xvEPA
                        United States
                        Environmental Protection
                        Agency   	
EPA/540/S5-89/008
May1989
                        SUPEFtFUND INNOVATIVE
                        TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION
                         Technology Demonstration
                         Summary

                         The American  Combustion
                         Pyretron Thermal  Destruction
                         System  at the  U.S.  EPA's
                         Combustion Research  Facility
                         Under the auspices of the
                        Superfund  Innovative Technology
                        Evaluation, or SITE, program, a
                        critical assessment was made of the
                        American Combustion Pyretron™
                        oxygen enhanced  burner system
                        during eight separate tests at the
                        United  States Environmental
                        Protection  Agency's Combustion
                        Research Facility (CRF) in Jefferson,
                        Arkansas. The report includes a
                        description of the Pyretron and of the
                        facilities used at the CRF, the tests
                        conducted  as part  of  this
                        demonstration, the data obtained,
                        and an overall performance and cost
                        evaluation of the system.
                         Results show that Destruction and
                        Removal Efficiencies (DREs) of 99.99
                        percent were achieved for a series of
                        polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
                        found in decanter tank tar sludge,
                        RCRA listed waste K087, the organic
                        waste  tested  during   this
                        demonstration. Particulate emissions
                        of less than 180  mg/dscm at 7 per-
                        cent 02 were measured for all tests.
                        The use of oxygen enhancement with
                        the Pyretron enabled the feed rate of
                        the waste to be doubled. All solid and
                        liquid residues  generated during
                        these tests were contaminant free.
The costs associated with using the
Pyretron  in place of an air-only
burner depend  upon the relative
costs of oxygen and fuel and to some
extent the capital costs of the
burners  themselves.  For this
demonstration,  operating  the
Pyretron with  oxygen  enhancement
used oxygen worth between $3250
and S3870 (it  was  provided free of
charge) and roughly $2672 worth of
propane. Operation without oxygen
enhancement consumed $4000 worth
of propane. During this period 1820
kg  of  waste  were treated using
oxygen and 1180 kg  were treated
without oxygen. The Pyretron burners
used in this demonstration had an
estimated  cost of $150,000  and
involved  $50,000  of design  and
development effort.
 This  Summary was  developed by
EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH,  to
announce key findings of the SITE
program demonstration that is fully
documented in two separate reports
(see ordering information at back).

Introduction
 The  SITE demonstration of the
American Combustion, Inc. Pyretron

-------
oxygen-enhanced  burner system  was
conducted from  November 16,  1987 to
January 29,  1988  at  the  U.S.
Environmental  Protection  Agency's
Combustion  Researcli Facility (CRF) in
Jefferson, Arkansas.  The  Pyretron  was
installed  on  the  CRF's Rotary  Kiln
Incinerator   System  (RKIS).  This
demonstration  was conducted  using a
mixture of decanter tank tar sludge  from
coking operations  (RCRA listed waste
K087) and waste soil excavated from the
Stringfellow  Superfund  site  near
Riverside, California.  These  two wastes
were  mixed  together to provide a  feed
stream that  had high levels  of organic
contamination  and  was in a soil matrix.
This was determined  to be the best feed
material to  use   to  evaluate  the
performance  of the  Pyretron.  The
purpose  of the demonstration tests was
to provide the  data to evaluate three ACI
claims regarding the  Pyretron  system.
These claims are as follows:

• The Pyretron system  with  oxygen
  enhancement reduces the magnitude
  of the  transient high levels of organic
  emissions, CO, and soot ("puffs") that
  occur with repeated batch  charging of
  waste to a rotary kiln.

• The Pyretron system  with  oxygen
  enhancement is capable of achieving
  the  RCRA  mandated 99.99  percent
  destruction  and removal efficiency
  (ORE) of principal organic  hazardous
  constituents  (POHCs)  in  wastes
  incinerated at a higher waste  feedrate
  than conventional, air-only, incineration.
• The  Pyretron  system   is  more
  economical  than   conventional
  incineration.
Process and Facility
Description
  Two Pyretron burners were installed on
the RKS. One was installed on the kiln
and one on the afterburner. Valve trains
for supplying  these  burners with
controllable  flows  of auxiliary fuel,
oxygen, and  air; and  a computerized
process  control system  were also
provided. A schematic of the system as it
was installed  at  the  CRF is  shown  in
Figure 1. The Pyretron burners use the
staged introduction of oxygen to produce
a hot luminous flame  which  efficiently
transfers  heat to the  solid waste fed
separately to  the  kiln. Oxygen,  propane
and oxygen-enriched air enter the burner
in three  separate   streams  each
concentric to  one another.  A  stream of
pure oxygen is fed through the center of
the burner arid is used to burn propane in
a  substoichiometric  manner.  This
produces a  hot  and luminous  flame.
Combustion | is completed by mixing
these hot combustion products with  the
stream of oxygen-enriched air.
  All tests were performed  in the RKS at
the CRF. A simplified schematic  of this
system is given in Figure 2. The system
consists  of an  880  KW (3MM BTU/hr)
rotary kiln incinerator, a transition section,
a fired afterburner chamber, a venturi-
scrubber and a packed-column scrubber.
In addition, a' backup air  pollution control
system  conjsisting  of  a  carbon-bed
adsorber and a HEPA filter  is installed
downstream bf the previously mentioned
air  pollution |control  devices. With  the
exception of the carbon  bed and HEPA
filter, the system is typical of what might
exist  on  an  actual commercial  or
industrial incinerator. The carbon bed and
HEPA filter are installed to ensure that
organic  compound and  particulate
emissions  to  the  atmosphere  are
negligible.
  The waste incinerated during the SITE
demonstration was  a mixture  of 60%
decanter  tank tar sludge  from coking
operations,  RCRA listed waste KO87, and
40%  contaminated soil  from  the
Stringfellow Superfund site. The K087
waste was included in the test mixture to
provide high evels of several polynuclear
automatic hydrocarbon compounds.  Six
of these, naphthalene, acenaphthylene,
fluorene,  phenanthrene,  anthracene, and
fluoranthene; were  selected  as  the
Principal Organic Hazardous Constituents
(POHCs) for the test  program. The
Stringfellow soil was included in order to
make the  resulting  feedstream more
closely resemble the type  of waste that
would  be  incinerated  using  this
technology. For all tests the  waste was
packed into 5.7 L (1.5 gal)  fiber pack
drums. Each drum contained between  4.1
and 7.9 kg (9land 17 Ib) of waste.
  Eight  tests  were  performed. These
tests were designed to compare oxygen
enhanced  incineration  to  air-only
incineration Using  the Pyretron. Table 1
summarizes ^he test conditions for the
eight tests cohducted.
  During each  test  the feed  and  all
effluent  streams were  sampled and
analyzed  to  determine  levels  of
contamination. In  addition  levels  of
carbon  monoxide,  carbon  dioxide,
oxygen, total unburned  hydrocarbons,
and nitrogen oxides in the exhaust gas
were  continuously measured and
recorded. Comparison of the stripchart
recordings of the  oxygen-enhanced and
air-only operation made  it possible to
determine whether or not the controlled
introduction of oxygen reduced transient |
emissions.


Results and Discussion
  A  detailed  summary  of the  SITE
demonstration test results is presented in
Figures 3 and 4 that follow and in Tables I
2 and  3. Based  on the test objectives |
outlined in the Introduction, the following
results were obtained and  conclusions
drawn.

Transient Emissions
  American Combustion claimed that the
Pyretron with oxygen enhancement could
reduce the levels of transient emissions
that  occur when  solid  waste  is  batch
charged  to  a rotary  kiln. Transient
emissions   occur  when  organic
contaminants  originally present in  the
solid waste are volitalized  in the hot kiln
environment. The rapid  volatilization and
reaction of these organic  contaminants
depletes the kiln  environment of oxygen.
Pyrolysis occurs  in the  oxygen-depleted
kiln  environment.  This results in  the
production and  emission  of soot and
other pyrolysis products.
  The  basis for American Combustion's
claim of  reduced transient emissions is
based  upon  the  belief that the timed
addition  of  oxygen  would  provide
sufficient  oxygen  to the kiln atmosphere
to oxidize the volatilized organic matter,
thus  reducing  pyrolysis and the resulting
emissions of  pyrolysis products.  The
demonstration tests  were  planned to
evaluate  this  claim by  deliberately
feeding the kiln  in a way that would
produce transient emissions and then by
measuring and  recording those emissions
as  carbon  monoxide "spikes"  on
continuous emission monitor stripcharts.
The  stripcharts produced  under air-only
and  oxygen-enhanced operation would
be compared  in order to determine any
statistically significant differences in
transient emissions between air-only and
oxygen-enhanced operation.
  Figures 3 and  4 show  the stripchart
data  for tests 2 (air-only operation at 105
Ib/hr  feedrate)  and  5  (oxygen
enhancement  at  210  Ib/hr feedrate).
These  two figures are presented to
indicate  the  frequency and  level of
transient  emissions  during   the
demonstration. All of  the  continuous
emission  monitor  stripcharts obtained
during  the demonstration are presented
in the  Technology  Evaluation  Report.
Comparison  of the carbon  monoxide
emissions indicates  that no significant
differences in  transient  emissions  could

-------
                     Afterburner Pyretron Burner
                                                                                     Measured
                                                                                      Process
                                                                                     Parameters
                                                                                     Valve Train
                                                                                  (gas, oxygen, air)
                                                                                           Gas, Air, and
                                                                                          Oxygen Flows to
                                                                                            the Burners
Figure 1. Pyretron thermal destruction system process diagram.
be readily observed. Statistical analysis
of carbon  monoxide  peak  height
indicated that test-to-test variation was
greater than the  variation  observed
between air-only and  oxygen-enhanced
operation.  Thus,  it  was  not possible to
state as a result of these tests whether
the timed  addition  of oxygen reduced
transient emissions.
  There are two possible explanations for
the inconclusive  results  of  these  tests.
First,  in  order  to  achieve throughput
increases with the  Pyretron, water was
injected into the kiln. This was not part of
the original  test plan,  but was later
deemed  necessary   in  order   to
demonstrate  throughput  increases with
high  heating value  waste. Even though
water  injection is a reasonable  way to
achieve throughput  increases  with high
heating  value wastes, the  injection of
water  made  it impossible to assess  the
ability of the  Pyretron to  reduce transient
emissions through the timed injection of
oxygen. An  explanation of this  is  as
follows.
  Without  the  water,  temperature
excursions  and  other  operational
problems  would have  resulted  from
feeding high heating value waste (24.61
MJ/kg) to the kiln at elevated feed rates.
Higher kiln  temperatures are believed to
increase transient emissions by driving
more organic  material  off of the  solid
waste fed to the kiln. The use of oxygen
often results in higher kiln temperatures.
The  added   water  reduced  kiln
temperatures  and may  have  reduced
them  enough  to  reduce  transient
emissions  over what they would  have
been had the Pyretron been used without
water.  Thus,  had  there  been  any
statistically significant  reduction  in
transient emissions,  it would have  been
the result of the addition of water and not
the timed injection of oxygen into the kiln
atmosphere.
  Secondly, Superfund  wastes are very
heterogeneous  in nature.  Even though
these wastes  were  mixed prior to the
start of testing, it is  likely that significant
variation in  organic content existed from
batch to batch  during feeding. Variation in
waste feed  organic content may  have
also affected the  variations observed in
transient emissions.  It  was  difficult to
separate variations of  tdis  nature  from
variations resulting from the performance
of the  Pyretron.  Studies  of  transient
emissions  are best carried  out  in  a
laboratory  setting  using  specially
prepared,  and  therefore  uniform,
surrogate wastes.  Such  a study  was
conducted on a smaller version  of the
Pyretron at the U.S.EPA's Air and Energy
Engineering  Research  Laboratory.
Results  indicate  that  the  elevated
temperatures that result from the  use  of
oxygen  enhancement  result  in  an
increase  in  transient  emissions despite
the additional oxygen  present in the kiln
atmosphere. This study is described  in
more detail  in the Applications Analysis
Report.


Destruction and Removal
Efficiencies (DREs) and
Paniculate Emissions at
Elevated Feed Rates
  Even at double the feedrate, no organic
contamination was detected in all but one
of the twelve stack samples taken. Table
2  summarizes  the  DREs  achieved.  It
should be noted that for the waste treated
in this demonstration, 136 L/hr of water
had  to be added to the system  at the
elevated feed rates in order to achieve an
increase  in throughput. This is because
the waste feed had a heating value  of

-------
             Afterburner
              Pyrethron
               Burner
   Propane -5
      Alr—S
                                       Venturi
                                      Inlet Duct

                                       Venturi
                                      Scrubber
                                                        50: Caustic
                                             Air0*
                                          Propane
                                                   Solids
                                                  Feeder

                                                   Kiln,
                                                  Pyretrqn
                                                  Burner
                             Cyclone  ' p*cked
                            Separator   Tower
                                      Scrubber
                                Fresh
                             r—Process
                                Water
                                HEPA
                                Filter
                                                   Regulation   pecirculation
                                                      Pump         Tank
                                               To
                                        Slowdown Collection
                                            or Disposal
 Figure 2.  CRF rotary Kin system.
Table 1. Summary of Demonstration Test Conditions
Test
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Mode*
A
A
02
02
02
02
02
A
Feed Rate
kglhr
47.7
47.7
47.7
47.7
95.5
95.5
55
55
(Ib/hr)
(105)
(105)
(105)
(105)
(210)
(210)
(120)
(120)
Temp. "F
954
921
1035
963
979
979
1010
1010
Kiln
(C)
(1750)
(1690)
(1895)
(1765)
(1795)
(1795)
(1850)
(1850)
Afterburner
02, %
13.3
12.8
17.6
14.5
13.9
14.6
13.5
8.8
Temp. °F
1121
1121
1121
1121
1121
1121
1121
1121
(C)
(2050)
(2050)
(2050)
(2050)
(2050
(2050)
(2050)
(2050)
02, %
7.7
7.4
15.2
15.0
14.0
15.3
13.5
11.4
*A  « Air only
 O2 - Oxygen enhanced
24.61 MJflcg (10.400 Btu/lb). At the feed
rates obtained with oxygen enhancement,
this resulted in  a total heat input of 640
KW  (2.2MMBtu/hr).  Without all of the
nitrogen  provided  by air-only  operation,
an  additional  heat  sink had to  be
provided. This  problem  would  be
alleviated when treating a lower heating
value waste.
  As  indicated by  Table 2, the stack
gases  were  virtually  free  of  organic
contamination.  The  solid  and  liquid
residues produced from these tests were
also  free  of  contamination.  The
composite scrubber blowdown liquor and
kiln ash  samples from  each test  were
analyzed for the  POHCs and other
Method  8270  semivolatile  organic
hazardous constituents.  No  POHC  was
detected  in  any blowdown sample  at a
detection limit of  20 pg/L; no other


-------
        I

        .
       P tC
               960-

               SOO
              3,200 -
               800-
                 0


                 T5-
                70-

                 0
               270-
                90-
                30
^~u^__~
                   11     Test
                          Start
13


Time of Day (hr)
                                                                   15
                     Test
                     Stop
 Figure 3. Kiln data, Test 2.
semivolatile  organic  hazardous
constituent  was  detected at detection
limits  ranging   ir,om  100   ng/L
(nitrophenols and pentachlorophenol) to
20  ng/L  (all  other  Method   8270
constituents).  No  POHC  analyte was
detected  in any  kiln ash  sample  at  a
detection limit of 0.4 mg/kg ash. No other
semivolatile  organic  hazardous
constituent  was  detected at detection
limits  ranging  from   2.0  mg/kg
(nitrophenols and pentachlorophenol) to
0.4  mg/kg  (all  other  Method  8270
constituents).  This  high  level  oi
decontamination is  understandable given
that all tests were performed  at relatively
high kiln and afterburner temperatures.
  Particulate concentrations  in the  flue
gas  at the two  locations sampled  are
summarized in Table 3. The two locations
sampled  were the  scrubber discharge,
and the CRF stack.  Between the scrubber
discharge and the  stack are the  carbon
adsorber and the. HEPA filter. Particulate
levels were measured in the  stack for all
                  tests. Sampling port availability limitations
                  precluded measuring scrubber discharge
                  flue  gas particulate  emissions for the
                  tests during which simultaneous  MM5
                  sampling was performed  (Tests 1,  2, 5,
                  and 6).
                    The  data  in  Table  3  show  that
                  particulate levels  in  the  scrubber
                  discharge flue  gas for  three  Pyretron
                  tests and one conventional  incineration
                  test were in the 20 to 40 mg/dscm at 7
                  percent Oa  range. All  levels measured
                  were  below  the  RCRA  incinerator
                  performance standard of 180 mg/dscm at
                  7 percent O2.


                  Costs
                    Since  the Pyretron is  a burner  and,
                  therefore, only one of many components
                  of an incineration  system, the use of the
                  Pyretron can be expected to affect cost
                  only incrementally. Since the capital cost
                  for any burner  is only a fraction of the
                  capital  cost for the entire  incinerator, the
majority of the costs associated with the
use of the Pyretron  will be associated
with the costs of fuel and oxygen. Table 4
summarizes  the  costs for fuel  and
oxygen during the SITE demonstration. A
range of  costs is presented  to  give the
reader an estimate of the  variability  in
costs  associated  with  using  this
technology. More information on costs is
provided in  the Applications  Analysis
Report on this demonstration.
  The  capital costs  for the  Pyretron
system used  in  the SITE demonstration
was  $150,000. In addition $50,000 was
spent in design and development work on
the system.
  Since this demonstration was  done at a
research  facility  and  not under actual
field  conditions,  the  incremental effect
that using the Pyretron has on the cost of
incinerating a ton  of  hazardous waste
cannot be directly determined. It is  likely
that the major factor in determining the
cost  effectiveness  of  the  Pyretron will
remain the oxygen  and fuel. These  costs

-------

         8
               7,200 -
                960-
?M
S*l
        .
        Hi
         *
                800
                800-
                200

                  0
                 70-

                  0
                270-
          90 _
          30


           9-
                *W\!\f**J^^
                 nl li— II-K-I

                                             ,
                        MTty\fvvvww
-------
Table 2. Destruction and Removal Efficiencies (DREs)
     Test No.
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
                                                       Fluorene
Phenanthrene
                                                                                        Anthracene
                 Hexachloroethane  1,3,5 Trichlorobenzene
                                  Fluoranthene
la
*
2a
*
30
40
50
*
60
*
> 99.9988
> 99. 9989
> 99.9989
> 99.9940
> 99.9986
> 99.99970
> 99.99985
> 99.99987
> 99.99989
> 99.99987
> 99.9955
> 99.9962
> 99.9954
> 99.9739
> 99.9941
> 99.9987
> 99.99942
> 99.99952
> 99. 99956
> 99.99946
> 99.9900
>99.9975
> 99.9905
> 99. 947
> 99.9978
> 99. 9974
> 99. 9988
> 99.9990
> 99.9997
> 99.9989
> 99.9967
> 99.9970
> 99.9977
> 99.956
> 99.9967
> 99.99922
> 99.99968
> 99.99972
> 99.99976
> 99.99970
> 99.9868
> 99.9898
> 99.9904
> 99.985
> 99.987
> 99.9974
> 99.99896
> 99.99909
> 99.99922
> 99.99907
> 99.9944
> 99.9957
> 99.9955
> 99. 93 7
> 99. 9926
> 99.9983
> 99.99932
> 99.99947
> 99.99944
> 99. 99929
       70@
99.9957

> 99.9926
 > 99.9922

 > 99.9865
> indicates that the DREs are based on the analytical method detection limit
a = air, o = oxygen
* the second set of DREs. are from duplicate samples
@ tests 7 and 8 were done at the request of Region 9 and involve spiking Stringfellow soil with the two POHCs listed.
Table 3. Particulate Emission Summary

                     Particulate
                Concentration (mg/dscm
                   at 7 percent O2)a
                 Scrubber
                Discharge
     Test No.     Flue Gas   Stack Gas
1 (12-9-87)
2 (12-11-87)
3 (12-17-87)
4(1-14-88)
5 (1-20-88)
6 (1-21-88)
7(1-27-88)
8 (1-29-88)
b
. b
21
26
' b
b
27
38
8
9
99
59
63
21
37
38
aMeasured particulate  concentration
 directly corrected to 7 percent O2 using
 flue gas O2 level. RCRA standard is 180
 mg/dscm corrected to 7 percent O2-  This
 does not provide a direct comparison for
 tests with O2 enhancement (Tests 3, 4, 5,
 6, and 7).
bDenotes measurements not performed.
 Particulate  levels increased at the stack
 partly because of particulate entrainment
 downstream of the scrubber discharge.
capacity must be provided if throughput
is to be increased with this kind of waste.
During this  demonstration water  was
used.  This  was sufficient  for  the
24.16MJ/kg (10,400 Btu/lb) waste treated
during the  demonstration.  In some
                      situations, however, water  injection may
                      not provide  sufficient heat  absorbing
                      capacity.  In  these cases throughput
                      increases may be difficult to achieve.
                        Third, levels of NOX produced by the
                      Pyretron  were elevated over  those that
                      occurred  without oxygen  enhancement.
                      The high flame temperatures  that result
                      when  the Pyretron is  used with oxygen
                      enhancement are  responsible for this.
                      Air-only operation  resulted in  average
                      NOX levels of 92 ppm.  Use of the
                      Pyretron  with  oxygen enhancement
                      resulted in  average NOX levels of 1073
                      ppm.  Appendix  C of the Technology
                      Evaluation Report contains  all of the NOX
                      data obtained during the demonstration.
                      The Applications Analysis  Report
                      discusses  the  implications of  the
                      Pyretron's high NOX levels.


                      Conclusions and
                      Recommendations
                        Based  on the  results and experience
                      obtained  from this SITE demonstration,
                      the  following   conclusions   and
                      recommendations;  can be  made
                      concerning  the  operation   and
                      performance of the  American Combustion
                      Pyretron oxygen-enhanced burner.

                        1. Overall, the  Pyretron may be  useful
                        in  increasing  the efficiency  of
                        incinerators that  are  treating many of
                        the wastes that are found at  Superfund
                        sites.
                                                2. With respect to the first claim made
                                                about the Pyretron,  we were unable to
                                                conclusively determine  whether  the
                                                Pyretron  system  with  oxygen
                                                enhancement was able to  reduce  the
                                                magnitude of  transient  emissions
                                                produced when waste is batch charged
                                                to a rotary kiln.  Part of the reason for
                                                this  is  that the waste feed  was  not
                                                uniformly contaminated with high levels
                                                of organic waste.  Because of this,
                                                variations  in the  levels of transient
                                                emissions observed could not be solely
                                                attributed to the action of the Pyretron.
                                                Further,  there  was not a   clear
                                                difference in the frequency or level of
                                                transient  emissions produced  by  the
                                                Pyretron  with  oxygen  enhancement
                                                over conventional incineration.
                                                3. As for the second claim made about
                                                the Pyretron, the demonstration clearly
                                                showed  that thorough waste decon-
                                                tamination  can  be  obtained  at
                                                throughput  rates   double  those
                                                achievable without  oxygen  enhance-
                                                ment provided  that  sufficient  heat
                                                absorption capacity is provided when
                                                high heating value wastes are treated.
                                               4. As for the third claim  made for the
                                               Pyretron,   the  results  of  the
                                               demonstration  indicate that  the
                                               incremental cost  of  operating  an
                                               incinerator equipped with the  Pyretron
                                               will vary depending on  the size  and

-------
Table 4. Utility Costs Incurred During the Pyretron Site Demonstration





Mode
Air






Total Feed
kg db)
1180(2596)



Total Cost
Oxygen $
HIGH
LOW
ACTUAL
.--
--
—

Total Cost
Propane $
HIGH
LOW
ACTUAL
6000
3000
4008
Water
Injection
Cost $*
HIGH
LOW
ACTUAL ,
-
;
--

Total Utility
Cost$
HIGH
LOW
ACTUAL
6000
3000
4008

Unit Cost
$lkg ($/lb)
HIGH
LOW
ACTUAL
5.08 (2.31)
2.54(1.15)
3.39 (1.54)
02


1820 (4004)


3870
3250
3560 +
4000
2000
2672
6.12
6.12 i
6.72
7876
5256
6238
4.32 (1.97)
2.89 (1.31)
3.43 (1.56)
* only needed for high heating value wastes
 * average value

  location of the application as well as on
  the magnitude  of the throughput
  increases achievable and  is predom-
  inantly influenced by  the  costs of
  oxygen and fuel.
  5. The NOX levels observed during the
  demonstration  may  limit   the
  applicability  of the   Pyretron  in
  situations requiring stringent  control of
  these emissions. Further development
  of the Pyretron  may  alleviate  this
  problem.
            The  EPA \ Project Manager,  Laurel J.  Staley,  is  with  the  Risk Reduction
              Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH 45268 (see below).
            The  complete report, entitled Technology Evaluation  Report,  Site  Program
              Demonstration Test: The American Combustion Pyretron Thermal Destruction
              System \at the U.S. EPA's Combustion  Research Facility," (Order No. PB89-
              167894/AS; Cost $28.95, subject to change) will be available only from:
                     National Technical Information Service
                     5285 Port Royal Road
                     Springfield, VA 22161
                     Telephone: 703-487-4650
            A related report, which discusses application and costs, is under development.
            The EPA Project Manager can be contacted at:
                     Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
                     i U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                     Cincinnati, OH 45268
 United States
 Environmental Protection
 Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
     BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
         EPA
   PERMIT No. G-35
  Official Business
  Penalty for Private Use $300
  EPA/540/S5-89/008

-------