INCINERATOR AIR
POLLUTION CONTROL
J. H. FERNANDES
Combustion Eng ineerin g, Inc.
Windsor, Connecticut
ABSTRACT
Incinerators offer a solution to the solid waste dis
posal problems of the country if the particulate emission
is controlled. This paper reviews and discusses the emis
sion problem, the various methods of incinerator particu
late emission control, and the relative cost. Preliminary
cost versus performance estimates may be approximated
using the parameters presented in this paper. An exten
sive bibliography is included.
INTRODUCTION
The problem of refuse disposal is inextricably involved
with the problem of air pollution regardless of the method
of disposal. Incineration offers the opportunity to reduce
refuse to a sterile landfill and remove offensive odors, but
it can be a significant contributor to the air pollution
problem in an urban community. The primary air pollu
tion concern in incineration is with particulate emission
rather than gases or odors, therefore, the emphasis here is,
on particulate emission.
There have been comments that a properly operated
incinerator does not need particulate collection equip
ment. Many systems with little or no air pollution con
trol equipment have been represented as effectively
meeting dust emission requirements when they actually
do not. This occurs because the excess air used for com
bustion and cooling is so great (200 to 500 percent) that
it dilutes the effluent to the extent that it does not ap-
101
pear objectionable, although excessive quantities of dust
are actually emitted. With the trend toward larger, more
efficient incinerators located close to the population
centers served, effective control of incinerator atmos
pheric pollution is extremely important.
The degree of gas cleaning required and the costs of
primary control equipment will be discussed in this
paper. Relative cost for various degrees of control will
also be presented. The discussion will concentrate on air
pollution control of the large continuously fed incinera
tor now common in modern municipal practice.
INCINERATOR PARTICULATE EMISSION
The quantity and size of particulate emission leaving
the furnace of an incinerator varies widely, depending
on such factors as the refuse being fired, method of
feeding, operating procedures, and completeness of com
bustion. The information presented in this paper includes
test results obtained by Combustion Engineering, Inc.
and published data from a number of other sources.
The rate of furnace dust emission has been found to
vary from less than 10 lb to as much as 60 lb of dust per
ton of refuse burned. High-performance, compact, turbu
lent incinerators operate close to the middle of this range,
or about 35 lb per ton. In practice, dust loadings are re
ported in various ways. This 35 lb per ton may be re
ported as:
3.5 lb per million Btu (assuming 5000 Btu per lb of
refuse).
 2.97 lb of dust per 1000 lb of flue gas adjusted to
the average dust leaving the furnace is below ten microns
50 percent excess air (corrected to a flue gas condition (1 micron 3.94 X 10-5 in.) and is difficult to collect.
=

equivalent to burning with 1.5 times the theoretical air Simple settling chambers and spray chambers do not re
required). move sufficient quantities of this dust to meet even
1.58 grains per standard ft3 adjusted to 50 percent
lenient air pollution regulations, therefore, more sophis
excess air. ticated equipment must be used.
These dust loadings refer to conditions "leaving the
furnace" (leaving the combustion zone, including any EMISSION STANDARDS-
after-burner or secondary furnace, but before the quench
chamber). The foregoing discussion indicates the size and quan
Dust sizing, like dust loading, varies widely. Most tity of the dust generated in a modern, well-run incinera
factors which affect dust loading also affect dust sizing. tor. The question still remains, as to how much of this
Improved incinerator performance, which reduces dust may be emitted to the atmasphere. Present practice
quantities, also decreases the size of the individual par usually attempts to control up to 0.85 lb of fly ash per
ticles. The dust is always quite heterogenous, consisting 1000 lb of flue gas, adjusted to 50 percent excess air
of rather typical incinerator fly ash combined with (lIb per 106 Btu), as suggested in the "1949 ASME
large, low-density flakes. Dust density varies from a Example for a Smoke Regulation Ordinance". The
average of slightly over 2 grams per cc (125 lb per ft ) ASME published a new suggested regulation in 1966
to as high as 3 grams per cc (187 per ft3). The dust size entitled "Recommended Guide for the Control of Dust
as determined in the BAHCO centrifugal classifier, using Emission - Combustion for Indirect Heat Exchangers."
the methods and procedures of ASME Performance Test It seems reasonable to assume that this document will
Code No. 28, indicate a size-range distribution as pre receive the same widespread acceptance that the earlier
sented in Fig. 1. It is evident that about 35 percent of ordinance did. Thus, future codes can be expected to
lower the allowable emission from 1. 0 to 0.80 lb of fly
100
ash per million Btu, or to 0.68 lb of dust per 1000 lb of
90
80 . CUMULATI : ;" ; RT SIZE DISTRIBUTION gas corrected to 50 percent excess air. Larger, more
70 ,. D ",n congested metropolitan areas or areas with adverse
I
1I!Sl
60
topography, such as the Los Angeles Basin, may adopt
50
the recent Federal Facilities Regulations published in the
40 'W
Federal Re gister, Volume 31, No. 197, June 3, 1966.
V>
These regulations limit emissions to 0.20 grains per
Z
o standard ft3 at 50 percent excess air (0.44 lb of dust
0:20

...
u
per million Btu fired) for incinerator capacities of 200

0:
lb per hr (1.4 tons per day) and larger. Fig. 2 has been
...
...
r N
RA GE 'VALUES included to illustrate these various control standards.
10
:IE
.q 9 &.
o 8 II< 'a
... 7 flI INCINERATOR AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
...J
U 6 EQUIPMENT

0:

IW An early method of fly-ash reduction was the dry
3 IJ,'W settling chamber. The reduced gas velocities and dropout

iIf'
of the larger particles, many containing unburned carbon,
2
permitted burnout of the carbon. Up to about 20 per

A,
cent of the ash dust in the gases was deposited. Because
the large settling chamber requires considerable space
I I and is insufficient for the complete gas cleaning task, it is
001 O.O!! OJ 02 o. I 2 10 20 30 '10 50 60 70 80 90 "
PERCENT BY WEIGHT LESS THAN SlZ INDICATED not expected to be used as frequently in the future.
Nevertheless, it is assumed that space, time, and turbu
FIG. 1 PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION FOR INCINERATOR lence will be provided for good burnout of suspended
FLYASH combustibles before dust collection is undertaken.

102
 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PA RTICULATE EMISSION
FOR COMBUSTION UNITS

0.450 0.850
1949 ASME SMOKE REGULATION ORDINANCE
_ _ 1.0
0.405 It: 0.765 0.9
.. 0.360 or 0.680 Q8 1966 AS ME MAXIMUM RECOMMENDED EMIS SION LEVEL

.., ::l 0.315 ::l 0.595 I- 0.7

t;: tl 0270 tl
"
0.510
i Q6
)(
0.225 0:425 5
0 x
It: W
Q
ww 'IVmH!RITZW2
TC OMPL'I' WI H EXE
..
0 .180 i1.
':J 0.340 0.4

CD
.. CD z
Iii 0 OJ35 0.225 o 0.3
..... :::i
11)0 ....
_w

ZW
or t 0.090 ;D ti 0.170 02
It:W .... w CD
"It: It: ....
It: It:
8 o
u

0.045 0.085 O. I
OUST EMISSION 5 10 50 100 500

I
FUEL: TOTAL INPUT, MILLIONS OF BTU PER HOUR
STOKER- FIRED REFUSE
HHV- 5000 BTU/LB 2.4 12 24 120 240 1200
EXTRACTED FROM: TONS PER DAY
FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 3L, No. 107,6-3-66
ASME STANDARD, No. APS-I, 6-15-66

FIG. 2 EMISSION CONTROL STANDARDS

The combined settling chamber-water spray gas cooler
can remove up to 30 percent of the fly ash leaving the
furnace. Today, the combined chamber may be quite
small if its essential purpose is water quenching of the
gas to a temperature acceptable to the air pollution con
trol equipment and induced-draft fans. The temperature
of gases leaving such spray chambers is usually about
600 F. If on the other hand, the gas shrinking and cool
ing is accomplished by indirect heat exchange, such as in
a boiler or gas-to-air heat exchanger, a settling chamber
may not be required.
The mechanical (cyclone) collector is the next step
up the ladder of air pollution control equipment both in
performance and cost. There are two basic types - the
multi-cyclone or the large involute cyclone. The multi
cyclone unit (Fig. 3) is made up of numerous axial inlet
(vaned) mechanical collecting tubes, which vary in diam
eter form 6 to 10 in. and are arranged in a tube sheet to
receive the incoming dirty gas. The inlet spinner vanes
impart a swirl to the gas which creates a strong vortex
within the main tube. This vortex centrifugally separates
the dust from the gas stream and allows the clean gas to
proceed to the outlet tube which connects to a second
tube sheet. This sheet partitions the inlet dirty gas from
the leaving clean gas. Separated dust moves down to
the lower outlet and settles in the dust hopper.
103
Multi-cyclones are in common use in industry today
and most of their performance parameters are known.
This type of collector is extremely efficient on large par
ticles, but performance drops off rapidly for dust sizes
smaller than 20 microns (78.74 x 10-5 in.) and they are
not very satisfactory on dust sizes less than 10 microns
where about 35 percent by weight of the incinerator fly
ash falls. (See Fig. 1.) Flow through the dust hopper
caused by leakage or gas flowing out of one tube and
into another can seriously affect performance. Inter
tubular flow is always present unless inlet gas distribution
is perfect and no tube plugging occurs. Sticky or wet
dust may plug the inlet spinner vanes and can cause cross
hopper flow. When no cross hopper flow occurs and the
vortex is sufficiently strong (3% in. wc pressure drop),
the multi-cyclone dust collector can attain 80 percent
collection efficiency on incinerator fly ash, but if about
a third of the tubes become plugged, the efficiency may
drop to as low as 20 percent.
The second type of mechanical collector, the large
(over 2 ft in diameter) involute-type cyclone, operates on
the same basic principle as the multi-cyclone. (See Fig. 4.)
Its performance is usually similar to that of the multi
cyclone except when it is equipped with a flow-splitting
inlet manifold and separate dust hoppers. This arrange
ment is usually free of plugging and cross-hopper flow
,roblems.
 The next most popular class of air pollution control
equipment used in incinerators is the wet gas scrubber.
(See Fig. 5.) Scrubbers have received wide acceptance as
gas cleaners by industry. The scrubber would seem to be
a natural evolution for cleaning the gaseous effluent from
an incinerator, since the use of the combined settling-
spray chamber has been so popular. Unfortunately, how
ever, there is widespread misunderstanding when spray
chambers, wet baffle collectors, and scrubbers are dis
cussed.
Many workers have investigated the various configura
tions and methods used to scrub particulate matter from

f

j ,
I f
I 1 I 1
I f 1 r
, f i
I
I
-

FIG. 3 MULTlPLE CYCLONE DUST COLLECTOR WITH AXIAL

INLET VANES.
COURTESY OF RESEARCH-COTTRELL, INC.

104
 I
I
I
I I
I I
I

I
I

LI

u u
u

-- -
--
--

- ..

'r-_
r-o-
I
I
I
I
I
I

: ,..-
_.-:: ::!o!:==_
=- _
IO

u u

u u

FIG. 4 CYCLONE DUST COLLECTOR OF IN VOLUTE TYPE

COUNTESY OF RESEARCH-COTTRELL, INC.

105
 GAS OUT
t

ANTI-SPAN VANES
AND MIS T E LIMINATOR

CORE
BUSTER
DISK -----+-

DAMPER '---SPRAY
M ANIFOLD

CYCLONIC SPRAY SCRUBBER

ENTRA INMENT
-CLE AN GAS OU T
SEPARATOR
BAFFLE S
5;iiL=;T YPICAL PAC KING
BE D

TY PICAL WATER
SPRAY
l#.=WATER INLE T
9/,' ,:s0

DUSTY GAS IN-

WATER OUT

PACKED SCRUBBER

FIG. 5 WET GAS SCRUBBERS

106
gases, and certain facts are known. The dust particle must
impact on the water droplet to be removed, and the im
paction efficiency is primarily a function of the following
parameters: the relative velocity between the water drop
let and the dust particle, the size and density of the dust,
the number of water droplets, and the fineness of the
spray. Because collection efficiency is vitally dependent
on relative velocity and drop size, the collection efficiency
is found to be a function of the power supplied to the unit.
The true wet scrubber has been used in a few munici
pal incinerators operated in the range of 6. 0 to 8.0 in. wc
pressure drop, and having a fly ash removal efficiency in
the range of 90 to 97 percent. It has the advantages of
compactness and low first cost when compared with
other high-efficiency collectors. In order to meet the high
particulate removal efficiencies indicated, the equipment
normally produces flue gas which is saturated at the wet
bulb temperature of the recirculating water. The specific

FIG. 6 EL ECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR

COURTESY OF RESEARCH-CO TTREL L , INC.

107

humidity of the stack effluent is, therefore, relatively
high. A characteristic, then, of the wet scrubber installa
tion is an almost continuous vapor plume at the top of
the stack. While this plume is not an air pollutant per se,
it has the appearance of being one. The trend towards
low opacity requirements in air pollution regulations may
require the elimination of the plume. To accomplish
this, the gas must be subcooled to condense out the water
and then it must be reheated to obtain a dry plume with
sufficient buoyancy.
The amount of water required in scrubbers is high, and
this may introduce a disposal problem. If, in the interest
of economy, recirculation of the scrubber water is practiced,
the recirculated water must be suitably conditioned. Indica
tions are that the necessary chemical treatment is com
plicated and to date few incinerator/scrubber systems
have performed satisfactorily with recirculation. Even
with chemical treatment, scrubber maintenance problems
may be affected by the absorption of gaseous acid-forming
products of combustion by the scrubbing water. Unless
materials of construction are carefully selected, main
tenance costs and down time may be high, both for the
scrubber induced-draft fans and other components in
contact with the gas stream.
It should be noted that when adequate power is em
ployed, scrubbers are capable of high-efficiency dust col
lection; they are nonselective as to the particle composi
tion, and they are capable of removing certain gaseous
air pollutants.
The next class of air pollution control equipment to be
considered is the electrostatic precipitator. (See Fig. 6.)
This device has been used in industry for over 50 years
and has built an enviable reputation. In spite of this,
there are no precipitators operating on incinerators in the
United States at this time. New York City has recently
purchased two for incinerators, and their successful op
eration may signal a new era for the electrostatic precipi
tator.
Before discussing a few of the major factors to be con
sidered in the selection of an electrostatic precipitator, it
is best to understand the process fundamentals. Simply
stated, a precipitator operates by inducing an electro
static charge on dust particles by means of a high-voltage
corona discharge. The charged dust-ladened gas is passed
through an electrical field where the particles are attracted
to the grounded collecting surface and the cleaned gas
passes to the clean gas outlet. This basic theory is simple,
but the performance of a precipitator is affected by com
plex relationships with a great number of interrelated
parameters.
108
The strength of the electric field is one of the signifi
cant factors that influence collection efficiency, as is the
charging voltage which can range from about 40, 000 to
over 70,000 volts.
Other factors which affect dust migration to the col
lecting plates include dust resistivity, gas temperature,
moisture content of the gas, percent of design rating (gas
velocity) , flow distribution, and carbon content of the
fly ash.
It has been found that for proper collection efficiency,
the fly ash resistivity should be between 1 x 105 to 2 X
1010 ohm-centimeters. Dusts with a resistivity less than
1 x 105 ohm-centimeters are difficult or impossible to pre
cipitate, while dust with resistivity greater than 2 x 10 10
ohm-centimeters may be collected if the gas is first treated
to reduce the resistivity.
Once the charged particles have been deposited on the
collection plate, several processes may be used to remove
the dust to the hopper. These include washing, vibrating,
and rapping. The dislodged particles are agglomerated
into large lumps of dust and settle into the collection
hopper. Experience indicates that incinerator fly ash is
fme and fairly sticky and will accumulate on discharge
and collection electrodes and in hoppers normally used
for coal fly ash collection. Therefore, special provisions
for removal of collected material must be provided.
The main advantage of precipitators is that they can be
designed for nearly any efficiency required, can operate
over a broad spectrum of fly ash concentration and size,
and require a nominal draft loss of only about V2 to 1 in.
wc. On properly operating incinerators, precipitators have
the potential of collecting more than 95 percent of the
dust emitted from the furnace and they can collect sub
micron size particles with nearly the same facility as 100
micron particles. Thus, the electrostatic precipitator can
effectively remove entrained fly ash from incinerator
gases to any desired degree, and the purchaser may match
the size and cost of his equipment to the predicted control
requirements.
The electrostatic precipitator is capable of high efficien
cy operation if properly designed for the widely differing
service encountered in incineration practice. It is, there
fore, reasonable to predict that this country will eventual
ly follow European practice, and use precipitators ex
tensively on incinerators.
The final class of air pollution control equipment to be
discussed is the fabric filter collector. (See Fig. 7.) Ap
plication of the fabric collector to incinerators is still in the
preliminary stage of development because of the high
temperature gases and the characteristics of the fly ash.
The fabric collector is one of the original gas cleaning de
vices, and much experience is available from other indus
tries. It has the ability to remove 99.9 percent of the par
ticulate matter, thus insuring practically complete elimi
nation of the plume opacity and making it a very desirable
air pollution control system. In fabric filters, the gas
passes through fabric which is usually arranged as tubular
bags. The accumulated filter cake on the fabric fIlter re
moves the fly ash from the gas stream. Various methods
are used to clean the filter - mechanical shaking, reverse
jet blowing, bag collapse, and reverse flow backwash. The
released fIlter cake falls to the dust hopper for removal.
In one type of fabric fIlter collector, the dust-laden gas
enters through the top, passes through the bag filter
while giving up its dust load, and the clean gas proceeds
to the stack. Filter efficiencies approach 100 percent, but
their overall pressure loss may be as high as 5 to 7 in. of
water.
The ftlterhouse has not been considered sooner for in
cinerators because both the cost of the initial ftlterhouse
and the bag replacements have been prohibitive. Newer
INLET DAMPER
CLOSED FOR
CLEANING
BAG FILTERS
IN OPERATION
FIG. 7 FABRIC FILTER DUST COLLECTOR (BAG FILTER)
materials which guarantee long ftlter life at higher tem
peratures have opened the way to the practical application
of filter collectors to incinerators. For example, glass
cloths now allow operation at 500 F, only 100 F below
present exit gas temperature levels. Some research and
development work will be required, however, to insure
the desired results and incinerator purchasers will have to
become accustomed to the higher cost and space require
ments for th type of air pollution control equipment.
The application of these collectors to incinerators will re
quire even greater control of combustion and moisture to
prevent the formation of sticky soot which blinds the ftl
ter cloth. Cooling of the gases must be carefully con
trolled to avoid formation of moisture on the fabric.
Either evaporative spray cooling to 7 00 F with no wetting
of the spray chamber followed by cool air dilution to
500 F, or indirect heat exchange to 500 F are feasible
methods of gas conditioning.
It should be noted that air pollution control equip
ment performance is significantly affected by the com
pleteness of combustion, operating procedures, and the
adequacy of maintenance.
DIRTY
AIR
INLET
BAG FILTERS
COLLAPSED
FOR CLEANING
AUXILIARY
FAN
109


To insure proper collection performance with any of
the systems discussed, frequent and thorough inspection
and maintenance of air pollution control equipment is
required. Without proper maintenance, design perform
ance as an operating criterion is meaningless. As a further
check on proper performance, stack emission checks
should be performed occasionally.
INCINERATOR AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE
Now that each of the major classes of air pollution
control equipment has been discussed, their performance
will be studied in greater depth. Particulate collection
equipment performance may be classified in a number
of ways, but the most widely accepted criterion is the
weight efficiency. The weight efficiency relates the quan-
tity of the dust collected to the dust that enters the col-
lector with the gas. This number may be meaningfully
applied only under conditions similar to those entering the
collector during the test, including the given dust density
and size distribution, the entering gas dust loading, the
collector energy level, and the inlet gas temperature. The
results can sometimes be related to other applications if
the dust density, size distribution, dust resistivity (if a pre
cipitator), collector energy level, and gas condition are
known.
Another important collector performance criterion is
the fractional efficiency curve (Fig. 8), sometimes called
the size or grade efficiency curve. It represents the per
formance of the particular collector on each size of dust
particle of a given density for a given collector energy
level, gas temperature, and dust resistivity (if a pre
cipitator) .

TYPICAL FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY CURVE

IOO -- ---------r----___

9Or----------+

.... 80

C)
-

L&J
70
3
>
en
60

0

> 50
..

u
Z
L&J 40
-

u
-

u.
u.
L&J 30
L&J DUST COLLECTOR PERFORMANCE
N 20
- CURVE-INCINERATOR
C/)
CONDITIONS: I
10 I- ---+--
- --+----==MPERATURE- 600 F
TE
PRESSURE DROP-3" H20
o
o 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
PARTICLE SIZE. MICRONS (Jl)

FIG. 8 TYPICAL FRACTIONAL EFFICIENCY CUR VE FOR

DUST COLLECTORS

110
 The two efficiencies are related and can be computed
one from the other if the dust size distribution is known.
This is very important since most air pollution control
equipment manufacturers would prefer to guarantee the
known fractional efficiency performance for their equip
ment and allow each purchaser to compute the efficiency
for his particular dust.
The size and composition of incinerator fly ash and
the extremely large quantities of air used in incineration
mask the real pollution potential. As a result, stack
observations are no measure of an incinerator's pollution
control. An accurate determination of stack emissions
can be obtained only by actual tests based on samples
taken in the duct leaving the air pollution control equip
ment. It is suggested that test connections be designed
into the ducting before and after the primary dust col-
lection equipment. A make-shift arrangement to accom
modate sampling at a later date is, at best, a compromise.
Pre-engineered sampling points will permit accurate
measurement of particulate emission from the stack and
the testing of the primary air pollution control equip
ment to determine if it is functioning properly.
Collector performance and the resulting emission to
the atmosphere are summarized in Fig. 9. This can be
compared to the local emission standards which may be
used as an entry to the graph. The efficiency required
is read on the left ordinate while the right ordinate pre
sents the class of air pollution control equipment that could
be designed to meet this requirement. As an example, if
the ASME 1966 maximum emission level from Fig. 2 is
used, one can enter Fig. 9 with the 0.8 lb of dust per mil
lion Btu and read 77 percent efficiency on the left ordi-

1 00

EQUIPMENT
90 ----'

FABRIC ALTER

80----+
ED CONDITIONS:
X - ELECTROSTATIC
70 f----+-- 150% EXCESS A IR PRECIPITATOR
I&J
WATER QUENCH FROM FURN ACE
TEMPERATURE ---- SCRUBB ER
60 f----+--'
m 600 F ENTERING COLLECTOR
HIGHER HE ATING VALUE-

Z
f----------- 5000 BTU/LB
MECHA NIC A L
COLLECTOR
I&J
-
(,)
- 40-------+---+-
It
&&J
0::
30-
--+---;----r--+
35 LB DUST ENTERING COLLECTOR
PER TON OF REFU S E --+
(,) --- -

I&J 20---+---;----r----+- ---

...J
...J CHA MBER

8 10 WET OR DRY

o
____ __ ____ __ --
o
__ __ __ __ __ __

0.50 1.00 1.50

2.00 2. 50
L8 D IIOOOL8 OF GAS CORRECTED TO 504 EXCESS AIR

o Q50 100 1.50 200 2

LB DUST IMILLION 8TU

o 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.5 1.50 1.58

GRAINS DUST I S.C.F. CORRECTED TO 5OCY. EXCESS AIR
- STACK DUST EMISSION -

FIG. 9 COLLECTOR EFFICIENCY VERSUS STACK DUST EMISSIONS

111
-
nate and on the right ordinate note that a mechanical
collector could be designed for this service. Once again,
the reader is cautioned that this data assumes a properly
designed and maintained collector and an incinerator with
good combustion conditions. The ranges of performance
presented on the right ordinate of this figure indicate
areas in which it is reasonable to expect each class of
equipment to perform. In most cases, the 35 lb of dust
per ton of refuse leaving the furnace, assumed as a basis
for this graph, is a satisfactory starting point. If, for a
certain type of incinerator, the designer knows the furnace
emission is greater or less than the assumed 35 lb per ton,
a second line can be drawn (from the 100 percent ef
ficiency and zero emission point to the expected furnace
emission on the zero efficiency line) and the graph used
as before for these new conditions.
This graph illustrates that today's technology can pro
vide good pollution control on modern incinerators. As
mentioned earlier, the highest efficiency collectors may

700

650 INCINERATOR FLUE GA S

FLOW COMPARI SON

600

550

150% EXCESS AIR

500 GOOF ENTERING COLL E CTOR
I
520 CFMITPD
-
o
WATER QUENCHE D
)( 450 "
:::!!
lL.
u 150% EXCESS AIR
- 400 INDIRECT COOLING TO 600 F
(/)
<I NO QUENCHING
C> 365 CFM/TPD
w 350
:J
-.J
lL.
a:: 300
o
t-
<I
a::
250
w ....t
-
z

- 200

150

100
50% EXCESS AIR
INDIRECT CO OLING TO 600 F
50
NO QU ENCHING
220 CFM I TPD

o ,
o 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100
INCINERATOR RATING. TONS PER DAY

FIG. 10 INCINERATOR FLUE GAS VOLUMES WITH THREE

METHODS OF OPERA TlON

112
require additional development to achieve their full po $/CFM* $/CFM $/CFM Yearly
Equipment Erection Maintenance &
tential, but they are available to the industry today. Type of Collector Cost Cost Repair Cost

Mechanical collector $.07 - $ .25 $.03- $.12 $.005- $.02

COST OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT
FOR INCINERATORS Electrostatic
precipitator .25- 1.00 .12- .50 .01 - .025

It is extremely difficult to precisely pinpoint the price
of a particular class of air pollution control equipment.
Prices vary substantially from one vendor to another, and
with market conditions. In addition to these factors, cer
tain improvements in performance and reliability cost
more than less sophisticated designs of the same class. As
an example, one company has developed a mechanical
cyclone separator which extends the high-efficiency op
eration well below the usual 20 micron size, but it is
larger and costs more. Therefore, all values presented in
this section must be considered estimates representative
of a range of possible values. The local architect-engineer
involved in a particular design is best equipped to estimate
the cost of the air pollution control equipment for a given
plant.
The approximate cost of air pollution control equip
ment per ton per day of incinerator capacity can be de
veloped on the basis of the following assumptions; 1) 600
F inlet gas temperature, 2) 150 percent excess air,
3) 5000 Btu per pound refuse.
The volume of gas handled is approximately 520CFM
per ton per day of capacity if the gas cooling is accom
plished with water quenching to 600 F. If the cooling is
performed indirectly by water heating, steam generating
surfaces, or an air heating device, the quantity of gas to
be handled is substantially reduced. (See Fig. 10.) In
this case, the volume of gas to be handled is approximate
ly 365CFM per ton per day of capacity. If combustion
is completed with 50 percent excess air and a steam gen
erating surface is used to control furnace temperatures
and cool the gas to 600 F, the volume of gas is reduced
to approximately 220CFM per ton per day of capacity
(Fig. 10).
In the course of this study, many sources were searched
for the cost of air pollution control equipment. The most
authoritative data obtained came from statements given
before the US SenateCommittee on Public Works, Sub
Fabric filter .35- 1.25 .25- .50 .02 - .08
Wet scrubber .10- .40 _04- .16 .02 - .05
*Dollars per actual cubic foot of gas handled
It should be noted that because of the difficulties involved
with the collection of incinerator fly ash, the actual cost
of incinerator air pollution control equipment would
probably be found at the higher ends of the ranges given.
These cost ranges also account for the decrease in price
with increase in unit size.
By way of illustration, a 95 percent efficient electro
static precipitator on a 400-ton-per-day incinerator oper
ated in accordance with the foregoing assumptions (520
CFM per ton per day) would have the following cost:
520 x 400 - 208,000CFM
208, 000 x $_80 - $166,400 fob manufacturer
208,000 x .40 = 83,200 delivery and erection cost
Total delivered
and erection cost $249,600
The reader is again cautioned that these values are only
first approximations. The individual plant under consid
eration should be studied by the architect-engineer and
air pollution control equipment manufacturers, and the
actual cost estimated.
Fig. 10 graphically illustrates the capital cost reduction
for air pollution control equipment, ID fan, ducting, and
stack when the flue gas is cooled indirectly. This differ
ence justifies serious consideration of the utilization of
the heat generated in an incinerator. If the energy re
leased was used to supply the power to run the incinera
tor plant or to heat the plant and surrounding buildings,
the savings in capital cost due to the reduced size of the
air pollution control and gas handling equipment plus
the energy savings could offset the additional cost of the
heat conversion equipment. The operating savings could
,

committee on Air and Water Pollution, May 18, 1967 by possibly reduce the cost of incinerating the refuse. There
Mr. Earl L. Wilson, president of the Industrial GasClean are excellent opportunities. in the field of incinerator heat
ing Institute, Inc. This data is included here since all utilization, but additional research is needed if it is to
other reliable information falls within these broad ranges. develop to its full potential.

113
 A reduction in flue gas temperature to 600 F was as
sumed for the examples presented here, but an additional
reduction in size and cost of gas handling equipment is
possible if the flue gas is indirectly cooled even further.
Indications are that it may be possible to reduce the in
cinerator flue gas temperature to 350 F or less before
release to the atmosphere. This would decrease the gas
volume to be handled by nearly 15 percent. The addi
tional heat recovery could make energy utilization even
more attractive.
of this type, when energy credits are not included, are at
best only on a cost par with the simpler water quench
systems.
SUMMARY
Although an incinerator stack may appear reasonably
clean, the fly ash in the gas may be excessive. Large
quantities of air used in incineration often mask the real
pollution potential As a result, stack observations are

Table I is presented to summarize the interrelation
ship and comparison of the various air pollution control
equipment systems with respect to performance, size, and
cost. The second column introduces a new and impor
tant parameter, the space required by each class of
system. Column six presents a very important factor that
is frequently overlooked, a comparison of the relative
operating cost between the various systems. Many com
munities buy their units on a lowest capital cost basis
without regard for the continuing operating expense. On
a capital cost basis, it would be difficult to justify a unit
with improvements such as indirect heat exchange. Units
no measure of emission from an incinerator. An accurate
determination of stack emissions can be obtained only
by actual test based on samples taken in the duct leaving
the air pollution control equipment.
This paper has presented a survey of the performance
capability of air pollution control equipment. It be
comes clear that more knowledge of incinerator pollu
tants is required, and some research must be performed
if all classes of high performance air pollution control
equipment are to be applied to incinerators' with op
timum results. Regardless of whether lax or stringent air
pollution regulations are in effect, collectors of good de-

TABLE I
COMPARATIVE AIR POllUTION CONTROL DATA FOR MUNICIPAL INCINERATOR

Column 1 2 3 4 5 6
Relative
Capital Water to Pressure Relative
Cost Factor Relative Collection Collector Drop, In. Operating
Collector (F.O.B.) Space, % Efficiency, % Per 1000CFM WaterColumn Cost Factor

Settling Not
60 0-30 2-3 GPM 0.5-1 0.25
Chamber Applicable

Multi-
1 20 30-80 None 3-4 1.0
Cyclone

Cyclones to
60 in. dia.
1.5 30 30-70 None 1-2 0.5
Tangential
Inlet

Scrubber* 3 30 80-96 4-8 GPM 6-8 2.5

Electrostatic
6 100 90-97 None 0.5-1 0.75
Precipitator

Fabric
6 100 97.99.9 None 5-7 2.5
Filter

*Includes ncesssary water treatment equipment

114
sign, properly installed, operated, and maintained, can
be selected. The relative cost of the various classes of
equipment has been presented.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The results reported in this paper were based on a
study that was accomplished partially under contract
from the Solid Wastes Program of the Public Health
Service, Department of Health, Education and Welfare
(Contract Ph-86-66-163). The work formed a portion
of a survey byCombustion Engineering, Inc. of muni
cipal and industrial solid waste disposal needs and prac
tices in the US. The contract work is intended to provide
an initial improvement to a situation which has seen
solid waste management efforts seriously hampered by
the lack of consistent and reliable information in the
solid waste field.
REFERENCES
(1) Archbold, M. J., "Observations and Experiences Re
sulting from a Precipitator Improvement Program," Proceedings
of the American Power Conference, Vol. XXIII, 1961, pp.
371-390.
(2) Brandt,H., "Dust Removal Installations for Exhaust
Gases of Industrial Plants," Energie, Vol. 15, Issue II,Munich,
Germany,November 1963.
(3) Bump,R. L., "The Use of Electrostatic Precipitators
for Incinerator Gas Cleaning in Europe," Proceedings 1966
National Incinerator Conference, ASME,New York, 1966,
p. 161.
(4) Cohan, L. J. and Sherrill, R. C., "An Investigation of
Combustion Air for Refuse Burning," Proceedings 1964 National
Incinerator Conference, ASME, New York, 1964,p. 135.
(5) Darby, K. and Parker,K. R., "Electrostatic and Fabric
Gas Cleaners," Power & Works Engineering, May 1967, pp. 33-41.
(6) Fernandes,J. H., Sensenbaugh,J. D., and Peterson,D. G.,
"Boiler Emissions and Their Control," Presented at the Conference
on Air Pollution Control,Mexico City, Mexico,April 28, 1966.
(7) Fife,J. A., "Control of Air Pollution from Municipal
Incinerators," Presented at the National Conference on Air Pol
lution,Washington,D. C.,December 1966,Paper 0-9.
(8) Fitzpatrick,J. V., "Solid Refuse Disposal Practices as
Related to Air Pollution Problems," Presented at the National
Conference on Air Pollution,Washington, D. C.,December 1966.
(9) Gottschlich, C. F., "Removal of Particulate Matter from
Gaseous Wastes-Gravity, Inertial, Sonic, and Thermal Collectors,"
Prepared for American Petroleum Institute,August 1959.
(10) Gottschlich, C. F., "Removal of Particulate Matter from
Gaseous Wastes - Electrostatic Precipitators," Prepared for
American Petroleum Institute, September 1958.
(11) Jens,W and Rehm,F. R., "Municipal Incineration and
Air Pollution Control," Proceedings 1966 National Incinerator
Conference, ASME,New York, 1966, p. 74.
115
(12) Kaiser,E. R., "Combustion and Heat Calculations for
Incinerators," Proceedings 1964 National Incinerator Conference,
ASME, New York, 1964,p. 81.
(13) Kaiser,E. R.,"Incinerators to Meet New Air Pollution
Standards," Presented to the Mid-Atlantic Section, Air Pollution
Control Association, New York,April 20, 1967.
(14) Kane,J. M., "Status Forecast for Air Pollution Control
- 1972," Air Engineering, March 1967.
(15) Katz,Jacob and Consultant, "The Effective Collection
of Fly Ash at Pulverized Coal-Fired Plants," Presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Toronto,
Canada,June 20-24, 1965, Paper 65-131.
(16) Land,G. W., "The New ASME APS-1 Dust Emission
Guide," ASME, 1967.
(17) Leib, H., "Dust Removal and Composition of Flue
Gases in the Industrial Waste Incineration Plant of Basf," Mitt.
d. VGB, No. 93,December 1964, pp. 434-437.
(18) Lenehan,J. W., "Air Pollution Control in Municipal
Incineration," Presented at the 55th Annual Meeting of APCA,
Sheraton-Chicago Hotel, May 20-24, 1962,Chicago, Illinois.
(19) Licht,W., "Removal of Particulate Matter from Gaseous
Wastes - Filtration," Prepared for American Petroleum Institute,
1959.
(20) Linsky,B., "How Much is Air Pollution Costing Us in
the United States?" Presented at the National Conference on Air
Pollution,Washington,D.C.,December 1966, Paper H-3.
(21) McCarty,R. E., "How to Evaluate Mechanical Dust
Collector Proposals," Minerals Processing, July 1966,pp. 3739.
(22) Michaels,A., "Status Report," Presented at the National
Conference on Air Pollution,Washington,D. C.,December 1966,
Paper 0-1.
(23) Parker, K. R., "Principles and Applications of Electro
static Precipitation," Chemical and Process E ngineering, Septem
ber 1963,pp. 506-511.
(24) Pascual,S. J. and Pieratti,A., "Flyash Control Equip
ment for Municipal Incinerators," Proceedings 1964 National
Incinerator Conference, ASME, New York,1964,p. 118.
(25) Rehm,F. R., "Control of Air Pollution from Municipal
Incinerators," Presented at the National Conference on Air Pol
lution,Washington,D.C.,December 1966,0-10.
(26) Semrau, K. T., "Dust Scru bber Design - A Critique on
the State of the Art," APCA Journal, Vol. 13,No. 12, December
1963, pp. 587-594.
(27) Stairmand, C. J.,"The Design and Performance of
Modern Gas-Cleaning Equipment," Journal of the Institute of
Fuel, February 1956, pp. 58-81.
(28) Stastny,E. P.,"Electrostatic Precipitation," Chemical
E ngineering Progress, Vol. 62,No. 4,April 1966, pp. 47-68.
(29) Stern,A. C., "Summary of Existing Air Pollution
Standards," Presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of APCA,
Sheraton-Cadillac Hotel,June 9-13,1963,Detroit, Michigan.
(30) Stern,A. C.,Caplan,K. J.,and Bush,P. D., "Cyclone
Dust Collectors," Prepared for American Petroleum Institute,
February 1955.
(31) Walker, A. B., "Electrostatic Fly Ash Precipitation for
Municipal Incinerators - A Pilot Plant Study," Proceedings 1964
National Incinerator Conference, ASME,New York, 1964, p. 13.
(32) Walker,A. B., "Electrostatic Precipitators," The
American City Magazine, Buttenheim Publishing Corporation,
September 1964.
 [33) Walker A. B. and Schmitz,F. W., "Characteristics of
Furnace Emissions from Large, Mechanically-Stoked Municipal
Incinerators", Proceedings 1966 National Incinerator Conference,
ASME, 1966,p. 64.
[34) Westergaard, V. and Fife,J. A., "Flue Gas Cooling,"
- [40) "Recommended Guide for the Control of Dust Emission
Proceedings 1964 National Incinerator Conference, ASME,
New York, 1964, p. 170.
[35) Wilson, E. L., "Statement Before the U.S. Senate
Committee on Public Works, Subcommittee on Air and Water
Pollution, May 1967," Industrial Gas Cleaning Institute,Inc.
[36) Technical Manual No. 1, Air Pollution Conttol Associ
ation, 1963.
[37) Technical Manual No.2, Air Pollution Control Associ
ation, 1965.
[38) "How to Control Particulate Emissions to Abate Air
Pollution," Heating,Piping and Air Conditioning Engineering
Data File, U.S. Department of Health,Education and Welfare,
Public Health Service,June 1959.
116
[39) "Control of Air Pollution Originating from Federal
Installations and Standards," by the Secretary of Health, Educa
tion and Welfare, Implementing the Objectives Prescribed by
Executive Order 11282 dated May 26, 1966.
- Combustion for Indirect Heat Exchangers," ASME, New York,
ASME Standard No. APS-1, 1966.
[41) "Dust Separating Apparatus," ASME, Power Test Codes,
No. 21, 1941.
[42) "Determining Dust Concentration in a Gas Stream,"
ASME, Power Test Codes, No. 27, 1957.
4 '
[ 3) "Determining the Properties of Fine Particulate Matter,"
ASME, Power Test Codes, No. 28, 1965.
.
[44) Gilbert, N., "Removal of Particulate Matter from
Gaseous Waste - Wet Collectors," Prepared for American Petroleum
Institute, 1960.