Sunteți pe pagina 1din 10
Municipal Incineration and Air Pollution Control . WILMER JENS City of Milwaukee Bureau of Garbage

Municipal Incineration and

Air Pollution Control

.

WILMER JENS

City of Milwaukee Bureau of Garbage Collection & Disposal Milwaukee, Wisconsin·

FRED R. REHM

County of Milwaukee Department of Air Pollution Control Milwaukee, Wisconsin

I

I

I

I

Abstract

The history and development of municipal incinerator air pollution control in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, is dis­ cussed. This community has pioneered in the develop. ment of effective municipal incinerator air pollution con­ trol systems. Comprehensive performance test data of a municipal incinerator incorporating three new control concepts are presented. The effects of variable burning capacity operation on air pollution emissions from a municipal incinerator are detailed and discussed.

Green Bay Avenue Incinerator

' In 195 3 the City of Milwaukee pl_c ed

the Green Bay

Avenue Incinerator into operation. The incinerator was installed by the Nichols Engineering and Research Cor­ poration. It consists of two 150 ton-per-day Monohearth furnaces. Concern over the possibility of air pollution

emissipns

plant lor a wet scrubber type system, including structural provisions for electrostatic precipitators, should they later be found necessary. In 1954 Nichols Engineering and Research Corporation performed several tests for capacity performance. They began the first test with a vertical-venetian blind type of stainless steel baffle. This created too great a pressure

drop across the ballle and the capacity test failed. These

resulted in provisions in the design of the

ballles had to be removed. They then installed two stages of a plate type steel baffle, each stage consisting of two rows of flat plates vertically installed. These plates were eight inches in width, one-quarter inch thick, and spaced six inches apart across the width of the breeching. The breeching cross-section dimensions were seven feet in width and fourteen feet in height. The first stage of baffles was stationary, rising ten feet from the floor of the breeching. The second stage of baffles was adjustable, dropping from the top of the breeching to give at least ten feet of breeching coverage. Both stages were designed with six plates in the front row and seven plates in the back row. These rows were separated by five inches. The back plates were set to overlap the front plates by one inch. Each set of baffles had three spray headers with thirteen spray nozzles in each header. This gave good water coverage of all plates. A second test series was conducted and the plant was found to meet capacity requirements and also the air pollution control code. The air pollution tests were conducted by the Milwaukee County Department of Air Pollution Control. The plant was then turned over to the Disposal Division of the City of Milwaukee. The Disposal Division operated the furnaces lor about six months when a mishap occurred due to a human failure. The overfire and undcrfire air had been controlled manually in the original design. Overheating took place in one of the units causing a blister in the furnace over an area of about six feet in diameter. To prevent this from recurring,

a blister in the furnace over an area of about six feet in diameter. To prevent

74

i

l

1

1 I I

air thermal�actuated

control

undcrfirc

was

nnd

o",�,'irc

it'"

chamber

combustion

to regtltute furnace and

lIt(1

�.�

Uilf1pt-mture8 nutonmticnlly.

months,

complaints

three

about

for only

opcrntillg

."( fcr

of pieces

th�

emission

in regard to

romplaints

were

'l JJ.t'

and occasional smoke

In·

emissions.

material

')' c;L,Aueo

the complaints

j

disclosed that

were

us­

igntions

'

ft.

tf"

to

••

ftf" fC'

.tech'cd

from

the

neighborhood

near the

incinerators.

,iIi.d.

AI

Ih.t Iillle

complete

baffle coverage

of the

entire

UOfi!l

w�rt

Hcction

of the

breeching

was tried.

These

baffles

or the

sume

plate type

design

as

discussed earlier.

A contributing

factor to

the

fly

ash

and smoke

emissions

et.n

hnvc

been

the increased

,.bhi.1t

then being consumed

quantities of

as

compared

combustible

to

the material

fi'cdn'll {luring the tests.

"ilh n 50 per cent garbage and 50 per cent rubbish refuse,

Also, the actual test was run

.,.ilh

n

moisture

content

of

30 per

cent

by weight,

per

tSJt:'cilil'l1tions.

In the meantime, the refuse collected

found to be considerably drier and more bulky in

,olume. To eliminate the resulting smoke emission, a photocell 4lftmgl'lIlcnt was interlocked with the thermocouple

Then,

lutivRled overfireeunderfire combustion air control.

t"ithcr of two conditions changed the normal underfire

This change from underfire

tomhuslion air to overfire air.

to u\ ' crfire air is made when combustion chamber temperaw

tUtt'S exceed a set limit, or when the photocell detects

See Fig. 1 for a schematic

'�nt 0 smoky condition exists.

wiring diagram illustrating the automatic overfireeunderfire nir control. Note that this is a simple "oneo£f" system.

Combustion Chamber

Thermocouple

Photocell Smoke Eye In flue

·The water that was used to supply the spray headers was furnished from the City water main. It had a pressure of 75 to 80 psi. When the area became more lleavily populated and the demand for water became greater, the available water pressure dropped at intervals causing the spray nozzles on the headers to run dry and the plate type baffles warped and sagged.

To overcome this problem, a reservoir was installed and the water spray system was pressurized. At this time, the cooling water from all dampers was diverted to the reservoir. During the time that the piping changes were made, the baffles which had been of a flat plate design were redesigned so that additional rigidity was added. This was done by bending the edges back one and one­ half inches on each side at a 30 degree angle. The modified baffles were installed with the streamlined side facing the gas stream in the first row and were reversed in the second row. An eight inch spacing between the front row and rear row was used. The front row of baffles overlapped the edge of the back stage by one and one- half inches. This modification resulted in doubling the amount of fly ash collected. At tlds time the fly ash was flushed into the sanitary sewer.

Lincoln Avenue Incinerator

In 1955 the Lincoln Avenue Incinerator was placed in operation. It was constructed by the Pittsburgh-Des Moines Company. The plant's two 150 ton-per-day fur­ naces were of rectangular construction with Flynn & Emrich rocking grates. Separate breechings were

 

Undetfire Position

Overfire Position

Temperature Limit

(Normal)

(on Demand)

Control

Conlrol Circuit

Power Circuit

_

(on Demand) Control Conlrol Circuit Power Circuit _ FIG. 1 Time Deloy Circuit Breaker (Normolly Closed)

FIG. 1

Time Deloy

Circuit Breaker

(Normolly Closed)

Q,

, "

'.,

J:
J:

======U

Damper Motor

power Supply

COMBUSTION AIR CONTROL - SCHEMATIC

75

�,'

,0
,

f. D. fan Damper Control Molor

4

1I

3

I

2

1

(s'- -- 3 II I 2 1 FIG. 2. ORIGINAL DESIGN -CHECKER WALLS FULL WIDTH
(s'-
--
3
II
I
2
1
FIG. 2.
ORIGINAL
DESIGN -CHECKER WALLS
FULL
WIDTH
AND
HEIGHT
.:1.;
2

r

6 .::0 FIG.2. WET BAFFLE ! 3 , -" - c:= • r::::::::: � -
6
.::0
FIG.2.
WET BAFFLE
!
3
,
-"
-
c:=
r:::::::::
-
3
� I 9 .J
I
9
.J

!J

2 -SPRAY ON PLATE 2 1 2 1
2
-SPRAY
ON PLATE
2
1
2
1
' \
'
\

[�0GGI

FIG. 2e

REX CHAIN

BELT CLASSIFIER

SYST EM

WITH FLUMES

AND PIPING

0':JliE

--

FIG.2b

4

�3

3

21].1

2

REFRACTORY RETENTION CELLS ON

FLOOR

-

18"

x

18" k

12"

 

2

 

4

 

2

6

 

FIG.2d

VARIABLE SPACING OF

PLATES

LEGEND

1.

Fir.

Cells

 

"

2.

Combustion

Chamber

3.

Breeching

4.

Expansion Chamber

5.

Chimney

6. Fly

7. Classifier

Ash Settling

S,

Primary

Well

Tonks

9. Cleor Water Well

.

,

FIG.

2

LINCOLN

AVENUE

INCINERATOR

MODIFICATIONS

.

,

provided f9r each provided

•.

unit.

A

175-foot

high chimney was

 

The

Lincoln

Avenue Incinerator was successively

modified to

incorporate five

different

air pollution con­

trol

systems in

the

ensuing eight

years.

Fig.

2, Lincoln

.

Avenue

In cinerator

Modifications,

shows the

five

different

systems

that

were

evaluated.

Fig.

2a

represents

the

plant's

walls

original

were

design

in

installed

in

the

which

two

full-sized

of each

checker-

unit.

Air

breeching

--.collution

emission tests

disclosed

that

the plant

failed

to

76

meet the

local

requirements.

The plant was

next modified

as illustrated in

Fig.

2b. The modifications

consisted

of

refractory retention

cells, roughly

18inches

square

by

12

inches

deep

throughout the

entire floor of the

breeching

section

of the

plant.

This

modification

not only

failed

to

meet

the

air

pollution

requirements

but imposed

severe

cleanout problems

for

the

operating personnel.

 

The plant

was next modified

to

provide

a

wet-baffle

 

collector system

similar

to

that

which

was installed

at

the

Green

Bay

Avenue Incinerator and

which.is

shown

in

Fig

.

n Uti

modif

icntion

involved

the

installation

of the

1\\

U4i.b.lt

"

Inc.

classifier system, with

attendant

.

'If.

the

from

the classifier

water

was

FIG.3

BAFFLE AND CATCH PAN

It" AI<o nl Ihis time, a catch basin or pan was installed

h.,

""J fly Mh collected in the catch pan was piped to two

h••cehings below each ba£fle section. The water

,

oUldoor settling tanks. Fig. 3, Balfle and

t··�·h" PlIn, is nn isometric drawing showing the breech­ "l t.!OUI o( this modification. This system permitted ta4 .«t p IAnce o( this plant by the City o( Milwaukee, as Ii. ail pollulion requirements were met.

�cquentlYI modifications were made as shown in "i 10 ,ory Ihe spacing between the (ront and rear

\<."'" <){ I�. borne elements in accordance with the draft

n "

.\'.".

.,

o( Ihe (urnace at various levels of plant

"I!

�••f

1�3 -Ihe idca being that improved air pollution

u(.

could b.e achieved

at low load periods with a

A

�111"

",>.clng belween Ihe front and rear rows of baffles. ,yolem worked satisfactorily, it waplanned to

'"ute drart controller to modulate the spacing be­ wou ,1. b"Ule rows. A water system failure and result­ iii" -,«.m damng. precluded the air pollution evaluation .j ,\,. "I't·oRch.

"".iI

.'t.

.04

piping

.

T liS

I

'

f

rno d 1 lCatioo IS 1

'

'

.

.

'11

ustrate

d'

10

wasted due to acidic buildup when recirculation was at­

tempted . At the same time,

the spray header and nozzle

system used became plugged and was found to be un­ satisfactory. These corrosion and erosion effects were noted, even with batch-type soda ash neutralization of the water. Subsequently, an automatic soda ash feeder system was developed which was used with the recir­ eulation system. At this point, a new tank-type impingement baflle col­

lector system evolved. This was of a closed-tank

pressurized design with one-eighth inch weep holes providing the outlets for the water to flood the impinge­ ment surfaces. Plugging of the weep holes with the re­ circulated, neutralized water resulted in failure of some of the baffle elements. The baffle elements were then changed, as shown in Fig. 4, Detrick-Jens Cas Washer. The total collection and water classification systems are

as shown in Fig. 2e

uses a water manifold and one inch pipe extending to within eight inches of the bottom of the individual baffle tank elements. Fig. 4 shows the details of the final

design which has solved the baffle element wetting problem. These baffle tank elements have given over two and one"half years of satisfactory service without any serious corrosion, erosion or warpage problems. They arc of mild carbon steel con�truction.

The present gas washer system

Lincoln Avenue Incinerator Tests

During the week of July 18, 1965, an extensive study

77

FIG.4

DETRICK.JENS GAS WASHER FINAL DESIGN

---

'-- '

tlOOR TUT

I()o SAfflE SPACING

_

"19f6j 10 7n.v6S

1408 T

91$� R(JfH Copocity

7510 "'. Yd••

2826O,"'9H

23.201"'i4s lit,

37S.lw. Yel

\

I

I

,

.ill<!< 5.eI) TO<\l (Ortl

 

«).��

17S'

0.41" Chi'

SlO<i

8.24 ./Ton

BEHIND BAfflE

269M TO<ll (4.8�H.O)

5.33 1

(Dry).

2SM TO<'l' (Oo-y).

�c-�

1

C-

7.'»

T

.

18.'''io,crgt

27.C-1t.

36-C. 'To" o,aril

o.s�o.oi"t'

.sSlc.".Yd,.

1O.38./T0II

1.01 To'" (Ory) .

1.29 TO<II - 54.6!1i H.O

�c-b.

O.� r

(Ory) .

I.e TOtiI'

Il.l"c-&.

27C-

0.0,"

0.10"0."'9'

O,$3./TonO'

,.

2.(6./T0<I

0

APCA TA- 3 Incinerator Committee Informative Report No. 2, "Test Methods for Determining Emission Charac­ teristics of Incinerators" [ 1] and those reported as early as 1956 by Rchm[21.

Fig. 5, Solids �Iaterial Balance, graphically depicts the results developed in these tests. From this drawing, it can be seen that a 8 1.8 per cent reduction by weight of refuse charged to the furnaces was accomplished. A

92.6 per cent reduction by refuse volume was realized in

the furnaces

refuse does not readily lend itself to representative sampling, hence this was not attempted at this time. An earlier $75,000 study by a private consulting firm had largely been devoted to the quantitation of the generation

and analyses of City of Milwaukee refuse on seasonal, district, ethnic and economic level bases. It is interest· ing to note that the average per cent combustible in the

The heterogeneous character of municipal

',residue of this batch·feed incinerator was

15.5 per cent.

'{t should further be pointed out that furnace residue, like

r,-_-,O"'-:::;''''"

J

.

UAAIFJER

2(,12 1M - 7.t,SlIi H.O 6.ISTo<,I(Oty)

16.0"c-!>.

0,«"0.01_

'.75'f T""

FIG.5

SOLIDS MATERIAL BALANCE LINCOLN AVENUE 'INCINERATOR

was conducted of the overall perfonnance of the City of Milwaukee Lincoln Avenue Incinerator. It was probably one of the most comprehensive studies of any municipal incinerator plant that has ever been made up to this time. A complete solids material balance on the plant was made for the full five days of 24 hour per day operation. 'This involved weighing of all refuse charged, the weighing and analysis of all residue and solids removed by the system, and the determination ahd analysis of the stack solids emitted. In addition, an analysis was made of the water used in the incinerator fly ash system. This complete incinerator system analysis was made with a lO-in. spacing between the front and fear rows of impingement baffles in the Detrick-Jens Gas Washer system. The locally designed and developed automatic overfire­ underfire air system was in full operation throughout these tests. The locally developed and designed water clarification, recirculation and neutralization system was also operative throughout these tests. City of Milwaukee Bureau of Garbage Collection and Disposal personnel performed all normal duties attendant to the operation of the incinerator plant, as well as taking data on fixing

plant

operating conditions, including all ,veight meaHure

)<:mployees of the County of Milwaukee Depart­

- ments.

ment of Air Pollution Control performed all sampling, analytical and testing services, including the air pollution

emission studies. The air pollution emission studies were conducted following procedures detailed in the ASME Test Code PTC 27- 1957 "Determining the Dust Concentration -Jin a Gas Stream" together with those included in the

refuse, is a very heterogeneous material, and representa· tive sampling is most difficult. No attempt was made to separate the inerts (metal, glass, etc.) from either the ref­ use or residue. The 15.5 per cent combustible residue

figure represents the analyses of the ashed or burned material. It could be expected that this figure would be greatly reduced (by 50 to 75 per cent) if the analyses had reflected the total residue, including inerts.

TABLE 1

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL

FACTORS

 

Collection

Lb

OustlTon

Per Cent

Effic loncy

Charge

Charge

Per

Cent

Fly Ash Leaving Furnace 30.28

1.51

Fly Ash Removed

In System

22.04

1.10

72.8

Fly Ash Leaving Stack

8.24

0.41

Comb. Chamber RemovoI

10.38

0.52

34.2

Breeching Removal

2.08

0.10

10.4

Baffle Removal

8.75

0.44

49.1

Behind Baffle Removal

0.83

0.04

9.2

Boffle & Behind BoHle Removal

9.58

0.48

53.8

Table 1, Air Pollution' Control Factors, summarizes some of the air pollution control factors with respect to the solids material balance depicted in Fig. 5. It can be seen from t4is table tllat the total incinerator system ex· hibited an overall dust collection efficienc), of 72.8 per cent on the 30.28 Ib dust/ton of charge that left the fur­ naces proper. The impingement baffle collector exhibited a 49. 1 per cent collection efficiency on the fly ash enter­ ing the baffle collector. When credited with the fly ash settled out of the gas stream behind the baffle, which is not unreasonable since this fly ash contained 45.6 per cent moisture which was introduced in the baffle col-

. '

y'

,

78

 

lector,th�

dust

collection e£ficiency

01 the

impingement

.

rear rows

01 the results showing the stack dustloading rate as a

01 the

results showing the

stack dustloading rate as a

baWe was

lound to

be 53.8per cent.

function 01 the rate 01

incinerator operation

lor the

two

 

The

10 inch

spacing between

the Iront and

conditions

of bame

spacing. The

data

are very

good in

01

the impingement·baWe collector system

had been

 

establishing a

logarithmic relationship between the

stack

!

-

-

arrived

at arbitrarily because 01 the

lear 01 too

great

a

exit

dustloadings (corrected to a

50 per cent

excess

air

 

dralt

loss producing a

lurther reduction in

reluse burning

basis) and

the rate

01

incinerator operation lor

this plant.

capacity

in

an already

overloaded

incinerator disposal

 

Also seen on

this graph is

the effect

of the

8

inch baWe

system.

The �Iilwaukee County area

needs 2100 tons

per

spacing

in reducing the

stack exit dustloadings.

It

can

day

of

new incineration

capacity

to meet

this

community's

be seen that improved dust collection perlormance was

municipal

reluse

disposal requirements 01

1970.

A

achieved

with

the 8

inch spacing with

little apparent loss

markedly

greater incineration

capacity requirement

is im

in

incineration capacity. The

improved

air pollution per­

minent

if commercially

and industrially

generated

reluse

 

formance

was achieved with

an increased draft

loss 01

is

accepted lor disposal.

 

only

-0.08 inches 01 water across the

collector

bame.

 

Subsequently,on

August

11

through 13,1965,another

These data

are considered

very significant

in that

 
 

series

of tests

was

conducted on

the Lincoln

Avenue

 

they clearly

point

the way to

achieving better

incinerator

incinerator to evaluate

the e£lect

on capacity

and

air pol­

air pollution perlormance with

this type

of collection

 

lution

performance

01 an

8 inch

spacing between

the Iront

system by

the simple

expedient

of reducing

the spacing

and

rear rows of the

impingement-baWe collector system.

between

the rows of

bames, or

adding additional rows of

This

test

series

was limited

to an

accurate determination

baWe elements.

It

is

obvious,of course,that

a

reduction

01

the

reluse

charge rate

and the

stack emission rate.

 

in

bame

spacing,or the

addition

of more rows of

boWes,

 

The

composite

data Irom the July

The composite data Irom the July and August 1965

and August 1965

must be accompanied

by

the

use

of higher

stacks and/or

 

test series

are reported

in Table

2,Summary

01 Air

Pol­

 

induced dralt fans in

order

not

to su£ler

a

reduction in

lution Emission Studies

at the

City

01 Milwaukee Lincoln

burning capacity.

This collection system lends itsel£

 

Avenue

Incinerator.

From

this table,it can

be seen

that

well to

ready modification

as emission

limitations

are de

the stack emission rate

lor the July,1965 test

series

creased

in the

future. The

much-used dustloading limita­

with

a

10

inch spacing between the

Iront

and rear row 01

tion

01 0.851b

dust/lOOO

lh flue

gas,corrected' to 50

per

impingement bames ranged from

6.65

to

11.6 6

lb

dust/ton

cent excess

�ir,is

shown on

this

graph

to

point

out

that

01

charge while

the

capacity burning rate

varied Irom 91

 

this plant

operates

below

this limitation with

a

10 inch

to

151 per

cent during these

tests.

The average stack

spacing between baffle

rows

at capacity burning rates

 

emission rate

lor the

11 test runs was

8. 24 lb

dust/ton

of

below no per cent.

At an

8 inch

spacing between the

charge

at an

average capacity burning rate

of 121.6 per

baffle

rows,this

plant meets

this dustloading limitation

cent.

The

stack

exi t

dustloadings

varied

Irom

0.679 to

when operated

up to

127 per

cent

of rated

burning

 

1.588lb

dust/lOOO lb

flue

gas,corrected to

a

50 per cent

capacity.

The

0.85 lb dust/lOOO

lb

flue gas,corrected to

excess

 

a

air basis,limitation

is

in effect

in

 

This

air basis. table lurther shows

that the

stack emission

rate

 

50 per cent excess Milwaukee County.

 
 

for the August

1965 test

series with

an 8

inch spacing

While it

is not

the intent 01 the authors

to discuss the

between the

front

and rear row

of impingement bames

 

matter

of dustloading

emission limitations, it

is con

 

ranged from 6.10 to 7.90

lb dust/ton of

charge

while

the

 

sidered significant that not

a single

citizen complaint

capacity burning rate ranged Irom 91

to 133

per

cent

concerning

fly

ash deposits,attributable

to the

two City

during these

tests.

The

average

stack emission rate for

 

of Milwaukee

incinerator plants embodying

full coverage

the

six test runs

dust/ton of charge

at an

impingement-baffle

collector

systems,has

been

received

average capacity

was 6.96 lb burning rate

01 122.7

per cent.

It can

 

in

the

10 years

01 operation of these

plants.

Nor

is it

 

be

seen

that

there

was a

15.5 per

cent reduction

in the

lelt that

the approximate

one ton

01 fine

particulate

stack

emission rate

at approximately

the same

average

matter emitted

in

a 24-hour day from

these

plants is

like­

burning rate

with the

8

inch

bame spacing

as opposed to

ly to

present

any

serious atmospheric pollution problem

the

10 inch

bame

spacing condition.

Significantly,the

 

to

this community in

the

foreseeable future

 

stringency

of an exit

dustloading

limitation of

0.85 lb

 

The lollowing

are some of

the advantages

of this

 

dust/lOoo lb

basis,is

of the

flue gas,corrected

a

to

this table. It

a 12 per cent CO,

can be

apparent in

seen

bame

that none

row

tests,with

either

10 inch or

8 inch

latest design

system.

The

construct.

of

baffle elements

wet impingement-bame

a

soda

ash

dust collector

are relatively simple

to

neutralized

recirculation

With

are relatively simple to neutralized recirculation With spacing,would comply with a 12 per cent CO,

spacing,would comply with

a

12 per cent

CO,

corrected

system,low

carbon

steel baffles

have

demonstrated

limitation.

The

high moisture

content

of the

flue

gases

satisfactory

life

and

performance

in over

two

years of

in

n wet-type

Fig.

fly

ash control

to

a

system

to 20.65 per operation without any CO, basis a tortion. The bame system where individual
to
20.65 per
operation
without
any
CO, basis
a tortion.
The bame
system where
individual
a graph
out the
necessity
to take
79

Operation,is

(16.65

serious

erosion,corrosion

can

or dis­

cent) makes

drastic

correction

12 per cent

Capacity

arrangement provides

be

a flexible

replaced with­

By

requirement. 6,Dustloading vs.

elements

the

plant out 01 operation.

provides be a flexible replaced with­ By requirement. 6,Dustloading vs. elements the plant out 01 operation.

29.28

10-.55""

8-13-65

TEST 7

159.800

j VOL

TEST 17

.0701

.163

.39S

8-13065

.751

.323

.235

L081

.169

62.74
20.65

15.95

6.10

.16

12.87

OUST

29.25

3.58

""

42 26.S

1"'7

TO

128 .,

"12

'

23

8-IUS

29.

T[5T6

2:58PM

""

141.3)0

vol

"",:

TEST 16

.0935

.552

1.518 .23<

r

LO<S

.80S

.341

63.S7

19.65

.221

7.90
39.1

OUST

13.54

13.41 .08

672 29.'"

3.29

I� '"

�47

.'"

23.2

TO

123

108108

.

8-1

38.0 ;r.I'''-'''-'''''''',""",�'''':;:'':'b<:�'��

-----

TEST 15

.0797

.775

8-IUS

1.075 .17<

.411

.3SA

.242

.571

.188

20.65

'�77

7.73

OUST

23.1 13.$0

29.35

1�38

3.,.

.24

8:43

10:32

TO

lOS

'2

679

SUMMARY OF AIR POLLUTION EMISSION STUDIES AT THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE LINCOLN AVENUE INC INERATOR

29.36

-----

5:05PM

TEST 5

8-11-65

1SS,800

67fJ

VOL

.

-----

TEST 14

.'72

8-1t.6S

.708

1.029 .159

.lOS

.SAI

.231

.160

62.89

37.8 'J)',!"" .

.

20.50

91
6.16

12.79 .16

OUST

23.923.7 14.82

29
3.66

�SS

�38

TO

119118

'"642

"38

.

.·ld"

-----

.0185

TEST 13

.,,,

.189

8-11.6S

.S36

.<31

L068

.326

.Z1

.179

102
6.93

14.10

18.25

64.70

OUST

3.67

29.45

.16

13.2212.92

31.0 ·*'�{:¢,'48jKWI&;i''fW]l·x '

�17

12:41

TO

----------

TEST 12

.0998

19.15 .

.233

8-11-65

.s.c,

1.025 670

.753

.233

1.421

.322

1

63.97

OUST

133
6.86

17.35 ISS

29 3.72

.24

9:14

10:52

51
31.2

TO

767
29.23

.

4;05PM

TEST 4

7.22-65

168.800

VOL

:.,�"·if:;��'\t;'}:iifly*�cfJ'?f'*'ci'''"'(.".e

-----

.0195

TEST 11

1.032

.514

7.22-65

.749

1.505 .20'

.297

,

.200

II.
6.86

16.57

OUST

.16

29.23

3.21

13.38

3.40

19.85

33.2

1:59

3:33

TO

52

133

751

,

,

.0726

TEST to

,

7.22-65

.163

.761

1.04S

.337

.225

.561

.1$1

8.20
49.2

1�48

19.73

OUST

63.47

12.69 .24

'.87

29.27

12:55

11:07

25.0

TO

45

102

100

737

.0613

.539

.218

')TEST

.708

7·22-65

1.001 .ISA

.281

.151

.381

7.54
45.2

63,63

19.55

OUST

11.38

13.28 .16

3.38

700
29.29

8:43

�.

10:15

TO

3S

91

TABLE 2

743
29.45

TEST 3

3:50PM

7-21-65

150.900

VOL

.8AS

7-:1:1·65

TEST 8

1.588

.346

1.183 �231

.685

'"

.'64

.149

'3.43

19.82

9.63 11.667.51

3.69
12.98

29."

.0'

OUST

11.60

34.S

3:18

1:41

35.3

TO

.

72S

141 205

51

7.21.65 10:53

TEST 7

.898

1.685 .267

1.211

.371

.264

.109

OUST

6<.41

18.45

m
29.52

3.53

30.9
15.42

13.37 .24

12:28

41.846.,

TO

1.(9

123

49

.0628

.'79

7.21-65

TEST 6

.361

.'41

.SO'

.146

.292

.20'

ISS

11.52

OUST

63.65

19.55

12.94 .16

738 29.SA

3.70

8:56

10:28

TO

92 87

'$/

790
29.55

TEST 2

5:00PM

7.20-65

169.100

VOL

.0903

7·20-65

.413

TEST 5

.'65

.515

.221

.287

1.311 .211

.701

1637

7.59

6<.74

OUST

18.10

13.14 .25

728
29.55

3.77

39.9

59 ,�.

�OO

4:18

TO

124

131

.0752

TEST"

.1"

.346

:m

.233

7.2\).65

1.071 .169

.414

.571

7.70

13.48

63.75

DUST

19.40

12.74

.24

29.55 '.87

12:13

<8.'

1:53

4558
27.034.8

TO

108139
104116 6.65

730

.0848

.S06

TEST 3

1.295 .""

693

, .286

.951

.20S

.38<

7.20-65

17.37

65.15

OUST

17.55

.16

3.S6

29.55

13.58

39.5

,,15

10:55

TO

.

71.

29.'12 1ft. Ho

29.SO

'.19-65

5:00PM

TEST 1

soo

VOL

167.

2TEST

.7"

,

F.

.169

.99'

.m

.531

.202

'.19_65

.221

19.4216.65

8.00

DUST

63.66-

.16

29.c?

16.0818.87

4.58 12.18

35.7

32.2

04:21

TO

129

129

52

32

706

1.403

.7S2

1.00S

.=

1.19·65

.331

.AA2

.m

.132

TEST 1

DUST

13.68

29.50

9.20

3.58

65.92

:g.a"

.17

I�OO

2:21

AT SCTP

'�O

TO

183

75

lSI

I

n

CORR.

Povnd.JTon Chorg.

0-1/1000 ,I> Goo.

110 Ga.

STACK CONDITIONS

c-r Copoclty

TO � fXC£SS AIR

2

TEST DATE

CHARGE RECORD

TO 1'% COceRRo

TEST TIME

T o n.!H.

" Combu.tlbl.

TEST NO.

Ft.

In. HO

Rot.- No.!'Hr

F,

RESU!. TSTEST

J"

Ft

F,

Ft

Ft

OUSTLOADING

OUSTLOADINC

T

"1'

VOLUMETRIC

d

1000

STACK MASS

. "F

P"""d.iH.

(;ooa'''';C"

Gr.1".!c"

_

Groln';C

c;.,,;"alC

-"

�O - "

.�

.�

COz·"

.

.

_

.Voh,

Gro'''';

N

U. Ov

Totol

Temp

HZ

CO

0,

P ,

R

P

P

T

DU

,

/looo

5

�''':�M''_''''':'''�'''''''_

reducing the

01 hames,

g additional rows

or

addin

her

I

between haff c rows

18

y

east

ac·

Ie

W

.pacing

-

of the plants

pollution perlormance

the

air

plished

-

(om

operated

bame units

The

at a

he improved.

were

The

pumping

a nominal water

cost.

ents

which

repres

.

pomts 0

lmmotlflg

IOn an

incinerator,

agna

s

the

e

o(

recirculation

system.

(or n

'�

,�

'

.

.1

I

h'h"

l

(8n

12.33

8pm

p

er baffle

unit water rate d urmg t h ese

'

tests

)

'.Iem

embodies

a

flowing water

·

·

·

system

on the

It

t

gas s.de

'

d

••

diment

nece

ssary

And

permits

tpray

accumulation.

to

use

The baffle

units

make it

un­

nozzles

Water

a water spray

header

and spray

use

of

and

a low pressure water system.

nozzles

were found

to

be

henders

unsuitable

Analysis of Sampleel Sollels

The e.mpled particulates from the stack emission ts,the clarifier or dust collector catch, and the furnace residue (coinciding with Dust Test Run No. 6) were ashed and were analyzed for various chemical com­ ponents and properties. In addition,the sampled stack particulates from Dust Test Run No. 8 were ashed and nlso submitted to the same analyses. Two general types or analyses were conducted - spectrographic and wef chemistry. The wet chemistry determinations were made hy.hoth the Milwaukee County Department of Air Pollution Control Laboratory and a private commercial laboratory. The results of these analyses are tabulated helow.

SPECTROGRAPHIC ANALYSES

ELEMENTS REPORTED IN PER CENT ASHED MATERIAL

Dust Test Run No. 6

Stock

Effluent

5 +

. 1-1.0

Collector

Cotch

Element

Silicon

Residue

10+

. 1-1.0

.01-.1

.01-.1

.01-.1

1 -10

.1- 1.0

1-10

. 1-1.0

1-10

.5-5.0

1<)+

.1-1.0

.01-.1

.001-.0 1 .001-.01

.01-.1

Mongonue .1-1.0

Chromium

Hick.1

1-10

Copper

Vanadium

Iron

Tin

1-10

1-10

Magnesium 1-10

Titanium

Sliver

Boron

Barium

B eryllium

Zinc

Aluminum

.1- 1.0

.001-.0 1 .01-.1

.5-5.0

.05-.5

.5-5.0

.5-5.0

.05-.5

1-10

1-10

1-10

.5-5.0

.001-.01 .001-.01 .0001-.00 1

.0 1-.1

.01-.1

.01-.1

.1-1.0

. 1-1.0

.1-1.0

.001-.01.001-.01

-.00 1

lOt

lOt

lOt

1-10

.5-5.0

. 1-1.0

.01-.1

. 1-1.0

. 1-1.0

Calcium

Sodlum

L.od

Dust Test Run No.

8

Stack

Effluent

S+

. 1-1.0

.1-1.0

lOt

. 1-1.0

.001-.01

. 1-1.0

.001-.01

. 1-1.0

1-10

1-10

.5-5.0

0001

.01-.1

. 1-1.0

-.001

lOt

' 1_10

.05-.5

WET CHEMISTRY ANALYSES

Dust Test Run No.6

Oust Test Run No. 8

 

Stock

Collector

Stock

Element

Effluent

Cotch

Residue

Effluent

pH

8.3

12.3

12.3

7.7

Sulphur

.620

.350

Phos-

phorus

1.460

1.760

1.390

1.140

S'"cote

5.4

Anions [3]

Phos·

phates

.88

.77

Nitrates

.62

.64

Sulfates

5.0

2.1

Chlorides

.02

.22

The basicity of all the sampled particulates is con­ sidered significant. The high order of hasicity of the collector catch and residue samples is considered particularly significant.

' Particle Size Analyses

The sampled stack particulates from Dust Test Run

.

No. 8 were submitted to a sub-sieve particle size anal­ ysis and paticle density determination. The Coulter Counter electronic particle size counter system was used in these analyses. The results are tabulated helow:

Density: 1.8 5 grams per cubic centimeter

 
 

Per Cent by Weight

Greater

 

Microns

Than the Stated Size

 

44

10.8

30

31.3

20

52.8

10

79.5

5

94.0

 

System Water Balance

 

Table

3 - System Water Balance - is a summary of

the incinerator system water balance for the 120·hour

 

test. From this table, it can be seen that there waS a

14.3 per cent moisture evaporation loss,or a loss of

38.8

gallons per minute for this

300 ton per day incinerator

plant. It can also he seen that the cost of soda ash neutralization amounted to 85.60 per day. This cost permitted the recirculation of the water in the wet dust collection system without serious corrosion problems in the piping, recirculation pump and collector system. The neutralization permitted recirculation and reuse of the water in the system and resulted in marked savings in fresb water consumption at this plant. The effect on water savings of the installation of the clarifier and neutralization system is best illustrated by the following table which compares 1962 water consumption with 1964

81

10,0

ph

16,280

g

.-

i

.

,

L:
I

,

'

. .

,

i

;

� , ,

i

(

't.O •.0 7.0 •.0 '.0 •.c ,.0 . 0 . \1 � &' � 2.0
't.O
•.0
7.0
•.0
'.0
•.c
,.0
.
0
.
\1
&'
2.0
.
6C)
,,"J.
\. e
f
f
./j.
\. e
f
g
f
1>' ��
I>V
,.�,�
1.0
--�� - �
c.,
--
0••"
PUS' 11000, GAS
--
- ---
- ---
_
g
(0\.><- --
o.
V
&
c.!
0.1
'"
.-
I-
§
o.•
o.s
:!
"
o.4
o.,
g
0
2
o.
o.
I
80
120
"C
ISC
100
180
PER CENT
RATED
CAPACITY
FIG.
6
DUSTLOADING VS.
CAPACITY OPERATION
water consumption for
approximately the
same annual ton
At present
water rates,
the
net
annual
savings effected
nage of refuse disposed.
hy
the recirculation,
clarification, neutralizat·ion system,

Refuse

T onnoge

Water

Consumption

Cost

of Soda Ash

1962

60,015

tons

16,100,000

eu

It

1964

60,045

tons

4,600,000 eu

It