& EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EPA-453/R-94-046a
July 1994
Air
Medical Waste Incinerators -
Background Information for
Proposed Standards and Guidelines:
Environmental Impacts Report
for New and Existing Facilities
-------
-------
EPA-453/R-94-046a
Medical Waste Incinerators-Background Information for Proposed
Standards and Guidelines: Environmental Impacts Report for New and
Existing Facilities
July 1994
U, S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
-------
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report is issued by the Emission Standards Division,
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency. It presents technical data of interest to a
limited number .of readers. Mention of trade names and commercial
products is not intended to constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use. Copies of this report are available free
of charge to Federal employees, current contractors and grantees,
and nonprofit organizations--as supplies permit--from the Library
Services Office (MD-35), U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711 ([919] 541-2777) or,
for a nominal fee, from the National Technical Information
Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161
( [703] 487-4650) .
iii
-------
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 NEW MWI's 1
1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1
1.2 AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS 2
1.2.1 Primary Emissions . 2
1.2.2 Secondary Emissions . . . 4
1.3 WATER POLLUTION IMPACTS 5
. 1.3.1 Wastewater Sources, Volume, and
Composition 6
1.3.2 Wastewater Regulations 7
1.3.3 Alternative Wet Scrubber Designs That
Minimize Wastewater Discharges 9
1.4 SOLIDS DISPOSAL IMPACTS 11
1.4.1 Medical Waste Incineration Rates 11
1.4.2 Fabric Filter Ash 11
1.4.3 Solid Waste Regulations 12
1.5 ENERGY IMPACTS . . 13
1.6 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 14
2.0 EXISTING MWI'S 14
2.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 14
2.2 AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS 15
2.2.1 Primary Emissions . 15
2.2.2 Secondary Emissions 16
2.3 WATER POLLUTION IMPACTS 16
2.4 SOLIDS DISPOSAL IMPACTS . . 17
2.5 ENERGY IMPACTS 17
2.6 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS . . 18
3.0 REFERENCES 52
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
TABLE 1. SUMMARY OF MODEL COMBUSTORS FOR
NEW MWI MODEL PLANTS 19
TABLE 2. CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES FOR MEDICAL WASTE
INCINERATORS ..... 20
TABLE 3. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS FOR NEW MWI's .... 21
TABLE 4. ANNUAL PRIMARY EMISSIONS FOR EACH
NEW MODEL PLANT 22
TABLE 5. ANNUAL NATIONWIDE PRIMARY EMISSIONS FOR
EACH NEW MODEL PLANT 24
TABLE 6. ANNUAL SECONDARY EMISSIONS FOR EACH NEW MODEL
PLANT 26
TABLE 7. ANNUAL NATIONWIDE SECONDARY EMISSIONS
FOR EACH NEW MODEL PLANT 2V
TABLE 8. ANNUAL AMOUNT OF POLLUTANTS IN WASTEWATER
EFFLUENT FOR EACH NEW MODEL PLANT 28
TABLE 9. ANNUAL NATIONWIDE AMOUNT OF POLLUTANTS
IN WASTEWATER EFFLUENT FOR EACH NEW MODEL
PLANT . . 29
TABLE 10. FACILITY B WATER ANALYSIS 30
TABLE 11. POLLUTANT MASS EMISSION AND DISCHARGE
RATES 31
TABLE 12. COMPOSITION OF CONCENTRATED BRINE 32
TABLE 13. ANNUAL AMOUNT OF ASH GENERATED BY EACH
NEW MODEL PLANT WITH FABRIC FILTER SYSTEMS
WITH AND WITHOUT CARBON INJECTION 33
TABLE 14. ANNUAL NATIONWIDE AMOUNT OF ASH GENERATED BY
EACH NEW MODEL PLANT WITH FABRIC FILTER SYSTEMS
WITH AND WITHOUT CARBON INJECTION ....... 34
TABLE 15. FACILITY A BAGHOUSE ASH ANALYSIS 35
TABLE 16. FACILITY A METALS CONCENTRATION OF LIME .... 35
TABLE 17. TCLP RULE ALLOWABLE POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS
IN LEACHATE 35
v±
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 18. ANNUAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS TO OPERATE
CONTROL EQUIPMENT FOR EACH NEW MODEL PLANT . .
TABLE 19. ANNUAL NATIONWIDE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS TO OPERATE
CONTROL EQUIPMENT FOR EACH NEW MODEL PLANT . .
Page
36
37
TABLE 20. SUMMARY OF MODEL COMBUSTORS FOR EXISTING
MWI MODEL PLANTS 38
TABLE 21. POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS FOR EXISTING MWI'S . . 39
TABLE 22. ANNUAL PRIMARY EMISSIONS FOR EACH EXISTING
MODEL PLANT .40
TABLE 23. ANNUAL NATIONWIDE PRIMARY EMISSIONS FOR
EACH EXISTING MODEL PLANT 42
TABLE 24. ANNUAL SECONDARY EMISSIONS FOR EACH EXISTING
MODEL PLANT . 44
TABLE 25. ANNUAL NATIONWIDE SECONDARY EMISSIONS FOR
EACH EXISTING MODEL PLANT 45
'TABLE 26. ANNUAL AMOUNT OF POLLUTANTS IN WASTEWATER
EFFLUENT FOR EACH EXISTING MODEL PLANT .... 46
TABLE 27. ANNUAL NATIONWIDE AMOUNT OF POLLUTANTS IN
WASTEWATER EFFLUENT FOR EACH EXISTING MODEL
PLANT 47
TABLE 28. ANNUAL AMOUNT OF ASH GENERATED BY EACH
EXISTING MODEL PLANT WITH FABRIC FILTER
SYSTEMS WITH AND WITHOUT CARBON INJECTION ... 48
TABLE 29. ANNUAL NATIONWIDE AMOUNT OF ASH GENERATED BY
EACH EXISTING MODEL PLANT WITH FABRIC
FILTER WITH AND WITHOUT CARBON INJECTION ... 49
TABLE 30. ANNUAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS TO OPERATE
CONTROL EQUIPMENT FOR EACH EXISTING MODEL
PLANT 50
TABLE 31. ANNUAL NATIONWIDE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS TO
OPERATE CONTROL EQUIPMENT FOR EACH EXISTING
MODEL PLANT . 51
vii
-------
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS REPORT
This report is one of a series of reports prepared to
support the development of standards of performance for new
medical waste incinerators (MWI's) and guidelines for States to
develop specific emission standards for existing MWI's. The
other reports in the series provide background information on the
medical waste incineration industry and on the process
description, the emission control technologies, the emission
control costs, and the model plants for the medical waste
incineration process.
This report presents the environmental impacts associated
with the control technologies for controlling emissions from
MWI's. The- incremental increase or decrease in air pollution,
water pollution, solid waste generation, and energy consumption
for each control technology relative to baseline is discussed.
All impacts are based on representative model plant parameters
presented in the Model Plant Description and Cost Report for New
and Existing Facilities, on control technologies presented in the
Control Technology Performance Report for New and Existing
Facilities, and on baseline emissions and controlled emissions
defined in the Average Emission Rates for MWI's memorandum.1"3
These impacts are evaluated in Sections 1.0 and 2.0 for model
plants representing new and existing MWI's, respectively.
1.0 NEW MWI's
1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Seven model combustors were developed to represent new
MWI's. These specific combustors represent the most common types
of combustor design and the most typical charging capacities.
They include two continuous, three intermittent, one batch, and
one pathological model combustors with 1-second (sec) gas
residence times in the secondary chamber. Table 1 summarizes the
new model combustor population, size, type, application, and
operating parameters. The most common type of auxiliary fuel
used, natural gas, has been specified for all of the model
combustors.
-------
Table 2 summarizes the control technologies, both combustion
and add-on, that are combined with the selected model combustors
to comprise the new model plants that are evaluated. The first
control technology examined is 1-sec combustion control, which is
considered baseline for new MWI's. Baseline reflects the level
of emissions in the absence of any Federal regulations for new
MWI's. The second control technology examined is 2-sec
combustion control with no add-on control device. The remaining
control technologies examined are based on combinations of 2-sec
combustion control and an add-on control device from either wet
systems or fabric filter systems (with or without activated
carbon injection). Wet systems include a venturi scrubber (VS)
alone or in combination with a packed bed absorber (PB). Fabric
filter systems include a fabric filter/packed bed absorber
(FF/PB), a dry injection/fabric filter (DI/FF), and a spray
dryer/fabric filter (SD/FF).
1.2 AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS
This section describes the primary and secondary air
pollution impacts associated with each control technology for new
MWI's. Section 1.2.1 presents estimates of annual primary
emissions and performance for each control device. Section 1.2.2
presents estimates of annual secondary emissions and the sources
and impacts of these emissions.
1.2.1 Primary Emissions
The primary pollutants to be evaluated are total particulate
matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), chlorinated dioxins and furans
(CDD/CDF), hydrogen chloride (HC1), sulfur dioxide (SO2),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), and mercury (Hg).
Table 3 presents the pollutant concentrations for new MWI's at
baseline conditions and for each control technology.3 The 1-sec
baseline concentrations for these pollutants are based on
emission test data from an MWI with l-sec combustion control. The
pollutant concentration estimates for the 2-sec combustion
control technology are based on incinerator outlet test data from
one MWI with 2-sec combustion control. Generally, combustion
-------
control reduces PM, CDD/CDF, and CO emissions but does not reduce
the emissions of any other pollutants.
The concentration estimates for the remaining control
technologies are based on emission test data from MWI's with add-
on control devices and on achievable emission levels associated
with each device. The wet system concentration estimates are
based on achievable emission levels associated with the VS/PB
control device.
Table 4 presents estimates of the annual primary emissions
in tons per year (ton/yr) for each new model plant. Table 5
presents the annual nationwide estimates of these emissions based
on an estimated number of new model plants.1 Control device
performances used to determine the pollutant emissions are
presented in the following paragraphs. The performances are
presented relative to 2-sec combustion control because the add-on
control technologies evaluated include 2-sec combustion control.
For new continuous, intermittent, and pathological MWI's,
the PM emission reduction for wet systems is based on a
50 percent removal efficiency associated with a VS/PB. Wet
systems are not expected to achieve 50 percent removal of PM
emissions from batch MWI's because inlet PM emissions from these
units are very low. As a result, the lowest concentration
believed to be achievable with wet systems (0.015 grains per dry
standard cubic foot [gr/dscf] was used to determine the PM
emissions from batch MWI's.
For all types of MWI's, the PM emission reduction for the
fabric filter systems is based on the constant PM outlet level
achievable with those systems. Based on particle sizing
conducted during emission tests, emissions of PM smaller than
10 microns (PM10) are approximately 83 percent of PM emissions,
and the reductions are the same as those of PM.
Carbon monoxide emissions, which are affected by combustion
.practices, are reduced by 95 percent from baseline (1-sec
combustion control) under 2-sec combustion control for all model
types. No further reduction is achieved by any of the add-on
control devices.
-------
Dioxin'and furan emissions are also affected by combustion
practices; however, unlike CO emissions, CDD/CDF emissions can be
reduced further by add-on control devices. Those reductions are
based on the following CDD/CDF removal efficiencies,: 70 percent
for wet systems and 98 percent for DI/FF or SD/FF systems with
carbon injection. The DI/FF and SD/FF systems without carbon
injection are not effective in reducing CDD/CDF emissions. The
FF/PB system without carbon injection may actually generate
CDD/CDF. It is not known whether adding carbon to the FF/FB can
reduce CDD/CDF emissions to the same level as that achieved by
the other fabric filter systems with carbon injection.
Acid gas emissions (i.e., HC1, S02, NOX) are not.affected by
combustion practices; therefore, no reduction of acid gases is
^achieved under 2-sec combustion control. Add-on control devices,
however, do provide HC1 control. The fabric filter systems (with
and without activated carbon) and the wet systems reduce HC1
emissions by 95 percent. Nitrogen oxide and S02 emissions are
not affected by any of the control devices.
Metal emissions are also not affected by combustion
practices; therefore, no reduction of metal emissions is achieved
under 2-sec combustion. However, add-on controls are effective
in reducing metal emissions. The wet systems reduce Pb emissions
by 45 percent and Cd emissions by 40 percent. The fabric filter
systems (with and without activated carbon) reduce Pb emissions
by 98 percent and Cd emissions by 96 percent. The DI/FF and
SD/FF systems with activated carbon are the only control
technologies, which have been evaluated that are effective in
reducing Hg emissions, with a reduction of 90 percent.
1.2.2 Secondary Emissions
Secondary emissions of air pollutants result from the
generation of energy required to operate add-on control devices.
Most of the electrical energy is needed (1) to operate the
induced draft (ID) fans used to control airflow through the
systems and (2) to operate the scrubber water pumps used in wet
systems including a VS or VS/PB. The generation of power
-------
required to" operate these control devices produces PM, S02, and
NOY emissions.
J^
Secondary.emissions were calculated assuming that the
electric power needed to operate the add-on control devices is
supplied by a coal-fired power plant. (Electricity requirements
for each model plant are discussed in Section 1.5.) The thermal
efficiency of this generator is estimated to be 38 percent.4 The
average heat content of bituminous coal is approximately
12,600 British thermal units per pound (Btu/lb).5 Also for this
analysis, the emission rates in pounds per ton (Ib/ton) of coal
combusted from controlled facilities are estimated to be
0.76 Ib/ton for PM, 15.13 Ib/ton for S02, and 15.13 Ib/ton for
NOX.6
The annual secondary emissions in ton/yr for each new model
plant are presented in Table 6. The annual nationwide secondary
emissions, which are based on an estimated number of new model
plants, are presented in Table 7. For all model plants, the wet
systems have the most significant impact on secondary emissions
because the VS/PB system on which their impacts are based
consumes more energy than any of the fabric filter systems.
The magnitude of the secondary pollutants generated by
operating any of the control devices is much smaller than the
magnitude of pollutants being recovered. For example, by
installing wet systems on all new 1,500 Ib/hr continuous MWI's,
approximately 280 tons of secondary pollutants would be emitted
annually nationwide, while HC1 emissions alone would be reduced .
by approximately 5,600 ton/yr nationwide.
1.3 WATER POLLUTION IMPACTS
This section describes the water pollution impacts of each
MWI control technology. Section 1.3.1 describes the sources,
volume, and composition of wastewater. Section 1.3.2 describes
regulations that apply to wastewater discharges. Section 1.3.3
/describes alternative control system designs that minimize or
•eliminate wastewater discharges.
-------
1.3.1 Wastewater S urces. Volume, and Composition
Wastewater is generated by the wet control systems and by
the FF/PB system. The FF/PB,system discharges wastewater from
the mist eliminator in the packed bed. The concentrations of
pollutants (metals) in the wastewater are expected to be low
because the pollutants are removed by, the fabric filter. In the
VS/PB wet control system, an alkaline (usually caustic) solution
is circulated through the quench, venturi, and packed bed.
Typically, the solution is pumped from a common sump to all of
the components. Some of the liquid evaporates in the quench,
which cools and saturates the exhaust gas stream. In the
venturi, droplets collect particulate and condensed metals by
impaction and diffusion. Acid gases are absorbed by the
circulating solution, primarily in the packed bed, and react with
the dissolved caustic to produce soluble salts.
Evaporation of water in the quench increases the
concentration of dissolved and suspended solids in the
circulating solution. This process eventually causes the
dissolved salts to reach their solubility limit and begin to
precipitate. It also increases the concentration of suspended
solids, which increases the amount of abrasion and erosion of the
venturi and other control system components. To maintain the
concentrations of dissolved and suspended solids at acceptable
levels, a small amount of the recirculating solution is withdrawn
and discharged. This wastewater discharge is called the system
blowdown.
Four VS/PB vendors provided blowdown rates for a range of
facility sizes. A summary of the data is presented in the Model
Plant Description and Cost Report for New and Existing
Facilities.1 Annual wastewater discharges and the amount of
pollutants contained in the wastewater were estimated for each of
the new model plants, and the results are presented in Table 8.
The annual wastewater discharges are based on estimated blowdown
rates, and the amount of pollutants in the wastewater is based on
the removal efficiency associated with the VS/PB system. All
pollutants removed from the gas stream are assumed to be
-------
transferred' to the wastewater. Table 9 presents the nationwide
amount of pollutants contained in the wastewater for each new
model plant.
In the VS/PB control system, PM, organics, and metals are
transferred directly to the wastewater; most of the acid gases
are converted to sodium salts (or calcium salts, if lime is used
as the alkaline reagent).
The wastewater from one VS/PB system that is used to control
emissions from an MWI was analyzed for eight metals. Salt
concentrations were not analyzed, but they were estimated based
on an estimated blowdown rate, the acid gas removal efficiency in
the VS/PB, and the inlet and outlet gas flow rates. The blowdown
rate is equal to the makeup rate minus the amount of evaporated
water. The makeup rate was measured during the test, and the
amount of water evaporated in the system was estimated based on
the inlet and outlet gas flow rates and moisture levels. The
actual metal and estimated salt concentrations are presented in
Table 10.
Mass balances were performed that show the amount of most
metals discharged to the wastewater to be less than or equal to
the amount removed from the gas stream. The metal discharge
rates were determined based on the estimated blowdown rate and
the concentrations presented in Table 10. The amounts removed
from the gas were estimated based on the inlet and outlet gas
flow rates, oxygen concentrations, and metal concentrations. The
mass emission and discharge rates and the percentage differences
are shown in Table 11.
1.3.2 Wastewater Regulations7
A wet system, such as a VS/PB control device, transfers
certain pollutants (CDD/CDF and metals) from the stack gas to
scrubber water. Typically, the scrubber water is discharged to
the publicly owned treatment works (POTW's). All wastewater from
MWI control systems that is discharged to POTW's must meet the
General Pretreatment Regulations set forth in 40 CFR Part 403.
These regulations contain both general and specific prohibitions.
The general prohibitions stipulate that users may not introduce
7
-------
into a POTW' any pollutant(s) that cause "pass through" or
"interference." "Pass through" means a discharge from the POTW
that causes a violation of the POTW's National, Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. "Interference"
means a discharge that inhibits or disrupts (1) the operation of
the POTW such that the NPDES permit is violated or (2) the use or
disposal of the sludge that is generated by the POTW.
The specific prohibitions would not be violated by the
CDD/CDF or metal discharges that might occur from MWI control
systems. There are also several categorical (industry-specific)
pretreatment standards, one of which applies to hospital
discharges. However, the hospital pretreatment standard only
addresses biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids
(TSS), and pH; none of these parameters is affected by CDD/CDF or
metal discharges that might occur from MWI control systems.
Under 40 CFR Part 403, each POTW is charged with developing
effluent limits to implement the general and specific
prohibitions. These limits are subject to approval by the
appropriate "Approval Authority"--either the Director in States
with an approved NPDES permit program or the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Regional Administrator in other States.
Since effluent limits are set by individual POTW's, the limits
vary among POTW's, depending on such factors as the type of
treatment system, the nature of the effluent from other
discharges, and the local conditions.
Although effluent limits among POTW's nationwide vary
4
significantly, only a few POTW's are known to have imposed limits
that MWI facilities have not been able to meet. The wastewater
discharges from MWI's that are known not to have met POTW-imposed
limits contain metal concentrations above POTW standards.
Currently, no POTW's are known to have imposed regulations for
CDD/CDF on wastewater discharges from MWI's. The MWI's that have
not met POTW limits have been required to install pretreatment
facilities. These pretreatment facilities remove the offending
contaminants before they are discharged to the sewer system.
-------
1.3.3 Alternative Wet Scrubber Designs That Minimize Wastewater
Discharges
At least three wet scrubber vendors have developed control
systems that minimize or eliminate wastewater discharges.
Descriptions of the design and operation of these systems are
presented in the following sections.
1.3.3.1 Filter System.8 One vendor manufactures two wet
control systems that are designed to have no liquid discharge.
The design differences between the two control systems are in the
equipment to reduce emissions into the air. The procedure for
eliminating blowdown is the same for both systems. In both
systems, liquid used in the venturi is circulated from a sump
that is separate from the sparger/neutralization system. Makeup
water is added to the sump, and a slip stream from the sump is
pumped to the sparger section to replenish evaporative losses.
As the water evaporates in the sparger, the concentration of
dissolved salts and suspended solids increases. After reaching
the solubility limit, further concentration of the dissolved
salts in the liquid causes them to precipitate. Suspended solids
naturally settle in the tank. The sparger/neutralization tank is
designed such that precipitating salts and settling suspended
solids are directed to a drain from which they are pumped (as a
wet sludge) to a filtering system. The solids are then removed
on a slowly moving disposable filter medium, and the filtrate is
pumped back to the sparger.
1.3.3.2 Spray drver. One vendor manufactures a VS/PB
control system that uses a spray dryer to eliminate liquid
discharges. This control system consists of a spray dryer,
condensing heat exchanger (optional) or quench, venturi,
absorber, ID fan, and stack. Blowdown from the neutralization
system is pumped to the spray dryer, where it is injected and
dried by the hot incinerator exhaust gas. A cyclone collector is
.incorporated in the bottom section of the dryer so that solids
are removed from the gas stream before they are discharged to the
condensing heat exchanger and scrubbing system.
-------
1.3.3/3 Concentrated brine. One vendor manufactures a wet
scrubber control system that minimizes liquid discharges by
generating a concentrated brine solution. A number of options
are available to remove certain suspended and dissolved solids
from the'brine or to eliminate all liquid discharges. The
control system consists of a quench vessel (on systems without a
waste heat recovery boiler [WHRB]), a prespray tower, a rotary
atomizer, a mist eliminator, a liquid recirculation system, an ID
fan, and a stack.
The liquid recirculation system is designed with three
circulating liquid loops, with the liquid being staged in a
countercurrent direction relative to the gas flow. The cleanest
circulating water and makeup water enters the mist eliminator and
rotary atomizer section. Overflow from the tank in this loop is
piped to the second stage, which circulates liquid through the
prespray tower. Some of the liquid in this stage is diverted to
the third stage, which circulates liquid through the quench. As
water evaporates in the quench, the concentration of dissolved
solids increases. When the concentration is about 15 percent, a
blowdown stream is activated. The blowdown rate is about
0.5 percent of the total scrubber recirculating flow.
The blowdown brine solution can be treated by a process
that, the manufacturer claims, produces a nonleaching filter cake
and a "clean" brine.9 In the treatment process, colloidal clay,
sodium hydroxide, and sodium sulfide are mixed with the brine
solution from the control system. The mixture is filtered, and
the heavy metals, flyash (suspended solids), and organics are
removed into the filter cake. The filtrate is a "clean" brine,
which reportedly can be sent to a sanitary sewer or evaporated to
dryness. The vendor provided the data in Table 12, which shows
the composition of the brine before and after treatment. The
filter cake is a nonhazardous waste that can be transported to a
sanitary landfill for disposal.10
10
-------
1.4 SOLIDS" DISPOSAL IMPACTS
This section describes the solid waste impacts for new
MWI's. Section 1.4.1 describes the quantity of waste that is
incinerated in new MWI's. Section 1.4.2 describes the types,
quantities, and composition of ash captured by fabric filter
control devices. Section 1.4.3 describes existing regulations
that apply to solid waste disposal.
1.4.1 Medical Waste Incineration Rates
The nationwide quantity of medical waste incinerated in new
MWI's is a function of the number of new MWI's and their waste
charging rates, operating hours per day, and operating days per
year. These parameters are presented in the Model Plant
Description and Cost Report.1 The resulting annual waste
incineration rates for individual model MWI plants are shown in
Table 13. The annual nationwide incineration rates for all model
plants are shown in Table 14, and the total is 465,000 tons/yr.
These rates are unaffected by the type of air pollution control
device that is used.
1.4.2 Fabric Filter Ash
Fabric filter ash is generated by all of the control systems
which use a fabric filter to control PM emissions. When the
exhaust gas stream from the incinerator is drawn through the
fabric filter, particle emissions are retained on the fabric
material. The cleaned gas passes through to the atmosphere. The
collected particles are then removed from the filter by a
cleaning mechanism, and the removed particles are stored for
proper disposal. Fabric filters are typically combined with
another type of control device that is effective in reducing acid
gas emissions. In the FF/PB system, the acid gases are
neutralized with alkaline scrubber liquid and removed by the
packed bed into the wastewater. In the DI/FF system, dry
scrubbers use an alkaline sorbent, such as lime, to react with
and neutralize the acid gases. The reaction product is a dry
salt, which can be collected with the unreacted sorbent by the
fabric filter. In the SD/FF system, a wet alkaline slurry is
atomized into the gas stream in the spray dryer, where the slurry
11
-------
droplets absorb and react with the acid gases. The droplets
evaporate to dryness prior to collection by the fabric filter.
All of the pollutants that are removed by the DI/FF and SD/FF
systems (PM, metals, acid gas-base reaction products, and
organics) are collected by the fabric filter.
Activated carbon can be injected into the fabric filter
systems to control Hg and CDD/CDF emissions. The amount of
carbon injected is based on carbon concentrations used in
controlled emission tests at MWI facilities A and M. All of the
carbon injected, as well as all of the unreacted sorbent and all
of the acid gas-base reaction products (i.e., CaCl2) are assumed
to be removed by the fabric filter.
Increased annual solid waste generation rates for each of
the new model plants were estimated based on the removal
efficiencies associated with the fabric filter systems and on the
types of pollutants collected by the fabric filter. The results
are presented in Table 13. Table 14 presents the annual
nationwide amount of fabric filter ash generated for each new
model plant.
The fabric filter ash from the test at Facility A, which
uses a DI/FF system, was analyzed for organics and eight metals;
these results are presented in Table 15. The lime used at this
facility was also analyzed for eight metals; these results are
presented in Table 16.
1-4.3 Solid Waste Regulations
The possibility that fabric filter ash could be considered
hazardous must be addressed when investigating the impacts of
fabric filter systems. Under the Toxicity Characteristic
Leaching Procedure (TCLP) Rule, facilities are required to
determine if the fabric filter ash is considered hazardous,
either by testing the waste or by providing information that will
exclude them from complying with this regulation. The TCLP rule
was promulgated on September 25, 1990, for small generators (100
to 1,000 kilograms [kg] of waste per month) and on March 29,
1991, for large generators (>1,>000 kg/month) . The sludge
generated by wet control systems with no wastewater discharges is
12
-------
also covered under the TCLP rule. In the TCLP test the leachate
concentrations for contaminants listed under
Subpart C--Characteristics of Hazardous Waste, Toxicity
Characteristic (Section 261.24) are measured. If the
concentrations exceed the regulatory level stated in Table 1 of
that section, the ash or sludge, including subsequent mixtures
containing the ash or sludge, is considered hazardous. This
waste is subject to the Land Disposal Restrictions in 40 CFR
Part 268. Under these restrictions, the waste is prohibited from
land disposal unless it is treated using technology specified in
Section 268.40. For those metals anticipated to be present in
the ash or sludge, the maximum concentrations allowable under
Section 261.24 are presented in Table 17.
Most facilities mix the flyash with the bottom ash and
consider the mixture nonhazardous. It is not known whether the
flyash is tested prior to mixing with the bottom ash.11"15 One
company that operates commercial facilities has determined that
the material captured in the fabric filter typically tests as
hazardous in the TCLP test due to the presence of Pb.16 One
hospital also indicated that the material collected in the fabric
filter is hazardous because the Pb content in the lime is high.11
1.5 ENERGY IMPACTS
Additional auxiliary fuel is required for combustion
controls, and additional electrical energy is required to operate
the add-on control devices. Under 2-sec combustion, the
additional auxiliary fuel is used to maintain the secondary
chamber temperature at 1800°F (100°F higher than baseline) for
all model plants during the preheat, burn, and burndown phases
and for batch and intermittent model plants during the cooldown
phase. The same amount of auxiliary fuel is also required for
the remaining control technologies, since they include 2-sec
combustion at 1800°F and have no additional auxiliary fuel
.requirements. Electrical energy is used primarily to operate the
ID fan in all of the control devices and the recirculating liquid
pumps in the wet control systems.' The additional flue gas flow
13
-------
rate associated with the additional 'auxiliary fuel use is assumed
to be negligible.
Table 18 shows the baseline electrical and auxiliary fuel
requirements for each of the new model combustors and the
requirements for the control technologies that are applied to
those combustors. Table 19 presents the annual nationwide energy
requirements for each new model plant. As mentioned in
Section 1.2.2, the VS/PB (used to calculate impacts for the wet
systems) consumes the most electricity.
1.6 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Other potential environmental impacts include noise impacts.
For all MWI size categories, 2-sec combustion control will have
no effect on noise levels. The remaining control technologies
might present some incremental increase in noise levels depending
on the type of control device used. Add-on control devices
require additional equipment (larger ID fans to overcome pressure
drops, and pumps) that will increase noise levels. These noise
impacts, however, are expected to be insignificant.
2.0 EXISTING MWI's
2.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Seven model combustors were developed to represent existing
MWI's. These specific combustors represent the most common types
of combustor design and the most typical charging capacities.
They include one continuous, three intermittent, one batch, and
one pathological model combustors with 0.25-sec gas residence
times in the secondary chamber, and one continuous model
combustor with a 1-sec gas residence time in the secondary
chamber. Table 20 summarizes the model combustor population,
size, type, application, and operating parameters. As with new
MWI's, the most common type of auxiliary fuel used, natural gas,
has been specified for all of the model combustors.
Baseline reflects the level of emissions in the absence of
any Federal guidelines for existing MWI's. The baseline is
0.25-sec combustion control for all existing model combustors
except for the 1,500 Ib/hr continuous unit. The baseline for
this model is 1-sec combustion control. Table 2 summarizes the
14
-------
control technologies, both combustion and add-on, that are
combined with the selected model combustors to comprise the
existing model plants that are evaluated.
2.2 AIR POLLUTION IMPACTS
This section describes the primary and secondary air
pollution impacts associated with each control technology for
existing MWI's. Section 2.2.1 presents estimates of annual
primary emissions and performance for each control device.
Section 2.2.2 presents estimates of annual secondary emissions
and the sources and impacts of these emissions.
2.2.1 Primary Emissions
The primary pollutants to be evaluated are the same as those
for new MWI's that were presented in Section 1.2.1. Table 21
presents the pollutant concentrations for existing MWI's at
baseline conditions and for each control technology. The
concentrations for these pollutants under 0.25-sec and 1-sec
combustion control are based on emission test data from MWI's
with 0.25-sec and 1-sec combustion control, respectively. The
pollutant concentration estimates for the 2-sec combustion
control technology are based on incinerator outlet test data
from one MWI with 2-sec combustion control. Generally,
combustion control reduces PM, CDD/CDF, and CO emissions but does
not reduce the emissions of any other pollutants.
The concentration estimates for the remaining control
technologies are based on emission test data from MWI's with add-
-on control devices and on achievable emission levels associated .
with each device. As with new MWI's, the concentration estimates
for wet systems installed on existing MWI's are based on
achievable emission levels associated with the VS/PB control
device.
Table 22 presents estimates of the annual primary emissions
in ton/yr for each existing model plant. Table 23 presents the
annual nationwide estimates of these emissions based on an
estimated number of existing model plants.1 The pollutant
removal efficiencies and achievable outlet levels associated with
the control technologies for existing MWI's are the same as those
15
-------
associated with the 1-sec baseline and control technologies for
new MWI's and were discussed in Section 1.2.1.
2.2.2 Secondary Emissions
Secondary emissions of air pollutants result from the
generation of energy required to operate add-on control devices.
The assumptions used in calculating these emissions were
presented in Section 1.2.2. Based on these assumptions, the
annual secondary emissions in ton/yr for each existing model
plant are presented in Table 24, and the annual nationwide
secondary emissions, which are based on an estimated number of
existing model plants, are presented in Table 25. For all model
plants, the wet systems have the most significant impact on
secondary emissions because the VS/PB system on which their
impacts are based consumes more energy than any of the fabric
filter systems.
The magnitude of the secondary pollutants generated by
operating any of the control devices is much smaller than the
magnitude of pollutants being recovered. For example, by
installing wet- systems on all existing 1,500 Ib/hr continuous
MWI's, approximately 570 tons of secondary pollutants would be
emitted annually nationwide, while HC1 emissions alone would be
reduced by approximately 11,000 ton/yr nationwide.
2.3 WATER POLLUTION IMPACTS
This section describes the water pollution impacts of each
MWI control technology. The sources and composition of the
wastewater discharges from existing MWI's are the same as those
described in. Section 1.3.1 for new MWI's. Regulations that apply
to wastewater discharges and alternative control system designs
that minimize or eliminate wastewater discharges are the same as
those for new MWI's and were previously discussed in
Sections 1.3.2 and 1.3.3, respectively.
Based on assumptions made in Section 1.3.1 for new MWI's,
the annual wastewater discharges and the amount of pollutants
contained in the wastewater were estimated for each of the
existing model plants, and the results are presented in Table 26.
The annual wastewater discharges are based on estimated blowdown
16
-------
rates, and the amount of pollutants in the wastewater is based on
the removal efficiency associated with the VS/PB system. All
pollutants removed from the gas stream are assumed to be
transferred to the wastewater. Table 27 presents the nationwide
•amount of pollutants contained in the wastewater for each
existing model plant.
2.4 SOLIDS DISPOSAL IMPACTS
This section describes the solid waste impacts for existing
MWI's. The types and composition of the ash captured by the
fabric filter control devices are the same as those discussed in
Section 1.4.2 for new MWI's. Existing regulations that apply to
solid waste disposal are the same as those for new MWI's and were
previously discussed in Section 1.4.3.
The medical waste incineration rates for individual existing
MWI model plants are the same as those for new MWI model plants;
these rates are shown in Table 28. The annual nationwide
incineration rates for all existing models are shown in Table 29,
and the total is 1.8 million tons/yr. This quantity is
unaffected by the type of air pollution control device that is
used.
The increased annual solid waste generation rates for each
of the existing model plants were estimated based on the removal
efficiencies associated with the fabric filter systems and on the
types of pollutants collected by the fabric filter. The results
are presented in Table 28. Table 29 presents the annual
nationwide amount of fabric filter ash generated for each
existing model plant.
2.5 ENERGY IMPACTS
As discussed in Section 1.5 for new MWI's, additional
auxiliary fuel is required for combustion controls, and
additional electrical energy is required to operate the add-on
control devices. Table 30 shows the baseline electrical and
auxiliary fuel requirements for each of the existing model
combustors and the requirements for the control technologies that
are applied to those combustors. Table 31 presents the annual
nationwide energy requirements for each existing model plant.
17
-------
The additional fuel usage over baseline for each existing
model plant is the same as that for each corresponding new model
plant for all of the control technologies. The additional
electricity usage is most significant for the VS/PB representing
wet systems, which requires both ID fans and liquid pumps.
2.6 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Other potential environmental impacts for existing units are
the same as those described in Section 1.6 for new MWI's.
18
-------
CO
O4
w
1
H
JS «
1'g
i!
§
CO
o
I
o
w
p
§
fe
o
CO
CL
ff
<
a s
M-S
O
Z
en
ts
ts
$
es
.3
.•s o
3'3
. tt S
«J ^ -° ®
It'*
1*11
CJ
19
-------
TABLE 2. " CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES FOR MEDICAL WASTE INCINERATORS
1-sec combustion control (1700°F)
No add-on control device
2-sec combustion control (1800°F)
No add-on control device
2-sec combustion control (1800°F)
Wet control systems
2-sec
FF/PB
combustion control (1800°F)
2-sec
DI/FF
combustion control (1800°F)
2-sec
SD/FF
combustion control (1800°F)
2-sec combustion control (1800°F)
FF/PB (with activated carbon injection)
2-sec combustion control (1800°F)
DI/FF (with activated carbon injection)
2-sec combustion control (1800°F)
SD/FF (with activated carbon injection)
FF/PB - Fabric filter/packed bed absorber.
DI/FF = Dry injection/fabric filter.
SD/FF « Spray dryer/fabric filter.
20
-------
en
H
^£
*
i^j
J^
g
cd
o
b
CO
O
H
§
a
§
r i
1
ri
^•1
H
b
j
o
PU
ro
^
ffi
es
o
•*•»
0
Q
£
+rt
'%'
$
O
a
o 1
u a
a.
<*-c
- «
** S
V)
*£
^
^
1
J
c
1
1
C
•^*
g
v-1
ggggggo
CO CO CO CO CO CO
ggg2222
So «n «s es cs r»
S in co oo oo oo
•^ ^l-" of
5 § 5 5 § § 5
VO VO vo vo vo vo vo
vo v^ t- t- r- t- t-
rt rt
O ^ en oo ^ oo
TJ- en
^5 VO VO VO ^D ^D ^D
en
— SS o o o o o
o o o o o o o
ctf
fl
J8
3
§ 1 1 1 1
g 1 1 §• i i 1
^G O >* jJQ fr p^ M
§ y jj f1-! ^ o p-1
CO
g
^
1
CO CO CO CO CO CO C^
ci es ci ci cs ri
^ g {2-"> »« >« ««
||SS3SS
CO CO i-*
vo VO vo vO vO vo VO
00 OO OO 00 00 OO 00
0000000
^ g - --1 -1 -1 -1
ts Tt en
ON ts oo Tf ts cs *->
en vo *"< ON vo «•*
vo •*
Q O O O O O O
^
•3
u
!
*
^g^^^^10
888*-'*'*'*
i ' < ^^
O O O OO 00 00 OO
00 00 ri
en en cs
0 O O O O O O
\n >r> n >n
O O O O O O O
O O vo vo vo vo vo
2 2
VO
en
rr oo >n en oo Tt- o
CO »~< ^ *"*
•**• <« «o
S O 0 O O 0 O
o o o o o o o
*-
a
Js
ra
§ § a 1 -s
oil i i §1
.3 ° *••» pp &, OH M
CQ (S ^ fc. Q 00 E
d
g:
^
d
3
•n
a
8
c3
0
*
1
CQ
1,
^
li
b
i
I
$
21
-------
TABLE 4. ANNUAL PRIMARY EMISSIONS FOR EACH NEW MODEL PLANT
Parameten\model combuston
Capacity, Ib/hr or batch
Exhaust flow rate, dscfm (a)
Operating hours, hr/yr
Pollutant, ton/yr
PM
1-sec (baseline)
2-sec
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (b)
CO
1-sec (baseline)
2-sec
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (b)
CDD/CDF
1-sec (baseline)
2-sec
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (b), (c)
HC1
1-sec (baseline)
2-sec
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (b)
SO2
1-sec (baseline)
2-sec
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (b)
NOx
l-*ec (baseline)
2-sec
Wet system*
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (b)
Continuous models
1,500 1,000
4,747 3,165
7,760 3,564
12.63
7.89
3.95
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
12.05
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
1.6E-04
15E-05
4.6E-06
1.2E-04
15E-05
15E-05
3.0E-07
7633
7633
3.82
3.82
3.82
3.82
3.82
138
138
138
138
138
138
138
9.24
9.24
9.24
9.24
9.24
9.24
9.24
3.87
2.42
1.21
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
3.69
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
4.8E-05
4.6E-06
1.4E-06
3.7E-05
4.6E-06
4.6E-06
9.3E-08
2337
23.37
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
2.83
2.83
2.83
2.83
2.83
2.83
Z83
Intermittent models
1,500 600 200
4,747 1,899 633
4,212 4,212 3,588
6.86
4.28
2.14
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
6.54
033
033
033
033
0.33
033
8.4E-05
8.2E-06
25E-06
65E-05
8.2E-06
8.2E-06
1.6E-07
41.43
41.43
2.07
2.07
2.07
Z07
2.07
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
5.01
5.01
5.01
5.01
5.01
5.01
5.01
2.74
1.71
0.86
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
2.62
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
3.4E-05
33E-06
9.9E-07
2.6E-05
33E-06
33E-06
6.6E-08
16.57
16.57
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
030
030
030
0.30
030
0.30
0.30
2.01
2.01
101
2.01
2.01
2.01
2.01
0.78
0.49
0.24
4.9E-02
4.9E-02
4.9E-02
4.9E-02
0.74
3.7E-02
3.7E-02
3.7E-02
3.7E-02
3.7E-02
3.7E-02
9.6E-06
9.4E-07
Z8E-07
7.4E-06
9.4E-07
9.4E-07
1.9E-08
4.71
4.71
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
85E-02
85E-02
85E-02
8.5E-02
85E-02
85E-02
85E-02
0.57
057
057
0.57
057
0.57
057
500
455
3520
0.15
93E-02
5.1E-02
3.4E-02
3.4E-02
3.4E-02
3.4E-02
035
1.7E-02
1.7E-02
1.7E-02
1.7E-02
1.7E-02
1.7E-02
9.6E-06
9.4E-07
2.8E-07
7.4E-06
9.4E-07
9.4E-07
1.9E-08
0.45
0.45
23E-02
23E-02
2.3E-02
23E-02
23E-02
8.0E-02
8.0E-02
' 8.0E-02
8.0E-02
8.0E-02
8.0E-02
8.0E-02
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
Path, mode
200
730
2,964
0.21
0.21
0.10
4.6E-02
4.6E-02
4.6E-02
4.6E-02
0.11
5.6E-03
5.6E-03
5.6E-03
5.6E-03
5.6E-03
5.6E-03
3.7E-07
3.7E-08
1.1E-08
2.9E-07
3.7E-08
3.7E-08
73E-10
037
037
' 1.8E-02
1.8E-02
1.8E-02
1.8E-02
1.8E-02
059
059
059
059
059
059
059
136
136
136
136
136
136
136
22
-------
TABLE 4. (continued)
Capacity, Ib/hr or batch
Exhaust flow rate, dscfm (a)
Operating hours, hr/yr
Pb
1 -sec (baseline)
2-sec
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (b)
Cd
1 -sec (baseline)
.2-sec
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (b)
Hg
1 -sec (baseline)
2-sec
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (b)
Continuous modeb
1,500 1,000
4,747 3,165
7,760 3,564
0.14
0.14
7.8E-02
Z8E-03
Z8E-03
2.8E-03
Z8E-03
l.OE-02
l.OE-02
6.2E-03
4.1E-04
4.1E-04
4.1E-04
4.1E-04
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
1.1E-02
43E-02
43E-02
Z4E-02
8.7E-04
8.7E-04
8.7E-04
8.7E-04
3.2E-03
3.2E4J3
1.9E-03
1.3E-04
13E-04
13E-04
1.3E-04
3.3E-02
33E-92
3.3Er02
33E-02
33E-02
3.3E-02
33E-03
Intermittent modeb
1,500 600 200
4,747 1399 633
4,212 4,212 3,588
7.7E-02
7.7E-02
4.2E-02
1.5E-03
1.5E-03
1.5E-03
1.5E-03
5.6E-03
5.6E-03
3.4E-03
Z2E-04
Z2E-04
Z2E-04
Z2E-04
5.8E-02
5.8E-02
5.8E-02
5.8E-02
5.8E-02
5.8E-02
5.8E4>3
3.1E-02
aiE-02
1.7E-02
6.1E-04
6.1E-04
6.1E-04
6.1E-04
Z2E-03
Z2E-03
13E-03
9.0E-05
9.0E-05
9.0E-05
9.0E-05
Z3E-02
Z3E-02
Z3E-02
Z3E-02
Z3E-02
23E-02
Z3E-03
8.7E-03
8.7E-03
4.8E-03
1.7E-04
1.7E-04
1.7E-04
1.7E-04
6.4E-04
6.4E-04
3.8E-04
Z6E-05
Z6E-05
Z6E-05
Z6E-05
6.6E-03
6.6E-03
6.6E-03
6.6E-03
6.6E-03
6.6E-03
6.6E-04
Batch model
500
455
3^20
4.8E-03
4^E-03
Z6E-03
9.6E-05
9^E-05
9.6E-05
9.6E-05
1.8E-04
1.8E-04
1.1E-04
7.2E-06
7.2E-06
7.2E-06
7.2E-06
3.4E-03
3.4E-03
3.4E-03
3.4E-03
3.4E-03
3.4E-03
3.4E-04
Path, model
200
730
2,964
7.7E-04
7.7E-04
4.2E-04
ISE-OS
ISE-05
1SE-OS
ISE-OS
ZOE-04
ZOE-04
1.2E-04
8.1E-06
8.1E-06
8.1E-06
8.1E-06
l.OE-04
l.OE-04
l.OE-04
l.OE-04
l.OE-04
l.OE-04
l.OE-05
(a) Actual exhaust gas flow rate out of the incinerator, at 14 percent O2.
(b) Activated carbon concentration b 338 mg/dscm (0.0000211 Ib/dscQ for the DI/FF and 188 mg/dscm (0.0000117 Ib/dscf) for the
SD/FF, based on emission test data from Facility A, which uses a DI/FF, and Facility M, which uses an SD/FF.
(c) The performance of the FF/PB with activated carbon injection in reducing CDD/CDF b unknown.
23
-------
TABLE 5. ANNUAL NATIONWIDE PRIMARY EMISSIONS FOR EACH
NEW MODEL PLANT
PanmetenXmodd combutton
Capacity, rb/hr or batch
Exhauct flow rate, dacf m (a)
Operating boun, hr/yr
Number oC plant*
Pollutant, ton/yr
PM
l-«ec (bueUoc)
2tec
Wettyitems
FF/PB DO carbon
DI/FF DO carbon
SD/FF DO carbon
FF syttemi with carbon (b)
CO
l-*ec(b*ieline)
2-*ec
WettyiteoM
FF/PB no carton
DI/FF DO carbon
SD/FF DO carbon
FF tyitetaa with carbon (b)
CDD/CDF
l-Mc(b*Miiae)
2-MC
Wettyttcai
FF/PB DO carbon
DI/FF DO carbon
SD/FF DO carbon
FFiyttesM with carbon (b), (c)
Ha
l-«ee (baseline)
24CC
WetiyttcsM
FF/PB DO carbon
DI/FF no carbon
• SD/FFoocarbon
FF system* with carbon (b)
SO2
l-MC(baaeaM)
2^e
W*t system*
FF/PB BO carbon
DI/FF DO carbon
SD/FF DO carbon
FF system* with carbon (b)
NOx
l-**e (baseline)
2-MC
W«tyM«a»
FF/PB oo carbon
DI/FF DO carboa
SD/FF »ocart>o«
FF iyiunt witfc orbc* (b)
Continuous modeb
1,500 1,000
4,747 3,165
7.760 3364
77 60
972.49
607J1
303.90
60.78
60.78
60.78
60.78
927.79
4639
46.39
4639
4639
4639
4639
1-2E-02
1JE-03
15E-04
93E-03
1.2E-03
1JE-03
Z3E4S
5377.41
5377.41
293^7
29337
29337
29337
29337
106.11
106.11
106.11
106.11
106.11
106.11
106.11
711.21
71U1
71U1
711.21
711J1
711^1
711^1
232.05
145.03
7231
1450
1430
1450
1450
22138
11.07
11.07
11.07
11.07
11.07
11.07
2.9E-03
Z&E-Q4
8.4E-05
2JE-03
2JE-04
2JE-04
5.6E-06
1,402.42
1,402.42
70.12
70.12
70.12
70.12
70.12
2532
2532
2532
2532
2532
2532
2532
169.70
169.70
169.70
169.70
169.70
169.70
169.70
Intermittent modeb
1500 600 200
4,747 1399 633
4,212 4,212 3588
20 95 280
137.10
85.69
42J5
857
857
857
857
130.80
654
654
654
654
654
654
1.7E-03
1.6E-04
4.9E-OS
13E-03
1.6E-04
1.6E4M
33E-06
828^1
828.61
41.43
41.43
41.43
41.43
41.43
14.96
14.96
14.96
14.96
14.96
14.96
14.96
100.27
10077
100.27
100.27
10077
100.27
10027
26053
16183
81.41
16.28
16J8
16.28
16J8
24855
12.43
1X43
1143
1143
1143
1143
30E-03
3.1E-44
9.4E-05
25E-03
3.1E-04
3.1E-04
63E-06
157453
157453
78.73
78.73
78.73
78.73
78.73
28.43
28.43
28.43
28.43
28.43
28.43
28.43
19053
19053
19053
19053
19053
19053
19053
218.04
13677
68.14
13^3
1343
1343
1343
208.01
10.40
10.40
10.40
10.40
10.40
10.40
2.7E-03
16E-04
7.9E-05
11E-03
2.6E-04
16E-04
5OE-06
1317.74
1317.74
6539
6539
6539
6539
6539
23.79
23.79
23.79
23.79
23.79
23.79
23.79
159.46
159.46
159.46
159.46
159.46
159.46
159.46
Batch model
500
455
3520
165
24.46
1579
8.49
546
546
5.66
546
5743
238
238
238
238
238
238
1.6E-03
15E44
4.6E-OS
1.2E-03
15E-04
15E44
3.1E-06
75.01
75.01
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
13.18
13.18
13.18
13.18
13.18
13.18
13.18
4073
4073
4073
4073
4073
4073
4073
Path, model
200
730
2,964
5
1.04
1.04
052
073
073
073
0.23
056
23E-02
23E42
23E-02
23E-02
23E-02
23E4>2
1.9E-06
13E-47
55E-08
1.4E-06
13E-07
13E-07
3.7E-09
134
134
97E42
97E-02
97E-02
97E-02
97E42
197
197
197
197
197
197
197
6.78
6.78
6.78
6.78
6.78
6.78
6.78
24
-------
TABLE 5. (continued)
Parameten\model combuaton
Capacity, Ib/hr or batch
Exhaust flow rate, dscf m (a)
Operating hours, hr/yr
Number of plants
Pollutant, ton/yr
Pb
1-sec (baseline)
2-sec
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (b)
Cd
1-sec (baseline)
2-sec
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (b)
Hg
1 -sec (baseline)
2-sec
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (b)
Continuous models
1,500 1,000
4,747 3,165
7,760 3,564
77 60
10.89
10.89
5.99
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.80
0.80
0.48
3.2E-02
3.2E-02
3.2E-02
3.2E-02
8.23
8.23
8.23
8.23
8.23
8.23
0.82
2.60
2.60
1.43
5.2E-02
5.2E-02
5.2E-02
5.2E-02
0.19
0.19
0.11
7.6E-03
7.6E-03
7.6E-03
7.6E-03
1.%
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.96
1.%
0.20
Intermittent models
1,500 600 200
4,747 1,899 633
4,212 4,212 3488
20 95 280
134
1.54
0.84
3.1E-02
3.1E-02
3.1E-02
3.1E-02
0.11
0.11
6.7E-02
4.5E-03
4.5E-03
4.5E-03
4.5E-03
1.16
1.16
1.16
1.16
1.16
1.16
0.12
2.92
2.92
1.60
5.8E-02
S.8E-02
5.8E-02
5.8E-02
0.21
0.21
0.13
8.5E-03
8.5E-03
8.5E-03
8.5E-03
2.21
221
2.21
Z21
2.21
2.21
0.22
2.44
Z44
134
4.9E-02
4.9E-02
4.9E-02
4.9E-02
0.18
0.18
0.11
7.1E-03
7.1E-03
7.1E-03
7.1E-03
1.85
1.85
1.85
1.85
1.85
1.85
0.18
Batch model
500
455
3,520
165
0.79
0.79
0.44
1.6E-02
1.6E-02
1.6E-02
1.6E-02
3.0E-02
3.0E-02
1.8E-02
1.2E-03
1.2E-03
1.2E-03
1.2E-03
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
0.57
5.7E-02
Path, model
200
730
2,964
5
3.8E-03
3.8E-03
2.1E-03
7.7E-05
7.7E-05
7.7E-05
7.7E-05
l.OE-03
l.OE-03
6.1E-04
4.1E-05
4.1E-05
4.1E-05
4.1E-05
5.1E-04
5.1E-04
5.1E-04
5.1E-04
5.1E-04
5.1E-04
5.1E-45
(a) Actual exhaust gas flow rate out of the incinerator, at 14 percent O2.
(b) Activated carbon concentration is 338 mg/dscm (0.0000211 Ib/dscf) for the DI/FF and 188 mg/dscm (0.0000117 Ib/dscf) for the
SD/FF, based on emission test data from Facility A, which uses a DI/FF, and Facility M, which uses an SD/FF.
(c) The performance of the FF/PB with activated carbon injection in reducing CDD/CDF is unknown.
25
-------
TABLE 6. '-ANNUAL SECONDARY EMISSIONS FOR EACH NEW MODEL PLANT
Parameters\model combustors"
Capacity, Ib/hr or batch
Exhaust flow rate, dscfm (a)
Operating hours, hr/yr
Pollutant, ton/yr
PM
Baseline
2-scc combustion
Wet systems
FF/PB (b)
DI/FF(b)
SD/FF(b)
SO2
Baseline
2-scc combustion
Wet systems
FF/PB (b)
DI/FF(b)
SD/FF (b)
NOx
Baseline
2-sec combustion
Wet systems
FF/PB (b)
DI/FF(b)
SD/FF (b)
Continuous models
1,500 1,000
4,747 3,165
7,776 3,726
0
0
9.0E-02
4.7E-02
3.2E-02
3.2E-02
0
0
1.79
0.95
0.64
0.64
0
0
1.79
0.95
0.64
0.64
0
0
2.9E-02
1.6E-02
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
0
0
0.58
0.31
0.21
0.21
0
0
0.58
0.31
0.21
0.21
Intermittent models
1,500 600 200
4,747 1,899 633
4,368 4,368 3,744
0
0
5.0E-02
2.7E-02
l.SE-02
1.8E-02
0
0
1.01
0.53
0.36
0.36
0
0
1.01
0.53
0.36
0.36
0
0
2.1E-02
1.2E-02
8.2E-03
8.2E-03
0
0
0.43
0.23
0.16
0.16
0
0
0.43
0.23
0.16
0.16
0
0
7.2E-03
4.1E-03
3.2E-03
3.2E-03
0
0
0.14
8.2E-02
6.4E-02
6.4E-02
0
0
0.14
8.2E-02
6.4E-02
6.4E-02
Batch model
500
455
3,600
0
0
5.5E-03
3.1E-03
2.6E-03
2.6E-03
0
0
0.11
6.3E-02
5.2E-02
5.2E-02
0
0
0.11
6.3E-02
5.2E-02
5.2E-02
1
Path, model
200
730
3,120
0
0
6.7E-03
3.8E-03
2.9E-03
2.9E-03
0
0
0.13
7.5E-02
5.8E-02
5.8E-02
0
0
0.13
7.5E-02
5.8E-02
5.8E-02
(a) Actual exhaust gas flow rate out of the incinerator, at 14 percent O2.
(b) Values apply to the system both with and without activated carbon injection.
26
-------
TABLE 7. ANNUAL NATIONWIDE SECONDARY EMISSIONS FOR EACH
NEW MODEL PLANT
ParametersVmodel combustors
Capacity, Ib/hr or batch
Exhaust flow rate, dscfm (a)
Operating hours, hr/yr
Number of plants
'ollutant, ton/yr
PM
Baseline
2 -sec combustion
Wet systems
FF/PB (b)
DI/FF (b)
SD/FF(b)
S02
Baseline
2-scc combustion
Wet systems
FF/PB (b)
DI/FF (b)
SD/FF (b)
NOx
Baseline
2 -sec combustion
Wet systems
FF/PB (b)
DI/FF (b)
SD/FF (b)
Continuous models
1,500 1,000
4,747 3,165
7,776 3,726
77 60
0
0
6.89
3.65
2.48
2.48
0
0
138
73
50
50
0
0
138
73
50
50
0
0
1.75
0.93
0.64
0.64
0
0
35
19
13
13
0
0
35
19
13
13
Intermittent models
1,500 600 200
4,747 1,899 633
4,368 4368 3744
20 95 280
0
0
1.01
0.53
0.36
0.36
0
0
20
11
7
7
0
0
20
11
7
7
0
0
2.03
1.09
0.77
0.77
0
0
41
22
15
15
0
0
41
22
15
15
0
0
Z03
1.14
0.90
0.90
0
0
41
23
18
18
0
0
41
23
18
18
Batch model
500
455
3,600
165
0
0
0.90
0.52
0.43
0.43
0
0
18
10
8.5
8.5
0
0
18
10
8.5
8.5
>ath. model
200
730
3,120
5
0
0
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.01
0
0
0.67
0.38
0.29
0.29
0
0
0.67
0.38
0.29
0.29
(a) Actual exhaust gas flow rate out of the incinerator, at 14 percent O2.
(b) Values apply to the system both with and without activated carbon injection.
27
-------
TABLE 8. ANNUAL AMOUNT OF POLLUTANTS IN WASTEWATER
EFFLUENT FOR EACH NEW MODEL PLANT
Cipicity. Itvhr
Exhiutt flow me. djcftn (»)
Operating hours, hr/yr
Venrori blowdown, (>I/yr
Ho-Uuuiu, ton/yr
Wetiyitcnu
CDD/CDF
Pb
Cd
Continuous modeU
1400 1,000
4.747 3.165
7.760 3464
1.7E+06 S.1E+05
1.1E-05
6.4E-02
4.1E-03
3.3E-06
1.9E-02
1.3E-03
1.500 600 200
4,747 1.899 633
4.212 4,212 3,588
9.0E-IO5 3.6E+05 l.OE+05
5.8E-06
3JE-02
2.2E-03
2.3E-06
1.4E-02
9.0E-04
6.6E-07
3.9E-03
2.6E-04
Batch model
500
455
3.520
7.2E+04
6.6E-07
2^E-03
12E-OS
Pa*, model
200
730
2,964
9.7E+04
2.6E-08
3.5E-04
8.1E-05
(i) AcoulezluiuC(uflownIeoutof the incinenuor, u 14 percent O2.
28
-------
TABLE 9. ANNUAL NATIONWIDE AMOUNT OF POLLUTANTS IN WASTEWATER
EFFLUENT FOR EACH NEW MODEL PLANT
Opacity, IWhr
Exhaust flow me. dacfm (»)
Operating houn, hr/yr
Number of plants
Venturi blowdown. gal/yr
Wet systems
CDD/CDF
Pb
Cd
Contiiwoui modeb
1,500 1.000 •
4,747 3,165
7,760 3,564
77 60
UE+08 3.0E+07
8.2E-04
4.90
032
2.0E-04
1.17
7.6E-02
foterminenl model!
1,500 600 200
4,747 1.899 633
4,212 4,212 3.588
20 95 280
1.8E+07 3.4E+07 2.9E+07
1.2E-04
0.69
4.5E-02
2.2E-04
1.31
8.5E-02
.
1.8E-04
1.10
7.1E-02
Batch model
500
455
3,520
165
1.2E+07
1.1E-04
0.36
1.2E-02
Path, model
200
730
2,964
5
4.9E+05
1.3E-07
1.7E-03
4.1E-04
(a) Actual exhaust gas flow rate out of the incinerator, at 14 percent O2.
29
-------
TABLE 10. FACILITY B WATER ANALYSIS
Pollutant
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Total metals
Total CDD
Total CDF
Estimated NaCl
Pollutant concentration, /Lig/g
Slowdown
0.066
0.718
0.0856
2.98
6.511
0.1522
0.0354
0.0017
10.55
N/Aa
N/A
18,000b
Makeup
<0.005
<0.005
<0.01
<0.06
<0.03
<0.0068
<0.0002
<0.01
<0.127
N/A
N/A
N/A
available.
3 Concent rat ion was estimated based on the assumptions that the
blowdown is 6 gal/min, the density of the wastewater is
8.33 Ib/gal, and the concentration in the makeup water is zero.
It is also based on the test data which show the inlet HC1
concentration is 1,258 ppmdv at 7 percent 02, essentially all of
the HC1 is removed, and the exhaust gas flow rate is
4,714 dscfm. The blowdown rate is equal to the makeup water
minus the amount of water evaporated. The makeup rate was
10 gal/min during the test. The amount of water evaporated was
estimated to be 4 gal/min based on the inlet and outlet gas flow
rate (4,714 dscfm and 5,509 dscfm, respectively) and moisture
concentrations (9.34 percent and 17.9 percent, respectively).
30
-------
TABLE 'll. POLLUTANT MASS EMISSION AND DISCHARGE RATES
Pollutant
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Total metals
Amount removed
from gas stream,
/xg/min
1,470
12,900
2,140
68,500
121,000
11,100
4,030
920
221,000
Amount
discharged
in blowdown,
/ig/min
1,500
16,300
1,940
67,600
148,000
3,450
800
40
239,000
Percentage
difference,
percent3-
-2
-26
9.0
0.9
-22
69
80
96
-8
aPercent,age difference is calculated as 100 x (amount removed
from gas stream-amount discharged in blowdown)/(amount removed
from gas stream).
31
-------
TABLE 12. COMPOSITION OF CONCENTRATED BRINE
Pollutant, units
Suspended solids,. mg/L
Oil and grease, mg/L
pH
Dissolved heavy metals, units
Copper , ppm
Zinc , ppm
Lead, ppm
Cadmium, ppm
Chromium, ppm
Pollutant concentration
Before
treatment
>2, 0.00
>1,000
6.0
3.5
450
53
N/A .
0.7
After
treatment
<10
<10
8.6
0.18
0.13
<1
0.38
0.46
32
-------
TABLE 13. ANNUAL AMOUNT OF WASTE BURNED AND FLY ASH GENERATED BY
EACH NEW MODEL PLANT WITH FABRIC FILTER SYSTEMS WITH AND WITHOUT
CARBON INJECTION
Parameters\model combustors
Capacity, Ib/hr or batch
Exhaust flow rate, dscf m (a)
Operating hours, hr/yr
Waste incinerated, ton/yr
Pollutant capture per APCD, ton/yr
DI/FF
PM
CDD/CDF
CaC12
Pb
Cd
Hg
Unreacted lime (no SO2 removal)
Total fabric filter ash no carbon
Addition of carbon
carbon (b) ,
CDD/CDF
Hg
Total fabric filter ash with carbon
FF/PB
PM
CDD/CDF
Pb
Cd
Hg
Total fabric filter ash no carbon
Addition of carbon
carbon (b)
CDD/CDF
Hg
Total fabric filter ash with carbon
SD/FF
PM
CDD/CDF
CaC12
Pb
Cd
Hg
Unreacted lime (no SO2 removal)
Total fabric filter ash no carbon
Addition of carbon
carbon (c)
CDD/CDF (additional)
Hg
Total fabric filter ash with carbon
Continuous models
1,500 1,000
4,747 3,165
7,760 3,564
3,907
7.10
0
110.48
0.14
9.9E-03
0
119.96
238
23.31
1.5E-05
9.6E-02
261.10
7.10
0
0.14
9.9E-03
0
7.25
23.31
1.2E-04
9.6E-02
30.66
7.10
0
110.48
0.14
9.9E-03
0
119.96
237.69
12.98
1.5E-05
9.6E-02
250.77
97T
2.18
0
33.83
4.2E-02
3.0E-03
0
36.73
72.8
7.14
4.6E-06
2.9E-02
79.95
2.18
0
4.2E-02
3.0E-03
0
2.22
7.14
3.7E-05
2.9E-02
9.39
2.18
0
33.83
4.2E-02
3.0E-03
0
36.73
72.79
3.97
4.6E-06
Z9E-02
76.79
Intermittent models
1,500 600 200
4,747 1,899 633
4,212 4,212 3,588
14^61
3.86
0
59.97
7.5E-02
5.4E-03
0
65.11
129
12.65
8.1E-06
5.2E-02
141.72
3.86
0
7.5E-02
5.4E-03
0
3.94
12.65
6.5E-05
5.2E-02
16.64
3.86
0
59.97
7.5E-02
5.4E-03
0
65.11
129.02
7.04
8.1E-06
5.2E-02
136.11
470
1.54
0
23.99
3.0E-02
2.2E-03
0
26.05
51.6
5.06
3.2E-06
2.1E-02
56.69
1.54
0
3.0E-02
2.2E-03
0
1.57
5.06
2.6E-05
2.1E-02
6.66
1.54
0
23.99
3.0E-02
2.2E-03
0
26.05
51.61
2.82
3.2E-06
2.1E-02
54.45
115
0.44
0
6.81
8.5E-03
6.1E-04
0
7.40
14.7
1.44
9.2E-07
5.9E-03
16.10
0.44
0
8.5E-03
6.1E-04
0
0.45
1.44
7.4E-06
5.9E-03
1.89
0.44
0
6.81
8.5E-03
6.1E-04
0
7.40
14.66
0.80
9.2E-07
5.9E-03
15.46
Batch model
500
455
3,520
2T
5.8E-02
0
0.66
4.7E-03
1.7E-04
0
0.71
1.44
1.01
9.2E-07
3.1E-03
2.45
5.8E-02
0
4.7E-03
1.7E-04
0
63E-02
1.01
7.4E-06
3.1E-03
1.08
5.8E-02
0
0.66
4.7E-03
1.7E-04
0
0.71
1.44
0.56
9.2E-07
3.1E-03
2.00
Path, model
200
730
2,964
17T
0.16
0
0.53
7.5E-04
1.9E-04
0
0.58
1.28
131
3.6E-08
9.1E-05
2.64
0.16
0
7.5E-04
1.9E-04
0
0.16
1.37
2.9E-07
9.1E-05
1.53
0.16
0
0.53
7.5E-04
1.9E-04
0
0.58
1.28
0.76
3.6E-08
9.1E-05
2.04
(a) Actual exhaust gas flow rate out of the incinerator, at 14 percent O2.
(b) An activated carbon concentration of 338 mg/dscm (0.0000211 Ib/dscf) is used for the DI/FF and FF/PB, based on emission test
data from Facility A, which uses a DI/FF.
. (c) An activated carbon concentration of 188 mg/dscm (0.0000117 Ib/dscf) is used for the SD/FF, based on emission test data from
Faculty M, which uses an SD/FF.
33
-------
TABLE 14. ' ANNUAL NATIONWIDE AMOUNT OF WASTE BURNED AND FLY ASH
GENERATED BY EACH NEW MODEL PLANT WITH FABRIC FILTER SYSTEMS
WITH AND WITHOUT CARBON INJECTION
Parameters\model combustors
Capacity, Ib/hr or batch
Exhaust flow rate, dscfm (a)
Operating hours, hr/yr
Number of plants
Waste incinerated, ton/yr
Pollutant capture per APCD, ton/yr
DI/FF
PM
CDD/CDF
CaCI2
Pb
Cd
Hg
Unrcactcd lime (no SO2 removal)
Total fabric filter ash no carbon
Addition of carbon
carbon (b)
CDD/CDF
Hg
Total fabric filter ash with carbon
FF/PB
PM
CDD/CDF
Pb
Cd
Hg
Total fabric filter ash no carbon
Addition of carbon
carbon (b)
CDD/CDF
Hg
Total fabric filter ash with carbon
SD/FF
PM
CDD/CDF
CaC12
Pb
Cd
Hg
Unreacted lime (no SO2 removal)
Total fabric filter aih no carbon
Addition of carbon
carbon (c)
CDD/CDF (additional)
Hg
Total fabric filter ash with carbon
Continuous models
1,500 . 1,000
4,747 3,165
7,760 3,564
77 60
300,839
547.03
0
8,507.03
10.67
0.76
0
9,236.91
18,302.40
1,794.70
1.1E-03
7.41
20,104.51
547.03
0
10.67
0.76
0
558.46
1,794.70
9.2E-03
7.41
2,360.58
547.03
0
8,507.03
10.67
0.76
0
9,236.91
18,302.40
999.27
1.1E-03
7.41
19,309.08
58,620
130.53
0
2,029.87
2.55
0.18
0
2,204.03
4,367.16
428.24
2.7E-04
1.77
4,797.16
130.53
0
2.55
0.18
0
133.26
428.24
2.2E-03
1.77
563.26
130.53
0
2,029.87
2.55
0.18
0
2,204.03
4,367.16
238.44
2.7E-04
1.77
4,607.36
Intermittent models
1,500 600 200
4,747 1,899 633
4,212 4,212 3,588
20 95 280
23,520
77.12
0
1,199.34
1.50
0.11
0
1,302.24
2,580.32
253.02
1.6E-04
1.04
2,834.39
77.12
0
1.50
0.11
0
78.73
253.02
1.3E-03
1.04
332.80
77.12
0
1,19934
150
0.11
0
1,302.24
2,580.32
140.88
1.6E-04
1.04
2,722.25
44,650
146.55
0
2,278.99
2.86
0.20
0
2,474.53
4,903.13
480.79
3.1E-04
1.99
5,385.91
146.55
0
2.86
0.20
0
149.61
480.79
2.5E-03
1.99
632.39
146.55
0
2,278.99
2.86
0.20
0
2,474.53
4,903.13
267.70
3.1E-04
1.99
5,172.81
32,200
122.65
0
1,907.31
2.39
0.17
0
2,070.95
4,103.46
402.38
2.6E-04
1.66
4,507.50
122.65
0
2.39
0.17
0
125.21
402.38
2.1E-03
1.66
529.25
122.65
0
1,907.31
2.39
0.17
0
2,070.95
4,103.46
224.04
2.6E-04
1.66
4,329.16
Batch model
500
455
3,520
165
4,455
9.63
0
108.57
0.78
2.9E-02
0
117.89
236.89
167.21
1.5E-04
0.51
404.61
9.63
0
0.78
2.9E-02
0
10.43
167.21
1.2E-03
0.51
178.15
9.63
0
108.57
0.78
2.9E-02
0
117.89
236.89
93.10
1.5E-04
051
33050
Path, model
200
730
2,964
5
860
0.81
0
2.67
3.8E-03
9.7E-04
0
2.90
6.38
6.85
1.8E-07
4.6E-04
13.22
0.81
0
3.8E-03
9.7E-04
0
0.82
6.85
1.4E-06
4.6E-04
7.66
0.81
0
2.67
3.8E-03
9.7E-04
0
2.90
6.38
3.81
1.8E-07
4.6E-04
10.19
(a) Actual exhaust gas flow rate out of the incinerator, at 14 percent O2.
(b) An activated carbon concentration of 338 mg/dscm (0.0000211 Ib/dscf) is used for the DI/FF and FF/PB, based on emission test
data from Facility A, which uses a DI/FF.
(c) An activated cubon concentration of 188 mg/dscm (0.0000117 Ib/dscf) is used for the SD/FF, based on emission test data from
Facility M, which uses an SD/FF.
34
-------
TABLE 15. FACILITY A BAGHOUSE ASH ANALYSIS
Pollutants, units
Total, CDD/CDF, ng/g
Arsenic, ^g/g
Cadmium, /xg/g
Chromium, /ig/g
Iron, jig/g
Lead, /zg/g
Mangane s e , £ig / g
Mercury, ptg/g
Nickel, n<3/g
Total metals, /zg/g
Concentration
29.28
12.03
44.43
23.43
715.71
582.86
33.71
5.64
6.37
1,424.29
TABLE 16. FACILITY A METALS
CONCENTRATION OF LIME,
Pollutants
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Concentration
1.8
1.0
16.0
480
6.1
21.0
0.03
4.5
TABLE 17. TCLP RULE ALLOWABLE POLLUTANT
CONCENTRATIONS IN LEACHATE
Pollutants
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Mercury
Concentration,
mg/e
5.0
1.0
5.0
5.0
0.2
35
-------
TABLE 18. ANNUAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS TO OPERATE CONTROL
EQUIPMENT FOR EACH NEW MODEL PLANT
Model plants
I. Continuous MWI's
A. l^OOlb/hr
a. Baseline
b. 2-sec combustion
c. Wet systems
d. FF/PB (a)
e. DI/FF (a)
f. SD/FF (a)
B. l.OOOlb/hr
a. Baseline
b. 2-sec combastioa
c. Wet systems
d. FF/PB (a)
e. DI/FF (a)
f. SD/FF (a)
H. Intermittent MWI's
A. l^OOlb/hr
a. Baseline
b. 2-sec combustion
c. Wet systems
d. FF/PB (a)
e. DI/FF (a)
f. SD/FF (a)
B. 6001b/hr
a. Baseline
b. 2-sec combustion
c. Wet systems
d. FF/PB (a)
e. DI/FF (a)
f. SD/FF (a)
C. 2001b/hr
a. Baseline
b. 2-sec combustion
c. Wet systems
d. FF/PB (a)
e. DI/FF (a)
f. SD/FF (a)
UL tUtch MWT'i
A. SOOlbAatch
a. Baseline
b. 2 -sec combastioa
c. Wet systems
d. FF/PB (a)
e. DI/FF (a)
f. SD/FF (a)
*V- Pllhojoejeal MWI*§
A. 200IMir
a. Baseline
b. 2-sec combastioa
c. Wet systems
d. FF/PB (a)
e. DI/FF (a)
f. SD/FF (a)
Fuel Usage.
mmfO/yr
10.3
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.6
16.6
5.14
7.13
7.13
7.13
7.13
7.13
5.86
8.87
8.87
8.87
8.87
8.87
2.89
4.10
4.10
4.10
4.10
4.10
1.40
1.73
1.73
1.73
1.73
1.73
1.81
1.97
1.97
1.97
1.97
1.97
2.65
3.04
3.04
3.04
3.04
3.04
Electricity Usage,
Mwb/yr
173.5
173.5
837.8
525.6
412.2
41Z2
65.1
65.1
281.5
180.5
144.6
144.6
54.8
«S
427.9
252.6
188.9
188.9
25.2
25.2
183.4
110.6
85.7
85.7
10.3
10.3
64.0
40.6
34.1
34.1
2.73
2.73
4326
26.09
21.85
21.85
8.6
8.6
58.55
3&60
3025
3025
(a) Value* appjy to the system both wMi and wjthoat activated caibon injection.
36
-------
TABLE 19. ANNUAL NATIONWIDE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS TO OPERATE
CONTROL EQUIPMENT FOR EACH NEW MODEL PLANT
Number of
Model plants Facilities
I.
II.
I.
IV.
Continuous MWI's
A. l.S001b/hr 77
a. Baseline
b. 2-sec combustion
c. Wet systems
d. FF/PB (a) -?--
e. DI/FF (a)
f. SD/FF (a)
B. l.OOOlb/hr 60
a. Baseline
b. 2-sec combustion
c. Wet systems
d. FF/PB (a)
e. DI/FF (a)
f . SD/FF (a)
Intermittent MWI's
A. LSOOlb/hr 20
a. Baseline
b. 2-sec combustion
c. Wet systems
d. FF/PB (a)
e. DI/FF (a)
f. SD/FF (a)
B. 6001b/hr 95
a. Baseline
b. 2-sec combustion
c. Wet systems
d. FF/PB (a)
e. DI/FF (a)
f. SD/FF (a)
C. 2001b/hr 280
a. Baseline
b. 2-sec combustion
c. Wet systems
d. FF/PB (a)
e. DI/FF (a)
f. SD/FF (a)
Batch MWI's
A. SOOlb/batcfa 165
a. Baseline
b. 2-sec combustion
c. Wet systems
d. FF/PB (a)
e. DI/FF (a)
f. SD/FF (a)
Pathological MWTs
A. 2001b/hr 5
a. Baseline
b. 2-sec combustion
c. Wet systems
d. FF/PB (a)
e. DI/FF (a)
f. SD/FF (a)
Fuel Usage,
mmftS/yr
795
1,277
1,277
1,277
1,277
1,277
308
428
428
428
428
428
117
177
177
177
177
177
275
389
389
389
389
389
392
486
486
486
486
486
299
324
324
324
324
324
13
15
15
15
15
15
Electricity Usage,
Mwh/yr
13,360
13,360
64,507
40,472
31,738
31,738
3,905
3,905
16,890
10,831
8,675
8,675
1,096
1,096
8,559
5,052
3,778
3,778
2394
2,394
17,420
10,503
8,142
8,142
2,890
2,890
17,917
11,380
9462
9^62
450
450
7,137
4304
3,604
3,604
43
43
293
183
151
151
(a) Values apply to the system both with and without activated carbon injection.
-------
i
3
CM
w
Q
S
H
S
*
Ci)
[2;
H
EH
CO
H
Pa
o
CO
1
g
o
CJ
1
s
*t-H
O
^
1
Ij
CO
*
o
w
EH
•c
1
•a
o
15
a
o
1
,>»
J3
g
i
s
g. >>
W) T3
.3
S-4-t
-1
cx
o 5
£
1
13 -
OO ® ed
S3 *fi
3 ^> o
TO J> yj
2
|sl!
g ^O *T3 m
u £ "w S
Jj ** C *S
w
1
<4-l
o
6
•& "^
is-l2
e5 o ~
a.
i
0
c—
r-
•*
CN
en
S
?
-
§
g
1-1
o
S
§
o
§
g
jg
^J
«
^^
z"
a"
o\
ts
«s
en
O
0
o
i
i-H*
g
"1
"3
"S
&
38
-------
gggggggo
§
o o o
o o oo
a
m
Q
O
O >T) CM CM CM CM
_ _ O V> 00 00 00 OO
i—i *-H i—« CM
H
CO
H
X
H
CkJ
O
§
H
H
w
o
§
u
J
O
H
01
w
oooooooo
„ >
r~ t- r- t- r~
a &
§8
cs
^^
o
--•§
•o
8
ou
I
o
o •
CM o o o\
oo •* •*
"* ^ ^fr
§O vo *& VO ^O ^ *O
O l—1 i-H 1-4 l—I l—1 l—I
c— en
•D
"&
VO O >rt !•» -H ^< -rt
do'ooooo'o
i §
-°B
•5
A
IIIIIIII
8O O O
o o ^o
CM CM CM f-
SMD M3
OO OO
OO 00 00 00
V2
00
o o o o o o o
88
VOOOOOOOO
ooooo
oooooooo
§ §
oooooooo
in in 1/1 >n u-i u-i u->
oooooooooooo
00 OO OO 1-1
pi en co CM
oooooooo
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
OOOOOOOO
O'toomcnooooo
-
OOOCMCMCMCMCMCM
— -n «n >n en
TfTl'Tl'CM'-
-------
TABLE 22. ANNUAL PRIMARY EMISSIONS FOR EACH EXISTING MODEL PLANT
Panmeten\modd combuston
Capacity, Ib/hr or batch
Exhaust flow rate, dscfm (a)
Operating bows, hr/yr
Pollutant, toa/yr
PM
l/4-*ec(b)
l-*ec(c)
2-9CC
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (d)
CO
l/4-sec(b)
l^ec(c)
2-sec
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (d)
CDD/CDF
l/4-«ec(b)
l-iec(c)
2-sec
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (d), (e)
HQ
l/4-*ec(b)
l-*ec(c)
2-sec
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (d)
SO2
l/4-sec(b)
ltec(c)
2-.ec
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF DO carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (d)
Continuous modeb
1,500 1,000
4,747 3,165
7,760 3,564
1Z63
7.89
3.95
0.79
0.79
0.79
0.79
12.05
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.60
1.6E-04
1.5E-05
4.6E-06
1.2E-04
1.5E-05
1.5E-05
3.0E-07
7633
7633
3.82
3.82
3.82
3.82
3.82
138
1.38
1.38
138
138
138
138
7.25
3.87
2.42
1.21
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
8.61
3.69
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
1.9E-04
4.8E-OS
4.6E-06
1.4E-06
3.7E-05
4.6E-06
4.6E-06
93E-08
2337
23.37
2337
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
1.17
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
0.42
Intermittent models
1,500 600 200
4,747 1399 633
4,212 4,212 3,588
12&S
6.86
4.28
2.14
0.43
0.43
0.43
0.43
15.26
6.54
033
033
033
033
033
033
3.4E-04
8.4E-05
8.2E-06
23E-06
6SE-OS
8.2E-06
8.2E-06
1.6E-07
41.43
41.43
41.43
107
2.07
2.07
107
2.07
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
5.14
174
1.71
0.86
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
6.10
2.62
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
1.4E-04
3.4E-05
33E-06
9.9E-07
2.6E-05
33E-06
3.3E-06
6.6E-08
16.57
16.57
16.57
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
0.83
030
030
0.30
030
030
030
030
030
1.46
0.78
0.49
074
4.9E-02
4.9E-02
4.9E-02
4.9E-02
1.73
0.74
3.7E-02
3.7E-02
3.7E-02
3.7E-02
3.7E-02
3.7E-02
3.9E-05
9.6E-06
9.4E-07
18E-07
7-4E-06
9.4E-07
9.4E-07
1.9E-08
4.71
4.71
4.71
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
8.5E-02
8.5E-02
8.5E-02
8.5E-02
8.5E-02
8.5E-02
8.5E-02
8.5E-02
Batch model
500
455
3,520
0.28
0.15
93E-02
5.1E-02
3.4E-02
3.4E-02
3.4E-02
3.4E-02
0.81
0.35
1.7E-02
1.7E-02
1.7E-02
1.7E-02
1.7E-02
1.7E-02
3.9E-05
9.6E-06
9.4E-07
2.8E-07
7.4E-06
9.4E-07
9.4E-07
1.9E-08
0.45
0.45
0.45
2.3E-02
23E-02
23E-02
23E-02
23E-02
8.0E-02
8.0E-02
8.0E-02
8.0E-02
8.0E-02
8.0E-02
8.0E-02
8.0E-02
Path, model
200
730
2,964
0.21
0.21
Q2i
0.10
4.6E-02
4.6E-02
4.6E-02
4.6E-02
0.26
0.11
5.6E-03
5.6E-03
S.6E-03
5.6E-03
5.6E-03
5.6E-03
ISB-06
3.7E-07
3.7E-08
1.1E-08
2.9E-07
3.7E-08
3.7E^»8
73E-10
037
037
037
1.8E-02
1.8E-02
1.8E-02
1.8E-02
1.8E-02
0.59
0^9
0.59
0.59
OJ9
039
0^9
0.59
40
-------
TABLE 22. (continued)
Capacity, lb/hr or batch
Exhaust flow rate, dscf m (a)
Operating hours, hr/yr
NOx
l/4-sec(b)
l-sec(c)
2-sec
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (d)
Pb
1/4-sec (b)
l-sec(c)
2-sec
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (d)
Cd
1/4-sec (b)
l-sec(c)
2-sec
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (d)
Hg
1/4-sec (b)
l-sec(c)
2-sec
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (d)
Continuous model*
1,500 1,000
4,747 3,165
7,760 3,564
9.24
9.24
9.24
9.24
9.24
9.24
9.24
0.14
0.14
7.8E-02
Z8E-03
Z8E-03
Z8E-03
Z8E-03
l.OE-02
l.OE-02
6.2E-03
4.1E-04
4.1E-04
4.1E-04
4.1E-04
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
1.1E-02
Z83
2.83
Z83
2.83
Z83
Z83
2.83
Z83
4.3E-02
4.3E-02
4.3E-02
Z4E-02
8.7E-04
8.7E-04
8.7E-04
8.7E-04
3.2E-03
3.2E-03
3.2E-03
1.9E-03
1.3E-04
13E-04
1.3E-04
1.3E-04
3.3E-02
3.3E-02
3.3E-02
3.3E-02
3.3E-02
3.3E-02
3.3E-02
3.3E-03
Intermittent models
1500 600 200
4,747 1,899 633
4,212 4,212 3588
5.01
5.01
5.01
5.01
5.01
5.01
5.01
5.01
7.7E-02
7.7E-02
7.7E-02
4.2E-02
15E-03
15E-03
15E-03
15E-03
5.6E-03
5.6E-03
5.6E-03
3.4E-03
Z2E-04
Z2E-04
Z2E-04
2.2E-04
5.8E-02
5.8E-02
5.8E-02
5.8E-02
5.8E-02
5.8E-02
5.8E-02
5.8E-03
2.01
2.01
2.01
2.01
Z01
Z01
Z01
Z01
3.1E-02
3.1E-02
3.1E-02
1.7E-02
6.1E-04
6.1E-04
6.1E-04
6.1E-04
Z2E-03
Z2E-03
Z2E-03
1.3E-03
9.0E-05
9.0E-05
9.0E-05
9.0E-05
Z3E-02
Z3E-02
Z3E-02
Z3E-02
Z3E-02
Z3E-02
Z3E-02
Z3E-03
057
0.57
057
057
057
057
0.57
057
8.7E-03
8.7E-03
8.7E-03
4.8E-03
1.7E-04
1.7E-04
1.7E-04
1.7E-04
6.4E-04
6.4E-04
6.4E-04
3.8E-04
Z6E-05
Z6E-05
Z6E-05
Z6E-05
6.6E-03
6.6E-03
6.6E-03
6.6E-03
6.6E-03
6.6E-03
6.6E-03
6.6E-04
Batch model
500
455
3520
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
4.8E-03
4.8E-03
4.8E-03
Z6E-03
9.6E-05
9.6E-05
9.6E-05
9.6E-05
1.8E-04
1.8E-04
1.8E-04
1.1E-04
7.2E-06
7.2E-06
7.2E-06
7.2E-06
3.4E-03
3.4E-03
3.4E-03
3.4E-03
3.4E-03
3.4E-03
3.4E-03
3.4E-04
Path, model
200
730
2,964
136
1.36
136
136
136
136
136
136
7.7E-04
7.7E-04
7.7E-04
4.2E-04
15E-05
15E-05
15E-05
15E-05
ZOE-04
ZOE-04
ZOE-04
1.2E-04
8.1E-06
8.1E-06
8.1E-06
8.1E-06
l.OE-04
l.OE-04
l.OE-04
l.OE-04
l.OE-04
l.OE-04
l.OE-04
l.OE-05
(a) Actual exhaust gas flow rate out of the incinerator, at 14 percent OZ
(b) Baseline for all models except the 1500 lb/hr continuous model.
(c) Baseline for the 1500 lb/hr continuous model.
(d) Activated carbon concentration is 338 mg/dscm (0.0000211 Ib/dscf) for the DI/FF and 188 mg/dscm (0.0000117 Ib/dscf) for the
SD/FF, based on emission test data from Facility A, which uses a DI/FF, and Facility M, which uses an SD/FF.
(e) The performance of the FF/PB with activated carbon injection in reducing CDD/CDF is unknown.
41
-------
TABLE 23. ANNUAL NATIONWIDE PRIMARY EMISSIONS FOR EACH
EXISTING MODEL PLANT
Parameten\model combuiton
Capacity, Ib/hr or hatch
Exhaust flow rate, dicfm (a)
Operating hours, hr/yr
Number of planU
Pollutant, ton/yr
PM
l/4^ec(b)
l-~c(c)
2-iec
Wet syttems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (d)
CO
l/4-sec(b)
l-sec(c)
2-*eC
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (d)
CDD/CDF
l/4-«ec(b)
l-«ec(c)
2-sec
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (d), (e)
HC1
l/4-sec(b)
l-sec(c)
2-sec
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (d)
SO2
l/4-sec(b)
l-»ec(c)
2-sec
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (d)
Continuous models
1,500 1,000
4,747 3,165
7,760 3,564
154 182
1,944.98
1,215.61
607.81
121.56
121.56
121.56
121.56
1,855.58
92.78
92.78
92.78
92.78
92.78
92.78
Z4E-02
23E-03
7.0E-04
1.9E-02
23E-03
23E-03
4.7E-05
11,754.81
11,754.81
587.74
587.74
587.74
587.74
587.74
212.22
212.22
212.22
212.22
212.22
212.22
212.22
1319.77
703.88
439.92
219.96
43.99
43.99
43.99
43.99
1,566.89
671.52
33.58
33.58
33.58
33.58
33.58
33.58
3.5E-02
8.7E-03
8.5E-04
24E-04
6.7E-03
8.5E-04
84E-04
1.7E-05
4,253.99
4,253.99
4,253.99
212.70
212.70
212.70
212.70
212.70
76.80
76.80
76.80
76.80
76.80
76.80
76.80
76.80
Intermittent models
1^00 600 200
4,747 1^99 633
4,212 4,212 3,588
171 742 2,097
2,197.95
1,172.24
732.65
366.33
73.27
73.27
73.27
73.27
2,60941
1,11836
55.92
55.92
55.92
55.92
55.92
55.92
5.9E-02
1.4E-02
1.4E-03
4.2E-04
1.1E-02
1.4E-03
1.4E-03
2.8E-05
7,084.64
7,084.64
7,084.64
354.23
354.23
354.23
354.23
354.23
127.91
127.91
127.91
127.91
127.91
127.91
127.91
127.91
3,81533
2,034.84
1,271.78
635.89
127.18
127.18
127.18
127.18
4429.74
1,94132
97.07
97.07
97.07
97.07
97.07
97.07
0.10
24E-02
2.4E-03
73E-04
1.9E-02
2.4E-03
2.4E-03
4.9E-05
12,297.91
12,297.91
12,297.91
614.90
614.90
614.90
614.90
614.90
222.03
222.03
222.03
222.03
22X03
222.03
222.03
222.03
3,061.75
1,632.93
1,020 £8
510.29
102.06
102.06
102.06
102.06
3,635.05
1^57.88
77.89
77.89
77.89
77.89
77.89
77.89
8.2E-02
2.0E-02
2.0E-03
5.9E-04
1.6E-02
2.0E-03
2.0E-03
3.9E-05
9,868.90
9,868.90
9,868.90
493.44
493.44
493.44
493.44
493.44
178.17
178.17
178.17
178.17
178.17
178.17
178.17
178.17
Batch model
500
455
3420
335
93.13
49.67
31.04
17.25
11.50
11.50
11.50
1140
273.00
117.00
5.85
5.85
5.85
5.85
5.85
5.85
13E-02
3.2E-03
3.1E-04
9.4E-05
2.5E-03
3.1E-04
3.1E-04
6.3E-06
152.30
15230
15230
7.61
7.61
7.61
7.61
7.61
26.76
26.76
26.76
26.76
26.76
26.76
26.76
26.76
Path, model
200
730
2,964
1305
272.28
272.28
272.28
136.14
60.51
6041
60.51
60.51
338.66
145.14
7.26
7.26
7.26
7.26
7.26
7.26
2.0E-03
4.9E-04
4.8E-05
1.4E-05
3.8E-04
4.8E-05
4.8E-05
9.5E-07
480.90
480.90
480.90
24.04
24.04
24.04
24.04
24.04
774.65
774.65
774.65
774.65
774.65
774.65
774.65
774.65
42
-------
TABLE 23. (continued)
Capacity, Ib/hr or batch
Exhaust flow rate, dscf m (a)
Operating houre, hr/yr
Number of plants
'ollutant, ton/yr
NOx
l/4iec(b)
l-sec(c)
2-scc
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (d)
Pb
1/4-sec (b)
l-sec(c)
2-sec
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (d)
Cd
1/4-sec (b)
l-sec(c)
2-sec
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (d)
Hg
1/4-sec (b)
l-sec(c)
2-sec
Wet systems
FF/PB no carbon
DI/FF no carbon
SD/FF no carbon
FF systems with carbon (d)
Continuous models
1,500 1,000
4,747 3,165
7,760 3,564
154 182
1,422.42
1,422.42
1,422.42
1,422.42
1,422.42
1,422.42
1,422.42
21.78
21.78
11.98
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.44
1.59
1.59
0.%
6.4E-02
6.4E-02
6.4E-02
6.4E-02
16.47
16.47
16.47
16.47
16.47
16.47
1.65
514.76
514.76
514.76
514.76
514.76
514.76
514.76
514.76
7.88
7.88
7.88
4.34
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.58
0.58
0.58
0.35
Z3E-02
23E-02
23E-02
23E-02
5.%
5.96
5.%
5.96
5.%
5.96
5.%
0.60
Intermittent models
1,500 600 200
4,747 1,899 633
4,212 4,212 3,588
171 742 2,097
857.29
857 39
857.29
857.29
857.29
85759
857.29
857.29
13.13
13.13
13.13
7.22
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.%
0.96
0.%
0.58
3.8E-02
3.8E-02
3.8E-02
3.8E-02
9.93
9.93
9.93
9.93
9.93
9.93
9.93
0.99
1,488.13
1,488.13
1,488.13
1,488.13
1,488.13
1,488.13
1,488.13
1,488.13
22.79
22.79
22.79
1253
0.46
0.46
0.46
0.46
1.67
1.67
1.67
1.00
6.7E-02
6.7E-02
6.7E-02
6.7E-02
17.23
17.23
17.23
17.23
17.23
17.23
17.23
1.72
1,194.21
1,194.21
1,194.21
1,19451
1,194.21
1,194.21
1,194.21
1,194.21
18.29
18.29
18.29
10.06
037
037
037
0.37
—
134
1.34
1.34
0.80
5.4E-02
5.4E-02
5.4E-02
5.4E-02
13.83
13.83
13.83
13.83
13.83
13.83
13.83
138
Batch model
500
455
3,520
335
81.68
81.68
81.68
81.68
81.68
81.68
81.68
81.68
1.61
1.61
1.61
0.88
3.2E-02
3.2E-02
3.2E-02
3.2E-02
6.0E-02
6.0E-02
6.0E-02
3.6E-02
2.4E-03
2.4E-03
2.4E-03
2.4E-03
1.16
1.16
1.16
1.16
1.16
1.16
1.16
0.12
Path, model
200
730
2,964
1305
1,770.01
1,770.01
1,770.01
1,770.01
1,770.01
1,770.01
1,770.01
1,770.01
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.55
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
2.0E-02
0.26
0.26
0.26
0.16
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
1.1E-02
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
1.3E-02
(a) Actual exhaust gas flow-rate out of the incinerator, at 14 percent O2.
(b) Baseline for all models except the 1,500 Ib/hr continuous model.
(c) Baseline for the 1,500 Ib/hr model.
(d) Activated carbon concentration is 338 mg/dscm (0.0000211 Ib/dscf) for the DI/FF and 188 mg/dscm (0.0000117 Ib/dscf) for the
SD/FF, based on emission test data from Facility A, which uses a DI/FF, and Facility M, which uses an SD/FF.
(e) The performance of the FF/PB with activated carbon injection in reducing CDD/CDF is unknown.
43
-------
TABLE 24. ANNUAL SECONDARY EMISSIONS FOR EACH
EXISTING MODEL PLANT
Parameters\model combustors
Capacity, Ib/hr or batch
Exhaust flow rate, dscfm (a)
Operating hours, hr/yr
Pollutant, ton/yr
PM
Baseline (b)
2-scc combustion
Wet systems
FF/PB (c)
DMFF(c)
SD/FF(c)
SO2
Baseline (b)
2-scc combustion
Wet systems
FF/PB (c)
DI/FF(c)
SD/FF(c)
NOx
Baseline (b)
2-scc combustion
Wet systems
FF/PB (c)
DI/FF(c)
SD/FF(c)
Continuous models
1,500 1,000
4,747 3,165
7,776 3,726
0
0
9.0E-02
4.7E-02
3.2E-02
3.2E-02
0
0
1.79
0.95
0.64
0.64
0
0
1.79
0.95
0.64
0.64
0
0
Z9E-O2
1.6E-02
I.1E-02
1.1E-02
0
0
0.58
0.31
0.21
0.21
0
0
0.58
0.31
0.21
0.21
Intermittent models
1400 600 200
4,747 1,899 633
4368 4368 3,744
0
0
5.0E-02
Z7E-02
1.8E-02
1.8E-02
0
0
1.01
0.53
0.36
0.36
0
0
1.01
0.53
0.36
0.36
0
0
2.1E-02
1.2E-02,
8.2E-03
8.2E-03
0
. 0
0.43
0.23
0.16
0.16
0
0
0.43
0.23
0.16
0.16
0
0
7.2E-03
4.1E-03
3.2E-03
3.2E-03
0
0
0.14
8.2E-02
6.4E-02
6.4E-02
0
0
0.14
8.2E-02
6.4E-02
6.4E-02
Batch model
500
455
3,600
0
0
5.5E-03
3.1E-03
2.6E-03
2.6E-03
0
0
0.11
6.3E-02
5.2E-02
5.2E-02
0
0
0.11
6.3E-02
5.2E-02
5.2E-02
Path, model
200
730
3,120
0
0
6.7E-03
3.8E-03
2.9E-03
2.9E-03
0
0
0.13
7.5E-02
5.8E-02
5.8E-02
0
0
0.13
7.5E-02
5.8E-02
5.8E-02
(a) Actual exhaust gas flow rate out of the incinerator, at 14 percent O2.
(b) Baseline numbers apply to both units with 0.25-sec secondary chamber residence times and units with 1-sec
secondary chamber residence times.
(c) Values apply to the system both with and without activated carbon injection.
44
-------
TABLE 25. ANNUAL NATIONWIDE SECONDARY EMISSIONS FOR EACH
EXISTING MODEL PLANT
Parameters\model combustors
Capacity, Ib/hr or batch
Exhaust flow rate, dscfm (a)
Operating hours, hr/yr
Number of plants
Pollutant, ton/yr
PM
Baseline (b)
2-sec combustion
Wet systems
FF/PB (c)
DI/FF(c)
SD/FF (c)
SO2
Baseline (b)
2-sec combustion
Wet systems
FF/PB (c)
DI/FF(c)
SD/FF (c)
NOx
Baseline (b)
2-sec combustion
Wet systems
FF/PB (c)
DI/FF(c)
SD/FF (c)
Continuous models
1,500 1,000
4,747 3,165
7,776 3,726
. 154 182
0
0
14
7.3
5.0
5.0
0
0
276
146
99
99
• 0
0
276
146
99
99
0
0
5.3
2.8
2.0
2.0
0
0
106
57
39
39
0
0
106
57
39
39
Intermittent models
1,500 600 200
4,747 1,899 633
4,368 4,368 3,744
171 742 2,097
0
0
8.6
4.6
3.1
3.1
0
0
172
91
62
62
0
0
172
91
62
62
0
0
16
8.5
6.1
6.1
0
0
316
171
121
121
0
0
316
171
121
121
0
0
15
8.6
6.7
6.7
0
0
303
171
135
135
0
0
303
171
135
135
Batch model
500
455
3,600
335
0
0
1.8
1.1
0.86
0.86
0
0
37
21
17
17
0
0
37
21
17
17
Path, model
200
730
3,120
1,305
0
0
8.8
4.9
3.8
3.8
0
0
176
99
76
76
0
0
176
99
76
76
(a) Actual exhaust gas flow rate out of the incinerator, at 14 percent O2.
(b) Baseline numbers apply to both units with 0.25-sec secondary chamber residence times and units with 1-sec
secondary chamber residence times.
(c) Values apply to the system both with and without activated carbon injection.
45
-------
TABLE 26. ANNUAL AMOUNT OF POLLUTANTS IN WASTEWATER
EFFLUENTS FOR EACH EXISTING MODEL PLANT
Capacity. IWhr
Exhaust flow rue. dicfra (*)
Operating houn. hr/yr
Venturi blowdown, gal/yr
Wet lyttemi
CDD/CDF
Pb
Cd
UOO 1,000
4,747 3,165
7,760 3,564
1.7E+06 S.1E+05
1.1E-05
6.4E-02
4.1E-03
3.3E-06
1.9E-02
1.3E-03
1,500 600 200
4,747 1,899 633
4,212 4.212 3488
9.0E+05 3.6E+05 l.OE+05
5.8E-06
3JE-02 •
2.2E-03
Z3E-06
1.4E-02
9.0E-04
6.6E-07
3.9E-03
2.6E-04
Batch model
500
455
3.520
7.2E+04
6.6E-07
2.2E-03
7.2E-05
Path model
200
730
2,964
9.7E+04
16E-08
3.5E-04
8.1E-05
(a) Actual exhaoit g»i flow rale out of the inciaenlor, at 14percra«O2.
46
-------
TABLE 27. ANNUAL NATIONWIDE AMOUNT OF POLLUTANTS IN WASTEWATER
EFFLUENTS FOR EACH EXISTING MODEL PLANT
Capacity. Ib/hr
Exhaust flow rate, dscftn (a)
Operating houn. hr/yr
Number of plants
Venmri blowdown. gal/yr
Wet systems
CDD/CDF
Pb
Cd
1.500 1.000
4.747 3.165
7,760 3,564
154 182
2-3E+08 9.2E+07
1.6E-03
9.80
0.64
S.9E-04
3.55
0.23
Inteiminem models
1 300 600 200
4,747 1,899 633
4,212 4.212 3.588
171 742 2.097
l.SE+08 2.7E+08 2.1E+08
9.9E-04
5.91
0.38
1.7E-03
10.25
0.67
1.4E-03
8.23
0.54
Bitch model
500
455
3,520
335
2.4E+07
X2E-04
0.72
2.4E-02
Path, model
200
730
2.964
1,305
1.27E+08
3.3E-05
0.45
0.11
(a) Actual exhaust gas flow rate out of the incinerator, at 14 percent OZ
47
-------
TABLE 28. ANNUAL AMOUNT OF WASTE BURNED AND FLY ASH GENERATED BY
EACH EXISTING MODEL PLANT WITH FABRIC FILTER SYSTEMS
WITH AND WITHOUT CARBON INJECTION
?arameters\model combustors
Capacity, Ib/hr or batch
Exhaust flow rate, dscfm (a)
Operating hours, hr/yr
Waste incinerated, ton/yr
Pollutant capture per APCD, ton/yr
DI/FF
PM
CDD/CDF
CaO2
Pb
Cd
Hg
Unreacted lime (no SO2 removal)
Total fabric filter ash no carbon
Addition of carbon
carbon (b)
CDD/CDF
Hg
Total fabric filter ash with carbon
FF/PB
PM
CDD/CDF
Pb
Cd
Hg
Total fabric filter ash no carbon
Addition of carbon
carbon (b)
CDD/CDF
Hg
Total fabric filter ash with carbon
SD/FF
PM
CDD/CDF
Ca02
Pb
Cd
Hg
Unreacted lime (no SO2 removal)
Total fabric filter ash no carbon
Addition of carbon
carbon (c)
CDD/CDF (additional)
Hg
Total fabric filter ash with carbon
Continuous models
1^00 1,000
4,747 3,165
7,760 3,564
3,90?
7.10
0
110.48
0.14
9.9E-03
0
119.96
238
23.31
1.5E-05
9.6E-02
261.10
7.10
0
0.14
9.9E-03
0
7.25
23.31
1.2E-04
9.6E-02
30.66
7.10
0
110.48
0.14
9.9E-03
0
119.%
237.69
12.98
1.5E-05
9.6E-02
250.77
977
2.18
0
33.83
4.2E-02
3.0E-03
0
36.73
72.8
7.14
4.6E-06
2.9E-02
79.95
2.18
0
, 4.2E-02
3.0E-03
0
2.22
7.14
3.7E-05
2.9E-02
9.39
2.18
0
33.83
4.2E-02
3.0E-03
0
36.73
72.79
3.97
4.6E-06
2.9E-02
76.79
Intermittent models
1,500 600 200
4,747 1,899 633
4,212 4,212 3,588
1,176
3.86
0
59.97
7.5E-02
5.4E-03
0
65.11
129
12.65
8.1E-06
5.2E-02
141.72
3.86
0
7.5E-02
5.4E-03
0
3.94
1165
6.5E-05
5.2E-02
16.64
3.86
0
59.97
7.5E-02
5.4E-03
0
65.11
129.02
7.04
8.1E-06
5.2E-02
136.11
470
1.54
0
23.99
3.0E-02
2.2E-03
0
26.05
51.6
5.06
3.2E-06
2.1E-02
56.69
1.54
0
3.0E-02
2.2E-03
0
1.57
5.06
2.6E-05
2.1E-02
6.66
1.54
0
23.99
3.0E-02
2.2E-03
0
26.05
51.61
2.82
3.2E-06
2.1E-02
54.45
115
0.44
0
6.81
8.5E-03
6.1E-04
0
7.40
14.7
1.44
9.2E-07
5.9E-03
16.10
0.44
0
8.5E-03
6.1E-04
0
0.45
1.44
7.4E-06
5.9E-03
1.89
0.44
0
6.81
8.5E-03
6.1E-04
0
7.40
14.66
0.80
9.2E-07
5.9E-03
15.46
Batch model
500
455
3,520
27
5.8E-02
0
0.66
4.7E-03
1.7E-04
0
0.71
1.44
1.01
9.2E-07
3.1E-03
2.45
5.8E-02
0
4.7E-03
1.7E-04
0
6.3E-02
1.01
7.4E-06
3.1E-03
1.08
5.8E-02
0
0.66
4.7E-03
1.7E-04
0
0.71
1.44
0.56
9.2E-07
3.1E-03
2.00
Path, model
200
730
2,964
172
0.16
0
0.53
7.5E-04
1.9E-04
0
0.58"
1.28
137
3.6E-08
9.1E-05
2.64
0.16
0
7.5E-04
1.9E-04
0
0.16
1.37
2.9E-07
9.1E-05
1.53
0.16
0
0.53
7.5E-04
1.9E-04
0
0.58
1.28
0.76
3.6E-08
9.1E-05
2.04
(a) Actual exhaust gas flow rate out of the incinerator, at 14 percent O2.
(b) An activated carbon concentration of 338 mg/dscm (0.0000211 Ib/dscf) is used for the DI/FF and FF/PB, based on emission test
data from Facility A, which use* a DI/FF.
(c) An activated carbon concentration of 188 mg/dscm (0.0000117 Ib/dscf) is used for the SD/FF, based on emission test data from
Facility M, which uses an SD/FF.
48
-------
TABLE 29. 'ANNUAL NATIONWIDE AMOUNT' OF WASTE INCINERATED AND FLY
ASH GENERATED BY EACH EXISTING MODEL PLANT WITH FABRIC FILTER
SYSTEMS WITH AND WITHOUT CARBON INJECTION
Capacity, Ib/hr or batch
Exhaust flow rate, dscfm (a)
Operating hours, hr/yr
Number of plants
Waste incinerated, ton/yr
Pollutant capture per APCD, ton/yr
DI/FF
PM
CDD/CDF
CaC12
Pb
Cd
He
6
Unreacted lime (no SO2 removal)
Total fabric filter ash no carbon
Addition of carbon
carbon (b)
CDD/CDF
He
* *»
Total fabric filter ash with carbon
FF/PB
PM
CDD/CDF
Pb
Cd
He
* 6
Total fabric filter ash no carbon
Addition of carbon
carbon (b)
CDD/CDF
He
* *e
Total fabric filter ash with carbon
SD/FF
PM
CDD/CDF
CaC12
Pb
Cd
He
* **
Unreacted lime (no SO2 removal)
Total fabric filter ash no carbon
Addition of carbon
carbon (c)
CDD/CDF (additional)
He
"B
Total fabric filter ash with carbon
Continuous models
1,500 1,000
4,747 3,165
7,760 3,564
154 182
601,678
1,094.05
0
17,014.05
21.34
1.53
0
18,473.82
36,604.80
3,589.40
23E-03
14.82
40,209.02
1,094.05
0
21.34
1.53
0
1,116.92
3,589.40
1.8E-02
14.82
4,721.16
1,094.05
0
17,014.05
2134
1.53
0
18,473.82
36,604.80
1,998.53
23E-03
14.82
38,618.16
177,814
395.93
0
6,157.28
7.72
0.55
0
6,685.56
13,247.05
1,298.98
8.3E-04
5.36
14,55139
395.93
0
7.72
0.55
0
404.21
1,298.98
6.7E-03
5.36
1,708.56
395.93
0
6,157.28
7.72
0.55
0
6,685.56
13,247.05
723.26
8.3E-04
5.36
13,975.67
Intermittent models
1,500 600 200
4,747 1,899 633
4,212 4,212 3,588
171 742 2,097
201,096
659.39
0
10,254.39
12.86
0.92
0
11,134.19
22,061.76
2,163.33
1.4E-03
8.93
24,234.02
659.39
0
12.86
0.92
0
673.17
2,163.33
1.1E-02
8.93
2,845.45
659.39
0
10,254.39
12.86
0.92
0
11,134.19
22,061.76
1,204.52
1.4E-03
8.93
23,275.21
348,740
1,144.60
0
17,800.14
22.33
1.60
0
19,327.35
38,296.02
3,755.23
2.4E-03
15.51
42,066.76
1,144.60
0
22.33
1.60
0
1,168.53
3,755.23
1.9E-02
15.51
4,939.29
1,144.60
0
17,800.14
22.33
1.60
0
19,327.35
38,296.02
2,090.87
2.4E-03
15.51
40,402.40
241,155
918.52
0
14,284.36
17.92
1.28
0
15,509.92
30,732.01
3,013.52
1.9E-03
1Z44
33,757.98
918.52
0
17.92
1.28
0
937.73
3,013.52
1.5E-02
12.44
3,963.71
918.52
0
14,28436
17.92
1.28
0
15,509.92
30,732.01
1,677.89
1.9E-03
12.44
32,42235
3atch model
500
455
3,520
335
9,045
19.55
0
220.44
1.58
5.8E-02
0
239.35
480.96
339.48
3.1E-04
1.04
821.49
19.55
0
1.58
5.8E-02
0
21.18
339.48
2.5E-03
1.04
361.70
19.55
0
220.44
1.58
5.8E-02
0
239.35
480.96
189.02
3.1E-04
1.04
671.02
'ath. model
200
730
2,964
1,305
224,460
211.77
0
696.06
0.98
0.25
0
755.78
1,664.85
1,786.62
4.7E-05
0.12
3,451.59
211.77
0
0.98
0.25
0
213.01
1,786.62
3.8E-04
0.12
1,999.75
211.77
0
696.06
0.98
0.25
0
755.78
1,664.85
994.77
4.7E-05
0.12
2,659.74
(a) Actual exhaust gas flow rate out of the incinerator, at 14 percent O2.
(b) An activated carbon concentration of 338 mg/dscm (0.0000211 Ib/dscf) is used for the DIM1 and FF/PB, based on emission test
data from Facility A, which u»e» a DI/FF.
(c) An activated carbon concentration of 188 mg/d»cm (0.0000117 Ib/dscf) is used for the SD/FF, based OB emission test data from
Facility M, which uses an SD/FF.
49
-------
TABLE 30. ANNUAL ENERGY REQUIREMENTS TO OPERATE CONTROL
EQUIPMENT FOR EACH EXISTING MODEL PLANT
CARBON INJECTION
Fuel Usage, Electricity Usage,
Model plaim mmft3/yr Mwh/yr
I. Continuous MWI'a
A. l^OOlbyhr
a. Baseline 10.3 173.5
b. 2-sec combustion 16.6 173.5
c. Weliyatems 16.6 837.8
d. FF/PB («) 16.6 S25.6
e. DI/FF (a) 16.6 4112
f. SD/FF (i) 16.6 4112
B. l.OOOlb/hr
a. Baseline 5.14 65.1
b. 2-sec combustion 7.13 65.1
c. Wet systems . 7.13 281.5
. d. FF/PB (a) " 7.13 180.5
e. DI/FF (a) 7.13 144.6
f. SD/FF (a) 7.13 144.6
n. Inleimittcnt MWI's
A. l-5001b/hr
a. Baseline 5.86 54.8
b. 2-sec combustion 8.87 54.8
c. Wet systems . 8.87 427.9
d. FF/PB (a) 8.87 25Z6
e. DI/FF (a) 8.87 188.9
f. SD/FF (a) 8.87 188.9
B. 6001b/hr
a. Baseline . 2.89 25.2
b. 2-sec combustion 4.10 25.2
c. Wet systems 4.10 183.4
d. FF/PB (a) 4.10 110.6
c. DI/FF (a) 4.10 85.7
f. SD/FF (a) 4.10 85.7
C. 2001bAir
a. Baseline 1.40 10.3
b. 2-sec combustion 1.73 . 10.3
c. Wet systems 1.73 64.0
d. FF/PB (a) 1.73 40.6
e. DI/FF (a) 1.73 34.1
f. SD/FF (a) 1.73 34.1
IB. Batch MWI's
A. 500 Ib/batch
a. Baseline 1.81 2.73
b. 2-sec combustion 1.97 2.73 ,
c. Wet systems 1.97 . 43.26
d. FF/PB (a) 1.97 26.09
e. DI/FF (a) 1.97 21.85
f. SD/FF (a) 1.97 21.85
IV. Palhologieal MWT'a
A. 2001bAir
a. Baseline 2.65 8.6
b. 2-sec combustion 3.04 8.6
c. Wet systems ' 3.04 58.55
d. FF/PB (a) 3.04 36.60
e. DI/FF (a) 3.04 30.25
f. SD/FF (a) 3.04 30.25
(a) Values apply to the system both with and without activated carbon injection.
50
-------
TABLE 31. ANNUAL NATIONWIDE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS TO
OPERATE CONTROL EQUIPMENT FOR EACH EXISTING MODEL PLANT
Number of
I.
n.
ra.
IV.
Continuous MWI's
A. MOOlb/hr 154
a. Baseline
b. 2-sec combustion
c. Wet systems
d. FF/PB (a)
e. DI/FF (a)
f. SD/FF (a)
B. l.OOOlb/hr 182
a. Baseline
b. 2-sec combustion
c. Wet systems
d. FF/PB (a)
e. DI/FF (a)
f. SD/FF (a)
Inteimittent MWI's
A. l.S001b/hr 171
a. Baseline
b. 2-sec combustion
c. Wet systems
d. FF/PB (a)
e. DI/FF (a)
f. SD/FF (a)
B. 6001b;hr 742
a. Baseline
b. 2-sec combustion
c. Wet systems
d. FF/PB (a)
e. DI/FF (a)
f. SD/FF (a)
C. 200 Mir 2.097
a. Baseline
b. 2-sec combustion
c. Wet systems
d. FF/PB (a)
e. DI/FF (a)
f. SD/FF (a)
Batch MWI's
A. 500 Ib/batch 335
a. Baseline
b. 2-sec combustion
c. Wet systems
d. FF/PB (a)
e. DI/FF (a)
f. SD/FF (a)
Pathological MWI's
A. 2001b/hr 1,305
a. Baseline
b. 2-sec combustion
c. Wet systems
d. FF/PB (a)
e. DI/FF (b)
f. SD/FF (b)
Fuel Usage,
mmft3/yr
1,591
2,554
2,554
2,554
2,554
2,554
935
1.298
1,298
1,298
1,298
1,298
1,003
1.517
1,517
1,517
1,517
1417
2,147
3.041
3,041
3,041
3,041
3,041
2,937
3.638
3,638
3,638
3,638
3,638
607
659
659
659
659
659
3.462
3,965
3,965
3,965
3,965
3,965
Electricity Usage,
Mwh/yr
26,720
26,720
129.014
80,944
63.477
63,477
11,844
11,844
51,234
32,855
26314
26,314,
9373
9373
73,177
43,195
32,299
32,299
18,701
18,701
136,060
82,033
63493
63493
21,647
21,647
134,187
85.229
71.611
71,611
913
913
14,491
8,739
7A18
7318
11.226
11,226
76.413
47.769
39,473
39,473
(a) Values apply to the system both with and without activated carbon injection.
51
-------
3.0 REFERENCES
1. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Medical Waste
Incinerators--Background Information for Proposed Standards
and Guidelines: Model Plant Description and Cost Report for
New. and Existing Facilities. EPA-453/R-94-045a. July 1994.
2. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Medical Waste
Incinerators--Background Information for Proposed Standards
and Guidelines: Control Technology Performance Report for
New and Existing Facilities. EPA-453/R-94-044a. July 1994.
3. Memorandum from S. Shoraka and C. Hester, MRI, to Project
File. August 4, 1992. Average Emission Rates for MWI's.
4. Steam: Its Generation and"Use. New York, The Babcock and
Wilcox Company. 1978. p. 22-11.
5. Electric Utility Steam Generating Units--Background
Information for Proposed Standards. Prepared for U. S. EPA.
July 1978. EPA-450/2-78-007a. p. 4-36.
6. Environmental Protection Agency. General Regulations on
Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources. Code
of Federal Regulations. Title 40, Chapter I, Subchapter C,
Part 60, Subpart Da. July 1, 1979.
7. Memorandum from T. Holloway, P. McElhany and D. Randall,
MRI, to W. Maxwell, EPA:ISB. October 31, 1991. Wastewater
Discharge Regulations that Affect MWI's.
8. Letter and attachments from A. R. Dozier, Advanced Concepts,
Inc., to W. Maxwell, EPA:ISB. January 21, 1990. Design
information about APCD.
9. Marschall, H.L., et al. Emcotek Corp. Retrofitting Air
Pollution Controls to Existing Incinerators, presented at
the 82nd Annual Meeting of the Air and Waste Management
Association, Anaheim, CA. June 1989.
10. Marschall, H. L., et al. Emcotek Corp. New Oregon
Incinerator Demonstrates Process Innovations to Protect Both
Air and Water, Presented at the Air and Waste Management
Association Specialty Conference--Thermal Treatment of
Municipal, Industrial, and Hospital Waste II, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. November 1989.
11. Telecon. D. Randall, MRI, with P. Stearns, Borgess Medical
Center. July 20, 1990. Ash disposal procedures.
12. Telecon. D. Randall, MRI, with R. Poll, Valley City
Disposal. July 20, 1990. Ash disposal procedures.
52
-------
13. Telecoh. D. Randall, MRI, with G. Druen, Evanston Hospital
July 20, 1990. Ash disposal procedures.
14. Telecon. D. Randall, MRI, with G. Lowe, Fairfax Hospital.
July 24, 1990. Ash disposal procedures.
15. Telecon. D. Randall, MRI, with C. Cutting, Sparrow
Hospital. July 23, 1990. Ash disposal procedures.
16. Telecon. D. Randall, MRI, with a Commercial Medical Waste
Incineration Company. July 20, 1990. Ash disposal
procedures.
53
-------
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-453/R-94-046a
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Medical Waste Incinerators - Background Information for
Proposed Standards and Guidelines: Environmental Impacts
Report for New and Existing Facilities
5. REPORT DATE
July 1994
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Emission Standards Division (Mail Drop 13)
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-D1-0115
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Published in conjunction with proposed air emission standards and guidelines for
medical waste incinerators
16. ABSTRACT
This report presents the environmental impacts associated with the control technologies for
controlling emissions from MWI's. The incremental increase or decrease in air pollution, water
pollution, solid waste generation, and energy consumption for each technology relative to baseline is
discussed. This is one in a series of reports used as background information in developing air emission
standards and guidelines for new and existing MWI's.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Air Pollution
Pollution Control
Standards of Performance
Emission Guidelines
Medical Waste Incinerators
Air Pollution Control
Solid Waste
Medical Waste
Incineration
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
53
20. SECURITY CLASS (Page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE
-------
------- |