump work input. Using the assumed input
steam quality/enthalpy and the turbine exhaust steam enthalpy, the theoretical
steam required was calculated by dividing required energy input by the steam
enthalpy difference to obtain the required steam flow. This number was
reevaluated by dividing by an assumed turbine efficiency of 90 percent to
obtain a calculated steam usage. The turbine exhaust steam enthalpy was
obtained by starting with the assumed turbine inlet steam enthalpy and
expanding the steam isentropically to a pressure 69 kPa (10 psig) above the
deaerating heater operating pressure. The deaerating heater is the exhaust
receiver for the turbine discharge steam. Since this procedure does not
result in an exact balance of steam with preheat steam around the preheater-
boiler cycle the calculation is repeated with a new feedwater flow rate until
the cycle balances. Note that the quantity of boiler feedwater pumped by the
feedwater pump is effected by the pump's steam turbine discharge rate.
The energy balance for the ten useable Monsanto data sets (Table B-88)
ranged from 0.01 percent unaccounted energy imbalance. The mean or the
differences was 2.8 percent with a 2.3 percent standard deviation indicating
that the data obtained is representative of actual conditions. The efficiency,
of the thermal processing module averaged 66.8 percent with a standard
deviation of 4.6 percent. This compares quite favorably with the process
efficiency indicated by data obtained by Systems Technology. The conclusion
which can be drawn from these results is that there is essentially no
difference in process operation between the Monsanto and Systech data.
A different situation exists for the boiler data. During these tests a
portion of the boiler inlet gases bypassed the boiler by flowing through the
jug valve. Monsanto data indicates that boiler, on the average, only
62 percent of the energy discharged by the thermal processing module was
converted to steam. Comparing this to the Systech data, indications are that
sealing of the jug valve improved boiler steam production approximately
20 percent. This is a significant improvement and should justify the city's
decision to eliminate that equipment item. As a result of the low boiler
steam production the thermal processing subsystem efficiency is 41.2 percent
with a standard deviation of 4.2 percent.
175
-------
TABLE B-88. MONSANTO ENERGY BALANCE SUMMARY
C\
Date
Time
THERMAL PROCESSING MODULE
KILN
Inputs
Air
Refuse
Fuel Oil
Steam
Water
Outputs
Off gas
Residue
Spillback
Surface loss
GAS PURIFIER
Inputs
Air
Fuel Oil
Steam
Water Vapor
Outputs
Off gas
Slag
Surface loss
QUENCH AIR
Inputs
Air
Outputs
Boiler inlet gases
ENERGY RECOVERY MODULE
Inputs
Water
Pump work
Outputs
Delivered steam
Steam loss
Atomizing steam
Slowdown
Vent steam
Boiler loss
Economizer loss
Duct loss
Boiler outlet gas
.11/11/76 11/11/76 11/16/76 12/7/76 12/7176 12/13/76 12/14/76 12/16/76 12/18/76 1/24/77
1240 1400 1530 1430 1500 0930 0900 0900 1300 1030
ENERGY FLOW (MJ/min)
7
4654
156
18
0
4022
208
1
603
10
20
18.
0
3311
16
804
1
3318
24
2
1680
72
35
80
12
33
30
17
1198
8
4575
156
18
0
3951
204
1
602
7
80
18
0
3251
15
803
9
3260
26
2
2058
76
35
87
12
33
25
16
1001
7
5069
" 5
18
0
4289
222
1
588
17
80
18
0
3648
16
742
10
3657
17
1
2051
74
36
56
12
37
32
14
1257
6
4507
231
18
0
3954
203
1
604
8
80
18
0
3538
10
513
11
3538
17
3
2145
80
35
97
12
35
27
14
1079
8
4507
231
18
0
3876
223
1
664
8
80
18
0
3447
10
525
12
3459
18
2
2144
85
35
96
12
35
26
13
1035
'1
4930
80
18
0
4196
221
1
610
1
80
18
0
3493
16
785
1
3494
20
3
1940
87
12 '
113
12
35
26
14
1042
2
4930
231
18
0
4365
217
1
598
5
80
18
0
3639
16
812
3
3643
21
3
1818
76
36
114
12
36
29
13
1143
5
4930
5
18
0
4077
235
1
644
8
80
18
0
3369
16
798
6
3375
21
2
2210
71
35
110
12
34
30
14
1181
4
3519
48
18
0
2892
144
1
553
8
80
18
0
2204
11
781
8
2212
8
1
1199
99
35
45
12
22
22
12
884
-1
3519
50
18
0
2767
168
1
650
-2
80
18
0
2102
11
750
-1
2101
9
2
1359
66
35
70
12
21
13
8
523
-------
Evaluation of Economizer Performance
Economizer effectiveness was evaluated in a rather simplistic manner
with several assumptions. First, the economizer water inlet temperature
differed significantly between the two economizers. The first having a
temperature essentially the same as the deaerating heater discharge tempera-
ture. The second economizer water inlet temperature averaged 11 to 17°K
(20 to 30°R) higher than the deaerating heater discharge temperature. This
must be an instrument error because only heat loss can occur to the water in
the connecting piping, and therefore, the lower of the two temperatures was
used as an economizer inlet temperature for both economizers. The water flow
split between the two economizer/boiler systems is not known and since the
two economizer water discharge temperatures remained less than 3°K (5°R)
apart for all data recorded the average of the two temperatures was used as
the discharge temperature for both. Heat transferred to the water was
calculated as the product of the water flow and temperature difference since
for the pressure-temperature range of interest the specific heat averages for
liquid water is approximately 1.0. The water flow used was the sum of the
cold feedwater and preheat steam minus the preheater vent steam loss.
Heat recovered by the economizers ranged from a low of 17.6 percent for
the standby case, to 26.9 percent for a total heat transferred by the two
boiler/economizers combination. The mean percentage of heat transferred by
the economizers appears to be approximately 20.5 percent. The data standard
deviation is 2.4 percent.
Since the economizers are essentially extensions of the boilers, this
quantity of heat would be lost without the economizers. In other words,
without the economizers, approximately 20 percent of the heat presently
recovered would be lost. This is particularly important since the economizers
are going to be removed during the ongoing modifications.
177
-------
SECTION B-5
RESIDUE SEPARATION AND SCRUBBER SYSTEM DATA
Because both of these systems are being removed or demolished, they will
not be discussed further. However, for completeness, the data collected is
presented in the following Tables and Figures.
178
-------
TABLE B-89. MASS SPECTROPHOTOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF GAS SAMPLED AT THE SCRUBBER INLET*
DATE
TIME
Carbon Dioxide
Argon
Carbon Monoxide
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Methane
Hydrogen
DATE
TIME
Carbon Dioxide
Argon
Carbon Monoxide
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Methane
Hydrogen
5/10/75
1145
2.11
0.74
0.80
19.39
76.95
0.01
___
6/12/75
1735
10.91
0.79
2.36
9.27
76.66
0.01
- TZ-n
5/30/75
1552
10.59
0.78
2.39
9.66
76.56
0.01
___
6/16/75
1515
2.06
0.74
0.77
19.54
76.86
0.02
M— W
5/30/75
2105
11.14
0.79
2.42
9.16
76.48
0.01
———
6/28/75
1730
11.34
0.80
___
8.01
79.80
___
5/31/75
1615
10.03
0.78
2.31
9.75
77.11
0.01
— —
7/2/75
2005
11.25
0.79
8.56
79.39
—
6/1/75
2100
4.81
0.75
1.24
16.27
76.91
___
— — —
7/2/75
0855
9.38
0.78
_~_
10.86
78.97
— — —
6/12/75
1742
4.86
0.75
1.56
, 16.47
76.10
0.02
0.24
7/2/75
0855
9.91
0.79
10.21
79.04
_ — -.•
— —
6/12/75
1740
11.84
0.79
2.58
8.13
76.64
0.01
— — —
AVERAGE
%
8.48
0.77
1.82
11.94
77.50
0.01
0.24
* Harrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976... Table 17.
-------
TABLE B-90. SCRUBBER INLET PARTICULATE LOADINGS*
DATE
5/30/75
5/30/75
5/31/75
6/01/75
6/13/75
7/25/75
TIME
1530
2103
1610
2050
1515
1800
LOADING
(g/DSCM)
0.7968
1.3280
0.9937
1.0647
0.5770
9.9785
* Harrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard®
Process Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240.
St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 15.
180
-------
TABLE B-91. ANDERSON PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF SCRUBBER INLET GASES*
oo
I-1
DATE TIME EFFECTUVE CUT DRY LOADING WT. DATE TIME EFFECTUVE CUT
DIAMETER DIAMETER
(MICRONS) (g/DSCM) (%) (MICRONS)
5/30/75 1530
,*
5/30/75 2103
5/31/75 1610
*
7.80
5.10
3.20
2.30
1.45
0.75
0.43
0.30
0.03
7.60
4.90
3.20
2.20
1.42
0.72
0.42
0.29
0.29
6.80
4.50
2.90
2.00
1.29
0.66
0.38
0.26
0.26
0.105
0.023
0.027
0.039
0.037
0.080
0.069
0.085
0.376
0.089
0.039
0.044
0.071
0.071
0.087
0.098
0.165
0.735
4.692
0.041
0.053
0.055
0.064
0.092
0.156
0.069
0.359
12.53 6/01/75 2050
2.72
3.27
4.63
4.36
9.54
8.17
10.08
44.70
6.38 6/13/75 1515
2.78
3.11
5.07
5.07
6.22
7.04
11.78
52.55
10.06 7/25/75 1800
3.70
4.72
4.93
5.75
0.21
13.96
16.43
32.24
7.10
4.70
3.00
2.10
1.35
0.69
0.40
0.27
0.27
9.00
5.70
3.70
2.60
1.66
0.85
0.50
0.34
0.34
8.30
5.30
3.40
2.40
1.55
0.79
0.47
0.32
0.32
DRY LOADING WT.
(g/DSCM) (%)
0.291
0.096
0.114
0.096
0.125
0.160
0.183
0.197
0.243
0.327
0.057
0.048
0.041
0.025
0.007
0.034
0.039
0.032
4.818
0.918
0.389
0.174
0.144
0.165
0.218
0.153
0.508
19.33
6.39
7.61
6.39
8.22
10.65
12.18
13.09
16.14
53.56
9.36
7.87
6.74
4.12
1.12
5.62
6.37
5.24
64.34
12.26
5.20
2.32
1.93
2.20
2.91
2.05
6.79
*Herrlngton, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 15.
-------
TABLE B-92. ELECTRON PROBE MICRO ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER INLET PARTICULATE*t
SIZE RANGE
(MICRONS)
•",;• : 5
>7.80 7
.10-
.80
3.20-
5.10
2*30-
3.20
1.50-
2.30
0.
1.
80-
50
0.
0.
40-
80
0.30-
0.40
<0.30
PERCENT^BY WEIGHT
TOTAL
12.60 2.70 3.30 .4.60 4.40 9.50 8.10 10.10 44.70
ALUMINUM
CALCIUM
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
MANGANESE
SILICON
SODIUM
TIN
TITANIUM
ZINC
0.03--
3.60
0.10
0.60
0.10
2.70
0.02
15.00
10.30
0.02
0.17
0.30
0.02
4.60
0.10
1.10
0.20
0.50
0.60
3.80
3.00
0.02
0.02
0.90
0.02
6.20'
—
1.60 ;•
0.10
0.60
0.12
4.70
3.20
0.03
0.04
1.50
5. 00
7.20
0.10
3.50.
0.20
0.90
0.19
4.50
2.40
0.19
0.51
3.30
27.60
9.00
0.10
1.90
0.10
3.50
0.10
6.00
6.90
0.06
0.25
0.80
0.02
4.60
0.10
1.10
2.00
,0.30
0.06
5.40
8.20
0.34
0.03
2.00
0.03
2.40
0.50
0.90
2.40
0.60
0.04
0.06
19190
0.25
0.02
2.50
0.02
3.00
0.70
1.10
4.30
0.40
0.04
4.40
20.10
0.31
0.02
1.50
0.02
6.00
—
0.50
0.10
0.70
—
3.40
0.20
—
—
•••m
* Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard®
Process Characterization. Monsant.o EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240.
St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 16.
t Collected 5/30/75 at 1530.
182^
-------
TABLE B-93. CAUSTIC CONSUMPTION
PERIOD DAYS TOTAL CONSUMPTION CONSUMPTION PER DAY
LITERS LITERS/DAY
11/6/76-11/8/76
11/11/76-11/14/76
11/16/76-11/17/76
11/25/76-11/28/76
12/6/76-12/7/76
12/17/76-12/18/76
12/20/76-12/21/76
1/2/77-1/23/77
3
4
2
4
2
2
2
12
16,230.1
46,037.0
17,028.7
40,446.5
10,643.4
20,223.3
18,762.2
69,621*3
5,408.8
11,510.2
8,516.3
10,109.7
5,321.7
10,113.5
9,379.2
5,802.4
TOTAL 31 238,992.5 7,706.3
183
-------
TABLE B-94. TEMPERATURE OF SCRUBBER SYSTEM PROCESS WATERS
DATE TIME DEHUMIDIFIER SCRUBBER
COMPENSATE
DATE TIME DEHUMIDIFIER SCRUBBER
COMPENSATE
12/7/76
12/8/76
12/10/76
12/12/76
12/13/76
12/14/76
12/15/76
12/16/76
12/17/76
12/18/76
12/19/76
12/20/76
12/21/76
0140
0310
2000
1130
1715
1230
1015
1315
1635
1805
0945
1230
1605
0930
1745
1015
0940
1145
1455
1650
1015
1230
0940
1345
0800
1015
1200
39
44
40
43
44
47
43
44
44
41
52
43
44
30
45
43
45
49
47
44
36
33
36
32
37
36
38
52
57
57
52
54
56
52
53
54
52
54
52
53
47
48
54
39
54
56
52
51
48
48
48
51
51
52
1/14/77
1/15/77
1/18/77
1/19/77
1/20/77
1/23/77
1/24/77
1/31/77
2/1/77
2/3/77
2/4/77
2/5/77
2/6/77
2/22/77
2/25/77
2/28/77
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
AVERAGE
1630
1600
1720
1115
1440
1730
1430
1245
1750
1030
0915
0930
1455
0730
1230
1430
2145
2215
1115
1620
1030
1200
0800
1000
49
47
46
43
48
48
43
43
46
41
51
53
49
47
42
43
54
55
52
50
50
40
32
28
28
55
43
55
53
52
49
51
56
49
50
48
41
52
42
51
44
46
48 '
42
47
50
52
51
39
57
51
184
-------
TABLE B-95. SOLIDS CONTENT OF SCRUBBER PROCESS WATERS
oo
DATE
3/3/75*
4/1/75*
4/9/75*
4/10/75*
*
4/14/75*
4/15/75*
4/18/75*
TIME
2200
0140
2309
0117
0309
0556
1206
1304
1351
1433
2110
0000
0210
1604
1732
TEST
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
SCRUBBER
Cmg/1)
1.56
42.63
5.37
35.91
111.40
1050.40
50.40
1043.40
47.60
962.00
83.30
1503.40
62.10
1166.00
4.65
1185.40
84.70
1171.00
70.00
1198.60
180.00
7651.00
397.00
7817.00
741.00
8816.00
730.00
6995.00
1012.00
6363.00
SCRUBBER
SUMP
(mg/1)
3.07
17.48
4.69
30.00
29.60
610.20
17.80
877.50
20.80
593.90
12.00
690.60
14.90
793.20
20.50
784.00
15.30
815.70
21.00
809.20
60.00
4667.00
98.00
4488.00
132.00
2285.00
149.00
2927.00
CLARIFIER
UNDERFLOW
(mg/1)
108.60
2.43
22.69
31.37
879.00
8701.00
181.00
1181.00
208.00
8629.00
517.00
348.00
321.00
11084.00
257.00
2136.00
2449.00
11126.00
90.00
1338.00
600.00
7654.00
2139.00
7646.00
204.00
7727.00
8190.00
2166.00
10198.00
2219.00
CLARIFIER
OVERFLOW
(mg/D
1.43
21.98
1.50
35.37
88.00
8849.00
59.00
9125.00
47.00
9403.00
62.00
10416.00
44.00
11946.00
65.00
11848.00
50.00
11990.00
63.00
11690.00
60.00
7194.00
50.00
7481.00
36.00
7703.00
20.00
3506.00
30.00
4246.00
CLARIFIER DEHUMIDIFIER
INFLUENT COMPENSATE
(mg/1) (fflg/1)
9.56
42.63
5.37
35.91
111.40
1050.40
50.40
1043.40
47.60
962.00
83.30
1503.40
62.10
1166.00
46.50
1185.40
84.70
1171.00
70.00
1198.60
180.00
7650.00
246.00
730.00
2285.00
1012.00
6363.00
6.96
11.86
5.91
27.03
4.23
32.49
2.34
257.25
2.10
26.24
1.50
24.28
1.46
19.76
2.32
32.99
2.73
33.34
2.45
30.54
10.00
227.00
194.00
1162.00
294.00
2003.00
175.00
1498.00
210.00
1509.00
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-95. (Continued)
00
ON
•
DATE
4/18/75*
A/22/75*
4/27/75*
4/28/75*
TIME
1900
2300
0800
1010
1205
1410
2208
0220
0420
0615
0055
0255
0435
1300
1500
TEST
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
SCRUBBER
(mg/1)
836.00
8442.00
869.00
8215.00
1298.00
13911.00
709.00
11471.00
765.00
10903.00
780.00
8725.00
574.00
8576.00
430.00
8665.00
888.00
8495.00
986.00
8909.00
660.00
7870.00
580.00
5344.00
850.00
6130.00
471.00
8104.00
907.00
8264.00
SCRUBBER
sup
(mg/1)
121.00
3088.00
70.00
3657.00
151.00
4228.00
106.00
6404.00
1118.00
6247.00
114.00
6344.00
180.00
8559.00
15.00
5644. OQ
176.00
4629.00
178.00
5708.00
210.00
6820.00
138.00
4531.00
260.00
5810.00
144.00
6128.00
187.00
6121.00
CLARIFIER
UNDERFLOW
(mg/1)
1346.00
2215.00
11.00
197.00
1710.00
2492.00
2.00
140.00
132.00
4106.00
76.00
411.00
76.00
667.00
68.00
553.00
99.00
759.00
78.00
2810.00
40.00
530.00
212.00
2115.00
24.00
2611.00
1673.00
6685.00
2420.00
6776.00
CLARIFIER
OVERFLOW
(mg/1)
23.00
. 4809.00
30.00
5531.00
44.00
5966.00
57.00
9596.00
92.00
13548.00
110.00
9908.00
52.00
9252.00
46.00
8852.00
165.00
9151.00
58.00
8848.00
20.00
8090.00
38.00
7303.00
23.00
7088.00
20.00
7480.00
20.00
7151.00
CLARIFIER DEHUMIDIFIER
INFLUENT COMPENSATE
(mg/1) (mg/1)
836.00
8442.00
869.00
8215.00
1298.00
13911.00
709.00
11471.00
765.00
10903.00
780.00
8725.00
574.00
8576.00
430.00
8665.00
888.00
8495.00
986.00
8909.00
660.00
7870.00
589.00
5344.00
850.00
6130.00
907.00
8264.00
471.00
8104.00
136.00
1391.00
50.00
758.00
192.00
1878.00
111.00
1602.00
126.00
1302.00
90.00
962.00
214.00
1386.00
18.00
270.00
99.00
880.00
77.00
930.00
50.00
390.00
91.00
442.00
157.00
696.00
78.00
768.00
126.00
752.00
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-95. (Continued)'
00
DATE
4/28/75*
5/12/75*
5/19/75*
5/30/75*
5/31/75*
6/1/75*
6/2/75*
.6/12/75*
6/16/75*
TIME
1800
1942
2100
0130
1330
2000
1430
1330
2140
1410
1530
2015
1620
1730
1000
TEST
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
SCRUBBER
(tng/1)
2723.00
9885.00
1805.00
11774.00
2192.00
12306.00
1186.00
8467.00
. 1079.00
10217.00
782.00
11075.00
1362.00
7615.00
409.00
7250.00
314.00
8767.00
514.00
9735.00
499.00
10206.00
462.00
12713.00
1010.00
15780.00
116.00
10476.00
299.00
11749.00
SCRUBBER
,SUM?N
(mgA)
280.00
7114.00
275.00
7319.00
372.00
8150.00
53.00
3649.00
78.00
6498.00
81.00
6663.00
111.00
4041.00
CLARIFIER
UNDERFLOW
(mg/1)
3972.00
6700.00
155.00
1124.00
660.00
1671.00
1819.00
9775.00
340.00
5659.00
615.00
10292.00
4746.00
3955.00
CLARIFIER
OVERFLOW
(mg/1)
22.00
8387.00
14.00
9107.00
15.00
9824.00
74.00
5910.00
36.00
10545.00
42.00
10856.00
67.00
5336.00
CLARIFIER DEHUMIDIFIER
INFLUENT COMPENSATE
(mg/1) (mg/1)
2723.00
9885.00
1805.00
11774.00
2192.00
12306.00
1186.00
8487.00
1079.00
10217.00
782.00
11075.00
1362.00
7615.00
565.00
2420.00
287.00
1527.00
278.00
1921.00
22.00
3919.00
152.00
898.00
33.00
885.00
351.00
860.00
78.00
398.00
84.00
366.00
120.00
579.00
116.00
862.00
227.00
640.00
390.00
1886.00
92.00
816.00
81.00
340.00
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-95. (Continued)
00
00
f
DATE
6/20/75*
6/21/75*
6/28/75*
7/17/75*
7/18/75*
7/21/75*
7/23/75*
7/29/75*
7/30/75*
9/14/75*
9/17/75*
6/9/76t
TIME
0330
0830
1625
1730
1200
1000
2000
1100
1835
1300
1730
1415
1700
0000
2200
TEST
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
SCRUBBER
(mg/D
339.00
7183.00
526.00
• 15510.00
849.00
20846.00
685.00
6224.00
1366.00
10288.00
1127.00
11137.00
934.00
14671.00
502.00
125.00
* 694.00
4727.00
1338.00
9145.00
544.00
26499.00
1761.00
29234.00
128.00
13899.00
681.00
SCRUBBER CLARIFIER CLARIFIER
SUMP UNDERFLOW OVERFLOW
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
54.00
.5885.00
108.00
15517.00
128.00
19968.00
82.00
5537.00
47.00
9630.00
146.00
10979.00
107.00
13466.00
49.00
2811.00
50.00
3411.00
80.00
8500.00
53241.00
28918.00
87618.00
28941.00
10556.00 8419.00 11847.00
292.00 303.00 96.00
12267.00 13459.00 11413.00
221.00 65.00 1769.00
CLARIFIER DEHUMIDIFIER
INFLUENT COMPENSATE
(mg/1) (mg/1)
24.00
258.00
60.00
907.00
45.00
1055.00
86.00
457.00
69.00
766.00
37.00
812.00
62.00
734.00
39.00
451.00
25.00
378.00
6774.00
7452.00
157.00
8862.00
1117.00
107.00
164.00
32.00
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-95. (Continued)
00
vo
DATE
6/11/761"
6/22/761"
+
6/25/76T
t
7/21/76T
,
7/22 /76T
•f-
7/23/76T
4-
7/29/76T
4.
8/5/76T
s
8/6/763
-
11/05/76
11
11/08/76
IT
11/12/7611
TIME
0515
0615
1400
1300
1830
1300
1600
1600
1300
1030
1145
1400
1030
TEST
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
SCRUBBER
(mg/1)
16894.
988.
6338.
467.
7439.
295.
13880.
372.
20839.
559.
34888.
608.
23070.
526.
25568.
676.
15980.
468.
40.
2737.
86.
11206.
2023.
21121.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
SCRUBBER
SUMP
(mg/1)
14475.
246.
16519.
156.
4443.
79.
6222.
95.
11684.
99.
17480.
136.
17627.
119.
22362.
101.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
CLARIFIER CLARIFIER CLARIFIER DEHUMIDIFIER
UNDERFLOW OVERFLOW INFLUENT COMPENSATE
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
14754.
41.
16447.
45.
4751.
55.
7000.
61.
3981.00 12549.
20971.00 60.
19154.00 18421.
97.00 1858.
29938.00
81867.00
24156.
67.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
821.
88.
493.
9.
987.
1190.
1076.
78.
965.
42.
1386.
134.
2361.
131.
1528.
156.
1408.
188.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
do
00
00
00
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-95. (Continued)
vo
o
DATE
11/13/7611
11/14/7611
11/15/7611
11/16/76^
11/17/7611
11/22/76^
11/24/7611
11/26/7611
U/23/7611
11/27/7611
11/29/76^
(T
12/6/7.61'
(r
12/7/761'
TIME
1230
1600
1200
1700
1030
1400
0830
0830
1030
0800
1030
0800
1200
1100
0800
TEST
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
•
SCRUBBER SCRUBBER CLARIFIER
SUMP UNDERFLOW
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
517.
24793.
820.
28797.
300.
28553.
703.
31673.
857.
34637.
143.
660.
47.
1507.
143
6877.
67.
700.
447.
13323.
276.
18533.
580.
21593.
144.
11323.
186.
8137.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
273
31233
5013
11707
50223
20223
144
11913
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
CLARIFIER CLARIFIER DEHUMIDIFIER
OVERFLOW INFLUENT COMPENSATE
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
140.
30937.
103.
6763.
140.
12313.
320.
21080.
140.
11983.
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-95. (Continued)
DATE
12/7/7611
**
12/7/76
ft
12/8/7611
12/10/7611
12/12/7611
12/14/7611
12/15/7611
12/17/7611
12/18/7611
12/20/76^
12/21/7611
12/22/7611
IT
l/S/7711
*T
1/7/7711
(T
J/9/7711
TIME
1600
0900
1130
0830
1000
0900
0830
1300
1000
1300
1300
0900
1600
1115
TEST
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
SCRUBBER SCRUBBER CLARIFIER CLARIFIER CLARIFIER DEHUMIDIFIER
SUMP UNDERFLOW OVERFLOW INFLUENT COMPENSATE
(me/1) (me/1) (me/1) (me/1) (me/1) (me/1)
457.00
6820.00
273.00
10917.00
463.00
14893.00
1030.00
25576.00
700.00
27940.00
1160.00
43243.00
617.00
31710.00
783.00
49780.00
617.00
31577.00
1063.00
44327.00
600.00
51397.00
603.00
5263.00
550.00
4163.00
337.00
11613.00
18823.00 220.
13857.00 15350.
18933.00 290.
21153.00 23740.
207.
30397.
490.
40693.
200.
33362.
273.
47807.
270.
53017.
60.00
1080.00
00
00
00
0012
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-95. (Continued)
Na
s-
DATE-
1/10/77*
•r
1/11/77*
1/11/7711
ft
1/13/7711
1/14/7711
1/18/7711
ff
1/19/7711
«r
1/20/7711
gr
1/21/7711
TIME
0830
1300
OfOO
1000
1100
1200
1300
*
1400
1230
0830
0845
1300
1245
0830
TEST
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended. -
Dissolved
SCRUBBER SCRUBBER CLARIFIER CLARIFIER CLARIFIER DEHUMIDIFIER
SUMP UNDERFLOW OVERFLOW INFLUENT COMPENSATE
(n«i/l). (me/lV (me/1) r fme7l) (me/1) (me/1)
557.00
13250.00
500.00
13067.00
513.00
15643.00
487.00
14273.00
313.00
15323.00
360. GO
1598 7. Otf
3&7. 00
17117.00
583.00
18433.00
307.00
23620.00
627.00
21030.00
473.00
22087.00
823.00
23140.00
480.00
31917.00
500.00
4959.00
saz.oo
• 5020.00
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-95. (Continued)
vo
Co
DATE TIME
1/24/7711 0850
**
1/31/77 1500
3/1/77*
**
4/28/77 1630
TEST
Suspended
Dissolved
Suspended
Total
Suspended
Total
Suspended
Total
SCRUBBER SCRUBBER CLARIFIER CLARIFIER
SUMP UNDERFLOW OVERFLOW
(mg/1) r'> (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
450.00
11160.00
22.00
2610.00
CLARIFIER DEHUMIDIFIER
INFLUENT COMPENSATE
(mg/1) (mg/1)
190.00
4000.00
9180.00
75100.00
108.00
60600.00
*Herrington, R.C., D.E. Honaker, and B.C. Ward. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization. Monsanto
EnviroChem Systems Inc., No= 7240. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 42.
tHerrington, R.C., T.F. Buss, ard D.E. Honaker. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization. Monsanto
EnviroChem Systems Inc., No. /250. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 13.
§Herrington, R.C., T.F. Buss, and D.E. Honaker. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
EnviroChem Systems Inc., No. 7250. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 14.
Monsanto
-------
400i
300-
VO
o
M
w
1
200-
100'
.115
cm/sec
0
0
10
i
15
TIME (minutes)
20
25
30
D Full Strength
O 1/2 Original Concentration
SOURCE: Unpublished Monsanto Data
Figure 28. Scrubber solids settling curves,
-------
TABLE B-96. EMISSION SPECTROGRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER
SYSTEM PROCESS WATERS AND THEIR FILTERABLE SOLIDS*t
vo
Ui
Location
' Time
Type of
Sample
Al
B
Ca
Cr
Cu
Fe
K
Mg
Mn
Mo
Na
Ni
Pb
Pt
Si
Sn
Sr
Ti
V
Zn
Zr
Clarifier
Filterable
Solids
XL.OOOO
0.0500
XL.OOOO
0.0800
0.1000
XL.OOOO
Present
XL.OOOO
0.0800
0.0080
XL.OOOO
0.0200
XL.OOOO
Present
XL.OOOO
>0.1000
0.0100
>0.1000
0.0400
XL.OOOO
0.0050
Overflow .ST.'
1625
Filtered
Process Waters
0.0010
0.0700
0.1000
0.0003
0.0100
0.0010
Present
0.0080
ND
0.0080
XL. 0000
ND
0.0300
Present
0.0700
ND
0.0008
0.0030
0.0010
ND
ND
Dehumidifier Dehumidifier
Filterable
Solids
XL.OOOO
0.0300
XL.OOOO
>0.1000
0.1000
XL.OOOO
Present
XL.OOOO
0.0070
0.1000
XL.OOOO
0.0400
XL.OOOO
ND
XL.OOOO
>0.1000
0.0100
>0.1000
0.0500
XL.OOOO
ND
1630
Filtered
Process Waters
0.0200
0.0600
>0.1000
0.0001
0.0400
0.0200
Present
0.0100
0.0070
0.0100
XL.OOOO
ND
0.0300
ND
>0.1000
ND
0.0050
0.0040
ND
0.0700
0.0070
Scrubber
Filterable
Solids
XL.OOOO
0.0200
XL.OOOO
0.0600
0.0800
XL.OOOO
Present
XL.OOOO
0.0800
>0.1000
XL.OOOO
0.0200
XL.OOOO
Present
XL.OOOO
>0.1000
0.0100
>0.1000
0.0300
XL.OOOO
0.0100
Discharge
Filtered
Process Waters
0.0200
0.0400
0.1000
>0.0001
0.0500
0.0080
Present
0.0100
ND
0.0080
XL.OOOO
0.0030
0.0200
Present
O.lOOSn
ND
0.0008
0.0070
0.0010
0.0300
ND
* Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 44.
-------
TABLE B-97.. ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER PROCESS WATERS
Date
Time
Acidity
Alkalinity, C03
Alkalinity, Total
Ammonia
BODS
Bromide
COD
Chloride
Fluoride
Hardness
Nitrate
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Phosphate
Phosphorous, Total
Sulfate
7/17/75*
1800
(mg/1)
415
1.35
24
1351
11.5
17.5
2.5
2666
2/29/76t
1300
(mg/1)
196
3370
25000
48
13.70
0.44
11560
6/8/76§
1145
(mg/1)
198
504
13500
204
13.53
1.78
7800
8/6/76§
1400
(mg/1)
144
8600
209
7.13
1.95
5000
11/29/76
(mg/1)
1980
8.5
106
4580
42
12/7/76
(mg/1)
90
3.0
61
3360
1
50
1/21/76 Average
1500
(mg/1) (mg/1)
24 24
270
40 1071
1.35
5.8
24
83.5
1030 8203
11.5
154
12.97
1
1.67
46
6757
* Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 43.
t Herrington, R. C., T. F. Buss, and D. E. Honaker. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7250. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 13.
§ Herrington, R. C., T. F. Buss, and D. E. Honaker. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7250. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 14.
-------
TABLE B-98. pH OF SCRUBBER PROCESS WATER AND DEHUMIDIFIER CONDENSATE
DATE
11/2/76*
11/3/76*
11/4/76*
11/5/76*
TIME
0000
0200
2000
222
0000
0100
0200
0400
0800
1000
1300
1500
1700
1900
2000
2100
222
0100
0300
0400
0700
0900
1100
1400
1500
1700
1900
2100
0000
0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
0800
1100
1200
1400
1500
1700
1900
2100
.*
2200
DEHUMIDIFIER
2.4
6.0
7.0
7.2
7.2
7.0
7.0
6.6
6.3
6.4
6.2
6.2
6.0
6.0
5.8
5.6
5.5
6.7
6.7
6.7
4.7
5.3
5.6
5.4
5.5
5.4
6.2
6.5
6.5
7.0
7.0
6.5
7.0
5.5
5.4
6.5
6.1
5.0
5.5
5.5
6.0
5.5
5.5
5.6
5.5
SCRUBBER DATE
7.8 11/6/76*
7.0
6.3
8.1
8.3
8.3
8.2
8.1
7.8
7.6
7.6
7.6
7.5
7.4
7.7
7.5
7.4
7.7
7.5
7.5 11/7/76*
6.7
7.0
7.8
7.2
7.3
7.5
7.4
7.2
7.5
7.2
7.2
7.2
7.1 11/8/76*
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.2
6.0
7.3
7.6
7.2
7.4
6.8 11/9/76*
7.1
TIME
0000
0100
1200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0700
0800
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1700
1800
1900
2100
0000
0100
0200
0300
0500
0900
1000
1200
1600
1700
1800
2000
2200
0000
0100
0200
0300
0400
0500
0600
0800
1000
1100
1700
0000
0100
DEHUMIDIFIER
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.5
5.8
5.5
5.3
5.4
5.3
5.4
5.4
5.5
5.5
3.4
3.5
3.8
3.4
3.5
3.5
5.2
5.4
5.6
5.2
5.6
5.8
5.6
5.6
5.8
5.7
3.3
4.7
4.5
5.0
4.5
3.5
3.6
3.5
5.0
4.5
3.8
3.5
3.2
SCRUBBER
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.9
7.2
7.0
6.9
6.6
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.8
7.5
6.2
6.6
7.0
6.7
7.0
6.8
7.1
7.2
7.1
8.2
6.9
7.0
6.9
7.3
7.1
6.9
6.8
6.9
6.6
6.5
7.1
6.9
6.8
6.6
7.0
7.2
7.2
7.0
7.0
7.0
197
-------
TABLE B-98. (Continued)
DATE TIME
11/9/76* 0200
0300
11/10/76* 1600
2200
11/11/76* 0600
0700
0900
1000
2200
11/12/76* 0100
0300
0600
0900
1100
1300
1400
1700
11/13/76* 0200
0500
0600
? 0800
2100
11/14/76* 0200
1500
0900
1200
1400
1700
2100
11/15/76* 0500
0800
1100
1500
1700
2100
11/16/76* 0000
0300
0800
0900
1400
1700
1900
2200
11/17/76* 0200
DEHUMIDIFIER
3.3
4.0
6.5
6.4
6.0
5.7
5.6
5.7
3.3
3.3
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.6
3.5
3.2
3.2
3.3
4.0
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.5
4.5
4.0
5.4
5.0
5.5
3.5
3.0
4.5
3.8
3.5
4.6
4.4
3.8
4.5
3.8
4.4
3.7
SCRUBBER
6.8
6.9
8.2
8.1
8.0
7.8
7.8
7.7
6.6
6.2
6.3
6.3
6.5
6.2
6.4
6.8
7.7
6.9
6.5
6.5
6.4
6.8
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.3
7.0
6.8
6.9
6.5
6.3
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.8
6.8
6.6
8.0
7.3
7.3
7.0
6.8
7.0
6.6
DATE TIME
11/17/76* 1200
1500
1700
2100
11/24/76* 0100
0300
0600
1000
1400
11/25/76* 0100
0600
1000
1100
1400
1700
2100
11/26/76* 0700
0800
0900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700
1900
2200
11/27/76* 0300
0600
0900
1000
1200
1300
1400
1500
1700
1800
1900
2000
2100
2200
11/28/76* 0000
DEHUMIDIFIER
5.6
4.5
4.4
4.5
5.1
5.2
5.5
5.2
5.0
5.3
5.3
5.0
5.2
5.3
2.5
3.2
3.5
3.6
3.6
3.5
3.5
3.3
3.3
2.9
3.5
5.0
4.6
5.1
3.9
3.5
2.9
3.5
3.5
3.4
4.0
4.2
4.0
2.9
3.3
3.0
3.1
3.3
3.4
3.5
SCRUBBER
7.6
7.4
7.3
7.5
6.9
7.1
7.0
7.0
6.8
6.9
7.4
7.0
7.1
7.9
7.1
6.8
6.9
6.1
6.9
6.9
7.4
7.1
7.0
7.0
7.3
7.0
7.2
8.4
6.8
7.9
6.8
7.5
7.2
6.2
7.5
7.2
7.4
6.2
6.8
7.7
7.2
7.7
7.7
7.5
198
-------
TABLE B-98. (Continued)
Date Time
11/28/76* 0500
0700
1000
1300
1500
1700
1800
1900
2100
11/28/76
12/05/76* 0200
0300
0400
12/06/76* 0100
0700
0900
1800
12/07/76 0140
0310
12/09/76 2000
12/10/76 1130
1715
12/12/76 1230
12/13/76 1015
1315
1635
1805
12/14/76 0945
1230
1605
12/15/76 0930
1745
12/16/76 1015
12/17/76 0940
Dehumidifier
4.8
5.6
6.1
5.7
3.4
4.4
4.9
4.5
5.1
7.2
6.1
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.4
6.0
5.8
4.0
3.5
3.7
4.1
3.7
3.2
3.9
3.8
3.7
3.8
4.3
4.7
4.5
5.4
3.0
3.4
3.2
Scrubber
7.5
7.6
7.4
6.3
5.4
8.0
7.7
7.3
7.5
8.7
7.2
7.1
7.0
7.8
7.0
6.3
7.0
7.3
5.9
6.5
7.0
6.8
4.4
7.2
6.6
7.0
6.0
7.7
8.7
8.6
7.9
7.3
7.0
7.1
Date
12/18/76
12/19/76
12/20/76
12/21/76
01/13/77
01/14/77
01/15/77
01/18/77
01/19/77
01/20/77
01/23/77
01/24/77
01/31/77
02/01/77
02/03/77
02/04/77
02/05/77
02/06/77
02/22/77
02/25/77
Time
1145
1455
1650
1015
1230
0940
1345
0800
1015
1200
1630
1020
1600
1720
1115
1440
1730
1430
1245
1750
1030
0915
0930
1455
0730
1230
1430
2145
2215
1115
1620
1030
1200
0800
Dehumidifier
3.9
3.7
3.3
4.4
4.4
4.0
4.2
3.2
3.2
3.3
4.6
2.9
2.8
2.7
3.2
2.9
3.0
2.9
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.5
2.7
3.2
3.1
3.2
3.4
3.2
2.6
4.7
6.5
2.8
2.4
Scrubber
8.9
7.5
7.3
8.7
8.5
8.7
8.4
6.7
5.9
7.0
8.2
6.2
6.6
9.3
8.2
10.3
9.0
6.2
8.2
6.5
7.6
6.6
6.0
6.8
6.4
8.4
6.6
7.8
7.3
8.8
10.2
City of Baltimore Daily Log
199
-------
TABLE B-99. pH OF SCRUBBER SYSTEM PROCESS WATERS
DATE
TIME
P5/P6
P18
Clarifier
Clarifier
Overflow
Underflow
Dehumid if ier
Clarifier
DATE
TIME
P5/P6
P18
Clarifier
Clarifier
Return
•
Overflow
Underflow
Dehumid if ier
Hydroclone In
Hydroclone Out
Hydroclone Desand
DATE
TIME
P5/P6
P18
Clarifier
Clarifier
3/3/75*
2200
9.90
7.58
7.96
9.12
4.80
9.90
6/9/76+
0000
9.85
7.47
8.85
3.22
5.71
6.49
9.10
4/1/75*
0140
4
6
8
8
3
4
•
•
•
•
•
•
94
49
16
21
23
94
6/9/76+
2200
6
12
7
7
3
•
•
•
•
•
15
04
50
50
32
4/9/75*
2309
8.72
10.06
10.06
8.12
8.72
4/10/75*
0117
8.44
9.78
9.88
7.30
8.44
4/10/75*
0309
7
9
9
6
7
.59
.86
.85
.73
.59
4/10/75*
0556
9
9
9
7
9
.18
.69
.81
.50
.18
6/11/76+ 6/22/76+ 6/25/76+ 7/21/76+
0515
12.23
8.29
3.50
8.36
0615
8.90
9.05
7.50
1400
12
8
3
.30
.01
.66
1300
9
7
7
3
9
.65
.73
.76
.15
.,28
7/21/76+ 7/22/76+ 7/22/76+ 7/23/76+ 7/29/76+ 8/5/7b+
Overflow
Underflow
Dehumid if ier
C8 Drain
1830
7.90
8.43
8.65
3.12
V9 Underflow
1300
9
8
8
8
3
4
7
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
00
35
84
60
05
05
06
1600
7.40
8.32
3.04
1600
8.65
8.12
8.30
3.00
6.89
1300
8
8
7
.25
.30
.60
1030
8
8
8
6
8
.70
.80
.60
.74
.35
* Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard®
Process Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240.
St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 42.
t Herrington, R. C., T. F. Buss, and D. E. Honaker. Baltimore Landgard®
Process Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7250.
St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 13.
200
-------
TABLE B-100. CORROSION RATES BASED ON ULTRASONIC MEASUREMENT*
LOCATION
METAL THICKNESS ESTIMATED CORROSION RATE
(mm) (mv. PER YEAR)
Clarifier
Clarifier Overflow
to P18 Sump
P18 Discharge to
Scrubber
P5/P6 Discharge
12" Line to Scrub
Tower Loops
1st Scrub Tier Loop
1-1/2" Lance First
Level
Duct Scrub Tower
To C8 Fan
Duct, C8 Fan To
Dehumidifier:
S Curve
At EPA Sample Point
Part Leg of C8 Fan
C8 Fan Housing
Boiler Discharge
Duct at Economizer
4.445-5.460
6.860-7.240
7.365-8.635
7.110-7.240
9.020-10.030
6.860-7.620
3.555-3.940
6.100-6.350
5.205-6.100
6.100-6.600
5.840-6.100
9.270-9.400
5.205-6.100
0 -0.125
0
0
0.125
0 -0.125
0 -0.125
1.000
0.500
0.500
0.125-0.250
0.500
0.125-0.250
0.500
* Herrington, R. C., T. F. Buss, and D. E. Honaker. Baltimore Landgard®
Process Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7250,
St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 15.
201
-------
TABLE B-101. EVALUATION OF ALLOYS FOR INCINERATOR SCRUBBERS*
Corrosion Results
Alloy Scrubber Solutions Fan Deposits
T16A1-4V Good resistance Good resistance
Hastelloy C Good Good
Inconel 625 Good Good
Hastelloy F Good
Hastelloy C-276 Good
Hastelloy G Good
Ti75A Good
S-816 Good Pitted
Carpenter 20 Pitted Pitted, SCC
Incoloy 825 Pitted Pitted
Incoloy 800 — Pitted
316L Pitted, SCC Pitted, SCC
310 Pitted
446 Pitted
Inconel 600 Trenches
Inconel 601 Trenches —
Armco 22-13-5 Pitted Pitted, SCC
USS 18-18-2 Pitted Pitted, SCC
Type 304 Pitted, SCC Pitted, SCC
Herrington, R. C., T. F. Buss, and D. E. Honaker. Baltimore Landgard®
Process Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7250.
St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 16.
202
-------
TABLE B-102. FLOCCULANT EFFICIENCIES*
o
u>
Actual Clarifier
Actual Clarifier
Clarifier Influent
Clarifier Influent
Actual Clarifier
Actual Clarifier
ESP Drain #1
ESP Drain #2
ESP Drain #1
ESP Drain #2
20% ESP-80% Scrubber
20% ESP-80% Scrubber
SETTLING
TIME
^hours)
7
4.5
3.0
3.0
7
4.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
HERCULES SUSPENDED SOLIDS
FLOCCULANT BEFORE SETTLING
818.2 812.3
(mg/1)
0
0
0
0
2.5
5.0
0
0
2.5
5.0
0
2.5
0
0
0
0
5.0
5.0
0
0
5.0
5.0
0
5.0
- - "'111.— !• 1
(mg/1)
3664
2809
3664
2809
3664
2809
377
719
377
719
1381
1381
SUSPENDED "SOLIDS
AFTER SETTLING
(mg/1)
41
30
111
321
53
50
52
94
44
59
79
33
EFFICIENCY
(%)
98.9
98.9
97.0
88.6
98.6
98.2
86.2
86.9
88.3
91.8
94.3
97.6
* Monsanto Unpublished Data.
-------
TABLE B-103. CLARIFIER EFFICIENCY*
Influent Effluent Removal
Date Time Suspended Solids Suspended Solids Efficiency
(mg/1) (mg/1)
11/17/76
11/26/76
11/27/76
11/29/76
12/06/76
12/10/76
12/13/76
12/14/76
12/17/76
12/20/76
12/21/76
12/22/76
1400
1030
1030
1200
1100
1600
0830
1000
0830
1000
1300
1300
300
140
450
580
140
460
1030
700
617
617
1063
600
140
100
140
320
140
220
290
210
490
200
273
270
53
29
69
45
0
52
72
70
21
68
74
55
Unpublished Monsanto Data.
204
-------
TABLE B-104.
SPARK SOURCE MASS SPECTROMETRIC ANALYSIS
OF SCRUBBER INLET AND EXIT PARTICIPATE
CONCENTRATION (yg/m3)
ELEMENT
H
Li
Be
B
C
N
0
F
Na
Mg
Al
Si
P
S
Cl
K
Ca
Sc
Ti
V
Cr
Mn
Fe
Co
Ni
Cu
Zn
Ga
Ge
As
Se
Br
Rb
Sr
Y
Zr
Nb
Mo
Ru
INLET
t
131
0.05
§
t
t
t
§
§
§
§
§
>1663
> 882
§
§
§
0.67
>1663
1.67
>1663
1512
>1663
282
472.5
15.1
>1663
15
3.3
26.6
8.3
6.7
4.5
9.3
0.67
§
.17
32.4
§
OUTLET
t
1.69
0.02
§
t
t
t
§
§
§
§
§
>1694
>1152
§
§
§
0.17
16.9
§
35.6
15.3
813
2.03
40.7
168
>1694
13.6
10.2
27.1
1.69
§
23.4
27.1
0.68
6.78
§
9.3
§
ELEMENT
Rh
Pd
Ag
Cd
In
Sn
Sb
Te
I
Cs
Ba
La
Ce
Pr
Nd
Sm
Eu
Gd
Tb
Dy
Ho
Er
Tm
Yb
Lu
Hf
Ta
W
Re
Os
Ir
Pt
Au
Hg
Tl
Pb
Bi
Th
U
INLET
§
§
15.0
49.6
IF
>1663
466
.50
.33
§
>1663
13.8
15.6
1.3
2.8
1.0
0.17
0.67
0.17
0.67
0.67
0.33
0.10
0.83
0.15
0.83
0.83
1.50
§
§
§
§
§
'2.58
§
>1663
5.0
1.66
§
OUTLET
§
§
8.47
13.2
IF
337
119
§
§
5.08
152
3.9
4.07
0.33
1.19
0.68
0.17
0.51
0.17
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
3.31
§
>1694
6.78
3.39
§
* TRW Environmental Engineering Division. Source Emissions Tests for
Industrial Research Labs. EPA 68-01-2988, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. pp. 25-27.
t Not detectable.
§ Approximately equal to blank.
II Standard.
205
-------
TABLE B-105. NITROUS OXIDE EMISSION DATA
Date
Time
Boiler Exit
(mg/m3)
Scrubber Outlet
(mg/m3)
06/12/75*
06/12/75*
06/12/75*
06/16/75*
06/16/75*
06/16/75*
06/16/75*
06/16/75*
ll/15/76t
ll/15/76t
ll/16/76t
ll/16/76t
ll/16/76t
ll/16/76t
ll/16/76t
ll/16/76t
ll/16/76t
1712
1716
1803
0945
0945
0945
0945
1000
1550
1618
1145
1218
1237
1252
1453
1533
1617
1
36
25
16
0.9
1
0.9
0.5
10
5
298
240
199
394
356
356
324
320
21
0.7
15
3
5
16
5
11
4
-t
Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard®
Process Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240.
St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 25.
TRW Environmental Engineering Division. Source Emissions Tests for
Industrial Research Labs. EPA 68-01-2988, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. pp. A-32-A35.
206
-------
TABLE B-106. SCRUBBER OUTLET ORSATS
to
o
DATE
3/24/75*
3/25/75*
4/ 9/75*
4/10/75*
4/18/75*
4/27/75*
4/28/75*
4/28/75*
4/28/75*
6/12/75*
6/12/75*
7/17/75*
TIME
2255-2348
1045-1148
0145-0249
0387-0523
1205-1342
1730-2018
0411-0548
0115-0330
1242-1407
1755-1950
1300-1320
1513-1609
1716-1916
C02%
5.40
5.40
8.60
7.00
8.50
10.50
13.50
12.40
12.60
10.60
10.60
15.45
02%
13.60
13.60
10.10
14.00
11.80
8.50
8.30
7.00
4.10
10.10
10.10
5.00
C0%
0
0
0.01
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
DATE
7/18/75*
7/23/75*
7/23/75*
7/30/75*
6/ 9/76t
7/23/76t
8/ 5/76t
8/ 5/76t
8/ 7/76t
8/ 7/76t
ll/15/76§
ll/16/76§
ll/!6/76§
Minimum
Average
Maximum
TIME
1142-1136
1017-1217
0956-1212
1331-1729
1713
1048
0800
1145
1530
1542
1540-1700
1120-1240
1440-1555
C02%
14.00
12.60
15.90
12.60
12
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
9.5
9.5
8.0
5.40
10.79
15.90
02%
7.10
6.00
6.00
6.20
6
3.5
8.0
8.0
8.0
8.0
-
-
"~
3.5
8.32
14.00
C0%
0
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
••
0
0.00
0.01
* Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 22.
t Herrington, R. C., T. F. Buss, and D. E. Honaker. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7250. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 7.
§ TRW Environmental Engineering Division. Source Emissions Tests for Industrial Research Labs.
EPA 68-01-2988, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. Table 2, p. 21.
-------
TABLE B-107. MASS SPECTROPHOTOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER OUTLET GAS*
o
00
DATE
TIME
Carbon Dioxide
Argon
Carbon Monoxide
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Methane
Hydrop.en
6/17/75
1910
5.40
0.75
1.42
15.96
76.44
0.02
^m^m^m.
6/20/75
8030
7.61
0.78
0.22
12.18
79.20
0.01
^"™""*
6/27/75
2025
10.69
0.78
9.34
79.16
_.._
•""IL
6/28/75
1710
Volume
9.95
10.79
79.25
__._
.«_._
7/2/75
1820
%
14.40
0.80
— _
4.76
80.01
_ —
•»WM
7/2/75
1820
14.26
0.79
_ —
4.41
80.49
___
0.02
7/17/75
— —
17.44
0.79
1.57
80.20
_—
T-l —
7/12/75
1845
15.68
0.79
3.57
79.96
-..-
^•"™
Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 31.
-------
TABLE B-108. ANALYSIS OF BOILER AND SCRUBBER OUTLET GASES
Date
07/02/75*
07/02/75*
07/02/75*
07/02/75*
06/23/76T
06/23/76t
06/25/76t
06/25/76t
ll/15/76§
11/15/7611
ll/!6/76§
11/16/7611
ll/16/76§
11/16/76H
ll/15/76§
11/15/7611
ll/16/76§
11/16/761F
ll/16/76§
11/16/7611
ll/15/76§
11/15/7611
ll/16/76§
11/16/76H
ll/!6/76§
11/16/76H
07/02/75*
06/23/76t
06/23/76t
06/25/76t
06/25/76t
07/27/76**
08/05/76**
08/05/76**
08/06/76**
ll/15/76tt
ll/15/76§§
ll/16/76tt
ll/16/76§§
ll/16/76tt
ll/16/76§§
Time
0719
0725
1005
1006
1402
1455
0833
1507
1548-1618
1614-1644
1118-1148
1232-1302
1459-1529
1605-1635
1548-1618
1614-1644
1118-1148
1232-1302
1459-1529
1605-1635
1548-1618
1614-1644
1118-1148
1232-1302
1459-1529
1605-1635
0725
1340
1433
0800
1450
2000
1845
2222
1816
1535-1635
1537-1637
1113-1213
1115-1215
1450-1550
1452-1552
Test
Cl"
Cl
Cl~
Cl
Cl~
Cl
Cl"
Cl
Cl~
Cl
Cl"
Cl
Cl
Cl
F~
F
F
F
F"
F~
Acidity
Acidity
Acidity
Acidity
Acidity
Acidity
SOX
SO 2
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
S02
Boiler Outlet
(mg/SCM)
100.1
261.4
560.0
1079.0
1567.0
10.0
9.0
4.0
80.0
536.0
Basic
525.4
307.5
320.3
453.8
415.7
319.1
Scrubber Outlet
(mg/SCM)
35.0
16.0
45.0
59.0
0.8
3.6
97.0
196.0
215.0
0.9
1.2
1.8
Basic
Basic
Basic
0.9
158.6
302.7
8.2
32.1
15.5
21.3
40.5
19.7
(continued)
209
-------
TABLE B-108. (Continued)
Date
Time
Test
Boiler Outlet
(mg/SCM)
Scrubber Outlet
(mg/SCM)
07/23/76t
06/23/76t
07/27/76**
08/05/76**
08/05/76**
08/06/76**
ll/15/76tt
ll/15/76§§
ll/16/76tt
ll/16/76§§
ll/16/76tt
ll/16/76§§
07/02/75*
07/02/75*
07/02/75*
07/02/75*
1340
1433
2000
1854
2222
1816
1535-1635
1537-1637
1113-1213
1115-1215
145.0-1550
1452-1552
0719
0725
1005
1006
SO 3
S03
S03
S03 47 . 9
S03
S03
S03 35.9
S03
S03 37.4
S03
S03 23 . 3
S03
NH4
NHu
NHu
NHu
14.6
19.5
36.8
37.6
7.37
31.0
28.1
22.3
0.4
0.1
0.2
0.5
* Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard®
Process Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240.
St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 24.
t Herrington, R. C., T. F. Buss, and D. E. Honaker. Baltimore Landgard®
Process Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7250.
St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 11.
§ TRW Environmental Engineering Division. Source Emissions Tests for
Industrial Research Labs. EPA 68-01-2988, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. Table 4, p. 23.
11 TRW Environmental Engineering Division. Source Emissions Tests for
Industrial Research Labs. EPA 68-01-2988, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. Table 3, p. 22.
** Herrington, R. C., T. F. Buss, and D. E. Honaker. Baltimore Landgard®
Process Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7250.
St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 12.
tt TRW Environmental Engineering Division. Source Emissions Tests for
Industrial Research Labs. EPA 68-01-2988, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. p. A-30.
§§ TRW Environmental Engineering Division. Source Emissions Tests for
Industrial Research Labs. EPA 69-01-2988, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. p. A-31.
210
-------
TABLE B-109. MOISTURE CONTENT OF SCRUBBER OUTLET GASES
DATE
2/21/75*
3/06/75*
3/06/75*
3/13/75*
3/13/75*
3/24/75*
3/25/75*
4/09/75*
4/10/75*
4/18/75*
4/27/75*
4/28/75*
6/12/75*
6/12/75*
TIME
1920-2020
1348-1448
1720-1820
1415-1515
1745-1845
2255-2348
1045-1148
0145-0249
0387-0523
1205-1342
1730-2018
0411-0548
0115-0330
1300-1320
1513-1609
% MOISTURE
45.98
44.82
50.40
49.96
51.21
45.23
43.64
50.98
49.12
54.40
46.70
54.64
51.40
51.40
DATE
7/17/75*
7/18/75*
7/23/75*
7/24/75*
7/30/75*
6/ 9/76t
7/23/76t
8/05/76t
8/05/76t
8/07/76t
8/07/76t
ll/15/76§
ll/16/76§
ll/16/76§
MINIMUM
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
TIME
1716-1916
1142-1136
1017-1217
0956-1212
1331-1729
1713
1048
0800
1145
1530
1542
1540-1700
1120-1240
1440-1555
% MOISTURE
60.00
56.44
54.34
48.24
60.41
53.5
34.8
36.8
32.3
32.4
27.9
12.3
15.3
13.0
12.3
43.84
60.41
* Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 22.
t Herrington, R. C., T. F. Buss, and D. E. Honaker. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7250. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 7.
§ TRW Environmental Engineering Division. Source Emissions Tests for Industrial Research Labs.
EPA 68-01-2988, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977. Table 2, p. 21.
-------
TABLE B-110. EPA METHOD 5 PARTICIPATE LOADINGS OF SCRUBBER OUTLET GASES
to
H1
N5
DATE
2/21/75*
3/ 6/75*
3/13/75*
3/13/75*
4/ 9/75*
4/10/75*
4/18/75*
4/27/75*
4/28/75*
4/28/75*
4/28/75*
6/12/75*
7/17/75*
TIME PARTICULATE LOADING DATE
(g/dscm)
1920-2020
1348-1448
1415-1515
1745-1845
0145-0523
1205-1342
1730-2018
0411-0548
0115-0330
1242-1407
1755-1950
1513-1609
1716-1916
0.4279
0.3044
0.5812
0.8238
0.5835
0.3799
0.2174U
0.8165
0.5682
0.5538
0.7920
0.494311
0.290611
7/18/75*
7/23/75*
7/24/75*
7/30/75*
6/ 9/76t
7/23/76t
8/ 5/76t
8/ 5/76t
8/ 7/76t
8/ 7/76t
ll/15/76
-------
TABLE B-lll. ANDERSON PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER OUTLET GASES
U>
Date Time Effective Cut
Diameter
(micrometers)
4/27/75* 0505
4/28/75* 0300
4/28/75* 1405
4/28/75* 1800
8.2
5.2
3.4
2.36
1.51
0.78
0.46
0.31
0.31
9.0
5.7
3.7
2.6
1.65
0.86
0.51
0.35
0.35
10.2
6.4
4.2
2.91
1.85
0.95
.57
.40
.40
10.6
6.5
4.4
Dry Loading Weight Date Time Effective Cut
Diameter
(g/DSCM) (%) (micrometers)
.220
.002
0.0
.007
.014
.032
.085
.108
.101
.195
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.005
.080
.050
.130
.114
.011
.011
.002
.011
.011
.048
.066
.073
.281
.046
.055
21.65 4/28/75 1800
0.52
0.0
1.55
3.09
7.22
19.07 5/10/75t* 1640
24.23
22.68
42.29
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.995
17.41 5/12/75t* 0200
10.95
28.34
32.68
3.27
3.27
.654
3.27
3.27
13.73 5/12/75t* 1210
18.95
20.92
25.36
4.12
4.95
2.98
1.89
0.98
0.59
0.41
0.41
9.2
5.8
3.8
2.7
1.68
0.87
0.52
0.36
0.36
8.8
5.7
3.7
2.6
1.64
0.85
0.50
0.35
0.35
10.0
6.2
4.1
2.8
1.81
0.94
Dry Loading Weight
(g/DSCM) (%)
.053
.055
.105
.176
.220
.119
.114
.009
0.0
.009
.016
.080
.009
.002
.057
.229
0.0
0.0
.005
0.0
.011
.016
.057
.098
.275
.005
.009
.005
.018
.023
4.74
4.95
9.48
15.88
19.79
10.72
38.46
3.08
0.0
3.08
5.38
26.92
3.08
0.77
19.23
54.95
0.0
0.0
1.1
0.0
2.75
3.85
13.74
23.67
45.28
0.76
1.51
0.76
3.02
3.77
-------
TABLE B-lll. (Continued)
Date Time Effective Cut
Diameter
(micrometers)
5/12/75t* 1210
5/12/75t* 1930
5/30/75* 1535
5/30/75* 2045
0.55
0.39
0.39
9.6
6.1
4.0
2.8
1.75
0.92
0.54
0.38
.038
9.4
5.9
3.9
2.7
1.72
.89
.53
.37
.37
9.5
6.0
3.9
2.7
1.72
0.90
0.53
0.37
0.37
Dry Loading Weight Date Time Effective Cut
Diameter
(g/DSCM) (%) (micrometers)
.030
.108
.135
.281
.018
.014
.023
.039
.027
.057
.041
.069
.133
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
.007
.034
.073
.055
.094
.011
.011
.009
.009
.016
.034
.069
.050
4.91 5/31/75* 1558
17.74
22.26
49.4
3.21
2.41
4.02
6.83
4.82
10.04 6/01/75* 2035
7.23
12.05
43.94
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.27
11.36 6/02/75* 1532
24.24
18.18
30.83
3.76
3.76
3.01
3.01
5.26
11.28 6/12/75* 1625
22.56
16.54
8.6
5.4
3.6
2.4
1.56
.80
.47
.33
.33
8.7
5.6
3.6
2.5
1.62
0.84
0.49
0.34
0.34
8.6
5.5
3.5
2.5
1.57
0.81
0.48
0.33
0.33
8.9
5.6
3.6
Dry Loading Weight
(g/DSCM) (%)
.178
0.0
0.0
.002
.002
.018
.050
.101
.037
.222
.007
.007
.005
.011
.016
.082
.094
.041
.215
0.0
.011
.011
.009
.016
.101
.135
.055
.339
.005
.003
46.15
0.0
0.0
0.59
.59
4.73
13.02
26.04
9.47
45.75
1.42
1.42
.94
2.36
3.30
16.98
19.34
8.49
40.34
0.0
0.21
0.21
1.72
3.00
18.88
25.32
10.30
39.36
1.53
0.27
-------
TABLE B-lll. (Continued)
to
^Date Time Effective Cut
Diameter
(micrometers)
6/12/75* 1625
6/13/75* 1600
6/16/75* 1900
6/20/75* 0828
2.5
1.62
0.83
0.49
0.35
0.35
10.8
6.7
4.5
3.1
1.95
1.01
0.61
0.42
0.42
9.5
6.0
3.9
2.7
1.72
.89
.53
.37
.37
9.2
5.8
3.8
2.7
1.69
.87
Dry Loading Weight Date Time Effective Cut
Diameter
Cg/DSCM) (%) (micrometers)
0.0
.034
.085
.197
.153
.046
.114
0.0
0.0
.007
.009
.023
.059
.012
.160
.203
0.0
0.0
0.0
.002
.014
.039
.101
.103
.073
0.0
.002
.007
.009
.018
0.0 6/20/75* 0828
3.99
9.84
22.87 6/27/75* 2020
17.82
5.32
30.67
0.0
0.0
1.84
2.45
6.13
15.95 6/28/75* 1705
31.29
11.66
45.15
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.49
2.91
8.25 7/02/75* 0730
21.36
21.84
10.83
0.0
.83
2.5
3.33
6.67
.52
.36
.36
7.6
4.9
3.2
2.2
1.42
0.73
0.42
0.29
0.29
7.8
4.9
3.2
2.3
1.43
0.73
0.43
0.29
0.29
7.8
5.0
3.3
2.2
1.45
0.74
0.43
0.30
0.30
Dry Leading Weight
(g/DSCM) (%)
.025
.078
.105
.093
.007
.014
.011
.011
.030
.085
.085
.016
.108
.007
.009
.014
.014
.032
.010
.059
.059
.098
.009
.007
.011
.014
.027
.057
.066
.066
9.17
28.33
38.33
26.62
1.95
3.90
3.25
3.25
8.44
24.03
24.03
4.55
30.13
1.92
2.56
3.85
3.85
8.97
28.21
16.67
3.85
27.56
2.56
1.91
3.21
3.85
7.69
16.03
18.59
18.59
-------
TABLE B-lll. (Continued)
Date Time Effective Cut Dry Loading Weight
Diameter
(micrometers) (g/DSCM) (%)
Date Time Effective Cut Dry Loading Weight
Diameter
(micrometers) (g/DSCM) (%)
7/02/75* 2015
7/09775* 1908
7/12/75* 0815
7/12/75* 1930
8.8
5.6
3.6
2.5
1.62
0.84
0.50
0.35
.35
7.2
4.6
3.0
2.1
1.36
0.70
0.40
0.28
0.28
9.2
5.8
3.8
2.6
1.68
0.87
0.51
0.36
0.36
8.2
5.2
.121
.002
.007
.007
.002
.014
.016
.041
.069
.078
0.0
.002
.007
.023
.046
.165
.126
.034
.117
.009
.002
.005
.016
.007
.027
.053
.094
.071
.007
43.44 7/12/75* 1930
0.82
2.46
2.46
6.82
4.92
5.74
14.75 7/17/75* 1750
24.59
16.19
0.0
0.48
1.43
4.76
9.52
34.92
26.19 7/17/75* 1845
7.14
35.42
2.71
' 0.69
1.39
4.86
2.08
8.33
15.97 7/17/75* 1950
28.55
28.18
.27
3.5
2.4
1.53
0.79
0.47
0.32
0.32
8.5
5.4
3.5
2.4
1.55
0.80
0.47
0.33
0.33
8.5
5.4
3.5
2.4
1.55
0.80
0.47
0.33
0.33
8.3
5.3
3.5
2.6
.021
.007
.009
.009
.027
.053
.055
.069
.007
.009
.018
.014
.027
.069
.124
.055
.032
.002
.002
.069
.014
.066
.105
.094
.025
.055
.002
.032
.050
8.18
2.73
3.64
3.64
10.91
20.91
21.54
17.54
1.75
2.34
4.68
3.51
7.02
17.54
31.58
14.04
23.03
0.56
0.56
1.69
2.81
16.29
25.84
23.03
6.19
11.94
0.50
6.97
10.95
-------
TABLE B-lll. (Continued)
Date Time Effective Cut Dry Loading Weight
Diameter
(micrometers) (g/DSCM) (%)
Date Time Effective Cut Dry Loading Weight
Diameter
(micrometers) (g/DSCM) (%)
ro
7/17/75* 1950
7/18/75* 1144
7/18/75* 1220
7/18/75* 1345
1.55
0.80
0.47
0.32
0.32
7.9
5.0
3.3
2.3
1.47
0.75
0.44
0.31
0.31
7.9
5.1
3.3
2.3
1.46
0.75
0.44
0.31
0.31
7.9
5.0
3.3
2.3
1.47
0.75
- .021
.032
.117
.112
.039
.057
.007
.007
.009
.011
.037
.080
.098
.039
.064
.009
.009
.018
.021
.027
.092
.114
.135
.059
.002
.005
.011
.016
.043
4.48 7/18/75* 1345
6.97
25.37
24.38 7/19/75* 1219
8.44
16.56
1.99
1.99
2.65
3.31
10.60
23.18
28.48 7/23/75* 1055
11.24
13.08
1.87
1.87
3.74
4.21
5.61
18.69
23.36 7/23/75* 1128
27.57
15.85
0.61
1.22
3.05
4.27
11.59
0.44
0.31
0.31
8.2
5.3
3.4
2.3
1.52
0.77
0.46
0.31
0.31
8.1
6.2
3.3
2.3
1.51
0.78,
0.45
0.31
0.31
8.0
5.1
3.4
2.3
1.48
0.76
0.45
0.31
.126
.213
.025
.062
0.0
0.0
.002
.009
.018
.055
.066
.048
.039
.002
.002
.002
.007
.030
.073
.039
.043
.043
0.0
0.0
.005
.007
.014
.039
.046
33.54
23.17
6.70
23.68
0.0
0.0
.88
3.51
7.02
21.05
25.44
18.42
16.35
0.96
0.96
0.96
2.88
12.50
30.77
16.35
18.27
24.05
0.0
0.0
2.53
3.80
7.59
21.52
25.32
-------
TABLE B-lll. (Continued)
N>
H
00
Date Time
7/23/75* 1128
7/23/75* 1200
7/25/75* 1808
7/29/75* 2057
7/29/75* 2135
Effective Cut Dry Leading Weight Date Time Effective Cut Dry Loading -Weight
Diameter Diameter
(micrometers) (g/DSCM) (%) • (micrometers) (g/DSCM) (%)
0.31
8.2
5.2
3.4
2.4
1.52
0.78
0.46
' 0.32
.32
7.3
4.7
3.0
2.1
1.36
0.69
0.40
0.28
0.28
7.9
5.1
3.3
2.3
1.46
0.75
0.44
0.31
0.31
8.1
.027
.060
0.0
.0007
.002
.005
.014
.050
.043
.016
.055
.005
.005
.006
.005
.050
.103
.032
.004
.050
0.0
.002
.004
.005
.018
.080
.069
.022
.037
15.19 7/29/75* 2135
31.46
0.0
0.36
1.20
2.39
7.18
26.32
22.73 7/30/75* 1430
8.36
20.9
2.07
2.07
2.16
1.73
18.83
38.77
11.92 7/30/75* 1600
1.55
19.84
0.0
0.91
1.46
2.01
7.31
31.99
27.51 7/23/76t§ 1429
8.97
19.21
5.2
3.4
2.3
1.5
0.77
0.45
0.31
0.31
8.2
5.2
3.4
2.4
1.51
0.78
0.46
0.31
0.31
8.2
5.2
3.4
2.3
1.51
0.78
0.46
0.31
0.31
7.75
4.95
3.23
.004
.002
.008
.002
.009
.057
.060
.013
.103
.003
.0005
.004
.013
.002
.134
.113
.027
.078
.003
.004
.008
.010
.036
.133
.101
.023
.066
.002
.002
1.92
1.08
4.20
1.08
4.56
29.89
31.33
6.73
24.46
0.65
0.11
1.03
3.21
5.65
31.79
26.79
6.31
19.64
0.69
0.92
2.14
2.54
9.01
33.62
25.53
5.91
24.17
.83
.83
-------
TABLE B-lll. (Continued)
Date Time Effective Cut Dry Loading Weight
Diameter
(micrometers) (g/DSCM) (%)
Date Time Effective Cut Dry Loading Weight
Diameter
(micrometers) (g/DSCM) (%)
7/23/76§ 1429
8/05/76§ 1010
2.23
1.44
.74
.44
.30
.30
8.09
5.16
3.36
2.33
1.50
0.77
.002
.002
.011
.057
.078
.053
.137
0.0
.004
.005
.009
.025
.83 8/05/76§ 1010
.83
4.17
20.83 8/05/76§ 1352
28.33
19.18
29.51
0.0
0.79
0.99
2.03
5.44
0.46
0.31
0.31
8.38
5.30
3.49
2.40
1.54
.79
.47
.32
.32
.108
.121
.054
.103
.001
0.0
.003
.006
.015
.069
.077
.029
23.28
26.29
11.67
38.28
.35
0.0
.99
1.84
4.59
21.26
23.80
8.89
* Herrington, R. C., D. E. Honaker, and B. G. Ward. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7240. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 18.
t Not corrected to 12 percent COa.
§ Herrington, R. C., T. F. Buss, and D. E. Honaker. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc. No. 7250. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 9.
-------
TABLE B-112. BMS-11 PARTICULATE SIZE ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER OUTLET*
DATE TIME EFFECTIVE CUT
DIAMETER
P-l
(MICRONS)
EFFECTIVE CUT
DIAMETER
P=2.4
(MICRONS)
WT. DATE
TIME EFFECTIVE CUT
DIAMETER
p=1.0
(MICRONS)
EFFECTIVE CUT
DIAMETER
p=2.4
(MICRONS)
WT.
to
S3
o
4/10/75 0356
4/10/75 1330
5/12/75 0152
2.60-10.0
1.50-2.60
1.00-1.50
0.50-1.00
0.20-0.50
<0.20
2.60-10.0
1.50-2.60
1.00-1.50
0.50-1.00
0.20-0.50
<0.20
X4.47
2.66-4.47
1.83-2.66
0.98-1.83
0.63-0.98
<0.63
1.70-7.00
0.99-1.70
0.66-0.99
0.30-0.66
0.13-0.30
<0.13
1.70-7.00
0.99-1.70
0.66-0.99
0.30-0.66
0.13-0.30
<0.13
>2,86
1.68-2.86
1.15-1.68
0.60-1.15
0.38-0.60
<0.38
13.04 5/12/75 1150
36.92
37.20
4.30
7.17
1.36
17.03 5/12/75 1910
34.24
13.40
15.94
19.38
-
0.095 5/15/75 1652
0.095
0.285
2.484
2.381
89.544
>3.72
2.20-3.72
1.51-2.20
0.81-1.51
0.50-0.81
<0.50
>4.44
2.64
1.82
0.97
0.63
<0.63
>3.98
2.35
1.60
0.83
0.51
<0.51
>2.37
1.39-2.37
0.95-1.39
0.49-0.95
0.295-0.49
<0.295
>2.84
1.68
1.14
0.60
0.38
<0.38
>2.53
1.48
1.00
0.50
0.29
<0.29
0.247
1.485
2.228
10.891
8.663
54.700
2.43
1.62
6.88
2.43
13.77
49.79
-
-
6.57
9.98
3.29
4.07
*Herrinfeton, R.C., D.E. Honaker, and B.C. Ward. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization.
EnvitoChem Systems Inc., No. 7240. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 21.
Monsanto
-------
TABLE B-113. ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER OUTLET PARTICULATE*
S3
N>
DATE
TIME
Weight of Solubles
Weight of Total Part.
% Soluble
Chloride (%)
Flouride (%)
F~ (yg/g)
Bromide (%)
Br
Ammonium (%)
' NIV (yg/g)
Sulfate (%)
Sulfite (%)
S03
Carbon§te (%)
Nitrate (%)
NO 3
Cyanide (yg/g)
CN
METHOD *
Ion Selective Electrode
Ion Selective Electrode
Ion Selective Electrode
Ion Selective Electrode
Phototurbimetric Method
Polaragraphy
Gravimetric Means
Colormetric Method
Ion Selective Electrode Using
7/17/75
1716-1916
0.2676
0.2905
92
47.14
0..10
(96.50)
1.06
0.97
(968)
9.13
ND
1.26
0.038
<0.02 if any
7/18/75
1142-1336
0.2578
0.2860
90
45.08
0.18
(175.50)
1.53
0.64
(643)
13.12
ND
1.81
0.073
<0.02 if any
*Herrington, R.C., D.E. Honaker, and B.C. Ward. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization. Monsanto
EnviroChem Systems Inc., No. 7240. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 23.
-------
TABLE B-114. ELECTRON PROBE MICRO ANALYSIS OF SCRUBBER OUTLET PARTICULATE*r
SIZE RANGE
(MICRONS) >9.40
5
9
.90-
.40
3
5
.90-
.90
2.70-
3.90
1.70-
2.70
0.
1.
90-
70
0.50-
0.90
0.40-
0.50
<0.40
PERCENT BY WEIGHT
TOTAL
43.90
— 2.27 11.36 24.74 18.18
ALUMINUM
CALCIUM
COPPER
IRON
LEAD
MAGNESIUM
SILICON
SODIUM
TITANIUM
ZINC
—
3.20
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.80
12.70
2.00
—
— —
—
3.00
0.10
0.10
0.10
1.00
12.10
1.80
—
0.02
—
3.20
1.10
0.80
0.10
0.40
15.00
9.00
—
0.10
—
3.80
1.00
1.10
1.00
0.50
8.70
2.20
0.20
0.03
—
4.50
4.10
2.50
4.10
1.00
5.80
4.20
0.90
0.10
0.02
4.60
5.20
2.50
5.20
0.60
5.00
5.30
1.30
2.30
0.02
2.80
24.00
2.10
24.00
0.40
0.60
1.70
0.10
3.90
0.02
1.90
27.00
2.20
27.00
0.10
0.40
1.80
0.05
3.30
—
8.10
2.20
0.30
2.20
1.40
14.80
2.40
0.10
0.10
*Herrington, R.C., D.E. Honaker, and B.C. Ward. Baltimore iandgard® Process
Characterization. Monsanto Envirorhem Systems, Inc., No. 7240. St. Louis,
Missouri, 1976. Table zO.
tCollected 5/30/75 at 1535.
222
-------
TABLE B-ilD. juEHUMIDIFIER BAY TEMPERATURE AND VELOCITY DATA*
BAY
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
_ .
MEAN
TEMPERATURE
(°C)
49.50
49.35
49.37
48.71
49.07
50.16
MEAN
VELOCITY
(MPM)
338.3
232.9
280.8
287.0
338.7
334.2
FLOW RATE
(ACMM)
4526.7
4333.0
3757.7
3840.2
4531.2
4471.3
FLOW RATE
(DSCM@210C)
2113.9
2024.3
1755.5
1797.7
2118.8
2083.7
*Herrington, R.C., D.E. Honaker, and B.C. Ward. Baltimore Landgard® Process
Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems, Inc., No. 7240. St. Louis,
Missouri, 1976. Tables 20 and 30.
223
-------
TABLE B-116. MASS SPECTROPHOTOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF DEHUMIDIFIER GASES* (VOLUME %)
Date
Time
7/24/75
7/24/75
Carbon Dioxide
Argon
Carbon Monoxide
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Methane
Hydrogen
0.59
0.73
0.21
20.45
78.00
0.61
0.73
0.12
20.38
78.15
*Herrington, R»C., D.E. Honaker, and B.C. Ward. Baltimore Landgard® Process
Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem System Inc., No. 7240. St. Louis,
Missouri, 1976. Table 31.
224
-------
TABLE B-117. ANDERSON PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS OF DEHUMIDIFIER MINISTACK*
Ln
DATE TIME EFFECTIVE CUT
4/22/75 0910
4/22/75 2250
4/27/75 0558
DIAMETER
(MICRONS)
7.80
5.00
3.20
2.20
1.44
0.73
0.43
0.30
0.30
8.20
5.30
3.50
2.40
1.52
0.79
0.46
0.32
0.32
9.40
5.90
3.90
2.70
1.71
DRY LOADINGS
(g/DSCM)
0.053
0.014
0.000
0.009
0.039
0.021
0.021
0.032
0.034
0.172
0.002
0.039
0.014
0.046
0.160
0.103
0.041
0.011
0.300
0.021
0.037
0.037
0.041
WEIGHT
(%)
23.71
6.91
0.00
4.12
17.53
9.28
9.28
14.43
15.46
29.18
0.39
6.61
2.33
7.78
27.24
17.51
7.00
1.96
5.75
3.98
7.08
7.08
7.96
DATE TIME EFFECTIVE CUT
DIAMETER
(MICRONS)
4/27/75 0558 0.89
0.53
0.37
0.37
4/27/75 0646 9.40
6.00
3.90
2.76
1.74
0.90
0.54
0.37
0.37
4/28/75 0354 9.40
5.90
3.90
2.66
1.71
0.88
0.53
0.37
0.37
4/28/75 0455 9.20
DRY LOADINGS
(g/DSCM
0.062
0.130
0.126
0.034
0.048
0.000
0.006
0.032
0.000
0.014
0.062
0.000
0.087
0.112
0.007
0.002
0.016
0.016
0.034
0.124
0.050
0.016
0.087
WEIGHT
(%)
11.95
25.22
24.34
6.64
19.27
0.00
2.75
12.84
0.00
5.50
24.77
0.00
34.87
29.70
1.82
0.61
4.24
4.24
9.09
32.73
13.33
4.24
• 15.38
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-117. (Continued)
DATE TIME EFFECTIVE CUT DRY LOADINGS WEIGHT DATE
DIAMETER
(MICRONS) (g/DSCM) (%)
fO
to
TIME EFFECTIVE CUT DRY LOADINGS WEIGHT
- DIAMETER
(MICRONS) (g/DSCM) (%)
4/28/75 0455
4/28/75 1355
4/28/75 1940
5.90
3.80
2.68
1.69
0.87
0.52
0.36
0.36
9.80
6.10
4.00
2.78
1.77
0.91
0.55
0.38
0.38
10.20
6.40
4.20
2.90
1.85
0.080
0.053
0.053
0.034
0.071
0.057
0.098
0.032
0.064
0.032
0.050
0.016
0.037
0.073
0.130
0.089
0.037
0.059
0.018
0.069
0.021
0.021
14.17 4/28/75 1940
9.31
9.31
6.07
12.55 5/15/75 0150
10.12
17.41
5.68
12.12
6.06
9.52
3.03
6.93
13.85 5/15/75 1711
24.68
16.88
6.93
90.23
87.22
75.94
72.56
69.18
0.96
0.57
0.40
4.00
9.80
6.20
4.10
2.80
1.79
0.72
0.55
0.38
0.38
7.50
4.80
3.10
2.20
1.39
0.71
0.42
0.29
0.29
0.053
0.153
0.178
0.037
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.011
0.014
0.796
0.096
0.025
0.043
0.011
0.016
0.014
0.018
0.055
0.12
0.066
0.009
60.53
35.34
6.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.21
1.46
84.47
10.19
2.67
12.58
3.31
4.64
3.97
5.30
15.89
32.45
19.21
2.65
*Herrington, R.C., D.E. Honaker, and E.G. Ward. Baltimore landgard® Process Characterization.
EnviroChem Systems Inc., No. 7240. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 32.
Monsanto
-------
TABLE B-118. ELECTRON PROBE MICRO ANALYSIS
(E.P.M.) OF DEHUMIDIFIER PARTICULATE*
SIZE RANGE
(MICRONS)
>8.20
5.20-
8.20
3.40-
5.20
2.50-
3.40
1.60-
2.50
0.80-
1.60
0.50-
0.80
0.
0.
30-
50
<0
.30
PERCENT BY WEIGHT
Total
Calcium
Chloride
Copper
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Phosphorous
Potassium
Silicon
Sodium
Sulfur
Tin
Zinc
18.20
2.70
0.01
0.02
0.10
0.10
0.03
0.10
4.30
1.00
0.10
—
0.03
0
3.60
0.20
__
0.04
0.02
0.20
9.50
2.30
0.10
—
0.20
2.60
3.70
0.60
0.10
0.06
0.20
0.20
0.80
17.60
6.70
0.10
—
0.02
11.70
3.70
2.30
::
0.10
0.30
1.10
22.20
14.30
0.30
—
0.10
0
3.30
6.40
0.10
0.10
0.40
2.20
0.10
2.70
12.60
6.50
0.70
—
2.70
5.20
3.00
4.10
0.20
0.40
1.60
1.80
8.90
4.90
0.90
—
2.40
23.40
0.90
12.80
0.30
0.30
4.40
0.10
2.60
0.60
6.80
0.40
—
2.70
0
1
14
0
0
0
4
0
3
1
5
0
—
1
.30
.40
.50
.10
.50
.90
.05
.80
.00
.20
.50
—
.70
38
2
8
0
0
0
5
0
2
2
7
0
— •
1
.90
.60
.40
.20
.10
.20
.70
.10
.70
.20
.20
.30
-
.40
*Herrington, R.C., D.E. Honaker, and B.C. Ward. Baltimore Landgard® Process
Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems Inc., No 7240. St. Louis,
Missouri, 1976. Table 33.
227
-------
TABLii B-119. DEHUMIDIFIER CONDENSATE FLOW
DATE
TIME
FLOW
1/min.
(D.H. Fans On)
FLOW
1/min.
(D.H. Fans Off)
11/16/76*
11/26/76*
11/27/76*
11/29/76*
12/ 7/76*
12/ 7/76
12/ 9/76
12/10/76
12/10/76
12/12/76
12/13/76*
12/13/76
12/14/76
12/15/76
12/16/76
12/17/76
1/11/77*
1/13/77*
1/13/76
1/14/77
1/31/77
2/ 1/77
0310
2000
1130
1715
1230
1015
1315
1635
1805
0945
1230
1605
0930
1745
1015
0940
1630
1020
0930
1230
1430
Average
151
113
182
216
175
155
185
156
152
166
166
156
189
182
197
163
98
189
112
163.3
27
35
31
38
49
32
19
21
25
30
29
30.5
* Monsanto Field Data , unpublished.
228
-------
TABLE B-120. ANALYSIS OF DEHUMIDIFIER CONDENSATE
N>
Date
Time
Acidity
Alkalinity, C03
Ammonia
BOD5
Bromide
COD
Chloride
Flouride
Hardness
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Nitrate
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Phosphate
Phosphorous , Total
Sulfate
Sulfide
Sulfite
7/17/78*
1730
(mg/1)
24
2.4
10
249.95
0.75
1.0
150
8/6/75t 8/6/75t 12/7/76
1145 1400
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1)
2450
3.5
26
560 530 1995
360 587
2.64 3.43
1
0.07
25
424 430
2/1/77 3/1/77
1500
(mg/1) (mg/1)
2900 23,900
1380 32,200
610 4650
360
3.8
4470
11.6
0.0
4/28/77
1630
(mg/1)
5250
36,000
200
0.056
2460
0.8
Average
(mg/1)
8625
24
2.4
3.5
10
26
10416
0.75
475
2530
280
1.9
2.925
1
0.535
25
1587
6.2
0.0
*Herrington, R.C., D.E. Honaker, and B.C. Ward. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization. Monsanto
EnviroChem Systems Inc., No. 7240. St. Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 43.
tHerrington, R.C., T.F. Buss, and D.E. Honaker. Baltimore Landgard® Process Characterization. Monsanto
EnviroChem Systems Inc., No. 7240. St.Louis, Missouri, 1976. Table 14.
-------
TABLE-B-121. MOISTURE CONTENT OF VARIOUS RESIDUE RECOVERY PROCESS STREAMS*
DATE
6/8/76
6/9/76
6/11/76
6/25/76
7/21/76
7/22/76
7/23/76
8/5/76
8/6/76
TIME
2220
0000
2100
0515
1000
1400
1900
1300
1600
1800
1030
1330
SAMPLE
Glass Settling Box
Char
Oversized Floats
Glassy Aggregates
Char
Residue
Glass Settling Box
Glassy Aggregates
Oversized Aggregates
Oversized Floats
Residue
Residue
Residue
• Residue
Residue
Residue
Residue
Residue
Flotation Seperator Sinks
Glassy Aggregates
Oversized Floats
Flume Screen
% MOISTURE
57.8
54.1
77.4
28.8
48.2
29.4
70.1
30.0
41.2
47.9
32.0
59.2
29.1
20.0
19.0
17.3
17.6
15.2
23.4
14.7
75.7
73.2
*Herrington, R.C., T.F. Buss, and D..E. Honaker. Baltimore Landgard® Process
Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems Inc., No. 7250. St. Louis,
Missouri, 1976. Table 18.
230
-------
TABLE B-122. SOLIDS ANALYSIS OF VARIOUS RESIDUE RECOVERY PROCESS STREAMS*
DATE
6/9/76
8/7/76
TIME SAMPLE
0000 Thickener Underflow
Thickener Inlet
2100 Thickener Underflow
Thickener Overflow
Thickener Underflow
Vacuum Filter Filtrate
1400 Flotation Separator Overflow
Glass Settling Box In
1500 Glass Settling Box Out
pH
10.86
9.03
9.02
9.15
10.90
9.25
9.35
9.34
8.84
TDS
(mg/1)
1,546
1,080
1,376
1,146
1,749
343
2,344
370
259
TSS
(mg/1)
74,307
3,207
1,886
95
52,449
12,630
1,163
35,480
811
*Herrington, R.C., T. F. Buss, and D.E. Honaker. Baltimore Landgard® Process
Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems Inc., No. 7250. St. Louis,
Missouri, 1976. Table 18.
231
-------
TABLE B-123. PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF CHAR*
DATE
TIME
Moisture (%)
Volatile Matter (%)
Fixed Carbon (%)
Ash (%)
Sulfur (%)
Joules/KG
Carbon (%)
Hydrogen (%)
Nitrogen (%)
Oxygen (%)
6/9/76
0000
*
AS
REC'D DRY
58.96
4.71 11.48
14.98 36.49
21.35 52.03
0.14 0.34
5398 12,155
39.79
1.04
1.66
6.14
8/7/76
1500
AS
REC'D DRY
40.12
8.12 13.57
16.32 27.25
35.43 59.18
0.16 0.27
5593 9344
31.37
1.23
0.57
7.38
8/7/76
1900
AS
REC'D DRY
44.89
4.98 9.04
7.65 13.85
42.50 77.11
0.12 0.22
3439 6239
17.96
0.60
0.40
3.71
*Herrington, R.C., T.F. Buss, and D.E. Honaker. Baltimore Landgard® Process
Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems Inc.', No. 7250. St. Louis,
Missouri, 1976. Table 19.
232
-------
TABLE B-124. PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF GLASSY AGGREGATES*
DATE
TIME
Moisture <7^
Vnl.afilp Maft-.p.r (5H
Fixed Carbon (%)
Ash (%)
Sulfur (%)
MJ/kg
Carbon (%)
Hydrogen (%)
Nitrogen (%)
Oxygen (%)
6/9/76
0000
AS
RECfD DRY
29.68 _,-
1.70 2.33
1.76 2.41
68.82 94.26
0.04 0.05
.03 .04
r— 4.21
0.47
0.16
0.85
8/7/76
1400
AS
REC'D DRY
21.fil
1.77 2.25
1.07 1,37
75.55 96.38
.—-. -,--.
2.52
0.14
0.08
0.85
*Herrington, R.C., T.F. Bass, and D.E. Honaker. Baltimore Landgard® Process
Characterization. Monsanto EnviroChem Systems Inc. No. 7250. St. Louis,
Missouri, 1976. Table 19.
233
-------
APPENDIX C
ECONOMIC EVALUATION
234
-------
SECTION C-l
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
In this section Arthur Young & Company, an accounting firm that was sub-
contracted to perform the economic evaluation, describes the nature of the
costs associated with the construction and operation of the Landgard system and
presents costs projections on various plant operating and system character-
istics. The presentation of costs is in accordances with the Office of Solid
Waste Management Program's Accounting Format. To achieve a clear understand-
ing of the organization of the section the reader should first familiarize
himself with this format since it describes the manner in which cost data on
resource recovery systems should be presented.
The EPA Accounting Format was developed to facilitate economic compar-
isons of resource recovery systems. Accordingly, two formats are designed
which reflect "actual" and "normalized" resource recovery system costs and
revenues. The normalized accounting format removes the site specific aspects
of the parameters affecting plant costs (e.g., cost of land, labor rate) and
compensates for varying local conditions. The actual accounting format is
designed to reflect costs and revenues of a resource recovery system incor-
porating the site-specific parameters. Thus, the latter format captures the
actual costs and revenues.
The standardized accounting format consists of three components: capital
costs, operating and maintenance costs, and revenues. The capital costs
format categorizes cost by land, site preparation, design, construction, real
equipment, other equipment, contingencies, start-up and working capital, and
finance and legal costs. The operating and maintenance format categorizes
costs by salaries, employee benefits, fuel, electricity, water and sewer,
maintenance, replacement equipment, residue removal, other overhead, taxes
and licenses, insurance, management fees, and professional services. The
revenue format categorizes revenues by recovered material. Definitions of
the subcategorizations are contained in EPA's Accounting Format (Section C-7).
It should be clearly understood that the guidelines and classifications of
costs do not conform to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).
This is discussed at length in Section C-8.
The accumulation of costs and revenues from the above formats yield the
following outcomes:
o Average annual capital costs
o Capital cost per throughput ton
235
-------
o Total annual operating and maintenance costs
o Operating and maintenance costs per ton
o Total revenues per throughput ton
o Net operating cost/profit
In addition, in accordance with the Request for Proposal, capital and
operating and maintenance costs are allocated to seven cost centers. The
cost centers correspond to major subsystems: Receiving; Size Reduction;
Storage and Recovery; Thermal Processing; Energy Recovery; Residue Separation;
and General Plant. Thus, an additional outcome is the derivation of respec-
tive subsystem costs.
Due to the erratic operating status of the plant and continuing equipment
modifications, certain major adjustments to the approach were utilized in the
economic evaluation. Three hypothetical operating scenarios were derived by
SYSTECH and utilized by Arthur Young & Company to support the accumulation
and projection of capital and operating costs. These scenarios account for
the inoperation of specific subsystems (i.e., the material recovery and gas
scrubber system) and the necessity for specific plant improvements (i.e., the
electrostatic precipitator). Additionally, the scenarios compensate for the
limited and erratic operating status of the plant by providing projected
costs and revenues based on varying degrees of plant operating reliability.
Thus, the accounting formats depict projected versus actual costs and revenues.
The scenario parameters presented regarding plant operating status have
been determined by utilizing the actual operating history of the Baltimore
Landgard plant with operating experience from other industrial plants of
similar character. As in any projection, the estimates for Scenarios 2 and 3
are aimed at showing potential operating capabilities of the plant and should
be considered as order of magnitude values.
The scenarios are primarily distinguished by their varying operating
status. The first scenario's operating status corresponds to the plant's
performance during the November 1976 to July 1977 period and is characterized
by frequent plant shutdowns. The second scenario's operating status is based
on an expanded operating staff and more efficient administrative procedures.
It is estimated that the above changes in plant operation can increase by
more than twofold the average continuous plant operating period. The third
scenario's estimates are based on the most optimistic operating conditions
likely to occur given the projected equipment improvements presently being
initiated. As a result, it represents the highest continuous plant operating
period which is based on expected improvements in plant reliability. In the
discussion on operating and maintenance costs, the manner in which scenario
parameters were derived is further explained.
236
-------
SECTION C-2
DESCRIPTION OF THE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM
INTRODUCTION
Originally it was intended that all plant capital and operating and
maintenance costs would be derived from the City of Baltimore's accounting
system. Capital costs were largely derived in this manner (modifications to
capital costs were made to account for expected subsystem replacements).
However, operating and maintenance costs were derived based on projected
plant operating scenarios. This approach was adopted due to the City's
modified accrual accounting system and the erratic operation of the plant
during the demonstration period.
Presented here is a description of the City's accounting system. Incom-
patibilities of the City's accounting system with EPA's format system cannot
accurately depict operating and maintenance costs over a given period. In
addition, the funds in use and chart of accounts (cost categories under each
fund) are described, with accounts comprising costs related to the Pyrolysis
Plant specifically delineated.
The City's accounting system is organized and operated on a fund basis
which is typical of a municipality. In the accounting sense, a fund is
defined as an independent fiscal and accounting entity with a self balancing
set of accounts in which all financial activity related to specific objectives
is segregated and recorded. The segregation and recording of financial
activity for specific objectives is performed in accordance with special
regulations, restrictions, or limitations.
FUNDS IN USE
The City maintains several funds within its accounting structure
including:
o The General Fund which is used primarily to account for the
expenditures of general government.
o Special Revenue Funds which are used to account for particular
revenues such as Federal Revenue Sharing and grants or funds
assigned for specific purposes.
o Debt Service Funds which account for the payment of interest of
outstanding long-term City obligations.
237
-------
o Capital Project Funds in which capital outlays are recorded for
the construction of various facilities.
o Enterprise Funds which are maintained to account for those
activities which are designed to be self sustaining or supporting.
Examples of this type fund are the golf course, civic center,
and water operation funds.
o Intragovernment -Service Funds which are used to account for
those activities that essentially provide service to other
governmental units such as a municipal postal operation, a
central supply store, or a central laundry facility.
o Trust and Agency Funds which account for those funds of others
which are held in trust. An example is funds held to provide
retirement benefits for the City employees.
o Special Assessment Funds which are used to account for the
activity of any levy made by the City which is meant to finance
only a specific activity such as off-street parking facilities
which are privately owned but City financed.
In addition to maintaining the above funds within the accounting system,
the City also maintains a General Fixed Asset group of accounts and a General
Long-Term Debt group of accounts. These accounts reflect the acquisition of
tangible assets used to conduct the general functions of government, such as
small item purchases, and the issuance and retirement of long-term debt
instruments.
The financial activities which specifically relate to the construction
and maintenance of the Baltimore Landgard plant, including grant funds
received, are recorded in the General Fund and Capital Projects Fund.
BASIS OF ACCOUNTING APPLICABLE TO LANDGARD PROJECT
The City of Baltimore accounting records, and subsequently the financial
statements, of the General Fund and Capital Projects Fund are maintained or
prepared on a modified accrual basis of accounting. Under a modified accrual
basis of accounting, revenues are recorded when received in cash, except
revenues which are considered both measurable and available for current year
appropriation financing. Expenses are recorded when liabilities are incurred,
regardless of when an outflow of cash is experienced, except for accrual
annual leave which is reflected in expenses when actually paid. As a result,
operating and maintenance costs recorded during the given time period may not
represent actual incurred costs. Rather, these costs may cover expenses
attributed to other time periods. For example, fuel purchased in May would
be expended in full for that period. However, the quantity purchased may
cover a six month consumption period. Therefore, the fuel costs for May
would be overstated.
238
-------
CHART OF ACCOUNTS AND INTERNAL COST IDENTIFICATION
The City of Baltimore maintains a chart of accounts which permits
varying degrees of cost/revenue identification depending on whether Balance
Sheet (capital costs) or Income Statement (revenues and operating and
maintenance costs) accounts are under consideration. The account format used
by the City is as follows:
o Operating Expense identification available through utilization
of the chart of accounts consists of the following items with
examples relating to the Pyrolysis Plant provided in
parenthesis:
- Fund (General Fund)
- Department (Refuse Disposal)
- Activity (Pyrolysis Plant)
- Class of Expense (Operations, Maintenance and Repair, or
General Expense)
- Object of Expense (Salaries and Wages, Other Personnel
Costs, Contractual Services, Materials and Supplies,
Equipment Replacement, Additional Equipment)
- Sub-object of Expense (i.e., Regular Salaries, Temporary
Salaries, Overtime, Vacation/Leave, etc.)
o Capital cost identification available through the system consists
of the following, with examples relating to the Pyrolysis Plant
provided in parenthesis:
- Identification of capital projects fund (Sanitation)
- Construction Program (Incinerator)
- Project (Pyrolysis Plant)
- Subprojects (Extra Work, Design and Studies, Site,
Inspection, Structures and Improvement, Utilities,
Furniture, and Equipment, General)
- Sub-object (i.e., Salaries, Labor, Various Benefits, Test
Borings, Advertising, Surveys, Demolition, Relocation,
Paving, etc.)
o Revenue from operation of the Pyrolysis Plant can be identified
through the accounts as follows:
- Revenues from sale of ferrous metals
- Revenue from sale of steam
FINANCIAL REPORTS AND LEDGERS AVAILABLE
On a periodic basis, the City produces the following reports and ledgers:
o The Annual Financial Report
o The Monthly Financial Report (further discussed below)
o Detailed Monthly Journals and Ledgers
239
-------
The Monthly Financial Report^is presented in three formats.
o The Level I Report is a summary monthly financial statement at
program level (Refuse Disposal)
o The Level II Report is a cumulative summary financial statement
with additional data provided such as method of Refuse
Disposal (Pyrolysis Plant)
o The Level III Report provides detailed data in the form of a
listing of all transactions, by program and each transaction
for each program (e.g., Refuse Disposal), by activity (e.g.,
Pyrolysis Plant), object summary (e.g., Salaries and Wages),
and sub-object (e.g., Regular Salaries)
o In addition to the detailed Level III Report for operating
expenses, a similar report entitled the Capital Expenditure
Extract is prepared which details each transaction and cost
over the life of a project. The Capital Expenditure Extract
details tranactions by capital project fund (e.g., Sanitation),
by program (e.g., Incinerator), by project (e.g., Pyrolysis
Plant), sub-projects (Design and Studies), and by sub-object
(e.g., Consultants).
All costs relating to the Pyrolysis Plant were researched and accumulated
from the Level III Report (operating.and maintenance expenses) and the Capital
Expenditure Extract.
GENERAL COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS OF CITY ACCOUNTING
SYSTEM AS APPLICABLE TO LANDGARD
In relation to the determination of costs per EPA guidelines specific
incompatibilities of the municipal accounting system include the following:
o Costs are not accumulated by functional cost center as identi-
fied by EPA. This precludes accurate accumulation of costs for
comparison of different waste recovery systems.
o Transactions are recorded on a modified accrual basis rather
than an Enterprise Fund. The modified accrual basis does not
provide for a proper matching of revenue and expense. As a
result, such transactions as the purchase of fuel is recorded
as fully expensed in the period purchased, whether or not the
quantities of fuel are consumed in total during that period.
This creates distortions in recorded expenses.
o Capital assets are not subject to depreciation, thereby under-
yearly operating and maintenance expenses.
Currently, the City is accounting for the Landgard operating expenses
under the General Fund on a modified accrual basis. In municipal accounting
such activities are normally accounted for in an Enterprise Fund. Enterprise
240
-------
Funds by their nature employ full accrual accounting procedures. A full
accrual accounting system is one whereby revenues are recorded when earned
and expenses are recorded when incurred. It is through this basis of
accounting that a realistic and meaningful relationship between revenues and
expenses can be developed. This proper matching of revenues and expenses is
necessary for true net income or loss measurement to be achieved. Therefore,
if an operation such as the Pyrolysis Plant were expected to pay at least in
part for its operation through the sale of processing by-products, the full
accrual basis of accounting would be most appropriate. If a full accrual
system were employed, depreciation on the plant facilities would also be
recorded as an expense over some estimated useful life of the facility, and
through the Enterprise Fund, would be recognized as a bona-fide expense of
doing business.
The above mentioned differences in accounting approaches (between EPA,
municipal practices, and GAAP) should be carefully considered when comparing
Landgard economics with those of other processes employing resource recovery
from solid waste.
241
-------
SECTION C-3
CAPITAL COSTS
INTRODUCTION
The most basic element in examining the economics of the Baltimore
Landgard Plant is the determination of incurred costs. Every activity under-
taken as part of the design, construction, and operation of the facility is
included in these costs; and once these costs are determined they must be
categorized as either capital costs or operating costs. In this section,
capital costs relating to the Baltimore Landgard Plant are examined.
Capital costs of a waste treatment plant include the cost of such
property or asset until it has been placed in position and properly operating.
All costs incurred in placing an asset in this status are proper inclusions
of the capital cost.
Once the capital costs incurred by the City of Baltimore were identified,
they were classified according to EPA guidelines. The guidelines included
two formats. The first format coincides with the Office of Solid Waste
Management Program's Accounting Format (Section C-7). Under this format,
capital costs are subcategorized as Land, Site Preparation, Design, Construc-
tion, Real Equipment, Other Equipment, Contingencies, Start up and Working
Capital, and Financing and Legal.
The second format coincides with the seven EPA delineated cost centers
(as cited in the Request for Proposal) which are:
o Receiving
o Size reduction
o Storage and recovery
o Thermal processing
o Energy recovery
o Residue separation
o General plant
Each of the cost centers correspond to a plant subsystem, thus, providing for
an economic analysis and comparison of subsystems costs.
The guidelines from the Accounting Format are not consistent with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. The conditions and extent of the
departure from Generally Accepted Accounting Principles are discussed in
Section C-8.
242
-------
METHODOLOGY
Costs billed for the Pyrolysis Plant were identified through examination
of the City of Baltimore's accounting records. As previously described in
the "Description of City Accounting System," capital expenditures related to
the Pyrolysis Plant are charged to Capital Projects Fund accounts. All of
Monsanto's Original Contract expenditures and most, but not all, of the
Supplemental Agreement expenditures are contained in these accounts.*
Once expenditures relating to the capital costs were ascertained, a
research and review of the Capital Extract listing was made. The Extract
categorizes all expenditures by class description (i.e., Extra Work, Design &
Studies, Site, Inspection, Structures, Utilities, Furniture and General; see
Table C-l). Under each class description there is a cumulative listing of
the voucher or check numbers which represent cost transactions. Through an
examination of selected source documents relating to the voucher/check
numbers, approximately 98 percent of the Extract costs were researched.
Expenditures were investigated and scrutinized to determine whether they
were (1) were properly chargeable to the project, (2) were properly classified
as capital expenditures as opposed to operating expenses, (3) were materially
accurate for reclassification per EPA guidelines and cost centers.
During the detailed review, certain adjustments to the reported amounts
were necessary because certain operating and maintenance costs were charged
as capital expenditures, and vice versa.
Additionally, certain costs were difficult to classify per EPA class-
ifications, and as a result, some deviations to the EPA guidelines were
necessary. These classification deviations included the following:
o Site Preparation: The inclusion of the cost of improvements
to the raw land including, but not limited to, roads, side
walks, curbs, and landscaping; in addition to the specified
costs of relocating present tenants and disposal site prepara-
tion.
o Land: The inclusion of raw land and landscaping costs, in
addition to land acquisition costs.
It was also ascertained that, due to insufficient data, many expenditures
cannot be separated as to their Construction and Real Equipment components.
To segregate costs by Construction and Real Equipment it is necessary to have
access to engineering estimates which include the labor input factor per
equipment item. However, this data was not available. This situation was
particularly acute for expenditures related to the Supplemental Agreement.
For the most part, the Supplemental Agreement invoices exhibited integrated
cost items encompassing both Construction and Real Equipment.
*As of,March 3, 1977, costs of $404,593 which were incurred by Mxmsanto
for the construction of the plant were not recorded in the Capital Expenditure
Extract.
243
-------
TABLE C-l. RESEARCH SUMMARY CAPITAL EXPENDITURE EXTRACT AS OF 3/31/77
CLASS
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
DESCRIPTION
Extra Work
Design & Studies
Site
Inspection
Structures*
Utilities
Furniture & Equipment
General
Additional Equipmentt
Total
TOTAL
$ 803,439
59,662
577,032
5,345
18,242,873
49,509
3,199
48,461
338,303
$20,127,823
RESEARCHED
$ 803,439
18,165
513,951
-0-
18,150,899
27,898
-0-
-0-
261,521
$19,775,873
* As of 3/31/77 The Capital Expenditure Extract did not include approximately
$404,593 in unbilled costs incurred by Monsanto relating to the Supplemental
Agreement.
t Recorded as Operating & Maintenance Expenses
244
-------
The Monsanto Original Contract invoices were generally itemized (i.e.,
design, engineering, procurement, etc.). The invoices did not provide
sufficient detail to identify or allocate costs to specific equipment items.
Therefore, Original Contract allocation to cost centers were made on the
basis of Monsanto's computer printout which delineated costs to equipment
items from the generalized invoices.
The results of the capital cost analysis are illustrated in Tables C-2
and C-3. Table C-2 displays the costs in accordance with EPA Accounting
Format. Table C-3 displays the costs in accordance with EPA's delineated
cost centers.
As illustrated, the net capital costs in each exhibit are equal and
total $20,532,416. This results from adding the $404,593 in unbilled costs
incurred by Monsanto to the $20,127,823 in costs recorded in the Capital
Expenditure Extract (Table C-l).
EXCLUSIONS AND ADDITIONS
To facilitate economic comparison with other resource recovery systems,
the capital costs were adjusted to state more accurately the costs that would
be incurred if the plant were duplicated elsewhere. Therefore, as part of
the financial review of the capital costs incurred on the Pyrolysis Plant, an
investigation of certain cost exclusions and additions to the project were
performed.
These adjustments account for the plant's experimental status, the
inoperation and replacement of plant subsystems, and the inclusion of speci-
fied EPA cost elements not included in the Capital Expenditure Extract. The
cost exclusions/additions relating to replaced and inoperative subsystems are
consistent with the scenario parameter development by SYSTECH for the pro-
jection of operating and maintenance costs. A discussion of these additional
adjustments follows.
Unique and Non-Recurring Costs
Unique costs attributable to the Baltimore Plant's status as a demon-
stration project would not recur if a similar faculty were built elsewhere.
These include costs of annual engineering services, research and development,
extra shakedown costs, unanticipated construction modifications and additional
performance testing.
An analysis of all recorded costs revealed that such unique and non-
recurring costs were contained within Monsanto's Original Contract costs and
Supplemental Agreement costs. Of the $14,742,000 in Original Contract costs
approximately $1,648,649 (11.2 percent) were defined by Monsanto EnviroChem
Systems as "Unique and Non-recurring" if a similar facility were built
elsewhere. Monsanto's breakdown of the costs is as follows;
245
-------
TABLE C-2. A SUMMARY OF EPA CAPITAL COST CLASSIFICATIONS
Title description
92 Extra work
'.'3 Design studies
/M Site
115 Inspection
Ilk Structures and
improvements:
original contract
supplemental agreement
other costs
#7 Utilities
#8 Furniture and equipment
#9 General
Additional equipment
Total
Land
—
$486,411
—
46,208
—
45,870
—
—
—
—
578,489
Site preparation
$121,343
—
27,540
—
400,991
—
—
—
—
—
—
549,874
Design
$11,500
18,165
—
—
1,144,040
—
—
—
—
—
—
1,173,705
Construction
$194,243
—
—
—
6,708,838
3,804,385
—
27,898
—
—
—
10,735,364*
Real
equipment
$380,854
—
—
—
5,741,248
—
—
—
—
—
10,758
6,132,860V
Other
equipment
$95,499
~
—
—
599,765
—
—
—
—
—
250,763
946,027
Financing Cost not
and legal researched
_— __
$41,497
63,081
5,345
$64,000 36,910
—
147 55,064
21,611
3,199
48,461
76,782
64,147 351,950§
Total
$803,439
59,662
577,032
3,345
]4, 742,000
3,804,385
101,081
49,509
3,199
48,461
338,303
20.532.416H
* $4,108,039 of these costs include both real equipment and construction costs that cannot be separated.
+ $371,587 of these costs include both real equipment and construction costs that cannot be separated.
§ The $351,950 represents costs not researched through examination of vouchers and is only 1.7% of the total costs.
11 This sum includes $404,593 of unbilled supplemental agreement costs.
-------
TABLE C-3. SUMMARY COST CENTER DISTRIBUTIONS
Title
descriptions
112 Extra work
#3 Design and
., studies
#4 Site
#5 Inspection
96 Structures and
improvements:
original contract
supplemental agreement
other costs
#7 Utilities
#8 Furniture and
equipment
09 General
Additional equipment
Total
Size Storage and
Receiving reduction recovery
--
—
—
—
$1,339,006 $1,230,067 $1,122,649
13,756 296,431 92,614
—
—
—
—
2,605 5,547
1,355,367 1,532,045 1,215,263
Thermal
processing
—
__
—
$4,400,025
2,628,861
__
—
2,606
7,031,492
Energy
recovery
$ 127,645
—
2,840
—
3,083,785
330,542
—
__
—
__
--
3,544,812
Residue
separation
— _
—
—
—
$857,626
24,400
—
—
—
—
17,941
899,967
General
plant
$ 675,794
18,165
511,111
—
2,708,842
417,781
46,017
27,898
—
—
232,822
4,638,430
Other
costs*
___
$ 41,497
63,081
5,345
—
—
55,064
21,611
3,199
48,461
76,782
315,040
Total
$ 803,439
59,662
577,032
5,345
14,742,000
3,804,385t
101,081
49,509
3,199
48,461
338,303
20,532,416
* Not researched or identified.
t This sum includes $404,593 of unbilled supplemental agreement costs.
-------
Development Cost $ 362,400
Pre-Contract Costs 270,000
Undeveloped Design Costs 152,000
Unanticipated Relocation
and Modification Costs 610,000
Start-up and Training Costs 140,000
TOTAL COSTS $1,534,400
PROFIT* $ 114,249
TOTAL $1,648,649
Thus, all original conctact costs were deflated by 11.2 percent to compensate
for the inclusion of non-recurring costs attributable to the experimental
status of the plant.
The Supplemental Agreement also contained cost items considered as
unique, and non-recurring, and attributed to the plant's status as a demonstra-
tion project. Of the $3,804,385 in Supplemental Agreement costs, $3,084,517
of these costs' were identified as non-recurring (unanticipated plant modifica-
tion and replacement costs). The $3,084*517 iti non-recurring costs were
derived through a detailed review of Supplemental Agreement expenditures.
All cost items were classified as either exclusions or additions to the total
project costs. Exclusions reflected those costs which, if corrective measures
were taken, would not be duplicated elsewhere. For example, expenditures
which covered defective design, incorrect placement, general repair costs,
and replacement items were categorized as exclusions. Additions reflected
costs which were recurring in nature. These included typical installation
and procurement costs for the placement of assets in operation. All categori-
zation of Supplemental Agreement costs were corroborated by the Plant Manager.
In Section C-9, the categorization of Supplemental Agreement cost items are
presented.
Contributed or Nominal Cost Items
Through inquiries and examinations of the plant's assets and the City of
Baltimore's accounting records, no capital contributions were found to be
associated with the project.
Residue Separation and Gas Scrubber Systems
Due to the nonfunctioning status of the residue separation and gas
scrubber systems, the costs associated with these systems were deducted from
total capital costs. First, all equipment items dnd their respective costs
included in each of the system costs were identified. Once system costs were
obtained, they were broken down by source (i.e., the Original Contract and
Supplemental Agreement). To compensate for prior cost adjustments, the last
*This amount was imputed by Arthur Young & Company as the profit associ-
ated with the unique and non-recurring costs (11.2 petcent of a total profit
of $1,021,600).
248
-------
step involved the restating of costs to reflect the deflation of Original
Contract costs and the Supplemental Agreement Cost exclusions.
Indirect costs associated with general plant expenditures that were
included in the residue separation system costs have been deducted on a
proportional basis. Since the electrostatic precipitator (ESP) is replacing
the gas scrubber system, it was assumed that the gneral plant expenditures
associated with the gas scrubber system would be reallocated to the ESP.
The costs imputed for the residue separation and gas scrubber systems were
$1,031,218 and $696,306, respectively.
Electrostatic Precipitator
The City of Baltimore has authorized funds to be expended for the
construction of an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) to replace the gas
scrubber system. As a result, plant capital costs were adjusted to reflect
the cost of the ESP and the exclusion of the gas scrubber system. The cost
of the ESP was estimated at $2,571,500 based on City of Baltimore contract
awards.
Residue Disposal
As required by the EPA Accounting Format, part of the total capital costs
incurred for the Pyrolysis Plant were to include residue disposal costs. To
accomplish this, it was necessary to determine the portion of the development
costs of the appropriate landfill attributable to the Pyrolysis Plant.
Landfill costs were based on the cost and capacity of the City's
current landfill servicing the Pyrolysis Plant, yielding a cost per cubic
meter. By estimating the number of cubic meters necessary for the disposal
of residue for the plant over its useful life, it was then possible to derive
landfill costs. SYSTECH had recorded data on processed waste weight reduction
and bulk density per cubic meter. A detailed description of how landfill
costs were computed and allocated to the EPA classifications is contained in
Section C-10.
The three operating scenarios affect landfill costs due to varying plant
throughput rates. Subsequently, the amount of waste processed affects
imputed residue disposal costs. As a result, three landfill disposal costs
are presented.
Indirect Costs
As required by the EPA Accounting Format, all indirect costs attributable
to the plant but not recorded in any formal manner were to be included in the
total capital costs.
Indirect costs which were not recorded as part of the Pyrolysis Plant
project consisted of financing and legal costs. Recorded within the City of
Baltimore accounting records were approximately $60,000 for this type expense.
An examination of the $60,000 in expenditures revealed that they did not
249
-------
relate to the issuance of bonds. As a result of unrecorded bond finance and
legal costs in the Capital Funds account for the Pyrolysis Plant, we imputed
a cost utilizing a 2 percent rate suggested for normalization of costs in the
EPA guidelines (also see EPA Financing, SW-1573, p. 14, Table 2). This rate
was applied to the total capital costs for each of the three operating
scenarios.
Although the City did not issue bonds for the total capital cost of the
project, total costs were applied to the 2 percent rate to facilitate compar-
ison with other resource recovery systems which do not receive State or
Federal grants.
Restatement of Capital Costs in 1977 Dollars
In order to present plant replacement costs in the current year, all
capital costs were restated in second quarter 1977 dollars. This methodology
involved developing conversion factors for each cost segment (i.e., Original
Contract, Supplemental Agreement, electrostatic precipitator, landfill costs,
finance charges, and other costs) and applying these conversion factors to
each cost segment's prior dollar amount. The conversion factors were derived
from the Federal Reserve Composite Wholesale Industrial Index and the con-
struction period of the cost segment (Table C-4). Table C-5 illustrates the
impact of the exclusions and additions on total capital costs.
CLASSIFICATION OF COSTS PER EPA's ACCOUNTING FORMAT
Capital costs incurred and subsequently adjusted were then classified
according to EPA guidelines set forth in the "Accounting Format" (Section C-7).
To complete EPA's capital cost format, the estimated useful life of the
facility and total interest to be paid, had to be determined.
Estimated Useful Life of the Facility
The useful life of the facility was determined through reference to
Internal Revenue Service guidelines for depreciable assets. The IRS depre-
ciation regulations, as set out in Rev. Proc. 72-10, state that the useful
life for solid waste disposal plants has a lower limit of 14.5 years. With
due consideration given to the fact that the Pyrolysis Plant is experimental,
the utilization of the lower limit useful life seems appropriate.
As a means of testing the validity of the 14.5 year useful life inquiries
were made of select vendors. Table C-6 lists the results of the inquiry of
respective vendors.
On a cost basis, the estimated useful life based on the above equipment
items is between 17 and 18 years. This does not greatly differ from the IRS
lower limit.
Interest to be Paid
The Baltimore Landgard project was primarily financed through:
(1) proceeds from the sale of City owned real estate which was designated
250
-------
TABLE C-4. 1977 DOLLAR CONVERSION FACTORS
Composite Wholesale Industrial Index
Last quarter 1972 119.1
Last quarter 1973 130.3
Last quarter 1974 165.6
Last quarter 1975 175.4
Last quarter 1976 186.9
2nd quarter 1977 194.0
Conversion Factors
Factor to Restate Original Contract Costs:
2nd quarter 194.0 * {(199.1 + 165.6) * 2} = 1.36
Factor to Restate Supplemental Agreement Costs:
2nd quarter 194.0 * {(175.4 + 186.9 -=• 2} = 1.07
Factor to Restate Landfill Costs:
2nd quarter 194.0 * 175.4 = 1.11
Factor to Restate Other Costs*
2nd quarter 194.0 * {(119.1 + 194.0 -r 2} = 1.24
* Indicates all costs found in the Captial Extract not identified with Monsanto's
Original Contract or Supplemental Agreement.
251
-------
TABLE C-5. CAPITAL COSTS (EXCLUSIONS/ADDITIONS)
Calibration
Costs before
exclusions/
additions
Original
contract cost
items restated
Supplemental
agreement
cost items
restated
Exclusion of
material
recovery
system costs
Exclusion of
gas scrubber
system costs
Inclusion of
ESP costs
Inclusion
of imputted
landfill
costs:
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Inclusion
of inputted
finance
charge :
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Costs
restated
in 1977 $:
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Land
$578,489
573,321
573,321
573,321
573,321
573,321
693,557
935,056
1,054,264
693,557
935,056
1,054,264
849,304
1,117,368
1,249,689
Site
preparation
$549,874
505,030
505,030
505,030
505,030
505,030
505,030
505,030
505,030
505,030
505,030
505,030
668,975
668,975
668,975
Design
$1,173,705
1,045,764
1,045,764
1,045,764
1,045,764
1,045,764
1,072,817
1,127,154
1,153,976
1,072,817
1,127,154
1,153,976
1,448,709
1,509,023
1,538,795
Construction
$10,735,364
9,985,088
6,900,571
6,361,182
5,969,647
7,409,687
7,511,887
7,717,161
7,818,488
7,511,887
7,717,161
7,818,488
9,454,472
9,682,326
9,794,799
Real •
equipment
$6,132,860
5,490,799
5,490,799
4,998,970
4,694,199
5,825,659
5,843,694
5,879,919
5,897,800
5,843,694
5,879,919
5,897,800
7,497,866
7,538,076
7,557,924
Other
equipment
$946,027
878,953
878,953
878,953
878,953
878,953
878,953
878,953
878,953
878,953
878,953
878,953
1,153,825
1,153,825
1,153,825
Finance
and legal
$64,147
56,990
56,990
56,990
56,990
56,990
56,990
56,990
56,990
395,866
407,941
413,902
416,364
428,439
434,400
Other
costs
$351,950
347,822
347,822
347,882
347,822
347,822
380,887
447,299
480,081
380,887
447,299
480,081
471,935
545,652.
582,040
Total
capital cost
$20,532,416
18,883,767
15,799,250
14,768,032
14,071,726
16,643,226
16,943.815
17,547,562
17,845,582
17,282,691
17,898,513
18,202,494
21,961,451
22,643,684
22,980,447
-------
TABLE C-6. EQUIPMENT COSTS AND USEFUL LIFE REPORTED BY SELECT VENDORS
Description Cost Ufful
(years)
Storage & recovery unit $ 367,300 20
Waste heat boilers 829,821 20
Kiln 1,336,209 10
Waste collector conveyor 305,674 20
Waste gas fan 149,618 20
Electrostatic precipitator 2,571,500 20
specifically for capital and economic development (approximately $6 million);
and (2) grants obtained from the State of Maryland ($4 million) and the
Federal Government ($7 million).
Since the interest expense incurred by the City of Baltimore associated
with the construction of the plant was minimal, a cost was imputed which
would represent total debt financing charges. The latest issuance of debt in
the City of Baltimore was in April 1977. The effective yield on the bond was
5.3 percent. Using this most recent interest rate and assuming a 20-year
maturity on the bonds, the imputed finance costs for the project are derived
in accordance with EPA guidelines (for each of the scenario costs).
The summary capital costs in accordance with EPA's Accounting Format
are presented in Table C-7. As indicated there are wide variations in costs
per Mg. This is primarily due to projected differences in the operating
reliability of the plant (i.e., in Scenario 1 the number of operating days is
projected at 104 as opposed to the Scenario 3 estimate of 312 days).
CLASSIFICATION OF COSTS PER EPA's COST CENTERS
In the Request for Proposal, EPA delineated seven cost centers to which
all capital costs should be identified. These cost centers include:
o Receiving
o Size reduction
o Storage and recovery
o Thermal processing
o Energy recovery
o Residue separation
o General plant
All cost elements identified as General Plant were to be reallocated on
a proportional basis according to dollar amount to the remaining six cost
253
-------
TABLE C-7. PROJECTED SCENARIO CAPITAL COST SUMMARY
Item
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Capital cost ($):
Land
Site preparation
Design
Construction
Real equipment,
including replacements
Other equipment,
including replacements
Contingencies
Startup and working
capital
Financing and legal
Other costs
Total initial capital
investment ($)
Estimated useful life
of facility (years)
Total interest to be
. paid ($)
Total capital cost ($)
Annual capital cost ($)
Annual throughput (llg)
Capital cost per Mg ($)
$ 849,000
669,000
1,449,000
9,454,000
7,498,000
1,154,000
416,000
472,000
21,961,000
14.5
13,684,000
35,645,000
2,458,000
67,000
36.70
$ 1,117,000
669,000
1,509,000
9,682,000
7,538,000
1,154,000
428,000
546,000
22,643,000
14.5
14,109,000
36,752,000
2,535,000
203,000
12.50
$ 1,250.900
669,000
1,539,000
9,795,000
7,558,000
1,154,000
434,000
il 582,000
ri
)W
iq 22,981,000
14.5
1A, 319, 000
37,300,000
2,572,000
270,000
9.50
254
-------
centers. Once accomplished, the six remaining cost centers would be identified
with one of three major systems as follows:
Cost Center Major System
Receiving
Size Reduction Waste Preparation
Storage and Recovery
Thermal Processing _
_, „ Energy Recovery
Energy Recovery 5J 3
Residue Separation Residue Separation
Some modification was necessary due to the elimination of the residue
separation system and the addition of the electrostatic precipitator. There-
fore, summary costs were presented for only five cost centers.
All capital costs identified through the Capital Expenditures Extract as
well as additional equipment expenditures, were researched for reclassification
by cost center. For the most part, all Capital Expenditures Extract costs,
exclusive of those pertaining to the Original Contract and Supplemental
Agreement, due to their cost nature (e.g., legal, land acquisition, and site
preparation) were classified under General Plant.
A detailed listing of major plant equipment items was prepa*red from as-
built drawings, operation manuals, and Monsanto computer printouts. All costs
extracted from the Original Contract and Supplemental Agreement computer
printouts were then identified, to the extent possible, with the listing of
majdr equipment items. This was determined through utilization of Monsanto's
Original Contract cost coding system which identified costs to specific equip-
ment items. For the Supplemental Agreement, the invoices contained sufficient
detail to identify costs with equipment items. Costs not identified with a
major equipment item were charged directly to cost centers based on Monsanto's
coincident cost center coding. (A more detailed discussion of the classifi-
cation of costs is presented in Section C-ll).
Once costs had been identified with major equipment items, all equipment
items were identified with one of the cost centers based on the extent to
which an equipment's function corresponded to a cost center's performance
characteristics.
Summary cost center distributions are presented in Tables C-8 and C-9.
In Table C-8, the impact of the exclusions and additions to the cost center
distributions are presented. Table C-9 presents the final capital cost
allocation for each of the three scenarios. The conversion of these cost
center summaries into subsystem costs results as shown in Table C-10.
NORMALIZATION OF COSTS
In the EPA Accounting Format,, guidelines are established for accounting
formats to facilitate comparison and analysis of waste recovery systems. Two
255
-------
TABLE C-8. EXCLUSIONS/ADDITIONS PER EPA COST CENTER
N>
Ul
Calibration
Aggregate
Costa Prior
to Calibration
OrlRlnnl
Contract And
Supp. Agr.
Costs Restated
Exclusion
of Material
Recovery
System Costs
Exclusion of
Has Scrubber
System Costs
Inclusion of
ESP Costs
Imputed
Landfill
Costs
Imputed 22
Bond Finance
Costs
Aggregate Costs
Restated in
1977 Dollars
Final
Cose
Distributions
Original Cont.
Supp. ART.
Other Costs
Tot ill
Original Cont.
Supp. A(-r.
Other Costs
Total
Original Cont.
Supp. Agr.
Other Costs
Total
Original Cont.
Supp. Agr.
Other Costs
Total
Original Cont.
Supp. Agr.
Other Costs
Total
1st Scenario
2nd Scenario
3rd Scenario
1st Scenario
2nd Scenario
3rd Scenario
1st Scenario
2nd Scenario
3rd Scenario
1st Scenario
2nd Scenario
3rd Scenario
(1,648,649)
(3,084,517)
(4,733,166)
( 901,258)
( 9,257)
( 120,703)
(1,031,218)
( 662,545)
( 33,761)
( 696,306)
2,571,500
2,571,500
300,589
904,336
1,202,356
338,876
350,951
356,912
Receiving
$1,339,006
13,756
2. ''05
1.355,367
1,189,260
1,851
2,605
1,193,716
1,189,260
1,851
2,605
1,193,716
1,189,260
1,851
2,605
1,193,716
1,193,716
1,622,605
1,622,605
1,622,605
1,623,000
1,623,000
1,623,000
Size
Reduction
51,230,067
296,431
5,547
1,532,045
1,092,504
158,546
5,547
1,256,597
1,092,504
158,546
5,547
1,256,597
1,092,504
158,546
5,547
1,256,597
1.256,597
l|662,'327
1,662,000
1,662,000
1,662,000
Storage and
Recovery
$1,122,649
92,614
1,215,263
997,099
11,613
1,008,712
997,099
11,613
1,008,712
997,099
11,613
1,008,712
1,008,712
r 1,368,481
1,368,481
1,368,481
1,368,000
1,368,000
1,368,000
Thermal
Processing
$4,400,025
2,628.861
2,606
7,031,492
3,907,956
279,084
2,606
4,189,646
3,907,956
279,084
2,606
4,189,646
3,245,411
245,323
2,606
3,493,340
3,245,411
245,323
2,606
2,571,500
6,064,840
6.365,429
6,969,176
7,267,196
7,584,640
8,254,799
8,585,601
7,585,000
8,255,000
8,586,000
Energy
Recovery
$3,083,785
330,542
130,485
3,544,812
2,738,915
87,941
130,485
2,957,341
2,738,915
87,941
130,485
2,957,341
2,738,915
87.941
130,485
2,957,341
2,957,341
3,980,822
3,980,822
3,980,822
3,981,000
3,981,000
3,981,000
Residue General
Separation Plant
$857. 6J6 $2,708,842
24,400 417,781
17,941 1,511,807
899,967 4,638,430
761,714 2,405,903
9,257 171,576
17,941 1,511,807
788,912 4,089,286
2,266,359
171,576
1,409,045
3,846,980
2,266,359
171,576
1,409,045
3,846,980
3,846,980
4,185,856
4,197,931
4,203,892
5,351,926
5, 164,001
5,369,962
Costs Not
Researched or
Identified
$315,040
5315,040
$115,040
313,040
315,040
315,040
315,040
315,040
315,000
390,650
390,650
390,650
Total
$14,742,000
3,804,385
1,986,031
20,532,416
13,093,351
719,868
1,986,031
15,799,250
12,192,093
710, Ml
1,865,328
14,768,032
11,529,548
676,850
1,865,328
14,071,726
16,643,226
16,943,815
17,547,562
17,845,582
17,28.!, 691
17,898,513
18,202,494
21,961,451
22,643,685
22,980,448
21,961,000
22,643,000
22,981,000
-------
TABLE C-9. CAPITAL COSTS-jER EPA COST CENTER INCLUDING ADJUSTMENTS*
Cost center Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Receiving $ 2,197,000 $ 2,198,000 $ 2,141,000
Size reduction 2,236,000 2,237,000 2,238,000
Storage and recovery 1,827,000 1,828,000 1,829,000
Thermal processing 10,284,000 11,075,000 11,466,000
Energy recovery 5,417,000 5,305,000 5,307,000
Total 21,961,000 22,643,000 22,981,000
Dollar amounts for receiving and energy recovery decrease because of the method of allocation.
The indirect costs (general plant) are allocated based on each remaining cost center's relative
percentage of direct costs. As thermal processing direct costs increase, their subsequent
share of the interest costs increases, resulting in decreased costs for receiving and energy
recovery.
-------
TABLE C-10. SUBSYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS
Scenario Waste Preparation Energy Recovery
1 $6,260,000 $15,701,000
2 6,263,000 16,380,000
3 6,208,000 16,773,000
.
formats are presented, a standardized accounting format, and a normalized
accounting format.
The standardized accounting format and its assumptions are designed to
reflect the costs and revenues of a system incorporating the site-specific
parameters. This gives recognition to varying local conditions such as labor
rates, etc.
The normalized -accounting format also reflects costs and revenues, but
removes the site specific aspects of the parameters affecting plant costs.
This enables a comparison to be made of different facilities by examining cost
differences due to variances in plant design.
The Accounting Format provides guidelines and instructions for converting'
costs to a normalized basis. The results of this normalization for itjhe
Pyrolysis Plant are presented in Table C-ll. \n
Due to unavailable detailed cost information, only 10 percent o*f, the ;
total capital costs could be normalized. Cost components which could not be
normalized include construction, real equipment, and other equipment,. The
construction cost could not be adjusted because of lack of information ;con-
cerning man-hours and overall labor input. Equipment costs could not be i
adjusted due to the lack of information for segregating freight costs.
258
-------
TABLE C-ll. NORMALIZED SCENARIO CAPITAL COSTS SUMMARY
Item
Total initial capital
investment, ($)
Estimated useful life of
facility,'1 (years).
Total interest to be paid C$)
Total capital cost ($)
Annual capital cost ($)
Annual throughput (Mg)
Capital cost per Mg C$/Mg)
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
20,332,000
14.5
21,484,000
41,816,000
2,884,000
67,000
43.00
20,984,000
14.5
21,141,000
42,125,000
2,905,000
203,000
14.30
Scenario 3
Land
Site preparation
Design*
Construction*
Real equipment, including
replacements*
Other equipment, including
replacements*
Contingencies
Start up and working capital
Financing and legal
$ 250,000
88,000
1,449,000
9,454,000
7,498,000
1,154,000
439,000
$ 480,000
168,000
1,509,000
9,682,000
7,538,000
1,154,000
453,000
$ 590,000
207,000
1,539,000
9,795,000
7,558,000
1,154,000
460,000
21,303,000
14.5
21,463,000
42,766,000
2,949,000
270,000
10.90
* Costs are in 1977 dollars.
259
-------
SECTION C-4
OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
INTRODUCTION
The intent of the scope of work for the Baltimore Evaluation was to set
forth the actual costs incurred for operation and maintenance at the
Pyrolysis Plant. These expenditures relate to the acquiring of property or
benefits that do not extend beyond the current accounting period. Once
ascertained, these costs were to be classified according to EPA guidelines
set forth in the Accounting Format (Section C-7), distributed to EPA
established cost centers, and "normalized" in accordance with EPA's Accounting
Format guidelines. However, certain major adjustments to this approach were
agreed upon between the contract officer and SYSTECH and are discussed in
detail in the following section.
METHODOLOGY
Due to the discontinuous plant operations and the incompatibility of the
City accounting records with respect to EPA guidelines, the initial approach
of auditing and gathering of historical information was not possible.
As an alternative, operating and maintenance costs were projected utilizing
engineering and operating specifications provided by SYSTECH.
Parameters and data were provided by SYSTECH for three separate sets of
operating conditions. All costs which are ultimately reflected in the EPA
classification categories were based on this scenario approach. Table C-12
illustrates the three sets of scenario parameters. In addition, Table C-13
presents unit costs for the pertinent operating and maintenance components.
Arthur Young & Company cannot confirm the accuracy of the projected costs
included in the forecasts.
As illustrated in Table C-12, the operating status of the plant has been
broken into four categories: downtime, heating and cooling of the process
area, standby, and normal processing. Each of the scenarios reflect a
different level of plant operation.
Scenario 1 is based entirely on actual plant operating history during
the nine month period from December 1976 to August 1977. During this period,
the plant operated on an average of less than two weeks continuously and was
shut down approximately six days between operating runs. This average cycle
continued throughout the operating period monitored. Thus, during the course
of the year, the plant would be shut down 24 times for a period of 6.5 days
per shutdown. Further, each time the plant was shut down, there was an
260
-------
TABLE C-12. SCENARIO OPERATING PARAMETERS*
Scenario 1:
Scenario 2:
Scenario 3
Operating schedule:
Operating status (days):
Normal processing, t
Standby, §
Heating and cooling, 11
Downtime, **
Refuse feed rate:
Mg/hr
Mg/yr
Steam production (kg/hr):
Normal processing
Standby
Staffing:
Plant manager
Plant supervisor
Clerk typist
Chief operators
Field operators
Ram operators
Equipment operators
Laborers
Scalemen
Engineers
Laborers/chauffeurs
Maintenance supervisor
Electricians
Mechanics
Welders
Oilers
Instrument technicians
Total staffing
Fuel consumption (£/hr):
No. 2 fuel:
Normal processing
Standby
Heating and, cooling
Downtime
24 hr/day, 24 hr/day, 24 hr/day,
6 days/week, 7 days/week, 7 days/week,
24 shutdowns/yr 8 shutdowns/yr 4 shutdowns/yr
104
56
48
157
27
67,000
50,000 (2/3)
35,000 (1/3)
35,000
1
1
1
5
5
3
3
5
1
7
1
2
3
2
40
660
3,260
1,960
0_
264
21
16
64
32
203,000
59,000 (2/3)
35,000 (1/3)
35,000
1
1
1
4
12
4
7
1
1
5
1
2
6
1
1
1
49
660
3,260
1,960
0_
312
18
8
27
36
270,000
66,000
35,000
1
1
1
4
8
4
5
1
1
4
1
1
4
1
1
1
39
660
3,260
1,960
Q_
CONTINUED
261
-------
TABLE C-12. CONTINUED
<•
Gasoline:
Normal processing
Standby
Heating and cooling
Downtime
Diesel fuel:
Normal processing
Standby
Heating and cooling
Downtime
Electricity consumption (kw) :
Normal processing
Standby
Heating and cooling
Downtime
Water consumption (£/day) :
Normal processing
Standby, tt
Heating and cooling
Downtime
Sewer flow (£/day) :
Normal processing
Standby
Heating and cooling
Downtime
Scenario 1:
620
620
93
93
208
208
64
64
2,100
1.109
1,109
142
' 1,595,380
1,195,780
187,780
187,780
395,380
355,780
187,780
187,780
Scenario 2:
620
620
93
93
208
208
64
64
2,100
1,109
1,109
142
1,835,140
1,195,780
187,780
187,780
419,140
355,780
187,780
187,780
Scenario 3:
620
620
93
93
208
208
64
64
2,100
1,109
1,109
142
2,021,620
1,195,780
187,780
187,780
437,620
355,780
187,780
187,780
* Provided by SYSTECH.
t Constitutes processing of waste.
§ Constitutes onstream with no processing of waste.
11 Involves startup and cool-down of kiln.
** No activity, plant shut down.
tt 35 Mg/hr of steam.
262
-------
TABLE C-13. OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE UNIT COST DATA*
Item
Amount
Salary rates (annual, FY 77-78)
Plant manager
Plant supervisor
Clerk typist
Chief operators
Field operators
Ram operators
Equipment operators
Laborers
Scalemen
Engineers
Laborers/chauffeurs
Maintenance supervisor
Electricians
Mechanics
Welders
Oilers
Instrument technicians
Employee benefits rate
(% of salary costs):
Fuel rates:
No. 2 fuel oil
Gasoline
Diesel fuel
Electricity rate
Water and sewer rates
(quarterly basis):
First 141,500 t consumed
Next 1,275,000 t consumed
Any additional water consumed
Chemical costs:
Sulfite
Chelate
$24,250
20,061
7,572
16,277
14,765
14,765
9,518
8,570
7,313
17,326
8,216
17,327
10,360
12,728
10,742
8,216
17,450
16.74
$0.083/£
0.095/£
0.092/£
$0.03/kwh
$0.127/1,000 liters
0.079/1,000 liters
0.053/1,000 liters
$0.616/kg
1.210/kg
* All cost 'information obtained between 5/77 and 7/77.
263
-------
accompanying one day period for cooling the system prior to the downtime and
a one day period for heating the system in preparation for operation.
Therefore, the 24 shutdowns led to 48 days of plant unavailability. During
the demonstration, it was decided to halt the processing of waste on Sunday
to allow the staff to perform necessary maintenance functions. Process
temperatures were maintained by firing additional fuel oil. This scheduled
standby time accounted for another 23 days per year of plant unavailability.
Emergency maintenance or process deviations (upsets) accounted for an
additional day and one half of standby per operating week, or a yearly total
of 33 days of additional standby. Thus, on a yearly basis, the plant is
available for a total of 104 days of onstream time (365 days less 157 days
of downtime, 48 days of heating and cooling, and 56 days of standby).
The operating status changes in Scenario 2 were based on an extension
of the existing plant operation with an expanded operating staff and more
efficient administrative procedures. It appears likely that the above
changes in plant operation can increase the average continuous plant operating
period to slightly over a month. If this is assumed, the number of mainte-
nance downtimes would approximate eight per year. If the number of downtimes
are reduced, most likely the duration of each will increase. Therefore, it
is assumed each duration will average eight days, yielding a total downtime
of 64 days. Heating and cooling periods remain at two days per downtime,
yielding a total of 16 days for heating and cooling. Standby time on Sunday
could be eliminated by expanding the staff to the proper size. The final
assumption made for this scenario is.that standby time for maintenance and
operational emergencies can be reduced to 21 days, 7 percent of the remaining
available time (295 days). As a result, the total available operating time
is 264 days (365 days less 64 days downtime, 16 days heating and cooling,
and 21 days standby).
The assumptions made for Scenario 3 are based on the most optimistic
operating conditions likely to occur, given the projected equipment improve-
ments presently being initiated. This scenario assumes an increase in labor
productivity and a market for all of the steam produced. This scenario's
operating status provides for quarterly, one-week maintenance shutdowns,
accounting for 27 days of downtime. The heating and cooling periods are
again two days each, accounting for an additional eight days of downtime.
It is assumed that annual emergency standby time can be reduced to 18 days
under optimal conditions. These assumptions provide for a total available
operating time of 312 days (365 days less 27 days of downtime, eight days of
heating and cooling time, and 18 days of emergency standby). This estimate
closely corresponds with Monsanto's original projections on the plant level
of operation but was determined on an independent basis.
Other major differences in scenario parameters include variations in
feed rate, steam production, and staffing. Except for the staffing esti-
mates, the scenario parameters are based on SYSTECH and City data findings.
The staffing estimates (for the second and third scenarios) are based on
SYSTECH engineering judgement.
264
-------
Since the kiln is directly fed from the shredder, the kiln feed rate
was determined from shredder throughput. The average shredding rate
according to City records is 27 Mg/hr (30 tph) and the maximum rate is
36 Mg/hr (40 tph). The feed rate for Scenario 1 was therefore established
at 27 Mg/hr (30 tph); the Scenario 3 feed rate was established at 36 Mg/hr
(40 tph) (optimal conditions). The value for Scenario 2 was established at
32 Mg/hr (35 tph) or approximately the average of the other two scenarios.
The steam production rate for each of the three scenarios was determined
by calculating the average hourly steam production (from the City data
sheets) over a two-day period and assuming the feed rate averaged 27 Mg/hr
(30 tph). This yields a steam production rate of 50 Mg/hr (110,250 Ib/hr.)
for the first scenario. Based on a straight line projection of 1.85 Mg
(steam)/Mg(refuse) the steam production rates for the second and third
scenario are 59.2 Mg/hr (130,540 Ib/hr) and 66 Mg/hr (145,500 Ib/hr),
respectively.
CLASSIFICATION OF COSTS PER EPA ACCOUNTING FORMAT
The following sections discuss in general the methodology applicable to
each EPA cost classification.
Salaries
In accordance with the EPA guidelines, salaries were distinguished as
to general and administrative, operating, and maintenance. Salary costs
were then projected for each scenario using the parameters presented in
Table C-13. Salary rates used in computing projected costs were obtained
from the City of Baltimore fiscal year 77-78 budget for the Landgard Plant
and through discussions with plant management. Where salary ranges were
presented for positions, the midpoint of the range was used for cost determi-
nation. The total salaries presented for each scenario are exclusive of
laborer/chauffeur personnel costs. In accordance with the EPA guidelines,
these specific personnel costs are included in total residue revenue costs.
Table C-14 illustrates salary costs for each of the three scenarios.
Employee Benefits
Employee benefits costs were determined by reference to the City of
Baltimore Landgard budget for fiscal year 77-78. A salary benefit factor
was determined by relating projected benefit costs to projected salary
costs. Employee benefits include the employer's share of FICA, contributions
to the employee's retirement system, share of medical and health insurance,
workman's compensation, and health and welfare fund. The 16.74 percent
factor calculated was then applied to total scenario salary costs to arrive
at Table C-15.
265
-------
TABLE C-14. ANNUAL SALARIES (FY 1977-78}
ro
Position
General and Administrative:
Plant Manager
Plant Supervisor
Clerk/ Typist
Subtotal
Operations :
Chief Operator
Field Operator
Ram Operator
Equipment Operator
Laborer
Scalemen
Engineer
Subtotal
Maintenance :
Maintenance Supervisor
Electricians
Mechanics
Welders
Oilers
Instrument Technician
Engineer (50 %)
Subtotal
Total
Scenario
Manloadings
123
1
1
1
5
5
3
3
5
1
1
2
3
2
1
1
1
4
12
4
7
1
1/2
1
2
6
1
1
1
1/2
1
1
1
4
8
4
5
1
•1/2
1
1
4
1
1
1
1/2
Average
Annual
Salary
$24,250
20,061
7,572
16,277
14,765
14,765
9,518
8,570
7,313
17,326
17,327
10,360
12,728
10,742
8,216
17,450
17,328
1
$ 24,250
20,061
7,572
51,883
81,385
73,825
44,295
28,554
42,850
7,313
278,222
17,327
20,720
38,184
21,484
97,715
427,820
Scenario
Salary Costs
2
$ 24,250
20,061
7,572
51,883
65,108
177,180
38,072
59,990
7,313
8,663
356,326
17,327
20,720
76,368
10,742
8,216
19,195*
8,664
161,232
569,441
3
$ 24,250
20,061
7,572
51,883
65,108
118,120
38,072
42,850
7,313
8,663
280,126
17,327
10,360
50,912
10,742
8,216
19,195
8,664
125,416
457,425
* Include 10 percent premium.
-------
TABLE 3-15. TOTAL SCENARIO SALARY COSTS
Scenario Total Salary Benefit Cost
1 $427,820 $71,617
2 569,441 95,324
3 457,425 76,573
Fuel
In the processing of solid waste, fuel oil, gasoline, and diesel fuel
costs are incurred. Number 2 fuel oil is consumed by the kiln and gas
purifier burners in the thermal processing of the solid waste. Gasoline and
diesel fuel expenses are incurred through the transport of waste residue to
and from the landfill disposal site and for internal vehicle operations
(i.e., city cars, bobcats, forklift trucks, dozers, cranes, and front end
loaders).
Annual costs for Number 2 fuel oil were computed by applying the unit
cost of fuel to the amount of fuel consumed under each plant operating mode
(i.e., standby, normal processing, heating and cooling, and downtime) and
the projected number of days per plant operating mode. The Number 2 fuel
oil consumption data was provided by SYSTECH and based on their monitoring
of the different plant operating modes (Table C-12). Unit costs for fuel
were based on information obtained from the City of Baltimore.
For gasoline and diesel fuel, costs were computed in a similar manner
from field measurements. The unit costs of gasoline and diesel fuel were
applied to the amount of fuel consumed under each operating mode and to the
projected number of days per plant operating mode.
The computed fuel costs for each of the three scenarios are shown in
Table C-16.
TABLE C-16. SCENARIO FUEL COSTS
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
#2 Fuel oil $687,798 $545,927 $558,319
Diesel fuel 4,269 5,925 6,521
Gasoline 11,235 17,493 19,746
Total $703,302 $569,345 $584,586
267
-------
Electric Costs
Plant electrical costs are incurred from general utility costs such as
heating, lighting, and air conditioning, and from the operation of plant
equipment items. Plant equipment items which require electricity include
all motors for the pumps, conveyors, fans, and shredders.
Electrical costs were computed based on their unit cost and the amount
consumed. The amount consumed is a function of the operating status of the
plant. For example, during downtime, all motors are off, resulting in
reduced electrical costs. During standby, heatup, and cool down, many of the
subsystems are inoperative (e.g., ram feeders, shredders, etc.) and the
plant electrical consumption is likewise reduced.
Projected electrical costs were based on Baltimore Gas and Electrical
Company (BG&E) recorded demand readings during the varying plant operating
modes. The rates per kilowatt hour used in the cost projections were also
determined through contact with BG&E.
Adjustments to the measured electrical demand data were made to account
for the inclusion of an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) and the exclusion
of the residue separation and gas scrubber systems. Using electrical demand
data for the residue separation and gas scrubber systems as provided by
SYSTECH (100 kw) and estimated electrical demand for the ESP (500 kw) as
provided by a product manufacturer, the estimated electrical demand is shown
in Table C-17.
TABLE C-17. ESTIMATED ELECTRICAL DEMAND
Measured Adjusted
Normal processing 1800 2200
Standby 1100 1500
Heating and cooling 1100 1500
Downtime 140 140
This resulted in the following annual electrical costs for each of the
three scenarios:
Scenario 1: $293,248
Scenario 2: $463,024
Scenario 3: $523,131
268
-------
Water and Sewer Costs
Plant water and sewer costs are primarily attributed to: (1) boiler
water consumption for the generation of steam and (2) water cooling, which
is necessary for the operation of the kiln, shredders, gas purifier, and
main fan. The bulk of the water is used in the boilers for the production
of steam.
Sewer and water costs were computed by applying the City water and sewer
rate structures to the amount of water consumed and sewage discharged under
each plant operating mode. Quantities of water consumed and sewage discharged
were monitored by SYSTECH for the varying operating modes. Rates used in the
cost computations were derived from the City of Baltimore rate structure. As
of October 2, 1977, City agencies will be billed for water and sewer services.
Below are current estimated water and sewer charges for each of the three
scenarios.
Scenario 1: $20,000
Scenario 2: $35,100
Scenario 3: $43,100
Maintenance
This category has been modified from the EPA standard format to include
both replacement and maintenance costs. Rather than listing replacement costs
as a separate item as indicated by the EPA guidelines, it is assumed that any
replacements included here represent minor equipment costs charged to expense,
thereby making these costs synonymous with maintenance and repair. Replace-
ment of any major equipment item which would be of any monetary consequence,
is assumed to be capitalized in an appropriate asset account. For example,
the cost of replacement and repair work for the kiln was included in the
Supplemental Agreement. All costs contained in the Supplemental Agreement
were categorized as capital costs and are identified in the Capital Expen-
ditures Extract.
Due to continuing equipment modifications and the erratic operating status
of the plant, it was not practical to utilize the City's recording the
maintenance and repair costs. From an accounting perspective, since the
plant has not been properly operating and plant modifications are persisting,
maintenance costs recorded during this period are not a good measure of costs.
As a result, our approach involved reference to the Internal Revenue Service
guidelines for maintenance and repairs for solid waste disposal plants as set
forth in Revenue Procedure 72-10. This approach necessitates computing
maintenance costs by application of the recommended IRS guideline percentage
to the total depreciable capital asset base. The rate for solid waste dis-
posal plants is 5.5 percent.
Using the annual IRS guideline repair and maintenance allowance, pro-
jected costs for each of the three scenarios are shown in Table C-18.
269
-------
TABLE C-18. PROJECTED MAINTENANCE COSTS
Annual
Depreciable Maintenance
Capital Asset Base* Expenses
Scenario 1 $20,696,000 $1,138,000
Scenario 2 $21,098,000 $1,160,000
Scenario 3 $21,297,000 $1,171,000
*The depreciable capital asset base for each of the three scenarios was
derived from deducting Land and Finance and Legal classification costs
from scenario aggregate capital costs.
The annual repair and maintenance allowance includes the cost of labor.
Since EPA requests that the cost of maintenance personnel be listed separately,
the in-house labor costs have been deducted, resulting in the following
revised repair and maintenance allowance costs:
Scenario 1: $1,024,000
Scenario 2: $ 972,000
Scenario 3: $1,025,000
Chemical Costs
Even though not part of the EPA format cost classifications, the cost
of chemicals is a significant element in annual operating costs and,
accordingly, should be listed separately in the analysis.
The major chemical expenses are attributed to chelate and sulfite,
which treat and control the water entering the boilers for the production of
steam.
Chelate and sulfite costs were determined by application of their unit
costs to the amounts consumed per ton of waste processed. Quantities con-
sumed were provided by SYSTECH, whereas unit costs were derived from vendor
price lists. The following are estimated chemical costs for each of the
three scenarios:
Scenario 1: $ 3,000
Scenario 2: $ 8,000
Scenario 3: $11,000
270
-------
Landfill Costs
The cost of disposing of plant residue consists of the expenses of
hauling the residue to the landfill and the cost of disposal at the landfill
site. Hauling expenses primarily include fuel costs and direct labor costs.
Costs incurred at the landfill site include labor and material expenses.
The expenses incurred at the landfill site were computed based on the
landfill presently utilized for residue disposal, the Pennington Avenue
landfill. With an estimated operating budget for the landfill of $167,000
for the fiscal year 76-77, the cost of residue was based on the portion of
residue attributed to the Pyrolysis Plant.
As reported by the Department of Public Works, the Pennington Avenue
landfill, which recieves all residue from the plant, has a capacity of
1,644,000 m3 (2,150,000 yd3). With an estimated useful life of three years,
the annual operating and maintenance cost approximates 31
-------
Since each trip to and from the landfill covers a distance of approximately
30 miles, .the fuel cost per trip was estimated at $2.10 (22.7 liters/48.4 km
x 9.4c/liter).
To avoid duplication of costs, the fuel costs derived in this section
are deducted from the gasoline costs presented under "Fuel Cost", in the
summary operating and maintenance expense exhibits.
In summary, the cost of residue disposal for each of the scenarios is
shown in Table C-19.
TABLE C-19. ANNUAL RESIDUE DISPOSAL COSTS
Cost
Total
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Site
Labor*
Fuel
$ 6,000
67,140
3,616
$18,000
47,957
10,880
$24,000
38,365
14,467
$76,756
$76,837
$72,832
*Includes 16.74 Fringe Benefit allowance.
Other Overhead Costs
The City of Baltimore allocates indirect costs to operating departments
annually, in accordance with EPA requirements. Financial Management Circular
74-4, "Cost Principles Applicable to Grants and Contracts with State and
Local Governments," is adhered to in allocating the City's indirect costs and
overhead to the operating departments. However, there is no allocation of
costs beyond the operating departments (e.g., Department of Public Works). To
compute indirect costs related to the Pyrolysis Plant overhead, administrative
costs were allocated in the following manner:
o
o
o
o
Department of Public Works to Bureau of Operations
Bureau of Operation to Sanitation and Waste Removal
Sanitation and Waste Removal to Disposal
Disposal to Pyrolysis Plant
All allocations were made on a pro rated basis. Each subdivision of a
department received an overhead expense based on its proportional share of
total department budgeted expenditures. For example, the Department of Public
Works' overhead expense was $3,062,630. The Bureau of Operations' (a division
of Public Works) budget was 64 percent of the total budget. Therefore, the
272
-------
indirect cost allocable to the Bureau of Operations was $1,960,083. Further
allocations result in $70,840 of indirect and Department overhead costs
allocable to the Pyrolysis Plant (Table C-20).
Other costs included under "Overhead Costs" are illustrated in
Table C-21. During the analysis and determination of costs associated with
the Landgard project, costs were found to exist that were not specifically
mentioned in the EPA operating and maintenance cost guidelines. These costs
are essentially of a fixed nature in that they specifically relate to
general facility operations, irrespective of the level of plant activity.
The amounts were taken from the plant's 1976-1977 budget and should remain
relatively constant regardless of the scenario application. As a result,
total annual "Other Overhead" costs total $195,840 for each of the scenarios.
Table C-22 summarizes operating and maintenance expenses per EPA
classification for each of the three scenarios. Table C-23 summarizes
operating and maintenance expenses per Mg of refuse processed.
NONAPPLICABLE OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Certain costs normally associated with commercial enterprise are not
always incurred in a municipally run plant facility. Whereas a private con-
cern would be required to pay assorted taxes and license fees, the Baltimore
Landgard facility is exempt from such charges. Furthermore, under normal
circumstances, private businesses incur financial expenses associated with
management fees, legal fees, and other professional services. Where the
City provides these types of services to the plant, such services are not
chargeable directly to the Landgard budget but rather are passed on through
the Department of Public Works to the plant, on a proportional basis, as
general overhead expense (Table C-20). Insurance costs are handled similarly.
As a result, no costs are found under the EPA Classifications' Taxes and
Licenses, Insurance, Management Fees, and Professional Services.
CLASSIFICATION OF COSTS TO COST CENTERS
Computed Scenario 1 operation and. maintenance costs were allocated to
the seven EPA established cost centers (Table C-24). The basis used in the
allocation process for each of the expenses is described as follows:
Salaries and Employee Benefits
Due to the unavailability of manpower allocation data, salaries, and
employee benefit costs were apportioned, based on the plant superintendent's
estimates. A few personnel costs were directly assigned to cost centers.
All other personnel costs were evenly distributed to each of the cost
centers.
273
-------
TABLE O2Q. INDIRECT CITY COST ALLOCATION
Department
of Public
Works
Bureau of
Operations
Sanitation
& Waste
Removal
Disposal Pyrolysls
N>
Indirect Costs
To Public Works*
Public Works Administration
Overhead
To Bureau of Operations
$2,663,542
399,088
3,062,630
$1,960,Q83
To Sanitation & Waste Removal
$646,827
To Disposal
Disposal Administrative Overhead
$135,834
126,538
262,372
To Pyrolysis
$70,840
This represents the redistribution of costs incurred by Public Building Management, Law, Audits, Data
Processing, Treasurer, Real Estate, Civil Service, Accounting Operation, Purchases, Budgets, Payroll
Retirement Systems, and Insurance for services rendered to the Department of Public Works for Fiscal
Year ended June 30, 1976.
-------
TABLE C-21. OTHER OVERHEAD COSTS
Municipal Telephone Exchange $ 4,000
Laundry and Cleaning 5,000
Rental of Operating Equipment 2,000
Rental of Motor Equipment 100,000
Other Miscellaneous 3,000
Motor Vehicle Funds and Lubricants 2,000
Office Supplies 2,000
Clothing and Footwear 1,000
Business Machine Supplies 200
Custodial Materials 200
Control and Recording Supplies 2,000
Indirect Costs 70,840
Total Costs 195,840
275
-------
TABLE C-22. PROJECTED ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS*
Item
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Salaries t
Employee Benefitst
Fuel§
Electricity
Water and sewer
Maintenance
Chemicals
Residue removal
Other overhead
Total annual operation
and maintenance costs
Operating and maintenance
costs/Mg
$ 428,000
72,000
700,000
293,000
20,000
1,024,000
3,000
77,000
196,000
2,813,000
$42.00
$ 569,000
95,000
558,000
463,000
35,000
972,000
8,000
77,000
196,000
2,973,000
$14.60
$ 457,000
77,000
570,000
523,000
43,000
1,025,000
11,000
77,000
196,000
2,979,000
$11.00
* 1977 dollars.
t Excludes those salary and benefit costs applicable to residue removal.
§ Excludes imput fuel costs applicable to residue removal.
276
-------
TABLE C-23.
PROJECTED ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTEANCE COSTS
PER Mg OF REFUSE PROCESSED
Item
Total cost
Scenario 1
42.00
Scenario 2
14.65*
Scenario 3
Salaries
Employee benefits
Fuel
Electricity
Water and sewer
Maintenance
Chemicals
Residue removal
Other overhead
$ 6.39
1.07
10.46
4.38
0.30
15.28
0.0.4
1.15
2.93
$ 2.80
0.47
2.75
2.28
0.17
4.79
0.04
0.38
0.97
$ 1.69
0.29
2.11
1.93
0.16
3.80
0.04
0.29
0.73
11.04*
* These estimates differ from those in Table C-22 due to roundoff.
277
-------
TABLE C-24. OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS PER COST CENTER (SCENARIO 1)
IS)
>J
oo
Cost classification:
Salaries
Employee benefits
Fuel
Electricity
Water and sewer
Maintenance
Chemicals
Residue removal
Other overhead
Total
General plant allocations:
Salaries*
Remaining costst
Total
Grand total
Total cost
$ A2a,000
72,000
700,000
293,000
20,000
1,024,000
3,000
77,000
196,000
2,813,000
2,813,000
Receiving
$ 22,000
4,000
—
5,000
—
102,000
—
—
—
133,000
69,600
17,800
87,400
220,000
Size
reduction
$ 14,000
2,000
—
34,000
4,000
105,000
—
—
—
159,000
69,600
21,200
90,800
250,000
Storage and
recovery
—_.
—
—
$ 5,000
—
85,000
—
—
—
90,000
69,600
11,900
81,500
171,000
Thermal
processing
$ 44,000
. 7 , 000
688,000
215,000
6,000
479,000
—
77,000
—
1,516,000
69,600
203,100
1
272,700
1,789,000
Energy
recovery
—
—
$ 10,000
10,000
253,000
3,000
—
—
276,000
69,600
37,000
106,600
383,000
General
plant
$348,000
59,000
12,000
24,000
—
—
—
—
196,000
639,000
—
—
—
—
* Salaries were distributed equally to all cost centers.
t The remaining general plant costs were allocated on a pro rata basis.
-------
Fuel Costs
Number 2 fuel oil expenses are allocated to thermal processing. All
other expenses are allocated to the general plant.
Electrical Costs
Electrical consumption data were recorded by SYSTECH for each of the
major pieces of equipment or breaker box which were in turn assigned to a
cost center or module.
Water and Sewer Costs
Water and sewer costs were apportioned to energy recovery and to the
general plant. Water and sewer costs incurred during normal processing,
heating and cooling, and standby, less the general plant fixed costs, were
allocated to energy recovery.
Maintenance
All maintenance costs were allocated on a proportional basis according
to the capital assets associated with each cost center, consistent with the
overall maintenance cost determination.
Chemicals
All chemical costs were allocated to energy recovery.
Residue Disposal
Residue disposal costs were included in thermal processing.
Other Overhead Costs
Other overhead costs were allocated to the general plant.
The general plant cost center was then allocated to the remaining cost
centers on a proportional basis according to cost center capital cost
amounts. This then yields a cost of $641,000 for the waste preparation
system and $2,172,000 for the energy recovery system.
FIXED AND VARIABLE COSTS
Some costs incurred bear a direct relationship to operational levels as
well as general and administrative concentration, making it necessary to
differentiate between the nature of costs. By defining costs as either
fixed or variable, it is possible to project what costs will be at different
levels of plant activity. Fixed costs are conventionally defined as costs
that do not vary over a relevant range of production. That is, if the plant
facility were not in operation, there are certain costs that would continue
279
-------
to occur.. Examples of fixed costs are costs associated with maintaining an
office or headquarters, insurance on the plant facility, interest on debt
service (if any), plant security, etc. Variable costs encompass those
elements of. cost that change or fluctuate proportionally with different
levels of processing. Examples of variables costs are fuel, chemicals,
water, electricity, maintenance, etc. Note, however, that certain portions
of variable costs do have elements of fixed costs as well (some water, fuel,
and electricity will be required to service an office or headquarters when
the plant is operating or shut down).
Since the analysis of historical operating and maintenance expenses
relating to Landgard was limited by discontinuous operations, a classifi-
cation of historical costs into fixed and variable categories was not
possible. However, a cost breakdown was made to analyze the nature of all
operating and maintenance costs, based on projected scenario costs.
Table C-25 illustrates the results. This analysis at a minimum, provides
some insight into plant costs when the facility is processing waste in
comparison to being down.
NNORMALIZATION OF COSTS
Operating and maintenance costs were normalized in accordance with EPA
guidelines using Scenario 1 parameters only. Section 7 illustrates EPA's
Accounting Format normalization guidelines.
Normalized operating and maintenance costs are displayed in Table C-26.
280
-------
TABLE C-25. FIXED VS. VARIABLE OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Item
Fixed
Variable
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Salaries
Employee benefits
Fuel
Electricity
Water & Sewer
Maintenance
Chemicals
Residue removal
Other overhead
$ 52,000
9,000
5,000
37,000
8,000
196,000
$ 376,000
63,000
695,000
330,000
12,000
1,024,000
3,000
77,000
$ 517,000
86,000
553,000
426,000
27,000
972,000
8,000
77,000
$ 40.5,000
68,000
565,000
486,000
35,000
1,025,000
11,000
77,000
Total Costs
307,000
2,580,000
2,666,000
2,672,000
281
-------
TABLE C-26. NORMALIZED ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS
Item
Scenario 1
Scenario 2
Scenario 3
Salaries*
Employee benefitst
Fuel
Electricity
Water and sewer
Maintenance§
Chemicals§
Residue removal
Other overhead§
Taxes and licenses IT
Insurance**
Management fees**
Professional services**
Total costs
Cost per Mg
$ 512,000
670,000
293,000
49,000
1,024,000
3,000
124,000
196,000
2,871,000
42.80
$ 682,000
549,000
463,000
87,000
972,000
8,000
411,000
196,000
3,368,000
16.60
$ 543,000
565,000
523,000
10.7,000
1,025,000
11,000
547,000
196,000
3,517,000
13.00
* Exclude laborer/chauffeur salary costs for landfill disposal.
t Included in salaries.
§ In 1977 dollars.
11 Not applicable to municipally operated plant.
** Included in "Other Overhead".
282
-------
SECTION C-5
REVENUES
METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOR REVENUES
As discussed in "Description of City Accounting System", the City of
Baltimore maintains separate accounts for the recording of revenues from
sales of ferrous metals, nonferrous metals, and steam produced by the
Pyrolysis Plant. However, because steam is the only product being sold, a
complete economic analysis of revenues could not be performed. Accordingly,
the scenario approach is followed for projected steam revenues only.
COMPILATION AND ALLOCATION OF REVENUE
The City of Baltimore entered into a contract with the Baltimore Gas &
Electric Company for the sale of steam generated by the plant. The contract
provides the City with a market for the steam thereby avoiding any signi-
ficant supply and demand problems. The contract provided for a variable
price for the steam based upon the fluctuating price of Number 6 crude oil.
Using the contract formula, the latest available price for steam approximates
$6.88 per 1,000 kg ($3.13 per 1,000 Ibs.) of steam. When this is applied to
the individual scenario parameters, the following revenues are derived:
Scenario Steam Revenues
1 $ 978,432
2 $2,176,612
3 $3,435,494
Scenario 3 assumes a market is found for all of the steam produced,
accounting for a major increase in revenues received.
NORMALIZATION OF STEAM REVENUES
Steam revenues were then normalized according to EPA guidelines. The
guidelines call for using a price of $3.31 per 1,000 kg ($1.50 per 1,000 Ib)
of steam. This results in the following revenues for each of the scenarios:
Scenario Steam Revenues
1 $ 470,400
2 $1,046,448
' 3 $1,651,680
283
-------
SECTION C-6
NET OPERATING COSTS
The net operating costs for each of the three scenarios were computed
by deriving total costs and revenues. The scenarios' actual and normal-
ized costs were transferred from the pertinent exhibits yielding total
costs. Revenues per metric ton were derived by dividing the revenues under
each scenario by annual throughputs. The net operating costs are presented
in Table C-27 and the normalized net operating cost are presented in
Table C-28.
284
-------
TABLE C-27. PROJECTED COST SUMMARY*
Cost
category
Capital costs
Interest
Operating and
maintenance costs
Total costs
Revenues
Net cost
Scenario It
($/Mg)
$22.60
14.10
42.00
78.70
14.60
64.10
($/ton)
$20.50
12.80
38.10
71.40
13.20
58.20
Scenario 2§
($/Mg)
$ 7.70
4.80
14.60
27.10
10.70
16.40
($/ton)
$ 7.00
4.30
13.30
24.60
9.70
14.90
Scenario 311
($/Mg)
$ 5.90
3.60
11.00
20.50
12.70
7.80
($/ton)
$ 5.30
3.30
10.00
18.60
11.50
7.10
* In 1977 dollars.
t Annual throughput is 67,000 Mg/year (74,000 tons/year).
§ Annual throughput is 203,000 Mg/year (223,000 tons/year).
H Annual throughput is 207,000 Mg/year (300,000 tons/year).
285
-------
TABLE C-28. NORMALIZED COST SUMMARY*
Scenario It
Category
Capital costs
Interest
Operating and •
maintenance
costs
Total cost
Revenues
Net operating
cost /prof it
C$/Mg)
20.90
22.10
42.80
85.80
7.00
78.80
CS/ton)
23.00
24.40
47.20
94.60
7.70
86.90
Scenario 2§
($/Mg)
7.10
7.20
16.60
30.90
5.20
25.70
($/ton)
7.80
7.90
18.30
34.00
5.70
28.30
Scenario 31F
($/Mg)
5.40
5.50
13.00
23.90
6.10
17.80
C$/ton)
6.00
6.10
14.30
26.40
6.70
19.70
...
* In 1977 dollars.
t Annual throughput is 67,000 Mg/yr. (74,000).
§ Annual throughput is 203,000 Mg/yr. (223,000).
H Annual throughput is 270,000 Mg/yr. (300,000).
286
-------
SECTION C-7
RESOURCE RECOVERY PLANT IMPLEMENTATION
GUIDES FOR MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS (ACCOUNTING FORMAT)*
The economics of various types of resource recovery systems are difficult
to compare. System technologies vary, capital and operating costs vary,
revenues from the recovered products vary, the recovered products themselves
vary, and the cost accounting methods used to analyze system economics vary.
This paper proposed a method of reporting costs and revenues to aid in com-
paring the costs of various resource recovery systems. The proposed method
includes a standardized accounting format and normalized accounting format.
The standardized accounting format facilitates comparison and analysis
of resource recovery plant costs and revenues by assuring that all cost and
revenue elements are included (or at least that the exclusion of certain
items is identified). Whether based on historical or projected data, the
standardized accounting format is designed to reflect the costs and revenues
of a system, incorporating all site-specific parameters.
The normalized accounting format reflects all costs and revenues for a
system, but it is not site specific. General assumptions for certain costs
and revenues are used. Normalized accounting information is used to compare
systems when site specific information is unavailable or when one wants to
compare costs of different systems. The normalized accounting format pre-
serves and highlights the differences resulting from engineering design while
eliminating differences resulting from site-specific factors.
The accounting format is presented on the following seven tables. Each
item on the tables is explained in the notes following the tables; the
numbers in parentheses on the tables match the numbered notes. Those costs
that cannot be segregated (e.g., design, construction, real equipment)
should be combined and labelled accordingly. (See Tables C-29 through C-35.)
The Office of Solid Waste (OSW) has developed these recommended cost
accounting formats as a means of assisting planners, designers, and decision
making officials in their resource recovery decisions. Other costs
accounting formats available from OSW include collection, incineration,
*Sussman, David B., Resource Recovery Plant Implementation: Guides
for Municipal Officials, Accounting Format. SW 157.6, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1976. 17 pp.
287
-------
sanitary landfill, and shredding. OSW invites users of these formats to
forward the data developed along with a designation of their system to OSW so
that we will be able to compile data from most of the systems for use by
other planners.
288
-------
TABLE C-29. CAPITAL COSTS - ACTUAL (COSTS IN 19 _ $) (1)
Land
Site preparation
Design
Construction
Real equipment, including replacements
Other equipment, including replacements
Contingencies
Start up and working capital
Financing and legal
Total initial capital investment
Estimated useful life of facility (years)
Total interest to be paid
Total capital cost
Average annual capital cost
Annual throughput (.tons)
Capital cost per ton
$
(2)*
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
$
_ (ID
~ (12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
$ (17)
(To Table C-35)
Sources of capital (list)
Source
Amount
Interest rate or
return on investment
Period
Total
(.18)
Throughput calculation: (.16)
(Design throughput, daily) ' (% availability)
x 52 weeks per year =
Cdays per week)
(tons/year)
* Numbers re'fer to notes.
289
-------
TABLE C-30. ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS-ACTUAL (COST IN 19 $) (1)
Salaries $ (19)
Employee benefits (20)
Fuel (21)
Electricity (22)
Water (and sewer) (23)
Maintenance _____ (24)
Replacement equipment (25)
Residue removal (26)
Other overhead (27)
Taxes and licenses (28)
Insurance (29)
Management fees (30)
Professional services (31)
Total annual operating and
maintenance costs $ (32)
Operating and maintenance :
cost per ton $ (33)
(To Table C-35)
290
-------
TABLE C-31. PRODUCT REVENUES - ACTUAL (REVENUES IN 19 $) (1)
Recovered
material
Ferrous
metal
Glass
Aluminum
Other non-
ferrous
Other (list)
Material
Recovered
energy
(38) x
Ton of material
Price per Shipping per per ton of
ton (34) ton (35) throughput (36)
$ - x
- x
- x
X
- x
revenues per throughput ton
Units of energy
Price per Shipping per per ton of
unit . Unit throughput
(39.1 - (35) x (36)
Energy revenues per throughput ton
i Total revenue per throughput ton
Net
revenue
= $
=
=
_
=
$ (37)
Net
revenue
$ (40)
$ (41)
(To Table C-35)
291
-------
TABLE C-32. CAPITAL COST - NORMALIZED ('COST IN 1975 $)
Land $ (42)
Site preparation (43)
Design (44)
Construction (45)
Real equipment, including replacements (46)
Other equipment, including replacements (47)
Contingencies (8)
Start up and working capital (9)
Financing and legal (48)
Total initial capital investment, "N" $ (49)
Estimated useful life of facility (years) (12)
Total interest to be paid (50)
Total capital cost (51)
Annual capital cost (52)
Annual throughput (.tons) (16)
Capital cost per ton, "N" $ (53)
(To Table C-35)
Sources of capital (list).:
Length of
Source Amount Interest rate financing period
Municipal
bond (49). 8% 20 years
292
-------
TABLE C-33. ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS-NORMALIZED (JCOST IN 1975 $)
Salaries $ C54)
Employee benefits (55)
Fuel (56)
Electricity (57)
Water ('and sewer). (58)
Maintenance (59)
Replacement equipment (25)
Residue removal (60)
Other overhead • (27)
Taxes and licenses (61)
Insurance (62)
Management fees (63)
Professional services (64)
Total annual operating and maintenance
costs, "N" $ (65)
Operating and maintenance cost per
ton, "N" $ (66)
(To Table C-35)
293
-------
TABLE C-34. PRODUCT REVENUES - NORMALIZED (REVENUE IN 1975 $)
Ton of material
Recovered Price per Shipping per per ton of
material ton (67) ton (68) throughput (36)
Ferrous
metal $ - x
Net
revenue
= $
Glass x
Aluminum - x =
Other non-
ferrous - x =
Other (list) x
Material revenues per throughput ton
Units of energy
Recovered Price per Shipping per per ton of
energy unit unit throughput
(70) x (70) - (71) x (36)
Energy revenues per throughput ton
Total revenue per throughput ton
$ (69)
Net
revenue
$ (72)
$ (73)
(To Table C-35)
294
-------
TABLE C-35. SUMMARY ($ PER THROUGHPUT TON)
Actual
Normalized
Capital costs
Operating and
maintenance costs
Total cost
Revenues
Net operating
cost/profit
$
(From Table C-29)
(From Table C-30)
$
(From Table C-31)
(From Table C-32)
$
(From Table C-33)
$
$
(From Table C-34)
$
295
-------
NOTES
(1) State what year dollars are used.
(2) Total cost of land acquired for the resource recovery facility. Include
transfer station land if essential part of total system. Include the
capital cost of the disposal site that will take the systems residue or
is required as disposal backup. This site must be large enough to
dispose of all the unrecovered components of the waste stream during the
lifetime of the facility. If this disposal site is used for other solid
waste disposal, include only that portion chargeable to the resource
recovery system.
(3) Cost of site preparation: Include cost of relocating present tenants,
if applicable. Include cost of disposal site preparation.
(4) A and E or consultant cost for preliminary design, feasibility studies,
final designs, checking of shop drawings, inspections during construc-
tion, preparation of operating manuals, operator training, and assistance
during start-up. Explain what items are covered in this category.
(5) Construction costs: Include construction management. (Example:
buildings, structures, and foundations) do include cost of replacement
equipment. See Item 25.
(6) Real Equipment: Include costs of all real property installed equipment.
(Example: processing equipment). See Note 25 for explanation of
replacement equipment.
(7) Other Equipment: Include cost of all ancillary equipment like bulldozers,
loaders, office equipment, and trucks that are necessary for plant
operation. Include operating spares. Include total cost of any leased
equipment, if equipment is leased in lieu of purchase.
(8) State how much capital is reserved for contingencies.
(9) State how much capital is reserved for start up and for working capital.
(10) State cost of bond counsel, legal fees, financial management consultants,
etc. Also include interest on capital during construction less
anticipated short term return on unspent capital.
(11) Total initial capital investment. (Sum of Items 2 through 10).
(12) Designer's estimate; may be longer than financing period, but in no
case will it be less.
(13) Out-of-pocket payments of interest on all debt and fair return
(dividends) on equity (stock) when incurred and discounted back to the
year in which the data is stated.
296
-------
(14) Sum of (11) and (13).
(15) Item (14) divided by Item (12).
(16) Cost per throughput ton. To determine the throughput per year take
design capacity per day (indicate operating hours per day) times
system design reliability or availability (percentage of available
capacity) times number of days of planned operation per week times
52 weeks. Example: 1,000 tons per day x .85 (system availability) *
5 1/2 days per week x 52 weeks = 243,100 tons per year.
(17) Item (15) divided by Item (16).
(18) Must equal Item (11). Include both debt and equity. Interest rate
would apply to debt and fair rate of return to equity. Period would be
designer's life of facility for equity and length of financing period
for debt.
(19) Total annual salaries. Include all personnel that are necessary for
system operation. Include supervisory and administrative personnel.
Do not include any collection costs (garbage trucks, etc.)- Break
down into operating personnel, maintenance personnel, and administrative
personnel. If maintenance labor costs are charged to maintenance so
state and include in Item (24).
(20) Includes employer contribution for FICA, health insurance, pensions,
etc.
(21) All system fuel costs. Process, space heat, auxiliary equipment, bull-
dozers, loaders, etc. (a fuel usage that is charged to the resource
recovery system). List by usage and fuel type.
(22) Total electric bill. Process, office, lighting, heating, auxiliary
equipment, air conditioning, etc.
(23) Include process, cooling, sanitation, lawn care, wash down, boiler
feedwater, etc.
(24) Include all costs, both contractor and in-house. Labor costs may be
included in (19). Building maintenance should be segregated from
process equipment maintenance.
(25) Include yearly expenses. Do not include inventory. Include inventory
in (7). If parts and supplies are included in maintenance costs, so
state. Include in this item funds that are set aside for the replace-
ment of depreciated equipment. State what portion of this item is for
parts, supplies, depreciation, and so forth.
(26) List the cost of disposing of the residue. Include hauling to remote
disposal site and cost of disposal. Do not include capital cost of
disposal site. On-site handling should be included in Items (51), (6),
(7), and (19).
297
-------
(27) List other overhead items.
(28) Include property tax or payment to the City in lieu of taxes, operating
licenses, occupancy, and utility taxes, etc.
(29) Fire, liability, etc.
(30) Payment to system operator (if applicable).
(31) Audit fees, legal fees, data processing, etc.
(32) Total annual operating and maintenance costs. (Sum of Items (19) and
(31).
(33) Item (32) divided by Item (16).
(34) List the per ton selling price of the recovered material products.
Include information on escalator clauses or specifics, such as a price
that is linked to the market price of the material at a specific location.
If some recovered products are sold "mixed"; i.e., glass-aluminum frac-
tion, so state and list revenue for whole fraction.
(35) Freight, handling and demurrage. List the cost of shipping the product
to the market. Include any cost that is charged to the system that is
associated with the sale of the recovered products. Do not include
those items of capital equipment such as trucks or steam lines. This
transportation cost may be reflected in the sale price of the recovered
item (F.O.B.). If so, state.
(36) Number of tons of each recovered product per ton of throughput.
(37) Sum of all material revenues.
(38) State what form the recovered energy is in (steam, gas, oil, shredded
fuel, etc.), and in what unit it is sold (Btu, ton, pound, gallon,
etc.).
(39) List the revenue per unit. Indicate any excalators and state details
of how price per unit energy -may be linked to a specific market, another
fuel, or another energy source.
(40) Sum of all energy revenues.
(41) Sum of Items (37) and (40). If applicable, list revenues other than
for sale of products; e.g., charge for handling sludge, industrial
waste, oversized or bulky waste, or other special waste.
(42) Calculate minimum number of acres that is necessary for plant as
designed. Include disposal site as explained in Item (2). Do not
compress, expand, or refit design when calculating minimum acres
ecessary. Assume $10,000 per acre.
298
-------
(43) Assume 35 percent of (42).
(44) Design cost should be the same as listed in Item (4).
(45) Actual construction cost adjusted to national average using standard
construction cost data and civil engineering index or other standard
indexes.
(46) &
(47) All equipment prices should be F.O.B. the supplier. Assume shipping
charges are 10 percent of total and add to equipment costs.
(48) Assume 2 percent of capitalized costs.
(49) Total initial capital investment, normalized.
(50) Assume that all capital costs are financed with a 20 year municipal
bond at 8 percent interest. Include in Item (50) the total interest
paid over a 20-year period.
(51) Sum of (49) and (50).
(52) Item (51) divided by Item (12).
(53) Item (52) divided by Item (16).
(54) Take the total number of workers that are necessary to run the plant.
This should be the same as Item (19). If not, explain. Multiply this
number by $15,500 yearly salary. This cost includes employee benefits.
(55) Included in (54).
(56) List fuel use as in Item (21). Assume $.60 per gallon for gasoline;
$.40 per gallon for diesel fuel; $2.00 per million Btu for natural gas.
(57) Assume $.03 per kwh.
(58) Assume $.50 per kgal.
(59) Include all costs, both contractor and in-house, but do not include
in-house labor. Labor is already accounted for in Item (54).
(60) Include costs as in (26). Assume final disposal cost of $4.00 per ton
of residue. Assume haul distance is 5 miles.
(61) Assume .75 percent of normalized capital cost.
(62), (63), &
(64) Combine these items and assume $1.00 per throughput ton for all three.
299
-------
(65) Total annual 0 and M cost, normalized.
(66) Item (65) divided by Item (16).
(67) Because of the wide differences in resource recovery technologies, the
output products from different systems may not at first seem comparable.
However, after applying the following assumptions a rough comparison is
possible. List the output material in the form that the system design
will produce; i.e., #2 ferrous, mixed color glass, 90 percent pure
aluminum, mixed metals - 40 percent nonferrous, etc. State the assumed
solid waste composition that is used for this determination and be
realistic when determining how much of aluminum, mixed metal -
40 percent nonferrous, etc. Then assume the material is worth
75 percent of the Chicago market as of 1 April 1975 for similar material.
This is the revenue earned. If there is no Chicago market for the
material a judgment as to what the material is worth will have to be
made. The rationale for this judgment can be included along with
Table VI. The determination of product worth should consider the
market price for similar products, possible letters of intent, actual
sale price (if product was ever sold) and the like. Do not include
shipping.
(68) Assume transportation costs of $6 per ton for glass; $12 per ton for
ferrous; $20 per ton for aluminum and other materials at 25 percent of
expected revenues.
(69) Sum of material revenues.
(70) Energy products are also difficult to compare. Assume the following
prices for energy products.
Steam: $1.50/1,000 pounds
Shredded Fuel: $.45 per million Btu
Pulped Fuel: $.50 per million Btu
Pyrolysis Gas (with useable sensible heat): $1.00 per million Btu
Pyrolysis Gas (no sensible heat): $1.10 per million Btu
Methane: $2.00 per million Btu
Pyrolysis Oil: $1.85 per million Btu
Other Chemical: Average market price as
of 1 April 1975
Electricity: $.03/kwh
(71) Assume shredded fuel transportation costs at $.11 per million Btu; zero
cost for steam, electricity, and gas (pipes and cables should be
included in construction costs); oil at $.03 per gallon.
(72) Sum of energy revenues.
(73) Item (72) divided by Item (16).
300
-------
SECTION C-8
DEPARTURES FROM GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES (GAAP)
The general format and certain assumptions or concepts applicable to the
EPA Accounting Format, (Section C-7), represent departures from Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). As a result, the summary amounts
representing such items as annual capital costs, and annual operating costs,
either in total or on a per Mg (ton) basis, should not be construed as being
amounts determined in conformity with GAAP. Some of the subjects in question
are as follows:
o Financing and Legal Costs
o Land and Depreciation
o Use of Accrual Accounting Procedures
FINANCING AND LEGAL COSTS
The EPA guidelines provide for the inclusion of financing and legal
costs as part of the overall total capital costs. According to the EPA
format, these costs are then to be allocated over the estimated useful life
of the facility. This has the effect of deferring the impact of the
financing and legal costs to accounting periods other than the ones in which
they were incurred.
One of the basic principles of accounting involves the matching concept.
Simply stated, all items of revenue should be recorded in the accounting
period in which they are earned and all items of expense recognized in the
period in which they are incurred. Government regulatory agencies permit the
inclusion of interest costs during a construction period as a cost of the
asset. However, interest is a cost of borrowing funds and not a cost of the
asset being constructed.
The effect of including interest as a capital cost results in an over-
statement of true capital costs and an understatement of the annual operating
expenses.
LAND AND DEPRECIATION
Capital assets, constructed or otherwise acquired, are normally intended
to benefit more than one operating year. Such is the case with respect to
the capital assets of the Baltimore- Plant. As a result, a portion of the
cost of these capital assets should be offset in each operating year against
301
-------
whatever measurable revenues are obtained. This would fulfill the matching
principle disc issed above. Depreciation achieves this end by allocating the
original cost of an item over its estimated useful life.
Included in total capital costs, along with construction costs and
equipment, is the cost of the land in which the plant is situated and
a portion of the land cost of the landfill site. However, land is a tangible
asset that is not subject to depreciation.
The EPA format doesn't provide for including depreciation as an annual
operating expense. This obviously has the effect of understating the
operating cost category.
USE OF ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES
During the initial review stages an attempt was made to determine the
actual operating costs of the Baltimore Plant. A review of the City
accounting system, from which the actual costs were being derived, led to a
conclusion that an accrual accounting method was not being employed, neither
on a full nor modified basis. (See description of accounting methods under
"Description of City Accounting System").
Employment of any basis of accounting other than the full accrual basis
is not in conformity with GAAP. Unles.s expenses and revenues are matched in
the periods in which they are experienced, the results are not accurate.
This condition was one of the factors which subsequently led to the abandon-
ment of the extraction of incurred operating costs and ultimately use of the
scenario approach to project operating and maintenance costs.
RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO EPA's ACCOUNTING FORMAT
Introduction
EPA's Accounting Format depicts the manner in which costs related to the
construction and operation of resource recovery facilities should be
presented. In accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles the
Accounting Format has been analyzed and suggestions for improving the presen-
tation of costs have been offered.
There are two basic ways of organizing costs for presentation or analysis
purposes. One method is to present costs in a cost element format (e.g.,
labor, materials, land, fuel, etc.). EPA's format is somewhat in line with
this approach. The second method is to group costs by functional area such
as maintenance, operation, general overhead, etc. Under this latter format
certain cost elements, such as salaries and employee benefits, appear under
each major functional area.
Both methods provide pertinent cost information and no one method has
universal application. It cannot be said that one method is preferred over
the other. Rather, circumstances and managements needs dictate the use of
one method. However, whichever method is chosen, the governing principle
must be that of consistency and meaningful presentation.
302
-------
The Accounting Format side steps these basic principles of accounting
when it comes to the treatment of costs. The format's offering of select
cost elements is incomplete and inconsistent, especially with the inclusion
of functional categories. For example, under "Operation and Maintenance"
salary and general overhead cost categories are presented, whereas a material
categorization is omitted. In addition, a functional classification such as
maintenance is presented, although by definition it includes salary and mat-
erial related costs.
There are other more obvious inconsistencies with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP). Examples of these departures include the
treatment afforded contingencies, start-up and working capital costs,
financing and legal costs, interest expense, and the absence of depreciation
being treated as an annual operating expense.
Contingencies are not capital costs. A cost, capital or operating is
not a cost until it actually materializes. This by definition excludes
contingencies from this category.
Working capital is a liquid asset requirement to provide a cushion
against anticipated operating expenses. It is usually considered necessary
until revenues have begun to flow to offset the cash outflow. Therefore,
again by definition, this cannot be considered a capital cost.
Financing and legal costs are operating costs and should not be included
under the capital cost category.
Interest expense is also included as a capital cost category. Interest
expense too is an annual operating expsse and a capital cost requirement.
We question the propriety of attempting to ascertain one figure which
purportedly represents total costs, a figure which includes capital costs
plus operating costs. It must be recognized that these two major cost
segments, capital and operating and maintenance, are mutually exclusive and
should be treated as such for analysis purposes. Total capital costs can be
computed, but these costs should be divorced from operating costs. The total
capital investment is normally (in accordance with GAAP) depreciated over
some useful life, with some annual portion being included as a normal operating
cost. To be meaningful for comparison among facilities, a uniform deprecia-
tion policy would also be established for such plant facilities.
The discussion that follows offers suggestions to the format which will
facilitate more meaningful economic comparisons of resource recovery systems
(in accordance with GAAP).
Capital Costs
The purpose of the capital cost format is to capture and identify all
property or asset costs relating to the facility until it has been placed in
position and is properly operating. Based on this premise and on our exper-
ience from the1 Landgard economic evaluation, the following changes to the
format are recommended (Table C-36).
303
-------
TABLE C-36. ACTUAL CAPITAL COSTS*
Land
Site preparation
Design
Construction
Real equipment
Other equipment
Total initial capital investment
Additional capital costs due to design
modifications
Total capital investment
In 19 $.
304
-------
As illustrated in Table C-36, the categories of land, site preparation,
design, construction, real equipment, and other equipment are included in the
format. The only changes to those categories involve their definitions. The
definition for each is as follows:
o Land: Includes land acquisition costs for the facility site
and disposal site.
o Site Preparation: Includes the cost of improvements to the
raw land including, but not limited to roads, sidewalks,
curbs, and landscaping; in addition to the costs of relocating
present tenants and disposal site preparation.
o Design: Includes but is not limited to consultant and/or con-
tractor costs for preliminary design, feasibility studies,
final designs, design drawings, inspection during construction,
preparation of operating manuals, operator training, and
assistance during start-up.
o Construction: Includes the cost of construction, material,
and labor for the facility, exclusive of equipment purchase
and transport costs.
o Real Equipment: Includes the purchase, transportation, and
installation price of plant equipment.
o Other Equipment: Includes cost of all ancillary equipment
like bulldozers, loaders, office equipment, trucks that are
necessary for plant operation, and operating spares.
In constrast to EPA1 s format we have excludes funds set aside for the
replacement of depreciated equipment (under EPA's format replacement cqsts
are included in Real Equipment and Other Equipment). First it is unusual for
any organization to literally set aside funds on an annual basis for asset
replacement. Secondly, these funds cannot be properly labeled capital costs
until new assets were actually purchased. As a result, any such fund set
aside for asset replacement should not be included as a capital cost.
We have included one additional category, labeled "Additional Capital
Costs due to Design Modifications." This category is included in acknow-
ledgement of probable design modifications resulting from the experimental
status of resource recovery systems. This category can be further broken
down by land, design, real equipment, etc. components.
All other capital cost categories contained in the original format are
deleted. As previously described these are not capital costs, and their
inclusion would overstate capital costs.
It is also recommended that there should be an omission of capital cost
per ton. Through the inclusion of an annual depreciation and interest
expense in operating and maintenance, the capital cost will be recognized.
305
-------
Operation and Maintenance
The major problem with EPA's format categorization of operating and
maintenance expenses is that cost elements and functional areas are co-
mingled.
The format includes maintenance and residue removal functional classifi-
cations. However, these classifications inherently include cost elements
such as salaries, fuel, and materials. For analysis purposes, this incon-
sistent treatment of cost categorizations results in understating either
functional costs or cost elements.
Based on the above inconsistencies, a format has been prepared which
first allocates costs to functional areas and then further allocates costs
to cost elements (Table C-37). This approach incorporates the pertinent cost
categories but ameliorates functional cost element inconsistencies.
The revised format omits a category for replacement equipment. A replace-
ment equipment category is unnecessary because any substantial replacement
related cost should be treated as a capital asset. We have included a
category for expendable assets which cover the cost of minor replacement
equipment. These equipment costs are insignificant (less than a specified
dollar amount) and expensed in full when incurred.
The other changes to the format involve the inclusion of interest, fi-
nance and legal, and depreciation costs, which were previously treated as
capital costs.
Other Comments
EPA's revenue format as currently presented, is more than sufficient for
economic analysis purposes.
The normalization guidelines in principle also provide for meaningful
economic evaluations. The only changes which are recommended involve cost
category alterations in accordance with the revised capital and operating and
maintenance formats.
306
-------
TABLE C-37. ACTUAL ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS*
Operationst
Maintenancet
General§
Administrative
Total
Salaries
Employee
benefits
Fuel
Electricity
j
Water & sewer
Materials
(Chemicals)
Expendable
(Assets)
Depreciation
expense
Salaries
Benefits
Fuel
Electricity
Water & sewer
Materials
Expendable
(Assets)
Depreciation
expense
Salaries
Benefits
Fuel
Electricity
Water & sewer
Materials
Expendable
. (Assets)
Depreciation
expense
Taxes & Lie.
Management
fees
Pro fes s ional
services
Interest
expense
Financing &
legal
Other over-
head
Total
* In 19 $.
t Direct costs.
§ Indirect costs.
307
-------
SECTION C-9
SUPPLEMENTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
The allocation and identification of supplemental construction costs are
detailed according to each major piece of equipment (Table C-38).
308
-------
TABLE C-38. ALLOCATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Item
Shredders
Venting
Fenwall explosion system
Total
Storage and recovery unit
Distribution chute
Spreader drive
Bucket chain
Floor ramp
Bucket wear shoes
Bucket repair
Total
Waste heat boilers
Pressure indicators
Feedwater valve
Degasifier pH control
Slowdown valve platform
Soot blower platforms
Ash Chopper bridge breakers
Jug valve refractory
Inlet swing gates
Auxiliary atomizing steam supply*
Atomizing steam boiler low
pressure alarm
Total
Refuse combustion air fan
Mr bustle
Air bustle
Total
Kiln combustion air fans
Air bustle'
Estimated
Final Cost
($)
76,900
94,100
171,000
8,600
4,400
2,500
5,600
14,376
4,500
39,976
3,400
5,100
6,900
300
12,500
4,700
38,900
97,800
11,450
200
181,250
11,900
1,100
13,000
26,500
Exclusion or
Addition to
Actual Cost
Exclusion
Addition
^
Exclusion
Exclusion
Exclusion
Addition
Exclusion
Exclusion
Addition
Exclusion
Exclusion
Addition
Addition
Addition
Exclusion
Exclusion
Addition
Exclusion
Addition
Exclusion
Exclusion
OOQ CONTINUED
-------
TABLE C-38. (Continued)
Item
Estimated
Final Cost
($)
Exclusion or
Addition to
Actual Cost
Induced draft fan
Vibration relief
Corrosion control
Foundation reinforcement
Isolation from ductwork
Balancing
Rotor refurbishing
Dampers
Dampers
Grout*
Total
11,400
3,500
2,500
15,000
2,200
1,500
17,900
22,500
300
77,300
Exclusion
Addition
Exclusion
Exclusion
Exclusion
Exclusion
Exclusion
Addition
Exclusion
Fly ash blower
Motor
500
Exclusion
Instrument air compressor
Additional compressor
31,100
Addition
Dust collection fan
Roof
200
Addition
Cooling water system
Recycle cooling water system
33,800
Addition
Dust collection system
Modification
19,800
Exclusion
Kiln
Flight posts
Refractory
Kiln shell
Fire hood pressure transmitter
Feed end seal
Burner shrouds
Kiln lube leak
Spikes
64,900
480,300
75,800
700
4,600
8,800
9,000
19,700
Exclusion
Exclusion
Exclusion
Exclusion
Exclusion
Exclusion
Exclusion
Exclusion
310
CONTINUED
-------
TABLE C-38. (Continued)
Item
Estimated
Final Cost
($)
Exclusion or
Addition to
Actual Cost
Heat control system
Burner platform
Burner problems
Thermo couples *
Thermocouples*
CO2 analyzer*
Interlocks*
Auxiliary atomizing steam supply*
Total
13,600
200
400
1,100
1,900
5,350
4,500
11,450
702,300
Addition
Addition
Exclusion
Exclusion
Addition
Exclusion
Addition
Addition
Gas purifier
Bafflewall
Ojiench air
Slag hole lip
Kiln refractory
Saddle weld
X-over mixing duct
Wire instruments
Interlocks
Thermocouples*
CO2 analyzer*
Slag removal
Grout piers*
Total
32,400
7,700
4,600
35,500
600
17,500
1,900
4,500
3,000
5,350
10,700
300
125,050
Exclusion
Addition
Exclusion
Exclusion
Addition
Exclusion
Addition
Addition
Exclusion
Exclusion
Exclusion
Exclusion
Receiving area sump pumps
Capability
1,900
Exclusion
Storage pit sump pump
Catch basin
2,300
Exclusion
Scrubber pumps
Erosion
10,600
Exclusion
Chemical feed pump
Chem lime caustic pump
2,000
Exclusion
311
CONTINUED
-------
TABLE C-38. (Continued)
Item
Estimated
Final Cost
($)
Exclusion or
Addition to
Actual Cost
Sulfuric acid pump
Repair
100
Exclusion
Seal tank
Slag frit system
New pump impeller
Total
16,700
3,700
20,400
Addition
Exclusion
Quench tank
Dump valve
Sedimentation basins
Total
100
4,500
4,600
Addition
Addition
Gas scrubber
Control room pH meter
Dust refractory
Nozzles
Cyclone
Total
700
256,900
12,900
23,600
294,100
Addition
Exclusion
Exclusion
Addition
Thickener
Scum baffle
600
Addition
Degasifier
Softener acid lift dheek
100
Exclusion
Shredder feed conveyors
Walkway tredds
Auto restart
Total
100
2,000
2,100
Addition
Exclusion
Shredded refuse conveyors
Bypass gates leak
1,300
312
Addition
CONTINUED
-------
TABLE C-38. (Continued)
Item
Estimated
Final Cost
($)
Exclusion or
Addition to
Actual Cost
Clarifier
Relocate manual valve
2,900
Exclusion
Ram feeders
Hydraulics
Mechanical and electrical
modifications
Feed chute
TV relocation
Flow diverter
Large ram jam alarm
Area exhaust system
Total
26,500
8,900
5,100
3,100
10,800
300
4,600
59,300
Exclusion
Exclusion
Addition
Exclusion
Exclusion
Exclusion
Addition
Screw conveyors
Flight repairs
New transfer screw
Total
1,600
23,900
25,500
Exclusion
Exclusion
Quench tank conveyor
Replaced
194,300
Exclusion
Magnetic metal separator
Belt cover
Modify conveyors*
Total
1,200
1,500
2,700
Exclusion
Exclusion
Aggregate screen conveyor
Screen cloth
400
Exclusion
Vacuum belt filter
Glass settling box
Cloth adjustment platform
.*
Total
1,900
200
2,100
Exclusion
Exclusion
313
CONTINUED
-------
TABLE C-38. (Continued)
Item
Estimated
Final Cost
($)
Exclusion or
Addition to
Actual Cost
Char conveyors
Modify conveyors*
1,500
Exclusion
Roto screen oversize conveyor
Discharge
Interlocks
Conveyors*
Dumpster guards
Total
700
200
1,500
1,400
3,800
Exclusion
Addition
Exclusion
Addition
Residue flotation unit
OSHA catwalks
3,300
Addition
Receiving module
Tipping floor
Receiving building venting
Scale house HVAC
Total
5,400
800
300
6,500
Exclusion
Addition
Addition
Thermal processing module
Gas purifier ductwork
13,700
Exclusion
Energy recovery module
Steam supply main telemetry system
19,900
Addition
General plant module
Instrument modifications
Heat trace and insulate pipe
Painting
Sewer
Site water
Miscellaneoust
Volt-ohm meter
Lift station high level alarm
Total
100
25,700
28,100
24,800
2,900
140,824
1,300
100
223,824
Exclusion
Addition
Exclusion
Addition
Addition
Addition
Addition
314
CONTINUED
-------
TABLE C-38. (Continued)
Item
Estimated
Final Cost
($)
Exclusion or
Addition to
Actual Cost
Residue separation module
Separation building emer.
500
Exclusion
Storage and recovery module
Transfer tower flood drain
1,100
Exclusion
* Allocated to more than one part.
t Broken down by major components with the remaining costs associated to
general plant costs.
315
-------
SECTION C-10
LANDFILL CAPITAL COSTS
Landfill capital costs were derived and allocated based on Pennington
Avenue Landfill cost information. (Currently, all residue at the Pyrolysis
Plant is disposed of at the Pennington Avenue Landfill).
First, the cost and capacity of the Pennington Avenue Landfill has been
determined, yielding a cost per cubic yard. The landfill cost was identified
from the Capital Extract and was listed at $1,782,533. The capacity, as
reported by the Department of Public Works was 1,641,221 cubic meters
(2,146,636 cubic yard). Therefore, the cost is approximately $1.09 per cubic
meter ($0.93 per cubic yard).
The next step involved determining the volume necessary for the plant's
residue.
Using the annual throughput for each scenario shown in Table C-12 and
the estimated useful life of the facility (14.5 years), the total refuse
processed over the life of the facility would be:
Scenario 1: 971,500 Mg
Scenario 2: 2,943,500 Mg
Scenario 3: 3,915,000 Mg
The residue from the plant, which is to be disposed at the landfill,
consists of kiln residue, gas purifier slag, and fly ash. As discussed
previously, the kiln residue averaged 44 percent of the incoming refuse,
while the slag and fly ash averaged 1.7 and 0.1 percent of the incoming
refuse, respectively. Therefore, approximately 46 percent of the incoming
refuse requires landfill disposal. Most of plant residue is comprised of
kiln residue and slag which has a bulk density of 1.6 Mg per cubic meter.
The total volume of residue over the life of the facility requiring landfill
disposal for each scenario is as follows:
Scenario 1: 270,300 cubic meters
Scenario 2: 846,250 cubic meters
Scenario 3: 1,125,550 cubic meters
At $1.09 per cubic meter, this yields:
Scenario 1: $ 304,440
Scenario 2: $ 922,410
Scenario 3: $1,226,850
316
-------
These landfill costs were allocated to the EPA classifications on a pro
rata basis from the Capital Extract listing. When the $1,782,533 landfill
cost was researched, the costs were broken down as follows:
Extra Work
Design
Land
Inspection
Construction
Utility Work
Equipment
Total $1,782,533
The costs associated with the Pyrolysis Plant were allocated on a pro
rata basis as shown in Table C-39.
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
195,000
82,272
711,291
76,000
609,170
67
100,084
TABLE C-39. ALLOCATION OF LANDFILL COSTS
Actual
Percent
1st 2nd 3rd
Scenario Scenario Scenario
EPA
Classification
Extra work
Design
Land
Inspection
Construction
Utility work
Equipment
Total
11
5
40
4
34
0
6
$ 33,065 $ 99,447 $ 132,259
15,029 45,217 60,118
120,236 361,735 480,943
12,024 36,173 48,094
102,200 307,474 408,801
18,035 54,260 72,141
300,589 904,336 1,202,356
Cost not
categorized
Design
Land
Design
Construction
Real Equipment
317
-------
Table C-46 for the Supplemental Agreement. The allocation of equipment items
to cost centers concurs with EPA's classification in the RFP.
318
-------
TABLE C-40. MONSANTO COST CODING DEFINITIONS
Code
110
220
330
331
332
333
335
336
337
338
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
352
359
Description
Engineering
Procurement
Subcontract site clearing, grade, & road
subbases
Subcontract fencing
Subcontract piling
Subcontract foundations & contrete pavings
Design, fab, & erect misc bldg shell
Design, fab, & erect Atlas shredded bldg
Subcontract mechanical equip, duct, pipe
& steel
Subcontract underground piping
Subcontract electrical work above ground
Subcontract electrical work underground
Subcontract instrument work
Subcontract insulation
Subcontract painting
Design and install steam line
Subcontract finish road surfacing
Subcontract fine grading and landscaping
Subcontract refractory
Subcontract fire protection & sprinklers
Interior general contractor
Temporary facilities
Checkout & punch list items
Amount
$ 1,201,094
6,224,143
329,668
16.483
298,590
1,324,520
296,296
189,153
2,202,952
75,942
200,097
200,569
259,546
138,150
57,894
1,101,590
42,560
46,208
303,726
25,401
91,469
79,039
36,910
Total 14,742,000
319
-------
TABLE C-41. MAJOR EQUIPMENT LIST
Description
Cost Center
Recording Truck Scale
Shredders
Fenwall Explosion Suppression System
Chemical Feed Tank Agitator
Flocculant Feed Tank Agitators, (2)
Belt Scale
Chelate Tank Agitator
Storage and Recovery Unit
Sulfite Tank Agitator
Caustic Tank Agitator
Waste Heat Boilers, (21
Auxiliary Steam Atomization Boiler
Refuse Combustion Air T?an
Kiln "Combustion Air Fan
Steam Turbine
Kiln Combustion Air Fan
Gas Purifier Combustion Air Fan
Crossover Combustion Air Fan
Induced Draft Fan
Dehumidifier Fans, (6)
Separation Air Compressor
Instrument Air Compressors, C2)
Dust Collection Fan
Fly Ash Blower
Cooling Tower Fan
City Water Supply System
Cooling Water System
Shredder Dust Collectors
Storage and Recovery Unit Dust Collector
Instrument Air Dryers, (21
Fly Ash Transfer System
Transfer Tower Dust Collector
Kiln Feed Dust Collector
Fly Ash Rotary Valves, (12)
Fire Protection Water System
Kiln
Kiln Electric Drive
Kiln Emergency Drive
Kiln Trunnions
Kiln Heat Input Control System
Optical Pyrometer
Gas Purifier
Slag Tap Hole Burner System
Kiln Burner System
Receiving
Size Reduction
Size Reduction
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Energy Recovery
Storage and Recovery
Energy Recovery
Energy Recovery
Energy Recovery
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Residue Sepaorjation
General Plant
General Plant
Energy Recovery
Thermal Processing
General Plant n
Thermal Processing
Size Reduction
Storage and Recovery
General Plant
Energy Recovery
Storage and Recovery
Storage and Recovery
Energy Recovery
General Plant
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
320
-------
TABLE C-41. (Continued)
Description Cost Center
Gas Purifier Burner System Thermal Processing
Kiln Safety Burner System Thermal Processing
Jug Valve Energy Recovery
Boiler Swing Gates Energy Recovery
Boiler Butterfly Valves Energy Recovery
Fixed Quench Air Damper Energy Recovery
Butterfly Quench Air Damper Energy Recovery
Storage Pit Sump Pumps Receiving
Storage and Recovery Sump Pump Storage and Recovery
Fuel Oil Pumps Thermal Processing
Scrubber Pumps Thermal Processing
Scrubber Strainer Thermal Processing
Sludge Pump Thermal Processing
Caustic Pump Thermal Processing
Flocculant Feed Pump Thermal Processing
Underflow Pump Residue Separation
Pressure Pump Residue Separation
Vacuum Pump Residue Separation
Filtrate Pump Residue Separation
Feedwater Pomps, (2) Energy Recovery
Steam Turbime Energy Recovery
Clarifier Overflow Sump and Pump Thermal Processing
Quench Pit Sump Pump Thermal Processing
Sulfite Pump1 Energy Recovery
Chelant Pump Energy Recovery
Brine Pump Energy Recovery
Separation Sump Pump Residue Separation
Sulfuric Acid Pump Energy Recovery
Degasifier Acid Control Energy Recovery
Degasifier Pumps, (21 Energy Recovery
Caustic Pump Energy Recovery
Degasifier Caustic Control Energy Recovery
Chemical Unloading Pump Energy Recovery or
Thermal Processing
Caustic Transfer Pump Energy Recovery
Separation Sump Pump Residue Separation
Wastewater Lift Station Pumps, (2) General Plant
Seal Tank Recycle Pump Thermal Processing
Cooling Tower Pump Thermal Processing
Receiving Basin Pump Thermal Processing
Plant Drainage System General Plant
Storage Pit Receiving
Kiln Feed Hood Thermal Processing
Kiln Stack Lid Thermal Processing
321
-------
TABLE C-41. (Continued)
Description
Cost Center
Kiln Fire Hood
Feed End Seal Tank
Slag Frit System
Residue Quench Tank
Fuel Oil Storage Tank
Gas Scrubber
Scrubber Inlet Nozzles
Scrubber Tower Nozzles
Scrubber Cyclone
Dehumidifier •
Scrubber Water Tank
Clarifier
Chemical Feed Tank
Flocculant Feed Tanks, (2)
Residue Flotation Tank
Vacuum Receiver
Thickener
Water Softeners, (3)
Deaerating Heater
Degasifier
Brine Tank
Sulfite Tank
Chelate Tank
Snubber
Steam Purifier
Caustic Feed Tank
Caustic Storage Tank
Slowdown Surge Tank
Cooling Tower
Receiving Basin
Steam Separator
Seal Tank Recycle Tank
Bulldozers
Storage Pit Conveyors
Shredder Feed Conveyors
Shredder Discharge Conveyors
Shredded Refuse Collecting Conveyor
Shredded Refuse Elevating Conveyor
Bypass Gates, (2)
Shredded Refuse Transfer Conveyor
Kiln Feed Conveyor
Ram Feeders, (2)
Ram Diverter Gates, (2)
Spillback Screw Conveyor
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Residue Separation
Residue Separation
Residue Separation
Energy Recovery
Energy Redovery
Energy Recovery
Energy ReekSvery
Energy Recovery
Energy Recovery
Residue Separation
Energy Recovery
Energy Recovery'
Energy Recovery
Energy Recovery
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Energy Recovery
Thermal Processing
Receiving
Receiving
Size Reduction
Size Reduction
Storage and Recovery
Storage and Recovery
Storage and Recovery
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
322
-------
TABLE C-41. ("Continued)
Description
Slag Screw Conveyor
Transfer Screw Conveyor
Slag/Spillback Truck
Residue Quench Tank Conveyor
Residue Bypass Gate
Residue Bypass Truck
Separation Screen
Separation Screen Cover Plates
Sinks Discharge Conveyor
Magnetic Metal Separator
Magnetic Metal Transfer Conveyor
Magnetic Metal Truck
Glassy Aggregate Screen
Glassy Aggregate Dumps ter
Glassy Aggregate Transfer Conveyor
Glassy Aggregate Stacker Conveyor
Glassy Aggregate Traverse Drive
Vacuum Belt Filter
Char Transfer Conveyor
Char Stackers-Conveyor
Char Traverse Drive
Rof o Screen ©versize Conveyor
Oversize Dumpster
Mobile Crane
Endloader
Stored Material Spreader
Plant Truck
Shop Equipment
Spare Parts
Magnetic Drum Separator
Vibrating Screen
Vibrating Screen Hopper
Residue Separation Conveyor
Main Control Panel
Electrical System
Emergency Power Supply
Cost Center
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Thermal Processing
Residue Separation
Residue Separation
Residue Separation
Residue Separation
Residue Separation
Residue Separation
Residue Separation
Residue Separation
Residue Separation
Residue Separation
Residue Separation
Residue Separation
Residue Separation
Residue Separation
Residue Separation
Residue Separation
Residue Separation
Residue Separation
Residue Separation
General Plant
Residue Separation
Storage and Recovery
General Plant
General Plant
General Plant
Storage and Recovery
Storage and Recovery
Storage and Recovery
Residue Separation
General Plant
General Plant
General Plant
323
-------
TABLE C-42. ORIGINAL CONTRACT COSTS
Allocation Cost
110 Engineering
Operator Training $ 27,022
Agitators* 1,986
Storage Pit Hoppers* 795
Shredder Feed and Discharge Conveyors, Shredded
Refuse Collection Conveyor* 1,986
Truck Scale* 397
Kiln Hoods* 795
Shredded Refuse Elevating and Transfer Conveyors* 795
Shredders* • 795
Various Tanks* 5,165
Kiln Feed Conveyor* 397
Storage and Recovery Unit* 397
Gas Scrubber* 397
Ram Feeders* 795
Belt Scale* 397
Dehumidifier* 397
Screw Conveyors* 795
Clarifier* 397
Residue Quench Tank Conveyor* 397
Waste Heat Boilers* 795
Residue Flotation Tank* 397
Vibrating Screen Conveyors 1,192
Various Fans* 5,165
Vacuum Receiver Unit* 1,192
Sinks Discharge Conveyor* 397
Air Compressors* 795
Thickener* 397
Magnetic Metal Conveyors* 1,192
Dust Collectors* 1,986
Softeners 1,192
Glassy Aggregate Conveyors* 795
Instrument Air Dryer* 397
Deaerating Heater* 397
Vacuum Belt Filter* 397
Fly Ash Transfer System* 397
Degasifier* 397
Char Conveyors* 795
Kiln* 397
Snubber* 397
Stored Material Spreader* 397
Gas Purifier* 397
Magnetic Drum Separator 397
Sump Pumps* 2,384
324
-------
TABLE C-42. (Continued).
Allocation Cost
Bulldozers* 795
Burner System* 1,192
Various Pumps* 8,343
Storage Pit Conveyors* 795
Steam Purifier* 397
Various Equipment* 1,986
Preliminary Engineering Flow Sheets 14,898
Final Engineering Flow Sheets 14,898
Special Temporary Power 0
Preliminary- Plant Layouts 23,837
Firm Up Plant Layouts 27,810
Issue Fencing Specs, for Quotes 3,937
All Risk and Performance Bonds 64,000
Soils Boring, Site Topo. 993
Site Preparation and Spec. DWGS. 7,350
Analyze Bids and Award Site Prep. Subcontract 795
Prepare Piling Pkg. Specs. 13,508
Analyze Bids and Award Piling Subcontract 795
Final Drawings, Receiving, Size Reduction, and
Storage and Recovery modules 3,973
Complete Concrete Drawings, Receiving, Size
Reduction, and Storage and Recovery modules, Scope 35,557
Final Drawings, Thermal Processing module 3,937
Bas-e CPM Schedule 13,243
Complete Concrete Drawings, Thermal Processing
module, Scope 29,399
Issue Scrubber Concrete Bid Pkg. 0
Analyze Bids and Award Concrete S/C for Scrubber 795
Complete Concrete Drawings, Residue Separation
module, Scope 10,330
Analyze Bids- and Award Concrete S/C 795
Complete Concrete Drawings, Energy Recovery
module, Scope 15,892
Final Drawings, Residue Separation module 3,973
Final Drawings, Energy Recovery module 3,973
Complete Concrete Drawings, General Plant module,
Scope f 11,124
Final Drawings, General Plant module 3,973
Complete Receiving Building FDN Design 13,905
Preliminary Buildings FDN Design, Scope 0
Complete Sew/Cont Building FDN Design 8,740
Complete Maintenance Building FDN Design 2,980
Complete Office Building FDN Design 2,980
Complete Residue Separation Building FDN Design 3,973
Complete Buildings Pkg 27,810
325
-------
TABLE C-42. (Continued}
Allocation Cost
Analyze Bids and Award Buildings Subcontract 1,192
Start Underground Plumbing Design 3,973
Complete Underground Plumbing Design 3,973
Complete Steel Design, Receiving, Size Reduction,
Storage and Recovery modules, and 62,772
Thermal Processing module 35,955
Analyze Bids and Award Job and Erection S/C 1,391
Complete Steel Design, Residue Separation module 24,235
Energy Recovery module 22,646
General Plant module 29,002
Design Platework and Charter 66,149
Spec. Control Panel and Arrangement 7,946
Instrument List 13,905
Start Loop Sheets 9,336
Complete Initial Design Loop Sheets 9,536
Spec. Control Valves 11,919
Panel Initiation and Trans. Specs. 19,586
Local Initiation Spec, and Drawings 18,673
Back of Panel Drawings 8,939
Local Initiation Installation Drawings 18,871
Specify Insulation Package 3,973
Spec, for Painting Package 3,973
Issue Specs, for Fire Protection 1,986
Issue Specs, for Final Paving - Landscaping 3,973
Complete Ductwork Design, Receiving, Size Reduction,
and Storage and Recovery- modules 3,973
Complete Ductwork Support Drawings 7,946
Complete Ductwork Design, Thermal Processing, and
Energy Recovery modules- 7,946
Complete Design, Receiving, Size Reduction, and
Storage and Recovery modules 5,959
Thermal Processing module 18,673
Analyze Bids and Award Piping S/C 3,575
Complete Piping Design, Residue Separation module 10,727
Energy Recovery module 23,440
General Plant module 21,851
Scope and Spec. Steam System 7,946
Start Underground Elec. and Grounding Design 13,508
Complete Underground Elec. and Grounding Design 13,508
Analyze Bids and Award Steam System S/C 1,589
Analyze Bids and Award U.G. Electrical S/C 0
Start One-Line Diagram, Receiving, Size Reduction,
Storage and Recovery, Thermal Processing, Residue
Separation, Energy Recovery, and General Plant modules 6,357
326
-------
TABLE C-42. (Continued)
Allocation
Cost
Complete One-Line Diagram, Receiving, Size Reduction,
Storage and Recovery, Thermal Processing, Residue
Separation, Energy Recovery, and General Plant modules
Spec. Balance of Elec. Equipment (PWR, LTG)
Prepare Motor List
Spec. Switchgears, Transformers, Generator
Scope and Prepare Mechanical Erection Package
Operation Manuals
Total
9,535
173,221
1,986
2,304
3,973
26,486
1,201,094
220 Procurement
Recording Truck Scale
Shredders
Chemical and Flocculant Feed Tank Agitators
Belt Scale
Chelate Tank Agitator
Storage and Recovery Unit
Sulfite Tank Agitator
Flocculant Feed Tank Agitator
NaOH Storage Tank Agitator
Waste Heat Boilers
Refuse Combustion Air Fan
Kiln Combustion Air Fans
Gas Purifier Combustion Air Fan
Crossover Combustion Air fan
Dust Collection Fan
Induced Draft Fan
Dehumidifier Fans
Separation Air Compressor
Instrument Air Compressor
Shredder Dust Collector
Storage, Trans, Kiln-Dust Collector
Instrument Air Dryer
Fly Ash Transfer System
Kiln
Gas Purifier
Kiln Burner System
Gas Purifier Burner System
Kiln Safety Burner System
Storage Pit Sump Pump
Storage and Recovery Unit Sump Pump
Fuel Oil Pumps
(60,000)
29,366(265)
498,980(265)
3,939(265)
6,914(265)
730(265)
225,288(265)
265 -
396(265)
640(265)
697,856(265)
4,894(265)
9,860(265)
8,805(265)
11,582(265)
4,249(265)
129,859(265)
107,252(265)
4,865(265)
7,843(265)
14,828(265)
6,849(265)
2,813(265)
21,842(265)
736,217(265)
79,896(265)
98,257(265)
41,023(265)
32,400(265)
1,423(265)
1,428(265)
1,555(265)
327
-------
TABLE C-42. (Continued)
Allocation
Cost
Scrubber Pumps
Sludge Pump
Chemical Feed Pump
Flocculant Feed Pump
Underflow Pump.
Pressure Pump
Vacuum Pump
Filtrate Pump
Feedwater Pump
Clarifier Overflow Sump Pump
Quench Pit Sump Pump
Sulfite Pump
Chelate Pump
Brine Pump
Separation Sump Pump
Sulfuric Acid Pump
Degasifier Pump
NaOH Pump
Chemical Unloading Pump
Degasifier Pump
Storage Pit Sump Pump
NaOH Storage Tank Pump
Storage Pit Hoppers
Kiln Feed and Fire Hoods
Seal Tank
Residue Quench Tank
Fuel Oil Storage Tank
Dehumidifier
Clarifier
Chemical Feed Tank
Flocculant Feed Tank
Residue Flotation Unit
Vacuum Receiver
Thickener
NaOH Storage Tank
Water Softeners
Deaerating Heater
Degasifier
Brine Tank
Sulfite Tank
Chelate Tank
Snubber
NaOH Tank
Flocculant Feed Tank
29,440(265)
2,0.84(265)
1,555(265)
1,423(265)
1,687(265)
6,949(265)
8,390 -
1,480 -
12,905(265)
1,555(265)
1,423(265)
497(265)
497(265)
1,687(265)
1,423(265)
1,687 -
1,423(265)
1,687 -
2,084(265)
1,423(265)
1,423(265)
1,180(265)
29,902(265)
44,848(265)
14,857(265)
27,921(265)
14,986(265)
224,420(265)
39,961(265)
,876(265)
,249(265)
20,942(265)
1,960(265)
41,861(265)
12,400(265)
40,900(265)
21,842(265)
19,919(265)
6,924(265)
1,361(265)
1,361(265)
250(265)
1,823(265)
796(265)
328
-------
TABLE C-42. (Continued)
Allocation
Cost
Bulldozers
Storage Pit Conveyors
Shredder Feed Conveyors
Shredder Discharge Conveyors
Shredded Refuse Conveyors
Kiln Feed Conveyor
Ram Feeders
Screw Conveyors
Residue Quench Tank Conveyor
Separation Screen
Sinks Discharge Conveyor
Magnetic Metal Separation System
Glassy Aggregate Screen
Glassy Aggregate Transfer Conv.
Vacuum Belt Filter
Char Transfer Conveyors
Mobile Crane
Endloader
Stored Material Spreader
Plant Truck
Shop Equipment
Magnetic Drum Separator
Vibrating Screen Conveyor
2 Shredder Motors and Starters
13. 2KV/480-277V Substation
Emergency Power Supply
5 Motor Control Centers
5 Motor Starters
Ductwork, Receiving, Size Reduction, and
Storage and Recovery modules
Thermal Processing module
Energy Recovery module
Butterfly Valve, Thermal Processing module
Energy Recovery module
Jug Valve, Energy Recovery module
Gate Valves, Energy Recovery module
Main Control Panel
Local Instruments, Receiving, Size Reduction,
and Storage and Recovery modules
Thermal Processing module
Residue Separation module
Energy Recovery module
General Plant module
Spare Parts
(530)
137,571(265)
99,596(265)
129,078(265)
37,747(265)
236,444(265)
48,830(265)
113,824(265)
12,812(265)
28,559(265)
9,695(265)
4,868(265)
39,800(265)
9,860(265)
49,975(265)
74,640(265)
48,330(265)
27,117(265)
41,403(265)
21,165(265)
7,275(265)
45,747(265)
38,456(265)
13,228(265)
32,600(265)
153,710(265)
16,270(265)
47,489(265)
25,662(265)
19,445(265)
79,897 -
76,326 -
11,112(265)
64,024(265)
29,102(265)
21,165(265)
86,643(265)
19,842(265)
39,684 -
29,895 -
50,531 -
13,625(265)
250,000(265)
329
-------
TABLE C-42. (Continued)
Allocation Cost
Equipment Platework 47,884(265)
Structure, Platform, and Misc. Steel, Receiving,
Size Reduction, and Storage and Recovery modules 156,884(265)
Thermal Processing module 127,253 -
Residue Separation module 15,476 -
Energy Recovery module 13,757 -
Office Building Steel 4,894 -
Total 6,224,143
330 Subsite Clear, Grade and Road Sub-Bases
Grading of Site for All modules 290,486
Install Road Sub-Bases, General Plant module 27,022
Install Parking Lot Sub-Bases, General Plant module 9,458
Complete Dike, General Plant module 2,702
Total 329,668
331 Subfencing
Install Fencing, General Plant module 16,483
Total 16,483
332 Subpiling
Drive Piles as Required, Receiving, Size Reduction,
and Storage and Recovery modules 201,285
Thermal Processing module 70,608
Residue Separation module 9,485
Energy Recovery module 7,552
General Plant module 9,660
Total 298,590
333 Subfoundation and Concrete Paving
Start Excavation Receiving Building, Receiving,
Size Reduction, and Storage and Recovery modules 6,755
Complete Excavation Receiving Building, Receiving,
Size Reduction, and Storage and Recovery modules 6,755
Foundations - Receiving Building Footings, Receiving,
Size Reduction, and Storage and Recovery modules 85,410
330
-------
TABLE O42. (Continued)
Allocation Cost
Complete Footings and Walls 152,741
Install Gallery Conveyor Foundations, Shredder
Feed Conveyors 15,308
Line Grading for Slab, Receiving, Size Reduction,
and Storage and Recovery modules 6,755
Pour Pit Slabs, Receiving, Size Reduction, and
Storage and Recovery modules 113,728
Pour Slabs Receiving Building 113,728
Install Shredder Foundations 41,634
Install Storage and Recovery Unit Foundation 81,350
Install Truck Scale Foundation Scale House 17,159
Balance of Equip. Conveyors Foundations Supports 25,394
Install Gas Purifier Foundations 4,607
Install Dehumidifier, Clarifier Overflow Sump
Foundations 11,937
Install Foundations for Seal and Residue Quench
Tanks 14,450
Start Excavations, Thermal Processing module 6,755
Start Kiln Foundations 54,429
Install Scrubber Foundations 18,111
Complete Pump Foundation Excavation 1,351
Complete Foundations for Kiln and Kiln Hoods 78,431
Erect Scrubber Concrete Structure 145,014
Install Quench Pit Sump 2,702
Install Pump Foundations 12,342
Install Fan Foundations 12,119
Install Foundations for Sludge and Caustic Pumps
and Flocculant Feed Tank 2,634
Install Clarifier Foundations and Slab 11,214
Ins-tall Clarifier Platework 3,432
Install Ram Feeders Support Foundations 2,027
Install Screw Conveyors Support Foundations 723
Start Excavations, Residue Separation module 4,053
Complete Excavations, Residue Separation module 4,053
Residue Separation Building Foundation 22,036
Complete Residue Building Slab 4,817
Install Separation Compressor Foundation 203
Install Foundation for Underflow and Pressure Pumps 676
Install Thickener Foundation and Slab 22,881
Install Thickener Platework 21,584
Install Vacuum Belt Filter Foundation 676
Install Foundation for Char Conveyors 1,054
Install Magnetic Metal Separation^ System Foundation 723
Start Excavations, Energy Recovery module 4,053
331
-------
TABLE C-42. (Continued)
Allocation Cost
Complete Excavations, Energy Recovery module 4,053
Control/Water Treat Building Foundation 39,108
Install Brine Tank Foundation 1,385
Control/Water Treat Building Int. Slabs 29,218
Install Fly Ash Collection System and Ductwork
Support Foundations 2,702
Install Foundations for Waste Heat Boilers 13,369
Install Deaerating Heater 4,682
Excavation-Substations 1,351
Install Substation Foundations Slab, General
Plant module 9,458
Start Office Building Foundation, General Plant
module 8,053
Complete Office Building Slab, General Plant module 14,315
Start Maintenance/Storage Buildings, FDNs, General
Plant module 14,389
Complete Maintenance Building Slabs, General Plant
module 32,588
Install Fuel Oil Storage Tank Foundations 13,369
Install Fuel Oil Pumps Foundations 676
Total 1,324,520
335 Design, Fab, and Erect Misc. Building Shell
Install Scale Building 3,243
Erect Receiving Building Steel 81,066
Complete Siding Etc. - Receiving Building, Receiving,
Size Reduction, and Storage and Recovery modules 87,822
Install Residue Separation Building Steel Skin, Residue
Separation module 6,755
Erect Water Treatment Building Structural Steel 5,404
Complete Water Treat Building Roofing, Steel, and
Siding 6,755
Erect Control House Steel 9,458
Complete Steel Siding on Control House, Energy Recovery
module 10,809
Erect Office Building Steel Siding, General Plant module 56,746
Storage/Maintenance Building Struct Steel Erect 16,078
Complete Building Exterior, General Plant module 12,160
Total 296,296
332
-------
TABLE C-42. (Continued)
Allocation Cost
336 Design, Fab, and Erect Atlas Shredded Building
Install Storage and Recovery Unit 189,153
Total 189,153
337 SuBmechanical Equipment, Duct, Pipe, and Steel
Install Truck Scale 19., 99.6
Start Transfer HSE Steel 6,755
Complete Transfer HSE Steel 6,755
Start Conveyor Gallery Steel, Receiving, Size Reduction,
and Storage and Recovery modules 41,580
Continue Gallery Steel, Receiving, Size Reduction, and
Storage and Recovery modules 40,533
Shredder House and Gallery Siding, Receiving, Size
Reduction, and Storage and Recovery modules 39,587
Install Ductwork, Receiving, Size Reduction, and Storage
and Recovery modules 23,705
Install Shredder House Steel 23,313
Install Storage Pit, Shredder Feed Conveyors,
and Chutes 58,773
Complete Conveyors Trim-out, Storage Pit, and Shredder
Feed Conveyors, Receiving, Size Reduction, and Storage
and Recovery modules 6,775
Install Storage Pit Hoppers 11,167
Install Shredders 36^635
Install Shredder Dust Collectors, Shredder Discharge
Conveyors-, Shredded Refuse Collection Conveyor Chutes 28,211
Install Sump Pumps ]_ 324
Install Bal of Equipment Kiln Feed Conveyor, Belt Scale,
Screens, and Chute 16,260
Trim Out Shredded Refuse Elevating and Transfer Conveyor,
Stored Material Spreader 6,755
Trim Out Conveyors, Receiving, Size Reduction, and
Storage and Recovery modules 2 027
Install Dust Collectors, Chutes 52^875
Start Piping, Receiving, Size Reduction, and Storage
and Recovery modules 31 497
Complete Piping, Receiving, Size Reduction, and
Storage and Recovery modules 31,504
Erect Scrubber Accessory Steel 8 816
Erect Kiln Fd. HSE Fire Hood Support 13^511
Erect Conveyor Support 14 092
Install Fire-Hood Siding 4^188
In&tall Sump Pumps 2 135
333
-------
TABLE C-42. (Continued)
Allocation Cost
Erect Duct Support, Dehumldifier Support 25,671
Erect Kiln Platforms and Ladders 25,671
Install Dehumldlfler 50,349
Install Gas Purifier 34,676
Erect Dehumidifier Fans 6,661
Erect Gas Purifier Burner System 28,995
Erect Kiln 160,646
Erect Scrubber Internals 6,755
Erect Combustion Fans 12,146
Erect Induced Draft Fan 0
Erect Kiln Hoods 8,819
Erect Kiln Burner Systems 43,296
Erect Seal and Residue Quench Tanks 15,673
Install Refractory for Kiln Hoods 151,053
Install Refractory in Ducts, Thermal Processing
module 64,177
Install Clarlfier Mechanical 5,485
Erect Pumps 19,584
Erect Ram Feeders 5,485
Erect Chemical Feed Tank 979
Start Install Ductwork, Thermal Processing module 55,932
Erect Flocculant Feed Tank 588
Erect Screw Conveyors 9,795
Install Agitators 1,371
Complete Ductwork, Thermal Processing module 55,933
Start Piping, Thermal Processing module 68,078
Complete Piping, Thermal Processing module 66,726
Install Residue Flotation Tank Platework 4,506
Install Residue Separation Screen and Platework 1,567
Install Magnetic Metal Separation System Conveyors,
and Platework 5,877
Install Glassy Aggregate Screen and Platework 980
Install Magnetic Metal Conveyors 6,269
Install Sump Pump 392
Erect Res. Building Int. Support 6,755
Complete Structural and Platform Steel, Residue
Separation module 5,979
Install Foundations for Glassy Aggregate conveyors 2,966
Install Separation Air Compressor 784
Install Pressure and Underflow Pumps 980
Install Thickener Mechanical Equipment and Platework 25,076
Install Vacuum Filter Assembly . 3,135
Install Char Conveyors and Platework 9,208
Install Glassy Aggregate Conveyors 10,971
Conveyor Trim-Outs, Residue Separation module 13,511
334
-------
TABLE C-42. (Continued)
Allocation Cost
Start Piping Above Ground, Residue Separation module 11,536
Complete Piping, Residue Separation module 11,535
Piping Tests, Residue Separation module 1,351
Install Brine Pump 196
Install Plumbing 6,458
Erect Instrument Air Compressor 0
Erect Deaerating Heater 2,155
Start Ductwork, Energy Recovery module 54,168
Install Dust Collectors 9,795
Complete Ductwork, Energy Recovery module 54,170
Erect Waste Heat Boilers 13,511
Erect Feedwater Pumps 4,506
Complete Boiler Installation 57,212
Install Boiler Refractory 46,883
Erect Misc. Steel, Energy Recovery module 5,191
Complete Misc. Stee., Energy Recovery module 5,192
Erect Degasifier System Pumps 1,385
Final Align Test Group, Energy Recovery module 1,351
Erect Boiler Chemical Pumps 392
Erect Tanks in Water Treatment Building 1,642
Erect Softeners 6,073
Erect Agitators 196
Erect Caustic Feed Tank 392
Erect Degasifier 4,506
Start Piping Erection, Energy Recovery module 54,236
Erect Brine Tank 0
Continue Piping, Energy Recovery module 54,236
Install Instrument Air Compressor and Dryer,
Energy Recovery module 7,249
Complete Piping Erection, Ettergy Recovery module 54,237
Final Piping Testing, Energy Recovery module 12,471
Install Above Ground Steam System Lines 40,530
Install Steam Purifier 9,808
Underground Sewers 13,999
Install Plumbing 4,324
Install Spare Parts Warehouse (By Client) 0
Install Shop Items 21,618
Set-Up Equipment 784
Erect Fuel Oil Pumps 588
Erect Fuel Oil Tank 9,728
Complete Piping, Tanks, and Pumps, General Plant
module 39,809
Install Fuel.Oil Line to Burners, General Plant
module 20,537
335
-------
TABLE C-42. (Continued!
Allocation Cost
- ,
Test Fuel Oil System, General Plant module 6,755
Total 2,202,952
338 Subunderground Piping
Install Cont/Water Treat 0/G Sewers and Water 13,995.
Install Underground Fire Loop and Test, General
Plant module 39,234
Install Underground Process Water, General Plant
module 20,007
Install Monitors, General Plant module 0
Complete Backfill Tests, General Plant module 2,702
Total 75,942
340 Subelectrical Work Above Ground
Install Above Ground Electrical Hookups, Receiving,
Size Reduction, and Storage and Recovery modules 37,831
Complete Electrical Hookups, Receiving, Size Reduction,
and Storage and Recqvery modules 7,566
Final Electrical Works Testing, Receiving, Size
Reduction, and Storage and Recovery modules 5,404
Start Above Ground Electrical, Thermal Processing
module 33,777
Complete Above Ground Electrical Thermal Processing
module 33,777
Install Above Ground Electrical 33,102
Electrical Hook-Ups, Residue Separation module 8,107
Start Electrical, Energy Recovery module 13,511
Continue Electrical, Energy Recovery module 13,511
Complete Electrical, Energy Recovery module 13,511
Total 200,097
341 Subelectrical Work Underground
Install Building Underground Electrical, Receiving,
Size Reduction, and Storage and Recovery modules 20,267
Install Grounding, Receiving, Size Reduction, and
Storage and Recovery modules 13,511
Install Underground Power, Thermal Processing module 13,511
Install Building Underground Electrical, Residue
Separation module 2,702
336
-------
TABLE C-42. (Continued)
Allocation Cost
Install Underground Power Etc., Residue Separation
module 9,458
Grounding, Residue Separation module 6,755
Install Cont/Water Treat U/G Elect 13,511
Install Primary Underground Feeders, general Plant
module - 24,320
Set 4.16 KV Equipment, General Plant module 4,053
Set 48QV Equipment, General Plant module 6,755
Complete 4.16 KV Connections, General Plant module 13,511
Complete 480V Connections, General Plant module 13,511
Start Site Lighting 16,213
Continue Site Lighting 16,213
Complete Site Lighting 16,213
Complete Electrical Tie-ins, Etc., General Plant
module 10,065
Total 200,569
342 SuBinstrumentation Work
Start Instrumentation, Receiving, Size Reduction,
and Storage and Recovery modules 20,267
Complete Instrumentation, Receiving, Size Reduction,
and Storage and Recovery modules 20,267
Start Instrumentation, Thermal Processing module 23,644
Complete Instrumentation, Thermal Processing module 25,671
Start Instrumentation, Residue Separation module 22,939
Complete Instrumentation, Residue Separation module 22,939
Start Instrumentation, Energy Recovery module 22,443
Continue Instrumentation, Energy Recovery module 22,443
Complete Instrumentation, Energy Recovery module 22,443
Set Panel, Energy Recovery module 9,863
Complete Panel Hook-Ups, Check Out, Energy Recovery
module 22,239
Start Instrumentation, General Plant module 12,194
Complete Instrumentation, General Plant module 12,194
Total 259,546
343 Subinsulation
Insulation, Receiving, Size Reduction, and Storage
and Recovery modules 21,618
Insulation, Thermal Processing module 28,238
337
-------
TABLE C-42. (Continued)
Allocation Cost
Painting, Thermal Processing module 24,117
Insulation, Residue Separation module 2,702
Insulation, Energy Recovery module 51,342
Insulation, General Pla,nt module 10., 133
Total 138,150
344 Subpainting
Painting, Receiving, Size Reduction, and Storage
and Recovery modules 24,117
Painting, Residue Separation module 10,268
Painting, Energy Recovery-module 16,754
Painting, General Plant module 6,755
Total 57,894
345 Design and Install Steam Line
Install tl.G. Steam Line to City of Baltimore 973,236
Install Steam Line at R.R. Trestle 101,332
Complete and Test Steam Sys-tem 27,002
Total 1,101,590
346 Sufi Finlsfi Road Surfacing
Install Permanent Roads 33,102
Install Permanent Parking Lot 9,458
Total 42,560
347 Subfine Grading and Landscaping
Landscaping 46,208
Total 46,208
348 Suarefractory-
Install Gas Purifier Brick Linings 49,180
Install Kiln Internals 0
Install Kiln Brick Linings 254,546
Total 303,726
338
-------
TABLE O42. ("Continued)
Allocation Cost
344 Suoflre Protection and Sprinklers
Install Sprinklers 25,401
Total 25,401
350 Building Interior General Contractor
Install Receiving Building Arch Spec. 29,319
Complete Building Trim and Control Boiler House 17,024
Complete Building Trim, Etc. 6,755
Complete Building, Interior Trim, General Plant
module 4,729
Install Office Furniture, General Plant module 6,755
Complete Building Trim, General Plant module 26,887
Total 91,469
352 Temporary Facilities
Mobilize On Site and Set-TJp Temporary Facilities 79,039
Total 79,039
352 Checkout and Punch-List Items
Final Run-ins Testing, Receiving, Size Reduction,
and Storage and Recovery modules 6,755
Thermal Processing module 6,755
Residue Separation module 2,702
Energy Recovery module 20,266
Complete Final Punch Lists, General Plant module 432
Total 36,910
Grand Total 14,742,000
* Prepare process design sheets.
339
-------
TABLE C-43. ORIGINAL CONTRACT CAPITAL COSTS
Recording truck scale
(HO) $ 397
(220) 29., 631
(333) 17,159
(337) 19,996
Total 67,183
Shredders
(110) 794
(220) 499,245
(333) 41,634
(337) 36,635
Total 578,308
Chemical and floe feed tank agitators
(110) 794
(220) 4,204
(.337) 1,371
Total 6,369
Conveyor scale
(110) 397
(220) 7,179
(337) 2,017
Total 9,593
Chelate tank agitator
(110) 397
(220) 995
Total 1,392
Storage and recovery unit
(110) 397
(220) 285,553
(333) 81,350
Total 367,300
340
-------
TABLE C-43. (Continued)
Sulfite tank agitator
(110) 39.7
(.220) 265
Total 662
Floe feed tank agitator
CU01 397
(220) 661
Total 1,058
NaOH storage tank agitator
C220) 905
Waste heat boilers
C110.) 795
(220) 698,121
(333) 13,369
C337) 13,511
57,212
46,883
Total 829,891
Refuse combustion air fan
CLIO) 397
C220) 5,159
(333) 359
C337) 360
Total 6,275
Kiln combustion air fans
CLIO) 795
C220) 10,125
C333) 724
C337) 726
Total 12,370
341
-------
TABLE C-43. (Continued)
Gas purifier combustion air fan
(110) 397
(220) 9,070
(333) 647
(337) 648
Total 10,762
Crossover combustion air fan
0-10) 397
(.220) 11,847
C333) . 851
C337) 853
Total 13,948
Dust collection fan
CHO)_ 397
C220) 4,514
Total 4,911
Induced draft fan
CHO.) * 397
C220) 130,124
C333) 9,538
C337) 9,559
Total 149,618
Dehumidifier fans
CLIO) 2,384
C220) 107,517
C337) 4,996
Total 114,897
Separation air compressor
(110) 398
203
C220) 5,130
C337) 833
784
Total 342 7,348
-------
TABLE C-43. (Continued)
Instrument air compressor
(110} 398
(220} 8,108
C337). 833
5,335
Total 14,674
Shredder dust collector
C11Q) 794
C220) 15,093
C337) 3,184
Total 19,071
Storage, trans, kiln dust collectors
1,192
C22Q) 7,114
(337) 1,951
Total 10,257
Instrument air dryer
CllO) 397
0220) 3,078
(337) 1,118
1,914
Total 6,507
Fly ash transfer system
CllO) 397
(220) 22,107
(333) 2,705
(337) 8,677
Total 33,886
Kiln -
0.10) 397
C220) 736,482
G33} 54,429
73,928
C337) 343 25,671
-------
TABLE C-43. (Continued!
160,646
C348* 284,656
Total 1,336,209
Gas purifier
0-10). 397
C2201 80,161
C3331 4,607
C3371 36,676
C348) 49,180
Total 171,021
Kiln Burner system
CHOI 397
C220X 98,522
C3371 32,560
Total 131,479
Gas purifier burner sy&tem
CHOI . 397
C220). 41,288
C337) 28,995
Total 70,680
Kiln safety Burner system
CHOI 397
C220) 32,665
C337) 10,736
Total 43,798
Receiving area sump pump
(1101 397
C220> 1,688
C337) 331
Total 2,416
344
-------
TABLE C-43. (Continued!
Storage pit sump pump
(110) 397
C2201 1,693
(3371 332
Total 2,422
Fuel oil pumps
(1101 795
(220). 1,820
(3331 676
(3371 588
Total 3,879
Scrubber pumps-
0-10-1 795
(220) 29,705
(3331 8,547
(3371 15,169
Total 54,216
Sludge pump
0-10.) 397
(220) 2,349
(3331 813
(337). 1,074
Total 4,633
Chemical feed pump
(110) 397
(220) 1,820
(333) 451
(337) 801
Total 3,469
Floe feed pump
CLIO) 397
C22Q) 1,688
(3331 555
345
-------
TABLE C-43. (Continued)
C337) 733
Total 3,373
Underflow pump
CHOI 397
C22Q1 1,952
C3331 132
C3371 191
Total 2,672
Pressure pump
C1101 397
(220). 7,214
(3331 544
C337) 789
Total 8,944
Vacuum pump trc
CHOI 596
0220) 8,390
(337). 303
Total 9,289
Filtrate pump
0-10) 596
C220) 1,480
C337) 54
Total 2,130
Feedwater pumps
C110) 795
C220) 13,170
C337) 4,506
Total 18,471
Pump
0-101 .., 397
346
-------
TABLE C-43. (Continued)
Pump
(110) 397
Clarifier overflow sump pump
(110) 397
C220) 1,820
(333) 82
451
(337) 1,115
Total 3,865
Quench pit sump pump
CLIO) 397
C220) 1,688
C333) 2,702
C337) 1,020
Total 5,807
Sulfite pump
CLIO.) 397
(220) 762
(337) 196
Total 1,355
Chelate pump
C110) 397
C220) 762
C337) 196
Total 1,355
Brine pump
C110) 397
C220) 1,952
C337) 196
Total 2,545
Separation sump pump
C110-), 397
347
-------
TABLE C-43. (Continued)
(220) 1,688
C337) 392
Total 2,477
Sulfuric acid pump
(110) 397
C22Q) 1,687
(337) 281
Total 2,365
Degas If ier pump
0-100 39.7
(220) 1,688
C337) 237
Total 2,322
NaOET pump
CHO) 397
(220) 1,687
C337) 281
Total 2,365
Chemical unloading pump
(110) 397
C22Q) 2,349
(333) 605
(337) 1,074
348
Total 4,773
Degasifier pump
0-10) 397
(.220) . 1,688
C337) 331
733
237
Total 3,386
348
-------
TABLE C-43. (Continued!
Storage pit sump pump
C110.) 397
(220) 1,688
(337) 331
Total 2,416
NaOH storage tank pump
C220) 1,145
Storate pit hopper
(1101 795
C22QX 30,167
C337) 11,167
Total 42,129
Kiln feed and fire hoods
C110) 795
C220.) 45,113
(333) 4,503
C337) 13,511
4,188
8,819
151,053
Total 227,982
Seal tank
(1101 430
C220) 15,122
C333) 5,019
C337). 5,443
Total 26,014
Residue quench tank
CLIO) 430
C220) 28,186
(3331 9,431
10,230
Total 48,277
349
-------
TABLE C-43. (Continued).
Fuel oil storage tank
CHOI 430
C2201 15,251
C333X 13,369
(337)_ 9,728
Total 38,778
Gas scrubber
CHO) 397
79.5
C333) 18,111
145,014
C337). 8,816
6,755
Total 179,888
Dehumidifier
CHO). 397
C220). 224,685
C333). 11,855
C337) 50,349
25,671
Total 312,957
Clarifier
C110X 397
C220) 40,226
C333) 11,214
3,432
C337) 5,485
Total 60,754
Chemical feed tank
CHO) 430
C220) 8,141
C333). 2,287
C337) 979
Total 11,837
350
-------
TABLE C-43. (Continued)
Floe feed tank
0-10) 430
C220) 3,514
(3331 1,267
C337). 588
858
Total 6,657
Residue flotation unit
CHOI 397
C220) 21,207
C3371 4,506
Total 26,110
Vacuum receiver
C220) 2,225
C337) 71
Total 2,296
Thickener
CllOl 397
C220) 42,126
C333). 22,881
21,584
C3371 25,076
Total 112,064
NaOH storage tank
C220) 12,665
Water softeners
CHOI 430
795
(-220). 41,165
(3371 6,073
Total 48,463
351
-------
TA3LE C-43. CContinued)
Derating heater
(1101 397
397
C2201 22,107
C333) 4,682
C337). 1,115
Total 29,698
Degasifier
CHOI 397
C220) 20,184
C337X 4,506
Total 25,087
Brine tank
0-101 430
C220) 7,189
(3331 1,385
Total 9,004
Sulfite tank
CHOI 430
C220) 1,626
C3371 359
Total 2,415
Chelate tank
CHOI 430
C22Q). 1,626
C337) 359
Total 2,415
Snubber
CLIO) 397
C220) 515
O371 9
66
Total 987
352
-------
TAJ3LE C-43. (Continued)
Steam purifier
C110> 397
C337) 9,SOS
Total 10,20.5
Tank
C110) 430
NaOH tank
0-10-) 430
C220) 2,088
C337) 392
Total 2,910
Floe feed tank
CLIO). 430
C220) 1,061
Total 1,491
Bulldozers
CLIO). 795
C220.) 137,836
(337) 506
Total 139,137
Storage pit conveyors
CllQ) 795
C220) 99,861
C3371 25,598
2,951
Total 129,205
Shredder feed conveyors
(110) 794
C220) 129,343
C333) 15,308
C337) 33,175
353
-------
TABLE C-43. (Continued)
3,824
Total 182,444
Shredder discharge conveyors
(110) 794
(220) 38,012
(337) 8,105
Total 46,911
Shredded refuse conveyors
0-101 397
795
C220) 236,709
(337) 16,922
5,955
44,896
Total 305,674
Kiln feed conveyor
CHOI 397
(2201 49,095
(3371 14', 243
Total 63,735
Ram feeders
(HO) 795
C2201 114,089
C333). 224
(3371 5,485
Total 120,593
Screw conveyors
CL101 795
C22Q1 13,077
C3331 224
(3371 3,033
Total 17,129
354 "
-------
TABLE C-43. (.Continued)
Residue quench tank conveyor
0-10) 397
(.2201 28,824
C333) 499
C337). 6,762
Total 36,482
Residue separation screen
(110) 397
(220) 9,960
(337) 1,567
Total 11,924
Sinks discharge conveyor
(110) 397
C220) 5,133
(337) 1,155
Total 6,685
Magnetic metal separation conveyors
(110) 795
C2201 40,065
C333) 723
C337) 4,722
6,269
Total 52,574
Conveyor
(1101 397
Glassy aggregate screen
0-lOi 397
(220) 10,125
(337) 980
Total 11,502
Glassy aggregate transfer conveyors
0-10) 795
355
-------
TABLE C-43. (Continued)
(220). 50,240
(337). 2,966
10,971
Total 64,972
Vacuum belt filter
(.110). 397
(220-1 74,905
(3331 676
C337) 2,698
Total 78,676
Char transfer conveyors
(1101 795
(22Q1 48,595
C333) 1,054
(337) 9,208
Total 59,652
Mobile crane
(HO) 397
(220) 27,382
C337) 100
Total 27,879
Enloader
0-10-) 397
(220) 41,668
(337) 152
Total 42,217
Stored material spreader
(110)- 397
(220). 21,430
(337) 800
6,028
Total 28,655
356
-------
TABLE C-43. (Continued)
Plant truck
(110) 397
(220) 7,540
(3371 27
Total 7,964
Shop equipment
(110) 397
(220.) 46,012
C337), 21,618
Total 68,027
Conveyor
(1101 397
Magnetic drum separator
C220). 38,721
Vibrating screen conveyor
C110) 397
(220) 13,493
Total 13,890
357
-------
TABLE C-44. NON SPECIFIC COSTS*
Code Description Cost
(110) Final drawings $ 3,973
Complete concrete drawings 35,557
Complete steel design 62,772
Complete ductwork design 3,973
Complete design 5,959
(220). Local instruments 20,107
Structures and platforms 157,149
Ductwork 19,710
C332) Drive piles as required 201,285
C3331
C337).
(340).
(341).
(342)
(343)
C344I
(349)
(359)
Line grading for slab
Pour pit slabs
Install ductwork
Trim out conveyors
Start piping
Complete piping
Install above ground electrical hookups
Complete electrical hookups
Final electrical works testing
Install building underground electrical
Install grounding
Start instrumentation
Complete instrumentation
Insulation
Painting
Install sprinklers
'Final run-ins testing
Total
6,755
113,728
23,705
2,027
31,497
31,504
37,831
7,566
5,404
20,267
13,511
20,267
20,267
21,618
24,117
25,401
6,755
922,705
In the computer printout, cost items are allocated to waste preparation
rather than receiving, size reduction, and storage and recovery cost
centers. The total non specific cost were allocated equally to the three
cost centers.
358
-------
TABLE C-45. ORIGINAL CONTRACT CAPITAL COSTS BY COST CENTER
Code
Description
Cost
Receiving
(333)
(335)
(337)
(350)
Start excavation receiving bldg.
Complete excavation receiving bldg.
Foundations receiving bldg. footings
Complete footings and walls
Pour slabs receiving bldg.
Install scale bldg.
Erect receiving bldg. steel
Complete siding etc. -receiving bldg.
Start conveyor gallery steel
Continue gallery steel
Install receiving bldg. arch spec.
Non specific costs
6,755
6,755
85,410
152,741
113,728
3,243
81,066
87,822
41,580
40,533
29,319
307,568
Size Reduction
(220)
(337)
Total
2 shredder motors and starters
Shredder house and galary siding
Install shredder house steel
Non specific costs
Total
956,520
32,865
39,58.7
23,313
307,568
403,333
Storage and Recovery
(336) Install storage and recovery unit
(337)
Start transfer house steel
Complete transfer house steel
Non specific costs
Total
189,153
6,755
6,755
307,569
510,232
359
-------
TABLE C-45. (Continued)
Code Description Cost
Thermal Processing
(110) Final drawings 3,937
Complete concrete dwgs, scope 29,399
Complete steel design 35,955
Complete ductwork design 3,973
Complete design 18,673
(220) Duct work 79,897
Butterfly valve 11,377
Local instruments 39,684
Misc. steel 127,253
(332) Drive piles as required 70,608
(333) Start excavations 6,755
(337) Start install, ductwork 55,932
Complete ductwork 55,933
Start piping 68,078
Complete piping 66,726
Install refractory unit at ducts 64,177
Test fuel oil system 6,755
Install fuel oil line to burners 20,537
(340) Start above ground electrical 33,777
Complete above ground electrical 33,777
Install above ground electrical 33,102
(341) Install underground power 13,511
(342) Start instrumentation 23,644
Complete instrumentation 25,671
(343) Insulation 28,238
Painting 24,117
(359) Final run-ins testing 6,755
Total 988,241
Energy Recovery
(110) Complete concrete dwgs. - scope 15,892
Final dwgs. 3,973
360
-------
TABLE C-45. (Continued)
Code Description Cost
Complete steel design 22,646
Complete ductwork design 3,973
Complete piping design 23,440
Scope and spec, steam system 7,946
Analyze bids and award steam system S/C 1,589
Analyze bids and award U.G. electrical S/C 0
(220) Duct work 76,326
Butterfly valve 64,289
Jug valve 29,897
Gate valves 21,430
Local instruments 50,531
Misc. steel 13,757
(332) Drive piles as required 7,552
(333) Start excavations 4,053
Complete excavations 4,053
(335) Erect water treatment bldg. structural steel 5,404
Complete water treat, bldg. roofing, steel,
& siding 6,755
Complete steel siding on control house 10,809
(337) Start ductwork 54,168
Complete ductwork 54,170
Erect misc. steel 5,191
Complete misc. steel 5,192
Final align, test group 1,351
Start piping erection 54,236
Continue piping 54,236
Complete piping erection 54,237
Final piping testing 12,471
Install above ground steam system lines 40,530
(340) Start electrical 13,511
Continue electrical 13,511
Complete electrical 13,511
(342) Start instrumentation 22,443
Continue instrumentation 22,443
Complete instrumentation 22,443
Set panel 9,863
Complete panel hook-ups, check out 22,239
(343) Insulation 51,342
361
-------
TABLE C-45. (Continued)
Code Description Cost
(344) Painting 16,754
(345) Install U.G. stream line to city of Baltimore 973,236
Install steam line at R.R. trestle 101,332
Complete & test steam system 27,022
(350) Complete bldg. trim and control boiler house 17,024
Complete bldg. trim, etc. 6,755
(359) Final run-ins testing 20,266
Total 2,046,770
Residue Separation
(110) Complete concrete dwgs. -scope 10,330
Final drawings 3,973
Complete receiving bldg. fdn. design 13,905
Complete residue separation bldg. fdn. design 3,973
Complete steel design 24,235
Complete piping design 10,727
(332) Drive piles as required 9,485
(333) Start excavations 4,053
Complete excavations 4,053
Residue separation bldgs. foundation 22,036
Complete residue bldg. slab 4,817
(335) Install bldg. steel skin 6,755
(337) Erect res. bldg. int. support 6,755
Complete structural & platform steel 5,979
Conveyor trim-outs 13,511
Start piping above ground 11,536
Complete piping 11,535
Piping tests 1,351
(340) Electrical hook-ups 8,107
(341) Install bldg. underground electrical 2,702
Install underground power, etc. 9,458
Grounding 6,755
362
-------
TABLE C-45. (Continued)
Code Description Cost
(342) Start instrumentation 22,939
Complete instrumentation 22,939
(343) Insulation 2,702
(344) Painting 10,268
(359) Final run-ins testing 2,702
(220) Local instruments 22,895
Misc. steel 15,476
Total 302,952
General Plant
(110) Operator training 27,022
Preliminary engineering flow sheets 14,898
Final engineering flow sheets 14,898
Spec, temporary power 0
Preliminary plant layouts 23,837
Firm up plant layouts 27,810
Issue fencing specs, for quotes 3,937
All risk & performance bonds 64,000
Soils boring, site topo. 993
Site preparation & spec. dwgs. 7,350
Analyze bids & award site prep, subcontract 795
Prepare piling pkg. specs. 13,508
Analyze bids & award piling subcontract 795
Base CPM schedule 13,243
Analyze bids and award concrete S/C 795
Complete concrete dwgs. 11,124
Final dwgs. 3,973
Preliminary bldgs. fdn. design - scope 0
Complete sew./cont. bldg. fdn. design 8,740
Complete maint. bldg. fdn. design 2,980
Complete office bldg. fdn. design 2,980
Complete bldgs. pkg. . 27,810
Analyze bids and award bldgs. subcontract 1,192
Start underground plumbing design 3,973
Complete underground plumbing design 3,973
Analyze bids & award job and erection S/C 1,391
Complete steel design 29,002
Design platework & charter 66,149
363
-------
TABLE C-45. (Continued)
Code Description Cost
Spec, control panel & arrangement 7,946
Instrument list 13,905
Start loop sheets 9,336
Complete initial design loop sheets 9,536
Spec, control valves 11,919
Panel initiation and trans, specs. 19,586
Local initiation spec, and dwgs. 18,673
Back of panel dwgs. 8,939
Local initiation installation dwgs. 18,871
Specify insulation package 3,973
Spec, for painting package 3,973
Issue specs, for fire protection 1,986
Issue specs, for final paving-landscaping 3,973
Complete ductwork support dwgs. 7,946
Analyze bids and award piping S/C 3,575
Complete piping design 21,851
Start underground elec. & grounding design 13,508
Complete underground elec. & grounding design 13,508
Start one-line diagram - all areas 6,357
Complete one-line diagram - all areas 9,535
Spec, balance of elec. equip, (pwr., Itg.) 173,221
Prepare motor list 1,986
Spec, switchgears, transformers, generator 2,304
Scope & prepare mechanical erection pkg. 3,973
Operation manuals 26,486
(220) 13.2 Kv/480-277V substation 153,975
Emergency power supply 16,535
Main control panel 86,908
Local instruments 13,890
Spare parts 250,265
Equipment platework 48,149
Office bldg. steel 4,894
5 motor control centers 47,754
5 motor starters 25,927
(330) Grading of site for all areas 290,486
Install road sub-bases 27,022
Install parking lot sub-bases 9,458
Complete dike 2,702
(331) Install fencing 16,483
(332) Drive piles as required 9,660
3-64
-------
TABLE C-45. (Continued)
Code Description Cost
(333) Install substation foundations slab 9,458
Start office bldg. foundation 8,053
Complete office bldg. slab 14,315
Start maintenance/storage bldg. fdns. 14,389
Complete maintenance bldg. slabs 32,588
Balance of equip, conveyors foundations 25,394
supports
Complete pump foundation excavation 1,351
Control/water treat, bldg. fnd. 39,108
Excavation stations 1,351
Control/water treat, bldg. int. slabs 29,218
(335) Erect control house steel 9,458
Erect office bldg. steel siding 56,746
Storage/maint. bldg. struct, steel erect 16,078
Complete bldg. exterior 12,160
(337) Underground sewers 13,999
Complete piping, tanks 39,809
and pumps
Erect conveyor support 14,092
Install plumbing 6,458
Erect agitators 196
Install plumbing 4,324
(338) Install cont./water treat. 0/G sewers & water 13,999
Install underground fire loop and test 39,234
Install underground process water 20,007
Install monitors 0
Complete backfill tests 2,702
(341) Install cont./water treat. U/G elect. 13,511
Install primary underground feeders 24,320
Set 4.16 KV equipment 4,053
Set 480 V equipment 6,755
Complete 4.16 KV equipment 13,511
Complete 480V connections 13,511
Start site lighting 16,213
Continue site lighting 16,213
(342) Start instrumentation 12,194
Complete instrumentation 12,194
(343) „ Insulation 10,133
365
-------
TABLE C-45. (Continued)
Code Description Cost
(344) Painting 6,755
(346) Install permanent roads 33,102
Install permanent parking lot 9,458
(347) Landscaping 46,208
(350) Complete bldg., interior trim 4,729
Install office furniture 6,755
Complete bldg. trim 26,887
(352) Mobilize on site & set-up temporary facilities 79,039
(359) Complete final punch lists 432
Total 2,575,602
366
-------
TABLE C-46. SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT CAPITAL COSTS BY COST CENTER
Receiving
Storage pit sump pumps $ 1,900
Direct costs 6,500
Indirect costs 5,356
Total 13,756
Size Reduction
Shredders 171,000
Dust collectors 7,920
Shredder feed conveyors 2,100
Direct costs 0
Indirect costs 115,411
Total 296,431
Storage and Recovery
Storage and recovery unit 39,976
Dust collectors 11,880
Storage and recovery sump pump 2,300
Shredded refuse conveyors 1,300
Direct costs 1,100
Indirect costs 36,058
Total 92,614
Thermal Processing
Refuse combustion air fan 13,000
Kiln combustion air fan 26,500
Induced draft fan 77,300
Cooling water system 33,800
Kiln 702,300
Gas purifier 125,050
Scrubber pumps 10,600
Caustic pump 2,000
Seal tank 20,400
Residue quench tank 4,600
Gas scrubber 294,100
Clarifier 2,900
Ram feeders 59,300
Screw conveyors 25,500
Residue quench tank conveyor 194,300
Direct costs 13,700
Indirect costs 1,023,511
Total 2,628,861
367
-------
TABLE C-46. (Continued)
Energy Recovery
Waste heat boilers 181,250
Fly ash blower 500
Sulfuric acid pump 100
Degasifier 100
Direct costs 19,900
Indirect costs 128,692
Total 330,542
Residue Separation
Thickener ' 600
Magnetic metal separation system 2,700
Glassy aggregate screen 400
Vacuum filter 2,100
Char transfer conveyors- 1,500
Roto screen oversize conveyors 3,800
Residue flotation conveyor 3,300
Direct costs 500
Indirect costs 9,500
Total 24,400
General Plant
Instrument air compressor 31,100
Dust collection fan 200
Direct costs 223,824
Indirect costs 162,657
Total 417,781
Grand Total 3,804,385
368
-------
APPENDIX D
KILN MODEL COMPUTER PROGRAM
369
-------
PROGRAM KILNWA
DIMENSION BTEMP(100),TTEMP(100)*BMVM( 100 ) ,BTAVE ( 100) ,TTAVE ( 10O/TI
1MF(200),BTP(100)*TTR(100),BMEVM< 100) ,BMW( 100) ,TMW( 100 )
2^QCeT(100),QCTB(100),8MCD(100),TCS(100),CHTC(100)
3/TMC02(100),8WE(100),BAMASS(100)*BMEW(100),BMASH(100),CHTR(100)
DIMENSION EXAIRF(100),TGCOF(100),TGC02F(100)
l,TGWF(100),QCRFO(100),TMa2(100)*TRU2F<100),TMN2(100),EXAIRV<100)
2>TGCOVM(100)*BXASHUOO),BXC(100)>BXVM(100),BXW(100),QSAV<100)
3>TGCHA(100)*TGC2H6(100)*TGCVM(100),TGH2V(100),TRCARB(100)
4,TRHYD(100),RMOLCD(100),RMOLVM(100),RMOLW<100)
5^TR02V(100)*RMOL02(100)
6,TGV.'V(100),TRVM(100),QCRVM(100),
7TRU2VM(100)>EXAIRC(100),TGCDC(100),TRCC<100),TGC02C<100),QCRC<1
800)^TR02(100)*TMC2H6(100)*TMCH4(100),TMVM(100)/TMCO(100)*
9TMH2(100)^TMC(100)/TMASS(100),TX02(100),TXK(100),TXH2(100)
DIMENSION TXCa2(100),TXCD(100)*TXVM(100)*TXCH4(lOO),
1TXC2H6(100)*TXN2(100),TXC(100.),QCRT(100)*BHASH{100),BHVM(100).,
2BHW(100)^BHC(iaO)>THCO(100)*THC02(lOO)*TH02(100)*THH2(100),THW(100
3),BHEC(100)>BHEVM(100)*THVM(100)/THC2H6(100),THCH^(100)^THN2
4(100)/TGC02V(100),BHEW(100)
5/QEMITS(lOO)*QEMITB(100)*QEMITT(100)*QABST(lOO)
6jQABSEB(100)jQABSET(100)jENBALT(100);ENBALB(100);QABSB<100)
REAL RMCO(IOO)
INTEGER HAFN,OUT,XNNN
ITALK=2
UUT*66
INPUT.67
ITERAsO
IF(ITALK.NE.1)GO TO 1001
5 FORMAT(/T5, • HOW MANY CUBIC ELEMENTS FOR THIS ANALYSIS ? (5
IFdTALK.NE.DGO TO 1004
370
-------
GOTO 116
360 WRITE(OUT,362)
362 FORMAT(/T5, 'THIS KILN REQUIRES APPROX. 20000 CFM.')
116 IF(ITALK.NE.1)AIRI=20000.
IFdTALK.NE.DGOTO 119
WRITE(OUT,H5)
115 FORMAT(/T5, 'WHAT IS THE AIR INPUT (CFM); RELATIVE HUMIDITY; AND
1TEMPERATURE ?')
1004 READ(INPUT,120)AIRI>W2^T
IF(AIRI.EQ.O.)AIRI=AIRS
119 AIRxAlRI
TMAIR=AIR*. 00125
TAMB=T+460.
W2=W2*. 008/65.
20 FORMAT(F10.3)
AVEL=AMASS/(AROH*PIE*DIA**2./8.)
AROTV=ARUT*PIE*DIA/60.
ASQRT=SQRT(4*AVEL**2+(AROTV/50.)**2)
ALONGT=(ALONG/(2.*AVEL) )*ASQRT
BSIDE=2.*ALONGT/M
30 FQRMAT(I2)
IF(ITALK.NE.1)GO TO 1005
WRITE(OUT,35)
35 FORMAT(/T5> 'WHAT IS THE AVERAGE TEMP. OF THE OUTSIDE KILN WALL ?
1 (DEGREES F) ')
1005 READ(INPUT*160)ATOWI
IF(ATQWI.EQ.O.)ATOWI=ATWAVS
ATWAVG*ATOWI+460.
IFdTALK.NE.DGO TO 1006
WRITE(OUT,45>
45 FQRMAT(/T5> 'WHAT ARE THE INITIAL TEMPERATURES:')
WRITE(OUT,50)
50 FORMAT(/T15/'REFJSE OUT OF RAM ? RESIDUE ? FIRE HOOD
1 ? OFF GASES ?' )
1006 READ(INPUT/113)T1,T2/T3^T4
120 FORMAT (3F13.3)
IF(T1.EQ.O.)T1=T1S
IF(T2.EQ.O.)T2=T2S
IF(T3.EQ.O.)T3=T3S
IF(T4.EQ.O.)T4=T4S
T1=T1+460.
T2=T2+460.
T3=T3+460.
TTEMP(NX+2)=(T3+TAMB)/2.
TTEMP(NX)=T3
BTEMP(11)=T1
BTEMP(NX-H) = T2
NN=NX+1
NNN»NN*1
BTEMP(NN+2)=(BTEMP(NN)+TAMB)/2.
DO 130 I=13*NN,2
130 BTEMP(I)=BTEMP(I-2)+((T2-Tl)/HAFN)
TTEMP(10)=T4
TTEMP(NX)=T3
TTEMP(NNN+2)*TAMa
DO 140 H = 12*NX>2
I=NX-II+12
140 TTEMP(I)»TTEMP(I*2)-((T3-T4)/HAFN)
IFdTALK.NE.DGO TO 1007"
3.71
-------
WRITE(OUT,155)
155 FORMAT(/T5, 'WHAT IS THE FEED RATE OF FUEL OIL ? (GAL/MIN DEFAULT
1=0.3) ' )
1007 READ(INPUT,160)AFUELI
IF(ITALK.NE.1)GQTO 1008
WRITE(OUT,634)
634 FORMAT(/T2.» 'WHAT VALUES FOR:BMIN/TMIN*BMAX*TMAX ?•)
1008 READ(INPUT^635)BMIN>TMIN>BMAX>TMAX
635 FORMAT(4F8.2)
IF(AFUELI.EQ.O.)AFUELI=AFUELS
160 FORMAT(F4.3)
AFUEL=AFUELI
AFUEL=AFUEL*.l
STDICH=4.76*(AFJEL*3.43+AVM*1.1B+ACOMB*2.67)
99 XAIR=(TMAIR-STniCH)/STOICH*100.
ITERAxITERA+1
111 FORMAT(//,T15, 'THIS IS THE START OF ITERATION NO. SI2)
BMVM(11)=AVM
BMASH(11)=ASH '
BMW(11)=AWATER
BMCO(11)=ACOMB
IFdTERA.GT. 10)00 TO 900
LOOP=1
IF (ITERA.EQ.l)GOTO 117
118 WRITE (OUT>111)ITERA
LOQP = 0
ATW* (ALOG(DI A/DINS ))*DI A* (ATWAVG-TAMB)/
1(2.*RESIST)+ATWA\/G
TMW2=TMAIR*W2
DO 600 II=12*NX,2
QSAV ( I ) =ABS ( TTAVE ( I ) -BTAVE ( I -1 ) >
QCBT(I) = .22*(QSAV(I)**U./3.M
IF(BTAVE(I-1).LT.TTAVE(I))QCBT(I)=-QCBT(I)
600 QCTB(I-D=-QCBT(I)
DO 300 I=11>NN>2
BMEC(I)=BMCD(I)*(BTAVE(I)/3400,-.1764)
1F(BTAVE(I).LE.700.)BMEC(I)=0.
iF(BTAVEd) .GE.4000.)BMEC(I)=BMCO(I)
BMCO(I*2)=BMCO(I)-BMEC(I)
300 CONTINUE
DO 100 I=11*NN,2
BMASH(I)=BMASH(11)
BMVM(I+2)«BMVM(1)-.A5*.00012*BMVM(11)*TIME(I)*EXP(-.0001*TIME{I))
1*(1.297)*(705.-BTAVE(I))/(617.-BTAVE(I))
IF (BMVM(I+2).LE.O.)GDTO 18
GOTO 17
18 IF(BTAVE(I).LE.760.)BMVM(I+2>BBMVM(I)-.45*.5*.00012*BMVM(11)*TIME
1(I)*EXP(-.0001*TIME(I)>
IF(BTAVE(I).GE.1800.)BMVM(I+2)=BMVM(I)-.45*1.2*.00012*BMVM(1D*TI
1ME ( I )*EXP (-.0001*TIME( I ) )
IF(BMVM(I+2).LT.O.)BMVM(I+2)=0.
17 BMEVM(I)=BMVM(I)-BMVM(I+2)
IF(BMEVM(I).LT.O.)BMEVM(I)«=0.
100 CONTINUE
DO 220 I=11,NN>2
16 TCSd ) = .24*.45*W2
CHTC(I)=.01*TMAIR**.8/BSIDE**.2
IF(TTR(I+1)-BTR(I).NE.O.)GOTO 305
372
-------
CHTR(I)=,173
GOTO 307
305 CHTR( I)=((TTR(I+1)/100.)**4-(BTR( I ) /I 00. )**4) *. 173/ (TTR( 1+1 ) -BTP ( I
1))
307 BWE(I) = ( (TCS(I)/rfHFG)*{(TTAVE*<
2»
IF.LT.O.)BWE(1)=0.
BMEW(I)*BWE(I)*TMAIR*.4
BMW(I+2)=8MW(I)-BMEW(I)
IF(BMW2)=0.
TMC02(NX)=0.
TMH2(NX-»-2)=0.
TMH2(NX)=0.
DO 405 II=12/NX/2
I=NNN-II+10
RMCD( I )=10.**(-9. )*EXP( ,00587*TTAVE( I) )
TGCOFf I )=(84.*RMCO( I >*AFUEL*EXA I RFU +2)**. 4832)7109.76
TGC02F(I)=44.*AFIJEL/14.-TGCOF(I)*1.57
IF(I.NE.NX)TGC02F(I)=0.
IF(I.NE.NX)TGCOF(I)=0.
TGWF(I)=18.*AFUEL*EXAIRF(I+2)/(l50.*14.)
EXAIRF(I)=EXAIRF(H-2)
IF(I.NE.NX)TGWF(I)=0.
IF(I.EQ.NX)QCRFO(I)=19350.*AFUEL
IF(I.NE.NX)QCRFO(I)=0.
TR02F ( I ) =TM02 ( 1+2 >-16.*TGCOF ( I ) /28 .-32 ,*TGCQ2F { I ) 744 .
IF(TR02F(I).LE.O.)TR02F(I)=0.
TMN2(I)=TMN2
-------
IF(EXAIRV(I).LT.O)GD TO 380
TGCDVM(I)=238.*RMCU(I)*EXAIRV=0.
C ETHENE GENERATION
TGC2H6(I)=.1*TGCH4(I)
C CARBON FROM VOLATILE MATTER(VM)
TGCVM(I)=(8.5*BMEVM(I-1)*12./172.)*<.0064*TTAVE
1(I)*(-50.-EXAIRV(I))/1000.)
IF(TTAVE(I).GT.3000.)TGCVM(I)a(11.386)*10.**(-3.)*BMEVM(I-l)
1*(-EXAIRV(I)-50.)
IF(EXAIRV(I).GT.-50.)TGCVM(I)«0.
C HYDROGEN FROM VM
IF(EXAIRV(I).LT.'100.)TGCVM(I)=0.
TGH2V(I)=(17./172.)*(.00642-TTAVE(I)*.00000642)
1*EXAIRV(I)*BMEVM(1-1)
IF(TTAVE(I).GT.3000.)TGH2V(I)3l7.*EXAIRV(I)*BMEVM(I-l)/172.*.01284
IF(EXAIRV(I).GE.O.)TGH2V(I)=0.
IF(TTAVE(I).LE.1000.)TGH2V(I)-0.
IF(EXAIRV(I).LT.-100.)TGH2V(I)=0.
TRn2V(I)=TR02F(I)-TGCOVM(I)*16./28.
IF(TR02V(I).LT.O.)TR02V(I)=0.
IF(TR02V(I).LT.O.)TGCDVM(I)»28.*TR02F{I)/16.
TRCARB(Il=72.*BMEVM(I-l)/172.-12.*TGCOVM(I)/28.-TGCVM(I)-l2.*
1TGCH4(I)/16.-24*TGC2H6(I)/30.
IF(TRCARB(I).LT.O.)GD TO 403
427 TRHYD(I) = 10.*BMEVM(I-l)/l72.-TGH2V(I)-4.*TGCH4U)/l6.-6.*
1TGC2H6(I)/30,
IF(TRHYD(I).LE.O.)GO TO 777
IF(TRHYD(I).GT.O.)GQ TO 783
403 TRCARB(I)=72.*BMEVM(I-l)/172.-12.*TGCOVM(I)/28.-12.*TGCH4(I)/16.-
124.*TGC2H6(I)/30.
IF(TRCARB(I).GE.O.)TGCVM(I)»TRCARB(I)
IF(TRCARB(I).GE.O.)GO TO 427
TRCARB(D»0.
TGCH4(I)=(72.*BMEVM(I-l)/172.-12.*TGCOVM(I)/28.)/.833
IF{TGCH4 779
778 TGH2V(I)=0.
TGCH4(I)»BMEVM(I-l)/4.655
374
-------
779 RMIJLW(I)=0.
KMDLVM(D=0.
IF(TRCARB(I).EQ.O.)GO TO 791
RMDLCGU >=TRCARB(I)/12.
RMnL02(I>=(TR02V(I)-32.*RMDLCO(I))/32.
IF(RMOL02(I).LT.O.)GO TO 792
GO TO 480
783 IF=0.
RMULW(I)=0.
RMOLCO(I)=0.
RMOL02(I)=0.
TRCARB(I)=TGCVM
GO TO 480
791 RMOLCO(I)=0.
RMOL02(I)=TR02V(I)/32.
GO TO 480
792 RM0102CI)=0.
RMULCQ(I)=TR02V(I)
TGCVM(I)sTGCVM(I)+TRCARB=TRHYDU )/20.
GO TO 415
786 RMOLVM(I)=TRCAR3(I)/144.
415 RMOLW(I)=TRHYD(I)/2.-5.*RMOLVM=TR02V =TRCARB< I) /12.-6.*RMOLVM( I)
RMOlWtI)=TRHYD(I)/2.-5.*RMQLVM( I)
RMOL02(I)»TR02V{I)/32.-28.125*RMOLVM(l)-2.*RMOLW(I)-RMOLCO(I)
375
-------
IF(RMOL02(I).GE.O.)GO TO 480
RMOL02(I)*0.
GO TO 480
795 RMOLW(I)*TR02V(I)/16.
TGH2V(I)=TGH2V(I> +TRHYD(I)-2,*RMOLW=RMOLCO(l)*44./28,
IF(TGC02V(I).LT.O.)TGC02V(n»0.
TGWV=44.*TRD2V/25000.-.933*(EXAIRC<
II )**2/2500000. »*(TTAVE< I )-1000.)
IF(TTAVEd) .GE.3000.)TGCOC(I)aTGCOC(I)*ZOOO./(TTAVE(I)-1000.)
IF(TRCC(I).LT.O.)TRCC(I)=0.
IF(TGCOC(I).LT.O.)TGCOC(I)=0.
GOTO 512
520 TRCC(I)*BMEC(I-1>
TGCOC(I)=0.
TGC02C(D=0.
GO TO 513
510 TRCC(I)=0.
IF(EXAIRC(I).GT,150.)EXAIRC(I)=150.
TGCOC(I)=(28.*BMEC(I-l)/12.)*RMCO(I)*(CEXAIR**.4832)
512 TGC02Cm = (BMEC(I-l)-TRCC(I)-12.*TGCOC(I))*44./12.
C HEAT OF COMBUSTIONOF CARBON
513 QCRC(I)=49940.*TGCOC(I)/(28.*l.055)+178650.*TGC02C(I)/(44.*1.055)
C OXYGEN REMAINING IN ITH ELEMENT AFTER COMBUSTION OF CARBON
C /VM,AND FUEL OIL
TR02(I)»TR02VM(I)-32.*TGC02C(I)/44.-16.*TGCOC=0.
TMC(I)=TMC(1+2)+TRCC(I)+TGCVM(I)
376
-------
1F(TMC(D.LT.O.)TMC(I)=0.
TMH2CI)=TMH2(I+2)+TGH2V(I)
IF(TMC02(I+2).LE.O.)TMC02(I+2)=0.
IF(TGC02C(I).LE.O.)TGC02C(I)=0.
IF(TGC02V(I).LE.O.)TGC02V(I)«=0.
IF(TGC02F(I).LE.O.)TGC02F(I)=0.
IF(TGCnC(I).LE.O.)TGCQC(I)=0.
IF(TGCOVM(I).L E.0.)TGCDVM(I)»0.
IF(TGCOF(I).LE.O.)TGCOF(I)=0.
IF(TG<;H4(I ).LT.O.)TGCH4(I)=0.
IF(TGC2H6(I).LT.O.)TGC2H6(D»0.
TMCD2 ( I ) =TMC02 (1+2 >+TGCD2C (I) t-TGCr)2V( I)+TGC02F (I)
TMCO(I)=TMCO( H-2)+TGCOF(I)+TGCOVM(I)+TGCOC(I)
TMCH4(I)=TMCH4CI+2)+TGCH4(I)
TMC2H6(I)=TMC2H6(1+2)+TGC2H6(I)
TMVM(I)=TMASS(H-2)+8MEVM
377
-------
.03*EXP(-1.1*2.04*85 IDE)
FSG32T=.03*EXP(-1.1*4.02*85 IDE)
FSG13T=.02*EXP(-1.361*4.02*8SIDE)
FSG13B = .02*EXP(-1.361*2.04*85 IDE)
FSG1IB=.0135*EXP(-1.007*3.03*85 IDE)
FSG11T=.0135*EXP(-1.007*3.03*85 IDE)
FSG10B=.033*EXP(-,355*3.03*85IDE)
FSG10T=.033*EXP(-.355*3.03*85 IDE)
FGG01B=.11*EXP(-.497*BKA*BSIDE)
Fr]G01B=.ll*EXP(-. 497*3.03*85 IDE)
FCG02B=.022*EXP(-1.454*BKA*BSIDE)
FGG12B = .017*EXP(-1.688*3.03*85 IDE)
FGG1 IB = .045*EXP(-.787*3.03*85 IDE)
FGGOIT=.11*EXP(-.497*TKA*BSIDE)
FOG01T=.11*EXP(-.497*3.03*85 IDE)
FGG02T=.022*EXP(-1.454*TKA*BSIDE)
FCG11T = EXP(-.787*3.03*85 IDE)
FGG 12T=.017*.EXP(-1.688*3.03*85IDE)
C HEAT EMMITTED
DO 550 1=11,NX,1
QEMITS(I)=EMISS*SIGMA*(BSIDE**2)*(ATW**4)
550 CONTINUE
C ENTHALPY OF INCOMING AIR
TH02
-------
3 + 2.*FSGllT*(QEMITS(I+2>+QEMITSU-2)>
590 CONTINUE
c HEAT ABSORBED FROM ADJACENT ELEMENTS
DO 605 I=ll/NNj2
IF(I.LE.11.)QEMITT(I-1)=QEMITT(12)
IF(I.LE.11.)QEMITT(I-3)=QEMITT(12)
1F(I.LE.11.)QEMITB(I-2)=QEMITB(11)
.LE.11.)QEMITB(I-4)=QEMITB(11)
.LE.13.)QEMITT(I-3)=QEMITT(12)
,LE.13>QEMITB(I-4)iQEMITB(ll)
,GE.NX-3.)QEMITT(I+5)=QEMITT(12)
.GE.NX-3.)QEMITT(I+4)=QEMITT(12)
'.GE.NX-1.)QEHITB(I+2)=QEMITB(11>
.GE.NX-1.)QEMITB(I+4)*QEMITB(11)
•.GE.NX-1.)QEMITT(I+3)»QEMITT<12)
.GE.NX-1.)QEMITT(H-5)=QEMITT(12)
QABSEB(I)=FGGOlB*(QEMITB(I+2)+QEMITB
.E0.12.)QEMITT(I-2)=QEMITT(12)
.EU.12.)QEMITT(I-4)*QEMITT(12)
.EQ.12)QEHITB(I-3)*QEMITB(11)
IF(I.EQ.12)QEMITB(I-5)=QEMITB(11)
IF(I.EQ.14)QEMITB(I-5)=QEMITB(11)
IF(I.EQ.U)QEMITT(I-4)=QEMITT(12)
QABSET(I)=FGGOlT*(QEMITT(I+2)+QEMITT(I-2))+FOG01T*
lQEMlTB(I-l)+FGG02T*(QEMITT(I+4)+QEMITT(I-4))+FGGllB*(QEMITB(I-3J
2+QEMITB(I + l) >+FGG12B*(QEMIT8(I + 3>+QEMITBU-5))
610 CONTINUE
C ENERGY BALANCE
DO 620 I=12/NX>2
ENBALT(I)»OABSET(I)+QABST(I)-QEMITT(I)+QCRT(I)+QC8T(I)
l+THCO(I+2)-THCO(I)+THC02(I+2)-THC02(D+TH02(I+2)-THn2(I)
2+THCH4( I+2)-THCH4( I )+THC2H6( I+2)-THC2H6( I )*THW( 1+2)
3-THW(I)+THC(I+2)-THC(I)+THVM(I-i-2)-THVM(I)+THH2a + 2)
4-THH2U>+THN2(I + 2>-THN2U)+BHEWU-l)+BHEC(I-l)+BHEVM(I-l)
620 CONTINUE
WRITE(OUT,141)
141 FORMAT(//T10* 'ENERGY BALANCES ( BTU) ' //T2/ ' ELEMENT •, Tll^ »BOT.
l'ELEMENTST35* 'TOP1 )
DO 630 I=11*NN,2
11=1-10
12=1-9
ENBALBENBALBF7.1,T25^I2
630 CONTINUE
ENBALB(NX+1)»EN8ALB(NX-1)
ENBALnNX+2)=ENBALT(NX)
379
-------
ENBALT(10)=ENBAIT<12)
ENBALT(8)=ENBALT<10)
ENBALB(NX+3)=ENBALB(NX+1)
ENBALB(9)=ENBALB<11)
CC1NVER = 5000.
TEST=0.
DO 800 1=11,NX
IF(ABS(ENBALB(I)).LE.CONVER)GO TO 750
TEST=1.
IF(ABS(ENBALB(I-2».LE.CONVER)GO TG 720
BALAN=(ENBAIB(I)+ENBALBBALAN=BMIN
IF(BA|_AN.GT.BMAX)8ALAN = BMAX
BTEMP(1+2)=BTEMP(1+2)+BALAN
BTEMP(I) = (BTEMP(I)-i-BTEMP(I+2))/2.
GO TO 750
740 BALAN=ENBALB(I)/(.172*BAMASS(I+2)>
IF12)
IF(BALAN.LT.TMIN)BALAN=TMIN
IF(BALAN.GT.TMAX)BALAN=TMAX
TTEMP(I)=TTEMP(IJ+BALAN
780 IF(ABS(ENBALT(I+2)).LE.CONVER)GO TO 790
BALAN=(ENBALT(I)+ENBALT(H-2) )/( 2 .*.25*TMASS( 1 + 2) )
WRITE(OUT,125)BALAN>I
125 FORMAT(T2^'AFTER 780 BALAN='*F8.2,' FOR I='/I2)
IF(BALAN.LT.TMIN)BALAN*TMIN
IF(BALAN.GT.TMAX)BALAN=TMAX
TTEMP(H-2)=TTEMP(I+2)+BALAN
TTEMP(I) = (TTEMP(I)+TTEMP(I-»-2))/2.
GO TO 800
790 BALAN=(ENBALT(I))/(.25*TMASS(I+2))
WRITE(OUT,126)BALAN>I
126 FORMAT(T2>'AFTER 790 BALAN=',F8,2,' FOR I='*I2)
380
-------
IF(BALAN.LT.TMIN)BALAN=TMIN
IF(BALAN.GT.TMAX)BALAN=TMAX
TTEMP(I+2)=TTEMP(I+2)+BALAN
TTEMP(I)=(TTEMP(I)+TTEMP(I+2) )/2.
800 CONTINUE
WRITE(OUT,802)ITERA
802 FORMAT (//T5, ' TEMPERATURES ', T20, ' ITERATION NO.',I2,/T2, ' ELEMENT 'j,T
. Ill* 'BOT. »,T22, 'ELEMENT',T35, ' TOP « )
DO 806 1=11, NX, 2
11=1-9
J=I-10
WRITE(OUT,15UJ,BTEMP(I),I1,TTEMP(H-1)
806 CONTINUE
C DIAM WAS 20, ALONG WAS 100* DINS WAS 18.5
DATA AROH/15,/,DIA/20./,ALONG/100./,AMASHR/30./,AROT/1./,
1AFUELS/.3Q/,FUELQ/ 19580. /*FUELQX/1./,ACOMS/.0669/,COMBQ/ 14000. /,
2COMBQX/l./,AVMS/.3754/,VMQ/l500./,VMQX/l./,C/90000./,ASH
3S/.00071/,PIE/3.U16/,AWATR/.2/>ALEANS/.5/,TWOAVS/18.5/,AVAPS/U./
4,WHFG/1150./,T1S/150,/,T2S/1800,/,T3S/1600./,T4S/1600./,WP8/12./
5,RESIST/.45/,DINS/18.5/>EMISS/.75/,SIGMAM.76E~13/,WHF/180./
6,AIRS/20000./,VERG/.l/
117 DO 110 1*10, NNN, 2
TTAVE ( I ) = ( TTEMP ( I ) +TTEMP ( I +2 ) ) /2 .
110 CONTINUE
DO 109 I
BTSAVE(I)=BTAVE(I)
BTAVE(I)*(BTEMP( I ) +BTEMP ( 1+2 ) )/2,
TIME(I)=BSIDE*(I-9)/8./AVEL
BTR(I) = ( ((BTEMP(I)**4-»-BTEMP(I+2)**4)/l6.))**(l./4,)
109 CONTINUE
IFdTERA.EQ.l.AND.LODP.EQ.DGOTOlia
IF(ITERA.NE.1)GOTO 121
WRITE(OUT,H)AMASS
WRITE (OUT, 21) A^ATER>AVM,ACOMB,ASH
WRlTE(nUT,31)AIR*TMAIR,W2,AVEL,AROTV,ALONG,BSIDE
II FQRMAT /T5, ' MASS OF COMBUSTIBLES* «,T2
15,1F10.3,' LBS. /SEC. S/T5, 'MASS OF ASH* ' ,T25, 1F10.3, ' LBS. /SEC. »)
31 FQRMAT(/T5, «AIR=', T25, 1F8. 1, ' CFM' , /T5, ' AIR MASS= ' ,T25, lF8. 1, ' LBS
1./SEC.',/T5,'MOISTURE=',T25,1F8.5,' LBS ./SEC. ' , /T5, 'MASS VELOCITY
2=',T25,1F8.5,' FT. /SEC . ' > /T5,. 'ROT VEL= ' ,T25, 1F8 .5, ' RPM' ,/T5,'KlL
3N LENGTH^', T25,F8. 2,' FEET' , /T5, ' ELEMENT DIMENSION* ',F10
4.5,' UNITS')
51 FORMAT(/T2, 'AVG. TEMPERATURES OF TOP ELEMENTS ARE (DEC. R):',/T2
1/8F10.3)
61 FORMAT(/T2, 'BOTTOM AVG. TEMPERATURES ARE (DEG. R) : « , /T2, 8F10.3)
121 WRITE(OUT,51) (TTAVE ( I ), I =12, NX, 2)
WRITE (OUT, 61) (BTAVE(I),I=11>NX,2)
122 WRITE(OUT,128)
128 FORMAT(//T3, 'ANALYSIS OF KILN OFF GAS:')
WRITE (OUT, 8) (I,TX02(I+10),TXH2(I*10),TXC(I+10),TXN2(I+10),TXCO(
2,TMASS(I*10),I=2,N,2)
FORMAT(//T5, 'ELEMENT ' , 12, /T8, ' %' OXYGEN= • ,T27,2P1F6.3,T36, '% HYDRO
1GEN=',T55,2P1F6.3,/T8, ' % CAR30N= ' ,T27,2P1F6.3, T36 ' % NITRDGEN=
1',T55,2P1F6.3,/T8,'» CARBON MONOXIDE*',
!T27,2PlF6.3,T36/'% CARBON DIOXIDE* ' ,T55,2P1F6. 3, /T8,
3«» M0ISTURE=',T27,2PlF6.3,T3-6,'% VOLATILES= ' ,T55,2PlF6.3* /T8,
381
-------
«•» METHANE='*T27,2P1F6.3/T36, •% ETHANE= ' *T55,2P1F6.3,/T30, 'MASS*
5*OP1F8.3)
WRITE(DUT,129)
129 FQRMAT(//T3, 'ANALYSIS OF KILN RESIDUE:1)
WRITE (OUT, 127) ( I»BXC < I+10)>BXVM{ I+10),BXW< I+10)>BXASH< I +10 )
127 FORMAT(/T5*I2* • « CARBON- ' 2P1F6.3, ' % VOLATILES* ' *2P1F6.3* ' *
1 MDISTURE='*2PlF6.3,« % ASH«» *2P1F6.3^//T30* • MASS= '>OP1F8 .3)
WRITE(QUT,36)
36 FDRMAT(/T2/'I'j3X, • TMASS ' >5X, 'TM02 ' ^5X* ' TMW ' *4X* ' TMH2 '/4X* «TMCO'
1,3X, 'TMC02'*^X>'TMVM',3X, 'TMCH4',3X, ' TMC2H6 ',3X> ' TMN2 '>4X, « TMC ' )
XNNN»NNN-10
34 FQRMAT(T2>I2*11F8.4)
IF(TEST.EQ.1.)GOTO 99
WRITE
------- |