construction ) q •)engineering TECHNICAL MANUSCRI"' TE-118

researchlaboratory

RECOVERY OF ENERGY FROM SOLID WASTEAT ARMY INSTALLATIONS

00

byS. A. Hathaway

OCT 4 ~

INS SIR

Approved Ior public release. distribution unlimited.J ",,.

The contents of this report are not to be used for advertising, publication, or

promotional purposes. Citation of trade names does not constitute anofficial indorsement or approval of the use of such commercial products.

The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Departmentof the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.

DESTROY THIS REPORT WHEN ITIS NO LONGER NEEDED

DO NOT RETURN IT TO THE ORIGINA4 TOR

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Mlon Dole IFntered)

READ INSTRUCTIONSREPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETIG FORMI. REPORT NUMRER 2. GOVT_ ACCESSION NO. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

CERL-TM-E-Il 1 t I jt

- A..TIXL~adJeba.-~- - - -.SxPLQ. REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

3ECOVERY OF ENERGY FROM kOLID WASTE AT - MANUSCRIPTPRMY INSTALLATIONSF•'•LT

A. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

SAUT,. . ...... II. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(O)

S. A./hathawayi -7 - ,•./.1<

9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AWd ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK

CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY - AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

P.O. Box 4005 A A76273lAT4]4iTiýl11Champaign, IL 61820 K ./

1I. CONTRtOLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS J 1 .... :>A gSl

.13 NUMBER OF PAGES

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME a AODRESS( I Il:tlvmu Ccntrofllnj Offe) SECURITY CLASS. (of thle report)

UnclassifiedIS&. OECL ASSI FICATION/OOWNGRADING

SCHEOULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of thle Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

IT DISrRISUTION STATEMENT (ao Cho absitct enitered It Block 20. It different fro, Report)

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Copies are obtainable from National Technical Information ServiceSpringfield, VA 22151

19. KEY WORDS (Continue an ,oeoe sde if neceessry ,ad Id•ntIfy bv block nuber)heat recovery incineration systemswaste-to-energy conversion systemsmodular systems

26 A21mmyT~t~dtI (Cmam -0N Sids e ffmfooo mo Inw I detybSr block nae~)

Thit paper provides a technical overview of the current status of solidwaste-to-energy conversion systems scaled for use on Army fixed facilitiesand installations. Attention is given to modular (package) and field-erectedheat recovery incineration systems and to using refuse-derived fuel (RDF) inexisting steam generation plants. It is shown that most available systemshave evolved as an art and not as products of basic scientific inquiry.The proper performance of many marketed systems cannot be guaranteedbecause neither long term operational data nor reproducible exgerimental

DOW13 Efnowsor 9uovasislosou~Lirrt UNCLASSIFIED 63 ASECURITY CLASIFIrATION O THIS PAGE (f lewn Elo

.. LA^ 1PILA I IUN UP" ins PAGOE(Whew Data Muui.ld)

Block 20 continued.

information for design exists. Critical research areas in waste characteri-zation, heat recovery incineration, and use of RDF are discussed, andaccelerated scientific inquiry within each area is encouraged on a prioritybasis..

Iii

UNCLASSIFIED

SCUIRITY CL A SINCA1.ION OF ,'tVS OPOM VV ff~

FOREWORD

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Second American DefensePreparedness Association Energy/Environment Conference held March 27-31, 1977,in Kansas City, MO. The work on which this paper was based was performed bythe U.S. Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) for theOffice of the Chief of Engineers, Department of the Army, under Program Ele-ment 6.27.31A, Project 4A762731AT41, "Design, Construction, and Operationand Maintenance Technology for Military Facilities," Task Area T6, "EnergySystems," Work Unit 011, "Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) Use."

Dr. L. R. Shaffer is Technical Director of CERL and COL J. E. Hays

is Commander and Director.

V

if

I,

I.4

CONTENTS

DD FORM 1473 iFOREWORDLIST OF FIGURES v

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1INPUT CHARACTERIZATION ................... ....................... 1MODULAR HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEMS ................ ................... 2REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL (RDF) .................. ...................... 6FIELD ERECTED SYSTEMS .................... ....................... 8CLOSURE ...................... .............................. 11

REFERENCES 12FIGURES 17DISTRIBUTION

Kiv

FIGURES

Number Page

1 Scale of Army Installation Solid Waste Generation Rate 17

2 Time-Variability of Solid Waste Composition at an ArmyInstallation 18

3 Time-Variability of Installation Solid Waste GenerationRate 19

4 Chemical Variability of Installation Waste Is Reflectedin Range of Values for Proximate Analysis 20

5 Chemical Variability of Installation Wastes Is Reflectedin Range of Values for Ultimate Analysis 21

6 Chemical Variability of Installation Waste Is Reflected

in Range of Values for Mineral Analysis 22

7 Typical Military Bulky Wastes 23

8 Laborer in Recently Built Package Incinerator PlantCompacting the Charge to Permit Ram Feeder Operation 24

9 Controlled Air Incinerator (First Major Configuration) 25

10 Controlled Air Incinerator (Second Major Configuration,Front View) 26

11 Controlled Air Incinerator (Second Major Configuration,Side View) 27

12 Burnout of Afterburner Housing in Controlled AirIncinerator 2'"

13 General Operation of Rotary Kiln Package Incinerator 2S

14 Combustion in Rotary Kiln Package Incinerator 30

15 Concurrent and Countercurrent Operation of Rotary Kiln

Package Incinerator 31

16 General Operation of Basket Grate Package Incinerator 32

17 Grate Configuration In Basket Grate Package Incinerator 33

fv

SI•V

L •- *• ~ • • --•*•• . • .. .. :

FIGURES (cont'd)

Number Page

1i General Operation of Augered Bed Incinerator 34

19 Augered Bed Incinerator 35

20 Process Flow for Production of Fluff and Densified RDF 36

21 Predensified Fluff RDF 37

22 Densified RDF 38

23 Result of Underdesigning Belt Conveyor After Primary Shredder 39

24 Structural Deterioration of RDF Pellets After Exposureto Simulated Coal Handling System Vibrations (Shaker inBackground) 40

25 Because of Its Properties, Pelletized RDF Will Not Generally

Exhibit Gravity Mass Flow from Existing Coal StorageBunkers 41

26 Funnel Flow in Coal Bunker 42

27 Top View of DRDF Rathole Shown in Figure 26 42

28 Relative Furnace Sizes for Pcugressively "Worse" Fuelat Constant Steam Rating 43

29 Conventional Weigh Larry 44

30 Standard Mechanical Feeder for Spreader Stoker 45

31 Example of Field Erected Waste Incinerator with HeatRecovery Boiler 46

32 Operation of Vertical Shaft Hammermill 47

33 Horizontal Shaft Hammermill 48

34 Horizontal Shaft Hammermill 49

35 Double Reciprocating Grate Stoker 50

36 Conventional Traveling Grate Stoker 50,

vi

RECOVERY OF ENERGY FROM SOLID WASTE AT ARM4Y INSTALLATIONS

INTRODUCTION

The Facilities Engineer 's interest in waste-to-energy conversionsystems has been stimulated by the opportunity to conserve costly andscarce conventional fuels, the prospect of conducting waste managementoperations in a more environmentally compatible manner, the challenge toreduce the costs of installation waste disposal, and the necessity torespond positively to the growing number of laws, regulations, andguidelines bearing upon waste disposal and recovery operations. Favor-able publicity in the popular literature describing the large potentialpayoffs of energy recovery has also provided impetus to program develop-ment.

This paper discusses available waste-to-energy conversion tech-

nologies thought to have potential installation application, and il-

luminates major areas where scientific inquiry is encouraged to producepracticable systems. Emphasis is placed on those technologies involving

direct combustion as the central conversion process. Technologies con-sidered include modular heat recovery systems, field erected waste-fired

boilers, and the use of refuse-derived fuel (RDF) in existing insta.l-lation-scale central boilers. Initial consideration is given to questions

involving characterization of installation waste as it bears upon waste-to-energy conversion systems.

INPUT CHARACTERIZATION

"Input" refers not only to conventional mixed trash and refuse, but

to special wastes Cpallets, skids, solvents, vehicle lubricant, rubber,

cardboard, ADP cards, and paper, etc.) which are generated usually in

homogeneous streams at the installation.

Salient characteristics of installation waste include scale and

variability. The average installation generates approximately 35 tons

(32 mi ) of solid waste daily (Figure l).2 This is in sharp contrast to

daily waste generation rates of 600 tons (545 mt) or more typicallyfound in large cities. The benefit that an Army installation need not

collect and dispose of vast amounts of waste is far offset by diffi-culties in applying most available recovery technologies, which are

being developed to meet the needs of large municipalities and do not

easily scale down to the dimensions of installation requirements.Adaption of municipal-scale resource recovery technologies is furthercomplicated because installation waste is industrial in nature,

3 7

unlike the input material for which civilian recovery plants are being

designed.8 9 Military solid waste is typically drier, contains more

tal _t eeain ae f60tn 55 t rmr yialfonUnlrocte.Th eei hta ry-ntlainne o

high calorific value materials, and has a greater heat release rate thancivilian municipal-residential waste.

The variability of installation waste takes many forms. The chemi-cal makeup (as measured by heating value and proxinate, ultimate, andmineral analyses) of waste at one installation is normally quite differentthan at another. The daily generation rate, deniity, condition, andsize distribution of the waste vary in a similar manner. This type ofvariability indicates that a recovery technology sccessful at installa-tion A may be a failure at installation B, which has a similar wastegeneration rate. Thus, although a dowuscaled municipal recovery tech-nology might perform satisfactorily at one location, this in no wayconfirms its potential at another installation generating an equivalentamount of waste.

Also, waste at a single installation is variable with time. 1 0 ' 1 1

For example, waste characteristics at place A at time A will usuallybe different at time B (Figure 2). A recovery technology designed onthe basis of a cursory waste survey at one time of the year (si.mpleperiod A in Figure 3) could well have been differently sized hid thedesign survey been conducted just a few months later (sampla period B inFigure 3). Thus, brief waste analyses at the same place but at differenttimes often lead to different conclusions about the potential of anenergy recovery program. 12-1 Figures 4, 5, and 6 show combined proxi-mate, ultimate, and mineral analyses of solid waste generated at severaldifferent Army and Navy installations in CONUS. The data shown reflectthe complex factors which must be taken into account for optimal design.At any time and at any installation, the specific waste chemistry couldlie--unpredictably--above or below the range of values shown. Thus, one•zould not be likely to achieve a properly functioning system on thebasis of a chemical analysis of a small waste sample. I

It is not surprising, thcn, that the design of energy recovery sys-tems is more an art than a scie ce. There do not exist comprehensive,practicable procedures by which the Facilities Engineer can develop areliable waste inventory for resource recovery feasibility assessment.16 16

Fortunately, the Army has many creative Facilities Engineers who candevelop their own input characterization procedures and put them to useeffectively. But the possibility is always present that developmentallarge-scale recovery technologies will be mistaken as proven for smallscale applications. Development of improved input characterizationprocedures and technology scaling methods remain two very deservingareas of scientific inquiry.

MODULAR HEAT RECOVERY SYSTEMS

Modular systems include predesigned, off-the-shelf, highway-ship-pable components which have a procurement time ustally no longer than 8months. A modular heat recovery line would include the furnace, apackage watertube boiler (with appropriate sootblowing and residue

2

capture capability), air pollution control equipment, stack, and ashremoval. The boiler may be equipped with a separate windowbox and

burner so it can remain on line after incinerator shutdown. Equipmentis usually housed in a pre-engineered building which has sufficientfloor area and clearance t- accommodate a tipping floor-front end loaderwaste handling operation. Of central interest are modular incinerators,which, because of size limits for transportation, rarely have rated

throughput capacities greater than 1 ton/(0.9 mt/hr) of civilian-typewaste.

Modular incinerators are advantageous in that they are less capital

intensive than their custom-designed, field-erected counterparts. Theirdisadvantages, however, are substantial. First, modular incinerators

will not accept bulky wastes of the type often found on military in-stallations (Figure 7). If an average waste load can fit easily intothe trunk of a large sedan, then most modular incinerator feeders willaccept the material. But even nonbulky wastes will not settle evenly infeed hoppers, and all too often cather drastic improvisations are re-quired to compact the material (Figure 8).

Second, because modular incinerators are predesigned for municipalrather than military waste, which has a significantly higher heat relaserate, they must usually be derated by up to 30 percent. Hence, the

average Army installation, which generates 35 tons/day (32 mt/day) ofsolid waste, would require a plant processing capacity of at least 50tons/day (45 mt/day) just to allow for derating. To process waste on a

one-shift basis (6.5 hours effective burn time), this installation wouldrequire an installed hardware capacity of about 8 tons/hour (7.2 mt/hour).

The plant would therefore require a minimum of eight units rated at 1ton/hour (0.9 mt/hour) operating in parallel. Since each unit must befed every 7.5 minutes,)1 the plant operator would have to load eachincinerator feeder in less than I minute to sustain optimal use andtotal plant performance.

One approach to the derating problem has been to install a waterspray either at the feeder or within the furnace itself. It is specu-

lated that quenching the waste lowers Its heat release rate, makes themass throughput capacity of the furnace more controllable, and extendsthe load cycle time. However, this approach contradicts one essentialobjective of heat recovery incineration, which is to use heat liberated

economically through combustion in a furnace to evaporate water to steamin a controlled downstream heat exchanger--not to wet down the charge

and evaporate virgin water in the furnace. Higher than necesar-y com-bustion heat losses and lower than desirable system efficiency and

economy are inescapable consequences of this measure.

Another frequently encountered combustion problem stems from theadvice given by some manufacturers to operate modular incinerators at

furnace temperatures in the neighborhood of 22000 F (1204 0 C). Stationarybed incinerators (Figure 9) are particularly prone to severe slagging attemperatures above 1800 0 F (9820 C), where the viscosity of refuse ash

-'

St mp r tu e viscosity-~-r--- -___________________

(particularly glass, ceramics, ft-rro-alumipdm compounds) is in theplastic range. Au expected result is accelerated refractory wastage.

Attendant operational problems in' lude plugging of underfire air ports,bed channeling, and incomplett' combustion. Even at lower operatingtemperatures, it is not unusual for some units to require manual ream-out of frequently inaccessible underfire air ports severai times duringan operating shift.

A third major disadvantage of modular incinerators is their ques-tionable durability, which has spawned divergent approaches toward their

use on Army installations. the first approach is to protect the com-buster, eIther by installing redundant fu-;naces and alternating opera-tion or by processing the waste (shredding, magnetic removal of ferrousmetals, screening for removal of glass and other inerts) before it is

fired. If the processing alternative is selected, the waste will gain a

substantial value added before it enters the furnace, and the plant willrequire additional skilled operating personnel and control and safety

systems. The second approach is to fire as-received waste (with over-

sized bulky incombustibles removed), perform the minimal maintenancerequired to keep the unit reasonably operational, and repair by re-placement when the rising cost of minimal maintenance so warrants. Itis not known which approach toward solving the durability dilemma ismore appropriate, because operational data on these developing systemsare just beginning to accumulate.

Nor are vital parameters known which permit accurate economic andvalue analyses of modular incinerators. Routine O&M requirements,cyclic maintenance requirements, and length of economic life are cur-

rently only speculative. An often travelled path around the latterfactor is to assume that a modular system will last a specified period

of time, usually 20 years This assumption has been so widely pro-liferated that, despite the absence of any substantiative data, it is

being increasingly and dangerously considered a fact.

The controlled air incinerator is presently the most widespread of

the four major modular incinerator configurations. It is a stationarybed furnace which is semi-continuously fed by a hydraulic ram feeder.The controlled air inzinerator may have a "piggybacked" secondary

chamber of equal size to the primary chamber (Figure 9), or may consistonly of a primary combustion chamber and a small afterburning volume

immediately after (Figures 10 and 11). In one modular incineratorresembling the controlled air unit, ash is discharged through refrac-tory-lined bomb bay doors which close to form the floor of the furnace.In the more conventional systems, ash is removed by positive displace-

ment out the bottom of the primary chamber. Throughput ratings formunicipal waste rarely exceed I ton/hour (0.9 mt/hour), meaning that

the average Aray in.stallation may require up to 16 controlled air unitsinstalled in parallel, depending upon operating hours per day and the

approach taken to the durability problem discussed above.

4

----.. .. . - - -

In addition to the general problems reviewed above, operationaltroubles with the controlled air incinerator concern controls, ashhandling, and construction. At one formerly operating $2 millionfacility (with no heat recovery equipment), a bypass damper was in-stalled in refractory-lined breeching between the furnace and the airpollution control apparatus (a modular fiberglass wet scrubber). Thedamper was to divert combustion products to the stack upon initiation offurnace cuoldown. When a piece of refractory waste jammed the damper inits nondiverting position, the control system indicated positive bypassand automatically shut down scrubber water supply. Hot gases continuedto enter the scrubber, and the resulting fire caused substantial equip-ment and structure damage. Provision of an inexpensive limit switchcould have prevented this loss. At this facilit: and others, burnout ofundersized motors has been a problem. Many ram feeders show a tendencyto withdraw pieces of burning waste on their backcycles, exposing plantpersonnel to smoke and threat of widespread fire. It is not unusual forproper operation of some controlled air incinerators to rely on controlsthat can easily be overriden. At one facility equipped with a tempera-ture-set quench as a combustion control, the operator disconnected theovertemperature control system to inhibit spray activation. The resultwas partial burnout of the afterburner housing (Figure 12). At yetanother facility, ash is removed from a quench by inclined drag con-veyor. Bulky materials frequently collect and jam at their withdrawalpoint, which has resulted in numerous episodes of shear pin failure,with the breaking pine launched across the operating floor at hazardousvelocities.

The rotary kiln is an inclined rotating furnace which, with somemodification, has had some munitions demilitarization applications. Thegeneral concepts underlying operation of the rotary kiln modular in-cinerator are shown in Figures 13, 14, and 15. While the controlled airincinerator has a 2.5-year history in small 2ity heat recovery opera-tions, tho rotary kiln has no such record. It is theoretically superiorto the controlled air configuration in that it mechanically mixes theburning material. But, as with the controlled air unit, bulky incom-bustible materials jam at the ash pass qnd result in unit outage untilmanually removed. The rotary kiln furnace is about three times morecostly than the controlled air configuration ($450,000 vs $150,000procurement cost).

Two of the four basic modular furnace configurations have onlyrecently been developed. The basket grate (Figure 16) is a continuouslyfed, inclined rotating cone-shaped grate which has yet to completelydemonstrate its capabilities in energy recovery. Two operationalproblems of major significance are the terdency of incombustibles tocollect in and reduce the effectiveness of the furnace volume, and thetendency of fine combustibles to sift through the grate while stillburning (Figure 17). The augered bed incinerator resembles the con-

trolled air in appearance (Figures 18 and 19); however, waste is con-veyed through the furnace by a water-cooled spiral flight. While the

5

m

basket grate is rated at 3 tons/hour (2.7 mt/hr) capacity, the augeredbed incinerator claims an hourly throughput capacity of 5 tons (4.5 mt).Like the basket grate, use of the augered bed incinerator in CONUS islimited to a single operating prototype, and few conclusive performancedata are available.

The encouraging aspect of both the basket grate and augered bed in-cinerators is that they are attempts to provide greater throughput capa-cities in modular, low-cost packages. With a reliably operating augeredbed incinerator, the average installation could process all its solidwaste in one shift per day. Reduced labor requirements alone arguepersuasively in favor of further developing and applying such promisingtechnologies.

REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL (RDF)

The rationale for using RDF is based on economic tradeoff: is itless costly to process waste into RDF for use in an existing boiler, oris it more cost-effective to install new combustion equipment to fire aless-processed waste? At present, RDF is highly developmental, and itsmost immediately foreseeable use is as a 10%-20% supplement (by as-firedheating value) in pelletized form with coal in central boilers equippedwith traveling chain grate or spreader stokers. To date, some boilertests have been performed,20- 2 and there is reason for tempered optimism.Unfortunately, however, many experiments have not produced the qualityof design-type data required to support engineering feasibility studiesat other locations.

There are as many suggested ways to produce DRDF as there areindividuals who have an interest in producing it. 2 3 - 2 6 This is essen-tially because DRDF production is still more an art than a science. Fewdata are available to support rational argument for--or against--anyparticular process, 2 7 but it is commonly agreed that any process willinclude multiple shredding stages, air classification, screening, dry-ing, and pelleting. One process flow is shown in Figure 20,28 and itsproducts--predensified "fluff" RDF and DRDF--are shown in Figures 21,and 22, respectively. The fluff RDF shown is similar to the materialcurrently cofired in suspension with pulverized coal in Union ElectricCompany's utility plant in St. Louis, MO. 2 9

Recent work has shown that for every unit of waste put into a DRDFproduction line, between 0.4 and 0.5 units of DRDF will be produced. 3 0

Hence, between 0.5 and 0.6 units will appear as process rejects (thisincludes dust, true reject waste, and some potentially recyclablemaLerials). Thcse materials remain a handling and disposal requirement.The average installation generating 35 tons/day (32 mt/day) of solidwaste would be fortunate to realize half that mass as DRDF. And, sinceat least half its waste stream would remain a disposal requirement,there would likely be at best only negligible reduction of its wastedisposal costs.

6

The true economy of DRDF production is still largely speculative.It has been shown that a plant with a daily input of 100 tons (91 mt)can produce DRDF at a per ton input cost between $10 and $12," ex-cluding reject handling, amortization of the $2.3 million equipment andbuilding investment, and delivery to and handling of DRDF at the usingpoint. But the capital use factor is well below 0.20 for a one-shiftoperation because of high preventive maintenance requirements and lowtotal system reliability.

There are many points in the DRDF spectrum which offer challengesto the engineer and scientist. Many waste processing facilities havepoorly designed materials handling facilities, with attendant house-keeping problems and avoidable excess labor (Figure 23). Such plantsare often symptomatic of the art-not-science approach to waste pro-cessing, in which modular off-the-shelf equipment is used in an applica-tion for which it was not designed.

While progress is being made toward producing a DRDF that willhandle like coal, there are still no convincing data to indicate thatthe waste fuel pellet will not structurally deteriorate when subjectedto normal coal conveyor vibration (Figure 24), and even under moderateload in coal storage bunkers. Recent research into the mechanicalproperties of DRDF and DRDF/coal mixtures has indicated that most coalhandling and storage systems will require redesign to reliably handlethe bulk solids which they were not originally intended to accommo-date. 32 Because of its unique properties, DRDF is not prone to coaltype gravity mass flow (Figure 25) from storage bunkers, but insteadwill exhibit at best funnel flow (Figures 26 and 27) and most probablyno flow at all. In the latter case, the fuel cannot be easily removedfrom its storage vessel by any means. Indeed, under agitation, the rateof structural deterioration of the pellet is increased, and the fibrousmaterial becomes even more dense and immovable.

However, it should be noted that certain types of DRDF may flowfrom some existing coal storage bunkers.33 Nearly all military coal

storage vessels were fabricated and installed as long as 40 years ago,when their design was based upon experience and informed engineeringintuition. Only recently has a scientific approach been taken towardstorage and flow of bulk solids which considers their d•namic propertiesin storage vessels. 34 Thus, some existing bunkers handle their coalwell, while others do not. While some of these bunkers might alsosuccessfully handle DRDF and/or DRDF/coal mixtures, this appears to beattributable to good luck, and the available data are not the type onwhich contemporary engineering design is customarily based.

Similarly little scientific research has been performed on thebehavior of DRDF in a boiler. We know that DRDF has a lower calorificvalue and ignition temperature than nearly all coals, and usually burnswith a cooler and larger flame. We also know that it has a much more

! 1"7

rapid rate of reaction than coal. The facts argue convincingly that ifthe boiler is to be kept at rated capacity when firing DRDF, the furnacevolume must be considerably enlarged (Figure 28).

It Is not easy to pin down the combustion behavior of DRDF to makeconclusive assessments about the feasibility of its use. Many standardtesting methods successfully used for coal characterization fail whenattempts are made to similarly analyze DRDF. The American Society forTesting and Materials has recognized this problem, and its Energy Sub-committee is currently developing RDF testing procedures. 3 5

Despite the fact that essentially the same kind of input characteriza-tion problems plague the use of DRDF as hinder proper incinerator design,general studies continue to assert that DRDF is easily usable in substantialnumbers of Federal boilers.36 Such studies often take for granted thatestablished boiler coal feeding equipment will perform adequately withDRDF. However, the types of flow problems encountered with DRDF inexisting coal bunkers may be anticipated in attempts to pass the wastefuel through the conventional weigh larry (Figure 29) in travellinggrate applications or the standard mechanical feeder in spreader stokersystems (Figure 30).

It is generally accepted that a DRDF production line will includemultiple shredding stages, air classification, screening, drying, andpelleting. Few appliances used in any currently operating system havebeen designed to process variable solid waste, but rather have beenadapted from other industrial applications. It is currently betterknown what most equipment does rather than why it works (or doesn't) onsolid waste.37 Processing plants often contain a nearly randomly sequencedrange of poorly selected, adequate, and brilliantly designed equipment,with the aggregate result of nonoptimal system reliability, controlabilityand predictability. The proper performance of many systems depends uponskilled labor with qualifications both to operate advanced and adaptedequipment and to innovate quick, artful changes in the process to obtaindesired output. To guarantee smooth operation of such plants for anacceptable economic life is highly risky. The high degree of complexityin using DRDF is exceeded only by the magnitude of the challenge withwhich the problem confronts the engineer and scientist. In either case,vigorous scientific inquiry is needed and should be encouraged.

FIELD ERECTED SYSTEMS

These systems (Figure 31) are usually more reliable than those

reviewed above. Data from plants such as the Naval waterwall incinera-tor in Norfolk, VA, are beginning to lead to improved plant designs.Operational data from modern plants indicate that shredding of deliveredwaste is being recommended more often to improve furnace performance(Figures 32 and 33).

i~8

i

The theoretical advantages of shredding are numerous. It loosensand reduces -he waste to a smaller and more easily handleable particlesize range, 38,93 increases the charge's surface/volume ratio and henceimproves its combustion performance, ballistically rejects many bulkyincombustibles which adversely affect combustor material, and by mixingmakes the charge somewhat less variable than its unprocessed feedstock.4 0

But along with shredders come the disadvantages of plant problems inmaintenance, reliability, materials handling, and safety.

A variety of relatively short-term shredder maintenance darn exists,4'

and indications are that complete overhaul must be done as much as 12times annually, that most hammers on hammermills must be replaced after400 to 1000 tons (363 int to 908 mt) have been processed, and that hammerhardfacing or tip rewelding must be done daily (Figure 34). The lattertask requires about 4 hours per shredder. Cyclic maintenance require-ments are not fully known. In the case of hammer replacement, wornhammers must ordinarily be disposed of, since most are made of speciali-zed hardened steel which has no use in the current salvage market.

Reliability of shredders is very speculative. It is not unusualfor unforeseeable downtime to last several weeks until special replace-ment parts are made, delivered, and installed, and the unit is tested.Shredder explosions are not infrequent and, aside from unit outage,endanger plant personnel. Explosions may be caused by a variety ofphenomena, including discarded explosive materials in the waste, pres-ence of volatiles such as solvents and gasoline, and ignition of suspendeddust by sparks generated when the hammers strike other metallic objectsin the feed. Despite the well-publicized dangers of shredders, manyprocessing plants persist in stationing personnel (such as pickers toremove adverse materials from the feed conveyor) close to the units.Some plants have installed acoustic/blast partitions around shredders,with breakaway panels in the roof to accept the forces and shrapnelliberated by the explosion.

Other hazards involving shredders are dust (including airbornebacteria and viruses) and fire. Modern plant designs include an airhood near the shredder to prevent a dangerous concentration of dust nearthe unit. 4 2 Despite the obvious possibility of fire spreading rapidlythroughout the waste processing system, many designs neglect adequatefire protection, either in the form of special construction, a quenchsystem, -r clearly marked personnel escape routes.

Although the disadvantages associated with shredding are numerousand serious, at the current state of the art, neither the disadvantagesnor the advantages (in the form of improved combustor performance) canbe quantified in a cost-benefit manner to provide a basis for decision4 making.

Other problems revealed in the field erected systems which are notapparent in most large incinerator plants include sanitation and pestcontrol. It is prudent to plan a sufficient budget for these items.

I9

Scientific research has brought us improved firing and stockingmethods, so that the double reciprocating grate (Figure 35) is now pre-ferred over the conventional traveling grate (Figure 36) and other con-figurations. 3 This advanced stoker will be installed at Ft. Monmouth,NJ, where purchased shredded RDF will be fired in a converted boiler.The frequent and costly grate burnout problems encountered with con-ventional traveling grates (necessitating bar replacement as often asonce a week) will probabLy be far reduced.

Despite advances in stoking mechanisms, it is still not uncommonfor severe problems to occur when a technology vorkable at one locationis transferred to another. One recently built municipal waste incinera-tor is equipped with a stoker configuration having relatively longoperational success in Europe. But European refuse is wetter, containsfewer high calorific value materials, and has a lower heat release ratethan the waste in the U.S. city where the stoking technology was adapted."As a result, to protect the maladapted stoker from severe thermal damage,a water spray had to be installed near the incinerator feed throat. Theplant continues to operate with lower than desired efficiency and stillexperiences numerous operational difficulties.

For Army-scale operations, it is preferable to employ a front-end loader handling system instead of the less reliable pit-and-cranesystem wherever possible. Front end loaders have been proven capable ofmoving as much as 650 tons/day (590 mt/day), 5 indicating their potentialapplicability even in large regional waste management operations. Therecommended loader is propane-fueled, with filled tires.

When designed properly, field erected systems will function in away far superior to modular incinerators and DRDF at the current stateof the art. This is not to say there are no challenges. Areas ofunknowns include slagging potential,, grate fouling, corrosion," ifand how to shred,4 8 how to cope with the -,ariability of invut materialin design and practice," 9 and combustion control methods.5 There isalso a need for economic data to provide a sound base for life cycle andvalue analyses in assessing the feasibility of applying a similar tech-nology elsewhere. S1-54

10

i'

CLOSURE

The goals of recovery programs set forth in the Introduction arecritically important, and perhaps no one knows this better than theFacilities Engineer. He is acutely aware that by reducing the resourcesallocated to waste disposal/recovery and energy production operations,equivalently more resources can be made available for more direct supportof the defense-oriented mission of the installation, and ultimately, ofthe soldier. This is what he is working for, and it is the business ofthe responsible engineer and scientist to support him in this effort.

There is no question that the future holds great promise for recover-ing energy from installation solid waste. But at present there existsno small-scale energy recovery technologies which can be implementedwith guarantee of predictable, trouble-free operation. Some currentlypromoted systems might perform adequately, but many more will do littlebut consume valuable resources that better could be put to use elsewhere.

That the majority of currently operating energy recovery systems donot perform dependably does not reflect "shortcut" engineering, butin-tead underscores the absence of the design data necessary to create ap cticable facility. An important goal of the research engineer's workis to develop systems based on a firm foundation of scientific fact andnot a resource-intensive, hit-and-miss approach. Tbh goals of recoveryprograms provide sufficient motivation for accelerated scientific re-search and development, and the time to proceed is now.

I

"I

•.i• 11

, , , .. . ,

4t

REFERENCES

1. Stearns, R. P. and J. P. Woodyard, "The Impact of Resource Recoveryon Urban Landfill Requirements," Waste Age, January, 1977.

2. Facilities Engineering: Annual Summary of Operations for FY76.Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Washington,D.C., 1977.

3. Rigo, H. G., "Characteristics of Military Refuse," in Beltz, P. and J.Frankosky, eds., Proceedings of the ARPA Workshop on Waste-to-EnergyConversion Systems for Military Base Utilization, Columbus, OH, 1974.

4. Rigo, H. G., D. N. Nelson and M. E. Elbl. Technical Evaluation Study:Solid Waste Generation and Disposal at Red River Army Depot, Texarkana,TX. CERL Technical Report E-33, Champaign, IL, 1974.

5. Schanche, G. W., L. A. Creep and B. Donahue. Installation SolidWaste Survey Guidelines. CERL Technical Report E-75, Champaign, IL, 1975.

6. Hathaway, S. and J. Woodyard. Technical Evaluation Study: Energy-Necovery Utilization of Waste at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton,Washington. CERL Technical Report E-89, Champaign, IL, 1976.

7. Hathaway, S. A., A. N. Collishaw and J. P. Woodyard. Technical EvaluationStudy: Energy-Recovery Incineration of Solid Waste at Naval WeaponsSupport Center, Crane, IN. CERL Technical Report E-97, Champaign, IL,1976.

8. Niessen, W. R. and S. H. Chansky, "The Nature of Refuse," Proceedings,1970 ASME Incinerator Conference, New York 1970.

9. "Municipal Solid Waste - Its Volume, Composition and Value," Bulletin,National Center for Resource Recovery, Washington, D.C., Spring, 1973.

10. Hathaway, S. A., J. P. Woodyard and A. N. Collishaw. Feasibility Studyof Using Refuse-Derived Fuel at Naval Amphibious Base Little Creek,Norfolk, VA. CERL Technical Report E-109, Champaign, IL, May 1977.

11. Woodyard, J. P. The Prediction of Solid Waste Generation; A Review.Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for thedegree of Master of Science, Department of Mechanical Engineering,University of Illinois, Urbana, IL, 1976.

12

I

12. Hathaway, S. A. and R. J. Dealy. Technology Evaluation of ArmyScale Waste-to-Energy Systems. CERL Technical Report E-110, Cham-paign, IL, May 1977.

13. Hathaway, S. A. and H. G. Rigo. Technical Evaluation Study: Energy-Recovery Solid Waste Ininceration at Naval Station Mayport, Florida.CERL Technical Report E-51, Champaign, IL, March, 1975.

14. Phase I Feasibility Study & Supporting Documentation: Refuse Incinera-tor/Reat Reclamation Boiler Facility, Naval Station Mayport, FL.Greenleaf/Telesca, Plauners, Engineers, Architects, Inc., Miami,Florida, 1975.

15. Boisseau, H. J., Jr. Logistic and Economic Factors Affecting theReclamation and Recycling of Waste Material and By-Products. LogisticsManagement Institute, Washington, DC, 1976.

16. Methods for Predicting Solid Waste Characteristics. U.S. Environmental"Protection Agency, Washington, DC, 1971.

17. Decision-Makers Guide in Solid Waste Management. U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Washington, DC, 1976.

18. Resource Recovery Plant Implementation Guides for Municipal OfficialsTechnologies. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,1976.

19. Evaluation of Small Modular Incinerators in Municipal Plants, RossHoffmann Associates, Coral Gables, FL, 1976.

20. Solid Waste Fuel Modifications, Second Series Burn Tests - FinalReport. Eugen Water & Electric Board, Eugene, OR, 1974.

21. Jackson, CPT J. W. A Bioenvironmental Study of Emissions from Refuse-Derived Fuel. USAF Environmental Health Laboratory Report 76M-2,McClellan AFB, CA, 1976.

22. Preliminary Teat Report on Handling and Combustion Characteristicsof Franklin Pelletized Fuel and "Coal Mixes Tested at Piqua MunicipalUtilites System, Pi•ua, OR. Black-Clawson Fibreclaim, Inc., Middle-town, OH, 1975.

13

~~~~~~~ . ..,, , 4 iii ii

23. Rigo, H. G., S. A. Hathaway and F. C. Hildebrand, "Preparation andUse of Refuse-Derived Fuels in Industrial Scale Applications,"Conference Papers of Firt International Conference and TechnicalExhibition on Corversio-z of Refuse to Energy. New York, 1976.

24. Resource Recovenj Equipment Test and Fvaluation Program. NationalCenter for Resource Recovery, Washington, D.C., 1975.

25. Hathaway, S. A., J. S. Lin and A. N. Collishaw. Design Concept forpensified Refuse-Derived Fuel Production and Handling Systems inMilitary - Scale Applications. CERL Technical Report (In Review),Champaign, IL, May 1977.

26. Solid Wa.ste Management Technology Assessment. General ElectricCo., Schenectady, NY, 1974.

27. Hathaway, S. A., "Small Scale Waste-to-Energy Conversion Systems,"Paper Preserted to Second Central Illinois Energy Conference, Peoria,IL, April 1977.

28. Hathaway, S. A., A. N. Collishaw, R. J. Dealy and A. R. Pain.Technical Evaluation Study: Solid Waste as an Energy Resource atMare island Naval Shipyard, Vallejo, CA. CERL Technical Report E-99,Champaign, IL, March 1977.

29. Energy Recovery from Waste: Solid Waste as a 5Spplementary Fuelin Power Plant Boilers. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,Washington, D.C., 1973.

30. Op cit, note 25.

31. Ibid.

32. Ibid.

33. Op cit, note 22.

34. Jenike, A. W., "Quantitative Design of Mass Flow Bins," PowderTechnology, January, 1967.

35. Standard Method for Preparing RDF3 Samples for Analysis (Draft).American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1977.

36. Study of the Feasibility of Federal Procurement of Fuels ProducedA from Solid Wastes. A. D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, MS, 1975.

37. Study of Preprocessing Equipment for Waste-to-Energy Systems:Suwry Material and Research Needs. Midwest Research Institute,Kansas City, MO, 1977.

14

U - ,iiiIi _j"•

38. Trezek, G. J. and G. Savage, "Size Reduction in Solid Waste Processing -

Progress Report 1973-1974," Prepared for U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency Grant No. EPA R-801218, Berkeley, CA, 1974.

39. Murray, D. L. and R. H. Brickner, "Refuse-Derived Fuel: The Pro-duction How's and Why's," Paper Presented to Second American DefensePreparedness Association Energy/Environment Conference, Kansas City,MO, March, 1977.

40. Hathaway, S. A. and J. P. Woodyard. Technical Evaluation Study:Solid Waste as an Energy Resource at Quantico Marine Base, VA.CERL Technical Report E-93, Champaign, IL, 1976.

41. Solid Waste Mi~ling and Disposal on Land Without Cover. City ofMadison, WI, 1974.

42. Op cit, note 25.

43. Conversion of Central Heating Plant Boilers to Refuse Derived FuelFiring, Ft. Monmouth, NJ. Department of the Army, New York District,Corps of Engineers, New York, 1975.

44. Bidwell, R. and S. Mason, "Fuel from London's Refuse: An Examinationof Economic Viability," Conference Papers of First Int._rnationalConference and Technical Exhibition on Conversion of Refuse to Energy,New York, 1976.

45. Recovery I: New Orleans, LA. Nntional Center for Resource Recovery,Washington, D.C. 1976.

46. Reid, W. T., "Corrosion and Deposits in Combustion Systems," inPalmer, H. B. and J. M. Beer, eds., Combustion Technology: SomeModern Developments, Academic Press, New York, 1974.

47. Engdahl, R. B. Identification of Technical and Operating Problems ofNashville Thermnal Transfer Corporation Waste-to-Energy Plant.Columbus, OH, 1976.

48. Franconeri, P., "How to Select a Shredder," SoZid Wwjtes Management,

June, 1975.

49. Op cit, note 37.

50. Incinerator Overfire Mixing Demonstration. A. D. Little, Inc.,Cambridge, MS, 1975.

15

'. . . ... ..... . ... 4- . .. - . ... . • 7 . -•.. . . . .. . ... . . . . . • --.. 1Ia I i i

51. Gorges, H. A. and A. D. Thomas, "Critical Assessment of WasteConversion to Energy," Proceedings, Institute of EnvironmentalSciences, Mt. Prospect, IL, 1975.

52. Albert, J. G., "Resot-rce Recovery: The Economics and The Risks,"Professional Engineer, November, 1975.

53. Alter, H., "Pitfalls When Planning Resource Recovery," Waste Age,March, 1976.

54. Bartolotta, R. J., "Resource Recovery: Possibilities and Pitfalls,"Solid Wastes Management, November, 1975.

I

16

- S

I'V

aa

0 I

0.0C))

o o

Wt -4 z e._____ N ren

0 .40

0~ D 0 Q

U)i

Ch S2 0 )'- I

flg m -HS~E 0L r

C) La 4SnNOO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I NI *IVIINIA4VW VA.0tAM

vn~nviR 4 5 r~17

.01 .1 , I I i

A! 1, WET GARBAGE ANDI / INCOMBUSTIBLES6C----I V

51015 20 25 30 3 40 45

WEEK

15I

- ,CAR ARD

5 1015 20 25 30 35 40 45WEEK'

18 !

60i I IE IU AT

20

5 0) 6 Wn W5 W 40 45

Figure 2. Time-variability of Solid Waste Comrposition at anArmy Installation. A waste survey during week 15would yield different conclusionsb about resourcerecovery than would a survey in week 32.

18

iTi

J-) 0 ,-4

0

cd *

4LJ

0)

"Li .0 -C 01-4 0 . 1

• •I ,,8 ~IE

,-4 ,4 0 )

.LI 0 .0

" 0

4-44 :3 0;

4..'

4-4

)13M /GWA olno

19

ii i. .0

0

IZ

-- ,- -0co

0)

-.4

to41

"")

m 4..

.0

100

(0 0 4~0,Ic

0(to 0I)ý4 I'.

-44

z 44 4

z >0W

U)UU) 0

20

- z

D-Il,

Ci C- 0

U)

x 0-

z z U)

V 0 f NI-CI0 J 0 .

0,=

I zW u0 U) c

S21

(a) I I I I

Nt N W t 0 FF'M ~ 0- 'tt V' 1 D P-

oj le-N E do o - NOi o

U) rE

'440)

od

t-4

0 a)M 4

tO)$ 0(

hIu P-4.

U) 0 z

0 0C

0- F U) N V - -

a:ailCd

oL ra -

322

L-4

0.

.4t1.4A

UL -,I

4-j

.41

m u,

4.JW

to 4

E.4 td4

-104

4L4

23

cJ

bO44I

o44~ý4 IIJ

Id wj

0 ~w

Aw r-4 r-40. Ow

S0w

a4 0 4

to. w

5.rb4 r

.CU A)

W34

24

I

SecondaryBurning1600*-2000*F

12000 F

Afterburner

Combustion Air Supplied At H ighVeoitieOs

Figure 9. Controlled Air Incinerator (First Major Configuration).

Stationary bed furnace has throughput capacity no greaterthan 1 ton/hour, and must often be derated.

25

A

ReactorBurner Reactor

Section

Ignition +Burner

Prmary

Figure 10. Controlled Air Incinerator (Second Major Configuration,Front View).

26I., 4

TO POLLUTION CONTROL ORENERGY- RECOVERY BOILER

SSELF-SUSTAINING DIRECT-FLAME

"'.Li ... -,,.'' .. ,'''SMOKE ZONE , ..

CHARGEUNDERFIRE AIR

FORCED AIR

Figure 11. Controlled Air Incinerator (Second Major Configuration,Side View).

27

,-4

0

.-

0

.74

"-4

iLjL0 0.

C) D

LLJ

0 w

t0

'.4

28

i0

Af ter burner

To Precooler Or

Energy - RecoveryIBoilor

I Coarse ROF Auto- Feed (Hopper, Pneumat ic Feed, SlIIda Gates)2 Forced Air3 Refractory- Lined Rotating Cylinder (Primary Chamber)4 Ash Hopper ( Incombustibles)5 Support Frame And Piers6 Control7 Secondory Chamber8 To Appurtenances

Figure 13. General Operation of Rotary Kiln Package Incinerator.

29

4

mu

5 r

-U

1.i

30

I ,

iii• U

0

C Cd

'4a0

I- I4

c Ca

I000

1-4

ICIL

Io c 2 0.p c0 -0 4

I ca Cc 0

I .

* U .

a- * 0ibo~Co UP4

31I

Crown

To Air Pollution ControlAfteburnr inOr Energy-Recovery Boiler

Secondary Chamber

Continuous Coarse .- Tangential Air injectionROF Feed

Ignition Burner

Primary Chamber

Control Apparatus

Coorse RDF Fed

Direction ofRotation

Comnbust ion Air

supplied

Figure 16. General Operation of Basket Grate Package Incinerator.

32

M° -

c,-- 0

U)u 0.

(D4

3m

.4 -. U . -4

-4J,- U

- cU.~-

,. 1 L

33U .

U(

14

• • I-'I-F

Iii

0'41

00

Y -rf II "

II

0. 0 -0

344

C'-4U

-4

4 35

V4

w Coo

I 4 w

Q)'41

44)

Ln)

LoC Ur4

at (0>

d '44

S-44S LwWc

00

02J

wC6w

=3 0

000

Cz4

r 36

S ~ 4~ Ar). 4t

* Aha.

j~r--

'Az t'A

At,

37~t

r.

-Af -. 4 W

54.

ILc~44

tat44.Z..4 r4 CO4

"A -4IA)

~44)

383

L i

Figure 23. Result of Underdesigning Belt Conveyor After Primary Shredder.Materials

handling is widespread

problem in waste processing

"39

4-i

41

•! tn m nn mmfn

0n

AJ

,4 >

404

FIRST IN4\ I- •q LAST OUT

I SEGREGATESI I I IRATHOLES~FLUSHES• I ILDNG RESIDENCE 4

TIME.

4 FIRST IN Ic? FIRST OUTDE AERErTEs* 0MIXES

FEEDSUNIFORMLYSHORT

4 RESIDENCE TIME

FUNNEL MASSFLOW FLOWSBIN BIN

Figure 25. Because of Its Properties, Pelletized RDF WillNot Generally Exhibit Gravity blass Flow fromExisting Coal Storage Bunkers.

-. 41

iN "

Figure 26. Funnel Flow in Coal Bunker. Rathole in DRDFmeasures 6 ft in width.

N

Figure 27. Top View of DRDF Rathole Shown in Figure 26. Depth isapproximately 12 ft. Hopper outlet is visible belowrathole. Outlet measures 2 ft x 2 ft.

42

-4

Sc o

0 U

LII _ :h-m IA -. Hc ZU ml '

u 0

S.... I • .-4Co

2~~ ONIN'M

4 1 1 _ _0"~rlJ.gl •-c

1.4

o ,~~~~VO O SflONIWUfJJSht d

I@ M ARIm Wf Hogi-4

_ I.-

4$4

IM- 13( -' I)

-44

?A J 2a O---)IL 0

to Is -- f

44

I.

reliably flow through this constricting vessel.

i 4

: . 44

r;?-..

COAL HOPPER

RECIPROCATING SPILLPLATERECPCATING OVERTHROW ROTOR

ASHSTOKER CHAIN; •AIR SEAL

Figure 30. Standard Mechanical Feeder for Spreader Stoker.Flow problems may be anticipated in coal feedhopper. There is potential jamup problem inrotor area if DRDF degenerates.

i""I 45

,,-4

0__ w

ww w

U.i

Z0

•lwa.4 >cr1 2 •C'41

t)

D9-'

c(0 a)

-ji

yh-h

U) WLU

vi

464

I

Figure 32. Operation of Vertical Shaft Hammermill.Ballistic rejects pass through rubbercurtained chute.

47

I

0i 0

00 00!

Figure 33. Horizontal Shaft Hammermill.Shredded waste often jams inoutlet grate.

7, 48. h •o

I -|

| I,

00

C)

F-4

49.

,i0.

III-i

,"4

I..'

• 49

STATIONARYS• GRATES

MOVING GRATES

Figure 35. Double Reciprocating Grate Stoker.

Figure 36. Conventional Traveling Grate Stoker. Because of burnout,grate bar replacement may be necessary as frequently asonce/week.

50

IEI

CERL DISIRIBUTION

US Army Engineer District US.Army Inqinner DivisiOnAorth Central

US Army, Europe AocIok Islanrd ATTN: L irary

ATTN: AEA[N ATTN; LibraryATN he,[r IATTN; Chief. lEsr Din Alssocri River

West Point. NY lOAT, Chicago ATTN: Library (2,

ATIN: Dept of Mechanics ATTM: Chief, iCCPD-ER ATTN: Chief, Iolr OlAIN:Oet f ecancsSt. Louis ATTN- Itatoriitory

ATIN: Library ATTN: Library oul: Lbrtor y

AITN: Chief, ED-B 2T5 Luthihrn

FqDA (SGRD-EDEi Alsh: Chief. EP-O ATIN: Lierar•rY

Kansan City ATTN: Lhief. SWDID-TMKanss Cty outh Paclfli

Chief of Eniineers ATTN: library (2) AtTh: Chief, -

ATTNI ; (AlN-iCE-o AIIN: Chief. Enqr Dlv Pa : Chli e O Pt

ATTN: 0AIN-A%1-L Cm) 11 AT"4: Cnief. POOLE-D

AIIN: Chief. Engr Div ATN. Chief. PODED-PAITN: (AIM-lEO-S Me. Orleans AIIN Ch~f POt[t-Mi

ATTNI ; 0A4--1h4-4 i2) ATTN: Library ATTN Chief. Inir DO v

ATTN: [AFN.MC?-S ATTN: Chief, LMN[E-DG North PacificATTN: PA[N-FCE-A Little Rock ATTN: Chlh, E.qr Din

ATTN: VALN-il ATTN! Chief. Engr Div

ATTN: DALE-RDL lTula Facilities Engineer

ATTN: Library Carlisle Barrackh, PA 17013

USA-CRREL Fort Worth Ft Hood, TX 76544ATTkh. Library OSO

AIIM:;Cif SWFED-D rOASCOM 0i1

Ft Belvoir, VA 22060 AlIM; Chief, SWFt-IMA/I Ft Qeve5. rA 01431ATTN: ESA uFt Georqe r. Meade, MD Z0755

AIIM: FESA Albuquerque Ft McPherson, GA 303130

ATTI: ATSEII-DT , , AIIM: Library F S Houston. IR224

Los Angeles ft Carson. CO 80913

Ft Moroe, VA 23651 ATTN: Library Ft Lewis, WA 99433

ATII: AT[Nl San Francisco Ft e , 3

ATTN: Chief, Enqr Div USAECoin

Ft Le", VA 23801 Sacramento T tA OhCAlTT: Library, Rsoei8307 IAO

ATIM: DRXMC-D (2) ATTN: Chief. SPrED- R 83iit 0 r, NJ Ob4l)ATN Chief FeatD Ft Bel-air, JA eIi)EC,

Sth US AFmy Par East Ft Lee, VA 23801

ATTN;S ArmyfAIIM: Chiefrt Gordon,n i GA 30oUS

ATTN: AFKK-LG-E Japan Ft McClellan. AL 36201

ATTI: Library Ft Knox. KY 40121

6th US Amy Portland Ft Benjamin Harrison, IN 46216

ATIT; AKEC-LG-[ ATTN: Library it Lonard Wood, MO 604?3Seattle Ft Sill. OK 13503

Washington. DE ATTN: Chief. NPSEM-PL-WC Ft Bliss. 11 79116

ATTN: Bldg Research Advisory Board ATTN: Chief, NPSEN-PL-ER USAtCFE

ATIN: Library of CongreS- WaIMa Willi Ft Eustis. VA 23604ATTN: Library DSCPEPAIIM: Chief. Engr Din SCEAI. , C i f [ g i W e s t P o in t , N Y 1 09 9 b

Defense Documentation Center (12) Alaska UWAei (31

ATlN: Library UA nn1

Engineering So(iPties Library ATIN: Chief, NPAID-0 UAAAnC

Mew York, NY 100 NaFhvilet u ennng AL il:3sY 1t Rckert, AL 36361

AT/RDXT Vicksburg DAC&FL M

WASH 2ft Leavenworth, tS 66022

WASH DE 20330 TisiM e A a 4

ATTN: Chief, Engr Div ODqS( y, UT 840C?irn Any ,qtnerr [i-trict Detroit u eC ,

NR. York ATTN: Library Ft iNuachcat t Al 856134

ATTN: Chief. NAhEN-f St. Pal AG. lit 1sf Din A Ft Riley. KS 66442

AITN: Chief. bDesln hr. AIMN Chief, ED0 HU, th Inf Div B ft Ord, CA 93941

BuffaloATTN: Library US Amy Engineer Civilian

Pittsborgih Europ

AIIN: Library ATTM: Technical Library

AIIN Chieif. nqr Div NMw England

Philadelphia ATTN: Library

ATTN: Chief, MAPEN-D ATTN: Chief. NEDED-T

Baltinmre North Atlantic

ATTN: Chief, Engr Din ATTN: LibraryNorfolk ATTN: Chief, NAOEN-T

ATTN: Library Middle East (Rear)

ATTN: Chief, NAOEN-R ATTN: MEDlE-T

Huntington South Atlantic

ATTN: Library ATTN: Chief, SAEN-TE

ATlk: Chief, ORHED ATTN: Library

Wilmington HuntsvilleA1IM: Cklef, ShiER-PP ATUM: Library (2)

¶AIlT: Chief. SAMEN-D ATT1: Chief. HPDED-SR

Charleston ATTN: Chief, HaiEO-€S

ATTI: Chief, Eng.r Div ATTN: Chief, dNO•-DM•Sa---a-ilbm LoQnwlr MISSISSippi Walley

ATTI: Library ATTN: LibraryATTN: Chief. SASAS-L Ohio River

IN Mobile ATTN: Laboratory

ATTN: Chief. SAIEM-C ATTI: LibraryATTN: Chief. Engr DiV

4

Commender CI NCAD/D(YVS(UtTHIIIVNAVFAKfRGCOM ATTN: LI COt Church Watkins

AUMN co([ 113A/Sa',qle Eat AFB. CO 809177144 ,lllourne StCharleston, SC 29411 AFSC/DIC(

ATTN: CAPI Georue Franklin

Coraeder Richards.G,tour AFB. PhO 64030

S0U;iiIVNAVI ACE NCCOMATII: Code 403/tennedy AFLC/D[PV

2144 Prlhourne St ATTN: Mr. J. F, Hampton

Charleston. SC 2q411 Wright-Patterson AFB. OH 45433

Compuander AFLC/DOI4U

LANTDIVNAVFACINGCOM ATTN: Mr. Robert teqgan

ATTN. (ode 114.Gardner Wright.PattersOn AFB, OH 45433

Norfolk. VA 23S11 AFSC/DEE

Comr,ander ATTN: Mr. Martin Noland

N0R1ICjIVNAVFA(ENM(OM Andrews AFB, DC 20334

ATIT: Code 1141/GasbarrOBfiIdirn 77. Porter Avenue ATC/DEPVU.S. Naval Base ATTN: Mr. A. E. Cullins

Philadelphia, PA 19113 Randolph VFB. TX 78148

Cornander 3BOO ABW/DEE

CHiSDIVNAVFACENGCOM AITN: Mr. Ralph Stanford

ATTI: Code 104.3/Shawver Maxwell AFt, AL 36112

Washin,iton Navy YardWashington. DC 20374 CINCSAC/DEV

AIIM: LI COL E. Hanson

Cunmander Offutt AFt, NB 68113NCBCNESO ATC/DEMUATIN: Code 251?/Kneeling ATTN: Mr. Bernard Lindenberg

Port Hjeneme. CA 93043 Randolph AFB. Tx 78148

Commander AAC/DEVHQNAVIACENGCOM ATTN: Mr. R. Cameron

ATIN: Code 04 APO Seattle 98742

200 Stovall StreetAlexandria. VA 72332 MAC/DEE

ATIN: Mr. Wayne Cauglinaun

Commander Scott AFB, IL 62225

WESIDIVNAVFACENGCOMATTN: .}. Shanling C]NCPACAFiDEVP.O. ton 727 ATTN: Mr. Richard OkaMur3

San Bruno, CA 94066 APO San Francisco, CA 96274

Commander TAC/DEEVHQNAVFACENGCOM ATiN: Mr. Gil Burnett

AITN: Code 032D/Hurley Langley AFB, VA 23665200 Stovall StreetAlexandria, VA ?2332 USAFSS/DEMU

ATTN: Mr. John Hale

Commander San Antonio, TX 78241

KQMAVFACENGCOMATTN: Code 0441C/Hildebrand CINCUSAFE/DEPV200 Stovall Street ATTN: MAJ Robinson

Alexandria, VA 22332 APO New York 09012

Commander AFRES/DEMM

NCBC ATTN: Mr. James Rachal

CEL Robins AFB, GA 31098

ATTN: Code L63/StonePort Huenene, CA 93043 USAFA/DEV

ATTN: COL 0. Reaves

Commander USAF Academy, C0 80840

NCBCATIN: Library Oat I HI ADIC/ECWPort Huenemne, CA 93043 ATTN: CAPT R. OlfetbuttAl (2)

Tyndall AFB, FL 32403

HI) USAF/PREMWASH DC 70330

NQ USAF/PREEWASH DC 20330

HQ USAF/PREVPATTI: MAJ Frank SanpulWASH DC 20330