生活垃圾焚烧项目竣工环保验收自查要点探讨

简述了生活垃圾焚烧项目的行业特点,指出,验收自查是整个验收工作的基础也是最重要的环节。提出,应以《建设项目竣工环境保护验收技术指南污染影响类》为依据,从自查依据、自查方式、自查内容以及对自查结果的处理几方面做好项目验收自查工作,确保验收工作的顺利开展,为项目验收提供参考和保障。     

浅析成都市生活垃圾焚烧发电的经济可行性

根据成都市生活垃圾性状和现有的工业基础及技术经济条件，对成都市建设生活垃圾焚烧发电厂的经济可行性进行了初步分析，指出上网电价为0．25元／千瓦时，政府对处置垃圾的补贴费为50元／吨，是经济可行的。     

城市生活垃圾焚烧发电设施二恶英实测分析

垃圾焚烧是二噁英重要来源之一。本文对城市生活垃圾焚烧发电设施排烟和设施周边的二噁英浓度进行实测与分析，结果表明，合理控制垃圾焚烧锅炉运行工况，可以有效控制焚烧过程中二恶英生成，使其达到国家排放标准。     

废聚丙烯塑料的回收利用技术

介绍了废聚丙烯塑料能源化的方法(焚烧、无氧及有氧条件下的热分解)与资源化回收利用技术(简单再利用、改性再生利用),并对国内外相关方面的研究和应用情况进行了报道。     

我国垃圾焚烧处理现状及其发展

本文对我国垃圾焚烧处理的现状和发展趋势进行了综述。垃圾焚烧处理符合资源化、减量化和无害化的原则,由于经济技术水平的限制,我国城市垃圾的处理主要是以填埋和堆肥为主,焚烧法处理占的比例较少,随着经济技术水平的提高,焚烧处理垃圾将得到迅速的发展。我国垃圾焚烧处理的发展应积极的引进、吸收、消化国外的先进技术,开发生产适合我国国情的垃圾焚烧设备;加强法规建设,实现垃圾焚烧处理的规范化管理;开发废气净化设备及其二次污染控制设备;确保焚烧废气达标排放;有效的对垃圾焚烧排放污染物的监控,保证垃圾焚烧处理设施安全、高效的运行。     

利用生活垃圾填埋场上建设飞灰固化物填埋场适宜性探讨

针对利用原有生活垃圾填埋场改扩建飞灰固化物填埋场,从勘查设计和建设角度,通过与常规生活垃圾填埋的安全和环保各相关因素对比,分析扩建前后填埋场稳定性、防渗及导排系统等勘察设计要点,研讨扩建工程新老填埋堆体基础层、防渗及导排系统等安全环保关键技术及扩建的适宜性,为扩建的可行性研究提出较为系统的技术论证思路.     

焚烧法处理油泥（砂）试验研究

在对江苏油田原油成分及油泥(砂)等物料组分分析的基础上,采用燃料煤与一定比例的油泥(砂)混合进行高温焚烧,试验研究、筛选出一种可以保证燃烧效率的燃料混合配比,从而对油田储油罐和三相分离器中的油泥(砂)进行处理。结果表明:在燃煤中添加30%的油泥(砂),焚烧工况稳定,好于单用燃煤的情况,除SO2外,CO、NOX和烟尘得到较好的控制。     

医疗垃圾焚烧飞灰重金属形态分析

利用原子吸收光谱仪分别对医疗垃圾焚烧飞灰重金属含量和重金属形态及其随颗粒度分布特性进行了分析,结果表明,飞灰中Cd、Zn、Pb等的浸出浓度远超标与这些重金属的可交换态和碳酸盐态含量较高有关;飞灰颗粒度主要在96 μm以下,96～150 μm的颗粒中Cd、Pb含量最高,且Zn、Cd的形态以可交换态为主.     

北京市朝阳区城市生活垃圾组分分布特性研究

针对垃圾焚烧的需要,按垃圾组分低位热值重新进行了垃圾分类,检验了各组分的正态分布特性,得出了服从正态分布的垃圾组分的概率分布密度函数。进行了垃圾含水率的线性相关性分析,认为垃圾含水率与厨余的相关性最大,降水量对含水率影响不大。     

Options for management of municipal solid waste in New York City: a preliminary comparison of health risks and policy implications

Landfill disposal and waste-to-energy (WTE) incineration remain the two principal options for managing municipal solid waste (MSW). One critical determinant of the acceptability of these options is the different health risks associated with each. In this analysis relying on published data and exposure modeling, we have performed health risk assessments for landfill disposal versus WTE treatment options for the management of New York City's MSW. These are based on the realistic scenario of using a waste transfer station (WTS) in Brooklyn and then transporting the untreated MSW by truck to a landfill in Pennsylvania or using a WTE facility in Brooklyn and then transporting the resultant ash by truck to a landfill in Pennsylvania. The overall results indicate that the individual cancer risks for both options would be considered generally acceptable, although the risk from landfilling is approximately 5 times greater than from WTE treatment; the individual non-cancer health risks for both options would be considered generally unacceptable, although once again the risk from landfilling is approximately 5 times greater than from WTE treatment. If one considers only the population in Brooklyn that would be directly affected by the siting of either a WTS or a WTE facility in their immediate neighborhood, individual cancer and non-cancer health risks for both options would be considered generally acceptable, but risks for the former remain considerably higher than for the latter. These results should be considered preliminary due to several limitations of this study such as: consideration of risks only from inhalation exposures; assumption that only volume and not composition of the waste stream is altered by WTE treatment; reliance on data from the literature rather than actual measurements of the sites considered, assuming comparability of the sites. However, the results of studies such as this, in conjunction with ecological, socioeconomic and equity considerations, should prove useful to environmental managers, regulators, policy makers, community representatives and other stakeholders in making sound and acceptable decisions regarding the optimal handling of MSW.