-------
-------
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2
1. Memorandum and attachments from S. Schllesser, MRI, to Project
File 7711-L. November 30, 1985. Telephone contact reports concerning
capacity and annual production, type of incinerator, control
technology, particulate and chromium emissions data, testing
feasibility, stack dimensions, and plume disturbances from nationwide
survey of operating sewage sludge incinerators-.
2. Environmental Regulations and technology; Use and Disposal of
Municipal Wastewater Sludge. EPA 625/10-84-003, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency Technology Transfer* September 1984.
i i
3. Seminar Publication: Municipal Wastewater Sludge Combustion
Technology. EPA/626/4-85/015, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, September 1985. '
1 i -
4- Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions From Stationary Soulrces -
Volume 1. EPA-450/3-81-005a, U. S. Environmental Protection Agen'cy,—*"
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, September 1982.
2-18
-------
-------
3. GENERAL DATA REVIEW AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
3.1 LITERATURE SEARCH AND SCREENING
The first step of this investigation involved a search of available
literature relating to criteria and noncriteria pollutant emissions
associated with sewage sludge incineration. This search included: data
collected under the auspices of State and Territorial Air Pollution
Program Administrators and Association of Local Air Pollution Control
Officials (STAPPA/ALAPCO); source test reports and background documents
for Section 2.5 of AP-42 located in the files of EPA.'s Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS); references cited in the Second
Review of Standards of Performance for Sewage Sludge Incinerators
(EPA 450/3-84-010, March 1984); various EPA contractor reports; and
Midwest Research Institute's (MRI) in-house files.
To reduce the large amount of literature collected to a final group
of references pertinent to this report, the following general criteria •
were used:
1. Emissions data must be from a primary reference:
a. Source testing must be from a referenced study that does not
reiterate information from previous studies.
b. The document must constitute the original source of test data.
For example, a technical paper was not included if the original study was
contained in the previous document. If the exact source of the data could
not be determined, the document was eliminated.
2. The referenced study must contain, test results based on more than
one test run.
3. The report must contain sufficient data to evaluate the testing
procedures and source operating conditions (e.g., one-page reports were
generally rejected).
3-1
-------
A final set of reference materials was compiled after a thorough
review of the pertinent reports, documents, and information according to
these criteria.
3.2 EMISSION DATA QUALITY RATING SYSTEM
As part of MRI's. analysis of the emission data, the quantity and
quality; of the information contained in the final set of reference
documents were evaluated. The following data were always excluded from
consideration.
1. Test series averages reported in units that cannot be converted
to the selected reporting units;
2. Test series representing incompatible test methods (i.e.,
comparison of EPA Method,5 front-half with EPA Method 5 front- and back-
half); .
3. Test series of controlled emissions for which the control device
is not specified;
4. Test series in which the source process is not clearly identified
and described; and l
5. Test series in which it is not clear whether the emissions were
measured before or after the control device. • •
Data sets that were not excluded were assigned a quality ratling. The
rating system used was that specified by the OAQPS for the preparation of
AP-42 sections. The data were rated as follows:
A—Multiple tests performed on the same, source using sound
methodology and reported in enough detail for adequate validation. These
tests do not necessarily conform to the methodology specified in either
the inhalable particulate (IP) protocol documents or the EPA reference
test methods, although these documents and methods were certainly used as
a guide for the methodology actually used.
B—Tests that were performed by a generally sound methodology but
lack enough detail for adequate validation.
C—Tests that were based on an untested or new methodology or that
lacked a significant amount of background data.
D—Tests that were based on a generally unacceptable method but may
provide an order-of-magnitude value for the source. ;
3-2
-------
The-following criteria were used to evaluate source test reports for
sound methodology and adequate detail:
1. Source operation. The manner in which the source was operated is
well documented in the report. The source was operating within typical
parameters during the test.
2." Sampling procedures. The sampling procedures conformed to a
generally acceptable methodology. If actual procedures deviated from
'accepted methods, the deviations are well documented. When this occurred,
an evaluation was rpde of;the extent such alternative procedures could
influence the test results. "
3. i Sampling and process data. Adequate sampling and process data
are documented in the report. Many variations can occur unnoticed'and
without warning during testing1. Such variations can induce wide
deviations in sampling results. If a large spread between test results
cannot be explained by information contained in the test report, the data
are suspect and were given a lower rating.
4. Analysis and calculations. The test reports;contain original raw
data sheets. The nomenclature and equations used were compared to those
(if any) specified by EPA,to establish equivalency. The depth of review
of the calculations was dictated by the reviewer's confidence in the
ability and conscientiousness of the tester, which in turn was based on
i . (
factors such as consistency o^ results and completeness of other areas of
the test report. ' '
3.3 PARTICLE SIZE DETERMINATION
There is no one method'which!is universally accepted for the
determination of partic.le size. A number of different techniques can be
used which measure the,size of particles according to their basic physical
properties. Since there is no "standard" method for particle size
analysis, a certain degree of subjective evaluation was used to determine
if a test series was performed using a sound methodology for particle
sizing.
For pollution studies, the most common types of particle sizing
instruments are cyclones and cascade impactors. Traditionally, cyclones
have been used as a preseparator ahead of a cascade impactor to remove the
larger particles. These cyclones are of the standard reverse-flow design
3-3
-------
whereby the flue gas enters the cyclone through a tangential inlet and
forms a vortex flow pattern. Particles move outward toward the cyclone
wall with a velocity that is determined by the geometry and flow rate in
the cyclone and by their size. Large particles reach the wall and are
collected. A series of cyclones with progressively decreasing cut-points
can be used to obtain particle size.distributions.
Cascade impactors used for the determination of particle.size in
process streams consist of a series of plates or stages containing either
small holes orlslits with the size of the openings decreasing from one
plate to the next. In each stage of an impactor, the gas stream passes
through the orifice or slit to form a jet that is directed toward!an
impaction,plate. For each stage, there is a characteristic particle
diameter that'has a1 50 percent probability of impaction. This
characteristic diameter is called the cut-point (D50) of the stage.
Typically, commercial instruments have six to eight impaction stages with
a backup filter to collect those particles which are either too small to
be collected by the last stage or which are reetrained off the various
impaction surfaces by the moving gas stream.
3.4 PARTICIPATE SIZE DATA ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The ^articulate emission information contained, in the various
reference documents was reduced to a common format using a family of
computer programs developed- especially for this purpose. These programs
use the so-called "spline" fits. Spline fits result in cumulative mass
size distributions very similar to those which would be'drawn using a
French curve and fully logarithmic graph paper. In effect, the logarithm
of cumulative mass is plotted as a function of the logarithm of thje
particle size, and a smooth curve with a continuous, nonnegative [
derivativejis drawn. ;
! * I
The process by which this smooth cumulative distribution is
constructed involves passing an interpolation parabola through three
measured data points at a time. The parabola is then used to interpolate
additional points between measured values. When the set of interpolated
points are added to the original set of data, a more satisfactory fit is
obtained than would be the case using only the measured data. The;size-
specific emission factors are determined once the size distribution is
obtained by a spline fit.
3-4
-------
3.5 EMISSION FACTOR QUALITY RATING SYSTEM
The quality of the emission factors developed from analysis of the
test data was rated utilizing the following general criteria:
A—Excellent; Developed only from A-rated test data taken from many
randomly chosen facilities in the industry population. The source
category is specific enough so that variability within the source category
population may be minimized.
B—Above average; Developed only from A-rated test data from a
reasonable number of facilities. Although no specific bias is evident, it
is not clear if the facilities tested represent a random sample of the
industries. As in the A-rating, the source category is specific enough so
that variability within the source category population.may be minimized.
C—Average; Developed only- from A- and B-rated test data from a
reasonable number of facilities. Although no specific bias is evident, it
is not clear if the facilities tested represent a random sample of the
industry. As in the A-rating, the source category is specific enough so
that variability within the source category population may be minimized.
D—Below average; The emission factor was developed only from A- and
B-rated test data from-a small number of facilities, and there is reason
to suspect that these facilities do not represent a random sample of the
industry. There also may be evidence of variability within the source
category population. Limitations on the use of the emission factor are
noted in the emission factor table.
E—Poor; The emission factor was developed from C- and D-rated test
data, and there is reason to suspect that the facilities tested'do not
represent a random sample of the industry. There also may be evidence of
variability within the source category population. Limitations on the use
i
of these factors are always noted.
The use of these criteria is somewhat subjective and depends to an
extent on the individual reviewer. Details of the rating of each
candidate emission factor are provided in Chapter 4 of this report.
3-5
-------
-------
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3
1.. Technical Procedures for Developing AP-42 Emission Factors and
Preparing AP-42 Sections, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency* Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. April 1980.
2. Interim Report to State/Local APC Agencies of Particle Size
Distributions and Emission Factors (Including PI^TT, Office of .Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. July 1986.
3. Lime and Cement Industry—Source Category Report. Volume II— Cement
Industry, EPA Contract No. 68-02-3891, Midwest Research Institute,
• Kansas City, Missouri. August 1986.
3-6
-------
-------
4. POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTOR DEVELOPMENT
This chapter describes the test data and methodology used to develop
pollutant emission factors for the sewage sludge incineration industry.
4.1 .REVIEW OF SPECIFIC DATA SETS
A total of 84 references were documented and reviewed during the
literature search. These references are listed at the end of this
chapter.
The sources used for emission data for the previous AP-42 versions
are customarily included in the source data for the revision. However,
the few sources used for the 1974 and 1981 versions of the Sewage Sludge
Incineration AP-42 are not of the quality found in most of the data
collected for this revision. Further, the sources used in the previous
versions are based on 1972 and 197.3 reports. Therefore, none of these
data were used in this revision.
The following efforts were made to ensure that the selection and
rating of reference documents did not introduce a bias in the data. The
majority of references used (82 percent) were compliance test reports.
Given the impetus for compliance testing, these reports would be expected
to characterize facilities with various levels of maintenance, operation,
and control. Eighteen percent of the references used in this report were
classified as research or special study tests. In some cases, it could be
reasoned that such studies would involve testing of fcicilities with above
average maintenance, operation, and control and would,, therefore, not be
representative of the industry. Rather than downgrade the ratings for
these references, each reference was considered on its; own merit.
The original group of 84 documents was reduced to a final set of
primary references utilizing the criteria outlined in Chapter 3. For the
39 reference documents not used, the reason(s) for rejection are
summarized below: ,
4-1
-------
Ref. Reason for rejection
8 Back-half collection included in results
23 Control device not specified
31 Insufficient lab, process, analytical data
35b Duplicate of test in References 34 n and s ;
36 Not primary data !
37a, b • Insufficient lab, process, analytical data
38 Duplicate of test in Referenced
41a-j Test results based on only one run
46 Duplicate of test in Reference 42
50 Not primary data
51 Test results based on only one run
52 Insufficient process, control data
55 Duplicate of test in Reference 30
56 Insufficient lab, process, analytical data
57 Insufficient lab, process, analytical data
58 Insufficient lab, process, analytical data
59 Test results on only one run
60 Test results on only one run :
61 Test results on only one run
62 Insufficient lab, process, analytical data
63 Insufficient lab, process, analytical data
64 Insufficient lab, process, analytical data
65 Insufficient process data
66 Insufficient lab, process, analytical data
73 Control device not specified
74 . Averages cannot be converted into selected reporting units
76 Scale reading problems during test
82 Insufficient lab, process, analytical data
83 Duplicate of tests in Reference 5
The following is a discussion of the data contained in each of the primary
references used to develop candidate emission factors. Emission factor
calculations were made in terms of weight of pollutant per weight of dry
sludge incinerated. It should be noted that the terms "controlled'" and
"uncontrolled" in this discussion are indicative only of the location at
which the measurements were made. •
A summary of the particulate emission data discussed below is'
contained in Tables 4-1 and 4-2. Tables 4-3 through 4-7 present summaries
of criteria pollutant (other than particulate matter) data, and Tables 4-8
through 4-16 contain summaries of noncriteria pollutant data. Table 4-17
summarizes the data presented in Tables 4-1 through 4-16.
4-2
-------
4.1.1 References 1 Through 3
References 1 through 3 are tests performed on three different sludge
incinerators by an EPA contractor.' These tests were performed to gather
emission data for a study conducted under Tier 4 of the National Dioxin
Study. The primary objective of the tests was to determine the presence
of dioxins and/or furan emissions from -the incineration process.
Controlled data for these emissions are provided in References 1 and 2.
Reference 3 contains controlled and uncontrolled emissions data.
In References 1 and 3, testing results were also presented for
uncontrolled emissions of oxides of nitrogen, (NOX), sulfur dioxide (S02),
and carbon monoxide (CO). Uncontrolled nonmethane volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions results were provided in References i and 2.
These values were obtained from continuous monitoring of the combustion
gases during the dioxin/furan tests.
A rating of A was assigned to the.data in each of the tests for
criteria pollutants.. A rating of B was assigned to the toxic organics
(dioxins and furans) data because EPA Modified Method 5 was used for
sampling. Modified Method 5 has not yet.been validated for organics
sampling by the Agency.
4.1.2 Reference 4 i
This report comprises emission tests performed o.n a fluidized-bed
incinerator to demonstrate the relationship between the temperature of
Incineration and the emissions of certain trace metals. The tests were
performed at three different operating temperatures. Results were
obtained for controlled emissions of total particulate matter and metals
(arsenic [As], cadmium [Cd], chromium [Cr], lead [Pb], and nickel [Ni]).
Modified Method 5 and source assessment sampling system (SASS) train
results were presented for each test, but the report states that SASS
train results were used in preference to the Modified Method 5 results
because approximately 10 times as much flow was sampled by the SASS train '
method. Metal emissions did increase with increasing incineration
temperature. Operating temperatures for a fluidized-bed incinerator
usually range from 680° to 820°C (1250° to 1500°F). These tests were
conducted at 704°, 816°, and 927°C (1300°F, 1500°F and 1700°F).
The data in this report were assigned a rating of B.
4-3
-------
Particle size determinations for controlled emissions were made by
sampling with an Andersen Cascade Impactor. !
4.1.3 References 5o through 5r :
These references contain data from participate and gaseous emissions
tests conducted at four sludge incinerators. Each test provides:
controlled particulate matter emission data, and, except for incinerator
"q," uncontrolled data are also presented. Controlled emission factors
for Cd, Cr, Pb, S02, and H2S<-\ are presented for each incinerator. Data
from incinerator "p" include controlled results for Nf. Uncontrolled
emission factors for S02 and ti^SO^ are presented for incinerators "o,"
"p," and "r."
A rating of A was assigned to the data for incinerators "o" and
"p." These reports provided adequate detail for validation, and the
methodology appeared to be sound. The report for incinerator "q" did not
contain sufficient process information to determine whether the .
incinerator was operating within design specifications. The report for
incinerator "r" showed a wide, unexplained deviation in test results. For
these reasons, References 5q and 5r were given,a B rating.
4.1.4 References 6 and 7
These are chromium and organics screening study test reports. The
tests were conducted by an EPA contractor on two incinerators located at
the same site. Tests were conducted at the inlet and outlet of the
scrubber to determine the.concentration and mass emission rates of total
particulate matter, semivolatile organic compounds and VOC's. Results
were also obtained for controlled methane VOC emissions.
Total particulate matter emissions were determined using EPA
Method 5. Volatile organic compounds were measured with a Volatile
Organic Sampling Train (VOST) and semivolatile organic compound emissions
were determined using Modified Method 5 with an XAD-2 resin trap.
The data for metals and total particulate matter presented in
i
Reference 7 were assigned a rating of A. The data for semivolatile
organic compound emissions, presented in Reference 6, were rated B because
Modified Method 5 has not been approved for sampling of these compounds.
The report states that the VOC results must be considered" as "estimates"
because the samples saturated the analytical systems during analysis.
4-4
-------
Further, the inlet results were obtained from one incinerator and the
outlet results from another. Therefore, the volatile organic emission
results were assigned a rating of D and will be used for "order-of-
magnitude" values only.
Particle size distribution measurements were made at the scrubber
inlet, and outlet. Four samples were collected at the scrubber inlet and -
five at the scrubber outlet. Particle size fractions were analyzed
gravimetrically. Because the Method 5 particulate matter tests were
; conducted at the same time, the particle size determinations were made, the
results can be used in the development of particle size-specific emission
factors.
4.1.5 References 9 through 13
These are the results of five particulate matter emissions compliance
tests performed on five different sludge incinerators located at one
treatment plant. 'Each test was conducted in accordance with EPA Methods 1
through 5 and provided controlled emissions data.
It was determined that the tests were generally of good quality.
However, original raw field data sheets, laboratory data sheets, and
sampling train calibration data were not included with the reports. For
this reason, a rating of B was assigned to the test da.ta in these
references.
4.1.6 References 14 and 15
These are reports of compliance tests conducted to determine
particulate matter emissions from two different sludge incinerators. Each
test was performed in accordance with EPA Methods 1 through 5 and provided
controlled emissions data. The quality of each test was generally good.
However, in each case, information pertaining to design operating
parameters (e.g., sludge feed rate) was not provided; thus, it could not
' be determined if the sources were operating within typical ranges of these
parameters. Therefore, the test data from these references were assigned
a rating of B.
4.1.7 Reference 16
Reference 16 is a particulate matter emissions compliance test report
that provides controlled emissions data. The tests were performed in
accordance with EPA Methods 1 through 5. The quality £>f the tests and
4-5
-------
process description provided were good, and the information required was
complete. A rating of A was assigned to the test data.
4.1.8 References 17 through 20
References 17 and 18 contain the results of two compliance tests for
one incinerator. References 19 and 20 contain information from compliance
tests for two incinerators at,another'site. For each test, EPA Methods 1,
2, 3, and 5 were used to provide controlled particulate matter emissions
data. • • -
The quality of each test was good, and enough detail was provided for
adequate validation. The test data from each reference were, assigned a
rating of A.
4.1.9 Reference 21
Reference 21 is a source sampling report of testing performed
concurrently at the sludge incinerator scrubber inlet and scrubber stack
to determine particulate matter emissions and particle size
distributions. The results of the EPA Method 5 tests provided controlled
and uncontrolled particulate matter emissions data.
The tests were of good quality and all necessary data pertaining to
process descriptions and sampling and analytical data were provided.
However, because design parameters for the incinerator were missing, it is
not known if the source was operating within typical ranges for these
parameters during the test. Because of this, the data were rated B.
Particle sizing was performed using a cascade impactor attached to a
probe on the Method 5 sampling train. The report presents the scrubber
collection efficiencies by particle size range.
4.1.10 References 22a through 22d
These compliance test reports present controlled particulate
emissions data for incinerators within the same metropolitan sewer
district. The tests were performed using EPA Methods 1 through 5. While
the testing methodology appears to be sound, all four reports lacked
enough detail for adequate validation. Field, laboratory, and calibration
data were not provided in the reports. In addition, the conditions under
which the source was operated- were not well documented. For these
reasons, each of the four tests was assigned a C rating.
4-6
-------
4.1.11 References 24 and 25 ',
These are reports of two participate matter emissions compliance
tests performed on the same incinerator at different times. The testing
methodology was sound, and the level of detail of the documentation was
adequate (except for missing design parameters). However, the-results of
the tests, taken only 1 month apart, show a wide,deviation. Participate
matter emissions averaged 1.62 kilograms per dry megagram of sludge (3.25
pounds per dry ton of sludge) in the first test and 0.36 kilograms per dry
megagram of sludge (0.73 pounds per dry ton of sludge).in the second
test. While there may be a reasonable technical explanation for the
deviation, none was provided. Therefore, each test v/as assigned a C
rating.
'4.1.12 References 26 through 29
These are reports.of compliance tests conducted on four different
sludge incinerators. Results are presented for controlled emissions of
total particulate matter, NOX (for References 26 through 28), S02, acid
gases (HC1 for References 26 through 28, and HaSO^ for Reference 27), and
methane VOC. Reference 29 also contains controlled CO emission data.
Reference 28 containing controlled Pb and Kg emissions data. Controlled
metal emissions'data are included in References 26 and 28 for As, Cd, Cr,
and Ni. Metal emissions data from Reference 27 were not used because,
according to information obtained from the State agency, the results were
based on sludge analysis.
The testing methodology for each test appeared to be generally
sound. Each of the reports lacked sufficient detail for adequate
validation of the results. Also, this:State requires front- and back-half
collections to be included in particulate matter emission results, and the
reports did not include a breakdown of the collections. The State agency
was contacted for additional information including dry feed rates for each
of the test runs and weights for the front-half collections of particulate
matter. .
Because raw data sheets, design feed rates, and other process data
were missing from the reports, each data set was rated B.
4-7
-------
4.1.13 Reference 30
Reference 30 is a participate matter emissions compliance test
report. Sufficient documentation was provided for validation and the
testing methodology was generally sound. However, the first run of the
test was made with the percentage of isokinetic nozzle velocity less than
the desired minimum of 9.0. The report discussion mentions this deviation
and states that corrections were made for this in the report.
Nevertheless, it was decided that only the second and third runs would be,
used in determining the average emission value for this test. A rating of
B was assigned to the data.
4.1.14 Reference 32
This compliance report presented the results for particulate matter
emissions testing of one sludge incinerator. The testing methodology was
sound and the level of documentation was sufficient for validation
purposes. However, background data pertaining to the source operation and
design parameters were not provided. For this reason, the data were
assigned a B rating.
4.1.15 Reference 33
Reference 33 is a particulate matter emissions compliance report for
one sludge incinerator. The tests were performed in accordance with EPA
Method 5 and provided controlled emissions data. Complete background
information and testing details were provided. The data were given an A
rating.
4.1.16 Reference 34n and s
This report presents the results of a source emissions survey
conducted for an incineration systems manufacturer. Testing was performed
on two incinerators at one site to determine particulate matter
concentrations at both the scrubber inlet and outlet. Tests at the
scrubber inlet consisted of one run for each incinerator and both back-
and front-half collections were used. Three runs were used for each
outlet test, and the results were based on the front-half collections
only.
The testing methodology was sound and the source process was
described adequately. Original field data, calibration information, and
laboratory analysis sheets were not included in the report. For this
4-8
-------
reason, the controlled (outlet) data for each test were given a B
rating. Uncontrolled (inlet) data were assigned a D rating because the
results were based on a single run. These data (using the front-half
collection results only) may provide an order-of-magnitude value for the
source. .
-Particle size distribution for uncontrolled emissions was determined
using a Coulter Counter. Results of particle sizing are presented in
.Reference 35b (a duplicate of the participate emissions test described in
Reference 34).
4.1.17 References 35a, 35c, 35d, and 35e
These are reports presenting emission data for four infrared sludge
incinerators. Each of 'the reports provides controlled particulate matter
emission data, and Reference 35e provides uncontrolled data as well.
Reference 35e also presents emissions data for NOX and S02 before and
after the control device.
The data are part of summary reports compiled for an incinerator
manufacturer, and background information was not included. Raw data,
analytical reports, sampling procedures, calibration information, and
process descriptions were missing. Because of these deficiencies, each of
the tests was assigned a C rating.
References 35a and 35e provided controlled and uncontrolled particle
size data. In the case of Reference 35a, the'uncontrolled particulate
size distribution data were established 5 months after the particulate
loading tests. Therefore, these data cannot be used.
4.1.18 References 39 and 40
These reports are part of research projects designed to investigate
the performance of air pollutant abatement systems for controlling metals
and organics emitted from sewage sludge incinerators. The tests were
conducted by an EPA contractor. The reports pertain to tests conducted to
determine the efficiency of an ESP and a baghouse, respectively. In each
case, testing was done on incinerators with existing scrubber systems, and
slipstreams were used for experimental testing of the control devices.
Because comparative data were needed, the reports contain scrubber inlet
and outlet data representing emissions not controlled by the ESP or the
baghouse.
4-9
-------
Controlled and uncontrolled emissions data are provided in
Reference 39 for particulate matter, As, Cd, Cr, Pb, and Ni. Uncontrolled
emissions data are presented for nonmethane VOC's in both reports and for
NOX, CO, and S02 in Reference 39.
The methodologies were sound, and background information and '
documentation provided were- complete, in both reports. Therefore, both
reports were assigned A ratings.
Each report provides controlled and uncontrolled particulate matter .
mass concentrations by SASS size fractions.
4.1.19 References 42 through 44
These are particulate matter emission compliance reports for sludge
incinerators at three different sites. In each case, the methodologies
were sound, and appropriate background information and documentation were
provided. Each data set was given an A rating.
4.1.20 Reference 45
This is a particulate matter and sulfur dioxide emissions test report
for a sludge incinerator. The report provides controlled emissions data
for each of these pollutants. While the methodology used was sound* the
report did not include sufficient background information to establish the
design feed rate value. Therefore, a.B rating was assigned to the data.
4.1.21 Reference 47
Reference 47 is a particulate matter emission compliance report for
one sludge incinerator. Method 5 procedure was used for the test. The
report did not include complete documentation for validation purposes, nor
did it provide design parameters for the source. Therefore, the data were
given a rating of B.
4.1.22 References 48 and 49 i
These references are reports of two particulate matter emission
compliance tests for the same incinerator. The tests were done in, 1982
and 1984. Each report contained documentation adequate for validation,
and the test methodologies were deemed to be sound. An A rating was
assigned to each.
4-10
-------
4.1.23 References 53 and 54
These are reports of compliance tests performed on two different
sludge incinerators. The reports contain controlled emissions data for
participate matter. Reference 53 also contains data for Hg emissions
after the control device.
In each case, sound testing methodologies were used. However, each
report lacked enough detail for adequate validation, e.g., source manner
of operation was not well documented. The State agency was contacted to
determine dry feed rates for use in emission factor calculations. Both
reports were assigned a B rating. j
4.1.24 References 67 through 72 ,'
References 67 through 72 comprise seven compliance tests on seven
different sludge incinerators. Each of the reports presents controlled
particulate matter emissions data. Other controlled emissions data
reported include: Reference 68—NOX, CO, and nonmethane VOC's;
Reference 69—NOX, S02, and methane VOC's; References 71 and 72—NOX, and
S02.
Each of the tests was considered to have used sound testing
methodologies, and the reports included enough detail .for adequate
validation. The data were assigned an A rating in each case.
4.1.25 Reference 75
This is a report of a compliance test performed on one .incinerator
and provides controlled particulate matter emissions data. Sufficient
process information and field data were provided for validation of the
results. However, no information regarding the sampling procedures and
test methodology was included with the report. The State agency was
contacted for this information and confirmed that EPA Method 5 was used.
The data were assigned a rating of A.
4.1.26 References 77 through 79
References 77 through 79 are reports of compliance tests performed on
three different sludge incinerators. Each test report provides controlled
particulate matter emissions data, and Reference 79 also provides
controlled emissions data for nonmethane VOC's. For each test report, the
methodology was judged to be sound. Each report included appropriate and
complete background information with details sufficient for validation.
The reports were assigned A ratings.
4-11
-------
4.1.27 Reference 80
This is a report of a compliance test performed on one sludge
incinerator. Controlled particulate matter emissions results are
presented. Laboratory, calibration, and field data sheets were provided,
but information pertaining to the source process was not included. The
State agency was contacted to obtain this information. The .data were
assigned an A rating.
4.1.28 Reference 81
This compliance test report provides controlled emissions data for
total particulate matter. The testing methodology was judged to be sound,
and adequate detail was provided for validation. A rating of A was .
assigned to the data.
4.1.29 Reference 84 .
This test report provides controlled emissions data for noncriteria
pollutants. The report included original raw field data sheets,
laboratory data sheets, sampling train calibration data, and process
data. The quality of each test was good. The data from the reference
were assigned a rating of A.
4.2 RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS •
4.2.1 Total Particulate Matter Emissions Data
Both uncontrolled and controlled particulate matter emission factors
were determined from the data contained in the reference documents
'described above. In the case of uncontrolled emissions, References 5o, p,
r; 7; 21; 34n and s; 35e; and 39 contained useful data. For all of these
except Reference 39, the emission factors were determined from the test
data by manual and computer calculations from emission factors expressed
in units other than mass of pollutant per megagram of dry sewage sludge
incinerated. For Reference 39, the appropriate uncontrolled emission
factor was extracted directly from the test report. References 34n and s
each contained a single-run value for uncontrolled particulate matter
emissions. As discussed in Section 4.1.16, these emission results were
used as order-of-magnitude values only.
For controlled processes, a procedure similar to that described'above
for determining uncontrolled emission factors was used. References 4; 5o
through 5r; 7; 9 through 21; 22a through 22d; 24 through 30; 32; 33; 34n
4-12
-------
and 34s; 35a, 35c, 35d, 35e; 39; 49; 53; 54; 67 through 72; 75; 77 through
81; and 84 contained useful data. Except for References 4, 10, 11, 13,
15S 17 through 22a-22d, 23, 24, 25, 32, 33, 34n and 34s, 35c and 35d, 39,
42, 47, 48, 49, and 70, the controlled emission factors were calculated
(manually and with the computer program) from data presented in other
terms. A summary of all available particulate matter: emission factors is
shown in Table 4-1.
4.2.2 Particle Size Data , ,. .
Both uncontrolled 'and controlled particulate matter emission factors
were determined from the data contained in the reference documents
described above. In the case of uncontrolled "emissions, References 7, 21,
35a, 34n and s, and 35e contained useful data. For controlled emissions,
References 4, 7, 21,, 35a, and 35e contained useful data. A summary of all
available PM10 emission factors is shown in Table 4-2.
4.2.3 Other Criteria, Pollutant. Emissions Data
4.2.3.1 Volatile Organic Compounds. Controlled VOC emission factors
were determined for both methane and nonmethane VOC's. References 68, 79,
and 84 were used to determine controlled nonmethane VOC emission
factors. References 6, 26 through 29, and 69 were used to determine
controlled methane VOC emission factors.. Uncontrolled nonmethane VOC
emission factors were determined from data contained in References 1, 2,
39, and 40. No data were available to develop emission factors for
uncontrolled methane VOC's. In all cases, the emission factors were
determined from the test data by calculations from emission factors
expressed in terms other than mass of pollutant per megagram of dry sludge
incinerated. A summary of VOC emission factors is shown in Table 4-3.
4.2.3.2 Lead. Controlled Pb emission factors were determined from
the data contained in References 4, 5o through 5r, 28, 39, and 84. Only
Reference 39 contained uncontrolled emissions data. None of the data
reports indicated that Pb emission values were based on data from lead
compounds. Therefore, elemental Pb was assumed in each case. Because the
lead emission factor is the sum of both front- and back-half catches, the
lead emission weight cannot be compared to the particulate matter emission
weight.
4-13
-------
In each case, calculations were performed to convert from the units
used in the reports to conventional emission factor units. A summary of
Pb emission factors is shown in Table 4-4.
4.2.3.3 Sulfur Dioxide, Oxides of Nitrogen and Carbon Monoxide.
Data for determining uncontrolled emission factors for S02 were taken from
References 1, 3, 5o, 5p, 5r, 3.5e, and .39. Uncontrolled, emissions data for
NOX were taken from References 1, 3, 35e, and 39; and for CO from
References, 1, 3, 39,, and 84.
Controlled emissions data used to determine emission factors were
provided in the following reports: ,
S02: References 5o through 5r, 26 through 29, 35e, 45, 69,,71, and
72 •
NOX: References 26 through 28, 35e, 68, 69, 71, and 72 ,
CO: References 29, 68, and 72.
The emission factors were determined from, the test data by calculations.
Tables 4-5 through 4-7 present a summary of emission factors for those
pollutants.
4.2.4 Noncriteria Pollutant Emissions Data
4.2.4.1 Acid Gases. Reference 5o, 5p, and 5r contained data for
uncontrolled acid gas (H2SOO emissions. References 5o through 5r and 27
provided data for the determination of controlled emission factors for
HaSO,,. References 26 through 28 were used for emission factors for HC1.
Calculations were required to convert into conventional emission factor
units. A summary of acid gas emission factors is shown in Table 4-8.
4.2.4.2 Toxic Organics. References 1, 2, 3, and 84 were used for
the development of controlled emission factors for several dioxin and
furan compounds. Tables 4-9 through 4-14 present summaries of organic
emission factors.
4.2.4.3 Noncriteria Metals. Reference 39 provided uncontrolled
emission data for As, Cd, Cr, and Ni. Reference 7 provided uncontrolled
emission data for Cd. References 4, 26, 28, and 39 provided data for the
determination of controlled emission factors for As, Cd, Cr, and Ni.
Reference 5p was used for Cd, Cr, and Ni. References 5o, 5q, and 5r were
used for controlled emissions of Cd and Cr. No emission data were
presented for Be. Controlled emissions data were presented for Hg in
4-14
-------
References 28 and 53. All results were converted to conventional emission
factor reporting units. A summary of emission factors for metals is
presented in Tables 4-15 and 4-16.
4.3 PROTOCOL FOR DATA BASE -
4.3.1 Engineering Methodology
Using the criteria discussed'in Section 3.2, 29 reports representing
39 source tests were rejected. The remaining 55 reports representing 65
source tests were thoroughly reviewed to establish a data base for the
following classes of pollutants: particulate matter and other criteria
pollutants, acid gases, metals, and organic compounds.
Data log forms (see Appendix A) were created to document and
facilitate transfer of reported emission and process.information to
pollutant-specific data base files created using dBase III™. A program
was written to perform most of the calculations and to present the results
in a consistent and comparable format. Pollutant-specific tables were
generated by computer to (1) list results for uncontrolled and controlled
emission levels and collection efficiency, (2) present emission results as
an emission factor in pollutant mass per mass of sludge feed, and
(3) identify the facility by reference number and type. The sections
below briefly describe the methodology and rationale used to develop the
data base files and programs.
The emission data, documented on the data log forms, were averaged as
the arithmetic mean of different sampling runs prior to inclusion in the
data base. Test programs at most facilities consisted of three sampling
runs conducted during distinct and controlled normal operating
conditions.
Due to the variety of formats used to report units of measure at
different sludge incineration facilities, the emission data required some
preprocessing to standardize the units of measure prior to computer
calculation of emission factors. Emission factors were then calculated in
terms of kg/Mg of dry sludge and Ib/ton of dry sludge for all pollu-
tants. Computerized preprocessing was possible with the data bases for
acid gases, criteria pollutants, and' organic compounds; because the variety
of measurement units was limited. The list of conversion factors used in
the data base preprocessing is included as Table 4-18.
4-15
-------
In the acid gases and criteria pollutants data bases, some ;
preprocessing required simple calculations in addition to unit
conversions. If the pollutant-specific data, 01, were reported in ng/dscm
. corrected to 12 percent C02 in the test report, the following calculation
DI=Dlx(percent concentration of C02)/12
was performed to,present the "unconnected" value in the resulting table.
When the data, Dl, were reported in ng/dscf in the test report, the
conversion
01=01x35.31
was required to present Dl as ng/dscm. Acid gas and criteria pollutant
data were presented in ppmdv corrected to 12 percent C02. In order to
convert data, Dl, from mg/dscm .corrected to 12 percent C02 to ppmdv at
12 percent CO2, the relation
Dl=Dlx(1000x0.02404)/(molecuTar weight of pollutant)
was employed.
Calculation of emission factors ,was performed using conversion
factors (CF's) to relate process conditions to emission concentration
levels. The CF's were calculated manually for each facility that provided
percent concentration of C02, process feed rate, and stack gas flow
measurements. The emission factors in 10'10 Ib/ton were calculated using
the "corrected" concentration data in English units, El in 10~10 gr/dscf,
and the following equation
EF=CFxEl
where
CF
(Percent concentration of C02)(stack gas flow in dscfm)(7.14xlO~'t)
Process rate in ton/h~
The emission factor in ug/Mg were then calculated using
EF in ug/Mg=(EF in lO'10 Ib/ton)x0.05
In order to calculate emission factors from data presented in ppmdv at
12 percent C02, a second conversion factor, CCF, was needed. -CCF was
defined as
CCF = (molecular weight of pollutant)(1.3xlO"f(CF)
7.14x10^
4-16
-------
An emission factor value may be calculated from
EF in Ib/ton feed=(Dl in ppmdv @ 12 percent C02)(CCF).
Because test periods were nonsimultaneous, CF values for some facilities
were different for the various pollutants., Determinations of emission
factors were made only when process feed rates were documented or
derivable from plant records of sludge process rates,,
Quality control and quality assurance procedures were used to assure
that the data base accurately reflected the reported test data. Each data
log form was checked by other MRI staff to assure documentation of
reported emission and process data prior to development of the computer
data base. 'The data log forms provided the structure for the computer
data base files and quality check. After emission tables were generated,
a final comparison was made between randomly selected test reports, their
associated data log form, and the produced emission table to assure the
quality of the data acquisition and the associated calculations.
4.3.2 Computer Programming Methodology
The dBase III™ programs initially were modified and.titled in a
pollutant-specific fashion; these gradually were developed into a more
generalized format to allow for improved quality control and consistent
data manipulation. The programs were written in a modular fashio.n with a
main procedure, MAINRPT, calling several subroutines. The subroutines
were designed to (1) conduct the preprocessing and emission factor
calculations; (2) print the table heading and column identifications;
(3) print the facility reference number, type, control device type, and
facility rating; and (4) print the emission factors in SI and English
units.
The data base files remained pollutant specific so that the files
could be checked against the test reports. These files are presented in
Table 4-19. These data base files were used to generate the pollutant-
specific tables shown in Table 4-20. These programs required simple
modifications prior to producing the desired tables. These modifications
included selecting desired table number and data type and altering the
field name used in the program to reflect this data type.
4-17
-------
TABLE 4-1. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR PARTICIPATE MATTER FROM
, SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS
Source category/reference/rating
Uncontrolled,
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
Control led,
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
Efficiency,
percent
Multiple hearth
Cyclone
5r,b
79,a
Cyclone/impingement
78,a
Cyclone/venturi
10,b
ll,b
13,b
84,a
Cyclone/venturi/impingement
39,a
23.1 (46.2)
15.9 (3-1
1.17 (2.34)
2.930 (5.86)
0.404 (0.808)
0.240 (0.480)
0;280 (0.560)
0.150 (0.300)
0.368 (0.736)
0.309 (0;618:)
94.9
98.1
Impingement
50, a
5p,a
7, a
9,b
12, b
22d,c
30, b
53,b
54, b
/t*T •*
67, a
68, a
71, a
72, a
75, a
Ventur i
21 ,b '
O A
24, c
25, c
26, b
27, b
1+\ f *
32, b
47, b
70, a
77, a
Ventur i /imp i ngement
15,b
16, a
n_
,a
18, a
19, a
20, a
22a,c
22b,c
22c,c
33, a
42, a
45, b
48, a
49, a .
• i ' , i | ,
s 178 (356) ' • 0.458 (0.916) ' 99
13.4 (26.8) 1.72 (3.44) 87.
7.7 (15.4) 0.108 (0.216) . 98
0.916 (1.832)
0.937 (1.874)
0.375 (0.750)
0.233 (0.466)
. 0.574 (1.148)
> 0.521 (U 042)
K116 (2.232)
1.16 (2.32)
0.179 (0.358)
0.726 (1.452)
0.233 (0.466) ;•
12.4 (24.8) 1.-73 (3.46) 86.
0.365 (0.730)
1.625 '(3.250) - • '
0.274 (0.548)
7.065 (14.13)
1.60 (3.20)
0.540 (1.08)
0.429 (0.859)
0.880 (1.76)
0.235 (0.470)
0.411 (0.822)
0.105 (0.210)
0.270 (0.540)
0.370 (0.740)
0.290 (0.580)
0.925 (1.850)
0.460 (0.920)
0.865 (1.730)
0.255 (0.510)
0.165 (0.330)
0.509 (1.018)
0.910 (1.820)
5.60 (11.2)
(continued)
4-18
-------
TABLE 4-1. (continued)
Source category/ Uncontrolled, Controlled, Efficiency
reference/rating kg/Mg (Ib/ton) kg/Mg (Ib/ton) percent '
80>a 0.6367T7272)
81»a 0.170 (0.340)
Fluidjzed bed
Cyc I one/vent'ur i / i mp i ngement
• 43>a . . - 0.431-:(0.862)
44>a ' . 0.55-(1.10)
Impingement
5(*>b 0.114 (0.228)
„ 14'b. 0.149 (0.298)
Ventun
69'a , 0.570 (1
Ventur i/i mp i ngement
4»b 0.090(0.180)
28>b 0.292 (0.584)
29»b ' 0.427 (0.854)
Electric infrared
Cyclone/venturi
35c»c ' 1.93 (3.86)
Imprngement
35a'c 0.821 (1.642)
Venturi/impingement
34n,d,b 2.50 (5.00) 0.472 (0.944) . 81 1
34s,d,b° 4.05 (8.10) . 0.640 (1.28)
35d'c ' 0.875 (1.750)
35e'c 4.55 (9.10) 1.818 (3.636) 60.0
'aEfficiency cannot be calculated due to different inlet and outlet test run times.
4-19
-------
TABLE 4-2. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR PARTICLE SIZE (PM10) DATA
FROM SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS
Source category/
reference/rating ,
Multiple hearth
Impingement
7,a
Venturi
21,b
Fluldized bed
Venturi
4,b
Electric infrared
[raping enent
3Sa,c
Venturi/impingqment
34n,d
34s, d
35e,c
Cut
diameter,
microns
0.625 ".
1.00
2.50
5.00
10.0
. 15.0
0.625
1.00
2.50
5.00
10.0
15.0
0.625
1.0
2.50
5.00
10.0
15.0
0.625
1.0
2.50
5.00
10.0
15.0 ,
0.625
1.0
2.50
5.00
10.0
15.0
0.625
1.0
2.50
5.00
10.0
15.0
0.625
1.0
' 2.50
5.00
10.0
15.0
Uncontrolled
Cum. % < cut
4.11
6.37
15.0
28.7
54.8
80.0
12.7
13.6
15.4
16.9
18.5
19.6
59.4
65.3
78.5
90.3
99.0
100.0
59.8
65.7
78.9
90.6
99,0
100.00
U.I
13.9
23.2
36.9
64.4
93.7
Emission
factor,
Ib/ton feed
0.61
0.94
2.22
4.24
8.11
11.8
3.17
3.38
3.82
4.19
4.61
4.87
0.17
0.19
0.23
0.26
0.29
0.29
0.88
0.97
1.16
1.33
1.46
1.47
1.01
1.26
2.11
3.36
5.86
8.53
Controlled
Cum. % < cut
- 59; 3 .
62.4
68.9
74.3
80.1
83.7
73.9
77.2 .
84.3
90.1
96.2
99.3
32
60
71
78
86
92
3.41
5.32
12.6
24.3
46.8
68.9
31.1
36.2
49.4
63.9
85.5
100.0
Emission
factor,
Ib/ton feed
Osl~5
0.16
0.17
0. 19 . '
0.20
0.21
2.59
: 2.71
2.96
.3.16
3.38
3.49
0.16
0.30
0.35
0.39
0.43
0.46
0. 059
0.092
0.22
0.42
0.81
1.19
1.13
1.32
1.80
2.33
3.11
3.64
Control
efficiency, %
•>
75.
83
92
96
98
98'
18
20
23
25
27
28
__
15
31
47
57
4-20
-------
- oo
z
o
Q_
o
CJ
O
>— 1 '
z.
i •
o
UJ
-J i
1 — 1 (/)
l— a:
S £2
0 a:
LLJ
cz. z
O HH
t i f__j
OO i— i
O UJ
H-CD
o a
U 1
oo
f*"*} 1 1 1
i — i CD
oo <:
oo ^s
i— t UJ
s: oo
UJ
2:
u_ o
o a:
5_ u-
> C
•i- O CO
<*- c o
M- cu s-
LU T- CU
o a.
'
**—
. c
a
«— ^
O -Q
C
O' cr
OS
^•^
S- cr
CU v
-M
cC CU
O
CU
CU
c
JC
-M
CU
1
0
CU
-C
CU
•s*
a
ja
C
Cr
^
cr
«*
.' CU
1—
o
c:
0
o
5
CU
(0
O)
£
0
z
CU
03
_E
CU
2:
"*«. cn
O -M
CU 5-
reS cu
O 0
CU CU
0 S-
1- CU
3 <«-
O CU
00 S-
^^^ ^^^ **"*l
^O ^^ 1^^. i
° S in ' .
CO . ' ^J|
' H2 ^, LO
^ S g-
«-l CM .
O
oo «a- icTv
r*. ID •
' ' • O 'CM
O . ,rH
O •>-'
• O^ 1^5
1 Cn , 1^^ <^-
1 o o 1.0
1 ' *
0
•r-~* ^-+*~**-~.
CM «3- CM VO
o CM cn i— i •
• • CM CM
«— l , IO • •
o o V^ '
«— ' CM IO CO
' • t 1 T— t
O CM • •
O O
, '
1
C
CU
CU
cn
•I —
a.
C
^
I I
i r i § ' -i
cu cu cu • § .,- -a
(-} —^ fj* ^^ _ p>4- ^_ _^ *~ ^* ^^ —3 ** '** ^J
£gi^ OCMOO o^Tco^r 1-««, |SKi ;-5
^ *~H > ZJ
_ _. t—
-*- LL-
j
O CO O
en r-- CM
CO o ^
1 — ' O .-1
ir> cn
IO CO O
• T 1 1 1
1-1 o ^
o
_,_,
c
cu
cu
Cn
Q.
•« — •! —
t» o3 &. ^*> f">
3 «> zj • «
•*-> cn -M co cn
C IO C CM CM
cu cu
^> ^>
4-21
-------
TABLE 4-4. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR LEAD FROM SEWAGE SLUDGE
INCINERATORS
Source category/
reference/rat i ng
Uncontrolled,
kg/Mg' (Ib/ton)
Control led,
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
Eff iciency,
percent
.Multiple hearth
CycI one
5r,b
CycIone/ventur i
84,a
CycIone/ventur i/i mp ingement
39,a
Impingement'
50,a ,
5p,a ' • ' ' i
Fluidized bed
Impingement
5q,b
Ventur i/i mpIngement
4,b
28,b
0.047 (0.094)
0.037 (0.074)
. 0.0052 (0.0104)
0.011 (0.022)
0.019 (0.038)
0.039 (0.078)
0.003 (0.006)
0.005 (0.010)
0.002 (0.004)
77.2
4-22
-------
TABLE 4-5. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR SULFUR DIOXIDE FKOM
SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS
Source category/
reference/rating
Uncontrolled,
kg/Mg'(Ib/ton) -
Control led,
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
Eff iciency,
percent
' Multiple hearth
CycI one
5r,b
CycIone/ventur i/i mp ingement
1,a
39,a
Impingement
3,a
5o,a
5p,a
71,a
72,a
Venturi
26,b
27,b
Venturi/impingement
45,b
Fluidized bed
Impingement
5q,b
Venturi
69,a
Ventur i/i mp ingement
28,b
29,b
Electric infrared
Ventur i/i mp i ngement
35e,c
8.34 (16.68) '
19.7 (39.4)
25.1 (50.2)
9.98 (19.96)
14.4 (28.8)
4.686 (9.372)
1.77 (3.54)
9.2 (18.4)
0.031 (0.062)
0.107 (0.214)
0.360 (0.720)
0.807 (1.614)
0.78 (1.56)
3.84 ,(7.68)
0.001 (d.002)
0.347 (0.694)
9.25 (18.5)
0.10 (0.20)
0.78 (1.56)
2.32 (4.64)
78.7
99.7
97.7
74.7
4-23
-------
TABLE 4-6. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR OXIDES OF NITROGEN FROM
SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS
Source category/
reference/rat i ng
Uncontrolled,
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
- .After
control device,
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
'Ef f iciency,
percent
Multiple hearth
• Cyclone/venturi/impingement
l,a
39,a
Impingement
3,a
68,a
71,a
72,a
Venturi
26,b
27,b
Flutdized bed
Venturi
69,a
Ventur i/i mp ingement
28,b
Electric infrared
Venturi/impingement
35e,c
4.37 (8.74)
6.73 (13.46)
5.965 (11.930)
4.32 (8.64)
5.65 (11.30)
0.888 (1.776)
.3.77 (7.54)
0.248 (0.496)
1.705 (3.410)
2.92 (5.84)
1.41 (2.82)
2.90 (5.80)
32.9
4-24
-------
TABLE 4-7. SUMMARY OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR CARE50N MONOXIDE FROM
• ' SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS
Source category/
reference/rat i ng
Uncontrolled,
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
AiFter
controil device',
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
Efficiency,'
percent
Multiple hearth
Cyclone
84,a
CycIone/ventur i/i mp ingement
1,a
39,a
Impingement
3,a '
68,a
72,a
Fluidized bed ,
Ventur i/i mp i ngement
29,b
53 (106)
19.5 (39.0)
44.1 (88.2)
27.0 (54.0)
1.65 (3.30)
1.78 (3.56)
2.13:(4.26)
4-25
-------
—
o
Q£
U_
CC
P.
C_5
U_
O
CO
CO
HH
S
UJ
UJ
a
a;
o
_j
u.
fz
8
OS
>- CO
rn cc
o
0 1—
UJ
UJ t-<
a o
t-n 25
a: M
Suj
3= CIJ
CJ C3
=3
SS —1
UJ CO
CD
O UJ
OS CD
a
U 0.
s f
fel§
4-* Cl.
*4— *— ^^
^ O rj
8"
il
I ^
jl
"^
r~
%
* •+-»
i &g
**- e o
M- Of fc.
UJ *r- CD
U CL
1?
T, **
;y TJJ .O
< "^ Z
g ^|
»^*»
51
2c
•g
O ^"
£ "o*
iS ^3^
^ ^
0.
"4- C U
'*- (U t.
LU *i- ; £
o •*->
u u
g 1
-
co T m
ua 01 tn
f-t CO ^T
^ O C3
f^. CNJ OJ
esj o O
0 C3 C3
10 e\j ^r
— ' CD O
0 ^— — '
o ^ ^
00
U -M
S S
^ d> §
tU c js en ro (O
,— o - c * -
a »— t- ••- o a.
u m a.u5 in
O CO
O i-I
a; -r-
•r- D" -M CO
a.in c csj
4-26
-------
X
o
0.
o
UJ
OQ
a
*-
O
""c g.
b*
o
cc
oo
CSS
4- O) t-
u a.
•g
I
•53-
CO
O -M
OJ (O
C J3
§ a-
I
CL
S
4-27
-------
h-H
X
o
t— 1
o
t
0.
o
•3
CQ
a
a
LU
f—
O CE
EC 2
< 2:
|— LU
0 Z
O HH
—1 Z
O LU
g
r-i ^3
Z —1
^_
< 2
4-1
I
J
S
c
o
c
=>
J.&S
fcgg
UJ "G a.
5
>
t. *
4-> r-
^4?
C
o
u
•o
(U
2
"c
. 8
ra
1
1 >t C
C e S
S.2&
U Q.
1
•a
(U
2
c
g
5
>!= ^
o £ £
8-2 S
Sir •=
U U 01
g a> *a
t. a* £
o a» a
in t. s:
CO CM
I
01
(U
8!
a =
^ o.
CT>
-------
TABLE 4-11. SUMMARY OF TOTAL TETRA- THROUGH OCTACHLORINATED
DIBENZO-P-DIOXIN EMISSION FACTORS FROM SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS
:Source category/reference/rating
After control
Uncontrolled, yg/Mg device, yg/Mg ' Efficiency
(Ib/ton-, E-9) (Ib/ton, E-9) percent
Multiple hearth
Cyclone/venturi
2,b '
Cyc I one/ven tur i / i mp i ngemen t
Impingement
3,b
847 (1,694)
5.6:5 (11.26)
113 (226)
360 (720)
57.4
4-29
-------
o
M
CO
a
a
i(d
c/o
a:
o
co
«/>
CM
i
UJ
CO
8
fel
&. *r~
S -M
5^
(Q O
ou
S2
t- O)
53
in* *
s
•g1
O -Q *
*U C\T S
"c 5
o a..
*o -^
4-30
-------
LU
CQ
O
a
£&g
»*- 01 t-
*u S.
fcl
S2
2
2
4-*
|
* 4-»
•A&S
00
O£
oo
CO
r-l
I
CQ
-------
TABLE 4-14. SUMMARY OF TOTAL TETRA- THROUGH OCTACHLORINATED DIBENZOFURAN
EMISSION FACTORS FROM SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS
Source category/reference/rat i ng
Uncontrolled, yg/Mg
(Ib/tbn, E-9)
After control
device, yg/Mg
(Ib/ton, E-9)
EffIciency,
percent
Multiple hearth
Cyclone/ventu'ri
2,b
84, a
Cyc I one/ventur i / i mp i ngemen t
Impingement
3,b
3,766 (7,532)
97 (194)
35.5 (71.0)
250 (500)
3,050 (6,100)
18.9
4-32
-------
•
^
o
' f 1
'_'_
GO
0
1—
o
1 1
_
o
00
00
UJ
2
II
il
^0
= M
HH
— ' uj
5- ^
uj 3
ft
i^
o
>-
i
=3
00
un
r—j
1
UJ
CD
;2
< —
en—!
! cnuj
§"S 0
"o ^
S- i —
•H —
^
CD
O
I
1
-^ JJ
it s 1
'o &
o.?1??
S- ^- 1
Sic
€?
1 Q1UJ
§- =
g
££
U U
c
u i-
*T
CO ^ CO CVJ O U3
• .1—1 if) C\J n 00 lf> ^J*
CM LO . ...r*. ^r ..
-— C3
og "fc"'
Ch O
"* °
C3
esj
n-
at
CO CO (O CO
en o ^ m
" <0 C3 O CD
ci 2, o <3
en <«• n en
S 8 SS
O C3 CD O
^r
cn
CSJ
,^_
TT
4->
C
(U
i
o>
. c
Q- jj
« S
•> i
& b I
t4-> -t-> .,_
C C 4-> -0 -M CL
| S 5 § 2 g £
Ol^r'aj'u .r-T3§^
cucjD erto cto aiajfO t--o
-------
an
00
o;
o
o
oo
I—I
s
UJ
UJ
"
U.
O
>-
on
. C
•f- O OJ
«*. C O
<*- o» t-
*G a.
. •
"ss
^
g^-° c.
O 4->
S-2
«"5?
u u
<\j
o
;
S
5
^
.
•us •U.B
4-34
-------
«=c
r*>
0
t x\
CO
1— 1
^"
LU
oi
0
^j
ce:'
LU
(—4
O
1— 1
LU
CD
Q
CO
LU
CD
LU
co
o
cc:
2:
CO
^
,— 1
^r
LU
CO
^ "u
« 0 *
O._ *— . O)
0 <" t>"o>
> g (0 J£
I c3 m" °>
in 4- co
_. O)
4- ^
olo
s- in
. -i- .5
Z "° R
lutant/source
—
£
oo
O tn
oo ot in-
•a- • to to
in r— o\ " •>
• r- «3- -a- c
to •> • «s- in
in o oo « to
O\ •in p* *a" to *
rO O P"» • • ^f (n
• to «p» in «a- •> «a-
— «CN ^c »a- oo a* 10
CMCMt~-«- • CM - ..
* ••" *O4 OJ ^h •* 07 T3
t**» *T— • ff\ ^t* ft*\ QQ «^* ^>
t_ * *r*. ro m •* * *
IO F** OO CN f*^ *— ^J* C O i
* *^0 » ^ *. _ ^j- u^,
. Q. o. **o O O\ *•— * r^ fO r*« o\ '
mmr^CMCNr-*— cr*» CN "CN
OOr-in^ooo -tnin to 0100
in in CM •— in p"» •— ^f ro to to CM to CN
0 O OOQQO ' 10 QQ QQ QQ
in to in oo •—
ON 00 CJN OS p*
CM P~ CMOOCN15-P» IIO p»>— O^'S" inO
•a-- • • • CM ito •• tocM vo«a-
O OO- .10— •• ••
o o o to — o
•
oo CM — to cj> i p» ip-ino» tin i —
p^r*- •••iro iin •• i^r -ito
— -p-incN • .^r.— . .
1 — 1 1 1 O Oil >O O
P- i P- •— CN i i in p» .1 i
• oo CM — • in at < <• r~ CTI
^ ~ 0*0"" ~. °. ^o* S ~
o o .
0 O 0
'-O^J3J3^J3 .O'O'O ^
• > E
CT CO L. (D (D O)
CC3-. -O -O XIC
t. — — +- +- m
EX30 (_UJ t-L.0) T31- •— '
IDIO — T3£ — "X^xOlCU — T3M- — X? CO4-E -!_Q.CNl-CC
— Q.O4-S >->->~ — O4-L.O4- Q.(DEID— (DOJID
oZ^S~ »000 -OOC4-OC 0._^^^-o^^^
04-CO — COOCOC4-*- — H-
•- — Z)O 3r3O(UZ)OlD— < 3<
j= S U- LU 4- Z U. i
t-Lf i • :
Q
\^
o>
CM
* o\ °*t oo
— P- 03 to
O Q Q Q
•
to O O in
•a- to CM oo
oo in CN p-
d ^dd
CM III
to ill
CM
to
o
d
IO (D (O ID
*—
CD L.
XI 3
^
4- -0 O ID C
!- ID L. > ID XI
O ID — 4- X E (U.
OCD— ciOiDtU-a
> .C O O C c CO
1- O O O <= X)
0) 0) 4- — ->-E —
J=— O4-OO— XI
4- -1- c -t- —
(D — 3 < 3.
E 3 —
c :E u_
XI
T
^
[
r"
8
4-35
-------
-
0)
•r-
-IT>
c
o
o
2*
LU
_J
CQ
1—
*
*
1
c
ot.o>
~ O c
un
U) O 4-
~ to as
LU
1 •*"
~ c
>J; aj
LU "j;
§>.2 tTo>
aj.^tj^i
> = ro ^
a>
"in 4- o>?
w ° = ra
— <0 (0 _§>
.
in
+••-
o*.
u
M- in
o -2 "o
^ o.
lutant/source
o
U 0.
01
ro
*
in co
Q. ft
in or
* in
o* o •
to in •«•
Q O O
t—
in CM to
o o o
do , °.
0
i 0 in
i to o
O 0
o d
i i
in CM
0 0
o o
o d
«
IO (O *"*
•—in to
*~o
0
£ -r, <"
4- T3 —
L. 03 -0
tO — "O (D T3 d)
.a aj -o
i: O — — —
L. — T3 — X
a> 4- o aj o o
'-I— C l_ N L. •-
JO Q. O 4- •— 4- T3
a. ,— o c -a c
-^ 1- c O •— O t.
— Z5 O 3 O 3
X3 3 — >*-
IS U. —
1 CO
r>»
"*
r~
in in
at _ «
• CM
Q. ft
in \a
o *i
in a.
» in
L. o"
— • in in
O Q o I
i
Ol CO
r- c^
O CO O> 1
~ -d '
in i co i
CM 1 » C
r- I
* 8
d
J3 J3
ro jn ID i
«3 — p» 1
I
4-
— a> aj — .0 — a>
x: o — c i_ o —
t- — o 3-0 L. —
a>4- o — 4- a>-i- o
— CL.OCNCL.
O.O4- >-«— O4-
— oco>-ooc
4- c O —CO
— =i o 3 :D o
^ Lu
o*
\o •
ft
Ol
CM
CO
CM
ft o co in in
•—
0 0 C (J
'> '> 1 '>
a) en -OL.~t.ajL.
10 — 4-E (D-l-\'4 +-
aj — c a) — .a c — c — c
JZOOO1L. O t_ — O O
L.OC3-C3O3 I_O
aj4- — 4-a> 4-U4-
— C1_O.CN!-C— c L,
o.oa>Ea> — ajdit-ooi
•-UH >-o4->4-0-H
4-CM- ,_M- OC^*-
— o < 3
-------
+• !_
LU
1 0
•Z c
STJ
« § -
O>.2 I- O)
a> •" o a)
> E ID j£
0 e .
in +• cn^
— (D ID 51
E •*- t- -*
LLJ
in
ID !?
4-
ID ^_
l_
•*• in
°p£
« •*- ~
1 utant/source
°-
03 Q. a. «.
- « "I1". , «
fOCN . O O 00 . Ol 0.
wTrt , , .mm CN* oo ov to in
^ * -_ * ,*- • . CM. tO».
•»aj t7» t. L. CT IO O\ OT IO lk * l_ O VO
— >o (Dc: C) m (DC — c « c a —
i:ij?8l KI8^l il IP8H^8|! g^SSlI^
i|ii~u «§iiH §" :§§5n^j!i ;^§^ il
= 4- c M- — H- t. 4- C s- — E a)(D —4-c-i- ._,£ 3-t-c^
0-:3<::3. (_ S
o « x
-------
•o
*.
m
o:
c
o t- o>
— O C
I/H
U) O 4-
~ ID ID
E M- L.
LU
1 5°
£
> ^^ (D ^£
<0
c
«> 4- O)^
•—
U
•— 13
> C
— 4-
3 O C
C T3 l_ <1)
— 4) 4- E
t- J3 C 0)
C O 0)
O O O C
O 0) —
-^ N 1- O.
5 — •*.
~" 3 ^C
s ^^
O J_
ID
J
CO 00
« '"OS
'Q.0\
jn-Ki a
^ * in
o\ o ^* to '
ci in in CM t
Q Q Q Q O
' i"* o% in vo ro
— o
0 °
1
— cs m — ro
t_
\ 4-
1_ ' Q)
0) 3 0) >
O 4- 0
•— C •— "O
> 0) > c
4) > ^-- 0) (0
•a 4- -a ^
j= _ +- c (u _ 4_
4-~aoc:iaE Oc
U(DC.O)^>(D -OCd)
ID — 4-E D) (D4-E
*— % aj^coQic- — jdcQ)
t-jroooc— c. oai
O i-oc:OQ.3-ooc
— ' - (D — T3-I
§^_ — •} ^£ _ ^j.
3 —
I- S LJ-
J=
o
13
c
0)
<1) O)
•o c
t- 0)
ID — •
O c -.
o o
t- o
t.
3 —
a. O •
J^ 3
O S
0)4- L.
C C 3 T3
•- 0) 4- 4)
^ -> s ~
> T3
3 •
U.
_
4-38
-------
O)
33
*J"^
C
O
0
J^;
i
*-3"
LU
CD
O).2 t- O)
d) /" O O)
> ~ ID -^
•* i TT ' *°
r^ i ^ i to t oo
^ ' ? .'•!>' ' T
O «3- 1 •q-
i • in •
J? - • -a-
CN •—
0
£i ja ua .a ja n ja
CM —tO — CM .— CM
C c
c c .-
•— X — X
X 0 x 0
.2 '-5 °
•a i -a • ?
1 Q. 1 o.
Q. 1 OL 1
ID I U) O 0) 1 d> O
OO ON OO ON
— N — c — N — c
>c > to >c >^3
"o .a -o — ~o xs *o —
— T3 — T3
c— TJC — o^: — -oc — o
I-O t-f-T3O 1_+-T3O O1-T3O t-
UI- 01-— C.CO— C — t-UJ-t- +-O4- (DOH- +-
— *- +- — CU C — Cl_ X — Ct_ Q.
Q- c > -o '>
IU <13 a) -C 1 < ^< ;_O — :D<;
3 ID 3 ID ro 3
2: 4- S 4- 4- S
i- ! »2 o
T3
C
c
O
0
4-39
-------
•o
1
4->
C
O
o
1
1 1
«g-
U_l
CO
•
1 O
E-S
LU y
«<= ->
v>2. tTcn
(O ,- O 2£
SL'*~ m 5*
< §**-
!&„•«
w 4- en?
•28S»
,5-*- u
in
ID 21
4- c-
(O £
£
«*- Ul
i'if
1 1 utant/source
£
^«
CO
H!
10 CM
QQ
Ot--
l r-
to. •
i
CO
to
JO
JO ID
— to
3
3 (0
t_
} 3
D,/,O Terracniorodidenz
Multiple hearth
Uncontrol led
After control device
hal tetrach 1 orod i benzof
Ml (5
•a-
03
to
1
to —
Q O
0 0
^
—
1 O
1 0
1
<0
.CM
JO
JO CO
-*
C
03
' t_
3
multiple hearth
Uncontrol led
After control device
fal pentach 1 orod i benzof
Jt- T —
^,
co
• "to
1
QO '
OO
CO O
Oi CN
12
i
JO
JO (0
~*
J—
ro
L.
luinpie hearth
Uncontrol led
After control device
•al hexach 1 orod i benzof u
^- -i—
.
. . oo
to
1
to —
Q 0
•
SI--
in
^~
12
CM
|
^-'
JO
JO (0
-*
-
(C
3
ium pie hearth
Uncontrol led
After control device
•al heptachl orod i benzof
£
,
CO
Hi
to —
oa
1
— ao
co to
^" *"~
i'2
'^~
1
o
J0_
JO IO
— to
i
J3
(C
luinpie hearth
Uncontcal led
After control device
al octach 1 orod i benzof ui
3
CO
to
to —
Q O
— CO
o» r-
^
12
VO
°i
o
jO
JO ro
-"
luinpie hearth
Uncontrol led
After control device
al tetra- through
2 4- +•
O L
h- C
co
to
to —
'Q o
•
O CO
r- in
K co
to
1 O
1 in
to
i
to
JO
jo to
-*
ultiple hearth
Uncontrol led
After control device
s
4-40
-------
TABLE 4-18. LIST OF CONVERSION FACTORS
Multiply
mg/dscm
• 2
m
acm/min
m/s
kg/h
kPa
1pm
kg/Mg
By
4.37 E-4 .
10.764
35.31
3.281
2.205
4.0
0.264
2.0
.To obtain
. gr/dscf
' ''•• ft;2
acfm
ft/s
Ib/h
in. of H20
gal /mi n
Ib/ton
'Temperature conversion equations
F=(9/5)*C+32
C=(5/9)*(F-32)
4-41
-------
TABLE 4-19. LIST OF DATA FILES
Name
Contents
SSLACID
SSLCRIT
SSLOR6
SSLSITE
SSLPROC
SSLMET
Acid gas data
Criteria pollutant data ,
Organic data: 2,3,7,8-tetra's, total measured tetra's,
penta's, hexa's, hepta's, octa's, tetra through octa's,
benzene, benzo-a-pyrene, chlorinated phenols, and
chlorinated benzenes
Facility type, name, control device, test condition,
rating, and reference number
Stack gas flow,, process rate, percent CO2
concentration, percent 02 concentration
Metals data: As, Be, Cd, Cr, Hg, Ni, Pb
4-42
-------
TABLE 4-20. SUMMARY OF COMPUTER PROGRAMS
Name
SPART
NONCRIT
ACID
ORG
Input data file
SSLCRITS
SSLMET.
SSLCID
SSLORG
Tables produced
. Criteria pollutant tables
Metals
Acid gases
2,3,7,8-tetra's, total tetra's, penta's.
TORG
SSLdRG
hexa's, hepta's, octa's, and tetra
through octa's
Total measured dioxins and furans
4-43
-------
-------
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 4
1. Final Draft Test Report—Site 01 Sewage Sludge Incinerator SSI-A.
National Dloxin Study. Tier 4: Combustion Sources, EPA Contract
No. 68-03-3148, Radian Corporation, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, July 1986.
2. Final Draft Test Report—Site 03 Sewage Sludge Incinerator SSI-B.
National Dioxin Study. Tier 4: Combustion Sources. EPA Contract
No. 68-03-3148, Radian Corporation, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, July 1986.
V *
i 3. Draft Test Report—Site 12 Sewage Sludge Incinerator SSI-C. EPA
Contract No. 68-03-3138, Radian Corporation, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, April 1986.
4. Trichon, M. and R. T. Dewling, The Fate of Trace IMetals in a
Fluidized-Bed Sewage Sludge Incinerator. (Port Washington). (GCA).
5. Particulate and Gaseous Emission Tests at Municipal Sludge
Incinerator Plants "0% "P". "Q". and "R" (4 testsTT EPA Contract
No. 68-02-2815, Engineering-Science, McLean, Virginia,
February 1980.
6. Organics Screening Study Test Report. Sewage Sludge Incinerator
No. 13. Detroit Water and Sewer Department. Detroit, Michigan, EPA
; Contract No. 68-02-3849. PEI Associates, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio,
August 1986.
7. Chromium Screening Study Test Report. Sewage Sludge Incinerator
No. 13. Detroit Water and Sewer Department. Detroit Michigan. EPA
Contract No. 68-02-3849, PEI Associates, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio,
August 1986.
;8. Results of the July 11, 1983, Emission Compliance Test on the No. 6
Incineration System at the MWCC Metro Plant in St.. Paul. Minnesota.
ISTAPPA/ALAPCO/05/27/86-No. 02], Interpoll Inc., Circle Pines,
Minnesota, July 1983.
9• Results of the October 24, 1980, Particulate Compliance Test on the
No. 1 Sludge Incinerator Wet Scrubber Stack at the MWCC St. Paul
Wastewater Treatment Plant in St. Paul, Minnesota,,
ISTAPPA/ALAPCO/05/27/86-No. 02], Interpoll Inc., Circle Pines,
: ^Minnesota, November 1980.
10. Results of the June 6, 1983, Emission Compliance Test on the No. 10
Incinerator System in the F&I 2 Building at the MWCC Metro PlariFTn
i St. Paul, Minnesota. fSTAPPA/ALAPCQ/05/27/86-No. Q2T. Tnt.»rpnn
Circle Pines, Minnesota, June 1983.
4-44
-------
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18,
19.
20.
21.
Results of the May 23, 1983, Emission Compliance Test on the No. 9
Incinerator System in the F&I 2 Building at the MWCC Metro Plant in
St. Paul, Minnesota, 1STAPPA/ALAPCO/Q5/27/86-NQ. 02], TntPrnnll Tnr
Circle Pines,.Minnesota, May 1983.
Results of the November 25. 1980, Participate Emission Compliance
Test on the No. 4 Sludge Incinerator Wet Scrubber Stack at the MWCC
St. Paul Wastewater Treatment Plant in St. Paul, Minnesota.
lSTAPPA/ALAPCO/05/27/86-No. 02], Interpoll Inc., Circle Pines,
Minnesota, December, 1980. ' • .'
Results of the March 28, 1983. Particulate' Emission Compliance Test
on the No. 8 Incinerator at the MWCC Metro Plant in St. Pau1
Minnesota, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/05/28/86-No. 06], Tnt.Prpnii Tnr r-;rc1g
Pines, Minnesota, April 1983.
Particulate. Emission Test Report for a Sewage Sludge Incinerator at
the City of Shelby Wastewater Treatment Plant.
lSTAPPA/ALAPCp/07/28/86-Nd. 06J. North Carolina DNR, February 1979..
Source Sampling Evaluation for Rocky River Wa'stewater treatment
Plant. Concord, North Carolina, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/05/28/86-No. nfi]3
Mogul Corp., Charlotte, North Carolina, July 1982.
Performance Test Report: Rocky Mount Wastewater Treatment Facility
lSTAPPA/ALAPCO/07/28/86-No. 06], Envirotech, Belmont, California,
July 1983.
Performance Test Report for the Incineration System at the Honouliulu
Wastewater Treatment Plant at Honouliu'lu, Oahu, Hawaii.
[STAPPA/ALAPCO/05/22/86-No. 11], Zimpro, Rothschild, Wisconsin,
January 1984.
(Test -Results) Honolulu Wastewater Treatment Plant. Ewa, Hawaii,
[•STAPPA/ALAPCO/05/22/86-No. 11], Zimpro, Rothschild, Wisconsin,
November 1983.
Air Pollution Source Test. Sampling and Analysis of Air Pollutant
Effluent from Wastewater Treatment Facility—Sand Island Wastewater
Treatment Plant, Honolulu, Hawaii. fSTAPPA/ALAPCQ/Q5/??/fifi-Nn. 11].
Ultrachem, Walnut Creek, California, December 1978.
Air Pollution Source Test. Sampling and Analysis of Air Pollutant
Effluent From Wastewater Treatment Facility—Sand Island Wastewater
Treatment Plant, Honolulu. Hawaii—Phase II,
ISTAPPA/ALAPCO/05/22/86-No. 11j, Ultrachem, Walnut Creek, California,
December 1979.
Stationary Source Sampling Report. EEI Reference No. 2988. Osborne
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Greensboro. North 'Carolina. Particulate
Emissions and Particle Size Distribution Testing. Sludge Incinerator
Scrubber Inlet and Scrubber Stack. ISTAPPA/ALAPCQ/Q7/?a/afi-Nn.
Entropy, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, October 1985.
4-45
-------
22. (Four tests). Southwestern Ohio Air Pollution Control Agency.
Metropolitan Sewer District—Little Miami Treatment Plant (three
tests: August 9. 1985, September 16, 1980, and September 30/1980)
and Mm Creek Treatment Plant (one test: January 9, 1986),
ISTAPPA/ALAPCO/05/28/86-No. 14]. —
!23. Emissions Testing of Incinerator No. 2. Green Bay Metropolitan Sewer
District, Green Bay, Wisconsin. [STAPPA/ALAPCO/06/12/86-No. 19],
' Engineering Science, McLean, Virginia, October 1981.
24. City of Milwaukee South Shore Treatment Plant, Milwaukee.
Wisconsin. Particulate Emissions Compliance Testing.
lSTAPPA/ALAPCO/06/12/86-No. 19], Entropy, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, December 1980.
•25. City of Milwaukee South Shore Treatment Plant, Milwaukee,
Wisconsin. Particulate Emissions Compliance Testing. .
lSTAPPA/ALAPCO/06/12/86-No. 19], Entropy, ResearcTTTriangle1 Park, . .
North Carolina, November 1980. '
26. Stack Test Report—Bayshore Regional Sewage Authority. Union Beach,
New Jersey, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/05/22/86-No. 121T New .IprVy Stafp
Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, New Jersey,
March 1982.
27. Stack Test Report—Jersey City Sewage Authority. Jersey City. New
Jersey, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/05/22/86-No. 12], New Jersey State Department
of Environmental Protection, Trenton, New Jersey, December 1980.
i28. Stack Test Report—Northwest Bergen County Sewer Authority.
Waldwick, New Jersey. fSTAPPA/ALAPCO/05/22/86-No. 1?], NPW .
State Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton. New Jersey
March 1982.
29. Stack Test Report—Pequannock, Lincoln Park, and Fairfield Sewerage
Authority, Lincoln Park, New Jersey,
ISTAPPA/ALAPCO/05/22/86-No. 12],New Jersey State Department of
; Environmental Protection, Trenton, New Jersey, December 1975.
30• Atmospheric Emission Evaluation. Anchorage Water and Wastewater
Utility Sewage Sludge Incinerator, ASA, Bellevue, Washington,
I April 1984. .•
31. Stack Sampling Report for City of New London (CT) No. 1 Sludge
Incinerator, Recon Systems, Inc., Three Bridges, New Jersey,
April 1984. ' :
'32. Stack Sampling Report for Municipal Sewage Sludge Incinerator No. 1.
Scrubber Outlet (Stack), Providence, Rhode Island, Recon Systems,
: Inc., Three Bridges, New Jersey, November 1980.
4-46
-------
33. Stack Sampling Report, Compliance Test No. 3, at Attleboro Advanced
Wastewater Treatment Facility, Attleboro, Massachusetts. David Gordon
Associates, Inc., Newton Upper Falls, Massachusetts, May 1983.
34. (Two tests). Source Emission Survey. North Texas Municipal Water
District. Rowlett Creek Plant. Piano, Texas. Shirco, Inc., Dallas,
Texas, November 1978. .
35. (Five tests). Emissions Data for Infrared Municipal Sewage Sludge
•Incinerators, Shirco, Inc., Dallas, Texas, January 1980%
36. Liao, P. B. and M. J. Pilat. Air Pollutant Emissions from Fluidized
Bed Sewage Sludge Incinerators"Water and Sewage Works.,
February 1972.
37. (Two tests) Emission Evaluation for; Merrimack Wa'stewater Treatment1
Plant, Merrimack, New Hampshire, Mogul Corp., Chagrin Falls, Ohio,.
November 1977. . , ' '
38. Performance of Emission Tests and Material Balance for a Fluidized-
Bed Sludge Incinerator. GCA Corp, Bedford, Massachusetts,
November 1980.
39. Electrostatic Precipitator Efficiency on a Multiple Hearth
Incinerator Burning Sewage Sludge. EPA Contract No. 68-03-3148,
Radian Corp., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, August 1986.'
40. Baghouse Efficiency on a Multiple Hearth Incinerator Burning Sewage
Sludge, EPA Contract No. 68-03-3148, Radian Corp., Research Triangle
• Park, North Carolina, August 1986.
41. Farrell, J. B. and H. Wall. Air Pollution Discharges from Ten Sewage
Sludge Incinerators, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, August 1985.
42. Emission Test Report. Sewage Sludge Incinerator. Davenport
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Davenport, Iowa,
lSTAPPA/ALAPCO/ll/04/86-No. 119j, PEDCo Environmental, Cincinnati,
Ohio, October 1977.
43. Sludge Incinerator Emission Testing. Unit No. 1 for City of Omaha,
Papillion Creek Water Pollution Control Plant,
lSTAPPA/ALAPCO/lO/28/86-No. 100J, Particle Data Labs, Ltd., Elmhurst,
Illinois, September 1978.
44. Sludge Incinerator Emission Testing. Unit No. 2 for City of Omaha. <
Papillion Creek Water Pollution Control Plant,
lSTAPPA/ALAPCO/lO/28/86-No. 100J, Particle Data Labs, Ltd., Elmhurst,
Illinois, May 1980.-
4-47
-------
45. Particulate and Sulfur Dioxide Emissions Test Report for Zlmpro on
the Sewage Sludge Incinerator Stack at the Cedar Rapids Water
Pollution Control Facility, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/ll/04/86-No. 1191. Serco,
Cedar Falls, Iowa, September 1980.
46. City of Davenport (IA) Particulate Emission Test,
[STAPPA/ALAPCO/ll/04/86-No. 119], Zimpro, Rothschild, Wisconsin,
September 1977.
47. Newport Wastewater Treatment Plant, Newport, Tennessee. '(Nichols:
| December 1.979). [STAPPA/ALAPCO/10/27/86-No. 21].
48. Maryville Wastewater Treatment Plant Sewage Sludge Incinerator
Emission Test Report, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/lO/27/86-No. 21J, Enviro-
measure, Inc., Knoxville, Tennessee, August 1984.
49. Maryville Wastewater Treatment Plant Sewage Sludge Incinerator
Emission Test Report, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/lO/27/86-No. 21j, Enviro-
measure, Inc., Knoxville, Tennessee, October 1982.
50. Newport (Tennessee) Utilities Board, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/lO/27/86-No. 21],
Entropy, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, December 1974.
51. Kiski Valley (Pennsylvania) Water Pollution Control Authority.
; Source Test Report. fSTAPPA/ALAPCO/ll/04/86-No. 1221,
Department of Environmental Resources, May 1986.
52. Anchorage Water and Sewer Utilities. Point Woronzof Wastewater
' Treatment Facility, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/10/28/80-No. 1081. ChPmiral
Geological Laboratories of Alaska, Inc., September 1982.
53- Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant, Cleveland. Ohio, Incinerator
: No. 3, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/ll/12/86-No. 124], Envisage Environmental,
Inc., Richfield, Ohio, May 1985.
54. Southerly Wastewater Treatment Plant, Cleveland, Ohio. Incinerator
No. 1, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/ll/12/86-No. 124], Envisage Environmental,
I Inc., Richfield, Ohio, August 1985.
55. Atmospheric Emission Evaluation. Anchorage Water and Wastewater
Utility Sewage Sludge Incinerator, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/lQ/28/86-No. ina],
; American 'Services Associates, Bellevue, Washington, April 1984.
56. Source Test Report Review. R. M. Clayton WPC Plant; Atlanta.
Georgia. Nos. 1 and 2 Incinerators. (May 11 thru 12. 1983).
i - [STAPPA/ALAPCO/06/23/86-No. 16].
57. Source Test Report Review. Flat Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant;
Gainesville, Georgia. Nos. 51 and 1 Incinerators, "
ISTAPPA/ALAPCO/06/23/86-No. 16], Department of Natural Resources,
Atlanta, Georgia, January 1985.
4-48
-------
58. City of Bellinqhain Post Point Wastewater Treatment Plant Mercury
Source Test, (January 29-30, 1979).lSTAPPA/ALAPCO/10/28/86-
No. 106].
59. Source Test Report. East Norriton and Plymouth Township Joint Sewer
Authority, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/ll/04/86-No. 122], Pennsylvania ngp^tment
of Environmental Resources, July 1986.
60. Source Test Report. Erie Sewer Authority, Erie. Pennsylvania.
Sludge Incinerator No. 1. [STAPPA/ALAPCO/ll/04786-No. IP?],
. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, July 1981.
61. Source Test Report. Erie Sewer Authority, Erie, Pennsylvania.
Sludge Incinerator No. 2. fSTAPPA/ALAPCQ/ll/Q4-86-Nn. IP?],
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, July 1981.
62. Cities of Columbia and Charleston (three tests).
lSTAPPA/ALAPCO/05/29/86-No. 15], South Carolina Bureau of Air Quality
Control, May 1976 and August 1977.
63. Letter from American Interplex to J. D. Helms, August 16, 1984.
North Little Rock (Arkansas) Stack Emission Summary.
64. Report from U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II to Barry
Mitsch, Radian Corp. Information on Sewage Sludge Incinerators in
Region II and Emissions Data Report for Atlantic City, New Jersey.
65. Hobbs, B. Testing and Evaluation of Sewage Sludge Incinerator at
.Fields Point Wastewater Treatment Facility, Providence, Rhode Island
6CA Corp., Bedford,, Massachusetts, August 1982. :
66. Report; South Essex Sewerage District; A Case History, MA
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering. November 1982.
67. Final Report for an Emission Compliance Test Program (July 1, 1982)
at City of Waterbur.y Wastewater Treatment Plant Sludge Incinerator
Waterbury, Connecticut. [STAPPA/ALAPCQ/12/17/86-Nn. hfi\3 Ynri-
Services Corp, July 1982. .
68• Incinerator Compliance Test at the City of Stratford Sewage Treatment
Plant in Stratford, Connecticut. ISTAPPA/ALAPCn/l?/l7/afi-Mn. us]
Emission Testing Labs. September 1974.
69• Emission Compliance Tests Conducted at Norwalk Wastewater Treatment
Plant, South Smith Street, Norwalk, Connecticut, ~ :
[STAPPA/ALAPCO/12/17/86-No. 136], York Research Corp, Stamford,
Connecticut. February 1975.
70- Final Report—Emission Compliance Test Program at East Shore
Wastewater Treatment Plant., New Haven, Connecticut.
lSTAPPA/ALAPCO/12/17/86-No. 136], York Services Corp., Stamford,
Connecticut, September 1982.
4-49
-------
71. Incinerator Compliance Test at Enfield Sewage Treatment Plant in
Enfield, Connecticut, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/12/17/86-No. 136J, York Research
| Corp., Stamford, Connecticut, July 1973.
72. Incinerator Compliance Test at The Glastonbury Sewage Treatment Plant
in Glastonbury, Connecticut. [STAPPA/ALAPCO/12/17/86-No. 136], Ynr*
Research Corp.., Stamford, Connecticut, August 1973. . •
;73. Report on Measurement of Particulate Emissions from the (Hartford.
Connecticut) Sewage Slirdqe Incinerator of the Metropolitan District
Commission, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/12/17/86-No. 1361. The Research Corp.,
I Wethersfield, Connecticut, August 1977.
74.. Emissions Tests at the Hartford Sewage Sludge Incinerator Brainard
Road, Hartford, Connecticut, fSTAPPA/ALAPCO/12/17/86-No. 136], ThP
Research Corp., Wetherfield, Connecticut, May 1973.
1 . > , • ;
75. Results of the May 5, 1981, Particulate Emission Measurements of the
Sludge Incinerator Ideated at the' Metropolitan District Commission
Incinerator Plant, Hartford, Connecticut. [STAPPA/ALAPCQ/12/17/86-
No. 136], Henry Souther Laboratories.
76. Incinerator Compliance Test at The Willimantic Sewage Treatment Plant
: in Willimantic, Connecticut, [STAPPA/ALAPCO/12/17/86-No. 13fi]., Ynrk-
Research Corp., Stamford,.Connecticut, February 1974.
77•' Official Air Pollution Tests Conducted on the Nichols Engineering and
f Research Corporation Sludge Incinerator Located on the Wastewater
Treatment Plant, Middletown, Connecticut, '"~ .
[STAPPA/ALAPCO/12/17/86-No. 136]. . Rossnagel and Associates, Cherry
Hill, New Jersey, November 1976.
78. Measured Emissions From the West Nichols-Neptune Multiple Hearth
Sludge Incinerator at the Naugatuck Treatment Company, Naugatuck, •
Connecticut, April 24, 1985. [STAPPA/ALAPCO/12/17/86-No. 136'], The
Research Corp., East Hartford, Connecticut, April 1985.
79. Compliance Test Report—(August 27, 1986) Mattabasset District
; Pollution Control Plant Main Incinerator, Cromwell, Connecticut
[STAPPA/ALAPCO/12/17/86-No. 136], ROJAC Environmental Services, Inc.,
West Hartford, Connecticut, September 1986.
80. Stack Sampling Report (May 21, 1986) Cit.y of New London No. 2 Sludge
Incinerator Outlet Stack Compliance Test, ~~
• ISTAPPA/ALAPCO/12/17/86-No. 136], Recon Systems, Inc., Three Bridges,
New Jersey, June 1986.
81. Particulate Emission Tests, Town of Vernon Municipal Sludge
Incinerator, February 10, 11, 1981, Vernon, Connecticut.
[STAPPA/ALAPCO/12/17/86-No. 136], The Research Corp., Wethersfield,
Connecticut, March 1981.
4-50
-------
82.
83.
84.
Six Tests on Buckman Incinerator No. 1, Jacksonville, Florida. 1982
through 1986. Provided by the Department of Health, Welfare, and
Bio-Environmental Services, City of Jacksonville, Florida.
[STAPPA/ALAPCO/Ol/05/87-No. 137] . -
(Four tests). Bennett, R, L. and K. T. Knapp. Characterization of
Particulate Emissions from Municipal Wastewater Sludge Incinerators
ES and T Volume 16, No. 12, 1982. "
Non-Criteria' Emissions Monitoring Program for the Envlrotech Nine
Hearth Sewage Sludge Incinerator at the Metropolitan Wastewater
Treatment Facility, St.. Paul, Minnesota, ERT Document
No. P-E081-500; October 1986.
4-51
-------
5. AP-42 SECTION 2.5: SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION
The revision to Section 2.5 of AP-42 is presented in the following
pages as it would appear in the document.
5-1
-------
-------
2.5 SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATION
2.5.1 Process Description ~
In sewage sludge incineration, materials generated by wastewater
treatment plants are oxidized to reduce the volume of solid waste.
In-the first step in the process, the sludge is dewatered until it is
15 to 30 percent solids so that it'will burn without auxiliary fuel.
Dewatered sludge is conveyed to a combustion device where thermal oxidation
occurs. The unburned residual ash is removed from the combustion device,
usually on a continuous basis, and disposed. The exhaust: gas stream is
directed to an air pollution control device, typically a wet scrubber.
^ Approximately 95 percent of sludge incinerators are multiple-hearth and
fluidized-bed designs. Multiple-hearth incinerators are vertically oriented
/cylindrical shells containing from 4 to 14 refractory hearths stacked one
above the other. Sludge, typically enters at the periphery of the top hearth
and is raked inward by the teeth on a rotating rabble arm to a drop hole
leading to the second hearth. The teeth on the rabble arm above the second
hearth are positioned in the opposite direction to move the sludge
outward. This outside-in, inside-out pattern is repeated on alternate
hearths. Fluidized-bed incinerators also are vertically oriented
cylindrical shells. A bed of sand approximately 0.7-meters (2.5-feet) thick
. rests on the grid and is fluidized by air injected through the tuyeres
located at the base of the furnace within a refractory-lined grid. Sludge
is introduced directly into the bed. Temperatures in a multiple-hearth
furnace are 320°C (600°F) in the lower, ash-cooling hearth; 760° to 1100°C
(1400° to 2000°F) in the central combustion hearths; and 540° to 650°C
(1000° to 1200°F) in the upper, drying hearths. Temperatures in a
fluidized-bed reactor are fairly uniform, from 680° to 820°C (1250° to
1500°F). In both types of furnaces, an auxiliary fuel may be required
either during startup or when the moisture content of the sludge is too high
to support combustion.
Electric (infrared) furnaces are the newest of the technologies
currently in use for sludge incineration. The sludge is conveyed into one
end,of the horizontally oriented incinerator where it is first dried and
then burned as it travels beneath the infrared heating elements.
Bother sludge incineration technologies that are no longer in widespread
use include cyclonic reactors, rotary kilns, and wet oxidation reactors.
Some sludge is coincinerated with refuse.
i 1 O it
2.5.2 Emissions and Controls » »
Sludge incinerators have the potential to emit significant quantities
of pollutants to the atmosphere. One of these pollutants is particulate
matter,^which is emitted because of the turbulent movement of the combustion
gases with respect to the burning sludge and resultant ash. The particle
size distribution and concentration of the particulate emissions leaving the
incinerator vary widely, depending on the composition of the sludge being
burned and the type and operation of the incineration process.
I
; Solid Waste Disposal 2.5-1
-------
Total particulate emissions are usually highest for a fluidized-bed
incinerator because the combustion gas velocities required to fluidize the
bed result in entrainment of large quantities of ash in the flue gas.
Particulate emissions from multiple-hearth incinerators are usually less
than those from fluidized-bed incinerators because the agitation of ash and
gas velocity through the bed are. lower in the multiple-hearth
incinerators., Electric furnaces have the lowest particulate matter
emissions because the sludge is not stirred or mixed during incineration and
air flows through the unit generally are quite low, resulting in minimal
entrainment. ,
Incomplete combustion of sludge can result in emissions of intermediate
products (e.g., volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide). Other
potential emissions include sulfur dioxide, nitrogen .oxides, metals, acid
gases, and toxic organic compounds.
Wet scrubbers are commonly used to control particulate and gaseous
(e.g., S02, NOx, CO, and VOC's) emissions from sludge incinerators. There
are two practical reasons for this: (1) a wastewater treatment plant is a
source of relatively inexpensive scrubber water (plant effluent) and (2) a
system for the treatment of the scrubber effluent is available (spent
scrubber water is sent to the head of the treatment plant for solids removal
and pH adjustment). The most widely used scrubber types are venturi and
impingement-tray. Cyclone wet scrubbers and systems combining all three
types of scrubbers are also used.
Pressure drops for venturi, impingement tray, and cyclone scrubbers are
1 to 40 kPa, 0.4 kPa per stage, and 1 to 2 kPa, respectively. Collection
efficiency can range ,from 60 to 99 percent depending on the scrubber
pressure drop, particle size distribution, and particulate concentration.
. Emission factors and emission factor ratings for sludge incinerators
are shown in Table 2.5-1. Table 2.5-2 shows the cumulative particle size
distribution and size specific emission factors for sewage sludge
incinerators. Figures 2.5-1, 2.5-2, and 2.5-3 show the cumulative particle
size distribution and size-specific emission factors for multiple-hearth,
fluidized-bed, and electric infrared incinerators, respectively.
2.5-2 EMISSION FACTORS
-------
oj
CO
as
o
H
5
M
O
3
i-i
Cd
S
J"-J
a
nJ
CO
Cd
U
S
Cd
CO
ai
g
CO
oa
0
EH
O
C=4
^
0
M
co
CO
32
Cd
i— 1
1
IT!
*
Cd
1
I
2
tL
3
u
.M
a
UJ
•5
.a
]§
•a
3
u_
t
1
*^
£
x
e
lis
LU
filfl
a» *"*
Ig"^
2 •? 3- ®
i.s-S'S
c § **^
s
§ «. 0)
(rt O 4-*
,f-«-
*• "* "^-s
£.2 §£?§
c ? '*• ^^i
"* S *-*•
"V
1 If I
Is ~
ot.cn
•«- o c:
Wl -M *f
M * I
« -^
*- a
•o
§
I
UJ
•
01
® ° S -' S cJ
*-'^-' 0 0 O CM
o un in r^. . .
d o- °* d "
O CM O ^ O «>
^•J ^H CM CO (O CO
5? S ° *^ G. *7
o o *^ *"* ^r
O
•o
S % ^ 5 5 «
d o o o o o
0 0 0 O O C3
s
a
ja
S S S S 8 S
ca a o o o o
55 00 en o ^ cn e *r~ o. eii o I
*— 3 o 5 -u a i z
(O T3 <4_ • {_ jQ
*(n .2
•a S2 >
C r—
^ 5
<— Ol «» .O (O
I'f f = § =1
"J'sJ-f IJ
Solid Waste Disposal
2.5-3
-------
TABLE 2.5-2. CUMULATIVE PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE SPECIFIC
EMISSION FACTORS FOR SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS3
Particle
size,
microns
15
10
5.0
2.5
1.0
0.625
TOTAL
Cumulative mass % < stated size Cumulative
em f ss ! on
Uncontrolled Control led Uncontrolled
MHD Fbc Ela MHD . Pbc El° MH° Fbc
15 NA 43 30 7.7 60 6..0 NA
(12)
10 NA 30 27 7.3 50 4.1 NA
(8.2)
5.3 NA 17 25 6.7 35 2.1 NA
(4.2)
2.8 NA 10 22 6.0 25 1.1 NA
(2.2)
1.2 NA 6.0 20 5.0 18 0.47 NA
,(0.94)
0.75 NA 5;0 17 2.7 15 0.30 NA
(0.60)
100 100 100 100 100 100 40 NA
(80)
Ela
4.3
(8.6)
3.0
(6.0)
1.7
(3.4)
1.0
(2.0)
0.60
(1.2)
0.50
(1.0)
10.
(20)
factor, kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
Control led
MH° Fbc
0.12 0.23
(0.24) (0.46)
0.11 0.22
(0.22) (0.44)
0.10 0.20
(0.20) (0.40)
0.09 0.18
(0.18) (0.36)
0.08 0.15
(0.16) (0.30)
0.07 0.08
(0.14) (0.16)
0.40 3.0
(0.80) (6.0)
Ela
1.2
(2.4)
1.0
(2.0)
0.70
(1.4)
0.50
(1.0)
0.35
(0.70)
0.30
(0.60)
2.0
(4.0)
^Reference 5.
°m = multiple hearth.
°FB = fluidized bed.
El 3 electric infrared.
NA 3 not
aval lable.
.g- y.u
&
*"* 7 5
o
4-1
cd
•" 6.0
e
o
•H
co , _
co 4.5
1
*& 0 f\
co 3.0
o
u 1.5
a
o
0
a o
-
Controlled — v
NV
Xx^
"•* ^.^^^^
—^ I
S ^~
^S
-! •
t 1 lltltfl t t Ittlttl
0.1 • 1-0 10
/^
^7
/
/
f
•
n ia
-
"
_
_
Uncontrolled
i i
i i i i 1 1
60
s_
60
0.15 "^
•^
o
o
0.12 «
a
0.09 °
CO
co
1
0.06
cu
r-l
0
0.03 *
4J
ti
O
0 °
100
Particle diameter (urn)
Figure 2.5-1. Cumulative particle size distribution
size-specific emission factors for
multiple-hearth incinerators.
and
2.5-4
EMISSION FACTORS
-------
i I I I I I
0.1
1.0 10'
Particle diameter (urn)
0.24
I'
-so
0.20 •*
0.16 g
M-l
0.12 .2
•co-
co
•H
0.08 <"
cu
100
0.04 2
4J
B
o
0 U
Figure 2.5-2. Cumulative particle size distribution and
size-specific emission factors for
fluidized-bed incinerator!}.
60 6
a
60
M
O
e
o
•H
CO o
CO J
•H
I
•s-2
o
§^
o
o
^0
Uncontrolled
i i i i i i i 11
I | I I I I I I I
I L 1 I 1_J_ I
0.1
1.0 , 10
Particle diameter (urn)
1.50
1.25
1.0
0.75
0.50
0.25
60
S
60
O
•U
a
cd
M-l
d
o
•H
en
CO
•H
3
O
S-l
4J
§
100
Figure 2.5-3. Cumulative particle size distribution and
size-specific emission factors for
electric (infrared) incinerators.
Solid Waste Disposal
2.5-5
-------
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.5
1. Environmental Regulations and Technology; Use and Disposal of Municipal
Wastewater Sludge, EPA-625/10-84-003, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH, September 1984.
2. ; Seminar Publication; Municipal Wastewater Sludge Combustion Technology,
' EPA-62574-85/015, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
; OH, September 1985.
3. Written communication from C. Hester, Midwest Research Institute, Gary,
NC, to J. Crowder, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S.
; Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. September
1985.
4. Control Techniques for Particulate Emissions From Stationary Sources
Volume 1, EPA-45/3-81-005a. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
' Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1982.
5. j Draft report. Emission Factor Documentation for AP-42 Section 2.5—
Sewage Sludge Incineration, Monitoring and Data Analysis Division,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. JSnvironmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, September 1987.
2.5-6 EMISSION FACTORS
-------
-------
APPENDIX A.
DATA TRANSFER LOG FORM
-------
-------
SSl/RI Cr1t/Part/Acid/Met/Part Size Date:____
Source: __ ^Control Device: _
Test- StacK/Material Balance/Other: OVERALL RATING:' A. 6 C D
I *•* t» « «* V«*^l|\f < •*• •« ^j_ ._.„_._ _i.j_j.j..*,^****«*************^P*'4nlp*****^********j*l*»*»**i*.*
*************»**********
Check for Rejection: accept reject
i. Test series averages can be converted to selected reporting .units ^ _ . .
2. Test series represent compatible test methods _ _ _
3. v Test series of controlled emissions specify the control device _ _
4. Test series clearly identify and describe the source process _ _
5. Test series clearly specify emissions as controlled/uncontrolled _ _ _
If not Rejected, Evaluate; . yes no rating*
1. S6UR& OPERATION """ 'A B C"D
a. Source manner of operation well documented _ _ _
b. Source operating within typical parameters during test _ _
2. SAMPLJN6 PROCEDURES ~" A B C C
a. Deviation from Standard Methods _ _ _
b. Deviations well documented _ _
c. Deviations result in questionable test results _ _
3. SAHPLIN6 ANb PROCESS DATA ~~ A g c L
a. Wide deviation in test results _ _
b. Deviation explained in report _ _
4. ANALVSIS AUD CALCULATIONS " A B c L-
a. Original raw data sheets included _ _
; b. Nomenclature and equations equivalent to EPA-specified _ -
c. Calculations warrant review , - -
COMMENTS: _ __ ___ - -
*Rating: A = Sound methodology; enough detail for adequate validation.
B * Generally sound methodology but lack enough detail for adequate vanaat
C = Based on untested or new methodology or lack a significant amount of
background data. ;
D * Based on generally unacceptable method but may provide an order-ot-
magnitude value for the source.
: A-l : . _
-------
Ref#
Incinerator Type/Mfg
Control Device Type/Mfg
Comments:
Participate Sizing on Pages
TOXIC METALS EMISSIONS DATA
Process Measurements
Runs
Feed Rate
Flow Rate
°2
co2
Emissions
Inlet
Outlet
Page Table Location Units 1 2 3 4 5 6
,,
As . .
Be ' -
Cd
Cr
Pb
Hg
Ni
As
Be
Cd
Cr
Pb
Hg
Ni
A-2
-------
;ACID GAS EMISSIONS DATA
.Process Measurements Ru"s
; t>age Table Location Units 1 . 2
Feed Rate
t
Flow Rate
C02
; Emissions
Inlet H2S04
• HC1
HF
Outlet ._ H SO
HC1
' HF
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS EMISSIONS DATA
Process Measurements Runs
Page Table Location Units 1 2
, V
; Feed Rate . • ._
'. FT ow Rate .
i
;0«
Emissions
Inlet PM
! NO
| S02
CO
Outlet PM
NO
x
2
CO
-------
TOXIC ORGANICS EMISSIONS DATA
Process Measurements
Page Table Location Units l
Feed Rate
Flow Rate
o2 •
C02
Emissions (Units:,
Page Table
2378 TCDD
2378 TCDF
Tot TCDD
Tot TCDF
Tot PCDD
Tot PCDF
Tot HxCDD
Tot HxCDF
Tot HpCDD
Tot HpCDF
Tot OcCDD
Tot OcCDF
Tet-OctCDD _
Tet-OctCDF _
Tot PCB
Formaldehyd_
Tot C1B
Tot C1P
BaP
Benzene
"" Inlet
1 23 ave
•
Page
Outlet
2 3
A-4
-------
-------
-------