Solid Waste

Source: STANDARD HANDBOOK OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING
CHAPTER 8
SOLID WASTE
Eugene A. Glysson, Ph.D., P .E.*
Solid waste management continues to progress from conventional collection techniques and disposal methods to an integrated approach focused on source reduction and recycling. As land becomes more limited and regulations increase, the environmental engineer also directs attention to development and application of advanced disposal technologies. Solid wastes are those materials, other than liquids or gases, that are deemed by their owner to no longer possess value and are discarded. They are generated by almost every activity, and the amount varies by source, season, geography, and time. Historically, solid waste disposal consisted of open dumping but now is carried out in double-lined landfills with collection of and controls for gases and/or leachate. Other disposal means include composting and various incineration processes, which also may be used for codisposal of wastewater treatment sludges. These disposal means typically require controls for created pollutants, such as leachate and odor from compost operations and chemical and particulate emission from incinerator combustion. Recovery and reuse are practiced widely. Source or central facility separation is used for a variety of products including paper, glass, plastics, ferrous metals, and nonferrous metals. Also, refuse-derived fuels may be used for energy production, and yard wastes may be composted to produce a humus soil conditioner.
SOLID WASTESOURCE AND EFFECT

The individual or organization discarding solid waste becomes the waste generator. The concept of waste having no value is defined by the generator, since the waste may represent some value to others through recycling or reclamation. The amount of solid waste generated varies by season, geography, and time. The amount of solid waste generated from various sources under average conditions is discussed in this section. Waste characteristics are discussed in another section. Source Solid waste generation can be subdivided into residential and nonresidential, depending on its source. Residential wastes are generally considered to be household-type wastes, whereas nonresidential includes commercial, light industrial, and other wastes.
*Contributors to this chapter are William C. Anderson, PE.; Richard C. Bailie, Ph.D., P.E.; Jay A. Campbell, P.E.; Eliot Epstein. Ph.D.; Kenneth E. Hartz. Ph.D., PE.; Herbert I. Hollander, PE.; John C. Jenkins, P.E.; Bruce R. Natale; Robert S. Scott, PE.; Charles O. Velzy, P.E. 8.1 Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com) Copyright 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved. Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
SOLID WASTE 8.2

CHAPTER EIGHT
Residential Waste Generation. Wastes generated by residential households are usually calculated in pounds (kilograms) per capita per day. This measurement is suitable for gross estimates for use in sizing disposal facilities and resource recovery operations, but is not appropriate for the design of collection systems (1). Collection systems are more appropriately designed utilizing the annual average weight (pounds) per household (or stop) per week (PPHW). Households are an easily observed unit along a collection route. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2) reports a range of from 46.2 to 71.0 lb per household per week from nine cities with curbside pickup in the 1970s. The average was 57.3 lb per household per week, which might be considered a typical value. In 1981 two studies (1) showed generation rates to be between 48.7 to 52.0 lb per household per week. One state department of natural resources recommends 52.0 lb per household per week for residential refuse collection (3). One pound per household per week (PPHW) equals 0.454 kg per household per week. Estimates for household waste generation should be based on actual measurement. This means actually counting the residences on residential routes and weighing the refuse collected. Care must be taken to include the entire spectrum of residential premises and the various seasons of the year. Attempts have been made to correlate residential solid waste generation to several measurable factors including population served, households served, value of property, size of living area, and household income. Statistical analysis has led to the conclusion that population served is the most significant variable. Measurement of residential refuse picked up at the curbside indicates that weekly refuse generation can be expressed by the following equation: G = a + bP where G = generation of household refuse in mass per week per household a, b = constants determined by waste measurement survey P = average persons per household in sample area (see Figure 8.1.) Typical values of a and b as derived by field measurement are as follows: Field Study I Field Study II a = 45.0, b = 3.3 a = 44.4, b = 2.8
Residential waste generation is not uniform throughout the year. An EPA report (2) shows average weekly rates per household for each month in 11 cities scattered throughout the United States. These data have been reduced to a monthly multiplier (Table 8.1) for use with the annual average weekly generation rate. Table 8.1 gives monthly multiplier and the maximum and minimum multipliers based on the data from these 11 cities. These data are also shown graphically in Figure 8.2. Nonresidential Waste Generation. Refuse generation from various other sources has been evaluated by various agencies. These waste-generation rates are shown in Table 8.2. Effect Solid waste has a prevailing characteristic that sets it aside from the liquid and gaseous wastes produced by society. The characteristic is that it remains highly visible in the environment in which we live. Liquid wastes are quickly relegated to a sewer and are out of sight, and gases disperse into the atmosphere. Solid wastes, however, are stored and transported in and through societies living space and have great potential for adversely affecting the quality of the environment. The environmental effect of solid waste management begins with on-site storage. This aspect of management has a profound impact on the local environment, since improperly stored refuse may attract insects and
Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com) Copyright 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved. Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.3
FIGURE 8.1 Household refuse collection (1).
rodents, present a fire hazard, be an unattractive nuisance, and produce odors, litter, and other unsightly conditions. On-site storage involves proper containerization in order to minimize these possible adverse effects. Various containers are available: galvanized steel and cans, plastic cans, plastic and paper bags for residential use, and steel bulk containers for commercial and other wastes. For residential use, single-use plastic and paper bags have, in general, been shown to be most suitable from all aspects, while plastic cans with good covers are next. Metal cans have the least capability to cope with all the conditions of proper on-site residential refuse storage. The frequency of refuse collection should include consideration for reducing or eliminating as many of the adverse effects of on-site storage as possible.
SOLID WASTE
TABLE 8.1 Multiplier for Annual Average Solid Waste Generation (2) Month January February March April May June July August September October November December Average 0.876 0.871 0.972 1.050 1.125 1.107 1.085 1.024 1.010 0.994 0.985 0.901 Maximum 0.983 1.028 1.123 1.162 1.256 1.268 1.163 1.195 1.083 1.105 1.049 1.098 Minimum 0.786 0.726 0.872 0.956 0.986 0.979 0.991 0.931 0.922 0.890 0.886 0.769
FIGURE 8.2 Monthly variations in solid waste generation (2).

8.4 Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com) Copyright 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved. Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.5
TABLE 8.2 Unit Waste Factors for Various Generators Category or generator Commercial (SIC 5099) Industrial (SIC 1949) Transportation equipment (SIC 37) Nonelectrical machinery (SIC 35) Electrical machinery (SIC 36) Hospitals Patient care Food service Rehabilitation care Prisons Universities with student housing Colleges without student housing Office buildings Multiple housing units Wood industry Demolition/construction debris Street sweepings Agricultural Campgrounds Family picnicground Group picnicground Organization camp Resort area Rented cabin (with kitchen) Lodge room (no kitchen) Restaurant Residence Ski area Overnight lodge (all facilities) Day lodge (all facilities) Observation site Visitor center Swimming beach Concession stand Administrative residence
Note:1 lb = 0.454 kg.
Unit waste factor 5.75 lb/employee/day (4) 10.6 lb/employee/day (4) 20.5 lb/employee/day (5) 25.5 lb/employee/day (5) 23.5 lb/employee/day (5) 2 to 4.5 lb/staff/day (6) 8.6 lb/bed/day (6) 2.7 lb/bed/day (6) 6.4 lb/bed/day (6) 4.5 lb/inmate/day (7) 1.0 lb/student/day (7) 0.6 lb/student/day (7) 1.5 lb/employee/day (7) 2.7 lb/resident/day (7) 151.0 lb/employee/day (4) 1.2 lb/capita/day (4) 0.3 lb/capita/day (4) 13.0 lb/capita/day (4) 1.3 lb/camper/day (5) 1.0 lb/picnicker (5) 1.16 lb/picnicker (5) 1.81 lb/occupant/day (5) 1.46 lb/occupant/day (5) 0.59 lb/occupant/day (5) 0.71 lb/meal served (5) 2.31 lb/occupant/day (5) 1.87 lb/visitor-day (5) 2.92 lb/visitor-day (5) 0.05 lb/incoming axle (5) 0.02 lb/visitor (5) 0.04 lb/visitor (5) 0.14 lb/patron (5) 1.37 lb/occupant/day (5)
Refuse collection involves the selection of vehicles and their routing through the community to most efficiently collect the solid wastes generated. Administrative decisions must be made as to requiring the public to set their containerized refuse at the curbside for pickup or to require the collectors to pick up the wastes from the backyard or other points of storage. The principal environmental effects of collection relate to the care exercised by the collector in avoiding spilling refuse from the containers and picking up loose material. Empty containers left at the curbside after collection can be unsightly and present a potential hazard to traffic if they roll out into the street. The environmental effect of various processing and disposal methods will be addressed in later sections.
SOLID WASTE 8.6

CHAPTER EIGHT
SOLID WASTE CHARACTERIZATION

Any system employed to process waste must have the inherent flexibility to cope with its varying character. There are myriad influences of varying intensity that continually alter the quantity, composition, and physical and chemical character of the material. The intensity of the influences can vary within the community, from community to community, from year to year, from season to season, and even from day to day. There are three primary purposes for waste characterization. First, the data become the basis for planning economic analysis, design, and subsequent management and operation of a disposal system or materialsenergy resource recovery facilities. These data must consider the varying nature of the material to be processed. Second, waste characterization for rehabilitation or retrofit of a facility redefines the quantity and type of waste for disposal. For this purpose, waste recharacterization is concerned with marked changes in legislation or in the economy in general that may have some effect on the waste generated. Third, plant optimization, emissions monitoring, or malfunction analysis of a waste-to-energy facility can be expedited by the characterization of the wastes being processed. Therefore, a sampling characterization program can delineate the major constituents of the wastesuch parameters as moisture and ash contentwhich have consequential impact on the energy value of the materials, and other parameters that influence combustion and the character of gas emissions. Although these precepts have been widely recognized and much effort has been expended in waste characterization at various locations in the United States and abroad, there have been no standard methods, procedures, or programs established. Each investigator has resorted to his or her own devices, ingenuity, resourcefulness, and expediency to satisfy the current need for information and data. Consequently, correlations of the data obtained by many investigators (federal and state agencies, municipal administrations, involved industries, trade associations, plant operators, consulting engineers, academic researchers, and even citizen groups) using an array of techniques and procedures for differing assortments of constituents still prompt misgivings regarding the confidence level in the information reported. The primary concern in waste characterization is the selection of the sample, its size, and the number of samples necessary to provide confidence that the sample and data are representative of the large mass of material. The secondary concern is in the actual analysis technique(s). These concerns surface repeatedly when attempting to finalize mutually beneficial commercial agreements between producers and users of secondary materials and fuels derived from municipal waste. The American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) E-38 Committee on Resource Recovery addressed these concerns with consensus guidelines and standards that can be the basis of agreements minimizing many of the uncertainties. Some investigators endeavored to characterize their own household discards with the expectation that they would be typical of the community. Others sorted and characterized crane bucket loads of material randomly drawn from an incinerator waste-receiving bin, and still others grabbed samples from newly dumped loads of material on the floor of a processing facility or landfill. In establishing the credibility of the data generated (reproducibility of the data being the objective), the size of each grab sample, the number of samples, and the location taken from the mass of material were areas of uncertainty. Statistical analyses have been made and reported by several researchers regarding the efficacy of drawing many small size samples [200 to 300 lb (90 to 140 kg)], to determine waste composition and subsequent chemical analysis (813). Although there is apparent recognition that as-discarded, heterogeneous materials are coarse and fine in size, dense, compressible, loose, bagged, boxed, do not have granular characteristics, do not flow, do not blend but will segregate, the cone-and-quartering technique is frequently employed to obtain the representative sample for analysis. This sample selection technique is highly dependent on crew judgment; therefore, it can easily and inadvertently become biased. Although the cone-and-quartering technique is an expedient procedure to obtain a sample of reasonable size for closer analysis, it is best employed when the materials to be sampled are reasonably uniform in size and density.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.7
This section is confined to describing two procedures for sampling and characterizing as-discarded municipal solid waste. These procedures are Truckload sampling Spot sampling Sampling and chemical analysis procedures and standards for prepared refuse-derived fuels (RDF) and the separated materials for recycling is available in the American Standards and Testing Materials (ASTM) Standards, Water and Environmental Technology, Sec. 11, Vol. 11.04. Many of the standards and procedures described can also be applied to commercial and industrial office and shipping waste as differentiated from production-line waste. The ASTM publication STP 832, Thesaurus on Resource Recovery Terminology, can also be a useful document. Solid Waste Constituents Municipal solid waste (MSW) consists of both materials and products. Materials in MSW include paper and paperboard, yard trimmings, glass, metal, plastic, wood, and food wastes. With exception of food wastes and yard trimmings, each material category is made up of many products. In 1995, MSW generation in the United States totaled 208 million tons; Table 8.3 provides a breakdown by material categories and associated weight (92, 93). A portion of each material category was recycled, including being composted. Recovery rates for some products within a material category are higher than the overall recovery rate for the material category, because some products are not recovered at all. For example, aluminum cans are recovered at rates above 60%,
TABLE 8.3 Generation and Recovery of Materials in MSW (93) Weight generated, million tons 81.5 12.8 11.6 3.0 1.3 19.0 6.0 7.4 14.9 3.6 14.0 29.8 3.2 46.9 208.0 Percent of total weight generated 39.2 6.2 5.6 1.4 0.6 9.1 2.9 3.6 7.2 1.7 6.7 14.3 1.5 22.5 100.0 Weight recovered, million tons 32.6 3.1 4.2 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.5 0.9 1.4 0.8 0.6 9.0 Negligible 9.6 56.2 Recovery as percent of generation 40.0 24.5 36.5 34.5 69.4 5.2 8.9 12.2 9.6 23.1 4.1 30.3 Negligible 20.4 27.0
Material Paper and paperboard Glass Metals Ferrous metals Aluminum Other nonferrous metals Plastics Rubber and leather Textiles Wood Other materials Other wastes Food wastes Yard trimmings Miscellaneous inorganics Total other wastes Total municipal solid waste
SOLID WASTE 8.8

CHAPTER EIGHT
but the overall recovery rate for aluminum is only 35%. Likewise, even though corrugated containers are recovered at rates above 64%, the overall recovery rates for paper and paperboard is 40%. Products in MSW are grouped into three main categories: (1) durable goods, such as appliances; (2) nondurable goods, such as newspapers; and (3) containers and packaging. Other wastes include food wastes and yard trimmings. These product categories generally contain each type of MSW material. Table 8.4 presents a summary by product categories and associated weight from the 1995 characterization study.
TABLE 8.4 Generation and Recovery of Products in MSW by Material (93) Weight generated, million tons 8.7 0.8 1.3 10.8 1.3 6.2 5.2 4.2 2.3 1.1 41.9 43.5 5.1 0.8 5.0 2.7 57.0 2.8 2.0 4.8 11.5 38.1 7.7 10.6 0.1 72.9 14.0 29.8 3.2 46.9 208.0 Percent of total weight generated 4.2 0.4 0.6 5.2 0.6 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.1 0.5 20.1 20.9 2.5 0.4 2.4 1.3 27.4 1.3 1.0 2.3 5.5 18.3 3.7 5.1 >0.1 35.0 6.7 14.3 1.5 22.5 100.0 Weight recovered, million tons 2.7 Negligible 0.9 3.6 Negligible 0.2 0.5 Negligible 0.1 0.8 5.3 12.7 Negligible Negligible 0.8 Negligible 13.5 1.6 1.0 2.6 3.1 19.9 0.7 1.4 Negligible 27.8 0.6 9.0 Negligible 9.6 56.2 Recovery as percent of generation 30.7 Negligible 69.4 33.1 Negligible 3.8 10.3 Negligible 50 77.8 17.0 29.3 <1 Negligible 15.8 Negligible 23.7 54.6 51.6 53.4 27.3 52.3 9.7 13.5 Negligible 38.1 4.1 30.3 Negligible 20.4 27.0
Material Durable goods Ferrous metals Aluminum Other nonferrous metals Total metals Glass Plastics Rubber and leather Wood Textiles Other materials Total durable goods Nondurable goods Paper and paperboard Plastics Rubber and leather Textiles Other materials Total nondurable goods Containers and packaging Steel Aluminum Total metals Glass Paper and paperboard Plastics Wood Other material Total containers and packaging Other wastes Food wastes Yard trimming Miscellaneous inorganics Total other wastes Total municipal solid waste
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.9
For planning and design projects, characterization of solid waste constituents must be tailored to the area or generator served. Two important reasons for sorting and sampling MSW are: To determine the constituent mix from the standpoint of recovered secondary materials for reuse or recycling To determine the character of the waste for use as a fuel or just incineration To address these objectives, the following are deemed to be a practical array of constituents of interest usually found in municipal solid wastes.
Combustible Newsprint Other paper Diapers Textiles and garments Plastics, film Plastics, rigid Food wastes Wood Yard wastes (grass clippings) Sweepings (floor of sorting area)
Noncombustible Ferrous Aluminum Nonferrous Glass Brick OBW (oversize bulky wastes)
While sorting the gross sample or increment of waste into these constituents and determining the weight percentage, random fractions of the combustible constituents are accumulated for subsequent laboratory analysis to determine basic fuel characteristics such as moisture, calorific (heating) value, and ash content. Sampling Methodology In endeavoring to define the character of municipal solid waste, it is necessary to obtain representative samples. The number and size of samples depends upon the variability in actual physical size and other properties of the constituents, as well as the confidence level desired. Municipal solid waste is typically made up of a broad spectrum of materials, some abundant and some sparse, as well as a cross section of physical size from mattresses to dirt. Since the bulk of waste is quite coarse, a relatively large sample increment may be necessary for high-confidence-level characterization. In addition to the bulk size of some wastes, there are other constituents that are quite small and sparse in the mix of waste. In order to not lose the concentration of sparse constituents, a large sample size is usually necessary to reasonably assure accountability of these constituents. If all constituents were relatively uniform in size, such as found in a bushel of mixed nuts, a modest sample size could more readily represent the total and conventional statistical sampling theory would apply. The objective of a sampling program is to determine the character of the waste by sorting it into representative constituents of interest and comparing the analysis with data obtained elsewhere by other investigators. Recognizing the variabilities of municipal solid waste, particular attention must be directed to avoiding bias when obtaining the samples. The program timing should avoid possible extraordinary external influ-
SOLID WASTE 8.10

CHAPTER EIGHT
ences on the character of the wastes such as pre- and post-holidays, or prolonged adverse weather conditions. The following sampling procedures are based on obtaining sufficient repetitive, truly random samples, thereby obtaining replicable high-confidence-level data. Regardless of the sampling method, it is necessary to establish areas of the community from which the sample will be drawn, as well as when and how this shall be done. The community planner, in conjunction with the individual(s) responsible for waste collection and disposal, should delineate the geographic areas from which the waste character might tend to be different. These areas may include tenements, condominiums, townhouses, single-family lots, campus areas, permanent residential, transient resort, and other socioeconomic factors. If not already a local collection practice, arrange for once-per-week collection for the selected area(s) during the sampling period, thereby avoiding the day of the week variability or bias that might occur in the waste character. Truckload Sampling Each day, randomly select a loaded collection truck from one of the designated areas for waste sorting and characterization. An attempt should be made to limit the weight of the truckloads to 3 or 4 tons (2.7 or 3.6 metric tons)a manageable quantity for sorting in one day. The procedure should be followed each day until all of the designated geographic (planning) areas have been sampled and characterized. The community should be divided into at least five geographic areas. A reasonable time interval should elapse, perhaps two or three days, following heavy weather to minimize the bias that is bound to occur (14). Planning the Sorting Program. The sorting area should be indoors and sufficiently large to permit a collection vehicle to deposit its collected load and still have available adequate space for personnel to maneuver easily with the sorting drums, laboratory sampling drums, and access to a 500-lb (225-kg) platform scale. A typical sorting facility arrangement is shown in Figure 8.3. The area should be about 30 ft (9 m) wide by 60 ft (18 m) long, well-lit, and ventilated. The floor should be of a smooth, easily cleanable surface. Provisions should be made for a standby container or collection truck to dispose of the materials after they have been sorted, weighed, and sampled. Prior to the start of the program, the waste collectors should be contacted and advised that one of their trucks will be randomly selected each day to deposit their load in the sorting room after having been weighed. The waste collectors may also be requested to have their drivers fill out a refuse collection vehicle survey data sheet (Figure 8.4), describing in detail the route of the truck, truck number, fuel tank capacity, and truck tare weight. Drivers of municipal collection vehicles are usually the most cooperative. The gross and net weights of each truck delivering to the sorting area should be documented. (The actual weight of the refuse unloaded from the truck is subsequently compared with the total weight of the constituents sorted. The net truck load weight should turn out to be somewhat higherthe difference being the weight of moisture that may have evaporated during the sorting activity.) The information on the survey sheet will provide the weight of the waste to be characterized and also the opportunity to develop a waste profile correlating the quantity and waste character with the residential community served, based on population and the socioeconomic and age base. This correlation can be valuable in planning for other activities and facilities serving the community. Another method of determining the per capita waste generation rate that may be influenced by the character of the community is a curbside weighing program. This program is relatively simple and can be initiated and terminated quickly. Further discussion of this method is found at the end of this section. The following is a list of equipment recommended to conduct this sorting program: A portable platform (dial) scale with a maximum capacity of 500 lb (225 kg) with -lb (0.1-kg) graduations
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.11
FIGURE 8.3 Truckload sorting facility arrangement.
Twenty 32-gal (120-L) heavy-duty plastic trash containers equipped with (detachable) casters for easy mobility A pair of long-sleeved coveralls for each crew member Four snow shovels Two rakes Two heavy-duty pushbrooms Twelve pairs of heavy-duty puncture-resistant gloves Heavy work boots for each crew member
SOLID WASTE 8.12

CHAPTER EIGHT
FIGURE 8.4 Refuse collection vehicle survey data.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.13
One hundred, 4-mil-thick 32-gal (120-L) plastic bags for constituent samples A 12 ft 4 ft 3 ft (3.5 m 1.2 m 1 m) sorting table with 1-in (2.5-cm) square screening Fifty heavy cardboard boxes for sample storage Tape, identification tags, and marker for laboratory samples Two handheld quick-release magnets for metal sorting The laborers necessary for this sorting and sampling program should consist of 10 workers, including the crew chief. The facility layout for the program should include a portable scale placed as close as possible to a collection truck hopper, container or 30 yd3 (20 m3) roll-off receptacle for the deposition of materials that have been sorted and weighed. The sorting area should easily accommodate the largest load to be characterized. Laboratory sample boxes should be placed adjacent to the scale for ease of sample deposition and packaging. Sorting Methodology. After being weighed, the collection truck would deposit its load in the center of the sorting floor. The sorting crew members circle the deposited load while pulling one or two of the plastic trash drums mounted on casters. Each member of the team is assigned a specific item on the list of constituents to remove from the pile. The most effective technique first addresses those constituents in the greatest abundance. When the drums have been filled with sorted material, the crew member wheels them to the platform scale and returns with empty drums to repeat the procedure. The crew chief and scale attendant weigh each filled sorting drum and record its net weight on a special data sheet. A sample sorting weight chart is shown in Figure 8.5. (Tare weights of the empty drums should have been recorded previously.) The scale attendant then selects pieces from the contents in the sorting drums considered most representative of that particular constituent and deposits these pieces into the designated laboratory sample bag that has been assigned for that constituent. (Laboratory analysis sampling is discussed further in the following section.) The sorting drum, after having been weighed and sampled, is emptied into the receptacle or rear loading packer for discard. The emptied drum is then returned to the scale area for reuse in sorting. The materials considered oversized and bulky, such as tires, mattresses, toilets, and rugs, are pulled out for separate classification as oversized bulky wastes (OBW) and photographed. Initially, all metals are placed into the same sorting drum. Subsequent differentiation of ferrous and nonferrous is accomplished by emptying the contents of the drums onto a clean section of the floor and passing a handheld quick-release magnet over it to draw off the ferrous fraction. This weight should be recorded as described above. After the mound of trash is reduced to approximately one-fourth of its original size, a filtration of fairly small top-size trash particles [less than 6 in (15 cm)] will have become apparent. Sorting trash with diminishing top sizes is especially laborious and greatly adds to sorting time. Therefore, a sorting table can be used for the remaining portion (Figure 8.6). Two or three of the crew members and at least four drums are assembled around the table. One of the members, using a snow shovel, scoops some of the remaining waste to be sorted onto the table. The remaining crew members then sort from the table. This assembly line technique is less taxing and improves sorting time and accuracy. All particles sifting through the 1-in (2.5 cm) square screening of the table are weighed and labeled as sweepings for further analysis. The daily total of net weights from the sorting drums should be compared with the net MSW truckload delivered. The possible loss in weight can be attributed to the moisture loss during exposure and handling from the day-long sorting activity. Although this difference in weight may be small (0.3 to 3.0%) it can be distributed among the constituents based on the assumed tendency for that particular constituent to pickup or lose moisture, thereby providing a moisture loss adjusted value.
SOLID WASTE 8.14

CHAPTER EIGHT
FIGURE 8.5 Sorting weight chart (14).
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.15
FIGURE 8.6 Sorting table.
SOLID WASTE 8.16

CHAPTER EIGHT
All jugs, jars, and bottles that appear to contain material are arbitrarily deemed to be hazardous and should be accumulated unopened for disposal. Typically, there are so few hazardous containers that an accounting of them has been considered of no consequence. Compositing Samples. The procedure to obtain representative constituent samples for laboratory analysis is to randomly select approximately 3 ft3 (0.08 m3) of each specific material from each truck load. By accumulating small samples from each sorting drum, a daily composite sample of each of the 10 combustible categories is obtained for laboratory analysis for a total of 50 samples for a five-day sampling program. Potential bias is minimized since constituent materials of varying sizes are selected randomly during the day from each sorting drum. At the end of each day, the 10 bags of laboratory samples should be securely sealed. Each sealed bag is then resealed in another 4-mil plastic bag, labeled, weighed, and dated. The weight is logged onto a laboratory specimens chart (Figure 8.7). This double-sealed sample is then placed into a corrugated box, sealed with plastic tape, labeled, and stored. The boxed laboratory samples should be logged into the laboratory within one week after completion of the sampling program. The program should address each waste constituent separately. Subsequently, the laboratory parametric analyses for each constituent are combined to form composite analyses to generally characterize the waste as a whole. For the data to have credibility, the elements of prime concern include the number, size, and representativeness of the laboratory samples. It is only really necessary to have laboratory analyses conducted on constituents numbered 1 through 10, the designated combustible categories, to yield the data considered to be of practical significance. Constituent categories numbered 11 through 16 are considered to be essentially noncombustible, contributing little other than ash (residue) when consumed in a furnace. Nevertheless, it should be recognized that some surface moisture and some combustible material are present in these items such as, labels, decals, and coatings (paints). Containers may contain some organic residues and some oxidation of the container material itself would take place. However, the weight percent of the lot is usually small relative to the whole. The weight fraction of the combustible portion would be so small that the complexities of specific laboratory analyses may not be justified.
Data Summaries The field and laboratory data obtained and the correlations prepared can result in many charts and tables. These can be synthesized into summary tables and charts, such as those illustrated herein. Constituent Makeup. The constituent makeup of the waste for each day of the five-day program and their composite averages are shown in Tables 8.5 and 8.6. These data reflect the as-sorted, as well as the adjusted (moisture-distributed), weights discussed previously. So that correlations and extrapolations might readily be made, the data can also be presented to reflect the constituent mix on a yard-waste-free basis. The principal yard waste usually encountered is grass clippings. Presenting the data in this manner also provides an indication of the waste constituent makeup that might be encountered during the months of little yard activity. This information is particularly significant in view of the high percentage of yard waste that can be encountered in the waste and its very high moisture content (especially in townhouse and suburban areas of the community). The impact of yard waste on the character of the refuse is dramatic. Table 8.5 reveals that it can be 40% of the total weight or 48% of the combustible portion, and can average 70% moisture. Similarly, data summaries can be structured with and without the noncombustibles (constituents 11
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.17
FIGURE 8.7 Lab spectrum chart (14).
SOLID WASTE 8.18

CHAPTER EIGHT
through 16), so as to readily reflect the makeup of the organic and combustible fraction of wasteas if subjected to a highly selective and efficient form of front-end or source-separation program. A data display as given in Table 8.4, can be especially informative. This illustration indicates that for the five-day composite, the noncombustible constituents were only 11.3% of the total waste (as discarded), and 18.7% when reported on a yard-waste-free basis. The weight percentages illustrated for ferrous, aluminum, and glass appear to be lower than the values usually reported elsewhere, even on a yard-waste-free basis (19). Perhaps the values are closer to reality or reflect the impact of the recent passage of a regional bottle bill. Several other items draw focus; the very low percentages of food waste (less than one-third the values usually reported), the low percentages of aluminum, nonferrous, and particularly glass (less than half what is usually reported), and the high percentage of plastics (more than one-fourth greater than usually reported). So much of the textiles, garments, and footwear are composed (at least in part) of synthetic materials that categorizing them expediently can be taxing. The weight percent for this constituent was generally higher (twice) than expected. This sampling procedure reduces the size of the catch-all usually described as miscellaneous. The constituent designated as sweepings is the catch-all for the described procedure. The quantity encountered is comfortably small. As mentioned previously, by programmed intent, collection vehicles should be randomly selected for waste load characterization based on knowledge of the general residential areas they serve. In this manner, the data can reflect the variation in waste character based on socioeconomic and age considerations. Interestingly, the tabulations in Table 8.5 did not reveal marked differences in constituent concentrations. There was only modest variation from locale to locale in the weight percent of the constituent mix during this characterization program. Laboratory Analysis. An analysis should be made only for the parameters of fundamental interest. For this program, the parameters selected were moisture, ash (inerts), calorific value, sulfur, total chlorine, and water-soluble chlorides. The analytical procedures and methods should closely adhere to the consensus standards developed for municipal waste constituents as described in the ASTM Standards, Water and Environmental Technology, Sec. 11, Vol. 11.04. Moisture. The daily and composite moisture data for the 10 combustible constituents are displayed in Table 8.7. The high moisture value(s) for the waste can be attributed principally to the relatively high weight percent of the (high-moisture-content) yard waste constituent. The high moisture values for diaperlike materials and food wastes were as expected. However, the high moisture (22%) for plastic film was not anticipated and may be attributed to the extensive use of plastic bags as the containment for the large quantity of very wet grass clippings. Therefore, this high moisture for plastic film should be considered as essentially surface (free) moisture rather than inherent moisture. These values could be recast and tabulated on the basis of the total weight of all 16 constituents, which would indicate 42.1% moisture versus 47.4%. Recasting the data on a yard-waste-free basis, the five-day composite values would be 28% moisture for the combustible portion and 22.8% moisture based on the remaining 15 constituents. This wide range in moisture values illustrates the care that must be taken in the manner of reporting moisture data to avoid creating an erroneous impression regarding the character of the waste. Ash. A similar tabulation for the inherent ash (dry) in the combustible materials is displayed in Table 8.8. The tabulated high ash content for sweepings should be of little concern since the quantity of sweepings is typically small. The ash content in plastic film and in yard waste is higher than expected. However, the data reported should not be considered as absolute values for each of the constituents; e.g., for plastic film there must have been moisture adhering to the film surface, as well as dirt, grass clippings, and other small particles whose weight is quite high relative to the very light weight of the plastic film itself. Overall, the five-
TABLE 8.5 Daily Refuse Constituent Weight Distribution (14) RAW REFUSE CHARACTERIZATION SAMPLING AND ANALYSES
AUGUST 27 THROUGH 31 TRUCKS: DH 452, IN-49, NA-20, WE-6S, B-234
REFUSE SORTING PROGRAM TOTAL NET WEIGHT: 65,800 LB
August 27
August 28
August 29
August 30
August 31
Constituent 6.84 24.7 1.30 1.82 1.961 5,787 275 1,091 8.62 25.5 1.20 4.80 1.250 3,373 152 797 8.64 23.3 1.05 5.51 853 2.098 108 425
Weight, lb as sorted Weight, % 7.94 19.6 1.01 3.95 Weight, % Weight, % Weight, %
Weight, lb as sorted
Weight, lb as sorted 402 1,447 4 80
Weight, % 7.96 28.6 0.09 1.59
1. 2. 3. 4.
Newsprint 822 Other paper 2,967 Diapers 156 Textiles/garments 219
SOLID WASTE
8.19
5. Plastics, film 6. Plastics, rigid 7. Food waste 8. Wood 45.3 3.50 2.00 0.14 0.29 3.79 0.16 1.53 _____ 100.0 1.56 22,739 22,900 161 100.0 0.70 108 673 152 984 _____ 0.47 2.95 0.67 4.33 _____ 97 494 724 125 _____ 14,458 14,500 42 8,203 257 690 37 36.1 1.12 3.02 0.16 5,232 341 579 89 36.2 2.36 4.00 0.63 0.68 3.42 5.02 0.86 _____ 100.0 0.29
277 1% 496 66
2.31 1.63 4.13 0.56
866 528 787 340
3.80 2.31 3.45 1.50
545 368 149 143
3.77 2.54 1.03 0.99
259 256 554 143 4,866 190 364 27 69 276 30 212 _____ 10,730 11,000 270
2.40 2.37 5.15 1.32 45.4 1.76 3.39 0.25 0.64 2.56 0.28 1.98 _____ 100.0 2.46
85 86 17 32 2,034 115 140 285 327 _____ 5,054 5,200 146
1.69 1.70 0.35 0.64 40.2 2.29 2.78 8 5.64 8 6.47 _____ 100.0 2.18
9. 10. 11. 12.
Yard waste Sweepings Ferrous Aluminum
5,444 420 240 16
13. 14. 15. 16.
Nonferrous Glass Brick OBW
35 455 19 182 ______
Total Truck net weight Difference
12,010 12,200 190
Note: 1 lb = 0.45 kg.
TABLE 8.6 Constituent Weight Distribution5-Day Composite (14) RAW REFUSE CHARACTERIZATION SAMPLING AND ANALYSES
AUGUST 27 THROUGH 31 TOTAL NET WEIGHT: 65,800 LB
REFUSE SORTING PROGRAM COMPOSITE OF 5 DAYS COLLECTION
____________________________________
Adjusted for moisture loss during sampling
___________________________________
Excluding yard waste
Constituent 8.14 24.1 1.07 4.02 5,322 15,726 835 2,644) 8.09 23.9 1.27 4.01 5,322 15,726 835 2.640 9.12 26.9 1.43 4.52 5,322 15,726 835 2.640
Weight, lb sorted Weight, % 13.4 39.5 2.09 6.62 Weight, % Weight, % Weight, %
Weight, lb adjusted
Weight, lb adjusted
Weight. lb adjusted
Weight, lb adjusted 5.322 15,726 835 2,640
Weight, % 16.4 48.5 2.58 8.14
1. 2. 3. 4.
Newsprint 5,288 Other paper 15,672 Diapers 695 Textiles/garments 2.612
SOLID WASTE
8.20
5. 6. 7. 8. 39.7 2.04 3.10 0.26 0.48 3.36 1.42 2.82 _____ 100.0 1.2 65,800
a
Plastics, film Plastics, rigid Food waste Wood 25,940 1,421 2,013 169 309 2,183 925 1,830 _____ 100.0 0.47 3.32 1.41 2.78 _____ 309 2,183 925 1,830 _____ 58,372 7,428
b
2,032 1,434 2,003 724 39.4 2.16 3.06 0.26 25,940 1,421 44.4 2.43
3.13 2.21 3.08 1.11
2.089 1,449 2.194 755
3.17 2.20 3.33 1.15
2.089 1,449 2.194 755
3.58 2.48 3.76 1.29
2.089 1,449 2.194 755 8 1,421 2.013 169
5.24 3.64 5.50 1.89 8 3.56 5.05 0.42
2.089 1.449 2,194 755 8 1,421
6.44 4.47 6.77 2.33 8 4.38
9. 10. 11. 12.
Yard waste Sweepings Ferrous Aluminum
25,779 1,323 2,013 169
13. 14. 15. 16.
Nonferrous Glass Brick OBW
309 2,183 925 1,830 ______
0.78 5.48 2.32 4.59 _____ 100.0 11.3d
_____ 39,860 25,940
_____ 100.00 39.4
_____ 32,431 7428

c
_____ 100.0
Total Difference
64,991 809
Gross weight. % of gross weight. c 49% of gross weight. d Noncombustible constituents11 through 16. Note: 1 lb = 0.45 kg.
TABLE 8.7 Combustible Constituents Moisture DistributionDaily and Composite (14) RAW REFUSE CHARACTERIZATION SAMPLING AND ANALYSES AUGUST 27 through 31
Constituent
Adjusted total weight, lb
Moisture contribution, lb ____________________________________________________________ Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day S
5-Day total moisture, total lb
Composite average moisture, %
SOLID WASTE
8.21
1.Newsprint 2.Other paper 3.Diapers 4.Textiles/garments 5.Plastics, film 1,449 2,194 755 25,940 1,421 ______ 58,372 49.8 5,606 11,253 48.4 9,811 20,256 42.7 5,294 12,392 51.1 22.2 441 5.19 3,803 230 ________ 20.4 695 59.3 6,143 127 ______ 9.9 118 18.4 3,600 179 _______ 18.7 532 25.7 3,702 85.4 ______ 5,126 10,022 41.3
5,322 15,726 836 2,640 2,089
108 784 125 12.3 75.7
307 1,851 180 258 170
287 736 92.5 126 127
133 399 103 57.4 70.3
49.8 296 13.8 6.29 27.5 3.97 46.9 5.73 1,339 47.4 _______ 1,836 4,448 47.4
885 4,066 514 460 470 75 1,833 114 18,587 669 ______ 27,673 58,372 28
16.6 25.9 61.6 17.4 22.5 5.18 83.6 15.1 71.6 47.1 _____ 47.4
6.Plastics, rigid 7.Food waste 8.Wood 9.Yard waste 10.Sweepings
Total Weight collected, lb Moisture (yard-waste-free basis), %
Note: 1 lb = 0.454 kg.
TABLE 8.8 Ash in Combustible ConstituentsDaily and Composite (14) RAW REFUSE CHARACTERIZATION SAMPLING AND ANALYSES AUGUST 27 through 31
Constituent 4437 11660 322 2180 1619 1374 361 641 7353 752 _____ 30699 563 5648 9.97 838 10447 8.02 590 7099 8.31 10.9 6.77 2.25 312 55.6 ______ 56.6 10.0 18.4 378 51.3 _____ 10.8 3.98 1.51 299 45.7 ______ 7.79 5.60 3.61 210 55.2 _____ 421 4896 8.60 13.6 135 1.51 4.85 20.5 25.8 156 3.78 33.8 104 11.8 138 1.02 23.5 54.7. 8.55 111 0.99 7.82 10.6
Adjusted total weight, lb 2.36 61.40 0.34 4.80 9.66 1.51 0.70 0.40 149 44.1 _______ 274 2612 10.5
Ash contribution, lb (Dry basis) ____________________________________________________________ Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day S
5-Day total ash, total lb 62.1 601 7.64 74.8 200 87.6 27.1 26.2 1348 252 ______ 2686 30699 8.75
Composite average ash, % 1.40 5.15 2.38 3.43 12.4 6.38 7.51 4.09 18.3 33.5 _____ 8.75
1.Newsprint 2.Other paper 3.Diapers 4.Textiles/garments 5.Plastics, film
SOLID WASTE
8.22
Total Dry weight collected, lb Ash (dry basis), % (wt. ash/wt. refuse collected)
Note: 1 lb = 0.454 kg.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.23
day composite ash content of the combustible constituents, 8.75% (dry basis) can be considered low. The ash content of the composite including the noncombustibles is 15.4% on an as-received basis, and 22% when reported as yard-waste-free. Calorific Value. The higher heating value (HHV) on a moisture- and ash-free (MAF) basis is reported in Table 8.9 for each constituent. The five-day composite MAF heating value for the combustible constituents is 9673 Btu/lb (22,500 kJ/kg) and on a yard-waste-free basis (9826 Btu/lb) (22,850 kJ/kg). This value is somewhat higher than what is generally reported. The MAF heating value is a convenient base from which calculated transformations can readily be made to provide values reflecting specific entrained and inherent moisture and ash values encountered (14). Summary tabulations of the basic thermochemical parametric data based on an as-received and yardwaste-free basis can be displayed as in Table 8.10. Sulfur and Chlorine. In view of the intense interest and concern regarding potential acid gas formation during combustion, replicate analyses should be made for sulfur and chlorides on samples obtained of synthetic materials in addition to the normal determinations for these parameters on the other constituents. Tables 8.11 and 8.12 illustrate summaries of such data obtained during the reference characterization program. In an effort to determine the chlorine derivatives that may have a harmful effect in a combustion system, it is generally postulated that the chlorine atoms that are insoluble in water are those of particular concern (15). The premise for this assumption is that the temperatures usually encountered in a furnace will vaporize the insoluble forms of chlorine and will therefore readily combine with other constituents and become chemically aggressive. Laboratory investigation of chlorine-bearing constituents usually focuses on identifying the organic or insoluble chlorine(s). This can be accomplished by deducting the values for the water-soluble chlorides (H2O-soluble Cl) from the determined total chlorine values. The resulting arithmetic difference will be the organic chlorine. These values are illustrated in Table 8.11. However, a qualification is necessary when assessing these data. Not all organic chlorines are insoluble in water and not all inorganic chlorides are soluble in water. Therefore, the values in Table 8.11 can only be considered indicative, not absolute. The data usually reported in the literature are the total chlorine values rather than the arithmetic differences just discussed. The full significance and impact of the above is apparent when examining the data in Table 8.11 reported for textiles and garments, which were sampled only on day 3. The total chlorine is reported to be 3.78% and the water-soluble chloride is 3.73%. The calculated difference of 0.05% is the organic chlorine. Although some of the as-determined values reported may seem high, it must be recognized that it is the difference in these values that should be used in assessing the degree of possible chemical aggressiveness. Inspection of the low as-determined values in Table 8.11 reveals that the arithmetic differences (organic chlorine) are much greater than what appear at first glance. This is reflected in the last column of tabulated data reported on an MAF basis. The sulfur and chlorine values for all 10 combustible constituents were determined only for the laboratory samples obtained on day 1. These are reported in Table 8.12 on an as-received basis and reflect the composite weight averages, all of which are considered to be relatively low. Parametric Data. For design, confirmation, or operational purposes, specific laboratory analyses are generally necessary, especially for unusual types and/or quantities of materials encountered. However, for preliminary planning purposes, overview laboratory parametric data may be adequate in lieu of conducting analyses of specific constituents. In addition to the specific characterization data available in the aforementioned tables, typical densities of waste components are found on Table 8.13, and fuel proximate analysis of typical components in discarded solid wastes is found on Table 8.13. This information may provide useful data for the investigator or planner.
TABLE 8.9 Btu in Combustible Constituents (MAF)Daily and Composite (14) RAW REFUSE CHARACTERIZATION SAMPLING AND ANALYSES AUGUST 27 through 31
Constituent 4375 11059 314 2105 1419 1286 334 615 6005 500 _____ 28012 5084 9276 9765 9609 471.587 938.320 650.691 6509 9997 30.383 9.029 5.471 122.031 14.575 ________ 78.360 10.248 24.959 156.517 10.152 _______ 64.140 3.032 13.041 120.006 11.394 ________ 42.272 6.930 10.958 96.844 5.925 ______ 433.915 4475 9696 61.749 174.280 5.836 18.940 29.293 142.212 311.721 9.648 76.345 118.158 81.958 232.761 5.278 59.683 59.398 63.046 136.250 4.503 32.231 34.956
Total MAF Adjusted weight, lb 30.869 91.800 1.093 6.859 9.432 15.950 0.674 2.844 51.959 3.869 _______ 214.985 2338 9195
Btu contribution (MAF), Btu 53 ____________________________________________________________ Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day S
5-Day total Btu, Btu 105 379.834 946.812 26.358 194.058 251.237 231.105 29.913 57.273 546.993 45.915 _______ 2709.498 28012 9673
Composite average MAF, Btu/lb 8682 8562 8394 9219 17705 17971 8956 9313 9109 9183 _____ 9673
1.Newsprint 2.Other paper 3.Diapers 4.Textiles/garments 5.Plastics, fiber
SOLID WASTE
8.24
Total MAF or combustibles weight, lb HHV (yard-waste-free basis)Btu/lb
9826
Note: 1 lb 0.454 kg;1I Btu/lb 0.43 kJ/kg.
TABLE 8.10 Comparative SummaryMoisture, Ash, HHV (14) RAW WASTE CHARACTERIZATION SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS AUGUST 27 through 31 5-Day composite (Yard-waste-free) August 27 as-received, all constituents 45.9 12.4 22.9 3866 7146 9276 0.171 0.082 0.089 0.058 42.1 15.4 26.5 4118 7112 9689 As-received, all constituents All constituents 22.8 22.0 28.5 5425 7027 9826 Combustible constituents 28.0 4.13 5.73 6668 9263 9826
SOLID WASTE
8.25
Moisture, % Ash (as received), % Ash (dry basis), % HHV (as received), Btu/lb HHV (dry basis) Btu/lb HHV (MAF), Btu/lb Total chlorine* H2O chloride Chlorine (organic) Sulfur*
*See Tables 8.11 and 8.12 for more specific data on chlorine and sulfur. Note: 1 Btu/lb = 0.43 kJ/kg.
TABLE 8.11 Sulfur and Chlorine* in Textile and Plastic Constituents (14) RAW REFUSE CHARACTERIZATION SAMPLING AND ANALYSES AUGUST 27 through 31 Dry basis ______________________________ Moisture and ash free _____________________________________
As received __________________________
Constituent 0.026 0.122 0.143 0.146 0.197 0.099 3.73 0.265 0.299 0.095 0.101 0.154 0.058 0.329 0.032 0.322 0.364 0.086 0.024 0.083 0.077 0.098 0.3% 0.477 0.070 <0.01 <0.01 0.109 0.135 0.166 0.063 0.457 0.034 3.78 0.277 0.374 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 4.43 0.345 0.307 4.49 0.360 0.384 0.113 0.530 0.514 0.348 0.506 0.090 0.295 0.282 0.290 0.039 <0.01 <0.01 0.190 0.244 0.103 0.385 0.350 0.303 0.041 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.071 <0.01 <0.01 0.026 0.096 0.078 2.33 0.201 1.15 <0.007 <0.008 0.43 0.028 0.165 0.161 2.47 0.272 1.29 <0.007 <0.009 0.46
S,%
H2OTotal Cl, Soluble Cl % S, % Total Cl, % S, % 0.029 0.182 0.171 0.198 0.286 0.116 4.59 0.397 0.317 0.111 0.142 0.172 0.067 0.530 0.035
H2OSoluble Cl, %
Total Cl minus H2OTotal Cl, H2O-Soluble, Soluble Cl % % % 2.53 0.301 1.37 0.401 0.410 0.341 4.65 0.414 0.396 0.115 0.558 0.531 0.371 0.586 0.092 2.50 0.119 1.20
SOLID WASTE
Date 8-27 Textiles/garments Plastics, film Plastics, rigid
0.007 0.006 0.38
8.26
0.030 0.01 0.01
0.203 0.124 0.225 0.06 0.017 0.079 0.004 0.416 0.359 0.304 0.056 0.057
<0.01 <0.01 <0.01
0.061 <0.01 <0.01
0.022 0.060 0.074
*Total chlorine minus water-soluble chlorides (H2O-soluble Cl) = organic chlorine.
TABLE 8.12 Sulfur and Chlorine* in Combustible Constituents (14) RAW WASTE CHARACTERIZATION SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS Laboratory Samples Collected August 27 As received Sulfur contribution ___________________ lb 0.829 2.981 0.038 0.768 0.054 0.042 2.192 0.1341 ______ 7.0381 0.185 0.096% 20.823 10.002 0.38 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.03 ______ 2.323 0.956 0.0413 4.173 0.796 _______ 0.289 0.853 0.027 4.603 0.648 ______ 1.15 0.177 0.059 0.086 0.178 _____ 0.010 0.10 0.02 <0.007 <0.006 0.307 5.753 0.193 5.173 0.587 0.298 2.683 0.187 0.058 0.356 0.037 0.193 0.101 2.33 0.201 % Total Cl, lb Total Cl, %
Constituent
Adjusted total weight, lb
H2Osoluble Cl, lb
H2O-soluble Cl, lb 0.036 0.090 0.098 0.026 0.122 0.143 0.158 0.039 0.084 0.145 _____ 0.089
Total Cl, minus H2O-soluble Cl, % 0.001 0.103 0.003 2.304 0.079 1.007 0.019 0.02 0.002 0.033 _____
1. Newsprint 2. Other paper 3. Diapers 4. Textile/garments 5. Plastic, film
829 2.981 191 222 292
SOLID WASTE
8.27
6. Plastic, rigid 7. Food waste 8. Wood 9. Yard waste 10. Sweepings
202 540 70 5.480 447 ______
Total weights Weighted average, %
11.253 0.063
11. Ferrous 12. Aluminum 13. Nonferrous 14. Glass 15. Brick 16. OBW ______ 7.0381 0.171 ______ 0.082
240 16 35 455 19 182 ______
_______ 20.8423 0.089
______ 10.002
Total Weighted average, %
12.200 0.058
*Total chlorine minus water-soluble chlorides (H2O-soluble C1) = organic chlorine. Sulfur and chlorine determinations for all combustible constituents (1 through 10) conducted only on laboratory samples obtained on August 27. Note: 1 lb = 0.454 kg.
SOLID WASTE 8.28

CHAPTER EIGHT
TABLE 8.13 Densities of Waste Components Component Waste densities, lb/yd Loose waste After dumping from compactor truck In compactor truck In landfill Shredded waste Baled in paper baler Bulk densities, lb/ft3 Cardboard Aluminum Plastics Miscellaneous paper Garden waste Newspaper Rubber Glass Food True densities, lb/ft3 Wood Cardboard Paper Glass Aluminum Steel Polypropylene Polyethylene Polystyrene ABS Acrylic Polyvinylchloride (PVC) Resource recovery plant products, lb/ft3 dRDF Aluminum scrap Ferrous scrap Crushed glass 39 15 25 85 37 43 4472 156 168 480 56 59 65 64 74 78 1.87 2.36 2.37 3.81 4.45 6.19 14.90 18.45 23.04
3
Density
100200 350400 500700 500900 600900 8001200
Source: Prepared by Cal Recovery Systems, Richmond, Calif., for ASTM E-38. Note: 1 lb/yd3 = 1.685 kg/m3 1 lb/ft3 = 0.0624 kg/m3.
SOLID WASTE
TABLE 8.14 Fuel Proximate Analysis for Typical Components (21) Higher heating value, Btu/lb ____________________ Asreceived 6,800 7,974 7,256 5,254 7,043 7,341 11,327 7,258 6,088 6,950 1,795 1,707 7,623 16,466 2,370 7,500 2,102 4,710 7,300 6,430 7,350 2,708 2,447 3,697 2,058 7,984 6,900 4,745 2,690 6,960 13,800 7,960 7,243 10,899 11,200 14,100 8 18,687 16,419 11,203 9,754 8,150 6,900 8 13,400 6,386 3,670 4,800 Moisture and ash free 8,055 8,600 7,800 7,150 7,850 7,940 11,890 8,250 7,400 7,860 8,700 8,300 13,110 16,466 10,100 8,520 4,250 6,560 7,995 7,340 7,940 8,960 9,850 8,460 8,900 9,270 8,700 8,600 8,135 7,690 14,900 9,850 10,150 15,790 12,600 16,000 14,870 20,000 16,510 11,730 10,000 11,450 7,844 8,300 16,000 9,960 13,650 8,000
Proximate analysis (as-received), weight % _________________________________________ Moisture Paper, mixed Newsprint Brown paper Trade magazines Corrugated boxes Plastic-coated paper Waxed milk cartons Paper food cartons Junk mail Office trash Vegetable food waste Citrus rinds and seeds Meat scraps (cooked) Fried fats Mixed food waste Hardwood (pallets, crates) Green logs Rotten timbers Demolition softwood Waste hardwood Furniture wood Evergreen shrubs Balsam spruce Flowering plants Lawn grass Ripe leaves Wood and bark Brush Mixed greens Upholstery Tires, whole Leather Leather shoe Shoe heel and sole Rubber Mixed plastics Plastic film Polyethylene Polystyrene Polyurethane Polyvinyl chloride Linoleum Rags Textiles Oils, paints Vacuum-cleaner dirt Household dirt Street sweepings 10.24 5.97 5.83 4.11 5.20 4.71 3.45 6.11 4.56 4.10 78.29 78.70 38.74 0.00 72.00 11.60 50.00 26.80 7.70 12.00 6.00 69.00 74.35 53.94 75.24 9.97 20.00 40.00 62.00 6.9 1.02 10.00 7.46 1.15 1.20 2.0 3.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 2.10 10.00 15.31 0 5.47 3.20 20.00 Volatile matter 75.94 81.12 83.92 66.39 77.47 84.20 90.92 75.59 73.32 79.80 17.10 16.55 56.34 97.64 20.26 74.80 42.25 55.01 77.62 75.05 80.92 25.18 20.70 35.64 18.64 66.92 67.89 8 26.74 75.96 64.92 68.46 57.12 67.03 83.98 8 8 98.54 98.67 87.12 86.89 64.50 84.34 8 8 55.68 20.54 54.00 Fixed carbon 8.44 11.48 9.24 7.03 12.27 8.45 4.46 11.80 9.03 7.90 3.55 4.01 1.81 2.36 3.26 14.00 7.25 16.13 13.93 12.41 11.74 5.01 4.13 8.08 4.50 19.29 11.31 8 6.32 14.52 27.51 12.49 14.26 2.08 4.94 8 8 0.07 0.68 8.30 10.85 6.60 3.46 8 8 8.51 6.26 6.00 Noncombustible 5.38 1.43 1.01 22.47 5.06 2.64 1.17 6.50 13.09 8.20 1.06 0.74 3.11 0.00 4.48 0.60 0.50 2.06 0.75 0.54 1.34 0.81 0.82 2.34 1.62 3.82 0.80 5.00 4.94 2.62 6.55 9.10 21.16 29.74 9.88 10.00 8 1.19 0.45 4.38 2.06 26.80 2.20 8 16.30 30.34 70.00 20.00 S 0.20 0.16 0.11 0.09 0.21 0.08 0.10 0.16 0.09 <.1 0.20 0.12 0.19 0.07 0.52 <.1 0.08 1.2 <.1 <.1 <.1 0.19 0.20 0.26 0.42 0.16 0.05 0.05 0.05 <.1 1.5 0.40 1.00 1.34 2.00 8 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.14 0.40 0.13 0.20 8 1.15 0.01 0.20
Note: 1 Btu/lb = 0.43 kJ/kg. Downloaded from Digital Engineering Library @ McGraw-Hill (www.digitalengineeringlibrary.com) Copyright 2004 The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved. Any use is subject to the Terms of Use as given at the website.
SOLID WASTE 8.30

CHAPTER EIGHT
Spot Sampling The second method of sampling is randomly withdrawing many small-weight increments of waste from the mass of waste material collected daily. Since municipal waste is subject to many influences and is highly variable in character, many increments are necessary so that average values for quantity and character are representative of the whole. As a practical matter, a program withdrawing many 200- to 300-lb (90- to 135kg) increments of waste for sorting can be reasonably indicative of the character of the waste. A procedure that has been found to be expedient employs the use of a crane with grapple bucket, such as those found at an incinerator, resource recovery plant, or a mobile articulated unit at a transfer station or landfill (16, 17). The crane operator dumps a small [approximately 1 yd3 (0.75 m3)] randomly selected bucket load onto a clean surface area preferably covered with a plastic tarpaulin to better manage the finer particles in the waste sample. [In an incinerator plant, the sampling and sorting would take place at the furnace charging level (parapet) at one end of the receiving pit.] An attempt should be made by the crane operator to mix the mass of waste by bucket action prior to extracting the sample for sorting. Although this procedure may improve the mix of materials, it does tend to sift out the granular material and fines. There is also the tendency to avoid the larger objects encountered. Another spot-sampling procedure involves obtaining waste increments using a front-end-loader vehicle from a series of waste collection trucks (1618). A truck, selected at random for sampling, is unloaded on the designated floor area. Determining where from the dumped load to select the sample for sorting is the challenge. Although the material was loaded in the truck at random and some mixing does take place when the load is dumped, additional mixing should be attempted by the front-end-loader operator prior to extracting a bucket load for deposit onto the cleaned floor area for sorting and sampling. However, every effort should be made to avoid segregation of the fines and oversize materials. The procedure performed on 10 to 15 randomly selected vehicles each day for two or more weeks can provide more than 120 sets of data from sorting 12 to 20 tons (10 to 18 metric tons) of waste. This repetitive procedure tends to level the variances and temper bias. Although the percentages for each may be relatively small, the analysis data should be qualified in regard to the probable losses of granular material and fines, oversized objects, and loss of surface moisture to avoid creating erroneous impressions regarding the character of the waste investigated. Too many times significant quantities are included in a miscellaneous category as a catch-all expediency to close the material balance calculation. The procedures described in the truckload sampling methodology for obtaining samples for laboratory analysis also apply to spot sampling. As mentioned, many investigations and attempts have been made to use statistical analysis in determining the quantity and character of the wastes discarded by the community so as to project the quantity and quality of the materials and energy that may be recovered. Depending on the need and degree of accuracy necessary, some of the procedures are quite useful especially for refuse-derived products. Several of these are included in the reference list of this chapter. A fundamental discussion on statistical sampling analysis is covered in the book Refuse Derived Fuel Processing (13). A statistical analysis was conducted of the truckload sampling method and the spot sampling method. Although the extremes in the as-received heating value of the truckload sampling and analysis program ranged from approximately 3860 to 4890 Btu/lb (9000 to 11,400 kJ/kg), the comparative statistical analysis revealed that the mean HHV was 4650 Btu/lb (10,800 kJ/kg) with a standard deviation of 242; therefore there was a 5.2% coefficient of variation and a relative standard error of 300 or 6.45%. This relates that 95% of the time the as-received heating value would be expected to range from 4350 to 4950 Btu/lb (10,100 to 11,500 kJ/kg) (13). Similarly, the spot sampling program conducted on municipal waste revealed a mean HHV of 4900 Btu/lb (11,400 kJ/kg) with a standard deviation of 1075, and therefore, a 21.9% coefficient of variation and a relative standard error of 400 Btu/lb (930 kJ/kg) or 8.16%. This related that 95% of the time the as-received heating value would be expected to range from 4500 to 5300 Btu/lb (10,500 to 12,300 kJ/kg) (13).
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.31
Yard waste can have a major influence on the fuel character of municipal waste. As discussed previously, yard waste can be a high weight percent of the total waste and because of its typically high moisture adds little, if any, calorific value. Therefore, any analysis must account for the influence of yard waste on the data. Since the wide range in yard waste quantity has such a great impact on the overall composition of municipal waste, displaying the comparative data on a yard-waste-free basis does level the compositions, as displayed in Table 8.15. However, each of these communities had approximately 25% more paper waste and as little as 50% of the metals reported as the national average. Although there was no New Jersey bottle bill, there were aggressive materials recycling programs in Gloucester and Cape May counties. The glass and brick fractions seem high, although within the national average. The food waste quantities appear to be uniformly low compared to the reported national average, and the very high paper fraction encountered during the spring 1980 sorting program at Central Wayne County, Michigan, seems to be suspect and warrants further study. The influence of the higher paper fraction on the heating value appears to be far less than the lower quantities of synthetic materials. The close agreement of the moisture and ash-free heating values for each of the entities listed illustrates that moisture and ash are the major influences on the energy character of municipal waste. This type of comparative analysis can assist planners, designers, managers, and facility operators to understand, prepare for, and manage their disposal and materialsenergy resource recovery programs more effectively. Curbside Weighing Program This is a direct method of obtaining basic waste weight generation data for demographic correlations, such as residential density, habitat, socioeconomic level, and other influences of interest. This weighing program is best suited when the household trash is set out at the curb for pickup by the collection truck. The time of day must be coordinated with the truck schedule. The best time of year to conduct a program of this nature is the early fall, when school is back in session and prior to leaf fall. Generation rates at this time generally approximate the annual average. Obviously, such operations should not be conducted during severe weather or during the week following disruption of regularly scheduled collection due to a major holiday, severe weather, or other conditions (20). During the curbside weighing period, the specific collection truckload involved should also be weighed and the households contributing to these loads cataloged. There should be a close correlation between the total of curbside weights and the net weight of the truckload. Nonresidential waste collection in the same truck should be avoided during this period. If this is not possible, the generators of these wastes should be identified by location and nature of business for later canvassing and cataloging. These data can give an approximation of nonresidential waste generation for similar businesses. A curbside program can provide basic data on number and nature of items set out, total container weights for each household, and the number of persons contributing. These data could be related to population and household makeup for the entire collection area serviced. Careful planning and preparation for the curbside program is required in the interest of economy and quality of data. Planning for the program is based on a preliminary estimate of the waste stream, route schedules, and maps of existing collection operations. Preparation of a route overlay to a planning and zoning map indicating individual properties can be useful. Selection of weighing locations should be based on a defined random method to preclude introduction of bias by the team members. For the selected location(s), all trash containers set out along a street or alley in a predefined area should be weighed and notations made of unusual materials or containers. A two-person team can cover about 10 households per hour. With proper planning, the number of teams required to cover an area in the available time frame can be established. It may be necessary to leapfrog the collection crew and return later to obtain tare weight for all reusable containers and the occupancy data. At
TABLE 8.15 Comparative Compositions of Municipal Solid Waste*, ,
Waste constituent 71.2 5.0 6.5 6.8 5.4 50.6
Central Wayne County, Mich. ___________________________ August 1979, April 1980, Weight % Weight % 42 5.2 4.5
Gloucester County, N.J. ___________ October 1981 Weight %
Cape May County, N.J. ____________ September 1982 Weight %
Branford, Conn. ____________ Average U.S. October 1982 EPA, Weight % Weight %
Newsprint Other paper Diapers Textiles/garments Plastic, film Plastic, rigid Food waste Wood Sweepings Ferrous Aluminum Nonferrous Glass/brick OBW 5.2 5.0 100% 9720 39.7 27.3 15.1 9290 9530 100% 100% 100% 9350 6.6 100% 9250 9.5
13.5 53.5 40.0 1.8 8.5 6.7 5.2 8.9 3.7 5.1 1.8 3.4 5.1 0.4 6.3 0.8 7.8 4.7 ____
12.5 58.7 1.0 4.0 40 2.5 2.0 2.6 3.7 4.9 0.2 0.1 3.1 0.7 ____
10.4 40.2 1.2 4.2 4.0 2.8 3.7 1.2 9.2 4.3 0.6 0.1 13.0 5.1 ____
11.8 54.4 42.6 incl 3.8 3.8 4.0 4.0 incl 5.5 3.1 7.1 3.9 0.8 4.7 incl 12.4 5.0 ____
10.8 54.6 43.8 incl 3.4 3.4 4.8 4.8 incl 10.2 17.9 2.2 4.5 6.8 1.9 5.1 9.8 0.8 5.9 incl 6.4 5.7 ____ 12.7
1.1 0.4 ____ 100% 9460 16.3
SOLID WASTE
8.32
Total
Moisture and ash free basis Higher heating value; Btu/lb
Yard waste
42.1 15.4 4120 9695 9210
29.3 14.9 5140
31.5 21.8 4280 9165
25.4 24.0 4690 9270
28.0 21.6 4630 9190
27 25 4500 9400
As-received basis including yard waste Moisture Ash Higher heating value, Btu/lb, AR Higher heating value, Btu/Ib, MAF
*From truckload sampling and yard-waste-free analyses. Large suburban communityCentral Wayne County, Michigan; Small suburban communityTown of Branford, Connecticut; Rural countyGloucester County, New Jersey; Resort CountyCape May County, New Jersey. Data grouped to simplify comparison with national averages; numbers have been rounded for simplicity.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.33
least 30 residences should be sampled for each area. A subarea may be defined by neighborhood, physical, social or economic criteria, or may correspond to daily collection zones. The equipment required in the curbside method consists of The team, identifiable through hardhats and name tags A portable handheld scale with hook, 100-lb (45.5-kg) capacity A grappling harness with hooks to pick up containers and a plastic pan 2 3 6 in (0.6 m 0.9 m 15 cm) to handle assorted small items or those that cannot be hooked A 6-ft-high forked rod to support the scale for heavier loads Gloves, sturdy shoes, and clipboard Team members should be courteous in explaining their activity when questioned by citizens. Inquiring residents, when informed of the teams purpose, will usually volunteer occupancy information. Neighbors will frequently provide the information for houses where information is difficult to obtain. Data on the number of households served and that on intermingled commercial establishments can be recorded by a cooperative collection truck driver or a team member riding in the truck. At the very least, this basic method will reveal the weight character of residential waste generation. These types of data are illustrated in Figure 8.8 for a one week curbside weighing program of a small suburban community in Michigan in September, 1981. The plot indicates that the spread of data for the households with many members is much less than that with few members; that the rate of waste generation per capita is prone to be less for the larger households; e.g., periodicals and grocery bags discarded are not directly proportional to the number of individuals. This display is contrary to the expedient assumption that the waste generation rate per capita is essentially the same regardless of size of household. This information could be useful for correlations with other demographic and planning data. Characterization Program Perspective The following items should be considered in the planning and conduct of a solid waste characterization program: Waste composition investigations conducted in a similar manner facilitate comparative analysis, even though undertaken at different times and circumstances. The comparative composition data assembled in Table 8.15 are intended to display the character of wastes on the same basis (yard-waste-free) using essentially the same sampling and sorting procedure for four types of communities and obtained within a relatively short time span. The United States average data are also provided for comparative purposes. The significant influence on the quantity and constituent mix of municipal waste is the type and makeup of the community: urban, industrial, rural, university, resort, and socioeconomic and age level, etc. The variation in per capita waste generation rate for a particular community is influenced in the near term by the weather and the season; over the longer term by the economy and changes in consumer packaging. The per capita waste generation rate is influenced by the number of persons in the household. Additional characterization studies may be desirable to better define the seasonal changes in waste generation rate and waste composition. The character of municipal waste will continue to be variable in spite of imposed government requirements for source separation of select waste materials. A characterization program can be time consuming and costly. Therefore, it should be well planned and the actual sampling and sorting activity closely monitored to assure that the data obtained are of the caliber desired. Every effort should be made to avoid external influences and bias. These might be introduced by weather, holidays, collection upsets, or by resorting to makeshift facilities for sorting and expedient procedures for personnel, all of which can cause bias.
SOLID WASTE 8.34

CHAPTER EIGHT
FIGURE 8.8 Residential waste generation (20).
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.35
Once-per-week collection from residences should be arranged during the program to avoid the bias that may result from differences in midweek or weekend waste quantity and character. A justified materials weight balance should be made for each sample increment characterized, regardless of size. The weight of the entire sample before sorting should correspond with the sum of the weights of the constituents sorted. On an MAF basis, the HHV of municipal solid wastes generally varies through the relatively narrow range of 9000 to 10,000 Btu/lb (3870 to 4300 kJ/kg). However, as with all solid fuels, moisture and ash content are the major influences on the actual energy character of municipal waste. Since it would be convenient to have a nominal reference fuel analysis, the ASME Research Committee on Municipal and Industrial Waste is recommending the analyses shown in Table 8.16 as a basis of discussion. The physical makeup of the waste influences the material handling and combustion feeding and burning systems, as well as the practicality of materials resource recovery. A waste characterization program should be designed to provide the level of confidence required for the particular use of the data; for overall planning, general extrapolations of published data may be all that is necessary; for design of a new or retrofit facilities requiring contractual commitments and financing, definitive information on waste quantities and character may be required. The discrete sizes and size distribution of the constituent components and the concentration of the constituents within the total mass of waste will influence the size and number of sample increments necessary for high-confidence characterization. The larger the size of the components, the larger the sample increment required. With smaller particle sizes, e.g., less than tin (2.5 cm), and the greater its concentration, smaller samples and fewer sample increments would be required for the data to be representative. ASTM Standards D-2013, D-2234, and EDS-8 provide sampling principles and procedures applicable for small-particle-size materials. ASTM procedures should be used for sampling and analyses wherever possible since these should provide reproducible data.
TABLE 8.16 Municipal Solid WasteNominal Reference Fuel Analyses* Ultimate analysis, % Moisture Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen Nitrogen Sulfur Chlorine Ash 2040 2030 35 1525 0.301.00 0.050.20 0.100.50 2030 27 24 9 19 0.6 0.1 0.3 25 100% Proximate, % Moisture Volatile matter Fixed carbon Ash 27 41 7 25 ____ 100%
Higher heating value As-received, Btu/lb, AR Moisture and ash free, Btu/lb, MAF
35005500 91009700
4500 9400
*1985 ASME Research Committee on Municipal and Industrial Waste Boiler as Calorimeter Subcommittee. Ash for municipal solid waste is the noncombustible portion of the residues made up of mineral matter, metals, stones, glass, ceramics, etc. Note: 1 Btu/lb = 0.43 kJ/kg.
SOLID WASTE 8.36

CHAPTER EIGHT
COLLECTION AND TRANSFER OPERATIONS

The most costly element of refuse service is collection and transfer. Seventy-five to eighty percent of the solid waste budget is spent on collection and transfer costs. Reducing these costs can best be accomplished by understanding refuse service processes and equipment. Collection is the part of solid waste management involving the collection route. Collection begins where the customers waste is placed for pickup and ends when the collection vehicle leaves the collection route for the off-route haul to a disposal or processing site. A transfer station, i.e., a terminal where smaller collection vehicles empty their loads for continued haul by a larger vehicle, may be part of the collection process. This section describes the institutional arrangements, collection practices, equipment, crew selection, routing, and transfer elements of solid waste management. The discussion incorporates aids to vehicle and route selection and transfer station economics. Collection Practices Solid waste collection is one of the most visible services provided to residents of a community. Whether the system is public or private, each citizen has contact with refuse collection. The high visibility of solid waste collection demands effective administration and efficient service mechanisms. Service Arrangements. Solid waste collection and transfer can be undertaken through public, private, or mixed public-private service. Public arrangements place control in the hands of a governmental unit, while private arrangements place control under a private company or individual. Deciding whether public or private service is more appropriate within a particular collection area requires a perceptive understanding of the community and clearly articulated collection aims and priorities. Service recipient, service provider, service arranger, and service type are particularly important elements in choosing public or private service. Public Arrangements. Public solid waste collection is conducted by municipalities that retain control of administration and/or operations. Generally, authority resides in a major department of the municipality. Public arrangements take the form of either municipal collection or contract collection. Larger municipalities may use both types of collection, using competition to control costs and improve productivity. Under municipal collection, waste is collected by public employees using publicly owned equipment. The operations are conducted under the direct supervision of a municipal department such as the Department of Public Works. Normally, single-family residences within a community are covered by the service. Frequently, small industrial and commercial establishments, schools, hospitals, and other institutions, and small multifamily residential units are collected as well. The municipality retains full control of operations, maintenance, and fee collection. Where contract collection is used, waste is collected by a private firm under contract to a municipality. The contractor owns the equipment, furnishes the employees, and manages operations. The public agency stipulates the service level, collection frequency, and other program elements such as container characteristics or hours of operation. The municipality retains responsibility for receiving complaints, billing customers, and controlling the activities of the private firm within the municipal jurisdiction. Generally, contracts are awarded through competitive bidding for three years or more to provide time to amortize equipment and to provide incentive to the private firm. Contracts usually provide for cost adjustments at least annually. Private Arrangements. Private arrangements are used where collection services are not provided by a governmental unit. Primary solid waste collection responsibility and control rests with one or more private firms. The distinguishing feature of private arrangements is that collection firms are paid directly by the customer. The principal forms of private arrangement are franchise collection, private collection, and selfservice.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.37
Franchise collection consists of a governmental unit giving a private firm an exclusive license to serve a particular area, generally encompassing more than 10,000 people. Franchises are seldom awarded for less than three years and may or may not be awarded by competitive bidding. The municipality enforces the licensing arrangement and may receive customer complaints. Franchising minimally burdens a municipality but creates a monopoly with attendant potential for high prices due to lack of competition. Private collection offers little public regulation of collection practice. Private firms do not have exclusive territories. The level of service is arranged between the customer and the collector, with customers permitted to change firms when they wish. Competition is often fierce and a single area may be served by several collection firms. The various firms seldom coordinate collection days or practices, so containers may be seen along streets several days a week. Private collection can be highly inefficient and very expensive. It is the least satisfactory and highest cost system of refuse collection. Self-service is the practice of letting the generator take waste directly to a transfer station or disposal area. It is most often used in rural areas. Public versus Private Arrangements. Each type of institutional arrangement offers specific advantages and disadvantages. Table 8.17 details the advantages, disadvantages, and conditions favoring particular institutional arrangements. In a 1975 survey of over 2000 cities with more than 2500 people, Savas (23) found that about 1600 cities used either municipal, private, or self-service exclusively. Of these, 41.6% used municipal service and 57.8% used contract collection. Savas data on service arrangements is presented in Table 8.18. Larger cities are more likely to provide municipal service. Geographically, municipal service predominates in the South while northern and north-central cities favor private collection. Franchise collection is most commonly encountered in the West. Savas also compares mean costs and offers the following comparison of annual cost per household using the lowest cost as unity:
Type of service arrangement Municipal collection Contract collection Franchise collection Private collection Relative cost 1.15 1.00 1.07 1.61
Municipal service is slightly more costly than private service, but can offer somewhat higher public service (2). The reasons for higher municipal costs are, in part, due to budgeting and administrative procedures. The capacity for a municipality to mandate collection service is useful in controlling litter and maintaining public health. Public arrangements should be encouraged because the municipality has control of refuse collection except for major commercial customers. Collection can be mandated and separate recycling can be more simply implemented. In public arrangements relying on private contractors, contract specifications must be general enough to attract bidders, but restrictive enough to discourage incompetent firms. Contracts should be for three years or more with performance bonds a requirement. Collection System Administration. Administration is the managerial control of operation. Administrative concerns include record keeping, maintenance, standby equipment, and costs. Record Keeping. Record keeping is a vital part of management in any solid waste collection or transfer system. Without records, productivity measurements, evaluations, cost studies, and preventive maintenance are difficult to perform. Records that should be routinely kept by the collection department are listed in Table 8.19.
TABLE 8.17 Advantages and Disadvantages of Public and Private Collection Services (22) Potential advantages Public Past history of unsatisfactory contractual operations for public services Public predisposition toward governnent operation of public services Quality of service provided more important criterion than economics Potential disadvantages Conditions that favor alternative
Alternative
Municipal
SOLID WASTE
8.38
Tax-free Nonprofit Economies of scale Municipality has administrative control Can institute separate collection for recycling Can institute mandatory collection Management and policies continuous, resulting in experienced personnel and permitting long-range planning Records can be kept over a long time
Monopolistic Limited incentive to improve efficiency Financing and operations often influenced by political constraints Frequently financed from general tax fund and subject to 1-year budgeting process Solid waste management often low-priority item in budget Labor pressures may result in inefficient labor practices and strikes or inflated labor costs Restrictive budget policies may affect equipment replacement and maintenance Danger of collusion in bidding Public agency must regulate contractors
Contract
Competitive bidding for contract(s) helps keep prices down Municipality retains administrative control Can institute separate collection for recycling Can institute mandatory collection
Flexibility to make change in operations that would result in labor savings and other cost reductions Availability of qualified private contractors Public predisposed toward private sector involvement in public services Newly incorporated communities, or communities where population growth is outpacing ability of community to provide public services
Municipal system and private firms under contract
Competition helps keep price down Alternative available if either sector cannot deliver service Municipality had administrative control can institute separate collection for recycling Competition may reduce costs Self-financing Municipality not interested in refuse collection
Could be administratively or jurisdictionally complex
Municipality is expanding through annexation or merger with other jurisdictions Changing from separate garbage and trash collection to combined collection
Private arrangements Private collection
SOLID WASTE
Franchise
Self-financing
No public administrative control Danger of collusion among haulers Cutthroat competition can result in business failures and service interruptions Overlapping routes, waste of fuel Cannot institute citywide separate collection for recycling Difficult to enforce mandatory collection ordinances No public administrative control Monopolistic, can lead to high prices Cannot institute separate collection for recycling Difficult to enforce mandatory collection ordinances
Municipality wants little to do with refuse collection
8.39
TABLE 8.18 Service Arrangements for the Collection of Mixed Residential Refuse, by City Size, Region, and Form of Government (23) Municipal _____________ lb 768 27 149 242 350 186 143 341 98 374 319 54 42.7 44.1 27.1 214 109 32 24.4 15.1 16.1 42 103 5 4.8 14.2 2.5 19.0 20.0 72.7 26.8 213 111 28 69 21.7 15.5 6.0 18.9 22 16 34 93 2.2 2.2 7.2 25.4 382 330 33 37 178 100 60 73.0 55.6 34.3 23.0 4 25 152 239 10.8 9.3 21.5 15.7 0 22 59 85 0 8.2 8.4 5.6 4 41 170 567 10.8 15.3 24.1 37.3 38.9 46.2 7.0 10.1 20.3 13.8 30.2 30.3 420 16.6 166 6.5 782 30.9 376 1 28 81 266 176 107 27 66 64 87 45 % lb % lb % lb % lb Contract _____________ Franchise _____________ Private _____________ Self-service _____________ % 14.9 2.7 10.4 11.5 17.5 17.9 15.0 5.8 18.0 7.3 12.0 22.6 Other _____________ lb 19 1 3 2 13 2 8 6 3 4 6 3 % 0.8 2.7 1.1 0.3 0.9 0.2 1.1 1.3 0.8 0.4 0.8 1.5
Total
SOLID WASTE
8.40
Total Population group >250,000 50,000249,999 10,00049,999 2,5009,999 Geographic region Northeast North central South West Form of government Mayorcouncil Councilmanager Other
2531 2531 37 268 706 1520 2531 981 715 469 366 1799 876 724 199
Note: This table shows the distribution of arrangements, not the distribution of cities. There is a total of 2531 arrangements in the 2052 cities.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.41
TABLE 8.19 Routine Collection Service Records Route books and route maps (updated as required) Vehicle and body records Purchase data Maintenance and repair record Fuel consumption record Accident records Operating hours On-route hours Off-route hours Time to disposal and return Crew records Weight or volume collected per day Households collected per day Other stops collected per day Truck assignment Time on route Time off route Load records Weight Number of trips to disposal per day Percentage of full capacity Number and type of units collected (periodic)
Maintenance. Refuse vehicles are complicated mechanical devices requiring periodic maintenance. A mechanic capable of repairing mechanical and hydraulic systems together with the necessary tools and equipment should be a part of any solid waste collection system. For small operations, such service may be provided by a private mechanic. Standby Equipment. Refuse collection is hard service with frequent equipment breakdown. The prudent collection manager will provide sufficient standby equipment to allow the daily collection to be completed as scheduled. Generally, one standby vehicle should be available for every five vehicles used daily, but not less than one spare should be available. Cost Factors. The cost of solid waste collection varies considerably from system to system. A study of 314 systems in the United States by Stevens (26) found wages to be the single largest component of cost. Direct labor cost averages 60 to 65% of the total collection cost. Other factors affecting municipal collection costs include stop density, service level, management practices, waste generation, and equipment size and type. Crew Productivity. Crew productivity is a measure of efficiency. Several factors influence crew productivity including route, service level, collection equipment, and personal characteristics of crew members. Table 8.20 outlines factors affecting crew productivity. Crew productivity may be measured in several ways. Among these are: Households collected per week per crew Weight per year per crew or crew member Volume per year per crew or crew member Data on productivity, measured in several cities across the nation in the mid-1970s, was used to produce Table 8.21. The table provides maximum, mean, and minimum productivity for various crew and truck con-
SOLID WASTE 8.42

CHAPTER EIGHT
TABLE 8.20 Factors Affecting Crew Productivity Condition Routing, service level Vehicle Personnel Factors Routing design, density of stops, collection location, types of containers, traffic congestion Loading location, loading height, vehicle capacity, compaction density, crew size, packing cycle Age, attitudes, health
figurations. The cost of providing service, although not as specific as the other approaches, is sometimes used as a measure of productivity. Table 8.22 compares costs for several crew and truck configurations. Service Level The level of service is set by the frequency of routine collection and the type of service offered to the customer. Collection frequency and scheduling are principally matters of health, aesthetics, and economics. Service type requires a decision on resident responsibilities versus crew productivity, specifically whether residential collection is to be in the backyard or at curbside. Residential Collection. Residential service levels vary with each municipality, depending on citizen expectations and budgetary constraints. Once-weekly service is the predominant collection interval in the United States. Twice-weekly collection is normal throughout the southern and the southeastern United States, where warm climates create nuisances associated with refuse stored for longer periods. In inner-city areas where storage is limited, collections more frequently than twice-weekly may be needed. The more frequently wastes are collected, the more costly is the collection service. Table 8.23 outlines the advantages and disadvantages of various frequencies of residential refuse collection. Type of Service. Whether crews pick up waste at the curb or in the backyard is an important aspect of the level of solid waste collection. Crew and truck sizes and service cost depend on the type of service offered. Curbside collection requires the resident to place waste containers at curbside or alleyside on collection day. Curbside service is less expensive than backyard service, and about 60% of the collection systems in the United States had curbside service in the mid-1970s. Backyard collection requires the collection crew to pick up waste where the resident stores it. In some cases, crews enter fenced areas or garages to pick up containers. Backyard service is usually in one of four forms: Set out and set back. Crews carry containers to the curb and return empty containers to the storage place. Set out. Crews carry containers from the storage place to the curb; residents return empty containers to the storage area. Tote barrel. Crews empty containers at the storage place into a tote barrel, then empty the tote barrel into the collection vehicle. Satellite vehicle. A crew member drives a small vehicle to the storage area, empties containers into the vehicle container, then empties the smaller vehicle into the main collection truck. Curbside versus Backyard Service. The economics of fuel consumption and service time are particularly important in comparing curbside and backyard service. Table 8.24 summarizes advantages and disadvantages of curbside and backyard service.
TABLE 8.21 Comparative Productivity FactorsSolid Waste Collection Crews (2)
Crew size,
persons 2.5 4 1 2.9 4 2 3.2 4 3 1.5 2 1 4.5 4.4 4.5 3.0 455 599 5.6 1,155 4.0 660 3.0 280 5.6 1,155 4.3 605 3.0 182 6.8 1,229 4.52 552 time, h/day crew-day crew-year crew-year person-year
Collecting
Stops per
Volume, m3 (yd3) per
Weight, metric tons (tons) per Volume, m3 (yd3) per
Weight, metric tons (tons) per

person-year
Total of all systems Average
Maximum
Minimum
7,042 (9,210) 12,891 (16,860) 2,783 (3,640)
2,313 (2,550) 5,098 (5,620) 825 (910)
3,310 (4,330) 7,355 (9,620) 1,319 (1,725)
1,075 (1,185) 2,123 (2,340) 340 (430)
All municipal systems Average
SOLID WASTE
8.43
Maximum
Minimum
6,380 (8,345) 8,732 (11,420) 5,275 (6,900)
2,645 (2,265) 3,311 (3,650) 1,306 (1,440)
2,347 (3,070) 3,991 (5,220) 1,319 (1,725)
780 (860) 1,184 (1,305) 340 (430)
All municipal rear loaders Average
Maximum
Minimum
6,407 (8,380) 8,732 (11,420) 5,275 (6,900)
2,059 (2,270) 3,311 (3,650) 1,306 (1,440)
2,026 (2,650) 2,359 (3,085) 1,319 (1,725)
658 (725) 1,102 (1,215) 340 (430)
Municipal side loaders Average
Maximum Minimum
7,103 (9,290)
2,109 (2,325)
3,991 (5,220)
1,184 (1,305) (continues)
TABLE 8.21 Comparative Productivity FactorsSolid Waste Collection Crews (2) (continued)
Crew size,
persons 2 4 3.0 279 5.4 329 time, h/day crew-day crew-year crew-year
Collecting
Stops per

person-year

person-year
Municipal front loaders
Municipal backyard
5,528 (7,230) 5,275 (6,900)
1,987 (2,190) 1,565 (1,725)
2,764 (3,615) 1,319 (1,725)
933 (1,095) 390 (430)
Municipal curbside Average 2.7 3 2 3.0 330 5.6 1,155 4.5 660
SOLID WASTE
8.44
Maximum
Minimum
6,568 (8,590) 8,732 (11,420) 5,497 (7,190)
2,136 (2,355) 3,311 (3,650) 1,306 (1,440)
2,519 (3,295) 3,991 (5,220) 1,831 (2,395)
844 (930) 1,184 (1,305) 435 (480)
Municipal three-person crews Average 3.0 3 3 3.0 280 5.6 1,155 4.2 615
Maximum
Minimum
6,691 (8,751) 8,732 (11,420) 5,490 (7,180) 464 600
2,182 (2,405) 3,311 (3,650) 1,306 (1,440)
2,095 (2,740) 2,360 (3,086) 1,835 (2,400)
722 (796) 1,102 (1,215) 435 (480)
Municipal two-person crews Average 2.0 2 2 5.4 4.5 5.0
Maximum
Minimum
330
6,316 (8,260) 7,103 (9,290) 5,528 (7,230)
2,045 (2,255) 2,109 (2,325) 1,987 (2,190)
3,375 (4,415) 3,991 (5,220) 2,764 (3,615)
1,089 (1,200) 1,184 (1,305) 993 (1,095)
All private systems Average 2.14 3 1 3.8 180 6.8 1,300 4.8 573
Maximum
Minimum
7,703 (10,075) 12,891 (16,860) 2,783 (3,640)
2,572 (2,835) 5,094 (5,620) 825 (910)
4,270 (5,585) 2,355 (9,620) 2,531 (3,310)
1,370 (1,510) 2,122 (2,340) 721 (795)
Private rear loaders Average 2.5 3 2 4.0 290 5.5 652 4.6 548
Maximum
Minimum
7,726 (10,105) 10,650 (13,930) 5,371 (7,025)
2,490 (2,745) 3,152 (3,475) 1,592 (1,755)
3,597 (4,705) 5,325 (6,965) 2,531 (3,310)
1,134 (1,250) 1,574 (1,735) 721 (795)
Private side loaders Average 1.3 2 1 4.7 180 6.8 1,300 5.1 606
Maximum
SOLID WASTE
8.45
Minimum
7,531 (9,850) 12,891 (16,860) 2,783 (3,640)
2,681 (2,955) 5,098 (5,620) 825 (910)
5,169 (6,760) 7,355 (9,620) 2,783 (3,640)
1,692 (1,865) 2,123 (2,340) 825 (910)
Private backyard Average 2.0 3 1 3.8 180 4.0 624 3.9 403
Maximum
Minimum
4,553 (5,955) 6,327 (8,275) 2,783 (3,640)
1,315 (1,450) 1,800 (1,985) 825 (910)
2,657 (3,475) 2,783 (3,640) 2,531 (3,310)
775 (855) 825 (910) 721 (795) (continues)
TABLE 8.21 Comparative Productivity FactorsSolid Waste Collection Crews (2) (continued)
Crew size,
persons 2.2 3 1 4.0 290 6.8 1,300 5.2 641 time, h/day crew-day crew-year crew-year person-year
Collecting
Stops per

person-year
Private curbside Average
Maximum
Minimum
8,965 (11,725) 12,891 (16,860) 5,371 (7,025)
3,075 (3,390) 5,098 (5,620) 1,592 (1,755)
4,916 (6,430) 7,355 (9,620) 2,852 (3,730)
1,610 (1,775) 2,123 (2,340) 1,093 (1,205)
Private three-person crews Average 3 3 3 2 4.0 652 4.0 624 4.8 624 4.4 624
SOLID WASTE
8.46
Maximum
Minimum
Private two-person crews
7,440 (9,730) 8,556 (11,190) 6,327 (8,275) 10,651 (13,930)
2,608 (2,875) 3,415 (3,765) 1,800 (1,958) 3,152 (3,475)
2,691 (3,520) 2,852 (3,730) 2,531 (3,310) 5,328 (6,965)
930 (1,025) 1,139 (1,255) 721 (795) 1,574 (1,735)
Private one-person crews Average 1 1 1 3.8 4.7 4.3 260 338 180
Maximum
Minimum
5,069 (6,630) 7,355 (9,620) 2,783 (3,640)
1,474 (1,625) 2,123 (2,340) 825 (910)
5,069 (6,630) 7,355 (9,620) 2,783 (3,640)
1,474 (1,625) 2,123 (2,340) 825 (910)
TABLE 8.22 Average Cost Relationships for Various Collection Practices (2) Average number stops/year $/household/year 39.36 40.83 40.19 24.17 50.41 42.43 63.39 30.74 54.79 26.32 42.27 $/metric ton (ton) 113,100 121,100 138,000 141,300 26,500 78,900 105,000 100,200 119,400 86,300 123,700 Cost ____________________________________________________________ $/m3 (yd3)*
All systems
All rear-load systems
Rear-load curbside systems
Crew of 2, 1-side collection, twice/week
Crew of 3, 1-side collection, once/week
SOLID WASTE
8.47
Rear loadbackyard service Crew of 2, once/week collection All side-load systems (all curbside service)
Crew of 1
Crew of 2
Once/week collection
Twice/week collection
31.45 (28.53) 32.71 (29.67) 28.63 (25.97) 20.78 (18.85) 34.11 (30.94) 40.38 (36.63) 29.26 (26.54) 22.95 (20.82) 48.17 (43.70) 19.07 (17.30) 39.43 (35.77)
7.82 (5.98) 9.02 (6.90) 7.72 (5.90) 6.02 (4.60) 8.46 (6.47) 11.84 (9.05) 6.21 (4.75) 4.92 (3.76) 9.94 (7.60) 4.17 (3.19) 8.12 (6.21)
*Volume calculated on nominal body capacity times trips to the disposal site, assuming vehicle is emptied at end of each working day. Note: Costs, U.S. dollars (C.P.I., $271.7).
SOLID WASTE 8.48

CHAPTER EIGHT
TABLE 8.23 Advantages and Disadvantages of Different Frequencies of Collection (22) Alternative Once per week or less Twice per week Potential advantages Less expensive Requires less fuel Reduces litter Reduces storage requirements Reduces litter Reduces storage requirements Potential disadvantages Improperly stored waste can create odor and vector problems More expensive Requires more fuel Conditions that favor alternative Adequate storage provisions Cold to moderate climate Quality of service provided more important criterion than economics Warm climate Seriously restricted storage space Dense population
More than twice per week
More expensive Requires more fuel
Curbside collection can service more homes and collect more waste per day with fewer trucks than can backyard collection. Backyard collection with a three-person crew will require about 1.6 times more fuel for a set number of customers than will curbside service. Fuel consumption on packer vehicles is as much a function of engine operating hours as it is of distance driven. A comparative breakdown showing percent of time for various activities of a collection vehicle appears in Table 8.25. Backyard service consumes less fuel because the vehicle idles more and has fewer compaction cycles per operating hour than is required for curbside service. Curbside service consumes slightly more fuel per mile because trucks spend a greater portion of their operating hour in driving and compacting. Fuel consumption for collection vehicles is outlined in Table 8.26.
TABLE 8.24 Advantages and Disadvantages of CurbsideAlley and Backyard Collection (22) Alternative Curbside Potential advantages More efficient Less expensive Requires less labor Facilitates use of paper or plastic bags Reduces collector injuries Requires less fuel No effort required by residents No mess at curbs Potential disadvantages Cans at curb look messy Special arrangements must be made for handicapped and elderly Residents must remember day of collection More expensive High labor turnover Increases number of collector injuries Requires more fuel Conditions that favor alternative High collection costs Unwillingness on part of residents to pay higher taxes or user charge Quality of service provided more important criterion than economics
Backyard
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.49
TABLE 8.25 Comparative Operating Activities for Residential Collection Vehicles in Percent Type of service Activity Off-route travel and dumping On-route driving On-route idling Compaction Curbside 30 21 43 6 Backyard 21 13 61 5
TABLE 8.26 Typical Fuel Consumption by Collection Type (22) Fuel consumption Type of service and engine Curbside Diesel Gasoline Backyard Diesel Gasoline gal/h 2.4 2.8 1.4 1.7 (L/h) 9.0 10.5 5.5 6.5
Time Study. The time needed to service a collection stop is a combination of the time required to set out the containers and the time to empty the containers into the truck. Curbside collection crews apply a significant amount of work time to collection that would otherwise be used for set out. A time-and-motion study was conducted in Ann Arbor, Michigan, on three-person setout crews in 1975. Backyard collection averaged 1.10 mm per household, whereas curbside collection averaged 0.64 mm per household (7). The time needed to collect the refuse after it has been set out is a function of the number and type of containers at the stop, and not distinctly related to the weight of the containers. Figure 8.9 is a graph comparing the time of collection with container characteristics (7). Collection Schedules and Costs. Almost all residential collection systems operate on a four-, five-, or sixday work schedule. In communities using a four-day schedule, crews are often detailed for special pickup on the fifth workday of the week. Twice-weekly collection systems must cover the collection area in 2 or in 2 days. If a two-day schedule is selected, crews are often used for special pickup on the remaining work day. The type of service can vary in cost according to crew size and frequency of collection. The cost comparison in Table 8.27 is based on data from nine U.S. cities (2). The data compare the cost between once-weekly and twice-weekly collection using either one-, two-, or three-person crews. Data must be used judiciously because of the small sample size. Commercial Collection. Commercial collection is primarily a specialty service with pickup frequency dependent on waste volumes and types. Putrescible wastes are collected more frequently than nonputrescible
SOLID WASTE 8.50

CHAPTER EIGHT
FIGURE 8.9 Collection time for refuse cans, refuse bags, and other containers.
TABLE 8.27 Comparative Cost of Curbside Collection by Frequency and Crew Size Crew size 1 1 2 2 3 3 Frequency per week 1 2 1 2 1 2 Cost ratio 1.00 1.62 1.13 2.76 1.86 1.84
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.51
wastes. The generator and collector usually arrange service frequency at a specific point on the premises. Parks, hospitals, and other institutions may require daily if not more frequent collection. Storage Containers The collection agency should regulate storage container size and type, matching the container characteristics to the collection system. A suitable storage container must be easy to handle and to keep clean. The containers should contain odors, limit disease, and keep out animals and insects. Containers should be large enough to limit the number of containers at a stop, but small enough to be lifted easily and safely by one person or be appropriate to a mechanized system. In general, storage bins, 55-gal (208-L) drums, and cardboard boxes are unacceptable for storage. Containers for Manual Collection. Two types of containers are acceptable for manual residential collection: metal or plastic cans and bags. Cans should be sized from 20 to 32 gal (75 to 120 L); bags may be paper or plastic. Table 8.28 details the advantages and disadvantages of common storage containers. Containers for Mechanized Collection. In efforts to increase productivity, several communities are using mechanized containers for residential refuse collection. Residential mechanized collection is a new application of technology requiring more experience before it can be generally adopted. Currently, large containers for use at single- or multifamily residences are the most common mechanized storage containers. Containers for single-family residences are commonly 80-gal (300-L) heavy plastic mounted on wheels to facilitate movement to the curb. Collection vehicles are equipped to pick up the container and empty it into the vehicle. Some of these systems use special refuse bodies. Because reliability and public acceptance have not been generally established for such systems, careful study of the community is needed before such a system is selected. Container systems to serve from two to four single-family households have been tried recently. The containers are similar to commercial containers and are handled the same way. Their principal advantage is that several homes are serviced by a single stop of the collection vehicle. Three disadvantages can be associated with such containers: (1) carelessness can lead to littering around the container; (2) reluctance to use containers that allow neighbors to observe waste; and (3) objections to having containers on private property. Unacceptable Containers. Although residents may want to use almost anything as a refuse container, several containers, such as bins, large drums, and cardboard boxes, are unacceptable. Some older apartment and commercial buildings have stationary concrete or cement-block storage bins. The bins are unsanitary and inefficient, must be emptied by hand, attract insects and rodents, allow blowing papers and odors, and if uncovered, can leach a foul liquid after rains. Steel Drums and paper packing drums are also unacceptable. The drums usually do not have tight-fitting lids, allowing insects, birds, and animals access to the refuse. An empty metal drum weighs 35 to 40 lb (16 to 18 kg), and over 100 lb (45 kg) when full. Full drums can be unmanageable for one collector and unsafe due to sharp edges. Cardboard boxes are sometimes set out on the curb for collection. Boxes filled with garbage or liquids attract pests and are a hazard to the collector. Cardboard boxes nested and open for inspection or cardboard boxes filled with newspapers may be acceptable for collection. Collection Equipment The system manager should choose equipment suited to the characteristics of the collection area. Anticipated service level, crew size, and route characteristics such as narrow alleys, restricted headroom, or turning radius will affect vehicle and body selection. Often more than one type or size of equipment will be needed
TABLE 8.28 Advantages and Disadvantages of Residential Waste Storage Containers (22) Potential advantages Cost per bag Bags break when too full Attract animals Not suitable for bulky, heavy, or sharp objects Curbside collection Potential disadvantages Conditions that favor alternative
Alternative
Paper or plastic bags
Metal or plastic cans [2032 gal (75120 L)]
Lessens lift weight Reduces spillage and blowing litter Eliminates empty cans at curb Eliminates odors and necessity to clean dirty cans Limits vector attraction Increases speed and efficiency of collection Reduces contact of collector with waste Reasonable size for collector to lift Economical and reuseable
Backyard collection Animal populations that open bags
SOLID WASTE
8.52
Bulk containers for mechanized collection Drums [55 gal (208 L)]
More efficient than manual collection None
Space for container Unacceptable alternative
Stationary storage bins
None
Must be cleaned regularly when not used with liners Lids may be lost or fall to fit after use Cans may be left at curb for unreasonable periods Residents oppose storage of other peoples waste on their property Lower collection efficiency Excessive weight can result in back injury and muscle strain Difficult to handle Lack of lids allows insects to breed in waste and odors to escape Rust holes at bottom of drum allow rodents to feed on waste Inefficientmust be emptied manually Lack of proper cover teads to insect and rodent infestation Necessity for hand shoveling of wastes poses health hazard to collectors
Unacceptable alternative
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.53
in a service area. Table 8.29 outlines equipment and crew characteristics and the implications for equipment operations. The average life of a collection vehicle body is from 5 to 7 years. Residential Collection Vehicles. Residential collection vehicles have a chassis and a body. The chassis contains the drive train and operators cab. The body includes the receiving hopper, compactor, and storage compartment. The chassis and body must be able to negotiate turns and pass under bridges along the route. Collection equipment for residential services is classified by loading characteristics-rear-loaded or sideloaded. Consideration of loading hopper height and location is important in determining crew size and estimating productivity. Compaction density, the measure of how much the body can compact the loose refuse picked up by the crew, is a significant consideration in loader productivity. Compaction density is measured in pounds per cubic yard (kilograms per cubic meter). Figure 8.10 illustrates the relationship between packer capacity, compacted density, and households collected. Rear Loaders. Rear loaders are suited to densely populated areas, where stops are frequent and waste volumes are high. Both sides of the street or alley are usually collected at the same time. Where three-person crews are used, the driver helps with occasional heavy loads. On two-person crews, the driver usually doubles as a loader. A number of manufacturers make rear-loading collection equipment (24). Units are available in 14 body sizes, ranging from 9 to 32 yd3 (6.9 to 24.5 m3) capacity (exclusive of hopper). Compaction densities among 29 models of packers sampled range from 500 to 1100 lb/yd3 (225 to 500
TABLE 8.29 Factors to be Considered in Selecting Solid Waste Collection Equipment Truck or crew factor Implication Route considerations Vehicle length Vehicle height Vehicle weight Vehicle turning radius Body volume Compaction Number of axles Garage space, turns Underpass and garage door clearance Bridge and road weight limits Turns to streets, alleys, or cul-de-sacs Number of collection stops and trips to disposal area Number of collection stops, amount of waste per stop Load limits Crew considerations Equipment access Hopper height Hopper width Safety features Crew dismounting, mounting Crew loading effort Crew size and minimizing compaction cycles Crew safety Cost considerations Vehicle fuel economy Capital costs Operating and maintenance costs Labor wage rates Equipment reliability Service Ease of repair Energy costs Replacement and amortization costs Operating costs Labor costs Downtime Downtime Downtime
SOLID WASTE 8.54

CHAPTER EIGHT
FIGURE 8.10 Number of households served by vehicle size and compacted density.
kg/m3). Compaction density on three-quarters of the rear loaders is less than 750 lb/yd3 (445 kg/m3). The average on-route efficiency that can be expected of rear-load equipment is between 80 and 85% of the manufacturers rated maximum density. Rear-load bodies have several advantages. The hopper height is lower than for most side-load bodies, so the crew does not have to lift containers as high. Loading hoppers are wide, usually the full width of the body, and the packer plate configuration allows large, bulky items to be accepted. The principal disadvan-
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.55
tage of rear loaders is the complexity of the packer plate design and the accompanying higher maintenance requirements. Rear-load vehicles are emptied by gravity or by ejector. Gravity bodies are tilted so that the load slides out in a manner similar to dump trucks. If a load hangs up and cannot be shaken out, the truck must be emptied by hand. The trend has been toward ejector bodies, because dump body packers are slower to empty and more prone to overturning on the uneven surfaces of a landfill. Side Loaders. Side loaders are best suited to densely populated areas where collection takes place on one side of the street or for rural routes. Side loaders are most often employed for residential curbside pick up, for apartments, or for small commercial establishments. Side-load vehicles are particularly useful in narrow alleys with limited maneuvering room if large containers are used. A low step-in model cab with right-hand drive can be run by a one-person crew. If two-person crews are used, two sides of the street can be collected at the same time, but the left-hand loader is exposed to traffic. Thirteen side loader manufacturers offer 28 different body capacities ranging from 6 to 40 yd3 (4.6 to 30.6 m3). Compaction density ranges from 300 to 800 lb/yd3 (178 to 475 kg/m3), generally lower than the compaction capability of rear-load units (24). The compaction mechanism on side loaders is much simpler. The average on-route density will range from 85 to 95% of the manufacturers statement of maximum density. Side loaders are emptied by ejection, using the same mechanism that loads the storage compartment and compacts the load. Specialized Collection Vehicles. Special collection vehicles are usually chosen to eliminate a cumbersome or costly collection situation or to improve productivity. Many of the vehicles are mechanized or automated, requiring fewer crew members. European cities have used specialized equipment that lifts and empties residential containers from the rear of the packer vehicle for many years. Other systems using mechanical arms or mechanical lifting devices are being tried in the United States. Commercial Collection Vehicles. Solid waste is collected from commercial establishments as well as residences. Commercial establishments include businesses, industries, institutions, and often apartments with more than four to six units. Commercial wastes differ in quantity and type from residential wastes and are usually stored in large containers rather than small bags and cans. Vehicle Types. Four types of vehicles are normally used in commercial collection systems: rear, side, and front loaders and specialized drop-off bodies. The least complex is a residential-type rear- or side-loading collection vehicle equipped to handle bulk containers. Bulk containers ranging in capacity from 1.0 to 8 yd3 (0.76 to 6.1 m3) are normally used with rear-loading equipment. Side-loading vehicles can accommodate bulk containers up to 6 yd3 (4.5 m3) capacity. The containers are equipped with casters to aid in maneuvering the container. Front-loading equipment is operated by one person and is designed for use with commercial bulk containers ranging in capacity from 1 to 10 yd (0.76 to 7.6 m3). The containers are not equipped with casters, since the truck maneuvers to the container. The container is picked up by hydraulic arms, lifted over the truck cab, and discharged into a hopper in the top of the compaction body. Front-loading vehicles are furnished by 11 manufacturers in 41 models ranging in capacity from 9 yd3 (6.88 m3) to 50 yd3 (38.2 m3). The density that can be obtained by the compaction body ranges from 400 lb/yd3 (237 kg/m3) to 850 lb/yd3 (504 kg/m3) (24). A number of specialized body designs with drop-off boxes are on the market for commercial collection. The box is picked up, transported to a disposal or processing location, emptied, and returned to the customers premises on a specially designed truck. Two forms are prevalent. The dumpster type provides an open or closed bin that is lifted onto the truck by arms attached near the rear of the chassis. The other offers a tilting frame chassis that moves bins on and off the truck by chain or cable. The latter form is popularly called a roll-off system. Specialized systems usually become feasible when at least four containers per day per chassis are ser-
SOLID WASTE 8.56

CHAPTER EIGHT
viced. The large containers offer storage for bulky items, as well as large volumes of material. Bin containers are available from 10 yd3 (7.65 m3) capacity to 50 yd3 (38.2 m3). Roll-off bodies are available from 10 to 55 yd3 (7.65 to 42 m3) and may be enclosed or open. Special rolloff containers may be obtained for leaves, sludge, snow, liquid, and bulk debris. Enclosed containers can be equipped with push plates for ejecting loads. Table 8.30 indicates the relative costs of commercial collection systems. Maneuvering Requirements. The container must be located so that the vehicle can be driven up to it and have adequate room to lift it into the discharge position. Figure 8.11 illustrates the minimum maneuvering room required by various collection vehicles. Routing Routing is the process of identifying the path a vehicle is to take in serving its daily route. After administrative policy on service level, operations, and labor are clearly established, routing objectives can be set and the basic routing steps can be undertaken. Ideally, each collection vehicle should start the day empty and be packed out when the truck makes its final run to the disposal site. The path can be set by trial-and-error, computer, or heuristic methods. The steps involved in establishing a collection route are Define the collection area Assign disposal sites Establish daily zones Balance daily vehicle assignments Route vehicles within daily district Collection Area. The collection area is comprised of the territory to be serviced in a single collection cycle. The limits of the collection area are usually defined by political or geographical boundaries. The limits of the collection area, together with disposal sites, transfer stations, or waste processing plants, should be marked on a map. The collection area map should show major routes to each disposal option and any restrictions, such as load or height limits. Disposal Area. Disposal areas are those parts of the collection area assigned to a specific disposal or processing site. Where a system has only one or two disposal options, matching routes to disposal sites is relatively easy. Where several disposal sites are available, the problem becomes highly complex. Many factors must be evaluated in choosing where to route vehicles. Among these are tipping fees, site reliability and life, round-trip haul and disposal time, queuing costs, and vehicle wear and tear. In very complicated situations, a
TABLE 8.30 Relative Cost of Commercial Collection Systems System type (crew of 1) Rearload Side load Front load Roll-off Cost Capital 1.00 0.70 1.67 1.33 Annual 1.00 0.040 0.99 0.90 Dollars per ton 1.00 0.98 0.52 0.24
Note:1 ton = 0.9 metric tons.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.57
FIGURE 8.11 Maneuvering room for various types of commercial collection vehicles with 6-yd3 (4.5-m3) container (a) Front-load vehicle; (b) rear-load vehicle; (c) side-load vehicle.
computer program might be used to identify the most effective use of many different facilities. Suitable programs are available through the EPA, major universities, and private consultants. Collection Zones. Collection zones are set up by dividing the collection area into sections or zones for daily service. All premises collected on Monday constitute one zone; those collected on Tuesday, another zone; and so on. The average number of households assigned to each residential zone should be approximately equal. Daily zones can be slightly unbalanced to accommodate distinct geographical boundaries. When collection as-
SOLID WASTE 8.58

CHAPTER EIGHT
signments are unbalanced, the heavier workload should be scheduled early in the collection cycle. Zones should be shown on a map kept at the central office. Establishing collection zones for commercial and industrial districts is complicated by variations in the frequency of collection. The zones should be established based on compacted volume to be collected. A rule of thumb is that one compacted volume unit equals four loose volume units of residential or commercial waste, or 2.5 volume units of loose industrial waste. The following formula is useful in estimating compacted cubic meters per zone. Sz = (S1 + S2 + + Sd)/Dc where Sz = compacted volume per zone S1 = compacted volume at one-day collection frequency S2 = compacted volume at two-day collection frequency Sd = compacted volume at collection frequency equal to the days per cycle Dc = working days per collection cycle Daily Vehicle Assignment. Each zone must be divided into an optimum daily workload for each collection vehicle and crew. Dividing the zone into sections reflecting the number of households to be serviced by each vehicle is called districting. Each district should be compact, consisting of streets clustered in the same geographical area. Districts should cover contiguous blocks and not be fragmented throughout the zone. Districting permits the manager to estimate the number and size of the trucks needed to collect waste, evaluate crew performance, and balance or equalize workloads. Major considerations in balancing and districting are the productivity of the crew and the on-route time. Increases in either will lower costs. On-route time is productive time and should be maximized to allow crews to collect as many stops as possible in a working day. In general, the major variable is the time spent in travel to and from the disposal site. The round-trip haul time can be kept low by selecting the proper number of appropriately sized vehicles for each zone. As much as 20% of the working day can be lost in travel to and from the route, delays, breaks, and personnel needs. The following formula will assist in making an estimate of on-route time. Tr = 8 [Tt + n(Td + Th) + Tb + Tl] where Tr = Tt = Td = Th = Tb = Tl = n= time on route time and travel between garage and route and return at days end time at disposal site including check-in and check-out, queuing, and emptying time Round-trip haul time from route to disposal site gate and return break timecoffee and lunch time lost for delays, including personnel needs number of trips to disposal site per day (must be a whole number)
The formula assumes an 8-hr work day; n can be estimated as follows: n = 1.25Hr Wh /Cv Cd where Hr = Wh = Cv = Cd = 1.25 = households per route average weight of waste collected per household, lb (kg) capacity of vehicle, yd3 (m3) rated compacted density on vehicle, lb/yd3 (kg/m3) a constant reflecting efficiency and allowance for seasonal variation from average
n must be rounded up to the nearest whole number.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.59
Service Stops. The number of service stops each vehicle makes per day may be estimated based on data provided in Table 8.21. Alternatively the number of loads, including fractional loads taken to the disposal site, may be multiplied by the number of services per load (N). N = a(Cv Cd)/Wh where N = Cv = Cd = a= Wh = the number of services per load capacity of vehicle, yd3 (m3) compacted density, lb/yd3 (kg/m3) a constant accounting for efficiency, normally less than 1 weight per household or stop, lb (kg)
The number of trucks required to collect a zone may be calculated by dividing the number of households per zone by the number of services all working vehicles can collect per day. Each zone should have the same number of routes to maximize labor utilization. Differences in route lengths can be made to allow for variations in zone sizes. District Routes. The route is the path the vehicle takes to make the collections within its district. The objective of routing is to direct the collection vehicle through the district so that wasted time is kept to a minimum. Routing does not include the path from the garage to the district or from the district to the disposal point. Maps should be prepared showing the number and type (residential, apartment, commercial, institutional, industrial) of services per street segment. One-way, dead-end, and busy streets, and corner-lot residences should be marked. Each street segment should show truck direction by arrow and whether crews are to collect one or both sides of the street on a pass. A daily route map or route book should be kept on each vehicle. A route can be set by trial and error, by computer, or by heuristic methods. Trial and error can take considerable time to arrive at an effective route, with inefficiencies persisting. Computer routing programs can precisely optimize the route. Preparing for the computer program entails modeling stop locations, street pattern, one-way streets, and other details of the district. Collecting the data can take considerable time and it must be continually kept up to date. Computer routing has the advantages of speed and precision of analysis and ease of checking the effect of potential route changes. Heuristic Routing. Heuristic routing is a compromise between the trial-and-error approach and the computer approach. Heuristic routing is more precise than trial and error and requires less preparation time than computer routing. The heuristic routing method was developed by the EPA in the mid-1970s (25). The method uses routing guidelines to set up the collection route. The heuristic rules are found in Table 8.31. Routing requires a map showing street segments with number of services, garage and disposal site locations, heavily traveled streets, and one-way streets. A starting point is picked, and a continuous route is selected by applying the heuristic rules and patterns. The routing should be terminated when the number of services selected for that district is approached. Routes should be terminated at readily identifiable geographical features or artificial boundaries. Retracing route segments should be minimized, and fragmenting, or skipping uncollected areas within the route boundaries should be avoided. Particular routings are efficient for certain block patterns. Other patterns should be considered whenever the grid has blocks arranged differently than shown in the basic routing patterns in Figure 8.12. Block patterns may be more simply identified by omitting unserviced intersecting streets before establishing block patterns. Upon completing the routing for the first district, a starting point for the next route is chosen and the procedure is repeated until all the districts within the zone have been routed. Once the initial routes have been set, each should be checked for alternate routings or modifications. Particular attention should be paid to
SOLID WASTE 8.60

CHAPTER EIGHT
TABLE 8.31 Heuristic Routing Rules 1. Routes should not be fragmented or overlapping. Each route should be compact, consisting of street segments clustered in the same geographical area. 2. Collection plus haul time should be reasonably constant for each route in the community. 3. Collection routes should begin as near the garage as possible. 4. Right-hand turns are to be preferred to left-hand turns. 5. Heavily traveled streets should not be collected during rush hours. 6. One-way streets are best collected by starting near the upper end of the street, working down through a looping process. 7. Dead-end streets are to be considered as a segment of the street they intersect, since they can only be collected by passing down that street segment. They must be collected by walking down, backing down, or making a Uturn. Left turns may be kept to a minimum by collecting dead-end streets when they are to the right of the truck. 8. Steep hills should be collected on both sides of the street while the vehicle is moving downhill for safety, loading ease, collection speed, vehicle wear, and fuel conservation. 9. Higher elevations should be at the start of the route. 10. For collection from one side of the street at a time, it is generally best to route with clockwise (right) turns around blocks. 11. For collection from both sides of the street at the same time, it is generally better to route with long, straight paths across the grid before looping clockwise. 12. For certain block configurations within the route, specific routing patterns should be applied. 13. Corner-lot residents should be asked to place their waste on specific streets to eliminate the need to traverse an intersecting street.
isolated segments not serviced, deadhead distances, the appropriateness of particular routing patterns, and unique characteristics of the area such as low bridges or weight limits. Source Separation Materials can be recovered from the waste stream for recycling through source separation, the setting aside of waste materials at the point of generation. The glass, paper, metal, and other separated materials are most often collected, sold, and recycled. Two types of source separation programs are in common use. One type uses centralized recycling centers to which materials are brought by generators. The other type provides curbside collection of materials to be recycled. This discussion focuses on curbside collection of source-separated materials. Collection Practices. To be effective, collection of source-separated material must be regular. Participants must be informed how to prepare materials for collection and when collection will take place. Generally collection intervals greater than two weeks significantly reduce participation in source separation programs. Curbside collection is usually accomplished by using separate vehicles for each item, a single vehicle with several bins for each source-separated item, or by racks attached to the regular collection vehicle. Separate vehicles can cover more territory than the regular collection vehicle. Racks attached to regular collection vehicles usually fill before the packer body does. Strategically placed bins usually allow the racks to be emptied in about 15 min of off-route time. Separation Volumes. The approximate amount of material that can be collected through source separation may be calculated as follows:
SOLID WASTE
FIGURE 8.12 Basic heuristic routine patterns (25).

SOLID WASTE 8.62

CHAPTER EIGHT
A = PHW H I P W where A = PHW = H= I= P= W= the amount of items to be collected, lb (kg) weight of total waste per household per week, lb (kg) total households on the route percent of total waste stream represented by the items separated percent participation of households on the route weeks between source-separated collections
Table 8.32 indicates the average density of various items usually collected in source separation projects. Antiscavenging Ordinance. Due to the value of secondary materials, many cities have experienced difficulties with unauthorized persons picking up source-separated materials. An antiscavenging ordinance should be part of a source separation program. Antiscavenging ordinances should not preclude volunteer groups from collecting newspapers or scrap metal as one of their traditional revenue producers. Rural Collections Rural waste collection is of special concern. Many publicly sponsored rural systems have used bulk containers to substitute for the open dump and to facilitate collection. Bulk containers are located along major travel routes or near the site of previously operated open dumps. The resident takes waste to the container and deposits it for periodic collection by commercial-type collection vehicles. Container sites should have ample room to allow a passenger vehicle or light truck to completely clear the highway to unload. In general, the container should be at least 10 ft (3 m) off of the road surface. Room must also be allowed for maneuvering the collection vehicle to pick up the container without interfering with traffic. To estimate the amount of container capacity, the following data should be used: Waste volume per tributary population Density in the container Maximum road distance container to contributor 0.1 yd3 (0.08 m3) per week 75 to 150 lb/yd3 (125 to 250 kg/m3) 5 to 6 mi (8 to 10 km)
Bulk container sites must be properly maintained. Spills or vandalism can make these sites unpleasant. Animals can upset small containers or forage in containers where lids have been left open. Large wild animals frequenting the site can discourage use of the bulk container system.
TABLE 8.32 Densities of Source-Separated Items Typical loose density Item Newsprint (bundled) Aluminum (crushed cans) Ferrous (crushed cans) Plastics Glass (crushed bottles) kg/m3 385 55 150 20 870 lb/yd3 64.9 92.7 252.8 33.7 1466.3
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.63
Transfer Operations When the collection vehicle is filled, or at the end of the working day, the truck should be driven to a disposal site and emptied. In some areas, disposal sites are quite far from the collection area, resulting in too much off-route time for the collection vehicle and crew. To increase productivity, many collection agencies have established terminals where the route vehicles can empty their loads and return quickly to collecting refuse while a larger vehicle transports the loads of several collection vehicles to the disposal site. These terminals are called transfer stations. The purpose of a transfer station is to keep off-route time of collection vehicles to an acceptable minimum. The most popular method of transfer is over-the-road haul using trucks. Barges are used by some coastal cities. Rail haul has been proposed as a method of removing solid waste from densely populated communities to rural areas for disposal in strip mines. Costs and public opposition have been largely responsible for the limited U.S. experience in rail haul. In general, transfer stations have a main two-story building where collection vehicles unload into tractor trailers on the lower level. The refuse is usually compacted in the tractor to ensure economical loading. When a trailer is full, it is hauled to the disposal site and replaced by an empty trailer. Transfer Station Economics. A transfer station is justified when the cost of transport from route to the transfer station, transfer, and haul to disposal using larger transfer vehicles is less than the cost of transport from route to disposal by smaller vehicles. Past efforts at establishing transfer economics have often used rules of thumb, such as that a station is justified if one-way haul exceeds a certain distance. These rules are not adequate, because the off-route time of the collection vehicle is the controlling cost factor. Other factors affecting the economics of transfer include site considerations, such as traffic patterns, construction conditions, and capacity. The costs of owning and operating a transfer station vary depending on station use. Data from several transfer stations in Ohio and Michigan yield the cost comparisons in Table 8.33. Transfer Station Location. The principal reason for using a transfer station is to increase crew and truck productivity. A transfer station should be near the center of the collection area, convenient to good haul routes, and zoned industrially or, if necessary, commercially. The site should not be located in residential areas. A site can be at some distance from the center of production without excessive economic disadvantage. Figure 8.13 illustrates a means of determining whether to use a transfer station or to have collection vehicles transport waste to disposal sites. The line of great est slope illustrates the cost of operating a collection vehicle, with a three-person crew, between the route and the disposal site. The intercept distance on the vertical axis is the cost of unloading time for this collection vehicle. As the transfer station is seldom located at the end of a collection route, each collection vehicle will travel some distance to the transfer station. Therefore, the origin of the transfer costs line must be offset to account for the time of travel to the transfer station by the filled collection vehicle. As long as the combined
TABLE 8.33 Transfer Station Costs Compactor stations Average transfer cost per ton (metric ton) Average haul cost per ton (metric ton) Average disposal cost per ton (metric ton) Total cost of system per ton (metric ton) $ 7.13 $ 7.14 $ 8.35 $22.26 ($ 7.86) ($ 7.87) ($ 9.20) ($24.93) Noncompactor stations $12.53 ($13.81)
SOLID WASTE 8.64

CHAPTER EIGHT
FIGURE 8.13 Economic analysis for transfer station siting.
costs of travel by the collection vehicle and transfer to disposal remains below the cost of direct haul by the collection vehicle, the transfer station is economical. Transfer Station Design. Transfer stations should be attractive, convenient, and safe, with adequate storage. Station site, structure, equipment, staffing, routing, and backup can be designed following general design criteria. Local and state regulations should be reviewed before beginning design. Site. The site should have enough space for buildings, storage, vehicle maneuvers, and expansion. Topography should encourage drainage and have sufficient elevation change to accommodate a two-level building. Foundation conditions should be able to support heavy industrial buildings and imposed equipment loads. Approximately 3 acres (1.25 ha) is the preferred size, although smaller sites are operating. Access to the site should be from good, all-weather roads. Adjacent streets should be wide enough to allow transfer trailers to enter and leave the site without interfering with smooth traffic flow. Traffic should be visible from the gate house. On-site roads should be designed for all-weather operation and gates should control access. The ramp outside the building should slope slightly away from the structure. Ramps should extend at least 100 ft (30 m) in front of the doors and 150 ft (45 m) or more if semi-trucks will use the facility.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.65
A listing of preferred utilities, roadway characteristics, fencing, signage, and miscellaneous site features is presented in Table 8.34. Structures. Structures mask the operation from neighbors, help control noise and blowing paper, and protect the operation from weather. Two structures are commonly found at transfer stations: the gate house and the transfer structure, or main building. In some stations, the gate house is incorporated into the main building design. Drivers should have easy access to the gate house. Wicket-type windows will serve in dry weather, but drivers appreciate getting out of the rain or snow to sign usage slips. Doors opening onto the driveway should open inward to prevent them from being damaged by traffic. Canopies and overhangs should be at least 16 ft (5 m) above the roadway. The gate house should have sufficient room for the scale head, a desk, and file. The main building should be enclosed. Partially enclosed or open transfer operations should be discouraged because it is difficult to control dust, noise, and debris at such stations. Open sites also may be attractive nuisances for children. The building should be functional yet attractive in design. Steel modular buildings with pedestrian doors at each level are often seen. Windows should be shatterproof. The building should be high enough to accommodate a 16-ft (5-m) high door. If gravity discharge vehicles are expected, at least 24-ft (7-m) high doors are required to assure clearance if a driver leaves with the bed up. Full-width doors are preferable to
TABLE 8.34 Design Considerations for Solid Waste Transfer Station Sites Design consideration Preferred utilities Potable water Flushing water Sanitary sewers or septic tank and leach field Storm drainage Telephone Electricity Natural gas Roadways and ramps All-weather design One-way roadways Two-way roadways Thickness Turning radius Grades Ramps Parking Scale platform Fencing Signage Specification
100 gpm (6.4 L/s) @ 6080 lb/in2 (42,20056,250), also fire protection.
220 V 60 Hz, 3 phase , Asphaltic concrete or Portland cement concrete 12 ft (3.5 m) minimum width 20 ft (6 m) minimum width According to base material and vehicle loading 50 ft (15 m) inside wheel Preferred, 6%; normal maximum, 8%; absolute maximum, 10% Preferred minimum width beyond building-75 ft (23 m), if semi-trailers accepted, 150 ft (45 m) Employee and visitor, 56 spaces. Trailersadequate for number owned. 70 10 ft (21 3 m) 8 ft (2.5-m) chain link with 3-strand barbed wire, 20-ft (6-m) entry gate Speed limit Directional Caution/safety Site identification-keep to minimum Fuel storage: vehicle and equipment, 34 months Hydraulic oil: 1 reservoir refilling stored in 55-gal (208-L) drums (minimum)
Miscellaneous
SOLID WASTE 8.66

CHAPTER EIGHT
doors and columns. Roofs should be high enough to accommodate the open rear gate of ejector vehicles or the lifted body for gravity dump vehicles. The building should be supplied with water to flush floors, which should be sloped toward floor drains. A small climate-controlled operator enclosure housing the controls and providing an unobstructed view of the dumping area is needed. Table 8.35 lists the principal design features of the transfer station main building. Transfer Trailer Tunnel. Transfer stations usually have a tunnel for transfer trailers. The trailer is pulled into the tunnel and spotted at a loading station or coupled to a stationary compactor. Tunnel widths should be at least 16 ft (5 m) with vertical clearances not less than 16 ft (5 m). Tipping Area. The tipping floor is the area where the collection vehicle unloads. Transfer Techniques. The collection vehicle may discharge waste onto the tipping floor, into pits or hoppers, or directly into transfer trailers. When vehicles are emptied onto the tipping floor, a front loader is needed to place the refuse into the transfer trailer or into the hopper of an external compactor. Direct discharge of loads into trailers requires the trailer top or hopper to be no more than 1 ft (30 cm) above the tipping floor level. Hoppers may be used to guide refuse into the opening of self-compacting trailers. When stationary compactors are used to load vehicles, packer loads may be emptied into hoppers connecting to the compactor or into pits. Hoppers should accommodate at least one packer load of refuse. Where many vehicles are expected, the hopper or pit should be large enough to store several vehicle loads. The tipping area should be wide enough to accommodate the number of vehicles expected in the peak hour of the average day. In general, this will be 2 to 2.5 times the average hourly number of vehicles expected on the average day. The average number of unloading spaces is obtained by dividing the daily number of
TABLE 8.35 Design Features of Transfer Station Main Building Feature Vehicle doors Door guards (minimum) Tipping floor Operator enclosure Transfer trailer stall(s) Lighting Heating Climate control Fire protection Safety equipment Drainage Communications Maintenance shop Specification 16 ft (5 m) high, full width of approach lane, motorized 6-in (15-cm) pipe, filled with concrete, 4-ft (1.2-m) bury 4050 ft (1215 m) deep to shelter crew during unloading; width to accommodate the number of vehicles 5060 ft2 (56 m2) 16 ft (5 m) wide 16 ft (5 m) vertical clearance; deep enough to accommodate trailer and compactor, plus 6 ft (2 m) with concrete floor; provide stairs to tipping floor. Adequate for maintenance area 60F (16C) maximum except operator shelters to 70F (21C); infrared heaters will work well on the tipping floor Air conditioning in operator shelter; minimum of six air changes per hour in tipping floor and pit area Ionization-type smoke detectors; extinguishers at each unloading station (type A, B, C); fire hoses and/or spray system Safety harness at each unloading area if pit or hopper equipped; emergency ram stop button at each unloading station (compactor station only); first aid equipment Slope tipping floor to drain; pit drains to sanitary sewer; storm drain at transfer trailer tunnel or stall entrance; sanitary drain for leakage from compactor Telephone, intercom Fully equipped for machine and building maintenance
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.67
anticipated vehicles by the time needed to maneuver and empty the average vehicle. The average packer truck can clear the tipping floor in 5 to 7 min from entry, while manually unloaded vehicles may take from 15 to 30 min. Each unloading lane should be at least 12 ft (3.5 m) wide. Tipping floors should be constructed of concrete designed to carry the heavy trucks. Floors should be free of columns or other obstructions and designed for the arriving vehicle to back straight to the unloading point. Wheel stops should be provided where the collection truck backs to an open drop. The minimum distance from the door of enclosed stations to the edge of a push pit or hopper should not be less than 40 ft (12 m). Where vehicles discharge their loads directly onto the tipping floor, ample space is needed to store the loads expected under peak conditions. Loads from compactor-type bodies may expand up to twice their compacted volume when emptied. Loads cannot be stacked except by front loaders or cranes, and then only in a limited way. Transfer Station Equipment. Transfer stations require fixed equipment, stationary compactors, transfer trailers and tractors, and backup equipment. Scales. Scales should have a device to signal the drivers when weighing is complete without requiring them to dismount. If billing is to be done on weighed loads, consideration should be given to automatic recording, card-operated scales with a capacity of 100,000 lb (45,350 kg). Scale platforms should be 70 ft (21 m) long. Fixed Equipment. A variety of fixed equipment is required in a transfer station. Some stations receive refuse into hoppers, hydraulic push pits, or bridge-crane unloaded pits; others require vehicles to dump onto a tipping floor. The hopper is the simplest loading device. Collection vehicles back up to the hopper and unload into its throat. The cycling ram of the compactor empties the hopper. Some stations have collection vehicles unload on the floor, using a front loader to push material into the hopper. Push pits are designed for direct unloading. The push pit is equipped with a screw or hydraulically operated push plate that pushes refuse from the pit into the ram of the stationary compactor. Hydraulic pits have a maximum length of about 50 ft (15 m); stationary screw pits may exceed 100 ft (30 m) in length. The rate of feed should be controlled by the operator. Where push pits are installed, the end wall at the compactor should be sloped at 10 to 20 toward the pit to direct material into the compactor. Controls for operating the push plate and ram should be in the operators station, which should afford a clear view of the entire pit, including the ram of the compactor. Emergency shutoff switches should be located at each discharge station. Pits are sometimes emptied by overhead bridge cranes, which deposit material into one or more hoppers attached to compactors. Bridge cranes should be of heavy capacity and have at least 0.5-yd3 (1.25-m3) buckets. Pits using cranes should be armored with steel rails set vertically in concrete. Pits must have safety harnesses, use of which should be mandatory for persons conducting manual unloading operations. The harnesses may be suspended from the ceiling by a -in (2-cm) nylon rope permitting a fall of no more than 3 to 5 ft (1 to 1 m). Stationary Compactors. Transfer station rams are large stationary compactors. They are the heart of the compaction-type transfer station. Typical ram characteristics are outlined in Table 8.36. Stationary compactors and auxiliary hydraulic equipment are usually placed on a concrete base on the lower level. The access opening to connect the trailer to the compactor should have a door and be at least 12 ft (3.5 m) wide by 16 ft (5 m) high. A sump and drain should collect liquid that runs from the trailer during loading and direct it into the sanitary system. Ionization-type smoke detectors should be located in the loading area with an audible alarm in the dumping area and operators station. Mobile Equipment. A front loader is an essential part of operations where collection vehicles are unloaded onto a tipping floor. The front loader should be equipped with a protective shield over the radiator,
SOLID WASTE 8.68

CHAPTER EIGHT
TABLE 8.36 Stationary Transfer Compactor Characteristics Item Rated displacement Rated capacity Operating pressure Total thrust Total weight Oil tank capacity
3
Range 5.811.2 yd (4.48.5 m3) 525975 yd3/h (400745 m3/h) 13001700 lb/in2 (914,0001,195,000 kg/m2) 75,000127,000 lb (34,00057,600 kg) 19,90037,000 lb (902516,870 kg) 240375 gal (9051,420 L)
rock-type treads on foam-filled rubber tires, and rear weights. Foam fill reduces downtime due to tire fail ure. Rear weights supply traction. A backhoe, used in place of weights, is also useful in distributing loads and compacting open trailers. Standard safety equipment is required, including roll bars, seat belts, and backup warning. Transfer trailers receive the waste from the tipping floor; when full, they are taken to the disposal site and emptied. Trailers may be open or enclosed. The following formula is a method of estimating the number of trailers required for a smoothly functioning transfer operation. At least one spare trailer should be provided at each transfer station. A summary of transfer trailer characteristics appears in Table 8.37. Nt = T Vt (L + M + tr)/WD where Nt = T= Vt = L= M= Tr = W= D= number of trailers (round to the nearest whole number) weight in tons (U.S. or metric) received on maximum day (2.2 avg. day) average volume of trailers, yd3 (m3) loading time, mm maneuvering time (hooking up, spotting, and unhooking), mm round-trip travel time to disposal site (includes time on site), mm working time in a day, mm compacted density, lb/yd3 (kg/m3)
Open Trailers. Open trailers are used at noncompacting transfer stations. The transfer trailer is a semitrailer with rearward expanding body shape and an open top. The top is covered during travel with lightweight metal mesh or canvas lids mounted on light frames hinged to the trailer sides. The lids can be put in place from the ground by one person.
TABLE 8.37 Characteristics of Transfer Trailers Volume, yd3 (m3) 70130 (5399) Approximate weight, lb (kg) 20,000 (9100) Maximum height and length, ft (m) 14 and 50 (4.3 and 15) Capacity, tons (metric tons) 1520 (13.618.1)
Type Open trailer
Remarks Dumping may be by gravity, live bottom, or ejection Dumping by ejection
Closed trailer
4575 (3457)
20,00025,000 (910011,300)
13 and 40 (4 and 12)
1520 (13.618.1)
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.69
A variety of methods are available to load open trailers by gravity from the tipping floor. These include hydraulic systems and mechanical unloaders. Hydraulic unloading systems are more reliable than mechanical unloaders. Hydraulic unloading requires equipping trailers with engines, reservoirs, and hydraulic pumps mounted externally at the front of the trailer. The hydraulic system operates a ram and push plate, unloading a trailer in less than 3 mm. Another approach uses hydraulically actuated floor planks moving in sequence. Unloading a 50-ft (15-m) trailer, thus equipped, takes about 6 mm. Open-top transfer trailers may also be mechanically unloaded using a chain and flight conveyor. Chain conveyors are high-maintenance equipment. Chains must be properly adjusted to keep them from slipping on sprockets or breaking. A chain conveyor can unload a trailer in less than 4 mm. Open-top transfer trailers are manufactured in lengths ranging from 38 ft (11.5 m) to 50 ft (15 m), and load capacity ranges from 45 to 130 yd3 (34 to 99 m3). For average municipal waste, densities of up to 400 lb/yd3 (237 kg/m3) can be obtained using external compaction. Densities of 200 to 300 lb/yd3 (120 to 178 kg/m3) can be expected without compaction. Enclosed Trailers. Two types of enclosed transfer trailers are currently on the market. One is loaded by an external compactor; the other has a self-contained compaction system. Externally compacted transfer trailers rely on a stationary compactor to achieve maximum load density. Units are locked to the stationary compactor during the loading while the compactor pushes the charge through the trailers rear door. Care must be taken not to overload the trailer or rebound will prevent the doors from closing securely. An internal hydraulic ram and push plate are used to unload the trailers. Self-contained compaction trailers use an internal push plate to compact the load. Solid waste is loaded into an opening in the top front of the trailer. The plate then pushes the material to the rear of the trailer, compacting it against the rear doors. The cycle is repeated until the trailer is filled. Care must be taken to prevent charging the trailer while the ram is extended so that refuse is trapped between the plate and the front of the trailer. Enclosed compaction transfer trailers may not be able to achieve optimum compaction and remain within legal highway load limits. Trailer capacities vary from 45 to 75 yd3 (34 to 57 m3). Maximum compacted densities for municipal solid waste range from 550 lb/yd3 (326 kg/m3) for the self-contained units to 800 lb/yd3 (475 kg/m3) for the units loaded by external compactors. Trailer lengths range from 35 to 50 ft (11.5 to 15 m). Trailer sizes must be chosen to avoid exceeding highway load limits (including frost laws in northern states). Transfer Tractors. The number of tractors needed to haul transfer trailers depends on the amount of refuse being delivered, the round-trip travel time to the disposal site, and the capacity of the trailers. Enough units are needed to permit the maximum days receipts to be delivered in an 8-h period, allowing for a productive time of approximately 5.6 h. Fifteen minutes should be allowed for maneuvering and emptying on site and 10 min to drop the empty trailer and pick up a full one. The formula below indicates the number of necessary tractors, including one standby unit. R= where R = Hw = tr = M= Hw tr + M
round-trip haul time working hours per day per person adjusted for unproductive time. Over-the-road travel time, round trip. Maneuvering time (hooking up, on-site travel, spotting, unloading and unhooking) NT = (Nt 1) R
SOLID WASTE 8.70

CHAPTER EIGHT
where NT = number of tractors Nt = number of trailers R = round-trip haul time Backup Equipment. Contingency plans are necessary in the event of major equipment failure. Mobile equipment, such as loaders and semi-tractors, can be rented on short notice. Stationary compactors and push pits will require diversion of collection vehicles to an alternate location if sufficient storage is not avail able on the site. At least one spare transfer trailer should always be available. Transfer Station Staffing. Although one person can operate a transfer station, safety requires two persons to be on-site at all times. Additional staff will be needed where heavy volume requires multiple pits or hoppers. Larger stations are staffed by two or three persons, while smaller rural stations may be unstaffed.
PROCESSING
Solid waste has been subjected to a number of material processing operations, similar to many other materials. However, due to the unique composition and character of solid waste, great care is required in the application of the various unit processes. In some cases, unit operations that are very effective on powdery materials are completely ineffective on solid waste. This section describes the application of shredders, trommel screens, magnetic separation, air classification, and baling in solid waste processing. Shredding Solid waste is typically subjected to shredding prior to its introduction to any separation operation. Shredding not only breaks the material into smaller size, making it more uniform, but shredding also imparts a blending action to the material stream. Solid waste management programs that have resource recovery as an ultimate goal often install shredding systems and separation systems afterward only when sufficient funds are available to expand the system. Even though shredded solid waste still is disposed at the landfill, a number of advantages accrue. These are (1) volume reduction, (2) reduced vector problems, (3) reduced fire hazard, (4) reduced odor potential, and (5) reduced litter problems. Types of Shredders. The purpose of shredding is to make the material more uniform and, hence, more predictable. This is done by chopping up the items and mixing the fragments together. Shredders are essentially a rotating shaft with shaped weights or devices fastened on the periphery of the shaft. The devices (generally called hammers) are for the purpose of impacting or shearing the materials, or both. These machines are manufactured in two basic configurations: horizontal and vertical shaft machines. As the name implies, the main shaft is either horizontal or vertical. Some machines are made with very heavy and massive rotors, and others are made for higher-speed operation with lighter rotors. Flail Mills. Flail mills are lightweight, relatively high-speed machines. Their application is primarily for tearing open bags of refuse and breaking up bundles of material in addition to providing some mixing action. This type of machine is not applicable to the single-stage milling of refuse, but should be followed by a second shredder that performs a more thorough size reduction. These machines have either rods or chains fastened to the rotor shaft and flail the refuse as it is fed to the machine (see Figure 8.14). Impactors. On the opposite extreme to flail mills, there are impactors. These are massive machines with solid rotors. As the name implies, they impact the refuse as it enters the machine. The machine consists of two basic components: the rotor and one or two impactor target plates. As the material enters the machine, the massive rotor (sometimes with teeth) impacts the refuse, breaking some of the material into smaller par-
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.71
FIGURE 8.14 Flail mill.
ticles. The material is also shot toward the impactor plates where the refuse undergoes a second potential size reduction. These machines are not designed and built with grates or other devices for sizing the material. They are intended to break up the tough bulky items in the refuse stream for either subsequent milling or for feed to a refuse incinerator where oversize bulky items cannot be fed into the next process. The impactor performs excellently on friable materials, although those machines equipped with ripping teeth provide some size reductions by shearing the refuse. Hammer Mills. Two types of hammer mills have been used for shredding refuse: the fixed hammer and the swing hammer type. The swing-hammer hammer mill has been most widely applied on refuse, but, under special conditions, the fixed-hammer machine may be more appropriate. The fixed-hammer hammer mill is designed as a shearing-type machine. It is capable of reducing items, such as glass bottles, but generally it is a light-duty machine and is not applicable to mixed refuse. In situations where refuse has been presorted with bulky and other items removed, this type of machine will outperform most others and will provide the smallest particle size for a given amount of power input. The machine is essentially a series of knives or cutters bolted on the periphery of a disk (see Figure 8.15). A series
FIGURE 8.15 Fixed-hammer hammer mill.
SOLID WASTE 8.72

CHAPTER EIGHT
of disks are stacked on a rotor shaft, forming a rotor assembly. The machines are also equipped with a grate bar or screen that restricts the flow of material until it has been reduced to some acceptable size. The most commonly applied machine for the shredding of both mixed and sorted municipal refuse is the swing-hammer hammer mill. These machines can be obtained with either a vertical or a horizontal shaft; the latter being the more common design. The machines are similar to the fixed-hammer unit except that the hammer is allowed to pivot. There are a number of minor and some major variations in the design of each manufacturers mill. Design Considerations. Shredding designs tend to emphasize either capacity or capability; the two are not synonymous. In simplistic terms, capacity refers to the mass per unit of time a machine will shred while producing a given product, i.e., a certain particle size distribution. This tends to ignore the consideration of capability, which is the ability of the machine to shred a given item. Generally, designers have placed greater emphasis upon capacity for the reason that subsequent processes perform more efficiently, while equipment suppliers have emphasized capability, since this represents the machines ability to perform at any given moment and, therefore, is an indirect indication of potential downtime. Particle Size Distribution. Studies of particle size distributions of refuse from shredders have concluded that the particle size distribution can be mathematically described by a RosinRammler relationship as follows: Yx = 1 exp [ (x/x0) n ] where Yx = the cumulative decimal fraction passing a given screen size x0 = size at 63.2% passing n = the index of distribution Characteristic Particle Size and Power Requirements. The 63.2% passing-screen size is considered the characteristic particle size. For a given characteristic particle size x0, the power consumption per ton of refuse can be projected. In addition, the grate bar spacing versus characteristic particle size can be predicted, and from the data, the proper motor size and grate bar spacing can be determined for a desired x0. Suppliers data should be consulted. Shredder Selection. Consider, now, the selection of a shredder in the situation where the plant will accept all types of refuse and minimum inspection and sorting will be performed. A shredder can be viewed as an energy-storage device accepting energy from the motor, storing it, and at some other point in time transmitting it to the refuse. Newtonian physics says that there is energy associated with a moving body Kinetic energy (KE) = where M = mass V = velocity Mass is defined as M= where w = weight g = acceleration due to gravity Kinetic energy is also defined as w g MV 2 2
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.73
KE = but for rotational energy V= where = revolutions or radians per unit time r = the radius.
wV 2 2g
The effective radius is the radius of gyration, which is the distance from the center of rotation about which the entire mass can be visualized as acting. KE = K (NR)2 2g
Usual engineering terminology is to describe as radians per second and N as revolutions per minute, and R as the radius of gyration. In this case, K is a factor for adjustment of the units and is constant for each system (i.e., U.S. Customary or SI). Regrouping, we have KE = K ( R N 2) 2g
In examining the above equation, it is found that the kinetic energy released when the rotor slows down is not a linear function but an exponential one. Each halving of the speed produces four units of energy release. For a given speed change it can be seen that doubling the radius of gyration will also produce four units of available energy. While there is an optimum operating speed for each machine, the manufacturer can only control or truly influence the R2 of the machine. For any given speed of operation, the larger the R2, the more energy it can store and release for shredding a given object. In general, machines of different R2 (sometimes called rotating moment of inertia) will not undergo the same speed change. Any given article contained in the refuse stream requires a given amount of energy to reduce it in size. That object will remain in the shredder until it has absorbed, at least, that minimum amount of energy and can pass through the grate bars. A machine with a small R2 will release all of its energy to a given item and have none left for the other refuse that was fed with the tough object. Two possible things will occur. Either the object must be fed in by itself and no additional refuse fed until the machine has cleared itself, or the machine will come to a stop. The first option requires careful operator control and reduces the actual production rate of the system in addition to a change in degree of homogenization. The alternate requires opening up the shredder and clearing the refuse out of the machine. Both situations are undesirable because of lost production time and because machines with inadequate R2 are prone to damage because they are not heavy duty enough for the application. Some general guidelines can be drawn and used as guides in the selection of shredders. No municipal refuse shredder should have a R2 of less than 25,000 lb/ft2 (1200 kN/m2) unless the refuse stream has been highly refined by hand sorting and the refuse originated from households only. Machines of relatively small R2 can handle tougher items when fed only that item; however, wear and tear on the machine is not a linear function (see Figure 8.16). As the limits of the shredders capability are approached, the maintenance will tend to increase very rapidly. The following items should be excluded from all swing hammer mills regardless of R2: 1. Items that are likely to explode, such as propane or butane bottles and gasoline cans 2. Large, thick-walled metallic objects, such as gas cylinders and pressure vessels
SOLID WASTE 8.74

CHAPTER EIGHT
FIGURE 8.16 Shredder capability relative to maintenance costs.
3. 4. 5. 6.
Heavy wire rope and heavy industrial chain in lengths greater than circumference of rotor Large blocks of plastic or rubber Heavy truck and earth-moving-vehicle tires Long, dense rolls of wovens, such as industrial carpeting, tarpaulins longer than rotor circumference, and long pieces of conveyor belting
Motor Size. Generally, the motor is sized by the manufacturer to match a specific shredder. This is a function of speed of rotation and R2. In practice, as the grate bar spacing is changed, the capacity of the shredder changes to match the available power. This is done by the system designer who uses the shredder motor amperage demand to control the feed conveyor speed (or vibrating feed frequency). The higher the shredder current demand, the lower the conveyor speed. When the refuse is household-derived, a conventional motor sized for particle size control will generally prove satisfactory. When the application becomes more severe, the systems designer will want to select a high pull out torque motor. Simplistically, torque is a function of slip, or the difference between rated and actual rotational speed. In North America, common high-torque motors are in the range of 250%, while in many European countries, motors will range as high as 450%. The actual selection of motor specification is properly left to the electrical engineer, but the systems engineer should be cognizant of the severe duty required of shredder motors. In almost all cases, reduced voltage starting will be required. To determine the proper level of starting voltage, the electrical engineer will need to know the range of R2 the shredder may have. The pull out level and slip determine how much kinetic energy can be reclaimed from the shredder and still recover without shutting the system down. Particle Size. Because maximum particle size rather than average or mean particle size has been the major concern of the systems designer, most shredders are rated on the basis of nominal particle size. This is an arbitrary sizing, but is the screen size at which 90% of the material will pass a given opening. There seems to be some minor difference between vertical- and horizontal-shaft machines. Figure 8.17 shows typical particle size distributions for conventional grate spacings for horizontal-shaft machines. In addition to changes in the capacity of a shredder resulting from changes in grate bar spacing, the systems engineer should note that when refuse density changes, the shredder capacity, measured on a weight basis, will change significantly (see Figure 8.18). Figure 8.18 was developed principally for a horizontal shaft shredder being fed raw medium-character refuse and shredding to 1.5-in (3.8-cm) nominal particle
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.75
FIGURE 8.17 Particle size distribution for conventional shredder grate spacing.
size. It should be noted that volumetric capacity is relatively insensitive to changes in density. In effect, shredders have an intrinsic capacity that is indicative of its working internal volume. Shredder Rating. Table 8.38 presents a typical manufacturers rating of its own shredders. (Note: The numbers have been rounded off slightly to eliminate specific manufacturer identification). Special Design Aspects. Shredder design should also consider the following. Lubrication. When selecting a shredder, the system engineer should be aware of the type of lubrication system being offered by the vendor. A circulating oil system with reservoir and oil filter is the most desirable, and manually lubricated grease fittings the least desirable, although this is a function of bearing size and rated life. Hammer and Grate Wear. Hammers are rapidly wearing items, and grate bars also tend to require frequent replacement. Tough items tend to rotate with the rotor for some number of revolutions before being reduced sufficiently to exit from the machine. During this period, the grate bars perform some significant shearing action on the refuse as it passes by the grate bars. When the hammers wear down to the point that the clearance between the grates and hammers becomes excessive, two performance characteristics will change. An increase in particle size will occur as the result of the hammer trying to extrude the refuse out the grate, and shredder capacity will decrease as a result of partial plugging.
SOLID WASTE 8.76

CHAPTER EIGHT
FIGURE 8.18 Shredder weight and volume capacity relationships.
Airflow. Because the rotor direction of travel (one side of the rotor) and the path of the refuse are the same, any restrictions in refuse flow will also affect the air current inside the shredder. This air current helps to carry the refuse through the machine. When refuse is first shredded, it fluffs up. After some vibration (going over idlers on the discharge belt conveyor, etc.), it may compact to a higher density than the original raw refuse. If sufficient space does not exist between the grates and the top surface of the belt conveyor, it will restrict the airflow. A minimum of 2 ft (0.6 m) should be kept clear between the bottom of the shredder and the top of the receiving conveyor. A 4-ft (1.24-m) clearance is more desirable, and distances less than this should be used only when there are severe space constraints. A quick way to determine if a shredder is air-bound is to release smoke in the area where the rotor shaft goes through the shredder side. There generally is a gap between the shaft and the shell. If the machine is not air-bound, it will draw the smoke into the shredder; otherwise, the smoke will blow away.
TABLE 8.38 Shredder Ratings Feed opening, in 77 90 60 90 54 90 54 80 54 50 35 50 Capacity, tons/h 65 55 45 35 25 15 Horsepower 1000 800 800 600 400 250 R2, lbft2 248,000 180,000 100,000 55,000 45,000 12,800
Note: 1 in = 2.54 cm; 1 ton/h = 0.9 t/h; l hp = 0.75 kW; 1 lbft2 = 0.042kgm2.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.77
Entrance Velocity. When the refuse is being charged into the shredder, it must have sufficient velocity. With adequate velocity, it will be able to penetrate the space between the rows of hammers. Otherwise, the material will sit on the tops of the hammers and bounce back. A rule of thumb is that the theoretical velocity of the refuse should be at least 10% of the hammer tip speed. Feed Chute Design. In the design of feed chutes, there are some practical considerations that the designer must take into account. Sealing around a feed chute is important. If a vibrating feeder is used to feed the shredder, then heavy rubber can be used to seal the gap between the end of the pan and the feed chute on the bottom and sides. When a mechanical conveyor is feeding the shredder, a rubber seal should be designed between the bottom of the feed chute opening and the drip pan under the conveyor. Sealing the feed chute to the sides of the conveyor becomes difficult depending upon the conveyor drive arrangement. Shredders will reject material up the feed chute, and any openings will be found and the refuse will escape. Minor additional expense in sealing more than offsets the cleanup labor costs for a system in which little attention was devoted to this item. Whether a horizontal- or vertical-shaft shredder is selected, this type of action occurs. The top on the feed hood in some cases is sloped downward toward the opening. Any material striking the top will tend to be deflected away from the opening and contain the material within the hood. In addition, rubber sheeting should cover the opening and, when it is planned that the shredder will accept bulky material, chains should back up the rubber sheeting. The designer should also provide for minimum exposure of the feed equipment to the material that flies back. The head of the mechanical conveyor should not project into the feed chute. The sketches in Figure 8.19 illustrate some of the points discussed. Trommel Screens A separation method based upon particle size uses the trommel screen, sometimes called a rotary screen or rotary tube. At this point, the designer should consult the various equipment suppliers, since many trommel
FIGURE 8.19 Shredder feed chute characteristics.
SOLID WASTE 8.78

CHAPTER EIGHT
screens are custom manufactured and are of a specialized design. However, there are a number of manufacturers of standard trommel screens for which the following discussion is applicable. Design Considerations. The material transport capacity of a rotating tubular device is described by: VF = 5.19N(R)3 where VF = 5.19 = N= H= R= S= = H R tan S sin
volumetric flow rate of material, ft3/min (m3/min) dimensionless coefficient describing fundamental physics of unit rotational speed, r/min maximum bed depth of material, ft (m) radius, ft (m) slope angle of tube angle of repose (dynamic)
In addition, there is a maximum rotational speed called the critical speed, above which the material travels full circle in contact with the drum. One can calculate the critical speed from N0 = 1 2 g0 R
(H/R) is called the bed depth fraction and can be calculated from the following: H = 1 cos R 2 where is the bed angle from Figure 8.20. In practice, if the unit does not perform as well as anticipated, extra lifting blades can be added to the inside to slow down or speed up the flow of material. The higher the moisture content, the longer the detention time. Trommel length should not be less than the equivalent of about two diameters. It is also generally good practice to remain below 50% of the critical speed for the design conditions. A bed angle of l20 is fairly reasonable but should not be exceeded. This value gives slightly under a loaded area of 20%; that is, the tube is running 20% full at the inlet side. Trommel Selection. Table 8.39 shows standard sizes and rates for two different manufacturers. For estimating electrical needs, a value of 1 hp per ton per hour of capacity (0.95 kw per 0.9 metric ton per hour) can be used by selecting the next-larger-size motor available. Magnetic Ferrous Separation Magnetic separation of ferrous scrap is a relatively easy and inexpensive operation to accomplish. Scrap reclaimed from municipal refuse generally is classified as No. 3 Dealer Bundle. When scrap is subsequently agitated and air-classified, it can in some cases be cleaned of foreign material sufficiently to be reclassified. The ability to clean ferrous scrap reclaimed from municipal refuse is a function of the amount of balling it received in the shredding process. Shredders that impart higher shear and lower impact to the refuse will tend to produce a cleaner scrap. The cleanliness of the product seems a matter of hammer style and shredder size, in terms of R2. Ring hammers, as opposed to hourglass or boise-style hammers, will tend to roll or
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.79
FIGURE 8.20 Trommel screen geometry.
grind the refuse as opposed to chopping it up. On the other hand, a shredder with a larger R2 and heavy hammers, typically over 60 lb (26 kg) each, will tend to shear the material as a result of its ability to rip through the refuse with a minimum amount of hammer lay-back, i.e., hammer rotation about the hammer pin on impact. Hammer weight and R2 are a function of shredder capability and size and not a function of its style. Types of Magnetic Separators. Magnetic separation is a process that was originally used for the enrichment of iron ore slurries. They are drum-style (see Figure 8.21) with permanent magnets mounted on the inside in which the drum rotated while the magnet, covering only a segment, remained fixed.
TABLE 8.39 Standard Trommel Sizes Capacity, ton/h up to 15 26 37.5 45 60 80 100 Diameter, ft __________________ Mfg. A 7 8 10.5 12 Mfg. B 4 5.33 6.66 10.66 Length, ft __________________ Mfg. A 15 31 47 62 Mfg. B 20 25 30 30 r/min (Mfg. B) 22 16 13 0 Horsepower __________________ Mfg. A 15 50 80 100 Mfg. B 7.5 20 30 75
Note: 1 ton/h = 0.9 t/h; 1 ft = 0.3 m; 1 in = 2.54 cm; 1 hp = 0.75 kW.
SOLID WASTE 8.80

CHAPTER EIGHT
FIGURE 8.21 Single-stage drum magnetic separator.
In response to the need to produce a cleaner product, the various separator manufacturers developed a special line of refuse magnetic separators. These are suspended belt or horseshoe style and subject the ferrous product to a spinning or flipping action that tends to produce a cleaner product. The automobile shredding industry, faced with the same problems, has generally adopted a two-stage drum magnet system (see Figure 8.22) with a crude air-cleaning system between the two separation stages. This configuration produces a cleaner product but consumes more power. In situations where budget allows or the material specifications absolutely require the cleaner product, municipalities will adopt the system used by the scrap industry. The most widely applied separators to municipal refuse is the suspended belt or horseshoe style, which
FIGURE 8.22 Two-stage drum magnetic separator.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.81
is a series of reverse-pole magnets with a belt traveling across them (see Figure 8.23). The first magnet is the pickup magnet, and the subsequent magnets are reverse-poled sequentially. As the tin can, etc., is magnetized, the opposite pole attracts the end away from the belt, causing the item to flip or spin as it progresses. In some cases, a gap is included between the pickup and the next magnet to allow the item to temporarily drop away from the belt releasing any trapped material picked up with the metallic scrap. Steel pulleys and idlers can become magnetized and cause the ferrous scrap to remain on the belt as well as building up high static electrical voltages. An electrical engineer should review the possible need for grounding in this area of the conveyor. Consultation should also take place with the various separator manufacturers. Design Considerations. Magnetism, like light, varies in intensity with the square root of the distance. This means that the performance will fall off drastically as the gap is increased small amounts. Generally, magnetic separators are designed for a 6- to 8-in (15- to 20-cm) gap between the conveyor belt surface and the surface of the separator pickup section. The surface speed of the separator is preferred to be about 50 ft/min (15 m/min) faster than the speed of the belt conveyor from which it is removing the ferrous material. The practice is to remove the ferrous scrap faster than it is being fed. Recovery Efficiency. When considering recovery efficiency, it is recommended that the systems designer use a value of 95%. Recovery efficiency will depend upon flux density and thus gap distance. Just about all separators will operate at a far superior level (97 to 98%) most of the time; the recommended value takes into consideration periods when the refuse bed on the conveyor is particularly thick or some other variable is affecting performance. Table 8.40 can be used to select a magnetic separator. Power Requirements. These units will vary in power consumption for the pickup magnet; the other magnets are almost always permanent magnets, and the belt drive will vary from 5 up to 10 hp (6.7 up to 13.4 kW) depending upon the type of belt used. Serving Conveyors. Because of the impact force, points, and edges contained by the scrap, some of the units are equipped with aluminum armor plating in the center section of the belt. This reduces belt wear and increases belt life. The chuting and covers around the discharge from a magnetic separator require careful consideration. Because of the high speed, the separated metallics generally have a high velocity when released from the belt or drum. A deflector plate with a replaceable liner should be designed for the reclaimed ferrous materi-
FIGURE 8.23 Suspended belt/horseshoe magnetic separator.
SOLID WASTE 8.82

CHAPTER EIGHT
al to strike. The plate can be fabricated of steel when a distance of 2.5 ft (0.75 m) is maintained; otherwise, the metal will tend to interrupt the magnetic field pattern. The sides can be fabricated of rubber sheeting, but care should be taken that the sheeting does not get caught in the moving parts of the machinery. The head pulley and idlers in the area of the magnet should also be heavily rubber-covered or made of rubber. Air Classification Air classification has been, and will probably continue to be, the major unit process for the beneficiation of municipal solid waste second only to magnetic separation. In simplistic terms, a rising current of air effects the material separation because of the differential density of the refuse components. A key element in the separation is the proper preparation of the feed material. Air classifiers operate because viscous drag on some of the particles is able to overcome the force of gravity. If relative density is to be the criterion for separation, then the viscous drag on each particle must be uniform regardless of the material. The implication is that the more uniform the particle size, the more definable and predictable will be the separation. The further implication from fluid mechanics is that the larger the particle size, the higher the minimum upflow air velocity for fluidization of the material. Design Considerations. As illustrated in Figure 8.24, an air classification system consists of (I) an airtight feeder, (2) a separation chamber with a top and bottom exit, (3) a receivingsettling chamber, (4) a prime mover (vacuum fan), and (5) a heavies takeaway conveyor. Generally, the entire system is provided by a single manufacturer or supplier, except for the feed conveyor and two takeaway conveyors. Air Classifier Performance. In considering the performance of an air classifier, the design engineer needs to be concerned with the recovery efficiency E1 and the rejection efficiency E2. The purpose of an air classifier is to separate the combustible from the noncombustible fraction. An excessive air velocity will mini mize the rejection efficiency and recovery all of the burnable portion. However, the high degree of nonburnable fraction in the recovered portion may not be tolerable in the burning process. At the same time, insufficient air velocity will produce a clean recovered product, but the quantity may be so small as to make the separation process uneconomic. E1 = and combustibles recovered combustibles in feed
TABLE 8.40 Magnetic Separator Selection Data Refuse feed rate, tons/h Up to 15 30 50 70 100 Separator width, in 30 36 48 60 66 Conveyor width, in 30 36 48 60 72 Separator weight, lb 9,000 9,500 14,000 17,500 22,000
Note: 1 ton/h = 0.9 t/h; 1 in = 2.54 cm; 1 lb = 0.45 kg.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.83
FIGURE 8.24 Air classification system.
E2 =
noncombustibles rejected noncombustibles in feed
Since the two efficiencies are not independent of one another, Figure 8.25 shows efficiencies of an air classifier as a function of the throat velocity. The graph is typical of a common air classifier with a feed of municipal refuse prior to magnetic separation at 30% moisture content (E1 and E2 on moisture-free basis). Baling Baling is a relatively simple process that does not alter the physical or chemical nature of the solid waste. Rather it is a compression process for the significant reduction of volume occupied by the solid waste. In addition, baling produces a predictable product, the bale, that is both much easier to handle and produces much smaller voids at the disposal site. Baled solid waste is less prone to methane generation; generally will not support combustion; and produces a leachate of a less concentrated character. Baler Operation. The solid waste is fed to a baler cavity; at this point the solid waste is then compressed in two of the three major axes to a fixed dimension. A ram then compresses the solid waste along the third axis until the ram pressure reaches some predetermined level. The bale produced will have two of its three dimensions fixed and the third dimension somewhat variable depending upon the amount and nature of the material originally charged to the baler. Depending upon the preset cutoff pressure for the third ram, the bale may require tying or binding up. Intermediate- and low-pressure baling will require banding, while highpressure baling generally does not. The trade-off is between the cost of banding or strapping material and the cost of the additional energy to form a high-density bale. High-density balers are generally only available in the higher-capacity units, i.e., 50 tons/h (45 t/h) or greater capacity.
SOLID WASTE 8.84

CHAPTER EIGHT
FIGURE 8.25 Air classifier efficiencies.
A number of factors affect the final density of the bale. These factors include not only the baler operation itself but also the amount and character of the refuse as well as time since the bale formed. Baler operational characteristics include pressure of application and time of pressure application. Solid waste parameters affecting the final bale include moisture content, mechanical properties (elasticity, etc.), and size and number of the individual items fed to the baler. Finally, all bales experience a spring-back effect, creating a variable time lag before bales reach their final density. Baler Selection. The final density will be a function of the ram pressure. Below approximately 1000 lb/in2 (6900 kN/m2), unstable bales will be produced regardless of the other parameters. Intermediate pressures up to approximately 3000 lb/in2 (20,700 kN/m2) or slightly higher will produce stable bales if they are tied or banded. Above about 3500 psi (24,150 kN/m2), a stable bale can be produced without the requirement for tying. Figure 8.26 shows the relationship between baler ram pressure and volume reduction. Figure 8.27 indicates the typical range for final bale weight as a function of connected power. The shape of the curve would be as expected from the pressurevolume change curve. The higher-power balers do not require wire tying even though the final bale weight is not significantly greater. Bale Stability. Bale stability will increase as moisture content is increased. However, once a moisture level beyond 30% (on a dry weight basis) is reached, bale stability again starts to decline. Specific refuse character will also affect bale stability. For example, it is not desirable for any bale to contain more than one tire. Large amounts of lawn wastes, such as grass or leaves, will reduce bale stability when any bale contains more than 50% of these kinds of materials. On the other end of the spectrum, balers
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.85
FIGURE 8.26 Baler ram pressure and volume reduction.
FIGURE 8.27 Bale weight and connected power relationship.
SOLID WASTE 8.86

CHAPTER EIGHT
FIGURE 8.28 Bale spring-back characteristics.
are very effective on white goods, such as stoves and refrigerators, and other ductile types of materials (sheet metal, etc.). All bales will experience a spring-back effect or expansion of the bale upon being released from the baler. Most of the expansion will occur rather immediately, but final volume may take a week or more to reach. Figure 8.28 shows typical volume change as a function of time after being released from the baler. The engineer should contact the various manufacturers for specific lines of solid waste balers. Balefill. Disposal of solid waste bales (in a balefill) is an easier material-handling task to the extent that many operators of balefills claim that baling is more economical. Transportation of bales to the final disposal site as well as handling at the disposal site requires not only less sophisticated (and therefore less expensive) equipment but also requires less equipment in total. Balefills are generally operated by stacking bales end to end and three bales high. A balefill still requires daily soil cover, but due to the geometry of the bale, not only is volume saved but the soil cover volume is also less. Depending upon the original nature of the solid waste, a balefill may occupy as little as 10% of what the same material would occupy if the refuse were disposed in a conventional landfill.
RECOVERY AND REUSE

Recovery and reuse are essential elements of a integrated solid waste management plan. Energy recovery and production offer a direct economic benefit and lessen demands on processing and disposal require-
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.87
ments. Similarly, the cost-effective recovery of solid waste components for reuse in industrial production and source reduction techniques are improving overall control of solid wastes. Pollution prevention or source reduction, including product reuse, is the first priority in an integrated solid waste management program. Source reduction includes the design, manufacture, purchase, or use of materials, such as products and packaging, to reduce either the amount or toxicity of materials before they enter the solid waste management system. Examples of source reduction activities include: Modifying residential, commercial, and industrial practices and functions to manage abusive waste of materials Managing nonproduct organic wastes, such as food scraps and yard trimmings, through on-site composting or other alternatives to disposal, such as leaving grass clippings on the lawn Designing products or packaging to reduce the quantity of materials or to make them easier to reuse Improving packaging to reduce the amount of damage or spoilage to products Reusing existing products or packaging Extending the useful life of products to postpone disposal Energy from Solid Waste As early as the turn of the twentieth century, solid wastes were used to produce steam and electricity. The types, quantities, and distribution of solid wastes with fuel potential, particularly urban solid wastes, have received increased attention over the past decade due to rapidly escalating energy costs. Companies or governments investigating converting solid waste into usable energy must evaluate the wastes heating value and competing recovery technologies in estimating the energy recoverable from a waste stream. Heating Values. The heating value (or energy content) of most solid wastes is roughly one-third to onehalf the heating value of coal. However, there are many ways heating values are reported, so caution is necessary when comparing and evaluating such data. The quantity of heat generated by complete combustion of a fuel is known as the heating value, heat of combustion, or caloric value. The heating value of a fuel may be determined directly by measurement of the heat evolved during combustion of a known quantity of the fuel in a calorimeter, or it may be estimated from the chemical or physical analysis of the fuel and the heating value of the several chemical elements or physical components (28). The higher heating value (HHV), or gross heating value, of a fuel is determined when the water vapor in the products of combustion of a fuel is condensed, and the latent heat of vaporization of the water is included in the heating value of the fuel. Conversely, the lower heating value (LHV), or net heating value, is obtained when the latent heat of vaporization of the water vapor is not included in the heating value of the fuel (28). European practice is to use the LHV, while in the United States the heating value of a fuel specified is generally the HHV. For most solid wastes, the HHV will range from 7 to 15% more than the LHV due to hydrogen content variations, or (29). Rough HHV = 1.11 LHV Heating values are usually expressed in units of Btu per cubic foot (kilocalories per cubic meter) for gaseous fuels, Btu per gallon (kilocalories per liter) for liquid fuels, and Btu per pound (kilocalories per kilogram) for solid fuels. The heating value of solid fuels may be reported four ways: as-received, dry, ashfree, or dry and ash-free (28). Therefore, it is vital that both the presenter and user of data properly qualify and understand the units applied to a given set of numbers.
SOLID WASTE 8.88

CHAPTER EIGHT
Solid Waste Fuels. The heating value of nearly all solid waste fuels is a function of carbon content. Ash content is generally low, but the amount of moisture is highly variable and depends upon moisture generation plus the effects of processing, handling, and storage. On a dry, ash-free basis the heating value can be estimated at 8000 Btu/lb (4400 kcal/kg); more resinous materials contain about 9000 Btu/lb (5000 kcal/kg). Table 8.41 lists the characteristics of some typical solid waste fuels. Municipal solid waste and most other solid waste fuels can be burned without auxiliary fuel in their raw, as-received state, over a rather wide range of compositions. In fact, solid waste fuels containing as much as 75% moisture and ash can be burned without auxiliary fuels (31). However, since water and noncombustible materials do not contribute to the heating value of the waste, handling and storing wastes to minimize their moisture content and processing wastes to reduce their ash content can greatly improve fuel quality. Municipal Solid Wastes. The heating value of municipal solid waste (MSW) is dependent upon its composition. Typical heating values of MSW as received at a resource recovery facility or disposal site range from approximately 3000 to 6000 Btu/lb (1700 to 3300 kcal/kg). This variation can be attributed to seasonal factors that influence the moisture and noncombustible content of the waste. However, the average value is typically 4500 to 5000 Btu/lb (2500 to 2800 kcal/kg) as received. Heating values are discussed further in the section Refuse-Derived Fuels. The heating value of a waste stream can be estimated if the waste stream composition is known. Various waste stream components have the following heating values (32):
Paper Plastic Wood Other organics
7,750 Btu/lb 18,000 Btu/lb 8,000 Btu/lb 2,000 Btu/lb
4,300 kcal/kg 10,000 kcal/kg 4,400 kcal/kg 1,100 kcal/kg
Therefore, an example of how the heating value of a waste stream is approximated is indicated below (32):
TABLE 8.41 Characteristics of Solid Waste Fuels (30) Higher heating value, Btu/lb dry, ash-free 6,500 7,400 10,000 9,300 9,500 9,000 9,500 6,000 16,400 8,500 Moisture, % as received 35 5075 65 10 10 2050 40-50 7 0.5 10
Solid Waste Fuel Black liquor (sulfate) Cattle manure Coffee grounds Corncobs Cottonseed cake Municipal solid waste Pine bark Rice straw or hulls Scrap tires Wheat straw
Note: 1.0 kcal/kg = 1.8 Btu/lb.
Ash, % dry 4045 17 1.5 1.5 8 2040 510 15 6 4
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.89
Heating value Typical waste stream Paper, 35% Plastic, 10% Other organics, 10% Total Btu/lb 7750 0.35 = 2712 18,000 0.10 = 1800 2000 0.10 = ____ 200 4712 kcal/kg 4300 0.35 = 10,000 0.10 = 1100 0.10 = 1505 1000 110 ____ 2615
This estimating procedure for energy potential is very useful in evaluating resource recovery alternatives. Also, it can be used to approximate the impact of source separation and other recycling activities, or other changes in waste composition on the energy content of the waste stream. Energy Recovery Technologies. The major technologies used to recover energy from MSW include Waterwall incineration: Combustion of unprocessed MSW (mass burning) or processed MSW in a furnace with integral boiler tubes. Modular incineration: Combustion of MSW in relatively small two-stage, starved-air furnaces with heat recovery boilers or heat exchangers. Refuse-derived fuels: A variety of technologies that produce solid fuel by processing MSW into combustible and noncombustible fractions. The resulting fuel can be cofired with fossil fuels or burned alone in a dedicated boiler. Pyrolysis: A variety of technologies that process MSW in an oxygen-deficient environment to produce gaseous, liquid, and/or solid fuels. Anaerobic digestion: A developmental technology adapted from anaerobic digestion of wastewater sludges. Landfill gas recovery: Collection of gas generated during decomposition of landfilled MSW. Energy Recovery Efficiencies. Currently there is no standard, accepted way to evaluate the energy recovery efficiency of resource recovery systems. There are several major contributing causes for differing efficiencies, including 1. 2. 3. 4. Alternative ways of treating energy used by the process itself The choice of system boundaries for which the calculation is made The use of higher (HHV) or lower heating value (LHV) of the waste Including or excluding the energy content of nonfuel materials
Under current conditions, it is possible to produce energy recovery efficiency figures to either enhance or detract from the apparent attractiveness of a particular system (33). Table 8.42 shows system energy efficiencies in terms of the energy content of the fuel produced, and in terms of the output energy available as steam and electricity. The energy efficiencies in this table are net system outputs, and, are based on the HHV of the product minus the energy used to operate the recovery system divided by the HHV of the input waste. The energy available as steam and electricity was calculated using boiler and turbine efficiencies appropriate for each recovery system (33). While comparison of energy recovery technologies on the basis of available steam and/or electricity makes thermodynamic sense in terms of standard system boundaries, it ignores important characteristics of the various waste-derived fuels such as the quality of the fuel product and its transportability, which directly affect fuel economics (33). Estimating Recoverable Energy. The quantity of energy that can be recovered from MSW depends on four factors:
SOLID WASTE 8.90

CHAPTER EIGHT
1. 2. 3. 4.
Waste input quantity Waste energy content Boiler efficiency System availability
Thermal output Thermal utilization
The thermal output of a recovery system is the product of the waste input quantity, waste energy content, and boiler efficiency. The quantity of waste generated or collected must be adjusted to reflect the recovery facilitys operating schedule (If x tons are collected in 5 days and the recovery facility operates 7 days, the daily waste tonnages used for estimating energy recovery is 5x/7). Generally, the energy content of MSW is approximated at 4500 Btu/lb (2500 kcal/kg) for unprocessed MSW and up to 8000 Btu/lb (4400 kcal/kg) for RDF. Boiler efficiency is greatly influenced by the moisture content of the fuel. Typical boiler efficiencies are 60 to 70% for mass burning and 70 to 75% for RDF combustion. A more detailed discussion of waste energy content is provided in the next section, Refuse-Derived Fuels. The nomograph in Figure 8.29 provides a method to estimate the thermal output of a combustion system. For example, Unprocessed MSW: If waste input is 500 tons/day, energy content 4500 Btu/lb, and at 60% boiler efficiency, then the thermal output is 1.1 108 Btu/h for 24 h/day. RDF: If waste input is 2000 tons/day, and the fuel yield is 1400 tons/day, energy content is 6000 Btu/lb, and at 75% boiler efficiency, then the thermal output is 5.2 108 Btu/h for 24 h/day. The system availability is simply the percentage of the time the system is functional. System availability depends on the recovery system chosen and the steam quality produced (see Figure 8.30). The availability of RDF firing units is typically higher than mass burning facilities. However, for RDF systems with minimal storage capacity, the system availability must take into account the reliability of the processing equipment and the firing units. Thermal utilization is the product of boiler efficiency and system availability and represents the fraction of solid waste heat content converted to steam on an annual average basis (36). Estimation of potential revenues from energy recovery projects should be based on thermal utilization, not thermal output. Figure 8.31 relates the thermal output of the incinerator to quantities of steam and electric energy produced. In general, steam of any pressure and temperature can be produced up to practical limits of about 1200 lb/in2 and 900F (8.3 MPa and 480C). Above these conditions, it has been determined that corrosion mechanisms accelerate due to increased temperatures within the combustion chamber, leading to excessive deterioration (40). The selection of steam pressure and temperature is largely based on market demand. For example, saturated steam of 250 lb/in2 (1.7 MPa) might be produced to supply a chemical process plant, food processing plant, or district heating system; if electric generation were desired, steam might be produced at 850 lb/in2 and 750F (5.9 MPa and 400C), resulting in a higher energy content of each pound of steam, and thereby reducing the size of electric generating equipment required (40). For example, to determine potential steam generation, enter Figure 8.31 at 5.2 108 Btu/h incinerator output of Figure 8.29. Move vertically upward to steam conditions of either 250 lb/in2 saturated, or 850 lb/in2 at 750F, for steam production of 443,000 lb/h and 498,000 lb/h, respectively (40). To determine the potential electricity generated by the steam, move horizontally to the right from 498,000 lb/h to the turbine exhaust conditions of 6 in Hg absolute and 2 in Hg absolute. These conditions correspond with reasonable average turbine exhaust back pressures for air-cooled condensers and watercooled surface condensers, respectively. Now, read vertically to determine potential power generation of 49,000 kW for the water-cooled condensers (40). Using air cooled condensers would reduce the power generation approximately 10%. The preceding discussion provides methods for estimating the heating value and the energy recoverable from municipal solid wastes. These topics are expanded upon in the next section.
TABLE 8.42 MSW Energy Recovery System Efficiency Comparison Efficiency, %* MSW to fuel _______________________________________ Ref. 33 Ref. 34 Ref. 35 Other 100 100 70 80 76 6.484 26 33 6574 33 1040 (38) 4258 23 29 76 80 76 75 68(36) 49 63 48 53 63 43 4658 23 100 100 81 100 59 2550 63 60 52 54 48
Recovery system and fuel classification
MSW to steam MSW to electricity _____________________________ __________________ Ref. 33 Ref. 34 Ref. 35 Ref. 34 Ref. 39 29 24 1923 13 19 23 1824
SOLID WASTE
8.91
Waterwall incinerator Mass burning (RDF-l) Shredded MSW (RDF-2) Modular incinerator (RDF-l) Refused-derived fuels Fluff (RDF-3) Dust (RDF-4) Wet Pyrolysis Gaseous products (RDF-7) Liquid product (RDF-6) Anaerobic digestion (RDF-7) Landfill gas recovery (RDF-7)
*The energy efficiencies are net system outputs, as discussed in the text. Discussed further in the section Refuse-Derived Fuels. Cofired with coal.
SOLID WASTE
FIGURE 8.29 Waste input and thermal output (40).
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.93
FIGURE 8.30 Thermal utilization and availability of waterwall incinerators (37).
The planning and implementation phases of a successful energy recovery project must address many topics beyond the scope of this discussion. System economics and community acceptance are typically the concerns that most frequently determine if a technically viable project is implemented. Refuse-Derived Fuel Utilizing MSW as fuels accomplishes two purposes-significant volume reduction and energy production. The basic technology for producing energy from MSW, incineration and steam turbine electrical generation, was developed during the early twentieth century. Over the past 15 years, new technologies have been developed to recover materials from MSW while also producing an improved fuel product, generically described as refuse-derived fuel (RDF). Some of these new technologies produce fuels compatible with existing power generation facilities or other energy users. Municipal solid waste can be processed to concentrate the combustible components into an RDF by removing glass, ceramics, and metals. The resulting RDF will typically have an HHV of 4500 to 8000 Btu/lb (2500 to 4500 kcal/kg) (wet). RDF typically burns more efficiently than unprocessed MSW due to lower ash content, lower moisture content, and a higher degree of homogeneity. Because of these qualities, RDF requires less excess combustion air than mass burning processes. This in turn reduces the required size of all air pollution controls and air handling equipment (40, 41). The removal of inert materials has the added advantage of producing more easily handled fuel, since the glass, stone, and metals can contribute to the deterioration of materials handling equipment. However, RDF production typically involves sophisticated integrations of many materials handling operations. Also, detailed market and waste stream evaluations are required in order to determine that technologies are appropriate in each specific situation (40).
SOLID WASTE
FIGURE 8.31 Thermal output, steam production, and electrical power generation (40).
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.95
The combustible components can be further processed to produce gaseous or liquid fuels via pyrolysis or anaerobic digestion. Fuel Product Classification. The need for uniform definitions, specifications, and analytical procedures for producers and users of recovered commodities from refuse prompted the formation of ASTM Committee E-38 on Resource Recovery (44). This Committee has developed standard classifications for refuse-derived fuels (Table 8.43). ASTM has also developed a standard test method for gross calorific value (E 711-81) and a standard method for RDF data conversion (E 791-81). RDF production processes and final fuel products have also been described by the terms in Table 8.44. Heating Value. Typical heating values, ash contents, and moisture contents of prepared fuels are summarized in Table 8.45. These typical values illustrate that processing MSW can significantly lower ash content and moisture content as well as concentrating the wastes combustible components. However, processing can also significantly reduce the energy obtained from each ton of MSW due to controllable, but inevitable, losses of combustible materials. Typically, RDF contains 85 to 99% of the paper and plastics in the raw waste, while the majority of glass and metals are removed. These losses are reflected in process yields (weight percent) and energy yields, expressed as fuel Btus per pound (kilocalories per kilogram) of MSW. Typical process yields and energy yields of fuel products are also summarized in Table 8.45. The data in Table 8.43 represent general ranges expected for prepared fuels. For example, the heating value of RDF-1 can range from 3000 to 6000 Btu/lb (1650 to 3300 kcal/kg) due to waste composition and moisture and ash variations, but a good average range that can be expected currently is 4500 to 5000 Btu/lb (2500 to 2750 kcal/kg) (46). The ranges presented are also affected by data availability, which varies with fuel product; the data bases for RDF-1 and RDF-3 are large, while data for the other products are somewhat scarce. The heating value of prepared solid fuels generally increases from RDF-l through RDF-4. The heating value of RDF-5 is comparable to or slightly higher than that of RDF-3 because RDF-3 is typically used to produce RDF-5. The HHV of prepared fuels correlates with the fuel ash content and moisture content because ash and moisture contribute little, if any, heating value to the fuels. The strongest correlation exists between heating value and ash content plus moisture content. Figure 8.32 presents this relationship based on limited pub-
TABLE 8.43 ASTM Classifications of Refuse-Derived Fuels (44) Category RDF-1 RDF-2 RDF-3 RDF-4 RDF-5 RDF-6 RDF-7 Description Municipal solid wastes (MSW) used as a fuel in as-discarded form [without oversize bulky waste]. MSW processed to coarse particle size with or without ferrous metal separation. [The particle size of this material is such that 95 weight percent passes through a 6-in (15-cm) square mesh screen.] Shredded fuel derived from MSW that has been processed to remove metal, glass, and other inorganics. This material has a particle size such that 95 weight percent passes through a 2-in (50-mm) square mesh screen. Combustible waste processed into powdered form-95 weight percent passing 10-mesh screening (0.035 in or 0.89 mm). Combustible waste densified (compressed) into the form of pellets, slugs, cubettes, or briquettes. Combustible waste processed into liquid fuel. Combustible waste processed into gaseous fuel.
Note: [ ] indicate wording in tentative classifications deleted from definitions.
SOLID WASTE 8.96

CHAPTER EIGHT
TABLE 8.44 Common Refuse-Derived Fuel Classifications Common name Coarse fluff RDF Fine fluff RDF Powdered RDF Densified RDF or d-RDF Typical ASTM class RDF-2 RDF-3 RDF-4 RDF-5
lished data. This correlation provides an easy way to estimate RDF heating value using the results from two easily performed tests. Municipal solid wastes can be processed into a variety of fuel products to improve their heating value, combustion efficiency, storage life, and marketability. However, the disadvantages of solid waste processing must be considered, particularly energy yield reduction and increased system complexity. The overall impact of energy yield reduction is demonstrated in the energy recovery efficiency comparison presented in the section Energy from Solid Wastes. Ferrous Metals There are several sources of scrap ferrous metals: from iron and steel production (home scrap), from conversion of steel to various metal parts and products (prompt industrial or processing scrap) and from discarded goods from end users (obsolete or postconsumers scrap). Of these three types of ferrous scrap, home scrap makes up 55 to 60% of the total. Prompt industrial and obsolete scrap account equally for the remaining portion. Virtually all home scrap and very large fractions of prompt industrial scrap are recycled directly within the production and conversion industries.
TABLE 8.45 Characteristics of Refuse-Derived Fuels Moisture content, % 1530 2629 1825 35 1523 14.1 6.0 Ash content, % 24 2021 721 1215 923 2.1
Fuel product RDF-l RDF-2 RDF-3 RDF-4 RDF-5 RDF-6 RDF-7
HHV Btu/lb* , 45005000 46004680 48006500 75008000 57606640 8490 (94,000 Btu/gal) 270320 Btu/ft3
Process yield, % 90100 8095 5085 4050
Energy yield, Btu/1b MSW 40005000 36804400 29704510 31203940 1950 3380
Reference sources 4446 44, 45, 47 36, 44, 4548 36, 48 42, 43 45 45
23
*Unless otherwise noted. Not available. Energy yield does not include energy in charcoal by-product. Notes: 1.0 kcal/kg = 1.8 Btu/lb; 3.8 L = 1.0 gal; 28.3 L = 1.0 ft3.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.97
FIGURE 8.32 Higher heating values of prepared fuels versus moisture and ash content.
The categories of obsolete or postconsumer scrap most obvious to the public are automobiles and discarded ferrous metals in municipal solid waste. Spurred by economic incentives of increasing scrap prices, shredding and magnetic processing of junk automobiles has increased over the last decade. In 1980, a projected 35% of the recycled obsolete scrap came from junk automobiles. An estimated 10 million tons of ferrous scrap made up largely of steel cans was discarded in the municipal solid waste stream in the United States in 1981. In this same period, there were 48 source separation programs collecting ferrous metals and 27 facilities that had mechanized systems for separation of ferrous metals from municipal solid waste. A combined total of some 140,000 tons or 1.5% of the available ferrous cans were recycled. Magnetic Separation. Magnetic separation of ferrous metals from solid waste is one of the most developed and simplest material separation processes in resource recovery. However, for magnetic separation to be effective, unprocessed waste must first undergo processinggenerally size reduction or screeningto free the metal from bags and containers that would inhibit or prevent separation. In addition, it appears that shredding of the ferrous metals is necessaryeither as part of the mixed waste or the recovered productto work the metal to free attached or entrapped nonmetallic contaminants.
SOLID WASTE 8.98

CHAPTER EIGHT
There are several types of magnetic separators that have been applied to solid waste: suspended drum magnets, suspended self-cleaning belt magnets, and magnetic pulleys. The suspended belt separator has multiple magnet assemblies over a single belt for the purpose of tumbling, dropping, and reattracting the metal to free loose contaminants. Magnetic Pulley Separators. Pulley-type magnets have diameters between 1 to 4.5 ft (0.3 to 1.5 m) and widths of 1 to 6 ft (0.3 to 1.8 m) to match the conveyor belt on which they are mounted. Pulley-type magnets are generally not applied to primary separation of ferrous metal from solid waste because of the tendency to entrap and carry over significant amounts of organics with the ferrous product. They have, however, found application in secondary scalping of small amounts of ferrous metals in waste streams following primary magnetic separation. Pulley-type magnet drive rotational speed and power requirements will be determined by the design and capacity of the belt conveyor on which it is mounted. Pulley-type magnets normally contain permanent magnets that have no external power requirements. Suspended Drum Separators. Suspended drum magnets range in diameters of 3 to 6 ft (1 to 1.8 m) and widths of 4 to 8 ft (1.2 to 2.4 m). The size is selected to match the width of the stream of material fed to the separator, the material height and particle size, and the field strength requirements (and thus the magnet assembly size) to achieve the required performance. Rotational speeds match the feed stream velocity and are generally in the range of 5 to 30 r/min. Magnet power requirements would be 3.8 to 11.3 kW for the drive motor and 7 to 18 kW for the magnet power supply. Typical application and performance have been reported on two suspended drum magnets in a solid waste processing plant in New Orleans, Louisiana (4). One drum is designed for 95% ferrous recovery from a 36.5 metric ton per hour stream of minus 4 in (100 mm) trommeled undersize solid waste product. It is 3.5 ft (1.07 m) in diameter and 4.5 ft (1.37 m) in width, rotates at 28 r/min (3.8-kW drive) and contains electromagnetics with a 7-kW power supply. The drum is cleated and rotates against material flow. Testing at the design throughput of 36.3 metric tons per hour and a larger-than-design gap between the belt and drum surfaces15 versus 12 in (0.38 versus 0.29 m)the recovery efficiency of the magnet tested at 90%. The second suspended drum separator was designed to recover 95% of the ferrous metals from a 75 ton (68 metric ton) per hour shredded solid waste stream. The drum is 4 ft (1.22 m) in diameter, 6 ft (1.83 m) wide, rotates at 25 r/min (7.5-kW drive) and powered by a 1 1-kW supply. Because of significantly higher and more variable feed material burden height than predicted, the gap between the drum and belt was raised 20 in (0.53 m) compared to the 14-in (0.36 m) design gap. Ferrous metal recovery efficiency was thus substantially below design testing at only 28%. The location of the magnetic separator varies with the type of waste processing system. The primary magnet is normally located immediately after the initial shredding or screening equipment. Secondary magnets are often utilized to retrieve the 10 to 20% of the ferrous metals missed in the primary stage. Experience suggests that it is necessary to magnetically separate the metal product a second time or possibly reshred or air-classify after separation to free and separate nonmetal contaminants. The contamination level for the suspended drum product in the New Orleans facility discussed above averaged 15%, well above the 4% specification and necessitating the addition of a ferrous product cleanup system. This system consisted of an air knife, light ferrous metal shredder, and a secondary suspended-belt-type magnetic separator. Performance tests indicated the ability to meet the 4% contaminant specification but indicated a reduction of 37% in the amount of the recovered ferrous product due to losses in the secondary processing. Reshredding as part of secondary processing will also increase bulk density. A high bulk density, 1700 to 2500 lb/yd3 (800 to 1200 kg/m3) is desirable for transportation of the ferrous metal product and is required for some scrap markets. The secondary cleanup system in New Orleans increased the density of the recovered ferrous product from an as-separated density of 450 lb/yd3 (210 kg/m3) for partially crushed cans to 820 lb/yd3 (380 kg/m3) for the coarsely shredded cans. Separation of ferrous metals from incinerator residue is generally more efficient than from processed waste because of the absence of organic materials that inhibit separation or contaminate the product. However, because of oxidation and alloying of metals and nonmetals during the combustion process, incinerated
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.99
ferrous scrap may not meet some industry specifications. In 1981, nine incinerator facilities were reportedly separating ferrous metals, although not all were able to find markets for the recovered product. Markets. The potential markets from ferrous metals recovered from municipal solid waste would be reached through brokers, detinners, or scrap dealers and include iron and steel mills and foundries, the detinning industry, the copper industry (for use in precipitation processes) and production of ferroalloys. Each market has different requirements for chemical and physical properties of scrap. Standard specifications for municipal ferrous scrap covering each of these end uses are shown in Tables 8.46 and 8.47. Contracts for purchase of municipal ferrous scrap typically establish the price as a percentage of the iron and steel industry composite prices, such as No. 1 heavy melting steel scrap or No. 2 bundles. The percentage factor will vary for the particular scrap quantity composition, location (transportation), and the
TABLE 8.46 Municipal Ferrous Scrap Chemical Specifications (48) Composition, % a Copper industry precipitation process) 96.0 0.2c Iron and steel foundries 0.03 0.04 0.12 0.15 0.04 0.20 0.50 0.30 maxd 0.03 0.06 4.0 90.0 Iron and steel production 0.03 0.04 0.08 0.10 0.025 0.10 0.50 0.30 max 0.15 0.06 0.10 4.0 90.0
Element
Detinning industry b 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 4.00e 0.15 min f 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 8.8
Ferroalloy production 0.03 0.15 0.20 0.15 0.30 0.35 0.6 0.025 0.5 g 90.0
Phosphorus, max Sulfur, max Nickel, max Chromium, max Molybdenum, max Copper, max Aluminum, max Tin Lead, max Zinc, max Iron (metallic), min Silicon, max Manganese, max Carbon, max Titanium, max Total combustibles, max Metallic yield, min
a b
Experience has shown that material that has been incinerated probably will not meet these requirements. A minimum of 95 weight percent of the material delivered shall be magnetic. Nonmagnetic material attached to the original magnetic article may be included in the minimum requirement. c The scrap shall be appropriately processed (for example, by burning or chemical detinning) to be virtually free of combustibles. d For steel castings, the requirement for tin content is 0.10 max percent. e Not based on melt analyses due to aluminum losses during melting; to be determined by a method mutually agreed upon between the purchaser and supplier. f Refer to sections on magnetic fraction and chemical analysis of tin in Methods E 701. Normal separation of white goods and heavy iron yields tin contents equal to or greater than 0.15 weight percent. Lesser tin contents would impact severely the value of the scrap to detinners. g The scrap shall be appropriately processed (for example, by burning or chemical detinning) to be virtually free of combustibles.
SOLID WASTE 8.100

CHAPTER EIGHT
respective market. Historically, the market prices for iron and steel scrap are quite erratic. This has made projections of revenues for recovered metal very tenuous, and during some periods of depressed markets, made ferrous scrap virtually impossible to sell at any price. Nonferrous Metals Nonferrous scrap is classified into three types: home scrap, prompt industrial scrap (new scrap), and old scrap (obsolete or postuser scrap). Most home and prompt industrial scrap is recycled internally by primary or secondary producers. The sources of old nonferrous scrap is mainly junk automobiles and municipal solid waste. The major nonferrous metals recovered from auto shredders include zinc, aluminum, copper, and stainless steel. MSW is a potentially large source of erratic. This has made projections of revenues for recovered metal very tenuous, and during some periods of depressed markets, made ferrous scrap virtually impossible to sell at any price. Nonferrous Metals Nonferrous scrap is classified into three types: home scrap, prompt industrial scrap (new scrap), and old scrap (obsolete or postuser scrap). Most home and prompt industrial scrap is recycled internally by primary or secondary producers. The sources of old nonferrous scrap is mainly junk automobiles and municipal solid waste. The major nonferrous metals recovered from auto shredders include zinc, aluminum, copper, and stainless steel. MSW is a potentially large source of nonferrous scrap, particularly aluminum. Approximately 1% of the MSW is nonferrous metals of which two-thirds is aluminum and the remainder primarily brass, copper, zinc, and stainless steel. During the 1970s, efforts at recycling of nonferrous metals from municipal solid waste were directed at recovery of aluminum. In 1979, an estimated 1.15 million tons (1 million metric tons) of aluminum containers and packaging were available in MSW as old scrap for recycling in the United States. Of this, about 65% were all-
TABLE 8.47 Municipal Ferrous Scrap Physical Specifications (48) Property End use Copper industry (precipitation process) Iron and steel foundries Iron and steel production Detinning industry Bulk density, lb/ft3 (kg/m3) 30 (480) max Form Loose, shredded as agreed upon between purchaser and supplier, shall not be balled or baleda Loose, balled, or baledb as agreed upon between purchaser and supplier Loosec or baledb as agreed upon between purchaser and supplier Shredded, 95 weight percent shall be 6, + in (152, +12.5 mm); shall not be balled, baled, burned, incinerated, or pyrolyzed Loose, as agreed upon between purchaser and supplier
50 (800) min 75 (1200) min 25 (400) max
Ferroalloy production
a b
50 (800) min
Various consumers may establish gage limitations on the material they purchase. Industry practice is to specify a maximum bale size that may vary among users. c Experience has shown that if the size range is 95 weight percent, 2, + in. (50, +6.3 mm), the bulk density requirement can be met and the material will be loose and free flowing.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.101
aluminum cans. In 1981, some 30% of all-aluminum cans were recycled, virtually all through source separation programs. Source separation refers to separation of selected components from solid waste at the point of discard and transfer of the separated fractions (by the homeowner or by separate collection) to collection centers, secondary dealers, or direct consumers of secondary materials. The separation is done by hand and involves limited use of mechanical equipment. In 1980, there were over 2500 locations in the United States for recycling of source-separated aluminum cans. Mechanical Separation. Mechanical methods for nonferrous metal recovery include flotation (density), electromagnetic separation, electrostatic separation, and preconcentration and handpicking. A description of each method follows. Flotation. Flotation systems utilize stages of controlled water elutriation (for effective specific gravities between 1.1 and 2.0), heavy liquids (for specific gravities of 1.5 to 3.0), and dense media (water slurries of magnetite, galena, or ferrosilicon for effective specific gravities of 2.5, 3.3, and 3.5, respectively). In systems applied to MSW, several flotation stages with specific gravities between 1.2 and 3.0 are used to separate glass, aluminum, and other nonferrous metals by differences in material densities. Typically size reduction, air classification, magnetic separation, and screening precede a combination of water flotation and heavy media separation. Proper feedstock preparation is necessary to control the size and shape of the metals and to minimize the levels of organic and inorganic fines. Shredded aluminum with folds and pockets may entrap air, which bouys the particles, or entrap dense solids that settle and increase particle weight and media losses and product contamination. Organic materials can adsorb heavy liquids and media increasing operating costs. Organics and fine inorganics can change media specific gravity and viscosity thereby effecting separation efficiency. Water elutriation and heavy media separators, in conjunction with magnets and screens, have also been used for recovery of nonferrous metals from incinerator residues in pilot-scale and experimental programs (51). Because nonferrous metals such as aluminum may oxidize, melt, and be lost in the undergrate siftings, or alloy with other materials during incineration, sufficient marketable nonferrous metals are usually not recoverable to justify commercial applications. Electromagnetic. Electromagnetic or eddy current separators employ the principle of electromagnetic induction to separate conductive nonferrous metals. Utilizing modulating electromagnetic fields or the motion of the metal moving through the magnetic field of an array of permanent magnets, eddy currents are generated in conductive metal particles that in turn interact with the magnetic field and cause the particles to be deflected out of the separator. The flow scheme for the electromagnetic nonferrous separation system in the New Orleans, Louisiana, facility is shown in Figure 8.33. This particular system utilizes two parallel electromagnetic separators operating on a feedstock from a series of screens, classifiers, and magnets designed to preconcentrate aluminum can stock. The importance of efficient preconcentration is indicated in results from this demonstration facility. Although the aluminum recovery efficiency for the electromagnetic separators was as high as 85 to 90%, because of losses of aluminum in preceding screening and classification processes, the corresponding overall aluminum recovery rate for the facility averaged 35 to 40%. Each electromagnetic separator has four sets of magnets, each set having a magnet above and below a 22in (0.56-m) wide conveyor belt. The gap between the top and bottom magnet was nominally 3.5 in (90 mm). The belt carried 1 to 3 tons/h (0.9 to 2.7 Mg/h) of waste at a belt speed of between 250 to 500 ft/min (75 and 150 m/min). Conductive nonferrous metals concentrated in the feedstock to about a 5% level are ejected laterally off both sides of the belt by the electromagnets. The magnets operate at 480 V and 60 cycles with each set consuming about 7.5 kW. The effect of aluminum shape and belt speed on electromagnet separation efficiency is shown in Table 8.48. For nominal operation, each separator recovered between 85 and 90% of the aluminum from a feed stream of 1 ton/h (0.9 Mg/h) and belt speed of 350 ft/min (105 m/min).
SOLID WASTE 8.102

CHAPTER EIGHT
FIGURE 8.33 Ferrous, aluminum, and glass recovery processes at New Orleans.
Electrostatic. Electrostatic separators utilize a 30 to 50 kV field generated from electrodes located above a stream of particles as they flow onto a grounded metallic drum. The drum is usually 10 to 30 in (0.25 to 0.75 m) wide and 1.5 to 3 ft (0.5 to 1 m) in diameter. The nonconductors (typically glass and organics) retain a static charge long enough to be attracted and held to the drum, while conductors (metals) dissipate their charge quickly and are repelled from the drum and thereby separated. Processing of the electrostatic separator feedstock to even a greater degree than electromagnetic feedstock is necessary. The feed must be quite
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.103
TABLE 8.48 Effect of Can Shape and Belt Speed on Electromagnetic Separator Performance (49) Belt speed m/min 91 122 152 Percent recovery by can shape Flattened 97.7 92.9 90.7 Deformed 98.4 98.4 95.0 Whole 100 100 86.6 Total 98.4 98.0 94.5
Note: 1 m/min 3.3 = ft/min.
small [< 1 in (25 mm)] and very dry (< 1% moisture), and the level of organics (paper) kept at a minimum to avoid interferences and minimize separator volumetric loadings. These requirements have limited widespread application of electrostatic separators to nonferrous metal recovery. The application of an electrostatic separator for metal separation in a pilot glass recovery facility is discussed in Ref. 52. Depending mainly on market specifications for the metals, the product from an electromagnetic or electrostatic separator may require additional processing to remove glass and loose organic contaminants carried with the metal product and to separate other nonferrous metals from aluminum. In the New Orleans facility, such nonmetal contaminants averaged 14% of the separator product. This cleanup may be accomplished with an air knife, screen, and/or additional stages of electromagnetic (or heavy media) separators. The aluminum product may also require shredding or baling to increase density for economic transportation. Shredding in New Orleans raised the density from 130 to 520 lb/yd3 (60 to 240 kg/m3). Friction Slide. The first commercial preconcentration and handpicking system for separation of aluminum from mixed MSW is located in Houston, Texas. The process flow is shown in Figure 8.34. The plant is designed to process 60 tons/h (56 103 kg/h) of unprocessed MSW. The friction slide used in the Houston plant exploits the differences in bounce and frictional resistance with an inclined flat-belt conveyor fed near the lower (tail) end. More rigid or round particles (metals, dense organics) will bounce, slide, or roll off the bottom of the slide and are conveyed to an air knife and handpicking while more flexible, damp material (paper, textiles, organics) is carried up and discharged as a residue off the top. Human pickers remove aluminum from a slow-moving belt and the product is then flattened and shipped to market. Mechanical recovery of nonferrous metals from MSW has been discontinued at several plants and is not being applied in newer installations for several reasons: relatively low and fluctuating concentrations of metals in the waste, current absence of efficient and reliable technology for separation and sorting of mixed metals, and lack of widespread markets. Product Quality. A specification for municipal aluminum scrap has been developed. It covers two classes (based on fines content) and six grades (based on chemical composition). Table 8.49 presents the chemical and physical requirements for municipal aluminum scrap. The market value and reuse of the recovered scrap (for example, as aluminum can stock or in wrought alloys) will depend on grade quantity and location of markets (transportation). Use of recycled aluminum does provide significant energy savings. Less than 5% of the energy required to produce an aluminum ingot from ore is needed to produce aluminum ingot from recycled metal. Glass Products With the exception of glass scrap (cullet) generated in glass manufacturer conversion plants, municipal solid waste offers the largest source of waste glass for recycling. On the average, 10 to 11% of the MSW stream is
SOLID WASTE 8.104

CHAPTER EIGHT
FIGURE 8.34 Ferrous and aluminum recovery processes at Houston.
glass, of which an estimated 90% is container glass. The raw materials for glass production are comparatively inexpensive and readily available in most areas. However, there are incentives for recycling glass in the reduction in energy and water consumption and improvements in the melt reaction for glass manufacturing and also in reduction in solid waste disposal requirements. In the 1980s nearly all of the recovered and recycled glass from MSW was recovered through source separation programs, where the householder segregates the glass for separate collection or for delivery to a recycling center. However, during the 1970s, several approaches to mechanical separation of glass from mixed municipal waste were developed and applied in commercial-scale facilities. The technology for mechanical recovery of glass cullet from mixed municipal waste involves either froth flotation or optical sorting. Due to relatively low product values coupled with the technical and operational complexities, none of the four first-generation froth flotation or optical sorting systems have operated regularly, and further commercialization of glass recovery has not extended beyond these earlier plants. Equipment and markets for recovery and use of glass for secondary applications (i.e., fiberglass, aggregate, glassware, architectural treatments) has also been explored in one full-scale facility.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.105
TABLE 8.49 Municipal Aluminum Scrap Specification (50) Chemical requirements Composition, maximum % allowable Element* Silicon Iron Copper Manganese Magnesium Chromium Nickel Zinc Lead Tin Bismuth Titanium Others (each) Others (total) Aluminum Grade 1 0.30 0.60 0.25 1.25 2.00 0.05 0.04 0.25 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.12 Balance Grade 2 0.30 0.70 0.40 1.50 2.00 0.10 0.04 0.25 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.15 Balance Grade 3 0.50 1.00 1.00 1.50 2.00 0.30 0.30 1.00 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.05 0.15 Balance Physical requirements DensityTo be agreed upon between purchaser and seller FinenessClass A-Not less than 1 weight percent fires minus 12 mesh Class BNot less than 3 weight percent fires minus 12 mesh Loose combustiblesNot more than 2 weight percent loose combustible material MoistureNot more than 0.5 weight percent moisture Metal recoveryMinimum metal recovery of 85% (per ASTM procedure) MagneticsTo be agreed upon between purchaser and seller
*By agreement between the purchaser and the seller, analysis may be required, and limits established for elements or compounds not specified in this table.
Grade 4 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.50 2.00 0.30 0.30 2.00 0.50 0.30 0.30 0.05 0.08 0.20 Balance
Grade 5 9.00 0.80 3.00 0.60 2.00 0.30 0.30 1.00 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.30 Balance
Grade 6 9.00 1.00 4.00 0.80 2.00 0.30 0.30 3.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.10 0.30 Balance
Froth Flotation Separation. Froth flotation is a process developed in the minerals industry when finesized particles [0.002 to 0.35 in (0.05 to 9 mm)] are selectively floated to the surface of a slurry by means of attached air bubbles. A surface conditioning agent (for example a coca amine) that preferentially coats glass particles and makes the surfaces hydrophobic (water repellent) is mixed with water and added to a preconcentrated and finely sized (less than 20 mesh) fraction containing the glass and inorganic contaminants (ceramics, stones, and metal). The treated slurry is then aerated in a separation chamber where the glass is raised by attachment of air bubbles effected by the reagent and removed from the nonglass contaminants, which are separated in the tailings (sink) product. Additional secondary cells may be used to reclean the product or attempt to raise more glass from the tailings. A complete discussion of the froth flotation process is provided in Refs. 53 and 54. Figure 8.35 shows the process flow for the prototype froth flotation glass recovery system located in a resource recovery plant in New Orleans. Also shown is the mass balance data for the glass fraction based on a municipal waste input of 100 tons/h (90 metric tons/h) or about 160% of the facility design capacity. The specifications for the principal equipment items are provided in Table 8.50. The performance characteristics of the glass recovery system revealed during the shakedown and testing in New Orleans were as follows:
SOLID WASTE 8.106

CHAPTER EIGHT
FIGURE 8.35 Nominal glass mass balance at New Orleans glass recovery system (49).
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.107
TABLE 8.50 New Orleans Glass Recovery Equipment Descriptions (49) Item Two-deck screen One-deck screen Mineral jig Rod mill Sizing screen Hydroclones (2) Flotation cells Flotation reagent Vacuum filter Dryer Description CE Tyler Model F-800; 3 m long by 1.5 m wide; 5 declined; 1.5-kW electromechanical drive; 114- and 57-mm-diameter perforated screen decks Vibraretics, 3 m long by 0.6 m wide; 0.38-kW electromechanical drive; 26 mm 75 mm slotted screen deck WEMCO Remer jig; 4.9 m long by 1.5 m wide; 6-mm mesh screen panels; 9.5 m and 13 mm ragging; 5 declination; 1.5 and 5.6-kW drives Marcy Mfg., 1.2 m diameter by 2.4 m long; center overflow discharge type; 37 grinding rods (typical); 25 r/min; 37.5-kW drive CE Tyler Model 1F-800; 3 m long by l.5 m wide; 1.5-kW electromechanical drive; 6-mm and #20 wire mesh screen decks Krebs Models Dl0B and D6B (modified); 254 and 152 mm diameters, adjustable apex Denver Equipment Model 18-Special, Type A; 0.67-m3 cells arranged as two prefloat, three rougher, three cleaner Sherex MG 83A at 5% concentration with 1% (wt) concentration pine oil frothing aid Dorr Oliver; 1.2 m diameter; 430 mmHg vacuum Joy Manufacturing Holoflite Model l-D-2410; 1.25 MBtu/h oil fired heater for 650F operation; twin revolving flights
Glass losses in the dry portion of the processing system (prior to the mineral jig) were sensitive to the level and fluctuations on infeed rate, and ranged from 40 to 50%. The capacity of the wet portion of the glass recovery system (the mineral jig through flotation) was 4 tons/h (3.6 metric tons/h); however, it was operated at 1.7 tons/h (1.5 metric tons/h). Increased or fluctuating feed rates were detrimental to system performance and glass product quality. Glass recovery in the wet portion of the glass recovery system tested at 80% of the input glass. Prefloat cells containing water in reagent were found necessary to float and remove grease and other organic materials carried over from the jig. The vacuum filter lowered moisture content of the glass product to 5% and the dryer to less than the 1% required in the glass product specification. Table 8.51 lists the glass product specifications as established in ASTM E708-79, Standard Specification for Waste Glass as a Raw Material for Manufacturer of Glass Containers, as well as the mean results of analysis of the glass product from New Orleans. A comparison shows that the glass product met the specifications in all categories except in moisture and minus 140 mesh fines. Pilot tests on a froth flotation of glass incinerator residue has been reported (51) but no commercial application has developed. Optical Separation. In an optical sorter, the intensity of light transmitted through a particle passing through the device is measured by a photocell. By means of sensing or comparing the intensity to a background slide, the particle is identified as opaque (nonglass) or flint, green, or amber and accepted or diverted by a rapidly acting ejector located below the sensor. Because most sorters are binary devices, several stages may be required to make these multiple separations. Optical sorting also requires considerable processing to prepare the appropriate feedstock. Clean, dry particles sized in the range of 0.25 to 2 in (6 to 50 mm) and as free of metal and other contaminants as possible are required. Particles smaller than 0.25 in (6 mm) cannot be recovered with this equipment, which eliminates shredders or flails in the feed preparation system. Alternative size reduction schemes might em-
SOLID WASTE 8.108

CHAPTER EIGHT
TABLE 8.51 Glass Specifications and Product Analysis Result from New Orleans (55) ASTM Specification Value <0.5% 0% 15% 0.2% or 0.4 0.05% >0.1 and/or 0.16 >0.0015 % 6575 % 17 913% 1216% 0. 14% 0.6% 2 20 1 Mean recovery I result 1.0 0 15.8 0.16 Trace 73.4 2.0 10.3 13.5 % 0.59 0 12 0
Parameter Percent moisture, wet-weight basis Percent plus 6-mm, dry-weight basis Percent minus U.S. std. #140, dry-weight basis Percent organic materials, dry-weight basis Percent Fe2O3 mixed-color glass Percent Cr2O3 mixed-color glass Percent SiO2 Percent A12O3 soda-lime Percent CaO + MgO glass Percent Na2O Total magnetic materials mixed-color glass Percent total inorganic nonmagnetic materials Refractories: number of particles per pound Minus #20, plus #40 mesh Minus #40, plus #60 mesh Nonmagnetic metals: number of particles per pound Plus #20 mesh
ploy primary screening, shear shredders, or hydropulping. Further concentration of the glass can be accomplished by air classification and screens, separation of organics, and washing of the glass by flotation; metal separation by flotation; or electrostatic separation and drying. The complete process flow for the first fullscale commercial application of an optical sorting system in Hempstead, N.Y., is shown in Figure 8.36. Paper and Plastics On the average, paper comprises about 35% and plastics about 6% of the United States MSW stream. The proportion of individual paper categories varies considerably with location, but typically newspapers comprise 25%, corrugated 35%, and other categories and mixed papers, the remaining 40% of the paper fractions. Of the plastics, polyolefins (including polyethylenes and polypropylenes) account for 75% of the plastics with styrene polymers contributing 15% and polyvinylchlorides (PVCs) about 10%. In spite of their relatively high concentrations, mechanical separation of either paper or plastics from mixed MSW in the United States has not developed beyond limited research or pilot-scale programs. The significant quantity of paper that is being recycled [18 million tons (16.2 million metric tons) or 26% of the total U.S. consumption of paper and paperboard in 1981] is virtually all from commercial and residential source separation prior to discard into the waste stream. In 1981, there were 228 residential source separation programs recycling paper, of which three-quarters collected newspaper and one-quarter collected mixed waste paper. Source-separated waste paper is primarily used to make new paper and paperboard products (86%), with the remainder used for such products as cellulose insulation and building products (3%) or exported (11%). Mechanical recycling of paper and plastics from mixed wastes has been limited by both technical and economic factors. For paper, testing has shown that the yield of recycled fiber is very low (less than 30% of
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.109
FIGURE 8.36 Ferrous, aluminum, mixed nonferrous, and glass recovery process at Hempstead, N.Y.
the available paper fiber) due to losses in the dry-screening and air-classification stages required to concentrate the fiber fraction and further fiber losses in the pulping, centrifugal cleaning, screening, and dispersion systems required to remove contaminants. No compositional data on production material are yet available to establish the markets and thus the economic viability of paper recovery. Recycling of plastics from mixed municipal waste is complicated by lower concentrations, a variety in sizes, density, and other properties (melting points), and frequent lamination with other plastic and nonplastic material. The technologies that have been explored for concentration of a mixed-plastic product from waste include multiple stages of air classification, thermal contraction of film plastics followed by air separation, and use of electrostatic separators. Even were a clean mixed-plastic product recovered, economic reuse requires further separation of the mixed product by plastic (or resin) type. Surface wetting and density separation techniques have been ex-
SOLID WASTE 8.110

CHAPTER EIGHT
plored but not demonstrated on a large scale. The potential for reuse of mixed plastics is primarily with the thermoplastics fraction that can be remelted. Thermoplastics comprise some 80% of the plastics in the waste, while the remaining 20% are thermosetting plastics set after forming. Markets for reformed thermoplastics need to be sought.
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

Following separation, including by-product recovery, and volume reduction processes, solid wastes are prepared for treatment (stabilization) and final disposal. The most common method is by use of a landfill. Other methods of interest are land reclamation, composting, incineration, pyrolysis, and wet oxidation. Whether reclaiming a strip mine or developing a recreation area, the engineer must consider costs and design limitations and subsequent maintenance by good soil management practices. In general terms, the principal considerations are land requirements, site soil and topographic conditions, site access, and land and operating costs. In some cases, ground and surface water monitoring may be required during and after the disposal process. Sanitary Landfill Sanitary landfilling is defined as an engineered method of disposing of solid waste on land in a manner that protects the environment, by spreading the waste in thin layers, compacting it to the smallest practical volume, and covering it with compacted soil by the end of each working day or at more frequent intervals if necessary (56). Sanitary landfills are and will continue to be the principal method of solid waste disposal. In the United States, the design and operation of sanitary landfills are regulated by 40 CFR 258, which establishes minimum national criteria for all solid waste landfills that are not regulated under Subtitle C of RCRA and that receive municipal solid waste, or codispose sewage sludge with municipal solid waste, or accept nonhazardous municipal waste combustion ash. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency provides extensive technical guidance to meet the regulation requirements (94, 95). Landfills that receive construction and demolition debris only, tires only, and nonhazardous industrial waste only are regulated under 40 CFR 257. This section outlines the salient points that must be considered in the design of a sanitary landfill by the civil engineer. Because of the volatile nature of construction and equipment costs, the cost figures given in this section should be used as a guide only. Also, heavy equipment used in sanitary landfill operations is being improved and revised continually. Engineers who need to determine sanitary landfill equipment requirements should contact equipment suppliers and observe equipment used by existing facilities in the area. Preliminary Determination of Landfill Requirements. Every proposed sanitary landfill has some basic requirements that must be determined prior to commencing any design activity. Typical determinations follow. Estimate of Solid Waste Quantity. If accurate records are not available on the amount of solid waste generated in an area, then the amount may be estimated by one of the following methods. 1. The population to be served by the sanitary landfill must be determined. This population is multiplied by 5 lb (2.26 kg) per capita to arrive at an estimated daily weight of solid waste generated. The generation rate per capita estimate can be broken down as half residential and half commercial and industrial. 2. In communities with very large commercial or industrial establishments, it is prudent to estimate the large establishments per capita solid waste generation. If this figure is significant, an adjustment in the per capita figure can be made.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.111
3. A fairly accurate estimate of the amount of solid waste can be determined by counting the types of vehicles entering the existing landfill (or landfills) that will be replaced by the new facility. Table 8.52 lists typical unit weights for various collection vehicles. Estimate of Landfill Space Required. The annual landfill space requirements can be determined by the following formula. VA = W/1100 where W is the annual weight in pounds (kilograms) of solid waste generated in the area, and 1100 is the refuse compaction in pounds per cubic yard (650 kg/m3). Landfills should be designed for a minimum depth of solid waste of 20 ft (6 m) and a minimum life of 10 years. Type of Waste Delivered to Site. A survey should be made to determine if any nontypical solid waste is to be delivered to the proposed site. Particular attention should be paid to wastes that will require special handling by the operating personnel. It is also important to identify any potential hazardous wastes that presently are accepted at the existing sanitary landfill. Hazardous wastes should be excluded from sanitary landfills. Traffic on Site. It is necessary to know how solid waste will be delivered to the site. The most important determination is the percentage of vehicles that will be off-loaded by hand. It can take 30 mm to unload a pickup truck with 300 lb (90 kg) of solid waste and 5 mm for a rear-load packer with 10,000 lb (3000 kg). Un loading times for all vehicles must be kept to a minimum. Requirements of Landfill Operator. The operator of the sanitary landfill might have requirements that will affect the design. The anticipated hours of operation and number of days per week the site will be open must be determined. The operator might also have special equipment that he or she wants to use in the operation. Requirements of State Regulatory Agency. Every state has its own set of landfill standards. These standards must be fully understood prior to undertaking any investigation. Many states have laws dealing with developments in wetlands, floodplains, or other types of environmentally sensitive areas. The regulating agency for these requirements might be different than the landfill regulating agency. Also, certain federal regulatory agencies may have jurisdiction. Site Selection. Selection of a sanitary landfill site is often more a socialpolitical process than an engineering process. The selection process should involve the evaluation of at least two potential sites within the study area. A typical site-selection scenario would be as follows. Accumulate Available Data. Land-use maps, topographic maps, water well logs, soil conservation service soil maps, highway maps, and bridge loading information should all be used in the study. Location Restrictions. In consideration of both the potential effects that a sanitary landfill may have on
TABLE 8.52 Typical Unit Weights for Various Collection Vehicles Type of vehicle Car or pickup Rear-loading packer Side-loading packer Top loading packer Compacted roll-off container Open top roll-off container Unit weight 200 lb 550820 lb/yd3 450-700 lb/yd3 400500 lb/yd3 450550 lb/yd3 250400 lb/yd3 (91 kg each) (320487 kg/m3) (267415 kg/m3) (237297 kg/m3) (267326 kg/m3) (148237 kg/m3)
SOLID WASTE 8.112

CHAPTER EIGHT
the surrounding environment and the effects that natural and human-made conditions may have on the performance of the landfill, location restrictions apply (94). Floodplains, fault areas, seismic impact zones, and unstable area restrictions address conditions that may have adverse effects on landfill performance that could lead to releases to the environment or disruptions of natural functions, such as floodplain flow restrictions. Airport safety, floodplains, and wetlands criteria are needed to the location of landfills in areas where sensitive natural environments and/or the public may be adversely affected. Establish Minimum Site Size. The geometry of a site is very important. Required setbacks from roads and other natural features make portions of a site unusable. A square site maximizes the amount of land available for actual solid waste disposal activity. The fixed cost of engineering, land, roads, buildings, and environmental controls for a site with a 20-year life are not much different than for a site with a 10-year life. Obtain Soil Borings. Soil borings are required on the most desirable of the sites. Permission to take these borings from private landowners is sometimes difficult to obtain. For some sites, this dilemma can be overcome by requesting per mission from the local road agency to take borings in the public right-of-way fronting the site. Prepare Budgetary Cost Estimate. Budgetary cost estimates must be prepared for each of the selected sites. The cost estimates must be of sufficient detail to allow a comparison among the various sites. The capital cost items must be on an annual basis. Items included in the cost estimates should be Land cost On-site development costs (roads, fences, leachate control, liners, etc.) Off-site costs (bringing access roads up to anticipated load-carrying capacity) Cost of closing the site when it is filled Cost of perpetual care for the site, including the transportation and treatment of any leachate Anticipated annual operating cost Select the Most Desirable Site. Barring any political or social constraints, the site to be recommended should be the one with the lowest cost (disposal plus trucking) per ton. The landfill evaluation, design, and approval process can be a long and drawn-out ordeal with often negative results. For these reasons, long-term real estate options instead of an outright land purchase is desirable. A typical option would require the payment of a nominal sum during the option period (normally one year) with the balance to be paid only upon receipt of a sanitary landfill operating license. Hydrogeologic and Soils Investigation of Selected Site. Prior to the detailed design of a sanitary landfill, a hydrogeologic and soils investigation of the site is performed. The state regulatory agency normally has some specific criteria for performing this task. The investigation should include as a minimum the following. Topographic Map. A topographic map at a sufficient scale and contour interval so that the character of the study area is clearly defined should be prepared. Convenient scales are 1:1200 (1 inch = 100 ft) horizontal and 2 or 4 ft vertical contour interval. Soil Borings. Soil borings should be taken at intervals and depths such that the nature of the soil strata can be determined. Soil samples should be collected at 5-ft (1.5-rn) intervals. These samples should be saved for testing. When groundwater is encountered, it is important that several soil borings completely penetrate the aquifer and its aquiclude. The driller must accurately record the depth at which groundwater is first encountered. If possible, the hole should be left open several hours and a second measurement of groundwater depth taken. The elevation of the ground at each boring location should be determined to the nearest 0.15 ft (5 cm). Existing Water Well Logs. Water well logs for wells drilled in the surrounding area should be collected from the appropriate agencies (normally a public health department). The well logs will provide some indication of the location, depth, capacity, and water quality of the aquifer.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.113
Set Groundwater Observation Wells. A series of groundwater observation wells [2 in (5 cm) diameter] should be established around the perimeter of the site. These wells should be set in porous soils and penetrate the groundwater at least 10 ft (3 m). A survey crew should establish the top elevation of the well to the nearest 0.01 ft (0.5 cm). The cap of the well should be vented and provided with a locking device to prevent tampering. A sufficient number of wells (three minimum) must be set to accurately determine the slope and direction of groundwater flow. The wells can also be used as groundwater sampling points. Groundwater Contour Map. The groundwater elevations recorded from the observation wells should be plotted on the site topographic map. A groundwater contour map should be superimposed on the site topographic map. Soil Tests. It is important that tests be run on Clay soil that will serve as an in situ impermeable barrier or be used to construct a clay liner. Hydrometer, Atterberg limits, and permeability tests should all be run on selected clay samples. Saturated porous soils that require a grain size analysis. Groundwater Recharge Area Impact. The impact the proposed landfill will have on the recharge capability of the groundwater aquifer must be determined. A large lined landfill might remove sufficient recharge area from the groundwater system to alter the character of the aquifer. The landfill site investigation process is a progressive one. It must be designed to minimize the cost and allow the owner and/or regulatory agency an opportunity at each step to review the accumulated data. The hydrogeologic and soils study, which is the first actual on-site operation, must be sequenced to allow the engineer the opportunity to abort the project if conditions other than those originally anticipated are encountered. Water Quality Control Requirements at Selected Site. Since leachate is by far the primary source of wastewater of concern at a landfill, the spatial and hydrogeological characteristics of the selected site are important. Also, the selected sites proximity to wastewater collection and/or treatment facilities needs to be determined. In addition to leachate, other sources of landfill wastewaters are: gas collection condensate, truck/equipment washwater, drained free liquids, laboratory wastewaters, and contaminated stormwater. Additional sources of wastewaters generated by landfills may include contaminated groundwater, noncontaminated stormwater, and sanitary wastewaters. These wastewaters are described below. Leachate is liquid that has passed through or emerged from solid waste and contains soluble, suspended, or miscible materials removed from such waste. Over time, the potential for certain pollutants to move into the wider environment increases. As water passes through the landfill, it leaches pollutants from the disposed waste, moving them deeper into the soil. One measure used to prevent the movement of water pollutants from the landfill site is a liner integrated with a leachate collection system. Leachate also may be collected through the use of slurry walls, trenches or other containment systems. Gas collection condensate is liquid that has condensed in a gas collection system during the extraction of gas from the landfill. Gases, such as methane and carbon dioxide, are generated due to microbial activity within the landfill and must be removed to avoid hazardous conditions. The gases tend to contain high concentrations of water vapor that is condensed in traps staged throughout the gas collection network. The gas condensate contains volatile compounds and accounts for a relatively small percentage of flow from a landfill. Drained free liquids are aqueous wastes drained from waste containers, such as drums and trucks, or wastewater resulting from waste stabilization prior to landfilling. Landfills that accept containerized waste may generate this type of wastewater. Wastewaters generated from these waste processing activities are collected and usually combined with other landfill generated wastewaters for treatment at the wastewater treatment plant.
SOLID WASTE 8.114

CHAPTER EIGHT
Truck/equipment washwater is generated during either truck or equipment washes at landfills. During routine maintenance or repair operations, trucks and/or equipment such as loaders, compactors, or dump trucks used within the landfill are washed and the resultant wastewaters are collected for treatment. In addition, many facilities wash the wheels, body, and undercarriage of trucks used to deliver the waste to the open landfill face upon leaving the landfill. Laboratory-derived wastewater is generated from on-site laboratories that characterize incoming waste streams and monitor on-site treatment performance. Contaminated stormwater is runoff that comes in direct contact with the waste or waste handling and treatment areas. Noncontaminated stormwater includes stormwater that flows off the cap or cover of the landfill and does not come in direct contact with solid waste. Noncontaminated stormwaters discharged through municipal storm sewer systems or that discharge directly to waters of the United States are subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit requirements. Contaminated groundwater is water below the land surface in the zone of saturation that has been contaminated by landfill leachate. Preliminary Design. The next major step toward completion of the project is the preliminary design stage. Discussion follows of the major areas that must be investigated during this stage. Review Accumulated Data. Information gathered during the earlier phase of the project is now accumulated and used to establish some criteria for the site. Examples of data use follow. The soils report will indicate the nature of on-site soils and the need for any liners or leachate collection system. Generally, porous soils [permeability greater than 0.00028 ft/day (1 l07 cm/s)] will require a liner system and some type of leachate collection. The hydrogeologic report will provide the designer with information as to how deep the site may go below ground surface. The location of permanent groundwater monitoring wells can be determined. The site topographic map prepared for the hydrogeologic investigation will be used as the master sheet for the design. It may be necessary to have the map enlarged in order to properly layout all the details of the site. It is always a good idea to make several reproducible copies of this map. The original estimate of the sites daily traffic and quantity must be updated. The landfill operators equipment limitations must be fully understood. This item requires special consideration, since a landfill is primarily a materials-handling operation. Establish Operating and Design Parameters. In general, the standard operating requirements for a sanitary landfill should be developed to ensure the safe daily operation and management at the facility. Daily cover, liners, and leachate controls are common to all landfills. Other operating requirements include (94): Hazardous waste exclusion. A program must be developed and implemented to detect and prevent disposal of regulated hazardous wastes or PCB wastes at the sanitary landfill. Hazardous wastes may be gases, liquids, solids, or sludges that are listed or exhibit the characteristics described in 40 CFR 261. Household hazardous wastes are excluded from the regulation, and wastes generated by conditionally exempt small-quantity generators (CESQGs) are not considered regulated hazardous wastes for these purposes. Disease vector control. Disease vectors such as rodents, birds, flies, and mosquitoes typically are attracted by putrescent waste and standing water, which act as a food source and breeding ground. Normally, application of a daily cover is sufficient to control disease vectors; however, other vector control alternatives may be required. These alternatives could include: reducing the size of the working face; other operational modifications, such as increasing daily cover thickness, changing cover type, density, placement frequency, and grading; repellents, insecticides or rodenticides; composting or processing of organic wastes prior to disposal; and predatory or reproductive control of insect, bird, and animal populations. Explosive gas control. Methane production rates will vary spatially within a landfill unit as a result of
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.115
pockets of elevated microbial activity but, due to partial pressure gradients, differences in gas composition are reduced as the gases commingle within and outside the landfill unit. Monitoring is necessary to establish if the concentration of methane gas generated by the facility exceeds 25% of the lower explosive limit (LEL) for methane in facility structures, excluding gas control or recovery system components, and if the concentration of methane gas exceeds the LEL for methane at the facility property boundary. If these concentrations are exceeded, abatement measures are necessary. Air monitoring. Sanitary landfill operations must not violate any applicable requirements developed under a State Implementation Plan (SIP) developed to comply with the Clean Air Act. Open burning of solid waste, except for the infrequent burning of agricultural wastes, silvicultural wastes, land-clearing debris, diseased trees, or debris from emergency clean-up operations, should be prohibited. Facility access. The development of landfill facilities should include means to control public access to prevent illegal dumping, public exposures to hazards at the site, and unauthorized vehicular traffic. Generally, unauthorized persons are unfamiliar with the hazards associated with landfill facilities. Access to facilities should be controlled through gates that can be locked when the site is unsupervised. Run-on/run-off control systems. The stormwater control system must include a mn-on control system to prevent flow onto the active portion of the landfill during the peak discharge from a 25-year storm and a run-off control system from the active portion of the landfill to collect and control at least the water volume resulting from a 24-hour, 25-year storm. Surface water requirements. The operation of the sanitary landfill should not create a point or nonpoint discharge of pollutants to surface waters. Otherwise, abatement measures must be included in the facility design. Liquid restrictions. Only household liquid wastes and leachate or gas condensate derived from the landfill operation are permissible. All other bulk or noncontainerized liquid wastes should be excluded from the sanitary landfill. Record keeping requirements. Records should be maintained to document the day to day activities at the sanitary landfill and to provide regulatory agency reporting data. In addition, operating and design parameters should be establish for the following: The maximum distance a heavy refuse truck can travel from an all-weather service road must be determined. A good design will minimize the distance a truck must travel over refuse. In wet northern climates the maximum desirable distance a refuse truck should travel over a refuse-filled area is 800 ft (245 m). The desired width of the landfills working face must be determined. A narrow working face minimizes the daily cover required but could also result in excessively long waiting times for the refuse vehicles. If the mix of unloading vehicles contains more than 30% car and pickups, then serious consideration should be given to constructing an on-site transfer station for these hand-unloaded vehicles. Generally, the narrowest possible working face is the least costly to operate and control. Landfilled solid waste must be covered with a minimum of 6 in (15 cm) of earthen material at the end of each operating day, or at more frequent intervals if necessary, to control disease vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging. Alternative materials of an alternative thickness may be acceptable if demonstrated that the alternative material and thickness satisfies the daily cover objectives. The amount of daily cover must be calculated. The hauling of this cover is an important cost element in the landfill operation. The daily surface area of cover required is calculated by multiplying the width of the working face times the length of the compacted refuse. Compaction equipment requires a length at least equal to 10 times its wheelbase for proper refuse spreading and compacting. The cost of moving this daily cover with the operators available equipment must be calculated. This cost is computed by multiplying the hourly rate for the cover equipment (operator wages included) times the number of hours required to place the cover. Hourly equipment rental rates are available from most heavy construction equipment dealers. An estimate of the in-place refuse density must be made. In well-run landfills using modern compaction equipment, an average in-place density of 1100 lb of refuse per cubic yard (650 kg/m3) of landfill volume
SOLID WASTE 8.116

CHAPTER EIGHT
is a reasonable estimate. Typically, the in-place density of refuse will range from 950 to 1500 lb of refuse per cubic yard (560 to 890 kg/m3). Storm drainage facilities should, as a minimum, be designed to accommodate a 25-year storm. An optimum design would not allow any rainwaters to flow across the landfill work area. Storm drainage for the actual landfill work areas must be designed so that rainwater in contact with the working face and thus requiring possible containment and treatment is not mixed with other stormwaters. Stormwaters falling on disturbed but unfilled areas of the landfill should be kept out of the leachate collection system but should pass through sedimentation controls prior to exiting the site. Landfill costs are optimized when the site is designed to accommodate as great a depth of solid waste as possible. This is especially true when expensive liners and leachate collection systems are required. Therefore, the maximum height that the landfill may go above and below natural ground must be established. The below-ground distance is usually determined by the proximity of groundwater or the excavation limitations of available equipment. The above-ground height can often be a volatile socialpolitical issue. It is important that the environmental and cost advantages of placing greater depths of refuse versus using more surface area be clearly documented. When going above ground with a landfill, the completed side slopes should be no steeper than 1 unit vertical to 4 units horizontal. This slope will allow grass mower operation and it will not erode as much as steeper slopes. All landfills must allocate some capital for on-site roads, fences, maintenance buildings, utilities, and a gate house. The following discusses some minimum requirements for each of these capital items. Landfill roads must be of sufficient width and strength to handle the anticipated traffic in all kinds of weather. The biggest item that must be determined is the number of refuse compaction vehicles that will be using the site. These heavy vehicles, when loaded, meet or exceed allowable axle loads. Most state road agencies have established design standards for roads that would be similar in heavy truck traffic to the landfills. These standards should be used for determining the roads structural section. If design standards are not available locally, The Asphalt Institute has an excellent design manual entitled Thickness Design-Asphalt Pavement Structures for Highways and Streets (57). It is always a good idea to pave the entrance road, at least to the gatehouse. This paved road, in addition to its strength and smooth riding surface, will also provide a cleaning area for mud-caked tires on the vehicles exiting the site. The landfills entrance and those portions of the site fronting public roads should be fenced. Fencing the remainder of the site will depend on terrain, vegetation, population density in the area, and state and local requirements. In heavily populated areas or along high-traffic roads, it is a prudent practice to fence the entire work area. Landfill equipment costs are the largest single operating cost. Proper maintenance of this equipment requires frequent oil changes, cleaning of the radiators, and cleaning of areas on the machines where oil and flammable debris can accumulate. During winter months and inclement weather, routine maintenance is best performed inside a heated building. A maintenance building helps reduce equipment costs. An investigation of the availability of utilities is an important first step in any design. Typical questions that must be answered are Is natural gas available for building heat? Does the available electrical system meet the electrical needs of the pumps, compressors, and other equipment needed to operate the landfill? If the proper voltage is not available, what is the cost to deliver it to the site? Is a public water system available or must on-site wells be installed? Is a public wastewater system available for domestic sewage or must a septic system be installed? Can the public wastewater system accept the high-strength leachate that might be discharged, and if so where is the outlet point? The type of gatehouse will be dictated by local conditions. The gatehouse should be located at least 200
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.117
ft (60 m) from the entrance. This will allow the backup of vehicles during rush hours without spilling out onto the public road. The need for scales is a much discussed topic. For large sites with over seven years life, the cost of a scale becomes insignificant. The following are several advantages of scales: 1. Scales provide an equitable method for pricing disposal fees. 2. Tons is the accepted unit of measure for solid waste engineering. By weighing the refuse received, the operator is establishing a valuable data base. This data base can be used to compute in-place density and collection truck performance. Daily Cover Requirements. Daily or more frequent placement of 6 in (15 cm) of cover is necessary to control disease vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging. This temporary cover controls disease vectors (birds, insects, or rodents that represent the principal transmission pathway of a human disease) by preventing egress from the waste and by preventing access to breeding environments or food sources. Covering also reduces exposure of combustible materials to ignition sources and may reduce the spread of fire if the disposed waste bums. Odors and blowing litter are reduced by eliminating the direct contact of wind and disposed waste. Similarly, scavenging is reduced by removing the waste from observation. The depth of cover and/or frequency should be increase to insure these objectives are satisfied (94). Alternative materials of an alternative thickness may be acceptable if demonstrated that the alternative material and thickness satisfies the daily cover objectives. Demonstrations can be conducted in a variety of ways. For example, demonstrating alternative covers may be accomplished by: side by side (six inches of earthen materials and alternative cover) test pads, full-scale demonstration, and short-term full-scale tests. Alternative daily cover materials may include indigenous materials or commercially available materials. Indigenous materials are those materials that would be disposed as waste; therefore, using these materials is an efficient use of landfill space. Examples of indigenous materials include (94): ash from municipal waste combustors and utility companies; compost-based material; sludge-based material, such as sludge treated with lime and mixed with ash or soil; construction and demolition debris (which has been processed to form a slurry); and shredded automobile tires. Commercially developed alternative daily covers are available. Some of these alternative materials require specially designed application equipment, while others use equipment generally available at most landfills. Examples of the types of commercially available daily cover materials are (94): Foam that usually is sprayed on the working face at the end of the day Geosynthetic products such as a tarp or fabric panel that is applied at the end of the working day and removed at the beginning of the following working day Slurry products (e.g., fibers from recycled newspaper, wood chip slurry, clay slurry). Liner Requirements. The prevailing theory of sanitary landfill design is to prevent water from entering the refuse mass and also to prevent leachate (water in contact with refuse) from entering ground or surface waters. Downward percolation of the leachate can be retarded if the in situ soils for the landfill are clays with a thickness and permeability sufficient to satisfy regulatory requirements. If the in situ soils do not satisfy the requirements, a liner must be designed. Liners may be constructed of either clay, synthetic fabrics (geomembranes), or soil-additive mixtures. Specific comments on each type of liner follow. Clay liners are constructed by spreading the clay in thin layers and compacting each layer to a predetermined density. The minimum total thickness of these liners is 2 ft (0.6 m). The minimum thickness should be adequate to obtain adequate compaction to meet the hydraulic conductivity requirement, to minimize the number of breaks or imperfections through the entire liner thickness that could allow leachate migration, and to inhibit hydraulic short-circuiting of the entire clay liner layer. The suitability of a clay for use as a liner is determined by laboratory tests on the clay. These tests are hydrometer, Atterberg limits, permeability, and density. The hydrometer and Atterberg limits tests will serve to identify and classify the soil. Permeability tests are run on disturbed samples of the clay. For each test, the
SOLID WASTE 8.118

CHAPTER EIGHT
density of the clay must be determined. The minimum clay liner density will be the density occurring at the desired permeability. Clay liners are relatively inexpensive to install if the clay is within a reasonable haul distance. The liner provides excellent protection against leachate migration. However, clay liners cannot be installed during wet or freezing weather. In northern climates, the days available for clay placement are limited. Because of their inherent impermeability, the use of geomembranes in landfill liner construction has increased. Geomembranes are relatively thin sheets of flexible thermoplastic or thermoset polymeric materials. The design of the side slope, specifically the friction between natural soils and geosynthetics, is critical and requires careful review. Geomembranes are made of one or more polymers along with a variety of other ingredients. The polymers include a wide range of plastics and rubbers differing in properties such as chemical resistance and basic composition (58, 59). The polymeric materials may be categorized as follows: Thermoplastics, such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) Crystalline thermoplastics, such as high-density polyethylene (HDPE), very-low-density polyethylene (VLDPE), and linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) Thermoplastic elastomers, such as chlorinated polyethylene (CPE) and chlorosulfonated polyethylene (CSPE) The polymeric materials used most frequently as geomembranes are HIDPE, PVC, CSPE, and CPE. The thicknesses of geomembranes range from 20 to 120 mil (58, 59). The recommended minimum thickness for all geomembranes is 30 mil, with the exception of HIPE, which must be at least 60 mil to allow for proper seam welding (58). Depending on the type of membrane, several bonding systems are available for the construction of both factory and field seams. Bonding methods include solvents, heat seals, heat guns, dielectric seaming, extrusion welding, and hot wedge techniques. To ensure integrity of the seams, a geomembrane should be seamed using the bonding system recommended by the manufacturer (60). If locally available soils do not possess properties to achieve the specified hydraulic conductivity, soil additives can be used. Soil additives, such as bentonite or other clay materials, can decrease the hydraulic conductivity of the native soil (96). Bentonite is a clay mineral (sodium-montmorillonite) and may be obtained in a dry, powdered form that is relatively easy to blend with on-site soils. Bentonite expands when mixed with water (hydration). This property allows relatively small amounts of bentonite (5 to 10%) to be added to a noncohesive soil (sand) to make it more cohesive (96). The most common additive used to amend soils is sodium bentonite. The disadvantage of using sodium bentonite includes its vulnerability to degradation as a result of contact with chemicals and waste leachates. Calcium bentonite and other materials, including lime, cement, and other clay minerals such as atapulgite, may be used as soil additives (60, 97). The percent of additive that is added to the soil is determined by preparing several different mixtures and running permeability tests on these mixtures. Like geomembrane liners, soil-additive liners must be placed on a clean, smooth surface. The desired amount of additive is added to the soil surface and thoroughly mixed and compacted. The liner is placed in lifts, with each lift being no thicker than 6 in (15 cm). The total thickness of the soil-additive liner is usually the same as a clay liner. At least 1 ft (30 cm) of clean sand cover should be placed over the liner to protect it during refuse filling. When determining the liner best for the project, it is important that the following questions be answered: 1. Can the liner be placed on the desirable side slopes? 2. Is liner material delivery schedule reliable enough or must an inventory be kept on site?
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.119
3. Can the liner be placed throughout the year or must sufficient liner be placed before the onset of winter or a rainy season? 4. Can the liner be placed with landfill personnel or must private contractors be retained? All landfill liners must have leachate collection systems included in the design. The collection system must be designed to minimize the leachate hydraulic head on the liner. The liner design must also incorporate provisions to isolate portions of the liner system in the unlikely event of a liner failure. This isolation is accomplished by dividing the total liner system into a series of minisystems. Each minisystem has its own liner and collection system with lined berms or cell walls preventing leachate flow between minisystems. Leachate Collection and Treatment. Leachate is the liquid that has passed through or emerged from solid waste and contains dissolved, suspended, or immiscible materials removed from the solid waste. The characteristics of leachate vary with the age of the landfill and the material placed in the landfill. Table 8.53 illustrates some typical data on leachate composition. Since all sanitary landfills generate leachate and leachate has very strong wastewater characteristics, collection and treatment of leachate is a necessary part of the overall facility. Rainwater falling directly on the landfill and off-site stormwater flowing across the site are the major source of water for leachate generation. Good design dictates that as much off-site stormwater as possible be diverted around the landfill. The critical periods for leachate generation occur during operation. The landfill design must incorporate features that will allow all water not in direct contact with uncovered refuse to flow off the site and bypass the leachate collection system. It is important that the refuse mass be kept as dry as possible. The placement of refuse in trapped stormwater must be avoided. The function of the leachate collection system is to collect and convey leachate out of the landfill and to control the depth of the leachate above the liner. The leachate collection system should be designed to meet the regulatory performance standard of maintaining less than 12 in (30 cm) depth of leachate, or head,
TABLE 8.53 Composition of Leachate from Landfills (61) Constituent* BOD5 (5-day biochemical oxygen demand) TOC (total organic carbon) COD (chemical oxygen demand) Total suspended solids Organic nitrogen Ammonia nitrogen Nitrate Total phosphorus Ortho phosphorus Alkalinity as CaCO3 pH Total hardness as CaCO3 Calcium Magnesium Potassium Sodium Chloride Sulfate Total iron
*All units in milligrams per liter except pH.
Range 200030,000 150020,000 300045,000 2001000 10600 10800 540 170 150 1,00010,000 5.38.5 30010,000 2003,000 501,500 2002,000 2002,000 1003,000 1001,500 50600
Typical 10,000 6,000 18,000 500 200 200 25 30 20 3,000 6 3,500 1,000 250 300 500 500 300 60
SOLID WASTE 8.120

CHAPTER EIGHT
above the liner. This head allowance is a design standard and may be exceeded for relatively short periods of time during the active life of the landfill. Leachate is generally collected from the landfill through sand drainage layers, synthetic drainage nets, or granular drainage layers with perforated plastic collection pipes, and is then removed through sumps or gravity drain carrier pipes. The principal components of the leachate collection system are (96): A low-permeability base. The bottom liner should have a minimum slope of 2% for effective gravity drainage through the entire operating and postclosure period. Settlement estimates of the foundation soils should set this 2% grade as a postsettlement design objective (99). A high-permeability drainage layer. The drainage layer is constructed of either natural granular materials (sand and gravel) or synthetic drainage material (geonet) placed directly on the bottom liner, or on a protective bedding layer (e.g., geofabric) directly overlying the liner. Perforated leachate collection pipes. The collection pipes are located within the high-permeability drainage layer to collect leachate and carry it rapidly to a sump or collection header pipe. Protective filter layer. If necessary, a filter layer is placed over the high-permeability drainage material to prevent physical clogging of the material by fine-grained material. Leachate removal system. Collection sumps or header pipe system are installed at low points so leachate can be removed for holding/treatment. The relative performance of design options for the leachate collection system and liner layers may be compared and evaluated by the HELP (Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance) model (100, 101). The HELP model was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and is widely used for evaluating expected hydraulic performance of landfill cover/liner systems (96). The HELP program calculates daily, average, and peak estimates of water movement across, into, through, and out of landfills. The input parameters include soil properties, precipitation and other climatological data, vegetation type, and landfill design information. Default climatologic and soil data are available but should be verified as reasonable for the site modeled. Outputs from the model include precipitation, run-off percolation through the base of each cover layer subprofile, evapotranspiration, and lateral drainage from each profile. A summary of outputs is produced, including average monthly totals, average annual totals, and peak daily values for several simulation variables (96). The leachate collection systems must be designed to support heavy equipment loads during operations and the superimposed refuse load when the landfill has been completed. Figure 8.37 shows a typical plan view for a small lined site. Figures 8.38 and 8.39 are sections through the landfill and illustrate the layout for the leachate collection system. Each lined cell has its own collection system, hydraulically independent from the other cells. In the event of a cell liner failing, the other liners will be unaffected. Leachate discharging from the collection system should be stored in a lagoon. The lagoon serves as an equalization and pumping basin and sampling and monitoring point. The lagoon must be designed to hold the stormwaters from a 1-in (2.5-cm) 25-year storm plus the amount of leachate that would normally be generated over the anticipated holding period of the lagoon. (In areas where the leachate must be trucked to a disposal point or held for spraying on top of the landfill, the lagoon should have at least a 90-day holding capacity.) Leachate generation will be greatest during the operational period and will decrease once the site is capped with an impermeable final cover. Some jurisdictions do not require the impermeable final cover if a leachate collection system is provided. Because the final amount and strength of the leachate cannot be determined, it is best to install an impermeable final cover. The high strength of the leachate makes it difficult to treat by itself. Fortunately, if the wastewater and landfill service areas are identical, the quantity of leachate is very small compared to the wastewater flow. [Leachate from a 15-year, 25-ft (7.5 m) deep landfill will generate less than 0.1% of the daily wastewater flow.]
SOLID WASTE
FIGURE 8.37 Typical plan view for a small landfill.
SOLID WASTE
FIGURE 8.38 Typical section view along the width of a small lined landfill.
SOLID WASTE
FIGURE 8.39 Typical section view along the length of a small lined landfill.
SOLID WASTE 8.124

CHAPTER EIGHT
If possible, it is best to discharge to an existing wastewater plant. However, it is important to understand fully the pretreatment requirements of the receiving plant. Several leachates investigated have exceeded the receiving plants acceptable heavy metal concentrations and required pretreatment. Recycling leachate through the existing landfill has been practiced. This has usually been accomplished by spraying leachate over the top of the operating landfill. If done in hot weather, some evaporation is also achieved. Tittlebaum (60) has reported that raising the pH of the leachate prior to spraying has proved beneficial. A major problem to spraying is odor control. Recycling might be difficult to accomplish after the site is closed, especially if the site is used for recreation. Various methods of on-site leachate treatment are available and have been tested in the landfill industry. Among the physical/chemical treatment technologies in use are: Equalization. Equalization dampens variation in hydraulic and pollutant loadings, thereby reducing shock loads and increasing treatment facility performance. Neutralization. Neutralization dampens pH variations prior to treatment or discharge. Coagulation/flocculation. Coagulation/flocculation provides pollutant removal through aggregation of colloidal solids. Gravity separation. Gravity-assisted separation allows suspended matter to become quiescent and settle and free oils (lighter than water) to become quiescent and float. Emulsion breaking. The addition of a deemulsifier, such as heat or acid, breaks down emulsions to produce a mixture of water and free oil and/or an oily floc. Chemical precipitation. The addition of chemicals to wastewater converts soluble metal salts to insoluble metal oxides, which are then removed by filtration. Chemical oxidation/reduction. By chemical addition, the structure of pollutants are changed so as to disinfect, increase biodegradation and adsorption, or convert pollutants to end products. Air/steam stripping. Air/steam stripping involves the removal of pollutants from wastewater by the transfer of volatile compounds from the liquid phase to a gas stream. Flotation. Injection of fine air bubbles causes suspended solids to float to the surface where they are removed by skimming. Sand filtration. Monomedia or multimedia sand filtration involves a fixed (gravity or pressure) or moving bed of porous media that traps and removes suspended solids from water passing though the media. Ultrafiltration. Extremely fine grade filters are used to remove organic pollutants from wastewater according to the organic molecule size. Reverse osmosis. Reverse osmosis relies on differences in dissolved solids concentrations and selective semipermeable membranes to allow for the concentration of dissolved inorganic pollutants. Fabric filters. Fabric filters screen suspended matter by means of a cloth or paper barrier. Carbon adsorption. In this process, wastewater is passed over a medium of activated carbon, which adsorbs certain pollutants, primarily organics. Ion exchange. Selected resins placed in contact with wastewater remove contaminants of similar charge. Biological wastewater treatment technologies used in the landfill industry for treatment or pretreatment of leachate include: Aerobic systems. Aerobic systems utilize an acclimated community of aerobic microorganisms to degrade, coagulate, and remove organic and other contaminants. Activated sludge. Activated sludge is a continuous flow, aerobic biological treatment process that employs suspended-growth aerobic microorganisms to biodegrade organic contaminants. Anaerobic systems. Anaerobic systems involve the conversion of organic matter in wastewater into methane and carbon dioxide by anaerobic microorganisms. Facultative systems. Facultative systems stabilize wastes by incorporating a combination of aerobic, anaerobic, and facultative (thriving in either aerobic or anaerobic conditions) microorganisms.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.125
Rotating biological contactors. Rotating biological contactors (RBCs) employ a fixed-film aerobic biological system adhering to a rigid medium mounted on a horizontal, rotating shaft. Trickling filters. In this process, wastewater passes over a structure packed with an inert medium (e.g., rock, wood, plastic) coated with a biological film of attached microorganisms capable of absorbing and degrading organic pollutants. Sequential batch reactors. A sequence of batch operations in a single reactor containing acclimated microorganisms is used to degrade organic material. The batch process allows for equalization, aeration, and clarification in a single tank. Powdered activated carbon biological treatment. The addition of granular activated carbon to biological treatment systems enhances the removal of certain organic pollutants. Nitrification systems. These systems use nitrifying bacteria to convert ammonianitrogen compounds to less toxic nitratenitrite compounds. Denitrification systems. These systems convert nitratenitrite to nitrogen gas under anoxicanaerobic conditions. Land application. Spray irrigation or other techniques are used to apply the wastewater to the land for treatment by a combination of biological, chemical, and physical processes. Wetlands treatment. These systems employ natural or man-made wetlands systems that treat wastewater utilizing natural processes of sedimentation, adsorption, and organic degradation. The treatment sequence employed at any particular facility may vary with the pollutant characteristics of the leachate generated at the landfill. The optimal treatment system at a facility depends upon many factors, including permit requirements, design considerations, landfill acceptance criteria, and management practices. The EPAS new source performance standards (40CFR445) for treatment of leachate and other nonhazardous waste landfill wastewaters before discharge to surface waters are presented in Table 8.54 (102105) Various forms of equalization and aerobic biological systems, including aerated lagoons, activated sludge systems, and sequential batch reactors, are the most widely used treatment technology in the landfill industry. These biological systems generally utilize high retention times to enhance performance by reducing variations in raw wastewater flow and pollutant loads. Vent Landfill Gases. The two principal gases generated in a landfill are carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4). CO2 is generated during the early (aerobic) stages of landfill life. CH4 is generated during the later stages of landfill life (anaerobic). Figure 8.40 illustrates gas production and composition from an experimental landfill.
Table 8.54 Nonhazardous Leachate Treatment Limitations for Discharges to Surface Waters Pollutant or pollutant property BOD5, mg/L TSS, mg/L Ammonia, mg/L Zinc, mg/L Alpha Terpineol, mg/L Benzoic Acid, mg/L p-Cresol, mg/L Phenol, mg/L Toluene, mg/L pH, units (range) Maximum for any one day 160 89 5.9 0.20 0.059 0.23 0.046 0.045 0.080 6.09.0 Monthly average 40 27 2.5 0.11 0.029 0.13 0.026 0.026 0.026 6.09.0
SOLID WASTE 8.126

CHAPTER EIGHT
FIGURE 40 Gas production from an experimental landfill (62).
The explosive CH4 is the most worrisome for landfill designers. The lighter-than-air CH4 will rise until it meets an impermeable barrier. It is then deflected laterally until an escape is found. There are many ways to vent a new landfill. The best vents are probably the ones that are incorporated with the leachate collection manholes as shown in Figure 8.38. These manholes are on the perimeter of the site and have the best chance of being preserved during operations. Placing vents near the high point of the landfill after completion but prior to final cover placement is another method with a good chance of survival. Prepare Preliminary Site Layouts. The last steps in the preliminary design stage are the determination of the operating methods, preparation of alternative site layouts, computation of earthwork quantities, and the preparation of the preliminary cost estimates for each alternative. The following is a summary of the required tasks. Preliminary layouts for the site are most easily studied after plotting on the site topographic map. A map scale of 1:1200 (1 in = 100 ft) and a 2-ft contour interval is standard. The map used in the hydrogeologic study should be satisfactory. Since earthwork computations will be required, cross sections through the site must be plotted. A grid system should be established and cross sections plotted every 100 ft (30 m) along the principal axis of the site and at 200-ft (60-m) intervals along the minor axis of the site. A good cross section scale is 1:600 (1 in = 50 ft) horizontal and 1:60 (1 in = 5 ft) vertical. The work area for the site must be defined. The desired setbacks from roads and other physical barriers must be plotted. The designer must also determine the desirable methods of operation. The slope of the existing ground, direction of prevailing wind, amount of topsoil and dirt to be stockpiled and the equipment to be used will all influence operating methods.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.127
Special attention must be given to the movement of all equipment on the site. Landfills are subjected to heavy traffic peaking, i.e., all refuse trucks will arrive at the site at the same time. Paved roads must be laid out so that the destructive tracked landfill equipment does not have to cross them. The movement of cover material is one of the landfills principal activities. The site layout must provide for efficient movement. Double handling of excavated material must be minimized. In northern climates, consideration must be given to preventing the cover material from freezing. During freezing weather, the movement of heavy equipment over cover material will drive frost deeper into it. The unfortunate result is the impossible task of excavating the frozen cover material. Figure 8.39 shows a combination of the so-called trench and area fill methods. The trench fill method consists of excavating a trench (cell) below the ground surface. The trench is filled by depositing refuse at the top of the trench and spreading it down a ramp to the bottom. The trench can be excavated using draglines or scrapers. The excavated earth can be stockpiled on the adjoining trench for later use as daily cover. The trench method leaves a wedge of undisturbed earth between trenches that serves to isolate each trench. The amount of cover material needed for trench fills is less than other operating methods because only the top of the refuse must be covered. A disadvantage of the trench fill is the space taken up by the wedge between trenches. The top portion of the landfill section illustrated in Figure 8.39 is an area fill operation. Area fill operations take place on large open areas. The refuse is placed on top of the area and spread and compacted. Daily cover is transported to the area, usually by scraper. Landfill operations above ground are normally area fills. The locations of the active fill areas, roads, fences, buildings, and other physical features must be plotted on the site topographic map. The proposed top and bottom elevations of the fill are plotted on the crosssection sheets. These elevations should be plotted on both the cross sections drawn along the principal axis at 100-ft (30-m) intervals and the minor axis at 200-ft (60-m) intervals. The cross sections are used to compute earthwork quantities and to layout leachate facilities. The volumes of earth to be excavated can be computed by the average end area method. The formula for volumes by this method is V=L A1 + A2 2
where V = volume (ft3 or m3) between sections A1 and A2 L = length (ft or m) between sections A1 and A2 A = area, ft2 or m2 The amount of earth excavated must be balanced with the needs of the landfill for daily and final cover. In addition, the dirt excavation operation must be evaluated to determine if it can keep ahead of refuse filling. Typical earth-moving operations for which quantities must be computed are 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Stripping and stockpiling topsoil for future use Excavating trenches or portions of the area fill to the desired grade The placement and compaction of a clay or soil-additive liner The placement of the earth cushion over any liner The hauling and placement of daily cover The excavation and placement of the final cover The placement of topsoil over the final cover Estimates of the development cost must be prepared. Typical line items in a cost estimate are 1. Site clearing 2. Strip and stockpile topsoil
SOLID WASTE 8.128

CHAPTER EIGHT
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.
Site fencing Utilities Gate house Scale Maintenance building Leachate lagoon Leachate collection system Trench excavation (six months needs) Liner installation (six months needs) Earth cushion over liner On-site roads, culverts, and berms Off-site road improvements Land purchase Engineering Equipment
An important part of any estimate is the determination of the cash-flow requirements for site development. This is especially true in areas where liner placement might be delayed for four months because of inclement weather. The establishment of a critical-path diagram for site development will be of great assistance in any cash-flow analysis. Final Design. The final design documents are used to obtain a permit from the regulatory agency and develop the site. These documents must be sufficiently detailed to satisfy both requirements. As-built changes that occur during the operating life of the site are also recorded on these documents. Prepare Plans for State Regulatory Agency. The plans submitted for a permit or license must show in sufficient detail the design for the landfill. Most states have specific submittal requirements. As a minimum the submittal should include The soils and hydrogeologic study. The landfill layout, clearly showing the location of fill areas, storm drainage, roads, fences, buildings, leachate facilities and borrow areas. This layout is plotted on the site topographic map. Sufficient cross sections to show the bottom and top elevations of the fill, liner systems, the finish side slopes, and the location of any leachate facilities. Plan sheets detailing the groundwater monitoring systems, sedimentation control structures, leachate systems, roads, and other facilities to be constructed on the site. An operating plan for the site should be prepared. This plan would outline the workers and equipment needed to operate the site. The planned method for collecting and disposing of the leachate must be addressed. The plan must also include the estimated daily tonnage, the estimated life of the site, and a statement on how the site will be monitored after closing. Preparation of Construction Documents. Once a permit/license is obtained for a site, it is necessary to build it. Since most landfill operators do not have the capabilities to construct all portions of the site, it might be necessary to prepare plans and specifications for the various individual projects. Separate contract documents might be prepared for Fences Roads Buildings Liner systems Trench excavation Equipment
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.129
Periodic testing of groundwater wells Scales Much time and effort will be saved if the designer is able to use sheets of the plans submitted to the regulatory agency for the contract project plans. Like all civil engineering projects, a permanent system of control points must be established in the field. These control points will be used during the construction and operation of the landfill for horizontal layout. A series of benchmarks must also be established around the site. Prepare Final Cost Estimate. Table 8.55 is a typical final cost estimate for a sanitary landfill. Item 1 of the final estimate lists the development costs for the landfill. These costs will be incurred prior to the opening of the site. Normally, the money for this work is borrowed at current interest rates. This money will be repaid over the operating life of the site. Included in the estimate is an item for purchase of a truck and tank to haul leachate from the holding lagoon to a nearby treatment plant. Item II of the final estimate is an estimate of the annual operating costs for the landfill. Included in this estimate is an item for the cost of final cover and perpetual care of the facility. These costs must be collected prior to the closing of the site. Item III of the final estimate states the unit cost of operating the site. Landfill Closure. Key objectives for landfill closure are establishment of a low-maintenance cover systems and minimization of the infiltration of precipitation into the waste. Landfill closure technology, design, and maintenance procedures continue to evolve as new geosynthetic materials are developed and as performance history is evaluated for the relatively small number of landfills that have been closed using modern procedures and materials (94). At a minimum, the closure system should include an erosion (vegetative) layer and an infiltration layer. For specific site conditions, closure system options are a biotic, drainage, and/or gas vent layer. The placement or vertical position of these layers is presented in Table 8-56. The closure cover system should be designed to minimize infiltration and erosion and be designed and constructed to: Minimize infiltration by the use of an infiltration layer that contains a minimum of 18 in (45 cm) of an earthen material Minimize erosion of the final cover (top layer) by the use of an erosion layer that contains a minimum 6 in (15 cm) of earthen material that is capable of sustaining native plant growth Control permeability to less than or equal to the permeability of any bottom liner system or natural subsoils present, or a permeability no greater than 1 105 cm/sec, whichever is less. Other important technical issues in design development include the: Degree and rate of postclosure settlement and stresses imposed on soil and/or membrane liner components Long-term durability and survivability of cover system Long-term waste decomposition and management of landfill leachate and gases Environmental performance of the combined final cover system and bottom liner Erosion Layer. The thickness of the erosion layer is influenced by depth of frost penetration and erosion potential but in no case be less than. This layer also is referred to as the vegetation layer. Vegetative covers are advantageous as they improve the appearance of the site, control erosion of the final cover system, and should require only minimal maintenance. The vegetation component of the erosion layer should have the following specifications and characteristics (106): Locally adapted perennial plants that are resistant to drought and temperature extremes Roots that will not disrupt the low-permeability layer
SOLID WASTE
TABLE 8.55 Sanitary Landfill Final Cost Estimate Estimated quantity ___________________ Customary units SI units Unit used ___________________ Customary units SI units Unit price, $ ___________________ Customary units SI units Amount, $
Work item
Item I: Development costs Install monitor wells Install sediment traps Clear site Excavate overburden Muck excavation Construct earth berms Install leachate manhole Install sanitary manhole Install leachate sewer Install sanitary sewer Excavate leachate lagoon Install lagoon PVC liner 200 60.96 3 3 36.6 14.8 120,000 91,752 5,000 10,000 7 5 1,610 500 4,300 27,216 3,823 7,646 7 5 490.728 152.4 3,287.78 Foot Each Acre Cubic yard Cubic yard Cubic yard Each Each Foot Foot Cubic yard Meter Each Hectare Cubic meter Cubic meter Cubic meter Each Each Meter Meter Cubic meter Square meter Meter Meter Metric ton Metric ton Meter Lump sum Lump sum 14. 50 300.00 1,450.00 .95 2.50 0.85 400.00 600.00 8.75 20.00 1.10 0.41 2.75 8.50 19.00 25.00 150.00 15,000.00 35,000.00 47.57 2,900.00 300.00 900.00 3,585 81 53,070.00 1.24 114,000.00 3 27 1.11 400.00 600.00 28.71 65.62 1.44 4.41 9.02 27 89 2094 27 56 492 13 15,000.00 35,000.00 12,500.00 8,500.00 2,800.00 3,000.00 14,087.50 10,000.00 4,730.00 11,158.56 13,117.50 5,950.00 19,000.00 12,500.00 16,500.00 15,000.00 35,000.00
2,528.3664 Square foot 1,453.896 213.36 907.18 453.59 33.528 I I I 152.4 975.36 44,417.8125 Foot Foot Ton Ton Foot Lump sum Lump sum Lump sum Foot Foot Square foot
Fence site 4,770 Grade entrance road 700 Place asphalt base 1,000 Place asphalt surface 500 On-site transfer station 110 Gate house I Purchase and install I scale Maintenance building I On-site service road 500 PVC liner anchor trench 3,200 Place PVC liner 478,125 Place liner sand cushion 478,125 Place topsoil and seed Install waterwell Install septic tank Purchase 40CY containers Purchase leachate truck Purchase leachate tank Purchase land Pave public approach road Total development cost 2 1 I 3
44,417.8125 Square foot 0.81 1 I 3 Acre Lump sum Lump sum Each Each Each Acre Foot
Lump sum 120,000.00 120,000.00 120,000.00 Meter 6.00 19.69 3,000.00 Meter 0.50 1.64 1,600.00 Square 0.36 3.88 172,125.00 meter Square 0.05 0.54 23,906.25 meter Hectare 780.00 1,925.93 1,560.00 Lump sum 3,000.00 3,00000 3,000.00 Lump sum 3,200.00 3,20000 3,200.00 Each 3,000.00 3,000.00 9,000.00 Each Each Hectare Meter 53,000.00 4,500.00 1,495.96 9.50 53,000.00 53,000.00 4,500.00 4,500.00 3,695.98 124,000.00 31.17 _________ 55,290.00 928,894.81 _________
I I 1 1 82.89 33.55 5,820 1,773.936
Estimated life of site is ten (10) years Current prevailing interest rate is 9% Estimated annual development cost is $144,900
144,900.00 _________
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.131
TABLE 8.55 Sanitary Landfill Final Cost Estimate (continued) Estimated quantity ___________________ Customary units SI units Unit used ___________________ Customary units SI units Unit price, $ ___________________ Customary units SI units Amount, $
Work item
Item II: Annual operating costs A. Personnel Equipment operators (3) Gatekeeper Laborer (1) Engineering time Total annual personnel cost B. Equipment Landfill compactor Crawler loader Earthmover Leachate truck Total annual equipment cost C. Miscellaneous Costs Utilities, tools, etc. Liners: installed Leachate treatment Other Contracts Final cover and perpetual care Total annual miscellaneous cost D. Total annual operating cost Item III: Unit cost Annual development cost Annual operating Cost Total annual Cost Estimated tons per 300 operating day Operating days per year 306 Annual tons of solid 91,800 waste Cost per ton (customary) 144,900.00 532,500.00 677,400.00 272.154 306 83,279.124 7.38 85,000.00 20,000.00 22,000.00 28,000.00 _________ 155,000.00 75,000.00 35,000.00 85,000.00 15,000.00 _________ 210,000.00 22,00000 75,00000 3,500 00 15,000.00 52,000.00 _________ 167,500.00 _________ 532,500.00
The ability to thrive in low-nutrient soil with minimum nutrient addition Sufficient plant density to minimize cover soil erosion The ability to survive and function with little or no maintenance A variety of plant species sufficient to continue to achieve these characteristics and specifications over time Deep-rooted shrubs and trees are generally inappropriate because the root systems may penetrate the infiltration layer, creating preferential pathways of percolation. Plant species with fibrous or branching root
SOLID WASTE 8.132

CHAPTER EIGHT
TABLE 8.56 Solid Waste Landfill Closure System Layers
systems are best suited for this application and may include a large variety of grasses and shallow-rooted plants. The timing of seeding (spring or fall in most climates) is critical to successful germination and establishment of the vegetative cover (106). Temporary vegetative covers may be grown from fast-growing seed stock, such as ryegrass. Selection of the soil for the vegetative cover (erosion layer) should include consideration of soil type, nutrient and pH levels, climate, species of the vegetation selected, mulching, and seeding time. Loamy soils with a sufficient organic content generally are preferred. The balance of clay, silt, and sand in loamy soils provides an environment conducive to seed germination and root growth (107). In some cases, the erosion layer may be asphalt or concrete. These materials promote run-off with negligible erosion; however, they will deteriorate due to thermal expansion and deformation caused by subsidence. In other cases, crushed rock may be spread over the landfill cover in areas where weather conditions, such as wind, heavy rain, or temperature extremes, would be expected to cause deterioration of vegetative covers (106). Biotic Layer. Deep plant roots or burrowing animals (collectively called biointruders) may disrupt the
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.133
drainage and the low hydraulic conductivity layers, thereby interfering with the drainage capability of the layers. A 30 cm (12 in) biotic barrier of cobbles directly beneath the erosion layer may stop the penetration of some deep-rooted plants and the invasion of burrowing animals. Geosynthetic products that incorporate a time-released herbicide into the matrix or on the surface of the polymer also may be used to retard plant roots. The longevity of these products requires evaluation if the cover system is to serve for longer than 30 to 50 years (108). Drainage Layer. The drainage layer in a final cover system redirects percolating water that has infiltrated through the erosion layer after surface mn-off and evapotranspiration losses. By removing water in contact with the low-permeability layer, the potential for leachate generation is diminished. Caution should be taken when using a drainage layer because this layer may prematurely draw moisture from the erosion layer that is needed to sustain vegetation. A permeable drainage layer, constructed of soil or geosynthetic drainage material, may be constructed between the erosion layer and the underlying infiltration layer. If a drainage layer is used, a filter layer, composed of either a low-nutrient soil or geosynthetic material, may be placed between the drainage layer and the cover soil to help minimize clogging of the drainage layer by root systems or soil particles. With soil or geosynthetic material, the filter layer should be at least 12 in (30 cm) thick with a hydraulic conductivity in the range of 1 10.22cm/sec to 1 103 cm/sec. When granular drainage layer material is used, the filter layer should be sloped at least 3% at the bottom of the layer. Greater thickness and/or slope may be necessary to provide sufficient drainage flow as determined by site-specific modeling (106). Granular drainage material will vary from site to site depending on the type of material that is locally available and economical to use. Typically, the material should be no coarser than 0.3 75 inch (0.95 cm), classified according to the Universal Soil Classification System (USCS) as type SP, smooth and rounded, and free of debris that could damage an underlying membrane (106). When geosynthetic materials are used, the filter layer (preferably a nonwoven needle-punch fabric) should be placed above the geosynthetic material to minimize intrusion and clogging by roots or by soil material from the top layer. Gas Vent Layer. Landfill gas collection systems serve to inhibit gas migration and typically are installed directly beneath the infiltration layer to collect combustible gases (methane) and other potentially harmful gases (hydrogen sulfide) generated by microorganisms during biological decay of organic wastes. The collection system diverts these gases via a pipe system through the infiltration layer to the gas vent layer. The gas vent layer is usually 12 in (30 cm) thick and should be located between the infiltration layer and the waste layer. Materials used in construction of the gas vent layer should be medium- to coarse-grained porous materials or geosynthetic materials with demonstrated equivalent performance. Venting to an exterior collection point may be provided by pipes configured laterally throughout the gas vent layer to channel the gases to vertical risers or lateral headers. If vertical risers are used, their number should be minimized, as they are frequently vandalized, and located at high points in the cross section (106). Since condensates will form within the gas collection pipes, the design should address drainage condensate drainage from low points. Infiltration Layer. The infiltration layer must be at least 18 in (45 cm) thick and consist of earthen material that has a hydraulic conductivity (coefficient of permeability) less than or equal to the hydraulic conductivity of any bottom liner system or natural subsoils. If a membrane is in the bottom liner, there must be a membrane liner in the final cover to achieve a permeability that is less than or equal to the permeability of the bottom liner. For units that have a composite liner with a membrane liner, or naturally occurring soils with very low permeability, such as 1 108 cm/sec, the infiltration layer also should include a synthetic membrane as part of the final cover. Landfill units with poor or nonexistent bottom liners possessing hydraulic conductivities greater than 1 105 cm/sec must have an infiltration layer that meets the 1 105 cm/sec minimum requirement. The infiltration layer is designed and constructed in a manner similar to that used for soil liners (107), with the following differences:
SOLID WASTE 8.134

CHAPTER EIGHT
Because the cover is generally not subject to large overburden loads, the issue of compressive stresses is less critical unless postclosure land use will entail construction of objects that exert large amounts of stress. The soil cover is subject to loadings from settlement of underlying materials. The extent of settlement anticipated should be evaluated and a closure and postclosure maintenance plan should be designed to compensate for the effects of settlement. Direct shear tests performed on construction materials should be conducted at lower shear stresses than those used for liner system designs. Earthen material used in the construction of the infiltration layer should be free of rocks, debris, and other such material that may increase the hydraulic conductivity by promoting preferential flow paths. To facilitate run-off while minimizing erosion, the surface of the compacted soil should have a minimum slope of 3% and a maximum slope of 5% after allowance for settlement. Final side slopes, which often are greater than 5%, should be evaluated for erosion potential. Membrane and clay layers should be placed below the maximum depth of frost penetration to avoid freezethaw effects (106). Infiltration layers may be subject to desiccation, depending on climate and soil water retention in the erosion layer. Fracturing and volumetric shrinking of the clay due to water loss may increase the hydraulic conductivity of the infiltration layer. When a membrane is used as an infiltration layer, the membrane should be at least 20 mils in thickness. Some membrane materials may need to be a greater thickness; for example, a minimum thickness of 60 mils is recommended for HDPE because of the difficulties in making consistent field seams in thinner material. Increased thickness and tensile strengths may be necessary to prevent failure under stresses caused by construction and by waste settlement during the postclosure care period. The hydraulic performance, strength, resistance to sliding, and actual thickness of membranes should be considered. Hydraulic Performance. The design of a final cover is site-specific and the relative performance of cover design options may be compared and evaluated by the HELP (Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance) model (100, 101). The HELP model may be used to estimate the hydraulic performance of the final cover system design. Information provided by the HELP model includes surface run-off, duration and quantity of water storage within the erosion layer, and net infiltration through the cover system to evaluate whether leachate will accumulate within the landfill (107). Settlement and Subsidence. Waste decomposition and consolidation can cause excessive settlement and subsidence of the final cover system. This can impair the integrity of the system and can result in: Ponding of surface water on the erosion or infiltration layer Interference with operation of the gas collection pipe system Fracturing of low-permeability infiltration layers Structural failure of membrane liners The extent and rate of waste settlement is an estimate at best. Records of the type, quantity, and location of waste materials disposed may be useful. Compacting the waste daily or landfilling baled waste will reduce the settlement from consolidation. Sliding Instability. The slope angle, slope length, and overlying soil load limit the stability of component interfaces (membrane with soil, geotextile, and geotextile/soil). Soil water pore pressures developed along interfaces also can dramatically reduce stability. Unstable slopes may require remedial measures to improve stability as a means of offsetting potential long-term maintenance costs.
LAND RECLAMATION
Using the principles and practices of sanitary landfill design, otherwise useless land may be reclaimed with solid wastes without concern for development of health problems. In practice, land reclamation is most
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.135
commonly associated with selection of a landfill site that will provide for treatment and disposal of solid wastes. Land reclamation may also be achieved when the end products of solid waste treatment are applied to poor-quality or disturbed lands. Compost and the residue from incineration and other thermal processes may be used. Soil conditioning is best achieved with the application of compost or codisposal with stabilized wastewater sludges. Composting Composting is the biodegradation of the organic constituents in wastes (solid wastes and wastewater sludges). Through the microbial activity taking place during composting, organic matter is decomposed into a stable, humus-like substance. At the same time the heat produced can result in pathogen destruction. Composting is an ancient practice whereby farmers have converted organic wastes into soil amendments. These amendments were used to stabilize soils from erosion, provide nutrients, and replenish depleted organic matter that was lost through intensive farming. Composting of organic wastes and residues remained more of an art than a science until about 50 years ago. Until this period, there were several developments of mechanical or intensive systems in Europe, such as the Itano process in 1928, Beccari in 1931, and VAM in 1932. The Europeans continued to develop and install composting systems in Europe, South America, and Asia. In 1974, the U.S. Department of Agriculture at Beltsville, Maryland, developed the static pile method. This method is currently being used by over 200 municipalities throughout the United States. Principal examples of municipalities using this process are Durham, N.H., Bangor, Me., Portland, Me., Greenwich, Ct., Camden, N.J., Philadelphia, Pa., Washington, D.C., Columbus, Ohio, and Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Public Health Issues. The major public health issues associated with composting using solid wastes mixed with sewage sludge are pathogens, heavy metals, and odors. Pathogens. Sewage sludge contains numerous pathogenic organisms. The four principal groups are bacteria, viruses, protozoa and helminths. Many of these pathogens survive the wastewater treatment and during the process are deposited in the sludge. The heat generated during composting, as a result of the activities of thermophilic organisms, is capable of killing all four groups of pathogens present in sewage sludge. The efficiency of pathogen destruction depends on the ability of the process to subject the sludge to uniformly high temperatures. Figure 8.41 shows typical temperatures achieved by the static aerated pile method. Similar temperatures can be achieved using the within-vessel method. Windrow composting generally results in lower temperatures. In September 1979, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued regulations title Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices (40 CFR Part 257). Two major process categories were described: (1) processes to significantly reduce pathogens (PSRP), and (2) processes to further reduce pathogens (PFRP). PSRP were designed to result in 90% reduction of bacteria and viruses, and PFRP were aimed at reducing pathogens to negligible numbers. Heavy Metals. Heavy metals are present in sewage sludge as a result of domestic and industrial discharges. Normally, domestic sewage contains very low levels of heavy metals. However, industrial discharge can result in large quantities of various elements. The EPA is primarily concerned with those elements that can accumulate in food crops and are toxic to humans. The elements in sludge of greatest concern to human health are cadmium, lead, arsenic, selenium, and mercury. Only cadmium is normally found in sewage sludge at levels that, when applied to soils, can be absorbed by plants and accumulate in edible parts, thereby entering the food chain. Odors and Vectors. Sewage sludge contains volatile malodorous compounds, such as mercaptans, skatoles, phenols, and hydrogen sulfide. During composting these compounds can produce unpleasant odors.
SOLID WASTE 8.136

CHAPTER EIGHT
FIGURE 8.41 Maximum, minimum, and mean temperatures recorded during the composting of raw sludge by the Beltsville aerated pile method.
Selection of the proper process, designing the facility, and managing it properly will result in an operation free of malodors. Vectors, such as rats and flies, are not found in sewage sludge composting operations. However, they may be present in solid waste or garbage composting operations if the facility is not kept clean or managed properly. Biological Processes. Rapid biodegradation of the sludge and stabilization of the organic fraction as compost depends mainly on the optimal interaction of temperature, oxygen, moisture, and the carbon/nitrogen ratio. Temperature. The microbial population changes continually during composting. As the temperature changes from ambient to mesophilic [104 to 113F (40 to 45C)] bacteria multiply and will reach levels of several million per gram. If the heat produced during the biological activity is contained within the system, the temperature will progress from the mesophilic stage to the thermophilic stage. Mesophilic bacteria are then replaced by thermophilic bacteria and other organisms, such as fungi and actinomycetes. Spore-forming bacteria as well as thermophilic actinomycetes are found at temperatures exceeding 158F (70C). Most of the decomposition occurs in the thermophilic stage. As indicated earlier, the high temperatures above 131F (55C) will effectively destroy most pathogens. After several weeks of composting, temperatures begin to decrease and eventually the thermophilic organisms give way to mesophilic ones. Oxygen. Composting can occur under anaerobic (lack of oxygen) or aerobic conditions. Aerobic composting is not only faster but also does not produce malodors. Consequently, sewage sludge of solid waste
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.137
composting is generally conducted under aerobic conditions. Aerobic conditions can be obtained by periodically turning the mass of organic materials or by forcing air through the mass. Oxygen levels between 5 and 15% are optimum. Oxygen levels below 5% may result in anaerobic conditions, which may slow the decomposition process and produce undesirable odors. Oxygen levels above 15% are indicative of excessive aeration and may result in loss of heat with slower decomposition and poor pathogen destruction. Moisture. The optimum moisture levels for composting are between 50 and 60% by weight. Below 40%, decomposition is reduced, and above 60% the pore space necessary for aerobic composting is blocked by water and anaerobic conditions can occur. Moisture also affects the processing and materials handling in composting operations. Carbon/Nitrogen Ratio. The carbon/nitrogen (C/N) ratio is one of the most important parameters affecting the role of decomposition of organic materials. Carbon is an energy source for the microorganisms, whereas nitrogen is necessary for protein synthesis. The ideal C/N ratio is between 25 and 30. Sewage sludge has a low C/N ratio (10 to 15), whereas solid waste has a high ratio (35 to 80). The use of bulking materials with sewage sludge enhances the C/N ratio and the use of sewage sludge in combination with solid waste improves the latters ratio. Process Flow. There are two principal methods for aerobic composting. One method utilizes agitation or turning to induce aerobic conditions, whereas the other method employs mechanical means of forcing air into the system. Figure 8.42 illustrates the process flow for the forced-air system. The agitated system, often characterized by the windrow method, may not require a bulking material, or the bulking material may be the dried compost. In most cases sewage sludge is mixed with a bulking material, solid waste, or dried compost. Good, thorough mixing is essential. In the case of solid waste, grinding is essential in order to increase the surface area and accelerate composting. The mixture is then placed in windrows, aerated piles, tanks, drums, or silos. The mixture is composted for 14 to 21 days. Depending on the facilities available, climate, and materials handling, drying may or may not be needed. Drying facilitates screening, bulking material recovery, and solid waste separation. Screening also produces a uniform product for distribution and marketing. Design Considerations. The selection of the composting system and the design of facilities depend on such aspects as the site of operations, climate, sludge and solid waste characteristics, and types of bulking material available. Site. The two most important site considerations are location and land availability. Ideally, the composting site should be located near a landfill or, in the case of sludge, adjacent to a wastewater treatment plant. This will reduce materials handling and facilitate operations. Proximity to residences or industry impact the
FIGURE 8.42 Typical flow scheme of the composting operation.
SOLID WASTE 8.138

CHAPTER EIGHT
facilities required and costs. Nonintensive composting operations will generally require 1 acre (0.4 ha) of land for 6 dry tons (5.4 metric tons) of sludge solids produced per day. Climate. Cold ambient temperatures rarely affect the composting process unless the solid waste or sludge is frozen. Precipitation primarily affects the mixing and screening phases of the process. In areas of high precipitation or when it occurs in periods of high intensity, certain phases of the process should be under cover. Cover may be necessary to facilitate materials handling and ease of operation. Sludge Characteristics. The percentage of solids impacts materials handling, bulking material selection, and the quantities needed. A sludge with 17% solids could require 3 parts of bulking agent to 1 part sludge, whereas at 25% solids, between 1.5 and 2 volumes of bulking material are needed. The chemical characteristics of the sludge may also impact the bulking material selection and quantity used. Since sewage sludge often contains undesirable heavy metals, the bulking material dilutes the heavy metal content and reduces their availability to plants. Furthermore, the bulking material enhances the C/N ratio and often improves the product. Solid Waste Characteristics. Solid waste consisting of paper, metals, garbage, glass, and plastics needs to be ground. The finer the particle size, the faster and more efficient is the composting process. Separation of materials reduces materials handling and results in a better product. Some processes first separate while others compost and then screen. The former is preferable. Bulking Materials. Bulking materials serve three functions. They adjust the moisture content of the mass, adjust the C/N ratio, and provide structure or porosity to the mass. The most common bulking materials are woodchips, sawdust, solid waste, shredded rubber tires, straw, leaves, brush chips, bark, and compost. Important characteristics are particle size, moisture content, and adsorbancy. Bulking materials also affect the processing time, materials handling facilities, and product characteristics. High carbonaceous or cellulitic materials generally require long curing periods and large particles need to be ground. In the static pile system, the preferred particle size is 1.5 to 3.0 in (3.8 to 7.6 cm). Materials Handling. Municipal or industrial waste composting is essentially materials handling that must be cognizant of the biological requirements of the system. Mixing is best done by auger feed mixers or pugmills. Conveyance to the specific composting site is accomplished with front-end loaders or conveyers. Removal of the material after composting depends on the method used and is done by front-end loaders, augers, and conveyers or digging equipment with elevators and conveyers. Numerous screens are available, from trommel to circular and horizontal shakers. Efficiency of the screen is primarily dependent on moisture content. Materials should not be screened if the moisture content exceeds 50%. Below 35% dust could be a major problem. Screen size depends on the use of the product and the desirability of recovering the bulking material. Most composting operations use screens with 0.25 to 0.50 in (0.6 to 1.2 cm) mesh size. The product can be marketed in bulk or bagged. Methods of Composting. There are three principal methods for composting solid waste and sewage sludge. These are windrow, static pile, and in-vessel. Windrow Methods. The windrow system consists of mixing the sludge with a hulking material or previously dried sludge and periodically turning the mass. Open windrow systems are often adequate for digested sludge but are not suitable for undigested (raw) sludge. Odor problems can be very severe when raw sludge is composted in the windrow. Static Pile. This method was developed at the Department of Agriculture research station at Beltsville, Maryland, in 1975. Currently, this is the most widely used system in the United States. It consists of mixing the sludge with a bulking material and placing the mixture over perforated pipe, i.e., an aerating system (Figure 8.43). The mixture is then insulated with screened or unscreened compost. Air is introduced into the mixture through a blower system. Negative (suction) or positive (blowing) pressure is used and the rate of airflow is controlled to maintain proper oxygen and temperature. Air is also used to increase moisture removal. After composting for 14 to 28 days, the material is usually screened to recover the bulking material for reuse. If drying is necessary, the material can be moved for a short period into a drying shed or left out-
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.139
FIGURE 8.43 Composting with forced aeration.
doors to cure and dry. It is preferable to dry and screen before curing because it reduces the material to be handled and provides for more efficient use of the bulking material. Vertical Systems. Vertical enclosed systems are usually free flowing and consist of either round or square bins, silos, or towers. Materials enter the top of the unit and are extracted at the bottom after composting for a given period of time. Hulking or carbonaceous material is added prior to entering the units. Aerobic conditions are maintained by forcing air through the sludge-bulking material mix from the bottom. Off gases and odors can be controlled through removal and scrubbing. Temperature or other parameters are monitored through ports along the vertical wall. Moisture control is minimal because the air warms up as it progresses through the composting mixture. The heated air condenses at the top when it reaches the cool mass of new material. Material is usually removed from the bins or silos after 14 days. At this time it undergoes curing. Curing can take place in a second unit essentially designed in the same manner, or the compost can be cured in a shed or outdoors. The length of the curing will depend on the facilities, i.e., covered or not, and whether air is induced into the compost. Curing usually takes place for several weeks. Agitated Bed. This enclosed horizontal system consists of an aerated bed contained in a horizontal bin. A premixed bulking agent and sludge is introduced into the bin. The material in the bin can be periodically turned by mechanical means. Material is removed from the bin mechanically. Composting in bins occurs over a period of 14 to 21 days. Curing takes place outside the bins either in an open or covered area and can be accelerated by induced air. Pugflow System. This horizontal type of system consists of a totally enclosed bin with a hydraulic ram that moves the materials through the unit. Only pilot models are available at present. One unit in Europe is being used in an industrial application. There is no history of operations or data on process efficiency. Rotating Drum. The system consists of a large-diameter rotating drum whereby sludge and bulking materials are introduced and retained for short time periods (24 to 48 h). These systems have been primarily used for cocomposting of solid waste and sludge. Material ejected from the drum must be further composted and then cured. These additional steps can take place in the windrow or static pile. A cocomposting system is currently being operated in the United States. Economics. Composting cost at various communities indicates a wide range from $42 to $144 per dry ton (0.91 t) of sludge. The primary reason for this wide discrepancy is the result of improper site and facilities
SOLID WASTE 8.140

CHAPTER EIGHT
design, which result in excessive operating costs and rising costs of bulking material, The major factors affecting operating costs are bulking material cost, recovery product value and remuneration, and labor. Proper materials, handling, and equipment selection can result in efficient bulking material recovery and savings of 15 to 25% of the other costs. Economy of Scale. The effect of facilitys size on economics of composting is shown in Table 8.55. The hypothetical numbers were developed for facilities from 1 to 10 dry tons/day (0.91 to 9.1 t/day) and at two different sludge solids contents. Relatively little additional economy of scale will result above 10 dry tons/day because equipment and labor are already fully utilized. Solids content affects sludge volume, bulking agent mix ratio, land area, and materials handling costs. Equipment and labor are the two major items affected by the capacity of the facility. The amount of land required for composting depends on the volume of sludge to be processed, solids content, and the system used. In its simplest form the static pile method requires approximately 1 acre for 5 to 6 dry tons (0.4 ha for 4.5 to 5.5 t) of sludge produced. The windrow system requires considerably more land since current windrow machines produce low [4-ft (1.2-m) high] windrows. The in-vessel system requires less space than the static pile method. Land costs do not greatly affect the overall cost. Composting operations should preferably be sited at the treatment plant. Table 8.57 shows the sensitivity of capital and O&M costs for the simplified static pile system. This system does not include any buildings and assumes that the facility is part of the wastewater treatment plant operation. In cold, humid areas a drying building may be desirable. The bulking agent and labor have the greatest impact on total costs for 5- and 10-dry-tons/day (4.5- and 9.l-t/day) facilities. Equipment cost is much more sensitive to facility size. Sludge solids content affects larger facilities to a much greater extent. The basic equipment requirements for composting facilities are mixing, materials handling, and screening equipment. Product Market Value. Composting of sewage sludge results in a marketable end product. Depending on the quality and uniformity of the material, the product has a value as an organic soil conditioner. Table 8.58 shows the effect of price change or remuneration for the sale of compost on the cost of composting. In many cases the value of the product is equivalent to potting media or topsoil. The value of $115 represents a hypothetical figure for a facility and its O&M cost assuming the compost is distributed at no value. At $5 per cubic yard ($6.60/m3) the total costs (i.e., capital and O&M) would be reduced to $60 per dry ton ($66/t) of sludge. Thus, market development can result in substantial savings to a compost facility.
TABLE 8.57 Baseline Composting Costs, $/Dry Ton Solids content 15% Solids content capacity, dry tons/day Item Site Equipment O&M labor Bulking agent Other Total costs Sale of compost Net costs 1 10 46 55 40 17 168 38 130 5 10 15 33 40 17 116 38 78 10 10 12 22 40 17 101 38 63 1 5 46 55 18 17 141 22 119 5 5 15 23 18 17 78 22 56 10 5 8 16 18 17 64 22 42 25%
Note: 1 dry ton (2000 lb) = 0.9 metric tons.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.141
TABLE 8.58 Comparison of Compost Market Value and Cost of Composting Market value of compost, $/yd3 Free 1 3 5 7 10
Note: 1 yd3 = 0.76 m3 1 dry ton = 0.9 t.
Estimated cost of composting, $/dry ton sludge 115 104 82 60 38 5
Utilization and Marketing. Sludge compost is an excellent organic soil conditioner and low-analysis fertilizer that has been stabilized. It decomposes slowly and thus remains effective over a longer period of time. The addition of compost to soils improves their physical properties, as evidenced by increased water content, increased water retention, enhanced aggregation, increased soil aeration, increased permeability, increased water infiltration, and decreased surface crusting. Table 8.59 lists the various potential users. However, the main users are the private nonfood plant growers, public agencies, and those involved in land reclamation. Use in agriculture or for food-chain crops can be limited as a result of industrial contamination of the sludge. The private nonfood users are primarily in
TABLE 8.59 Major Compost Uses by User Type 1. 4. 4. 2. 4. 4. 4. 3. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 4. 5. 4. 4. 4. Private residential a. Garden application for food b. Nonfood applications Private food a. Field crops for food and feed b. Garden crops for food and feed c. Fruit trees Private nonfood a. Greenhouses b. Nurseries c. Golf courses d. Landscape contractors e. Turfgrass farmers f. Industrial park grounds g. Cemeteries Public agencies a. Public parks b. Playgrounds c. Roadsides and median strips d. Military installations e. Public grounds Land reclamation a. Landfill cover b. Strip-mined lands c. Sand and gravel pits
SOLID WASTE 8.142

CHAPTER EIGHT
the horticultural sector. Compost is excellent for revegetation of disturbed lands. Table 8.60 shows data from the analysis of some composts from sewage sludge. Distribution of the compost is an essential phase of the marketing program. Identification of distribution alternatives can assure the municipality that the compost will be removed from the site in a timely fashion without interfering with treatment plant or composting operations. The distribution system also helps to assure users of obtaining material when needed. Incineration Disposal of solid waste is one of the most troublesome problems facing urbanized areas at this time. Changes in packaging practices and improvements in the general standard of living have resulted in significant increases in volumes of solid waste generated over the past 40 years. Additionally, disposal of hazardous chemicals from residential areas and commercial establishments has created concerns regarding disposal of the as-collected waste in landfills. One method of alleviating these problems is to process the solid waste by incineration prior to land disposal of the residuals. In the incineration process, when properly designed and operated, the combustible portion of the solid waste is burned, producing a residue essentially free of putrescible organic material. Benefits from this process include reduction of the volume of the solid waste and reduction in the potential for groundwater pollution from organic and hazardous constituents. Further, the potential exists for extraction and reuse of mineral constituents in the residue, use of remaining material from the residue as a fill or
TABLE 8.60 Elemental Composition of Composted Sludge from Different States Concentration* Massachusetts Maryland Percent Nitrogen, total (N) Phosphorus (P) Potassium (K) Calcium (Ca) Magnesium (Mg) Sodium (Na) Sulfur(S) Carbon, total(C) 0.8 0.04 0.5 1.4 0.3 0.4 26 1.6 1.0 0.2 1.4 0.4 23 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.2 0.01 0 0 Parts per million Boron (B) Cadmium (Cd) Copper (Cu) Lead(Pb) Manganese (Mn) Nickel(Ni) Strontium (Sr) Zinc (Zn) 4.0 146 77 135 11 107 7.6 300 290 480 55 770 14 23 180 30 60 0.9 3 0.1 13 5.0 96 11.3 7 162 1.7 0.00 0.00 0.2 0.1 1.2 New Hampshire Utah Connecticut
*Values expressed on dry-weight basis.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.143
TABLE 8.61 Waste Characteristics as Percentages (63, 109, 110) Oceanside, N.Y. 19661967 327253 33 2458 82 224397 7.2316.70 1.226.58 0.2633.33 22.4714.36 Central Wayne County, Mich. plant, 1979 28 5535 65 3 396.31 1.59-5.51 0.355.15 0.561.50 36.145.4 18.1810.86 United States average __________________________________ 1977 35.0 3.8 4.3 14.9 3.8 16.3 21.9 100 6.6 1984 42.1 6.5 2.3 1.9 7.3 3.4 16.1 20.4 100 10.2 1993 37.6 9.3 3.0 2.9 6.7 6.6 15.9 18 100 21.7
Component Paper materials Plastics Rubber and leather Textiles Garbage or organics Wood and lumber Yard wastes* Noncombustibles Total Percent recycled
*Includes grass, dirt, and leaves.
road base, and beneficial use of the energy generated in the combustion process. Problems that must be addressed in the design and operation of such facilities are maintenance of good combustion conditions and achieving proper treatment of emissions so as to limit potential adverse effects on the public to the greatest extent possible. Nature of the Fuel. Residential and commercial refuse is composed of combustible and noncombustible material and moisture. Combustible waste is made up largely of paper, together with some wood, vegetable and animal waste, cloth, leather, rubber, and plastics. The noncombustible fraction is composed of metals, glass, dirt and stones, and other miscellaneous materials. Larger materials, normally classified as rubbish, are frequently found in municipal solid waste (MSW). Table 8.61 illustrates the type of variation that has been observed in studies defining site-specific and average solid waste composition in the United States. The table shows a 28.55 to 53.33% variation in paper content, and a 77.53 to 89.14% variation in combustible content. Moisture content has been found to vary from 20 to 50%. With little or no regulation of the handling of refuse by the homeowner, extreme variations in moisture content (and, so also, heat content) may be observed in the solid waste. Thus, after a heavy rain, the moisture content of the solid waste may be so high that it may be difficult to sustain combustion.
TABLE 8.62 Variation in Heat Content of MSW Noncombustible, % 10 ___________________________ Moisture, % 20 30 40 50 Combined % 70 60 50 40 Heat content, Btu/lb 6580 5640 4700 3760 25 _____________________________ Combined % 55 45 35 25 Heat content, Btu/lb 5170 4230 3290 2350
Note: 2.32 Btu/lb 1 kJ/kg.
SOLID WASTE 8.144

CHAPTER EIGHT
Such studies of the average composition of solid waste are useful to develop a general understanding of the nature of the material that must be handled in an incineration facility. However, for the design of the total plant facility, it is important to understand the extent of variation in waste composition that will be experienced at an incineration facility. The combustion system must be able to handle the extremes in solid waste heat content, both high and low. As indicated above, most of the combustible fraction of MSW is cellulose. The remainder of the combustible content is composed of various fats, oils, waxes, rubbers, and plastics. The heat released by burning cellulose is approximately 8000 Btu/lb (18.6 MJ/kg), whereas that released by virtually all of the other combustible components is significantly higher on a per pound basis. In recent years, it has been found that the higher heating value (HHV) of the combustible portion only of MSW (moisture and ash free) averages about 9400 Btu/lb (21.8 MJ/kg). Taking that figure as the moisture- and ash-free heat content of MSW, Table 8.62 illustrates the variation in as-received heat content that one would expect in solid waste with moisture content ranging from 20 to 50% by weight and a noncombustible content of 10 and 25% by weight. For the design of feeding and residue-handling systems, one must have some information on the variability and extremes of the physical size and shape of the solid waste, together with the variation in noncombustible content. These have been troublesome areas of plant operation. If materials-handling facilities for feeding and residue handling are not dimensionally large enough to pass the largest bulky items in the MSW, or large enough and rugged enough to handle the quantities of materials required to meet plant design capacity, the plants will suffer continued expensive periods of downtime and might have to be derated. The problems noted above may be compounded by inclusion of industrial and/or hazardous waste with the MSW. Because of the potential impact of large quantities of very high heat content industrial wastes on heat generation and air emissions, such materials should be specifically identified and quantified prior to facility design. Likewise, hazardous industrial wastes would potentially impose serious design constraints on such a facility, both from the standpoint of operator safety and public health. Public relations problems related to public health concerns probably would rule out accepting hazardous industrial wastes at most, if not all, facilities intended to combust MSW. Plant Design. The capacity to be provided in an incineration plant is a function of (1) the area and population to be served; (2) the number of shifts (one, two, or three) the plant is to operate; and (3) the rate of refuse production for the population served. If records of collections have been kept, especially by weight, forecasts for determining required plant capacity can be made with reasonable accuracy. If records are not available, refuse quantities for establishing plant size may be approximated by assuming refuse generation rates of 4 lb (1.8 kg) per capita per day, when there is little or no waste from industry, to 5 lb (2.3 kg) per capita per day when there is some waste from industry (64). If substantial quantities of industrial wastes are to be handled in an incineration plant, they should be specifically identified as to quantity and suitability for disposal in the planned facility. Those wastes not suitable for disposal (highly flammable, low heat content, and hazardous wastes, etc.) should be specifically excluded. A small plant [100 tons/day (90 metric tons/day)] will probably operate one shift per day. For capacities above 400 tons/day (360 metric tons/day), or any size plant incorporating boilers, economic and/or equipment operating considerations usually will dictate three-shift operation. An isolated site is preferred for any such plant to avoid, as much as possible, objections of neighbors. However, well-designed and well-operated incinerators which do not present a nuisance may also be installed in light industrial and commercial areas, thereby avoiding the economic burden of extended collection truck routes or extensive refuse transfer operations. Since considerable vertical distance is involved in passing refuse through an incinerator, there is an advantage in a sloping or hillside site. Collection and transfer trucks can then deliver refuse at the higher elevation while residue trucks can operate at the lower elevation with a minimum of site grading. Refuse Receipt and Storage. Scales, preferably integrated into an automated record-keeping system, should be provided to record the weight of solid waste delivered to the plant. Sufficient length of entrance
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.145
road and tipping floor area should be provided so that refuse delivery trucks do not back up onto public highways during peak delivery times. Either the tipping area or the individual tipping positions should be enclosed so as to prevent nuisance conditions in the vicinity of the plant caused by blowing papers, dust, and/or odors. The tipping area should be large enough to permit more than one truck at a time to maneuver to and from the dumping position. Since collections usually are limited to one 8-b daily shift five days per week (sometimes with partial weekend collection operations), while burning will usually be continuous, ample storage must be provided. This usually requires two to three days of refuse storage at most energy-from-waste plants. Seasonal and cyclic variations should also be considered in establishing plant storage requirements. When computing the dimensions required for refuse storage facilities, the required volume should be computed on the basis of an MSW bulk density of from 300 to 400 lb/yd3 (180 to 240 kg/m3)(65). Other factors to consider in sizing and laying out the refuse storage facilities are that refuse flows very poorly and can maintain an angle of repose of greater than 90. Thus, refuse is commonly stacked in the storage facilities to maximize storage capability. Refuse storage in larger plants is normally in long, narrow, and deep pits either extending along the front of the furnaces or split in two halves extending from either side of the front end of the furnaces. If the storage pit is over 25 ft in width, it will generally be necessary to rehandle the refuse dumped from the trucks. In smaller plants, floor dumping and storage of refuse is common practice. Refuse Processing. With the increasing interest in utilizing the heat generated in the combustion of MSW, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, a number of people proposed that the refuse be processed to produce a combustible-rich fraction. The first such processing plant was built in St. Louis, Mo., as an EPA demonstration plant in the early 1970s. The combustible-rich fraction produced was called refuse-derived fuel, or RDF. The process consisted basically of shredding the as-received refuse, air classification, and separation of noncombustible materials into recyclable fractions. In some plants, the combustible fraction was shredded a second time, following air classification, to produce a smaller particle size. It was originally proposed that RDF be cofired in coal-fired utility boilers with the material being completely combusted while in suspension. A number of problems were identified in the early operation of these plants. With the initial shredding of as-received waste, glass was shattered and fine shards were embedded in paper and other combustible material. The glass, once embedded, could not be effectively removed. This increased the ash content of the combustible material and increased the abrasion of the pneumatic RDF conveying equipment. Further, although the heat content per pound of RDF reportedly was increased by 10 to 15% over the heat content of as-received MSW (66), there was a net loss of energy from the system. Thus, from Table 8.63, it can be observed that with a 10% increase in heat content and 70% capture of combustibles in the processing system, the resulting RDF contains only 77% of the heat of the original quantity of as-received MSW. With a 15% increase in heat content and 80% capture of combustibles, slightly more than 91% of the heat in the original MSW would be contained in the RDF. A much more extensive comparison of the efficiency of various waste-processing systems in extracting the energy contained in MSW is presented in Ref. 67. Another problem noted (68) from operation of early RDF combustion facilities was caused by incom-
TABLE 8.63 Input Heat Capture in RDF Heat content Material As-received MSW RDF (70% of MSW) RDF (80% of MSW)
Note: 1 lb = 0.454 kg.
Weight, lb 2000 1400 1600
Per lb 4500 4950 5175
Total 9,000,000 6,930,000 8,280,000
Percent original MSW 100.0 77.0 91.3
SOLID WASTE 8.146

CHAPTER EIGHT
plete combustion of the RDF in suspension requiring use of dump grates to allow completion of combustion and reduce the load on ash-handling facilities. Also, there has been some evidence, although not entirely conclusive, of increases in slagging in the boilers, and some problems have been reported with metal wastage of boiler tubes, particularly in the lower waterwall areas. Later RDF processing plants have used flail mills, or trommels with bagbreaking blades, to break apart bags containing the waste, allowing initial separation of glass and metal. The material passing through the trommel, primarily the light combustible fraction, is then shredded. Removing the glass prior to shredding alleviates the problem of contamination of combustible with glass shards. Most plants now anticipate burning RDF in boilers with spreader stokers rather than in suspension-fired utility boilers. Potential problems of slagging and boiler tube metal wastage must be considered when selecting boilers for RDF combustion. Processes to produce powdered fuel or RDF fuel pellets, while interesting, have not been developed to a state of commercial availability. Some limited work is still being undertaken to improve the economics and operability of such systems. However, it appears as if commercial availability is many years in the future. Other processes such as pyrolysis have not been successfully applied to this field (69). Refuse Feeding. Batch feeding of MSW and/or batch discharge of residue is undesirable because of variations in furnace temperatures of several hundred degrees that usually occur due to air leakage into the furnace, resulting in adverse impact on refractory materials, and increased air emissions. In smaller plants with floor dump and storage of MSW, feeding is accomplished on a semibatch basis by rams that push material directly into the furnace on approximately 6- to 10-min cycles. In larger plants utilizing pits for refuse storage, the solid waste is normally moved from the pit to a charging hopper (70) by a traveling bridge crane and a grapple or organic-peel type of bucket (see Figure 8.44).
FIGURE 8.44 Bridge crane for municipal incinerator (70).
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.147
The grapple or bucket size is established by a duty-cycle analysis, taking into account the quantity of material that must be moved from the pit to the furnaces, the distances over that the material must be moved, allowable crane speeds, and the need to rehandle (mixing and/or stacking) material in the pit. Buckets or grapples used to date have ranged in capacity from 1.5 to 8 yd3 (1 to 6 m3). The crane used in this service should be capable of meeting the severest of duty requirements (71). The load-lifting capability is established by adding to the bucket or grapple weight, 1.5 times the volumetric capacity of the bucket times a density of MSW of 600 to 800 lb/yd3 (360 to 480 kg/m3) (65). In the past, the crane has been operated from an air-conditioned cab mounted on the bridge. However, in many European plants, and with increasing frequency in the United States, crane operation is being centralized in a fixed control room usually located at the charging floor elevation and either over the tipping positions opposite the charging hoppers, or in the vicinity of the charging hoppers. In modern furnaces burning as-received MSW on mechanized grates, the crane-mounted grapple or bucket is used to lift the refuse from the pit to deposit it in a charging hopper. The charging hopper, which is built large enough to prevent spillage on the charging floor and with slopes steep enough to prevent bridging, is placed on top of a vertical feed chute that discharges the MSW into the furnace. The feed chute is normally constructed of water-cooled steel plates or steel plates lined with smooth refractory material. The chute is normally at least 4 ft (1.2 m) wide, to pass large objects with a minimum of bridging, and 12 to 14 ft (3.6 to 4.2 m) long. It is normally kept full of refuse to prevent uncontrolled admission of air into the furnace. The refuse is fed from the bottom of the feed chute into the furnace by a portion of the mechanical grate, or by a ram. The ram generally provides better control of the rate of feed into the furnace than the older technique of using a portion of the mechanical grate for refuse feed. In other plants, particularly those burning RDF, conveyors, live-bottom bins, and shredding and pneumatic handling of combustible material have been utilized. Problems related largely to properly sizing the equipment and higher than expected maintenance have been experienced to date with these facilities. Residue Handling. The residue from a well-designed, well-operated mass-fired incinerator burning asreceived refuse will include the noncombustible material in the MSW plus somewhat less than 5% of the combustibles. The nature of this material will vary from relatively fine, light ash, burned tin cans, and partly melted glass, to large bulky items such as 55-gal drums. The material may be discharged from the furnace through manually operated dump gates, or directly from the mechanical grate into a hopper where it is quenched and then discharged to a truck or container positioned below the hopper, through a bottom gate. The residue may also be discharged through a chute into a trough filled with water. Removal from the trough may be either by a ram discharger onto a conveyor or by a flight conveyor to an elevated storage hopper from which it is discharged to a truck. If a water-filled trough with a flight conveyor is used, normally two troughs are provided, arranged so that the residue can be discharged through either trough. The second trough serves as a standby. A key feature in the design of ash-discharge facilities is provision for sealing the discharge end of the furnace to prevent uncontrolled admission of air. This seal is usually provided by carrying the ash-discharge chute at least 6 in (15 cm) below the water surface in the receiving trough. In the design of the conveyor mechanism, the proportions should be large because the material frequently contains bulky metal items and wire causing relatively frequent jamming, and it tends to be extremely abrasive. Residue is taken to a landfill for final disposal. The volume of material remaining for ultimate disposal will range from 5 to 15% of that received at the plant. Many plants currently operating in the United States that weigh MSW received at the plant and residue discharged from the furnaces indicate that the weight of MSW is only reduced from 50 to 60%. However, as much as one-third of the residue weight in these plants may be attributed to incomplete drainage of the material prior to its discharge into the final transportation container. The ram-type ash discharger used in European and some of the new, large U.S. plants generally achieves much better dewatering of residues than older water-filled trough, ash drag residue-handling systems.
SOLID WASTE 8.148

CHAPTER EIGHT
The residue from incinerators is generally inert, relatively sterile (with combustible content below 5%) and makes good landfill material, particularly if it is well dewatered at the plant. There is some indication that heavy metals tend to concentrate in fly ash collected in such plants, rather than in bottom ash. If more extensive data confirm these preliminary indications, and recognizing the increasing concern regarding groundwater quality, it may be necessary to handle plant residues separately prior to disposal in the future. Furnace Design. The principal aspects of furnace design are capacity (grate area and furnace volume), mechanical grates, construction refractories, and combustion air supply. Capacity. The basic design factors that determine furnace capacity are grate area and furnace volume. Also, the available capacity and method of introducing both underfire and overfire air will influence, to a lesser extent, furnace capacity. Required grate area, in a conservative design, is normally determined by limiting the burning rate to between 60 and 70 lb/ft2/h (290 and 340 kg/m2/h) of grate area (72). This is based on limiting the heat release rate loading on the grate to 250,000 and 300,000 Btu/ft2 of grate per hour (2.8 106 to 3.4 106 kJ/m2/h). Furnace volume required is established by the rate of heat release from the fuel. Thus, furnace volume is generally established by using heat release rates ranging from 12,500 to 20,000 Btu/ft3/h (4.6 l05 to 7.4 l05 kJ/m3/h) with the lower heat release rate being more desirable from the standpoint of developing a conservative design. A conservative approach to design in this area is desirable because of probable periodic operation at above design capacity to meet short-term, higher than normal refuse collections, and possible receipt of high heat content waste. Waterwall units burning as-received MSW have been built as small as 75 to 100 tons/day (68 to 91 t/day) capacity. However, the cost per ton of rated capacity of such units is relatively high. A more common unit size is 250 to 300 tons/day (225 to 270 t/day), while waterwall mass-fired units have been built as large as 750 to 1200 tons/day (675 to 1090 t/day) capacity (73). Grates. The primary objective of a mechanical grate is to convey the refuse from the point of feed through the burning zone to the point of residue discharge with a proper depth of fuel and sufficient retention time to achieve complete combustion. The refuse bed should be gently agitated so as to enhance combustion. However, the agitation should not be so pronounced that particulate emissions are unreasonably increased. The rate of movement of the grate or its parts should be adjustable to meet varying conditions or needs in the furnace. In the United States over the past 20 years, several types of mechanical grates have been used in continuous-feed furnaces. These include traveling grates, reciprocating grates, rocking grates, and a proprietary water-cooled rotary combustor. The traveling grate conveys the refuse through the furnace on the grate surface. Stirring is accomplished by building the grate in two or more sections, with a drop between sections to agitate the material. The reciprocating and rocking grates both agitate and move the refuse material through the furnace by the movement of the grate elements and the incline of the grate bed. Additional agitation is obtained, particularly in the reciprocating grate, by substantial drops in elevation between grate sections. The rotary combustor slowly rotates to tumble the refuse material that is conveyed through the inside of the cylinder. The combustor is inclined from the horizontal so that gravity assists in moving the material through the unit. The Europeans have developed other grate systems, some of which are currently being utilized in plants being constructed or in operation in the United States. The Volund incinerator (Danish) uses a slowly rotating, refractory-lined cylinder or kiln, which is fed by a two-section (drying and ignition) reciprocating grate. Refuse passes through the kiln and residue is discharged to a water quench when combustion is completed. The so-called Dusseldorf or VKW (German) incinerator uses a series of six rotating cylindrical grates, or drums, placed at a slope of about 30 (74). The refuse is conveyed by the surface of the drums, which rotate in the direction of refuse flow, and is agitated as it tumbles from drum to drum. Underfire air is introduced through the surface of the drums. Both the Von Roll and the Martin grates use a reciprocating motion to push the refuse material through the furnace. However, in the Martin grate, the grate surface slope is greater
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.149
and the grate sections push the refuse uphill against the flow of waste causing a gentle tumbling and agitation of the fuel bed. Another variable feature in the various grate designs is the percentage of open area to allow for passage of underfire air (75). These air openings vary from approximately 2 to over 30% of the grate surface area. The smaller air openings tend to limit the quantity of siftings dropping through the grates and creates a pressure drop that assists in controlling the point of introduction of underfire air. Larger air openings make control of underfire air more difficult but allow for continuous removal of fine material, which could interfere with the combustion process, from the fuel bed. Furnace configuration is largely dictated by the type of grate used. In the continuous-feed mechanical grate system, the furnace is rectangular in plan and the height is dependent upon the volume required by the limiting rate of heat release cited earlier. An optimum furnace configuration would provide sufficient volume for retention of gases in the high-temperature zone of maximum fuel volatilization for a sufficient length of time to ensure complete combustion, and would be arranged so that the entire volume is effectively utilized. Temperatures are usually high enough with present-day refuse for proper combustion. Turbulence should be provided by a properly designed overfire air system. Figure 8.45 shows an example of a mass-fired waterwall boiler system.
FIGURE 8.45 Refuse furnace, waste-heat boiler, and electrofilter sections (76).
SOLID WASTE 8.150

CHAPTER EIGHT
Refractories. With present-day mass-fired waterwall furnaces, the use of refractories in furnace construction has been minimized but not eliminated. Refractory materials may be used to line charging chutes, provide a transition enclosure between the top of the grates and the bottom of the waterwalls, a protective coating on the waterwall tubes, and an insulating layer between the hot gases and the metal walls of flues downstream of the primary combustion chamber. Refractory brick used in a charging chute must be able to withstand abrasion and provide some insulation in the lower portions for protection from moderate temperatures. The construction above the grates must be able to withstand high temperatures, flame impingement, thermal shock, slagging, spalling, and abrasion. The protective coating on the waterwall tubes must be a relatively dense castable material with a relatively high heat conductivity (76). Insulating refractories used in flues downstream from the boilers, on the other hand, should have a low heat conductivity. Refractories are generally classified according to their physical and chemical properties, such as resistance to chemical attack, hardness, strength, heat conductivity, porosity, and thermal expansion (77). The material may be cast in brick in a variety of shapes and laid up with air-setting or thermal-setting mortar, or may be used in a moldable or plastic form. Material used in incinerator construction includes high-duty and superduty fireclay brick, phosphate-bonded alumina material, and silicon carbide, among others. In selecting the proper materials for application in this type of service, because the selection of materials is so great and the conditions of service so varied and severe (78), advice of a recognized manufacturer should be sought. Combustion Calculations. Factors directly affecting furnace design are moisture and combustible content of the solid waste being burned, the volatility of the material being burned, and the means for temperature control. The design of furnaces and boilers and sizing of flues and other plant elements should be based on design parameters that result in large sizes. Controls should provide satisfactory operation for loads below the maximum. The combustion portion of MSW is composed largely of cellulose and similar materials originating from wood, mixed with appreciable amounts of fats, oils, waxes, rubbers, and plastics. The heat released by burning cellulose is approximately 8000 Btu/lb (18.6 MJ/kg) while that released by fats, oils, etc., is approximately 17,000 Btu/lb (39.5 MJ/kg). If cellulose and oil and fat exist in the ratio of 6:1 in MSW, the heat content of the combustible matter in MSW would be approximately 9290 Btu/lb (21.6 MJ/kg). The heat released during combustion may be determined in a bomb calorimeter, a device with a metal container (bomb) immersed in a water jacket. The heat absorbed by the water is the heat of combustion. The heat of combustion of a number of materials is shown in Table 8.64. Another method for determining the approximate heat value for solid fuels is to perform an ultimate analysis and then apply Dulongs formula. This formula may be stated as
TABLE 8.64 Heat of Combustion Material Carbon (to CO2) Hydrogen Sulfur Methane Ethylene Oil (#3#6) Coal (bituminous) MSW (as received)
Note: 1 Btu/lb = 0.43 kJ/kg.
Heat of combustion, Btu/1b 14,093 61,100 3,983 23,870 21,644 17,50019,000 12,00014,500 3,5005,500
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.151
Btu/lb = 14,544C + 62,028 H2
O2 + 4050S 8
where C, H2, O2, and S represent the decimal proportionate parts by weight of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and sulfur in the fuel. The term O2/8 is a correction used to account for hydrogen that is already combined with oxygen in the form of water. For the purposes of illustrating the calculations required to determine refuse heat content using Dulongs formula, air requirements, and furnace temperature, the ultimate analysis of MSW in Table 8.65 is used. In the determination of air requirements, Table 8.66 combustion constants will be used. With the ultimate analysis shown in Table 8.65 and the combustion constants shown in Table 8.64, a calculation can be made of input and output gas quantities for this given refuse composition. In the calculations, the following assumptions are made: base temperature = 80F (27C), 23.15% of air is O2 and 76.85% is N2 moisture in the air = 0.0132 lb/lb dry air; and unburned carbon in residue = 4% of carbon input. Gas quantities are tabulated on Tables 8.67 and 8.68 for two conditions: 140% excess air (EA) (refractory furnace where temperatures are controlled by adding excess air), and 80% excess air (waterwall furnace where heat is absorbed from combustion chamber by water circulating in the waterwall furnace enclosure). Next a material balance can be calculated (see Table 8.69) for both excess air conditions. The following additional assumptions are made in performing these calculations: residue quench water evaporated = 0.03 lb/lb of MSW, and fly ash = 2% of MSW burned. A heat balance and check on flue gas temperature assumptions (see Table 8.70) can now be performed by
TABLE 8.65 Ultimate Analysis Component C H2 O2 S H2O Noncombustible N2 Ash Weight %, total 25.0 4.2 20.7 0.1 28.0 0.5 21.5 ____ 100.0 Heat content, moisture and ash free Btu/lb = 14,544 0.5 + 62,028 0.084 Btu/lb = 7272 + 62,028 0.03225 + 8 Btu/lb = 7272 + 2000 + 8 Btu/lb = 9280 Btu/lb Heat content, as received (complete combustion) Btu/lb = 9280 0.5 = 4640 Btu/lb
Weight, % combined 50.0 8.4 41.4 0.2 ____ 100.0
0.414 + 4050 0.002 8
TABLE 8.66 Combustion Constants (79) Theoretical (stoichiometric) air, lb/lb combined Required for combustion __________________________ lb/ ft3 O2 2.66 7.94 1.00 68.86 26.41 63.29 N2 0.0053 0.0846 0.0744 0.0476 0.0766 21.017 13.063 187.723 11.819 13.443 ft3/lb Air Flue products _________________________ CO2 3.66 2.00 H2O 8.94 N2
SOLID WASTE
Substance* 12.016 2.016 32.000 28.016 32.066 18.016 62.896
Formula
Molecular Weight
8.152
Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen Nitrogen (atm.) Sulfur
C H2 O2 N2 S
68.86 26.41 63.29
Water vapor Air
H2O
11.53 34.34 64.29 (as SO2)
*All gas volumes corrected to 60F and 30 in Hg dry. Note: 1 lb/ft3 = 0.06 kg/m3.
TABLE 8.67 Gas Quantity CalculationsStoichiometric or Theoretical O2 _____________________________ Fractional composition Qo, lb/lb fuel Combustion constant Combustion constant Air ______________________________ Qa, lb/lb fuel
Component
SOLID WASTE
8.153
Carbon Burned Lost Hydrogen Oxygen Nitrogen Sulfur Moisture Ash 0.240 0.010 0.042 0.207 0.005 0.001 0.280 0.215 _____ 1.000 _____ 0.972 0.207 _____ 0.765 1.377 2 0.612 1.913 2 1.148 2.66 2 7.94 2 2 1.00 2 2 0.638 2 0.333 2 2 0.001 2 2 _____
11.53 2 34.34 2 2 4.29 2 2 (1/0.2315) =
2.767 2 1.442 2 2 0.004 2 2 _____ 4.213 0.894 _____ 3.319 5.974 2.655 2 8.298 4.979 2
Total Less O2 in fuel (deduct)
Required at theoretical air O2 and air @ 80% EA (l.8 Q) = EA = 5.974 3.319 E O2 = 1.377 0.765 O2 and air @ l50% EA (2.5 Q) = EA = 8.298 3.319 E O2 = 1.913 0.765
TABLE 8.68 Products of Combustion @ 80% excess air Calculation 0.24 3.66 0.042 8.94 0.28 0.0132 5.974 0.079 ____ 0.001 2.0 0.005 0.7685 5.974 0.005 4.591 _____ 0.375 0.280 0.734 0.002 0.612 Subtotal, lb/lb fuel Quantity, lb/lb fuel 0.878
Component
CO2 H2O from MSW combustion from MSW from combustion air
SO2 O2 (excess) N2 from MSW from combustion air
SOLID WASTE
8.154
Total weight, wet Total weight, dry, 6.822 0.734 @ 150% excess air 0.24 3.66 0.042 8.94 0.28 0.0132 8.298 0.001 2.0 0.005 0.7685 8.298 0.005 6.377 _____ 0.375 0.110 _____
4.596 _____ 6.822 = 6.088
CO2 H2O from MSW combustion from MSW from combustion air
0.878 0.280 0.765 0.002 1.148
SO2 O2 (excess) N2 from MSW from combustion air
Total weight, wet Total weight, dry, 9.175 0.765
6.382 _____ 9.175 = 8.410
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.155
TABLE 8.69 Materials Balance @ 80% excess air __________________________ Input Refuse Combustible material Complete combustion Unburned C Moisture Noncombustible Total air O2 N2 Moisture in air Residue quench water Total CO2 Air O2 N2 Moisture in MSW from combustion from combustion air from residue quench water Noncombusted material Noncombustible Unburned C Unaccounted for Total Subtotal, lb/lb Total lb/lb @ 150% excess air ____________________________ Subtotal, lb/lb Total lb/lb
0.49 0.01 0.28 0.22 ____ 1.377 4.591 ____
0.49 0.01 1.00 0.28 0.22 ____ 1.913 6.377 ____ 1.00
5.97 0.08 0.03 ____ 7.08 0.88
8.29 0.11 0.03 ____ 9.43 0.88
0.612 4.591 ____ 0.280 0.375 0.079 0.030 ____ 0.220 0.010 ____
5.20
1.148 6.377 ____ 0.280 0.375 0.110 0.030 ____ 0.220 0.010 ____
7.52
0.76
0.80
0.23 0.01 ____ 7.08
0.23 ____ 9.43
use of Figure 8.46 developed from similar figures in Ref. 78, and the following assumptions: the specific heat of both fly ash and residue = 0.25; and the temperature of the residue = 180F (82C). Since the computation of heat input and heat output balances with minimal unaccounted for losses, the assumed temperatures are satisfactory. If the unaccounted for losses are greater than the minimum necessary to make the heat calculations balance, the assumed temperature should be adjusted upward or downward to bring the calculations more in balance. The calculations for the 80% excess air calculations may be carried one step further to estimate steamgenerating capability and anticipated boiler efficiency for different assumed conditions. Thus, assuming temperature of the gases leaving the boiler was 500F (260C), steam is generated at 125 lb/in2 gage (860 kN/m2), and 400F (205C) [hf = 1221 Btu/lb (2.8 MJ/kg)], and the heat content of the boiler feedwater at 181F (83C) was hs = 181 Btu/lb (0.42 MJ/kg), the calculation in Table 8.71 would be made. Detailed calculations for boiler design are beyond the scope of the material presented in this section. Sev-
TABLE 8.70 Heat Balance @ 80% excess air ____________________________________________ Calculation Total, Btu/ lb/fuel Calculation @ 150% excess air _________________________________________ Total, Btu/ lb/fuel
Heat input Refuse Moisture in air 0.08 1.048 Gas temp. = 1860F (0.88 + 5.20) 476 0.76 2009 (steam tab.) 0.02 0.25 (1860 80) 0.22 0.25 (180 80) 0.01 14,093 0.03 4724 2894 1527 9 6 141 142 5 ____ 4724 4640 84 ____ 4724
SOLID WASTE
0.11 1.048 Gas temp. = 1460F (0.88 + 7.42) 360 0.80 1789 (steam tab.) 0.02 0.25 (1460 80) 0.22 0.25 (180 80) 0.01 14,093 0.03 4,755
Total Heat output Dry gas Water vapor Fly ash Residue Unburned carbon Loss through furnace enclosure Unaccounted for
4640 115 ____ 4755
8.156
Total
3024 1431 7 6 141 143 3 ____ 4755
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.157
FIGURE 8.46 Enthalpy of flue gas (64).
eral of the major boiler manufacturers in this country have written comprehensive texts on this subject (79, 80) and the reader is referred to this material and the boiler manufacturers for detailed information on this subject. Combustion Air Supply. As indicated in the section on combustion calculations, the combustion process requires oxygen to complete the reactions involved in the burning process. The air that must be delivered to the furnace to supply the exact amount of oxygen required for completion of combustion is called the stoichiometric air requirement. Additional air supplied to the furnace is called excess air and is usually expressed as a percentage of the stoichiometric requirements. The total air supply capacity in an incinerator must be more than the stoichiometric requirement for combustion because of imperfect mixing and to assist in controlling temperatures, particularly with dry, highheat-content refuse. The total combustion air requirements can range to 10 lb of air per pound of refuse for refractory wall furnaces and from 6 to 8 lb of air per pound of refuse for mass-fired waterwall furnaces. In the modern mechanical grate furnace chamber, at least two blower systems should be provided to supply combustion air to the furnaceone for underfire or undergrate air and the other for overfire air. Underfire air, admitted to the furnace from under the grates and through the fuel bed, is used to supply primary air to the combustion process and, secondarily, to cool the grates. Overfire air may be introduced in two levels. Air introduced at the first level, immediately above the fuel bed, is used to promote turbulence and mixing and to complete the combustion of volatile gases driven off
SOLID WASTE 8.158

CHAPTER EIGHT
TABLE 8.71 Boiler Calculations Useful heat output Dry gas Water vapor Total Heat in gases at boiler outlet at 500F (260C) Dry gas Water vapor Total Heat required for 1 lb steam 1221 181 = 1040 Btu/lb steam Steam produced per pound of fuel 2817 (4421 1604) = = 2.71 1040 1040 Boiler efficiency (4421 1604) 2817 100 = 100 = 59.6% 4724 4724
Note: 1 Btu/lb = 0.43 kJ/kg; 1 lb = 0.454 kg.
2894 1527 ____ 4421 Btu/lb fuel
6.08 103 = 626 0.76 1287 =____ 978 1604 Btu/lb fuel
the bed of burning solid waste. The second row of nozzles, which are higher in the furnace wall, allows secondary overfire air to be introduced into the furnace to promote additional mixing of the gases and for temperature control. Blower capacities should be divided so that the underfire blower is capable of furnishing half or more of the total calculated combustion air requirements, while the overfire blower would have a capacity of somewhat less than half of the total calculated air requirements. Setting these capacities requires some judgment related to assessing how great a variation is anticipated in refuse heat contents during plant operation. Dampers should be provided on fan inlets and on air distribution ducts for control purposes. Pressures on underfire air systems for most U.S. types of grates will normally range from 2 to 5 in (5 to 12.7 cm) of water. European grate systems frequently require a higher pressure. The pressure on the overfire air should be high enough so that the air, when introduced into the furnace, produces adequate turbulence without impinging on the opposite wall. This is normally accomplished by the use of numerous relatively small 1.5 to 3 in (3.8 to 7.6 cm) diameter nozzles at pressures of 20 in (51 cm) of water and higher. Boilers. Substantial quantities of heat energy may be recovered during the thermal destruction of the combustible portions of MSW. Systems that have been successfully used to recover this energy include massfired refractory combustion chambers followed by a convection boiler section; an RDF semisuspension fired spreaderstokerboiler unit; and an RDF suspension-burning utility type of boiler. Each system has apparent advantages and disadvantages. Mass-Fired. In a refractory furnace waste-heat boiler unit, energy extraction efficiencies are generally lower, assuming the same boiler outlet temperatures, than with the other systems. Approximately 50 to 60%
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.159
of the heat generated in the combustion process may be recovered with such systems. These units can produce approximately 2 lb steam per pound of normal MSW [heat content = 4500 Btu/lb (10.5 MJ/kg)], versus 3 lb/lb MSW in the other units described above. This lower efficiency of steam generation is caused by larger heat losses due to higher combustion air quantities needed with such units to control furnace temperatures so that furnace refractories are not damaged. However, the boilers in such units, if properly designed and operated, generally are less susceptible to boiler tube metal wastage problems than the other systems listed above. Mass-fired waterwall units are perhaps the most widely utilized type of heat recovery unit in the field today. In this type of unit, the primary combustion chamber is fabricated from closely spaced steel tubes through which water circulates. This waterwall-lined primary combustion chamber is followed by a convection type of boiler surface. It has been found desirable in these plants to coat a substantial height of the primary combustion chamber, subject to higher temperatures and flame impingement, with a thin coating of a silicon carbide type of refractory material, and to limit average gas velocities to under 15 ft/s (4.5 m/s). Gas velocities entering the boiler convection bank should be less than 30 ft/s (9.0 m/s) (76). Efficiency of heat recovery in such units has been found to range generally from 65 to 70%, with steam production usually about 3 lb of steam per pound of normal MSW. Water table studies have been found to be very useful in the larger units to check on combinations of furnace configuration and location of overfire combustion air nozzles. Semi-Suspension-Fired. In an RDF-fired spreader-stoker type of unit, the combustible material is generally introduced through several air-swept spouts in the front waterwall, is partially burned in suspension, and then falls onto a grate on which combustion is completed as the partially burned material is conveyed to the residue discharge under the front waterwall face of the furnace. These units can generally handle a coarser RDF than the so-called full-suspension burning units. Densified RDF can also be burned in such units. The RDF can furnish all the combustible input to the system, or it can be cofired with a fossil fuel, generally coal. While it was originally felt that such units could achieve more controllable combustion conditions than the mass-fired units, experience to date has not proven this concept. Suspension-Fired. The so-called full-suspension combustion concept was originally proposed so that finely shredded combustible material from MSW could be burned in existing utility boilers. In this way, the expense of constructing a boiler would be mitigated and 10 to 15% of the fossil fuel normally consumed by the utility would be displaced (saved) by burning the RDF. This has been the least successful of the system types due to problems related to additional handling and greater power requirements to achieve a finer shred. Also, some utility boilers seemed to experience a greater tendency for slag formation in the boiler. While the concept initially anticipated that the RDF would completely burn in suspension, experience to date indicates that this does not occur. Accordingly, dump grates are now considered a necessity in such boiler units to allow for completion of combustion prior to water quenching of the residue. Efficiencies of both RDF-fired types of boiler units will generally range from 65 to 75%. Steam production would normally be expected to be somewhat greater than 3 lb steam per pound of RDF. Limitations. If the energy recovered from the combustion of as-received MSW or RDF is to be used to produce electricity, some superheat is at least desirable, if not necessary. Since boiler tube metal wastage in these plants is, at least partially, a function of tube metal temperature (83), and steam is a less efficient cooling medium than water, superheater surface is more prone to metal wastage problems than other areas of boiler tubing. Tube metal temperatures, above which metal wastage can be a significant operational problem, are generally thought to range from 650 to 750F (395 to 450C). These temperatures are lower than desirable for maximum efficiency of electrical generation by steam-driven turbines. However, this limitation does not rule out consideration of this form of energy utilization. Air Pollution Control. Potential emissions from the burning of MSW may be broadly classified into particulates, gaseous emissions, incompletely burned products (primarily hydrocarbon) from the combustion process, and trace emissions. Particulates have been a matter of concern, and regulatory agency attention,
SOLID WASTE 8.160

CHAPTER EIGHT
for some time. The initial concern was from the standpoint of reducing gross emissions that were both an aesthetic and a potential public health problem. Current interest and concern, since the initial problem has largely been solved, is directed toward better control of submicron-size particles (63). Gaseous emissions, such as CO2, SO2, and NOx, are not generally felt to be a major problem in an incineration plant. However, control measures may be required at a specific site if it is located in an area designated by EPA as nonattainment for some or all of the above pollutants. Incompletely burned products from the combustion process, such as CO and hydrocarbons, can be a problem if emission levels are not closely controlled. Thus, CO levels at poorly controlled MSW incinerators have been observed at well over 1000 ppm, an indication of the potential presence of unburned hydrocarbons in the stack gases and much higher than allowed in those jurisdictions that have established emission limits. Unburned hydrocarbons can cause odor problems, and, depending on the specific compounds, can be toxic. Of course, the most direct method of control for both CO and hydrocarbons is to achieve better control of the combustion process. The existence, identification, and quantification of trace metal and gaseous (particularly chlorinated hydrocarbon) substances has been of increasing interest and concern over the last 15 to 20 years as increasingly sophisticated and complicated analytical equipment and procedures have been developed. Trace metal emissions can generally be controlled by better particulate control (84). Some extremely toxic gaseous materials have been identified in the emissions from MSW incineration plants over the past 15 years in the parts per billion and parts per trillion level. However, while the substances are extremely toxic, leading to great concern on the part of the public, sampling and analysis methods are still under development, raising questions as to the actual emission levels reported. Emission levels are usually so low that sampling and laboratory analysis procedures are frequently brought into question; the source or mechanism of formation of the toxins is still the subject of investigation, and projections of health risks are very approximate. Until better scientific investigations into this problem produce more rigorous information, concern for potential health problems from these emissions will continue. Regulatory Requirements. Emission standards issued by the U.S. government in 1971, to date, are based on provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970 and as subsequently amended. Different levels of allowable emissions of particulates and gases have been established for different processes and for the ambient atmosphere. The EPA has also established standard methods for testing and analyzing for these pollutants. Over the past 15 years, allowable emission levels for particulates have been reduced significantly. Figure 8.47 illustrates the rather dramatic reduction in allowable particulate emission levels. Current permit levels usually are one-tenth the 1971 Federal New Source Performance Standards. Figure 8.48 illustrates the types of different air pollution control equipment available and its collection efficiency relative to particle size. The relatively rapid decrease in allowable emissions, and the current concern for submicron-size particles, has caused an evolution in applied control technology from settling chambers, to wetted-wall collectors, to wet scrubbers (tray type, venturi, etc.), to electrostatic precipitators, to baghouse collectors. Flue Gas Tempering. Flue gases exiting the primary combustion chamber generally will range in temperature from 1500 to 1800F (815 to 982C) and will contain appreciable quantities of fly ash (approximately 15 to 20 lb per 1000 lb) (85). The fly ash loading must be reduced by over 99% to meet most current air pollution code requirements. This in turn indicates that equipment, such as electrostatic precipitators or baghouses, must be used for particulate control. Such equipment requires that entering gas temperatures be held to 500 to 600F (260 to 315C). Thus, flue gas temperatures must be reduced by approximately 1000F (555C). This may be accomplished either by use of boilers or by evaporation of water directly by the flue gases. Calculations for absorption of heat by boilers have been covered earlier. Table 8.72 gives the requisite heat balance calculations for a spray chamber where flue gas (entering at 1680F (915C) and at 847 lb/h (385 kg/h) flow rate for dry gas + 73.1 lb/h (33 kg/h) moisture is cooled to 600F (315C) by water evaporating from sprays. The calculation results are expressed per 100 lb of 5000-Btu/lb MSW. There will be some heat loss through the furnace walls, estimated at 3% of the heat input. Air leakage into the furnace and
SOLID WASTE
FIGURE 8.47 Emission control standards (85).
SOLID WASTE 8.162

CHAPTER EIGHT
FIGURE 8.48 Particle classification chart ((70).
flues is estimated as 10% of the dry flue gas, or 85 lbs (38.6 kg) of dry air. With this air, there will be 1.12 lb (0.5 kg) of moisture (85 0.0132 lb H2O/lb air). Some minor losses will also occur in sluicing the fly ash, estimated at 1% of the heat in the dry gas. The computation in Table 8.72 shows that there will be total heat energy of 358,929 Btu that must be absorbed by moisture in the flue gas leaving the furnace and total moisture = 358,929/(1335 48) = 278.9 lb. Since the quantity of moisture in the flue gas was 73.1 lb, the theoretical spray water required would be 278.9 73.1 = 205.8 lb, or 205.8/8.34 = 24.7 gal. In practice, the actual quantity of spray water required will depend on the manner of introducing the water into the gas stream (fine or coarse sprays, evaporation from a wetted surface, etc.). An evaporation efficiency of 50% or less is conservative, or a requirement of at least 50 gal per 100 lb of MSW for this particular analysis. Control Devices. Over the past 20 to 30 years, a number of different approaches have been used to control particulate emissions from incinerators. Settling chambers were probably the earliest means used to abate the pollution impact of gross particulates from incinerators. These chambers, which depended on gravity settling of fly ash were essentially ineffective in removing particles smaller than 10 m in size. Overall collection efficiencies were on the order of 10%. Cyclones, which depend on centrifugal force to remove the particulate matter, were also used in some of the earlier plants. While these devices were much
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.163
TABLE 8.72 Heat Balance for Spray Chamber (in Btu) Input at 1680F Heat of dry gas: 847 424 Heat in water vapor: 73.1 (1900 48) Heat in fly ash carryover (assume 2.0 lb/100 lb MSW) and specified heat of 0.25): 2.0 0.25 (1680 80) Heat unaccounted for Total Output at 600F Heat in dry gas: (847 + 85) 128 Heat in air leakage moisture: 1.12 (1335 48) Heat loss through walls @ 3% input Minor losses from sluicing Heat in vapor from furnace and spray water Total
Note: 1055 Btu = 1 J; C = (5/9) (F 32)
= 359,128 = 135,381 = 800 =________ 400 495,709 = 119,296 = 1,441 = 14,850 = 1,193 =________ 358,929 495,709
more efficient than settling chambers, reaching efficiencies of 50 to 70%, they are not capable of meeting current emission standards. Small-diameter [less than 9 in (23 cm)] cyclones arranged in banks of multiple cyclones can achieve higher efficiencies of removal. Experience has shown that there are serious operational problems related to plugging of these small-diameter cyclones due to characteristics of the particulate and moisture in the flue gases. These problems indicate that this equipment is not suitable for application to this field. Wet scrubbers, particularly venturi scrubbers and tray-type scrubbers, have also been used to control particulate emissions from incinerators. Although medium- to high-energy scrubbers [pressure drop of 7 in (18 cm) of water and higher, three-tray scrubbers or venturi scrubbers] should theoretically be able to meet standards, experience to date indicates this is not the case. As a matter of fact, it may be seen in Table 8.73 that there is relatively little improvement in emission control with significantly increasing energy inputs using wet collection equipment. Several other disadvantages, in addition to the problem of low removal efficiencies noted above, that are inherent in application of wet scrubbers have essentially eliminated this equipment from consideration for application to this field. Thus, these units require the use of large quantities of water resulting in problems of water cleanup and significantly increasing the probability of corrosion problems (87). Further, stack exhausts from such plants either exhibit a white steam plume or the exhaust gases must be reheated, at additional expense, so that the plume separates from the stack.
TABLE 8.73 Range in Test Results Using Wet Collection (86) Type of facility Water sprays Wetted baffle walls Tray scrubbers Venturi scrubbers Range in pressure drop, in wet collection less than 4 311 820 Corrected emissions, g/ft3 @ 12% CO2 0.190.72 0.100.9 0.0250.6 0.010.61
SOLID WASTE 8.164

CHAPTER EIGHT
Electrostatic precipitators have been a widely used particulate collection device in incinerator plants because they have given consistently successful results. All of the more than 50 units that have been installed at plants on this continent since the early 1970s have successfully passed their acceptance tests, while many have achieved emission test results well below the Federal New Source Performance Standards. They are also very effective in collecting submicron-size particles. A basic electrostatic precipitator consists of a negatively charged discharge electrode that places a charge on the particulate matter in the gas stream, and a series of collecting electrodes, generally grounded plates, that provide the surface on which the particulate matter collects and to which it adheres. The collection efficiency is dependent on a number of factors, including the strength of the electric field, the gas temperature [usually around 500F (260C) for this service], the moisture content of the gas, the resistivity of the dust itself, the effectiveness of cleaning the electrodes and collection plates, and proper gas flow distribution (88). Achievement of acceptable collection efficiencies requires that the particulate matter have a resistivity of 1 l05 to 2 1010 ohm-cm. Other factors that impact collection efficiency are the collecting surface area provided, the velocity of gases in the precipitator [generally 2 to 4 ft/s (0.6 to 1.2 m/s)], and the retention time in the precipitator (generally from 5 to 10 seconds to meet current enforcement code levels). Precipitators are generally cleaned by vibrating or rapping the collecting plates. One key to maximum precipitator collection efficiency is proper rapping or cleaning of the plates. If the rapping is too violent or is not sequenced properly, the collected dust will be disturbed, reentrained, and carried out of the precipitator rather than sliding down the plate into the collection hopper below. Fabric filters are currently the preferred method of particulate control in incinerator plants because they are known to be high-efficiency particulate collection devices. They are particularly effective in controlling the emission of small submicron-size particles. The filtering process, occurring as the gases pass through bags, similar to a household vacuum cleaner, is affected by interception, impingement, and agglomeration. The choice of woven fabric material for use in a baghouse is based on the required efficiency of particulate removal, the pressure drop across the unit, the allowable gas throughput, and the gas temperature (89). Normally, the efficiency of removal and the pressure drop across the bags are closely related because they are both a function of the tightness of the weave or permeability of the filter. The usual values of permeability for bag materials for this service range from 10 to 70 ft3/min/ft2 (3 to 21 m3/min/m2). Some filter fabrics that may have application in this service, with some of their characteristics, are listed in Table 8.74. Newer fabrics reportedly have been developed that can withstand temperatures in excess of 750F (400C), which is higher than the temperature one would normally expect in the gases exiting the boiler in an energy-fromwaste plant. With the increasing concern about trace chlorinated hydrocarbon, heavy metal, and acid gas emissions from incineration plants, most modern plants utilize scrubbers and baghouses or dry scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators to meet permit requirements for particulate and acid gas control. In this type of gas cleanup system, pioneered in Europe, a lime slurry is introduced into the gas stream prior to the particulate collection device (baghouse or electrostatic precipitator). The lime dosage is set at a multiple of the stoichiometric ratio required for complete reaction with the acid component of the effluent gases. After evaporating the slurry to dryness, the gas-lime dust mixture is passed through the particulate collection device. Data on performance testing of such units indicate that such systems, if properly controlled and operated, effectively remove over 90% of HCl, up to 85% of SO2, over 99% of particulates and most of the heavy metals because of chemical reactions in the gas stream and the generally higher collection efficiencies required to remove the lime reagent added to the gas stream. The additional capital and operating costs of such systems are substantial. Operational Experience. Literally hundreds of waste-to-energy plants have been constructed around the world since the development of the current basic technologies in the early to mid-1960s. In the process, a number of operational problems have surfaced, most of which have been solved. While there is room for further refinement and development of the mass-fired technologies, primarily to improve efficiencies and in-
TABLE 8.74 Properties of Fiber Materials (89) Relative resistance to attack by ________________________________________________________
Physical characteristics ______________________________________
Fiber 1.4 1.2 1.0 2.3 1.3 2.5 2.0 3.0 1.4 0.4 1 0 0 5 0 10 1 5 280 (138) 250 (121) 250 (121) 500 (260) 250 (121) 550 (288) 500 (260) 500 (260) 450 (232) Good Good Medium Good Medium Medium Medium Medium* Good Medium Medium Medium Good Good Medium Good Medium Medium
Relative Specific strength gravity Acid Base
Normal moisture content, %
Maximum usable temperature, F (C) Organic solvent Good* Good Medium Good Poor Good Good Good Good
Other attribute Expensive Poor resistance to abrasion Expensive Poor resistance to moisture
SOLID WASTE
8.165
Polyester (Dacron) Acrylonitrile (Orlon) Polyethylene Tetrafluoroethylene Polyvinyl acetate Glass Graphitized fiber Asbestos Nomex nylon
Strong Medium Strong Medium Strong Strong Weak Weak Strong
*Except phenol. Except heated acetone. Except SO2.
SOLID WASTE 8.166

CHAPTER EIGHT
TABLE 8.75 Status of U.S. Waste-to-Energy Facilities in 1984 (69) Status Operational Under construction Closed
Note: 1 ton = 0.9 t.
Number of facilities 52 14 20
Rated daily capacity, tons/day 23,450 9,300 12,350
crease plant availability and reliability, this technology is proven and available for application. RDF processing and combustion technologies are not as far along in development but, if conservatively designed, this type of plant also has a place for application in this field. Other technologies that have been tried, in this country and overseas, are not at a stage of development such that they are ready for commercial application at this time (90). A summary of the experience in this country is presented in the following tables. Table 8.75 summarizes the status of energy-from-waste projects in the United States as of the end of 1984. Table 8.76 presents a summary of operational MSW processing and resource recovery facility capacities in plant sizes larger than laboratory or bench-scale in 1984 and in 1991. Several additional comments are in order to further qualify the information summarized in this table. Of the 29 operating modular plants in 1984, 11 were of 100 ton/day (91-t/day) capacity and larger while the other 18 averaged 40-ton/day (36.4t/day) capacity. Thus, while there were a great number of plants in this category, they were of relatively small size. In the RDF technology, many of the 10 operating plants in 1984 were in startup for extended periods (years) prior to achieving operational status. In many instances, the plants were substantially modified, and in several instances they were derated. Most, if not all, of the eight RDF plants that were shut down by 1984 were closed without achieving full-capacity operation. This underscores the fact that utilization of this technology should be done very carefully. As the solid waste disposal crisis deepens and this nations energy needs become more critical, in the future, the available energy in MSW will be tapped more frequently. The technology is available now for successful application of these techniques if provision is made for adequate funding to purchase high-quality equipment suitable for the intended service, and to hire properly trained operating staffs.
TABLE 8.76 Types of Technology at U.S. Waste-to-Energy Facilities Operational 1984 _________________________________ Technology Mass burn Modular systems RDF Pyrolysis Total Rated capacity, tons/day 11,000 3,125 9,325 0 23,450 Percent 46.9 13.3 39.8 0 100 Operational 1991 ________________________________ Rated capacity, tons/day 69,3300 2,700 20,245 0 92,275 Percent 75.1 2.9 22.0 0 100
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.167
Pyrolysis and Gasification Processes Incineration is the dominant method for the thermal destruction of municipal solid waste (MSW) and is treated separately in this handbook. This section deals with other processes that use high temperatures to alter the physical and chemical character of MSW. The thermal processes discussed provide for the conversion of MSW to a variety of alternate fuels that can be substituted for fossil fuels in a wide variety of combustion systems. Two processes, pyrolysis and gasification, are presented. Pyrolysis is an old process. Prebiblical Egyptians prepared embalming fluid by pyrolysis. Pyrolysis of wood to produce chemicals (acetic acid, acetone, methanol) was widely practiced through World War II. Pyrolysis is the process of heating an organic material in the absence of oxygen. No other reacting material is introduced into the reactor system. Large organic molecules, as a result of the high temperature, break into smaller and simpler molecules. Gasification processes introduce reacting gases into the reactor to encourage the formation of gaseous products and/or release heat within the reactor. Some of the common gases introduced include oxygen, steam, or hydrogen that cause reactions such as C + O2 C + H2O C + O2 C + 2H2 CO2 CO + H2 CO CH4
Gasification reactions usually take place at higher temperatures than required for pyrolysis. For complete gasification, all of the solid is converted to a gas. In many discussions, the terms pyrolysis and gasification are used interchangeably. There is no universally accepted definitions for these terms in modern literature, which has led to confusion. For this discussion, whenever a gas is added to the reactor to promote the gas yield, the system is classified as a gasification process. The discussion is limited to the organic portion of MSW, referred to as refuse-derived waste (RDF). RDF consists largely of cellulose based materials (primarily paper) and behaves similarly to wood. The large body of knowledge developed for wood is helpful in the prediction of the behavior of RDF. Cellulose represents a polymeric material as shown in Figure 8.49. This is a polymer material, and when
FIGURE 8.49 The cellulose molecule.
SOLID WASTE 8.168

CHAPTER EIGHT
subject to thermal stress (elevated temperature), it breaks down. The pyrolysis process may be selective or nonselective. In the selective process, a given chemical bond is broken; this may provide a high yield of a single product. The pyrolysis of RDF is a highly nonselective process. The feed itself is heterogeneous in size, chemical composition, and structure, and there is little chance to select a particular bond to be broken. Raising the temperature of pyrolysis has a major effect on the destruction of the RDF. Figure 8.50 shows general reaction scheme for cellulose. When cellulose is heated very slowly, the polymer is slowly broken down, with the weaker bonds being broken first. The products are largely noncombustible gases, a large fraction of nonreactive char, and a wide variety of medium- to high-molecular-weight hydrocarbons. Typical yields from destructive distillation, wherein the wood is heated for many hours at a moderate temperature are Gas Methanol Acetic acid Tar Char 1417 wt % 1.52.5 wt % 3.58 wt % 12l6 wt % 3137 wt %
Most of the heating value is retained in the char, which may be stored and used as a fuel. When the cellulose is heated rapidly to a high temperature, the cellulose molecule is shattered into small molecules having a small tar, liquid, and char yield. Most of the newer thermal systems for treatment of MSW to produce a fuel product use high temperatures to provide high gas yields. In these applications, since the original structure of the feed material is almost completely destroyed by the high temperature (thermal hammer), the products are largely independent on the physical nature of the feed. The effects of temperature on product yield are shown in Figure 8.51. The primary difference between RDF and wood when pyrolyzed to a high temperature is that RDF has a
FIGURE 8.50 Breakdown of cellulose with heat.

SOLID WASTE
FIGURE 8.51 Yield of gas, char, and tar at various temperatures.
SOLID WASTE 8.170

CHAPTER EIGHT
lower char yield. The plastic materials in RDF provide little char and a gas with a higher heating value. The impurities found in RDF apparently have a catalytic effect that leads to lower char fraction. The products from pyrolysis include a tar, liquid, and char fraction along with gas. In gasification systems, a reactive gas is introduced to react with these products and increase gaseous products. To achieve high gas conversion rates, high temperatures are required in gasification systems. The reactive gases most often used are oxygen, steam, and sometimes hydrogen. Even when there are no reactive gases added to the system, the pyrolysis gases produced will react with char and tar to produce additional gas if the temperature is high. Energy/Fuel Recovery. Figure 8.52 shows how energy is recovered (chemical, sensible, or heat) from various thermal treatment systems. The values shown in Figure 8.52 would be similar to those obtained from the organic portion of MSW when processed in a thermal process at 1500F (815C). In order to maintain the process at 1500F, heat (represented by q) may be added to or removed from the process. At point 1 in Figure 8.52, no air (oxygen) or other reactive gas is introduced. To obtain 1500F, temperature heat (q1) is required. This represents pyrolysis. Most of the energy leaves the system as chemical energy associated with the pyrolysis products (represented by Hi) and as sensible heat of the pyrolysis products
FIGURE 8.52 Generalized energy relationships for thermal treatment of cellulose.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.171
(represented by H1). Most of the chemical energy available in the MSW has been converted to chemical energy in the pyrolysis products. To the right of point 1 in Figure 8.52, air has been introduced into the system. The oxygen reacts and releases heat. This reduces the chemical energy available in the products and reduces the amount of heat added. At point 2, sufficient heat is released within the reactor to eliminate the need to add heat. This condition is identified as gasification, since a reactive gas (oxygen) was introduced. It is often referred to as partial combustion, starved air combustion, or low-Btu pyrolysis. Much of the energy available in the MSW is removed as chemical energy, H2 of the products formed. A major portion of the energy available in the MSW continues to leave as chemical energy. A larger portion of the energy is carried away as sensible heat. If pure oxygen replaces air, the fraction of energy carried away as sensible heat is much less. This is the result of reducing the nitrogen heated to 1500F (815C). To the right of point 2, additional air (oxygen) is introduced, resulting in more combustion and more heat released in the reactor. Provisions must be made to remove this energy from the reactor. At point 3, sufficient air (oxygen) is introduced to combust all of the MSW. There is no chemical energy in the reactor products. If the heat removed, q3, is used to generate steam, this represents the maximum amount of steam that can be generated. This is a theoretical condition of zero percent excess air. Practical systems require a significant amount of excess air to obtain complete combustion. To the right of point 3, excess air is introduced, passes through the reactor unreacted, and carries out energy as sensible heat, reducing the heat to be removed from the reactor. At point 4, no heat is added to or removed from the process (adiabatic system). All of the energy leaves the process as sensible heat and may be recovered in a waste heat recovery system. The regions to the left of point 3 serve only as suggestive values because the products produced are not known and depend upon many factors, including the type of reactor selected for the process as well as physical characteristics of the feed. The major difference between operations to the right of point 3 and those to the left is that those to the left remove a portion of the energy as chemical energy (fuels). Those fuels may be removed from the process and transported to a user where it may be burned in the users combustion equipment. It is this potential to recover useful fuel that may replace an existing fossil fuel that makes alternate thermal treatment systems other than incineration attractive. The region to the right of point 3 is termed combustion, which is a special case of gasification where all carbon is oxidized to CO2 and all hydrogen to H2O. As the products are known, precise energy and material balances can be made if the composition and heating value of the fuel are known. Water-walled incinerators fall in region 34, and most other incinerators fall at point 4. The volume of gas leaving the reactor system is also shown in Figure 8.52 for the case where the major portion of the products are gaseous. This is important when it is necessary to clean the gases to protect the environment. Cost of gas cleanup is strongly dependent upon the volume of gas and concentration of pollutant. The ratios of gas volumes for pyrolysis, adiabatic gasification, stoichiometric combustion, and adiabatic combustion are 1/2/4/11. In comparing combustion systems to other thermal destruction processes (OTP), combustion results in high gas volumes while OTP results in energy recovered as chemical energy and lowered gas volumes. Reactor Systems. Systems used for thermal destruction of MSW may be classified according to the mechanisms of solids flow and the manner in which heat is provided. 1. Gravity: Solids flow under the force of gravity. Shaft furnaces (moving beds) belong to the class. 2. Mechanical: Solids flow as a result of mechanical force. Multihearth furnaces, rotary kilns, and auger kilns belong to this class. 3. Drag: Solids flow as a result of drag force resulting from gas flow past the solid. Fluidized beds and entrained beds belong to this class. 4. Combinations of above.
SOLID WASTE 8.172

CHAPTER EIGHT
The published literature on pyrolysis and gasification of MSW and biomass reveals that Europe stresses shaft kilns (gravity flow), the Japanese emphasize fluidized-bed systems (drag flow), and none of the groups dominate in the United States. Heat may be added or removed from the reactor by three mechanisms: 1. Indirect: Heat is added to the vessel through the vessel walls. Combustion occurs external to the reactor. 2. Direct. Heat is released within the reacting vessel by gasification reactions (usually combustion). 3. Carrier: Energy is carried into reacting vessel as sensible heat of a nonreacting material. Carrier system material may be a solid, gas, or liquid. Representative examples for each type of reactor system will be discussed below. The systems identified do not provide a comprehensive list but include most of the major systems that have reached commercial or semicommercial status. Gravity Flow Systems. The shaft furnace has been the dominant reactor system considered for the gasification of MSW. Figure 8.53 shows its important features. Air or oxygen is introduced through the bottom and the solid through the top where it descends toward the bottom through several zones. At the top the solid is dried. The dry solid passes into a higher-temperature zone where pyrolysis occurs (no oxygen zone). Leaving the pyrolysis zone is a solid char that passes into a gasification region where some of the char reacts with H2O (or CO2) to produce H2 and CO. The remaining char moves down into a zone containing oxygen, where combustion occurs and oxygen is consumed. The shaft furnace is almost always refractory-lined and is a simple reactor system. The major differences between systems is found in the manner that the solid residue is removed and the auxiliary units, such as those used to preheat the entering gas, clean the product gas, and utilize the product gas. Only a small amount of pretreatment of MSW, such as the removal of oversized objects, is required. The Andco-Torrax system is an application of the shaft kiln. In this system, the air to the gasifier is preheated to provide a sufficiently high temperature in the bottom of the kiln to slag the inorganic material present. The gas leaving is not cleaned but fired directly in a close-coupled combustion, steam generation, and heat-recovery unit. The gas composition from a typical application is shown in Table 8.77. There are several commercial units operating overseas. Union Carbide developed the Purox system in a 200-ton/day (180-t/day) pilot plant in South Charleston, West Virginia. Instead of using air, this unit uses oxygen. The product gas is treated to remove liquids and tars that are recycled to the high-temperature region of the furnace. The clean product gas composition is shown in Table 8.77. It differs from the Anco-Torrax gas, which contains over 50% N2. Figure 8.54 shows the major features of a vertical retort. The solid is fed to the top, and char is removed from the bottom. It is a pyrolysis system, and the heat is supplied through the walls. A portion of the gas product is used as fuel to heat the walls. The heat transfer rate is slow, and the solids residence time is several hours. When these systems were used for the thermal destruction of wood at low temperatures, a typical product showed: Gas Methanol Acetic acid Tar Char 1417% 1.52% 3.58% 1216% 3137%
The Destrugas system represents a European-developed vertical retort operated in the pyrolysis mode. It is based upon coke oven techniques. The furnace is externally heated to temperatures of 1650 to 1830F (900 to 1000C). Residence time of solid in the reactor is about 20 h. Typical values obtained from pilot units showed: Gas Residue 36 wt.% 28 wt.%
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.173
FIGURE 8.53 Features of shaft kiln.
Tar Water
4wt.% 32 wt.%
Pilot and demonstration plants have been run at sizes up to 18 tons/day (16 t/day). These systems are not practical at a large size because of the volume to surface ratio limits, the area of heat transfer through the walls, and the increase in thickness of material to be heated. Mechanical Flow Systems. The most used reactor in this class is the rotary kiln or retort. The rotary kiln is a cylindrical vessel set at an angle of a few degrees from horizontal. This vessel is rotated slowly. The solid material enters the elevated end and is carried up the walls for some distance before it tumbles back to-
TABLE 8.77 Gas Compositions and Characteristics for Representative Systems, Percent by Volume Purox 47 33 4 1 14 1 1512 4565 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 6.6 6.4 2.6 1.8 1.6 11.4 69.7 815 1525 38 Landgard Babcock High-temp. fluid bed 8.9 13.8 2.4 2.7 17.6 55.2 X Ebara 35 23 15 7
SOLID WASTE
Component
Ando-Torrax
10.3 11.2 1.9 0.8 3.0 10.5 62.3 X X
CO H2 CH4 C2H4 O2 CO2 N2 Process Pyrolysis Gasification Gravity flow Mechanical flow Drag flow Heating Indirect Direct Carrier
19 1
8.174
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.175
FIGURE 8.54 Features of a vertical, continuous-feed retort.
ward the bottom of the kiln (as well as toward the lower end of the inclined vessel where it is discharged). Flights (see Figure 8.55) may be added to the vessel walls to help carry the solid close to the top of the kiln before it falls away from the wall. The rotating kiln serves to agitate the solids and move the solid through the system. Only a small fraction of the total volume is occupied by the solid; most of the volume is occupied by the gas. The gas-solid contact is poor. The solid tumbles through the gas stream to the wall where it remains with little contact with the gas until it is ready to drop back through the gas stream. The rotary kiln will accept a wide variety of materials. Not all shapes and materials move through the system with the same speed. Some materials roll through the kiln rapidly and some light materials are caught in the gas and move through the system rapidly. The greatest problems associated with any mechanical system result from the protection of rotating parts at high temperatures and the seals between the rotating members and rest of the process. The Monsanto Landgard System is a directly heated rotary kiln gasifier. In this application, fuel oil is burned with a portion of the air to the kiln to provide the temperatures required for the thermal destruction of the MSW. The reported gas compositions are given in Table 8.77. A plant to treat 900 tons/day (810 t/d) of MSW was built in Baltimore, Maryland, but never performed as
SOLID WASTE 8.176

CHAPTER EIGHT
FIGURE 8.55 Features of a rotary kiln gasifier.
predicted from data obtained in a (30-ton/day) (27-t/d) pilot plant unit. Monsanto has withdrawn from the project, and the plant is not being operated. The Pyrecal process of Babcock-Krauss-Jueffer represents an indirectly heated pyrolysis process. The external heating chamber is divided into several zones. Low pyrolysis temperatures between 750 to 1025F (400 to 550C) are used. This results in high liquid tar yields. These are sent to an external thermal cracking unit held at 1830F (1000C) where they are broken down into low-molecular-weight gases and char. The solid residence time is between 30 and 60 mm. About 30 weight percent of the product is gas and 30 weight percent char. The gas composition is shown in Table 8.77. A 2 to 3 ton/day (1.8 to 2.7-t/day) pilot plant is being built. Drag Flow Systems. The solids move through the system as the result of drag forces resulting from the flow of a fluid. This includes molten salt, fluidized bed, and entrained-bed systems. In the fluidized-bed systems (shown in Figure 8.56), the solid particles are inert and are suspended by the upward flow of fluid.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.177
FIGURE 8.56 Features of a fluid-bed system.
Each particle is surrounded by a gas. There is an upper interface between the top of the fluid bed (solidgas mixture) and the gas. The volume of the bed is only about 30% greater than would be occupied by the solid alone. The particles move about rapidly. This rapid mixing results in isothermal operations. Heat transfer to any solid added to the bed is rapid. In the fluid bed, the solid particles are not carried out of the reactor system by the gas stream. In the entrained bed, however, the gas velocity is large enough to carry the solids out of the reactor along with the gas. The entrained-bed reactor system may best be described as a pneumatic solids transfer system where chemical reactions occur. In this system, the solids are not mixed and the temperature is not constant throughout the reactor. The Hitachi process is a low-temperature fluid-bed gasifier. Air is pressed upward to provide fluidization. The fluid bed is made up of inert sand operating at a low temperature [840 to 1025F (450 to 550C)]. The
SOLID WASTE 8.178

CHAPTER EIGHT
bed is fed shredded MSW. This low temperature produces a high liquid and char fraction. A typical yield shows Gas Water Char Oil Ash 30 wt. % 37 wt. % 13 wt. % 17 wt. % 3wt.%
The high liquid fraction comes mostly from decomposition of the plastic in the waste (12%) and less from decomposition of the cellulose (5%). It is noted that Japanese MSW has a much larger plastic fraction than does United States MSW. While the Hitachi process has been classified as gasification because reactive gas (air) is introduced, the low temperatures reached result in almost no reaction of char with these gases, and the product yield is more closely related to the pyrolysis yield. If the temperatures of the fluid bed are raised to 1500F (815C), the char and tar fraction are reduced. The gas composition for this high-temperature system is shown in Table 8.77. Ebara has developed a pyrolysis system using a fluid bed where heat is carried into the bed by a hightemperature inert solid. The fluid bed is composed of sand, which is continuously drawn from the bed, while hot sand is continuously added at the same rate. This hot sand rapidly loses all sensible heat above the bed temperature to the bed. The system is fluidized by recycling pyrolysis gas. The sand drawn off goes to a sand heater that is a second fluid bed where the char and liquids separated from the product gas stream are burned. The gas product does not contain nitrogen, since no air is introduced into the reactor. The product gas composition is shown in Table 8.77. This system has been demonstrated in Yokohama, Japan, at 30ton/day (27-t/day) capacity. A similar plant has recently started up in Funabachi City, Japan, using three 150ton/day (135-t/day) trains. Occidental Research developed an entrained-bed pyrolysis system. Recycle gas was used to entrain hot char at about 1380F (750C). Finely divided RDF is introduced at the bottom. The temperature drops to 750F (400C) at the top. By controlling the gas velocity and the reactor height, the solid residence time is controlled (a few seconds). Controlling the temperature to modest levels and providing short residence times leads to high liquid yields. Typical values are Gas Water Oil/tar Char 27 wt. % 13 wt. % 40 wt. % 20 wt. %
The liquid product (garboil) was tested as a substitute for Bunker C fuel oil. It had several rather obnoxious qualities that suggest it is a poor substitute. It was corrosive, requiring special storage facilities and fuel nozzles, etc. It was more difficult to pump and smelled bad. These qualities largely resulted from the wide range of highly oxygenated organics (including acids). A 100-ton/day (90-t/day) demonstration plant was built in California but never ran successfully and was shut down. There are many advantages of the fluid-bed and entrained-bed systems. They have a high throughput. In the case of the fluid bed, it is an isothermal system, and the temperature is easy to control. It also produces high gas yields. There are also some major disadvantages. The most important is the requirement that MSW be pretreated to reduce the size to less than 1 in (3.8 cm) and materials that cause slagging in the bed, such as glass and aluminum, must be controlled to a low value. It requires at least a poor-quality RDF as feed. In the case of the entrained bed, the feed must be ground to the consistency of flour or fluff. Significant energy may be expended in terms of blowers to provide for suspension and movement of particles in these systems. The emphasis in pyrolysis and gasification has moved in the direction of producing a gaseous fuel for
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.179
several reasons. There are over 15,000 boilers in the United States firing natural gas or oil with a capacity between 50,000 and 250,000 lb/hr [150 to 750 ton/day (135 to 675 t/day) RDF]. In many cases, these could be used to fire low-Btu gas from a close-coupled gasifier. The gasifier would be located adjacent to the boiler and the necessary breeching provided to move the hot gas to the boiler. Burners and controls would require replacement. Any char and liquid formed should burn along with the gas in the existing combustion chamber. Overall thermal efficiencies of 85% or more would be expected. If it is necessary to cool and clean the gas prior to combustion in order to protect the environment, the boiler, or because there is not sufficient time to burn tar and char, the efficiency drops to about 55%. The sensible heat in the pyrolysis gas as well as the energy of the char, tar, and liquids are lost. Figure 8.57 shows the effect of boiler efficiency gas and air volumes for fuel gas of varying energy values. It shows the efficiency to drop rapidly for heating values less than 200 Btu/ft3 (7450 KJ/m3) indicating that a boiler firing a low-Btu gas would have to be derated. This also shows that the amount of flue gas produced for a giver boiler rating rises rapidly for heating values less than 400 Btu/ft3 (14,900 KJ/m3). For boilers designed with critical gas velocities (more likely in American design than European), the low-Btu gas would again require derating. For cases of pyrolysis gas, a medium gas is produced, and no derating would be required. The nitrogen-free pyrolysis gas may be used as a process synthesis gas for the production of organic chemicals. The city of Seattle, Washington, performed an extensive feasibility study to consider producing either methanol or ammonia from MSW. While the study came to a positive conclusion, the program stalled before detailed design was carried out. The preliminary plans called for the Purox process to produce a medium-Btu gas. To produce methanol, this synthesis gas is cleaned; reformed (to convert hydrocarbons to H2 and CO); shifted (to provide an H2/CO ratio of 2/1 needed for methanol production); and scrubbed to remove CO2. This gas then goes to a catalytic reactor where methanol is produced according to the reaction CO + 2H2 = CH3OH Methanol can be used in an internal combustion engine either as an additive to gasoline where it acts as an octane enhancer or as straight methanol (which requires engine modification). Advantages over Direct Incineration. There are numerous advantages to using pyrolysis and gasification systems for treatment of MSW as a replacement for incineration. Some of these are listed below. In this list, a system that produces a fuel gas by either pyrolysis or gasification followed by a combustion system for this fuel gas is compared to direct incineration. 1. There is less gas to clean in order to protect the environment. The volume of air used to incinerate waste is 5 to 10 times that used to pyrolyze the same waste. The cost of gas cleaning is much less. 2. There is less gas to clean for environmental protection even in the case of close-coupled systems where the fuel gas products are burned prior to being cleaned. Large excess air quantities are required to burn the waste directly, whereas the gaseous fuel products require far less excess air. 3. Pyrolysis systems allow for the energy user to be located some distance from the waste processing plant. For cases where char and liquid are the products, they may be stored until needed. User demands need not match the incinerator output. 4. Investment and operating costs are higher for incinerator. In most cases, the pyrolysis and gasification systems are much simpler than the mass burn incinerators where heat is effectively recovered. Table 8.78 points out factors relative to these costs. 5. Pyrolysis and gasification systems can handle a variety of wastes, such as rubbers and plastics, that cause problems in most incinerators as a result of high temperatures resulting from these high-heating-value feeds. 6. There is a much wider range of uses for the energy products from pyrolysis and gasification than from in-
SOLID WASTE 8.180

CHAPTER EIGHT
(1 lb = .4536 kg)
FIGURE 8.57 Combustion efficiency and theoretical air and flue gas volume as a function of fuel gas heating volume.
cineration (steam). The fuel products can be used in boilers, engines, turbines, etc., as well as a chemical feedstock. 7. Low-cost packaged boilers or a wide variety of existing equipment may be used to burn the fuel gas. Pyrolysis is an old technology that is not widely used today. While there are apparent advantages over incineration, it is seldom recognized as an alternative to incineration. Although incineration has had major problems in the United States, it still remains conditionally acceptable. Unfortunately, there is not sufficient experience in operating commercial pyrolysis and gasification systems to establish the validity of many of the advantages claimed.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.181
TABLE 8.78 Comparison of Pyrolysis and Combustion Furnaces Aspects Atmosphere Temperature Construction Corrosion during heat recovery Pyrolysis Reducing Mostly lower In most cases only few moving parts Small in case of pure pyrolysis (gas cleaning before energy recovery) Combustion Oxidizing, sometimes alternately reducing and oxidizing Especially local high temperatures are possible (on grate) Mostly mechanically moved grates Deposition of fly ash; corrosion of the tubes of steam boiler (gas cleaning after energy recovery)
Wet Oxidation The wet oxidation process is a type of incineration that uses oxidation in the presence of water in a closed reactor at moderately high temperatures and at a wide range of pressures. Since solid wastes are generally generated and collected in relatively dry form, the wet oxidation process is not currently common to solid waste processing but is used for the treatment of wastewater sludges and concentrated wastewater streams.
REFERENCES
1. Jones and Henry Engineers, Limited, and Sanders and Thomas, Inc., Washtenaw County Solid Waste Management Plan, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1982. 2. Residential Collection System, Volume 1, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 530/SW-97c.1, Washington, D.C., 1975. 3. Smith, Hinchman and Grylls Associates, A Guidebook for Solid Waste Management Planning, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Mich., 1981. 4. Henningson, Durham and Richardson, Energy and Materials Recovery-State Plan, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Mich., 1978. 5. Design Criteria for Solid Waste Management in Recreational Areas, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Publication SW-91 ts, Washington, D.C., 1972. 6. Predicted 60% Increase in Hospital Wastes Through Use of Disposables, Solid Waste Management/Resource Recovery Journal, 1972. 7. Jones and Henry Engineers, Limited, A Washtenaw County Plan for the Management of Solid Waste, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1975. 8. Carruth, D. E., and A. J. Klee, Analysis of Solid Waste Composition: Statistical Technique to Determine Sample Size, U.S. Department of Health Education and Welfare, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1969. 9. Kaiser, E. R., C. Zimmer, and D. Kasner, Sampling and Analysis of Solid Incinerator Refuse and Residue, Proceedings of National Incinerator Conference, ASME, New York, 1970. 10. Kaiser, E. R., Chemical Analysis of Refuse Components, Proceedings of National Incinerator Conference, ASME, New York, 1966. 11. Archinger, W. C., and L. E. Daniels, An Evaluation of Seven Incinerators, Proceedings of National Incinerator Conference, ASME, New York, 1970. 12. Niessen, W. R., and S. H. Chansky, The Nature of Refuse, Proceedings of National Incinerator Conference, ASME, New York, 1970. 13. Hasselriis, F., Refuse Derived Fuel Processing, Butterworth Publishers, Woburn, Mass., 1984. 14. Hollander, H. I., J. K. Kieffer, V. L. Eller, and J. W. Stephenson, A Comprehensive Municipal Refuse Characterization Program, ASME National Waste Processing Conference, New York, 1980. 15. Klumb, D. L., and H. I. Hollander, Firing and Co-Firing of Processed Urban Refuse in Utility Operations, IGT Symposium: New Fuels and Advances in Combustion Technology, New Orleans, La., 1979.
SOLID WASTE 8.182

CHAPTER EIGHT
16. Municipal Solid Waste Protocol, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, MERL, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1979. 17. Woodyard, J. P., J. C. Anderson, M. Neisser, and S. S. Passage, Estimating Solid Waste Quality and Composition, ASME National Solid Waste Processing Conference, New York, 1982. 18. Trinklein, B. I., An Applied Statistical Approach to Refuse Composition Sampling, ASME National Waste Processing Conference, New York, 1982. 19. Fourth Report to Congress: Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, SW-600, Washington, D.C., 1977. 20. Jones and Henry Engineers, Limited, Benton Harbor/St. Josephs Curbside Weighing Program, Michigan, 1982. 21. Hollander, H. I., and W. A. Sanders II, Biomass: An Unlimited Resource, Consulting Engineer, vol. 55, Barrington, Ill., 1980. 22. Decision-Makers Guide in Solid Waste Management, 2d ed., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1976. 23. Savas, E. S., Policy Analysis for Local Government: Public vs. Private Refuse Collection, Policy Analysis, 1977. 24. 1981-1 982 Body Buyers Guide, Waste Age, Washington, D.C., 1981. 25. Shuster, Kenneth A., and Dennis A. Schurs; Heuristic Routing for Solid Waste Collection Vehicles, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Publication SW-113, Washington, D.C., 1974. 26. Stevens, Barbara J., Handbook of Municipal Waste Management Systems Planning and Practice, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1980. 27. Clark, Robert M., Urban Solid Waste ManagementEconomic Case Study, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1972. 28. ASHRAE Handbook and Product Directory, American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers, New York, 1977. 29. Refuse-Fired Energy Systems in Europe: An Evaluation of Design Practices, An Executive Summary, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Publication SW 771, Washington, D.C., 1979. 30. Baumeister, T., (ed.), Marks Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, 8th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978. 31. Wilson, E. M., et al., Engineering and Economic Analysis of Waste to Energy Systems, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-600/7-78-086, Washington, D.C., 1978. 32. Mitchel, G., et al., Small-Scale and Low-Technology Resource Recovery Study, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1979. 33. Materials and Energy from Municipal Waste, Office of Technology Assessment, Washington, D.C., 1979. 34. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Characterization of Solid Waste Conversion and Cogeneration Systems, U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/EV-0105, Washington, D.C., 1980. 35. Reilly, T. C., and D. L. Powers, Resource Recovery Systems, Part 2: Environmental, Energy and Economic Factors, Solid Wastes Management, New York, June, 1980. 36. Hasselriis, F., et at., Eco-Fuel II: The Third Generation, Proceedings of the International Conference on Prepared Fuels and Resource Recovery Technology, Argonne National Laboratory, ANL/CNSV-TM-60, Argonne, Ill., 1981. 37. Schroeder, R. L., et at., Raytheon Service Company Experience and Programs in Resource Recovery, Proceedings of the International Conference on Prepared Fuels and Resource Recovery Technology, Argonne National Laboratory, ANL/CNSW-TM-60, Argonne, Ill., 1981. 38. Baron, J. L., et al., Landfill Methane Utilization Technology Workbook, CPE-8101, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., 1981. 39. McGowin, C. R., Municipal Solid Waste: A Utility Fuel? NCRR Bulletin, Philadelphia, Pa., 1981. 40. Levy, J. M., and P. A. Bender, The Gold in Garbage: A Graphic Preview, Waste Age, Washington, D.C., 1980. 41. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Characterization of Solid Waste Conversion and Cogeneration Systems, DOE/EV-0105, prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, Berkeley, Calif., 1980. 42. Campbell, J. A., Waste Fuel Densification: Review of the Technology and Application, Proceedings of the International Conference on Prepared Fuels and Resource Recovery Technology, Argonne National Laboratory, ANL/CNSV-TM-60, Argonne, Ill., 1981. 43. Shepherd, K. R., RDF Fuels in a Waste-To-Energy SystemThe Teledyne National Experience, Proceedings of the International Conference on Prepared Fuels and Resource Recovery Technology, Argonne National Laboratory, ANL/CNSVTM-60, Argonne, Ill., 1981. 44. Sommerlad, R. E., Considerations Affecting Dedicated Boiler Design for Refuse Derived Fuels (RDF), Proceedings of the International Conference on Prepared Fuels and Resource Recovery Technology, Argonne National Laboratory, ANL/ CNSV-TM-60, Argonne, Ill., 1981. 45. Solid Waste Management: Technology Assessment, General Electric, Schenectady, N.Y., 1975. 46. Vence, T. D., and D. L. Powers, Resource Recovery Systems, Part 1: Technological Comparison, Solid Wastes Management, New York, 1980. 47. National Center for Resource Recovery, Waste-to-Energy Compendium, DOE/CE/20167-05, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., 1981. 48. American Society for Testing Materials, Standard Specification for Municipal Ferrous Scrap, Std. No. E0702, Philadelphia, Pa., 1979.
SOLID WASTE
SOLID WASTE
8.183
49. Bernheisel, J. F., and W. S. Parker, New Orleans Resource Recovery Facility Shakedown Report, National Center for Resource Recovery, Inc., 1981. 50. American Society for Testing Materials, Standard Specification for Municipal Aluminum Scrap, Std. no. E0753, Philadelphia, Pa., 1980. 51. Henn, J. J., Updated Cost Evaluation of a Metal and Mineral Recovery Process for Treating Municipal Incinerator Residues, U.S. Bureau of Mines, Information Circular 8691, Washington, D.C., 1975. 52. Cummings, J. P., Glass and Non-Ferrous Metal Recovery Subsystem at Franklin, Ohio, Proceedings of the Fifth Mineral Waste Utilization Symposium, U.S. Bureau of Mines and IIT Research Institute, Washington, D.C., 1976. 53. Taggart, A. F., Handbook of Mineral Dressing, Wiley, New York, 1954. 54. Vesilind, P. A., and A. E. Rimer, Unit Operations in Resource Recovery Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1981. 55. American Society for Testing Materials, Standard Specification for Waste Glass as a Raw Material for Manufacture of Glass Containers, Std. No. E0708, Philadelphia, Pa., 1979. 56. Sanitary Landfill, ASCE Solid Waste Management Committee, Environmental Engineering Division, MOP 39, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, 1976. 57. Thickness DesignAsphalt Pavement Structures for Highways and Streets, The Asphalt Institute, Manual Series No. 1, 7th ed., New York, 1963. 58. Lining of Waste Impoundment and Disposal Facilities, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, SW-870, Washington, D.C., 1983. 59. Lining of Waste Containment and Other Impoundment Facilities, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratories, EPA/600/2-88/052, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1988. 60. Tittlebaum, M. E., Organic Carbon Content Stabilization Through Landfill Leachate Recirculation, Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, vol. 54, no. 5, Washington, D.C., 1982. 61. Tchobanoglous, G., H. Theisen, and R. Eliassen, Solid Wastes: Engineering Principles and Management Issues, McGrawHill, New York, 1977. 62. Glysson, E. A., J. R. Packard, and C. H. Barnes, The Problem of Solid-Waste Disposal, Ingenor Series No. 9, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1972. 63. Velzy, C. O., Trace Emissions in Resource Recovery-Problems, Issues and Possible Control Techniques, Proceedings of the DOE-ANL Workshop, Energy from Municipal Waste: State-of the-Art and Emerging Technologies, Argonne National Laboratory Report ANL/CNSV-TM-137, Argonne, Ill., 1984. 64. Velzy, C. R., and Velzy, C. O., Incineration, Sec. 7, Marks Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, 8th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978. 65. Kaiser, E. R., C. D. Zeit, and J. B. McCaffery, Municipal Incinerator Refuse and Residue, Proceedings of National Incinerator Conference, ASME, New York, 1968. 66. Alter, H., and H. P. Sheng, Energy Recovery from Municipal Solid Waste and Methods of Comparing Refuse-Derived Fuels, Resource Recovery and Conservation, vol. I, Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1975. 67. Hecklinger, R. S., The Relative Value of Energy Derived from Municipal Refuse, Journal of Energy Resources Technology, ASME, vol. 101, New York, 1979. 68. Velzy, C. O., Energy Recovery from Solid Wastes: Opportunities and Problems, Proceedings of National Waste Processing Conference, ASME, New York, 1980. 69. Hanneman, R. L., Energy-from-Waste Report Card: Three Yards and a Cloud of Dust, Presented at 6th National Conference on Waste Management in Canada, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, Nov. 19, 1984, NSWMA, Washington, D.C. 70. Corey, R. C., Principles and Practices of Incineration, Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1969. 71. OMalley, W. R., Special Factors Involved in Specifying Incinerator Cranes, Proceedings of National Incinerator Conference, ASME, New York, 1968. 72. American Public Works Association, Municipal Refuse Disposal, 3d ed., Public Administration Service, Chicago, III., 1970. 73. Beltz, P. R., R. B. Engdahl, and J. Dartoy, Evaluation of European Refuse-Fired Energy Systems Design Practices, Summary, Conclusions and Inventory, prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Battelle Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio, 1979. 74. Rogus, C. A., An Appraisal of Refuse Incineration in Western Europe, Proceedings of National Incinerator Conference, ASME, New York, 1966. 75. Velzy, C. O., The Enigma of Incinerator Design, Incinerator and Solid Waste Technology, ASME, New York, 1975. 76. Velzy, C. O., 30 Years of Refuse Fired Boiler Experience, Presented at Engineering Foundation Conference, Franklin Pierce College, Rindge, N.H., 1978. 77. Norton, F. H., Refractories, Marks Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, 8th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978. 78. Criss. G. H., and R. A. Olsen, The Chemistry of Incinerator Slags and Their Compatibility with Fireclay and High Alumina Refractories, Proceedings of National Incinerator Conference, ASME, New York, 1968. 79. SteamIts Generation and Use, Babcock & Wilcox, Inc., New York, 1976. 80. Combustion Engineering, rev. ed., Combustion Engineering, Inc., New York, 1966.
SOLID WASTE 8.184

CHAPTER EIGHT
81. Chin, N., and P. Franconeri, Composition and Heating Value of Municipal Solid Waste in a Spring Creek Area of New York City, Proceedings of National Waste Processing Conference, New York, 1980. 82. Mitre Corporation, Md., Energy Recovery Project, McLean, Va., 1982. 83. Bryers, R. W. (ed.) Ash Deposits and Corrosion Due to Impurities in Combustion Gases, Hemisphere Publishing, New York, 1978. 84. Velzy, C. O., Energy from Waste Plants-An Overview of Environmental Issues, Presented at the Third U.S. Conference of Mayors/National Resource Recovery Association Conference, Washington, D.C., 1984. 85. Fernandes, I. H., Incinerator Air Pollution Control, Proceedings of National Incinerator Conference, ASME, New York, 1970. 86. Velzy, C. O., Overview of Present Status of Control Hardware and Emission Compliance, Proceedings of Conference on Present Status and Research Needs in Energy Recovery from Wastes, ASME, New York, 1977. 87. Velzy, C. O., Materials of Construction for Wet Scrubbers for Incinerator Applications, Resolving Corrosion Problems in Air Pollution Control Equipment, NACE, Houston, Texas, 1976. 88. Katz, J., The Art of Electrostatic Precipitation, Precipitator Technology, Inc., Munhall, Pa., 1979. 89. Stern, A. C. (ed.) Air Pollution, 3d ed., Academic Press, New York, 1977. 90. The Recovery of Energy and Materials from Solid Waste, National Academy of Sciences of the National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1981. 91. Velzy, C. O., State of the Art of Emissions Control, Presented at New York Academy of Sciences, New York, 1984. 92. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States 1996, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 530-R97-015, Washington, D.C., 1997. 93. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States 1996, Executive Summary, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 530-S-97-015, Washington, D.C., 1997. 94. Solid Waste Disposal Facility CriteriaTechnical Manual, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 530-R-93-017, Washington, D.C., 1993. 95. Design, Operation, and Closure of Municipal Solid Waste Landfills, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA/625/R94/008, Washington, D.C., 1997. 96. Guide to Technical Resources for the Design of Land Disposal Facilities, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Center for Environmental Research Information, EPA/625/6-88/018, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1988. 97. Design, Construction and Evaluation of Clay Liners for Waste Management Facilities, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA/530/SW-88/007F, Washington, D.C., 1997. 98. Seminar PublicationRequirements for Hazardous Waste Landfill Design, Construction and Closure, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Environmental Research Information, Office of Research and Development, EPA/625/489/022, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1989. 99. Landfill Leachate Clogging of Geotextile (and Soil) Filters, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, EPA/600/2-91/025, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1991. 100. Schroeder, P. R., A. C., Gibson, J. M. Morgan, and T. M. Walski, The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Model, Volume IUsers Guide for Version I (EPA/530-SW-84-009), and Volume IIDocumentation for Version I (EPA/530-SW-84-010), U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss., 1984. 101. Schroeder, P. R., et al., The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Model, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss., 1988. 102. Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills Category, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 821-R-97-022, Washington, D.C., 1997. 103. Economic and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills Category, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 821-B-97-005, Washington, D.C., 1997. 104. Statistical Support Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills Category, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 821-B-97-006, Washington, D.C., 1997. 105. Environmental Assessment for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Landfills Category, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 821-B-97-007, Washington, D.C., 1997. 106. Technical Guidance Document: Final Covers on Hazardous Waste Landfills and Surface Impoundments, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA/530-SW-89/047F, Washington, D.C., 1999. 107. Guide to Technical Resources for the Design of Land Disposal Facilities, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory and Center for Environmental Research Information, Office of Research and Development, EPA/625/6-88/018, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1988. 108. Seminar PublicationDesign and Construction of RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, EPA/625/4-91/025, Washington, D.C., 1991. 109. Franklin Associates, Ltd., Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960 to 2000, report prepared for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prairie Village, Kan., 1986. 110. Franklin Associates, Ltd., Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States (1994 Update), report prepared for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Prairie Village, Kan., 1994.

Solid Waste

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Solid Waste

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Source: STANDARD HANDBOOK OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

SOLID WASTESOURCE AND EFFECT

SOLID WASTE 8.2

FIGURE 8.1 Household refuse collection (1).

FIGURE 8.2 Monthly variations in solid waste generation (2).

SOLID WASTE 8.6

SOLID WASTE CHARACTERIZATION

SOLID WASTE 8.8

SOLID WASTE 8.10

FIGURE 8.3 Truckload sorting facility arrangement.

SOLID WASTE 8.12

FIGURE 8.4 Refuse collection vehicle survey data.

SOLID WASTE 8.14

FIGURE 8.5 Sorting weight chart (14).

FIGURE 8.6 Sorting table.

SOLID WASTE 8.16

FIGURE 8.7 Lab spectrum chart (14).

SOLID WASTE 8.18

REFUSE SORTING PROGRAM TOTAL NET WEIGHT: 65,800 LB

Weight, lb as sorted 402 1,447 4 80

Weight, % 7.96 28.6 0.09 1.59

Newsprint 822 Other paper 2,967 Diapers 156 Textiles/garments 219

2.31 1.63 4.13 0.56

866 528 787 340

3.80 2.31 3.45 1.50

545 368 149 143

3.77 2.54 1.03 0.99

85 86 17 32 2,034 115 140 285 327 _____ 5,054 5,200 146

9. 10. 11. 12.

Yard waste Sweepings Ferrous Aluminum

5,444 420 240 16

13. 14. 15. 16.

Nonferrous Glass Brick OBW

35 455 19 182 ______

Total Truck net weight Difference

12,010 12,200 190

Note: 1 lb = 0.45 kg.

REFUSE SORTING PROGRAM COMPOSITE OF 5 DAYS COLLECTION

Adjusted for moisture loss during sampling

Excluding yard waste

Weight, lb adjusted 5.322 15,726 835 2,640

Weight, % 16.4 48.5 2.58 8.14

Newsprint 5,288 Other paper 15,672 Diapers 695 Textiles/garments 2.612

3.13 2.21 3.08 1.11

2.089 1,449 2.194 755

3.17 2.20 3.33 1.15

2.089 1,449 2.194 755

3.58 2.48 3.76 1.29

2.089 1,449 2.194 755 8 1,421 2.013 169

5.24 3.64 5.50 1.89 8 3.56 5.05 0.42

2.089 1.449 2,194 755 8 1,421

6.44 4.47 6.77 2.33 8 4.38

9. 10. 11. 12.

Yard waste Sweepings Ferrous Aluminum

25,779 1,323 2,013 169

13. 14. 15. 16.

Nonferrous Glass Brick OBW

309 2,183 925 1,830 ______

0.78 5.48 2.32 4.59 _____ 100.0 11.3d

_____ 39,860 25,940

_____ 100.00 39.4

_____ 32,431 7428

Adjusted total weight, lb

Moisture contribution, lb ____________________________________________________________ Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day S