CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING INCINERATION OF

INDUSTRIAL PLASTIC AND HAZARDOUS WASTE: A CASE STUDY

JAMES J. BINDER CSI Resource Systems, Inc.

Boston, Massachusetts

ABSTRACT

The disposal of industrial wastes is becoming increas­ingly more difficult, costly and uncertain. Industry faces these problems for hazardous waste and "special" waste, such as highly chlorinated plastics, and sometimes for conventional wood, cardboard, and paper wastes as well. The future of hazardous waste landfills is unknown, pend­ing state legislation and the outcome of the debate to re­authorize the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), which could further restrict future landfill­ing of hazardous waste. On the other hand, liability on the part of the waste generator is certain for those industries who continue to landflll hazardous waste. In addition, conventional sanitary landfills for disposal of wood and paper wastes are reaching capacity, and new landfllis are difficult to site.

As an alternative to landfllling, on-site incineration of industrial waste with heat recovery offers potential bene­fits in terms of both disposal and energy cost savings. However, a decision to implement on-site incineration re­quires careful consideration because capital and operating costs can be significant, environmental requirements are stringent, and the technology has limited commercial operating experience with plastics and hazardous waste.

This paper will review, by way of a case study of a manufacturing facility in the Northeast, technical, en­vironmental, business, and economic considerations when making a decision to install and operate an on-site in­dustrial waste incineration/heat recovery system. The case study focuses on incineration of hazardous wastes and highly chlorinated plastics. The case study example also addresses available incineration technologies that have been demonstrated for hazardous and "special" indus­trial solid waste.

458

INTRODUCTION

Industry is increasingly facing a more difficult, costly, and insecure waste disposal future not only for hazardous wastes, but also for "special" wastes, such as plastic wastes high in chlorine content.

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) is currently being reviewed by Congress, and recommended revisions to RCRA are likely to further re­strict the future landfilling of hazardous waste. Further­more, several states - notably California - are initiating their own efforts to prohibit the landfllling of hazardous waste. A trend is thus developing, on both the state and federal level, which increases uncertainties surrounding the continued landfllUng of hazardous waste. In addition, across the country, conventional sanitary landfllis are reaching capacity; in many cases, it is becoming increas­ingly difficult to obtain permits to expand existing or to site new sanitary landfllis. As a long-term disposal option, land filling of both hazardous and nonhazardous wastes is, therefore, questionable in terms of availability and/or cost.

In addition, under both RCRA and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (Superfund), the waste generator is liable for any hazardous waste if disposes of, even after such waste has been landfllied. Consequently, should a prob­lem arise in the future with a landflll in which hazardous waste has been deposited, the generator can be assessed a portion of the cleanup fee for that landftll.

In light of these considerations, on-site incineration of waste with heat recovery offers many potential benefits, including:

• The development of a long-term, controlled, and re­liable means of meeting waste disposal needs.

TABLE 1 CASE STUDY: COMPOSITION OF WASTE (AS-RECEIVED)

MATERIAL

PVC Materials

Urethane Foam

Polyurethane Plastics

Wood and Cardboard

Li qui d Waste

• A significant reduction in the volume of waste that has to be disposed of in a landfIll (the residue remaining after incineration), with an associated reduction in haul costs and disposal fees.

• The implementation of a waste disposal system that may reduce or eliminate waste generator liability for con­tinued landfIlling of hazardous waste.

• An alternative energy source with an associated re­duction in dependence on uncertain supplies of fossil fuels and price variability.

• Energy cost savings to the industry. In order to ensure that these benefits are achieved; the

decision to install and operate an on-site incineration/heat recovery system requires careful review. Capital and oper­ating and maintenance (O&M) costs can be significant, particularly if the incinerator is classified as a hazardous waste incinerator; emission requirements are stringent, again, particularly for hazardous waste incinerators; and the technology and suppliers of the technology have limited commercial experience with hazardous and "spe­cial" wastes.

The remainder of this paper reviews, by way of a case study, technical, environmental, business, and economic issues when considering on-site incineration with heat recovery as a solution to industrial waste disposal prob­lems. As part of the case study, a questionnaire was wide­ly circulated and interviews and site visits were conducted to review currently available industrial waste incineration systems.

DEFINITION OF CASE STUDY

The case study presented is based on an operating manufacturing facility in the Northeast.

WEIGHT AS PERCENT OF TOTAL

61

11

8

15

5

100%

WASTE QUANTITY AND CHA RACTE RISTICS

The total quantity of waste produced by the plant is 25 tons per day (TPD) (22.7 t/day) on a 7 -day-per-week basis. Approximately 95% of the waste is solid material, and the remainder is liquid material (Table 1). The solid and liquid wastes are collected and stored separately.

The solid waste consists of PVC materials, urethane foam, polyurethane, wooden pallets, and cardboard wastes. As a result of process cleaning, a small fraction of the urethane foam waste is contaminated with methy­lene chloride, which is listed as a hazardous waste by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and is segre­gated from the other solid waste. The solid waste is gen­erated in various sizes. For example, a portion of the PVC waste is in the form of long strips several inches wide and up to several feet in length, and foam pieces may be as small as 1 in. (2.54 em) by 2 in. (5.08 em).

459

The liquid waste consists of variable quantities of xynol, acetone, methyl diisocyanate, toluene diisocyan­ate, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), and toluene. MEK and toluene are listed by EPA as hazardous wastes. Xynol, acetone, and toluene diisocyanate are hazardous mate­rials according to EPA ignitability criteria.

Table 2 presents the ultimate analysis of the waste (solids and liquids) on an as-received basis.

The waste presents several potential problems for in­cineration and heat recovery. First, if size reduction of the waste is required for feed to the incineration unit, it will increase the complexity and cost of the total incineration/ heat recovery system. Second, the presence of chlorine in the waste and the formation of hydrochloric acid (HCI) during incineration will result in material corrosion and require scrubbing HCI emissions to meet state environ­mental requirements. Moreover, burning the liquid waste

TABLE 2 CASE STUDY: ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF WASTE (AS-RECEIVED)

HIGHER HEATING VALUE

MATERIAL

Carbon Hydrogen Nitrogen Sul fur Chlorine Oxygen Moisture Inerts*

12,000 Btu/lb (27,900 k-joules/kg)

WEIGHT AS PERCENT OF TOTAL

48.6 6.4 2.2 0.0

18.6 15.3

5.0 3.9

100.0%

* Inerts contain 0.3042-percent barium, 0.1432-percent cadmium, and 0.0644-percent zinc by weight of the total waste.

or the contaminated foam waste may result in the classifi­cation of the facility as a hazardous waste incinerator, which will require compliance with more stringent en­vironmental requirements, including 99-percent HCl re­moval (or a reduction of HCl emissions to 4 lb/h) and a 99.99% destruction and removal efficiency for hazardous materials.

MANUFACTURING FACILITY ENERGY USE

The manufacturing facility currently uses three 10,000 lb/h (4,536 kg/h) oil-fired boilers to produce low-pressure steam for use in dryers and space heating. In addition, propane-fired heaters are used on several process lines. Electricity requirements are met by power purchased from the local utility.

Over the past several years, the manufacturing facility has experienced substantial increases in energy costs re­sulting from both oil price and electricity rate increases. Table 3 gives the manufacturing facility's energy usage and energy costs in 1980 and 1981.

SYSTEM CONCEPT DESIGN

The proposed concept deSign calls for the system to co­generate electricity and steam, with steam as the primary energy market. The proposed system will:

• Consist of a minimum of one and a maximum of three incineration units with heat recovery and a 1 MW turbine-generator.

• Be capable of combusting all of the plant's solid and liquid wastes [equivalent to 25 TPD (22.7 tpd) on a 7 -day -per-week basis] .

• Be capable of operating 24 hours per day, 7 days per week with minimal supervision and attendance.

• Include air pollution control equipment to achieve the following in compliance with federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations:

. - A particulate emission rate not to exceed 0.08 grains per dry standard fe at 7% O2,

- A minimum of 99% removal of HCI (or 4 lb/h of HCI emissions) in the stack gas, with a maximum HCl concentration of 136 ppm.

- A 99.99% destruction and removal efficiency for each principal organic hazardous constituent.

PREFERRED PROJECT STRUCTURE

• The manufacturing entity will: - Be the facility owner and operator. - Provide the financing for the inCineration/heat re-

460

covery system. - Provide the site for the incineration/heat recovery

system.

TABLE 3 CASE STUDY: E NE RGY USAGE AND COST

FISCAL YEAR

1980

1981

" Change from

PROPANE

100 cu ft

1,284,562 (3,635,300 cu meter)

1,416,811 (4,009,600 cu meter)

FY 80 +10"

April 1982

FISCAL YEAR *6 OIL

gals

tll00 cu ft

53t

60t

+13"

51t .

tlga1

1980 483,814 59t (1,831,236 1)

1981 429,885 77t (1,627,115 1)

S Change from FY 80 -la

April 1982

+3a

66t

461

Cost

$679,735

$846,284

+25"

Cost

$284,642

$332,724

+17"

" of Total Energy Costs

41"

39S

" of Total Energy Costs

17"

15"

•

FISCAL YEAR

1980

1981

'I. Change From FY 80

April 1982

ELECTRICITY

kVa

Max 2706 (Nov) Min 2451 (J!ln) Avg 2586

Max 2702 (Dec) Min 2438 (Feb) Avg 2529

Summary of Energy Costs

TABLE 3 (continued)

kWh t/kWh

14,847,000 4.57t

15,723,000 6.37t

+6'I. +39'I.

6.4U

Cost

$078,356

$1,001,541

+481.

'I. of Total Energy Costs

46'I.

FISCAL YEAR �C�OS�T ____________________________________________ __ ______ __

Propane

1980 $ 679,735

1981 $ 846,284

� Change From FY 80 +25'I.

#6 Oil

$ 284,642

$ 332,724

+17'I.

462

Electricity

$ 678,356

$1,001,541

+48'J.

Total

$1,642,733

$2,180,549

+33':.

Provide the necessary utilities at the site. Complete any necessary changes in its existing facil­ity, including changes to existing steam lines and the electrical system, to accept the energy output of the incineration/heat recovery system. Supply facility waste, as well as any supplemental fuel that might be required, to operate the incineration/ heat recovery system.

• The selected vendor will: Design, construct, start up, and acceptance test the incinerator aI:1d provide training to the manufactur­ing facility's staff. Operate the incineration/heat re­covery system for at least 1 year to ensure a smooth transition to the staff. Perform all site preparation work. Provide tie-ins to utilities and plant steam and elec­trical distribution systems. Provide system performance guarantees, including environmental compliance guarantees.

EVALUATION OF COMME RCIAll Y

AV AI lABlE SYSTEMS

Once having established a design concept and a pre­ferred project structure, it was necessary to determine whether technology was available having commercial oper­ating experience on the types of wastes produced by the manufacturing facility and, if so, whether the vendors of this technology would offer this technology in accordance with the preferred project structure. This process entailed issuing a questionnaire to vendors of potentially applica­ble technology, evaluating the vendor responses, and con­ducting vendor interviews and site visits.

In mid-1982, a detailed technical, environmental, and business questionnaire was sent to 15 prospective vendors to determine if commercially demonstrated technology was available for the incineration of the types of industrial waste under consideration. Detailed responses to the ques­tionnaire were received from nine vendors representing controlled air hearth incinerators, rotary kiln incinerators, and a pyrolysis unit. These responses were evaluated on the basis of demonstrated experience with similar wastes, ability to comply with the preliminary system specifica­tions, and willingness to provide turnkey services (Le., design/construction with short-term operations/training and performance guarantees). Table 4 provides a compara­tive analysis of the vendor responses received.

As a result of the initial evaluation, three vendors were found to have insufficient experience in incinerating waste similar to that of the manufacturing facility. The six re­maining vendors were selected for detailed interviews. Table 5 summarizes, by technology, preliminary cost esti-

463

mates construction sched ule, and most relevant commer-, cial experience based on the information provided by these six vendors.

TECHN ICA l/ENVI RONMENT A l/BUSI NESS

CONSIDE RA TI ONS

The vendor evaluation indicated that: • Incinerators are available that can accommodate

highly chlorinated plastic and hazardous plant wastes, but they are limited in number. In addition, these systems have limited commercial operating experience (on the order of 1 to 3 years).

• Experience with heat recovery from incinerators burning highly chlorinated plastic waste is extremely limited, although vendors expressed confidence in the ability to do so, including the ability to produce turbine­quality steam. [In all cases, it was recommended that maximum steam temperatures be limited to 600°F (315°C) to minimize corrosion.]

• The chlorine content in the waste should be limited to no more than 25% to 35% to protect the equipment, including the refractory, from excessive corrosion.

• EPA hazardous waste incinerator design criteria can be met for particulate control, HCI control, and destruc­tion of prinCipal organic hazardous wastes. Vendor ex­perience indicates that a venturi scrubber followed by a packed tower utilizing water or caustic as a reagent has been proven to be capable of achieving the particulate and HCI control criteria. The packed tower, however, will produce a sizable wastewater discharge in the form of either diluted HCI acid solution or salt water [20,000 to 50,000 gal/day (75,700 to 189,250 L/day)]. This dis­charge can present a difficult disposal problem, particu­larly if a sanitary sewer system is not accessible or a market does not exist for HCI acid. Vendors did not pro­pose the use of dry scrubbers or coated baghouses because of lack of commercial operating experience for such units. Confidence was expressed in the ability to meet the 99.99% destruction criterion, as the incinerators operate at tem­peratures in excess of 2000°F (1093°C) with residence times of at least 2 sec.

• Vendors will provide turnkey services and a per­formance bond to guarantee the performance of their systems.

• Capital and O&M costs can be high.

RELATIVE ECONOMICS

Once. having established that commercially proven technologies were available under the terms of the pre­ferred project structure, a preliminary economic analysis

-'=".

�

EYAl

UATI

OM QUE

STIUM

A.

EXPE

RIE

NCE

1.

tys

Ve

ndo

r

cOil

struc

te41

i

nci

ne

nt

or

to

bun

..

st

e

v/

18."

e

ll

1.

tWs

V

en

dor

cOI

Ist

ruc:te

d

inc

in

er

ator

w/

he

lt

r

ec

ov

er

y

to

bur

.

�$

te

_/

18

.ti'

ell

3.

H'$

Ve

ndo

r p

rov

ide

d

6.

c ..

ple

te

des

cr

ip

tion

o

f

such

expe

rie

nce

l

___

��l��Al

���

��

�

1.

Type

of

C_

USU

CIII

tech

nol

ogy

p

ropo

sed

!

2.

Doe.

Ye

_r

f

e.ol

tlw

t

KHV

or

c· eo

st

tt

� o

f

OAfi

ds

OA �

st

e

.t

ll

pr

ese

.t

on

y

di

ff

icu

lt

ie

s

I. tae

de

siga

or

o,en

UOli

of

Sl

UM

1

TA

BL

E 4

C

AS

E S

TU

DY

: C

OM

PA

RA

TIV

E A

NA

LY

SIS

OF

VE

ND

OR

RE

SP

ON

SE

S

VEIIO

OR I

VENDOR

2

MD.

0.11

for

l

ower

V

endo

r sa

ys

yes

; C

OACe

At

rlt

tOf

tS

. b

owe

ver,

no

t .

erH

led

b

y

exp

erie

nce

de

scr

ip

tio

n.

S7 I

as

Mowe

.

'ort

lol.

Hor

izon

to

I "'

tory

ki

ln

w/

ott

erburn

.

III.

S.-e i

s

Ab

ove

.

Ye

s.

Co

nve

ntio

nal

wat

erwal

l i

ncjn

­e

rat

or

w/

hear

th.

110.

VENOO

R 3

Ye

s.

110.

Ye

s.

Py

ro

ly

sis

i

n

ro

ta

ry

kil

n w

/ se

cond

ary

chambe

r cOl

lb"st

ion.

110.

VENOO

R 4

Ye

s.

bu

t

pil

ot

plo

nt

on

ly.

\in i

s

.bov

e.

Ye •

• a

t p

ilo

t

plo

nt o

nly

.

Ho

rizo

ntal

ro

tary

kil

n.

III.

VENDO

R 5

VEND

OK 6

Not

kno

w1ny

ly;

but

NO

. h

.v�

So.e

el

per

ien

,e

vl

th

p

las

ti

cs

I

nd

ru

Db

er

.

�.se i

s 4

bove

.

P ..

tla

l

Co

nt

ro

ll

ed

4t

r,

w/

spe

cial

f

eatu

res

(no

t d

eft

ned)

.

110.

No.

No

t ct

pp

lic

itD

le

.

Co

ntro

lled

a

ir

; P

rim

ar

y ,

seco

ndd

ry

COR

�u

stjo

n c

hamb

ers

.

Yts

. no

�xp

14n.

t1o

n.

VE

NDOR

1

VENDOR

8

VlllOO

K �

One c

urr

Ht

ly

Y

es

. un

der

COlt

st

.rvc-

tt ..

.. t

o li

e

coop

le

to

by

9/

62.

Ye

s.

Ye

s.

Con

tro

lled

.

ir

_

/ s

pec

lo

l

he

ar

th

ro

r

pJ

ost

ic

s.

III.

Mo.

cu

rr

ent

ly

IIe

lo

g

des

ig

ned

.

Ye

s.

Co

ntro

lle

d a

ir,

Pri

.ary

&

second

ary

cOlib

ust

ioR

cna.be

rs.

2 U

nits

.

10.

but

"5

t

conduC

t f

lue

go

.

ilu

ly

sh

b

ef

or

e

C1

e

nt

on

IRt

.ls

10 f

eed

st

ock

.

Ye

s.

No

.

Yes

.

lIo

ri

zo

nld

J ro

tary

ki f

n.

110.

�

0\

U>

EVAL

UATI

� QU

ESTI

�

J.

Is

eQul

poent

11

.lte

d �7

In

y C

l Dr

He

) co

ncen

trlt

ions

7

4.

Is

wls

te p

rep.

rati

a.

equt

�nt

nec

essl

ry

to p

rodu

ce I

ccep

tAbl

e si

ze f

eed

.. t

ert.

l'

5.

Wh.

t fe

ed ty

pe o

f ..

ste

5yS

t� I

s pr

opos

ed?

6.

How

will

Ish

be r�

.e4

fr

oe. s

yUN

1

7.

b.

Does

Ven

dor

spec

ify

thlt

he

cln

.eet

r.t

sstO

D II

.Hot

lons

1

Typ

e of

pro

pose

d APe

eq

ulpoe

nt1

VEIUlOIt

l

....

... t

.. to

10

-ZSl

IItI

coul

d pr

eseat

co

rros

tN

p ...... I_

.

Yes

. f

or f

ull­

stle

d be

pers

,

d .

. _

rds

.... f

eede

r,

slud

ge l

uee,

l

iquid

_rs

.

V�N!lO

R 2

Mo,

prov

ided

•

tnt ..

.. ste

a.

pres

sure

aa

tnta

ined

.

....

klt

teed

fro.

ti

ppin

g fl

oor

to

ta.

feed

ers.

l

iqui

ds

to b

e sp

rAye

d on

fue

l be

d 1n

fur

RiCe

.

tun«

Fr

's op

Uaa

. '

ul se

hea

rth

Yes.

... t

specif

ied.

IBo

oklet

,_

vent

uri

.ttl

l s

cn'bbet)

.

to •

• t

er q

uenc

h pH

.

Yes

.

Hig

h-en

ergy

ve

ntur

i fo

llow

ed

by p

iCke

d to

wer

I de

.ist

er;

towe

r to

ope

r.te

.t

ph9.

TA

BL

E 4

(co

nti

nu

ed)

VE�DO

R J

Yes.

25

' ch

lori

ne

In

feed

stoc

k •

Yes,

sh

redd

ing ..

Bel

t co

nvey

or

to r

otar

y he

arth

(c

an t

.ke

liqu

ids.

b

arre

ls.

sol

ldsl

.

VENDO

R 4

Yes

. 2�

-Jln

chlo

rt�

In

••

ste

tI

Itll

Ci.Us

e re

fr.c

tory

los

s.

Yes

. i

.uge

r sh

redd

er.

Soli

ds-i

uger

l

iqui

ds-b

urne

rs

Dry

sys

le_.

pl

aN

Con

veyo

r.

fro.

he

irth

. se

re.

to d

isch

arge

ho

pper

.

Yes.

Pic

ted

towe

r us

ing

CiuS

tiC

or w

iter

. No

pa

rttc

ulat

e co

ntro

l ne

ceSS

i.ry.

Yes.

Wet

scr

ubbe

r w

i ne

utn

Hu

tton

I

b.gh

Ol.lse

.

VE�DO

R �

Vend

or d

Oes

not

tnow

.

110.

TIpp

Ing

floo

r _

/ ho

pper

or

II.

e bo

tt ..

hop

per

w/

conv

eyor

. �

4r.

u11

c fe

eaer

to

to t

ncin

erat

or.

hyd

rdul

tc r

d. t

o N

ater

que

nch.

C

onve

yor

fro.

qu

enCh

pi t

.

Yes.

Must

do t

ests

to

det

erai

ne

whdt

to

do.

VENDO

R ti

Yes.

no

Ii_

its

pr

ovi d

eo.

No.

�l i

ds b

dtch

�d

into

au

to f

eed�

r.

no .

enti

on o

f li

quiG

s.

Aut

o ds

h-o�

p1ny

sy

st�

.

Yes.

�r

ubb

er I

no

spec

Hl

cs.

VlrillOR

7

'fes;

bu

t .e

eds

IIOre

so

pht s

U­

cite

d s

crubb in

g If

chl

orhoe

I.

fee

dstoc

k

) 18

.61.

110.

Sol1

ds;

r.

feed

er w

i ho

pper

; li

quid

s;

lto.

tztn

g

Or.

g ch

ot.

conv

eyor

or

• s

h hoe

fro.

we

t qu

enc�

pit.

Yes.

Wet

ven

turi

sc

rubb

er w

i pl

cted

touer

and

CAU

StiC

.

VEIWOR

8

....

Yes.

fo

r fu

ll­

size

be-p

en,

dash

boA

rds.

Soli

dS:

feed

IIo

pper

to

r_

feede

r;

liqu

ids:

sp

ray

dl r

tf 1

1 qu

i ds.

bu

ner

for

cl

ea.

liqu

ids.

Pre

fer

dry

iSh

r�vI

l.

no

deta

ils.

Yes.

Vent

urt

scru

bber

or

... t

ESP

. pi

Cked

tow

er

.,/

caus

ttc.

VENDO

R 9

Mo.

as l

ong

4:5

HH

V

not

too

low.

Yes.

fo

r fu

ll­

shed

bUl

lpen

, du

hbo.

rds.

R_ f

eede

r.

nozz

les.

Con

tinu

ous

conv

eyor

..

. ttr

su

i •

Yes

Wet

[�P

or

hi

gh-e

nergy

ve

ntur

i sc

rubb

er.

"'"

0\

0\

Iv

AIU

Al

lO

fI

QU

I)

llO

ll

9.

Cd

R

Ven

do

r

tnc

orpo

rd

te

en

er

gy

re

co �

er

y

at

6

00

p

. I /

150

fl

10.

Cd

n

su

pp

leln

entct

1 fu

el

be

b

ur

ne

o1

11.

H

OII

I d

rt!

sup

pli:

mcn

ul

fu

el

s

ft

d t

nt

o

sys

te

lftl

11.

Tur

nd

o.

n r

llllio

1

I,',

io't

non

nel

re

qu

ir

em

en

ts

to

o

pc

r.

lt

/.la

lnu

tn.

14.

An:

VCll

uu

r

ld.l

lIu

rn

fd(.l

Illi

e) .

v.

ll

dl.l

hl

VE

�O

OR

I

Yl:�;

li

udt

$leo

Al t

o H

Ouf /

2 5

0p

.l

to

p

re

ve

nt

c

or

ro

sio

n.

Yes

� ,1

\ t

yp

es

.

De

pen

ds

o

n

fu

el

t

yp

••

Inf

in

it

e.

.5

-I/

.hl

ft

hs.

.

VE

ND

OR

2

Yes

, b

ut

r

eC8n�

nd

s

11.

1t

t

o

600

f t

o

pr

ey

en

t

co

rr

os

to

n.

Yes

; c

oa

l,

ga

s.

al

l,

ot

he

r

so

li

d

wu

te

s.

Sa

me

as

ts-

S.

2; I

1.5

/.h

lf

t

No

i !l

Us

t

use

C

U$

ta.e

f

tn

.Ul

li

tl

on

.

VE

ND

OR

J

Yes

. w

ill

u

se

8

'W

o

ol

1.r

. li

laH s

te

all

t

em

p.

to

p

re

ye

nt

c

or

ro

si

on

.

Ie.;

n

or

'6

0

11

,

na

t.

9'

"

01

re

et

t

o

fu

me

r

ea

ct

or

.

5;

I

1.5

/.n

lf

t

Yes

.

TA

BL

E 4

�co

nti

nu

ed)

V[

NOO

k

4

Yes

, b

ut

s

U9

9�

st

s

tl

rO

luS e

b

ol

1.r

w

I

JOO f

.t

ea

m.

YeS

i a

ny

l

iq

ui

d,

ga

s.

or

so

li

d.

Sa

ale

as

�-

�.

No

t

.pe

cHl

e •

•

I/.n

lft

. lI

Ial

nt

••

en

yl

n.

on

Irr

eg

ul

ar

b

as

ts

.

Y�s

•

VE

IIO

OR

5

Ye

s,

su

gg

t!s

t

I t-At

s

te

all

t

o bU

O F

to

pr

ev

en

t

co

rr

os

to

n.

Yes

, 11

qu

iU

S 6

y

ase

s w

I

ac

c�

pt

db

le

h

ea

t

co

nt

en

t.

bu

rn

er

s

or

i

nJ

ec

to

rs

.

2; I

l/Sh

tf

t,

ovt

r.

to

r

I/.h

lf

t,

�a

ln

t.

lu.

VllllJO

k b

Ye s

.

Yes

� b

ut

no

s

pl!

ci

tic

s.

bu

rnt!

rs.

4;1

NO

r

t:s

�an

St

.

hs

.

�djiJ

Uk I

Ye�

6

bu

t

pr

ef

er

s

600

F s

iea

m

or

e

xte

rn

al

s

up

er

he

at

er

.

Yes

; n

at

. g

as

, p

ro

pa

ne

, f

ue

l

011.

•

Bu

rn

er

s.

WIl

l ••

• Ig

n

is

ne

ce

ss

ar

y.

v.n

l ft

-I

loa

de

r.

1 op

erat

or.

Ye s

.

VL

lIU

UI,

U

Yes

o

bu

t

pr

efe

rs

6

00

F

st

ea

N

or

e

x. t

er

na

1 su

pe

rh

ea

te

r.

Yes

; n

at

. g

as

, p

ro

pa

ne

, o

il

, w

as

te

s

ol

ve

nt

s.

Sa

me

.

.

8-

5.

No

t

'pe

cl

fl

ed

.

2"h

1ft

-1

lo

ad

er.

1

ds

h

re

ma

villl

.

Y�s

.

VLlIU

UK �

Yeso

pr

efl!r

s 6

00

F

st

um

.

Yes

; f

ue

l

oi

l.

wa

st

e

ll

qu

l ••

&

ga

s,

na

t.

ga

s,

pro

pa

ne

•

Bu

rn

er

n

oz

zl

es

.

Not

.

�ec

tf

le

d.

J/.n

llt

,r

cly

on

ot

he

r

pi

an

t

st

af

f

far

�

al

nl

.

Nu.

IIlUs

t

bt! d

rr

dl1

yc

d

un

de

r

su

lic

on

tr

iC

t.

.

�

0\

-...l

TA

BLE

4 (

con

tin

ued

)

EV

AL

UA

TI

ON

Q

UE

ST

IO

N

VE

NDO

R

1 V

EN

OO

R

2 V

EN

llO

R

3 V[

NIJU

K

4

VE

NOO

R

5 V

EN

OO

R

6

VE

NO

OR

)

VEN

OO

R

B V

EN

OO

R

9 --

------------------------------------------------------

---------------

--

---

-----

--

-

c.

eUSI

NESS

1.

WIl

l Ve

ndor

p

roy

lde

t

urnk

ey

for

inc

ine

rat

or

?

2.

Wil

l Ve

nd

or

tu

rnk

ey

s

er

vic

es

fo

r i

nci

ner

ato

r

w/

he

at

re

cov

er

y i

ncl

udi

ng

1

year

o

f o

pe

rat

io

n?

J.

Wil

l V.

nd

or

p

roy

lde

100

\ p

aym

en

t ,

pc

rfo

r�

nce

bon

d?

May

be;

p

ref

ers

no

t t

o d

o

con

str

uct

io

n.

May

be;

p

ref

ers

no

t

to c

on

str

uct

o

r o

pe

rAt

e.

Yes

.

NO

j no

st

te

wor

k.

Yes

. b

uild

Ing

s,

fo

und

i­

tl

on

s,

utIl

ItIe

s.

No;

no

lice

nse

d

Yes

. s

ubj

ec

t

ope

rat

ors.

t

o

di

sc

us

si

on.

Ye

s

(If

iya

ll.

bl.

Ye

s.

It

cont

rlc

t

tl ..

,.

Yes

.

Yes

.

Yes

.

Yes

.

Yes

.

Yes

. b

ut

pr

l:h:r

t

o pr

ov

t lJl!

co

r­p

or

.te

�U

drdn

t�c.

Yes

.

Yes

.

Yes,

it

rC45

01ld

bl�

pe

rf

or�

�n

ce

t

cst

tny

is

ay

r�cd

to.

Ye

s.

Ye

s.

Blu

st

n

eg

oti

at

e

If

wa

nt

op

er

at

tng

c

on

tr

ac

t.

Ye

s.

Yes.

Ye

s.

Yes

. Ye

s.

Yes.

'h:

So.

,

TABLE 6 CASE STUDY: COMPARISON OF AVAILABLE COMMERCIALLY DE MONSTRATE D

INCINE RATION SYSTE MS

TYPE OF INCINERATOR

Horizontal Rotary Kiln

Controlled Air Hearth

PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES (1981 $)

Capitala

($ M)

2.2-14. d

2.Sd

O&Mb

($k/yr)

900e-1,400

3S0

CONSTRUCtION SCHEDULE (months)

12-24

10.S

Conventional Waterwall 2.4-3.1 1,200-1,300 18

Pyrolysis/Rotary Hearth 2.4-3.8 2S0-280e

MOST COMPARABLE TYPE OF WASTE INCINERATED

Liquid hazardous wastes, chemical wastes, paper, wood pallets

95% plastic wastes (PVC, polyethylene, nylon)

Plastic wastes, card­board, paper, wood pall ets

Chemical wastes, paper, wood pallets

a. These capital cost estimates are for a complete installed system: front-eno processing (if necessary), waste feed system, combustion system, energy recovery system, and air pollution control train. Turbine-generator costs are not included, except where otherwise noted.

b. The preliminary O&M cost estimates include O&M staff salaries, supplementaO, fuel' costs (except where otherwise noted), maintenance, and repair parts. Residue (ash) disposal is not included.

c. System design and construction through acceptance.

d. The $14-mill i on estimate al so i ncl udes turbi ne-generator costs and necessary buildings and foundations. The $2.S-million estimate also includes necessary buildings land foundations.

e. Supplemental fuel and electricity not included.

f. Includes bench-scale and pilot-plant test.

468

TABLE 6 CASE STUDY: SAVINGS VS. COST (1982 $)

ITEM

Capital Cost

Operating Costs

Energy Savings:

---

Oil Propane Electricity

Oil-Fired Boiler Operating and Maintenance Savings

Solid Waste Disposal Savings

TOTAL OPERATING AND ENERGY SAVINGS

NET OPERATING SAVINGS

was conducted for the recommended system concept de­sign to determine whether or not the incineration/heat re­covery system appeared to provide an economically viable solution to the manufacturing facility's disposal problem. System costs and savings were estimated, and the internal rate of return and payback period were calculated as a measure of economic attractiveness. Operating savings versus costs are shown in Table 6.

The preliminary economic analysis was based ori the following:

• All of the manufacturing facility's waste is proc­essed in the incineration/heat recovery system.

• 100% of the manufacturing facility's anticipated oil use and 50% of its anticipated propane use (125% of 1981 use) are offset by the steam output of the new system.

• 2,000,000 kWh/year of electricity are produced, thereby reducing the manufacturing facility's purchased electricity requirements.

The preliminary economic analysis used capital and O&M cost estimates from the low end of the range pro­vided by the vendors, in order to first ascertain the eco­nomic attractiveness of the system under a "best-case"

COSTS/SAVINGS

$3,400,000

300,000

$ 414,000 509,000 127,000

90,000

201,000

$1,341,000

$1,041,000

scenario. The capital costs selected for the analysis were $3.4 million and the O&M costs were $300,000.

The results of the analysis are as follows: Internal rate of return on total system (after tax) 17.9% Payback period on total system (after tax) 3.4 years Internal rate of return on turbine (after tax) 23.7% Payback period on turbine (after tax) 2.8 years

CONCLUSIONS

It can be concluded that on-site incineration of indus­trial plant wastes, including highly chlorinated plastics and hazardous waste, is technically and environmentally viable. Commercial application of available technology on hazardous and "special" industrial waste is, however, limited. A system can be procured on a turnkey basis with the backing of a performance bond. While capital

469

and O&M costs can be high, the energy savings from in­clusion of heat recovery can offset these costs. The deci-

sion that must be made is whether the cost is justified to limit waste disposal risks and uncertainties.

Key Words: Aluminum . Analysis. Composition. Com­

posting. Construction • Control • Disposal Liability •

Economics • Decision Making • Fly Ash • Refractory

470