A REPORT ON THE HARTSFIELD INCINERATOR STUDY
This report (SW-SOts.of) was written by
Leland E. Daniels
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
-------
A REPORT ON THE HARTSFIELD INCINERATOR STUDY
This report (SW-30ts.of) was written by
Leland E. Daniels
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
Environmental Health Service
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
1970
-------
FOREWORD
Incineration is an important method of solid waste processing in
the United States, and although over 300 incinerators are in operation,
little information on the performance of these units is available. It
is therefore not surprising that the effects of incineration on the
environment are little understood and frequently ignored.
An incinerator discharges effluents into the environment in three
states: solid, liquid, and gaseous. The sources of these effluents
are the processes of combustion, gas cleaning, and residue quenching.
Any determination of the pollution contribution to the environment by
incineration must be concerned with all these effluents.
The Bureau of Solid Waste Management, through the Division of
Technical Operations, has initiated a testing program to characterize
the performance of incinerators of different designs and configurations,
The primary objectives of this program are to produce basic information
that identifies the results of the incineration process and to develop
reliable sampling methodology.
During the studies it is considered necessary to make a complete
analysis of all features that affect the operation of the facility as
well as those that influence its potential for environmental pollution.
The operation of the facility is not altered in any way unless specific
i i
-------
study objectives dictate a change. Therefore, no special effort is made
to operate the facility at its design capacity; rather, it is tested at
its "operating" capacity.
Reports from each study in this program will be prepared primarily
for use by the management of the facility, although they will be avail-
able upon request to other interested technical personnel. Each report
will contain only the data obtained during one individual study. Data
comparisons with other studies will not be made in individual study
reports.
In October 1968, Mr. M. DeVon Bogue, Regional Program Representa-
tive, Region IV, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, arranged with
Mr. Joseph E. Morgan, Superintendent of the William B. Hartsfield
Incinerator, for the Bureau of Solid Waste Management to test this
rotary kiln incinerator. The purpose of the test was to develop basic
information pertaining to the operation of the incinerator and its po-
tential impact on the surrounding environment. The study was conducted
during the week of December 9 to 13, 19&8.
--RICHARD D. VAUGHAN, Director-
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
i v
-------
CONTENTS
SUMMARY ]
Sol id Waste ]
Residue 2
Plant Efficiency 2
Process Waters 2
Burning Rate ^
Participate Emissions 14
Economic Analyses /t
Bacteriological Analyses 5
FACILITY DESCRIPTION 7
Solid Waste Handling 7
Combustion Unit 10
Residue Disposal 14
Metal Salvage \k
Air Pollution Control ]k
Instrumentation 15
TESTING PROCEDURES 17
Sol id Waste 19
Residue 20
Particulate Emissions 21
-------
Stack Gases 22
Process Waters 23
Cost Analyses 23
Bacteriological Analyses 23
RESULTS 2?
Solid Waste 27
Residue 29
Plant Efficiency 32
Process Waters 33
Instrument Readings 33
Burning Rate 36
Particulate Emissions 36
Cost Analyses 37
Bacteriological Analyses /i2
REFERENCES 48
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 50
APPENDICES
A Example Calculations for the Ash, Volatile,
and Heat Content of the Solid Waste 5)
B Example Calculations for the Ash, Volatile,
and Heat Content of the Residue 55
C Plant Efficiency Calculations 59
TABLES
1 Design Characteristics per Combustion Unit 12
2 Solid Waste Characteristics Assumed for Furnace Design . . 13
VI
-------
3 Design Combustion Temperatures ]o
b Sampling Schedule ]j
5 Solid Waste Composition 28
6 Proximate Analyses of Solid Waste 29
7 Ultimate Analyses of Solid Waste 29
8 Residue Composition 30
9 Proximate Analyses of Residue 3]
10 Ultimate Analyses of Residue 3]
11 Plant Efficiency 32
12 Average Chemical Characteristics of Wastewater 34
13 Average Solids Concentration of Wastewater 35
1*4 Stack Test Conditions 37
15 Summary of Particulate Emissions 38
16 Annual Cost Analyses 39
17 Capital Cost itO
18 Cost of Repa i rs and Maintenance l^]
19 Allocations for Repairs and Maintenance 1)2
20 Operating Cost by Cost Centers 43
21 Projected Annual Cost at Design Capacity 44
22 Bacteriological Data l\S
23 Colifor-m Data k6
A-l Proximate Analyses of the Combustible Portion
of the Solid Waste Samples 51
A-2 Conversion of the Combustible and Noncombustible
Data to a Dry Basis 52
VI I
-------
B-l Proximate Analyses of the Unburned Combustibles
and Fines 55
B-2 Conversion of the Residue Data to a Dry Basis 56
FIGURES
1 Schematic of the Hartsfield Incinerator 8
2 Hartsfield Incinerator Plant Site 9
3 Flow Diagram of the Hartsfield Incinerator 18
VI I
-------
A REPORT ON THE HARTSFIELD INCINERATOR STUDY
SUMMARY
The William B. Hartsfield Incinerator is a rotary kiln incinerator
with two Identical combustion units, each bavJng a total design capacity
of 250 tons per 2k hr. Inclined reciprocating grates are used in the
drying and Ignition chambers. Further combustion is achieved In the
kiln and mixing chamber. The combustion products from each furnace
pass through separate water scrubbers and are discharged into the
atmosphere through a common stack. The residue drops from the kiln
into the quench tank where a drag conveyor removes the residue and
discharges It into a residue truck for removal to a disposal site.
Wastewater from the scrubber and quench tank flows through a grit
chamber prior to its final disposal in a watercourse.
Soli d Waste
The principal portion of the combustibles was composed of 58.7
percent paper products and 12.2 percent food wastes. The major portion
of the noncombustibles was composed of 10.3 percent glass and ceramics,
and 8,6 percent metals. The density ranged from 155 to 265 lb per cu
yd and averaged 20O Ib per cu yd. During the study period, the waste
received by the plant had an average moisture content of 20.2 percent,
a volatile content of 70,1 percent (dry basis), an ash content of 29.9
percent (dry basis) » and a heat content of 5»030 Btu per lb as received.
-------
Resjdue
The fines averaged 7^-5 percent. This is attributed to the size
reduction of the residue as a result of the tumbling action occurring
in the rotary kiln. The unburned combustible content averaged 0.1
percent, the metals 21.^ percent, and the glass and rocks k.O percent.
The density of the residue on a wet basis ranged from 1,365 to 1,590
Ib per cu yd and averaged 1,485 lb per cu yd.
The residue had an average moisture content of 21.8 percent, a
volatile content of 3-0 percent (dry basis), an ash content of 97-0
percent (dry basis), and a heat content of 520 Btu per lb (dry basis).
Plant Efficiency
The plant achieved a weight reduction of approximately 63 percent,
a volatile reduction of approximately 38 percent, a volume reduction
of approximately 95 percent, and released approximately 97 percent of
the available heat.
Process Waters
During the study the process wastewaters were not measured
quantitatively. However, past records showed that the plant consumption
averaged 910,500 gal per day or 2,370 gal per ton of solid waste
processed.
The scrubber water was acidic (pH varied from 2.5 to 3.0) and the
temperature was 1^9 F, The alkalinity was zero, the chloride content
-------
was 295 mg per liter, the hardness was 260 mg per liter, and the
phosphate content was 12.6 mg per liter. The total solids concentra-
tion was 835 mg per liter of which 10.7 percent was suspended solids
and 89,3 percent was dissolved solids.
After the scrubber water was added to the quench tank and the
quenched residue was removed, this mixture of scrubber and quench
waters was still acidic (pH varied from 3-9 to 7-0} and had a tempera-
ture of 119 F. The hardness and sulfate concentrations remained
nearly the same, but the alkalinity increased to 235 mg per liter,
the chloride concentration decreased to 205 nig per liter, and the
phosphate concentration increased to 20.9 mg per liter. The quench
water contained 1,495 mg per liter of total solids, of which 60 percent
was suspended solids and 40 percent was dissolved solids.
After flowing through the grit chamber, the plant effluent re-
mained acidic (pH varied from 4.5 to 6.9) and had a temperature of
112 F, The chloride, hardness, and sulfate concentrations remained
nearly the same, but the alkalinity decreased to 105 mg per liter and
the phosphate concentration decreased to 4.9 mg per liter. The total
solfds concentration was 655 mg per liter, of which 13-0 percent was
suspended and 87.0 percent was dissolved. The grit chamber reduced
the total solids concentration approximately 55 percent by removing
90 percent of the suspended solids.
-------
Burning Rate
The burning rate was 330 tons per 2k hr, and the plant was oper-
ating at 66 percent of its design capacity. This reduced burning rate
was caused by Insufficient quantities of solid waste, and therefore
both furnaces were not operated continuously. However, during the
stack tests both furnaces were operated at an average burning rate of
660 tons per 24 hr. Thus the furnaces were operated at 130 percent of
design capacity during the stack tests.
Particulate Emissions
The Orsat analyses averaged 5.0 percent carbon dioxide, 1^.5 percent
oxygen, and 80.5 percent nitrogen. The excess air averaged 220 percent.
The particulate emissions averaged 0.73 gr per standard cubic foot (scf)
corrected to 12 percent carbon dioxide, 1.19 Ib per 1,000 Ib of dry flue
gas corrected to 50 percent excess air, 238 Ib per hr, and 17-2 Ib per
ton of waste charged.
Economic Analyses
The capital cost of the plant was approximately $3,300,000. Of
this amount, one-third was spent on the building and two-thirds on
the equipment.
From the analyses of the costs from the previous fiscal year, the
operating cost was 67.3 percent of the total annual cost, and the
financing and ownership costs were 32.7 percent. The direct labor was
-------
29.9 percent of the total cost. Excluding the operating cost and the
revenue received from the metal salvage operation and private haulers,
the annual cost was $6.69 per ton of solid waste processed.
When the operating cost is based upon cost centers, 3^-1 percent
was spent in receiving, 31.^ percent was spent in volume reduction,
and 3^-5 percent was spent in effluent treatment.
Bacteriolog i caI Analyses
The solid waste averaged 5^ x 106 bacteria per gram and the
residue averaged 55 per gram. Thus the average total bacteria count
was reduced by a magnitude of 1 million. Aerobic spores were reduced
by a magnitude of 600 and anaerobic spores by a magnitude of only
150.
Relatively high densities of coliforms and fecal coliforms were
Isolated from the solid waste, 13 * 1O6 per gram and 0.56 x 106 per
gram, respectively. However, coliforms were not recovered from the
residue, quench water, stack gas, and fly ash samples and salmonella
were not isolated from any sample.
-------
FACILITY DESCRIPTION
The William B. Hartsfield incinerator is one of the two inciner-
ators serving the Greater Atlanta area and the northern portion of
Fulton County, Georgia. The facility is located on 11 acres of land
northwest of Atlanta in an industrially zoned area.
The plant is of rotary kiln design with a design capacity of 500
tons per 2k hr. It was designed by International Incinerator, Inc.*
and completed in 1963- The plant has two continuous-feed furnaces
with a common stack. Each combustion unit consists of three sections
of reciprocating grates, a rotary kiln, a gas-mixing chamber, and a
water scrubber (Figure 1). The plant also has a metal salvage opera-
tion and a small unit for burning pathological wastes (Figure 2). The
plant's overall architectural design and landscaping present a pleasing
visual appearance.
Solid Waste Handling
Fifty employees operate the incinerator during the 24-hr, 5-day
workweek that begins at 7 am Monday and ends at 7 pm Saturday. Solid
waste is weighed as it enters the plant and is accepted throughout the
workweek from commercial, industrial, and municipal sources.
^Mention of a company or product name does not constitute endorse-
ment by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
-------
CRANE
oo
STACK-
A) DRYING GRATES
B) IGNITION GRATE
.C) UNDERFIRE AIR PLENUM
D) OVERFIRE AIR DUCTS
SPRAY
BANKS
QUENCH
WATER
SCRUBBER
GUILLOTINE
DAMPERS
Figure 1. Schematic of the Hartsfield Incinerator.
-------
o
£
o
£
o
o
-J
Pathological
Incinerator
A. Furnace
B. Kiln
C. Scrubber
D. Stack
E. Quench tank
F. Residue hopper
G. Can hopper
H. Hommermill
. Magnetic separator
J. Nonferrous metal
residue hopper
K. Railroad car for
ferrous metals
-------
Trucks from commercial and industrial sources are issued dumping
permits. Initially, each truck is weighed several times, both loaded
and unloaded, to obtain the average net weight of a truckload of waste.
The average net weight is then multiplied by the number of times the
truck delivers wastes to the incinerator as a means of maintaining a
weight record. Fees for dumping by these commercial and industrial
trucks are assessed by the weight of waste dumped. These trucks are
periodically reweighed to maintain and improve the average net weight.
Municipal trucks are weighed continuously to maintain weight
records. A 50-ton Fairbanks-Morse semiautomatic scale located at the
front of the building is used to weigh the trucks.
The storage pit is approximately 27 ft deep, 30 ft wide, and 170
ft long, and has a capacity of 5,150 cu yd when filled to the level of
the tipping floor. Two P£H 5-ton-capacity cranes with 3~cu yd buckets
are used to charge the furnaces. The enclosed cab is mounted on the
crane and contains air-conditioning and heating systems.
Water sprays and ventilators are available for controlling air-
borne dust generated within the storage pit during dumping. Eight
trucks can be accommodated at one time in the open tipping area. The
charging floor and tipping floor are continuously cleared of spilled
waste by the operating staff.
Combustion Unit
Solid waste is fed to the furnaces through hoppers that have a
cross section of k 1/2 by 8 ft and a depth of 10 ft. The hoppers are
lined with heavy-duty refractories.
10
-------
Each furnace was designed to burn 250 tons of solid waste per 24
hr. Each contains two sections of inclined reciprocating drying grates
and one section of inclined reciprocating ignition grates. Siftings
that fall through the drying grates are moved by an auger to the igni-
tion grates. Siftings from the ignition grates are also moved by an
auger to the quench tank. Suspended walls and super-duty refractories
were used to construct the furnace. Provisions were made for future
construction of a third furnace identical to the original two.
Each furnace has a forced-draft fan rated at 25,000 cfm at 10 in.
of water static pressure. This fan supplies both the overfire and
underfire air to the ignition grates. The overfire air enters the
furnace over the ignition grates through ducts in the wall. The
underfire air enters the furnace through the ignition grates from a
plenum chamber below the grates. Manually operated dampers control
the distribution of the air. Past operation has relied primarily on
underfire air with occasional use of overfire air.
Approximately 35 percent of the hot gases bypass the kiln by
flowing from the ignition chamber over the incoming waste. The gases
then flow through a bypass duct located above the drying grate to the
mixing chamber where they combine with the remaining combustion gases
(Figure 1).
The design specifications (Table 1J were determined from the
required design capacity, the assumed solid waste characteristics
(Table 2) , and the combustion temperatures (Table 3)
11
-------
TABLE 1
DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS PER COMBUSTION UNIT
Component
Speci fi cations
Drying grates
Igni tion grate
Ki In
Mixing chamber
Gas bypass duct
Sett Ii ng chamber
Temperature reduction
chamber
Number 2
Total area 114 sq ft
Feed rate min. 1.8 tons/hr;
max. 17.5 tons/hr
Stroke 4.5 in.
Total volume
above grates . . . . 1,150 cu ft
Drop distance
between sections . . 2 ft 4 in.
Number 1
Total area 1 10 sq ft
Feed rate Min. 1.8 tons/hr;
max. 17.5 tons/hr
Stroke 4.5 in.
Total volume
above grate .... 1,220 cu ft
Drop distance
to ki In k ft 4 in.
Internal diameter . . 10 ft 8 in.
Length 23 ft t in.
Surface area 780 sq ft
Volume 2,100 cu ft
Speed Min. 0.014 rpm;
max. 0.232 rpm
Refractory Initial 15 ft--super
duty; last 8 ft--
70% alumina
Volume (to fi rst
spray bank) .... 3,000 cu ft
Gas velocity 33 ft per sec @ 1 ,800 F
Volume 780 cu ft
Volume 2,000 cu ft
Gas velocity 33 ft per sec @ 600 F
Volume 2,200 cu ft
12
-------
TABLE I
SOLID WASTE CHARACTERISTICS ASSUMED FOR FURNACE DESIGN
Characteristic Value
Moisture 50-20%
Combustibles 35-65%
Noncombustibles 151
Heating value 2,600-5,000 Btu/lb
TABLE 3
DESIGN COMBUSTION TEMPERATURES
Heat content in fuel
(Btu/lb)
2,600
5,000
Before sett
chamber
7,450
2,000
Temperature (F)
1 ing After settl
chamber
580-620
580-620
1 ng
The common stack provides the natural draft required to remove the
combustion products from both furnaces. The stack is 200 ft high, has
a diameter of 16 2/3 ft at the sampling ports, and is lined with inter-
mediate duty fireclay brick. Guillotine dampers located after each
scrubber are used to control the natural draft to the individual
furnaces.
-------
Res idue Pi sposal
After passing through the kiln, the residue falls into one of the
two available quench tanks. A gate directs the residue into the desired
tank. A drag conveyor removes the residue from the quench tank to the
residue hopper. Six trucks, each with a capacity of 8 yd, are used to
haul the residue to a disposal site located k miles from the incinerator,
where the residue is spread as cover material. The residue is not
normally weighed as it leaves the plant.
Metal Salvage
Metal is continuously separated from the residue at the end of
the drag conveyor by processing the residue through a perforated
rotating drum. The fine materials (ashes, glass, rock, etc.) fall
through the perforations into a hopper, and the largest pieces,
primarily metal, pass through the drum and to the metal salvage
operation. After the metal is washed with water taken from the
quench tank, it is conveyed to a storage hopper. The metal is passed
through a hammermill for size reduction, and a magnetic separator
removes the ferrous metals which are then conveyed to a railroad car.
The nonferrous metals drop into a grit chamber where they are removed
by a drag conveyor for disposal at the landfill.
Air Pollution Control
A water scrubber containing two banks of sprays with a partial
baffle wall between them is used to reduce the fly ash emissions. Each
-------
spray bank contains 11 vertical water lines spaced across the width of
the scrubber. The first bank contains five 1/8-in. holes per line and
the rear bank contains four 1/8-in. holes per line. Thus the water
scrubber contains 99 water sprays that spray downward at a ^5° angle.
A layer of water is impounded on the floor of the scrubber by a stand-
pipe. Overflow through this standpipe is continuously discharged into
the quench tank. Every k hr the fly ash entrained in this pool of
water is sluiced to the quench tank.
Instrumentat ion
An instrument panel is located on the main furnace floor between
the two furnaces. Instruments included are draft gauges, temperature
recorders, grate speed controls, and kiln speed controls. The instrument
readings are recorded hourly in a daily operation log. The total draft
supplied by the forced-draft fan, the draft above the ignition grates,
the draft in the mixing chamber, the draft in the scrubber, and the
natural draft provided by the stack are monitored.
Temperatures are recorded from thermocouples located above the
drying grates, above the ignition grate, in the mixing chamber, and at
the base of the stack.
15
-------
TESTING PROCEDURES
This section discusses the methods used to collect and analyze the
following samples: (1) solid waste, (2) residue, (3) stack participate
emissions, (4) stack gases, and (5) process water. The sample prepara-
tion for the bacteriological analysis is also described. The sampling
locations (Figure 3) of the solid, liquid, and gaseous products from
the incinerator were based upon their flow systems and ease of sampling.
A field study of the Hartsfield Incinerator was conducted from
December 9 to 11, 1968, to determine the characteristics of its operation.
Samples were collected according to the schedule shown in Table k.
TABLE k
SAMPLING SCHEDULE
Monday
(12-9-68)
Stack participates None
Solid waste-- 1 ,2,3
Residue"1" 1
Process water None
Stack gases Grab sample
Samp les
Tuesday
(12-10-68)
1,2,3
^,5,6,7
2,3
1,2,3, all
sources
Grab and
compos i te
Wednesday
(12-11-68)
4
8
k
k, all
sources
Grab and
compos i
te
''Even-numbered samples returned to laboratory for analyses.
samples returned to laboratory for analyses.
17
-------
ATMOSPHERE
A
STACK
SCRUBBER
i
/N
i
ATMOSPHERE
FURNACE
AND KILN
NONFERROUS
METALS
QUENCHING SYSTEM
1
STORAGE PIT
SCALE
SOLID WASTE
SOURCE
FLOW SAMPLING POINT
SOLID WASTE AND RESIDUE
PROCESS WATEH
GASES AND PARTICULATES --
Figure 3- Flow Diagram of the Hartsfield Incinerator.
-------
During the field study, the incoming solid waste and residue was
weighed. Because the hammermi11 was being repaired, no metal was
salvaged. Therefore, all the residue went into the residue hopper,
there was no wash water from the metal salvage operation, and non-
ferrous metals were not added to the wastewater in the grit chamber.
Sol id Waste
The amount of solid waste burned during the study was determined
from the weight records of the solid waste delivered to the plant and
an estimate of the amount that was in the storage pit before and after
the test period. The burning rate was determined by dividing this
amount by the hours of operation during the week. A check of this
burning rate was also obtained by noting the time required to burn
110 tons of solid waste set aside for this purpose.
A total of eight samples, representative of the waste being
burned, were obtained from the storage pit. These samples were
spread on a drop cloth and hand-sorted into nine categories:
Combust Jbles Noncombust i bles
Food waste Metal products
Paper products Glass and ceramics
Plastics, rubber, and leather Ash, rocks, and dirt
Wood
Garden waste
Text!les
Each category was weighed and the percent by weight on an "as received"
basis for each category was determined. Using these percentages, 10
-------
to 15-lb samples were reconstituted from the combustible portion for
laboratory analyses. To prevent moisture loss, each of these samples
was placed in two plastic bags, one inside the other, and each bag was
knotted separately.
The bulked density of the solid waste was obtained by filling a
O.I cu yd container and obtaining the net weight. No effort was made
to compact the wastes during placement in the container.
At the laboratory, the reconstituted combustible portion of the
solid waste sample was processed in a hammermill to reduce the maximum
particle size to 1 in. The ground product was spread on a plastic
sheet and thoroughly mixed. The sample was then successively mixed
and quartered and alternate quarters were discarded. This process was
repeated until a sample weight of 3 to *4-!b was obtained.
A 100-gram portion of the ground sample was dried at 70 to 75 C
to constant weight to determine the moisture content.1 The sample was
then further ground in a Wiley mill until it would pass through a 2-mm
mesh sieve. The volatile--' and ash fractions1 and the heat content2
were then determined. Ultimate analyses^ for carbon, hydrogen, oxygen,
nitrogen, sulfur, and chloride were performed on the ground sample.
The ash content of the sample submitted for ultimate analyses was also
determi ned.
Res idue
Samples weighing from 70 to 80-lb were collected from the residue
conveyor after the stack tests, spread on a drop cloth, and hand sorted
Material determined by a laboratory analysis.
20
-------
into four categories. These categories were the unburned combustibles,
fines, metals, and glass and rocks. The fines were the unidentifiable
material that passes through a 1/2-in. mesh screen. After separation,
each category was weighed and the percent by weight on a wet basis of
each category was determined. The fines and unburned combustibles were
individually sealed in plastic bags to preserve the moisture content
and were returned to the laboratory for further analyses. The remaining
categories were discarded.
The bulked density of the residue was obtained by filling a 0.03
cu yd container and obtaining the net weight. No effort was made to
compact the residue during placement in the container.
At the laboratory, the fines and unburned combustibles were
processed in the same fashion as the solid waste samples, with the
following exceptions: a 100-gram portion was dried at 100 to 105 C
to constant weight to determine the moisture content, and benzoic acid
was used as a combustion aid in the calorimeter to determine the heat
content. Ultimate analyses were also performed on the ground sample.
Sample No. 3 was not separated and was returned to the laboratory for
moisture determination only.
Particulate Emissions
On Monday, December 9» 1968, the equipment was assembled and
preliminary measurements were made to determine the moisture content,
carbon dioxide content, and velocity of the stack gases. Three
21
-------
particulate tests were conducted on Tuesday and one on Wednesday. The
sampling train and the sampling and analytical procedures used are de-
scribed in "Specifications for Incinerator Testing at Federal Facilities."1*
The sampling ports were located 66 2/3 ft above the stack founda-
tion and approximately 180° apart. Samples were taken from the sampling
ports by utilizing a Z^-point traverse in the 16 2/3 ft diameter stack.
The sampling ports were located 3 diameters from the top of the stack
inlet and 8 diameters from the stack exit. The velocity head ranged
from 0.01 to 0.08 in. of water. A 3/8-in. nozzle was used. An actual
sampling time of k min was used at each point.
During the test, whenever excessive accumulations of particulate
on the filters hindered isokinetic sampling, the filters were replaced
and the test continued to completion.
Stack Gases
During the particulate test, a series of grab samples and a composite
sample of the stack gases were taken. The composite sample was collected
in a Tedlar bag by slowly filling the bag with stack gases throughout the
test period. This sample was used to determine the dry gas composition
by using a Burrell Gas Analysis Apparatus5 (Orsat), Model No. 39~505.
Several grab samples were taken during each stack test and analyzed for
carbon dioxide with a Dwyer C0? Indicator,6 Model No. 1101, for corre-
lation with the Orsat data.
22
-------
Process Waters
Each source of process water was sampled to determine its character-
istics. These sources were the incoming water (municipal water), scrubber
water, scrubber sluicing water, quench water (containing scrubber water),
and the plant's final effluent after passing through a grit chamber.
Two grab samples from each source except the scrubber sluicing water
were collected during each stack test. A 1-liter composite sample based
on equal portions was made from the grab samples for each source for each
stack test. These samples were shipped to the laboratory to be analyzed
for solids,7 alkalinity,7 chloride,7 hardness,7 sulfate,7 phosphate,7'8
and conductivity.7 The pH and temperature of each sample was determined
in the field. A corning pH meter, Model No. 7, was used.9
Cost Analyses
The cost data were obtained by checking all cost records kept by
the plant and any administrative group keeping pertinent records. In
addition, the personnel who maintained the cost records were questioned
to verify and adjust correctly the cost data to fit the Bureau's cost-
accounting scheme.
Bacteriological Analyses
The solid waste, residue, quench water, stack gases, fly ash, and
tapwater were sampled and analyzed for total bacterial count, heat-
resistant spores, coliforms, salmonella, and selected respiratory pathogens,
Each source except the tapwater was sampled twice.
23
-------
A 200-gram sample of solid waste was homogenized for 15 sec in a
Waring Blender containing 1,800 ml of phosphate-buffered water. Serial
tenfold dilutions in sterile phosphate-buffered water were made through
10"7 after homogenization. For the solid waste, 0.! ml aliquots from a
dilution of 10"3 to a dilution of 10~7 (yielding 1 log higher dilution)
were pipetted into petri dishes for total bacterial count7 and onto
prepared blood agar plates for the propagation of fastidious organisms.
Ten-mi aliquots of each dilution were then transferred to tubes and
heated in a water bath at 80 C for 15 min for the testing of spore-
formers.7 In addition to aerobic spores, anaerobic spores were tested
by use of anaerobic jars. One-mi aliquots from the initial dilutions
used for total count and pathogen isolation were filtered through
Millipore membranes for the quantitation of total and fecal coliforms.7
The same procedures were used for the residue, except that the dilutions
were pipetted from 10"1 through 10"3.
In order to isolate salmonella,10'11 30 grams of material were
placed into each of two different enrichment media and incubated at
Al C for 18 hr. After incubation, the enrichments were streaked onto
selective enteric plates and also incubated at Al C for 18 hr. Suspected
salmonella colonies were tested for biochemical and serological reac-
tions.12 Selected cultures were sent to the National Communicable
Disease Center, Atlanta, Georgia, for serological typing of the sal-
monella species.
The methods used for analyzing the quench water were similar to
those used for the solid waste. For the analyses of total bacterial
21*
-------
count, sporeformers, coliforms, and fastidious pathogens, the dilutions
ranged from 10° to 10~5. Thirty-mi aliquots of quench water were
inoculated into each enteric enrichment media for salmonella. The
municipal water was tested in a similar manner.
One gram of fly ash was placed into 9 ml of buffered water from
which 1 ml and 0.1 ml aliquots were tested for total bacterial count,
sporeformers, and for respiratory pathogens.
The stack-sampling device was calibrated to pull 0.62 cu ft per
min. The sampling time was 5 min for the first sample and 10 min for
the second. The stack gases were forced through 300 ml of buffered
water. After sampling, 100 ml of the inoculated buffered water were
filtered through a membrane filter for total bacterial count. One-mi
amounts were tested for sporeformers and pathogens.
-------
RESULTS
This section presents the data obtained from the analyses of
samples taken during the field study of the Hartsfield Incinerator.
Sol id Waste
The physical composition data (Table 5) was calculated on an "as
received" basis. The densities were calculated on a wet basis as
sampled from the storage pit. The values for samples No. 1 through 8
are 160, 265, 210, 160, 180, 205, 250, and 155 lb per cu yd, respectively,
The average density was 200 lb per cu yd.
The moisture, volatile, ash, and heat content of the solid waste
were obtained from the analyses of the combustible portion only. The
results (Table 6) were calculated for the complete sample on the
assumption that the noncombustibles contained no moisture or heat and
were considered as "ash." The ash and volatile fractions were calculated
on a dry basis. The heat and moisture contents were calculated on an
"as received" basis. Example calculations are presented in Appendix A.
The data from the ultimate analyses of the solid waste (Table 7)
were adjusted to an "as received" basis by assuming that each sample
contained only eight constituents. The results were accordingly adjusted
on a weight basis to 100 percent.
27
-------
TABLE 5
SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION
Sample number
Component
Combustibles :
Food waste
Garden waste
Paper products
Plastic, rubber,
leather
Texti les
Wood
Subtotal
Noncombust ibles :
Metals
Glass and ceramics
Ash, dirt, rocks
Subtotal
1
Ib
23.0
4.2
169.5
5.0
3.8
0.5
21.5
48.5
15.8
1
%
7.9
1.5
58.0
1.7
1.3
0.2
70.6
7.4
16.6
5-4
29-4
2
Ib
32.5
7-2
245-0
16.8
3-7
1.0
31.8
56.2
22.5
%
7.8
1.8
58.8
4.0
0.9
0.2
73-5
7.6
13.5
5-4
26.5
Ib
10.5
3-8
100.8
4.5
4.5
0.8
20.5
26.3
6.7
i
\
5-9
2.1
56.6
2.5
2.5
0.4
70.0
11-5
14.7
3-8
30.0
1
Ib
27.2
4.5
175.7
7-5
2.8
1 .0
23-5
14.5
5.5
!|
%
10.4
1-7
69-0
2.9
1 .0
0.4
83.4
9.0
5.5
2.1
16.6
i
Ib
37.5
11.5
142.0
6.2
7.7
1.5
18.0
13.0
11.5
%
15.1
4.6
57.1
2.5
3.1
0.6
83.0
7.2
5.2
4.6
17-7
6
Ib
95.5
0.8
293.2
15.5
7.5
4.5
49.7
30.8
6.8
%
18.9
O.I
58.2
3-1
1.5
0.9
82.7
9-9
6.1
1.3
17.3
7 8
Ib
22.5
1.8
95.8
4.5
1.3
0.2
9-5
20.5
5.5
-
%
13-9
I.I
59.0
2.8
1 .1
0.2
78.1
5-9
12.6
3.4
21.9
Ib
77.0
1.0
230.8
21.0
12.5
1.2
42.5
34.7
5.0
...
%
18.1
0.3
54.1
4.9
2.9
0.3
80.6
10.0
8.2
1.2
19.4
Average
(*)
12.2
1.6
58.7
3.0
1.8
0.4
100.0
8.6
10.3
3.4
22.3
Grand total 291.8 100.0 416-7 100.0 178.4 100.0 262.2 100.0 248.9 100.0 504.3 100.0 162.1 100.0 425.7 100.0
100.0
-------
TABLE 6
PROXIMATE ANALYSES OF SOLID WASTE
Sample Moisture Volatiles Ash
number (%) (%) (%)
2 2k. 2 58.3 41.7
A 19.8 75.9 2k.}
6 18.5 7k. 5 25.5
8 18.1 71.6 28. 4
Average 20.2 70.1 29-9
TABLE 7
ULTIMATE ANALYSES OF SOLID WASTE
(Percent)
Sample Mois- . _ , Hydro- .. , r Ch 1 o-
r Inerts Carbon Oxygen Sulfur
number ture gen rine
2 24.2 30.9 23.0 3.2 17-7 0.1 0.5
4 19.8 19-3 28.8 3-9 27.1 0.2 0.6
6 18.5 20.8 29.3 3.6 27.0 0.1 0.3
8 18.1 23.1 29.3 2.2 26.5 0.1 0.3
Average 20.2 23.5 27.6 3.2 24.6 0.1 0.4
Heat
(Btu/lb)
4,150
5,300
5,420
5,240
5,030
Ni tro-
gen
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Residue
The data from the residue separation (Table 8) are on an "as sampled"
bas is.
29
-------
TABLE 8
RESIDUE COMPOSITION
Component
Unburned
combust i bles
Fines
Metal
Glass and rocks
Total
Ib
0.2
60.5
17-0
3-5
81.2
1
%
0.2
74.6
20.9
4.3
100.0
Samp 1
Ib
0.1
55.5
14.2
3.0
72.8
e number
2
°/
'0
0.1
76.2
19.6
4.1
100.0
)b
0.0
50.2
16.3
2.5
69.0
k
%
0.0
72.8
23.6
3.6
100.0
Average
(*)
0.1
74.5
21.4
4.0
100.0
The densities of the residue samples were calculated on a wet basis
as sampled from the conveyor. The values for samples No. 1, 2, and 4
are 1,365, 1,590, and 1,505 Ib per cu yd, respectively. The average
density was 1,485 Ib per cu yd.
The moisture, volatile, ash, and heat content of the residue were
obtained from the analysis of the fines and unburned combustibles only.
The results (Table 9) were calculated for the complete sample with the
assumption that the glass and metals contained no moisture or heat and
were considered as "ash." The moisture content is only representative
of the sampling location, which was the residue conveyor. The ash and
volatile fractions and the heat content were calculated on a dry basis.
Example calculations are presented in Appendix B. Sample No. 3 was
not separated and was analyzed for moisture only.
30
-------
TABLE 9
PROXIMATE ANALYSES OF RESIDUE
Sample
number
1
2
3*
k
Average
Mo i s ture
(%)
23. S
15.2
25-9
16.8
21.8
Volat i )es
(*)
*».5
2.0
2.6
3.0
Ash
(%)
95.5
98.0
97.^4
97.0
Heat
(Btu/lb)
700
380
^80
520
"Analyzed for moisture only.
The data from the ultimate analyses of the residue (Table 10) were
adjusted to a dry basis by assuring that each sample contained only
seven constituents, and the results were accordingly adjusted on a weight
basis to 100 percent.
TABLE 10
ULTIMATE ANALYSES OF RESIDUE
(percent)
Sample
number
1
2
k
Average
1 nerts
9^.2
96.8
96.2
95.8
Carbon
5.1
2.8
3.5
3.8
Hydrogen
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
Oxygen
t race
0.0
0.0
0.0
Sulfur
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
Ch lori ne
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
N i t rogen
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
31
-------
Plant Efficiency
An indication of the plant's performance is obtained by calculating
the percent weight reduction, the percent volatile reduction, the percent
heat released, and the percent volume reduction (Table 11). These cal-
culations are presented in Appendix C.
Samples of the gas-borne particulates were not analyzed for ash,
volatile, or heat content. The wastewater flow was not measured and
heat content of the solid material carried by these waters was not
determined during the study period. Because these values were not used
in the plant-efficiency calculations, the efficiencies shown are slightly
higher than they would have been if these values had been included.
TABLE 11
PLANT EFFICIENCY
Type of
eff i ciency
Weight reduction
Vol at i le reduct ion
Heat released
Volume reduction
Dry we
Dry we
Dry we
wet
Wet we
Basis of
ca 1 cul at ion
ights
ights
ight of residue and
weight of solid waste
i ghts
Percent
63
98
97
95
The dry weights of the solid waste, residue, and particulates were
used to calculate the percent weight reduction. The percent volatile
reduction was also calculated on a dry basis by using the solid waste
and residue data. The percent heat released was calculated with the
32
-------
residue data on a dry basis and the solid waste data on an "as received"
basis. The percent volume reduction was calculated with the densities
on a wet has is .
Process Waters
It was impossible to obtain a sample of the quench water because
the scrubber water was continuously discharged to the quench tank. The
data (Tables 12 and 13) for the quench water were obtained from the
analyses of this mixture of scrubber water and quench water. This
mixture was the final effluent from the combustion process. After
removal of the heavy solids in the grit chamber, this process water
was discharged to a small watercourse.
Instrument Readings
During the stack tests, the instrument panel was monitored to pro-
vide information about the plant's operation. Temperatures throughout
the combustion unit were monitored at several points. The recirculated
preheated air used to dry the solid waste averaged 185 F. The average
operating temperature in the ignition chamber and mixing chamber was
1,760 F and 1,685 F, respectively. The temperature in the scrubber
after the sprays averaged 265 F. Because water impinged on the thermo-
couple, this temperature was slightly lower than the temperature of
305 F recorded at the stack-sampling port during the stack tests.
33
-------
TABLE 12
AVERAGE CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF WASTEWATER
Source
Plant influent
Scrubber water
Scrubber sluicing
water
Quench tank
ef f 1 uent
Plant effluent
pH
8.4
2.5-3.0
2.9-3.4
3-9-7-0
4.5-6.9
Temperature
(F)
149
148
119
112
Alkal ini ty
(mg CaCO /I)
100
0
260
235
105
Chloride
(mg/1)
7
295
295
205
195
Hardness
(mg CaCO /I)
33
260
420
290
270
Sulfate
(mg SO^/1)
1
28
75
25
33
Phosphate
(mg PO^/T)
0.1
12.6
1 10.0
20.9
4.9
Conduct! vi ty
(umhos/cm)
46
1,360
820
810
750
-------
TABLE 13
AVERAGE SOLIDS CONCENTRATION OF WASTEWATER
Total sol ids
Source
Plant influent
Scrubber water
Scrubber sluicing
water
Quench tank
effluent
Plant effluent
Total
(mg/1)
55
835
5,265
1,495
655
Volat i les
mg/1
25
345
865
425
185
%
44.6
41.2
16.4
29.8
28.2
Ash
mg/1
30
490
4,400
1,070
470
%
55.4
58.8
83.6
70.2
71.8
Total
(mg/1)
0
90
4,455
900
85
Suspended sol
Vola
mg/1
0
20
620
250
25
t i les
%
0.0
22.2
13-9
30.6
29.4
i i ds
Ash
mg/1
0
70
3,835
650
60
%
0.0
77.8
86.1
69.4
70.6
solids
(mg/1)
55
745
810
595
570
-------
Burning Rate
The total weight of solid waste processed during the study week
was 1,800 tons and the total weight of residue remaining after 130 hr
of operation was 667 tons. The average daily burning rate was 330 tons
per 2k hr, or 13.8 tons per hr. This was 66 percent of the design
burning rate. During the previous fiscal year, the plant burned 101,000
tons during 263 operating days for an average of 385 tons per 2k hr, or
16.0 tons per hr, which is 77 percent of the design capacity.
As a means of checking the burning rate of the furnaces during the
stack-testing period, 110 tons of solid waste were set aside and burned by
both furnaces in k hr. This corresponded to a burning rate of 660 tons
per 2k hr, or 27.5 tons per hr. Both furnaces were in operation only
during the stack tests because of a lack of waste delivered to the plant.
Because they were fed at this rate of 27-5 tons per hr during the stack
ter,ts, this burning rate was used in all appropriate calculations.
Particulate Emissions
The data from the Orsat analyse:, (Table ]k) of the gas samples ob-
tained from the stack were used to adjust the particulate emissions to 12
percent of carbon dioxide. The particulate concentrations (Table 15) in-
clude the weight of material remaining after the evaporation of the impinger
water.
36
-------
TABLE 14
STACK TEST CONDITIONS
Test
number
1
2
3
4
Average
Length
of test
(mi n)
96
96
96
96
96
Gas compos i t ion
co2
(*)
4.5
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.0
°2
(?)
14.6
15.0
14.2
14.4
14.5
CO
(%)
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
N2
(%)
80.9
80.0
80.6
80.4
80.5
Excess
ai r
(%)
215
245
200
210
220
Cost Analyses
The annual cost (Table 16) of the incinerator was based on a 1-year
time period from July 1967 to July 1968.
The financing and ownership costs were based on a capital cost
(Table 17) in 1963 of $3,321,779 and a plant life of 30 years. The
plant depreciation was calculated on a straight-1ine basis by dividing
the capital cost by the ph:nt life. The same method was used to calculate
the vehicle depreciation. The initial vehicle cost was $17,580 and the
life was S years. Financing was accomplished by issuing a 30-year bond
at an interest rate of 3.2 percent. The cost per ton was based on a
yearly tonnage of 101,04-0 tons processed in 263 operating days, or 384
tons per day.
37
-------
CO
TABLE 15
SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
Particulate emissions
Tnr t- .._, . .,
number At existing
co.
2
1 0.29
2 0.25
3 0.35
k 0.33
Average 0.30
gr/scf
At 1
0
0
0
0
0
2% CO 2
.76
.60
.81
7k
.73
At 50%
excess ai r
0
0
0
0
0
.60
.57
70
.68
.6k
Ib particulate/1 ,000 Ib dry fl
At existing
CO.
2
0.54
0.46
0.65
0.61
0.56
At 12% CO
1-43
1.12
1.53
1.39
1.37
ue gas
At 50%
excess ai r
1
1
1
1
1
.13
.07
-31
.26
.19
Ib/ton
7
7
10
9
8
waste
.3
.5
.1
.6
.6
Ib/hr
202
207
279
26k
238
-------
TABLE 16
ANNUAL COST ANALYSES
JULY 1967 to JULY 1968
tern
Cost
Cost per ton
Percent of
annual cost
Operating costs
Direct labor and fringe benefits
Utilities (electric, gas, sewage,
etc.)
Parts and supplies
Vehicle operating expenses
External repair charges
Disposal charges
Overhead
Subtotal
Financing and ownership costs
Plant depreciation
Interest
Vehicle depreciation
Subtotal
$202,407
65,260
57,332
4,188
1,999
0
123,577
454,763
110,726
106,859
3,516
221 ,101
$2.00
0.65
0.57
0.04
0.02
0.00
1 .22
4.50
1.10
1 .06
0.03
2.19
29-9
9.
8.
0.6
0.3
0.0
18.3
67-3
16.4
15-8
0.5
32.7
Total annual cost
675,864
6.69
100.0
-------
TABLE 17
CAPITAL COST
1 tern
Bui Iding
Equi pment
Site improvement
Consultant fees
Total cost
Cos t*
$1,034,531
2,137,000
5**, 000
96,2*48
3,321,779
Cost per ton of
design capacity
$2,069.06
*4, 27^.00
108.00
192.50
6,6^3.56
*1963 dollars.
Several items in the annual cost analyses (Table 16) need further
explanation. The actual annual cost of labor was $306,680. The large
cost of labor was due to the employment of 50 people in and around the
plant. The direct labor cost of $202,^07 includes only the salaries of
the 33 employees used in the operation of the incinerator. The salaries
of the remaining 17 employees used in management and plant site improve-
ment are shown in the overhead. Because the incinerator residue was
used as a cover material at the landfill, no disposal charges are
i ncluded.
The cost of operating and the revenue received from the metal
salvage operation were excluded in the cost analyses. During the last
year, 2,812 tons of metal were salvaged and sold for a revenue of
$32,33^- Revenue received from private haulers who dumped waste at
the incinerator was excluded. Last year 12,778 tons of solid waste
were delivered to the incinerator by private haulers. They were
ko
-------
charged $3-60 per ton, so that the incinerator received a revenue of
$^6,000. The cost of the land, $19,000, was not included in the annual
cost analyses .
The cost of repairs and maintenance and its allocation to cost
centers was calculated (Tables 18 and 19).
The annual operating cost (Table 20) was allocated to the following
cost centers: receiving, which includes items associated with the
storage pit, crane, and scale operations; volume reduction, which
includes items associated with the furnace operation; and effluent
treatment, which includes items associated with residue disposal, air
pollution control, and wastewater treatment operations. Allocation of
the operating costs into cost centers was achieved through the use of
physical factors, such as the number of people involved, power require-
ments, and the time and material used in each cost center.
TABLE 18
COST OF REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE
1 tern
Labor
Parts
External charges
Overhead
Total
Cost
$61,335
57,332
1,999
37, M7
158,113
-------
TABLE 19
ALLOCATIONS FOR REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE
Cost center
Recei v i ng
Volume reduction
Effluent treatment
Total
Al locat ion
$39,345
85,597
33,171
158,113
Percent of total
2^4.9
54.1
21 .0
100.0
The labor costs in the projected annual cost at design capacity
(Table 21) remain the same because the plant is fully staffed. The
financing and ownership costs also remain the same because the expected
plant life is 30 years. Again, revenue from private haulers and metal
salvage was not included.
Bacteriological Analyses
Samples of solid waste, residue, quench water, stack gases, and
fly ash were analyzed for total bacteria, sporeformers, coliforms,
salmonella, and selected respiratory organisms (Tables 22 and 23).
From the solid waste sample, other isolations were Klebsiella
pneumoniae, Serratia marcesars, and Aerobater aerogens. Isolations
were not obtained from the remaining sources that were sampled.
The quench water and tapwater data are expressed as densities per
100 ml of sample. Because these tests are quantitative, when no
colonies were isolated the densities are expressed as less than 100
per 100 ml of sample.
-------
TABLE 20
OPERATING COST BY COST CENTERS
Cost center
Recei vi ng :
Di rect labor
Uti 1 i ties
Vehicle operating expense
Repairs and maintenance
Overhead
Subtotal
Volume reduction:
Di rect labor
Uti 1 i ties
Repairs and maintenance
Overhead
Subtotal
Effluent treatment:
Di rect labor
Uti 1 i ties
Vehicle operating expense
Disposal charges
Repairs and maintenance
Overhead
Subtotal
Grand total
Operating cost
$67,470
6,96*4
0
39,345
41,192
154,971
30,667
7,724
85,597
18,725
142,713
42,935
50,572
4,188
0
33,171
26,213
157,079
454,763
Percent of
operating cost
14.8
1.5
0.0
8.7
9.1
34.1
6.7
1.7
18.8
4.1
31-4
9.4
11.1
0.9
0.0
7-3
5.8
34.5
100.0
Percent of
annual cos t
10.0
1 .0
0.0
5.8
6.1
22.9
4.5
1 . 1
12.7
2.8
21 .1
6.4
7.5
0.6
0.0
4.9
3.9
23-3
67-3
-------
TABLE 21
PROJECTED ANNUAL COST AT DESIGN CAPACITY*
1 tern
Operat i ng costs :
Direct labor
Uti 1 i ties
Parts and suppl ies
Vehicle operating expense
External repair charges
Disposal charges
Overhead
Subtotal
Financing and ownership costs:
Plant depreciation
1 nteres t
Vehicle depreciation
Subtotal
Grand total
Projected
annual cost
$202,407
84,93<»
74,615
5,^51
2,602
0
123,577
493,586
1 10,726
106,859
3,516
221 ,101
714,687
Cost
per ton
$1.54
0.65
0.57
0.04.
0.02
0.00
0.93
3.75
0.84
0.81
0.03
1.68
5-^3
Percent of total
projected annual cost
28.3
11.9
10.4
0.8
0.4
0.0
17.3
69.1
15.4
15.0
0.5
30.9
100.0
Design capacity is 500 tons per day.
-------
TABLE 22
BACTERIOLOGICAL DATA
Source and date
Sol i d waste :
12-10-68
12-11-68
Res idue :
12-10-68
12-11-68
-<= Quench water:
12-10-68
12-11-68
Stack gases :
12-10-68
12-11-68
Fly ash:
12-10-68
12-11-68
Tapwater :
12-11-68
DI 1 ut ion
10~6
10~6
10-1
10-1
10-1
10°
10°
10°
10-1
10-1
10°
Total
count
Plate Calculated
count count
70
38
6
5
1
0
0
1
0
1
0
70X106/gm
38X106/gm
60/gm
50/gm
1000/lOOml
<100/100ml
<0.9?6/cu ft
0.489/cu ft
<10/gm
10/gm
<100/100ml
Di 1 ut
10"
10-
10-
10'
10°
10°
10°
10°
10'
10"
10°
Aerobi c
spores
Plate Calculated
i on
count count
3 28
3 h2
2 1
1 2
2
0
1
0
1 0
1 1
1
28xi03/gm
t»2X103/gm
100/gm
20/gm
200/ 100ml
<100/100ml
97-6/cu ft
<^8.9/cu ft
<10/gm
<10/gm
100/1 00ml
Di lut
lo-
10-
10-
10-
10°
10°
10°
10°
10"
10-
10°
Anaerob i c
Plate
i on
coun t
* 13
2 /»
2 0
1 0
0
0
0
2
1 0
1 0
0
spores
Calculated
count
13X103/gm
iiXIOVgm
'100/gm
-------
TABLE 23
COL I FORM DATA
Source and date
Sol id waste:
12-10-68
12-11-68
Res idue:
12-10-68
12-11-68
Quench water:
12-10-68
12-11-68
Stack gases :
12-10-68
12-11-68
Fly ash:
12-10-68
12-11-68
Tapwater:
12-11-68
Dilut
10"
10-
10"
10-
10°
10°
10°
10°
10-
10-
10°
r- . 1 ..
Total col i
Plate
ion
count
5 50
6 21
2 0
1 0
0
0
0
0
2 0
2 0
0
~n" ~~" =" ^-
forms
Calculated
count
5X106/gm
21X106/gm
< 100/gm
< I0/gm
<100/100ml
<100/100ml
<97-6/cu ft
<48.9/cu ft
< 100/gm
< 100/gm
< 10/100ml
Di lution
10-"
10~6
io-2
10-1
10°
10°
10°
10°
ID"2
ID-2
10°
Fecal col i
Plate
count
2k
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
forms
Calculated
count
2i*Xlo'Vgm
HX106/gm
< 100/gm
< 10/gm
-------
The total bacterial count was done by the membrane-filter method,
100 ml of the inoculated buffered water sample was tested. When equated
to cubic feet of stack gas, the quantitative result is expressed as
equal to or less than 0.976 per cu ft when the sampling time was 5 min,
and equal to or less than 0.^89 per cu ft when the sampling time was
10 min.
A maximum of 1 ml of the buffered water sample could be tested by
use of the pour plate for the sporeformers. The quantitative value is
expressed as equal to or less than 97-6 or ^8.9 per cu ft of stack gas
when the sampling times were 5 and 10 min, respectively.
-------
REFERENCES
1. American Public Works Association. Municipal refuse disposal.
2nd ed. Chicago, Public Administration Service, 1966. Appendix
A. P. 375-399.
2. Parr Instrument Company. Operating the adiabatic calorimeter. J_n_
Oxygen bomb calorimetry and combustion methods. Technical Manual
No. 130. Moline, 111., I960. p. 30-32.
3. American Society for Testing Materials. Carbon and hydrogen. j_n_
1958 Book of ASTM standards; including tentatives. pt. 8.
D271-58, sect. 38-1*3. Philadelphia, 1959- p. 1016-1020.
^4. American Society for Testing Materials. Sulfur by the bomb washing
method. J_n_ 1958 Book of ASTM standards; including tentatives.
pt. 8. D271-58, sect. 26. Philadelphia, 1959- p. 1011.
5. Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. Chlorine--official,
final action. J_n_ Off i ci al methods of analysis of the Association
of Official Agricultural Chemists. 10th ed. sect. 31.009.
Washington, 1965- p. 523.
6. American Society for Testing Materials. Oxygen. In 1958 Book of
ASTM standards; including tentatives. pt. 8. D27l~58, sect. 50.
Philadelphia, 1959. p. 1023.
7- Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. Nitrogen. _ljn_
Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official
Agricultural Chemists. 10th ed. sect. 2.0^2-2.0^9. Washington,
1965- p. 15-17-
8. National Center for Air Pollution Control. Specifications for
incinerator testing at Federal facilities. Durham, N.C., U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Oct. 1967- 35 p.
9- Burrell Corporation. Burrell manual for gas analysts. 7th ed.
Pi ttsburgh, 1951 *»6 p.
10. F. W. Dwyer Mfg. Co. Operating instructions No. 1101 CO indicator.
Bulletin G-24. Michigan City, Ind., 1962. 1 p.
-------
11. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association,
and Water Pollution Control Federation. Standard methods for the
examination of water and wastewater; including bottom sediments and
sludges. 12th ed. New York, American Public Health Association,
Inc., 1965. 769 P-
12. Gales, M. E., Jr., E. C. Julian, and R. C. Kroner. Method for
quantitative determination of total phosphorus in water. Journal
American Water Works Association, 58(10):1363-1368. Oct. 1966.
(R)
13- Corning Glass Works, Corning model 7 pH meter intstruction manual.
Corning, N.Y., 196**. [7 p.]
H». Harvey, R. W. S., and T. H. Price. Elevated temperature incubation
of enrichment media for the isolation of salmonellas from heavily
contaminated materials. Journal of Hygiene, 66(3):377~38l, Sept.
1968.
15. Spino, D. F. Elevated-temperature technique for the isolation of
Salmonella from streams. Applied Microbiology, 14(A):591~596,
July 1966.
16. Hajna, A. A. "A proposed rapid method of differentiating and
identifying bacteria of the intestinal group in State public
health laboratories." Public Health Laboratory, 9(2):23-30,
Mar. 1951.
1*3
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The excellent cooperation by the staff of the William B. Hartsfield
Incinerator made possible the successful completion of this study.
Special thanks are extended to Mr. Joseph E. Morgan, Superintendent of
the Hartsfield Incinerator, whose efforts were essential in planning and
conducting the study.
The laboratory assistance provided by the Georgia Institute of
Technology was greatly appreciated. Analytical support was provided by
the Division of Research and Development, Bureau of Solid Waste Man-
agement.
Members of the study team from the Bureau of Solid Waste Management
were:
William C. Achinger Jeffrey L. Hahn
Daniel Armstrong Tobias A. Hegdahl
James S. Bridges Billy P. Helms
Hugh H. Connolly Henry Johnson
Leland E. Daniels Albert E. O'Connor
Truett V. DeGeare Ronald A. Perkins
Dennis A. Degner Harvey W. Rogers
Jack DeMarco Donald F. Spino
John J. Giar
-------
APPENDIX A
Example Calculations for the Ash, Volatile,
and Heat Content of the Solid Waste
Using the data from the laboratory analyses of solid waste Sample
No. 4 (Table A-l) these example calculations show the methods used to
calculate the moisture content, ash and volatile contents, and the heat
content of the total sample. The volatile and ash fractions and the
heat content are on a dry basis. For these calculations, the assumptions
were made that the noncombustibles contained no moisture, no heat, and
were considered as "ash."
TABLE A-l
PROXIMATE ANALYSES OF THE COMBUSTIBLE PORTION
OF THE SOLID WASTE SAMPLES
Sample
number
2
4
6
8
Average
Moisture
(*)
33-0
23-7
22.4
22.5
22.9
Volat i les
U)
89.7
95.7
9^.5
93.7
94. 6
Ash
(%)
10.3
4.3
5.5
6.3
5.4
Heat
(Btu/lb)
8,425
8,335
8,440
8,375
8,385
The field separation determined a combustible content of 83.4 percent
(Text Table 5) on a wet-weight basis. Since moisture in the total sample
51
-------
was assumed to be in the combustible portion only, the percent moisture
in the total sample was calculated by the following method:
Percent moisture _ / Ib combustibles \ / 1b moisture \
in total sample \ Ib waste / \lb combustibles J
Percent moisture in total sample (No. k) = (0.83*0 (0.237) 100.0 = 19.8
Because the volatile and ash fractions are calculated on a dry basis,
the percent combustibles must be converted to a dry basis by means of
the following equation:
... . , /Ib wet component minus Ib moisture in component \ .-..
Percent dry component = / K -: : rr <- ) 100.0
' r \ dry sample weight /
These calculations are summarized in Table A-2.
TABLE A-2
CONVERSION OF THE COMBUSTIBLE AND NONCOMBUSTIBLE DATA TO A DRY BASIS
,. . . , , Moisture Dry Percent
. ^ Wet weight Percent by .' , ,
Component MU\ t ul weight by dry
Y (Ib) wet weight 0. ,, /.^ . . '
3 % Ib (Ib) weight
Combustibles 218.7 83.k 23.7 51.8 166.9 79-3
Noncombustibles 1*3.5 16.6 0.0* 0.0* ^3-5 20.7
Total 262.2 100.0 - 210.^ 100.0
"Assumed.
The percent of volatiles and ash may be calculated as follows:
( Ib volatiles \ / Ib dry combustibles \
\ Ib dry combustibles J \^ Ib dry waste /
Percent volatiles
in total sample ~ V Ib dry combustibles
52
-------
Percent volatiles in total sample (No. k) = (0-957) (0.793) 100.0 = 75-9
Percent ash in total sample = 100.0 minus percent volatiles
Percent ash in total sample (No. k) = 100.0 - 75-9 = 24.1
The laboratory reports the heat content on a dry basis for the
combustibles only. Thus the moisture content and the noncombustibles
in the total sample must be accounted for when calculating the heat
content of the total sample on an "as received" basis.
Heat content of
total sample
Heat content of
total sample
(No. *»)
Btu
Ib dry combustibles
1 minus
= (8,335)
1 .0 -
19.8 + 16.6
100
"%> moisture % noncombus-^
in total + tibles in
sample total sample
100
= 5_,30Q Btu
Ib waste
53
-------
APPENDIX B
Example Calculations for the Ash, Volatile,
and Heat Content of the Residue
Using the data from the laboratory analyses of residue sample No.
1 (Table B-l) these example calculations show the methods used to calcu-
late the moisture content, ash and volatile content, and heat content of
the total sample. For each sample, only the fines and unburned combus-
tibles were returned. The volatile and ash fractions and the heat
content are on a dry basis.
TABLE B-l
PROXIMATF ANALYSES OF THE UNBURNED COMBUSTIBLES AND FINES
Unburned combustib
-ample Moisture Volat lies Ash
nUmbef (« '(%) (%)
} 68,6 3M 65.
2 52-7 43-2 56.
j,*
Average 60.6 3.9.0 .51.
"Unburped combustibles we. re not
The amount of fines and
separation was ~]k.(> and 0.2
(Text Table 8). The assumpt
metals contained no moisture
les
Heat Moisture
(Btu/lb) (%)
1 4,150 39.^
8 5,323 19.9
23.1
0 ^,736 27.5
found in this sample.
unburned combustibles
percent respectively on
ions were made that the
Fi nes
Volatiles Ash Heat
(%) (%} (Btu/lb)
6.9 93-1 1,076
2.8 97.? 530
3-6 96 k 713
^ 95-6 773
found during the field
wet-weight basis
glass and rocks and
, no heat, and were considered as "ash."
55
-------
Because the moisture in the total sample was assumed to be in the
fines and unburned combustibles, the percent moisture in the total sample
was calculated by the following method:
Percent moisture
in total sample
/ 1b fi
I Ib resi
nes \ / Ib moisture
idue j V Ib fines
Ib unburned combustibles\ f Ib moisture
b residue / \ Ib unburned combustibles
100.0
Percent moisture in total sample (No. 1) = (0.7^6) (0.39*0 +
(0.002) (0.686)1 100.0
Percent moisture in total sample (No. 1) = 29.5
Because the remaining calculations are on a dry basis, the separation
data from Text Table 8 must be converted to a dry basis as follows:
Percent dry _ /Ib wet component minus Ib moisture in wet component^ , 0
component 1^ total dry sample weight j
These calculations are summarized in Table B-2.
TABLE B-2
CONVERSION OF THE RESIDUE DATA TO A DRY BASIS
Component
Fines
Unburned
combustibles
Glass and rocks
Metal
Total
Wet weight
(Ib)
60.5
0.2
3-5
17-0
81.2
Moisture Dry weight
( Ib)
(*) (Ib) Ubj
39- * 23.8 36.7
68.6 0.1 0.1
0.0* 0.0* 3-5
0.0* 0.0* 17.0
57-3
Percent
by dry wt
6A.O
0.2
6.1
29.7
100.0
^Assumed.
56
-------
The percent of volatiles and ash are calculated for the total sample
by the following method:
Percent volat iles
in total sample
1b volat iles \ / 1b fi nes \
Ib fi nes / \ 1b res idue /
i h 1ac \
100.0
/
b volatiles \ /Ib unburned combustibles
Ib unburned combustibles J \ Ib residue j
" j
rcent volatiles in total sample (No. 1) = (0.069) (0.6*0 + (0.349) (0.002) 100.0
Percent volatiles in total sample (No. 1) = 4.5
Percent ash in total sample = 100.0 minus percent volatiles
Percent ash in total sample (No. 1) = 100.0 - 4.5 = 95-5
The heat content is calculated on a dry basis by the following method:
(Ib unburned
combustibles'
Ib residue
comDusi
-ned ) I '
.tibles x
Heat content in total sample (No. 1) = (1076) (0.64) + (4)50) (0.002) = 700 Btu/lb
57
-------
APPENDIX C
Plant Efficiency Calculations
These calculations show the methods used to calculate the percent
of weight reduction, the percent of volatile reduction, the percent heat
released, and the percent of volume reduction. The following data were
used:
Res idue:
666.5 tons (wet)
521.2 tons (dry)
21.8 percent moisture
520 Btu/lb
3.0 percent volatiles
1,1*85 lb/cu yd
130 hr of burning time
Part i culates:
238 Ib/hr
Soli d waste:
1,800 tons (wet)
1,^35 tons (dry)
20.2 percent moisture
5,030 Btu/lb
70.1 percent volatiles
200 lb/cu yd
cent weight
educt ion
cent weight
eduction
cent weight
"educti on
"cent volatile
-eduction
1 -
1 -
1 -
'dry residue dry participate dry weight of
weight wei ght wastewater solids*
dry weight of solid waste
521 2
1,435
_
LOOO
hoo.o
'536.7
100.0 = 62.7
weight of dry weight of dry
volatiles + volatiles in
in residue part i culates'-'
weight of dry vola-
+ tiles in waste-
water so) ids*
dry weight of vclatiles in solid waste
100.0
100.0
-Not measured.
59
-------
Percent volati1e
reduction
1 -
(0. 03) (521
(0. 701 )(
1.2)^
35y
100.0
Percent volatile _
reduction
100.0 = 98.5
Percent heat
released
1 -
1 " (1,005^
/heat content of weight of \
\ dry residue dry residue/
(heat content of solid waste) (weight of solid wasteN
/heat content of weight of N
\ particulates* x particulates*/
+ heat content of solid waste weight of solid waste
r
heat content of weight of
wastewater solids* wastewater sol
ids*)
(heat content of solid waste)(weight of solid waste)
100,0
Percent heat released =
Percent heat released =
(520) (2,000) (
i,030) (2,000)
521.2) \
(l,800)y
1 -
/ 5.42 x 1Q8\
( 181.1 x 10» )
100.0
100.0 = 97.1
Percent
volume = <
reduct ion
1 -
>tal wt of \
wet residue 1 + /wt of partJculates*\ +
density / \ densi ty* /
/\Ai1- f\f c r» 1 i H uiact-«i ''ac re*ra'i\
wt of soli ds
in wastewatep'"
dens i ty*
wt of solid waste "as received" \
density J
Percent volume
reduction
Percent volume reduction =
5 x 2,000\
1,485 )
''
1,800 x 2,QOO\
200 )
>100.0
} -
897-6
18,000
100.0 = 95-0
ANot measured.
------- |