CA8.44 1> CA\-e The person charging this material is re- sponsible for its return on or before the Latest Date stamped below, MEMORANDU Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for discipli nary action and may 2 result in dismissal from the University, ! University of Illinois Library : al ie Mis . - S : uf “t / if} Lo President 150 N The following n essential elements in figures as are given imating average con naturally, costs will labor scales and pric survey of each prob figures. | Al | For purposes of city of 100,000 pop follows: _ Class Garba Ashes Rubbi : cate es y that: iti natugal oasaocainties che oe ee réetuse; tha , es far less than in other places ; that in cn sr th ashes will be greater than in cities locate in wa ni nN and so on. But we will use in the following no ZO 3 on. the bases stated above. L161— 0.1096 L MA “y Aw C3. a jC oe ay ee , Rn ee ae) < To pool tlm ' t Pa a ; ~~ follows: MEMORANDUM ON REFUSE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL By Robert Balmer SOD BP HALLER President, The Balmer Corporation 150 Nassau Street., New York The following notes are intended to set forth certain essential elements in the problem of refuse disposal, and such figures as are given must be taken as only roughly approx- imating average conditions in American municipalities. Quite naturally, costs will vary in different localities due to varying labor scales and prices of materials and supplies. Only a local survey of each payee by itself will yield entirely reliable » figures. AMOUNT OF REFUSE es For purposes of discussion we will assume that in a given city of 100,000 Bae oigue te total amount of refuse is as Class | Tons per day Garbage 2h : Ashes 110 Rubbish 13 ‘Eotat | 150 It must be remembered that few cities keep records of their total refuse; that in natural gas localities the amount of ash will be far less than in other places; that in cold climates the ashes will be greater than in cities located in warmer zones; and so on. But we will use in the following notes the bases stated above. | LAMOLAY REFUSE COLLECTION Virtually all cities now employ the separate system of refuse collection. In some places the garbage is collected singly and the ashes and rubbish together. In others the gar- bage, ashes and rubbish become the subject of a tri-partite collection. ae No satisfactory method has yet been devised which allows satisfactory separation of city refuse in this manner. Ashes and rubbish as collected always contain a varying percentage of decaying garbage, and the garbage a varying percentage of ashes and rubbish. There is but one sanitary and otherwise satisfactory method of refuse collection, and that is a single collection wherein the rubbish, ashes and garbage are taken away at one call. This makes for convenience in. operation of the city’s refuse service, convenience to the householder and great economy in actual collection. Roughly speaking, the cost of one single collection as com- pared with a double collection represents a cost ratio of. about 1 to 1.5. Expressed in dollars and cents, for a city of 100,000 population this means a cost of, say $165,000 per an- num for combined collection as against about $245,000, for separate collection. The difference in favor of combined col- lection capitalized at 5 per cent. represents a sum of. $1,600,000. When replacements are made in the wagon equipment; it is desirable to adopt specially designed vehicles to receive as one load every kind of the usual accumulation of garbage, ashés and rubbish. Still other type vehicles will be desirable for street sweepings, dead animals, and to accommodate bulky trade refuse. In the design and equipment of these refuse vans higher ethical standards should prevail. . Refuse col- lection and transport, the “dry sewer” of every city, should be cared for by vehicular service of atttactive fly proof carriers, as neat in appearance as hospital ambulances. REASONS FOR SEPARATE REFUSE COLLECTION There are, of course, a number of obvious reasons why city refuse is so commonly separated, collected and transported separately. These may be listed in part as follows: (a) Cases where garbage reduction is. practiced. (b) Cases where the existing incincerator plant, failing to handle efficiently the total mixed refuse, runs up a high. charge for auxiliary fuel to secure combustion of the refuse. 2 (c) Cases where the garbage is fed to hogs. (d) Cases where rubbish is used to fire incinerators for power .production purposes. (a) We shall not attempt in this memorandum to ex- patiate upon the insanitary, inefficient and costly refuse dis- posal expedient known as the reduction process. We shall discuss that method in a separate memorandum dealing com- paratively with all of the methods of refuse disposal in com- mon use today. Suffice it here to say that the reduction pro- cess, employed. for the extraction from garbage of grease and glue, and the subsequent drying of the remaining in- gredients for use as a fertilizer, is an intolerable nuisance. At best the plant must be located at a point miles distant from residential districts and public highways, often beyond . the bounds of the operating municipality, or become and re- main a source of complaints, embargoes, law suits, adminis- trative disorder and expense on the municipality misguided enough to adopt it. (b) We know of no case in North America where in- cinerators, whether burning garbage alone, or mixed refuse including garbage, operate throughout the year without the aid of auxiliary fuel. In some places, owing to the high fruit- residual content of the garbage, the cost of such fuel runs up into relatively staggering figures. (c) Hog feeding with garbage is an exceeding objection- able practice which has gained a footing because of the German-silver promise of obtaining something for nothing. This method can utilize but a small portion of the total refuse, and but a part of the garbage itself. It compels a separate collection service and leaves unsolved the disposal of the ashes, rubbish and miscellaneous garbage which constitute the vast bulk, or about 80 per cent., of the total refuse. Serious hygienic objections can be made to the feeding of garbage to hogs, because garbage-fed hogs are notoriously liable to trichinosis. The Massachusetts State Board of Health found that 13 per cent. of the hogs fed on public gar- bage had this disease which is communicable to man through the consumption of pork thus infected. Furthermoer, the garbage so fed to hogs must be selected with meticulous care that all particles of glass, tin, oyster shells, phonograph needles, etc., be first removed or they will cause the death of the hogs fed with garbage containing them.. (d) Those places where power is generated from rub- bish-fed furnaces are numerous, but here also but a small, and only the most inoffensive and easiest disposed of part of the refuse is cared for, leaving the garbage, and the gar- bage impregnated ashes, still to be dealt with. 3 INCINERATION OF THE TOTAL REFUSE The only sanitary and economical method of disposing of city refuse, comprising the garbage, ashes, street sweepings and rubbish, is by incineration of the mixed refuse. Only one collection is necessary. Even with imperfectly designed fur- naces satisfactory combustion of the most refractory refuse is always possible with the aid of auxiliary fuel. Under such conditions the service, while costly, is thorough. The dis- credit into which so many refuse incinerating plants have fal- len is due to the reluctance to use auxiliary fuel because of its cost. The health and comfort of many communities have been sacrificed to administrative parsimoniousness. Disposal of all the city refuse by incineration, regardless of pecuniary considerations, gives proper procedure to sani- tation. Cleanliness, whatever its cost, is profitable to any - city. Hygiene is of itself a valuable economic asset. Nevertheless, the efficient destruction of mixed refuse hy incineration also contributes to the general welfare with spe- cific values of its own creation, namely: (a) Because the refuse may be collected without separa- tion, or without separate containers and vehicles for ashes, garbage and rubbish. (b) Because the innocuous and inoffensive nature of a properly designed incinerator plant makes it feasible to locate the service centrally, thus consulting to a material degree the cunvenience and economy of the Street Cleaning Department. (c) Valuable by-products of a properly designed incin- erator are heat, with its resultant steam, (power and electric current) ash and clinker, with their resultants in the form of building materials, potash and {S net caloric value. INADEQUACY OF THE ORDINARY DESTRUCTOR. The city refuse, considered as a fuel, presents technical problems particularly its own, and as varied as the climate, ethnic, industrial and social conditions of the populations served. Generally speaking, the composition of city refuse may be described as heterogeneous with a large organic and moisture content, refractory and unreliable in composition, while extra- ordinarily bulky in relation to its net caloric value. Unfortunately the average destructor takes little ac- count of these special characteristics of city refuse. With the exception of an auxiliary combustion chamber and some special loading and unloading devices, the average destruc- tor follows closely the structural features of the coal furnace. The result is variable, capricious, and almost always disap- 4 pointing. Except where other light rubbish is abundant, or the proportion of coal cinders is large, the temperatures attained and maintained in the furnace are insufficient to insure the absolutely innocuity and inoffensiveness of the chimney gases. It is obvious that-the ordinary wood or coal furnace cannot deal satisfactorily with such a fuel as city refuse. In con- sequence of the failure of many destructor plants not only to achieve reliable and continuous combustion of the refuse fed into them, but also satisfactorily to guard against the escape from the chimney of smoke and offensive gases, con- siderable and justifiable prejudice exists in most communities against the location of a refuse destructor in their midst. THE PRIME DESIDERATUM IN REFUSE INCINERATION is the development to the maximum practicable degree of special thermo-dynamic conditions latent in the average city refuse. This feature is utterly neglected by most sanitarians, but which, if called into play, would alter the thermo-dynamic conception of refuse, and produce a complete transformation in destructor service. / | It has been discovered that after a simple prior treatment the most refractory refuse becomes highly inflammable and burns with intense heat. It has been found possible to adapt the storage of such bulky material to the small dimensions of the furnaces, and to insure its feeding into furnaces almost automatically with a minimum of direct manipulation by the attendants. Co-incidentally, by an entirely new cycle of fur- nace service, the serious problem of periodical re-starting of the fires in each furnace for which special easily inflammable material is required has been successfully solved, and stable and unifom, as well as permanently high temperatures under all conditions are thus assured. The service of clinker ex- traction, which in many cities involves the rehandling of ma- terial constituting approximately 50 per cent. of the weight of the original refuse, has also been re-organized, so that the dust and -heat connected with such operations is entirely avoided and the firemen’s floor kept free from such disagree- able operations. The sum and substance of these revolutionary develop- ments has been the exploitation on a large practical scale of an incinerator which can be centrally located, thus cutting down tremendously the long hauls of the refuse to the in- cinerator, and made possible by the fact that the incinerator 5 CS) operates without nuisance from odors, smoke or dust. No auxiliary fuel is required at any time in this type of in- cinerator. The cost of construction of the new type of incinerator is at least no greater than that of other types, all of which have proved in some measure unsatisfactory; and the cost of operation and maintenance of the new incinerator, especially when taking into account the material money, saving accru- ing from shorter hauls of the refuse to the incinerator, the compactness of arrangement of the various parts of the in- cinerator plants, the practically automatic method of its operation, and last, but by no means least, the value of by- products in the form of steam under constantly reliable pres- sures, clinker suitable for road building and other purposes, potash and other valuable chemicals, is far less than in the case of any destructor service now in operation anywhere in the world. | THE BALMER DESTRUCTOR The latest plant constructed under the Balmer system has been working for several years in the City of Montevideo, Uruguay. It is smokeless, odorless and dustless, and operates effectively in a more trying climate than that of New York. It is located within seven blocks of the City Hall and burns daily 250 tons of a refuse more difficult to treat than that of New York, and does its work without inconvenience or com- plaint in a populous neighborhood. This same system is also in use in the City of Buenos Aires where the previously noisome conditions of the old refuse service were eliminated and the sanitation of the city trans- formed. by the erection of a Balmer destructor of 1100 tons daily capacity, which makes it the largest single destructor plant in the world. The official reports of the Montevideo municipality demon- strate that a high standard of construction is maintained com- paring favorably with the best standard attained by any other public service, not excepting that of the public water supply. The service has not only performed efficiently, but it has also transformed completely the esthetic setting: of that service. THERMO-DYNAMIC STANDARDS Combustion engineering has derived its standards rather too carelessly from the results of coal combustion. It has therefore become the custom to classify combustibility in terms of the percentage of carbon in a given fuel. While this 6 Number 198. Price 15 cents. THE AMERICAN CITY PAMPHLETS Relative to City and Town ]mprovements Published by The Civic Press Tribune Bldg., New York Catalog sent on request The Municipal Refuse Destructor at Montevideo, Uruguay A Successful Experiment in New Principles and Design By Robert Balmer Sanitary Engineer, New York and Buenos Aires, Argentine N 1915, after an open competition in- which a number of the best-known Eu- ropean destructor firms had taken part, a Special Committee of I9, including the Mayor of Montevideo, Uruguay, all the Commissioners of Department, and a num- ber of prominent engineers and sanitarians, recommended the erection of a Balmer ref- use destructor. After the preliminary sur- veys and the preparation of the site, the work of construction was begun, and it was concluded within five months, on Au- aoe. og LOOKING TOWARD THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OF MONTEVIDEO FROM THE DESTRUCTOR antee of 60 long tons per battery was soon exceeded by normal operation at 100 long tons, with reserve capacity to meet any emergency. The public needs are met by two batteries. They proved themselves ca- pable of dealing with the city’s whole out- put of refuse—garbage, ash, rubbish and street sweepings, together with a number of special services, such as cremation of dead animals, condemned food, commercial residuals, .etc. The destructor station occupies a part Note the proximity of high-quality residences. Portion of destructor building shown at right gust 25, 1915. One month more was taken up with drying out and warming up the batteries; then came an official test of two months’ durat’on, under the supervision of the author, which demonstrated a normal excess of 66.6 per cent over the contract stipulations. Description of Plant The plant consists of three batteries of three fire-grates each. The original guar- of the block between Ejido and Cuareim Streets, on a bluff overlooking a handsome boulevard or driveway that skirts the river- side—a conspicuous position, within seven blocks of the City Hall, and calculated to put to the severest test the possibility of nuisance from this system. Regular service under municipal manage- ment began January I, I916, immediately after termination of the official trials above mentioned. Early in 1917, the City Engi- THE FRONT OF THE BATTERY OF FURNACES AT THE MONTEVIDEO REFUSE DESTRUCTOR neer. H. Millot-Grané, issued the official re- port for the preceding year. Some brief extracts from that report will demonstrate the character and extent of the service ren- dered during the first year’s working. The report Says: “In table A will be found a resumé of the amount and quality of garbage and refuse re- ceived by the destructor during the year 1916, the first year of service. This table shows that the plant, although only a provisional struc- ture built only to test the efficiency of the system, received and destroyed without the slightest inconvenience all the garbage and refuse regularly produced by the city. “On the other hand, the elimination and destruction of the street sweepings and fish residuals bear testimony to the high crema- tory power of the batteries.” A GARBAGE AND REFUSE DESTROYED 1916 Cartloads Character Total Weight 0174263.) 9 ae Ollsech Olden. eee 64,443,610 Kilos (141,775,942 lbs.) 10,415.,..| Street Sweepings 1,432,250 Kilos (3,150,950 Ibs.) Zul (On. ealy War ketsiser ya qe: 2,176,000 Kilos (4,787,200 Ibs.) 093....| Military Barracks..... 296,000 Kitos (651,200 Ibs.) Saeco We isheResiddals ese 186,500 Kilos (410,300 lbs.) L742 Hospitals 0). ae eee 174,000 Kilos (382,800 Ibs.) 18....| Private Individuals... .. 9,000 Kilos (19,800 lbs.) 56....| Residuals from the Port. 114,000 Kilos : (250,800 Ibs.) LS Zen svc] aVALIOUS 5 See ee ee eee 152,000 Kilos (334,400 lbs.) 71,383 Cartloads with........ 68,983,360 Kilos. 151,763,392 Ibs.) . “Table B, complementary of the preceding, details some unexpected services rendered by the plant. In this direction, during the present. year, an effort will be made to extend these services, making them available to many public and private institutions and, in general, to all those establishments which are interested in quickly getting rid of such refuse as they pro- duce in large quantities.” TABLE B SPEC.AL SERVICES Source Objects Incinerated City) Dog=-Pound en. eee 2,980 Dogs Animal Sanitary Police.......... 5 Sheep i “ Span ere 12 Cows oy Ds Perse 1 Horse IMedicalshacultyem en eine 13 Animals ; Various 9 Cases of Food- stuffs - $5,664,555 in notes, etc: 6,270 kilos (or 13,794 lbs.) of Duplicates, fa den Municipal Chemical Laboratory. “In order to complete these brief notes on the incinerating capacity of the Montevideo destructor, as exhibited during its first year of working, and to give an idea of its intrinsic value, Table D is attached, in which may be seen its capacity exhibited in comparison with the incinerating stations of the greatest sci- entific importance as yet known, without ex- ccpting that of Hamburg, which must be taken as the most considerable effort of modern sani- tary technique in the matter of garbage and refuse disposal. “The above Poncicerationt: may be concluded by stating that, according to the technical report officially issued under date of September 19, 1916, by the Institute of Industrial Chemis- TABLE D INCINERATION PER UNIT 1916 Number | Cells Daily Output Cost of City of System of Per Per Unit Construction Units Unit Per Unit NNER SUC ETI ee Ronee ae ut oeAnvecchan dae rs gan ws at he IDOrae sie 6 1 19,500 Kilos $13,606 ; (42,900 Ibs.) erat Ot wees See eee rte te ee NL he 15 las Ahn ne mek 6 4 _ 30,000 Kilos 52,900 (66,000 Ibs.) Stir CMe eee yee eee Seer es foe sce te the ign b Olate, 1. tec 2 1 27,500 Kilos 17,250 (60,000 Ibs.) Mae lived Re CMe pate arc cco ee ci si a¥eidoere io Saitek dae ad, Heenan. 3 4 80,000 Kilos 69,000 (176,000 Ibs.) PAQMEU ALOT et on sk cette crt wih alee he ote Udhet..s. 12 1 44,000 Kilos 21,850 (96,800 Ibs.) WEOMCE VIC CO debe ete ea eee Se alten icy, hide 3 3 90,000 Kilos 21,666 (198,099 Ibs.) try, the clinker and ash of the Montevideo destructor show a perfect incineration of the garbage and refuse, or, which is the same, an absolute elimination of all organic matter. “And Table F exhibits the economy with which the plant is operated. In making up this last table, we have taken as basis the actual working budget of the plant, which reaches $28,800 annually, and the cost of amor- tization and interest on a capital of $65,000, covering the cost of the plant. “It is desirable to state here that this low cost of construction and operation is due to the mechanical simplicity of the Balmer system. The complicated apparatus and devices which form part of all known systems of destructors do not exist in our establishment. Situated at a low level, the natural action of gravity carries the garbage and refuse down to the fire-grates. “Another characteristic worthy of mention, as representing the economic nature of our installation, is its central location with respect to the service of collection. The distance of seven kilometers, from the centre of the city (City Hall) to the disgraceful garbage dump TABLE F COST OF OPERATION PER 1,000 KILOS INCINERATED ANNUALLY (1916) Annual Cost of Quantity Operating Cost ' System Operation, with Incinerated Per 1,000 Kilos 10% Int. & Mort. Annually (or long ton) Zurich orstalleer Ss, hei ae cosas $30,820 20,000 Long Tons $1.54 Whi watkGes fs. chi ats a gacls TA CEMATN TAM one laa del cei Oe 81,650 54,000 “ sae iL oath BS rariletorteote. casts nc aceh ies enbert Zire: . ora cater eaneiees 67,160 46,500 ‘“ a; 1.45 Wiesbadeninn csc... eahue ns Bos aie, iron toc eee eae reo 19,205 17,000 “ Ss 1-13 TILE a or pie rice oe EL TH DOL Gerth he sto co eee 11,040 12,0005 <5 i 0.92 PAPI UM Oe teres yy cae lop eeuns Widhiowewemnrectatiockcs oe 71,300 100,000 “ ie 0.71 INMLONTEMIGEOs). oe fs ee ealmMetae esc sates 35,000 66,000 “‘ Mi 0.53 ais WORKMEN’S REST ROOM AT THE MUNICIPAL REFUSE DESTRUCTOR of the Buceo, was reduced, in virtue of the new station, to 800 metres. And, in the first year of working, it has been proved that, owing to this more favorable location, it would be possible to reduce to one-half the expense of collection and cartage, and thus effect a monthly saving sufficient to cover the total present cost of working of the station, viz., $2,400 monthly, and to cover likewise the interest and amortization on the capital em- ployed in construction.” Up to the end of 1920, the destructor sta- tiom has operated without developing its own power. It has now been decided by the municipality to install boilers and an electric generating plant to utilize the heat produced by the furnaces. By the third quarter of the current year, the new power service should be in full operation. It is estimated that each battery will develop a minimum of 400-kilowatt capacity. Principles of Operation A brief reference may now be permitted to the underlying principles of the Balmer destructor. These had already been put into practice in the 100-ton destructor of Flores, Buenos Aires; in the 1,000-ton destructor of the Quema, Buenos Aires, and a dozen smaller destructors in that and other Argen- tine cities. In the Montevideo plant, the same principles have the advantage of the foregoing practical experience, aided by more careful designing and a more esthetic setting, expressive of the new social status of the service. Fundamentally, and especially in dealing with semi-tropical refuse, where ash is practically non-existent and where garbage constitutes an excessively high percentage, the Balmer destructor depends for its sani- tary. efficiency of the development and _util- ization of hitherto unappreciated and neg- lected elements in the refuse itself. By fer- mentation of organic constituents, displace- ment and expulsion of accompanying mois- ture, volatilization of hydrocarbons, and even oxidation of metals,—all aided by the application of waste heat from the combus- tion chamber,—a molecular readjustment is effected, which transforms the character of organic refuse as a combustible; its ignition becomes easy, and it develops high tempera- tures. It is true that, under this treammems. in the pioneer installations, some unusual phenomena presented themselves: spontane- ous combustion of the refuse in storage, and the production of explosive gaseous mixtures, with violent dilatation in the air- flues and in the furndce “itselij = 3 iiese phenomena, while exceedingly inconvenient under the conditions of the first installa- tions, were very convincing signs of the ex- istence of considerable caloric potentials in ordinary city refuse, which only required adequate measures for their utilization to insure a perfect sanitary service and an abundant source of power. The Collection System Used It may be noted here that, in bot cities above mentioned, the improv ® the service of final disposal of refuse re- acted automatically in the creation of a higher standard for the vehicles of collec- tion and transport of the refuse. A cov- ered type of van was at once developed, which effectually kept the refuse out of sight and provided shelter for the driver in all weathers. The service became less an ocular and olfactory offense, and soon gained the toleration and then the respect of the average citizen. sic ok may be a reliable guide in determining the relative heat values in coal and substantially similar fuels it is quite misleading if applied to radically different fuels. When we come to more complex fuels, like garbage for example, the unreliability and inapplicability of the carbon percentage standard as the measure of thermo-dynamic rating becomes more completely obvious. In that heterogeneous composite there arise several phenomena of combustion, with production of heat, which do not depend upon carbon at all. It will be enough to mention for the moment, metals. These in a fine state of sub-division are readily burned with the production of intense heat. The obsession under which sanitarians are laboring that the phenomena of combustion of pure carbon must determine those of every other class of fuel has led them very much astray. The coal districts of England were the birth place of the modern refuse destructor. That fact is the sufficient, although not entirely creditable, explanation of a whole flood of erroneous theory and practice. The refuse furnaces were designed as if for coal and the refuse was handled like coal. Naturally enough, whenever coal was not the dominating feature of the refuse, there was trouble. The only safe place for the refuse destructor seemed to be behind a heavy rein- forcement of coal. Rash adventures outside the safety zone invariably came to grief. It is necessary at this point to consider the composition of refuse as a fuel, particularly such refuse as is devoid of coal ashes. The water in the refuse, which may be taken as from 55 to 65 per cent. is best removed by expressing in the storage bins, and the task of the furnace is in such measure relieved. The metals are oxidized under conditions of a moist warm atmosphere such as is provided in the storage bins. The moisture is in effect disintegrated, the oxygen being fixed with the metal, the hydrogen brought into contact with the incandescent fuel on the fire grate, and a bunsen burner or an oxihydrogen effect is produced at the point where most needed, namely, playing upon the heavier, more refractory refuse on the fire grate, the lower layers of which are about to solidify into clinker. The volatilization of hydro-carbons as a result of the heat above mentioned is another phenomenon occurring in the refuse storage chamber. The hydro-carbons mixed with air make their way with other gases to the ashpit and there, in contact with the incandescent fuel on the fire grate, combine 7 PSE TELE EROSST ESES S with the oxygen of the air in intense concentrated heat. This also occurs at the point where the most refractory refuse in the furnace is found. It must be obvious that the displace- ment of this important proportion of hydro-carbons in the form of vapor and their ignition and combustion in the heart of the batch of fuel on the fire grate must contribute directly to accelerate and intensify furnace operations. The mere physical change of relation between the hydro-carbons and the moisture of the refuse has increased the thermic momen- tum of the former, thus enabling it to overcome the inertia of the latter. Interlaced with the hydro-carbons the moisture would have hampered ignition and retarded combustion. Attacked in the rear, as it were, by the volatilized hydro- carbons, the moisture is taken at a disadvantage and itself volatilized and driven out of the refuse approaching the lower zone of combustion. One of the most important features in this process is the promotion of fermentation as a stimulant of combustion. Microscopic organisms feeding on and digesting the carbon- ates in the organic refuse produce a new complex of extra- ordinarily diversified composition and qualities. This mole- cular readjustment results in ready ignition and intense heat where before was slow ignition, sluggish combustion and low temperature. In stimulating fermentation activities in the mass of organic refuse to favor its ultimate combustion ready means have been found in the utilization of the waste heat of the de- structor furnace. Whereas in the ordinary type of destructors every effort was made to keep the refuse cool when in stor- age, in this process the endeavor is to make and keep it warm. An immediate improvement in combustion is the result, and it is noticeable that as the period of storage increases the refuse becomes more and more inflammable until the work- men actually complain of the high temperatures and the violence of ignition of the refuse as it falls into the fire. Before the system was perfected it was found necessary to install in the storage compartments sprinkler systems to check the tendency to auto-combustion. With further consideration of the action of fermentation as a stimulant to combustion it is well to remember that it operates both in the mass of refuse as well as outside of it as a distilled vapor. Jn the latter capacity it acts in a manner similar to the volatilized hydro-carbons. The variety of alco- hols and other highly combustible compounds forming in the fermented refuse have varying densities and behave differ- ently under the same temperatures. Some vaporize at 66 8 degrees, others at the boiling point of water, and higher. Those still retained in the mass of refuse, in spite of the warmth of the storage chamber, ignite instantly when a load of refuse 1s charged into the furnace, bursting into violent flames. In the practical working of a refuse destructor the best results follow the holding back from one day to another suf- ficient refuse to keep the furnace at work for three or four hours. This fermented refuse from the day before serves as | the seed for the fresh incoming refuse. It might be thought that the chill days of winter will interfere with the course of fermentation in the destructor. If the chill should reach a freeze, the effect would be only to break down the cellular tissues in the fruit, etc., and to still further facilitate decom- position and fermentation. As is perfectly susceptible of authentic substantiation the Balmer process of refuse incineration is thorough, odorless, smokeless and dustless. It needs no auxiliary fuel in its opera- ation. It produces steam under constant pressures for power development, as well as other residuals of high marketable value. Its freedom from nuisance features allows its instal- lation at favorable points within a municipality thus cutting to a minimum the cost of transportation of the refuse. It is at least no more costly to install than any other type of in- cinerator, and possesses the prime advantage over other de- structors in that it will give complete satisfaction; and its cost of operation and maintenance is far lower than that of any incinerator system in operation on this continent. COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION OF REFUSE INCINERATORS The cost of construction of refuse incinerator plants in North America varies at different places, but more particu- larly because of local decisions respecting character of con- struction, local labor and material costs. For completely equipped plants of the Balmer type the costs of construction naturally will vary also because of these very conditions. By and large, however, a plant of 100 tons daily capacity will cost to build perhaps $1,500 per ton or $150,000, whereas a 1,000 ton daily plant will cost about $1,000 per ton, or $1,000,000. These figures include all construction charges except land. Variations.on both sides of these ten- tative figures will obtain, of course, because of local decisions relative to simplicity or elaborateness of construction, as well 9 as the local cost of labor, building materials and supplies. Defi- nite figures of cost can only be arrived at after a painstaking preliminary study of a given situation has been made. For the sake of comparison there is here set forth a table showing the actual costs of construction of certain destruc- tor plants in North America. To make the comparison more nearly applicable we have revised these costs on a present. day reproduction basis. It will be observed that these costs vary widely, from $371 per ton capacity for the 100-ton plant at Racine to $2,430 per ton for the 90-ton plant at Clifton, New York. No special com- ment is perhaps necessary regarding the Racine plant except to record the fact that 225 pounds of.coal were burnt per.ton of garbage (Eng. & Cont., Sept. 15, 1915, p. 211). The Clifton plant, representing the other extreme, is of the “Heenan” type. The total cost of incineration at that plant, during a test made in 1913, was $0.41 per ton. Today this figure would become about double that on account of the increased cost of labor. Adding interest and depreciation at 10 per cent. on $218,700 would give $0.67 per ton, or a total cast of approx- imately $1.50 per ton with plant operating under the most expert supervision. For whatever they are worth the weighted average present day cost of construction of these 22 representative North American destructors may be safely taken at about $1,500 per ton daily capacity. 10 COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION OF REFUSE INCINERATORS Capacity Cost per Ton Capacity in Estimated Cost Year Tons When of Replace- City Built Daily Built ment Today Atlanta, Ga. 1914 Zoe $1,100 $1,810 Berkeley, Cal. 1913 50 1,400 2,310 Circon, N.Y. 1913 90 1,472 2,430 *Haston, Pa: 1910 30 680 1,120 Halifax, N. S. 1912 en.!) 900 1,480 Havana, Cuba 1914 500 574 948 Milwaukee, Wis. 1910 300 707 1,170 Montgomery, Ala. 1912 60 86749121 15430 *Minneapolis, Minn. 1901 65 1,000 1,650 *Pasadena, Cal. 1913 30 1,708 2,810 Paterson, N. J. 1914 60 Pao 2,200 *Racine, Wis. 1913 100 eo SAL San Francisco, Cal. 1914 120 985 1,630 Savannah, Ga. 1914 130 959 1,580 Poctanton, Pd. : 1908 20 825 1,360 Seattle, Wash. 1908 60 602 995 *Spokane, Wash. 1908 30 1,330 2,190 “Terre Haute, Ind: 1907 40 625 1,030 Toronto, Ont. 1912 180 1,183 1,960 Vancouver, B. C. 1909 50 824 1,360 Westmont, P. O. 1906 50 829 1,370 W. New Brighton, N. Y. 1908 60 1,406 2,320 Weighted Average Cost $ 884 $1,459 *Garbage furnaces. Note:- Acknowledgement is made to Messrs. Hering & Greeley. Figures in last column hereof computed by the author. Rue ob COST OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF -REFUSE INCINERATING PLANTS In their book “Collection and Disposal of Municipal Refuse” Messrs. Hering & Greeley (p. 553) estimate the aver- . age range of costs of refuse disposal in the United States in 1910 as follows: Cost of Annual Costs of Operation. Construction Ore Ts per Ton Cost per Ton | Handled, “Excluding Collection Rated Daily Fixed Total Net Capacity Charges Operation Gross Cost Revenue Cost $800 $0.24 $0.60 $0.84 $0.50 $0.34 to to to to to to $1,600 $0.35 $1.00 S18 $0.20 S115 These statements appear very well founded and in ac- cordance with the facts as of a dozen years ago. Today, how- ever, they would easily be double or more the figures given. At twice the figures given for gross cost of treatment the present day cost would range from $1.68 to $2:70 per ton; and in this connection it is interesting to note that 1918 the total cost of incineration at the West New Brighton (N. Y.) plant was $2.66 per ton, and in 1919 at the Milwaukee plant the cost of operation alone was $2.44 per ton, exclusive of fixed charges (p. 535, Hering & Greeley’s book). Thus from 1913 to 1919 the cost of operation of the Milwaukee incinerator increased from $1.23 to $2.44, or 98 per cent. Compared to these fisures the following tabulation will show details of the present day cost of operation and main- tenance of a 1,000-ton refuse incinerator of the Balmer type. The question of revenue from incinerators of the Balmer and other types will be discussed later on. 12 TENTATIVE FIGURES OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION, OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A REFUSE INCINERATOR OF THE BALMER TYPE . Quantity of Mixed Refuse: 1,000 tons daily. 2. Plants: Two, each of 600 tons daily capacity. Ten 100-ton batteries at work and two in reserve. — 3. Personnel: Per Month Per Annum 2 Managers $400 $ 9,600 2 Asst. Managers 250 6,000 2 Clerks 150 3,600 18 Firemen (3 each shift) 180 38,880 18 Clinkermen and stokers _ 150 32,400 42 Feeders (overhead) 120 60,480 6 Cleaners up (tin and bottle men) 100 7,200 6 Men in charge of stored clinker 100 7,200 6 Machine tenders 120. 8,640 4 Van discharge men 120 5,760 8 Exchange men in reserve 100 9,600 2 Night watchmen 100 2,400 $191,760 4. Power, Light, Oil and Waste, per annum 36,500 5. Interest and Depreciation on First Cost of $1,200,000 @ 10 per cent. 120,000 6. Total Cost of Operation and Maintenance $348,260 SUMMARY OF ABOVE FIGURES Item per Ton Cost Personnel $0.53 Power, etc. 0.10 wlnterest, etc. | 0.33 POTALA wai S0.96 REVENUE FROM REFUSE DESTRUCTOR PLANTS The published records so far as showing revenues derived from American incinerator plants are very fragmentary and of questionable value. Hering & Greeley in their book state that such revenues range from $.20 to $0.50 per ton of mixed refuse burned. Presumably no revenue is derived from gar- bage furnaces, per se. At the Westmont, Quebec, incinerator the value of steam production for generating electric current is given as $0.29 per ton for the year 1919; at the Milwaukee, Wis., plant $0.27 per ton of refuse burned in 1916; at West New Brighton, N. Y., $0.33 from clinker sales; and at the Savannah, Ga., incinerator plant $0.16 per ton of refuse burned in 1916 is figured as the value of steam production for pumping water. In the Balmer system, however, reliable figures on revenue are available. We have hesitated about forcing this subject to the fore because it is by no means the argument which establishes the superiority of the Balmer process of refuse incineration over all other systems. That argument is based upon, and proved by actual experience—sanitary, effective and economical service with a complete absence of nuisance features. It is a process wherein common sense and the prac- tical application of phenomena hitherto undemonstrated in the field of refuse disposal has proved its superiority beyond peradventure. It is no rhetorical extravagance to assert that while other processes are based upon unsound combustion theories the Balmer system is founded not upon theoretical reasonings but upon facts and practicalities developed in years of actual experience on a large scale. SOURCES OF POTENTIAL REVENUE FROM REFUSE INCINERATORS Obviously the chief sources of revenue from properly de- signed and operated refuse incinerators are high pressure steam, clinker and fertilizer materials. Added to these direct revenues from the operation of the incinerator is the immense money saving accomplished by a single collection of the combined refuse compared with separate collection requiring two or more calls at each house. Furthermore, the absence of nuisance features in and about a Balmer destructor make possible its location within a municipality at convenient points, thus obviating long hauls and the accompanying expense thereof. 14 (a) Power Development. This is perhaps the most im- portant by-product of the Balmer incinerator. Electric gen- erating stations are combined in each destructor station for the purpose of utilizing the waste heat developed. This means, of course, that this electric energy can be efficiently distributed to the public only through the existing electrical distribution systems of the central stations, and further, can only be made profitable to all parties concerned by real co- operation between Public Service Companies and the city or company operating the refuse destructor stations. The normal seasonable load curve of the refuse destruc- tor follows closely the normal seasonable electrical load curve of the Central Station. Furthermore, it is not necessary for the purposes of destructor economy to operate the incinera- tors at uniform load throughout the 24 hours, so it follows that the load curve of the central station, if operated in con- junction with the destructor generating stations, should be materially improved. Speaking generally, it appears that at a Balmer refuse de- structor plant of 1,000 tons daily capacity 47,320,000 kilowatt hours can be produced. A subtraction from this of 3,900,000 kilowatt hours for internal service leaves 43,420,000 kilowatt hours for sale at a net profit of % cent per unit, or $217,100 annually. (b) Clinker. We may figure the residual clinker at 35 per cent. of the original refuse, or in a 1,000-ton plant 350 tons daily. This annual production of 127,750 tons of clinker, saleable for construction uses at, say, $0.30 per ton, would return an annual revenue of $38,000. (c) Fertilizer Materials and Other Sources of Revenue. The value of this class of by-products is not so susceptible of accurate figuring. The fertilizer value of the ash produced by the furnaces is considerable. There are numerous other minor sources of revenue which perhaps need not be referred to here. Summing up, however, the combined revenue from steam and clinker derivable from a Balmer destructor plant of 1,000- tons daily capacity amounts to a total of over $255,000 an- nually, or $0.70 per ton of refuse burned. Deducting this from the total cost of refuse destruction set forth at the ‘bottom of page 13 of this memorandum leaves $0.26 per ton as the present day net total cost per ten. It is instructive to compare this figure with those taken from Hering & Greeley’s book and reproduced herein on page 12. 15 A FEW TESTIMONIALS The latest and most modern installation of the Balmer refuse destructor system is in Montevideo, Uruguay. The official report on this plant, signed by FL. Millot- Grane, City Engineer, says in part: “The facts above mentioned are sufficient to show most conclusively that the incinerating capacity of our destructor exceeds all provisions, so much so that it satisfies amply the fullest requirements of the city.” “Acording to the technical report issued by the In- stitue of Industrial Chemistry the clinker and ash of the Montevideo destructor show a perfect incineration of the garbage and refuse, or, which amounts to the same thing, an absolute elimination of all organic matter.” Mr. Millot-Grane goes into questions of cost showing that the complete installation was made at a cost of $241 per ton daily capacity; and that the total cost of operation and main- tenance, including amortization and interest on capital in- vested, was $0.53 cents per ton of refuse incinerated (1916-17). He says that: “Tt is desirable to state here that this low cost of construction and operation is due to the mechanical simplicity of the Balmer system. The complicated ap- paratus and devices which form part of all known systems of destructors do not exist in our establish- ment.” “Another characteristic worthy of mention, as rep- resenting the economic nature of our installation, is its central location with respect to the collection service. The distance of 4 1-3 miles from the center of the city (City Hall) to the disgraceful garbage dump of Buceo, was reduced, by virtue of the new station, to one-half mile. In the first year of operation of the Balmer de- structor it has been proved that, owing to this more favorable location, it 1s possible to reduce by one-half the cost of collection and cartage and thus effect a saving sufficient to cover the total present cost of operating the destructor station, including the interest and amortization on the capital invested in its con- struction.” On an inquiry of Royal S. Copeland, M.D., Health Com- 16 missioner of New York, Jfr. H. L. Janes c_—e-,. wrote as follows regarding the Montevideo destructor : “During my last visit to South America I spent some time in Uruguay and had occasion to inspect the mu- nicipal refuse disposal plant and to examine into its operation. I met the City Engineer, Mr. Millot- Grane and made several visits to the plant in company with my associate in The Foundation Company and the President of the Uruguayan Society of Engineers.” “Montevideo is a city of about 400,000 inhabitants. The collection carries to the plant the entire refuse of the city, ashes, garbage, street sweepings, offal, dead animals, market collections, rubbish, etc. There is no separate collection and disposition of ashes, garbage fandiwiboish suchas exists in New York: City.” “The entire collection is brought to the Balmer plant and there destroyed. No coal or other auxiliary fuel is used at the plant. Perfect incineration of the entire collection of the city is secured with the system without such aid.” “The City Engineer assured me that the City was absolutely satisfied with the Balmer plant, and was completing plans for additional units of the same sys- tem with electric generating installation to utilize the waste heat. Operation was economical, running ac- cording to my recollection to about $0.54 per ton of refuse incinerated (this does not include cost of col- lection but does include 10 per cent. for depreciation of plant and a charge for amortization of the capital invested therein).” 3 “The plant is placed near the center of the city ina residential section. There are no obnoxious odors from the plant and no complaints of any nature, so far as I could ascertain from the surrounding neighborhood.” The American Consul at Montevideo, in a report to the Latin American Division, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce, Washington, D. C., dated October 25, 1920, says about this plant: “The incinerating plant is located on the beach some ten blocks from the heart of the city.’ * * * The superintendent of the plant informs me that during the five years of its use the plant has not been taxed to its full capacity, although through long periods of wet weather unusual vigilance has to be exercised to see that the fires burn properly.” 17 “The superintendent stated that five years of prac- tical use of these incinerators should be sufficient tes- timony as to their service, and plans are already under way to erect another set of furnaces. Boilers will be installed in both the old and new furnaces, and the steam utilized in generating electricity for the power plant. “The plant is located in a residential section of the city. There were no odors, smoke nor dust noted on a visit through the plant, and no complaints have been heard from the public against the location of the plant or smoke from its three tall stacks.” 18 ADDITIONAL DATA FURNISHED ON REQUEST wv ioe] ee N i] i | © N Tf T= © Sea —— ———— ——— eee —__ eS eS —— = —S= a — —_—_—_ SS ar ——— oases ———_ = —— =. = ae Se —_— = ——_ [Sees —_——__ aSeso ——_ Se =——— SSS ———___— — Sera =—_—_——— ————— ad Seen ——_ = ey ———_ Sas =————— — -_ Sans ——— ed ——_- ¢%) =_—_ — ne! = SS — SSS SSS _ _ SS —_—_———