Dec. 9, 2009
Sanitary Board Incinerator Complicated Repair Issue
Damage Occurred Despite Detectors
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – Ask the experts about the catastrophic failure of the city’s incinerator in 2006 and you will hear theories on the damage, but no certainties on fix or dismantle it choices.
Stanley J. Chllson , CET Engineering Services, stressed that the cracked tubing from apparent thermo-coupler failure to detect overheating did not come from human error. Unfortunately, the one year warranty elapsed at the time of the 2006 failure and, based on the contract, the incident would not have been one covered anyway.
“The heat exchange failed as a result of another problem,” Chllson said. His best speculation would be that despite readings coal may have continued to heat causing the temperature disparities.
However, the Sanitary Board demonstrated a preference for non-repair and continuation of the current Kentucky landfill operation. They presented a cost comparison that favors the landfill over the incinerator. (Click HERE to download pdf of INCINERATOR history and cost projections on the landfill.)
Jim Ashworth, vice chairman of the board, explained that the choice to repair the incinerator leaves us “stuck” with that choice. “The landfill leaves [an] option to have more flexibility” as new regulatory matters are settled.
Chllson expressed concern over incinerator sludge removal of which the division of environmental protection might mandate some type of compliance pertaining to the fly ash.
Yet of landfill and incinerator options, Chllson noted that apparently the cost spreadsheet provided “has included zero labor” in the landfill option. He did not want to dwell on that point, but council members Jackson and Houck wanted to know more.
No one on the Sanitary Board stepped to the plate with an explanation and/or an estimate of how labor costs would impact the landfill as the least expensive choice. Instead, Chllson demonstrated to council members through a rough illustration what happened took down the incinerator.
“The problems were external [related] to heat exchange; it wasn’t a human problem,” Chllson said.
Prefacing his question by the fifteen years of prior incinerator use without a major breakdown, Councilman Russell Houck asked, “Why didn’t the sensors shut the unit down?” Dwelling on the misreading and catastrophic failure due to coal fuel, Houck pondered, the equipment operated for fifteen years using coal.
“This had never occurred before; it sends a red flag,” Houck stated.
Chllson said, “I’m puzzled too. Something happened to get it too hot.”
Sanitary Board Executive Director Loretta Covington added, “this is why it has taken so long to gather data.”
However, Houck learned the board had no recourse (warranty) on the upgrade even if something was “replaced improperly” by the contractor.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
Sanitary Board Incinerator Complicated Repair Issue
Damage Occurred Despite Detectors
By Tony Rutherford
Huntingtonnews.net Reporter
Huntington, WV (HNN) – Ask the experts about the catastrophic failure of the city’s incinerator in 2006 and you will hear theories on the damage, but no certainties on fix or dismantle it choices.
Stanley J. Chllson , CET Engineering Services, stressed that the cracked tubing from apparent thermo-coupler failure to detect overheating did not come from human error. Unfortunately, the one year warranty elapsed at the time of the 2006 failure and, based on the contract, the incident would not have been one covered anyway.
“The heat exchange failed as a result of another problem,” Chllson said. His best speculation would be that despite readings coal may have continued to heat causing the temperature disparities.
However, the Sanitary Board demonstrated a preference for non-repair and continuation of the current Kentucky landfill operation. They presented a cost comparison that favors the landfill over the incinerator. (Click HERE to download pdf of INCINERATOR history and cost projections on the landfill.)
Jim Ashworth, vice chairman of the board, explained that the choice to repair the incinerator leaves us “stuck” with that choice. “The landfill leaves [an] option to have more flexibility” as new regulatory matters are settled.
Chllson expressed concern over incinerator sludge removal of which the division of environmental protection might mandate some type of compliance pertaining to the fly ash.
Yet of landfill and incinerator options, Chllson noted that apparently the cost spreadsheet provided “has included zero labor” in the landfill option. He did not want to dwell on that point, but council members Jackson and Houck wanted to know more.
No one on the Sanitary Board stepped to the plate with an explanation and/or an estimate of how labor costs would impact the landfill as the least expensive choice. Instead, Chllson demonstrated to council members through a rough illustration what happened took down the incinerator.
“The problems were external [related] to heat exchange; it wasn’t a human problem,” Chllson said.
Prefacing his question by the fifteen years of prior incinerator use without a major breakdown, Councilman Russell Houck asked, “Why didn’t the sensors shut the unit down?” Dwelling on the misreading and catastrophic failure due to coal fuel, Houck pondered, the equipment operated for fifteen years using coal.
“This had never occurred before; it sends a red flag,” Houck stated.
Chllson said, “I’m puzzled too. Something happened to get it too hot.”
Sanitary Board Executive Director Loretta Covington added, “this is why it has taken so long to gather data.”
However, Houck learned the board had no recourse (warranty) on the upgrade even if something was “replaced improperly” by the contractor.
Share This Story:
Make HNN Your Homepage (IE Users Only)
