Prepublication issue for EPA libraries
and State Solid Waste Management Agencies
A TECHNICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND
ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE "WET PROCESSING
SYSTEM FOR THE RECOVERY AND DISPOSAL
OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE"
This final report (SW-109c) describes work performed for the
Federal solid waste management programs under contract No. 68-01-2211
and is reproduced as received from the contractor
Copies of this report will be available from the
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, Virginia 22151
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1975
-------
This report as submitted by the grantee or contractor has not been
technically reviewed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Publication does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of EPA, nor does mention of commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.
An environmental protection publication (SW-109c) in the solid waste
management series.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures v
List of Tables vll
Acknowledgments viii
Section
1.0 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Plant Performance 1
1.3 Technical Evaluation 2
1.4 Environmental Evaluation 4
1.5 Economic Evaluation 6
2.0 INTRODUCTION 8
2.1 Objectives of Study 8
2.2 History and Background 9
2.3 Process Description 10
3.0 OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY 13
4.0 EVALUATION METHODS USED 21
4.1 Study Matrix Development 21
4.2 Sampling Methods 21
4.3 Systems Concept and Network Analysis 23
5.0 RESULTS OF TECHNICAL EVALUATION 28
5.1 Introduction 28
5.2 Pulping and Separation Subsystem 28
5.3 Dewatering and Incineration Subsystem 51
5.4 Fiber Recovery System 60
5.5 Summary of Power Usage 71
5.6 Summary of Water Usage 72
5.7 Maintenance History Data 80
5.8 Recovered Material Characterization 87
5.9 Material Balance of the Franklin Solid
Waste Plant 89
5.10 Heat and Ash Content Data 93
6.0 RESULTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF THE
FRANKLIN SOLID WASTE PLANT 96
6.1 Introduction 96
6.2 Environmental Impact on Air Quality 96
iii
-------
6.3 Environmental Impact on Water Quality 98
6.4 Closed Loop Operation 104
6.5 Environmental Impact on Land 105
6.6 Noise Pollution 106
6.7 Odor Within and Outside of Plant 108
6.8 Bacteriological Data 108
7.0 RESULTS OF ECONOMIC EVALUATION 110
7.1 Introduction 110
7.2 Approach to Developing the Economic Data m
7.3 Development of Non-Dollar Related Cost
Factors from Franklin Experience 111
7.4 Franklin Operating Experience - Actual
35 T/D, Projected 50 T/D and
Projected 150 T/D 122
7.5 Projection To 500 and 1000 T/D Size Plant 125
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
No. Page
1 Flow Schematic of the Franklin Environmental
Complex 12
2 Pulping and Separation Subsystem 14
3 Dewatering and Incineration Subsystem 16
4 Fiber Recovery System - Normal Mode 18
5 Fiber Recovery System - Thickening Mode 20
6 Study Matrix 22
7 Schematic Diagram 23
8 Mode/Branch Network 24
9 P&S System Boundary 26
10 Material Balance Sheet - Pulping and
Separation Subsystem 29
11 Pulping and Separation Subsystem
Stream Characterization 35
12 Figure Deleted
13 Seasonal Variation of Refuse Composition 39
14 Whitewater Consumption - Pulping and
Separation Subsystem 47
15 Process Water Consumption - P&S Subsystem 48
16 Power Consumption - Hydrapulper 49
17 Material Balance Sheet - Dewatering and
Incineration Subsystem 53
18 Dewatering and Incineration Subsystem -
Stream Characterization Data 57
19 Material Balance Sheet - Fiber Recovery System 61
20 Fiber Recovery System - Stream Characterization 65
-------
No. Page
21 Water Consumption - Fiber Recovery 67
22 Whitewater and Process Water Consumption
per Ton Refuse Input to Fiber Recovery 68
23 Power Consumption Data per Ton Refuse Input
to Fiber Recovery 69
24 Power Usage in the Franklin Plant 73
25 Points of Whitewater and Process Water
Usage in the Franklin Plant 77
26 Whitewater Usage in the Franklin Plant 78
27 Whitewater per Ton of Refuse Input to the
P&S Subsystem 79
28 Process Water per Ton Refuse Input to P&S
Subsystem 81
29 Process Water Usage in the Franklin Plant 82
30 City Water Usage per Ton Input to D&I
Subsystem 83
31 Material Balance Diagram of the Franklin
Plant - Total 90
32 Material Balance Diagram of the Franklin
Plant - One Ton Input 92
33 Heat Balance Diagram of the Franklin Plant 95
34 Noise Levels Franklin Plant 107
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
No. Page
1 Refuse Composition Comparison Table 33
2 Typical Composition of Solid Waste Categories
Found in Input to the Franklin Solid
Waste Plant 37
3 Whitewater Characteristics 42
4 Process Water Characteristics 45
5 Power Usage of Equipment Items 59
6 Major Electrically Operated Equipment by System 74
7 Maintenance History for Franklin Solid
Waste Plant 84
8 Ash Slurry 99
9 Sewage Sump 100
10 Whitewater Sump 102
11 Whitewater Characteristics 103
12 Operating Labor 114
13 Maintenance Material Cost Factors 118
14 Monthly Franklin Actual Operating Experience
35 T/D x 750 T/M 123
15 Monthly Franklin Projected Operating Experience
50 T/D x 1,075 T/M 124
16 Monthly Franklin Projected Operating Cost -
150 T/D (Optimum) - 3225 T/M 126
17 Monthly Franklin Facility Costs Projected to
500 T/D - 10,750 T/M 129
18 Monthly Franklin Facility Costs Projected to
1,000 T/D - 21,500 T/M 131
19 Economic Summary of Projected Franklin
Type Facility 134
20 Economic Summary of Projected Franklin Plant
with No Fiber Recovery and Using Rejects
as a Fuel ^35
vil
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document presents the results of a study performed for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste Management, by Systems Technology Corporation. Mr.
Dave Arella was the initial technical monitor for the EPA.
Mrs. Yvonne Garbe and Mr. Fred Smith assumed technical
direction upon the departure of Mr. Arella. Mr. Melvin C.
Eifert was the Project Engineer for Systems Technology
Corporation.
The performance of this study required the cooperation of
many individuals. Without the help and interest of these
contributors, it would have been impossible to gather the
data reported herein. The authors wish to acknowledge the
contributions of Mr. Dave Arella, Mrs. Yvonne Garbe and
Mr. Fred Smith of the U.S.EPA; Messrs. Howard Creelman,
Paul Marsh and Earl Blakely of Black-Clawson, Fibreclaim
Incorporated; and Mr. Bernard Eichholtz of the City of
Franklin, Ohio. The authors further acknowledge the
contributions of Messrs. Wilbur Brooks, Anwar A. Ghazee,
and Michael J. Hoegler of Systems Technology Corporation.
viii
-------
1.0 SUMMARY OF EVALUATION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of a study to perform a
technical, economic, and environmental evaluation of the
wet processing concept for the disposal of solid waste.
The facility of interest is the Franklin Solid Waste and
Fiber Recovery Plant, located in Franklin, Ohio. The
data derived and presented in this report is intended to
be used by engineers and administrators involved in problems
of solid waste disposal.
The facility as designed consists of three major systems;
Hydrasposal (containing the pulping, separation, dewatering
and incineration subsystems); Fiber Recovery; and Glass
Recovery. This report presents the data for the Hydrasposal
and Fiber Recovery systems only. A subsequent report will
present the Glass Recovery Evaluation.
1.2 PLANT PERFORMANCE
The Franklin Solid Waste and Fiber Recovery Plant has been
operational since May 1971, processing an average of 35 tons
per day at a throughput rate of approximately 7 tons per
hour. During this time, the plant has never turned away
material from the tipping floor due to overload or equipment
failure.
The plant recovers magnetic materials, paper fiber, and
glass. It is capable of recovering 94% of the incoming
magnetic fraction, and 48.9% of the input paper fraction.
With all systems except the glass plant operating, the
plant consumes 157 Kwh of power per ton of input refuse.
Of this, 21% is consumed by the hydrapulper, 71% by the
remaining portion of the separation, dewatering, and
incineration system, and 8% by the fiber recovery system.
When fiber recovery is not used, the facility can operate
in a closed loop mode which is water deficient (i.e., it
requires additional water for pulping and does not dis-
charge water that would require treatment by a wastewater
treatment plant).
With fiber recovery operational, the plant requires 3060
gallons of water/ton of input refuse for its operation.
The plant in turn sends 2500 gallons of Whitewater/ton of
input refuse for treatment to the adjacent wastewater
treatment plant. At Franklin, 2300 gallons/ton of the
required water comes from the final clarified water of the
-------
adjacent wastewater treatment plant. 760 gallons/ton of city
water is also used for the operation of the plant.
Without the glass plant, approximately 20.4% of the refuse
stream by weight, requires landfilling. The landfill material
includes the feed to the glass plant, the non-magnetic fraction,
and oversized rejects pulled from the solid waste input on
the tipping floor. With the glass plant operating, 15%
by weight, requires landfilling. The following paragraphs
will present more information about the technical, environ-
mental, and economic evaluations for each of the major
systems within the plant.
1.3 TECHNICAL EVALUATION
1.3.1 Pulping and Separation (P&S) Subsystem
The approximate composition of the raw solid waste at the
Franklin Plant follows:
Inerts 3.4%
Non-Fiber Organics 37.0%
Glass 8.5%
Magnetic Metals 9.8%
Non-Magnetic Metals 1.3%
Paper 40.0%
An initial 7.5% (by weight) of the raw solid waste is
removed from the tipping floor as unprocessable materials.
In the first step of the pulping and separation sub-
system the solid waste is sent to the hydrapulper where
it is pulped and divided into a light and heavy stream.
The light fraction leaving the pulper reflects approximately
76.5% (by weight) of the input refuse. The heavy fraction
removed from the hydrapulper, is approximately 15.8% by
weight, and passes by a magnetic belt which removes the
magnetic material from the non-magnetic material.
The light fraction from the hydrapulper goes to a liquid cyclone
where it is divided into another light fraction and a
heavy fraction. The heavy fraction is the feed to the glass
plant and has a glass content of approximately 55%. The
feed to the glass plant has a size distribution as follows:
< 1/4" 30.0%
1/4" <. 3/4" 60.2%
> 3/4" 9.8%
The size distribution changes significantly depending upon
-------
the condition of the pulper hammers between replacement.
The light fraction from the cyclone is fed to the fiber
recovery system. Average fiber content in this stream is
approximately 44%. This stream has a solids content between
1.5 and 4.1% and has an average heating value of 7700
BTU/lb on a dry weight basis. The fractional break-out of
the input refuse from the pulping and separation system is
as follows:
Unprocessables
7.5% Magnetic
'Separation
15.8%
Raw 100%
Waste
Input
To Fiber
Recovery
61%
To Glass
Plant
15.2%
More detailed technical information about the pulping and
separation subsystem can be found in Section 5.2.
1.3.2 Dewatering and Incineration (D&I) Subsystem
The D&I subsystem receives, dewaters, and incinerates
the unusable portion (reject) from the fiber recovery system,
or the entire process stream from the P & S subsystem.
With fiber recovery operating, the rejects from fiber re-
covery, unrecovered residuals, are stored for dewatering
and incineration. If fiber recovery is not used, the
stream from the cyclone is stored for dewatering and
incineration.
Dewatering is accomplished by a two stage process. The
first state is a barrel thickener which reduces the moisture
content to 80 - 82%, and the second step is a cone press which
-------
reduces the moisture content to 53 - 55%. Wastewater
treatment sludge is introduced into the stream prior to
the cone press dewatering step. The material is then
pneumatically conveyed to the reactor. The material has
a heat value of 8600 BTU/lb on a dry weight basis and
3600 BTU/lb on an as-received basis.
1.3.3 Fiber Recovery System
The fiber recovery system receives the light fraction
from the cyclone in the pulping and separation subsystem
and recovers a portion of the usable fiber contained in
it. This recovered fiber is used by an adjacent manufacturer
as a substitute for other paper sources in the manufacturing
of roofing felt.
The first step of the fiber recovery process screens all
particles greater than 1/16" from the stream. The second
step pumps the fiber stream through centrifugal cleaners
where grit particles are removed. The third step directs
the fiber stream to a run-down screen which removes
small fibers and water from the stream. The rejects from
the first screening operation and the centrifugal cleaners
are stored prior to dewatering and incineration.
The slurrv containing the washed and recovered fiber has
a solids consistency of approximately 2.2%. Approximately
48% of the fiber in the incoming waste is recovered. The
recovered fiber is then dewatered through a barrel thickener
and cone press similar to that used in the dewatering and
incineration subsystem where the material moisture content
can be reduced from 97% to 55%. The recovered fiber has a
heat content of approximately 7200 BTU/lb on a dry weight
basis, an oil and grease count of 2460 mg/1, and a
bacterial count as follows:
Total Plate Count 427 X lo
Fecal Coliform 1.3 X 10 /100ml
The average power consumed by the fiber recovery system
is 21.9 Kwh/ ton of input to fiber recovery. The amount
of process water used per ton of material to the fiber
recovery system averages 1600 gallons.
1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
1.4.1 Environmental Impact on Air Quality
The effect on air quality of the Franklin Solid Waste and
Fiber Recovery Plant can be determined by evaluating the
emissions from the fluidized bed incinerator. Based on test
data performed by an independent lab in January, 1972, the
exhaust gases from the venturi scrubber contain a particulate
-------
loading of 6.11 Ib/hour (a grain loading of .019 G/SDCF),
SO, of less than 7 ppm, a NO level of 125 ppm and a
moisture content of 34%. These emissions comply with
current Ohio Air Pollution control regulations. Section
6.2 of this report presents more detailed information
about the environmental impact on air quality.
1.4.2 Environmental Impact on Water Quality
The impact on water quality was assessed by evaluating
the influent and effluent flows from the solid waste plant.
At Franklin, liquid inputs to the solid waste plant con-
sist of process water obtained from the chlorinated final
effluent from the adjacent wastewater treatment plant,
and city water obtained from the municipal water supply
of the City of Franklin. A third input is the moisture
contained in the input refuse and sewage sludge.
There are three liquid outputs from the solid waste plant
which flow to the adjacent sewage treatment plant; (1) liquid
extracted by the dewatering and incineration subsystem;
(2) ash slurry from the venturi scrubber; and (3) liquids
removed in the fiber recovery system.
The output from the venturi scrubber (ash water) does not
require biological treatment and only requires solids re-
moval. The combined flows from the D & I subsystem is
approximately 4400 gal/ton input. The BOD,, loading is
approximately 100 pounds BOD-/ton, which represents a
population equivalent of 600 people/ton. The combined
suspended solid loading averages 160 pounds of suspended
solids/ton. The effluent from fiber recovery contributes
81% of the suspended solids loading and 73% of the BOD5
loading of the effluents leaving the plant.
The plant has operated under a closed loop condition
(without fiber recovery). Under this test condition,
62 gallons of water per ton of refuse processed is con-
sumed. The conclusion drawn from this test was that the
plant can be operated on a closed loop basis without external
connection to a wastewater treatment plant. More detailed
information on the environmental impact on water quality
can be found in section 6.4.
1.4.3 Environmental Impact on Land
One of the original objectives of the Franklin Solid Waste
and Fiber Recovery Plant was to reduce the quantity of
material to be landfilled. If it is assumed that the tipping
floor unprocessable material, the non-magnetic junk, and
the glass plant feed requires .landfilling, a savings of 71%
in landfill volume can be achieved with the operation of a
-------
Franklin type plant. With the glass plant operational, a
savings of 76% in landfill volume can be achieved.
1.4.4 Noise Pollution
In the current design, the hydrapulper generates noise
levels up to 104 dBA. Personnel involved in the pulper
operation are not required to be in the room during the
operation of the equipment. Hence, these personnel are
not exposed to noise levels exceeding OSHA standards.
Alternate designs are available that would isolate the
hydrapulper so that noise would be minimized. Noise levels
outside the plant at 100 to 150 feet from the plant are
in the range of 50 to 60 dBA.
1.4.5 Odor Analysis
During normal operation of the plant, a slight garbage
odor is detectable outside near the tipping floor, and
within the plant. However, this odor problem is minimal
and at 100 to 150 feet from the facility, there is little
or no detectable odor. When the plant is accepting sewage
from the adjacent wastewater treatment plant, there is
a slight increase of sewage smell within the plant.
1.4.6 Bacteriological Analysis
By the nature of the material being handled, there is a
biological hazard present. In the wet media the hazard
should be no worse than anything processed through a
sewage plant. If fact, it would seem that the presents
of airborne contaminants would be less in a wet media than
it would be in any air classified system.
1.5 ECONOMIC EVALUATION
Economic data for all major subsystems within the plant
were developed. This will enable the use of this information
for interested parties who may want to consider the use
of only some part of the Franklin plant. Because of the
energy crisis, it is doubtful that any future plants based
on wet processing would incorporate an incinerator for the
disposal of the residuals. Rather these residuals would
be used as fuel. Hence, providing the data by subsystem,
the economic information will be of much greater value.
The base line economic data was developed for 35 ton/day (T/D)
processing, which was the average operating tonnage during
the period of the evaluation. Using these data, the economic
data was projected to 150 T/D which was the design capacity
for the Franklin plant. The economic data was further
projected to 500 T/D and 1000 T/D plant sizes. The economic data
-------
further presents the effects of selling the rejects as a
fuel rather than disposing of the material in the incinerator.
The following two tables summarize the economic data presented
in section 7.0
FACILITY
COSTS
Franklin
Projected To
150 T/D
Franklin
Projected To
500 T/D
Franklin
Projected To
1,000 T/D
Income
Paper Fiber
Magnetic Metals
Sludge Disposal
Operating Expenses
Facility Expense
(20 yr. depr.)
NET COST
Operational Economic
$ 8.06/T
$ 2.40/T
$ 1.75/T
512.21/T
$15.22/T
$ 9.34/T
$ 8.06/T
$ 2.40/T
$ 1.75/T
512.21/T
$ 9.96/T
$10.46/T
$12.35/T $ 8.21/T
Summary of Projected Franklin
$ 8.06/T
$ 2.40/T
$ 1.75/T
512.21/T
$ 9.32/T
5 9.73/T
$ 6.84/T
Type Facility*
FACILITY
COSTS
Franklin
Projected To
150 T/D
Franklin
Projected To
500 T/D
Franklin
Projected To
1,000 T/D
Income
Magnetic Metals
Sludge Disposal
Fuel
Operating Expenses
Facility Expenses
(20 Year Depr.)
NET SAVINGS
5 2.40/T
$ 1.75/T
510.71/T
514.86/T
511.28/T
$ 3.79/T
5 2.40/T
$ 1.75/T
510.71/T
514.86/T
5 6.04/T
5 5.43/T
$ 2.40/T
5 1.75/T
510.71/T
514.86/T
5 5.50/T
5 5.05/T
(5 0.21/T)
$ 3.39/T
5 4.13/T
Operational Economic Summary of Projected Franklin Plant with No
Fiber Recovery and Using Rejects as a Fuel*
*No tipping fee is included in the analysis. Hence, the net
operating cost can be compared directly to existing disposal costs,
-------
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
The objective of this study was to perform a "Technical,
Economic, and Environmental Evaluation of the Wet Pro-
cessing Concept for the Disposal of Solid Waste." The
subject facility was the Franklin Solid Waste and Fiber
Recovery Plant, located in Franklin, Ohio. The following
sections describe the type of evaluations made in each of
the major categories.
The evaluations were performed over a nine (9) month period,
(January 1, 1974 to September 30, 1974). The evaluations
described below were made for each of the major systems
within the plant; i.e., weighing and receiving, pulping and
separation, dewatering, fluid bed reactor, and fiber re-
covery .
2.1.1 Technical Evaluation
The technical evaluation included:
(1) a detailed operational description of the
Franklin Plant
(2) power and water consumption of each major system
(3) stream characterizations
(4) material balances among the major systems
(5) equipment descriptions
(6) equipment theory of operation
(7) equipment operating efficiencies when
determinable
The results of the technical evaluation are presented
in section 5.0.
2.1.2 Environmental Evaluation
The environmental evaluation included an analysis of the
potential pollution of the surrounding air, land, and water.
It also included an evaluation of the noise levels generated
in the plant and observations an odor and industrial hygiene.
Results of the environmental evaluation are presented in
section 6.0.
2.1.3 Economic Evaluation
The economic evaluation of the Franklin Solid Waste and Fiber
Recovery Plant included an evaluation to determine the eco-
nomic viability of the technologies being used at Franklin.
The economic data developed present a measure of the economics
that would be experienced if any or all of the system used at
Franklin would be incorporated in a solid waste facility that
-------
would be constructed and operated in competition with other
disposal concepts.
The data gathered presents an economic evaluation of the
four (4) major systems of the plant.
1. Weighing and Receiving
2. Pulping, Separation and Dewatering
3. Fluid Bed Reactor
4. Fiber Recovery
The data is presented in non-dollar related terms so that it
can be readily used by all interested parties who may be con-
sidering the use of wet processing as a solid waste disposal
concept. The results of the economic evaluation are present-
ed in section 7.0.
2.2 HISTORY AND BACKGROUND
2.2.1 Franklin Plant
The City of Franklin, Ohio, Solid Waste Disposal and Fiber
Recovery Plant (Franklin Plant) was constructed to provide
municipal refuse disposal facilities for the City of Franklin
and nearby communities. The facility was constructed and
operated as part of an Environmental Protection Agency demon-
stration project grants #2G06-EC-00194-02 and 3-G06-EC-00194-
151 (formerly the Bureau of Solid Waste Management, U.S.
Public Health Service, ) (HEW) to evaluate a new system for
wet processing solid municipal waste. The Franklin Plant be-
gan operation in May 1971.
The system was originally designed to reclaim ferrous metallics
and fibrous material from the solid waste, and to provide
for the ultimate disposal of the residual wastes that could
not be reclaimed. Glass reclamation capability was added in
a Glass Recovery System plant modification which became
operational in late 1973.
The facility is owned by the City of Franklin; operated by
the Black Clawson Fibreclaim Company who developed the Hydra-
sposal/Fiber Recovery Process; the engineering firm for original
plant design was A. M. Kinney, Inc. of Cincinnati, Ohio;
and the Glass Container Manufacturers Institute (GCMI) was
responsible for the design of the Glass Recovery System.
The Franklin facility is located adjacent to a new regional
wastewater treatment plant constructed by the Miami Conservancy
District (MCD), Dayton, Ohio. This plant was constructed to
treat wastewater from local municipalities and a number of
local paper mills. Facility construction was completed and
operation began during the .summer of 1972.
-------
The close proximity of these two facilities makes it possible
for them to offer complementary service to each other. For
example, the solid waste facility incinerates sludge from
the wastewater treatment plant, whereas the latter treats
wastewater from the solid waste plant. So, the Franklin site
is unique for two reasons: It is the first plant to use wet
processing for the recycling and disposal of solid waste; and
because of the interrelationship between the Franklin Solid
Waste plant and the regional MCD wastewater facilities.
2.2.2 Contract
The contract for this study was awarded in September, 1973.
The initial effort (Phase I) was to devise the evaluation
procedures to be used to collect, analyze, and present the
technical evaluation of the Solid Waste and Fiber Recovery
Plant. This phase of the effort required four (4) months to
complete and included a two week period for pilot testing the
technical evaluation concepts.
The nine (9) month technical» economic, and environmental
evaluation began on January 7, 1974 and ended September 30,
1974. During the beginning of the evaluation, the Glass Plant
was operational for only a small part of the first month of
the evaluation. In the following months the operation of the
Glass Plant was periodic and eventually terminated. It be-
came apparent in mid-year (1974) that the Glass Plant would
not be fully operational for the remainder of the nine (9)
month evaluation period. It was concluded that additional
time would be required to evaluate the Glass Plant. The
Glass Plant evaluation again commenced on November 5, 1974,
when the Glass Plant resumed full operation.
The Glass Plant data will be presented in a separate final
report.
2.3 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
2.3.1 Introduction
This study involved an environmental complex comprised of
two treatment centers; 1) the Franklin Solid Waste and Fiber
Recovery Plant (Franklin Plant,) and 2) the Miami Conservancy
District's Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (MCD). Co-
ordination is utilized between the two centers for optimum
operation, however, the descriptions which follow will detail
the components and operation of the Franklin Plant - the sub-
ject of our evaluation.
2.3.2 Definition of Terms
To eliminate confusion arising in the following description
of the Franklin Plant operation, a definition of terms used
10
-------
within this section is presented:
Franklin Plant - Plant refers to the entire Franklin Waste
Treatment and Fiber Recovery Plant.
System - Refers to one of the three major divisions of the
plant, i.e. *Hydrasposal System, *Fibreclaim System, Glass
Recovery System.
Subsystem - Refers to a subdivision of a system i.e., the
Hydrasposal System can be subdivided into the pulping and
separation (P & S) subsystem and the dewatering and inciner-
ation (D & I) subsystem.
Process Stream - Refers to the exiting, continuing stream
from one processing unit to the next.
Reject Stream - The stream exiting a processing unit which
contains the removed material.
Unit-Operation - Refers to any single equipment item or com-
bination of minor equipment items, i.e., Hydrapulper, Mag-
netic Separator, etc.
2.3.3 Plant Systems (See Figure 1)
The Franklin Plant is comprised of three major systems:
Hydrasposal™, Fibreclaim™, and Glass Recovery systems.
The Hydrasposal system is further subdivided into two sub-
systems; the pulping/separation (P & S) and dewatering/
incineration (D & I).
The P & S subsystem is the receiving, pulping, and primary
separation subsystem.
The D & I subsystem dewaters and incinerates selected streams.
The Fiber Recovery System receives its input from the liquid
cyclone of the P & S subsystem and by selective screening and
water elutriation recovers the fiber contained within the
stream.
The Glass Recovery system will be described fully in a report
to be submitted as an evaluation of the Glass Recovery system.
*Hydrasposal and Fibreclaim are copyrighted trademarks for
the Black-Clawson Company, Middletown, Ohio, for systems for
the disposal and separation ot solid wastes, and the recovery
of paper from the solid wastes respectively.
11
-------
FLOW SCHEMATIC OF THE FRANKLIN
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLEX
FIGURE 1. FLOW SCHEMATIC OF THE FRANKLIN ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLEX.
-------
3.0 OPERATIONAL CAPABILITY
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section presents a detailed operational description of
the systems and subsystems within The Franklin Plant.
Figure 1 presents a flow schematic of the entire complex.
3.1.1 Pulping and Separation Subsystem Operation (See Figure 2)
Incoming solid waste is received from packer trucks and private
haulers using personal vehicles. The packer trucks are weighed
at the weigh station prior to (loaded weight) and after off-
loading their refuse (tare weight). These vehicles are charged
$7.50 per ton for refuse processing. The private vehicles are
charged $2.25 per load.
After weighing, the solid waste is off-loaded onto the tipping
floor, which is a shelter enclosed on three sides with an over-
head sprinkling system and interior lighting. The solid waste
in the tipping floor area is moved about by the use of a front-
end loader (Bobcat). The operator of the front-end loader also
works as the scale house operator.
The tipping floor operator picks out most large unprocessable
materials, which may consist of refrigerators, tires, spring
mattresses, tree trunks, spring steel, etc. These non-pulp-
able materials are placed into a large compactor adjacent to
the tipping floor and are presently taken to a landfill. Large
ferrous materials are placed in the ferrous metals bin. The
solid waste is loaded onto the conveyor by the front-end loader.
The conveyor consists of an inclined, endless steel belt with
ridges to prevent the solid waste from sliding down the con-
veyor. At the conveyor base is a sump for water drainage.
The conveyor feed rate is regulated by the hydrapulper motor
loading. Presently, this is set at 300 amperes. When the
motor load exceeds 300 amperes, the conveyor stops feeding the
hydrapulper. When the motor load drops below 300 amperes, the
conveyor again begins feeding the hydrapulper.
The refuse moving up the inclined conveyor falls into the
hydrapulper where it is mixed with Whitewater and macerated by
the rotor located at the base of the hydrapulper. The rotation
of the rotor generates an internal flow in the hydrapulper and
blends the mixture. Smaller non-friable materials, (mostly
cans and metals), are rejected by centrifugal force into the
junk remover located near the base.
The junk remover is a continuous steel belt with small buckets
which trap the non-friable materials. The junk remover con-
veys the material up and into a junk washer.
13
-------
SCALE
FERROUS
METALS
'JUNK*
REMOVER
I
ELECTROMAGNETIC
SEPARATOR
MAGNETIC JUNK
JUNK BIN
I
I
TIPPING
FLOOR
I
CONVEYOR
I
HYDRAPULPER
NON-MAGNETIC
JUNK BIN
SOLD FOR SCRAP
LANDFILL
UNPROCESSABLE
TO COMPACTOR
I
TO LAN OF ILL
LIQUID
CYCLONE
SURGE TANK
GRIT
DEWATERING
SCREW
TO FIBERCLAIM
GLASS
RECOVERY
PLANT
FIGURE 2 • PULPING AND SEPARATION SUBSYSTEM
14
-------
Originally the junk washer was used to clean the organic
material from the metals in this stream. However, it was
found that the washing was not necessary. The junk washer
is now used as a conveyor which takes the rejects to a con-
veyor belt, which moves these non-friables to the continuous
belted magnetic separator.
The magnetic separation takes place at the end of the separ-
ator conveyor. The magnetics are picked up onto the magnetic
separator belt and dropped into the magnetics container.
These magnetics are combined with the magnetics recovered from
the glass plant and sold. The non-magnetics fall from the
end of the separator conveyor into another container. These
non-magnetics are either re-cycled to the hydrapulper or
landfilled.
The liquid waste slurry generated in the hydrapulper is re-
duced in size by the rotor until it can pass through a per-
forated plate located beneath the rotor in the base of the
hydrapulper. This plate consists of holes one inch in diam-
eter. The liquid slurry which consists of fibers, glass, small
pieces of metal, ceramics, and much of the white and red metal
fraction is pumped from the hydrapulper by the dump pump into
the liquid cyclone.
The liquid cyclone separates the heavier materials consisting
of glass, small metal particles, organics, etc, from the light-
er fractions. These heavy materials pass into a (grit) chamber
at the bottom of the liquid cyclone after which they are de-
watered and conveyed to the Glass Plant surge bin. The excess*
water of this rejects stream is recycled to the hydrapulper.
The lighter fraction from the liquid cyclone consists of light,
fibrous materials, plastics, bits of aluminum foil, thread,
grit,and small bones, etc. The cyclone process stream is then
directed either to the fiber recovery system via the selecti-
fier dilution tank or to the D & I subsystem.
3.1.2 Dewatering and Incineration Subsystem Operation (Figure '3)
Operation of the D & I subsystem is a singular mode; only the
sources of the input change. The subsystem performs dewater-
ing and subsequent incineration of materials obtained from
three sources; (1) cyclone process stream of the P & S sub-
system, (2) sludge from the Miami Conservancy District's
Wastewater Treatment Plant (MCD), and (3) various streams as
determined by operational mode (within the fiber recovery
system).
The process streams described above enter a surge tank. This
outdoor tank is equipped with a bottom agitator to prevent
freezing and to keep the contents a uniform consistency. The
surge tank contents are pumped to the barrel thickeners at
200 to 600 gpm.
15
-------
REJECTS TANK
I
SURGE CHEST
BARREL THICKENER
CONE PRESS
1
PNEUMATIC FEED
MCD WASTE
TREATMENT PLANT
SLUDGE CHEST
FLUID
BED REACTOR
VENTURISCRUBBER
I
SCRUBBER SEPARATOR
ASH SLURRY
J
GASES TO STACK
FIGURE 3 - DEWATERING AND INCINERATION SUBSYSTEM
16
-------
The barrel thickener is a dewatering unit consisting of
three square-pitch screws rotating within perforated
cylinders. The dewatered material falls to a screw conveyor
which transports the process stream to a Rietz Cone Press
for further dewatering.
The cone press is a mechanical dewatering device consisting
of a rotating wheel and a screen. The wheel rotates against
the opposing screen, pressing out water through the screen.
Process water is used for cleaning the screen.
From the cone press, the process stream is then conveyed to
the pneumatic feed via a rotary feed valve. There is no feed
modulation at the pneumatic feed. The rate of feed is deter-
mined by the feed rate to the barrel thickeners and the amount
of sludge added to the process stream. The process stream
must contain approximately 30 percent solids to support
autogenous combustion in the fluid bed reactor.
The Dorr-Oliver Fluid Bed Reactor has a rated capacity of
1.0 x 10° BTU/min. The bed diameter is 21 feet. The minimum
calorific value of the fuel must be 3,000 BTU/lb. to operate
autogenously. The bed temperature is maintained within a
range of 1200-1400?F, with a maximum free-board temperature
less than 1,800°F.
The combustion products are passed through a venturi scrubber
for removal of particulate material. The efficiency of the
venturi scrubber is very high with removal of 99 percent of
the particulates, allowing the unit to meet all Ohio and Federal
Air Quality standards. The scrubber uses city water and oper-
ates with 7 inches of water pressure. The effluent from the
venturi scrubber is pumped to the primary municipal clarifier
at the MCD facility.
3.1.3 Fiber Recovery System (Fibreclaim) Operation (Figure 4)
3.1.3.1 Normal Mode of Operation - Normal operation of the
fiber recovery system recovers fibers from the process stream
by selective screening and elutriation of the pulped refuse.
The input to the fiber recovery system is the process stream
from the liquid cyclone in the P & S subsystem. This stream
enters the fiber recovery system via the selectifier dilution
tank.
In the selectifier dilution tank the cyclone process stream
is diluted by addition of Whitewater. This dilution is re-
quired for efficient stream separation in the selectifier
screen. The selectifier screen is a high volume rotary-type
pressure screen which rejects materials larger than 0.062
inches in diameter, and passes material less than 0.062 inches.
The selectifier reject stream is directed to the rejects tank,
and the process stream is directed to the cleaners supply tank.
17
-------
FROM PULPING
AND
SEPARATION SUBSYSTEM
1
SELECTIFIERTANK
DILUTION-
1
SELECTIFIER
1
CLEANERS SUPPLY TANK
1
CENTRIFUGAL CLEANERS
I
RUN DOWN SCREEN
|
BARREL THICKENER
*
CONE PRESS
1
FIBER DILUTION TANK
REJECTS
REJECTS
TO DEWATERING
AND
INCINERATION SUBSYSTEM
1 REJECTS \
^"\ TANK J
REJECTS
TO LOGAN LONG
FIGURE 4 - FIBER RECOVERY SYSTEM • NORMAL MODE
18
-------
From the cleaners supply tank the selectifier process stream
enters the centrifugal cleaners for removal of grit, glass
and other small, dense particles. Five centrifugal cleaners
are currently used (16 available) and are plumbed for parallel
operation to maintain optimum flow conditions necessary to
achieve the desired removal efficiency. The centrifugal
cleaners process stream is directed to the rundown screens,
while the reject stream is directed to the selectifier re-
jects tank.
The rundown screens consist of four, 60 inch side hill screens
with a feed flow capacity of 600 gpm. The screens are slotted,
0.020 inches wide, and are of non-clogging design. The process
stream slurry from the centrifugal cleaners is received in an
adjacent overflow well, and this slurry then flows down over
the 0.020 inch slotted screens. As the slurry falls over the
stationary screen, it is sprayed with process water. The re-
jects are extracted by falling through the screens into the
Whitewater sump while the screen process stream (recovered
fiber) falls into the stock sump. The stock sump contents are
then directed to the screw thickener during normal operation.
The barrel thickener is similar to that in the dewatering and
incineration subsystem. The thickener process stream is trans-
ported by a screw conveyor to the cone press and the rejects
of both units are received in the Whitewater system. The Rietz
Cone Press (similar to D & I subsystem) further dewaters the
recovered fiber. The process stream is directed to the fiber
chest, and the rejects stream is directed to the Whitewater
sump. The dewatered fiber is rediluted and pumped via pipe-
line to the Logan Long plant for use in asphalt shingles and
related products.
3.1.3.2 "Thickening" Mode of Operation
The fiber recovery system can also be operated in a "thickening"
mode when fiber is not being recovered. As seen in Figure 5
the process stream by-passes the centrifugal cleaners, and
mechanical thickeners. The selectifier reject stream and the
rundown screen process stream are directed to the rejects tank,
and then pumped to the surge chest in the D & I subsystem.
This mode is utilized to increase the solids content of the
cyclone process stream. The dewatering section of the D & I
subsystem operates more effectively using this pre-thickened
material.
19
-------
FROM PULPING
AND
INCINERATION
SUBSYSTEM
1
i
SELECTIFIER
DILUTION TANK
.
,
12-P SELECTIFIER
(
r_. ;
REJECTS
{THICKENING MODE
i i
1 CLEANERS SUPPLY TANK
1 1
, ,
r
1 1
I CENTRIFUGAL CLEANERS 1
1 1
,
• '
RUN DOWN SCREEN
i
> ^>
TO DE WATER ING
AND
INCINERATION
SUBSYSTEM
t
SURGE CHEST
t
REJECTS
FIGURE 5 - FIBER RECOVERY SYSTEM • THICKENING MODE
20
-------
4.0 EVALUATION METHODS USED
The paragraphs which follow describe the approaches de-
veloped for the data gathering and analysis used in the
evaluation of the Franklin Solid Waste and Fiber Recovery
System. The evaluations made in this study were numerous
and extensive. This section presents the overall effort and
discusses the methods that were used to accomplish the ob-
jectives of the study.
4.1 STUDY MATRIX DEVELOPMENT
To organize the principal areas of evaluation and to illustrate
the scope of the study, a study matrix was developed and is
presented in Figure 6. Along the horizontal coordinate, the
plant is divided into the Hydrasposal and Fibreclaim systems.
Each system is then divided into its unit processes.
The vertical coordinate is divided into three evaluation
categories. Each category is then subdivided into its com-
ponent parameters, thus, establishing a matrix relating each
systems unit process and the proposed evaluation parameters.
However, all parameters to be considered in a major evaluation
area may not be required for each unit process. To precisely
define and illustrate the scope of this study, a mark is placed
at the intersection of each process/parameter relationship
that was evaluated for this effort. The matrix presented in
Figure 6 represents the entire evaluation as performed.
4.2 SAMPLING METHODS
The previous sections of this report (Section 2.0) describe
the evaluations that were to be made and the techniques to be
used to obtain the required parameters for the evaluations.
Obtaining this data required that many streams within the
plant be sampled and analyzed. Process streams were sampled
three to four times/day (depending upon total time plant was
operated for that day) and composited for analysis. Sampling
of the process streams other than the incoming refuse, was
greatly simplified due to the use of numerous holding tanks
throughout the plant. The use of these continously-mixed tanks
as sample collection sites provided a more homogenous sample,
representing a longer time period, than a sample of the in-
coming process stream.
During the initial phase of the effort, all streams that re-
quired sampling were identified. Some samples could not be
obtained as simply as just described, and required that samp-
ling valves be installed at several locations to draw the re-
quired samples. "Dipper" samples were used for sampling from
the surge tanks, and valves on process lines were installed
and used to draw samples where accessibility was limited.
21
-------
PLANT SYSTEMS
CO
§
M
I
<
5
•^ -
UNIT
PROCESSES
PARAMETERS
SE
CE
HY
H
PLANT
U
M
«
EH
DESCRIPTION OF EQUIPMENT-'
THEORY OF OPERATION
DESIGN VS OPERATING EXP. -•
MAINTENANCE HISTORY
POWER REQUIREMENTS
STREAM CHARACTERIZATION -•
MATERIAL BALANCE
EFFICIENCY
RECOVERED PROD. CHARACT.-•
I I I I I I I I II
I I I I I I
<_>
M
O
§
8
OPERATING
MAINTEN. LABOR COSTS
MAINTEN.
REVENUES
OTHER DISPOSAL METHOD
LAND DISPOSAL
I I I I I I I I III
I I I I I I
w
o
K
w
AIR
WATER
LAND
IM-PLANT NOISE
ODOR
Figure 6 - Study Matrix
22
-------
One of the major efforts to be performed in the technical
evaluation was a mass balance of the plant. This balance
was performed on a daily basis and composited weekly and
monthly. This mass balance required performing flow measure-
ments of many streams within the plant. These process stream
flow measurements were performed using a variety of measuring
techniques. Existing flow meters were calibrated and utilized.
Timers were installed on pumps, and the pumps were calibrated
to determine flows. Other schemes to record flow rates were;
measuring the changes in elevation of the tanks over a period
of time, and bucket and stop watch techniques, etc. These
approaches were used to provide the necessary flow measure-
ments without the expense of installing sophisticated flow
meters.
The analyses of the samples was performed by Systech personnel
in available space at the adjacent Miami Conservancy Waste-
water Treatment Plant Laboratory. Systech personnel were
permanently located at this facility for the duration of the
sampling period.
4.3 SYSTEMS CONCEPT AND NETWORK ANALYSIS
The Franklin Solid Waste and Fiber Recovery Plant was designed
to process solid waste into several fractions for reclama-
tion and/or disposal. Essentially, it is a complex of many
systems, subsystems, and unit operations connected in series
and parallel combinations. In this sense, the plant can best
be analyzed by applying the "Systems Approach" and analyzing
the input and output of each system, subsystem, and unit oper-
ation. This section will demonstrate the systems approach
and network analysis used in the study of the Franklin
plant.
The numerous unit processes within the plant required stream
definition to eliminate confusion in their description and
analysis. The following schematic illustrates the procedure
used for generating these stream descriptions.
SURGE TANK / „„„,„„„ \CYCLONE
PROCESS STREAM \ /PROCESS STREAM
CYCLONE
REJECTS STREAM
FIGURE 7 - SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
23
-------
As mentioned earlier the material passing through the unit
operation is defined as a Process Stream while the material
extracted by this unit operation is defined as a Reject
Stream. This approach was used to develop the stream defini-
tions which are presented in Appendix E.
As shown in Figure 1, the plant is represented schematically
by a line diagram. This schematic is divided into two major
systems by drawing a line around the unit operations con-
tained within each system. This line is called the System
Boundary and is also shown in Figure 9 . The lines crossing
the system boundary are the inputs and the outputs to the
system. It is easy to see from this figure that any system,
subsystem, or unit operation can be easily investigated by
analyzing its inputs and outputs. In Figure 1 all of the
inputs and outputs represent the material flow. A similar
diagram could be prepared for showing cash flow, labor flow,
etc.
For purposes of analysis, the diagram shown in Figure 1
can be further simplified into a network represented by branches
and nodes. In this context;
- A branch is a portion of the system that connects
any two unit operations,
- A node is a terminal of a branch and would represent
a unit operation.
Applying the Network Concept, the pulping and separation sub-
system is represented simply as follows:
FIGURE 8 - NODE/BRANCH NETWORK
24
-------
This network is greatly simplified and permits easy reference
to branches and nodes. In this figure, nodes a, b, c, d, and
e, represent the hydrapulper, liquid cyclone, the magnetic
separator, surge tank, and the second liquid cyclone respect-
ively. Branch 1 represents the incoming solid waste and water;
branch 2 represents the pumped hydrapulper process stream;
branch 3 represents the junk remover rejects stream; branch
6 represents the reclaimed ferrous material; and branches 5
and 10 represent cyclone reject streams that are sent to the
glass reclamation plant.
Basically, there are two types of unit operations represented
by nodes. They are "flow-through units", such as the liquid
cyclones (b and e) and "storage units", such as surge tanks
(d). It is significant to note that the plant is a relatively
simple network and that almost all of the unit operations can
be represented by three-branch nodes, with the exception of
surge tanks which are two-branch nodes.
It is known that under steady-state conditions, the summations
of the inputs and the outputs to a node can be equated to zero.
In this context, the inputs are considered positive and the
outputs are considered negative. For example, the mass flow
rate (M) for node "b" in the example illustrated above is
given by: M2 - (M4 + MS) =0
When steady state conditions do not exist, such as in the
surge tank represented as node "d" in the illustration above,
then the equation becomes: M. = Mg + M, x t. Where M, is the
storage rate in the surge tank and t is time.
After reviewing the Franklin operation, it was determined
that all flows approximate steady state conditions and that
non-steady state conditions would not have to be considered.
Now, let us illustrate how this network analysis was of value
to the study. Consider the problem of measuring tha amount
of junk removed from the hydrapulper. Because of the process
setup, it is not possible to directly measure the weight of
this stream. However,, by applying a mass balance to node
"c" (magnetic separator) we know, (See Nodal diagram above)
mBranch 3 = mBranch 6 + mBranch 7
and the weights of branches 6 and 7 can be measured. Thus,
knowing this data, it is possible to compute the amount of
junk removed.
25
-------
Although this example is simple, the technique is applicable
to more complex networks such as the entire plant, any of
the three major systems, or some arbitrary system.
As another example, consider the problem of characterizing
the incoming waste. The schematic below represents a portion
of the hydrapulper system:
Arbitrary System
Boundary
Hydrapulper
Liquid Cyclone #1
Magnetic Separator
Surge Chest
Liquid Cyclone #2
10
FIGURE 9 - p & S System Boundary
We know that data or samples can be gathered to characterize
the material streams in branches 5, 10, 6, 7, and 9. There-
fore, an arbitrary system boundary (which must be closed) is
drawn through these branches and branch 1. In this arbitrary
system, we can see that branch 1 is the only input. The
others are all outputs. Thus, since the summation of the in-
put must equal the summation of the outputs:
P = C
Cl C5
'10
26
-------
In this case C is used as a general parameter such as
pounds, pounds per unit time, etc. In addition, the
different fractions Cc + C,rt C, C_ and CQ also represent
D j.u, o, /, y
different material classification such as ferrous metals, grit,
slurry, etc.
The purpose of the above discussion was to demonstrate how
Network Analysis was used to study the plant. The applica-
tion of this technique facilitated a detailed and rigorous
analysis.
It also provided a means of identifying the equipment and
piping for data collection. Equipment and piping within the
plant were assigned node letters or branch numbers for testing
personnel.
27
-------
5.0 RESULTS OF TECHNICAL EVALUATION
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The following paragraphs in this section of the report
present the technical evaluation results of the study.
The data represents a compilation of many months data.
The equations derived and used to obtain some of the data
are not presented in the body of the report. These equations,
as well as copies of the data sheets used to gather the data,
are presented in Appendix D to this report. Analysis of
different streams, flow measurements, etc., are average
operating data.
The items covered in the technical evaluation include;
(1) mass balances of
(a) pulping and separation subsystem
(b) dewatering and incineration subsystem
(c) fiber recovery system
(2) characteristics of individual streams within
the plant
(3) power and water usage data
(4) material flow diagrams
(5) descriptions of the physical appearance of
individual process streams
(6) comments on equipment effectiveness
To aid the clarity of this section, the raw material balance
data, periodic test data, and data collection methods and
sheets will be included in Appendix C of this report.
5.2 PULPING AND SEPARATION (P & S) SUBSYSTEM
The P & S subsystem pulps and separates the refuse into
several streams which are suitable for further processing.
This subsystem, in addition to reducing the particle size of
the refuse, provides for fluid transport of the pulped refuse
by addition of Whitewater. The separation of the refuse into
various fractions in the P & S subsystem can be illustrated
by the following mass balance diagram (Figure 10}.
5.2.1 Material Balance Sheet for P & S Subsystem
For this discussion, the P & S subsystem includes the tipping
floor within its system boundary. Thus, the material which
is unacceptable for processing is included on the balance
sheet (Figure 10)
The inputs to the P & S subsystem consist of all the refuse
delivered to the Franklin Solid Waste Plant and the water
needed to process it. The Whitewater is added to provide a
28
-------
INPUTS
REFUSE
123.4 T.
PROCESS WATER
1.33 T.
WHITEWATER
34.2 T.
4.7 T. RECYCLE
PULPING AND
SEPARATION SYBSYSTEM
OPERATING TIME
24.2 HOURS
r OUTPUTS
NON MAGNETIC
REJECTS
7.7 T.
UNPROCESSED
9.3 T.
MAGNETIC JUNK
11.8 T.
CYCLONE REJECT
STREAM (GRIT)
18.8 T.
CYCLONE PROCESS
STREAM
108.5 T.
CYCLONE REJECT
OVERFLOW
7.5 T.
Figure 10 - MATERIAL BALANCE SHEET**
PULPING & SEPARATION SUBSYSTEM
*A11 values are on a dry weight basis except as noted.
**Figure represents actual operating data for an average week.
29
-------
media for pulping and transporting the refuse. The incoming
refuse, averaging about 29.4 percent moisture, is pulped to
an average consistency of 3.28 percent solids. The con-
sistency of this stream can be varied by the operator by the
addition of more or less Whitewater. The actual operating
range varies between 1.5 and 4.0 percent solids. The amount
of Whitewater used in the P & S averages 4,890 gal/ton of
refuse input to the system.
The other liquid input to the P & S subsystem is process
water (chlorinated final effluent from the wastewater treat-
ment plant). The process water, which is relatively low in
solids, is used as cooling water for the hydrapulper oil
supply, and as elutriation water in the liquid cyclone. The
quantity of process water used in the P&S subsystem varies from
990 to 2,700 gal/ton of refuse with an average usage of 1,630
gal/ton of input to the subsystem. The weights given for
process water and Whitewater in Figure 101 represent the actual
weight of dry solids in the water added to the subsystem.
As indicated on the balance sheet, approximately 7-1/2 percent
or 10.25 mt./wk. (9.3 tons/wk) is unprocessed material. This
category includes materials such as refrigerators, stoves,
large tree trunks, etc., which the hydrapulper cannot accept.
Tires can be processed, however, their retention time in the
pulper is much longer than normal retuse. Because of
tires and other unprocessable materials are removed by hand
by the loader/scale house operator who watches for these
materials. The remainder of the material is deposited on the
apron conveyor and fed to the hydrapulper.
Non-pulpable material introduced to the hydrapulper is sep-
arated by centrifugal force and removed by the junk remover.
These materials are further separated magnetically into
magnetic and nonmagnetic junk, listed as outputs on Figure 10.
These streams total 15.8 percent of the incoming refuse.
The nonmagnetic rejects have been recycled back to the head
of the plant on an intermittent basis during the course of
our study. However, it was felt that the recycle of this
material should not be listed as an additional input to the
subsystem because during normal operation, the non-magnetic
rejects are landfilled. The recycling of this nonmagnetic
material caused a gradual increase in the quantity of non-
magnetic rejects being collected, which introduced a slight
cumulative error in the study from a mass balance standpoint.
It should be noted that the nonmagnetic rejects are gradually
ground up by the pulper and removed by the cyclone.
30
-------
The cyclone reject stream contains the gritty material re-
moved from the pulped refuse slurry by the liquid cyclone.
As an output of the P & S subsystem it represents 15.2 per-
cent of the as-received refuse. This gritty material is
the glass rich fraction of the refuse and is further pro-
cessed in the glass plant.
The cyclone process stream is the largest output of the
P & S subsystem, representing 87.9 percent (dry weight) of
the incoming refuse. This output stream contains essentially
all the paper, rags, sheet plastic, small pieces of wood, and
food and garden wastes in the refuse. This stream averages
3.28 percent solids with a range of 1.5 to 4.09 percent solids.
The consistency is regulated semiautomatically by the amperage
used by the hydrapulper motor. The Whitewater feed is constant
and an increase in power used by the hydrapulper (>300 amperes)
stops the refuse feed to it by stopping the conveyor. This
conveyor is now operated by an on-off control, whereas in the
past proportional speed control was used.
The cyclone rejects overflow is an output from the P & S sub-
system to the Whitewater system, and must be included to
achieve a representative mass balance. The cyclone rejects
overflow consists of Whitewater, which is removed in the de-
watering of the cyclone rejects. This Whitewater, because of
the overflow manifold arrangement, does not contain an appre-
ciable amount of gritty material. This output from the P & S
subsystem was computed by measuring the overflow from the mani-
fold. This measurement was made several times during each
operating day. Continuous measurement of this parameter was
not possible and as a result this value is approximate.
5.2.2 Pulping and Separation Subsystem Stream Characteristics
The stream characteristics of the P & S subsystem were ob-
tained from daily composite samples of process streams which
were required to achieve the daily mass balances. Additional
information was obtained from periodic tests which were per-
formed on the individual streams within the entire plant.
These data were used to develop characterizations of the
input refuse.
The input refuse was also characterized by hand sorting.
These hand sorts were performed at different times of the
year- to determine the seasonal variation in refuse com-
position. All characterization and mass balance data are
included in Appendix C. Characterizations of the junk re-
mover reject streams were performed on the magnetic and non-
magnetic rejects.
31
-------
Both the cyclone reject and cyclone process streams cross
subsystem boundaries. Therefore, they were characterized
on the basis of being both an output to the P & S subsystem
as well as the input to an adjacent system/subsystem.
The average characterization data are presented in Figure 11.
This figure shows the characteristics of the input refuse
as well as the streams in the separation phase of the P & S
subsystem. The outputs represent both the outputs of the
subsystems and the component parts of the input refuse.
For example, the amount of clear glass in the cyclone rejects
would for all practical purposes represent the clear glass
component of the input refuse. Likewise, the fiber content
of the cyclone process stream would contain essentially all
the fiber in the input refuse.
The characteristics of the Whitewater and process water used
in the P & S subsystem are the same as the Whitewater and
process water characteristics used throughout the plant. The
average characteristics of the Whitewater and process water
are given in section 5.2.3.6.
As is evident from the characterization data in Figure H
the majority of fiber, plastic and other combustible pro-
ducts are contained in the cyclone process stream. Most of
the glass is contained in the liquid cyclone rejects stream.
The figure also presents a flow schematic of the P & S sub-
system. The arrows indicate the direction of flow. The
characteristics of the streams at each individual processing
point are shown. The percentage values located on the lines
which connect unit processes indicate the percent of the input
refuse which flows along this line. These percentage values
are on a percent dry solids basis and do not indicate actual
flow volumes.
The nongrindable magnetic and nonmagnetic materials are re-
moved by the junk remover and separated magnetically. The
recovered nongrindable-magnetic material (junk remover mag-
netic rejects) is the only recovered product obtained from
the P & S subsystem. This recovered magnetic material is
sold directly to a ferrous metal reprocessor without prior
detinning or other processing (shredding).
The input refuse to the P & S subsystem has been character-
ized by 18 hand sorts performed at three different sorting
periods during the year. The average sort data is given in
Figure 13, and Table 1. This table is included to
compare the composition of the solid waste at Franklin
to solid waste streams in other parts of the country.
As is evident from this table, the paper fraction of the solid
32
-------
Table 1 - Refuse Composition Comparison Table
Category
Franklin
Percent
Hempstead N,Y.*
Percent
Johnson City**
Percent
Nat. Avg.***
Percent
U)
W
Paper
40.1
42.52
Non-fiber organic
Textiles
Food
Garden
Plastics/rubber/leather
37.0
39.43
3.14
10.93
20.80
4.56
45.5
31.8
1.3
25.9
1.9
2.7
37.8
Newspaper
Corrugated
Magazines
Strong Paper
Mixed Paper
Inert
Glass
Metals
Magnetic
Non-Magnetic
10.8
4.4
1.7
3.8
19.5
3.4
8.5
11.1
9.8
1.3
13.56
5.23
23.73
9.55
8.48
1.0 1.5
10.9 10.0
10.8
40.6
1.6
14.2
18.3
6.5
* Average of 18 hand sorts
** Values from Municipal Refuse Disposal, Public Administration Service 1970, Interstate
Printers and Publisher- Inc., Danville, Illinois.
*** Values from Energy Conservation through "Improved Solid Waste Management," by
Robert A. Lowe, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs U.S. EPA April 1974.
-------
UNPROCESSABLE TIRES
WHITE GOODS,
INDUSTRIAL WASTE
INPUT REFUSE
AVERAGE VALVES
MAGNETIC \
SEPARATOR I
WHITEWATER
SYSTEM
INERT . . .
NON FIBRE .
ORGANIC
GLASS . .
MAGNETIC
METALS. .
NONMAGNETIC
METALS
NEWSPAPER .
CORRUGATED.
MAGAZINES .
STRONG PAPER
MIXED PAPER
. 3. US
.37.02
. 8.5?
. 9.8%
. 1.3%
.10. Q%
. U.US
. 1.7%
. 3.8?
.19-5?
6.2%
9.6%
CYCLONE PROCESS
STREAM
U0.2?
AVERAGE MOISTURE. . .29.U? CYCLONE REJECTS
-REJECTS COMPOSITION ON A
DRY WEIGHT BASIS
TO
GLASS PLANT
SIZE DISTRIBUTION
< 1/4" 30.0%
1/4" £ 3/4" 60.2%
> 3/4" 9.8%
CLEAR GLASS 36.3?
AMBER GLASS 13.1?
GREEN GLASS 7.7?
MAGNETIC MATERIALS .... 8.6?
CERAMICS & STONES 10.0?
ALUMINUM 3.1%
PLASTICS & RUBBER U.8?
WOOD & ORGANICS 3.9?
FINES 12.6?
DENSITY 1.19 gr/cc
MOISTURE 11,1?
VOLATILE
MATTER 6.U?
NOTES: 1. Percentage values shovn on lines connecting unit processes represent
the percent input refuse on a dry weight basis. These values are
actual measures of input streams and, therefore, summation of these
values might not equal input values. The differences are negligible
in most cases.
2. Percentage values on individual stream characterization data represent
the percent of that component in the process stream.
3. Composition data should not be used with mass balances as composition
data reflects average data.
34
-------
—^ Magnetic Materials
(Recovered Product)
Tin Cans 65.0?
Bottle & Jar Caps 2.1%
Metal Ends from Paper
& Metal Cans 0.1«?
Misc. Ferrous 19.2$
Metal Cans with
Aluminum Tops ll.lt?
Organic Contaminants . . . 1,6%
Nonmagnetic Metals . . .
„ Nonmagnetic Materials
Aluminum lit. 3?
Organics , .17.9?
Total Ferrous , ,15il?
Magnetic Ferrous .... ,0-1.'*?)
Rocks & Inert 21,6?
Glass 2lt.8?
Copper & Brass 6.2?
0.2?
Moisture 3-9?
Volatile Solids 1.5U
Magnetic Materials
.95.1
61.6?
— CYCLONE PROCESS
STREAM
PROCESS STREAM COMPOSITION
Fibre . . . . hh.0%
Plastics. . . 10.3?
Wood 5-2?
Grit 3.1?
Miscellaneous 7.6?
Grass & Leaves 1.8?
Fines .... 28.0?
Solids Content . . . 3.3?
Moisture Content . .96.7?
Heat Content . . . .7700 BTU/#
Ash Content 21.lt?
-TO D&I
OR
FIBER RECOVERY
FIGURE 11
PULPING AND SEPARATION SUBSYSTEM STREAM CHARACTERIZATION
35
-------
waste is lower than that encountered in the two other cities
but higher than the national average. This may be due in
part to the communities' limited number of offices and re-
lated high paper consumption businesses as well as the
presence of only a weekly newspaper. Springboro (also
serviced by the solid waste plant) has no newspaper. This
table indicates that the Franklin refuse is not significant-
ly different than the national average composition. Table 2
presents a description of the materials included in each
category used in sorting the input refuse. As is evident
from this list/ most of the nonmagnetic metals are aluminum.
Figure 13 presents the composition of the refuse at Franklin
at different seasons of the year. Based on this data we can
make some general observations on the seasonal variation of
the refuse composition. The amount of paper present in the
input increased from 32.9% to 49.4% from spring to winter.
At the same time, the non-fiber organics decreased from 44.2%
to 29.5%. This is primarily due to a drop in the garden waste
during the winter months. Additionally, there is a low demand
for recycled paper in this area, whereas this was not the case
during the initial months of the study. The percentage of
inert, glass, and metal remained virtually the same for all
three time periods.
The moisture content appeared to be the lowest (17.7%) during
a cold week in February and the highest (38.3%) during a rainy
week in April. The average moisture during this period was
29.4%.
The test procedures used for the analysis of the input re-
fuse are given in the Appendix. The amounts of industrial
and domestic (residential) refuse are not recorded on a routine
basis at the Franklin -Plant.
Summary data sheets and raw data used for determining average
characteristics of the streams in Figure 11 are given in the
Appendix (Section C).
In analyzing the data presented in Figure 11 it should be
noted that the actual percentages of magnetics and glass out-
puts of the P & S subsystem approximate the amounts found in
the input refuse. For example, the sum of the amounts of
magnetic material in the junk remover magnetic rejects and
the magnetic materials in the cyclone rejects, is within 6.5%
of the average of magnetic material in the input refuse as
determined by hand sorts. This comparison of two separate
magnetic determinations gives an indication of the accuracy
of the methods used.
36
-------
Table 2 - TYPICAL COMPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE CATEGORIES
FOUND IN INPUT TO THE FRANKLIN SOLID WASTE PLANT
INERT
Rocks
Batteries
Dirt
Ceramics
NON-FIBER ORGANIC
Plastic Bags
Rubber
Clothing & Cloths
DIAPERS
Grass Clippings
Wood Products & Branches
Sanitary Napkins
Egg Cartons (Plastic Foam)
Vegetable Peelings & Vegetable Food & Garden
Plastic Bottles
GLASS
Beer Bottles
Light Bulbs
Broken Glass
Deodorant Bottles (Mostly amber Glass)
MAGNETIC METALS
Lamp Shades
Coat Hangers
Cans
Mufflers
Leaf Car Springs
NON-MAGNETIC METALS
Beverage Cans
Food Cans
Aluminum Foil
Aluminum Pie Pans
Toothpaste Containers
Pop Tops From Cans
Mixed red and white Metals
37
-------
Table 2a - TYPICAL COMPOSITION OF SOLID WASTE CATEGORIES
FOUND IN INPUT TO THE FRANKLIN SOLID WASTE PLANT
PAPER
Newspaper
Newsprint & Food Ads
Corrugated
Cardboard Boxes
Pizza Platters
Strong Paper
Both white & brown strong paper
Grocery & lunch bags (mostly brown bags)
Magazines
All Magazines
OTHER MIXED
Milk Cartons
Food Containers
Paper Towels
Napkins
Stationary
Medicine Cartons
Carbon Paper
Egg Cartons
Beer Cartons
38
-------
Figure 13 - SEASONAL VARIATION OF REFUSE COMPOSITION
FRANKLIN, OHIO*
SORT DATES
CATEGORY
U)
vo
Paoer
Newspaper
Corrugated
Magazines
Strong Paper
Mixed Paper
Inert
Glass
Metals
Magnetic
Non-Magnetic
Non-fiber organics
4/10-4/18/74
33.8
9/17-9/23/74
37.34
12/16-12/ /74
49.4
Average
40.1
6
2
1
3
19
2
9
10
.83
.5
.5
.86
.12
.5
.7
.7
10.05
.62
13
5
2
3
12
5
7
11
.48
.80
.17
.71
.18
.18
.94
.88
10.10
1.78
12
4
1
3
27
2
8
10
.1
.9
.3
.8
.3
.4
.0
.7
9.3
1.4
10.
4.
1.
3.
19.
3.
8.
11.
8
4
7
8
5
4
5
1
9.
1.
8
3
44.2
37.39
29.5
37.0
*Values in percent
-------
Another comparison can be drawn between the glass content
in the P & S outputs and the percentage of glass in the
input refuse. The clear glass averages 37.4 percent, the
green glass 7.7 percent, and amber glass 13.1 percent of
the cyclone rejects stream. These values sum to 58.2 per-
cent of the cyclone rejects stream which is 15.2 percent
of the input refuse. From this it is evident that the glass
fraction in the input refuse is expected to be 8.8 percent,
based on the input to the glass plant. Actual refuse sorts
indicate a glass fraction of 8.5 percent.
As a result of these comparisons, it can be safely stated
that the composition on the outputs of the P & S subsystem
can be extrapolated back to the components in the input
refuse. This indeed was the procedure used in obtaining
the moisture content in the received refuse. To obtain the
moisture content all the dry solids outputs to the subsystem
were summed up and subtracted from the wet weight of material
input to the pulper. The difference between the dry outputs
and wet weight input is the moisture content of the refuse.
5.2.3 Description of Pulping and Separation Streams
5.2.3.1 Hydrapulper Junk Process Streams - The hydrapulper
junk process stream contains the non-pulpable or non-friable
materials removed from the hydrapulper by the junk remover.
This process stream typically contains bones, rubber materials,
metal cans, metallic materials, rocks, leather, small amounts
of plastic and fibrous matter, etc. The material contained
in this process stream is saturated with water. As it passes
from the junk remover to the magnetic belt separator much of
the water drains off.
5.2.3.2 Magnetic Separator/Magnetic Rejects - This material
contains the magnetic portion of the junk remover process
stream. This magnetic material is combined with the magnetic
material recovered in the glass plant, and sold to a ferrous
metal reclaimer. The magnetic rejects have a moisture con-
tent of 3.9% and a volatile solids content (organic content)
of 1.51%. From visual inspections, the organic content
appears to be grass, fibrous, and plastic materials en-
trapped in the deformed magnetic materials. The percentage
(by weight) of magnetic material In the magnetic rejects
varies between 95 to 98 percent. This recovered product
consists primarily of balled metal cans, portions of spark
plugs, metal plates, muffler clamps, can and bottle tops,
tubing, and small amount of organic matter, aluminum and
glass.
40
-------
5.2.3.3 Magnetic Separator/Non-Magnetic Rejects - This
material contains the non-magnetic portion of the junk re-
mover process stream. This stream consists of water sat-
,urated metallic and non-metallic items still containing approxi-
mately 11.4 percent magnetic materials. A visual inspection
of the non-magnetic reject stream indicates approximately 50
percent by volume of the stream is organic matter. Typical
items found in the organic fraction include: bones, fibrous
matter, rubber tubing, and rubber material. Other com-
ponents are aluminum cans, stainless steel, rocks and glass.
5.2.3.4 Cyclone Reject Stream - The cyclone reject stream
contains the heavy material removed from the hydrapulper
process stream. This stream is predominantly glass (57.1%)
and it is the input material for the glass plant. The stream
typically contains 11.1 percent water and 6.4 percent volatile
solids (organic matter). It is composed of the following
types of material: paper clips, aluminum, aluminum foil, bubble
gum, wire, rubber, stone, and all types of glass. Most of the
material is less than 1" diameter, and has a density of approxi-
mately 1.19 g/cc (74.22 lb/ft3). A typical particle size
distribution is presented below.
Particle Size % By Weight
< 1/4" 30.0%
1/4" to 3/4" 60.2%
> 3/4" 9.8%
5.2.3.5 Cyclone Process Stream - The cyclone process stream
contains the lighter portion of the hydrapulper process stream
and is the input to the Fiber Recovery System. The cyclone
process stream has an average total solids concentration of
approximately 3.3% with a measured low of 1.5% and a measured
high of 4.1%. The suspended solids concentration is approx-
imately 2.4%. The heat content of the cyclone process stream
is 7700 BTU/lb on an oven dry basis. On an "as received"
basis the stream contains 97% moisture and will not support
its own combustion. A net heat input of 739 BTU/lb is re-
quired to achieve combustion. The ash content is 21.4% of
the total solids content on a dry weight basis.
The cyclone process stream can be described as a dark, gray-
ish brown liquid containing large amounts (*^500 ml/1) of
settleable material. The majority of solid material is
fibrous matter, but pieces of plastics, vegetable matter,
small pieces of aluminum foil, paint flecks, straw, etc. can
be distinguished in the process stream.
5.2.3.6 Whitewater and Process Water Characteristics - Table 3
Whitewater Characteristics, presents the average para-
meters for the Whitewater system. The Whitewater is used in
the hydrapulper to produce a refuse slurry, and is used as
dilution water in the Fiber Recovery System.
41
-------
Table 3 - WHITEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
PARAMETER
Water Temp.
Dissolved Oxygen
Turbidity Lab
Conductivity Lab
pH Lab
Alkalinity
Hardness
Chlorides
Sulfates
Total Solids
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
C-BOD2
C-BOD5
C-BOD7
C-BOD10
C-BOD15
C-BOD20
TOC
COD
UNITS
Cent.
mg/1
JTU
Micro-MHO
S.U.
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
AVERAGE
VALUE
26.0
5.8
2460.0
2660.0
5.2
300.0
907.0
341.0
663.0
9450.0
5060.0
4390.0
19.0
2.0
58.5
1652.0
3225.0
3714.0
4267.0
4971.0
5493.0
2213.0
8860.0
42
-------
WHITEWATER CHARACTERISTICS
Bacteriological Data
PARAMETER UNITS
Fecal Coliform #/100ml
Total Coliform #/100ml
Total Plate Count #/lml
AVERAGE
VALUE
1.3 X 10
2.0 X 10
2.8 X 10
8
Heavy Metal Data
PARAMETER
Cadmium
Manganese
Zinc
Nickel
Iron
Lead
Tin
Chromium
Copper
UNITS
yg/i
yg/i
wg/i
yg/i
yg/i
yg/i
yg/i
yg/i
yg/i
AVERAGE
VALUE
92.5
495.0
557.0
3990.0
3900.0
6225.0
190.0
700.0
11.4
43
-------
High quality water is not required for pulping the refuse.
The Whitewater is continuously recirculated to reduce the
water consumption. During the recirculation of this white-
water the concentration of solids, dissolved metals, bacteria,
etc., reach equilibrium conditions. By way of comparison,
the Whitewater (although not a waste stream) is similar in
strength to a concentrated industrial waste stream. As in-
dicated previously, an average of 4890 gallons of Whitewater
is used per ton of refuse processed in the pulping and
separation subsystems. The amount of Whitewater used to
process a ton of refuse is somewhat dependent upon the moisture
content of the refuse processed. A lower moisture content
requires a larger amount of Whitewater to achieve the same con-
sistency.
The bacteriological data for the Whitewater listed in Table
3 indicates a high degree of bacterial contamination. The
use of this contaminated water for processing could present
potential health hazards if it were handled improperly. Pre-
cautions used in the handling of Whitewater should be similar
to those used in the handling of sewage.
The data presented in Table 3 for the Whitewater system,
indicates that the Whitewater contains more than average
amounts of heavy metals (see page 105).
Process water is the chlorinated final effluent of the Miami
Conservancy District's Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The characteristics of the process water are given in Table 4.
The average values indicate that the effluent from the Franklin
Solid Waste Treatment Plant is of a high quality. As seen in
the table, the average suspended solids are 51 mg/1 and the
average BOD,- is 18 mg/1. It could be said that the suspended
solids material is largely inert and does not exhibit as much
oxygen demand as normal organic materials. This indicates
that the percent of inerts in the suspended solids is
fairly high. An average COD of 174 mg/1 with an average BOD~
of 18 mg/1 indicates that the material in the final effluent
is not subject to biological degradation as much as normal
domestic sewage. This combined with the high dissolved solids
content, would seem to indicate that there was a chemical
demand in the waste that would not show up by consuming
dissolved oxygen in the BOD tests. It should be noted that
nitrification is occuring in the treatment facility. The
ammonia nitrogen is 2.3 mg/1 and the nitrate nitrogen is
5-1/4 mg/1; nitrification is significant. The final effluent
could be considered to have a low nitrogen content.
5.2.3.7 Pulping and Separation Subsystem Water Requirements
As stated in the section, there are two inputs to the
44
-------
Table 4 - PROCESS WATER CHARACTERISTICS
PARAMETER UNITS MAXIMUM MINIMUM AVERAGE
Water Temp. Cent. 28.1 6.3 20.5
Dissolved
Oxygen mg/1 11.4 5.1 8.2
Turbidity
Lab JTU 60.0 6.0 21.4
Conductivity Micro-
Lab MHO 2173.0 1440.0 1603.9
pH Lab S.U. 8.5 7.1 7.8
Alkalinity mg/1 544.0 142.0 407.0
Hardness mg/1 710.0 196.0 451.9
Chlorides mg/1 224.0 162.0 193.0
Sulfates mg/1 220.0 70.0 156.2
Total Solids mg/1 1525.0 1037.0 1188.4
Dissolved
Solids mg/1 1449.0 987.0 1138.4
Suspended
Solids mg/1 121.0 1.0 51.0
Ammonia
Nitrogen mg/1 44.0 0.0 7.7
Organic
Nitrogen mg/1 3.1 0.1 2.3
Nitrate
Nitrogen mg/1 22.0 0.0 5.3
Total
Phosphorus mg/1 3.7 0.1 1.2
C-BOD2 mg/1 110.0 0.6 8.4
C-BOD5 mg/1 176.0 2.5 18.4
C-BOD7 mg/1 182.0 5.0 25.5
C-BOD10 mg/1 214.0 7.3 35.2
C-BOD15 mg/1 282.0 9.0 53.7
C-BOD20 mg/1 292.0 10.2 70.0
N-BOD5 mg/1 9.8 8.5 9.2
TOC mg/1 140.0 25.0 50.9
COD mg/1 431.0 70.0 174.3
45
-------
P & S subsystem in addition to the refuse. These are the
process water, and the Whitewater. The Whitewater is used
in the P & S subsystem as input to the pulper to form the
refuse slurry. Process water is used to cool the oil
supply to the pulper and as elutriation water in the cyclone.
The total quantity of water used varies with the quantity
of refuse processed. The amount of process water used
varies directly with operating time for the subsystem.
The amount of Whitewater used varies directly with operating
time and moisture content of the input refuse.
Figures 14- & 15 respectively gives the Whitewater and
processed water usage per time. These figures also present
a plot of water usage/ton processed during the study period.
The quantity of Whitewater used in the P & S subsystem
averages 4,860 gallons/ton processed. The amounts of
Whitewater used can be varied by the plant operator. For
routine operating conditions the maximum and minimum amounts
of Whitewater used/ton of refuse processed are 7,340 and 2,680
gallons respectively. Increased Whitewater usage results in
higher dilution of the refuse slurry produced.
The quantities of process' water used in the P & S subsystem
are a function of the operating time of the system. The
quantity of process water used/ton of refuse processed
averages 1,630 gallons. This volume was observed to vary
between 2,700 gallons/ton and 1,630 gallons/ton.
5.2.3.8 Power Requirements for the P & S Subsystem -
Figure 16 represents the kilowatt hours used by the hydrapulper
and the average kilowatt hours used by the hydrapulper
per ton refuse processed. The average power usage by the
hydrapulper was 32.5 kilowatt hours per ton with a maximum
and minimum of 46.4 and 22.8 kwh/ton respectively. The
variation in the kilowatt hours required per ton of refuse
processed can be attributed to several variables. These
variables include: the consistency of the input refuse;
the moisture content of the input refuse; and the condition
of the pulper rotor. As the hammers on the pulper rotor
become dull, the time required to pulp the refuse increases,
as does the power required to pulp a ton of refuse. No
estimates can be made regarding the consistency of the input
refuse, and the difficulty in pulping a given quantity of
refuse.
The power usage in the P & S subsystem is largely due to the
hydrapulper. The hydrapulper is driven by a 300 horsepower
motor, and the oil pump supplying oil to the pulper motor has
a 1 horsepower pump. These power requirements represent more
than all the other connected horsepower in the P & S subsystem.
46
-------
VD
O
1.3
1.2
1.1
1.0
£ .9
M
a .8
3
g .7
. 6
.5
TOTAL GALLONS/WEEK
AVERAGE GAL./TON/WEEK
i i
i i
0 2
O
w
8 s
6 |
S
5
U
•-a
o
2
O
UJ
8 10 12 lU 16 18 20 22 2U 26 28 30
TIME - WEEKS
FIGURE Ik - WHITEWATER CONSUMPTION, PULPING & SEPARATION SUBSYSTEM
-------
oo
o
•-I
X
I 3
CO
CO
fz
o
i_)
<
TOTAL GALLONS/WEEK
AVER. GAL/TON/WEEK
30
25
8
o
20 1
o
o
w
en
en
o
10
6 8 10 12 lU 16 18 20 22 2k
FIGURE 15 - PROCESS WATER CONSUMPTION - P & S SUBSYSTEM
26
28 38
-------
10
vo
co
O
1
- \
TOTAL Kwh/TIME
AVERAGE Kwh/TON/TIME
55
50
UO
20
8
10 12 lU 16 18 20 22 2fc
TIME-WEEKS
FIGURE 16 - POWER CONSUMPTION-HYDRAPULPER
26 28 30 32 3l» 36 38
I
35 8
30
25
-------
The hydrapulper power consumption was recorded by a separate
kilowatt hour meter. The major power usage items in the
P & S system are given as follows:
ITEM HORSEPOWER
Conveyor 10
Hydrapulper 301
Junk Remover 10
Hydrapulper Dump Pump 30
Junk Washer 1
Magnetic Separator 5
Cyclone Recycle Pump 15
Dewatering Screw for 2
Glass Plant
Based on horsepower ratings the hydrapulper uses 81 percent
of the power in the P & S subsystem.
5.2.3.9 Efficiency of Equipment - As shown in the Study
Matrix (Figure6 ) the only unit processes within the P & S
subsystem that can be evaluated in terms of efficiency are
the magnetic separator and the liquid cyclone.
The magnetic separator is a rotating magnetic belt which
separates the junk remover reject stream according to magnetic
and non-magnetic items. The magnetic separator removed 92.8
percent of the magnetic materials extracted from the
hydrapulper by the junk remover. It should be noted that the
recovered magnetics were contaminated with other materials
because of mechanical attachments. The contaminants amounted
to 4.2% of the magnetic reject stream. The non-magnetic
rejects which were landfilled or recycled to the head of the
plant, contained about 11.4% magnetic material, as determined
by manual sorting. There are two reasons for this high
percentage of magnetics in the non-magnetic bin: (1) Some
magnetic items in the non-magnetic bin were too heavy to be
extracted by the separator, (2) The percentage of magnetics
in a particular mass of material was too low to be affected
by the magnetic belt.
The input to the liquid cyclone is the hydrapulper process
stream. The cyclone separates the glass and gritty material
in the hydrapulper process stream from the fibrous matter.
The cyclone process stream was analyzed to determine the
amount of grit that was not removed by the process. Based on
the results of grit analysis tests, it was determined that
the cyclone was 72% efficient in the removal of grit. However,
hand sorts of the cyclone process stream indicated that all
the glass particles greater than 1/8" were being removed by
the cyclone. This would indicate that the cyclone is effective
50
-------
in removing the usable glass particles and that only small
glass particles and other small grit escape the cyclone.
A fractional efficiency curve is not available for this
cyclone. None is available from the manufacturer and we
did not develop one during the course of the study.
Development of a fractional efficiency curve would have
presented several problems and would involve a considerable
effort. The amount of gritty material which is removed by
the cyclone is a variable and is dependent on several
factors.
(1) The consistency (percent solids) of the feed material
to the cyclone; e.g., the higher the consistency, the greater
the viscosity and the lower the removal efficiency of the
cyclone;
(2) The specific gravity of the grit being removed; and
(3) The grit particle's size and shape.
Black-Clawson claims that all materials greater than 40
mesh are being removed by the cyclone. This is apparently
true from our observations of the material collected on a
200 mesh screen. On this basis the cyclone can be said to
have 100% removal efficiency of grit particles greater than
40 mesh (0.0635 cm, 0.025 inches). One exception to the
100% removal efficiency of that particle size is the
occasional appearance of shredded aluminum foil and aluminum
can tabs. It is obvious that this material is greater than
40 mesh but its shape and specific gravity are such that
removal is not possible in the cyclone. However, true grit
such as glass and rocks are effectively removed by the
cyclone.
5.3 DEWATERING and INCINERATION (D & I) SUBSYSTEM
The D & I subsystem dewaters and incinerates the unuseable
portion (rejects) of the Fiber Recovery System, or the entire
process stream from the P & S subsystem.
When the fiber is not being recovered, the input to the D & I
subsystem is the cyclone process stream (directly) or the
partially dewatered cyclone process stream (via "thickening"
mode). The Fiber Recovery reject streams, or the cyclone
process stream enter the surge chest, and are continuously
agitated within it. The contents of the surge chest are
then fed to the barrel thickeners. The barrel thickeners
(3 in parallel) partially dewater the surge chest process
stream. The partially dewatered refuse slurry is then trans-
ported by the screw conveyor to the cone press where it is
further dewatered. The rejects from the barrel thickeners
51
-------
(primarily liquid) enter the Whitewater system; the rejects
from the cone press, because of the introduction of sewage
sludge between the barrel thickeners and the cone press, are
segregated and pumped to the Miami Conservancy District. At
this point the material has been dewatered in the D & I sub-
system to a point where it can support its own combustion.
Thus, no auxilliary fuel is required for the incineration.
The cone press process stream is fed to a pneumatic feeder
which injects it into the bed of the fluid bed reactor.
The ashes and small sand particles that escape in the reactor
exhaust gases are removed by a Venturi type scrubber. The
ash slurry, as it is called at this point, is pumped to the
Miami Conservancy District Wastewater Treatment Plant for
treatment.
5.3.1 Material Balance Sheet for Dewatering & Incineration
Subsystem
The material balance given in Figure 17 indicates the inputs
and outputs to the D & I subsystem as well as the operating
time for that subsystem. The values indicated on this balance
sheet represent the actual operating data for an average week.
These are average data and do not reflect the optimum operation
of the plant. Optimum operation would have no material coming
directly from the P & S subsystem and all of the material enter-
ing the D & I subsystem would be rejects from the Fiber Recovery
System.
There are two major inputs to the D & I subsystem. These are:
(1) the rejects from the Fiber Recovery System or, (2) the
cyclone process stream from the P & S subsystem. The latter
case occurs when the Fiber Recovery System is not operating.
In this instance, the cyclone process stream can be "thickened"
using some of the equipment in the Fiber Recovery System.
The inputs into the D & I subsystem are all the materials re-
quiring final disposal, and the city water that is required
for the scrubber operation. As indicated on Figure 17 the
average input to the D & I subsystem is 74.5 tons per week.
Of this, 39 tons are from the P & S subsystem (when Fiber
Recovery System is not operating) representing 52.9% of the
average input, 2.4% consists of sewage sludge and skimmings,
and 33.3 tons or 44.7 percent from Fiber Recovery Operations.
A minimal amount of process water is used in the D & I sub-
system as cooling water for the bearings in the cone press.
This is considered negligible for the purposes of this mass
balance.
52
-------
INPUT
OUTPUT
Sludge
1.80 T.
CITY WATER
181,800 Gal.
FIBER RECOVERY
REJECTS
33.3 T.
THICKENED CYCLONE
PROCESS STREAM
20.8 T.
CYCLONE PROCESS
STREAM
18.6 T.
1=74.5 T.
DEWATERING AND
INCINERATION SUBSYSTEM
OPERATING TIME
16.4 HOURS
TO ATMOSPHERE
(PARTICULATE MATTER)
49.69#/Wk.
ASH SLURRY TO MCD
40,300 gals.
1.84 T.
DEWATERING REJECTS
20.9 T.
FIGURE 17 - MATERIAL BALANCE SHEET**
DEWATERING AND INCINERATION SUBSYSTEM
*A11 values are on a dry weight basis.
53
-------
The outputs to the D & I subsystem consist of the output
from the reactor to the atmosphere, the ash slurry to the
Miami Conservancy District, and the Whitewater which is
obtained from dewatering the refuse slurry. This water
enters the Whitewater system and is reused.
A close comparison of the input tonnage and output tonnage
on the D & I subsystem material balance sheet would indi-
cate that the inputs are much greater than the outputs to
that subsystem. This apparent discrepancy is due to the fact
that the input tonnage is uncombusted refuse, whereas the
output tonnage in the ash slurry is ash material. The
balance of the mass is emitted as gases of combustion through
the stack.
As is evident from Figure 17 the dewatering rejects from the
barrel thickeners and the cone press account for 28% of the
input tonnage. For the most part, this material is re-
introduced to the Whitewater system. A quantity of less
than 33% of the liquid stream is removed from the sewage sump
and pumped to the Miami Conservancy District for treatment.
The City water used in the D & I subsystem is for the opera-
tion of the venturi scrubber. No input solids are given for
this water because it is only used in the scrubber system and
then transported to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. As a
result, the actual value of solids input from the City water
has not been included.
If the dewatering rejects are subtracted from the summation
of the inputs to the subsystem, the reactor input can be
calculated. For an average week's operation, the reactor
input was 53.6 tons/week. From this, 1.84 tons of ash
material was obtained. This would imply an average ash con-
tent of 3.4 percent, which is very low.
Results of laboratory testing indicates an ash content of
approximately 10.8% (900°c, 45 min). There are several
possible reasons for this discrepancy:
1) The laboratory methods for determining ash
content may not approximate the actual combustion process.
2) The particulate emission tests were performed
prior to this study and this data may not be representative.
3) There were difficulties experienced in determining
the total volume of ash slurry because of meter calibration
problems, pump leaks, etc.
54
-------
It is the opinion of the authors, that a reasonable estimate
of the ash content of the material input to the reactor is
the range of 10 to 12 percent.
5.3.2 Dewatering and Incineration Subsystem Stream
Characteristics
•
The stream characteristics for the D & I subsystem for the
period of our study, are given in Figure 18 These stream
characteristics were obtained by (1) daily composite samples
of processed streams, and (2) additional periodic analyses
of the streams to obtain their individual characteristics.
The characteristics of the exhaust gases were obtained from
the final report published by Environmental Sciences Inc.
Like the stream characterization sheet given for the P & S
subsystem, this system is arranged in a flow type diagram.
The arrows connecting the processes indicate the direction
of flow of material in the system. The percentage values
on the lines or arrows connecting the unit processes show
the percent of input refuse, on a dry weight basis which
flows along this route. We can see from Figure 18 that
58.9% of the input refuse is disposed of in the D & I sub-
system. In the dewatering phase of this subsystem, 96.9%
of the water and 30.8% of the solids are removed in the
combined dewatering of the barrel thickeners and cone press.
The cone press process stream has an average total solids
content of 45%. This material has a sufficiently high heat
content to support its own combustion at this point. A lower
total solids content in the cone press process stream would
reduce the heat given off by the combustion of this material.
The fuel value required for continuous operation of the fluid-
izied bed reactor is approximately 3,000 BTU/lb. The cone
press process stream, on a weight basis averages approximately
3,600 BTU/lb. and, thus, is high enough to support its own
combustion. As is evident from the moisture content, the
material drawn from the surge chest is a liquid stream; it
is fed through the barrel thickeners and increased to a total
solids content of 17.4% at which time it appears to be a
fibrous solid. This material is further dewatered in the cone
press to 45% moisture. This dryer solid still feels wet to
touch.
When this material is incinerated an inert ash is formed.
The resulting ,ash slurry has a very low carbonaceous oxygen
demand. Hence this stream does not require biological treat-
ment. During the period of our study, sewage sludge was
introduced in the screw conveyor between the barrel thickener
and the cone press (sludge is not added to the surge chest).
This sludge averaged 4.6 percent solids and had a heat content
of 7,600 BTU per pound on a dry weight basis. The ash content
55
-------
SLUDGE FROM TREATMENT PLANT
1. Total Solids 14.63?
2. Moisture Content 95-1*?
3. Heat Content (Dry) 7,600 BTU//i<
14. Ash Content UU.5J5
(1.145? of input dry weight)
FROM FIBER
RECOVERY SYSTEM
27.05?
DIRECTLY TO
SURGE CHEST
15.1*
16.8*
THICKENED
, 58.9?
UATJBTi'T
THICKENER
hi. 2%
1. TOTAL SOLIDS
1 " ' 'd. MUlBTUKi; 02.
17-72
REJECTS (WWS)
^
i'
17.14?
65?
1. SUSPENDED SOLIDS .UU?
2. TOTAL SOLIDS 1.1 Jt
3. MOISTURE 98.5*
SURGE CHEST CONTENTS
Percent Moisture 96.5$
Total Solids 3-5*
Heat Content (DRY) 7,380 BTU/#
Ash Content 22?
Grit Content 9.5?
Total Coliform Count 165 x 10^/100 ml
Fecal Coliform Count 10 x 10°/100 ml
Total Plate Count 100 x
56
-------
EXHAUST GASES
l.Particulate Rate 6.11 #/Hr.
2.Moisture=3l*.l$
ppm
ppm
5.Grain Loading .019G/SDCF
6.Scrubber Eff. = 99%
1. Suspended Solids O.l2
2. Total Solids 0.52 (0.1*2 with no sludge)
3. Moisture 99.1*2
REJECTS
(MCD)
S02<7
NOV - 125
Jv
CONE 1
PRESS J
1*0.82
PNEUMATIC
CONVEYOR
1. Total Solids -
2. Moisture = 552
3- Heat Content = 8,600
BTU/# (DRY) and 3600
BTU/# (AS-RCVD)
1*. Ash Content = 2k.5%
Insignificant
Change with
Sludge injected
before Cone Press
1.52
ASH Slurry (MCD) ^
1. pH = 7.1*2
2. Total Solids = 1.
3. Dissolved Solids
1*. Suspended Solids
5- BODc = 18 ppm
1*55
= 0.13?!
= 1.3*
FIGURE 18- DEWATERING AND INCINERATION SUBSYSTEM
STREAM CHARACTERIZATION DATA
57
-------
is extremely high for sludge. This is because the Miami
Conservancy Treatment Plant does not have grit removal prior
to primary clarification and as a result, all the suspended
gritty particles which would be removed in the grit removal
section of the treatment plant are removed in the primary
section and contained in the sludge.
5.3.3 Description of Dewatering and Incineration Streams
5.3.3.1 Thickener Rejects Stream - The thickener reject stream
is a grayish brown liquid containing a minor amount of settleable
black solids and fibrous matter. The total solids content of
the thickener reject stream ranges from 0.8% to 1.5% and the
suspended solids content is approximately 0.4%.
5.3.3.2 Press Process Stream - As the material leaves the barrel
thickener, it enters the cone press for further dewatering. The
process stream from the press consists of grayish brown fibrous
matter which contains visible amounts of grass, plastics, and
small pieces of glass, wood, and string material.
The heat content of this material on an over-dry basis is
8,050 BTU/lb. The streams solid content varies from 36.6 to
49.5% solids. The heat content of this material on an "as-
received" basis is 3,580 BTU/lb. and has an ash content of
24.5 percent.
5.3.3.3 Press Reject Stream - The press reject stream is a grey
brown liquid containing a minute amount of settleable black
material. The stream has a suspended solids concentration of
0.1%, a total solids content of 0.5%, and a moisture content
of 99.4%.
5.3.4 Efficiency of Equipment in D&I Subsystem
As indicated on our Study Matrix, the only unit operation in
the D&I subsystem that has a meaningful efficiency
is the venturi scrubber. The efficiency of this scrubber has
been determined by Environmental Sciences, Inc. This efficiency
was determined by comparison of isokinetc samples taken on the
input and output to the venturi scrubber. The average removal
efficiency of solid particulate matter was 99.0%
5.3.5 Power Requirements for the D&I Subsystem
Power data for this complete subsystem could not be obtained.
However, some general remarks can be made about the power con-
sumed in this section of the plant. The D&I subsystem con-
tains the following power using equipment (Table 5).
58
-------
Table 5 - POWER USAGE OF EQUIPMENT ITEMS
DEWATERING & INCINERATION
EQUIPMENT HORSEPOWER CONNECTED
Surge Chest Agitator 50
Surge Chest Pump 25
Barrel Thickeners 45
Screw Conveyor 3
Whitewater Sump Pump 15
Sludge Chest Agitator 20
Sludge Pump 15
Cone Press 80
Sewage Sump Punp 15
Screw Conveyor 3
Rotary Valve 2
Pneumatic Feed 50
Reactor Blower 500
Ash Pump 15
59
-------
As is evident from this list of major electrical equipment
the major power requirement is for the fluidizing air blower.
This one motor represents 60% of the installed horsepower in
the subsystem. It is used to provide an air supply at
sufficient pressure and volume to fluidize the sand bed and
overcome the pressure drop (7.0 inches water) in the scrubber.
An additional 8% of the installed horsepower in the D & I
subsystem is used as supplemental equipment to the incinerator.
The dewatering phase of the D & I sybsystem accounts for
23.6% of the installed horsepower used in the subsystem. A
total of 198 horsepower is installed in the dewatering section
of this subsystem. The thickener process stream varies in
total solids from 12.0 to 24.4.
5.4 FIBER RECOVERY SYSTEM
The Fiber Recovery System receives the cyclone process stream
from the P & S subsystem and recovers a portion of the useable
fiber contained in it. This recovered fiber is diluted with
process water and pumped to the Logan Long Company which uses
this material as a substitute for other paper sources in
manufacturing roofing felt. The reject streams, materials
rejected in the recovery of the fiber, are from two sources:
the selectifier, and the centrifugal cleaners. These materials
flow into the rejects tank in the Fiber Recovery System and
are then pumped to the surge chest in the D & I subsystem.
The Whitewater sump which contains rejects from the rundown
screen enters the Whitewater system. A portion of this flow
is bled off to the Miami Conservancy Wastewater Treatment
Plant for treatment.
5.4.1 Material Balance Sheet for the Fiber Recovery System
The material balance for the Fiber Recovery System is given
in Figure 19. This figure indicates three inputs to the Fiber
Recovery System and three outputs. The major input to the
system is the cyclone process stream. This input contains all
the fibrous materials that are recovered in the system. The
Whitewater is an intermittent input to the system and it is
added to the selectifier dilution tank as needed.
The tonnage values given for the Whitewater and process water
represent actual dry solids input to the system contained in
the Whitewater and process water. All values on Figure 19
are given on a dry weight basis.
In Figure 19 the 15.5 tons/week represents the total solids
output to Logan Long Company and the 13.6 tons Fiber represents
the actual tonnage of fiber output, the suspended fiber
material. The difference between these two values is the
60
-------
INPUTS
OUTPUTS
CYCLONE PROCESS
66.4 T.
27.7 T. Fiber
WHITEWATER
3.4 T.
PROCESS WATER
0.61 T.
FIBER RECOVERY
SYSTEM
OPERATING TIME
16.1 HRS.
RECOVERED FIBER **
15.5 T TOTAL
13.6 T FIBER
FIBER RECOVERY
REJECTS
33.3 T.
FINE REJECTS TO
WHITEWATER SYSTEM
21.2 T.
FIGURE 19 - BALANCE SHEET FOR FIBER RECOVERY SYSTEM
*A11 values are on a Dry Wt. Basis. Figure represents actual
operating data for an average week.
**Total tons includes dissolved solids in slurry.
61
-------
dissolved solids contained in the fiber slurry. As can be
seen in Figure 19, approximately 20 percent of the input
tonnage in the cyclone process stream is recovered as fiber.
Approximately 50% of the input tonnage to fiber recovery is
removed in the form of rejects. This material requires final
disposal in the D & I subsystem. The third output is the
fines rejects to the Whitewater system which consists of the
rejects from the rundown screen, the barrel thickener and the
cone press. This tonnage represents 32% of the tons input
to the system.
The recovery of 13.6 tons fiber, or 20% of the tonnage input
to the Fiber Recovery System, does not indicate a recovery
rate for paper fiber. The tonnage in the cyclone process
stream represents gross tons and not tons fiber input into
the system. The fiber content in the cyclone process stream
was approximately 27.7 tons/week. This would indicate a fiber
recovery rate of 49.1%.
5.4.2 Stream Characteristics of the Fiber Recovery System
The stream characteristics of the Fiber Recovery System are
given on Figure 20. These stream characteristics were ob-
tained from daily composite samples of process streams which
were necessary to achieve the daily mass balances. Addition-
al information was derived from periodic tests which were
performed on the individual streams within the entire plant.
Some of the stream characterization tests were performed by
the paper technology department of Miami University on the
fibrous content of the cyclone process stream and the quality
of the recovered fiber. The input to the Fiber Recovery System
is the cyclone process stream. The characterization data for
the cyclone process stream is given on the P & S subsystem
characterization sheet as well. The characteristics of the
Whitewater and process water used in the Fiber Recovery System
are the same given in the P & S subsystem.
This characterization sheet is presented in the same manner as
the characterization sheets for the P & S and D & I subsystems
in that the arrows connecting unit processes indicate the
direction of the flow in the system and the percentage values
written on these connecting arrows indicate the percent of in-
put refuse which flows along that route.
The cyclone process stream based on handsort data contains
67.7% fiber, 12% plastics, 5.4% wood, 5% glass, .9% aluminum,
and 9% miscellaneous. The heat content of this stream is
7,700 BTU/lb. on a dry weight basis. On a wet basis the BTU
content is a -831 BTU/lb. The negative heat content indicates
that the material would not support its own combustion. This
62
-------
is obvious from the high moisture content of 96.7% con-
tained in the stream. The cyclone process stream enters
the selectifier dilution tank where Whitewater is added to
reduce the consistency of the cyclone process stream if re-
quired. The characteristics of the Whitewater are dis-
cussed in section 5.2.3.6. The selectifier dilution tank
is agitated and a pump draws this material and feeds it to
the selectifier. The selectifier is a rotating screen with
1/16" openings. The selectifier is intended to remove all
the plastics, string and other materials longer than 1/16"
in length or diameter. As is evident from the Fiber Re-
covery stream characterization sheet, 42% of the solid
material is removed from the cyclone process stream by the
selectifier. This represents the largest reject stream in
the Fiber Recovery System.
Following the selectifier, the material enters a cleaners
supply tank. The material is removed from the cleaners
supply tank and fed to five centrifugal cleaners. Process
water is used at this point as elutriation water in these
cleaners. Process water characteristics are given in section
5.2.3.6. The cleaners serve to remove a portion of the
larger gritty material found in the selectifier process
stream. This gritty material is the second reject stream
in the Fiber Recovery Process. It is combined with the
selectifier reject stream in the rejects tank and pumped
to the surge chest for final disposal in the D & I sub-
system. The centrifugal cleaners process stream is fed
directly to the rundown screen where material smaller than
approximately .020" is removed. The rundown screens are
similar to Hydrasieves that are sometimes used in place of
primary treatment in wastewater treatment plants. The re-
jects from the rundown screen enter the Whitewater system
where there is a large bleedoff at this point to the Miami
Conservancy District. This bleedoff is necessary to keep
the percentage of fines and oil and grease materials low
in the Whitewater system. This is necessary to achieve a
quality fiber usable by the Logan Long Company. The run-
down screen process stream, is pumped to the barrel thicken-
er which is smaller but similar to the dewatering device
found in the D & I subsystem. This screw thickener con-
centrates the process stream from the rundown screen to
15% solids from 2.2% solids. Following the screw thicken-
er is a cone press similar to that used as the second step
in dewatering in the D & I"subsystem. 'This concentrates
the fiber stream to a solids concentration of approximately
45%. This material is then diluted by either process water
or by a portion of the rundown screen process stream which
bypasses the dewatering section of the Fiber Recovery System.
63
-------
CYCLONE
PROCESS 53.!
STREAM
1. TOTAL SOLIDS 2.68?
2. MOISTURE 97.!»$
22.1%
REJECTS
(SURGE CHEST)
1. TOTAL SOLIDS
2. MOISTURE 91%
3. GRIT (DRY) 22%
SELECTIFI
DILUTION
TANK
CENTRIFUGAL
CLEANERS
Total Solids 3.-3%
Fibre 67-7$
Plastic 12.0$
Wood 5.k%
Glass 5.0%
Aluminum . 9%
Moisture Content 96.7$
Heat Content 7,700 BTU/# (DRY)
Ash Content 21.U$ (DRY)
Grit Content 9-**$ (DRY)
% >_1/16" l.lUjf (DRY)
Total Coliform 185 x 106/100 ml
Fecal Coliform 2 x 106/100 ml
Total Plate U3 x 106/ml
1. TOTAL SOLIDS 1.92$
2. MOISTURE 98.1$
3. GRIT 10$
U. % > 1/16"= .77$
1. TOTAL SOLIDS 1.72$
2. MOISTURE 98.3$
3. GRIT CONTENT 10$
64
-------
1. TOTAL SOLIDS 0.9%
2. MOISTURE 99-1?
10.155
REJECTS (WW)
1. Total Solids .52$
Moisture 99-5?
pH 5-7
Susp. Solids .U?
Diss. Solids .12%
BOD5 2.8UO ppm
Tot&l P 20 ppm
NH3-N 28 ppm
3.9552
REJECTS
(WWS)
1. Total Solids 0.
2. Moisture 99-9%
.132%
REJECTS
(WWS)
16.7?
1. TOTAL SOLIDS 2.2%
2. MOISTURE 96.8?
1. TOTAL SOLIDS
2. MOISTURE 85?
u.
12.6?
TOTAL SOLIDS 1*5?
MOISTURE 55?
HEAT CONTENT
7,187 BTU/# (DRY)
ASH CONTENT 10.2?
„
LOGAN LONG
(RECOVERED FIBER)
1. OIL & GREASE 2,1460 mg/1
2. TOTAL PLATE .U27 x 10^/ml
3. FECAL COLIFORM 1.3xlOb/100 ml
1*. AFTER DILUTION
-TOTAL SOLIDS 3-91*?
-MOISTURE 96.1?
FIGURE 20 - FIBER RECOVERY SYSTEM - STREAM CHARACTERIZATION
65
-------
This material is made liquid again in the Fiber Dilution Tank
and pumped to the Logan Long Company.
5.4.3 Water Requirements for the Fiber Recovery System
As stated in Section 5.4.1, Material Balance Sheet for the
Fiber Recovery System, there are two additional inputs to the
Fiber Recovery System in addition to the cyclone process
stream. These are the process water, and Whitewater. The
Whitewater is used to dilute the cyclone process stream on
an as needed basis to reduce the consistency and allow easier
processing in the Fiber Recovery System. The use of white-
water varies with the consistency of the Whitewater process
stream. During the course of our study, the use of white-
water in the Fiber Recovery for dilution purposes has varied
from between 102 gallons to 4,700 gallons per ton input to
the Fiber Recovery System. The average quantity of white-
water used for dilution purposes is 1,580 gallons per ton
input to the system. Figure 21 represents a plot of the
total quantity of Whitewater used in the Fiber Recovery
System. Figure 21 also presents the Whitewater used per ton
input to the system.
Process water is used,in two places in the Fiber Recovery
System. The first of these is for elutriation water in the
centrifugal cleaners. The second area is for spraying water
on the rundown screens. The quantity of process water used
in the Fiber Recovery System varies directly with the operating
time of that system. As a general rule, no process water is
used when the Fiber Recovery System is used in the thickening
mode of operation. The amount of process water used per ton of
material input to the Fiber Recovery System varies from a minimum
of 1,000 gallons to a maximum of 2,370 gallons. The average
quantity of process water used per ton input to the system is
1,600 gallons of process water. The process water graphs are
given in Figure 22.
5.4.4 Power Requirements for the Fiber Recovery System
Figure 23 presents graphs of total kilowatt hour usage and
kilowatt hour usage/ton input to the Fiber Recovery System
during the study period. The average kilowatt hours consumed
per ton input to the Fiber Recovery System is 21.9. There are
no major power usage items in the Fiber Recovery System. The
major power usage items in the Fiber Recovery System are as
follows:
66
-------
6
en
•z,
3
i
360
320
280
2UO
200
160
120
80
UO
0
_ GALLONS WHITEWATER
— GALLONS PROCESS WATER
360
320
280
2UO
200
160
120
80
UO
CO
"0
M
O
O
w
en
CO
s
s
02 U 68 10 12 1»4 16 18 20 22 2U 26 28 30 32 3U 36 38
Time - Weeks
FIGURE 21 - WATER CONSUMPTIONS - FIBER RECOVERY
-------
oo
5.0
U.5
S u.o
x
| 3-5
B , o
EH J • v
EH
M
s
<
2.5
2.0
1.0
0.5
WHITEWATER/TON/TIME
PROCESS WATER/TON/TIME
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
t-3
O
a
o
I
U 6 8 10 12 111 16 18 20 22 2U 26 28 30
TIME - WEEKS
FIGURE 22 - WHITEWATER AND PROCESS WATER CONSUMPTION/TON REFUSE
INPUT TO FIBER RECOVERY*
"Average Weekly Values
-------
5
U
* 3
o
H
X
*
en
vo
I2
0 2
_ TOTAL Kwh/TIME
_ Kwh/TON/TIME
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
8 10 12 lit
16 18 20 22 2U 26
TIME - WEEKS
28 30 32 3»* 36 38
o
s
FIGURE 23 - POWER CONSUMPTION DATA/TON REFUSE INPUT TO FIBER RECOVERY
-------
FIBER RECOVERY EQUIPMENT HORSEPOWER
Selectifier Dilution Tank Agitator 10
Selectifier Dilution Tank Pump 40
Selectifier 100
Cleaner Supply Pump 75
Rejects Tank Pump 25
Stock Sump Pump 15
Whitewater Sump Pump 25
Screw Thickener 10
Cone Press 20
Fiber Dilution Tank Agitator 5
Fiber Pumps to Logan Long 30
As shown the majority of installed horsepower Fiber Recovery
System is used in the purification of the fiber. This represents
83% of the 405 horsepower present in the Fiber Recovery System.
Sixteen percent of the horsepower used in the Fiber Recovery
System is used for the dewaterinq and the transport of the
recovered fiber to the Logan Long Company.
5.4.5 Efficiency of Equipment in the Fiber Recovery System
There are three unit operations on which efficiencies can be
determined in the Fiber Recovery System; they are: the Selecti-
fier; centrifugal cleaners, and rundown screens.
The selectifier's function is to remove all contaminating
materials greater than 1/16 of an inch in diameter. The re-
moval efficiency of the selectifier can be determined by measur-
ing the amount of materials greater than 1/16 of an inch, that
are removed by the selectifier. The selectifier input and out-
puts were analyzed to determine the percentage of material
greater than 1/16 of an inch in each stream. The selectifier
removal efficiency was found to be 57.4%. This may be con-
sidered a low removal efficiency, however, it should be noted
that a high quality product is not required.
The centrifugal cleaners are designed to remove the dense gritty
material not removed by the liquid cyclone in the P & S sub-
system. The efficiency of the centrifugal cleaners was determined
70
-------
by grit analysis. Based on these analyses the centrifugal
cleaners have a removal efficiency of 28.6%. Although this
removal efficiency is low the glass and grit contamination
does not appear to have a great effect on the quality of the
fiber. The glass and grit contaminants (durable particulates)
affect the strength properties of the fiber only when the size
of the durable particulates approach the sheet thickness. The
rundown screens are designed to remove the bulk of the "fines"
in the centrifugal cleaner process stream. The "fines" de-
tract slightly from the strength properties of the resultant
sheet, but do add to the sheet weight and thickness. The
rundown screen efficiency for fines removal is 37.9%.
5.5 SUMMARY OF POWER USAGE
During the course of our study, the kilowatt hour consumption
was recorded for the hydrapulper, the Fiber Recovery System,
and the total plant. The D & I and plant usage was determined
by subtracting the kilowatt hours consumed by the hydrapulper
in the Fiber Recovery System from the total plant usage. Power
data was also obtained for the glass plant but these values
were backed out of the data on the following table. Thus, this
table represents data for the Franklin plant without the glass
plant.
POWER USAGE BY SYSTEM
SYSTEM AV. K.W. HR/WK. PERCENT OF TOTAL
1. Total Plant 28,100 100%
2. Pulping &
Separation 5,420 19.3%
3. Fiber Recovery 1,410 5.0%
4. Dewatering &
Incineration &
Plant Usage 21,300 75.7%
In looking at the average kilowatt hours per week and the per-
cent of the total kilowatt hours/week, it can be seen that the
Fiber Recovery System only accounted for 5% of the kilowatt
hours used. This can be explained in that the Fiber Recovery
System only contains 25% of the connected horsepower used in
the entire plant and by the fact that the Fiber Recovery System
did not operate to the extent that the P & S and D & I sub-
system operated. The hydrapulper consumed 19.3% of the total
kilowatt hours used in the plant and it represents 18.6% of
the connected horsepower on the plant, so this indicates a
fairly close correlation between the percent of power used for
71
-------
the percent of connected horsepower. The amounts of power
used in the entire plant as well as the percentages can be
seen more easily by looking at the pie diagram in Figure 24
as well as the power consumption graphs for the total kilowatt
hours, kilowatt hours hydrapulper and kilowatt hours Fiber
Recovery System. The tabular data used to plot these figures
and obtain percentages of power in the entire plant is in-
cluded in the Appendix of the report.
Table 6 lists the major electrically operated equipment by
system. It also includes all the major power users by sub-
system. The total connected horsepower in the plant is 1,617
horsepower. This is composed of 374 horsepower in the P & S
subsystem, 838 horsepower in the D & I subsystem and 405
horsepower in the Fiber Recovery System. This represents 23.1,
1.8, and 25% of the horsepower used per system respectively.
The major power user in the P & S subsystem is the hydrapulper.
This accounts for 85% of the horsepower in that subsystem.
The major horsepower requirement in the D & I subsystem is from
the fluidizing air blower serving the reactor. This repre-
sents 59.7% of the horsepower used in the D & I subsystem or
31% of connected horsepower in the entire plant.
The kilowatt hours per ton used in processing the refuse can
be summarized as follows. The average kilowatt hour per ton
used by the hydrapulper is 32.5. The average kilowatt per ton
input to the Fiber Recovery System is 21.9 kilowatt hours per
ton. If the total plant power usages is considered on the
basis of a ton input, its value has been determined to be an
average of 157 kilowatt hours/ton of refuse which is the input
to the P & S subsystem. This figure would not include the un-
processable material which is landfilled.
5.6 SUMMARY OF WATER USAGE
There are three types of water used in the Franklin Solid
Waste Plant. These are: Whitewater which is used for pulping
and transporting refuse materials; process water which is the
chlorinated final effluent of the Miami Conservancy Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant, and City water, which is the
potable water supply for the City of Franklin.
The Whitewater is used to provide pulping and transport media
for the refuse and for dilution of the cyclone process stream
to achieve easier processing in the Fiber Recovery System.
Process water is used for elutriation water in the cyclones
and centrifugal cleaners and for other clean water uses in
the plant.
72
-------
Pulping & Separation
and
Dewatering &
Incineration
This Figure represents the actual electrical power usage
for a nine months period.
The Total Average K.W. Hour/Week = 28,100 kwh.
FIGURE 24 - POWER USAGE IN THE FRANKLIN PLANT
73
-------
Table 6 -
MAJOR ELECTRICALLY OPERATED EQUIPMENT BY SYSTEM
P&S SUBSYSTEM (23.1%)
Conveyor 10 HP
Hydrapulper 301 HP
Junk Remober 10 HP
Hydrapulper Dump Pump 30 HP
Junk Washer 1 HP
Magnetic Separator 5 HP
Cyclone Recycle Pump 15 HP
Dewatering Screw 2 HP
TOTAL 374 HP
D & I SUBSYSTEM (51.8%
Surge Chest Agitator 50 HP
Surge Chest Pump 25 HP
Barrel Thickeners 45 HP
Screw Conveyor 3 HP
Whitewater Sump Pump 15 HP
Sludge Chest Agitator 20 HP
Sludge Pump 15 HP
Cone Press 80 HP
Sewage Sump Pump 15 HP
Screw Conveyor 3 HP
Rotary Valve 2 HP
Pneumatic Feed 50 HP
Reactor Blower 500 HP
Ash Pump 15 HP
TOTAL 838 HP
FIBER RECOVERY SYSTEM (25.0%)
Selectifier Dilution Tank Agitator 10 HP
Selectifier Dilution Tank Pump 40 HP
Selectifier 150 HP
Cleaners Supply Pump 75 HP
Rejects Tank Pump 25 HP
Stock Sump Pump 15 HP
Whitewater Sump Pump 25 HP
Screw Thickener 10 HP
Cone Press 20 HP
Fibre Dilution Tank Agitation 5 HP
Fibre Pumps to Logan Long 30 HP
TOTAL 405 HP
TOTAL PLANT 1,617 HP
74
-------
The city water is used in the venturi scrubber serving
the fluidized bed reactor.
The areas of water usage in the plant are outlined on Figure
25. This figure shows an area layout of the Franklin Solid
Haste Plant.
5.6.1 Whitewater Usage
Whitewater is added to the P & S subsystem by addition to the
hydrapulper to make a refuse slurry. The Whitewater added to
the pulper is done at two places. First, Whitewater is added
to the junk remover so that a countercurrent flow is es-
tablished, washing materials ejected from the pulper. Second-
ly, cyclone recycle water is added via a 4" hose directly in-
to the hydrapulper.
Whitewater is used in the Fiber Recovery System as dilution
water in the selectifier dilution tank. These are the only
two areas where Whitewater is used. The Whitewater is re-
covered from the refuse and recovered fiber slurries in the
dewatering phase of the Rydrasposal and Fiber Recovery Systems.
Whitewater is also recovered from the rundown screens in the
Fiber Recovery System although a considerable portion of this
reject stream is pumped to the Miami Conservancy District for
treatment.
The quantities of Whitewater used in the Franklin Plant are
plotted on Figure 26. The volume of Whitewater used in both
Hydrasposal and Fiber Recovery Systems are dependent upon the
quantity of material processed and the moisture content of the
input tonnage. The Whitewater distribution in the plant is
given as follows:
Ave. Gal/wk. Percent of Total
Total Whitewater Usage 926,000 100%
Pulping & Separation 815,000 88%
Fiber Recovery System 111,000 12%
The quantities of Whitewater used/ton of input material are
presented in Figures 27 and 21 for the Hydrasposal and Fiber
Recovery Systems respectively. The amount of Whitewater used/
ton of input averages 4,891 and 1,580 gal/ton for the Hydra-
sposal and Fiber Recovery Systems respectively.
5.6.2 Process Water Usage
Process water is used in the P & S subsystem for elutriation
water in the cyclone and also to cool the oil supply for the
hydrapulper motor.
75
-------
HYDRASPOSAL SYSTEM
(REFUSE)
SCALE
TIPPING FLOOR
CONVEYOR
PULPING & SEPARATION SUBSYSTEM
WHITEWATER
METAL
SEPARATOR
MAGS
NON
MAGS
TO SELECTIFIER OIL. TANK
OR SURGE CHEST
CYCLONE
WHITEWATER
PROCESS WATER
GRIT TO LANDFILL
PROCESS
WATER
DEWATERING & INCINERATION SUBSYSTEM
CONE
PRESS
SCREW
THICKENER
SURGE
CHEST
FLUIDIZED
BED
INCINERATOR
SCRUBBER
f
CITY WATER
76
-------
LANDFILL
Magnetics
Non-Mags.
FIBER
RECOVERY
REJECTS
FIBER RECOVERY SYSTEM
WHITEWATER
PROCESS WATER
i
SELECTIFIER
DILUTION
TANK
SELECTIFIER
CENTRIFUGAL
CLEANERS
CONE
PRESS
HYDRADENSER
RUNDOWN
SCREEN
FIBER
DILUTION
TANK
PROCESS WATER
LOGAN LONG PAPER COMPANY
TO ATMOSPHERE
FIGURE 25 - POINTS OF WHITEWATER AND
PROCESS WATER USAGE IN THE
FRANKLIN PLANT
77
-------
Pulping and Separation
88.0%
\
Fiber
Recovery 12.0
This Figure represents the actual Whitewater usage in a
six months total.
The Total Average Gallons of Whitewater per week = 926,000
gallons.
FIGURE 26 - WHITEWATER USAGE IN THE FRANKLIN PLANT
78
-------
c
o
EH
0)
•P
•H
(0
c
o
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
P & S Subsystem
Average Weekly Values
10 14 18
Time - Weeks
22
26
30
FIGURE 27 _ WHITEWATER USAGE PER TON OF REFUSE INPUT
TO THE P & S SUBSYSTEM
79
-------
The process water is used in the Fiber Recovery System as
elutriation water in the centrifugal cleaners and for the
sprays on the rundown screen. Process water is also used to
dilute the recovered fiber before it is pumped to the Logan
Long Company.
A negligible amount of process water is used in the D & I
subsystem to wash the screen on the cone press. This flow
averages 2 gpm which is not significant in the water balance.
The quantities of process water used in the Hydrasposal and
Fiber Recovery Systems are presented in Figures 28 and 22.
The volumes of process water used in each system is directly
dependent on the operating time for that system and the water
pressure available from the process water pump. The process
water usage in the plant is given as follows:
Ave. Gal/Wk. Percent of Total
Total Process Water Usage 405,100 100%
P & S 269,200 66.4%
Fiber Recovery System 125,000 30.8%
Plant Usage 10,900 2.7%
The quantity given for plant usage consists primarily of the
amount required for cleaning the plant.
The quantities of process water used/ton of input material are
Presented in Figures 22 and 20 for the Hydrasposal and Fiber
Recovery Systems. The amount of process water used/ton of
input averages 1,633 and 1,604 gal/ton respectively.
5.6.3 City Water Usage
City water is used only in the D & I subsystem as makeup water
for the venturi scrubber. Potable water is not required for
scrubber operation but it is used because there is no cost for
this water supply. The amount of city water used in the scrubber
averaged 2,557 gal/ton input to the D & I subsustern. This data
is depicted in Figure 30.
5.7 MAINTENANCE HISTORY DATA
It should be noted that the Franklin Solid Waste and Fiber
Recovery Plant is a large pilot operation and represents the
first plant of its kind in the world. As such, many equipment
modifications and changes would be incorporated in future plant
designs. The Franklin Solid Waste Plant, although a pilot
operation, has been able to continuously process refuse with-
out interruption.
80
-------
00
o
rH
X
(U
4-1
M
(0
(U
(0
c
o
-u
O
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
10 14 18 22
Time - Weeks
26
TOTAL
GALLONS
PROCESS H20
PER TON
30
34
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
38
O
O
3
ui
o
n
(0
CO
VI
rt
fl>
n
o
3
FIGURE 28 - PROCESS WATER PER TON REFUSE INPUT TO P&S SUBSYSTEM
-------
Fiber Recovery
31%
Pulping & Separation
Subsystem
66%
Glass Plant and
lant Maintenanc
This Figure represents actual process water usage for
a 23 week period.
The total gallons of process water/week = 391,000 Gallons
FIGURE 29 - PROCESS WATER USAGE IN THE FRANKLIN PLANT
82
-------
4500
4000
e
£ 3500
\
5 3000
* 2500
•H
<-> 2000
CO
C
0
1500
1000
500
Data
Not
Recorded
Average Weekly Values
10 14 18
Time - Weeks
22
26
30
FIGURE 30 - CITY WATER USAGE PER TON INPUT TO THE
D&I SUBSYSTEM
83
-------
The maintenance history for the Franklin Solid Waste Plant is
included in the Table 7. The items on this table are arranged
in a general flow pattern. The table is arranged by subsystem
or system. The repair item is listed on the left, the frequency
of occurance, and then the average hours required for repair of
that item.
5.7.1 Hydrapulper Maintenance
Problems most often associated with the operation of the hydra-
pulper are the failure of the stator attaching bolt and the
hammer retaining bolts. The rotor is located in the center of
the pulper and turns rotating the hammers. The hammers beat
against the stator chopping up the refuse. Both the stator and
the hammers are involved in pulping the refuse. As a result
these parts require more maintenance than other parts within
the pulper.
TABLE 7
MAINTENANCE HISTORY FOR FRANKLIN SOLID WASTE PLANT
January 1, 1975 to September 31, 1975
List Maintenance Estimated.
Repair Work Frequency Repair Time in hrs.
PULPING & SEPARATION
General Pulper Maintenance 4 3.5
Pulper Stator Bolt 10 2
Pulper Motor Bearings 1 2 to 3 days*
Pulper Rotor 5 1.0
Plugging of Whitewater line
to Pulper 8 1.5
Dump Pump 5 4.5
Junk Remover Cleaning 10 1.75
Repair of Junk Remover Bucket 6 1.0
Junk Washer 1
Conveyor carrying Junk Remover 1
P.S.
Cyclone Plugging & Replacement
of Cyclone Lining 15 .75
Plugging of Process Water 2 .5
Line to Cyclone
Cyclone Recycle Pump 1
Cyclone rejects dewatering 3 1.75
Screw Jammed
Solid Waste Sump Pump #122 1
*scheduled maintenance downtime
84
-------
TABLE 7 (continued)
List Maintenance
Repair Work
Frequency-
Estimated
Repair Time in hrs.
DEWATERING & INCINERATION
Brushes on the screw thickener
motor 1
Thickener basket shearing
bolt 1
Rotary Valve 2
Clogging of sludge line 3
Press Motor 1
Pneumatic Blower Motor 1
FIBER RECOVERY
Replacement of Whitewater
H20 Valve at Selectifier
Dilution Tank 1
Selectifier Basket 1
Plugging of Selectifier reject
line 1
Cleaners Feed Pump 1
Brushes on the screw thickener 1
motor
Recovered Fiber Pump 1
Whitewater Pump 1
8
.5
.75
I
.5
.5
4
.3
2.5
At least twice a month it was necessary to do general maintenance
work on the pulper. This involved cleaning the pulper by re-
moving unwanted tires, wires, and other unpulpable balls which
are formed by the action of the pulper. These materials are
removed from the pulper by means of an overhead crane: and land-
filled.
The dump pump removes the refuse slurry from the base plate of
the pulper and pumps it to the cyclone. Due to the abrasive
nature of this slurry, the impeller on the dump pump is worn
out quickly and needs to be replaced often. Another problem
which has occasionally occured with the operation of this pump
is blockage due to quantities of fiber and rags and plastics.
These materials attach themselves to the impeller of the dump
pump and reduce the flow to the cyclone. As a result of this,
the cyclone does not operate efficiently.
The cyclone has been observed to plug frequently. This results
from a piece of wire or a metal strip clogging the grit dis-
charge portion of the cyclone. The second problem associated
with the cyclone is the high wear which occurs due to the
85
-------
abrasive character of the glass being removed by the cyclone.
This results in the wearing out and tearing of the rubber
lining in the cyclone. This causes inefficient operation of
the cyclone and as a result the rejects contain a high fiber
content and too much grit is contained in the cyclone process
stream. This liner problem is close to solution and is mainly
a materials problem. One problem with the transport of the
cyclone rejects to the glass plant is the overflow of the de-
watering screw carrying this material. This screw was not de-
signed to handle the flow from the present cyclone. It has
been replaced since the end of the study period with improved
results.
The junk remover frequently jams. This is due to the spillage
of material off the bucket which accumulates and stops its
operation. Additional damage is caused to the system when the
blockage shears off buckets from the chain. A second problem
with the junk remover is the accumulation of mud and other
settable materials in the bottom of the junk remover even with
the existing countercurrent flow of Whitewater in the junk re-
mover.
5.7.2 The Dewatering and Incineration Subsystem
The rotary valve feeds the cone press process stream into the
pneumatic line which carries this material to the reactor.
Blockages occur in the feed chute to the rotary valve as a
result of the air passing up through the feed chute. Plastics
have been blown out on the floor, and because of this the screw
conveyor connecting the cone press and the pneumatic feeder has
been covered.
Clogging of the sludge line occurred several times during the
study. This is the result of a failure of the agitator in the
sludge chest. This agitator was extremely difficult to repair
because the sludge chest had to be emptied before making re-
pairs. Emptying of the sludge chest was difficult because of
the thick nature of the material at the bottom of the chest.
5.7.3 The Fiber Recovery System
One problem which occurred in this system during the course
of our study was the failure of the selectifier basket. When
this failure occurred all of the subsequent process streams in
the Fiber Recovery System became contaminated as did the hold-
ing tank and the Logan Long Company. This required four hours
to repair and only occurred once during the course of the study.
86
-------
5.8 RECOVERED MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION
The major recovered products at the Franklin Resource Re-
covery Center are magnetic metals, aluminum, glass, and fiber.
The discussion which follows includes product marketability,
identification, and utilization, of magnetic metal and fiber.
Marketability of these recovered resources is highly variable
depending upon quality and market supply and demand. An allied
factor modifying marketability is the cost competition of virgin
raw material resources which these recovered resource products
are supplanting. As the virgin raw materials increase in cost,
the recovered resources will gain inroads in these markets.
The current economic situation has caused dramatic downward
changes in demand and product prices, during the past six
months. The data compiled for product prices and demand is
based on values obtained largely during the summer months of
1974, which vary widely from the current volatile conditions.
Overall, prices and demand for recovered products are very low
at this writing. In the following sections identification,
marketability and uses for each recovered product are dis-
cussed in detail.
5.8.1 Ferrous
The magnetics recovery stream of the Franklin Plant consists
primarily of steel cans with smaller fractions consisting of
steel wire, bottle tops, bars, sheets, small household ap-
pliances, and miscellaneous castings.
Categorization of the input stream of the Franklin Plant has
shown that it consists of 9.8% of by weight of magnetic metals.
The junk remover and magnetic separator collect 9.6% of the
input by weight, and 95.8% of this reject stream is magnetic.
Therefore, of all available magnetics contained in the input
refuse, 93.8% of these are recovered.
A breakdown of the major categories in the magnetic recovery
fraction follows on a percent-by-weight of recovered pro-
ducts basis:
MAGNETIC MATERIALS
Tin Cans 65.0%
Bottle & Jar Caps 2.1%
Metal ends from Paper and
Metal Cans 0.4%
Miscellaneous Ferrous 19.2%
Metal Cans with Aluminum Tops 11.4%
Organic Contaminants 1.6%
Nonmagnetic Metals 0.2%
87
-------
Physical testing of the magnetic materials presented above
shows that the recovery stream contains the following:
Moisture 3.9%
Volatile Solids 1.51%
Magnetic Materials 95.8%
Magnetic recovery is accomplished by a magnetic belt position-
ed above the stream carrying the mixed junks. The product re-
covered has a high percent of impurities. It is normally bi-
metallic and impurities in this context are tin, copper, zinc,
aluminum, chrome, steels, solder material and coated steel.
There is no special classification for this type of iron scrap.
Generally, it may be classified as a secondary grade scrap.
Marketability for this scrap grade is variable because of the
indefinite classification. Currently, the recovered magnetics
are sold on the basis of prorated price for No. 2 bundles,
though not classified as No. 2 bundles.
The price for this scrap varies from $13 to $25 per ton when
demand is high. This grade of scrap is normally the least
desirable of all other available scrap.
Armco Steel Company of Middletown, Ohio, was buying this scrap
iron for a price of $15 per ton in the early stages of the
Franklin Plant's operation. This scrap was added to and melted
with scrap from other sources. Later the GiHerman Iron and
Metal Company of St. Louis, MO., began purchasing the scrap
for use in its foundries and steel mills.
Because this scrap is high in tin content, it is not steel-
making-grade scrap. It can be used in producing reinforcing
bars for construction, and to a limited extent, for structural
steel. The uses of this scrap are limited because of the
impurities. It is used in a small fraction of everything pro-
duced in a foundry or steel mill. Conventional furnaces are
normally used for melting this material. Removal of impurities
would upgrade the product enduse.
5.8.2 Fiber
The Fiber Recovery System of the Franklin Plant was originally
designed as an add-on capability for processing, rather than
incinerating, the cyclone process stream. The fibrous fraction
of the process stream is currently used by the Logan Long
Company in the manufacture of asphalt saturated papers. The
proximity of the plant and nature of the slurry allow ready
transpost via pipeline to the Logan Long Company. The Logan
Long Company's normal stock consists of 45% mixed paper, 30%
corrugated paper, and 25% newspaper and wood stock. The
properties needed in a fiber used for making roofing felt are
tensile strength, and absorptivity for kerosene. The corrugated
88
-------
component adds tensile strength; newspaper adds absorptivity.
The recovered paper fiber of the Franklin Plant has proven to
be a direct substitute for the normal paper stock used by the
Logan Long Company.
Marketing the recovered fiber in this instance proved for-
tunate for both the Franklin Plant and the Logan Long Company.
Other markets exist for the fiber as-produced, and within
narrow ranges withstanding major equipment modifications, the
recovered fiber stream characteristics can be varied. The
output of the Recovery System is presently "optimized" for
Logan Long's requirements. The recovery efficiency of the
Fiber Recovery System is 48.9% of the available fiber in the
input.
The recovered fiber was examined for bacterial contamination
and other physical parameters. The following data were collect-
ed:
1. Oil and Grease 2460 mg/1
2. Total Plate Count 427 x 106/ml
3. Fecal Coliform 1.3 x 106/100 ml
4. After Dilution in
Fiber Chest Total Solids 3.94%
Moisture 96.1%
5.9 MATERIAL BALANCE OF THE FRANKLIN SOLID WASTE PLANT
During the first six months of our study, mass balances were
maintained on a daily basis for the entire plant as well as
the systems within it. These data were averaged over this time
period and are presented in Figure 31 as a material balance
diagram. These data represent the actual operating data for
this time period.
The average weekly operating time for the P & S Subsystem was
24.2 hours. During the same period the operating time for the
Fiber Recovery System averaged 16.1 hours. This difference in
operating times indicate that the Fiber Recovery System was not
operating on a full time basis. The down time in the Fiber
Recovery System was largely due to the inability of the customer
to receive the recovered fiber. As a result of the down time
in the Fiber Recovery System this material balance diagram does
not represent the optimum operation of the Franklin Solid Waste
Plant. Optimum operation would entail Fiber Recovery operating
on a one to one basis with P & S subsystem. This would elimin-
ate the cyclone process stream being diverted to the D & I
subsystem for disposal. This change would have an effect on the
89
-------
vo
o
H-
vQ
C
n
O (D
ft
tr
(D
PI ft
y n>
p. 01
3 H
TJ CO
ft 3
I O
>-3 (D
O
ft O
pj H.
H D»
vQ
h
F
PROCESS WATER TO CYCLONE - IcK
RECYCLED TO HYORAPULPER
. . TONS
CYCLONE REJECT STR
' 186
MAGNETIC JUNK
MB TONS*
CITY
(GRIT) ,
TONS
IBI.800 GAL
WATER
NON- MAGNETIC JUNK
77 TONS A SLUDGE
UNPROCESSABLE JUNK DIREC
~T
CYCLONE. PROCESS. STR .,
IEFWX „ MYOPASPOSAI A JOBS. TONS
I TON! (WETI * /HYORAPULPER\
J4500 GAL. , I SYSTEM )
_LSS_TONS* N '
f\f
OPERATION TIME 24 2 MRS
CYCLONE Rl
_L8°_TONS
LY TO SURGE CHEST^
186 TONS
THICKENED
J9JLTONS
PROCESS I20JDOO GAL
WATER .£! TONS'
N 81,000 GAL
_5i_ TONS'
LOST WHEN USING
FIBERCLAIM TO THICK!
GLASS RECOVERY
SYSTEM
OPERATION TIME MDS
HYORASPOSAL B
(REACTOR SYSTEM)
OPERATION TIME l6* HRS
t '
333 TONS
FIBER RECOVERY
SYSTEM
OPERATION TIME >& ' MRS
N 36 TONS
FINE REJECTS
:JECTS OVERFLOW 2'2 TONS
WHITE WATER TO 81,000 GAL
FIBER RECOVERY 34 TQNS
WHITE WATER TO HYDRAPULPER I0IO.OOO GAL
34 Z TOM*
WHITE WATER TO MCD 2520OO GAL
I J03_TONS
\ \ ' V
WHITE WATER
SYSTEM
» GREEN GLASS TONS
A«Jrt
-------
amount of recovered fiber as well as the operation of the
D & I subsystem. Operation of the Fiber Recovery System full
time would mean that all the input to the D & I subsystem
would be as rejects from the Fiber Recovery Process.
The operation in the glass plant was intermittant during
this period and it could be safely said that when it did
operate it was not operating under optimum conditions. As
a result, the limited data collected for the glass plant was
omitted.
From Figure 31, representing average operating conditions, it
can be seen that 7.5% of the dry weight tonnage input to the
Franklin Plant is unprocessable material removed on the tipping
floor. An additional 15.7% of the input refuse is removed by
the junk remover. Of this, 60% is recovered as magnetic materials
(9.5% of input refuse). The liquid cyclone removes 15.2% of
the input tonnage and directs it to the glass plant the re-
maining of the input refuse is directed to the Fiber Recovery
System when it is operating.
It should be noted that a high percentage (8.3%) of the input
refuse is contained in the Whitewater which flows to the Miami
Conservancy District Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant and
received biological treatment the useable fiber which is re-
covered and pumped to the Logan Long Company represents 12.6%
of the input refuse. Of this 11.0% is suspended fiber material.
Approximately 40.8% of the input refuse is disposed of in the
reactor.
The second material balance diagram(Figure 32)indicates the
breakdown of the refuse using a one ton wet weight input. Since
the material is on a wet weight basis and our moisture content
was 29.4%, the actual dry weight input to the P & S subsystem
was .706 tons. This diagram represents optimum operation of
the plant in that none of the cyclone process stream is direct-
ly disposed of in the D & I subsystem.
The same percentages of material are recovered in the P & S
magnetic junk and the same percentages of material are found in
the non-magnetic junk and unprocessable material in the input
to the system. The only real change which comes with the optimum
operation of the plant is the operation of the Fiber Recovery
System. It should be noted that the optimum operation of the
plant affects the following differences:
1. Increased fiber yield is obtained
2. The amount of Whitewater treated in the wastewater
treatment plant is increased
3. The input to the D & I Subsystem is reduced, and thus
the reactor operation time, and quantities of city
water, and ash slurry are reduced.
91
-------
\o
to
O *fl
Hi H-
ft C
0> (D
*J
(U
ro
I
H- PJ
M h
M H-
PJ 0)
3 »-•
rt
I td
O Di
3 M
(D D)
3
4 O
o ro
3
O
H H-
3 01
'OiQ
C K
ft ft
RECYCLED TO HYDRAPULPER
.TONS
CYCLONE REJECT STR (GRIT)
MAGNETIC JUNK
_,2fifl_TONS i i
NON- MAGNETIC JUNK
.044 TONS
UNPROCESSABLE JUNK
_flS2TONS
JQ&.TONS (DRY)'
_LQ_TONS (WET)*
546 CAL
JONT
J22_ TONS
CITY
GLASS RECOVERY
SYSTEM
RATION TIME
-» FLINT TONS
» GREEN CiaSS TOH9
»AMBER GLASS TONS
» ALUMINUM TONS
» MAGNETIC METAL TONS
•LANOFILLEOJOZTONS
WATCR
SLUDGE
TONS
HYORASPOSAL A
/HYDRAPULPER\
\ SYSTEM J
8 mm 17 I
OPERATION TIME
DIRECTLY TO SURGE CHEST.,
Q TONS
THICKENED
CYCLONE PROCESS STR
JSS—TONS
HYORASPOSAL B
(REACTOR SYSTEM)
9 irin 27 nc
OPERATION TIME JI9
.TONS
PROCESS 009« C41
WATER .3SI_TONSH
ASH SLURRY
TO MCO
FINE REJECTS
.OO77 TONS
SSi-fOHS
RBER RECOVERY RESULTS
FIBER RECOVERY
SYSTEM
8mlnl7i«c
RATION TIME IM HRS
LOST WHEN USING
FIBERCLAIM TO THICKEN
CYCLONE REJECTS OVERFLOW
94* TONS
WHITE WATER TO
936 GAL
FIBER RECOVERY
2222. TONS
WHITE WATER TO HYPRAPULPER
WHITE WATER TO MCO
_JSfi.TONS
2539 CAL
059
TONS
FINE REJECTS
189 TONS
RECOVERED FIBER
_J3§_ TONS TOTAL
J2L_ TONS FIBER
WHITE WATER
SYSTEM
•ALL WEIGHTS ARE OVEN DRY BASS
EXCEPT THE REFUSE TONS (WET)
WHICH IS ON AS RECEIVED BASIS
-------
As is evident from this diagram the Fluid Bed Reactor only
operates 65% of the operating time of the other two systems.
This is because of: 1) the recovery and disposal of materials
which do not require input to the reactor and 2) the higher
dewatering and incineration capacity of the D & I subsystem.
5.10 HEAT AND ASH CONTENT DATA
The heat values of the recovered products and individual
streams within the Franklin Plant are of interest from the
standpoint of using these materials as a possible fuel source
and in determining a heat balance within the plant. For this
reason the heat contents of individual streams have been de-
termined using standard bomb calorimetry techniques. The heat
contents are reported on both an oven dry basis and a wet basis.
All reported heat contents are the "higher heating values" or
gross heats of combustion because the heat from condensation
of the water vapor resulting from the combustion of hydrogen
in the samples is included. The following table presents
average heat contents for the streams listed. The ash and
moisture contents are included for comparison.
Heat Content Heat Content Ash *
Moisture Dry Basis Wet Basis Content
Process Stream % BTU/# BTU/# %
Surge Chest P.S.
Sludge
Cyclone P.S.
Cyclone R.S.
Fiber Recovery
Press P.S.
97.3
91.4
97.0
11.1
59.1
7383
7636
7221
417
7187
D & I Press
Process Stream
51.8
8600
- 807
- 241
- 785
252.7
+2337
+ 3600
22.3
44.7
23.4
93.6
10.2
24.5
The D & I Press Process Stream has a relatively high heat value.
This is due to a lower moisture content and thus a lower con-
centration of dissolved (noncombustible) salts,
The laboratory procedure used in determining the ash content
listed in the above table was the procedure outlined in the
"Thirteenth Edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water-and Wastewater." This procedure specifies test conditions
of 550° C for a time period long enough to obtain a constant
weight. This procedure is not universally followed for ash
determinations of fuels. As a result of the absence of a uniform
test procedure the above values could appear to be high for
processed solid waste due to variations in test methods.
*The ash content data is given on a dry weight basis.
93
-------
Analysis were conducted to determine the variation in ash
contents with variation in test condition the following re-
sults were obtained by analysis of the same sample of cone
press process stream at different test conditions.
SAMPLE TEMPERATURE TIME % ASH
1 600°C 20 min 18.1%
2 800°C 30 min 14.5%
3 950°C 45 min 10.8%
It is obvious from these results that a decrease in ash con-
tent occurs with increasing temp and time of heating. This
table offers an explanation of apparent variations in ash
contents which have been reported by other investigators.
Figure 33 represents a heat balance for the Franklin Solid
Waste Plant. This figure will give rough idea as to the
distribution of total heat value within the plant. Assuming
that the unprocessable junk and the junk remover rejects have
no significant heating value then the heat content of the input
refuse can be calculated from the sum of the heat values given
for the cyclone process stream and the input refuse based on
these values the heat content of the input refuse is 9,022,000
BTU/Ton or 4,5111 BTU/#. The outputs from the P & S subsystem,
the cyclone rejects and the cyclone process stream, contain
126,768 BTU/T processed and 8,896,000 BTU/T processed respec-
tively. The cyclone rejects contains only 1.5% of the heat
content of the input refuse. This low heat value is to be
expected because the purpose of this unit operation is to re-
move inert materials. Indeed this verifies that most of the
material in this stream is inert matter and not combustible
material. The total amount of material realistically available
for energy use is contained in the cyclone process stream.
On a practical basis, the cyclone rejects would not be used as
a source of heat because of their low heat value and high ash
contant.
If the Fiber Recovery System is operating, the amount of fiber
recovered per ton of refuse input is .195 tons. This recovered
fiber has a BTU content of 7200 BTU/lb which is equivalent to
a heat output of 2,830,000 BTU/T processed. If the Fiber
Recovery System operates the total BTU input to the D & I sub-
system is 6,314,000 BTU/T processed. In the operation of the
Fiber Recovery System approximately 31% of the available heat
energy is removed in the recovered fiber. It should be rioted
that 0.083 tons or 8.3% of the input tonnage to the system has
contained in the Whitewater flows to the Miami Conservancy
Treatment Plant. The BTU lost in these 0.083 tons per ton
processed is approximately 714,000 BTU/T processed.
94
-------
Unprocessable Junk
.075 Tons
Input Refuse
1.0 Ton
u>
in
P & S
Subsystem
Junk Remover Rejects **.158 Tons
Cyclone 417 BTU/#
Rejects .152 Tons
Total BTU - 126,768
Wastewater
Treatment Plant
.083 Tons
Assume 4300 BTU/#
D & I Subsystem
Reactor Input = 8000 BTU/#
.35 Tons = 5,600,000 Total BTU
Or
White-
Water
System
^
k
C
j
Sludge = 7636 BTU/#
.0145 Tons
Total BTU = 221,000
Fiber
Recovery
System
I
Fiber
Recovery
Rejects
Total BTU
6,093,000
BTU/# 7250
Recovered Fiber
7187 BTU/#
.195 Tons
Total BTU =
2,803,000
42 Tons
*Dry Weight Basis/**Assume No Significant Heating Value
FIGURE 33 - HEAT BALANCE DIAGRAM*
-------
6.0 RESULTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION OF THE FRANKLIN
SOLID WASTE PLANT
6.1 INTRODUCTION
The major impact of the Franklin Solid Waste and Fiber
Recovery Plant is the beneficial effect that it produces
by reducing the land disposal of solid waste stream and a
sewage sludge stream and by the recovery of valuable
resources. This of course must be weighed against the
environmental impact of the various streams resulting from
the operation of the plant.
The environmental impact of the Franklin Solid Waste and
Fiber Recovery Plant on air quality can best be character-
ized by the evaluation of the gaseous emissions from the
fluidized bed incinerator. Three tests have been conducted
previously on this unit. Section 5.2 will discuss these
tests results.
The environmental impact of this plant with respect to
water quality can be best accomplished by characterizing the
influent and effluent flows to the solid waste plant. There
are two influent flows; 1) the City water which is used in
the operation of the scrubber and 2) the chlorinated effluent
from the Miami Conservancy Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant.
There are three effluent flows from the Solid Waste and Fiber
Recovery Plant. These are: 1) the ash slurry which is the
scrubber effluent from the venturi scrubber serving the
fluidized bed reactor; 2) Whitewater from the fiber recovery
operation; 3) Whitewater which is the expressed liquid from
the thickener process stream removed in the cone press.
Finally an occupational safety and health evaluation was
conducted with respect to industrial hygiene and noise and
the results are presented in Sections 5.6,5.7, and 5.8.
6.2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY
The effect on air quality from the Franklin Solid Waste and
Fiber Recovery Plant can be determined by evaluating the
emissions from the fluidized bed incinerator. Three exhaust
gas emission tests were conducted by Environmental Sciences,
Inc. The tests were conducted from December 28, 1971, to
January 1, 1972.
Although three tests were conducted, compliance determinations
can be made only on the basis of the last two tests. This
is because no feed rate to the incinerator was determined in
the first emissions tests, and compliance determinations
are made on the basis of feed rate. The Federal Standard
96
-------
for particulate matter which applies to new source performance
standards for incincerators states. .. "that no owner or operator
. . . shall discharge or cause the discharge into the atmosphere
of particulate matter which is in excess of 0.08 grains per
standard cubic foot (0.18 grams/NM^) corrected to 12 percent
C02 maximum two hour average". The Federal Regulation also
states that, "all performance tests shall be conducted while
the affected facility is operating at or above the maximum
refuse charging rate at which such facility will be operated,
and the solid waste burned shall be representative of normal
operation and under such relevant conditions as the admin-
istrator shall specify".
The Ohio Standards, which are more strict than the Federal
Standards, specify an emission rate of not more than 0.10
pounds particulate emission for every 100 pounds of material
incinerated. The Environmental Sciences report indicated
a feed rate of 80 pounds per minute or 4800 pounds per hour.
Therefore, the allowable emission rate for the fluidized
bed incinerator is 4.80 pounds per hour. The calculated
particulate rate from the second and third emissions
tests are 6.90 and 4.70 pounds of particulate per hour.
However, the calculated particulate emission rate which
includes the condensable portion of the particulate matter
is no longer included in the emission rate for compliance
determinations for the Federal or State regulations. Therefore,
the dry particulate rate of 3.31 and 2.75 pounds per hour
should be used for compliance determination. Based on these
emission rates the emissions from the fluidized bed incinerator
do comply with current Ohio Air Pollution control regulations.
For comparison with the Federal Standards, the particulate
emission rate is given in concentration values corrected to
12 percent CO,, According to the Environmental Sciences
data the percent by volume of ۩2 on test 2 and 3 averaged
8.5% on a dry gas basis. This value is used to correct to
12 percent CX^. The correction is as follows:
The particulate concentration at 12 percent C02 =
(0.043 GR/SDCF) (12% CO0) = .0607 GR/SDCF
8.5% C02
Since the particulate emission rate of .0607 grains per
standard dry cubic foot is less than 0.08 grains per standard
cubic foot the emissions from the fluidized bed incinerator
appear to meet the new source performance standards for
incinerators.
Although the emissions from the incinerator appear to meet
97
-------
all applicable standards, it should be noted that the tests
were not conducted at maximum rated capacity of the in-
cinerator and the test methods outlined both in the Federal
Register and the Ohio Air Pollution Control codes were not
followed in obtaining the sample. Specifically, both
Federal and State regulations require the test to be conducted
at the maximum burning rate of the incinerator. These tests
were conducted at the normal operating rate of the incinerator.
Also, both Federal and State stationary source testing procedures
for particulate matter on circular ducts specify that two sample
ports shall be used. Only one sample port was used downstream
from the venturi scrubber. This would not correspond to either
Federal or State regulations. The isokinetic ratios for the
samples collected on test number 2 and 3 on the outlet to the
venturi scrubber are within acceptable present day standards
that the compliance with existing standards would be achieved
on the emission rate.
6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON WATER QUALITY
The impact on water quality can be assessed by evaluating
the influent and effluent flows from the solid waste plant.
Liquid inputs to the solid waste plant consist mainly of
process water and city water. The process water is obtained
from the chlorinated final effluent of the Miami Conservancy
Wastewater Treatment Plant. City water is obtained from the
municipal water supply for the City of Franklin. A third
input is the moisture contained in the input refuse and
sewage sludge.
There are three outputs from the solid waste plant which
flow to the adjacent sewage treatment plant, and one liquid
output (with recovered fiber) that is pumped to the Logan
Long Company. The streams to the wastewater treatment plant
consist of; the flows from the sewage sump in the D & I
subsystem; The ash slurry from the venturi scrubber; and
the flow from the Whitewater sump in the fiber recovery system.
The primary characteristics of each stream are contained in
the following tables.
From the following table it is seen that the ash slurry
consists largely of biologically inert, well-oxidized,
suspended and dissolved solids.
This output stream (ash slurry) is not affected by biological
treatment except for nutrient (NH.,-N, PO*) utilization. It
does not require biological treatment ana only sedimentation
or primary treatment for suspended solids removal is needed.
The sewage sump receives the expressed liquid from the
cone press. This liquid contains a liquid portion of the
sludge as well as the liquid portion of the barrel thickener
98
-------
Table 8 - ASH SLURRY
Parameter
Flow
Water Temp.
PH FLD
Turbidity Lab
Conductivity Lab
PH Lab
Alkalinity
Hardness
Chlorides
Sulfates
Total Solids
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
TOT PHOSPHORUS
C-BOD2
C-BOD5
C-BOD7
C-BOD10
C-BOD15
C-BOD20
TOC
COD
Units
MGD
Cent.
JTU
MICRO-MHO
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
Average
Value
0.01
31.00
5.40
2841.36
2424.50
8.28
357.53
957.84
526.25
662.15
8430.46
2826.46
5453.15
3.03
3.23
27.42
7.90
18.22
22.62
27.60
37.62
45.37
66.84
356.84
99
-------
TABLE 9 - SEWAGE SUMP
Parameter
Flow
Water Temp.
PH FLD
Dissolved Oxygen
Turbidity Lab
Conductivity Lab
PH LAB
Alkalinity
Hardness
Chlorides
Sulfates
Total Solids
Dissolved Solids
Suspended Solids
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrate Nitrogen
Tot Phosphorus
C-BOD2
C-BOD5
C-BOD7
C-BOD10
C-BOD15
C-BOD20
TOC
COD
Units
MGD
Cent.
mg/1
JTU
MICRO-MHO
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
Average
Value
0.
13.
4.
4.
1819.
2777.
5.
422.
950.
. 356.
477.
7214.
3224.
2882.
27.
0.
22.
1261.
2660.
2907.
3239.
3843.
4189.
1351.
6798.
0420
33
80
00
09
63
68
18
18
63
50
54
45
00
40
68
18
20
00
55
66
88
00
81
90
100
-------
process stream. This stream is similar to the stream
obtained from the Whitewater sump in the fiber recovery
system. This is understandable because the majority of
the liquid being removed from the barrel thickener process
stream consists of the Whitewater in the refuse slurry.
One difference between these two streams is that the white-
water sump which contains the water passing through the
slotted rundown screen is higher in suspended solids. The
opening on these screens are .020 inch and as a result the
suspended solids is approximately 1.7 greater than that
ound in the sewage sump. Since both the sewage sump flow
and the flow from the Whitewater sump contain quite a large
amount of Whitewater, the characteristics given in Table
for the Whitewater could be applied to both these flows.
Both the streams from the sewage and Whitewater sumps could
be considered to be the equivalent of concentrated industrial
waste streams. Although their combined flows average 157,000
gallons per day, the BOD5 loading is 3,665 pounds of BOD5
per day, representing a population equivalent of 21,600
people. Combined suspended solid loading from the sewage
and Whitewater sumps average 5,623 pounds suspended solids
per day. Nutrient concentrations in these effluent streams
are not much higher than the normal range expected for do-
mestic wastewater.
lc should be noted that in considering the amounts of material
from each stream that the fiber recovery stream contributed
81 percent of the suspended solids and 73 percent of the BOD
of the streams effluent from the plant.
The two waste streams from the plant which require treatment
contain moderate amounts of heavy metals. In a conventional
wastewater treatment plant these concentrations of heavy
metals would not greatly effect biological treatment processes
if sufficient dilution were provided in the wastewater treat-
ment plant. Even if these two waste streams made up the major
flow to a small treatment facility, there is a strong possi-
bility that the bacteria in the secondary treatment processes
would become acclimated to the metal contents in the streams.
Composite samples were taken from the Whitewater system, a
fraction of which flows to the Miami Conservancy Wastewater
Treatment Plant. The average analysis results from these
collected samples are given in the following table.
It should be noted that the analysis performed on the streams
from the solid waste plant are for total metals, and would
include the suspended as well as the dissolved materials.
Even so, these values are higher than those encountered in
normal domestic wastewater.
101
-------
TABLE 10 - WHITEWATER SUMP
Average
Parameter Units Value
Flow MGD 0.11
Water Temp. Cent. 28.60
Dissolved Oxygen mg/1 7.60
Turbidity Lab JTU 2436.89
Conductivity Lab MICRO-MHO 2398.04
PH Lab 5.78
Alkalinity mg/1 334.27
Hardness mg/1 730.18
Chlorides mg/1 343.04
Sulfates mg/1 273.54
Total Solids mg/1 7195.91
Dissolved Solids mg/1 2822.90
Suspended Solids mg/1 4795.00
Ammonia Nitrogen mg/1 28.85
Nitrate Nitrogen mg/1 0.45
TOT Phosphorus mg/1 20.01
C-BOD2 mg/1 1556.78
C-BOD5 mg/1 2840.00
C-BOD7 mg/1 3525.42
C-BOD10 mg/1 3948.21
C-BOD15 mg/1 4608.26
C-BOD20 mg/1 5123.20
TOC mg/1 2271.94
COD mg/1 8954.30
102
-------
TABLE 11 WHITEWATER CHARACTERISTICS VS DOMESTIC SEWAGE
METAL
METAL
Cadmium
Manganese
Zinc
Nickel
Iron
Lead
Tin
Chromium
Copper
AVERAGE CONCENTRATION
WHITEWATER SYSTEM
92
495
557
3,990
3,990
6,225
190
700
11
.5 yg/1
.0 yg/1
.0 yg/1
.0 yg/1
.0 yg/1
.0 yg/1
.0 yg/1
.0 yg/1
. 4 mg/1
AVERAGE CONCENTRATION
NORMAL DOMESTIC SEWAGE
40 yg/1
200 yg/1
1.0 mg/1
250.0 yg/1
300.0 yg/1
250.0 yg/1
200.0 yg/1
The metal concentrations in the Whitewater system were very
high compared to normal domestic sewage. The heavy metal
concentrations in the Whitewater system are compared with
those expected in normal domestic sewage in Table 11 above.
It should be noted that the analyses performed on the streams
from the solid waste plant are for total metals, and would
include the suspended as well as the dissolved materials.
Even so, these values are approximately twice as high as
those encountered in normal domestic wastewater. This water
is sent to the MCD for treatment and further removal following
effluent stream analysis.
103
-------
6.4 CLOSED LOOP OPERATION
The Franklin Solid Waste Plant operates in conjuction with
the wastewater treatment plant by exchanging large volumes
of process water, Whitewater, and ash slurry water, and
by accepting sewage sludge for final disposal. To test
the feasibility of operating a solid waste plant indepen-
dently of the wastewater treatment plant, a closed loop
test was conducted at the Franklin Solid Waste Plant from
Tuesday, October 30, to Friday, November 16, 1973. These
tests were conducted to demonstrate the effects of total
water recycle in the operation of the Hydrasposal system
and to provide operating data which more closely approxi-
mated the conditions planned for the Hempstead, Long Island,
Solid Waste Plant. Special attention was given to suspended
and dissolved solids, pH, acidity, and temperature conditions
in the Whitewater system and to the dewatering efficiency
of the thickener and cone press at higher solids concentrations.
The test conditions involved processing refuse at a high
rate for five day period separated by two days downtime,
(10 day test). The Fiber Recovery System was shut down
throughout the test period and no sludge was disposed of
in The Dewatering and Incineration Subsystem. No water was
sent to the wastewater treatment plant. The only water input
to the solid waste plant was contained in the moisture con-
tent of the refuse and makeup water which was added at the
operators discretion to the Whitewater chest. The output
of water from this system was the fluidized bed reactor.
The water obtained from the dewaterinq of the cvclone pro-
cess stream in the D&I subsystem was used for dilution
water in the hydrapulper during the closed loop operation.
A portion of the liquid expressed in the cone press was
filtered and used as elutriation water in the liquid cyclones.
The scrubber ash slurry and glass plant reject water were
kept separate from the water used in the Hydrasposal system
and pumped to the wastewater treatment plant. The test was
maintained until equilibrium conditions were achieved, (two
weeks). The results of these closed loop tests are as follows;
1) the dissolved solids level reached equilibrium at 6 or 7
percent solids, 2) the solids content in the cone press pro-
cess stream averaged 50 percent, 3) the total solids content
in the Whitewater system during this time was recuced some-
what by bacterial action. Apparently the Whitewater system
is aerobic and thus the aerobic bacteria help reduce the total
solids content. The products of aerobic bacteria would be
CO, and water, and thus, would help remove dissolved organic
materials similar to what occurs in conventional activated
104
-------
sludge process. The water used during this closed loop
period averaged 62 gallons per ton of refuse processed.
The conclusions of these closed loop tests were that the
solid waste plant could be operated on a closed loop basis
without external connection to wastewater treatment plants.
It should be noted that the Fiber Recovery System was not
operated during this test because it produces an excess of
water. However, it has been postulated that a similar
closed loop operation could be utilized for the Fiber Re-
covery System. In this case internal treatment would be
provided for solids and grease removal.
6.5 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON LAND
The original objective of the Franklin Solid Waste and Fiber
Recovery Plant was to reduce the quantity of materials enter-
ing Franklin's landfill. The purpose of this was to extend
the life of the existing landfill beyond the 3 or 4 years
which was its expected remaining life. Without the Franklin
Solid Waste Plant the landfill would be required to accept
175.6 tons per week. At 0.4 tons per cubic yard this would
require 439 cubic yards of landfill volume per week. If it
is assumed that all the unprocessable material, nonmagnetic
junk, and cyclone rejects are landfilled, this would represent
an average quantity of 35.8 tons per week. At an average
density of 0.6 tons per cubic yard this would occupy 59.7
cubic yards per week. This represents an 86% savings in
landfill volume.
The nature of the nonmagnetic materials as well as the
cyclone rejects are such that higher compaction densities
could be achieved with less effort. Land disposal of the
cyclone rejects from the glass plant is done at a close
proximity to the Franklin Solid Waste Plant. A pit is
located just outside of the plant area which is used to land-
fill this material. By visual inspection the major portion
of the material landfilled in this area is glass and small
metallic pieces. The entire composition is similar to the
cyclone rejects in appearance. Some fiber is present in
this material.
Nuisance conditions as a result of landfilling this material
are minimal. Some flies were present in the warmer weather
and a slight unobjectionable odor is detectable. The material
appears to be unsuitable for rodent burrowing. Land cover
was not used and does not appear to be necessary. The non-
processable junk and other nonmagnetic rejects from the pulp-
ing and separation subsystem are routinely deposited in a
compactor and landfilled.
At certain times the magnetic rejects have been recycled to
the head of the plant. These materials are then further re-
duced in size in the pulper, removed in the cyclone, and
105
-------
landfilled when the glass plant is not operated. Obviously
the recycling of the magnetic materials to the head of the
plant when the glass plant is not operating is a waste of
effort.
6.6 NOISE POLLUTION
Systech performed a noise survey of the plant during normal
operating conditions. This survey was conducted to determine
if the area is in compliance with current Federal regulations.
The current regulations from the Occupational Safety and
Health Act gives the following permissible noise level ex-
posures. This standard defines the duration of exposure per
day that an employee is permitted to the specified noise
levels (dBA). The existing standard states that when a noise
exposure is composed of two or more periods of noise exposure
at different levels, then the maximum daily noise dose should
not exceed unity when the noise dose is computed by the follow-
ing equation: C C C
NOISE DOSE = l ' 2 ' n
Tl T2 Tm
C indicates total time of exposure at a specified noise
level and T indicates total time of exposure permitted at
that level."
Figure 34 illustrates the results of the noise survey at the
Franklin Plant. As illustrated in this figure, the fiber re-
covery room is the only area where the noise level in the
plant is less than 90 dBA (except for areas immediately
adjacent to noise sources). Hence, personnel can work in
the fiber recovery area full time and not be exposed to
levels exceeding Federal Standards.
The reactor room, hydrapulper room and the glass plant, all
have areas where the noise level exceeds 90 dBA. The hydra-
pulper generates noise levels up to 104 dBA (adjacent to the
pulper). The blower in the reactor area causes the noise
level in areas of this room to be greater than 90 dBA. The
glass plant continously generates noise levels in the 93 to
95 dBA range.
Personnel involved in the operation of the reactor and hydra-
pulper are not required to be in the room during the operation
of this equipment. Hence, these personnel are not exposed to
noise levels exceeding OSHA standards. When personnel are
working in these areas, they are normally performing a mainte-
nance function and the equipment is not running.
106
-------
t
55 dBA g 100 ft from Bldg.
t
TIPPING FLOOR
68
THICKENER ^
PRESS g
BLOWER a
jfc^ ^
/ FLUID BED \
1 INCINERATOR I
L__ —
BLOWER I
O-
Z CO
O W
ZZ K 90
K CO
&
87
o
o
•H
CO
M
<:
tisy I PULPKR )
(95) M
CYCLONE
(96)Q
93
93.
89
O
PRESS
88
f
CONVEYOR
JUNK
MOVER
w >
K &
05 O
MAGNETIC
SEPARATOR
OFFICE
72.
O
0,
1
91.5
1
O
93^5.
95
GLASS PLANT **
55 dBA @ 100 ft. from !
Note:
All readings in dB(A)
readings in ( )
taken on mezzanine
next to equipment
items.
SECOND FLOOR
*IS' 86 TO 88 dbA
Figure 3U - NOISE LEVELS-FRANKLIN PLANT
107
-------
A new plant of this type could easily make provisions for
reducing the noise levels in the reactor room and the hydra-
pulper room. This can be accomplished by placing the hydra-
pulper and the reactor blower in separate rooms thus isola-
ting them as noise sources.
It must be noted again that the project was conceived as
a demonstration project and as such much has been learned
about the operation and the changes that would need to be
made in order to achieve noise compliance.
6.7 ODOR WITHIN AND OUTSIDE OF PLANT
During normal operation of the plant (and when the plant is
not accepting sewage sludge for incineration), a slight gar-
bage odor is detected outside, near the tipping floor, and
within the plant. However, even adjacent to the tipping
floor, the garbage odor problem is minimal. Outside the
facility, 100 to 150 feet away, there is little or no de-
tectable odor.
Within the plant during normal operation, there is of course
a slight odor of raw garbage. To our personnel working at
the plant, this odor was not considered to be a significant
problem.
When the plant is accepting sludge from the Miami Conservancy
District Waste Water TreatmentPlant, there is a significant
sewage smell within the plant. This smell is given off at
the injection nozzle at the screw conveyor, as well as from
the cone press rejects. The water rejects from the press
are highly contaminated (see Section 4) with sewage material.
Also, the feed stock to the incinerator from the cone press
gives off the sewage odor. This odor could be considered
by many as very undesirable, but to personnel working in the
wastewater treatment area, this odor is not a significant
problem.
6.8 BACTERIOLOGICAL DATA
Samples were taken of the cyclone process stream, the white-
water system, the surge chest process stream, and recovered
fiber. They were analyzed for bacterial contamination. The
results are given in the following table:
108
-------
STREAM
Cyclone
Process
Stream
TOTAL COLIFORM CT FECAL COLIFORM CT TOTAL PLATE CT
1.85 X 108/100ml 2.0 X 108/100ml 4.3 X 107/ml
8
Whitewater 2.0 X 10 /100ml 1.3 X 10 /100ml 2.8 X 10 /ml
Surge Chest 1.65 X io8/100ml *••* X "VlOOml
Process
Recovered
Fiber
1.0 X 108/ml
11
1.35 X lOVlOOml 4.27 X
It is evident from this table that all the process streams
within the solid waste plant are highly contaminated and should
be handled as such. Systech personnel working with this material
use rubber gloves and are provided with a change of clothing.
It is obvious (because of sprays and spillage) that air born
bacteria are present. The sprays on the rundown screen in the
Fiber Recovery System use the final effluent of the regional
wastewater treatment plant. This effluent is chlorinated but
airborn bacteria could be presentbecause of the sprays. Further-
more, because of poor drainage in the floor drains bacterial
contamination is present. The possibility of airborn bacteria
and respirable dust is evident because of leaks in the pneumatic
conveying system (rotary value) and overhead conveyor in the
dewatering and incineration subsystem. Additionally it should
be noted that the recovered fiber is heavily contaminated and
should be handled accordingly.
109
-------
7.0 RESULTS OF ECONOMIC EVALUATION
7.1 INTRODUCTION
The Franklin Solid Waste and Fiber Recovery Plant is a
special facility, designed to demonstrate the technique
of wet processing for the disposal of solid waste as well
as the recovery of some materials in the solid waste stream.
It must be remembered that the plant was designed and
constructed for demonstration purposes. As such, it
enjoys many subsidies as well as extraordinary expenses
whether they are evident, hidden, or implied. All of these
factors skew the economic results actually being experienced.
The real objective of this phase of the effort was to
develop a measure of the economics that would be experienced
if any or all of the systems used at Franklin were incorporated
in a solid waste facility that would be constructed and
operated in competition with other disposal concepts. To
accomplish this objective, it is necessary to know the costs
associated with both the construction and the operation of
the major systems and subsystems. It is not sufficient to
evaluate the economics of the total concept as it now exists
in Franklin. The reason for this is that other plants may
not incorporate all three major systems used at Franklin.
Indeed, because of the energy crisis, it is doubtful that a
system identical to Franklin would ever again incorporate a
reactor system that disposes of the residual solid waste and
does not recover the heat generated in the process.
For these reasons, it was necessary to study the economics
associated with each of the major systems. Four cost centers
were used in this study. These are as follows:
(1) Weighing and Receiving;
(2) Pulping, Separation, Dewatering;
(3) Fluid Bed Reactor System; and
(4) Fiber Recovery System.
For clarity, the defined system includes the following unit
operations:
(1) Weighing and Receiving - Includes operation of the
scale, scale house, Bobcat, and other activities
on the tipping floor.
(2) Pulping, Separation, Dewatering - Includes the
operation of the feed conveyor to the pulper, junk
remover, magnetic separator, cyclones, barrel
thickener, cone press, and pneumatic feed to the
reactor.
(3) Fluid Bed Reactor System - Includes the operation
of the blower, reactor, scrubbing equipment, and
other miscellaneous equipment required by the reactor.
110
-------
(4) Fiber Recovery System - Includes the operation of
the selectifier, cyclone, rundown screens, barrel
thickener, cone press, and other miscellaneous
equipment required in the fiber recovery system.
The data required to perform this economic evaluation was
derived from information from various sources, i.e., EPA,
Systech, A. M. Kinney, Black-Clawson, and the City of
Franklin.
7.2 APPROACH TO DEVELOPING THE ECONOMIC DATA
The basis of the economic analysis stems from the actual
operating experience being gained at Franklin. The approach
used in developing the data incorporated the following
steps:
(1) Collect data representative of the actual operating
experience of Franklin and extend this data to reflect
operating the plant at its design capacity (50 tons/day,
8 hour operation). The factors used to develop the
Franklin operating experience include the following:
(a) Revenues - metal and fiber sales, sludge disposal.
(b) Operating Costs - operating labor, maintenance labor,
operating supplies, building maintenance, maintenance
materials, fuel costs, power consumption, material
handling, land disposal, other expenses, and waste-
water treatment.
(c) Facility Expense - amortization and interest.
(2) Use this cost data to develop "non-dollar extensions of
cost factors" for estimating costs for operating plants
of 500 and 1,000 tons/day.
A cost factor was used to express expenses and revenues in
scalable terms. Where possible, non-dollar related cost.
factors were used to reflect the absolute cost or revenues
associated with an item. These factors were developed for
expenses as well as revenues. These factors were then used
to help study the economics for operating larger plants.
7.3 DEVELOPMENT OF NON-DOLLAR RELATED COST FACTORS FROM
FRANKLIN EXPERIENCE
In order to have a complete understanding of all factors
comprising the Income and Expense for the operation of the
Franklin Plant and the projections to 500 and 1,000 tons/day,
the following sections describes the income and expense
categories used. The following data presents the cost factors
for the Franklin Plant and projects these to the 500 and 1,000
tons/day Plants.
Ill
-------
7.3.1 Income
Incomes realized for the operation of the Franklin plant are
from three categories; metal sales, fiber sales, and sludge
disposal. Monies received for the disposal of the solid
waste will not be considered as income.
Metal is recovered from several locations within the plant.
Large bulky recoverable metal is hand removed on the tipping
floor and placed into a recovered bin. The largest metal
fraction is recovered from the magnetic separator.
Fiber is recovered from the fiber recovery system of the
plant. Revenues are received from the Logan Long Company,
which uses this material in the manufacturing of roofing
materials. Income from sludge disposal is received from
the Miami Conservancy. District, which operates the adjacent
wastewater treatment plant. The derived income factors were
developed based on an average percentage input of 9.8 and
40 for the magnetic metals and paper content respectively.
The following table describes the steps used to develop
the revenue factors.
Income Source
Paper Fiber
Magnetic Metals
Sludge
Income Source
Paper Fiber
Magnetic Metals
Sludge
Percent of Material
In Input Stream
40 percent
9.8 percent
Tons Material
Recovered/
Ton Input
.192 T/T
.096 T/T
.07 T/T
Assumed
Market Val,
$/T (Ave)7"
$42.00/T
$25.00/T
$25.00/T
Percent
Recovered
48%*
98%
Income/
Ton Input
$8.06/T
$2.40/T
$1.75/%
*Actual operating experience showed this value to be much
smaller. This was because of the large amount of time that
fiber recovery was not operating. The revenue factors
shown are for optimum operation of the Franklin Plant.
Although the system at Franklin is currently disposing of
approximately 1 ton of sludge per day, it is capable of
disposing of approximately 3.5 ton of sludge per day
operating at 50 T/D.
The revenue factors derived can be used directly for any
larger Franklin type system assuming that the characteristics
of the input solid waste are approximately that as shown above,
112
-------
7.3.2 Operating Expense Items
The following categories were developed and used for
deriving the operating expenses of the Franklin Plant.
7.3.2.1 Operating Labor - This category defines the
personnel involved in the operation of the Franklin Plant
and also presents the projections for the operating labor
force for the 500 and 1,000 T/D plants. The table on the
following page presents this data.
The total manhours (MH) required by each of the facilities
are:
Franklin 50 T/D - 32 MH
Franklin 500 T/D - 104 MH
Franklin 1,000 T/D - 152 MH
These manhours and appropriate rates can then be used to
project operating labor costs for each size facility.
As illustrated in Table 12, the operating personnel being
used for 35 T/D would also be able to operate the plant at
50 T/D.
7.3.2.2 Maintenance Labor - When the evaluation began, three
personnel were involved with the maintenance activities at
Franklin. Modifications and changes in operating schedules
have effectively reduced this number to two personnel. Hence,
the actual operating experience will reflect two maintenance
personnel.
Scaling of the maintenance labor for the pulping and separa-
tion subsystem to larger facilities is not a linear relation-
ship. This results from the fact that a larger hydrapulper
is used and hence, the labor force required to maintain the
pulper does not increase significantly, but the throughput
of the pulper increases four (4) times. Thus, the maintenance
labor cannot be scaled on a MH/T basis but should be scaled
on a manhour/operating hour basis.
Since the Reactor System and the Fiber Recovery Systems for
500 and 1,000 T/D plants are basically duplicates of the
Franklin facility and require only additional process lines,
these systems can be scaled on a MH/T basis. The following
Table presents the development of the cost factors to be used
in projecting the costs for the three different sized systems.
Furthermore, it is estimated that the maintenance manhours
are distributed accordingly; 75 percent pulping and separation,
19 percent fiber recovery, and 6 percent reactor.
113
-------
TABLE 12 - OPERATING LABOR
Supervision
Chief
Operator
Assistant
Operator
Weighmaster
General
Labor
Office
W&R
1
Franklin
35-50 T/D
P&S
1
3/4
Reactor
1/4
F.R.
3/4
1/4
W&R
2
(3 shift total)
500 T/D
P&S
1
3
1 3/4
1 1/2
2
Reactor
1/4
F.R.
1
1/2
(3 shift total)
1000 T/D
W&R
2
P&S
1
3
3 1/2
3
3
Reactor
1/2
F.R.
2
1
-------
35 T/D-50 T/D
Cost Factor
Manhours/D Cost Factor 500 T/D 1,000 T/D*
Pulping & Separation 12
Reactor 1
Fiber Recovery 3
2.46 MH/HR
.03 MH/T
.085 MH/T
2.46
.03
.085
4.92
.03
.085
The P&S cost factor was derived from the following equation.
12 MH
35 T x 7.2 T/D (Ave.) = 2.46 MH/Operating Hr. of P&S
These cost factors were then used for projecting the costs
for the larger sized facilities.
7.3.2.3 Operating Supplies - This category reflects all the
costs for the operating supplies and includes all consummables
required to operate the plant. This factor, by its nature
cannot be non-dollar related. Franklin's operating experience
shows this to be approximately $.30/ton input (based on
35 T/D average). Operating the facility at 50 T/D should not
require more operating costs and hence, the operating cost
per ton will be reduced. The table below presents the
developed cost factors.
Weighing & Receiving
Pulping & Separation
Reactor
Fiber Recovery
35 T/D
Operating
Costs
$.15/T
$.15/T
$.045/T
$.045/T
Correction
Factor to
50 T/D
1
35/50
35/50
35/50
50, 500,
1,000 T/D
Operating
Cost
Factors
$.15
$.11
$.03
$.03
These cost factors were then used for deriving the cost
for the larger sized facilities.
7.3.2.4 Building Maintenance - As implied, this category
reflects the costs for maintaining the building and premises
in an operational manner.
Basically, the building area requirements for a Franklin
system at 500 T/D would be approximately 1-1/2 times that
at Franklin; and three times the area of Franklin for a
1,000 T/D facility. The building maintenance requirements
were projected on a per ton basis. The following table
presents the cost factors for the larger facilities, based
on actual operating experience at Franklin.
* Equipment required is twice that for the 500 T/D Plant.
115
-------
Weighing & Receiving
P&S Dewatering
Reactor
Fiber Recovery
35 T/p
Operating
Cost Factor
$ .06/T
$ .02/T
$ .03/T
$ .03/T
Correction
Factor
To 50 T/D
35/50
35/50
35/50
35/50
50,500,1,000 T/D
Operating
Cost Factor
$ .042/T
$ .014/T
$ .022/T
$ .022/T
These cost factors were then used for estimating the cost
for the larger sized facilities.
7.3.2.5 Maintenance Materials - This expense category
reflects the costs for the purchase of the necessary replace-
ment parts and equipment to keep the plant operational.
It includes sub-contract work that may be required to maintain
or replace a piece of equipment. It does not include the
labor costs experienced by the operating staff, i.e., the
labor cost for replacing a pump is reflected in the maintenance
labor cost.
The maintenance replacement parts cost for the hydrapulper
cannot be scaled linearly on a $/T basis for the larger
facilities. The reason for this is that the wear factor
for a larger hydrapul-per is smaller than that of a smaller
hydrapulper. Hence, replacement of worn parts would not be
required as often. Therefore, for the purpose of projecting
the maintenance material cost for the P&S subsystem of
the plant, it was decided that the cost factor for tnis
section should be represented by $/operating hour.
The manufacturer estimates that the larger hydrapulper
lasts 1.6 times longer. In addition, in going from a
smaller hydrapulper to a larger hydrapulper, the cost of
replacement parts for similar items would increase by a factor
of 2.25. Therefore, the resulting scale factor used to
extrapolate the maintenance material expense from a 50 T/D
system to a 500 T/D system is 2.25/1.6 or 1.4. In projecting
costs from a 500 to 1,000 T/D facility, the cost factor for
the P&S subsystem would be multiplied by two because the
P&S section is duplicated (2 process lines),
Since all size plants have identical equipment for the
Reactor System and the Fiber Recovery System, the material
maintenance items can be scaled on a $/D basis.
Table 13 presents the development of the cost factors for
the maintenance materials. The cost factors developed in
this Table were then used for deriving the costs for the
larger sized facilities.
116
-------
7-.3.2.6 Fuel Costs - This category reflects the costs
for operating the front-end loader and for building heat.
It does not reflect any fuel costs for the reactor
because the bed temperature in the reactor is maintained
so that it can burn the rejects without the addition of
fuel. During the time of our study, the front-end loader
consumed approximately 0.14 gallons/ton of gasoline and
the fuel oil for building heat was consumed at a rate of
.57 gallons/ton. Hence, correcting for the 50 T/D operation,
the following lists the cost factors to be used for all
three sized facilities.
*Weighing and Receiving (Bobcat)
Pulping and Separation
Reactor
Fiber Recovery
50, 500, 1,000 T/D
.14 gallons/ton
.24 gallons/ton
.07 gallons/ton
.09 gallons/ton
*The Bobcat would require additional fuel for moving more
tonnage and hence, the cost factor for a 35 T/D and 50 T/D
operation would be the same.
7.3.2.7 Power Consumption - This expense category reflects
the cost of power required to operate the equipment within
the plant. During the study period, power consumption was
measured for the Total Plant, Fiber Recovery System, Hydra-
pulper, and the Glass Plant. Since the Glass Plant data is
not included in this report, the power consumed by the Glass
Plant was subtracted from the total plant consumption. The
hydrapulper and fiber recovery power consumption could be
obtained directly. Thus, the power consumption of the
P & S subsystem could be calculated. Using the installed
horsepower for the reactor and the remaining equipment along
with the data on their respective operating time, it was
determined that the reactor consumed approximately 1/2 of
the total power used in the p & s .subsystem minus the
Pulper. Hence, the following Table was derived for the power
usage within the plant.
Separation, Dewatering
Pulper
Reactor
Fiber Recovery
35 T/D
Cost Factor
56.4 KWH/T
28.7 KWH/T
56.4 KWH/T
11.2 KWH/T
50,500,1,000 T/D
Cost Factor
56.4 KWH/T
28.7 KWH/T
56.4 KWH/T
11.2 KWH/T
Power costs are based on two factors, energy and demand.
Energy costs are computed using the total kilowatt-hours
consumed. Demand costs are based on an average demand
(kilowatts) measured at the facility by the power company.
117
-------
TABLE 13 - MAINTENANCE MATERIAL COST FACTORS
Weighing &
Receiving
Pulping &
Separation
Reactor
Fiber Recovery
CD
-P
in
o
u
Q to
"X O* O
EH S -P
•H O
in -P id
• M (0 pL|
to
(1)
a
o
.57
25.70/HR
.75/T
.56/T
b
o
•p
o
d
fa
c a
ox
•H EH
-P
oo
0) in
to
U O
O -P
U
1
1
1
1
to
O
-P
O
id
b
c
o
•H Q
-PV.
0 EH
0)
U 0
h 0
o m
o
.5
1.4
1
1
n
o
-p
u
id
h Q
X
C EH
O
•H 0
•P 0
O m
0)
M H
h 0
O (M
U
.385/T
35.98/HR
.75/T
.56/T
M
0
4J
0
at a
fc vs
EH
c
00
•H 0
4J 0
0 rH
0)
H to
to O
O *»H
u
.5
2
1
1
Q
^^
to EH
O
4JO
O 0
id o
h rH
4J M
0) O
O»H
U
.192T
71.97/HR
.75/T
.56/T
*3.57/T X 7.2
118
-------
The demand load at the Franklin Plant is approximately
800 kilowatts. Because of the increase in the pulper size,
in a 500 T/D plant the demand will be approximately 2,000
kilowatts. The demand for a 1,000 T/D plant will be the
same as for 500 T/D because the equipment is the same size
only the number of process lines change. Hence, the demand
for a 500 T/D and 1,000 T/D plant will be approximately
2,000 kilowatts. The costs for energy and demand for this
study were based on the rate schedule of the Cincinnati Gas
and Electric Company.
7.3.2.8 Metal Handling - This category reflects the costs
for removing the recovered metal from the operating area of
the plant and preparing the material for shipping, etc.
This cost factor was $.028/T and will be the same for all
facilities.
7.3.2.9 Land Disposal - The disposal of the unprocessable
material, the material issuing from the cyclone reject
stream, and the non-magnetic stream sorted by the magnetic
separator, requires land disposal. This material is generated
according to the following factors, which will be used for
projecting the land disposal costs for the larger facilities.
Cost Factor
Weighing & Receiving 98.6 #/T
Pulping and Separation 281 #/T
7.3.2.10 Other Expenses - This expense category includes
all other expenses that are included in operating the plant.
They include insurance, plant security, taxes, etc.
Operating experience at Franklin showed this to be $.71/T.
The Table below shows an estimate of the breakout of this
cost factor by cost center.
35T/D-50T/D-500T/D-1,OOOT/D
Operating Cost Factor
Weighing and Receiving $ .10/T
Pulping, Separation, Dewatering $ .30/T
Reactor $ .20/T
Fiber Recovery $ .11/T
$ .71/T
7.3.2.11 Wastewater Treatment - Wastewater treatment
services at Franklin are provided by Miami Conservancy
District Wastewater Treatment Plant at a cost of .41$/1,000
gallons sent to the plant. The facility provides for the
treatment of water from the Hydrasposal system as well as
from fiber recovery. It has been demonstrated (and discussed
in an earlier section) that the Hydrasposal system can
operate under a closed loop arrangement that essentially
would require the treatment of little or no wastewater.
119
-------
The Fiber Recovery liquid waste stream represents approxi-
mately 75% of the wastewater sent to the MCD Treatment
Facility by the Solid Waste Plant. In a larger facility,
this stream would probably be treated by using an on-site
clarifier. The solids would be incinerated in the reactor,
and some Whitewater would be bled into the reactor to permit
the addition of fresh water. This approach or a similar
one would be used in a large plant because treatment costs
at a wastewater treatment plant would be prohibitive. The
following table presents the non-dollar related cost factors
associated with the waste stream.
Franklin Operating Experience
Pulping, Separation, Dewatering
BOD 39# BOD/T
SS 42# SS/T
Reactor (Ash H_0)
SS * 12.8# SS/T
Fiber Recovery
BOD 106# BOD/T
SS 181# SS/T
For the purpose of projecting the costs to 500 and 1,000
T/D, a rate of $0.25/T will be used. This cost factor
approximation would assume a closed loop operation of the
Hydrasposal system and the treatment of the Fiber Recovery
Wastewater on site. Depending upon the approach used and
the type of facility being designed (with or without a
reactor) this cost could increase significantly. However,
for projecting the estimated costs for the larger facilities,
a rate of $0.25/T will be used.
7.3.3 Facility Expense
In order to develop a full economic evaluation, costs for
each of the different sized facilities must be determined
so that appropriate amortization and interest, depreciation
or other related facility expenses can be derived. The
following table presents the total sub-system costs for each
of the three facilities.
Franklin
50T/D-1969 500T/D-1974 1,OOOT/D-1974
Weighing & Receiving $ 182,000 $ 1,103,000 $ 2,051,000
Pulp, Sep, Dewater $ 626,000 $ 4,289,000 $ 7,987,000
Fluid Bed Incinerator $ 670,000 $ 3,291,000 $ 6,133,000
Fiber Recovery $ 509,000 $ 1,912,000 $ 3,551,000
TOTAL $1,987,000 $10,595,000 $19,722,0,00
120
-------
A table in Section 7.5.1 illustrates a comparison of
equipment requirements for the 50, 500, and 1,000 T/D
plant size.
7.3.3.1 Franklin Facility 35 Ton and 50 Ton/8-Hour Shift-
ISO Ton/21-Hour Shift - For the Franklin facility as it now
exists,it would be unrealistic to assign a facility
expense to its operation; because of its demonstration nature
and because of the limited tonnage being received. The
plant, as such, cannot enjoy any economy of scale and
therefore, no facility charge will be considered in the
analysis. Rather, the Franklin experience will be used
to gather operational exepnse data. The capital investment
for the facility is presented in the Tables for use by the
reader is he so desires. If this cost is assigned to the
operation of the plant, it should probably be prorated over
the entire plant capacity, i.e., 150 T/D.
7.3.3.2 Franklin Type Facility - 500 and 1,000 T/D - There
are many methods that can potentially be used to derive
facility costs. Ownership of the facility is a major item
of consideration. For purposes of developing facility costs
for the larger facilities, it will be assumed that the
facility will be owned by a municipality and that bonds
(8 percent) will be issued to finance the facility. However,
there are several factors that must be considered in deriving
the facility expense cost. The total cost of the facility
is not the amount of money that needs to be borrowed by the
issuance of bonds to cover the facility costs. Factors such
as finance charges, a debt service fund, and a debt reserve
fund, (defined in the following table), cause the total
bond issue to be approximately 30 percent higher than the
actual cost of the facility. Hence, a facility expense
to cover the Amortization and Interest (A & I) rate would
then have to be based on the value of the total bond issue.
For the purposes of this analysis (projecting operating
costs for the 500 and 1,000 T/D facility) an annual A & I
rate of 10 percent will be used (based on 20 year life of
major equipment and facility). For the 500 and 1,000 T/D
facilities, the following Table will present these costs.
500 T/D 1,000 T/D
Project Cost 10,595,000 19,722,000
*Total Bond Issue 13,508,000 25,145,000
Annual A & I 1,350,000 ($10.45/T) 2,514,000 ($9.73/T)
* Debt Service Fund - the amount of money that has to
borrowed to make payments on the bond issue during
the construction period (2 years).
121
-------
* Debt Revenue Fund - money that is withheld and invested
(8 percent) to make sure one payment on the bond issue
can be made. This reserve is held throughout the bond
payment period to insure that the payments can be made
on time.
* Finance Charge - the amount of money charged by the
agency preparing and issuing the bonds.
These three categories cause the total bond issue to be
approximately 30 percent higher than the actual facility
cost.
7.4 FRANKLIN OPERATING EXPERIENCE - ACTUAL 35 T/D, PROJECTED
50 T/D AND PROJECTED 150 T/D
Table 14 presents a summary of the actual income and expense
for the Franklin plant operating at an average throughput of
35 T/D. This table illustrates these costs as a function
of four (4) cost centers (Weighing and Receiving, Incinerator
and Fiber Recovery). As illustrated, this facility is showing
an operating loss of approximately $4,40/ton, excluding a
facility expense cost. Some interesting observations can be
drawn from the following table.
Weighing & Receiving
Pulping, Separation, &
Dewatering
Fluid Bed Reactor
Fiber Recovery
% of Total
Operating Costs
10.6%
54%
18.5%
16.9%
% of Total
Revenue
31%
11%
57.5%
The major point to be made is that Fiber Recovery provides
57.5 percent of the total revenue while only accounting for
16.9 percent of the total operating cost. This most
certainly justifies a fiber recovery system if there is a
suitable customer and the market conditions are favorable.
Projecting these costs to 50 T/D (Table 15) shows that the plant
without a facility expense charge, can operate at approxi-
mately a $0.26/T profit. This figure was derived considering
optimum operation of the plant. The large difference between
the two (35 and 50 T/D) is that income shows a value of
9.08/T for the 50 T/D, an increase of 2.48/T based on actual
operation. This increase is based on Fiber Recovery operating
full time.
122
-------
to
LJ
Total
Dollars
INCOME
Metal Sales $1,564
Fiber Sales 2,865
Sludge Disposal 537
$4,966
EXPENSES
1. Operating Labor
Chief Operator $ 860
All Others 2,580
2. Maintenance Labor 1,702
3. Operating Supplies 292
4. Building Maintenance 75
5. Maintenance
Materials 4,175
6. Fuel - Gasoline 53
Fuel Oil (Heat) 117
7. Power - Energy 1,799
Demand - 800 KW 1,500
8. Metal Handling 211
9. Land Disposal
10. Other Expenses 533
11. Wastewater Treatment 770
$14,667
INCOME & EXPENSE SUMMARY*
Income
Expenses
NET COST
Average Dump Fees
Operating Loss
Plant
$ Per Ton
S2.08/T
3.81/T
.71/T
S6.60/T
S1.14/T
3.43/T
2.26/T
.39/T
.10/T
5.55/T
.07/T
.15/T
2. 39/T
1.99/T
.28/T
.71/T
1.02/T
S19.50/T
$ 6.60/T
19.50/T
(12.90/T)
8.50/T
(4.40/T)
Weighing & Receiving Pulping, Separation
and Dewatering
Dollars $ Per Ton Dollars $ Per Ton
$1,564
$1,564 $2. 07/T
$860
$860 645
1,269
112 112
32 11
428 2,762
53
72
1,003
563
211
.
75 225
193
$1,560 $2. 07/T $7,926 S10.53/T
Reactor
Dollars $ Per Ton
537
$537 S.71/T
$215
113
34
16
564
21
664
937
150
STTTTT S3TST/T
Filer
Recovery
Dollars $ Per Ton
$2,065
527865
$860
320
34
16
421
24
132
83
577
52,467
S3.80/T
S3.23/T
•Docs not include a Facility expense Charge
-------
TABLE 15 MONTHLY FRANKLIN PROJECTED OPERATING EXPERIENCE - 50T/D X X0.75T/H
ro
Total Plant
Dollars
INCOME
Metal Sales $2,236
Fiber Sales 6,761
Sludge Disposal 537
$97534
EXPENSES
1. Operating Labor
Chief Operator $ 860
All Others 2,580
2. Maintenance Labor 2,441
3. Operating Supplies 343
4. Building Maintenance 108
5. Maintenance
Materials 5,832
6. Fuel - Gasoline 75
Fuel Oil (Heat) 167
7. Power - Energy 2,570
Demand - 800 KW 1,500
8. Metal Handling 301
9. Land Disposal
10. Other Expenses 762
11. Wastewater Treatmentl, 101
$18,640
INCOME & EXPENSE SUMMARY*
Income
Expense
NET COST
Average Dump Fees
Operating Profit
$ Per Ton
$2.08/T
6.29/T
.71/T
$ 9 . 08/T
$ .80/T
2.40/T
2.27/r
.32/T
.10/T
5.42/T
.07/T
.15/T
2.39/T
1.39/T
.28/T
.71/T
1.02/T
$17. 32/T
$ 9. 08/T
17. 32/T
(8.24/T)
8.50/T
$ T26/T"
Weighing & Receiving Pulping, Separation
and Dewatering
Dollars S Per Ton Dollars $Per Ton
$2,236
$2,236 $2. 08/T
$ 860
$ 860 645
1,824
161 118
45 15
612 3,812
75
103
1,433
563
301
107 322
276
$1,860 S1.73/T $10,272 $9.55/T
Reactor
Dollars $Per Ton
$ 537
$ 537 $.71/T
$ 215
161
32
24
806
30
949
937
215
$3,369 S3.13/T
Filer
Recovery
Dollars $ Per Ton
$6,761
$6,761
$ 860
456
32
24
602
34
188
118
825
$3,139
$ 6.29/T
S2.92/T
•Does not include a Facility Expense Charge
-------
Table 16 presents the projected operating costs to 150 T/D
(the plants design capacity). Without a facility expense
charge, Table 16 shows that the plant can operate at a
$2.36/T profit. Again, this figure was derived considering
optimum operation of the plant.
7.5 PROJECTION TO 500 and 1,000 T/D SIZE PLANT
7.5.1 Introduction
Before presenting the estimated operating costs for a 500
and 1,000 T/D facility, some discussion about the facilities
is necessary.
Each of the two facilities will be three (3) shift operations,
with a 20 hour process time for the maximum capacity.
The 500 T/D facility would require approximately 1-1/2
times the building floor area that is currently used by the
Franklin Plant. The table below illustrates the equipment
requirements for the larger facilities.
EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS
50 T/D Franklin - 7 Hr
1 Hydrapulper
1 Reactor
1 Dewatering Equipment
1 Fiber Recovery System
500 T/D - 20 HR
1 Hydrapulper (larger)
1 Reactor (larger)
4 Dewatering Equipment
3 Fiber Recovery Systems
1,000 T/D - 20 HR
2 Hydrapulpers
2 Reactors
8 Dewatering Equipment
6 Fiber Recovery Systems
The non-dollar related cost factors for projected facility
cost were presented in Sections 7.2 and 7.3. These factors
are again identified on the operating cost tables presented
in this section.
125
-------
TABLE 16 MONTHLY FRANKLIN PROJECTED OPERATING COST - 150T/D (OPTIMUM)-3225T/H.
to
en
INCOME
Metal Sales
Fiber Sales
Sludge Disposal
EXPENSES
1. Operating Labor
Chief Operator
All Others
2. Maintenance Labor
3. Operating Supplies
4. Building Maintenance
5. Maintenance Materials
6. Fuel - Gasoline
Fuel Oil (Heat)
7. Power - Energy
- Demand
8. Metal Handling
9. Land Disposal
10. Other Expenses
11. Wastewater Treatment
INCOME & EXPtNSE SUMMARY*
Income
Expenses
NET COST
Average Dump Fees
Operating Profit
Total Plant
Dollars
$ 6.708 -
20,285 -
2,289 -
$29,282 -
$ 860
6,020
7,406
1,032
322
17,482
225
167
7,710
1,500
903
2,289
3,289
$49,205
$29,282
49,205
($19,923)
27,412
$ 7,489
SPer Ton
S2.08/T
6.29/T
.71/T
S9.08/T
$ .27/T
1.86/T
2. 27/T
.32/T
.10/T
5.42/T
.07/T
.05/T
2.39/T
.46/T
.28/T
.71/T
1.02/T
S15.22/T
S9.08/T
15.22/T
(6.14/T)
8 . 50/T
S2.36/T
Weighing & Receiving Pulping, Separation
and Dewatering
Dollars SPer Ton Dollars SPer Ton
$6,708
$6,708 S2.08/T
$860
$860 1,935
5,535
485 355
134 44
1,834 11,429
225
103
4,299
563
903
321 969
824
$3,859 S1.18/T $27,819 S8.61/T
Reactor
Dollars SPer Ton
$2,289
$2,289. $.71/T
$645
488
96
72
2,415
30
2,847
937
645
$8,175 S2.53/T
Fiber
Recovery
Dollars SPer Ton
$20,285
$20,285
$2,580
1,383
96
72
1,804
34
564
354
2,465
$9,352
S6.29/T
S2.90/T
-------
Notes for Tables 14, 15, and 16
Income Notes:
1. Fiber dollars based on 30% input in solid waste
2. Sludge disposal is provided at 1 T/D for $25./T
Expense Notes:
1. Chief operator labor rate is $7./hr including
fringes
2. All other operators labor rate is $5./hr including
fringes.
3. Gasoline is purchased at $ .50/gallon
4. Fuel oil is purchased at $ .40/gallon
5. Power costs are computed using Cincinnati Gas and
Electric scale.
6. No cost for land disposal are being incurred at
Franklin (disposal is on-site)
7. Wastewater Treatment is provided at a rate of .41C/1000
gallon & 2500 gal/T being treated.
Average Dump Fee
Includes Revenue from Private and Individual Haulers.
127
-------
The cost estimates do not reflect the cost of land. This
value varies considerably (depending upon where the facility
is constructed) and hence, will not be considered in this
analysis.
All labor rates and other schedules for determining the
total category costs are presented in the notes for each
projected facility cost.
7.5.2 Estimated Cost for 500 T/D Franklin Type Facility
Table 17 presents an estimated cost summary for the operation
of a 500 T/D Franklin type facility. The data presented
is for optimum operating condition. The rates used for
labor and other non-dollar related cost factors used in
the development of this data have been presented in Sections
7.3. Additional notes are presented on the page following
the table.
As illustrated in this table, income from recovered material
amount to $12.21/T. Operating expenses are 9.96/T and the
facility expense is 10.46/T. Hence, the net cost of the
operation is 8.21/T.
As indicated previously in this section, the possibility of
ever building another facility like this is very remote.
Hence, let us look at the possibility of selling the rejects
being consumed in the reactor as a fuel (material is removed
from premises by buyer of fuel). A current value for this
material would be approximately $1.25 million BTU. Assuming
an average BTU content of 7,200 BTU/# of the rejects as they
go to the reactor (on a dry basis) and a .21 T/T input factor
for the amount of potential fuel generated, the following
table can be developed.
Ton/Month 10,750 T
Tons of Rejects 2,257 T
#'s to Reactor 4,515,000 Ibs.
Total BTU's 4.515 x 106 x 7,200 = 3.25 x 1010
Value of Fuel $40,600.00/month or $3.78/T
Hence, the following summary can be derived for the operating
costs of a 500 T/D facility with fuel recovery.
Income $12.21/T*
Operating Expense $ 7,75/T
Facility Expense $ 7.21/T
Income on Fuel $ 3.78/T
Net Savings $ 1.03/T
*Sludge can still be processed and disposed of in this system.
128
-------
TABLE 17 MONTHLY FRANKLIN FACILITY COSTS PROJECTED TO 500T/D - 10750T/H
Total Plant
to
vo
Weighing & Receiving Pulping, Separation
and Dewatering
Reactor
Fiber Recovery
Dollars
INCOME
Metal Sales $25,800
Fiber Sales 86,645
Sludge Disposal 18,812
$131,257
EXPENSES
1. Operating Labor
Supervision $ 1,290
Chief Operator 3,096
Office 1,376
All Others 6.020
2. Maintenance Labor 11,469
3. Operating Supplies 3,438
4. Building Maintenance 1,073
5. Maintenance
Materials 33,691
6. Fuel- Gasoline 752
Fuel Oil (Heat) 1,677
7. Power - Energy 23,931
Demand 3,338
B. Metal Handling 3,010
9. Land Disposal 3.059
10. Other Expenses 7,632
11. Wastewater Treatment 2,687
$107,239
FACILITY EXPENSE
Prefect Cost $10,595,000
Total Bond Issue 13,508,000
Monthly A&I (10%) 112,500
COST SUMMARY
Income
Expense
Facility Expense
NET COST
$ Per Ton
$ 2.40/T
8 . 06/T
1.75/T
$12.21/T
$ .12/T
.29/T
.13/T
.56/T
1.06/T
.32/T
.10/T
3. 13/T
.07/T
.15/T
2.22/T
.31/T
.28/T
.28/T
.71/T
.25/T
$ 9.96/T
S10.46/T
S12.21/T
(9.96/T)
(10.46/T)
($ 8.21/T)
Dollars $ Per Ton
$ 1,720
1,612
451
4,138
752
794
1,075
$ 10,542 $ .98/T
$1,103,000
$11,610 S1.09/T
Dollars
$25,800
$25,800
$ 1,290
3,096
1,376
2,795
5,289
1,182
150
15,471
1,032
13,337
1,252
3,010
2,265
3,225
$54,470
$4,289,000
$45,150
$ Per Ton Dollars
$18,812
$2.40/T $18,812
$ 215
1,612
322
236
8,062
301
8,839
2,086
2,150
$5. 06/T $23,823
$3,291,000
S4.24/T $34,615
$ Per Ton Dollars
$86,645
S1.75/T $86,645
$ 1,290
4,568
322
236
6,020
344
1,755
1,182
2,687
S2.21/T $18,404
$1,912,000
$3.24/T $20,102
$ Per Ton
$8. 06/T
S1.71/T
S1.88/T
-------
As can be seen from this illustration, when the rejects
stream is sold as a fuel, the plant operates at a net
savings of $1.03/T as compared to a net cost of $8.21/T when
operating with the reactor. It should be remembered that
there has been no charge for the disposal of refuse assigned
to these examples.
With the information presented in Table 17, the costs
associated with any one of the systems can be derived. As
illustrated, the system becomes very economically attractive
when the rejects stream can be sold as a fuel.
7.5.3 Estimated Cost for 1,000 T/D Franklin Type Facility
Table 18 presents an estimated cost summary for the operation
of a 1,000 T/D Franklin type facility. The data presented
is for optimum operating conditions. Again, the application
rates for labor and other non-dollar related cost factors
used in the development of this data have been presented in
Section 7.3. Additional Notes are presented on the page
following the table. As illustrated in Table 18, income
from recovered materials and sludge disposal amount to $12.21/T.
Operating expenses are 9.32/T and-the facility expense is
$9.73/T. Hence, the net cost of operation is $6.84/T.
Assuming the sale of the reject stream as a fuel, and the
removal of the reactor from the system, the net cost of
the operation is as follows:
Income $12.21/T (Includes Sludge Disposal)
Operating Expense -7.21/T
Facility Expense -6.70/T
Income on Fuel 3.78/T
Net Savings $ 2.08/T
Again, the use of the feed material to the reactor as a
supplemental fuel based on $1.25/1,000,000 BTU (7,200
BTU/# ave.), and income of $2.08/T can be derived. As
illustrated in Table 18, the cost of the reactor system is
approximately 1/2 of the total facility cost. Hence, the
main reason for the net income of $2.08/T is because of the
high cost of the reactor system.
7.5.4 Cost Summary
As illustrated in Table 14, the Franklin Solid Waste and
Fiber Recovery Plant, as it currently operates (average
35 T/D), has an operating loss of $4.40/T. This cost figure
does not include an expense for the facility but does include
a dump fee of $8.50/ton.
130
-------
TABLE 18 MONTHLY FRANKLIN FACILITY COSTS PROJECTED TO 1000T/D - 21500T/M
INCOME
Metal Sales
Fiber Sales
Sludge Disposal
EXPENSES
1. Operating Labor
Supervision-?.50/hr
Chief Operator-
6,00/hr
0£fice-4.00/hr
All Others-5.00/hr
2. Maintenance Labor
5.00/hr
3. Operating Supplies
4. Building Maintenance
5. Maintenance
Materials
6. Fuel- Gasoline
Fuel Oil (Heat)
7. Power - Energy
Demand
8. Metal Handling
9. Land Disposal
10. Other Expenses
11. Waste Water Treatment
FACILITY EXPENSE
Project Costs
Total Bond Issue
Monthly Ail (10%)
COST SUMMARY
Income
Expense
Facility Expense
NET COST
Total
Dollars
$ 51,
173,
37,
$262,
/hr SI,
3,
hr
f
68
anc
2,
10.
22,
4,
e 2,
63,
1,
3,
47,
3,
6,
6,
15,
600
290
625
sis
290
096
064
320
940
880
150
240
505
354
601
338
020
120
265
tment 5,375
$200,558
$19
$25
$
,722,
,145,
209,
000
000
200
Plant Weighing & Receiving Pulping, Separation
and Dewatering
$ Per Ton Dollars $ Per Ton
S2.40/T
8 . 06/T
1.75/T
S12.21/T
$ . 06/T
.14/T
.10/T
.48/T $
1 . 06/T
.32/T
.10/T
2.94/T
.07/T
.15/T
2.21/T
.15/T
.28/T
.28/T
.71/T
.25/T
$ 9. 32/T $
$2,
$ 9.73/T
S12.21/T
(9. 32/T)
(9.73/T)
$(6.84/T)
Dollars
$51,600
$51,600
$ 1,290
3,096
1,
3,
4,
1.
1,
2,
15,
051,
$21,
720
225
903
128
505
589
150
220 $ .71
000
715 S1.01/T
2,
5,
10.
2,
30,
2,
26,
1,
6,
4,
6,
064
590
578
365
301
947
064
528
252
020
531
450
$103,076
$7,987,
$84,
000
710
Reactor Fiber
$ Per Ton Dollars
$37,625
S2.40/T $37,625
$
3,
16,
17,
2,
4,
430
225
645
473
125
602
582
086
300
S4.79/T $45,468
$6,133,
S3.94/T $65,
000
145
Recovery
$ Per Ton Dollars $ Per Ton
$173,
$173,
$ 2,
9,
12,
3,
2,
5,
S2.11/T $ 36,
$3,551,
S3.03/T $37,
290
290 $8. 06/T
580
137
645
473
040
688
491
365
375
794 $1.71/T
000
625 S1.75/T
-------
Notes for Tables 17 and 18
Income:
1. Metal sales are based on 9.8% input and selling
at $25./T
2. Fiber Sales are based on 40% input and selling
at $42./T
3. Sludge is disposed of at a rate of .07 T/T input
at $25./T
Expenses:
1. Operating Labor
Supervision labor rate - 7.50/hr including fringes
Chief Operator - 6.00/hr
Office - 4.00/hr " "
All Others - 5.00/hr
2. Maintenance labor rate - 5.00/hr " "
3. Gasoline costs computed at $ .50/gallon
4. Fuel oil costs computed at $ .40/gallon
5. Power costs were derived from Cincinnati Gas and
Electric Power scale
6. Sanitary landfill costs were computed at $1.50/T
132
-------
Table 19 presents an economic summary of a Franklin type
plant projected to 150, 500, and 1,000 T/D. As illustrated,
the net operating costs are $12.35 per ton for the 150 ton
per day facility; $8.21 per ton for the 500 ton per day;
and $6.84 per ton for the 1,000 ton per day plant. These
numbers compare quite favorably with typical solid waste
disposal costs, such as those for incineration or landfill.
Incineration costs range from $10.00 to $15.00 per ton and
landfilling costs typically range from $3.00 to $10.00 per
ton. The most significant effect can be seen to be the
important decrease in operating expense per ton in the
scaling up from 150 to 500 tons per day.
In contrast to Franklin type plant, Table 20 presents an
economic summary of a wet processing plant without fiber
recovery, but with the organic rejects sold as a fuel
product. Projected to 150, 500, and 1,000 tons per day
the addition of fuel recovery results in a net cost of
21$ per ton at the 150 ton per day level, a net savings
of $3.39 per ton at the 500 ton level, and a net savings
of $4.13 per ton at the 1,000 ton per day level. One
important difference between these two types of plants is
the $lp.71 per input ton for fuel as opposed to an $8.06
per input ton for recovered paper fiber. Most important,
>owever, is the large decrease in the facility expense
charge resulting from the reduction in capital costs when
the fiber recovery equipment is removed from the total plant
capital costs. In the data presented in Table 19 and 20,
no tipping fee is included in the analysis, hence the net
operating costs can be compared directly to existing dis-
posal costs with the following exception. It should be
noted that for all these examples no charge is made for the
land on which the facility is to be established. Individual
communities may readily approximate the cost of land locally
and add the appropriately amortized capital cost of the land
to the facility expense charge to obtain a specific projection
for their community.
133
-------
TABLE 19 - Economic Summary of Projected Franklin Type Facility
FACILITY
COSTS
Franklin Franklin
Projected To Projected To
150 T/D 500 T/D
Franklin
Projected To
1000 T/D
Income*
Paper Fiber
Magnetic Metals
Sludge Disposal
Operating Expenses $15.22/T
Facility Expense**
(20 yr. depr.) $9.34/T
NET COST $12.35/T
$8.06/T
$2.40/T
$1.75/T
S12.21/T
$8.06/T
$2.40/T
$1.75/T
$12.21/T
$8.06/T
$2.40/T
$1.75/T
512.21/T
$9.96/T
$10.46/T
$8.21/T
$9.32/T
39.73/T
$6.84/T
*Based on Following Revenue Factors
Magnetic Metals - 9.8% Input - Selling at $25.00/T
Fiber - 40% Input - Selling at $42.00/T
Sewage Sludge - Disposed of at a rate of .07T/T Input - $25.00/T
**Based on Following Facility Costs Projected to 1974 Prices
Weighing & Receiving
Pulping, Separation,
and Dewatering
Fluid Bed Reactor
Fiber Recovery
TOTAL PLANT COST
150T/D
$254,800
876,400
938,000
712,600
500T/D
1,103,000
4,289,000
3,291,000
1,912,000
1000T/D
$2,051,000
7,987,000
6,133,000
3,551,000
$2,781,800
$10,595,000 $19,722,000
134
-------
TABLE 20 - Economic Summary of Projected Franklin Plan with
No Fiber Recovery and Using Rejects as a Fuel.
FACILITY
COSTS
Franklin
Projected To
150 T/D
Franklin
Projected To
500 T/D
Franklin
Projected To
1,000 T/D
Income*
Magnetic Metals
Sludge Disposal
Fuel
Operating Expenses
Facility Expense**
(20 Year Depr.)
$ 2.40/T
$ 1.75/T
$10.71/T
S14.86/T
$11.28/T
$ 3.79/T
$ 2.40/T
$ 1.75/T
$10.71/T
$14.86/T
$ 6.04/T
$ 5.43/T
$ 2.40/T
$ 1.75/T
$10.71/T
$14.86/T
$ 5.50/T
$ 5.05/T
NET SAVINGS
($ 0.21/T)
$ 3.39/T
$ 4.13/T
*Based on Following Revenue Factors
Magnetic Metals - 9.8% Input - Selling at $25.00/T
Sludge Disposal - Disposed of at a rate of .07T/T Input - $25/T
Fuel - $1.25/1,000,000 BTU
**Based on following facility costs pr9Jected to 1974 prices.
150 T/D
Weighing & Receiving $ 254,800
Pulping, Separation
and Dewatering
TOTAL PLANT COST
$ 876,400
$1,131,200
500 T/D
$1,103,000
$4,289,000
$5,392,000
1,000 T/D
$2,051,000
$7,987,000
$10,038,000
135
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX TITLE PAGE
A EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTIONS 137
B PICTORIAL FLOW DIAGRAMS 146
C MATERIAL BALANCE SHEETS AND
DATA COMPILATION FORMS (COMPILED
DAILY AND PRESENTED AS FOUR-WEEK
TOTALS)
D FORMS-DATA COMPILATION
1. Special Tests - Lab Sheet
2. Lab Sheet
3. Daily Data Sheet
4. Daily Calculation Sheet
E STREAM DEFINITIONS 2°1
1. Hydrasposal "A"
2. Hydrasposal "B"
3. Fiber-claim
F DATA-JUNK REMOVER MAGNETICS AND 205
NON-MAGNETIC REJECTS
G DATA-WATER CONSUMPTION 207
H DATA-POWER AND WATER CONSUMPTION
DATA/TON REFUSE INPUT 209
I TEST PROCEDURES FOR ANALYSIS OF INPUT
REFUSE 211
136
-------
APPENDIX A
EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTIONS
137
-------
1. CONVEYOR
LOCATION:
MANUFACTURER:
DESCRIPTION:
CAPACITY:
FUNCTION:
Conveyor pit in tipping floor area.
Webster Manufacturing Company
The conveyor consists of bins 60 inches wide,
3/8 inch thick, and 4 inches high on the sides.
An angular steel pusher bar is placed at every
fourth bin to prevent slippage of the solid
refuse.
Seven (7) tons per hour; plus a 25% surge.
Moves processable refuse to the Hydrapulper.
2. HYDRAPULPER
LOCATION:
MANUFACTURER:
DESCRIPTION:
CAPACITY:
FUNCTION:
Hydrasposal "A" Subsystem
Black-Clawson Corporation
The hydrapulper is 12 ft. in diameter with a
base-mounted rotor driven by a 300 h.p. motor.
A side-mounted junk remover removes metal,
tin cans, and other non-friable materials
from the hydrapulper. Recycled water is mixed
with the incoming refuse, and by the cutting
action of the high speed rotor all pulpable
materials are macerated into a liquid slurry.
Design capacity is six (6) tons per hour of
incoming refuse. The actual operating capacity
is seven (7) to eight (8) tons per hour.
Accomplishes size reduction of the incoming
solid waste and production of liquid slurry.
3. DUMP PUMP
LOCATION: Base of Hydrapulper
MANUFACTURER: Black-Clawson Corporation
DESCRIPTION: A Black-Clawson 5-inch BM, 500 gpm at 60
feet tdh.
DRIVE: 30 h.p./1200 rpm motor
FUNCTION: Pumps the liquid slurry to the liquid cyclone.
138
-------
4. JUNK REMOVER
LOCATION: Side of hydrapulper
MANUFACTURER: Black-Clawson Corporation
DESCRIPTION: Chain-operated buckets which capture large,
non-friable materials.
DRIVE: 5 h.p./I800 rpm motor; conveyor speed of
40 fpm.
CAPACITY: 3000 pounds/hour; 60 cubic feet/hour
FUNCTION: Removes non-friables from the hydrapulper
and conveys them to the junk washer.
5. JUNK WASHER
LOCATION: Next to hydrapulper unit
MANUFACTURER: Black-Clawson Corporation
DESCRIPTION: Rotating, continuous-type Ransohoff scrap washer.
DRIVE: 1/2 h.p. with sycrogear; barrel speed 5 rpm
CAPACITY: 3000 pounds/hour; 60 cubic feet/hour
FUNCTION: Originally designed with water sprays for
washing slurry from the removed materials.
Currently provides conveying action to magnetic
sorter transport.
6. MAGNETIC SEPARATOR
LOCATION: Hydrasposal "A" Subsystem: near junk washer output
MANUFACTURER: Black-Clawson Corporation
DESCRIPTION
The transport conveyor bringing materials from
the junk washer passes the materials under the
magnetic separator. The transport conveyor
is a 24-inch wide rubber-belted conveyor with
cross flights on approximately 24-inch centers.
The belt turns at 200 fpm and is powered by a
3/4 h.p. motor. The separator is electro-
magnetic with a 300 fpm face conveyor, rubber-
belted, with aluminum cross-flights and is
powered by a two (2) h.p. motor.
139
-------
FUNCTION: Separation of magnetic and non-magnetic material
is accomplished by means of the electromagnetic
conveyor located just above the transport
conveyor. Magnetic materials are picked up
by the separator and dumped into a 60-inch deep,
drop-bottom hopper while the non-magnetics
fall from the end of the transport conveyor
into a second hopper.
7. LIQUID CYCLONE
LOCATION: Hydrasposal "A" Subsystem - next to junk washer
MANUFACTURER: Black-Clawson Corporation
DESCRIPTION: A self-contained, ceramic-lined cyclone with
automatically controlled (timed) dump valves.
CAPACITY: 100 gpm with a pressure drop of 20 psi
FUNCTION: Removal of dense, coarse grit from the hydrapulper
process stream.
8. SELECTIFIER DILUTION TANK
LOCATION: Fiber Recovery System
DESCRIPTION: 3/8 inch thick steel sides x 1/4 inch thick
steel bottom. Tank diameter is 10 feet; tank
height is 7 feet.
FUNCTION: Receives input from the liquid cyclone process stream
and dilution input from the Whitewater system.
Provides for the dilution of the liquid cyclone
process stream prior to entering the selectifier.
9. SELECTIFIER
LOCATION: Fiber Recovery System
MANUFACTURER: Black-Clawson Corporation
DESCRIPTION: 0.062-inch diameter pressure screen, with a
ten (10) h.p./I800 rpm motor drive.
CAPACITY: 900 gpm with 0.6 percent input slurry.
FUNCTION: The input slurry is received from the selectifier dilution tank.
The more coarse materials (greater than 0.062 inches in diameter)
are screened out. These reject materials are directed to the
rejects tank while the selectifier process stream is directed to
the cleaners supply tank.
140
-------
10. CLEANERS SUPPLY TANK
LOCATION: Fiber Recovery System
DESCRIPTION:
3/8 inch steel sides x 1/4 inch steel base.
Tank dimensions are eight (8) feet wide x ten
feet high.
(10)
11. CENTRIFUGAL CLEANERS
LOCATION:
MANUFACTURER:
Fiber Recovery System
Bauer Brothers - 16 units, #606-110P
DESCRIPTION: Bank of 16 units; presently 5 are connected
in parallel operation to optimize removal
efficiencies.
CAPACITY: 1700 gpm
FUNCTION: Receives input from the Cleaner Supply Tank.
Acts to separate the small, dense particles
of grit and glass from the process streams.
The
output of the cleaners enters the rundown screen
units. The reject stream enters the reject tank.
12. RUNDOWN SCREENS
LOCATION:
MANUFACTURER:
DESCRIPTION:
CAPACITY:
FUNCTION:
Fiber Recovery System
Bauer Brothers - 48" width
.020 inch slotted screens of non-clogging
design, with addition of spay headers to aid
in fiber separation and prevent screen blockage,
1500 gpm input flow
Receives input from Centrifugal Cleaners
Process Stream. Provides for recovery of
fiber in stream and removal of fines. Ma-
terial less than .020 inches in diameter
passes through screens and enters Whitewater
system. Recovered fiber falls off end of
screen into stock sump, to barrel thickener
in Fiber Recovery System.
141
-------
13. BARREL THICKENER - FIBER RECOVERY
LOCATION: Fiber Recovery System
MANUFACTURER: Black-Clawson Corporation
DESCRIPTION: 2 barrels with 9-inch screws for dewatering.
CAPACITY: Input flow 175 gpm
FUNCTION: Receives input from stock sump of rundown
screens. Dewaters the fibrous slurry to
approximately 12 percent solids and discharges
to the Rietz Cone Press. The rejects enter
the Whitewater system.
14. RIETZ CONE PRESS
LOCATION: Fiber Recovery System
MANUFACTURER: Rietz Manufacturing Company - "V" press
Model RVP - 36
DESCRIPTION: Press wheel diameter is three feet, driven
by one (1) 20-h.p. and two (2) 5-h.p. motor.
CAPACITY: 42 pounds of (oven-dry) solids per minute
FUNCTION: Receives input from the barrel thickener and
further dewaters this material to approxi-
mately 40 percent solids.
15. FIBER DILUTION TANK
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION:
FUNCTION:
Fiber Recovery System (outdoor)
Square steel outdoor tank next to Fiber Recovery
System.
Receives dewatered fiber from cone press and
with appropriate pumps provides for re-dilution
with non-dewatered fibers from stock sump.
The re-diluted fiber stock is then pumped
via pipeline to the Logan Long Company.
142
-------
16. REJECTS TANK
LOCATION: Fiber Recovery System (inside)
DESCRIPTION
FUNCTION:
3/8" steel sidewalls and 1/4" steel bottom.
Five (5) feet in diameter and Seven (7) feet
high.
Receives the reject streams from various
units in the Fiber Recovery System. The
output is pumped to the surge chest for
ultimate incineration.
17. SURGE CHEST
LOCATION
DESCRIPTION
FUNCTION
Hydrasposal "B" Subsystem (large outdoor tank)
60,000 gallon capacity, outdoor tank constructed
of A 36 steel plats, commercial quality HRS.
Field-welded, sandblasted and epoxy -painted.
Receives Slurry from the liquid cyclone and
rejects from the Fiber Recovery System
prior to entering the Hydrasposal "B" Subsystem.
18.
BARREL THICKENER - HYDRASPOSAL "B"
"B" Subsystem
LOCATION:
MANUFACTURER:
DESCRIPTION:
CAPACITY:
FUNCTION:
Hydrasposal
Black-Clawson Corporation
Three barrels with three (3) 16 inch, inclined,
diminishing pitch screws driven by individual
15-h.p. motors.
350 gpm
Receives input from surge chest and dewaters
the slurry approximately 10 percent solids prior
to entering the cone press.
143
-------
19. RIETZ CONE PRESS - HYDRASPOSAL "B"
LOCATION: Hydrasposal "B" Subsystem
MANUFACTURER: Rietz Manufacturing Company - "V" press Model
RVP 60.
DESCRIPTION: Press wheel diameter is 5 feet; driven by
one (1) 50-h.p. and two (2) 10-h.p. motors.
CAPACITY: 132 pounds (oven-dry) solids per minute.
FUNCTION: Receives input from barrel thickeners and
further dewaters the process stream to
approximately 40 percent solids. The re-
jects enter the Whitewater system.
20. FLUID BED INCINERATOR
LOCATION:
MANUFACTURER:
DESCRIPTION:
CAPACITY:
FUNCTION:
Hydrasposal "B" Subsystem (separate reactor room)
Dorr-Oliver, Incorporated
The reactor is 21 ft. in diameter, of fluid-bed
design. The reactor can sustain autogenous
burn with a minimum input calorific value of
3000 BTU/lb. The input is a mixture of
fibrous material and municipal sludge of
approximately 40% solids. The volatile solids
content on a dry weight basis is approximately
90 percent. The bed temperature is maintained
at approximately 1500°F.
132 pounds/minute of the mixture described
above. (approx. 1.0 x 106 BTU/min.)
Ultimate disposal by incineration of rejects
from Fiber Recovery System, pre-thickened
materials using the Fiber Recovery System, or the
liquid cyclone process streeam. The reactor is
also capable of incinerating liquid industrial
wastes.
21. VENTURI SCRUBBER
LOCATION: Hydrasposal "B" Subsystem
MANUFACTURER:
DESCRIPTION:
Dorr-Oliver, Incorporated
Cools 71,800 cfm of combustion gases from 1570°F to 182°F by
introduction of 81.5 gpm of water. Ash removal by discharging
30 gpm of water from the scrubber system.
144
-------
FUNCTION: Removes particulate matters from combustion
gases at approximately 99% effectiveness,
using city water in scrubber.
22. WHITEWATER TANK - SMALLER, OUTDOOR
LOCATION: Outside, Southeast corner.
DESCRIPTION:
FUNCTION:
Constructed of A 36, commercial grade HRS, with
capacity of 10,000 gallons. Field-welded and
sandblasted, epoxy-painted.
Receives input from Fiber Recovery System
dewatering section and pumps the Whitewater
to the common Whitewater system.
23. WHITEWATER CHEST - LARGER, OUTDOOR
LOCATION: Next to surge chest at Southwest end of
building
DESCRIPTION: Constructed of A 36, commercial grade HRS,
with capacity of 30,000 gallons.
FUNCTION: Receives input from Hydrasposal "B" Subsystem,
dewatering section, provides for storage and
recycling of Whitewater to hydrapulper.
24. SLUDGE CHEST
LOCATION: East ot large, Whitewater chest on South side
of plant.
DESCRIPTION: Constructed of A 36, commercial grade HRS,
with capacity of 46,000 gallons.
FUNCTION: Receives sludge from MCD and allows for
uniform feed to Rietz Cone Press.
145
-------
APPENDIX B
PICTORIAL FLOW DIAGRAMS
This section presents a pictorial flow diagram with which
the reader can visualize the various equipments used in the
Franklin Plant. Section 3, Operational Capability describes
the process flow and can be used to supplement this pictorial
presentation.
146
-------
(1) Weighing Station and Apron
(2) Tipping Floor
147
-------
(3) Operator Using "Bobcat" on Tipping
Floor to Move Solid Waste to Conveyor
(4) Exterior View of
Hydrapulper
148
-------
(5) Base of Hydrapulper Illustrating Motor/Drive System
(6) Conveyor Feed Entering Hydrapulper
(Interior View)
149
-------
(7) Hydrapulper Interior Illustrating
Macerated Solid Waste (not operating)
(8) Side View of Upper Portion of Junk
Remover Illustrating Bucket Assembly.
Portion of Junk Washer Seen at Right.
150
-------
(9) Close-up View of Junk Remover Buckets
(10) Magnetic Separator -
Magnetics are carried
to Bin at Right while
Non-Magnetics fall
into container on left
151
-------
(11) Magnetic Hopper - Magnetics bin is
emptied into this container for
subsequent transport to processor.
(12) Liquid Cyclone
152
-------
(13) Conveyor to
Glass Plant
(14) Barrel Thickeners in
Dewatering and
Incineration Susbystem
153
-------
(15) Rietz Cone Press
(Dewatering and
Incineration Subsystem)
(16) Pneumatic Feed (Dewatering and Incineration
Subsystem) to Fluid Bed Reactor
154
-------
(17) Exterior View of Fluid Bed Reactor
Tanks at Left Are (L to R) Surge
Chest and Sludge Chest
(18) Venturi Scrubber (D & I Subsystem)
155
-------
(19) Control Panels for Pulping and Separation,
and Dewatering and Incineration Subsystems,
(20) Selectifier Dilution Tank
156
-------
(21) Fiber Recovery System - Mezzanine
Left - Barrel Thickener
Center Rear - Selectifier
Right - Centrifugal Cleaners Assembly
(22) Cleaners Supply Tank
157
-------
(23) Rundown Screens Assembly
(24) Rundown Screens - (Detail) - Operational
158
-------
(25) Fiber Thickening and Recovery
Left - Cone Press
Center Top - Overhead Conveyor
Right - Screw Conveyor To Fiber Chest
11LI.L,
mm .. < y, • :-•,
mi
-ilia*
V
(26) Control Panel •
Fiber Recovery
159
-------
APPENDIX C
MATERIAL BALANCE SHEETS AND
DATA COMPILATION FORMS
(COMPILED DAILY AND PRESENTED AS
4-WEEK TOTALS)
APPENDIX DATE
C-l 7 JAN - 2 FEE, 1974
C-2 4 FEE - 2 MAR, 1974
C-3 4 MAR - 23 MAR, 1974
C-4 25 MAR - 20 APR, 1974
C-5 22 APR - 18 MAY, 1974
C-6 20 MAY - 15 JUN, 1974
160
-------
APPENDIX C-l
7 JAN - 2 FEE, 1974
161
-------
ts»
JUMK
U,
i
u
e
t
>,
^
^
o** trter STB.
fy -3 Tlxus
Offt'Tlea •n^
&TT tll^
8
J
xa
_r '
JO V- >»•'
T« mcp
/facet/re?
5 MTVrM
UHirruunrt. -n •>H,Oao en
f-JJ n
ttl
UN.^ UX.tr*
UK
flHf
ftttttO
vtf'J T««»i ««rt
-------
w
DflrF
Mf <•«
lo
II '
I'l Ui
/7 '
J/3.J
J.I •
it .
JV .
UffOV
*"
Jl
JJ
il •
ifima
TrrtuS
'jlO.O
31
11 X
fa.O
fi.o
111 J
JB.J
H3
Y7.4
Vfi»*T
31. S
Jt.t,
J*/
At 3.
//"
6VJ
J7.1
Tw/uK
d.JL
J.6
0.7
0.7
0..1
•v-a.
1.0
o.f
I.I
I.A
O.f
17
3. a
f-S"
ZA; P UTS
17.7
JAS-
JO
V/.3
JJ.A
33.0
itl-3
9.JL
/O.I
fn.l
/O.9-
13.1
367
J.VJ
/v-y*
V.r?
7 /*
J/-3
7B fttUAlf
.It
.Jo
.18
•J3
/.31
./J.
.93
./r
.3?
. Vo
, J/
$••>-
0
HMMnminiMnK.
l.oe
.10
.so
.63
V./J
.11
.7J
'.31
.11
.U
A/J.
V-s-7
UTPMTS
J.Tb
3. to
3.30
/.OO
110
3.31
1.11
J ft
if
I f9
mm*
J.tO
3.10
/If. 3
J.66
.^.VJ
A/3
?*>•(.
c.V-J
Mworftvn
J3.0
J/.'
y.7/
t/.o
3C.3.
3f.r
AF.f
A3. 3
it. (,
(TMS)
/.SO
S-.73
3.3V
I/.')
.11
3 16
a/
e 17
1 os
-------
fttnr
Pfirf
rn- OT
Vf
fevto
DfW/17F
Mf wiwur
JJ 0
7.6K
/V.f
.ft*
H.t
//. e
/? a
13.3.
.*!
io
'7-3.
J/. /
• 31
/V.a
/&
s-.vi
.37
a
.01
l.lff
t.3.1
/f.3
J/./
j/./
J7.V
•7.JO
16.6
V.7/
7.7V
7.7V
JT.&7
Yo.*
11.1
.33.
f.lf
.J-J
3. If
3. If
"I*
iv.r
7' -
V7-?
.Vfc
. -7V
10.3.
/.fo
./o
. YJ.
l.fl
A/7
v.w
./r
3./r
10.
y.is
f.37
V./A
V./A
J.3S"
G'f
1.13
l*-f>
3.1*.
.36
II-*
M.I
13.1
.79
133.
a.rt
.JJ
f.JV
7.77
9.
Lie
It.}.
J.SV1
9.J7
31 •
'4.J.
.11
13.0
9.67
/ft*
W.P
li.o
l.ss
li.i.
.i
'U-
a 7
f.W
V.7*
•7-1
AC no
1-1&
JO-f
Y77
164
-------
• fis
D*re
xN purs
Cvttour
SwftlSntw
UHIV
ToTftL
TOTAL
Our Par.
OUTPUTS
tnnr
M
oiy
-
(TD-S)
o*r
(reoi)
»7 •
.1C.
.* 6.
S--3I
3.3 /
*-?(
16.9
•o?
.Vfl
a. re.
.Ob
V//
a.v/
3J-V4
Lit
7. W
6-17
tz.il
(.10
• f
(1.19
JY.7J
.fl J.j
il.o
6.70
a. IV
IC.t
/./t
6.79
r- 1
A 1.0
/of
.1*.
C.I?
i.fr
13.1
•i.nt
.ft
.it
H.C.
.9V
S-.J6
J9.9
.30
t.tt
9.9 S
t.a./
/Ml
Cl.tl
I.J
JO/J
165
-------
3 -
C
JL. B DtV SOLIDS
Kr~t w*./. «.fc,V J«.M
A-ar^- J[ -
rvr
166
- Jffg,
^B^B^^B^^^BV^B
*^ V
y
V
i*»d - y*
-------
APPENDIX C-2
4 FEE - 2 MAR, 1974
167
-------
Sot
ro
- MATT*!*!. Bat»*jtr
00
areitifo
Mo<»s*»ie'
JUW« *
lJ.>s«
Crjm~»fo.
0 fea*»T7id -nnf 2££«n
-» fair Tut
*G**f» j»
——*-/l« __
—^—^^^^ ^U«MM#«IW«
> n»i»trf.Mrmt
tttxoF'ttcO T»«I
ftrr i«t«.
•7,/g nm
ft«HtV 10 fcrf*» C J
^-5
T» mcp
5 VJTPI
c^fe
37-7 T
n ~lK,*rtf l.-J* not
tmnr utrftL n itfoitfMtaL V.f*'-"0 c«t
iy t«X.TT< T. AICO /,
1
* An
u«>w<*< tr'fura
BMIt.
-------
6J*irr
vo
Dflrf
Mf «4
7 '
Illlf
'V
ir •
n »
JO •
1J.
•II'"'
fettto
(dfi6HT3
M
M.O
Ae.f
U.I
JJT.S'
/S77
31.1
U.3
3J.S
Jo./
J3.7
J/.3
untHT
(*•*
J0.1
S6J
at. A.
3a.lt
at. I
Ai.o
A 3.6
J-7.S-
AS:?
3). 3
33.0
1.13-
Ja.i
JJ.3
31.*.
/•//•r
(*»*>
0'J.
e.7
6'*
l.f
/.o
0.5
1.0
I.e
6.S"
1.0
J.ff
AJ.
0.5"
1.1
l.o
V-J
PUTS
/>ut«rt
Z*iPMT 1 n Pm.PcH.1 TB freiiar
/i.f
Jo.?
/X.7
//r-r
13.0
AI.&.
a 1.8
It -5
Ml KCil«T
fij
DM «ntiir
J.Jff
J/.o
.Jo
.37
.J?
.3f
.J7
.J!
.Jf
/•v/
.17
.Jo
M
3-7.3
1.3!
l.ei.
.19
X.vtr
I.e/
HI
i.i-f
.9*
.1+
1.60
/.fa
I.3S
Jll-J-
i.ir
.w
3/0
/.SI
3.13
3 t>3-
1.11
C.IJ
j.ry
J.79
3. to
3.1 i.
J Ob
2.10
1.3.1
l.7t
3.SX
1.31
lit
J.tt
it f *-
/y-c
tititur trtiouf tttuannti
ftecra to fit
11.0
ft,. 3
3.1.0
JO.i
JS.t.
jj y
MS
J3.J
lf.3
AJ?
I.Dtf
I.P6
J.6).
I.3S-
II-?
3.Jf
It- 6>-
.79
1.13
I.CO
l.lf
37-7
-------
iSutcf
tfSKO
TOW-
Off UI/ITFfl *i t Sec T70*J
O UTPMTS
Tuuaart CfMf Parss
SLvDlf
Cue*r
/d
SIMM.'
1*1 me
Mf <**
ott ur»er
4 fie
7.S6
VfcJ
/; a.
t.uo
f 67
t.ll
f.n
F V/
AST
./fr
S.10
j.cfr
f.TS"
7 '
1.36
J.7V
767
/.9ff
(.20
I.AO
13.1
.J3
. /J.
S.3V
35-;
fV
57 «
'17
lifts
>/ r
II.?
3;
SSI
.10
•7.**!
11
.73
l.'Jo
,19
&.!/
il_l
SJS
/.37
.Of
/« 7
3.(,S
.If
7.9V
15
H.e
If.l
1-4. *
,03
IfcV
r./V
S3-J
07
/ s
r.-J/
/o-t
71
ISht
.11
I?
7.J3
1.19
S.AO
Jfi
16.3
ISJ
A.S-1
.IS
1.S3
a; •
13.0
.JJ
/3.4.
.it
9.4S-
7.74
1.1.9
.14
03
1.1*
-'7V
/"/J
.01
V'-?'
j-- f
•ft
1.13
.ICC
1.11
.07
.It
11*
13.;
12.1
3. It
.If
9. a/
Jf
S-7V
S.-74
11. t
3JJ
If./
el
1.H,
.07
1.31
10.3
ia7
.01
10.1
•A3
6.0;
a •
3.31
7»T«LS
"
7
Jiff
170
-------
ti3»nr Rrt*tr>*-> H**r - Hn onuatr • ftri
Mrr
TOTAL.
0UTPUT2
TS
Sotted
WrSrt.
Ml M*
u»
(TO/OS)
.*/
/.s-r
W.7
•T.3J
1, •
./J
ru
i.So
J.flA
3.3.1
iV. 9
.*/
11-3
/I fin
ir./x.
l/.e
3.W
V J
a/./r
7.3o
I.AS
S.J9
S'-?
13 »
,/s-
/S.1?
//vy
4.49
-11
a.*)/
If
il.l
1.11
u.cr
13.1
J.&p
.ff
H.VI
/c/f
/»«
Vr-X
in
3.71
Hi1.*
.1?
.w
/,*/
c.ia
.Si
3 7J
11 *
m
it-S*
.ft
20
•31
3. If
//*
3.1.')
11
its
el
i/.e
i.er
S-47
It.
IS.f
it,
f.ic
rf.Ot
(,.3f
i et
v-/
17.S
.Ft,
. 6*.
Jo.oi
3.T6
n-a-
At/
.t9
.03.
.Tf
/.if
36
17 •
/S7J
If.
//•v;
ST. ft
J./f
a-ffO
J3.1
.37
/./v
3.1?
I..10
./S"
/•*• If
J.37
SH.1/
• 11
•5*7
if.
11-7
TkTMl
*^/ \l.7*
1_LI
71.29
71.SS
171
-------
f
/T.BK wr
172
V
M ff**te
r'""- Ufr *"" - ~n* "^""la/fl
SVt - «#/./ )M°
W3.">° y
D(/ SOLIDS
' * \X n\S \
7 M ^. § e ^ i (J / J f/t 1"
/ t y 7 4& G n * 7 V * ^C • •' ' * v
' ^ \ ^ *
-------
APPENDIX C-3
4 MAR - 23 MAR, 1974
173
-------
oi.ia
Bat/uitt
-Torn*. rJA*rr
7'/
Rftltieo TO HteMtm.fr*.
JU«K
vi.yn-x
yg.Tfrrtftiv;
"i
*
a.a
I
\
ua
LT:
«*> Cuts O TVat
8
TD*. Syirr» J
w mcp
fine
HfSttrt
S31 not
far* «»w«*«t
emir*
H. 3 TB»»
/.?. g T
n. Jjf.ooo ttL
3.3 »».«
/JO. l*al
slf.eeo «
V T
flit
Mia
ft tin rut
-------
Ui
Fetnti.it)
DflTf
VI**
1 •
u
It'ftt
PfilOO
So.!1).
39.19.
'//. ) I
/ff.69.
jj.n
Ho. 3
Vo.fc
/7/.J-
J/.5)
V.?.-/
mo
413.
PuiWI
(*«}>
33.0
3f.3
3? V
3/.0
m.i
JS.fl
HJ.f
1S.I
J3./
UNnuouiw
ueittr
0.2
1.1
1.9-
/.A
1.0
/. 3
t.3-
1.-7
(,. -7
3.0
/.*?
/.A
13. t>
Puier*.
Mf MM.r
11.3
J7.0
39. P-
. 7
6.S7
JfJL.
~I7.7
3a«.
PUTS
m tiittHf
7.31
1.5-1
8.1S
Lot
7-31
-T/.7
ffff.%
110.
DM
./t
.77
.JO
.17
.01
.r?
• 13.
.if
.18
MDIMU4TK
LSI
V.oS
13. y
/.77
S.SX
UTPKTS
eyetotJf
J.19
3.30
/y.c,
3. to
3.00
3.1V
J.Jg
J.tS
. IS
(,.10
V./JL
3. to
Y36
f.i/
ff.l
A?. 3
tJf.
6.i7
/9.o
339.
A 33
/.73
3. Of,
,fg
.57
S.ft
-------
r-Al.
Oarf
Pflrf
nSjacf
mm Or**
D£ feM7F#M>6
TOTAL.
SfCTief)
Tu
O UTPUT5
C.~
vri?»
OilTAil
ffftnt
jtt no
Mf "C
Mi onutr
Vita
3.37
11.3
3.39
.If
I •
6.73
J.ll
V./7
10.1
. ft)
f.ro
J.Sf,
7./f
.3'
.3*
13.7
.Vi
1 •
£.->/
.or
3.7?.
re.y
fS.I
/V.3
II fit*
3.03.
10. 0
/o.o
10.0
7,o7
U
/.If
II.*
J./V
SJfl
*/.?">
3.11/
7.80
.a
C..3I
a-sf
.Y*
/o.J
7.33
..51
/r./
3«-r
.VI
• IS
.ot
7/.3
A33
/. i
/WnO
lot
Ifl
m.
176
-------
ftW
r& PUTS
Ci)nrrf
UATf*.
TOTAL
TOTAL
CtamratM.
cte*
Sneer
IfcRT
Tlltiftfl
DCVuntor
txtr
J22_
.03
n.-s
17.1
t.if
£•.03-
.SO
V.7/
-PO
A3.7
-frv.3
.n
16.0
JV. 2
(S.S3
A.,1
9.17
->•*>
//.f
t.f
6. >3
J.a?
Ifo.
tJtJ.
3f.V
HO. a.
(Mfcl
J^0_
JL±S_
V.1*
.SO
6. 0
10.0
/.17
9./S-
/.J
zr-i
3.
ItO.
113.
nftu
JO^L
.19
10. 6
3.03.
3.AI
9.03
.17
$.*.->
• 3V
a. 30
.ft
.VI
31
0?
7.11
.V7
XI
.•f
V.7/
V.
.31
/.r/
J.f?
13.7
3*7.
tl.f
177
-------
00
RftlClfO
ft for Sm.
/Eg •*»«
tip turn
->tt*«pacp» 19.9 TIM
' iO T»UI
o fr a dTi«) TI.C jJtimi
CVft.jyPiMfit.VK,
/g.6 "^
T»'t««M^I»
B
(
-------
APPENDIX C-4
25 MAR - 20 APR, 1974
179
-------
00
o
at.LifJ S,
01.10
itftiti.ee re
Vt.l IM< '
"i*
l'
T
,
\ Surf*
t -Sko
Sm.
tifwrt.1
errr •)*».»•» ««t.
/3l. I
/?3. •>*•»
/l.fe *«»'
uunrutmrt. n yet.ao» <«.
/^.fc »^
9.llt,09» SHI
ija.T»«u
T»/»ltD
/»9 >••»•*
-TVS
8
J
-------
00
DflTF
•~™
>SI
/ flf.
I/If
L&f.
•ifln
r/?,,
•1 IVf
••> M.
ft tin
Rente AS Prtnieo
27.0?.
/ 3. 3?.
3 /.«/?.
31. V?.
3 ».
UtllHT
r.o
3S.3
it.o
/33.
If 3.
CV.f
/32.
fj.3.
UfltHT
13.1
IM.
37./
/V7.
JJ.?
3V.A
U.i
V9V
r/.o
515-
umucnMiu
0.?
1.0
3.0
l.e
0.7
0.3.
1.9
1.0
JJ
6.7
1.0
3.0
I.Z
Puiffg
Lfi P UTS
7.3
At.e
tl.1
9,9.0
**&.
&4.o
99.3
a. f
/9.S"
4.1.
31.1
7V. &
V3.7
. 7
&.V9
3. 9 A
S.oo
3*1.13.
(..&!
J99
f.fJL
SV.23
V./r
J1-J1—
//.»*
./g
.85-
.03
.14
.of
.33
./a.
.07
.to
tlniiinurnt
JUMK
UO
7.3^1
i.sa
I.U
).3t>
.'/A
l.ll
Iff
.19
/.to
3.J3,
8.77
/.ti
3.06
lo. in
3.37
n.
A.s?
.94
9.P5"
t.tl
3. to
ttttOUf tYtlOftf
A ad
/'/.S?
Jif.jy
t3.it
1.93
A/6
ST9S-
f.to
/JTS3-
17.61,
18. fl
tt&F
9o.e,o
H.&9
fll
(,1.1-t
vy./r
/AV
Wo
1.37
.70
J.37
2.13
-------
Dare- If fit* -
rfjueef Giesr
St4/r/«r
KptniSf
^0*7 **«*">
T07/H-
Cwpsr
TOTAL.
TFt
/•I
OUTPUT5
TlfUOUff
RrarvVum
Parts
OUTPUT
JIS*
ft "ft?
fr-4
S.tS
VST
J.7S-
at flit
261
3.73
3V
-V7
f.o/
;?•*«
77V
J7
./A
13. SI
J?.??
.48
.;*
.3o
•).
Jio
.01
* 69
.01
6 f*
I.It.
./V
.30
Sf.So
6.637
/A*
J**
^^£.
^»^s
14 -si*
_v£Z_
//VJ
,/&
J/33
II
tf.S-7
H.70
4/S
.37
10. tf
-3?
I fin
V.9 6
T7MI5
V.J7
de, is
l.ll
6730
i.s-t.
.07
734
S".
J.A3
10. 10
10. AS
/fl.SV
it ftp f
./a
i.e.*)
J.21
u fin
Mrs
.fl
a s
,66
f.st
.11
3t
93 1,3
C.9S-
. 3 /
/./JL.
F An
9.76
t.et
•?36
./£
>< /»>/
D/IW
2f.it
J3
/.ai
.09
g sc/
.7.73
f.al
a Pa
JV.1&
/*.*/
***.
ll.lb
.Of
.I/
37
-liij
.31
/. 8?
.It
AJO.VS"
TtTflS
$1.0
/33.
97.5-
182
-------
Am. /*»">*/ •
OOP
fab
e.m -
_ 5~pg. Qgo
Jf1». 0«*~">c *--«WT 0-«J«iW ->»T«-« »^.-r »
>a
183
-------
APPENDIX C-5
22 APR - 18 MAY, 1974
184
-------
00
Rftlti.eo TO
J7-7 7»»*
. „
»•'
,.b»]
uc
til »«*//•* *L A
«
W*i
opftfoTiijTtrf ir-t aa
tiouf tffetr Sn.
79.3.
g tO ***
10 «WK tmr,
TS.IJ
-THittraeo
fi*ru33',*itc». *.
•*•« a •«• »• /
-n 373,tao ctL
kiHtif tatrM. n iffoMluifaL 3t'3.VQlooo
T»/HtO
IK
557 "
V v
,o~
•* f«,/«r Q r»u
8
iro« Svirr- J
nut
tnttrt
•X
Rrcovctf
fine
/Iui-ii«»i4i»« O lim
»n> o«f «MU
fttw mf
Bun.
-------
oo
en
DflTF
IU
3Y
J>
36
10
7 -
\ -
It '
1 flu
/v •
TiM
Rrmf »
(CH73
(*.)
ZV.o'S.
30 7?
«7
*•«•£
•/
33-7?
«*/•/?
Jv-v'/
3JJ '(.
3J-/V
UtllHT
M"
3(-f.
Vi'3
v/-/
vr'V
51 7
vy-j
J/7-i-
8Mum6 M/I»«»»C
ju>« -
OUTPUTS
-7./J
/.to
/.OO
f.if
fit
a-io
2-jo
1-31
f 12.
a -or
a/
I 7*
/•87
/•5V
•2-00
a-vo
377
3,06
Jo
f.31
II if,
3. -8*
/i'-VJ
1-77
3.-S*
3-13.
331
H
12*.
J-iO
1 If
I2-1T
5V J
tttttnf
tnttti
3.66
v-rf
?V
l-ll
3 SO
3-60
rtccm fruit
Cw)
3300
/o? jy
33-70
ifo-73-
13- (6
3V -CJ-
enriMrmn
/.ae,
.to
•/.of
/•02.
/•/r
•33
/•/J
/•w
6 7.3
iO-0
-------
B
r0T«*
TOTHL
CHFST
OUtftT
Sfc.no/iJ
TOTAL
" .
SfCTieti
0 UTPUT5
Tumeiuft
P«FSS
4Jft
Jiutt*
(runt
Mf »r
Off wf n
on ~r,irr
on wm«r
A?.
IS-t/
.31*
t-33-
•917
7/V-
3.0
it-f
7
• 31 o
1-70
1-76
il 1
t-30
•J/
16
U-3
IS-f
tf-t
sso
3 -ft
•J3*
/s-f
»7
•n
,7-1
•33»
• r-6
•V
ff
11-1
MHO
vs-r
Hi-
360'3
e-fo
9f-7
J.OI
jet 8
f-tl
187
-------
- -ft
trt
DATF
OUTPUT:
OUTPU rs
VlmrSif
*
im toun
(TS-S)
0(1
t/im
%
(TWK)
DM
At
.Og
". 20
/.I/
•Si
• 77
•rr
/e-ff
17-7
V-/J
1-67
3-ffJ
/•V?
3-V/
3-0*
•ro
'1
li-5
i tO
•/
S ««
' SV
/•JV
•n
61
ao-s'
y s
/•t3
/a-V
•to
T--3-/
*•
-------
AtC & Insure tJ+rra
= V 01 a me orr
+• Term. flltnT»*r la
ilt
e.rx »,r 5»«^
a 6/- r
1,193,^0°
&/_._ * Dtvsotios
fi-Jl
-A ,>
' / s^-7 «**
189
-------
APPENDIX C-6
20 MAY - 15 JUN, 1974
190
-------
at. to
ftfOtitTto*l AAMT - Murffntt. Sanmtr
-Tortu. A/i*rr D»rfM*t»r-'Tjr*n-',
H
vo
ttftltLfO Ttf
Sm.
Snifm
I/
11.6'
wmrrbMitt IB
tut.
» ftut~u
->/vr*t»fflt flfK^I'/f-nM
-+tAi*r«.t.f» 9£.&nmt
"icp
»•»
An uTMta utt •*»•> ••« Miu
fittn mr AMI/ T*uj f wrO
-------
vo
ro
Dflrp
Uf Aft
tl-S
u-f
11-S
t*-r
J«-f
r-c
7-6
W-6
Jtltti
6H73
«
3ft. O
•Z.T.3
2Z.3
24.7
a-V-J ?.
3».5
2*5.0
4.0
6/.C.
39.3
34-3
44-.?
45.
4/.2
no. 8
, «.
373
•74 -
4-3. R
4V.O
40.2.
35. 1
2.07.4-
P'SZ.
mutnanu
f«Hti
UfltHT
57.5-
44-7
34*4
4-2.2.
34-6
44-. 4-
3S-Z
3L.T-
13-7
3o.7
ueitff
2.8
V.9
/r s-
•/.f
3.0
5:0
it 1
3.6
JJ
r.s
2.V
/? r
futfff
XHftt-T
v/-/
17-0
trir
- HOL
ft-0
30 ••»
it-O
36 /
•WO
ZS.J-.
2.0.(p
2Z-Z
497.3
/>wrs
Tt
W.JT
yA£i.
737
7.61
J^_7_
9/v
net
TD freimaf
.fy
.37
.3*
.vr
•7 or
.37
.39
7/
.3V
.J7
.11
,37
,31
.13
3o
j.o
/? al
t.v
3.»7
/.a
.8
.9
.9
y.r
VV/
V.7V
Joo
flO
S.f3
36
f.it
a.y
7.9
//.
3.69
2.0
V.a
J.a
V.o
1.9
V.O
3.9
V./
v.v
/a.r
Si/
tveitiJ* eytieuf tleuar u*n
tnnrS fttcmtr/tu eirmo^
JV.ff
ao. /
1. /
o. f
nor
3o./>
/0036
Jo.VC
26.8
130 f 6
H.l
/f.Z
11.6
/f.6
loi.l
a. 30
C.V/
/.17
n.n
3.77
1.83
3./J
/.ff
±5L.
a.n
2T9
.rr
l.fO
/.*-)
l.ff
re
-------
T»5atef
Sim
IttaHH
7B70L
JTAIPUTJ
Src-no/J
TOTAL
OUTPUTS
Tltlioutf
:.«- Parts
ffunt.
Mf i-C
(r— d
-91
V«3
17-t/g
/-.$
ll.SC,
3-10
f-yj. : ii
•37
s-H
3J<
r-t
/r 30
-Ct,
•yy
i-f
IS.T4
3.05.
ZffOO
1.52-
53.34-
af-r
7-7*
r-a
t/-S~o
tt-yo
• HO
7-e-f
3 /
14.33
3-f6
if -to
• no
I8.T7
30
'8.30
/y-vf
•2 i"
C-a-Z.
zzse
40.T
58. 4-1
O.Sfe
SS.97
f 00
1.1.4
•13
IB.SI
15.
3-10
0.16
•/J
7-VV
10. tl
11-19
II. 10
3- SI
052
I6..CS
S-w?
/•JO
fj-f
2.C.4
13.0
14
11. tl
( Ofc
4-7.
fJ-JO
iS-lo
.tij
ISMI
04-Z
A-6
IS.C.O
14-
ll-O
0.4^
IL2L
•SSI
±L
0-42
n.98
£21
I-/00
Ift.OO
0.53
7-or
•7.fiS
fsJ
IC..1S
70. B6
I.S9
. 76
7..10
TV-Mi*
/. 7
t7
-------
MIC
Cvctour
Sfii
.
Ctrwia
r
rs
VinrSri
Ttrn
0»f Mi.
OflMT
. "."*•£_ Jttffl
(r««iy (ntx)
(7.*)
»s.t9'-
13
IS-*) 3
5.10
Z 70
0.43
2.6.1
*t-f
.14-
17. 4?
. $0
0.6,3
3.7S
20.87
8-1°
0.6,1
I3.&3
.10
1 30
3.
0.63
3.SI
309
13.4-2.
i.So
15.12
6O
0.1.3
VffO
.84
81.36
34-
9.33
Z&.O0
3.13
n.io
Jf-S"
IQ.Tfc
(.T4-
.17.
I2.C.Z
14-
7.50
O3/
/.7^
1 Z.feO
.10
li.03
II.Z-T
I.SO
0.13
/,so
.33
2C..I')
9.70
O.C,O
4-3 S
«• I
3.1 fe
ZS.O 1
•Z.l*)
O.S7
.I**
BZ.tfl
26.40
/.&/
ft.
n.sc.
n
1 01.
460
20
IL.1O
((..S3
&.*(.
S.Tt
3.3 /
(S-e>4-
• 1C.
15.39
O.&c
1.0,1
0.65"
IZ
J.Tt
6. so
ots
3 69
•zei?
.35
11.31.
1.44
8. co
o.ss
3.V9
IOI.&7
1.14
lot. at
3.iS
19 CO
I'-f
21 10
ZS.Tf
M. 10
S.93
654-
J J?
01
nto
f.Ob
/:*o
.92.
M4.SZ
llo. V,
ST. .00
II. O1)
S-37
IS 19
13
IkTHl
3S.4-.
•75.4.
194
-------
*»rr -r -
Ht \r*r n L,t** £.14
.* «<.i. «fcV *»••• «r>.
3v6.o X -/w
195
. 7*.
^^
/ °^ V
«r To Crvx -uf ^
e\
MM wr P»«« /*.».j»«.N
/^•^-y y
*BL
-------
APPENDIX D
FORMS - DATA
1. Special Tests - Lab Sheet
2. Lab Sheet
3. Daily Data Sheet
4. Daily Calculation Sheet
196
-------
\D
X-o- \
ja.
i / Tx
\((f. iynyfir»t /rfri/ftfo
SHEET
•i g//r
f-t.
IK-'/*
•(<>.
US"
it-it/?
•Sis?.
33 8/.
"J-77/1
It-
t F71
S»*J9 7
If 7-3-173
111-13
II 3 I.
TfHT
jyrtfei.
tfvctet.e. if
•1
/ if**/. •*{ i f
r-nrn~i] f'iS
/<•* i * '
'rf t*
-4/10
7
"
I
\<-if ''I
/. I . (tl I •
WV/J
X-O-
•. , ft <• *>r 'f ff TMIMO HUir-
I J- frfjrrflitri*ur.nf
I J.
Sffft. 6
i. r/iff
I) |ii«/r i'
'/• "I(IH
Size
•a,A Jj, ft'ftCS '••la'jrtna [ JT
let
tf
10 fjo
ff.yy
JTftf
-37
7/fS
fH j j tntfft
? 3 -
ye-3tj
- 77;.
i-o(.!>
>„
,,r
I X7
v 5?
>?•/<; i-
. y | /"/•«/
,-.,., | ..- |>,, ,
2VST
' r/ff,f
' /"?»',*",'$
\I.Tatf"T
\l',',Y;-i*,-»nfr
' *
0
'/V yj\j
1? WJ.
i
I
10
I7^ 'Jf.>
•'T7-'-
j«
//r '/(•<<«
TJ ^
30
its /i'H
-f*[ *"••
:
iff \ jo 6" '• •/• \ 7" | //>" '• //»
/>< wi'/f '.
-------
D»T.P
7 U
vo
00
. Dltfhfc
/. Tnte- uJi.(* 1
£
«t>o
V-2-S-
'/ 7-
j »••/;;/
. irve.
OCC.
?.
AM. lr«.
-A/
Oct.
citrsr
3^,
IT.T-10
tOO
3n.Hl. TH
OCC.
OCC.
-------
VO
VD
-------
oarf T~( It* •>>
unriiut Sr"-r**J traftrt ~
T (.»t,."."~'*.t.iji3.i'y,* tit. /J.-iV »<«-\ © f.nrtm
Pttftr
I'jooeti
7-1* ».
Tt niurn• V -n
» ut Lfj7*/9 J
J:v<*^ <
O £"ftfcrtffit ffftFtrS
tflftrt
200
-------
APPENDIX E
STREAMS DEFINITIONS
1. Hydrasposal "A"
2. Hydrasposal "B"
3. Fiber Recovery
201
-------
Appendix
Hydrasposal Sub-System A
Stream Definitions
Input - Total Refuse Wet Processed
Refuse Received. The total amount of refuse deposited on the
tipping floor. This includes unprocessable refuse.
Refuse Weighed - All refuse received and passed over
the scale.
Refuse Unweighed - All refuse received on a flat rate
basis.
Tipping Floor Salable Junk Process Stream - Spring steel,
white goods, etc.
Tipping Floor Unsalable Junk Process Stream - Tires, Bulky
tree items, etc. (landfillable)
Tipping Floor Residual - Amount of refuse remaining on floor
at end of operating day.
Net Tipping Floor Residual - This is equal to the Tipping
Floor Residual initial - Tipping Floor Residual final.
Cyclone Process Stream - The process stream directed to the fiber
recovery system from the cyclone.
Cyclone Rejects Stream (Grit) - That portion of the hydrapulper
slurry process stream removed by the cyclones.
Hydrapulper Junk Process Stream - That portion of the tipping
floor conveyor process stream removed by the junk remover
in the hydrapulper.
Hydrasposal Magnetic Rejects - The magnetic portion of the
solids in the hydrapulper junk process stream.
Hydrasposal Non-Magnetic Rejects - The non-magnetic portion
of the solids in the hydrapulper junk process stream.
202
-------
Hydrasposal Sub-System B
Stream Definitions
Waste Slurry Stream - Total stream directed for disposal by
Incineration. (Surge chest process stream).
a) When Fiber Recovery System is operaating, this stream
consists of the rejects tank process stream.
b) When Fiber Recovery System is not operation, this
stream consist of the cyclone process stream.
Sewage Sludge - Sewage sludge directed to the cone press from
the wastewater plant.
Thickener Process Stream - Thickened output stream.
Thickener Reject Stream - Liquid expelled from the waste
slurry stream by the thickener.
Cone Press Process Stream - Cone press output stream.
Cone Press Reject Stream - Liquid expelled from the thickener
process stream by the cone press.
Scrubber Rejects Stream - The waste stream issuing from the
scrubber (Ash Slurry).
Scrubber Venturi City Water - Input to the Venturi scrubber
(City Water).
203
-------
Fiber Recovery System
Stream Definitions
Cyclone Process Stream - The process stream directed to the
Fiber Recovery System from the Hydrasposal Sub-system A.
Selectifier Process Stream - That portion of the selectifier
dilution tank process stream that is not removed by the
selectifier screen.
Selectifier Rejects Stream - That portion of the selectifier
dilution tank process stream that is removed by the
selectifier screen.
Centrifugal Cleaner Process Stream - That protion of the
selectifier process stream that is not removed by the
centrifugal cleaners.
Centrifugal Cleaner Rejects Stream - That portion of the
selectifier process stream removed by the centrifugal cleaners.
Reject Tank Process Stream - The combined selectifier rejects
and centrifugal cleaner reject stream. (At times this may
also include the run down screen process stream).
Run Down Screen Process Stream - That portion of the centrifugal
cleaner process stream which is not removed by the run down
screen.
Run Down Screen Rejects, Stream - The portion of the centrifugal
cleaner process stream removed by the run down screen.
Barrel Thickener Process Stream - The barrel thickener output
stream.
Barrel Thickener Reject Stream - The liquid portion of the run
down screen process stream which is removed by the barrel
thickener.
Cone Press Process Stream - The cone press output stream.
Cone Press Reject Stream - The liquid portion of the barrel
thickener process stream that is removed by the cone press.
204
-------
APPENDIX F
JUNK REMOVER MAGNETIC
AND NON-MAGNETIC REJECTS
205
-------
TABLE
JUNK REMOVER MAGNETIC AND NON MAGNETIC REJECTS
MAGNETIC REJECTS DATA
10
o
ON
Category Sample 1
Tin Cans
Bottle & Jar Caps
Metal Ends from Paper/Metal Cans
Misc. Ferrous Metal
Metal Cans with Aluminum Tops
Contaminants (wood, plastic, etc.)
Non Magnetic Metals
TOTALS 120.8
NON MAGNETIC REJECTS DATA
Sample 2
Pounds
75.6
4.1
0.5
23.0
14.2
3.4
Percent
62.6
3.4
0.4
19.0
11.8
2.8
Pounds
80
1.0
0.5
23
13
0.5
0.5
Percent
67.5
.84
.42
19.4
10.9
.42
.42
100
118.5
99.9
Average
Percent
65.0
2.1
0.4
19.2
11.4
1.6
0.2
99.9
Category
Aluminum
Organics
Total Ferrous
Magnetic Ferrous
Rocks, Inert, Glass
Rocks
Glass
Copper/Brass
Sample 1
Sample 2
Pounds
26.7
33.8
25.5
(21.0)
79.3
(41.3)
(38.0)
10.2
Percent
15.2
19.2
14.5
(11.9)
45.2
(23.5)
(21.6)
5.8
Pounds
11.7
14.1
15.0
(9.5)
44.8
(16.4)
(28.4)
6.5
Percen
12.7
15.3
16.3
(10.3)
48.6
(17.8)
(30.8)
7.1
Average
Percent
14.3
17.9
15.1
(11.4)
46.4
(21.6)
(24.8)
6.2
TOTALS
175.5
99.9
92.1
100
99.9
-------
APPENDIX G
WATER CONSUMPTION
207
-------
WATER CONSUMPTION
ALL VALUES IN GALLONS
Heck
7 Jan
1< Jan
21 Jan
2E. Jan
4 Feb
11 Feb
IE Feb
25 Feb
4 Mar
11 Mar
IE. Mar
25 Mar
1 Apr
B Apr
15 Apr
21 Apr
29 Apr
6 May
13 May
2O May
2T May
3 June
1C June
TOTAL
HU.
Mij>.
Avg.
S
Process
H20 TOTAL
241,900
248,300
308,000
556,000
414.000
353.000
436.000
371.400
531.000
512,000
299,000
318,000
261,000
255,000
434,000
352.000
386.000
378.000
435,000
548,000
439,000
521,000
401,000
8.508.000
556,000
241,900
405,100
21
Process
H20-Fib. Rec
„__
—
70,030
180,000
134,000
212.000
176.000
117.000
221.000
188.000
59.000
72.800
35.200
51.600
111,000
85,200
59.300
59,400
122,000
152,000
141,500
222,000
161,400
2.630.000
222,000
35,200
125,000
21
White H20
TOTAL
810,000
828,000
563,000
1,289,000
837.000
827,000
848.000
712,000
1.058.000
1.224.000
652,000
867 , 000
683,000
631,000
1,147,000
820,000
942,000
878,000
970,000
1,262.000
1.165,000
1.115,000
852,000
20,980,000
1,289,000
563,000
926,000
20
White H20
Hydra A
810,000
828,000
514,000
1,127,000
831.000
827.000
802,000
707,000
962.000
1,134,000
612,000
640,000
603,000
563,000
1,013,000
740,000
889,000
637.000
807,000
1,043,000
994,000
1,019,000
711,000
18.760,000
1,134,000
514,000
815,000
20
Fiber Rec.
49,000
162,000
6,000
46,000
5,300
96.200
89,600
39,300
227,000
80,000
67,600
134,000
79,600
52,600
241,000
163,000
219,000
221,000
96,000
141,000
2.215,000
241,000
5,300
111,000
20
Process Natei
Hydra A
188,100
351.500
266.000
284.050
253,650
336.300
371.450
220.400
123,500
200,450
177,650
313,500
253.650
236.550
286,900
270.750
339,150
288.800
351.500
253.650
5.817,800
371,450
123,500
264.445
22
208
-------
APPENDIX H
POWER AND WATER CONSUMPTION
DATA/TON REFUSE INPUT
209
-------
POWER AND WATER CONSUMPTION DMA/TON REFUSE INPUT
HYDRASPOSAL *A*
FIBRE RECOVERY
HYDRA "B"
•Average
gal v. w.
Meek Ton
7 Jan 5243
14 Jan 6320
21 Jan 4638
28 Jan SOOO
4 Feb 5690
11 Feb 5310
18 Feb 5270
25 Feb 4840
4 Mar 5190
11 Mar 7840
IB Mar 4510
25 Mar 4870
1 Apr 3960
8 Apr 4330
15 Apr SSSO
22 Apr 4380
29 Apr 3860
6 Nay 2680
13 May 3770
20 May 4600
27 May 5590
3 June 5300
10 June 3760
TOTAL 112,501
Max. 7840
Kin. 2680
Aver. 4891
N 23
•Tons are pulper
inpur wet weight
WW- Whitewater
PV- Process Hater
CW- city Hater
weekly values
gal p.w. Kwh
Ton Ton
1476
1320
1790
1642
1910
1930
1960
1630
1910
2703
1706
989
1380
1440
1590
1600
1080
1270
1330
1570
1800
1930
1410
37,566
2703
989
1633
23
33.5
27.0
33.7
32.9
39.9
40.3
36.0
31.1
38.7
46.4
31.6
25.3
27.2
30.7
31.4
36.0
27.8
22.8
27.5
29.0
33.1
34. 5
30.4
746.8
46.4
22.8
32.5
23
"Average weekly values
gal w.w. gal p.w. Kwh
Ton Ton Ton
—
914
...
107
...
475
102
806
826
1040
3840
2530
1860
20SO
1420
1560
4720
1690
2350
906
1240
28.436
4720
102
1580
18
"Tons
input
...
1305
1260
2370
1490
1810
2250
1650
1730
1569
1233
1113
1420
1700
1520
1760
1162
1260
1630
1730
2096
1420
33.678
2370
1113
1604
21
are dry
_..
—
27.0
23.3
24.7
19.9
22.6
23.2
27.8
28.1
24.3
19.2
19.0
24.0
17.6
22.6
21.1
20.7
19.8
23.6
24.7
12.1
15.2
460.5
28.1
12.1
21.9
21
weight
Average weekly values
gal e.w.
Ton
.._
—
...
...
...
3100
3650
3070
3960
2580
2690
2340
1890
1800
1460
2300
2480
2490
2340
2200
38,350
3690
1460
2557
IS
210
-------
APPENDIX I
TEST PROCEDURES FOR ANALYSIS
OF INPUT REFUSE
211
-------
TEST PROCEDURES FOR ANALYSIS OF INPUT REFUSE
The analysis of the input refuse involves the separation of
the refuse into various categories which can be used to
characterize the refuse. Most of the past analyses of muni-
cipal solid waste were made to determine design criteria
for incinerators, sanitary landfills, or composting projects.
Each of these disposal methods requires different information,
so different separation categories were used for each system.
Criteria important to incineration design are calorific value,
moisture content, noncombustible content and components
whose combustion products are corrosive. A typical classifi-
cation system may include the following categories:
A. Combustible
Food Waste
Garden waste
Paper products
Plastic, leather, rubber
Textiles
Wood Limbs, sawdust
B. Noncombustible
Ferrous
Non-ferrous
Glass
Ceramics
Ash, earth, rocks
Criteria important to sanitary landfill design and operation
include the amount of decomposable organic matter and density
of the compacted refuse. Components affecting the composting
of refuse include noncompostable materials, moisture and
chemical composition.
There are several classification systems that could be used
212
-------
to classify the refuse received at the Franklin Plant. These
classification systems are given in the following tables.
Categories Specified by the National Survey of Community
Solid Waste Practices
1. General Paper wastes
2. Metallics, ferrous, nonferrous
3. Food
4. Yard
5. Wood
6. Glass
7. Plastic, rubber
8. Miscellaneous
Categories Specified by the Bureau of Solid Waste Management
1. Food wastes
2. Garden wastes
3. Paper products
4. Plastics, rubber and leather
5. Testiles
6. Wood
7. Metal products
8. Glass and ceramic products
9. Ash, rocks, and dirt
Categories Specified in "Municipal Refuse Disposal"
1. Cans
2. Bottles
3. Ferrous metals
4. Nonferrous metals
5. Rags
6. Paper
7. Plastic, leather, rubber
8. Wood, limbs, sawdust
9. Food wastes, grass clippings, leaves
10. Bricks, stones, dirt, ashes
Categories used by Black Clawson Company on Whole Refuse
1. Glass 6. Rags
2. Paper 7. Plastics, rubber
3. Ferrous metals 8. Unclassified amount
4. Vegetation
5. Wood
Municipal Refuse Disposal, Institute for Solid Wastes of
American Public Works Assn, Interstate Printers and Publ,
1970
213
-------
The classification system for the whole refuse received at
the Franklin facility should be directed toward the recover-
able materials in the refuse and produce results which will
be comparable to those achieved by other classification
systems.
Most of the above classification systems do not adequately
characterize the refuse for the Franklin Plant, therefore
the following classification system is proposed to better
fit the objectives of the Franklin Solid Waste Study.
Proposed Classification System for Input Refuse
1. Glass
2. Paper
3. Metals (magnetic and nonmagnetic)
4. Nonfiber organic materials
(wood, food and garden, textiles, plastics)
5. Inert materials
(dirt, rocks, ashes, ceramics)
The aluminum content of the refuse can be determined from
the aluminum fractions of the cyclone rejects and nonmagnetic
junk.
The composition of the input refuse will be determined by
hand sorting samples into the above categories. Pieces of
refuse composed of materials from more than one category
which cannot be easily separated will be placed in the
category representing.the largest portion of the piece.
For example, a metal toy with plastic wheels consisting
largely of magnetic metal would be placed in that category.
214
-------
Relatively large samples are required of municipal solid
waste because of the extreme heterogenity and particle size
range. Municipal Refuse Disposal suggests that a minimum
sample size of 500 pounds be used as an initial sample.
However, more recent studies on solid waste sampling pro-
2
cedures by the Bureau of Solid Waste Management have
indicated that a 200 pound sample is adequate. At this
time, Systech proposes to use 200 pound samples.
The number of samples required to characterize the input
refuse is based on the precision and confidence level
desired. If the percentage of a component of solid waste
is to have a given probability of being within a specified
range the number of samples required to obtain this degree
of confidence can be determined by calculation using the
following formula:
s)
Ez
where z = normal standard deviate for the confidence interval
desired
s = estimated standard deviation (determined experi-
mentally to be 0.1632)
m = number of samples required
$ = sensitivity defined as
2 arcsin /x - 2 arcsin y x * A where x is
the average percentage and A is the precision required.
2Reference: Sample Weights in Solid Waste Composition Studies
Albert J. Klee and Dennis Corruth; Journal of Sanitary Engr.
Div. ASCE Vol 96, NO. SA4, Aug 1970.
215
-------
The preceeding formula was used for determining the number
of samples required to obtain the percentage of a refuse
component with a 90% probability of being within a 1 5% range.
The estimated values of refuse components used for calculation
of the number of samples required are based on tests made on
the Franklin refuse by the Black Clawson Company. The
estimated composition of the Franklin solid waste is given
as follows:
Percent Wet Weight
1) Glass 10%
2) Paper 35%
3) Magnetics 10%
4) Non fiber organic materials 40%
5) Inert materials 5%
100%
The number of samples required for a 90% probability of being
within 5% of the correct value of the refuse component is
calculated as follows:
Number of samples required
for glass component =
Number of samples required _
for paper component ~
(1.645) (0.1632)
(.6435 -.7954)
(1.645) (0.1632J
( 1.2661 - 1.3694). ,
Number of samples required _ | (1.645) (0.1632)
for magnetic component l( 0.6435 - .07954
Ed.|
—07
2
= 3.12
= 6.75
'- 3.12
Number of samples required _ "]_
for non fiber organic = | (1.645) (0.1632) K= 7
component [( 1.0472 - 1.1593)J
04
216
-------
Number of samples required 1(1.645) (0.1632)1 2 _
= ^0.4510 - 0.6435)J " 194
Seven samples are required to establish 90 percent confidence
in a 5 percent variation for all of the above categories.
The moisture content of the individual can be determined
by analysis of representative samples.
U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1975— 3)0-810 53
yol261
217
------- |