United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Reseach and
Development
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati. Ohio 45268
EPA-600/7-77-040
May 1977
EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENTS IN
THE RECOVERY OF ENERGY AND
MATERIALS FROM
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
Interagency
Energy-Environment
Research and Development
Program Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, US. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1 Environmental Health Effects Research
2 Environmental Protection Technology
3 Ecological Research
4 Environmental Monitoring
5 Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6 Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7 Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8 "Special Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161
-------
EPA-600/7-77-040
May 1977
EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENTS IN THE
RECOVERY OF ENERGY AND MATERIALS FROM
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
by
W. David Conn
Assistant Professor of Environmental Planning
School of Architecture and Urban Planning
University of California
Los Angeles, California 90024
Order No. 5-03-4502-A
Project Officer
Clarence A. demons
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing public
and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health and welfare
of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and spoiled land are tragic
testimony to the deterioration of our natural environment. The complexity of that
environment and the interplay between its components require a concentrated and
integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solution
and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching for
solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops new and im-
proved technology and systems for the prevention, treatment, and management of
wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges from municipal and
community sources, for the preservation and treatment of public drinking water
supplies, and to minimize the adverse economic, social, health, and aesthetic
effects of pollution. This publication is one of the products of that research;
a most vital communications link between the researcher and the user community.
This report describes energy and materials recovery operations in Europe
observed during the summer of 1975. A summary of key findings is also included.
Francis T. Mayo , Director
Municipal Environmental
Research Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This is the report of a study which set out to determine whether priorities
in Western Europe with respect to energy and materials recovery from municipal
solid waste are the same as those in the United States, which include (a) the
use of refuse as a supplementary fuel, (b) pyrolysis, and (c) resource recovery.
The study also attempted to identify solid waste/energy processes in Europe
(both existing and under development) that appear to offer potential advantages
over processes currently employed in the United States.
Recovery activities in Belgium, Denmark, England, France, Italy, Luxembourg,
Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and West Germany are reported. For
each country, a national overview is given, followed (where appropriate) by a
description of particularly significant developments. Systems involving house-
hold sorting and separate collection, front-end materials/fuel separation, the
burning of refuse-derived fuel in electricity generating plants and cement kilns,
pyrolysis, incineration with heat recovery, and materials recovery from post-
incinerator residues are discussed in the report. A summary of key findings is
also included.
Most of the information was collected between July and September, 1975.
The report contains the names and addresses of all persons contacted in the study.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS 2
BELGIUM 3
DENMARK 4
Development by Pollution Control Ltd 5
ENGLAND 8
Research at the Warren Spring Laboratory 8
Developments at the Greater London Council 13
Developments by Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers 14
Developments at the West Midlands County Council 15
Development at Imperial Metal Industries Ltd 15
Development at the Open University 16
FRANCE 17
Heat recovery incinerators in the Paris area 18
Research at the Bureau of Geologic and Mining Research 18
ITALY 20
Recovery plant in Rome 20
LUXEMBOURG 23
NETHERLANDS 24
Incineration with heat recovery 24
SPAIN 26
Research program at the Empresa National Adaro 26
SWEDEN 27
Fuel/materials separation system at the Hogdalen incinerator 28
Development of the Motala Pyrogas pyrolysis system 28
SWITZERLAND 32
Incineration by Von Roll 32
-------
WEST GERMANY 35
The Reutlingen recycling demonstration plant 36
Development at Krauss-Maffei 36
Development at the University of Hamburg 38
Development at Kiener, Goldshofe 38
LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED 39
BIBLIOGRAPHY 43
vi
-------
FIGURES
Page
Figure 1 - PC-Pyrolysis Plant, Kalunborg, Denmark 6
Figure 2 - Warren Spring Process For Improved Metal Recovery From
Incinerator Clinker 10
Figure 3 - Warren Spring Laboratory - Scrap and Waste Section
Physical Sorting of Domestic Refuse 11
Figure 4 - Warren Spring Laboratory: Pyrolysis 12
Figure 5 - Rome (East Sector) - Flowsheet 21
Figure 6 - Flakt's RRR - System
Resources Recycling From Refuse 29
Figure 7 - Motala Pyrogas 30
Figure 8 - Krauss Maffei - System R80 37
vii
-------
INTRODUCTION
Current (summer, 1975) priorities in the United States with respect to
energy and materials recovery from municipal solid waste include (a) the use
of refuse as a supplementary fuel, (b) pyrolysis, and (c) resource recovery.
Reported here is a study which set out to determine whether the same priori-
ties apply in Western Europe and to identify solid waste/energy processes
there (both existing and under development) that appear to offer potential
advantages over processes currently employed in the United States.
The study included a review of published and unpublished literature, tel-
ephone and letter contacts, and selected visits by the Principal Investigator.
The information is presented as received; time and resources have not per-
mitted an independent verification of its accuracy and completeness. Most
information was collected prior to September 10th, 1975.
-------
SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
Landfill generally remains the preferred method of disposal in Western
Europe where suitable sites are available, but these are becoming increasing-
ly difficult to find, particularly near the large cities.
In some countries, composting is considered viable, but only on a limit-
ed scale. There is a demand for the product from vineyards, etc.
Incinerators are in common use, especially in urban areas, but costs
have increased so rapidly that several governments are discouraging the con-
struction of new plants. Increasingly stringent air pollution regulations
necessitating the use of gas scrubbers (e.g. in West Germany) can cause the
costs to rise even higher.
Provision for heat recovery is made in many incinerators, especially the
larger plants. The technical difficulties (notably corrosion) are now reason-
ably well understood, although unexpected problems can still arise. The prob-
lem of matching supply with demand remains a significant barrier to heat re-
covery, especially for electricity generation (which is generally considered
worthwhile only in the very largest plants). The recovery of heat for dis-
trict heating and/or industrial use is preferred, particularly when an in-
cinerator can provide the base load throughout the year. Rising fuel costs
are making the economics of heat recovery more attractive.
Most countries are interested in the possibilities offered by the new
technologies of materials/fuel separation, pyrolysis, etc. On the whole,
they are awaiting "hard data" from the United States but in some places de-
velopment is proceeding independently.
Countries in which front-end materials/fuel separation processes are be-
ing developed include England, Italy, Spain, Sweden, and West Germany. Of
particular interest is the burning of refuse-derived fuel in cement kilns.
Countries in which pyrolysis processes are being developed include Den-
mark, England, Netherlands, Sweden, and West Germany.
Some work has been done on materials recovery from post-incinerator resi-
dues (notably in England and France) but there seems to be little enthusiasm
from incinerator operators for installing a full-scale system.
Several countries are experimenting with household sorting and separate
collection systems, the discouragement of non-returnable containers, etc.
-------
BELGIUM
NATIONAL OVERVIEW
Other than separate collection, there are no systems for the recovery of
energy/materials from municipal solid waste operating in Belgium at the pres-
ent time although a cryogenic process for separating 99% pure ferrous metal
using liquid nitrogen is reputedly being tested in Liegge by George and Sons
(no further information was obtained). However, careful study is being made
of recovery possibilities.
-------
DENMAKK
NATIONAL OVERVIEW
The principal government agency concerned with solid waste management is
the Milj^styrelsen (Ministry of Environmental Control).
Approximately 60% of refuse in Denmark is incinerated in fairly modern
incinerators, one-third of which have been constructed in the past 5-6 years.
Two large plants serve the Copenhagen area (representing 2 million out of the
total Danish population of 5 million). Emission standards can readily be met
using electrostatic precipitators so that pollution control is not a major
constraint on incineration (as it is in Germany). No financial assistance is
provided by the central government for the construction of disposal facili-
ties.
Many of the incinerators recover heat; for example} one supplies heat
to a power station and another will soon do so to a new 1000 bed hospital
(which is not yet completed). There is a tradition of district heating based
on hot water rather than steam, because the Danes prefer to operate their in-
cinerators at lower temperatures and pressures than those used in steam sys-
tems, in order to reduce maintenance problems. However, district heating is
no longer considered as economically attractive as before, and there has been
a tendency to build newer incinerators, especially the smaller ones, without
heat recovery.
Although the Minister has made a statement to Parliament in favor of re-
source recovery, etc., no government support has been forthcoming. In some
municipalities, refuse is separated by households into three bags (metal and
glass, paper, and the rest); this is organized by the local authorities in
collaboration with consultants and with the company selling the bags. (This
is an offshoot of a Swedish program; see below.) For example, in Birkertfd
(population 20,000) success is claimed as there is 90% participation. How-
ever, it may be that waste is increased, as families are happy to have three
bags instead of one. Furthermore there are problems in marketing the recov-
ered materials.
There is a Danish tradition of using returnable beverage bottles, and
this still holds. Non-returnable bottles are relatively rare, although there
are quite a few cans. The government has made an agreement with the Danish
breweries to restrict non-returnable containers to 2-5% of the total market.
A large supermarket has experimented with returnable wine bottles, but was
not successful because of the diversity of bottles involved.
-------
NOTABLE DEVELOPMENT
Development by Pollution Control Ltd; A pilot/demonstration pyrolysis
plant utilizing the "Destrugas" process has been constructed at Kalundborg
(about 100 km west of Copenhagen) by Pollution Control Ltd. The company is a
limited partnership formed by Messrs. Karl Kroyer (inventor-and engineering-
company) and Superfos Ltd. (The largest industrial chemical company in Den-
mark. )
The pilot plant has been proven at slightly over 5 tons*/24 hours. A
single retort is used which would not be scaled up in a full-scale plant (as
the heat transfer characteristics must be maintained); instead, banks of re-
torts would be used. The company's target is to construct plants of around
100-500 tons/day (rather small than some of the U.S. facilities).
After pulverizing in a hammermill to minus 100mm (larger particles may
be acceptable, especially if they are flexible), the waste materials are fed
into a vertical, indirectly heated retort tube, where they are pyrolytically
decomposed in the absence of oxygen at temperatures up to 1000°C (Fig. 1).
The process produces a sterile char, free of biologically decomposable ma-
terial, and a gas with a composition resembling that of coal gas. Part of
the gas is fed back into the system to be used as fuel; the remainder is
available for use elsewhere. It can be mixed with natural gas (giving a mix-
ture with a calorific value substantially less than that of natural gas alone)
or, more likely, it can be used industrially. The evaporated water from the
waste materials condenses in the scrubber system and is led to the quench
tank to cool the char. Provided that the moisture content of the incoming
wastes is no more than 40%, all of the water is absorbed by the char (other-
wise there might be some surplus, requiring treatment). Atmospheric emissions
from the stack are claimed to be less than 10% of the emissions from a modern
incinerator of comparable size.
Instead of using the char to absorb the water (which would therefore re-
quire alternative treatment) it could be used as a fuel, as a filter (it
could possibly be converted into a high grade activated charcoal), or in com-
bination with sewage sludge as a soil conditioner.
Pollution Control Ltd. has established links in various countries, in-
cluding West Germany, England, Japan, Norway and New Zealand. In Japan, a
demonstration plant similar to the Kalundborg plant is to be built under li-
cense in the city of Hitachi (design work currently being started). Pros-
pects in Japan are considered very good, and negotiations are proceeding with
several local authorities.
In West Germany, a joint venture is being established with Wibau Matthias
and Co. The Bavarian Ministry requested a 3-5 week demonstration at Kalund-
borg with independent monitoringi the West German government then took over
the research and contributed financial support. The trial was run by the JJn-
iversity of Stuttgart over a six week period in summer, 1974, using four
* Metric Tons Used Throughout Report.
-------
Refuse
Slag
Gas
Water
a. Receiving pit
b. Grinder
c. Crane
d. Silo
e. Weight conveyor
f. Tank for liquid waste
g. Elevator
h. Feeding tube
i Retort
j. Gas outlet
k. Slag outlet
I. Magnet separator
m. Weight conveyor
n. Slag silo
o. Burners for LPG
p. Burners for "destrugas"
q. Scrubber
r. Tar separator
s. Cooler
t. Trap
u. Stack
v. Flare
Figure 1. PC-PYROLYSIS PLANT, KALUNDBORG, DENMARK.
-------
different kinds of waste (Danish refuse, German refuse, refuse plus sludge,
and refuse plus waste tires). The results are still confidential but are
claimed to support those of Pollution Control.
The Bavarian Ministry requested proposals for a 180 tons/24 hour facility
to be built in the Munich area. In competition with Torrax, Union Ca.rbide,
etc., Pollution Control won the right to negotiate, and is currently submit-
ting a quotation for detailed engineering studies. The intention is to init-
ially install furnaces handling 90 tons/24 hour day,but to increase this ca-
pacity after one year if the operation is successful. The plant should run
for at least 8000 hours/year, leaving about 30 days for outages, but it is
claimed that the plant could run longer. The construction is such that the
whole heated zone should be maintained continuously at full heat. Based on
experience with coal gasification plants, a retort should have a 10-15 year
lifetime; repairs and maintenance should be mainly confined to the handling
facilities, fans, etc.
The Bavarian Ministry has not received financial support from the West
German Government which may instead support the construction of a pilot plant
to be owned by the Berlin Solid Waste Authority in collaboration with the
Technical University of Berlin. If constructed, the plant would have a capac-
ity of at least 15 tons/day (possibly 30 tons/day). A contract for the pre-
design stage is currently being negotiated.
Estimates of costs have been made carefully and are thought to be accur-
ate to within about 10%. The capital costs include design and construction
fees, etc., based on a normal site but do not include the cost of the site
itself nor the provision of services, fences, etc. For a 120 tons/24 hour
plant, total capital and operating costs would amount to 106.8 Danish Kroner
(kr) per tone (made up of capital costs, 66.8 kr; repair and maintenance,
9.5 kr; operation, 10 kr; salaries and wages, 20.5 kr). Assuming an income
of 45 kr per ton from the sale of surplus gas, ferrous metals, and carbon
char, the net cost per ton would be 61.8 kr. The cost decreases as the plant
size increases, up to a 360 ton/24 hour plant for which the gross cost per
ton would be 87.8 kr (net, 36.8 kr).
-------
ENGLAND
NATIONAL OVERVIEW
The principal government agencies concerned with energy/materials recov-
ery from municipal solid waste are (i) the Department of the Environment and
(it) the Waste Disposal Authorities (the County Councils).
The three U.S. priorities are thought generally applicable, but two im-
portant factors must be borne in mind: (i) local government recently under-
went a major reorganization and many of the newly constituted Waste Disposal
Authorities are still in early stages of planning; and (ii) the Control of
Pollution Act 1974, which has major provisions affecting the disposal of mun-
icipal solid waste (e.g. in requiring the Waste Disposal Authorities to pre-
pare plans and issue disposal licenses), has not yet been implemented owing
to the unavailability- of financial assistance from the central government.
The situation is therefore somewhat transitory, although some interesting de-
velopments are occurring (see below).
The Department of the Environment (DOE) until 1970 was required to ap-
prove solid waste projects where loan sanction was sought by local authori-
ties but this nc longer applies. It now sets a figure each year for capital
investment, leaving the local authorities discretion over how it is spent.
The DOE gives "advice on how to select options" and this is generally to use
sanitary landfill whenever possible (as it is considered the least expensive
method of disposal). Where landfill sites have been unavailable in the past,
many local authorities have built direct incineration plants (some 20-30
authorities built them prior to 1970) but costs have doubled in the past four
years or so and the DOE now advises against their construction. Present ad-
vice is to hold off heavy investment in conventional equipment until the new
processes (i.e. pyrolysis, fuel/materials separation, etc.) have been fully
examined.
A Waste Management Advisory Council has been established and is current-
ly looking into resource recovery (although no actions have yet been taken).
In order to stabilize waste paper markets, a buffer stock scheme is being
considered, in which industry would be paid to hold stocks. Packaging is be-
ing examined, and three industry reports (on glass, metals, and plastics)
have been published.
NOTABLE DEVELOPMENTS
1. Research at the Warren Spring Laboratory (operated by the Department
of Industry): An early project on the extraction of non-ferrous metals from
-------
incinerator clinker (Fig. 2) has been completed. Research (funded by the DOE)
is progressing on (i) fuel/materials separation, (ii) pyrolysis, and (iii) the
pneumatic conveyance of pulverized refuse.
(i) In the fuel/materials separation project, an attempt is being made
to separate as many components as possible, notwithstanding present market
conditions, which are thought likely to change at any time. However, any giv-
en commercial plant would be designed according to the particular circumstanc-
es then existing. A pilot system has been constructed at Warren Spring (Fig.
3). A key feature of the process is the absence of a hammermill or other
shredder at the front end (allowing appreciable energy savings). Other feat-
ures include a ballistic drum (rather than plate) separator (to prevent ny-
lons, etc., from becoming caught) and a thrower/separator which relies on a
combination of aerodynamic, impact, and sliding friction effects to separate
a low density product (mainly small pieces of paper, vegetable and garden
wastes, and low density plastics, etc.) and a high density product (mainly
dense vegetable matter, broken glass, bones, etc.). No attempt is made to
color-sort the glass, because unless the white fraction can be made clean en-
ough for the manufacture of flint glass (which is currently thought unlikely),
it is not thought worthwhile to separate at all.* Some 50% by weight (or
about 20% by volume) of the incoming refuse forms a residue that remains for
disposal. The froth flotation circuit produces a contaminated liquid efflu-
ent.
An economic assessment of the process is currently being prepared. It is
tentatively considered that a 200 tons/day plant could break even (including
the cost of residue disposal). The process is about ready to go commercial,
and discussions are being held with local authorities and some industrial com-
panies. The first plant will probably produce mainly a fuel, together with
cans, non-ferrous metals, and glass. (The construction of two separation
plants (each 300 tons/day) has since been announced, one to be built for
South Yorkshire, the second for Tyne and Wear.)
(ii) The project on pyrolysis has proceeded in three stages (Fig. 4).
Following bench-scale tests, a retort with indirect heating was built and
operated at temperatures of 600-1000°iC to provide background data as well as
products for further examination. The major disadvantage of this design
stems from the poor thermal conductivity of the refuse, necessitating a con-
siderable retention time for peripherally supplied heat to conduct to the
center of the charge. The second stage of research utilized an induction
heating system; the incoming refuse was mixed with 4 cm diameter steel balls
and passed down the reactor tube and through an induction coil. The advantage
* Some experimentation with glass color sorting has been conducted. The col-
or-mixed froth floated product currently produced contains more carbon par-
ticles than does the U.S. product, giving it a gray cast. The carbon burns
off during glass melt, thereby providing some fuel value; as a result,
British manufacturers have suggested that the glass should carry a premium
price compared with material containing less carbon.
-------
INCINERATION
CLINKER
MAGNETIC
SEPARATOR
CANS FOR BALING
WSL TREATMENT BEGINS
SIZE REDUCTION AND SCREENING
MAGNETIC
SEPARATOR
0
0| FLUID BED
SEPARATOR
IRON-RICH PRODUCT
UNDER-SIZE
PRODUCT
ALUMINUM-RICH PRODUCT
COPPER-RICH PRODUCT
Figure 2. WARREN SPRINGS PROCESS FOR IMPROVED METAL RECOVERY
FROM INCINERATOR CLINKER.
-------
MAGNETIC
SEPARATOR f|NE
-^"" FERROUS
METAL
S.NK/FLOAT
/
BALllSTIC/INERTIAl
(DRUM) SEPARATOR
DENSE
PUTRESCIBLE-RICH
DISCARD (FLOAT)
Sll
H
D
PUTRESCIBLE-RICH
*S FRACTION
-•«••'•" f "-
LOW-GRADE
FUEL
"™
FINE
DISCARD
^\^ L_JfRA
MIDDLING FOR^
FURTHER TREATMENT
SLIMES'
DENSE TAILING-
DE-SLIME
HYDROCYCLONE
I FROTH |
FLOTATION CIRCUIT
GLASS FIBRE
CONCENTRATE DISCARD
hON-FERROUS METAl)
^EOJVERJT ^MICUIT j
J AGGREGATE I
| RECOVERY^IRCUITj
Figure 3. WARREN SPRINGS LABORATORY - SCRAP AND WASTE SECTION. PHYSICAL SORTING OF
DOMESTIC REFUSE.
-------
HAW REFUSE
HEAVY OILS
INDIRECTLY FIRED RETORT
STEEl BALLS
MILD STEEl _| L
INLET TUBE 1
INDUCTION JH 11
COIL^ £
REFRACTORY _
REACTOR | 1
ZONE
SO
—7—1 P°*
/ j — •'TURBO-GENERATORI
. i "-- r- -J
I—GAS DUSI "O"'" i
^ ' "*°V" ' REMO^T
LIDS
]
1 i
OIL WATER
CONCENTRATE
| CHAD RESIDUE
FOR SEPARATION
AND HEAT RECUPERATION
PTROLYSIS BY INDUCTION HEATING
HEAT
EXCHANGER
CHAR RESIDUE
FOR SEPARATION
AND HEAT RECUPERATION
I RECTCLE FAN
I
FUEL OAS TO HEAT EXCHANGER BURNER
OAS EXCESS GAS
TO STORE OR
USE ON SITE
PYROLYSIS BY HOT PRODUCT OAS RECTCIINO-
CROSS FLOW PRINCIPLE
Figure 4. WARREN SPRING LABORATORY: PYROLYSIS,
12
-------
is that in some instances, working temperatures can be reached in one-tenth
of the time required in an externally-heated retort, but the circuit is com-
plicated; in a full-scale plant, capital and operating costs would be high.
In order to be self-sustaining, the energy from the char and the gas would be
needed to generate electricity. The process might be economic on a ,large
scale (the size of the coil being a limitation) or in special applications
(e.g. in an enclosed system for the disposal of radio-active waste).
The third stage process utilizes a cross-flow heating system in which a
combination of fuel from the char and some gas is used in a heat-exchanger to
heat and pyrolyze the incoming refuse. Based on a calorific value for the in-
coming refuse of 4500 Btu/lb, the net energy output (as excess fuel gas) is
estimated at 40% of the input energy. The costs are currently being worked
out; the heat exchanger and fan are particularly expensive items, but the
overall costs for a 100 tons/day plant are expected to be about two—thirds
those of an equivalent-sized incinerator. The pyrolysis plant would be rough-
ly equivalent in size to the gas-conditioning plant of the incinerator. Prob-
lems might arise in the treatment of the liquid effluent (depending on the
conditions, about 2-20 gallons/ton of very highly contaminated effluent would
be produced, which would be treated using activated sludge) and in the prelim-
inary gas cleaning prior to recirculation (as some organic material and car-
bon might be deposited due to cracking of the gases; results so far suggest
not much of a problem, and the remedy would be scrubbing with an inexpensive
scrubbing medium). Air pollution should not be a problem; the combustion
gases from the heat exchanger should be clean unless the char is also used as
a fuel, in which case there might be some particulates. However, there should
be less problem than with pulverized fuel combustion, and an electrostatic
precipitator would probably be unnecessary.
(iii) The project on the pneumatic conveyance of pulverized refuse uti-
lizes an 8" diameter line and has so far been proven over a distance of 350
feet (intending to increase to 1000 feet). The refuse is injected into the
line by means of a screw mechanism, and is conveyed in "plugs" with air cus-
hions in between. The pressure is low (2lg psi), there is no filtering re-
quirement, and the system is inexpensive to operate. The system may be tried
at the IMI facility (see below).
2. Developments at the Greater London Council (GLC): The GLC handles
just under 3 million tons of refuse per year, or about 11,000 tons per work-
ing day. Its policy is to employ several methods for disposal rather than
relying on only one, although it looks for facilities with capacities of no
less than about 600 tons/day.
Sanitary landfill remains the preferred method when available, but the
shortage of sites is critical. Membranes are being considered at marginal
landfill sites, but the GLC is also looking at pyrolysis, fibre reclamation
etc. Although the GLC operates a major new heat recovery incinerator at
Edmonton (see below), it is unlikely to build another incinerator in the fore-
seeable future because of high costs and the difficulty of finding appropri-
ate sites.
In partnership with Warren Spring Laboratory and Foster Wheeler (equip-
13
-------
ment manufacturer) the GLC may test out the warren bpring pyrolysis system
still being negotiated). It may also send ^ million tons/year of refuse to
the APCM system (see below).
The Edmonton incinerator was designed for an average input of 1800 tons/
day, five days per week, with a plant throughput of 1300 tons every 24 hours
and a peak of 1670 tons. The electric power output was designed to be within
the range of 25 MW and 35 MW but with a peak of 45 MW according to calorific
value and throughput of refuse type roller grates; the boilers are single
drum water tube boilers with partially water-cooled combustion chambers.
Commissioning of the plant took place during 1970/71. Teething troubles
were aggravated by unexpected failures due to boiler tube erosion and corros-
ion. The failures were extensively investigated, and various modifications
were made at the end of 1972. The plant did not become fully operational un-
til April 1974. In the subsequent 12 months, 378,000 tons of refuse were in-
cinerated (averaging more than 1000 tons/day) and 162 units of electricity
were generated. Approximately 94% of the planned boiler availability (i.e.
4 out of 5 boilers in continuous use) was achieved, but only 77% of the refuse
throughput. The difference was due to limitations placed on incinerating
capacity by higher-than-acceptable steam temperatures at the superheaters
when the furnaces worked at full load (new modifications will cope with this
problem).
The total capital cost of the plant, including all major, modifications
to be boilers, was approximately B13.5 million. After deducting an income
(from electricity, baled ferrous metal, and furnace ash) of £788,000, the net
operating expenditure for the 12 months from April 1974 was £>2,160,540, in-
cluding debt charges; this represented a net unit cost of L5.72 per ton.
These costs are considered "encouraging" as the costs of alternative systems
of long distance haulage to landfill sites are thought likely to rise at a
greater rate than those of the Edmonton plant.
3. Development by Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers (APCM); APCM
has been working on a system for recovering fuel from refuse for about 5 years.
A contract has been signed with Wiltshire County Council for the delivery of
60,000-80,000 tons/year of crude refuse. This will be pulverized in a hammer-
mill (probably), passed through a magnetic separator to remove the ferrous,
screened in a trommel, and then pulverized again in a shredder or hammermill
(trials still under way); experiments have shown that air classification is
not necessary. The resulting material (about 30-50 mm diameter) will be con-
veyed 1000 feet and fired directly into a rotary cement kiln. The residue
will be absorbed into the resulting cement, and careful tests have shown that
there are no adverse effects on the properties of the cement. The use of 4
tons of crude refuse will save 1 ton of clay or alternative raw material (pre-
sumably as a filler).
An abrasion problem is anticipated and is being designed for. The kiln
temperature is 1450°C. The resulting gases will be scrubbed in a heat ex-
changer; hydrogen chloride will be neutralized, leaving a minute concentra-
tion of chlorine in the cement (difficult even to detect). Chlorine will also
14
-------
be present in the particulates trapped by the electrostatic precipitator, but
this should pose no problems. Even if the plastic content of the refuse rises
to 5%, with one-fifth of this being PVC, no problem is anticipated. All
drainage from the building (inside and out) will go into a well and be used
to blend slurries which then go into the kiln (therefore, no problems).
The gross calorific value of the refuse is estimated at about 4000 Btu/
Ib, depending on conditions. Some heat will be lost up the chimney, some will
be used to dry the refuse (about 30% moisture content), and some to heat up
incoming air. APCM seeks to replace about 10% of the fuel equivalent with
refuse.
Start-up is expected by August/September, 1976. Wiltshire will pay a
dump fee; the 10 year contract allows for variations if fuel costs increase,
etc. APCM is currently in active negotiation with 4 other county councils
(including the GLC). If all present cement works were converted, it is esti-
mated that between one-sixth and one-seventh of the total UK municipal waste
could be absorbed. It might also be possible to inject more unpleasant wastes
into the pneumatic line (especially organics, which would easily be destroyed
in the kiln). The process is provisionally patented in the UK and a patent is
pending in the U.S.
4. Developments at the West Midlands County Council (WMCC); The WMCC
disposes of approximately 1 million tons of solid wastes per year, mostly
from domestic and commercial premises. Approximately 50% is disposed of by
landfill, and 50% by incineration. A new incinerator has recently been open-
ed at Coventry, and another is being built in Birmingham.
The Coventry Incinerator plant, costing about L4,138,000 at November 1974
prices (mechanical and electrical equipment, £2,300,000; civil engineering
and building works, tl,500,000; land acquisition, design and supervision of
construction, £338,000) has three boilers having 12 tons/hour capacity. Two
boilers normally operate on a continuous basis. The boilers have water wall
combustion chambers as well as shell and tube heat exchangers for heat recov-
ery. The resulting steam is currently used in the plant to drive steam tur-
bines, the excess steam being condensed in air cooled condensers. Within the
next 12 months a heat transfer station will be completed and the heat will be
used to provide hot water to an adjacent factory.
WMCC will soon by supplying up to 15,000 tons of refuse per year to the
IMI waste utilization project (see below).
5. Development at Imperial Metal Industries Ltd. (IMI); IMI operates
its own power plant at Birmingham with a steam raising capability to satisfy
the factory's entire electrical power requirements as well as providing low
pressure steam for space heating and process needs. The boilers currently
burn coal, heavy fuel oil or natural gas in any combination. A refuse prep-
aration plant is being constructed at which refuse will be shredded in a
Tollemache vertical shaft pulverizer (100% minus 150 mm and 80% minus 50 mm).
Ferrous scrap will be separated magnetically. The remaining refuse will be
conveyed by container one mile to the power plant, where it will be fired in
one of three modified boilers (Babcock and Wilcox water tube boilers fitted
15
-------
with chain grate on which there is an established coal fire). A 50/50 refuse/
coal mixture is thought achievable, with the possibility of increasing the
refuse fraction to 75%. The plant includes grit arresters and an electrostat-
ic precipitator, and air pollution problems are not anticipated.
IMI originally intended to include air classification of the refuse but
further study convinced them of difficulties that were apparently borne out
by their visit to St. Louis. The difficulties are the loss of potential burn-
ing power in the heavy fraction, and mechanical problems (e.g. blockages).
In the future, IMI might employ the pneumatic conveyance system develop-
ed at Warren Springs to transport the shredded refuse from the processing
station to the power station.
IMI has a five year initial contract with the West Midlands County Coun-
cil which will pay fc2 per ton for the first 15,000 tons disposed of in each
of the first two years of the contract. Any additional refuse in the first
two years will be disposed of without charge. It is uncertain whether charges
will be made after the first two years. IMI is interested solely in the fuel
value of the refuse (and not in its disposal) and the operation should be
self-supporting.
6. Development at the Open University; Dr. Andrew Porteus is continu-
ing his work on the acid hydrolysis of refuse (reported, for example, in
Drobny, N.L., H.E. Hull and R.F. Testin, Recovery and Utilization of Munici-
pal Solid Waste, Report SW-lOc, Environmental Protection Agendy, 1971). Al-
ternative products include ethanol or edible proteins.
Despite analyses by Porteus indicating that the process is economically
viable, little interest has been shown by local authorities. This may be
partly because of the high proportion (50-60%) of the wastes left for disposal
(i.e. the process is not a disposal process per se, but rather a recovery pro-
cess) .
Other work on hydrolysis is reportedly being done at the University of
Wales by Professor D.E. Hughes and Dr. C.E. Forster.
16
-------
FRANCE
NATIONAL OVERVIEW
The principal government agencies concerned with energy/materials recov-
ery from municipal solid waste are (i) Ministere de la Qualite' de la Vie (Min-
istry of the Quality of Life) and (ii) Ministere de I1Industrie et de la
Recherche (Ministry of Industry and Research), as well as the Delegations for
the Saving of Raw Materials, for the Saving of Energy, and for New Forms of
Energy.
A new lab (Law No. 75-633, 15th July 1975) is similar in philosophy to
the U.S. Resource Recovery Act. Furthermore, it provides the possibility of
controlling methods of manufacture and of constraining certain activities
(e.g. prohibiting or taxing non-returnable containers); where recycled ma-
terials are not significantly different from virgin materials, it prohibits
advertising on the basis of virgin content. It is not clear when and to what
extent these provisions will be implemented.
The central government gives the local authorities up to 20% support for
disposal facilities, but until recently this could be applied only to the
basic plant (e.g. an incinerator) and not to associated recovery equipment
(this is now changing). Old fashioned ideas, fluctuating markets, and pro-
duct specifications requiring virgin materials are among the factors that
have militated against recovery.
At the present time, somewhat more than 30% of the municipal solid waste
produced in France is disposed of by incineration, about 10% by composting,
and about 60% by landfill (including 15% by sanitary landfill). Composting
is still considered viable under certain circumstances, as orchards and vine-
yards are good markets (the plastics content can pose an aesthetic problem,
although it may be good for binding the soil). A mechanised plant with cap-
acity 60,000 tons/year (175 tons/day) was opened in 1974 in Reims.
Approximately 60% of the incinerator plants have heat recovery, mostly
in the form of district heating (although some electricity generation, e.g.
in Paris). It is considered worthwhile to install recovery in plants of ca-
pacity exceeding about 200 tons/day. Provision is usually made to meet only
a proportion (i.e. about 5-10%) of the demand for heat during the winter, so
that the supply and the total demand are well matched in the summer. However,
incineration is now so expensive that the central government is discouraging
its selection. Despite low interest charges (about 7-8%) and the 20% capital
cost contribution, it can cost a local authority up to 60-70 francs/ton
(approximately 50/50 capital/operating costs). Compare composting at about
17
-------
35 francs/ton (mechanised) or about 25 francs/ton (non-mechanised) (assuming
and including credit for sales), or landfill at about 15 francs/ton (unshred-
ded) or about 20 francs/ton (with shredding).
Pyrolysis, fuel separation, etc., are being examined. A small pilot
plant (based on the Garret pyrolysis process) was constructed by Sodeteg
Engineering about two years ago near Rouen, but there were problems in main-
taining continuous operation and the project was abandoned. Work is also be-
ing done at Orleans (see below).
In materials recovery, a committee is considering means to stabilize pri-
ces, possibly by maintaining a flexible stock. Work on de-inking is also pro-
ceeding. Glass manufacturers have expressed themselves ready to accept all
recovered glass at a firm price equivalent to the price of alternative raw
materials (possibly in order to avoid legislation on returnable bottles). The
central government may give grants to several towns to promote separate col-
lection of paper, glass, and plastic ; new process called ENERGY has been
developed to reuse mixed waste plas^ i i>ven iF soiled) in making a product
which can be reformed.
NOTABLE DEVELOPMENTS
1. Heat recovery incinerators in the Paris area: There are incinerators
at Issy (555,000 tons/year), Ivry (630,000 tons/year), and St. Ouen (360,000
tons/year). The plants serve a population of about 5 million, and handle
about 1,650,000-1,700,000 tons of refuse per year, together wich about 50,000
tons/year of industrial waste. While St. Ouen produces just steam for dis-
trict heating, Issy and Ivry produce both electricity and steam for district
heating in flexible proportions, depending on demand, etc. The electricity
is sold to Electricite de France (at a price maintained artifically low) and
the excess steam is sold to Chauffage Urbain, which has a 219 km district
heating network in Paris (also at an artifically low price, namely one-half
of the cost of producing steam from an alternative fuel). Experience has
shown that the higher the steam pressure, the greater the problems (thus Ivry,
operating at 90 bars, has more breakdowns than the older plant at St. Ouen,
operating at 20 bars, although this is partly offset by the reduced mainten-
ance problems at Ivry).
Although the plants are owned by the City of Paris, they are operated by
Traitement Industriel des Residues Urbains (TIRU) which is staffed by person-
nel from Electricite de France.
2. Research at the Bureau of Geologic and Mining Research (BRGM),
Orleans: BRGM is a pseudo-public company which does research funded by its
customers. It has been working on recovery from post-incinerator waste, using
a process similar to (but a little simpler than) the U.S. Bureau of Mines
process. It has a pilot plant of capacity 1 ton/hour but it is hoping to con-
struct a full-scale, 20 tons/hour facility, possibly in Paris (although TIRU
is not yet convinced of its viability).
BRGM is monitoring existing work on front-end fuel/materials separation
in the United States and United Kingdom. A consortium (including the Ministry
18
-------
of the Quality of Life and waste treatment equipment manufacturers) is fund-
ing a $1 million project that should lead to a pilot fuel/materials separa-
tion plant within 2-3 years.
19
-------
ITALY
NATIONAL OVERVIEW
General information was not obtained from Italian sources.
NOTABLE DEVELOPMENTS
Recovery plants in Rome*: Four companies are responsible for the dis-
posal of about 750,000 tons/year of refuse, in the northern, eastern, south-
ern, and western sectors of the city, respectively. The plant in the western
section, receiving about 29% of the total refuse, converts it by biostabiliz-
er into fine compost (28% of the input) and medium compost (29%); 28% is in-
cinerated, 2% recovered as ferrous metal, and 13% is lost as moisture.
The other three plants recover paper, animal food, compost and ferrous
materials, the remainder being incinerated. The most up-to-date of the plants
(in the eastern sector) has three 12.5 ton/hour sorting lines and treats on
average 600 tons/day (Fig. 5). A fourth line, receiving wastes from special
sources such as markets, street sweeping, etc., conveys them unsorted to the
composting section.
Wastes entering the three sorting lines pass through a device that tears
the plastic bags in which they are contained, and they are then jet-steamed
to hinder the decay process. The wastes then enter a series of screens to
separate (i) bulky refuse or discards which, after magnetic separation of
ferrous materials, are conveyed to the incinerators; (ii) medium-bulky ma-
terial, from which ferrous items are extracted magnetically and paper is sep-
arated by means of an air stream is directed tangentially at the conveyor,
the residue going to the composting section; (iii) medium-size material which
undergoes magnetic separation before being conveyed to the animal food sec-
tion; and (iv) fine material which goes directly to the composting section.
The section handling the recovered ferrous material includes a rotary
furnace fired by liquid fuel in which the metal is de-tinned, cleaned, and
* The Principal Investigator's visit to Rome proved fruitless as the plants
were unexpectedly shut down. This description is based on a translation
provided by the U.S. Embassy of the paper by Frangipane and Bozzini (see
bibliography). The Scientific Attache of the U.S. Embassy has, however,
visited one of the plants and (despite some skepticism voiced by contacts
elsewhere in Europe) sees no reason to suppose that it does not operate as
described. The system is being marketed in the U.S. under license by
Grumman Ecosystems Corporation, Bethpage, New York.
20
-------
Reception of Solid Wastes
I
Automated Sorting
1
Discards
Incineration
Steam Production
1
Slag
1
Ferrous
Material
I
Burnout
&
u
Det inning
l
Baling
i
Baled Iron
Fine Organic
Material
1
Grinding &
Homogenizing
Fermenting
Refining
1
Stocking
J
— — -—- — — j» k --———- — -- — .
Curing
I
Compost
\
Animal Food
1
Washing
!
Sterilizing
1
Drying
1
i
Purifying
1
1--
Pulverizing
|
Pelleting
1
Bagging
1
Animal Food
Paper
1
Baling
1
Pulping
1
Purifying
I
i
1st Thickening
1
••— — - — — — l
Homogenizing
1
2nd Thickening
1
Paper Pulp
Figure 5. ROME SOLID WASTE PLANT (EASTERN SECTOR)
-------
oxidized. Material going to the paper section is baled and then pulped; for-
eign matter is removed by screening, etc., and the pulp is passed via a pre-
thickener and dewatering press to a grinding-homogenizing machine where it is
finally treated with saturated steam to separate and remove paraffin and tar
residues as well as to open the fibres.
In the animal food section, the vegetable material is first separated
from the remainder, the latter being conveyed to the composting section or to
the incinerators. The separation is performed by a special hydraulic-mechan-
ical system which also washes and rinses the material and precipitates the in-
erts. The vegetable material is homogenized and sterilized in autoclaves us-
ing saturated steam produced by the incinerators. The product is dried to
10% moisture, further purified in pneumatic cyclone collectors, ground fine-
ly, and then pressed to facilitate packing. The food is sterile and can be
preserved for several months.
Material entering the composting section is subjected to a fermenting
process under controlled conditions, to a screening process, and finally to
a curing process in a compost stabilization area. Other products may be add-
ed to provide enrichment.
The incineration and steam generation section consists of three furnaces
producing steam which is used in the various sections of the overall plant
(especially the animal food section); some steam is also conveyed to a near-
by industry. Water used in the plant is treated and recycled.,
Tests are now being carried out on the further recovery of plastics and
glass; the former causes problems particularly in the paper and incineration
sections, while the latter causes difficulties in the composting section.
Glass recovery will involve the use of an optical separator.
Estimated costs range from 7,300-8,100 lire/ton for amortization plus
operation, less 3,400-3,050 lire/ton proceeds fr,om sales of materials (42%
paper pulp, 41% animal food, 12% ferrous metals, and 5% compost), making net
costs 3,900-5,050 lire/ton. These compare favorably with an estimated 3,374
lire/ton for "controlled dumping" in Milan, and 10,450 lire/ton for inciner-
ation with electricity generation, also in Milan.
22
-------
LUXEMBOURG
NATIONAL OVERVIEW
No information was obtained from sources in Luxembourg, but contacts
elsewhere mentioned that an incineration plant at Leudelingen, formerly plan-
ned to have three conventional 8 ton/day furnaces, would have one of these
furnaces replaced by a high temperature Torrax system. Start up is due in
1976.
23
-------
NETHERLANDS
NATIONAL OVERVIEW
The Sticting Verwijdering Afvalstoffen (Institute for Waste Disposal) has
been established as a government institute for the purpose of advising both
the government and the local authorities about waste disposal problems and
energy/materials recovery. It is supported largely by the Ministry of Envi-
ronment and Public Health, although about 10% of its budget comes from spon-
sored projects.
Some 30% of municipal waste is currently incinerated, 17% deposited after
composting, 47% dumped (uncontrolled) and 6% placed in a sanitary landfill.
The most important company in the composting field is N.V. Vuil Afvoer
Maatschappij Amsterdam.
The central government provides no money for the construction or opera-
tion of disposal/recovery facilities, thus recovery can be carried out only
if it is economic to do so. There is some research on recovery being under-
taken at private companies and at universities, etc., such as the Institute
for Applied Research and Technology (TNO).
Priorities are much the same as in the U.S., but pyrolysis is not con-
sidered ready for implementation at the present time. There are no pilot
pyrolysis plants operating in the Netherlands, but two bench-scale fluidized
bed processes are being set up at TNO (160 kg/hour) and the University of
Enthoven (10 kg/hour), respectively.
A paper study is being conducted on fuel separation from refuse. A 1
ton/hour line separating paper and plastics has been set up at TNO but the
recovered paper is of poor quality compared with paper which has been recyc-
led directly, and the economics are questionable. The University of Enthoven
is also experimenting with plastics separation and air classification. Some
other research is being carried out on tin can separation and de-tinning.
NOTABLE DEVELOPMENT
Incineration with heat recovery: There are four heat recovery inciner-
ators in the Netherlands, each generating electricity. The largest plant (at
Rotterdam-Botlek) has a 20 ton/hour capacity, and the exhaust steam from the
turbines is used to heat the brine stream in a multi-stage, flash-type desal-
ination plant (capacity 3x 450 m3/hour). The iron from the slag, and also
the slag itself from most of the incinerators, is ocassionally reused (al-
though markets are difficult to find).
24
-------
There have been boiler corrosion problems in the three incinerators pre-
dating the Rotterdam plant. The latter operates at a relatively low temper-
ature (360° C) and pressure (26 kg/sq cm) and has experienced no corrosion
problems since 1972. However, due to the present adverse economic situation,
growth in the Rotterdam area has been less than expected; thus the inciner-
ator is operating below capacity and produces insufficient steam for the
full-scale operation of the desalination facilities. In addition, two small
rotary kilns designed to burn hazardous wastes have had problems in meeting
air pollution standards, as well as other operating difficulties.
It is thought that new incinerators will probably be constructed without
electricity generation because the capital costs are so high and there is in-
sufficient return from the electricity produced. The prospects are better
for the recovery of steam for industrial use.
25
-------
SPAIN
NATIONAL OVERVIEW
No general information was obtained from Spanish sources, although con-
tacts elsewhere suggested that apart from the recent construction of a 1000
tons/day incinerator with heat recovery in Barcelona, the only significant de-
velopment is taking place at the Empresa National Adaro.
NOTABLE DEVELOPMENT
Research program at the Empresa National Adaro: This private laboratory
is doing research on the front-end separation of municipal solid waste. The
process used is based on the system developed at the U.S. Bureau of Mines,
with modifications to allow for differences in the refuse composition, etc.
(e.g. a much higher proportion, up to 60%, of fermentable organic material).
A first-generation pilot plant was completed in 1974, and a second-generation
plant was expected to start operations in September, 1975.
26
-------
SWEDEN
NATIONAL OVERVIEW
The government agencies principally concerned with energy/materials re-
covery from solid waste are (i) the Ministry of Agriculture (particularly the
National Environment Protection Board), (ii) the Ministry of Health and Social
Affairs, (iii) the Ministry of Industry (particularly the National Board for
Technical Development), and (iv) the 24 county administrative boards (nature
conservancy sections).
Solid waste disposal is covered by tough environmental controls (e.g.
regulations governing consent procedures for waste treatment plants, the pre-
vention of pollution, etc.). The government strongly encourages energy/ma-
terials recovery and provides financial support for construction (e.g. up to
50% of the cost of recovery plant) as well as supporting research and develop-
ment.
No particular system is favored at this time; several are being investi-
gated, including composting (e.g., one to test the composting of municipal
refuse with sewage sludge), pyrolysis, fuel separation, etc. The population
density is fairly low outside the cities, and the predominant method of dis-
posal currently is landfill. Stockholm has two incinerators: one is old and
has no heat recovery other than provision for some drying of sewage sludge;
the other is new and generates electricity. Gothenborg has a new incinerator
(owned by a special company formed by the towns in the region); the plant
handles industrial as well as municipal waste and provides heat for a district
heating system. There are several other incinerator plants in Sweden, but
there are no plans to build more in the foreseeable future.
Separation of paper by households and separate collection by communities
will be mandatory within five years (other materials may follow). The two
largest paper plants are currently installing the necessary recycling (de-
inking) equipment, and a third is to follow, so that all of the paper can be
absorbed.
Experiments are now in progress in various parts of Sweden involving the
continuous separation of refuse in about 130,000 households. The materials
separated are dry paper (i.e. newspapers, magazines, corrugated cardboard,
cartons, bags), glass (bottles and jars), and sheet metal (tins). The experi-
ments involved both multi-family dwellings and detached houses and are being
conducted under the auspices of the ASAB foundation (including representa-
tives from the scrap trade, the packaging industry , the Swedish Association
of Local Authorities, and other interests). Random checks have shown that
27
-------
there is very little usable paper and glass left in the refuse sacks.
There is a government tax on the sale of beverage containers, and high
deposits have been introduced on returnables (though not government required).
So far, while cans seem to have retained their share of the market, there has
been a shift from non-returnable to returnable bottles.
NOTABLE DEVELOPMENTS
1. Fuel/materials separation system at the Hogdalen incinerator in
Stockholm: In collaboration with the National Board for Technical Develop-
ment, the Flakt Company is installing a 5 tons/hour research facility adjac-
ent to the reception hall of the incinerator. The overall cost of the pro-
ject is estimated at approximately 4 million Swedish Kroner (about $900,000)
of which the National Board will contribute about one-third.
A mainly dry process is being used (Fig. 6). The refuse will pass through
a primary shredder and trommel screen into an air classifier. The light frac-
tion, consisting of about 65% of the original input, will pass via a cyclone
into a secondary shredder. Heat will be used to contract the plastics con-
tent (primarily thermoplastics) and thus be readily separated from the cellu-
losic fibres in a second air classifier (the plastics will be more dense and
will drop). Meanwhile' the heavy fraction from the first air classifier will
undergo magnetic separation of the ferrous material, followed by screening,
froth flotation, and further air classification to separate ceramics, glass,
metals, etc.
2. Development of the Motala Pyrogas pyrolysis system: The Motala Com-
pany had conducted extensive pilot trials involving the pyrolysis of munici-
pal waste at a lime-works where gas generators (of the kind used to generate
coal gas) are still in use. Based on these trials they designed the Pyrogas
system (Fig. 7), which can be used to gasify various solid fuels including
municipal and industrial wastes, peat, sludge, etp. The generator comprises
two stages with an internal cross-section of 10 square meters. The fuel
passes through various zones in the generator, its temperature rising as high
as 1500°C. The outputs include a gaseous fuel, a tar, and a slag. The tar
can be burned in an oil-fired boiler and the slag, which is sterile, can be
deposited without risk of pollution.
It is thought that a Pyrogas unit can pyrolyze at least 2 tons/hour of
municipal waste. The first plant was to begin operation in autumn, 1975, at
Gislaved (in southern Sweden) where 0.8 tons/hour of coal will initially be
added. The process is guaranteed by the manufacturers to work with this in-
put, but it is thought that the amount of coal can be subsequently reduced,
thereby raising the capacity for refuse. The first six months' operation
will represent a trial period in which it is hoped to answer remaining ques-
tions about the materials and energy flows as well as about pollution prob-
lems.
3
It is known that 1 ton of Swedish refuse will substitute about 0.2 m
of oil. With the 2 tons/hour guaranteed capacity, the Gislaved plant will
give about 15,000 tons annual capacity, substituting about 300 mj of oil.
28
-------
to
VO
[Mixture suitable
asfuelsubstitute
28 27 26 PaP" «le
PLASTJCS "f
_£-_-. .->
I I _ i 1 j
I h*-ORGANICS
L r
-Ch
ORGANICS
1 / 1 ¥
I ALUMINUM 1
Mixed color
GLASS
STONES; ROCKS
CERAMICS
FRONT-END
1 Charging station
2 Belt conveyor
3 Primary shredder
4 Rotating trommel screen
5 Belt conveyor
6 Rotary feeder
7 Vertical air classifier
8 Cyclone
9 Container
10 Transport fan
11 Bell conveyor
12 Magnetic pulley
13 Secondary shredder
14 Rotating trommel screen
15 Horizontal air classifier
16 Transport fan
17 Cyclone
18 Container
19 Throttling valves
20 Transport fan
21 Fabric collector
22 Belt conveyor
23 Suspended electromagnet
24 Horizontal air classifier
25 Chopper
26 De-tinning
27 Surface treatment
28 Baler
BACK-END
29 Rotating trommel screen
30 Mineral jig
31 Crusher
32 Screen
33 Froth flotation
34 Fan
35 Horizontal air classifier
36 Cyclone
37 Magnetic drum
38 Electrostatic separator
39 Screen
40 Dryer
41 Cyclone
42 Air Classifier
43 Cyclone
44 Paper baler
Figure 6. FLAKT'S RRR-SYSTEM (RESOURCES RECYCLING FROM REFUSE).
-------
u>
o
FILTER
GARBAGE AND OTHER
COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL
AIR
TAR
HEAT EXCHANGER
TAR COLLECTOR
Figure 7. MOTALA PYROGAS.
-------
If no coal is needed for the process, the capacity will be doubled.
The Gislaved plant will be owned by Gummifabriken Gislaved Aktiegolag
(a rubber company). The National Board for Technical Development supported
some of the early development, and the National Board for Environmental Pro-
tection is providing 50% of the costs of constructing the basic plant at
Gislaved. Rubber waste will be included in the waste pyrolyzed, and the re-
sulting gas will be burned in a furnace to provide heat for the factory.
31
-------
SWITZERLAND
NATIONAL OVERVIEW
Although the Federal Agency for Environmental Protection supervises in a
general way refuse disposal and has some influence over the choice of methods
used, the local (or sometimes regional) authorities make their own decisions.
The first priority has always been refuse disposal rather than energy/materi-
als recovery (although this may be changing due to rising fuel costs).
Only the larger incinerators (say, over 200 tons/day) have heat recovery,
providing electricity and/or district heating or industrial steam (the latter
being preferred whenever possible as it is the easiest and most economical to
operate). There are four incinerators with power generation alone (burning a
total of 249,000 tons/year), eight with heat and power generation (561,000
tons/year), twenty nine with no recovery (371,000 tons/year), and twelve com-
posting plants (86,000 tons/year). There are also both controlled and uncon-
trolled landfills. It is becoming increasingly difficult to find acceptable
sites for incinerators within cities or on the outskirts, and it is even more
difficult to obtain land for a landfill (especially because of the mountains).
Materials recovery is performed by private firms only (expect where sep-
aration is necessary to produce acceptable compost). Incinerator operators
tend to oppose separate paper collections because of the reduction in the fuel
value of the refuse. There is some separate glass and metals collection, al-
though the glass industry is interested only in color-sorted glass. There is
very little post-incineration ferrous metal separation since few steel mills
will accept the product (due to impurities). Tests are being made on the
use of incinerator ash for road-building (with promising results so far) which
is particularly important since Switzerland faces a gravel shortage. There
has been successful laboratory experimentation on the recovery of heavy met-
als (e.g., zinc and lead) from fly ash.
There is a trend toward re-usable bottles. Private initiative has led
to the sale of certain beverages (including wines) in gauged bottles with ^
and/or 1 litre etched markings. All breweries are moving toward the use of
the same bottles. Some large supermarkets are agreeing to use the same inter-
changeable screw-top bottles.
NOTABLE DEVELOPMENT
Incineration by Von Roll (headquarters in Zurich): A "typical" Van Roll
plant has a capacity of around 600-900 tons/day (2 or 3 units of 300 tons/
day), with no pre-treatment of the refuse, a heat recovery system producing
32
-------
power and/or district heating (plus some live steam, perhaps), a wet ash/resi-
due system, and an electrostatic precipitator. The boiler is located after
the main combustion chamber and is a suspended tube panel type, with cleaning
by an automatic rapping/vibrating device. The combustion chamber temperature
lies between 800-1000°C and the gases exit into the electrostatic precipita-
tor at 220-280°C. There is not normally a gas scrubber, but one is going to
be necessary in the future in both Germany and Japan (due to stringent air
pollution regulations).
Von Roll does not recommend viewing a refuse incinerator as a power gen-
erator. Optimal steam conditions are different for the different purposes
and a compromise has to be made. Boiler corrosion is now fairly well under
control but unpredictable problems can arise. Nevertheless, it is considered
well established that a large incinerator can break even on its operating
costs/heat recovery, and possibly a slight profit can be made (if capital
costs are not included).
The materials flow for a typical incinerator includes as little as % ton
of input water (possibly clarified sewage water) per ton of refused burned.
Each ton burned gives 350-450 kilos of solid residue (dry weight) with 15-20%
water content, depending on the refuse composition. The flue gas contains a
maximum of 2000 mg/nm^ hydrogen chloride, 3000 mg/nm^ sulphur dioxide, and
traces of carbon monoxide. The carbon dioxide content is typically 5-11%.
It is very difficult to measure heavy metals in the flue gases; it is known
that most are removed at the beginning of the electrostatic precipitator.
In all new incinerators in Germany, as well as in new and certain old in-
cinerators (over a specified size) in Japan, electrostatic precipitation is
to be followed by full or partial scrubbing (depending on the size of plant,
emissions allowed, etc.). The process may be wet or dry; the latter involves
blowing an alkaline chemical such as dolomite into the combustion chamber
(e.g. the Belgian Solvay process). The gases may or may not be reheated be-
fore emission to the atmosphere. Inevitably there are significantly increas-
ed costs, a greater risk of corrosion, and the possibility of water pollution.
Combined refuse/sewage sludge treatment is possible. At a 150 tons/year
plant has been constructed in Dieppe, France, the heat from the combustion of
refuse is used to de-water and dry the sludge (previously pre-thickened from
98% to 80% water); the dry sludge (40-45% water) can then be added to the
refuse while maintaining self-sustained combustion. Two similar plants are
planned for Brive and Deauville (also in France). However, the sludge drying
unit is very expensive (it is a jacketed vertical column type heat exchanger
with critical parts made of stainless steel), and the process is probably
suitable only for smaller units.
In larger plants it is preferable to pre-heat pre-thickened sludge for
about 20 minutes in a continuous operation, raising its temperature from 20
to 100°C (thermal conditioning). This changes the coagulation properties,
making the sludge easier to settle. The thickened material from the bottom
of the vessel is dewatered in a filter press to about 40-45% water; it is
then a sterile, ordorless cake which is safe to deposit and can be used as a
fuel (if ground to reduce its size) or as a soil improver, etc.
33
-------
A major problem with combined refuse/sewage sludge disposal is that the
authorities responsible for refuse and sludge are often separate; thus there
are political rather than technical difficulties.
Von Roll considers that the burn-out in the supplementary fuel plant at
St. Louis is poor. This is not a major problem where a landfill is available
but it makes the use of the ash for road construction, etc., more difficult.
Von Roll considers that if 10% refuse is burned, the fuel with the best burn-
ing characteristics (i.e. the normal fuel) will burn best, leaving the poorer
fuel (i.e. the refuse) making up most of the unburned material in the ash.
Possibly an after-burning grate might be needed.
34
-------
WEST GERMANY
NATIONAL OVERVIEW
The government agencies principally concerned with energy/materials re-
covery from municipal solid waste are (i) Umweltbundesamt (UBA) (Federal En-
vironmental Protection Agency) as well as federal Ministries such as Interior,
Science and Technology, etc., and (ii) state agencies, e.g., Bayerisches
Landesamt fur Umweltschutz (Bavarian State Agency for Environmental Protec-
tion) .
With the help of experts from industry, the universities, other govern-
ment departments, etc., the UBA has prepared a major solid waste program which
was expected to be adopted by the government and issued toward the end of
1975. Solid waste management is currently covered by the Waste Disposal Law
of June, 1972, which includes provisions for regional planning, control of
solid waste facilities, limitations on the introduction of single-use packag-
ing, etc.
Disposal in West Germany currently involves landfill, composting, and in-
cineration. The government is studying pyrolysis, hydrolysis, and high-tem-
perature incineration, and is developing a major project on energy/materials
recovery (the "Reutlingen" project, see below). While it is thought that air
pollution problems from pyrolysis plants might be less severe than those from
incinerators, there are instead problems of water pollution and tars, which
are being examined. Also being examined is the problem of removing chlorides
from scrubber water (for the time being this water is lagooned or fed through
a municipal sewage treatment plant). These and other research and demonstra-
tion projects will be supported in 1976 by the Ministry of the Interior (from
a fund of 4-6 million D-Mark), with UBA providing administration and technic-
al assistance. There may be additional funds from other ministries.
There are presently some 19 composting facilities in West Germany, and
the percentage of waste disposed of by composting seems to be rising from
about 2% to perhaps 5% (e.g. the plan for Stuttgart calls for an increase in
the number of plants from the present 6 to a total of 19). There may be a
trend away from using fully mechanized plants because of high costs: new
plants are likely to involve shredding, mixing with other materials (e.g.
sewage sludge) and placing in large windrows with mechanical mixing. However,
mechanical mixing equipment for large plants is currently not very good, al-
though development work is proceeding in East Germany and France. Markets
are not strong in all areas, but there is a constant demand from vineyard
owners.
35
-------
There are currently 31 incineration plants, of which 27 recover energy.
Several more plants are nearing completion. Some produce electricity but the
problems of doing so (i.e., corrosion, difficulties of matching supply and
demand, and questionable economics) have made the production of steam for
other purposes (e.g. district heating, industrial uses, distilled water pro-
duction, sludge drying) more attractive. A major new consideration is the
need to meet very stringent air pollution standards, necessitating scrubbing
of at least part of the gas steam in addition to electrostatic precipitation
(five new plants are to have both types of cleaning). This significantly
raises the costs (by about 25%). Nevertheless, incinerator technology is very
advanced, and it is thought that large incinerators will continue to play a
role in the disposal of very large quantities of refuse.
An interesting practice is the conversion of old coal-burning power or
industrial furnaces into refuse incinerators, making use of the existing in-
frastructure. The refuse may be-burned alone or in combination with pulver-
ized coal or with sewage sludge. An additional advantage is the fact that
new planning permission is not required.
NOTABLE DEVELOPMENTS
1. The "Reutlingen" recycling demonstration plant; Feasibility studies
are presently being completed for the construction of a demonstration resource
recovery plant probably to be located about 30 miles south of Stuttgart in a
rural area, adjacent to a new composting plant, and serving about % million
people. The process would initially involve shredding and air classification,
with the light fraction providing paper recovery and the heavy fraction pro-
viding both aggregate material and composting feedstock. Market studies so
far suggest that only paper is worth recovering, although it is anticipated
that plastics might subsequently be recovered, followed by non-ferrous metals;
glass recovery is not yet considered feasible. The purpose of the project
is to test out the markets as well as the processes.
It is expected that there will be three lines, each with a capacity of
about 15 tons/hour; different processes will be tried out, leading ultimate-
ly to the choice of an optimum configuration. Wet processes will be avoided
as far as possible in order to avoid water pollution problems.
The plant will probably be owned by an independent company formed by the
federal government, the states, and private industry (both the manufacturers
of disposal equipment and the users of the recovered products). It is antic-
ipated that the federal government might provide up to 40-50% of the costs,
the states about 10%, and industry the remainder. It should be noted that
these estimates are tentative only.
2. Development at Krauss-Maffei (Munich): The Krauss-Maffei Company,
which will be assisting in the "reutlingen" project, has developed a front-
end separation process (System R80), currently at pilot-plant stage. The
process includes primary magnetic extraction, shredding, secondary magnetic
extraction, screening and air classification (Fig.' 8). The air classifier
separates the waste into three fractions, (i) the light fraction consisting
of paper, plastic film,, and light textiles, (ii) the middle fraction consist-
36
-------
Magnetic extractor
Shredder
Magnetic extractor
Screen 1
Air classifier
Air classifier III
Ferrous
scrap
-Fines for composting
Screen II
Remaining Light fraction
fraction
Figure 8. KRAUSS MAFFEI-SYSTEM (R80)
37
-------
ing of cardboard, heavier plastics, leather wastes, etc., and (iii) the heavy
fraction consisting of the heaviest plastics, non-ferrous metals, bones, wood,
stones, etc.
Additional components can be added to the process depending on the par-
ticular conditions, the products required, etc. The products can include a
composting feedstock, recovered papers and cartons (which can be re-processed
to form new paper and cardboard), plastic granules, glass cullet, aggregate,
and/or a combustible fuel (which can be incinerated or pyrolyzed).
3. Development at the University of Hamburg; Research on pyrolysis is
reportedly being done at this university involving a bench scale fluidized
bed system. No further information was obtained.
4. Development at Kiener, Goldshofe: A system has been developed which
involves the gasification of coarsely shredded refuse in a rotary kiln. The
gas produced is cracked in a gas generator and then burned in a gas engine to
produce electric power. A pilot plant of capacity 40 kg/hour was originally
constructed; however, this has now been shut down and a 100 kg/hour demon-
stration plant was started up in Goldshofe (August, 1975). The University
of Stuttgart has been testing the system.
38
-------
LIST OF ORGANIZATIONS AND INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED*
BELGIUM
Antwerp Waste Management Service
St. Andriesplaats 25., Antwerp.
ir. H. Herreman, Director
M. Flament, Deputy Director
DENMARK
Pollution Control Ltd.
Frydenlundsvej 30, DK - 2950 Vedbaek.
Ole H. Willerup, Managing Director
ENGLAND
Department of the Environment
2 Marsham Street, London SW1P 3EB
J. Sumner, Director, Wastes Division
Department of Industry, Warren Spring Laboratory
Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage, Herts. SGI 2BS
W.S. Douglas, Materials Recovery Division
Maurice Webb, Materials Recovery Division
Robert Flaim, Materials Handling Division
Greater London Council, Department of Public Health Engineering
10 Great George Street, London SW1P 3AB
D. Ayres, Director
P.K. Patrick, General Manager, Solid Wastes
A. Merchant
J. Ottley
H. Brown, Energy and Resources Consultant
10 Westlake Drive, Hayes, Bromley, Kent BR2 7HF
Associated Portland Cement Manufacturers, Commercial Development Division
Aspdin House, Crete Hall Road, Northfleet, Kent
P. Giles, Project Consultant
* Does not include other organizations and individuals who were contacted but
failed to provide substantive replies.
39
-------
West Midlands County Council, County Waste Disposal Department
County Hall, 1 Lancaster Circus, Queensway, Birmingham B4 7DJ
K. Harvey, Waste Disposal Officer
L. Drury
Imperial Metal Industries (Kynoch) Ltd.
P.O. Box 216, Kynoch Works, Birmingham B6 7BA
J.E. Marshall, Engineering Director, Witton Site Services Division
Staffordshire County Council
4 Chapel Street, Stafford, ST16 2BX
J. Skitt, County Waste Disposal Engineer
Open University, Faculty of Technology
Walton Hall, Milton Keynes MK7 6AA
Dr. A. Porteus
Environmental Resources Ltd.
35a Thayer Street, London W1H 5LH
Florence Fisher, Managing Director
Institute of Fuel
18 Devonshire Street, Portland Place, London WIN 2AU
Dr. R. Jackson, Secretary
FRANCE
Ministere de la Qualite de la Vie, Service des Problemes de Dechets
14 avenue du General Leclerc, 92200 Neuilly
M. Chambournier
Direction Generale de 1'Amenagement Urbain
98 quai de la Rapee, 75570 Paris Cedex 12
R. Dorfmann, Vice-President Deie'gue a 1'I.S.W.A.
B.R.G.M. Orleans
Jean Noel Gony
Electricite de France, Traitement Industriel des Residus Urbains
134 boulevard Haussmann, 75008 Paris
Pierre Fourment, Chef du Service des Relations Commerciales
ITALY
U.S. Embassy, Rome
John B.L. Manniello, Scientific Attache
NETHERLANDS
Stichting Verwijdering Afvalstoffen
Amersfoort, Postbus 184, Natriumweg 7
Ir. J.A. van der Kuil, Head of Economic/Legal Department; Mr. Lueikhuize
40
-------
SPAIN
Empresa National Adaro
Serrano 116, Madrid 6
Dr. M. Cavanna
SWEDEN
Statens Naturvardsverk
Pack, S-171 20 Solna 1
S.O. Hellgren
A B Motala Verkstad
Pack, S-591 01 Motala
John Roslund
Goteborgsregionens Avfallsaktiebolag
Box 341, 401 25 Goteborg 1
Bengt Rundqwist
Stockholms Energiverk
Tulegatan 7-13, Fack, Stockholm 19
Ing. Tore Tulin
SWITZERLAND
Von Roll AG
CH-8021 Zurich, Uraniastr. 31/33
C.D. Herrmann
Cornelius Solotemaker
Mr. Nuesch
Federal Institute of Technology, Department of Mechanical Engineering
CH-8006 Zurich, Sonneggstrasse 3
Professor Dr. Fritz Widmer
Federal Institute for Water Resources and Water Pollution Control (EAWAG)
CH-8600 Dubendorf-Ziirich
K.A. Wuhrmann
WEST GERMANY
Umweltbundesamt
Dl Berlin 33, Bismarckplatz 1
Dipl. Ing. Werner Schenkel, Erster Direktor und Professor
Manuela Jacobs
Hans Langer
Krauss-Maffei
8000 Munchen-54, Tannenweg 4
Dr. Hillekamp
41
-------
Universitat Stuttgart, Institut fur Siedlungswasserbau und Wassergiitewirt-
schaft, 7 Stuttgart 80 (Busnau), Bandtale 1
o. Prof. Dr. Ing. Oktay Tabasaran
Bayerische Landesamt fur Umweltshultz
8 Munchen 81, Rosenkavalierplatz 3
Bartholomaeus Furmaier, Baudirektor
UNITED STATES (Preliminary contacts and review of report)
First International Conference on Conversion of Refuse to Energy (CRE)
Suite 500, 299 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10017
W.K. MacAdam, Conference Vice-Chairman
American Public Works Association
1313 East 60th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637
Rodney R. Fleming, Associate Executive Director
Solid Wastes Management-Refuse Removal Journal
461 Eighth Avenue, New York, New York 10001
Eugene L. Pollock, Editor
National Center for Resource Recovery, Inc.
1211 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036
Dr. Harvey Alter, Director of Research Programs
42
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY*
ENGLAND
Douglas, E., C. Power, and T. Walsh, "Development of a Flowsheet for Extract-
ing Non-Ferrous Metals from Domestic Refuse Clinker", Proceedings of Inter-
national Symposium on Solid Waste Disposal, Montreal, September 1974.
Douglas E., M. Webb, and G.R. Daborn, "The Pyrolysis of Waste and Product
Assessment", Proceedings of Symposium on The Treatment and Recycling of Solid
Wastes, Institute of Solid Waste Management, Manchester, January 1974.
Douglas, E. and P.R. Birch, "Recovery of Potentially Re-Usable Materials From
Domestic Refuse by Physical Sorting", Prepared for Symposium on The Technology
of Reclamation, University of Birmingham, April 1975.
Patrick, P.K., "Operational Experience in Energy Recovery Through Incinera-
tion" , Presented at International Symposium on Energy Recovery From Refuse,
University of Louisville, September 1975.
Porteus, A., "The Recovery of Fermentation Products from Cellulose Wastes via
Acid Hydrolysis", Open University, February 1975.
Sumner, J., "Waste Disposal - A New Philosophy", Presented at 101st Annual
Conference of the Institution of Municipal Engineers, Torbay, June 1974.
FRANCE
"Les Dechets Solides - Propositions Pour une Politique", Rapport du Groupe
d'E tudes sur 1'Elimination des Residus Solides, La Documentation Francaise,
Paris 1974.
ITALY
Frangipane, E. de Fraja, and G. Bozzini, "Municipal Solid Waste Disposal by
Recovery Plants in Rome", Translated by American Embassy, Rome, August 1975.
SWEDEN
Hovenius, G., "Composting Project at Laxa - Examination of Tenders of Mechan-
ical Equipment", Statens Naturvardsverk, 1975.
* Commercial literature and brochures are not listed.
43
-------
Bahri, M., "Resources Recovery from Municipal Solid Waste-Full Scale Tests",
Flakt (AB Svenska Flaktfabriken), December 1974.
"Regional Development Plan Serves Large Community", Solid Wastes Management,
17, December 1974.
National Swedish Environment Protection Board, "Solid Waste Management in
Sweden", Prepared for ECE Seminar on the Collection, Disposal, Treatment and
Recycling of Solid Wastes. Hamburg, September 1975.
National Swedish Board for Technical Development, "Pyrolysis of Household
Waste", May 1974.
WEST GERMANY
Schenkel, W., "Technological and Economic Feasibility, Research and Policy
Principles Related to Collection, Transportation and Disposal of Solid Wastes1,1
Prepared for ECE Seminar on the Collection, Disposal, Treatment and Recycling
of Solid Wastes, Hamburg, September 1975.
Umweltbundesamt (Author: Klaus Stief), "National Information About the Gen-
eral Situation and Main Problem Areas in the Field of Solid Waste Management",
Prepared for the ECE Seminar on the Collection, Disposal, Treatment and Re-
cycling of Solid Wastes, Hamburg, September 1975.
44
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/7-77-040
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
EUROPEAN DEVELOPMENTS IN THE RECOVERY OF ENERGY AND
MATERIALS FROM MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE
5. REPORT DATE
May 1977 (Issuing Date)
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
W. David Conn
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
University of California
Los Angeles, California 90024
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
EHE618
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
5-03-4502-A
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Cin.,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This is the report of a study which set out to determine whether priorities in
Western Europe with respect to energy and materials recovery from municipal solid
waste are the same as those in the United States, which include (a) the use of refuse
as a supplementary fuel, (b) pyrolysis, and (c) resource recovery. The study also
attempted to identify solid waste/energy processes in Europe (both existing and under
development) that appear to offer potential advantages over processes currently
employed in the United States.
Recovery activities in Belgium, Denmark, England, France, Italy, Luxembourg, Nether-
lands, Spain. Sweden, Switzerland, and West Germany are reported. For each country,
a national overview is given, followed (where appropriate) by a description of
particularly significant developments. Systems involving household sorting and
separate collection, front-end materials/fuel separation, the burning of refuse-
derived fuel in electricity generating plants and cement kilns, pyrolysis, incinera-
tion with heat recovery, and materials recovery from post-incinerator residues are
discussed in the report. A summary of key findings is also included.
Most of the information was collected between July and September 1975. The report
contains the names and addresses of all persons contacted in the study.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Uestrugas, Warrert Spring
Laboratory, Edmonton, IMI
BRGM, SVA, TNO Empresa
National Adaro, Laxa, Fla
Montala Pyrogas, Von Roll
Reutlingen, Krauss-Maffei
Front-end separation,
Refuse-derived fuel.
c. COS AT I Field/Group
*Energy, *RecTarnation, Refuse,
Incinerators, Pyrolysis, Fuels, Power,
Scrap, Processing, Composts, Heat
recovery, Materials
kt,
10A
14B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
(ThtsReport>
21. NO. OF PAGES
53
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
45
. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1377-757-056/561.3 Region No. 5-11
------- |