vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA-600/7-80-135
July 1980
Research and Development
An Evaluation of
Emission Factors for
Waste-to-Energy
Systems
Interagency
Energy/Environment
R&D Program
Report
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the INTERAGENCY ENERGY-ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT series. Reports in this series result from the
effort funded under the 17-agency Federal Energy/Environment Research and
Development Program. These studies relate to EPA's mission to protect the public
health and welfare from adverse effects of pollutants associated with energy sys-
tems. The goal of the Program is to assure the rapid development of domestic
energy supplies in an environmentally-compatible manner by providing the nec-
essary environmental data and control technology. Investigations include analy-
ses of the transport of energy-related pollutants and their health and ecological
effects; assessments of, and development of, control technologies for energy
systems; and integrated assessments of a wide range of energy-related environ-
mental issues.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/7-80-135
July 1980
AN EVALUATION OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR
WASTE-TO-ENERGY SYSTEMS
by
G. M. Rinaldi, T. R. Blackwood
D. L. Harris, and K. M. Tackett
Monsanto Research Corporation
Dayton, Ohio 45407
Contract Ho. 68-03-2550
Project Officer
H. M. Freeman
Industrial Pollution Control Division
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
U.3. Lr/v'jrcri
Keg;on V, Library
230 South Dearbc
Chicago, Illinois
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory - Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
ii
U,S. Environmental refection Agencv
-------
FOREWORD
When energy and material resources are extracted, processed,
converted, and used, the related pollutional impacts on our
environment and even on our health often require that new and
increasingly more efficient pollution control methods be used.
The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory - Cincinnati
(lERL-Ci) assists in developing and demonstrating new and im-
proved methodologies that will meet these needs both efficiently
and economically.
This report contains a summary of emission factors for the com-
bustion of refuse for the purpose of providing energy recovery
or volume reduction. This study was conducted to provide an
up-to-date compilation of these factors for use in planning and
assessing the benefits and risks from this industry. Further
information on this subject may be obtained from the Fuels Tech-
nology Branch, Energy Systems Environmental Control Division.
David G. Stephan
Director
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati
ill
-------
ABSTRACT
The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory (IERL) of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the responsibility
for insuring that pollution control technology for stationary
sources is available to meet the requirements of the Clean Air
Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. The Fuels Technology Branch (FTB)
of the lERL-Cincinnati has been assigned the responsibility for
characterizing emissions from waste-to-energy systems. This
report, prepared by Monsanto Research Corporation, is intended to
supplement the document entitled "Compilation of Air Pollution
Emission Factors" (PB 275525) as a source of information con-
cerning emission rates from solid waste combustion, since the
latter does not incorporate the most recent technical data.
Results presented herein will provide information to the EPA
regional and program offices that is useful for decision-making
regarding environmental research programs and the technological
feasibility of compliance with existing or forthcoming regula-
tions .
This report was submitted by Monsanto Research Corporation in
partial fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-2550 under the sponsor-
ship of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This project
was performed during the period November 1978 to November 1979.
Mr. Harry Freeman of the Fuels Technology Branch at IERL-
Cincinnati served as Project Officer.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword
Abstract iy
Figures vi
Tables vii
Acknowledgement ix
1. Introduction 1
2. Classification of Solid Waste Combustion Systems. . . 2
Category I 2
Category II 5
Category III 8
3. Emissions of Criteria Pollutants 11
Particulates 11
Other criteria pollutants 20
4. Emissions of Noncriteria Pollutants 26
Hydrogen chloride 26
Trace elements 26
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons and
polychlorinated biphenyls 32
5. Comparison with AP-42 Factors 34
References 36
Bibliography 38
-------
FIGURES
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
Schematic Diagram of Category I Incinerator A
Schematic Diagram of Category I Incinerator B
Schematic Diagram of Category I Incinerator D
Schematic Diagram of Category I
Incinerators E and F
Schematic Diagram of Category I Incinerator G
Cross-Sectional View of the Chicago
Northwest Incinerator
Cross-Sectional View of the Braintree
Municipal Incinerator
Cross-Sectional View of the Ames
Municipal Incinerator
3
3
4
4
5
6
7
9
vi
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Combustible Fractions and Ash Contents of
Category I Feed Material 12
2 Combustible Fractions and Ash Contents of
Category II Feed Material 12
3 Ash Contents of Category III Feed Materials 13
4 Summary of Combustible Fractions and Ash
Contents of Incinerator Feed Material 13
5 Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Particulates
from Category I 14
6 Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Particulates
from Category II 15
7 Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Particulates
from Category III 15
8 Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Particulates
from Coal Combustion 16
9 Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Particulates
Based on Total Feed Material 17
10 Collection Efficiencies of Control Systems
for Particulate Emissions from
Municipal Incineration 18
11 Comparative Particulate Control and Emission
Data of Selected Incinerators 19
12 Raw Data for Calculation of Average Emission
Factors for Other Criteria Pollutants
from Category I 21
13 Raw Data for Calculation of Average Emission
' Factors for Other Criteria Pollutants
from Category II 21
14 Raw Data for Calculation of Average Emission
Factors for Other Criteria Pollutants
from Category III 22
15 Raw Data for Calculation of Average Emission
Factors for Other Criteria Pollutants
from Coal Combustion 22
16 Typical Sulfur Contents of Combustible
Fraction of Feed Material 23
17 Emission Factors for Other Criteria
Pollutants from Category I 24
vii
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number
18 Emission Factors for Other Criteria
Pollutants from Category II 24
19 Emission Factors for Other Criteria
Pollutants from Category III 24
20 Emission Factors for Other Criteria
Pollutants from Coal Combustion 24
21 Raw Data for Calculation of Average Hydrogen
Chloride Emission Factors from Category I 27
22 Raw Data for Calculation of Average Hydrogen
Chloride Emission Factors from Category III
and Coal Combustion 28
23 Hydrogen Chloride Emission Factors 28
24 Concentrations of Trace Elements in
Particulates Emitted from Category I 29
25 Concentrations of Trace Elements in
Particulates Emitted from Category II 29
26 Concentrations of Trace Elements in
Particulates Emitted from Category III 30
27 Concentrations of Trace Elements in
Particulates Emitted from Coal Combustion 30
28 Emission Factors for Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons from Category I 33
29 Emission Factors for Polynuclear Aromatic
Hydrocarbons from Category III 33
30 Comparison of Emission Factors for Uncontrolled
Criteria Pollutants as Reported in AP-42
and This Study (Metric Units) 35
31 Comparison of Emission Factors for Uncontrolled
Criteria Pollutants as Reported in AP-42
and This Study (English Units) 35
Vlll
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Both Monsanto Research Corporation and the Fuels Technology
Branch of lERL-Cincinnati wish to extend gratitude to Tom Lahre
of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, for serving
as project review monitor, and to Dave Sussman of the Office of
Solid Waste and Miro Dvirka of William F. Cosulich Associates,
Woodbury, New York, who provided extramural review.
ix
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Generalized estimates of the magnitude of air pollution problems
due to industrial sources can be made using derived numerical
values known as "emission factors." An emission factor relates
the mass of material released to some measure of source capacity,
for example, grams emitted per quantity of fuel burned for com-
bustion units. Thus, emissions data obtained from source testing
material balances, or engineering estimates can be reduced to
numbers with a common basis for purposes of comparison. Such
data, gathered for existing sources, can then be used to predict
emission rates for systems either under development or under con-
struction, indicating what air pollution control technology may
be necessary to comply with applicable federal and state
regulations.
Air pollutants generated by solid waste combustion include
particulate matter and, in lesser amounts, hydrocarbons, oxides
of nitrogen and sulfur, hydrogen chloride, polynuclear aromatic
compounds, and trace elements. A literature search was conducted
to generate emission factors from information compiled by other
investigators. Results are presented herein for emissions of
both criteria and noncriteria pollutants from selected categories
of solid waste combustion.
-------
SECTION 2
CLASSIFICATION OF SOLID WASTE COMBUSTION SYSTEMS
Solid wastes collected in cities and suburbs can be disposed of,
under controlled conditions, in municipal incinerators. Histor-
ically, the sole intent of such processing has been reduction of
the waste to a relatively small volume of odorless, inert resi-
due prior to landfilling. Recently, depletion of supplies of
conventional fuels, such as gas and oil, have made extraction of
energy from refuse an increasingly attractive solid waste manage-
ment option, adding another degree of complexity to incinerator
design and operation. In order to examine the effects of the
type of processing on air pollutant emissions, all solid waste
combustion systems were classified into three categories as
discussed below.
CATEGORY I
Category I is defined as mass-fired incineration for the sole
purpose of volume reduction; this is the most simplified solid
waste combustion technology. Raw waste, as received from col-
lection vehicles and including glass bottles, ceramics, metal
cans, and other noncombustible material, is fed directly from
the storage pit to the incineration chamber. No attempt is
made to recover the heat energy contained in the combustion
off-gases before release to the atmosphere via a stack.
Incinerator technology for Category I, as well as for the other
two categories, is as diverse as the communities which they are
meant to serve. Figures 1 through 5 are schematic diagrams of
Category I incinerators [1] for which particulate emissions data
are given in Section 3. Incinerator A consists of a dual-
chamber furnace with reciprocating grates followed by stationary
grates; air pollution control is accomplished by impingement on
wetted columns. Incinerator B, also a mutliple-chamber furnace
using flooded baffle walls for particulate removal, is equipped
with rocking grates. Incinerator D, another multiple-chamber
[1] Achinger, W. C., and L. E. Daniels. An Evaluation of Seven
Incinerators. In: Proceedings of the 1970 National
Incinerator Conference, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, Cincinnati, Ohio, May 17-20, 1970. pp. 32-64.
-------
INDUCED-
DRAFT FAN
J SECONDARY
PRIMARY CHAMBER IIV CHAMBER
K
SCRUBBING
AREA
^-Ttk
7 7 X \
CHARGING CONVEYOR MOVING STATIONARY RESIDUE FLY ASH
GRATE GRATE DISCHARGE DISCHARGE
Figure 1. Schematic diagram of Category I
incinerator A [1].
V A
CHARGING
HOPPER
PRIMARY COMBUSTION
CHAMBER COMBUSTION GAS FLOW -
FLUE
SECONDARY
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
Figure 2. Schematic diagram of Category I
incinerator B [1]
-------
CRANE
PRIMARY COMBUSTION CHAMBER
TRAVELING GRATES
r i i
UNDERFIRE AIR
PLENUM CHAMBERS
>
QUENCH
TANKS
GUILLOTINE
DAMPER v.
SECONDARY
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
FLOODED BAFFLE
WALLS
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of Category I
incinerator D [1].
I
— s
\
I
-f- HOPPER
1 f — GAS BYPASS — »
F^^ T
STACK-
DRYING GRATES
IGNITION GRATE
UNDERFIRE AIR PLENUM
OVERFIRE AIR DUCTS
QUENCH
Figure 4. Schematic diagram of Category I
incinerators E and F [1].
-------
CRANE
QUENCH TANKS
Figure 5. Schematic diagram of Category I
incinerator G [1].
unit with flooded baffle walls, contains two sections of
traveling grates, one horizontal and one inclined. A group
of reciprocating grates followed by a rotary kiln make up the
multiple-chamber design of Incinerators E and F, which use
water sprays for pollution control. Incinerator G, the only
single-chamber device, uses reciprocating grates to move refuse
through the furnace; a multitube cyclone is employed to remove
particulates from the stack gases.
CATEGORY II
Unlike Category I, incinerators classified as Category II are
waste-to-energy systems, since the latter accomplishes both
volume reduction of refuse and utilization of generated heat
for production of steam and/or electricity. Category I and II
are similar in that both types of units use raw waste as feed
material.
Figures 6 and 7 are examples of Category II incinerator design.
The Chicago Northwest incinerator, depicted - Figure 6, is fed
by a reverse reciprocating stoker and integrated with a welded
waterwall boiler of multipass design [2], An electrostatic
[2] Stabenow, G. Performances of the New Chicago Northwest
Incinerator. In: Proceedings of the 1972 National Inciner-
ator Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
New York, New York, June 4-7, 1972. pp. 178-194.
-------
TV J 1 \T^ ^
0® © © ©
LE66NP
I I Cr.ri*
21 H.fuio Hopp.r
31 R.lino CM.
41 R.fui. F«.d
5) Slol.r Control P.nol
6) ftcvtri* Rtoprocflttnq Stoktr
7) Undorgrato Air PUnum Ch«mb«r>
I) Hyr.ul.c Pump
11 Forc.d Dr.lt F.n
10) Aulomitic Silringi
III Clmli.r Roll
121 rUi.duo D.ichirfor
1)1 R.l.du. Con».yor 241
14) f>Y-*tk Co/idilion,no Ser.w 2S)
IS) Rol.ry V.lv.i for Fly.Aih Oiieh.tgtr 2tl
Ik! Fly.AlK FL,h( Convoyor 271
17) Muc.d Or.lt F.I, 211
II) O.rfir. Air Noirl.l 2?)
171 Auiili.ry luin.ri. IIOOX clp.eity) 30)
20) *«dt«nt W.t.rw.lU. (W.ld.d Pin.1 Con.truct,on
71) 80-1.r Fly Aih Hopp»rt
27) St«.m Drum.
23> St*«m Cend«ni»ri
Bottom BoiUr Drums
Łeenema*r
Eeonomii.r Fly-Airi Hopptr
Eeonomii.r Fly-Aiti Hopptr
Pty-AtK Hopport for El*ctroit.i(ic Pr*cipit*tort
Cl«ctroi4*tte ProcipiUlon
Htpptrt for flf-Atti CoJUeror Pl«t«t
Chimney
Figure 6. Cross-sectional view of the Chicago Northwest Incinerator [2]
-------
CHARGING
CHUTE
NCINERATOR
TOKER
U 1^—•—I I .. ll/ f. !
."..:'-' •.•/• ','..;••': ••'.••!> '^•^'•.'•••.•.^';-.'"'.><>.xh.!!.-:J-. '^T
/!»**»»I v* * **.
a. -• -s»
Figure 7. Cross-sectional view of the Braintree Municipal Incinerator [3]
-------
precipitator is used for removal of particulates, including low-
density paper char. The two incinerators of the Braintree,
Massachusetts facility, both equipped with electrostatic
precipitators for air pollution control, are'traveling-grate,
waterwall systems designed for mass-firing of unprocessed mixed
municipal refuse [3].- After passing through'the electrostatic
precipitators, the boiler flue gases are discharged through a
stack common to both control devices.
CATEGORY III
Category III boilers are similar to Category II units in that
both recover heat energy from combustion of solid waste. How-
ever, in Category III systems, prior to being charged to the
furnace, raw refuse is upgraded in heating value by either
selective removal of noncombustible material, or addition of
fossil fuel, that is, coal, gas, or oil. Solid waste processing
may include salvage of salable noncombustible components such
as furniture, stoves, or refrigerators; shearing or shredding
oversize material; magnetic separation for ferrous metal re-
covery; air classification for removal of glass and other heavy
rejects; and recovery of nonferrous metals. Not all Cate-
gory III facilities will employ all of the above solids handling
techniques.
Figure 8 is a cross-sectional view of one of two spreader-
stoker, traveling-grate boilers at the City of Ames (Iowa)
Municipal Power Plant [4]. This installation, which commenced
operation on August 30, 1975, was the first continuous full-
scale system for the processing of municipal solid waste as a
supplementary fuel for power generation, i.e., Category III
as defined in this report. The processing plant at Ames in-
corporates two stages of shredding, ferrous and nonferrous
metal recovery, and air classification of raw waste prior to
mixing with coal to yield refuse-derived fuel (RDF). Multiple
[3] Golembiewski, M., K. Anath, G. Trishcan, and E. Baladi.
Environmental Assessment of A Waste-to-Energy Process:
Braintree Municipal Incinerator (Revised Final Report).
Contract No. 68-02-2166, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, April 1979. 207 pp.
[4] Hall, J. L., A. W. Joensen, D. Van Meter, R. Wehage, H. R.
Shanks, D. E. Fiscus, and R. W. White. Evaluation of the
Ames Solid Waste Recovery System, Part III. Environmental
Emissions of the Stoker-Fired Steam Generators. EPS Grant
No. R803903-01-0 and ERDA Contract No. W-7405 ENG-82. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Energy
Research and Development Administration, Washington, D.C.,
1977. 774 pp.
8
-------
Figure 8. Cross-sectional view of the Ames Municipal Incinerator [4].
-------
cyclone collectors are used for particulate removal from the
exhaust gas from both boilers. The Ames Solid Waste Recovery
System has been the subject of a comprehensive investigation of
the environmental effects of the use of solid waste as a fuel
supplement. The work has been sponsored by both the EPA and the
Energy Research and Development Administration [4]. The results
of that study are reported herein in the- appropriate segments
of Sections 3 and 4.
10
-------
SECTION 3
EMISSIONS OF CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
PARTICULATES
Particulate emissions from combustion sources consist of parti-
cles of mineral matter and sometimes contain unburned combustible
material. For this reason, earlier investigators of the envi-
ronmental impact of incineration had speculated that the amount
of particulate emissions could be related to the composition of
the feed material, that is, the combustible fraction and/or ash
content of that fraction. Data on these two feed characteris-
tics for all three categories defined in Section 2, as well as
coal, are reported in Tables 1 through 3 and summarized in
Table 4.
In general, the combustible fraction of municipal solid waste
consists of food waste; garden waste; paper products; plastic,
rubber, and leather; textiles; and wood. The noncombustible
material includes metals; glass and ceramics; and ash, rocks,
and dirt. All the material for Category III is considered to be
combustible because preprocessing techniques such as shredding,
air classifying, screening, and magnetic separation of ferrous
metals are usually practiced prior to feeding. Coal, consumed
in Category III boilers when a refuse mixture is not fed, is
assumed to be 100% combustible since it does not contain bulk
metals, glass, ceramics, rocks, or dirt.
The reported ash contents for Categories I and II differ only
because of the specific data sources used in compiling Table 1.
In general, average ash contents for these categories would be
expected to be the same. However, the ash content of coal is
typically greater than that of the combustible fraction of
refuse, hence the difference between Category III and Cate-
gories I and II.
11
-------
TABLE 1. COMBUSTIBLE FRACTIONS AND ASH CONTENTS
OF CATEGORY I FEED MATERIAL [1]
(Percent by weight, dry basis)
Incinerator
Combustible
fraction of
feed material
Ash content
of combustible
fraction
A
B
D
E
F
G
80.9
80.3
82.6
77.7
85.7
75.5
8.3
5.7
10.8
1.6
3.6
5.9
TABLE 2. COMBUSTIBLE FRACTIONS AND ASH CONTENTS
OF CATEGORY II FEED MATERIAL [2, 3, 5]
(Percent by weight, dry basis)
Incinerator
Combustible
fraction of
feed material
Ash content
of combustible
fraction
Braintree
Test No.
Test No.
Test No.
1
2
3
(1/17/78)
(1/18/78)
(1/19/78)
Chicago Northwest
81.
80.
79.
66.
6
1
1
8
2.
4.
7.
3.
53
25
09
5
[5] Reed, J. C., J. D. Cobb, and J. C. Ting. Environmental
Assessment of Combustion Processes for Industrial-Municipal
Symbiosis in Refuse Disposal. In: Proceedings, AIChE/EPA
Third National Conference on Water Reuse, pp. 337-344.
12
-------
TABLE 3. ASH CONTENTS OF CATEGORY III FEED MATERIAL [4, 6]
(Percent by weight, dry basis)
Incinerator Feed material Ash Content
Ames, Iowa 80% Iowa coal/20% RDF
50% Iowa coal/50% RDF
80% Iowa-Wyoming coals/20% RDF
50% Iowa-Wyoming coals/50% RDF
Iowa coal
Iowa-Wyoming coals
18.8
17.1
12.7
13.9
20.2
11.7
aAll preprocessed Category III feed material and coal are
assumed to be 100% combustible for the purposes of this
study.
3RDF = refuse-derived fuel; feed mixtures of RDF and coal
are described in percentage of total heat energy input.
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF COMBUSTIBLE FRACTIONS AND ASH
CONTENTS OF INCINERATOR FEED MATERIAL
(Percent by weight, dry basis)
Combustible
fraction of
feed material
Ash content
of combustible
fraction
I
II
III
Coal
75.
66.
5
8
—
100
100
85
81
.7
.6
1.
2.
12.
11.
6
5
7
7
- 10
- 7
- 18
- 20
.8
.1
.8
.2
[6] Hall, J. L., H. R. Shanks, A. W. Joensen, D. B. Van Meter,
and G. A. Severens. Emission Characteristics of Burning
Refuse-Derived Fuel with Coal in Stoker-Fired Boilers.
(Paper presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Air
Pollution Control Association, Houston, Texas,
June 25-30, 1978.) 16 pp.
13
-------
Tables 5 through 8 provide data on uncontrolled particulate
emissions for the three categories and coal combustion in a
Category III boiler. The emission factors are given in four
types of units, as follows:
1) grams of particulate per kilogram of combustible
material fed (g/kg);
2) pounds of particulate per ton of combustible
material fed (Ib/ton);
3) grams of particulate per kilogram of combustible
material fed, all divided by the ash content of
the combustible fraction (g/kg/% A);
4) Pounds of particulate per tone of combustible
material fed, all divided by the ash content of
the combustible fraction (lb/ton/% A).
TABLE 5. EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED
PARTICULATES FROM CATEGORY I [1]
Particulate emission factors
a,b
Incinerator
A
B
D
E
F
G
Average
g/kg
16
23
13
11
15
27
17
Ib/ton
32
45
27
22
29
54
35
g/kg/% A
1.9
4.0
1.2
7.0
4.0
4.6
3.8
lb/ton/% A
3.9
7.9
2.5
14
8.0
9.2
7.6
Based on mass of combustible feed material.
Calculations based on assumed control efficiencies
of 60% for flooded baffle walls and 50% for water
sprays or dry cyclones [7].
[7] Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Third Edition.
AP-42 (PB 275 525), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1977. 511 pp.
14
-------
TABLE 6. EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED
PARTICULATES FROM CATEGORY II [2, 3, 5]
Particulate emission factors
Incinerator
g/kg
Ib/ton
g/kg/% A
lb/ton/% A
Braintree
Test
Test
Test
Chicago
Test
Test
Test
Test
Test
Average
No.
No.
No.
1
2
3
7.
6.
9.
1
9
0
14
14
18
2.
1.
1.
8
6
4
5
3
2
.6
.2
.7
Northwest
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
PD-2
PD-3
PD-4
1
2
9.
23
21
21
19
14
5
19
45
43
42
37
29
2.
6.
6.
5.
5.
4.
7
4
1
9
3
0
5
13
12
12
11
8
.4
.0
Based on mass of combustible feed material.
TABLE 7. EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED
PARTICULATES FROM CATEGORY III [4, 6]
Load factor,
Particulate emission factors
a,b
Feed material
80% Iowa coal/20% RDF
50% Iowa coal/50% RDF
80% Iowa-Wyoming coals/
20% RDF
50% Iowa- Wyoming coals/
50% RDF
Average
%
100
80
60
100
80
60
80
60
80
60
—
gAg
43
80
85
52
57
58
75
69
73
70
74
65
72
67
Ib/ton
85
159
171
103
113
116
149
137
145
141
147
130
144
134
g/kg/% A
2.3
4.2
4.5
3.0
3.3
3.4
5.9
5.4
5.7
5.1
5.3
4.7
5.2
4.5
lb/ton/% A
4.5
8.5
9.1
6.0
6.6
6.8
12
11
11
10
11
9.4
10
9.0
Data represent various operating conditions for Ames (Iowa) Solid Waste
Recovery System.
Calculations based on the determination that 100% of the feed material for
Category III is combustible.
15
-------
TABLE 8. EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED PARTICULATES
FROM COAL COMBUSTION [4, 6]
Load factor,
Particulate emission factors
a,b
Feed material
Iowa coal
Iowa-Wyoming coals
%
100
80
60
80
60
g/kg
90
79
70
71
55
40
44
Ib/ton
179
157
140
142
111
80
89
g/kg/% A
4.4
3.9
3.5
6.0
4.7
3.3
3.8
lb/ton/% A
8.9
7.8
6.9
12
9.5
6.6
7.6
Average
64
128
4.2
8.4
Data are for combustion of coal in the Ames boilers, suited to
cofiring of coal and refuse-derived fuel.
b
Calculations based on the determination that coal is 100% combustible.
One of the most significant findings of this study^ is that
emission factors for uncontrolled particulates from Categories I,
II, and III and from coal combustion are essentially the same
when reported on a normalized basis, that is, mass emitted per
mass of combustible material fed, divided by the ash content of
the combustible fraction. As shown in Tables 5 through 8, the
average particulate emission factors for Categories I, II, and
III and coal combustion are 3.8, 4.0, 4.5, and 4.2 g/kg/% A,
respectively. This is a very small range of values considering
the variations in incinerator design, feed materials, and
operating conditions for the systems described herein. For
instance, the six Category I incinerators described in Section 2
incorporate different grate types (i.e., reciprocating, rocking,
and traveling), but this element of design does not have a
significant influence on normalized emission factors, according
to Table 5. The normalized particulate emission factor for
Incinerator G, the only single-chamber unit among those in
Category I, lies within the extremes defined by the multiple-
chamber systems. Another pertinent conclusion regarding
uncontrolled particulate emissions is that those from Category
III (Table 7) exhibited no clear trend as a function of either
percent of heat input in the form of refuse or boiler load
factor.
16
-------
Table 9 presents emission factors for uncontrolled particulates
from Categories I, II, and III and coal combustion which were
calculated by dividing the mass of emissions by the mass of total
feed material. This data is provided for information purposes
since many of the emission factors directly reported in the
literature are in these units, or there may be insufficient
characterization of the source to calculate emission factors on
the basis of Tables 5 through 8 of this report. The numbers in
Table 9 for Category III and coal combustion are identical to
those in Tables 7 and 8, respectively, because all the feed
material is combustible. However, Table 9 differs significantly
from Tables 5 through 8 in that there is no apparent correlation
among the emission factors for the various categories.
TABLE 9. EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED PARTICULATES
BASED ON TOTAL FEED MATERIAL [1-6]
Average
Category
I
II
III
Coal
g/kg
17
14
67
64
Ib/ton
35
29
134
128
Range
g/kg
11
6.9
43
40
- 27
- 23
- 85
- 90
Ib/ton
22
14
85
80
- 54
- 45
- 171
- 179
Applicable Particulate Control Technology
Emission control equipment now used on incinerators has been
designed primarily to remove particulates because that is the
only criteria pollutant currently regulated by federal and state
standards. Technologically feasible methods for particulate
control include mechanical collection (by cyclones), wet
scrubbing, and electrostatic precipitation.
Dry cyclones are systems which create organized vortex motion
within a particulate collector [8]. These devices therefore pro-
vide the force necessary to propel particles from the collector
to a deposit hopper. Cyclone configurations are: (a) small di-
ameter multiple systems «12 in.), (b) larger diameter (18 in.
and greater) multiple systems, and (c) single or double units with
a diameter of 4 ft or more [8]. Generally, the efficiency of a
[8] Spaite, P. W. and J. 0. Burckle, Selection, Evaluation
and Application of Control Devices, Chapter 2, pp. 46-47;
and S. Oglesby and G. B. Nichols, Electrostatic Precipita-
tion, Chapter 5, pp. 191-193. In: Air Pollution, Third
Edition, Volume IV, A. Stern, ed. Academic Press, New York,
New York, 1977.
17
-------
dry cyclone system is determined by the size of the cyclone
configuration (the smaller configurations have greater efficien-
cy) , stack flow rate, and particle concentration, size and
density. Only under ideal operating conditions can a dry cyclone
attain a particulate control efficiency of 80 percent when
applied to an incinerator.
Wet scrubbing systems would introduce liquid into collector to
control particulate emissions from the incineration. The
liquid usually serves to either chemically react with or dissolve
particulate contaminants [8] . The first two wet-scrubbing
control systems listed in Table 10 are of the low-energy type,
hence the low collection efficiencies. A wetted baffle system
consists of one or more vertical plates that are flushed by
water spray. A settling chamber is simply a large refractory-
lined chamber wherein gravitational settling of coarse
particulates occurs as the incinerator exhaust gas velocity is
reduced. Spraying the walls and bottom of the chamber with
water inhibits re-entrainment of collected particulates. The
high pressure drops required for venturi scrubbing may make its
operating costs noncompetitive relative to those for electro-
static precipitation.
TABLE 10. COLLECTION EFFICIENCIES OF CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR
PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM MUNICIPAL INCINERATION
Control system Efficiency, %
Mechanical collection (cyclones) 30 - 80
Wet scrubbing
Wetted baffles 10 - 60
Settling chamber and water spray 30 - 60
Venturi scrubber 90 - 99+
Electrostatic precipitation 90 - 99+
Electrostatic precipitation is the removal of dust or liquid
aerosol from a gas stream by utilizing forces from electric
charges in electric fields [8] The process usually involves
particle charging by attachment of charges produced by an
electrical corona in field provided, in most cases, by applica-
tion of high direct-current voltages to dual electrodes. The
particles are then removed by simple mechanical means, such as
rapping or irrigation of collection electrodes with water.
Electrostatic precipitation is one of the most effective demon-
strated techniques for control of particulate emissions from
18
-------
incineration. However, relative to other applications of elec-
trostatic precipitation, removal efficiencies are limited because
refuse incineration yields large volumes of gas containing par-
ticles of widely variable size and resistivity characteristics.
In at least one case, mechanical difficulties with operation of
an incinerator and its related support systems resulted in ab-
normally high particulate loadings, which consequently caused an
electrostatic precipitator to function well below its design
efficiency. Typical collection efficiencies for electrostatic
precipitation and the other two techniques discussed above as
applied to municipal incineration are given in Table 10.
Experience with Particulate Control Technology
Table 11 presents particulate emission data for several solid
waste incinerators with differing emission control equipment.
Calculations are based on standard conditions (70°F, 29.92 in.
Hg, 12% C02). Particulate emissions are expressed in grams per
dry standard cubic foot, in pounds per 1,000 Ib of feed at 50%
excess air, and in pounds per hour. The data reflect design,
operational status, and efficiency of control systems at each
incinerator site.
TABLE 11. COMPARATIVE PARTICULATE CONTROL AND EMISSION DATA
FOR SELECTED INCINERATORS [1-3]
Particulate emissions
Incinerators
A
B
D
E
F
G
Chicago, NW
Control mechanism
Wet scrubber
Wet scrubber:
flooded baffle walls
Wet scrubber:
flooded baffle walls
Wet scrubber :
water sprays; baffle walls
Wet scrubber :
water sprays; baffle walls
Dry cyclones
Electrostatic precipitation
gr/dscf
0.55
1.12
0.46
0.73
0.72
1.35
lb/1,000 Ib
@ 50% air
1.06
a
0.85
1.19
1.18
2.70
Ib/hr
122
186
173
238
-
386
Test PD-2
Braintree #1
Electrostatic precipitation
0.642
0.435
205
80.0
Dash indicates data not available in this form.
Represents total inlet and outlet values.
19
-------
Advances in particulate control technology for incinerators can
decrease particulate emissions to the extent that compliance
with federal regulations (0.08 gr/dscf at 12% C02) is possible.
This is not to indicate, however, that any of the incinerators
in Table 11 do not comply with applicable regulations. For
example, EPA compliance tests were conducted by contractors in
November 1977 and June 1978 at the Braintree incinerator [3].
At a refuse feed rate of 5-8 tons/hr, the emission rates were
within state limitations of 0.10 gr/dscf at 12% CO2 [3]. At
optimum conditions, emission control systems for municipal in-
cinerators can exhibit high levels of efficiency and be in
accordance with federal and state regulations.
OTHER CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Data are available in the literature for emissions of other
criteria pollutants - sulfur oxides (SOX)/ nitrogen oxides (NOX),
hydrocarbons (HC) - from incineration. Emission factors for
these compound classes, as determined in the outlet gases from
any particulate control device, and based on the total amount of
feed material, are presented and discussed in the following
sections.
Emission factors are determined by dividing the emission rate of
individual pollutants (g/hr) by the total refuse feed rate
(kg/hr). Emission rates are measures of the composition of the
gas stream and stack flow rates of individual incinerators at
the time the devices were tested. For example, a concentration
of 50 ppm NOX in incinerator exhaust gases of 571.1 m3/min is
equivalent to an emission rate of 3870 g/hr. This can be ac-
quired by utilization of appropriate conversion factors,
including the ideal gas law. Tables 12 through 15 present raw
data for calculation of average emission factors for criteria
pollutants, other than particulates, from Categories II and III
and coal combustion. These data are summarized below in
Tables 17 through 20.
20
-------
TABLE 12. RAW DATA FOR CALCULATION OF AVERAGE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR OTHER CRITERIA POLLUTANTS FROM CATEGORY I [9]
Facility
Newport News , VA
73rd St, NY, NY
73rd St, NY, NY
SW Brooklyn, NY
Babylon, NY
Miami County, OH
Yokohama, Japan
Hamilton Ave , NY
Oceanside, NY
Flushing, NY
Average
S02,
g/kg
h
0.590
0.023
0.288b
0.154
0.322b
1.25
0.542
0.176b
0.271b
0.221b
0.38
NOX,
g/kg
h
0.278°
0.366
c
0.438
_c
0.349
_c
c
_c
_c
0.36
Hydrocarbons ,
g/kg
h
0.025°
_c
0.306b
_c
_c
_c
c
0.0150b
_c
0.225b
0.14
Emission factors calculated from pollutant concentra-
tions assuming a refuse heating value of 14 MJ/kg
and a stack gas flow rate of 7500 DSCF/106 Btu
with an average moisture content of 19%.
Represents average of test runs at facility.
Q
Data not given.
TABLE 13. RAW DATA FOR CALCULATION OF AVERAGE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR OTHER CRITERIA POLLUTANTS FROM CATEGORY II [3]
Run
1
2
3
Avg
Total feed
rate, kg/hr
4
4
4
4
,700
,600
,100
,467
4
4
4
4
S02
g/nr
,420
,191
,923
,511
g/kg
0.94
0.90
1.20
1.0
3
3
3
3
NOX
g/hr
,870
,825
,282
,659
g/kg
0.82
0.80
0.82
0.82
Hydrocarbons
g/hr g/kg
298
221
285
268
.6
.0
.4
.3
0.06
0.05
0.07
0.06
[9] Jahnke, J. A., J. L. Cheney, R. Rollins and C. R. Fortune.
A Research Study of Gaseous Emissions from a Municipal
Incinerator. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Associa-
tion, 27(8):747-753, 1977.
21
-------
TABLE 14. RAW DATA FOR CALCULATION OF AVERAGE
EMISSION FACTORS FOR OTHER CRITERIA
POLLUTANTS FROM CATEGORY III [4]
S02,
g/kg
38.86
13.73
44.62
38.80
5.88
. 15.69
24.93
15.06
13.30
28.25
6.69
10.04
—
Average 20.17
NOX / Hydrocarbons ,
g/kg mg/kg
1.47
1.31
2.02
1.47
2.57
1.02
1.06
1.15
1.30
0.83
1.77
1.47
1.61
1.47
3.30
1.76
3.69
2.91
1.31
3.16
1.17
5.15
2.83
2.17
1.17
—
-
2.61
TABLE 15. RAW DATA FOR CALCULATION OF AVERAGE
EMISSION FACTORS FOR OTHER CRITERIA
POLLUTANTS FROM COAL COMBUSTION [4]
S02,
g/kg
50.26
22.14
28.41
52.44
17.71
19.93
31.00
NOX / Hydrocarbons ,
g/kg mg/kg
1.75
2.16
1.77
2.94
2.01
2.35
—
4.81
1.77
3.28
1.97
1.55
1.77
-
Average
31.70 2.10
2.52
22
-------
Sulfur Oxides
Emission factors for sulfur oxides, reported as sulfur
dioxide (SO2)/ for all three categories and for coal combustion
are given in Tables 12 through 15. The values for Category I
were calculated from a table of stack gas concentrations [7]
assuming an exhaust flow rate of 7,500 dry standard cubic feet
per Btu of heating value of the feed material. Sulfur oxide
emissions from Categories I and II are substantially lower than
those from Category III or coal combustion. As shown in Table 16
the sulfur content of solid waste (Category II) is much less
than that of coal or even coal mixed with up to 50 percent refuse
by heat content (Category III). The data of Table 16 on the
sulfur content of the various feed materials does in fact
correlate well with the emission factors shown in Tables 17
through 20. Note that the average values on Tables 17 and 18
differ slightly from those calculated in Tables 12 and 13 because
the former used each data point for each facility as a separate
entry as opposed to using only the averages for each facility.
TABLE 16. TYPICAL SULFUR CONTENTS OF COMBUSTIBLE
FRACTION OF FEED MATERIAL
Sulfur content,
Category % by weight (as S)
I -a
II 0.18 - 0.31
III 1.41 - 4.84
Coal 3.06 - 6.66
Data not available.
Nitrogen Oxides
Emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) from combustion sources are
due to nitrogen in the fuel or reactions between atmospheric
nitrogen and oxygen at high temperatures. Generally, the nitro-
gen content of refuse is low. Therefore, differences in NOX
emissions between Categories I and II as compared to Category
III or coal combustion are the result of differences in furnace
operating temperature. Nitrogen oxide emissions from Category
I or II are lower because the large amount of excess air—as
much as 200%—needed to introduce the solid waste into the
furnace reduces the combustion zone temperature by dilution.
Normalization of NOX emissions for percent excess air was beyond
the scope of this project.
23
-------
TABLE 17. EMISSION FACTORS FOR OTHER CRITERIA
POLLUTANTS FROM CATEGORY I [9]
Emission factor
Average
Pollutant
Sulfur oxides (as SO2)
Nitrogen oxides (as N02)
Hydrocarbons (as CHO
g/kg
0
0
0
.33
.36
.17
Ib/ton
0.
0.
0.
66
72
34
0
0
0
Range
g/kg
.02
.28
.004
- 0
- 0
- 0
.92
.44
.80
0
0
0
Ib/ton
.05
.56
.008
- 1.8
- 0.88
- 1.6
TABLE 18. EMISSION FACTORS FOR OTHER CRITERIA
POLLUTANTS FROM CATEGORY II [2, 3, 5]
Emission factor
Pollutant
Sulfur oxides (as SOZ)
Nitrogen oxides (as N02)
Hydrocarbons (as CH*)
Average
g/kg Ib/ton
1
0
0
.0
.8
.06
2.0
1.6
0.12
Range
0.
0.
0.
g/kg
11 -
46 -
013 -
Ib/ton
3.
1.
0.
2
2
12
0
0
0
.21
.92
.027
- 6.
- 2.
- 0.
4
3
24
TABLE 19. EMISSION FACTORS FOR OTHER CRITERIA
POLLUTANTS FROM CATEGORY III [4, 6]
Emission factor
Average
Pollutant
Sulfur oxides (as S02)
Nitrogen oxides (as N02)
Hydrocarbons (as CHi»)
g/kg
20
1.5
0.003
Ib/ton
40
2.9
0.005
Range
g/kg
5
0
0
.9
.8
.001
- 45
- 2.6
- 0.005
Ib/ton
12
1.7
0.002
- 89
- 5.
- 0.
1
01
TABLE 20. EMISSION FACTORS FOR OTHER CRITERIA
POLLUTANTS FROM COAL COMBUSTION3 [4, 6]
Emission
Average
Pollutant
Sulfur oxides (as S02)
Nitrogen oxides (as N02)
Hydrocarbons (as CH*,)
g/kg
32
2.1
0.003
Ib/ton
64
4.2
0.005
factor
Range
g/kg
18
1.7
0.002 -
52
2.9
0.005
Ib/ton
35
3.4
0.003
- 104
5.
0.
9
01
aData are for coal combustion in a unit suited to cofiring of refuse-
derived and fossil fuels.
24
-------
Hydrocarbons
When any combustible solid, such as coal or refuse, is heated
in the absence of oxygen, combustible gases are evolved. For
example, unburned material on top of a grate-type fuel bed will
be heated by combustion gases passing through from below, and
volatile hydrocarbons will be released. In the case of inciner-
ation, a lesser mass of hydrocarbons is emitted than any other
criteria pollutant, as can be seen by inspection of Tables 5
through 7 and 17 through 19. The larger amount of hydrocarbons
emitted from mass-fired incineration relative to co-firing or
coal combustion may be due to the combustion of cellulose fiber
present as wood chips or paper.
25
-------
SECTION 4
EMISSIONS OF NONCRITERIA POLLUTANTS
HYDROGEN CHLORIDE
Flue gases from solid waste combustion contain hydrogen chloride,
a by-product of the combustion of polyvinyl chloride and other
chlorinated plastics found in the feed. Raw data used in calcu-
lation of hydrogen chloride emission factors for the three
categories discussed herein, as well as for coal combustion, are
presented in Tables 21 and 22 and then summarized in Table 23.
Such emissions from the combustion of mass-fired or co-fired
refuse are greater than those for coal alone. However, no
generalizations can be made about the magnitude of the deviation
because several factors may influence hydrogen chloride emis-
sions. For instance, hydrogen chloride may be absorbed by the
alkaline constituents of ash in the combustion chamber. Alter-
natively, particulate control techniques that involve water
sprays may be as much as 80 to 95 percent effective on the sol-
uble chloride gas. The fly ash removed by electrostatic
precipitation may absorb some hydrogen chloride.
TRACE ELEMENTS
Certain chemical compounds of the following trace elements are
potentially toxic to people if deposited in their lungs:
antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, nickel, selenium,
and tin. It is possible for these toxic substances to be re-
leased from the incineration process. Tables 24 through 27
comprise a summary of available information on the trace element
content of particulates emitted from incineration, including
data taken before and after pollution control devices for
Categories II and III and for coal combustion.
Other investigators have determined that Category I incinerators
operating in different geographic regions of the United States
and serving different types of communities have similar trace
element emissions. Also, no significant day-to-day or seasonal
change.s in particulate composition were observed at any one site.
26
-------
TABLE 21. RAW DATA FOR CALCULATION OF AVERAGE
HYDROGEN CHLORIDE EMISSION FACTORS
FROM CATEGORY I [9]b
NOX,
Facility g/kg
Newport News, VA 0.142
73rd St, NY, NY 0.4a
S.W. Brooklyn, NY 0.365
Babylon, NY 1.31a
Yokahama, Japan 1.59
Salford, England l-2Ba
Hamilton Ave, NY 0.38
Oceanside, NY 0.59
Flushing, NY 0.22
Average 0.66
Represents average of test
runs at facility.
Emission factors calculated
from pollutant concentra-
tions assuming a refuse
heating value of 14 MJ/kg
and a stack gas flow rate of
7500 dscf/106 Btu with an
average moisture content of
19%.
27
-------
TABLE 22. RAW DATA FOR CALCULATION OF AVERAGE
HYDROGEN CHLORIDE EMISSION FACTORS FROM
CATEGORY III AND COAL COMBUSTION [4, 6]
Coal
Category III, combustion,
g/kg ; g/kg
1.32
1.17
1.13
1.20
0.86
1.88
1.61
2.33
1.66
1.68
1.47
1.84
2.12
Average 1.60
0.28
0.14
0.48
0.15
0.14
0.21
0.09
0.21
TABLE 23. HYDROGEN CHLORIDE EMISSION FACTORS*
Emission factor
Average
Category
I
II
III
Coal
g/kg
0.7
_D
1.6
0.2
Ib/ton
l:«
3.2
0.4
g/kg
0.14 -.
D
0.9 -
0.90 -
Range
Ib/ton
1
2
0
.6
.3
.5
0.28 -h
1.7 -
0.2 -
,3.
4.
1.
2
7
0
Data represent values downstream of any particulate
control device.
Data not available.
28
-------
TABLE 24. CONCENTRATIONS OF TRACE ELEMENTS IN PARTICULATE
EMISSIONS FROM CATEGORY I [9]
Concentration,a
Element pg/g or 10~6 Ib/lb
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Bromine
Cadmium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Tin
Zinc
610 -
80 -
40 -
320 -
520 -
99,000 -
70 -
2 -
970 -
1,700 -
50,000 -
170 -
40 -
10 -
40 -
8,500 -
47,000 -
12,600
510
1,700
6,700
2,300
330,000
1,800
30
6,800
18,000
155,000
5,700
440
120
2,000
15,100
240,000
a
Data are for trace element con-
tent of particulates downstream
of any pollution control device;
i.e., controlled emissions.
TABLE 25. CONCENTRATIONS OF TRACE ELEMENTS IN PARTICULATE
EMISSIONS FROM CATEGORY II [2, 3, 5]
Element
Concentration,
yg/g or 10~« Ib/lb
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Bromine
Cadmium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Tin
Zinc
260 - 620
50 - 70
270 - 540
420 - 2,400
380 - 820
>10,000
50 - 560
10 - 100
420 - 590
970 - 1,090
11,600 - 17,500
420 - 1,400
_d
<90
110 - 200
2,600 - 5,000
>10,000
460 - 1,000
50 - 100
270 - 540
350 - 1,200
670 - 1,150
>10,000
130 - 260
5 - 50
620 - 800
2,000 - 2,130
18,100 - 34,200
140 - 490
_a
<30
50 - 110
1,400 - 5,000
>10,000
Data not available.
29
-------
TABLE 26. CONCENTRATIONS OF TRACE ELEMENTS IN PARTICULATE
EMISSIONS FROM CATEGORY III [4, 6]
Concentration ,
yg/g or 10~6 Ib/lb
Element
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Bromine
Cadmium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Tin
Zinc
Uncontrolled
0.4
20
0.3
5
0.6
10
700
1,220
10
3
10
50
860
10
80
_a
_a
1.4
_a
20
2.0
50
- 2,410
- 2,930
20
20
40
a
150
- 3,770
Controlled
2
140
0.2
60
4
50
6,940
4,470
110
20
20
260
4,360
180
740
_a
_a
10
_a
100
40
280
- 17,300
- 18,400
240
190
430
a
870
- 17,200
TABLE 27.
Data not available.
CONCENTRATIONS OF TRACE ELEMENTS IN PARTICULATES
EMITTED FROM COAL COMBUSTION [4, 6]
Concentration ,
yg/g or 10~6 Ib/lb
Element
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Bromine
Cadmium
Chlorine
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Tin
Zinc
Uncontrolled
7
20
0.6
6
0.4
6
2,350
340
20
6
10
20
180
20
120
_a
"a
1.0
a
8
1.5
7
- 2,800
380
40
20
50
_a
30
560
Controlled
10
20
2
30
3
30
13,200
1,050
100
30
30
30
910
150
680
_a
~a
8
_a
40
30
40
- 18,200
- 1,790
140
40
40
_a
270
- 3,340
Data not available.
30
-------
The major constituents of controlled particulate emissions from
Category I incineration, in approximate decreasing order by
dominant presence of the first three of these elements is due
to the abundance of the elements in the fuel as fired. This
phenomenon is best shown for Category II, as can be seen from
the relatively large concentrations of chlorine, lead, and zinc
shown in Table 25.
Other significant observations can be drawn from the data for
Category II. First, the maximum concentrations of all trace
elements in the controlled particulate emissions from Category
II are less than the corresponding values for Category I. Cate-
gory II incinerators extract more heat energy from the exhaust
stream than Category I incinerators. This added heat recovery
may be sufficient to cool the stack gases to the point that
volatile elements can condense and therefore be more efficiently
removed by the particulate control devices.
The data for Category II also demonstrate the selective fraction-
ation of volatile elements into fine particles, those most likely
to escape any attempted control. Elements previously shown to
occur primarily in the fine-particle regime, that is, less than
two micrometers in diameter, are not collected by the
control device; some of these elements are antimony, cadmium,
and lead. Since the large particles are removed, the ratio of
the weight of these elements to the total mass is increased.
This increase in concentration has potentially negative implica-
tions for human health effects because fine particulates can
more easily reach the lower respiratory tract.
Element fractionation discussed above for Category II is also
evident in the data for Category III and for coal combustion.
In the latter two cases, the effect can also be readily seen for
three more volatile elements: arsenic, selenium, and zinc.
Another point of interest is a comparison of the trace element
contents of uncontrolled particulate emissions for the three
categories and for coal combustion. The composition of particu-
lates from Category III, for which the fuel is a mixture of solid
waste and coal, and from coal combustion are approximately the
same, with the possible exceptions of lead and zinc, which appear
to a greater extent for Category III. This difference must be
qualified, because the gas-phase emissions of these two elements,
both of which are volatile, are not available.
Likewise, the apparently greater emissions from Category II
relative to Category III must also be evaluated more closely.
For example, consider the case for lead. The concentrations in
uncontrolled particulates for Categories II and III are 11,600
to 17,500 yg/g and 1,220 to 2,830 yg/g, respectively; these
values differ by a factor of four to fourteen, depending upon
31
-------
which values are compared. From Table 9, the uncontrolled par-
ticulate emission factors for Categories II and III are 6.9 to
23 g/kg and 43 to 85 g/kg, respectively; these values differ by
a factor of two to twelve, but in the opposite direction from
those described above for trace element concentration. There-
fore, when compared on the basis of micrograms emitted per kilo-
gram of material burned, trace elements emissions from the mass-
fired incineration of solid waste with heat recovery are not
significantly different from those from the combustion of refuse'
co-fired with coal.
POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC HYDROCARBONS AND POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons are formed by the incomplete
combustion of solid waste or other fuel material. Gases leaving
an incinerator may contain polynuclear hydrocarbons both in the
vapor phase and adsorbed on particulates. Emission factors for
these compounds in stack gases downstream of any particulate
control device are given in Tables 28 and 29 on the basis of
mass emitted per mass of total material fed.
For Category I, more polynuclear hydrocarbons are emitted from
small-sized furnaces because of poor combustion conditions rela-
tive to those in larger units. However, regardless of incinera-
tor size, differing emission levels may be found during startup,
normal operation, and shutdown. Wet scrubbing devices for par-
ticulate control at Category I incinerators have proven highly
effective in reducing polynuclear hydrocarbon emissions; in one
case, benzo(a)pyrene emissions were reduced by more than 95%.
Data on polynuclear hydrocarbon emissions from Category II is
extremely limited. At one site, six compounds were observed in
the gas phase: acenaphthylene, anthracene, fluoranthene,
fluorene, phenanthrene, and pyrene. Fly ash collected by elec-
trostatic precipiation contained acenaphthylene, anthracene,
phenanthrene, and pyrene; however, all levels measured in both
sample sets were below the range of reliable quantitative
analysis.
Data on polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon emissions from Category
III are shown in Table 29. In addition, benzo(a)pyrene,
benzo(e)pyrene, and perylene have been detected in particulates,
but the amounts were not reported. Data on polynuclear hydro-
carbon emissions from the combustion of coal only in a Category
III boiler were not available.
Polychlorinated biphenyls could not be detected in particulates
from either Category II or III or in vapor samples from Category
III.
32
-------
TABLE 28. EMISSION FACTORS FOR POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC
HYDROCARBONS FROM CATEGORY I
Emission factor
Compound (s) yg/kg 10~6 Ib/ton
Benz o(a)anthracene
and chrysene 3.1 6.2
Benzo(b)fluoranthene,
benzo(j)fluoranthene,
and benzo(k)fluoranthene 1.4a 2.8
Benzo(ghi)perylene 1.4-1.8 2.8-3.6
Benzo(a)pyrene and
benzo(e)pyrene 0.08 - 1.5 0.16 - 2.9
Coronene 0.17-1.4 0.34-2.8
Fluoranthene 2.5 - 7.3 5.0 - 15
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene 0.77 1.5
Perylene 0.77a 1.5
Pyrene 4.6-6.8 9.2-14
aOnly one value reported.
TABLE 29. EMISSION FACTORS FOR POLYNUCLEAR AROMATIC
HYDROCARBONS FROM CATEGORY III [4, 6]
Emission factor
Compound (s) pg/kg 10~6 Ib/ton
Benzo (a) pyrene ,
benzo (e) pyrene,
and perylene
1 , 2-Benzofluorene
and 2 ,3-benzofluorene
Fluoranthene
Fluorene
Pyrene
0.76
0.57
1.2
0.38
0.38
1.5
1.1
2.5
0.76
0.76
[10] Hangerbrauck, R. P. , D. J. von Lehmden, and J. E. Meeker.
Sources of Polynuclear Hydrocarbons in the Atmosphere.
Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-33,
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1967. 44 pp.
[11] Davies, I. W., R. M. Harrison, R. Perry, D. Ratnayaka, and
R. A. Wellings. Municipal Incinerator as Source of Polynu-
clear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Environment. Environmental
Science and Technology, 10(5): 451-453, 1976.
33
-------
SECTION 4
COMPARISON WITH AP-42 FACTORS
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's "Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors," or Publication No. AP-42, has long
been used as source material for data on emissions from fuel
combustion, incineration, evaporation losses, and miscellaneous
other sources. Tables 30 and 31 compare the emission factors,
in metric and English units, respectively, for uncontrolled
criteria pollutants from municipal, industrial, and commercial
incinerators as reported in AP-42, and for Categories I, II, and
III and coal combustion as determined in this study. The numeri-
cal values in Tables 30 and 31 were calculated using total feed
material as the basis.
For particulates, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides, values
given in AP-42 and those reported herein for Categories I and II,
the most directly comparable combustion processes, overlap. The
emission factors for hydrocarbons given in AP-42 are signifi-
cantly higher than those found during the current investigation.
This may be so because the most recent data source cited in the
AP-42 review of refuse incineration was published in June 1971,
whereas this report is based on information released as recently
as December 1978. During that time, changes may have occurred
in refuse composition, incinerator operation, or capabilities
of sampling and analysis techniques used to determine emissions.
Any of these changes could result in the emission factor
difference.
34
-------
TABLE 30. COMPARISON OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS FROM INCINERATION AS REPORTED IN
AP-42 AND THIS STUDY (metric units) [1-7, 9]
Emission factor,
Category
Municipal, industrial,
and commercial in-
cineration (AP-42)
I
II
III
Coal combustion
Particulates
3.5
11
6.9
43
40
- 15
- 27
- 23
- 85
- 90
Sulfur oxides
0.02
0.11
5.9
18
1.25
- 0.92
- 3.2
- 45
- 52
g/kg
Nitrogen oxides
1
0.28
0.46
0.8
1.7
- 1
- 0
- 1
- 2
- 2
.5
.44
.2
.6
.9
Hydrocarbons
0
0
0
0
0.75
.004
.013
.001
.002
- 7.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
- 0.
5
80
12
005
005
TABLE 31. COMPARISON OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR UNCONTROLLED
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS FROM INCINERATION AS REPORTED IN
AP-42 AND THIS STUDY (English units) [1-7, 9]
Category
Emission factor, Ib/ton
Particulates Sulfur oxides Nitrogen oxides Hydrocarbons
Municipal, industrial,
and commercial in-
cineration (AP-42) 7-30
I 22-54
II 14 - 45
III 85 - 171
Coal combustion 80 - 179
2.5
0.05 - 1.8
0.21 - 6.4
12 - 89
35 - 104
2
0.56
0.92
1.7
3.4
- 3
- 0.88
- 2.3
- 5.1
- 5.9
1.5
0.008
0.027
0.002
0.003
- 15
- 1.6
- 0.24
-0.01
- 0.01
-------
REFERENCES
1. Achinger, W. C., and L. E. Daniels. An Evaluation of Seven
Incinerators. In: Proceedings of the 1970 National
Incinerator Conference, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, Cincinnati, Ohio, May 17-20, 1970. pp. 32-64.
2. Stabenow, G. Performances of the New Chicago Northwest
Incinerator. In: Proceedings of the 1972 National Inciner-
ator Conference, American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
New York, New York, June 4-7, 1972. pp. 178-194.
3. Golembiewski, M., K. Anath, G. Trishcan, and E. Baladi.
Environmental Assessment of A Waste-to-Energy Process:
Braintree Municipal Incinerator (Revised Final Report).
Contract No. 68-02-2166, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, April 1979. 207 pp.
4. Hall, J. L., A. W. Joensen, D. Van Meter, R. Wehage, H. R.
Shanks, D. E. Fiscus, and R. W. White. Evaluation of the
Ames Solid Waste Recovery System, Part III. Environmental
Emissions of the Stoker-Fired Steam Generators. EPS Grant
No. R803903-01-0 and ERDA Contract No. W-7405 ENG-82. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, and Energy
Research and Development Administration, Washington, D.C.,
1977. 774 pp.
5. Reed, J. C., J. D. Cobb, and J. C. Ting. Environmental
Assessment of Combustion Processes for Industrial-Municipal
Symbiosis in Refuse Disposal. In: Proceedings, AIChE/EPA
Third National Conference on Water Reuse. pp. 337-344.
6. Hall, J. L., H. R. Shanks, A. W. Joensen, D. B. 'Van Meter,
and G. A. Severens. Emission Characteristics of Burning
Refuse-Derived Fuel with Coal in Stoker-Fired Boilers.
(Paper presented at the 71st Annual Meeting of the Air
Pollution Control Association, Houston, Texas,
June 25-30, 1978.) 16 pp.
7. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Third Edition.
AP-42 (PB 275 525), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 1977. 511 pp.
36
-------
8. Spaite, P. W. and J. O. Burckle, Selection, Evaluation
and Application of Control Devices, Chapter 2, pp. 46-47;
and S. Oglesby and G. B. Nichols, Electrostatic Precipita-
tion, Chapter 5, pp. 191-193. In: Air Pollution, Third
Edition, Volume IV, A. Stern, ed. Academic Press, New York,
New York, 1977.
9. Jahnke, J. A., J. L. Cheney, R. Rollins and C. R. Fortune.
A Research Study of Gaseous Emissions from a Municipal
Incinerator. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Associa-
tion, 27(8) :747-753, 1977.
10. Hangebrauck, R. P., D. J. von Lehmden, and J. E. Meeker.
Sources of Polynuclear Hydrocarbons in the Atmosphere.
Public Health Service Publication No. 999-AP-33,
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1967. 44 pp.
11. Davies, I. W., R. M. Harrison, R. Perry, D. Ratnayaka, and
R. A. Wellings. Municipal Incinerator as Source of Polynu-
clear Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Environment. Environmental
Science and Technology, 10(5): 451-453, 1976.
37
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
In the following sections, additional literature examined during
this investigation of emissions from waste-to-energy systems is
listed. Those sources which had particular relevance to the
evaluation of Category I and Category III and coal combustion are
cited separately. Material which was specifically quoted in the
text of this report is included in the preceding "References"
section.
CATEGORY I
Carotti, A. A., and E. R. Kaiser. Concentrations of Twenty
Gaseous Chemical Species in the Flue Gas of a Municipal
Incinerator. Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association,
22(4):248-253, 1972.
Greenberg, R. R., D. W. Neuendorf, and K. J. Yost. Composition
of Particles Emitted from the Nicosta Municipal Incinerator.
Environmental Science and Technology, 12 (12):1329-1332, 1978.
Greenberg, R. R., W. H. Zoller, and G. E. Gordon. Composition
and Size Distributions of Particles Released in Refuse Inciner-
ation. Environmental Science and Technology, 12 (5) :566-573,
1978.
CATEGORY III AND COAL COMBUSTION
Buonicore, A. J., and J. P. Waltz. District Heating with Refuse-
Derived Fuel at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. (Paper pre-
sented at the AIChE's Third Energy and Environment Conference,
Cincinnati, Ohio, September 29 - October 1, 1975.) 10 pp.
Gorman, P. G., M. P. Schrag, L. J. Shannon, and D. E. Fiscus.
St. Louis Demonstration Final Report: Power Plant Equipment,
Facilities, and Environmental Evaluations. EPA-600/2-77-155b,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1977.
433 pp.
OTHER LITERATURE
Anderson, D. Emission Factors for Trace Substances. EPA-450/2-
73-001, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina, 1973. 80 pp.
38
-------
Background Information for Proposed New Source Performance Stand-
ards: Steam Generators, Incinerators, Portland Cement Plants,
Nitric Acid Plants, and Sulfuric Acid Plants. APTD-0711, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, 1971. 50 pp.
Brinkerhoff, R. J. Inventory of Intermediate-Size Incinerators
in the United States - 1972. Pollution Engineering,
5(11) :33-38, 1973.
Carroll, J. M., J. L. Hall, A. W. Joensen, and D. B. Van Meter.
Source Emission Factors for Refuse-Derived Fuels. In: Pro-
ceedings of Conference on Sensing Environmental Pollution,
New Orleans, Louisiana, November 6-11, 1977. pp. 472-478.
Clausen, J. F., C. A. Zee, J. W. Adams, J. C. Harris, and
P. L. Levins. Monitoring of Combustion Gases during Thermal
Destruction of Hazardous Wastes. In: Proceedings of Confer-
ence on Sensing Environmental Pollution, New Orleans,
Louisiana, November 6-11, 1977. pp. 482-486.
Cohan, L. J., and J. H. Fernandes. Incineration. In: Solid
Wastes: Origin, Collection, Processing, and Disposal. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York, 1975. pp. 259-332.
Corey, R. C. Incineration. In: Air Pollution, Third Edition,
Volume IV. Engineering Control of Air Pollution, A. C. Stern,
ed. Academic Press, New York, New York, 1977. pp. 532-593.
Fiscus, D. E., P. G. Gorman, and J. D. Kilgroe. Refuse Process-
ing Plant Equipment, Facilities, and Environmental Considera-
tions at St. Louis - Union Electric Refuse Fuel Project. In:
Proceedings of the National Wastes Conference, American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, Boston, Massachusetts, May 23-26, 1976.
pp. 373-384.
Funkhouser, J. T., E. T. Peters, P. L. Levins, A. Doyle, P. Giever,
and J. McCoy. Manual Methods for Sampling and Analysis of
Particulate Emissions from Municipal Incinerators. EPA-650/2-
73-023, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.,
1973. 293 pp.
Gordian Associates, Inc. Overcoming Institutional Barriers to
Solid Waste Utilization as an Energy Source. HCP/L-50172-01,
U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C., 1977. pp. 154-200.
39
-------
Interim Guide of Good Practice for Incineration at Federal
Facilities. Publication No. AP-46, National Air Pollution
Control Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina, 1969. 103 pp.
Kreutzman, E. Waste Destroying by Fluidizing Techniques. In:
Environmental Engineering, Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht,
Holland, 1973. pp. 403-411.
Lee, Y. Fluidized Bed Combustion of Coal and Waste Materials.
Noyes Data Corporation, 1977. 267 pp.
Rigo, H. G. , S. A. Hathaway, and F. C. Hildebrand. Preparation
and Use of Refuse Derived Fuels in Industrial Scale Applica-
tions. (Paper presented at the First International Conference
and Technical Exhibition on the Conversion of Refuse into
Energy, Montreux, Switzerland, November 3-5, 1975.) pp. 22-27.
Rodes, C. E., M. D. Jackson, and R. G. Lewis. Monitoring for
Polychlorinated Biphenyl Emissions from an Electrolytic
Capacitor Disposal Project. EPA-600/4-78-025, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina, 1978. 23 pp.
Shanks, H. R., J. L. Hall, and A. W. Joensen. Environmental
Effects of Burning Solid Waste as Fuel. In: Proceedings, of
Conference on Sensing of Environmental Pollutants, New Orleans,
Louisiana, November 6-11, 1977. pp. 739-741.
Shannon, L. J., and M. P. Schrag. Environmental Impact of
Waste to Energy Systems. (Paper presented at the AIChE's
Fourth Energy and Environment Conference, Cincinnati, Ohio,
October 3-7, 1976.) 7 pp.
Shen, T. T., M. Chen, and J. Lauber. Incineration of Toxic
Chemical Wastes. Pollution Engineering, 10 (10) :45-50 , 1978.
Snowden, W. D., and K. D. Brooks. Case Study of Particulate
Emissions from Semi-Suspension Incineration of Municipal Refuse.
EPA-910/9-76-033, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Seattle,
Washington, 1976. 87 pp.
Trethaway, W. Energy Recovery and Thermal Disposal of Wastes
Utilizing Fluidized Bed Reactor Systems. In: Proceedings of
the National Wastes Conference, American Society of Mechanical
Engineers, Boston, Massachusetts, May 23-26, 1976. pp. 117-124.
Williamson, J. E., R. J. MacKnight, and R. L. Chass. Multiple-
Chamber Incinerator Design Standards for Los Angeles County.
Los Angeles County Air Pollution Control District, Los Angeles,
California, 1960. 32 pp.
40
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instruttioni on the reverse before completing)
i REPORT NO
EPA-600/7-80-135
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
AN EVALUATION OF EMISSION FACTORS FOR
WASTE-TO-ENERGY SYSTEMS
6 REPORT DATS
July 1980 Issuing Date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7 AUTHOR(S)
G. M. Rinaldi, T. R. Blackwood,
D. L. Harris, and K. M. Tackett
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
MRC-DA-921
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Monsanto Research Corporation
1515 Nicholas Road
Dayton, OH 45418
1O. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
EHE 629B
11.C6NTRACT/GRANTNO
68-03-2550
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Task Final. 11/78-11/79
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/12
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
IERL-Ci project officer is H. M. Freeman, 513-684-4363
16. ABSTRACT
The Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory (IERL) of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the responsibility for insuring
that pollution control technology for stationary sources is available to
meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The Fuels
Technology Branch (FTB) of the lERL-Cincinnati has been assigned the
responsibility for characterizing emissions from waste-to-energy systems.
This report, prepared by Monsanto Research Corporation, is intended to
supplement the document entitled "Compilation of Air Pollution Emission
Factors" as a source of information concerning emission rates from solid
waste combustion, since the latter does not incorporate the most recent
technical data. Results presented herein will provide information to
the EPA regional and program offices that is useful for decision-making
regarding environmental research programs and the technological feasi-
bility of compliance with existing or forthcoming regulations.
17
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
Pollution
Assessments
Solid Waste
Data Acquisition
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Environmental Assess-
ment
Wastes as Fuel
Energy Sources
c. COSATI Field/Group
13B
14B
10B
12A
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to public
19 SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
51
20 SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
CPA Form 222O-1 (t-73)
41
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980--657-165/00 98
-------
Agency
Cincinnati OH 45268
hnvironmentai
Protection
Agency
EPA-335
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use, $300
Special Fourth-Class Rate
Book
-1000675
Please make all necessary changes on the above label,
detach or copy, and return to the address in the upper
left-hand corner
If you do not wish to receive these reports CHECK HERE n,
detach, or copy this cover, and return to the address in the
upper left-hand corner
EPA-600/7-80-135
------- |