10th North American Waste to Energy Conference

ASME 2002

NAWTEC10-1011

ADVANCING WASTE TO ENERGY TECHNOLOGY

DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE
OF
EPI FLUIDIZED BED RDF-FIRED POWER PLANTS WORLDWIDE
Michael L. Murphy
Energy Products ofldaho
4006 Industrial Avenue
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho 83815
mlmurphy@energyproducts.com

Energy P roducts ofIdaho has designed and installed numerous waste to energy systems in the Uoited States and Europe,
with others currently under development.

Among the latest are a number of

installations in operation and/or

construction inItaly. The systems design have undergone some changes over time to stay ahead of changing regulations
and performance requirements.
The paper will review the evolution, to-date, of the EPI fluidized bed technology, specifically as it has been adapted for
waste to energy facilities. Basic design criteria, equipment configurations, emission requirements over the past fifteen
years will be presented. Operating data from the most recent facilities will be presented. Design issues and performan ce
improvements will be presented. The recent facilities in Italy represent the most advanced design to meet the projected
European Community standards for waste to energy system emissions which are more stringent, in most cases, than
comparable standards in the US.
Background

The potential for energy recovery from waste has been documented numerous times over the past three decades. Since
the first "energy crisis" of the early 1970's, the energy potential from municipal waste has been studied and promoted,
dignified and vilified, and, yet, even to this day, remains largely untapped.

In spite of numerous waste-to-energy

projects completed during the hey-day of mass-burn technology of the 1980's, a substantial majority of the world's waste
continues to end up buried in some multi-lined, leak-protected, surface covered, off-gas-collected, hole in the ground,
fondly known as a landfill. In a society marked by space travel, instantaneous world-wide electronic communications,
digital TV, neighborhood cell towers, and continued advances in every form of technology imaginable, we somehow
still maintain the illogical attitude that landfill disposal of wastes is the preferred solution.
Depending upon geography and socio-economy, the contents of a municipal waste stream can vary significantly. In the
US and most industrialized nations where significant emphasis is placed upon 'time', the fast-food, microwave dinner,
disposable mentality in the consumers goods industry has driven packaging and wrapping technology to new levels;
thereby generating significant percentages of paper and plastic wastes in the disposal makeup. Combined with the
putrescible wastes resulting from foodstuffs, vegetables, and other organic matter, the fraction of energy-containing
materials in a typical waste stream can approach 75-90%. In less-developed regions, the putrescible fraction comprises
the majority of the makeup, with packaging materials much lower. A typical waste in the US will contain between ten
to twelve million Btu per ton, equivalent to nearly two barrels of oil. Considering the current US population in excess
of 280 million, each generating about one ton of waste per year, this equates to over five

percent of the annual

consumption of oil in the entire country. To date, only about 15% of that energy is being recovered. Roughly speaking,
there remains an as-yet untapped energy resource capable of generating 18,000 MW of electrical energy. Of course,
not all of that is practical or economical to recover. The balance of this paper discusses one technology currently
capable of tapping into this vast energy resource worldwide.

107

Waste Control Options?

By its very definition, waste denotes a material with no further beneficial use. Hence, to minimize the quantity of waste
generated today, much has been said and done to redefme the material and create new uses for it. The motto of the solid
waste industry over the recent decade has been to "Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle." While numerous programs have been
extremely effective in certain locations to reduce overall waste disposal requirements, many of these programs have
more effectively served only to 'Restrain and Retard' long term resolution of the problem. In many instances, recycling
efforts have managed only to increase costs in collection and handling with much of the 'recycled' material eventually
ending up in the landfill due to a lack of market.
Table 1 shows the typical composition of a municipal waste stream in the US. As can be seen, the waste represents
a tremendous "source" of materials for reuse and recycling. With 280 million tons annually, if only 80% of the glass,
iron, and aluminum is recycled, it is possible to recover nearly 35 million tons annually. Not only do recovery and reuse
of these materials represent savings in the raw materials they replace, but the processing costs to recycle these materials
can be significantly reduced. For example, twenty aluminum cans can be recycled for the same energy consumption
required to make one can from raw materials. While recycling is an option worthy of praise and promotion it should
not be considered the panacea for all waste disposal. Considering, again, the composition of Table 1, about 25 percent
of the makeup, including ash, textiles and rubber/ leather, and food and yard waste, are unlikely candidates for
recycling. Efforts to recycle rubber tires have been marginally successful in some instances, but account for a very small
portion of the tire quantities currently discarded. Recycling of paper and corrugated, plastics, and even some wood, has
proven most successful; however, the recycling of these materials is still more of a delay tactic, putting off the inevitable
disposal of the material until it has 'cycled' through the loop a couple of times, ultimately breaking down or otherwise
becoming less recyclable, until ending up in the "rejects" stream once again.

Often, the cost incurred during the

recycling process is substantially greater than the benefits gained. The fact that public support is strong even under such
a negative economy indicates the degree of awareness and desire to act for the long term benefit of the environment,
even when such actions may prove costly and marginally effective. When looked upon from a life-cycle perspective,
"recycling" may be, and probably should be, extended to include energy recovery, as well. On a global basis, recycling
the rubber and textile products, plastics, and much of the wood "products" will displace the consumption of considerable
amounts of oil and natural gas in the overall energy equation. Because both oil and natural gas serve as the original
building blocks for nearly all of the man-made plastics and rubber products we use today, energy recovery from the
product stream is essentially freeing up more of the "raw materials" of oil and gas for use in non-energy related
applications.

Table 1
Typical MSW Composition

(US)
Comoonent

Percent

Ash/Grit

10.4

Textiles

2.5

Paper/Corrugated

45.3

RubberILeather

2.3

Wood

2.2

Plastic

6.0

Food Waste

4.0

Yard Waste

5.0

Glass

7. 3

Mixeci n

-'-

. lle

6.7

Ferrous

6.5

Ah

1.8

108

Waste as Fuel

Given the above composition of typical waste, most of the items currently being recycled, namely glass, iron, and
aluminum, are non-combustible and add no value to the energy content. Recycling these non-combustibles not only
benefits those resources directly, but also benefits the remaining waste by their absence. The remaining mixture of
corrugated, paper, plastics, and organic waste has increased energy concentration. The energy content of the waste
stream increases from around 4500 Btullb to nearly 5900 Btullb with the removal of the recyclable components and grit
(dirt, sand, gravel, etc.).
Once the recyclable and non-combustible fractions have been removed, the remaining blend is typically called refuse
derived fuel, or RDF. While not comparable to natural gas, oil or even coal in unit energy value, the quantities of
material present a significant energy resource. From the 280 million tons of garbage generated in the US annually,
approximately 75%, or 210 million tons, of RDF can be generated.
In terms of waste disposal, one of the most significant considerations is the volume required for landfill. Even though
we often speak in terms of tonnages, in actuality, it is cubic feet which is disposed of in our landfills.

While

densification, compaction, and other current practices have reduced the volumes associated with waste disposal, the
impact of energy recovery on volume reduction is astounding. Because of the high density of the basic recyclable
materials, once they are removed, the waste volume is nearly the same as before. After combustion, however, the waste
stream is reduced to little more than ash, the residue of the non combustible fraction of the stream. This typically is no
more than 10-15% of the incoming weight. The density of the ash is four to five times greater than RDF, thereby
yielding a reduced volume of only 2-3% of the original amount. Conservatively, recycling plus RDF combustion could
extend existing landfill life expectancies by 30 to 50-fold.
If it's too good to be true, is it? If waste to energy is so good, and all the other disposal means are overrated and over

priced, why hasn't it been utilized more? The answer to that not-so-rhetorical question is not a simple one. It may be
the results of bad timing and bad press. Waste to energy, or, at least, waste combustion, was initiated well back in the
1960's. At that time, energy costs were just beginning to be economic factors. Waste disposal and landfill reductions
were the prime motives. Unfortunately, at least for the RDF technology, some of these early plants experienced serious
problems with their waste processing technologies, some resulting in serious and sometimes fatal injuries.

Such

negative demonstration of the technology opened the way for mass-burn combustion, wherein little or no pre-processing
of the waste was completed. Nearly all incoming waste was introduced into the furnace and what came out was a mass
of char, slag, glassed, waste which had little or no value and was transported to landfill. Because of the size, non
homogeneity, and extreme variability of the feed stream, mass burn facilities were often over-designed and expensive.
While they proved to be very effective in waste reduction, they did not improve, tremendously, the perception from the
earlier facilities that burning waste was difficult and costly. At that time, the competing landfills were still considered
fairly innocuous and were simple landfills with few environmental requirements.
With more recent knowledge of leachate, landfill gas generation, etc., the simplicity of landfilling has come under much
greater scrutiny. Coupled with the public attitude toward greater recycling, environmental accountability, and rising
uncertainty in the energy arena, conditions have become much more favorable for full-service, resource recovery and
waste-to-energy facilities.

Because of the recycling initiatives, much of the waste stream is already subjected to

processing, sorting, and removal of much of the non-combustible components as previously discussed. Advances in
technology have greatly improved these processes and reduced the dangers experienced in the first generation. The
remaining waste is almost fuel quality already and can be converted to RDF with very little additional technology or cost
involved. Once converted to a fuel source, the RDF becomes much more suited to advanced combustion technologies,
such as fluidized bed.
Another impedance to the widespread adaptation of waste to energy technology is the concern over environmental
impacts. Much of the current data base on plant emissions comes from mass-burn systems, many of which were early
installations. Changes in requirements, technologies, and even measuring procedures have all contributed to current
emission requirements which are much more stringent that levels achieved in many of the earlier facilities. With little
or no demonstration of the required emission levels, establishing public credibility and support for these new facilities
is often difficult, at best. Fortunately, as more experience is gained on the newer waste to energy facilities, and more

109

research exposes the hazards of existing landfill emissions, the acceptance of newer plants, especially utilizing state-of
the-art combustion technologies is increasing. Moreover, as more is known of the emissions and long-term hazards of
landfilling options, the technology and costs are also increasing. Where landfills present a suitable alternative, their cost
to site and develop are becoming more and more prohibitive. By including energy recovery in the waste management
plans, the landfill may be forecast to last into the next century instead of only the next decade.
State of the Art Combustion

Among other items, the preceding section addresses how a waste management program can be enhanced through a
combination of recycling and energy recovery. Few would likely argue the logic of such in terms of volume reduction;
however, much uncertainty still exists surrounding the viability of the combustion technology. While discussion and
philosophy may advance such discussions to some length, the fmal proof is in the performance.

Fluidized bed

combustion has emerged as a leading technology in demonstrating success in all aspects of waste to energy technology.
To date, Energy Products ofidaho (EPI) has demonstrated combustion, or co-combustion, ofRDF in its fluidized bed
systems for more than 15 years.

Fluid Bed Technology, or fluidization, is the term used to describe the characteristics created by passing an air stream

vertically upward through a bed of solid particles. The upward velocity creates a lifting or buoyancy effect on the
particles, resulting in the suspension of those particles within the air. As the air velocities are increased above a
minimum fluidization velocity, the particles are no longer held to nonnal solid-to-solid contact and they can float and
travel around with the air stream. The
fluidized media exhibits the physical
qualities of a fluid and looks like a pot
of boiling water. The result is that the
physical characteristics of the mixture
become

very

homogenous;

c o nc e n t r a t i o n s

are

all

uniformly

distributed and temperatures are very

consistent throughout the bed region.
This technology has been used in
combustion of solid fuels for over
thirty years.

The turbulence of the

sand creates an extreme combustion

environment

which

results

in

continuous surface cleaning of the fuel

Ash

particle.

deposited

from

combustion as the fuel is burned will

be removed by the etching effect of the
sand.

New surface is continuously

being exposed to the combustion air,

resulting in a much faster thermal
conversion of the fuel particle.
In a typical EPI fluid bed combustion
system, shown in Figure 1,
consists

of

the unit

refractory

lined

combustion chamber containing an air

distribution system, a sand bed, and an
above-bed combustion chamber. The
sand bed is comprised of an inert silica
or alumina based material which is
suitably sized to be fluidized by the

Figure 1

110

portion of the combustion air introduced as fluidizing air into the distribution system. The sand serves three major
purposes:

I)

It acts as a thermal storage medium to hold the heat within the system In most instances, the system
can be shut down for nearly 48 hours and be restarted with the residual heat from the bed material.

2)

Once at temperature, it provides the ignition source for fuel that is fed into the unit, and

3)

It continuously cleans the surface of the fuel particle from ash buildup, exposing it to combustion air.

The thermal storage enables the combustor to utilize much higher moisture content fuels because the sand provides
sufficient heat to evaporate the moisture from the fuel particle prior to combustion. With RDF, this thermal stability
balances the combustion and maintains uniformity both in temperatures and gas concentrations. Although some portions
of the RDF, namely plastics, tend to ignite and bum very rapidly, their effect will be stabilized by the sand and will
offset the slower evaporation and combustion of the wet paper and organic/vegetable matter also present. Ultimately
this mixing eliminates any temperature extremes within the combustor and insures uniform combustion and optimizes
emissions.
Fluid beds are renown for their ability to control acid gas emissions from sulfur. By using a sorbent material such as
limestone in the fluid bed, a chemical reaction between the calcium in the limestone and the sulfur from the fuel form
a stable calcium sulfate (gypsum) product. This material becomes part of the particulate stream and is removed from
the system with the normal particulate gas cleanup devices. Consequently, the acid gas, or sulfuric acid, that would
result from the combustion of the refuse-derived fuel can be controlled in a very cost-competitive method compared with
other methods of acid gas scrubbing. As emission levels continue to be tightened, added acid gas scrubbing may still
become necessary; however, the benefits of in-bed sulfur capture remain an advantage.

Typical operation of a fluid bed combustion system requires an external, air preheat system to heat the bed sand up

to a normal ignition temperature for the fuel. In most cases, this requires sand temperatures of 800 to 1000F. To
minimize gas emissions during startup and support complete fuel combustion, additional gas bumers are located in the
furnace above the sand bed section to bring the vapor temperatures up to 1600F before introducing fuel. Once these
temperatures are established in the furnace, fuel and air flows can be increased. As temperatures are stabilized the
external fuel can be eliminated. This operating philosophy can acconunodate a cold start-up in a matter of hours. Actual
startup times are restricted by refractory and boiler heat-up demands.
As fuel is fed into the combustor, Figure 2, a portion of its energy is released to the sand with the remainder above the
bed. Design of the combustor attempts to optimize the temperature profile through the system to hold the bed hot
enough to ignite the fuel as it is fed and maintain vapor temperatures below the ash fusion limits of the particular fuel.
The primary temperature control comes from using excess air to dilute the outlet temperature to around 1700 OF. Where
fuel economy is desired, the amount of excess air is minimized. Under these conditions, some heat release from
combustion is removed directly from the fluid bed region through the use of in-bed boiler surface. This heat transfer
surface is placed in the fluid bed and is cooled with forced circulation flow of saturated water from the boiler circuit.
As water circulates through these tubes, it extracts heat directly from the bed and creates steam in the water line. The
heat removed from the bed results in lower operating temperatures and allows the system to maintain temperature control
without using excess quantities of air. For the same reason that the combustion of a fuel particle is extremely fast within
the fluid bed, the heat removal from the sand to in bed water tubes is also much higher than a normal boiler.
Consequently, a considerable amount of heat can be removed from the system using a minimal amount of boiler surface.
This allows for economical design as well as improved fuel efficiency.

In order for the fluid bed to maintain its versatility under all fuels, it still must be operated using either changing
temperatures within the system or changing excess air levels to compensate for any variability of the fuel. This is
typically not a problem under most operating conditions, but it does create design requirements that must be considered
when establishing fuel types, feed mechanisms, etc., to cover the spectrum of fuels planned for the particular plant. All

11 1

conditions must be maintained such that under the worst possible fuel conditions the heat transfer surface within the
bed will not remove more heat from the sand than is available from the fuel. The amount of in bed heat transfer surface
is dictated by the worst fuel type rather than the best. The worst fuel is typically defmed as the fuel that has the highest
moisture level or the greatest volatile or fmes content which results in most of the heat release being liberated above
the bed rather than directly into the sand.
In a fluid bed combustor, overall combustion efficiencies are extremely high, with carbon burn-out above 99 percent.

Figure 2

Vapor
Tubes

SNCR

Overfire Air

Air Emissions

Since its fIrst application in RDF combustion, the EPI fluid bed has demonstrated its ability to meet the required
emission limits. Those limits have continued to tighten to the levels presented in Table 2 which represent the basic
emission requirements for Italy and much of Europe:

112

TABLE 2
Italian Emission Requirements (2001)

(Corrected to 11 % 02)

(Carbon Monoxide)
CO
NOx
(Oxides of Nitrogen)
VOC
(V olatile Organic Compounds)
(Sulfur Dioxide)
S02
(Hydrogen Chloride)
HCL
PM-10 Particulate
PCDD+PCDF (TEQ)

mg!Nm3lmill
50
200
10
100
10
10
.1 nglNm3

1bIM Btu
1.35
43
0.22
170
0.011
5
0.11
8
3
0.011
7
0.011
0.005 gr/sdcf

Products of incomplete combustion (PIC's) are inherently lower from fluidized bed combustion systems than from the
more conventional combustion technologies. When additional abatement of emissions is required, the versatility of the
fluidized bed makes it easy to apply additional abatement technologies. Combustion at the proper temperature, excess
oxygen and residence time limits CO emissions, but if the temperature gets too high and there is too much oxygen, NOx
production is increased. Time, temperature, and turbulence are optimized within the fluid bed combustor to achieve a
balance between good combustion efficiencies and low emissions. Carbon conversion can be maximized while
maintaining the least possible excess air requirements within the system
Carbon Monoxide (CO) emissions can also be an indicator of the potential for dioxin and furan (pCDD & PCDF's)
formation. Dioxins, furans, CO, volatile organic compounds, (VOCs), and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)
are all considered products of incomplete combustion (PICs). Emissions of all these compounds are significantly
reduced in a well-designed fluid bed furnace. These compounds are typically the result of incomplete combustion
caused by one or more of the following:

Low and/or fluctuating temperatures

Poor temperature distribution
Wet fuel (on a grate system) quenching
Inconsistent fuel feed
Insufficient turbulence
Insufficient residence time

For the most part, PICs and particularly dioxins and furans are thought to be created in the combustion process due to
either poor furnace design, where combustion gases can follow "cool" pathways avoiding the turbulent hot zone, or as
a result of transient upset conditions, often caused by fluctuations in the fuel heating value and/or fuel feed rate. Such
transient conditions can cause rapid devolatilization of waste materials, momentarily depleting or lowering local oxygen
levels in the furnace. This can cause heavy transient loadings of unburned gaseous and particulate matter. It is widely
accepted that refractory walled fluidized bed combustion systems operate at low levels of PICs including dioxins and
furans due to their uniform and complete combustion characteristics.
Another key regulated emission is oxides of nitrogen (NO.). Formation of NOx in the combustion process comes either
from thermal fixation of nitrogen in the air at high combustion temperatures or through conversion of chemically bound
nitrogen contained in the fuel. Fluidized bed systems typically generate lower levels of NOx than other traditional
combustion technologies burning the same fuels. The conversion rate of both "thermal" and "fuel" NOx is highly
dependent upon temperature. Thermal NO, is generally formed at temperatures above 2000 F in the presence of excess
oxygen. Due to the inherent design of the fluidized bed system with its lower operating temperatures, typically below
1700 F, "thermal NO," generation is minimized. Operation at low oxygen levels can also help reduce the interaction
of fuel-bound nitrogen with oxygen and resultant formation of NO,.
For further reduction of NO" EPI has adapted selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) technology specifically for use
in bubbling fluidized bed systems. SNCR technology works by adding ammonia (in the form of anhydrous ammonia,
1 13

aqueous ammonia, or urea) into the vapor space of the combustion chamber within a specific temperature range. The
ammonia (NH3) reacts with NOx to form nitrogen (N2) and water (HzO). The chemistry is complex, but the basic
equilibrium reaction is:

The fluidized bed combustion system produces inherently low NOx levels; however, with some fuels containing high
nitrogen levels, it is necessary to install SNCR technology to meet the strict emissions standards. The temperature
profile in EPI' s fluidized bed system provides an ideal environment for successful integration of SNCR technology for
the abatement of NOx emissions.
Abatement technology for reduction of SOx emissions is also easily integrated into fluidized bed systems. Sulfur present
in the fuel combines with oxygen during the combustion process to form sulfurous/sulfuric acid when combined with
condensed water droplets in the flue gas. The fluidized bed system uses a unique and very effective process for reducing
SOx' Sorbents such as lime, limestone, or dolomite containing calcium oxide (CaO) are added to the bed and react with
sulfur compounds to form calcium sulfate or gypsum (CaS04). This is a two-step process where SOx combined with
CaO forms calcium sulfite (CaS03) which is further oxidized to form gypsum. The reactions are as follows:
SOx + CaO+02 -+ CaS04
Some fuels containing calcium have an inherent ability to abate sulfur due to the mixing action of the fluidized bed
technology. This tendency can help to reduce or eliminate the need for additional abatement.
Control of hydrogen chloride (HCI) can not be accommodated within the combustion system as is the case with sulfur
dioxide due to the instability of the calcium chloride salt at the high furnace temperatures. The control mechanism is
similar, however, but must be completed at the lower gas temperatures at the exit of the system through the use of a
spray dryer scrubber. Lime or lime slurry is introduced into the gas stream in a reaction chamber where the acid gases
remaining in the flue gas are reacted with the calcium to create an inert particulate which can be removed from the
system via a baghouse.
Mercury and heavy metals are neither created nor destroyed within the combustion process, but are carried through
either as solids or as vapor. Removal of these components is achieved most effectively by reducing the input of such
contaminants in the feedstock. Current methods of waste processing have successfully removed a significant fraction
as have battery recycling campaigns and other similar programs. Current abatement practices for removal of the
remaining metals present in the outlet gases include introduction of activated carbon, especially for mercury control,
and quench and scrubbing of the outlet flue gas stream to reduce temperatures below 200 F to condense any vaporized
metals back to a solid particulate which can be removed from the gas stream.

As it is with all technology, the demands for bigger, faster, and better apply to emission control technology as well.
Where once the inherent control capability of the fluid bed combustor plus some simple means of particulate abatement
were sufficient to achieve required emission control limits, the newer levels mandate stricter controls and additional
measures to succeed. A brief review of the design parameters and operating performance of some of EPI's RDF
installations makes this very apparent.

OPERATING mSTORY - EXPERIENCE

Northern States Power - French Island Power Plant

EPI commercialized its fluidized bed technology for RDF applications with the commissioning of the second power
boiler conversion in the Northern States Power (NSP) French Island Station, Unit 1, in LaCrosse, Wisconsin, in 1988.
At that time, simultaneous with the fluid bed conversion of a 1 50,000 pph steam boiler, NSP incorporated an RDF
processing facility to allow the facility to receive waste from the local community to supplement the wood residue
currently fired in the first boiler, also an EPI fluid bed retrofit of another 150,000 pph power boiler. Upon completion,

1 14

the total station generation capacity is 30 MW of electricity using a 50/50 blend of wood and RDF, by weight. Steam
conditions are 450 psig and 750 F. Emission abatement and/or gas cleanup requirements included fluid bed combustion
for most items plus an electro-filter bed , also known as a gravel bed filter, for particulate.
The facility is shown in the accompanying picture, Figure 3. Results of various emission tests, published and
unpublished, have documented the levels shown in Table 3 during the course of operation. These are compared to the
permitted limits, circa 1988.
Table 3
French Island Power Plant
Emission Levels - Actual and Permitted

(at 50% RDF co-firing)

Permit
300
1400

CO ppm@ 10%02
TCDD TEF ngldNm3@ 7%02
HCI uncontrolled ppm@ 8% 02
HCI controlled ppm@ 8% 02
NOx ppm (at 25%RDF blend)
particulate (lb/ M Btu)

30 (proposed)
0.10

Actual
15-90
0.68
145
35
120
0.05

Figure 3 - Northern States Power, French Island Power Plant

Tacoma Power Plant

In 1989, EPI retrofitted another pair of power boilers in the Tacoma, Washington, region to fire a combination of wood,
RDF, and coal. Steam conditions are 425 psig and 750 F. Permit requirements for this facility included combustion
control, in-bed limestone injection, and baghouse particulate control. lbis facility is shown in the Figure 4. The RDF
portion of the fuel stream is typically less than 25%of the total but represents a over half of the 600 daily tons generated
by the Tacoma community. Source separation of recyclables plus a refuse separation and fuel preparation facility
provide the RDF used by the facility. The retrofit of the original boiler facilities was achieved by converting each of
the two, Sterling-type boilers to a heat recovery steam generator with a dedicated fluidized bed combustion system
located outside the boiler building. Hot exhaust gases from the combustor plus steam generated from in-vessel heat
exchange surfaces are routed into the existing boilers to generate 265,000 pph of steam, each. Each system is designed
for an energy input of approximately 415 M Btu/hr. Pollution control technology included limestone injection for S02
control in the fluid bed and a baghouse for particulate capture. The permitted levels for emissions are included here in
Table 4 along with actual test results.
115

Table 4
Tacoma Power Plant
Emission Levels - Actual and Permitted

Permit
0.01
0.18
0.50
425
0.047

Particulate gr/sdcf
S02 lb/ M Btu
NOx lb/M Btu
CO ppm
VOC lb/ M Btu

Figure 4

Actual
0.009
0.18

Tacoma, Washington Power Plant

Ravenna, Italy

A recent resurgence in RDF energy systems has seen the installation of one new facility in Ravenna, Italy, followed by
another, similar facility located in Massafra, Italy. For the Ravenna facility, the system size is approximately 7 MW
electrical. Steam conditions of 600 psig and 715 F were selected. In this installation, all of the current European
emission standards were required, plus provisions to meet the proposed standards. These emission levels follow those
outlined in Table 2 above. To achieve these limits, the system includes the following abatement controls:
1) Fluid bed combustion for CO, VOC, and other PIC's
2) SNCR utilizing aqueous ammonia for NOx abatement
3) In-bed limestone injection for S02 removal
4) Multi-cyclone and baghouse for particulate control
5) Spray dryer scrubber for S02 and HCl
6) Activated carbon injection for mercury and dioxin
7) Wet scrubber tower for [mal gas cleanup, heavy metals condensation and removal, and acid gas control.The
overall process design is shown schematically in the accompanying Figure 6.
The actual emission levels achieved during performance testing of this facility have been reported in other papers but
are included in Table 3 herein for reference. As seen from the comparison of actual to permitted limits, the performance
of the system has far excelled in achieving the desired results.

116

Table 5
Ravenna WTE Facility
Emission Levels - Actual and Permitted
(all values in mglNm 3 @ 11%0 2 unless noted)

0,

9.9

>6% vol wet

CO

<1

50

Particulate

<0.5

10

SOy

.1

100

NOy

191

200

HCI

10

HF+HBr

<0.1

VOC

<1

10

PAH1

<0.003

0.1

PCDD+PCDF (TEQ) I

0.034

0.1

Tnt::!! Hp.::!vv Mp.t::!k

Concentrations in ngINm3

<0 O()1

01\

Figure 5

Ravenna, Italy WTE Facility

Massafra, Italy

Following on the success of the Ravenna facility, the Massafra power plant is nearly twice the capacity as the earlier unit
at 133,000 pph of steam at 667 psia and 752 F. The emission requirements are slightly more stringent for NOx (160
mgINrn3), CO (40 mgINm3) and VOC (8 mgINm3), than was Ravenna; however, the control technology for each remains
more or less the same. This unit is currently under construction, with startup scheduled for early 2003.

117

Fuel

Fluid Bed

Boiler

Overfire
Air

l.

ID. Fan '

Stack
ED, Fan

Bed Recycle
System

Process Flow Diagram

"

Figure 6
Flow Schematic for Ravenna & Massafra, Italy

1 18