United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste Office of Air Off ice of Research EPA/530-SW-87 02it
and Emergency Response and Radiation and Development June 1987
Washington, DC 20460 Washington, DC 20460 Washington, DC 20460
xvEPA
Municipal Waste
Combustion Study
Emission Data Base for
Municipal Waste Combustors
-------
EPA/530-SW-87-021B
EMISSION DATA BASE FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Prepared By
Midwest Research Institute
Suite 350
401 Harrison Oaks Boulevard
Gary, North Carolina 27513
For Information Contact
Peter Schindler
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
(919) 541-5604
June 1987
til. fcrlrownentaT Prof action
Bfltjlon 3, L:t'-K-J..,vy <':?!,-J.S)
830 fJ. Dearborn St/^et, Room 1S1Q
Ghioago, IL 60604
-------
"This document has been reviewed and approved for publication by the
Office of Air and Radiation, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views
and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does the mention
of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use."
ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF FIGURES vi
LIST OF TABLES v1i
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
CHAPTER 2 SUMMARY OF REPORTED EMISSIONS FROM MUNICIPAL WASTE
COMBUSTORS 2-1
2.1 LOWEST REPORTED EMISSION LEVELS 2-6
2.1.1 Criteria Pollutants 2-6
2.1.1.1 Participate Matter 2-6
2.1.1.2 Sulfur Dioxide 2-6
2.1.1.3 Oxides of Nitrogen 2-8
2.1.1.4 Carbon Monoxide 2-9
2.1.2 Acid Gases 2-10
2.1.2.1 Hydrogen Chloride 2-10
2.1.2.2 Hydrogen Fluoride 2-10
2.1.2.3 Sulfur Trioxide 2-11
2.1.3 Metals 2-11
2.1.3.1 Arsenic 2-12
2.1.3.2 Beryllium 2-13
2.1.3.3 Cadmium 2-14
2.1.3.4 Chromium 2-14
2.1.3.5 Lead 2-15
2.1.3.6 Mercury 2-16
2.1.3.7 Nickel 2-17
2.1.4 Organics 2-17
2.1.5 Supplementary Emission Data 2-19
2.2 Preliminary Analyses of Emission Data 2-21
2.2.1 PCDD/PCDF Analyses 2-23
2.2.2 Metals Analyses 2-38
CHAPTER 3 DESCRIPTIONS OF MWC FACILITIES 3-1
3.3 PROCESS DESCRIPTIONS AND TEST PROTOCOL SUMMARIES.. 3-1
3.1.1 Baltimore, 1985 Tests (Mass Burn,
Waterwal 1) 3-1
3.1.2 Braintree, 1978 Test (Mass Burn,
Waterwal 1) 3-2
3.1.3 Chicago Northwest, 1980 Tests (Mass Burn,
Waterwal 1) 3-3
3.1.4 Hampton, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984 Tests
(Mass Burn, Waterwall) 3-4
3.1.5 Tulsa, 1986 Test (Mass Burn,
Waterwal 1) 3-6
3.1.6 Peekskill, 1985 (Mass Burn, Waterwall)... 3-7
3.1.7 Gal latin, 1983 Tests (Mass Burn,
Waterwal 1) 3-8
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
3.1.8 Kure, Japan, 1981 Test (Mass Burn,
Waterwal 1) 3-9
3.1.9 Munich, 1984 Tests (Mass Burn,
Waterwal 1) 3-10
3.1.10 Quebec, 1985-86 Pilot Scale Tests (Mass
Burn, Waterwal 1) 3-12
3.1.11 Malmo, 1983 Report (Mass Burn and
RDF-F1red Waterwal 1) 3-13
3.1.12 Wurzburg, West Germany, 1985 Tests
(Mass-Burn, Waterwal 1) 3-15
3.1.13 Marion County, 1986 Test (Mass Burn,
Waterwal 1) 3-15
3.1.14 McKay Bay, 1986 Tests (Mass Burn,
Waterwal 1) 3-16
3.1.15 North Andover, 1986 Test (Mass Burn,
Waterwall), 3-17
3.1.16 Saugus, 1975 Test (Mass Burn,
Waterwal 1) 3-18
3.1.17 Umea, 1984 Test (Mass Burn, Water-wall)... 3-18
3.1.18 Philadelphia, Northwest, 1985 Tests
(Mass Burn, Refractory) 3-19
3.1.19 Washington, D.C. 1976 Test (Mass Burn,
Refractory) 3-20
3.1.20 Mayport, 1980 Tests (Mass Burn,
Refractory) 3-20
3.1.21 Alexandria, 1976 Test (Mass Burn,
Refractory) 3-21
3.1.22 Nicosia, East Chicago, 1976 Tests (Mass
Burn, Refractory) 3-22
3.1.23 Tsushima, Japan, 1983 Test (Mass Burn,
Refractory) 3-22
3.1.24 Pittsfield, 1985 Test-Phase I (Mass Burn,
Refractory) 3-23
3.1.25 Cattaraugus County, 1984 Test (Starved
Air 3-25
3.1.26 Dyersburg, 1982 Tests (Starved Air) 3-26
3.1.27 North Little Rock, 1980 Tests (Starved
Air) 3-26
3.1.28 Prince Edward Island, 1985 Test (Starved
Air) 3-27
3.1.29. Tuscaloosa, 1985 Test (Starved A1r) 3-29
3.1.30 Barren County, 1985 Test (Starved Air)... 3-29
3.1.31 Red Wing, 1986 Test (Starved Air) 3-30
3.1.32 Akron, 1981 Test (RDF Fired) 3-30
3.1.33 Albany, 1984 Test (RDF Fired) 3-31
3.1.34 Hamilton-Wentworth, Ontario, 1984 Tests
(RDF Fired) 3-32
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
3.1.35 Niagara, 1985 Test (RDF Fired) 3-34
3.1.36 Wright Patterson Air Force Base, 1980 and
1982 Tests (RDF Fired) 3-35
CHAPTER 4 DISCUSSION OF FUTURE DATA AVAILABILITY 4-1
CHAPTER 5 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROTOCOL 5-1
CHAPTER 6 PROTOCOL FOR DATA BASE 6-1
6.1 ENGINEERING METHODOLOGY 6-1
6.2 COMPUTER PROGRAMMING METHODOLOGY 6-5
CHAPTER 7 DATA BASE 7-1
7.1 DISCUSSION OF PROCESS AND CONTROL DEVICE TABLES... 7-1
7.1.1 Discussion of Process Design and
Operation Tables 7-1
7.1.2 Discussion of Control Device Design and
Operating Condition Tables 7-1
7.2 DISCUSSION OF EMISSION TABLES 7-2
SUPPLEMENT A AVAILABLE MWC EMISSION TEST REPORTS AND RELATED REFERENCES
SUPPLEMENT B SUMMARY OF SYMBOLS, ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND UNITS
SUPPLEMENT C DATA TRANSFER LOG FORMS
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2-1 Comparison of PCDD/PCDF concentrations to average
CO concentrations 2-29
2-2 PCDD homolog distributions—mass burn with ESP
control 2-31
2-3 PCOO homolog distributions—mass-burn MWC's with
DS/FF controls 2-32
2-4 PCDD homolog distributions—mass-burn MWC's with
high emissions 2-33
2-5 PCDF homolog distribution—mass-burn MWC's with
ESP control 2-34
2-6 PCDF homolog distribution—mass-burn MWC's with
DS/FF controls 2-35
2-7 PCDF homolog distributions—mass-burn MWC's with
high emissions 2-36
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 List of Pollutants 1-3
1-2 Overview of Emission Data Base 1-6
1-3 Overview of Supplementary Emission Data Base 1-8
2-1 Summary of MWC Criteria Pollutant Emission Ranges 2-3
2-2 Summary of MWC Acid Gas Emission Ranges 2-4
2-3 Summary of MWC Metals and Organics Pollutant Emission
Ranges 2-5
2-4 Summary of PCDD and PCDF Emissions from MWC's 2-24
2-5 Summary of 2,3,7,8,-TCDD Toxic Equivalent Contribution
for 2,3,7,8-Tetra and -Penta Isomers 2-26
2-6 Rank Order Correlation Results for CO vs. PCDD/PCDF 2-28
2-7 Preliminary Findings Related to Homolog Distributions 2-37
2-8 Summary of Metals Enrichment/Depletion 2-40
4-1 Summary of Future Data Availability 4-2
5-1 Sampling and Analysis Methodology Summary—Criteria
Pollutants, Acid Gases, and Organics 5-5
5-2 Sampling and Analysis Methodology Summary—Metals 5-8
6-1 List of Conversion Factors 6-3
6-2 Summary of Data Used to Calculate Emission Factors 6-6
6-3 Data Files 6-8
6-4 Summary of Programs 6-10
7-la Mass-Burn Facility Structural Design Data 7-4
7-lb Mass-Burn Facility Airflow Design Data 7-5
7-2 Mass-Burn Operating Data for Municipal Waste
Combustor Facilities 7-6
7-3a Starved-Air Facility Structural Design Data 7-7
7-3b Starved-Air Facility Airflow Design Data 7-8
7-4 Starved-Air Operating Data for Municipal Waste
Combustor Facilities 7-9
7-5a Refuse Derived Fuel-Fired Facility Structural
Design Data 7-10
7-5b Refuse Derived Fuel-Fired Facility Airflow Design Data.... 7-11
7-6 RDF-Fired Operating Data for Municipal Waste
Combustor Facilities 7-12
7-7 Electrostatic Precipitator Design Specifications 7-13
7-8 Electrostatic Precipitator Operating Conditions 7-14
7-9 Dry Scrubber/Fabric Filter System Design Specifications... 7-15
7-10 Dry Scrubber/Fabric Filter System Operating Conditions.... 7-16
7-11 Fabric Filter or Scrubber Design Specifications 7-17
7-12 Fabric Filter or Scrubber Operating Conditions 7-18
7-13 Summary of Particulate Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-19
7-14 Summary of Carbon Monoxide Emissions From MWC Facilities.. 7-21
7-15 Summary of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions From MWC Facilities... 7-22
7-16 Summary of Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions From MWC
Faci 1 i ti es 7-23
7-17 Summary of Arsenic Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-24
7-18 Summary of Beryllium Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-25
vii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table Page
7-19 Summary of Cadmium Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-26
7-20 Summary of Total Chromium Emissions From MWC Facilities... 7-28
7-21 Summary of Lead Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-30
7-22 Summary of Mercury Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-32
7-23 Summary of Nickel Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-33
7-24 Summary of Hydrogen Chloride Emissions From
MWC Facilities 7-34
7-25 Summary of Hydrogen Fluoride Emissions From
MWC Facilities 7-35
7-26 Summary of Sulfur Trioxide Emissions From MWC Facilities.. 7-36
7-27 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Tetrach1orod1benzo-p-d1oxin Emissions
From MWC Facilities 7-37
7-28 Summary of Total Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions
From MWC Facilities 7-38
7-29 Summary of Total Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions
From MWC Facilities 7-40
7-30 Summary of Total Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions
From MWC Facilities 7-42
7-31 Summary of Total Heptachlorodibenzo-p-d1ox1n Emissions
From MWC Facilities 7-44
7-32 Summary of Total Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions
From MWC Facilities 7-46
7-33 Summary of Tetra- Through Octachlorodibenzo-p-d1ox1n
Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-48
7-34 Summary of Total Measured Chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-50
7-35 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Tetrachloro-
dibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-52
7-36 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Pentachloro-
dibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-54
7-37 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Hexachloro-
dibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-55
7-38 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Heptachloro-
dibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions From WMC Facilities 7-56
7-39 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran Emissions
From MWC Facilities 7-57
7-40 Summary of Total Tetrachlorodibenzofuran Emissions From
MWC Facilities 7-58
7-41 Summary of Total Pentachlorodibenzofuran Emissions From
MWC Facilities 7-60
7-42 Summary of Total Hexachlorodibenzofuran Emissions From
MWC Facilities 7-62
7-43 Summary of Total Heptachlorodibenzofuran Emissions From
MWC Facilities 7-64
7-44 Summary of Total Octachlorodibenzofuran Emissions From
MWC Facilities 7-66
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table Page
7-45 Summary of Tetra- Through Octachlorodibenzofuran
Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-68
7-46 Summary of Total Measured Chlorodibenzofuran Emissions
From MWC Facilities 7-70
7-47 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Tetrachloro-
dibenzofuran Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-72
7-48 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Pentachloro-
dibenzofuran Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-73
7-49 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Hexachloro-
dibenzofuran Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-74
7-50 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Heptachloro-
dibenzofuran Emissions From WMC Facilities 7-75
7-51 Summary of Polychlorinated Biphenyls Emissions From MWC
Fad 11 ties 7-76
7-52 Summary of Formaldehyde Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-77
7-53 Summary of Benzo-a-pyrene Emissions From MWC Facilities... 7-78
7-54 Summary of Total Measured Chlorinated Benzene Emissions
From MWC Facilities 7-79
7-55 Summary of Total Measured Chlorinated Phenol Emissions
From MWC Facilities 7-80
7-56 Summary of Supplementary Chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions
From MWC Facilities 7-81
7-57 Summary of Supplementary Chlorodibenzofuran Emissions
From MWC Facilities 7-82
7-58 Summary of Supplementary Metals Emissions From MWC
Faci Titles 7-83
7-59a Mass-Burn Facility Structural Design Data, 7-84
7-59b Mass-Burn Facility Airflow Design Data 7-85
7-60 Mass-Burn Operating Data for Municipal Waste Combustor
Faci 11 ties 7-86
7-61a Starved-Air Facility Structural Design Data 7-87
7-61b Starved-Air Facility Airflow Design Data 7-88
7-62 Starved-Air Operating Data for MWC Facilities 7-89
7-63a Refuse Derived Fuel-Fired Facility Structural
Design Data 7-90
7-63b Refuse Derived Fuel-Fired Facility Airflow Design Data.... 7-91
7-64 RDF-Fired Operating Data for MWC Facilities 7-92
7-65 Electrostatic Precipitator Design Specifications 7-93
7-66 Electrostatic Precipitator Operating Conditions 7-94
7-67 Dry Scrubber/Fabric Filter System Design Specifications... 7-95
7-68 Dry Scrubber/Fabric Filter System Operating Conditions 7-96
7-69 Fabric Filter or Scrubber Design Specifications 7-97
7-70 Fabric Filter or Scrubber Operating Conditions 7-98
7-71 Summary of Particulate Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-99
7-72 Summary of Carbon Monoxide Emissions From MWC Facilities.. 7-101
7-73 Summary of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions From MWC Facilities... 7-102
1x
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table Page
7-74 Summary of Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions From
MWC Facilities 7-103
7-75 Summary of Arsenic Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-104
7-76 Summary of Beryllium Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-106
7-77 Summary of Cadmium Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-107
7-78 Summary of Total Chromium Emissions From MWC Facilities... 7-109
7-79 Summary of Lead Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-111
7-80 Summary of Mercury Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-113
7-81 Summary of Nickel Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-114
7-82 - Summary of Hydrogen Chloride Emissions From
MWC Facilities 7-115
7-83 Summary of Hydrogen Fluoride Emissions From
MWC Facilities 7-116
7-84 Summary of Sulfur Trioxide Emissions From MWC Facilities.. 7-117
7-85 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions
From MWC Facilities 7-118
7-86 Summary of Total Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions
From MWC Facilities 7-119
7-87 Summary of Total Pentachlorod1benzo-p-dioxin Emissions
From MWC Facilities 7-121
7-88 Summary of Total Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions
From MWC Facilities 7-123
7-89 Summary of Total Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions
From MWC Facilities 7-125
7-90 Summary of Total Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions
From MWC Facilities 7-127
7-91 Summary of Tetra- Through Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-129
7-92 Summary of Total Measured Chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-131
7-93 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Tetrachloro-
dibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-133
7-94 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Pentachloro-
dibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-134
7-95 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Hexachloro-
dibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-135
7-96 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Heptachloro-
dibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions From WMC Facilities 7-136
7-97 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran Emissions
From MWC Facilities 7-137
7-98 Summary of Total Tetrachlorodibenzofuran Emissions From
MWC Facilities 7-138
7-99 Summary of Total Pentachlorodibenzofuran Emissions From
MWC Facilities 7-140
7-100 Summary of Total Hexachlorodibenzofuran Emissions From
MWC Facilities 7-142
-------
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table Page
7-101 Summary of Total Heptachlorodibenzofuran Emissions From
MWC Facilities 7-144
7-102 Summary of Total Octachlorodibenzofuran Emissions From
MWC Facilities 7-146
7-103 Summary of Tetra- Through Octachlorodibenzofuran
Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-148
7-104 Summary of Total Measured Chlorodibenzofuran Emissions
From MWC Facilities 7-150
7-105 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Tetrachloro-
dibenzofuran Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-152
7-106 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Pentachloro-
dibenzofuran Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-153
7-107 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Hexachloro-
dibenzofuran Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-154
7-108 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Heptachloro-
dibenzofuran Emissions From WMC Facilities 7-155
7-109 Summary of Polychlorinated Biphenyls Emissions From MWC
Faci 1 i ties 7-156
7-110 Summary of Formaldehyde Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-157
7-111 Summary of Benzo-a-pyrene Emissions From MWC Facilities... 7-158
7-112 Summary of Total Measured Chlorinated Benzene Emissions
From MWC Facilities 7-159
7-113 Summary of Total Measured Chlorinated Phenol Emissions
From MWC Facilities 7-160
7-114 Summary of Supplementary Chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Emissions From MWC Facilities 7-161
7-115 Summary of Supplementary Chlorodibenzofuran Emissions
From MWC Facilities 7-162
7-116 Summary of Supplementary Metals Emissions From
MWC Facilities 7-163
xi
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
This volume is a compilation of emission data for municipal waste
combustors (MWC's). The information presented herein was developed during
a comprehensive, integrated study of municipal waste combustion. An
overview of the findings of this study may be found in the Report to
Congress on Municipal Waste Combustion (EPA/530-SW-87-021A). Other
technical volumes issued as part of the municipal waste combustion study
include:
• Combustion Control of Organic Emissions (EPA/530-SW-87-021C)
• Flue Gas Cleaning Technology (EPA/530-SW-87-021D)
Costs of Flue Gas Cleaning Technologies (EPA/530-SW-87-021E)
• Sampling and Analysis of Municipal Waste Combustors
(EPA/530-SW-87-021F)
Assessment of Health Risks Associated with Exposure to Municipal
Waste Combustor Emissions (EPA/530-SW-87-021G)
Characterization of the Municipal Waste Combustion Industry
(EPA/530-SW-87-021H)
• Recycling of Solid Waste (EPA/530-SW-87-021I)
This volume also responds in part to a settlement agreement between
the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of New York
and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Pursuant to paragraph
three of the Settlement Agreement in State of New York v. Thomas
(No. 84-1472) and Natural Resources Defense Council v. Aim (No. 84-1473),
before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, EPA
agreed to issue a document(s) that:
(a) identifies, to the extent data are available, the lowest
emission levels of organic compounds (including dioxins),
metals, acid gases, and particulate matter that have been
achieved from MWC's on a commercial scale;
1-1
-------
(b) identifies, to the extent data are available, the waste feed
characteristics, operating conditions, and control techniques
associated with such emission levels; and
(c) identifies available monitoring techniques (both sampling
frequency and analytical methods) that can be used to determine
whether emission levels from MWC's reflect the lowest emission
levels achieved on a commercial scale.
The overall purpose of this volume of the Comprehensive Municipal
Waste Combustion Report is to respond to sections (a) and (b) of paragraph
three of the Settlement Agreement. To accomplish this purpose, an
emission data base was compiled from test reports for MWC's 1n the U.S.,
Canada, Japan, and Europe. These emission data are presented in a format
that allows comparison and analysis in order to identify, to the extent of
available data, the lowest emission levels of organic compounds (including
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin [PCOD] and polychloHnated dibenzofuran
[PCDF]), metals, acid gases, and criteria pollutants that have been
achieved from MWC's on a commercial scale. Table 1-1 lists the pollutants
of concern for which data were compiled. The available operating
conditions and control techniques associated with the lowest emission
level for each pollutant of concern are identified.
Extensive resources were used to collect and organize the data
presented in this volume. Certain reports were not readily available.
Calculations were required to convert the reported data into consistent
units of measure. Correspondence with most of the facilities was
necessary to collect additional information on the combustor and control
equipment. This compilation of data is the first step in achieving the
ultimate objective of relating equipment design and operating parameters
to multipollutant emission levels (section (b) above).
The specific objectives of this volume are:
1. To compile all available U.S. and Canadian data on emissions of
the pollutants of concern from MWC's;
2. To compile readily available European and Japanese emission data
on the pollutants of concern from MWC's;
3. To reduce the test data into consistent units of measure and
reference and present those data in a common format;
1-2
-------
TABLE 1-1. LIST OF POLLUTANTS
Criteria pollutants
Participate matter (PM)
Nitrogen oxides (NOX)
Sulfur dioxide (S02)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Acid gases
Sulfates (S03 or H2SOJ
Hydrogen chloride (HC1)
Hydrogen fluoride (HF)
Metals
Arsenic (As)
Beryllium (Be)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Nickel (Ni)
Organic po11utantsa
Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDO)
Tetrachlorodlbenzofuran (TCDF)
Pentach1orodibenzo-p-d1oxin (PeCDD)
Pentachlordibenzofuran (PeCDF)
Hexachlorod1benzo-p-dixon (HxCDO)
Hexachlorodibenzofuran (HxCDF)
Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (HpCDD)
Heptachlorodibenzofuran (HpCDF)
Octachlorodibenzo-p-diox1n (OCDD)
Octachlorodibenzofuran (OCDF)
Sum of TCDD through OCDD
Sum of TCDF through OCDF
Total measured chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Total measured chlorodibenzofuran
Benzene
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCS)
Chlorinated benzenes (C1B)
Chlorinated phenols (C1P)
Formaldehyde
Benzo-a-pyrene (BaP)
aFor the chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and chlorinated dibenzofurans, data
are presented for total homologue groups (tetra through octa) and for
specific isomers within those groups that have chlorine substituted in
the 2, 3, 7, and 8 positions.
1-3
-------
4. To identify the lowest reported emission levels (LREL's) for
criteria and noncriteria pollutants;
5. To describe the design and operation of each facility tested and
tabulate key design and operating parameters for the test periods to the
extent information is available;
6. To identify and describe, as appropriate, sampling and analysis
methods used with each test to the extent that this Information 1s
provided in the data reference;
7. To distinguish qualitatively those data 1n a "documented" test
report from those data that were obtained from references with limited or
no documentation; and
8. To describe control systems operated by the facilities tested and
present available control efficiency data for each facility tested.
Emission data included within this study are from systems that
combust municipal solid waste (MSW) on an "as generated" basis (mass burn
and starved air) and those that fire refuse-derived fuel (RDF). Data are
also included for systems both with and without energy recovery. Data are
not included for facilities that normally cofire MSW with alternative
fuels, although data were included from tests that involved cofiring
during a portion of the test program (e.g., Mayport), Data are Included
for units controlled by electrostatic precipitators (ESP's), fabric
filters (FF's), dry and wet scrubbing systems (with either ESP's or FF's),
and cyclones (associated with other controls or used as the principal
control system on older facilities).
Data were compiled from the published literature and specific source
test reports. Test reports that contained metals or organics emission
data were reviewed in detail. These reports also contain criteria
pollutant emission data from many facilities with state-of-the-art control
systems that are expected to generate low levels of criteria pollutant
emissions. Because the criteria pollutant data base derived from these
reports is reasonably consistent and is expected to represent lowest
criteria pollutant emission levels, resources were not expended to locate
and review test reports containing only criteria pollutant data. No
additional testing was conducted by EPA as a part of compiling and
analyzing the data. However, EPA recently has undertaken additional
1-4
-------
testing as a part of the Agency's overall MWC program. Table 1-2 1s a
summary matrix showing the 36 facilities for which test results were
available from well-documented emission test reports. The matrix presents
the facilities 1n groups according to type of combustor and type of air
pollution control equipment and shows the classes of pollutants for which
test data are available. Table 1-3 is a summary matrix for the
27 facilities for which test results were available with no documentation
of Incinerator operations or test methodologies. The data from the
facilities identified 1n Table 1-3 are considered supplementary to the
data from the facilities identified in Table 1-2.
To the degree possible, data on the combustor and air pollution
control device design and operating conditions also were extracted from
the test reports. However, the data generally were quite scarce. To
supplement the data in the test reports, 27 requests for additional
information were submitted to facility operators, but only two responses
were received prior to completion of this report. Consequently, the
design and operating data presented herein are still quite limited. The
EPA intends to collect additional information about these facilities as a
part of ongoing regulatory development studies.
The results presented in this report represent aggregated results
from tests containing a minimum of three sampling runs except where noted
otherwise. The use of aggregate averages rather than run-specific test
data placed limitations on the analyses of relationships among emissions
and process parameters; however, aggregate averages were deemed to be the
best format for achieving the primary objectives of this report.
Individuals desiring to conduct more comprehensive analyses of the data
should consult the referenced test reports to obtain run-specific data.
The results presented in this report should be interpreted in view of
the following limitations inherent to the scope as defined above.
1. Limitations concerning inconsistent objectives and scope among
tests at different facilities. Because the emission tests were not
conducted as part of a single, well-defined study, data often were not
collected under comparable combustion conditions, and the effects of
variables that were neither controlled nor measured are likely to be
significant. Consequently, parametric analyses of the data base should be
undertaken with caution.
1-5
-------
TABLE 1-2. OVERVIEW OF EMISSION DATA BASE
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn3
Waterwal ID
ESPC
Baltimore, 1/85
Baltimore, 5/85
Braintree
Ch i cago
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1982)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
McKay Bay (Unit 1)
McKay Bay (Unit 2)
McKay Bay (Unit 3)
McKay Bay (Unit 4)
N. Andover
Peekskill (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Unit 1)
Tulsa (Unit 2)
Umea, fal 1
Umea, fall
Umea, spring
CYC/FF
Gal latin
ESP/WS
Kure
SO/ESP
Munich
CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Mai mo
WSH/Dt/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marion County
Quebec
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
CYC/ESP
Washington, D.C.
CYC
Mayport
WS
Alexandria
N i cos i a
SD/FF
Tsushima
EGB
Pittsf ield
Test
condition
Norma 1 d
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Low tempe
Normal
Normal
Normal
MSW only*
Normal
1109
1259
140h
2009
Normal
Normal
140*
140 4 R1
Normal
Normal
Normal
MSW/waste oil-J
Normal
Normal
Normal
Experimental
Criteria
pol lutants
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Acid
gases
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Metals
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Organ ics
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(continued)
1-6
-------
TABLE 1-2. (continued)
FaciIity name
Test
condition
Cr i ter i a
pollutants
Acid
gases
Metals
Organics
Starved air
No controls
Cattaraugus County
Dyersburg
N. Little Rock, 3/78
N. Little Rock, 5/78
N. Little Rock, 10/78
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Barren County
Red Wing
Tusea loosa
RDF fired
P5P
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
High"1
Loi"
Normal
Normal
Normal
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Akron
Albany
Hami Iton-Wentworth
Hami Iton-Wentworth
Hami Iton-Wentworth
Hami Iton-Wentworth
Hami Iton-Wentworth
Hami Iton-Wentworth
Niagara
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
Wright Pat. AFB
CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Ma Imo
Normal
Normal
F/None°
F/Low back"
F/Back1'
F/Back, low
frontr
H/Nones
H/Low back1"
Normal
Normal
Dense RDFU
RDFV
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
X X
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
jjlype of combustor design.
^"ype of furnace.
""Emission control device(s) as follows: CYC = Cyclone; Dl = dry sorb^nt injection; SO =
spray dryer; EGB = electrostatic granular bed; ESP = electrostatic p.-ecipitator; FT » fabric
.filter; WS = wet scrubber; and WSH = water spray humidifier.
Unit operated under normal conditions during tests.
'Unit operated at low combustion temperature during tests.
Unit is designed to cofire sludge but burned only MSW during tests.
fJGases entering the fabric filter were at the temperature specified in 'C.
Normal operations: gases entering the fabric filter were at 140'C and normal lime feed rate
.was used.
'.Sorbent recycle was used. Gases entering the fabric filter were at 140"C.
JUnit burned MSW and waste oil during tests.
Tests were conducted at only two experimental conditions (polyvinyt chloride-free waste and
low combustion chamber temperature) during these tests.
Unit operated under longer feed cycle to decrease demand on the tractor operator during
tests.
Unit operated with high secondary chamber temperature during tests.
"Unit operated with low secondary chamber temperatures during tests.
°Unit operated under full load with no overfire air.
^Unit operated under full load with only lower back overfire air ports open.
''Unit operated under full load with both back overfire air ports open.
rUnit operated under full load with both back and lower front overfire air ports open.
sUnit operated under half load with no overfire air.
Unit operated under half load with only lower back overfire air ports open.
"unit burned dens if fed RDF during tests.
vUnit burned RDF during tests.
-------
TABLE 1-3. OVERVIEW OF SUPPLEMENTARY EMISSION DATA BASE
FaciIity name
Test condition
Metals
Organics
Mass burn
WaterwalI/ESP
Avesto
Iserlohn
MVA Lausanne
MVA Munich
Montreal (1982)
Montreal (1983)
Quebec (1981)
Umea (1984)
Urnea (1985)
Zur ich/Josephstrasse
Waterwal < 2S/ESP
Hamburg/Stapelfeld
MVA-I Borsigstrasse
MVA-II StelIinger M.
WaterwalI/DS/ESP/FF
Ma I mo
Waterwa11/DS/FF
Avg Borsigstrasse
WaterwalI
Issy-les-Moulineaux
Saint-ouen
Refractory/SPRAY/ESP
Toronto I
Normal
Normal
Normal
Norm a
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
NormaI
Normal
Normal
Normal
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Refractory/ESP
Brasschaat
Harelbeke
L i nkop i ng
Stuttgart
Zaanstad
Refractory
Severer.
Milan 1
Milan II
Starved air
None
Lake Cowichan
CS/ESP
Schio
Schio
Fluid bed
FF
Eskjo
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Norma 1 a
Unprocessed
Normal
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
aWaste separated to produce compost is termed processed.
operating condition for this facility.
This procedure is the normal
1-8
-------
2. Limitations concerning availability of key process and control
device data. The data on combustion process and control system design and
operation are often Incomplete. Variations in combustor design, waste
feed characteristics, and control device design and operation are expected
to affect pollutant emission rates. The effects of missing data should be
considered when emissions from different facilities are compared.
3. Limitations concerning nonstandardized test protocols. The
relative quality of the reported data varies widely among sites. Major
differences include variations in sampling and analysis methodology,
levels of documentation of methods and results, and levels of quality
assurance and quality control. Chapter 6 describes some of these
variations. Any comparative analyses or general interpretation of MWC
emissions or control system performance should be based on data from
similar systems obtained by comparable methods of equivalent quality.
The remainder of this volume presents emission data and the
supporting information needed to interpret those data. The overall
results of the study are summarized in Chapter 2, which also includes a
summary of the LREL's for different types of MWC's and limited analyses of
the data. Chapter 3 contains brief descriptions of the 36 facilities for
which documented test data were obtained and identifies the sampling and
analysis methods used at those facilities to obtain emission data. No
discussion is included for the 27 facilities for which test data were
obtained but for which information on facility description and
documentation of sampling and analysis methodology was lacking.
Because concerns about emissions of metals and organics have been
raised, a number of additional emission tests are being planned. In
Chapter 4, those planned emission tests are described, and projected
schedules are tabulated. Descriptions of sampling and analysis methods
used to gather the emission data are presented in Chapter 5. A tabular
summary of the methods used to obtain this emission data base is presented
to illustrate the variety of methods employed. Chapter 6 contains a
description of the methodology used to compile the emission data base and
to reduce that data base to its current format. Emission data for
criteria pollutants, acid gases, metals, PCDD, PCDF, and other organic
compounds are tabulated in Chapter 7. Data on process conditions, design
1-9
-------
specifications, and control device operating parameters also are
presented. Supplement A is a list of available MWC emission test reports
and related references. Supplement B is a summary of the symbols,
acronyms, and abbreviations used throughout this volume. Supplement C
contains the data log forms used to record the data extracted from the
test reports for inclusion in the data base.
1-10
-------
2. SUMMARY OF REPORTED EMISSIONS FROM MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
A data base has been developed on the emissions of criteria
pollutants, add gases, metals, and organics from MWC's. The objectives
of this chapter are to summarize the overall emission ranges and LREL's
for each pollutant by MWC type and to present results of limited analyses
of the data base that focus on describing relationships among the test
data. The chapter also identifies the facilities associated with each
LREL, reports operating conditions and control techniques associated with
the LREL's, and identifies sampling and analysis techniques associated
with the LREL's. The identification of the LREL's in this chapter is in
response to paragraph three, section (b), of the NRDC Settlement
Agreement. This chapter also is intended to assist State and local
agencies in future MWC permitting.
Relative to the objectives identified above, the LREL's reported in
this chapter should be applied with caution. These LREL's typically
reflect a specific facility operating under the conditions documented
during a compliance test or a performance test designed to demonstrate the
capability of the systems. The conditions achieved during these tests
generally are not representative of the range of "normal" conditions but
of "near-steady-state" conditions that are achieved by careful monitoring
and control of the facility.
The discussion presented here identifies combustion and control
approaches that led to low emissions. While LREL's may provide targets
for new MWC's, the paucity of data precludes determination of the
conditions under which any specific facility can achieve those levels.
Furthermore, the LREL's for all pollutants have not been measured at the
sane facility, and combustor and control device design and operating
conditions that provide optimal control for one pollutant may not provide
2-1
-------
optimal control for other pollutants. Consequently, a single facility may
not reasonably be expected to achieve the LREL's presented for all
pollutants.
The LREL's are reported in concentration units corrected to
12 percent C02 at dry standard conditions (20°C, 760 mm Hg). These units
were selected for two reasons. First, concentrations are based only on
stack gas measurements, whereas emission factors (mass emissions/mass
feed) require both stack gas and feed measurements. Since mass feed
measurements often were not well documented, they potentially Increase the
error 1n emission estimates. Second, on the average, waste feeds
generally have stoichiometrlc air requirements that vary linearly with the
heating value of the waste. Consequently, combustion gas flows normalized
to a constant excess-air level (e.g., 12 percent C02) are expected to
provide a consistent process measure based on heat input.
The LREL's are identified for criteria pollutants, acid gases,
metals, and organics from data presented in Chapter 7. Tables 2-1 through
2-3 present summaries of the emission concentrations for these
pollutants. Results are reported separately for mass-burn, excess-air
facilities; modular, starved-air facilities; and RDF-fired facilities.
The LREL's have not been distinguished by control device type. The LREL's
are typically determined from data documented by emission reports
consisting of a minimum of three test runs on a commercial-scale unit. If
a lower value based on data from a pilot-scale study is available, it
serves to complement the LREL from a commercial-scale facility. Data that
are reported in the literature but have not been documented to date Dy
test reports are included as supplementary information in Chapter 7.
The two sections below provide a more detailed assessment of the
emission data. Section 2.1 iden* cies the LREL for each pollutant and
discusses the facilities, equipment, and operating procedures associated
with those levels. Section 2.2 presents the results of preliminary
analyses of the test data. These analyses include evaluations of the
blvariate relationships between PCDD/PCDF emissions and temperature and
CO, assessment of the distributions of PCDO and PCDF among their homologs,
assessment of the relative fraction of the laterally substituted isomers
to the 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalent emissions, and assessment of the
2-2
-------
TABLE 2-1. SUMMARY OF MWC CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSION RANGES4
Range of pollutant emission concentrations'3
PM, mg/Nm3 (gr/dscf)
SO 2t ppmdv
NOX, ppmdv
CO, ppmdv
Mass burn
5.49-1,530
(0.002-0.669)
0.040-401
39-376
18.5-1,350
Starved air
22.9-303
(0.012-0.132)
61-124
255-309
3.24-67
RDF fired
220-533
(0.096-0.233)
54.7-188
263C
217-430
^Results from commercial-scale facilities only.
"All concentrations are in units corrected to 12 percent C02.
C0ata are available for only one test.
2-3
-------
TABLE 2-2. SUMMARY OF MWC ACID GAS EMISSION RANGES*
HC1, ppmdv
HF, ppmdv
SO 3, ppmdv
Range of
Mass burn
7.5-477
0.620-7.21
3.96-44.5
pollutant emission
Starved air
159-1,270
1.10-15.6
d
concentrations'*
RDF
95
fired
.9-776
2.12C
d
^Results from commercial-scale facilities only.
DA11 concentrations are reported in units corrected to 12 percent C02.
cData are available for only one test.
eNo data are available.
2-4
-------
TABLE 2-3. SUMMARY OF MWC METALS AND ORGANICS POLLUTANT EMISSION RANGES3
Range of pollutant emission concentrations11
As, yg/Nm
Be, yg/Nm
Cd, yg/Nm
Cr, yg/Nm3 d
Pb, yg/Nm3
Hg, vg/Nm
Ni, yg/Nm
2,3,7,8-TCDO, ng/Nm3
2,3,7,8-TCDF, ng/Nm3
TCDD, ng/Nm3
TCDF, ng/Nm3
PCOD, ng/Nm3
PCDF, ng/Nm3
Mass burn
0.452-233
0.0005-0.327
6.22-500
21.3-1,020
25.1-15,400
8.69-2,210
227-476
0.018-62.5
0.168-448
0.195-1,160
0.322-4,560
1.13-10,700
0.423-14,800
Starved air
6.09-119
0.0961-0.11
20.9-942
3.57-394
237-15,500
130-705
<1. 92-553
<0. 278-1. 54
58. 5C
1.02-43.7
12.2-345
63.1-1,540
96.6-1,810
RDF fired
19.1-160
20. 6C
33.7-373
493-6,660
973-9,600
170-441
128-3,590
0.522-14.6
2.69C
3.47-258
31.7-679
53.7-2,840
135-9,110
^Results from commercial-scale facilities only.
All concentrations are reported in units corrected to 12 percent C02.
JjData are available for only one test.
Total chromium emissions.
2-5
-------
enrichment/depletion of metals 1n participate matter across control
devices.
2.1 LOWEST REPORTED EMISSION LEVELS
2.1.1 Criteria Pollutants
2.1.1.1 Participate Matter. The LREL for PM from mass-burn,
excess-air MWC's is 5.49 mg/Nm3 (0.002 gr/dscf). This emission level was
achieved at Unit 1 of the RESCO facility, Baltimore, Maryland, 1n 1985.
The control device at Baltimore is a conventional wire/plate ESP with four
fields. While the emissions at Baltimore are the lowest reported to date,
the PM emissions from an MWC in Wurzburg, Germany, controlled by a dry
scrubber/fabric filter (DS/FF) system were reported to be 9.15 mg/Nm3
(0.0040 gr/dscf). These data are supplemented by data from other ESP- and
DS/FF-controlled MWC's in the U.S., Japan, and Europe (Marion County,
Oregon; Tulsa, Oklahoma; Tsushima, Japan; Malmo, Sweden; and Munich,
Germany) that reported emission levels in the range of 11 to 30 mg/Nm3
(0.005 to 0.013 gr/dscf).
The LREL for modular, starved-air MWC's is 22.9 mg/Nm3
(0.012 gr/dscf) from Barron County, Wisconsin, an ESP-controlled
facility. The Barron County data were measured during a compliance test
conducted in July 1985. The facility consists of two Consumat
incinerators. The secondary chamber temperature was maintained above
816eC (1500°F). The emissions are controlled by a two-chamber, two-stage
ESP. The PM levels at Prince Edward Island, an MWC with no add-on control
device, ranged from 7.5 to 11 times higher than those at Barron County.
Data from only five facilities are available on controlled emissions
from RDF-fired facilities. The LREL of 220 mg/Nm3 (0.096 gr/dscf),
reported as an average of three test runs, was achieved at Niagara. This
facility has two combustors each controlled by an ESP. An emission level
of 89 mg/Nm3 (0.039 gr/dscf) was achieved at the Hamilton-Wentworth
facility in Ontario, Canada, during normal load, using only the lower
overfire air port. This condition was observed for one test run only.
2.1.1.2 Sulfur Dioxide. The Tsushima, Japan, facility achieved the
LREL for S02 emissions from a mass-burn incinerator on both an
uncontrolled and a controlled basis. The S02 concentration upstream of
the control system was 12.7 ppmdv corrected to 12 percent C02, and the
2-6
-------
controlled S02 concentration was 0.040 ppmdv. This reduction represents a
control efficiency of greater than 99.7 percent. The Tsushima facility
consists of two, mass-burn, refractory-wall units with no energy recovery
system. Emissions from the incinerator are controlled by a Teller dry
scrubbing system that includes an ARC Quench Reactor, a dry venturi, and
an FF. The APC Quench Reactor consists of a cyclone separator followed by
the quench reactor where a two-fluid nozzle Injects and atomizes the lime
slurry upwards into the flue -as flow. The stoichiometric ratio of lime
to the combination of HC1 and S02 at the inlet ranged from approximately 6
to 10 during testing. The reverse-air FF operated at an inlet temperature
of 230°C (440°F). The data reported for the composition of the waste feed
at Tsushima indicate that the average sulfur content of the waste is
0.33 percent on a wet basis. This is within the range of sulfur content
expected in municipal solid waste generated in North America. However,
the uncontrolled S02 concentrations are about an order of magnitude less
than those at any other tested facility, and the outlet concentrations are
more than two orders of magnitude less than any other reported values,
including those from other facilities using dry scrubbing.
The LREL of 41.5 ppmdv from a North American mass-burn unit was
reported at Marion County. This new Martin-designed facility consists of
two, mass-burn, water-wall combustor units. The air pollution control
systems are identical for both of the units. The flue gases leave the
boiler economizer and enter the bottom of the SO through a cyclonic inlet
that removes large particles. Slaked pebble lime is used as a reagent;
the lime is injected into the SD through an array of two-fluid nozzles.
The stoichiometric ratio of lime to HC1 is approximately 2.5. A dry
venturi is located immediately before the FF inlet gas plenum. Tesisorb
material is injected into the dry venturi. No temperature or excess-air
data were presented in the test report.
The LREL of 61.0 ppmdv for modular MWC's was achieved at Prince
Edward Island when the facility was operating under normal-load
conditions. This concentration was about 20 to 30 percent less than the
concentrations reported for the other operating conditions. An emission
level of <29.3 ppm was reported at North Little Rock, Arkansas; however,
data were not adequate to correct this value to a dry basis. Therefore,
it cannot be compared to values achieved at Prince Edward Island.
2-7
-------
Only three sets of test data are available for RDF-fired MWC's, and
all tests were conducted at facilities that had only ESP's for control.
Because ESP's provide virtually no S02 control, these data essentially
represent uncontrolled emissions. The LREL of 54.7 ppmdv was achieved at
the Hamilton-Wentworth, Canada, facility when it was operating under
normal load with both back overfire air ports in operation. The Hamilton-
Wentworth facility consists of two spreader-stoker boilers. Waste
processing includes shredding and magnetic separation. No data on waste
composition are available.
2.1.1.3 Oxides of Nitrogen. No test data have been collected from
MWC's with pollution control equipment designed to reduce NOX emissions.
Furthermore, the process data that have been compiled are not adequate to
assess the effects of combustion conditions on NOX emissions.
Consequently, all NOX concentrations essentially represent uncontrolled
emission levels. To the extent that data are available, combustion
temperatures and excess-air levels associated with the LREL's are
reported.
The LREL of 39 ppmdv for NOX from mass-burn units was achieved at
Unit 2 at McKay Bay, Florida. The McKay Bay facility has four refuse-
fired boilers, each controlled with an ESP. The other units at McKay Bay
had emission levels ranging from 100 to 106 ppmdv. The process data in
the report were not adequate to explain the lower NOX emission level for
Unit 2. The facility at Braintree, Massachusetts, had the next lowest
emission level of 153 ppmdv. The Braintree facility, which currently is
not operating, has three identical combustors with Riley Stoker grates and
boilers. The units operated with only underfire air and at a combustion
zone temperature of about 630°C (1160T). This temperature was the lowest
combustion zone temperature reported for mass-burn facilities for which
NOX emissions were measured.
The LREL of 255 ppmdv for NOX emissions from modular MWC units was
achieved at Red Wing, Minnesota. The Red Wing MSW incinerator is a twin-
unit facility manufactured by Consumat Systems. The emissions are
controlled by a single ESP. The average secondary chamber temperature was
1003°C (1838°F). North Little Rock reported an emission level of 240 ppm,
not corrected to dry conditions.
2-8
-------
The only RDF-f1red facility for which NOX data are available is
Albany, New York. The average NOX concentration at Albany was 263 ppmdv
during normal operation. The Albany facility is a single-chamber, water-
wall unit with a traveling grate. The unit operated at approximately
120 percent excess air. No data are available on the average combustion
zone temperature.
2.1.1.4 Carbon Monoxide. The combustor design and operating
conditions associated with CO data compiled to date are not adequate to
assess the effect of combustion controls on emissions. Consequently, all
emission concentrations of CO are reported as uncontrolled. However, to
the extent that data are available, combustion temperatures and excess-air
levels associated with the LREL's are reported.
The LREL of 18.5 ppmdv for CO from mass-burn MWC's was achieved at
the Marion County, Oregon, facility. This is a new facility of Martin
design. The CO concentrations achieved at Marion County are about the
same as those achieved at the facility with the second lowest
concentration (Baltimore RESCO, Maryland, January 1985; 19.6 ppmdv).
The LREL of 3.24 ppmdv for CO from modular MWC's occurred at the
Barron County, Wisconsin, facility. The CO concentrations were collected
with Orsat apparatus and analyzed with an Horiba nondispersive infrared CO
analyzer. The Red Wing facility reported a CO concentration of
<2.11 ppmdv, but the test report authors questioned the measurement due to
leakage problems. The CO levels achieved at Prince Edward Island were 10
to 20 times the LREL.
The LREL of 217 ppmdv for CO emissions from RDF-fired MWC's was
achieved at the Malmo, Sweden, facility. The concentrations at other RDF-
fired facilities were 1.6 to 7.3 times those at Malmo. The Malmo facility
employs Martin reverse-reciprocating grates 1n the combustion chamber and
Wagner-Biro two-stage boilers for heat transfer. The RDF processing
includes a ballistic separator, a magnetic separator, and a shredder.
During the RDF tests, the Malmo unit operated at a temperature of 820°C
(1500"F) and about 60 percent excess air. During comparable operation
burning unprocessed refuse at the Malmo facility, CO emissions were
measured to be 158 ppmdv.
2-9
-------
The lowest CO concentration achieved at a North American RDF facility
was 346 ppmdv at Albany. This facility is a single-chamber, water-wall
unit with a traveling grate. The unit operated at about 120 percent
excess air. No data are available on combustion zone temperature.
2.1.2 Acid Gases
2.1.2.1 Hydrogen Chloride. The LREL of 7.50 ppmdv for HC1 emissions
from mass-burn MWC's was achieved at the Tsushima facility. The Tsushima
facility is a Martin reverse-reciprocating grate, refractory furnace with
an SD/FF emission control system. The stoichlometric ratio of Hme to the
combination of HC1 and S02 at the inlet ranged from approximately 6 to
10 during testing. The LREL represents an HC1 control efficiency of
greater than 97 percent. A unit In Munich with an SD followed by an ESP
had a higher HC1 concentration (27.0 ppmdv) but achieved a comparable
control efficiency (95 percent). The lowest emission level at a North
American unit of 12 ppmdv was achieved at the Marion County facility. The
lowest reported concentration from any facility (3.99 ppmdv) was achieved
at Quebec. This concentration represents a 99.2 percent control
efficiency achieved by a pilot scale DI/FF that operated on a slipstream
from a full-scale MWC.
The LREL of 159 ppmdv for HC1 emissions from modular MWC's with no
control systems was achieved at the Dyersburg, Tennessee, facility. This
level was about 25 percent of the lowest level reported at Prince Edward
Island (627 ppmdv). No data are available on the chloride concentrations
in the waste feed, but the unit is reported to fire 30 percent industrial
waste and 70 percent municipal waste. For modular MWC's with an ESP, the
LREL of 457 ppmdv was achieved at the Barren County, Wisconsin,
facility. Barren County utilizes a two-chamber, two-stage ESP as its
control device.
For RDF-fired facilities, the LREL of 95.9 ppmdv for HC1 emissions
was achieved at Wright Patterson Air Force Base (WPAFB), Dayton, Ohio.
Because emissions are controlled only by an ESP, this concentration
represents an uncontrolled emission level. No data are available on the
chloride concentration in the waste feed to this system.
2.1.2.2 Hydrogen Fluoride. Data on HF emissions from MWC facilities
are quite limited. For mass-burn um'^s, the LREL of 0.620 ppmdv was
2-10
-------
achieved at Tsushima with an SD/FF control system. This concentration
represents a 48 percent control efficiency. While the emissions from a
unit using an O'Connor water-cooled rotary combustor with an ESP/WS at
Kure, Japan, were higher (0.935 ppmdv) than those at Tsushima, the control
system at Kure achieved a higher efficiency (68 percent). The WS at Kure
is of a turbulent contacting adsorber design. No data are available on
the composition of the scrubbing liquid. The lowest reported
concentration for a North American facility (1.30 ppmdv) was achieved at
Hampton in 1983. The Hampton facility is a single-chamber, waterwall unit
with inclined reciprocating grates. An ESP is the only air pollution
control device.
Tests for HF emissions were conducted on only two modular MWC's:
Prince Edward Island, Canada, and Dyersburg, Tennessee. The LREL of
1.10 ppmdv was achieved at the Dyersburg unit.
Only one HF emission test was conducted on an RDF-fired facility.
The LREL of 2.12 ppmdv was achieved at the Akron, Ohio, unit.
2.1.2.3 Sulfur Trioxide. The only S03 emission data that were
identified are for mass-burn facilities. The LREL of 3.96 ppmdv was
achieved with an ESP/WS control system at Kure, Japan. The control
efficiency was 29 percent. Comparable emission levels were achieved at
Tulsa (Unit 1, 10.1 ppmdv and Unit 2, 9.76 ppmdv).
2.1.3 Metals
Metals concentrations measured in MWC emissions are dependent on
process parameters and emission test protocols. Process variables that
are postulated to affect metals emissions include the concentration of
metals in the waste feed, the specific physical and chemical composition
of the metals in the feed, combustion zone temperatures, turbulence of the
combustion bed, and air pollution control device performance
characteristics. Emission test protocols vary widely for trace metal
constituents both in terms of collection methods for particle- and gas-
phase constituents and analytical techniques for constituent quantisation.
The paragraphs below identify LREL's for seven metals. These
concentrations have been extracted from test data that were collected
under a wide variety of operating conditions and with different test
protocols. To the degree possible, the operating conditions and test
2-11
-------
methods associated with the LREL's are described. Frequently, though,
data are not adequate to characterize operating conditions or test methods
completely. The LREL's are reported from documented tests that consisted
of a minimum of three separate test runs. The metals data from Wurzburg
and Tsushima were based on a single run, and the results are somewhat
uncertain because the particulate sample was quite small. Consequently,
those data were not Included as a part of the LREL determination.
2.1.3.1 Arsenic. For mass-burn MWC's, the LREL for As of
0.452 vg/Nm3 was achieved at Munich with a Oeutshe Babcock Anlagen (DBA)
dry scrubber reactor followed by a DBA ESP. The DBA dry scrubber reactor
consists of a cyclonic precipitator followed by a dual-fluid nozzle used
for spraying the lime slurry into the flue gas stream. The sampling train
consisted of EPA Method 5 (M5) on the front half and EPA Method 8 (MS) on
the back half. Analysis was by atomic absorption spectrophotometry (AA),
and the data represent both particle- and gas-phase emissions. Because no
inlet measurements were reported, the efficiency could not be
determined. The highest reported efficiency for As emissions from a mass-
burn unit with a full-scale pollution control system was 99.4 percent,
which was achieved by an ESP at Baltimore RESCO. The As emission
concentration at Baltimore was 6.29 vg/Nm . The Baltimore data were
collected by EPA Method 108 (M108), and the data represent both particle-
and gas-phase emissions. The highest reported overall efficiency of
greater than 99.98 percent was achieved during the low temperature (110°C)
tests on a pilot-scale WSH/DI/FF at Quebec. The outlet concentration
during these tests averaged 0.022 vg/Nm3. The emissions were collected in
an EPA M5 train modified to include aqua regia in the first two impingers;
As concentrations were determined by formation of the metal hydride with
analysis by flameless AA. These results include particle- and gas-phase
As. The Quebec incinerator is of single-chamber, waterwall design with
Von Roll grates.
For modular MWC's, the LREL for As of 6.09 vg/Nm3 was achieved at
normal operating temperatures with a standard operating cycle at Prince
Edward Island. This level ranged from 45 to 65 percent of the
concentrations reported for the other test conditions at Prince Edward
Island. Concentrations measured at the outlet of an ESP at Barren County
2-12
-------
(19.5 yg/Nm3) were three times the lowest values reported at Prince Edward
Island. Emissions at Barron County were collected by EPA M5, and As
concentration in the M5 filters and probe washes was determined by AA.
These results are particle-phase emissions only. Emissions at Prince
Edward Island were collected in an EPA M5 train that was modified by using
aqua regia in the first two impingers and potassium permanganate (KMnO^)
in the third impinger. Concentrations were determined by direct current
plasma emission spectrometry (DCPES). These results include both
particle- and gas-phase emissions.
For RDF-fired incinerators, the LREL for As of 19.1 yg/Nm was
achieved at Albany. The RDF processing included air and magnetic
separation and shredding. The incinerator is a single-chamber, waterwall
unit with a traveling grate stoker. It has a three-field ESP for
particulate control. Arsenic emissions were measured using EPA M108,
which captures both gas- and particle-phase emissions.
2.1.3.2 Beryllium For mass-burn MWC's, the LREL of 0.0005 ug/Nm3
for Be was achieved at the Munich facility. This facility is controlled
by a DBA SD reactor followed by an ESP. Because no inlet data were
reported, the control efficiency is not known. Tests were conducted using
a multiclone sampling system with analysis by AA. Consequently, the data
represent only particle-phase emissions. The LREL for a North American
facility was 0.003 yg/Nm3 achieved at the ESP outlet at Tulsa. The Tulsa
emissions were measured using EPA Method 104 (M104) and represent both
gas- and particle-phase emissions.
The LREL for Be emissions from modular MWC's was achieved at Red
Wing, Minnesota. At Red Wing, the average uncontrolled Be emission
concentration was 0.0961 vg/Nm3. The sample at Red Wing was collected in
an EPA M5 train and analyzed by inductively coupled argon plasma
spectrophotometry (ICAPS). The concentration reported at Dyersburg was
0.11 yg/Nm .
The LREL from RDF-fired MWC's was achieved at Albany. The average
concentration at the Albany facility was 20.6 yg/Nm . The data at Albany
were obtained by EPA M104 and represent both particle- and gas-phase
emssions.
2-13
-------
2.1.3.3 Cadmium. For mass-burn MWC's, the LREL for Cd emissions of
6.22 vg/Nm was achieved at Malmo. This concentration represents a
control efficiency of over 99 percent. Facility components at Malmo
include Martin reverse-reciprocating grates, Wagner-Biro two-stage
boilers, and a control system that includes a DI followed by an ESP and an
FF. Sampling was conducted using an EPA M5 train that was modified to
Include nitric acid (HN03) 1n the first two Impingers. Analysis was by
AA. This system measures both gas- and particle-phase cadmium. Another
facility with a relatively low concentration is Munich (8.57 vg/Nm3).
This concentration represents particle-phase emissions only. An emission
level of 0.482 ug/Nm3 was achieved during the 125°C tests on the pilot-
scale WSH/DI/FF at Quebec. This emission level represents a control
efficiency of greater than 99.96 percent. The emissions at Quebec were
measured using an EPA M5 train that was modified to include aqua regia in
the implngers. The system captures both gas- and particle-phase
emissions. Analysis was by DCPES.
For modular MWC's, the LREL of 20.9 yg/Nm3 for Cd was achieved at
Barron County, Wisconsin. The Barren County facility consists of two,
Consumat model ICS-1600 combustors, both controlled by a single ESP.
Emissions were collected by EPA M5, and Cd concentration in the M5 filters
and probe washes was determined by AA. These results are particle-phase
emissions only. The next lowest emission level reported for a modular
unit was 238 ug/Nm3 achieved at Oyersburg. The combustor at Dyersburg is
a Consumat unit with no add-on pollution control equipment. The emissions
were collected in an EPA M5 train (particle phase only) and analyzed by
X-ray fluorescence (XRF).
The LREL of 33.7 Wg/Nm3 for Cd emissions from RDF-fired MWC's was
obtained at the Albany incinerator described in the As discussion
(Section 2.1.3.1). The emissions were collected in an EPA M5 train that
was modified to include HN03 in the first two Implngers; analysis was by
AA. Consequently, these data represent both gas- and particle-phase
emissions.
2.1.3.4 Chromium. For mass-burn MWC's, the LREL for total Cr
emissions of 21.3 yg/Nm was achieved at the Baltimore RESCO facility
using a multiclone sampling system with analysis by AA. The Baltimore
2-14
-------
facility is of Von Roll design with an ESP for PM control. The highest
reported control efficiency for Cr emissions from full-scale systems was
99.0 percent at Baltimore. This result includes only particle-phase
emissions. A lower emission level of 0.229 was achieved at the Quebec
pilot-scale SD/FF during the 140°C test with no recycle. This emission
level represents a control efficiency of greater than 99.97 percent. (The
concentration of 0.483 yg/Nm3 achieved during the 110°C test on the
WSH/DI/FF at Quebec represents a control efficiency of greater than
99.98 percent.) The samples were collected 1n an EPA M5 train modified to
include aqua regia in the Impingers to collect gas- and particle-phase
emissions. Analysis was by DCPES.
The LREL of 3.57 yg/Nm for total Cr emissions from modular MWC's was
achieved at Barren County. The Barron County facility consists of two,
identical Consumat units in parallel connected to a single ESP. Sampling
was conducted with an EPA M5 train, and Cr concentration in the M5 filters
and probe washes was determined by AA. Consequently, these data represent
only particle-phase chromium.
For RDF-fired facilities, the LREL of 493 yg/Nm3 for total Cr was
achieved at the Akron incinerator. This concentration was less than
10 percent of that reported for Albany (6,600 yg/Nm ). The Akron
combustor is a semi suspension stoker-grate facility. Particulate matter
is controlled by an ESP. The RDF processing includes shredding, air
classification, and magnetic separation. The samples were collected in
the cyclone/filter sections of a source assessment sampling system (SASS)
train. Analysis was by XRF. This method captures only particle-phase
chromium emissions. The emissions measured at Albany were both particle
and gas phase.
2.1.3.5 Lead. For mass-burn MWC's, the LREL for Pb of 25.1 yg/Nm3
was achieved at the Marion County facility, which consists of two, mass-
burn, waterwall combustor units. Emissions were collected using
EPA M12. Each combustor is controlled by an SD with a dry venturi
followed by a reverse-air FF. An emission level of 1.23 yg/Nm3 was
achieved at the 140CC tests on the pilot-scale SD/FF at Quebec. This
concentration represents a control efficiency of greater than
99.99 percent. Concentrations during the other tests at Quebec range from
2-15
-------
2.89 to 6.53 ug/Nm3. Emissions were collected 1n an EPA MS train modified
to include aqua regia in the impingers and analyzed by DCPES to determine
both gas- and particle-phase emissions. The highest reported control
efficiency was achieved at Malmo (99.1 percent). The reported
concentration associated with this efficiency was 131 vg/Nm3. The Malmo
tests measured both particle- and gas-phase emissions.
The LREL of 237 yg/Nm3 for Pb emissions from modular MWC's was
measured at the ESP outlet at Barron County. Samples were collected in
the front half of an EPA M5 train. Analysis was by AA. These results are
particle-phase emissions only. Emissions at Dyersburg and Prince Edward
Island were about 60 times higher than those at Barron County.
The Albany MWC achieved the LREL of 973 vg/Nm3 for Pb emissions from
an RDF-fired MWC. Both particle- and gas-phase samples were collected in
an EPA M5 train that was modified to include HN03 1n the first two
impingers and were analyzed by AA. The Pb emissions at Albany were lower
than those at Akron by a factor of about 10.
2.1.3.6 Mercury. Data on Hg emissions from mass-burn MWC's are more
limited than data on other metal species except Be. The LREL of
8.69 ug/Nm3 was measured at Kure at the inlet location of the control
device using a unidentified method. The next lowest emission level of
10.4 ug/Nm3 was achieved during the 140°C tests of the pilot-scale SD/FF
at Quebec. This concentration represents a control efficiency of
94.6 percent. The highest efficiency achieved at Quebec was 97.4 percent
(at an outlet concentration of 13.7 vg/Nm3) during the 125°C WSH/DI/FF
tests. Greater than 90 percent control was achieved at all test
conditions at Quebec except the 200°C WSH/OI/FF tests. During the 200°C
tests, higher concentrations were measured at the outlet than at the
inlet. Emissions were collected at Quebec using an EPA M5 train modified
to Include KMn04 in the impingers. Analysis was by AA. Other reported
concentrations include 40.0 ug/Nm3 at Braintree and 187 ug/Nm3 at Malmo.
For all facilities, samples were collected in Impinger solutions with
analysis by AA except for the unidentified method used at Kure.
For modular MWC's, the LREL of 130 ug/Nm3 for Hg was achieved at
Dyersburg. The concentrations reported for Prince Edward Island were 4.4
to 8.5 times those reported at Dyersburg. The sample at Dyersburg was
2-16
-------
collected in SASS train Impingers containing HN03 and KMnO^ and was
analyzed by AA.
For RDF-fired MWC's, the LREL of 170 ug/Nm3 for Hg was achieved at
the Inlet to the control device at Malmo. The samples were collected in
an Impinger train containing HN03 and KMnO,, and were analyzed by AA.
Comparable emission concentrations (184 yg/Nm ) were achieved at the ESP
outlet at the Akron facility. The samples were collected 1n SASS train
impinger solutions comparable to those used at Malmo.
2.1.3.7 Nickel. Data are quite limited on Ni emissions from
mass-burn MWC's. The LREL of 227 vg/Nm3 was achieved at Hampton in
1982. The Hampton facility consists of two, mass-fired, water-wall
incinerator-boilers. The facility is equipped with an ESP. Emissions
were obtained in the front half of a SASS train with analysis by XRF and
represent particle-phase only. The lowest reported level for Quebec of
0.480 vg/Nm3 was achieved during the 125°C WSH/DI/FF test. This
concentration represents a control efficiency of greater than
99.97 percent. The data from Quebec include both gas- and particle-phase
emissions.
The LREL of <1.92 yg/Nm3, which is below the detection limit, for Ni
emissions from modular MWC's was achieved at Red Wing, Minnesota. The Red
Wing facility is a Consumat unit with an ESP. Sampling was done with an
EPA M5 sampling train. Analysis was by ICAPS. The results include both
gas- and particle-phase emissions. The level reported at Dyersburg was
about 40 times the level measured at Red Wing. The samples at Dyersburg
were collected in an EPA M5 train (front half only) and were analyzed by
XRF. Consequently, the data represent only particle-phase emissions.
For RDF-fired MWC's, the LREL for Ni of 128 Ug/Nm3 was achieved at
Akron at the outlet of the ESP. This concentration was a factor of
28 below the concentration reported for Albany. The sample was collected
in an EPA M5 train (front half only) and was analyzed by XRF.
2.1.4 Organics
Table 2-3 presents ranges of emissions for 2,3,7,8-TCDD;
2,3,7,8-TCDF; TCDO; TCDF; and the summation of the tetra- through octa-
homolog groups. To date, only limited data have been collected on control
device efficiencies for PCDD and PCDF, so only outlet concentrations are
2-17
-------
reported for most tests. Generally, for each class of MWC, the same
facility or the same vendor design had the LREL for each of the four
pollutant classes. For commercial-scale, mass-burn units, Marion County
had the LREL's for five of the six PCDD/PCDF categories Identified
above. The Wurzburg facility, another Martin-design MWC, had the LREL for
2,3,7,8-TCDD. For modular MWC's, the LREL was achieved at Prince Edward
Island operating under high secondary combustion temperatures for four of
the six categories. Red Wing achieved the LREL for 2,3,7,8-TCDD and
2,3,7,8-TCDF. For RDF-fired facilities, the LREL's for TCDD, TCDF, PCDD,
and PCDF were achieved at WPAFB. Albany achieved the LREL for 2,3,7,8-
TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF. Added data on PCOD/PCDF control efficiencies are
expected in the near future from MWC facilities in Massachusetts and New
York. The paragraphs below briefly describe these facilities, identify
the organic test methods used at these facilities, and present the LREL's.
The Marion County and Wurzburg facilities are new incinerators of
Martin design with reverse-reciprocating grates. Emissions are controlled
by an SO/FF at Marion County and a WSH/DI/FF at Wurzburg. The PCDD and
PCDF emissions at both units were collected in an EPA modified Method 5
(MM5) train as specified by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
(ASME) draft PCDD/PCDF protocol.1 The LREL's achieved at Marion County
are 0.168 for 2,3,7,8-TCDF, 0.195 for TCDD, 0.322 for TCDF, 1.13 for PCDD,
and 0.423 for PCDF, all expressed in units of ng/Nm . The LREL of
0.018 ng/Nm3 for 2,3,7,8-TCDD was achieved at Wurzburg. Similar levels
for PCDD and PCDF emissions were achieved during WSH/DI/FF and SD/FF tests
at Quebec. Quebec reports a control efficiency of greater than
99.9 percent for PCDD and PCDF emissions. The combustor at Quebec was a
single-chamber, water-wall unit with Von Roll grates. The control device
was a pilot-scale Flakt system that operated on a slipstream from the
combustor. The Quebec tests also were conducted using the draft ASME
protocol. The Wurzburg facility with an SD/FF achieved emission levels of
22.1 ng/Nm3 for PCDD and 27.8 ng/Nm3 for PCDF. No control efficiency data
are available for either Wurzburg or Marion County.
The Prince Edward Island facility consists of two-chamber Consumat
combustion systems with no add-on pollution control systems. During the
high secondary temperature tests, the facility operated with a primary
2-18
-------
combustion chamber temperature of 700°C (1300°F) and a secondary
combustion chamber temperature of 1080°C (1970°F). The average CO
concentration during those tests was 33 ppmdv, and the excess-air level
was about 80 percent. The tests were conducted using the MM5 train as
specified by the ASME draft PCDD protocol. The LREL's are 1.02 ng/Nm3 for
TCDD, 12.2 ng/Nm3 for TCDF, 63.1 ng/Nm3 for PCDD, and 96.6 ng/Nm3 for
PCDF. The emission measurements for PCDD/PCDF were collected in the
cyclone, filter, and XAD-2 resin catch of an MM5 train and analyzed by
high resolution gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy (HRGC/MS). The
LREL's for 2,3,7,8-TCDD (<0.297 ng/Nm3) and 2,3,7,8-TCDF (68.9 ng/Nm3)
were achieved at Red Wing, Minnesota. Red Wing consists of two Consumat
incinerators, both controlled by a single ESP. The MM5 train was used to
measure PCDD and PCDF. Analysis was by gas chromatography/mass
spectroscopy (GC/MS).
The WPAFB facility is a spreader-stoker waterwall boiler.
Particulate emissions are controlled by a CYC/ESP system. No operating
data are available for the facility. Sampling was conducted with an EPA
MM5 train with XAD-2 resin cartridge between the second and third
impingers. Organic extraction was by toluene and methane with analysis by
GC/MS. The LREL's are 3.47 ng/Nm3 for TCDD, 31.7 ng/Nm3 for TCDF,
53.7 ng/Nm3 for PCDD, and 135 ng/Nm3 for PCDF. The Albany incinerator is
a single-chamber, water-wall unit with a traveling-grate stoker. Particle-
phase emissions are controlled by a three-field ESP. No data are
available on operating conditions during the test. Sampling and analysis
were conducted by the ASME draft protocol. The LREL's for 2,3,7,8-TCDD
and 2,3,7,8-TCDF are 0.522 ng/Nm3 and 2.69 ng/Nm3, respectively.
2.1.5 Supplementary Emission Data
Supplementary data on PCDD, PCDF, and metals emissions are available
for 24 facilities and referenced as items 31 through 34 and 37 in
Appendix A. These data are presented in Tables 7-56 through 7-58.
Because no documentation of incinerator operations or test methodologies
has been obtained, these data are cons.dered to be less reliable than the
data reported above. Given these constraints, the LREL's for PCDD and
PCDF based on the supplementary data are 0.001 ng/Nm for TCDD,
0.002 ng/Nm3 for TCDF, 0.013 ng/Nm3 for PCDD, and 0.020 ng/Nm3 for PCDF.
2-19
-------
All of these emission levels were obtained from 1982 tests at a Montreal,
Canada, mass-burn facility with an ESP for particulate control. The
author(s) 1n Reference 2 consider the Montreal results to be estimates
because (1) the PCDD results are quite low compared to the other
incinerators, (2) they were unable to draw conclusions to explain the
variations and low levels 1n the results, and (3) the test method was
still under development and has since been improved.
Other facilities also reported emission levels lower than the LREL's
obtained from the documented test reports. Facilities that reported TCDD
concentrations of less than 1.6 ng/Nm are Malmo (0.15 ng/Nm ), Iserlohn
(1.03 ng/Nm3), Linkoping (0.45 ng/Nm3), and Milan II (0.1 ng/Nm3). No
data are available on C02 concentrations for these facilities so the
results have not been corrected to 12 percent C02. Consequently, the
results are likely to be biased low relative to the documented data.
Data are quite limited on concentrations of homologs other than
TCDD. No supplementary data other than those at Montreal had PCDD
emissions less than the 18.9 ng/Nm reported at Tulsa. The lowest
concentration reported other than Montreal was 48.1 ng/Nm at Quebec in
1981.
Other than Montreal, three facilities—Malmo (2 ng/Nm3), Schio
(6.6 ng/Nm3), and Linkoping (0.6 ng/Nm3)—reported TCDF emission
concentrations less than the 6.9 ng/Nm reported at Wurzburg. Again,
these values may be biased low as they have not been corrected to
12 percent C02. Except for Montreal, none of the concentrations of PCDF
reported in the supplementary data are lower than the 19.0 ng/Nm reported
at Tulsa. The lowest reported value of 97 ng/Nm (not corrected) was
achieved at Zurich/Josephstrasse.
Although the facility at Schio (Vicenza, Italy) did not achieve the
LREL's for TCDD and TCDF emissions, the test data do supply control
efficiencies for the alkaline water shower/ESP. The tests at Schio were
conducted using processed and unprocessed waste. The TCDD concentrations
of 8.9 ng/Nm3 for processed waste and 1.8 ng/Nm3 for unprocessed wastes
represented control efficiencies of 61.7 and 90.6 percent, respectively.
Similarly, the TCDF concentrations of 23.7 ng/Nm3 for processed waste and
6.6 ng/Nm3 for unprocessed waste represented control efficiencies of 82.6
and 82.4 percent, respectively.
2-20
-------
2.2 PRELIMINARY ANALYSES OF EMISSION DATA
Although the primary objectives of this study are to collect data on
MWC emissions and to compile those data in a format that will allow
comparison of the data from different tests, some preliminary analyses of
the data also were conducted. These preliminary analyses focus on
describing relationships among the test data rather than on developing
analytical or empirical models to explain emissions or emission control.
The analyses focus on two pollutant groups—PCDD/PCDF and metals—and
are directed toward two objectives. The first 1s to develop a better
understanding of PCDD and PCDF emissions, particularly with respect to the
relationship of mass emissions to 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents and to
the distribution of PCDD and PCDF emissions among specific homologs and
isomers. The second objective is to describe the performance of control
devices for specific metals relative to the performance of those control
devices for particulate matter.
The nature of the data presented in this volume limits the analyses
that can be performed and the confidence that can be placed in the results
that were obtained. The test reports that contained the data presented
herein were reviewed in detail, and all the data presented were deemed to
be valid and of acceptable quality. However, the characteristics of the
combustion process and the developmental nature of the sampling and
analysis procedures result in trace pollutant emission measurements and
associated process measurements that are difficult to compare and analyze
parametrically. Earlier studies of MWC emissions also have noted the
problems of comparing data from different tests.**"6 The four major
sources of uncertainty discussed below have a confounding influence on the
analyses of MWC emission data.
First, because no reference test method is available for PCDD and
PCDF and because reference methods are available for only some metals, the
test methods used to collect the data varied from site-to-site. For
metals, the major differences are the sample collection medium and the
analytical technique. Although all methods used show good precision, data
are not adequate to assess the relative accuracy of the methods.
Consequently, the results from different tests may not be comparable. For
PCDD and PCDF measurements, the major differences in the methods are the
2-21
-------
use of different solvents for extraction, subjection of the extracts to
different cleanup techniques, the use of varied spiking techniques to
determine PCDO/PCDF recovery efficiencies, and implementation of different
data reduction methods to account for these recovery efficiencies in
calculating final results. Because no international consensus has been
reached on preferred techniques, no corrections to the data were made to
account for differences in the methods. The values included in this
report are those presented in the original references. The variability 1n
the data introduced by the different methods results in some uncertainty
1n the results from the data analyses.
Second, for test results that were obtained with the same test
methods, the inherent imprecision of the analytical methods introduces
uncertainty into the data analysis. The analytical methods used for PCDD
and PCDF quantitation generally produce results that have a precision of
±30 percent (as measured by relative standard deviation) for relatively
clean samples. In some cases, the methods are less precise. This
imprecision makes it difficult to establish parametric relationships
between PCDD and PCDF emissions and other combustion variables.
Third, both metals and PCDD and PCDF are trace contaminants in the
stack gas stream. As such, their generation is expected to exhibit
significant spatial and temporal variability within the incinerator.
However, the measurement methods that are available produce long-term
average emission rates, and process monitoring techniques typically do not
define the microscale variations throughout the facility. Because these
methods mask the variability of the emissions, the dependence of emissions
on short-term changes in the process is difficult to assess.
Finally, both metals and organics emissions are influenced by a large
number of waste feed and process operating characteristics. Factors that
have been hypothesized as influencing PCDD/PCDF emission characteristics
include waste feed characteristics such as chlorine content, moisture
content, lignin content, and specific metals content and operating
parameters such as temperatures (primary, secondary, grate, boiler,
control device), localized oxygen (02) and moisture concentrations, fly
ash carbon and metals content, concentration of HC1 in the stack gas, and
residence time of particle- and gas-phase pollutants in different segments
2-22
-------
of the process. Because the number of data points 1s stni limited and
because, for most tests, many of these variables either were not measured
or were obtained with monitors that were not rigorously calibrated, the
data base 1s not adequate to establish parametric relationships between
trace contaminant emissions and process operating conditions.
The results of the analyses presented in the subsections below should
be interpreted in light of the uncertainties described above. Those
subsections present descriptive statistics of the trace contaminant
emissions and some preliminary results from bivarlate analytical
techniques. Given these limited analyses, the results are considered to
be indicators of potential areas of further study. They should not be
used to establish definitive conclusions regarding trace contaminant
emissions.
2.2.1 PCDD/PCDF Analyses
Analyses of the PCDD/PCDF data were conducted to describe the
variation in the PCDD/PCDF emissions and to provide a preliminary
assessment of some of the factors that might relate to those variations.
The analyses focused on three areas. First, estimates of PCDD/PCDF
emissions in units of 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents were developed, and
these toxic equivalent measures were compared to mass emission measures.
Second, PCDD/PCDF emission rates (expressed as stack gas concentration of
total PCDD/PCDF) were compared to key process or stack gas parameters.
Finally, the distributions of PCDD and PCDF among the different homolog or
isomer groups were examined.
Estimates of PCDD/PCDF emissions as measured by 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic
equivalents were calculated using the methods described by Mukerjee and
Cleverly.7 Calculations were performed on both a homolog-specific and an
isomer-specific basis. The results are shown in Table 2-4.
Linear regression analyses were used to compare the 2,3,7,8-TCDD
toxic equivalents (homolog based) to PCDD/PCDF concentrations and to TCDD
concentrations. Separate analyses were performed for each type of MWC.
The results of the analysis indicated that the toxic equivalents are
closely related to both TCDD (correlation coefficients ranged from 0.972
to 0.997) and PCDD/PCDF (correlation coefficients ranged from 0.927 to
0.998). These results indicate that mass emission measures based on
2-23
-------
TABLE 2-4. SUMMARY OF PCDD AND PCDF EMISSIONS FROM MWC's
Emissions, nq/Nm3 at
Facility
Chicago NWC
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
Tulsa
North Anoover
Saugus
Ufflea (fal 1)
Umea (spring)
Marion County
Quebec (SD)d
Quebec (01)
Wurzburg
Phi ladelphia (NW1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
Cattaraugus®
Redw i ng
Prince Edward Island
Albany
Hami Iton-Wentworth
Wright Patterson
Test condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Low temperature
Normal
Normal
110
125
HO
200
UO
140 & R
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
High
Low
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back, low front
H/None
H/Low back
Normal
PCDO/PCDF
258
16,800
9,630
25,500
34.4
335
580
501
745
492
1.55
2.65
BO
1.03
8.04
BO
1.33
50.0
11,300
5,760
258
3,310
253
268
160
224
578
9,230
10,900
12,000
21,500
14,100
11,500
189
TCOO
8.39
800
214
1,160
1.61
8.38
31.9
51.6
64.8
<12
0.195
BO
BO
BO
BO
BO
0.0639
1.91
378
365
8.1
43.7
3.05
5.09
1.02
3.05
19.9
590
560
570
3,500
1,200
700
3.47
12 percent C0,a
2,3
toxic
Homo log
based
22.1
2,040
1,480
3,490
4.40
24.9
80.5
107
141
52.1
0.263
0.00508
80
0.00103
0.124
BO
0.0995
5.26
1,280
1,110
31.7
284
16.0
21.0
8.91
11.6
118
1,480
1,540
1,660
5,960
2,640
1,760
8.47
,7,8-TCDO
equivalents
Isomer
based
0.75
4.7
6.8
7.2
7.3
3.8
0.11
0.39
140
101
34
?BO * Below detection limit.
^"est conditions defined in Section 7.
cNo PeCOO or PeCDF measured. Values for PCDO/PCDF and 2,3,7,8-TCOO toxic equivalents biased
low.
Values below detection limit assumed to be zero for toxic equivalents calculations.
6Values not corrected to 12 percent CO..
2-24
-------
either TCDO concentration or PCDD/PCDF concentration can be used as
surrogates for toxic equivalency measures in analyses of PCDD and PCDF
emissions.
The contribution of specific isomers to the 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic
equivalent measure based on isomer-specific calculations also were
examined. The results are tabulated 1n part in Table 2-5. These data
indicate that the laterally substituted tetra and penta isomers of PCDD
and PCDF account for 70 to 98 percent of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalent
emissions. The high level of contribution from these Isomers is not
surprising considering the heavy weight they received 1n the toxic
^uivalency method. The data from these tests were reviewed for possible
factors that might account for the variation in the contribution of the
specific isomers, but no apparent trends related to combustor parameters
or control techniques were identified.
Since total PCDD/PCDF concentrations were demonstrated to be a
reasonable surrogate for 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalent emissions, the
available data on total PCDD/PCDF concentrations were evaluated to assess
relationships between PCDD and PCDF emissions and process or stack gas
parameters. Factors that have been postulated by researchers as being
related to PCDD and PCDF emissions are stack gas CO concentration, stack
gas PM concentration, combustion gas moisture content, excess air (as
measured by stack gas 02 concentration), air distribution, temperatures at
different locations in the system, and waste feed characteristics (e.g.,
heating value, chloride content, moisture content, plastics fraction).
The information in the data base was not sufficient to assess the
relationship of emissions to combustion gas moisture content, air
distribution, or waste characteristics. Preliminary analyses were
conducted for the other variables.
The relationships of PCDD and PCDF emissions to stack gas CO, 02, and
PM concentrations were examined by using linear regression and rank order
correlation techniques. Linear regression analysis measures the strength
of the linear interdependence of the variables of Interest while rank
order correlation analysis is a nonparametrlc measure of the strength of
the monotonic relationship between the variables of Interest. Separate
analyses were conducted for each of the three types of MWC's.
2-25
-------
TABLE 2-5. SUMMARY OF 2,3,7,8-TCDD TOXIC EQUIVALENT CONTRIBUTION FOR 2,3,7,8-TETRA AND -PENTA ISOMERS
ro
i
ro
cr>
Laterally
Fraction of the 2,3,7,8 TCDD toxic equivalent emissions contributed by specific Isomer class
substituted
congener Peeksklll
TCDD
PeCDD
TCDF
PeCDF
Total
0.17
0.23
0.13
0.39
0.92
Onelda
0.015
0.16
0.062
0.46
0.70
Occidental
0.15
0.39
0.041
0.23
0.81
Marlon
County
0.75
0.042
0.16
0.023
0.98
Philadelphia
Wurzburg
0.06
0.35
0.089
0.22
0.72
Tulsa
0.14
0.14
0.42
0.20
0.90
NW1
0.10
0.30
0.043
0.29
0.73
NW2
0.14
0.41
0.037
0.21
0.80
-------
The results of the analyses showed no significant relationship
between either 02 or PM and PCDD and PCDF emissions. Further, the
correlation coefficients for the three MWC types for CO and PCDD/PCDF
concentrations were not statistically significant. However, the results
of the rank order correlation analyses showed a significant relationship
between CO and PCDD/PCDF concentrations for mass-burn MWC's and the
combined group of MWC's. The results shown in Table 2-6 indicate that CO
concentrations and PCDD/PCDF concentrations are positively related. The
relationship is shown graphically in Figure 2-1. The graph and the
statistical analyses indicate that in general, high PCDD/PCDF
concentrations are associated with high CO concentrations and low
PCDD/PCDF concentrations are associated with low CO concentrations.
However, the data are not adequate to establish a functional relationship
between the variables.
The role of combustor system temperature on the formation and
destruction of PCDD and PCDF has been the subject of extensive research.
Dellinger reported that, in a laboratory setting, PCDD, PCDF, and most
precursors are decomposed in the presence of 02 at temperatures above
approximately 850°C.8 Consequently, most trace organic contaminants
should be destroyed if high temperatures are achieved in the combustion
zone. However, recent studies by Vogg and Hagenmaier indicate that PCDD
and PCDF can form on fly ash at temperatures in the range of 2508C to
350°C.6'9 These results suggest that PCDD and PCDF could form in lower
temperature regions of the MWC system downstream from the combustion
chamber.
In light of these findings, temperature measures are needed from
different components of the MWC system (grate, primary chamber, secondary
chamber, boiler inlet and outlet, and control device inlet and outlet) to
assess the relationship of PCDD and PCDF emissions to temperature. A
review of the data base indicated that temperature measurements were not
sufficiently comparable to allow analysis of the temperature and PCDD/PCDF
relationships among most sites. However, the data from multiple
conditions at two sites, Prince Edward Island and Hamilton-Wentworth, were
sufficient to allow preliminary analyses.
2-27
-------
TABLE 2-6. RANK ORDER CORRELATION RESULTS FOR CO vs. PCDD/PCDF
Incinerator type No. of tests r
s
Mass burn 14 0.52a
Modular 5 0.040
ROF fired 7 0.07
Total 25 0.69b
r- = Spearman's rank order correlation coefficient.
aA positive relationship is indicated at the 0.05 level of
.significance.
DA positive relationship is indicated at the 0.001 level of
significance.
2-28
-------
10,000
~ '00°
E
2
«S 100
Q
ft 10
1.0
0.1
o o
c*
o
1
• Moss Burn/ESP
• Mass Burn/Dry Scrubber
A Modular
O RDF-Fired
I
10
100 1000
Average CO Concentration (ppm)
Figure 2-1. Comparison of PCDD/PCDF concentrations
to average CO concentrations.
2-29
-------
Parametric and nonparametrlc correlation analyses were used to
compare PCDD and PCDF emissions to primary chamber, secondary chamber, and
stack temperatures at Hamilton-Wentworth. Emissions also were compared to
temperature differences between the measurement points. No significant
relationships were identified. On the other hand, total PCDD/PCDF
concentrations at Prince Edward Island were found to be correlated
inversely with secondary chamber temperatures.
The distribution of PCDD and PCDF emissions among the different
homolog groups 1s important because it has an impact on the risk
associated with the emissions. The preliminary analyses of these
distributions included review of the plots of the distributions to
Identify patterns in the data and to identify those distributions that
were markedly different from the patterns. (The plots for the mass-burn
systems are shown in Figures 2-2 through 2-7 as examples.) Test reports
then were reviewed to identify potential reasons for the differences.
The findings related to the PCDD/PCDF distributions are summarized in
Table 2-7. The review of the test reports yielded little information that
could help explain the differences in the homolog distributions.
Generally, the process data presented 1n the reports were not adequate to
allow detailed site-to-site comparison of operations. Because process
data were limited, the comparison of the sites focused on stack gas
parameters (moisture, temperature, HC1 concentrations, and 02
concentrations) and on possible differences in the test methods. Almost
all of the facilities that differed from the norm were tested with the
draft ASME protocol or comparable methods, so differences in the homolog
distributions cannot be explained by tes^ method variations. Also, few
differences were found in the stack gas parameters among sites.
Consequently, those parameters did not lend much Insight into possible
reasons for the differences in distributions. The limited findings from
the review are summarized below.
Little information was found that could help explain the differences
in either PCDD or PCDF distributions for mass-burn incinerators. However,
two observations may be of Interest. The distributions of PCDD at
Wurzburg and Tulsa (skewed toward higher chlorinated homologs) are
significantly different than the distribution at Marion County (abnormally
2-30
-------
100
(N
o
u
0?
CM
CO
£
\ '°
O>
c
J
1
V
2
o
u
1.0
0.
-
Tulsa
—
N.
Andover
—
Saugus
Um«a-Fall
Normal
mtm
*••
^•i
Umeo-Fall
LowT
MB
^
Umea
Spring
•M
w^
Chicago NW
Vertical bars from left to right represent tetra through octa homologs,
respectively. No penta homolog data were reported for Chicago NW.
Figure 2-2. PCDD homolog distributions—mass burn with ESP control.
2-31
-------
10
c, 1.0
o
(N
n
E
Z
\
O)
7 o.i
o
g
?
V
u
c
o
O
0.01
n nr\t
r-
-
Marion
County
—
_ _
^^^
—
—
•••
I
Quebec Quebec Wurzburg
SD-200 DI-UO-fR
Vertical bars from left to right represent tetra through octa homologs
respectively. Blanks indicate that the homolog concentration was '
below the detection limit.
Figure 2-3. PCOD homolog distributions—mass-burn MWC's
with DS/FF controls.
2-32
-------
CN
o
5?
CN
E
Z
O)
o
c
41
2
o
(J
1000
100
10
Hampton Hampton Hampton Philadelphia Philadelphia
1981 1983 1984 NW1 NW2
Vertical bars from left to right represent tetra through octa homologs,
respectively. Blanks indicate that the homolog concentration was
below the detection limit.
Figure 2-4. PCDD homolog distributions—mass-burn
MWC's with high emissions.
2-33
-------
100
CM
u
CM
rT
E
z
c
|
c
u
c
0
U
1.0
.
•mi
••
••i
•••
f
—
-
1
•••
C.
-I 1
1
!_..
IHH
•••
C»
1]
pVH
••
1
l_
(
k;/
•••
•no
^^
o !
t
i
i
i
HHf
sJW
Tulsa
Spring
Vertical bars from left to right represent tetra through octa homologs,
respectively. No penta homolog data were reported for Chicago NW.
Figure 2-5. PCDF homolog distribution—mass-burn
MWC's with ESP controls.
2-34
-------
10
-•*
CN
O
0?
PM
•5
e
\
en
c, i.o
c.
o
Concentre
0.1
0.0
1 — , — • • • — —
1
Marion
County
-
^•M
i—
_
^^
Quebec Quebec * Wurzburg
SD-200 Ol-UO+R
Vertical bars from left to right represent tetra through octa homologs,
respectively. Blanks indicate that the homolog concentration was
below the detection limit.
Figure 2-6. PCDF homolog distribution—mass-burn
MWC's with DS/FF controls.
2-35
-------
o
u
£
z
a>
o
c
o
U
1000
100
10
Hampton " Hampton * Hampton * Philadelphia" Philadelphia
1981 1983 1984 NW1 NW2
Vertical bars from left to right represent tetra through octa homologs,
respectively. Blanks Indicate that the homolog concentration was
below the detection limit.
Figure 2-7. PCDF homolog distributions—mass-burn
MWC's with high emissions.
2-36
-------
TABLE 2-7. PRELIMINARY FINDINGS RELATED TO HOMOLOG DISTRIBUTIONS
PCDD
- Mass burn
— Generally symmetric with highest levels 1n penta, hexa, or
hepta homologs
— Saugus almost uniform
— Tulsa, Umea (spring), Wurzburg skewed to high Cl
— Marlon County, Umea (fall) have abnormally high tetra
- Modular
— Generally skewed to high Cl
— Red W1ng has low OCDO
- RDF
~ Generally symmetric with some tests fairly uniform
— Three of the Hamllton-Wentworth tests skewed to low Cl
PCDF
- Mass burn
— Generally skewed to lower Cl
— Umea (spring) skewed to higher Cl
~ Quebec (controlled) skewed to high Cl but (uncontrolled) to low
Cl
— N. Andover uniform
- Modular
— Generally symmetric
— Cattaraugus skewed to low Cl
- RDF
— Generally skewed toward low Cl
— WPAFB has high tetra but low penta and hexa homologs
2-37
-------
high TCDD). In contrast to the differences in homolog distributions, the
three facilities are quite similar with respect to design and operation.
All three facilities are Martin systems with state-of-the-art computerized
controls. The major difference in the systems is that Wurzburg and Marion
County have acid gas controls and Tulsa has only an ESP. In addition to
the similarity of design, the systems were tested with similar test
methods, and the stack gas characteristics are quite similar. The
differences in emission characteristics from these three sources that
appear to be quite similar in both design and operating conditions
highlight the difficulties in comparing PCOD and PCDF emissions from site-
to- site.
The differences in the inlet and outlet PCDF distributions at Quebec
City also are of interest. The inlet distribution is similar to the
distributions at other MWC's and exhibits higher concentrations of the
lower chlorinated homologs while the outlet has higher concentrations of
the more highly chlorinated homologs. These data suggest that the pilot-
scale DS/FF systems at Quebec City were more effective in controlling less
chlorinated homologs. However, since no inlet/outlet data are available
for full-scale dry scrubbing systems, this finding shouJd not be
generalized to other dry scrubbing systems.
The review of the test reports for the modular and RDF-fired
facilities did not yield any information that could explain the
differences in either PCDD or PCDF distributions. All three modular
systems are of Consumat design and operate with comparable stack gas
characteristics. The three test series at Hamilton-Wentworth that were
skewed to the lower chlorinated PCDD homologs did not have distinctly
different stack gas characteristics from the other four test series.
2.2.2 Metals Analyses
Metals emissions from MWC's obviously depend on the metals content of
the waste feed. Unless detailed, reliable information on the waste feed
composition is available, the site-to-site variation in metals emissions
cannot be evaluated. However, even if waste feed data are not available,
the relative performance of add-on control devices can be evaluated if
inlet/outlet emission data are collected. The paragraphs below describe
the performance data that are included in the data base.
2-38
-------
Data on control device performance for seven metals are summarized 1n
Table 2-8. These data were collected from five facilities. Baltimore has
a four-field ESP that has demonstrated the highest level of PM control on
an MWC 1n North America. Bralntree was an older MWC that 1s now shut
down. The ESP was reported to have operating problems, and the overall PM
efficiency of this system of 76 percent certainly Indicates that the ESP
was substandard. The Tsushima facility has a quench reactor/dry
ventur1/FF control system. The Tuscaloosa facility has an ESP that was 1n
poor operating condition at the time of the test. Malmo has a OS followed
by an ESP and FF 1n sequence.
Since two of the facilities have reportedly substandard control
systems, the data presented In Table 2-8 are quite limited, and no
conclusions about the relative effectiveness of metals control can be
developed. However, three observations may be of Interest. These
observations are based on the relative enrichment or depletion of metals
emissions 1n comparison to partlculate matter emissions across a control
device. Metals are said to be enriched 1n the partlculate stream when the
ratio of metals emissions to partlculate matter emissions 1s greater at
the control device outlet than at the control device Inlet. They are said
to be depleted when the ratio at the outlet 1s lower than the ratio at the
inlet.
First, the enrichment of both As and Cr 1n the outlet partlculate at
Baltimore 1s much higher than at any of the other facilities. Since
Baltimore does have an extremely high PM collection efficiency
(99.9 percent), the data Indicate that these metals, particularly As, are
likely to be concentrated 1n the fine particle fraction of MWC PM
emissions. Second, the Cd enrichment at Tsushima 1s much greater than
that at Malmo. This difference may be influenced by the higher
temperature at the Inlet to the control system at Tsushima. Finally, the
Hg enrichment at Malmo and Tsushima suggests that even though dry
scrubbing systems provide some level of Hg control, significant quantities
pass through the system 1n the gas phase or the fine particle fraction.
2-39
-------
TABLE 2-8. SUMMARY OF METALS ENRICHMENT/DEPLETION
Metals concen-
tration, pg/g PM
Facility
Baltimore
Bralntree
Tsushima
Tuscaloosa
Bralntree
Tsushima
Bralntree
Mai mo
Tsushima
Baltimore
Bralntree
Tsushima
Tuscaloosa
Bralntree
Mai mo
Tsushima
Braintree
Mai mo
Tsushima
Tsushima
Pollutant
As
As
As
As
Be
Be
Cd
Cd
Cd
Cr
Cr
Cr
Cr
Pb
Pb
Pb
Hg
Hg
Hg
N1
In
51.2
63.8
13.8
605
0.041
10.5
563
155
26.9
465
280
605
186
15,200
3,210
631
12.8
70.1
59.5
512
Out
1,020
83.9
11.9
308
0.156
11.9
870
268
412
3,450
194
195
181
28,200
5,650
758
73.3
8,060
6,770
10,800
Ratio, out/In
20
1.3
0.86
0.51
3.8
1.1
1.5
1.7
15
7.4
0.69
0.32
0.97
1.9
1.8
1.2
5.7
110
110
21
2-40
-------
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 2
1. Draft Sampling and Analytical Protocols for PCDD's and PCDF's 1n Stack
Emissions. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
December 1984.
2. Blosjoly, Lude. Measurement of Emissions of PolychloHnated Dibenzo-
p-Dioxin (PCDD) and of Polychlorlnated Dlbenzofuran (PCDF) from the
Des Carriers Incinerator 1n Montreal. Environment Canada Report
EPS 5/UP/RQ1. December 1984.
3. Benfenatl, R.f et al. Studies on the Tetrachlorod1benzo-p-D1ox1ns
(TCDO) and Tetrachlorod1benzofurans (TCDF) Emitted From an Urban
Incinerator. Chemosphere. Volume 15, No. 5. 1986. pp. 557-561.
4. V1sall1, J. R. Considerations 1n Developing a Research Program to
Establish Criteria for Operating MSW Incinerators to Minimize
Emissions of D1ox1ns/Furans. Municipal Solid Waste as a Utility
Seminar. Madison, Wisconson. November 1985.
5. Clement, R. E. Reporting Chlorinated D1ox1n Analysis Data 1n
Scientific Publications. 5th Annual Symposium on Chlorinated D1ox1ns
and Related Compounds, Bayreuth, FRG, September 1985.
6. Hagenmaler, H., et al. Problems Associated with the Measurement of
PCOD and PCDF Emissions from Waste Incineration Plants, Specialized
Seminar on Emission of Trace Organlcs from Municipal Solid Waste
Incinerators. Copenhagen. January 1987.
7. Mukerjee, 0, and D. H. Cleverly. Strategies for Assessing Risk from
Exposure to Polychlorinated D1benzo-p-D1ox1ns and Dlbenzofurans
Emitted from Municipal Incinerators. Specialized Seminar on Emission
of Trace Organlcs from Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators.
Copenhagen. January 1987.
8. Del linger, B., et al. Laboratory Determination of High Temperature
Decomposition Behavior of Industrial Organic Materials. Proceedings
of the 75th Annual APCA Meeting, New Orleans. 1982.
9. Vogg, H., et al. Recent Findings on the Formation and Decomposition
of PCDD/PCDF in Solid Waste Incineration. Specialized Seminar on
Emission of Trace Organlcs from Municipal Solid Waste Incinerators.
Copenhagen. January 1987.
2-41
-------
3. DESCRIPTIONS OF MWC FACILITIES
3.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTIONS AND TEST PROTOCOL SUMMARIES
Process description and test protocol summaries are presented below
by combustor type 1n the following order: mass-burn, excess-air MWC's;
modular, starved-air MWC's; and RDF-f1red MWC's. Each summary contains a
brief description of the combustor, the air pollution control system, and
the sampling and analysis protocol employed at the test site.
3.1.1 Baltimore. 1985 Tests (Mass Burn. Waterwall)1*2
The Baltimore facility consists of three, identical, 686-Mg/d
(750-ton/d), mass-burn, waterwall combustor units, which were installed 1n
1984. Each combustor has its own 91,400-kg/h (200,000-lb/h) steam heat
recovery boiler. A portion of the steam drives a 60-MW turbine
generator. Nonprocessed waste fs transferred by overhead cranes from the
contained pit to the feed hopper where ram feeders charge the waste onto
Von Roll reciprocating grates. Overfire and underfire air is drawn from
the pit area to fuel the combustion process. Furnace temperatures are
between 1200° and 1370°C (2200° and 2500°F). Bottom ash and ESP ash are
combined onto a semi dry, vibrat1ng-pan conveyor and processed through a
screen and magnetic separator prior to disposal.
Particulate emissions are controlled by three, conventional,
wire/plate ESP's, each designed by Wheelabrator Frye with four fields.
The three ESP exhaust streams are separately ducted and routed through an
Induced-draft (ID) fan Into a common stack.
Compliance testing was performed 1n January 1985 on Unit 1 under
normal operating conditions. Emission measurements Included: (1) PM by
M5; (2) S02, fluorides, and solid chlorides by a modified M8 train with
analysis by M8, EPA Method 13B (M13B), and mercuric nitrate tHration,
respectively; (3) gaseous chlorides by a modified EPA Method 6 (M6) with
3-1
-------
analysis by mercuric nitrate titration; (4) NOX by EPA Method 7 (M7); and
(5) CO by EPA Method 10 (M10) with sample analysis by flame ionization
detection with gas chromatography (FID/GC).
Tests were conducted on Unit 2 while it was operating normally at
approximately 85 percent of capacity during May 1985. These tests were
conducted by EPA's Emission Measurement Branch (EMB) to measure chromium
emissions. Uncontrolled and controlled emission testing included PM by
EPA M5; inorganic As by EPA M108; Cr+6 by digesting M5 filters in an
alkaline solution with analysis by the diphenylcarbazide colorimetric
method; total Cr, Cd, and Ni by neutron activation analysis (NAA); and
particle sizing with an Andersen Mark III impactor and an Andersen heavy
grain loading impactor/cyclone. Metal analyses included filter and
impinger solutions for As and filter only for total Cr, Cr"1"6, Cd, and Ni.
3.1.2 Braintree. 1978 Test (Mass Burn. Water-wall)3
The Braintree municipal incineration facility comprised two,
identical, mass-burn, water-wall incinerators. The facility is no longer
in operation. Each incinerator was designed to handle 109 Mg/day
(120 tons/day) at a charge rate of 1,090 kg/charge (2,400 Ib/charge). The
refuse was charged by gravity onto an inclined grate, where drying
occurred, and then onto a Riley Stoker horizontal traveling grate, where
combustion occurred. The burn grate was designed for a heat release rate
of 3,240 MJ/m2h (285,000 Btu/h-ft'). The grate was supplied with
underfire air from a forced-draft (FD) fan; typically, no overfire air was
used. The hot gases passed to the Riley Stoker boiler that had 83 m
(890 ft ) of waterwall heating surface and boiler tubes with a heating
surface of 224 m (2,410 ft ). The boiler had a capacity of 13,600 kg/h
(30,000 Ib/h) of 1,720 kPa (250 psig) steam.
The exhaust gases from each incinerator were directed to ESP's. A
bypass duct that connected the inlets of the two ESP's allowed the exhaust
from an incinerator to be directed to either or both ESP's. The ESP's
were identical, single-field Wheelabrator-Frye units. Each had a specific
collection area (SCA) of 413 m2/l,000 mVmin (126 ftz/l,000 acfm) and a
design collection efficiency for PM of 93 percent. No data were presented
on ESP operating conditions during the test.
3-2
-------
The metals testing at Braintree was conducted as a part of a
comprehensive environmental assessment of the facility. Key elements of
the program included quantitation and characterization of the refuse feed,
bottom ash, and ESP outlet PM and gases. The ESP inlet PM also was
measured. Three tests, all at normal operating conditions, were
conducted.
At the inlet to the ESP, PM concentrations were determined using M5,
and particle size measurements were made with a Brink impactor. The
particulate filters from the M5 tests were analyzed for As, Hg, Pb, and Cd
using spark source mass spectroscopy (SSMS) and AA. At the outlet of the
ESP, PM concentrations were determined using M5, and particle size
distributions were determined by an Andersen cascade impactor. The M5
filters were analyzed for metals using SSMS and AA. In addition, an
Impinger train that contained potassium hydroxide (KOH) in the first
impinger and KMn0lf in the second and third impingers was used to sample
for vaporous Hg at the ESP outlet. The KOH impinger also was analyzed for
concentrations of chloride and fluoride. A SASS train was used during one
test at the ESP outlet. The impinger solutions from the SASS train were
analyzed for volatile As and Hg. Mercury concentrations in the impinger
train and SASS train were determined by cold vapor generation AA, and As
concentrations were determined by a hydride generation AA technique.
Continuous analyzers were used to measure stack concentrations of CO
by nondispersive infrared spectrophotometry (NDIR), total hydrocarbons
(THC) by FID, S02 by NDIR, NOX by chemiluminescence, and 02 by
polarographic cell.
3.1.3 Chicago Northwest, 1980 Tests (Mass Burn, Water-wall)**
The Chicago Northwest incineration plant consists of four, mass-burn,
waterwall incinerators, each with a nominal burning capacity of 363 Mg/day
(400 ton/day). To charge the furnace, waste feed is transferred by crane
to the charging chute, fed by gravity onto three stoker feeders, and
pushed onto the stoker by the reciprocating action of the stoker
feeders. In the combustion chamber, the waste is moved through the system
by a series of Martin, inclined, reverse-action reciprocating grates. The
stokers are designed to use 1,900 Nm /min (67,200 scfm) of primary
underfire air at 4.5 kPa (18 in. w.c.) and 476 Nm /min (16,800 scfm) of
3-3
-------
overfire air at 3.7 kPa (15 1n. w.c.). Underfire air is Introduced Into
multiple compartments under the stoker grates; distribution is manually
controlled. Overfire air is supplied through the front and rear walls.
The system is designed to produce 49,900 kg/h (110,000 Ib/h) of steam at
1,720 kPa (250 psig) and has an average stoker heat release rate of
3,770 MJ/h-m2 (325,000 Btu/h-ft2). The boiler 1s a convection, water-wall,
natural-circulation type with economizer that has 1,840 m2 (19,800 ft2) of
heating surface.
The air pollution control device for Unit 2 is a plate-type ESP. It
is designed for a collection efficiency of 97 percent at an Inlet grain
loading of 3,600 mg/Nm (1.6 gr/scf). The design Inlet temperature is
260°C (500°F), and the superficial gas velocity is 0.9 m/s (3 ft/s).
The testing at Chicago included outlet sampling for organic
pollutants and Cd on Unit 2. Organic sampling was conducted using the EPA
MM5 sampling train, and Cd samples were collected 1n an M5 sampling
train. Stack gases also were monitored continuously for 02, C02, CO, and
THC (Cx through C6 hydrocarbons). The M5 filter was digested, and Cd
analyses were conducted with flame AA using an air-acetylene flame.
3.1.4 Hampton. 1981. 1982. 1983. 1984 Tests (Mass Burn, Waterwall)5"8
The Hampton facility consists of two, mass-burn, waterwall
incinerator-boilers. Each unit is designed to handle approximately
114 Mg/day (125 tons/day), producing steam at 15,000 kg/h (32,000 Ib/h). .
Refuse is moved from a storage pit to the feed hopper by an overhead crane
and transferred through the furnace by a series of three, inclined
reciprocating grates. The furnace is designed to burn refuse without
auxiliary fuel. Unburned residue is discharged into a waterfilled quench
pit. Particulate matter removed from the flue gas also is conveyed to the
quench pit. The pit is continuously dredged into a truck for landfill
disposal. During stable operation, the firebox temperature is near 1260°C
(2300°F), and the furnace wall temperature ranges from 790° to 8408C
(14508 to 1550°F).
The facility 1s equipped with an ESP. Hot furnace flue gas, after
traveling through economizers, goes to the ESP where PM is removed. A
conveyor discards ESP ash to an ash pit, and the gas from the ESP is
routed to an ID fan and out the stack.
3-4
-------
Tests were conducted 1n September 1981 to evaluate measurement
methods for sampling chlorinated hydrocarbons, gaseous HC1, and
particulate chloride.6 The feed rate was 112 Mg/day (123 tons/day) during
the test period. Process conditions were not reported. Organic compounds
were sampled using a MM5 train with glass beads in the first two impingers
and an XAD-2 sorbent resin cartridge located between the third and fourth
impingers. Organic compound analysis was performed with high resolution
gas chromatography/high resolution mass spectroscopy (HRGC/HRMS) to
measure (1) tetra- through octa-COO and CDF homologs; (2) di- through
hexa-ClB homologs; (3) tri- through penta-ClP homologs; and (4) tri-
through hexa-homologs of PCB. An EPA M6 train with sodium hydroxide
(NaOH) in all four impingers was used to measure HC1. Analysis for HC1
was performed by the mercuric nitrate method modified by treating the
sample with hydrogen peroxide H202.
Testing was performed in April 1982 to characterize stack emissions
during normal operation at an estimated feed rate of 114 Mg/day
(125 tons/day).7 Detailed data on process operation were not available.
Comprehensive emission measurements included: (1) PM by M5; (2) particle
size with an Andersen impactor; (3) particle-phase metals from
cyclone/filter catch from a SASS train by XRF (As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb, and Ni)
and SSMS (Be only); (4) volatile metals (As, Hg, Pb, et al.) from SASS
impingers with H202 followed by ammonium persulfate/silver nitrate
solutions by AA analysis; (5) HC1 and HF by an M6 train with NaOH solution
in first two impingers by ion chromatography (1C); (6) polyaromatic
hydrocarbons (BaP, et al.), 2,3,7,8 TCDD/TCDF and total TCDD/TCDF with
SASS cyclone, filter, and XAD-2 resin catch by HRGC/MS; (7) anions in
flyash (sulfate, nitrate, chloride, bromide, flouride, and phosphate) with
SASS impingers with distilled water by 1C; (8) aldehydes (formaldehyde,
et al.) with an M6 train with HC1, 2,4-dinitrophenyl-hydrazine, and
isooctane in first two impingers by reverse-phase high-performance liquid
chromatography (HPLC); and (9) volatile hydrocarbons (benzene, et al.) and
chlorinated organic compounds (chlorobenzene isomers/homologs, et al.)
using EPA Method 25 (M25) equipment quantitated by FID and electron
capture detection (ECD), respectively. Organic screening analysis to
estimate concentrations of various compounds was performed by HRGC/MS from
3-5
-------
aliquots of the sample extracts, but the reported estimates were not
Included in the EPA data base.
Testing was performed in 1983 as part of a nationwide survey to
determine organic emissions from major stationary combustion sources.
The unit was tested under normal conditions with variations in steam flow
from 13,600 to 15,400 kg/h (30,000 to 34,000 Ib/h) and furnace temperature
from 700° to 930°C (1300° to 1700°F). Process and ESP operating
conditions were monitored and reported, and continuous emission monitoring
for 02, CO2, CO, and THC was conducted. Sampling was performed with a MM5
train with a condenser and an XAD-2 resin cartridge located between the
filter box and first impinger. Quality assurance and quality control
(QA/QC) included surrogate spiking, surrogate recovery, blank samples, and
analyte breakthrough tests. Analyses were by HRGC/MS, high resolution gas
chromography/mass spectroscopy-selected ion monitoring (HRGC/MS-SIM), and
HRGC/HRMS-SIM. Emission results were reported for mono- through tetra-CDO
and CDF homologs and 2,3,7,8-TCDD, BaP, and mono- through deca- homologs
of PCB.
Testing was also performed in October 1984 to determine any changes
in emission characteristics since the installation of an air preheater and
a CO continuous monitor. The incinerator was tested during normal
operation with a steam flow of 12,500 kg/h (27,500 Ib/h) and furnace
temperature near 8208C (1500°F). The process operation was monitored and
process data were reported in the appendix to the test report, but these
data have not yet been included in the EPA data base. Emission results
were reported for the tetra- through octa-CDO and CDF homologs, di-
through hexa-ClB homologs, and tri- through penta-CIP's. Sampling was
performed with an MM5 train with glass beads in the first two impingers
and an XAD-2 resin cartridge located between the third and fourth
impingers. All analyses were by HRGC/HRMS.
3.1.5 Tulsa. 1986 Test (Mass Burn, Water-wall)9
The Tulsa facility currently consists of two, identical, 343-Mg/d
(375-ton/d), mass-burn, waterwall combustor units, which were installed in
1986. Each combustor has its own steam heat recovery boiler, portions of
which drive a turbine generator. Nonprocessed waste is transferred by
overhead cranes into the feed hopper where the waste 1s charged onto
Martin GmbH, inclined, reverse-reciprocating grates.
3-6
-------
Participate matter emissions are controlled by two ESP's. The two
ESP exhaust streams are routed into a common stack.
Compliance tests were conducted on Units 1 and 2 during normal
operation to determine controlled emission levels for: (1) PM by EPA M5;
(2) Pb, Be, and Hg by EPA Methods 12 (M12), 104, and 101A (M101A),
respectively; (3) Nox and CO by EPA Method 7E (M7E) and M10, respectively;
(4) H2SO,,. S02, HF, and HC1 by EPA M8 and Method 13A (M13A); (5) volatile
organic compounds (VOC) by California Air Resources Board Method 100;
(6) opacity by EPA Method 9 (M9); and (7) trace chlorinated organic
compounds by an MM5 train as specified by the ASME draft protocol.
Separate emission measurements were made for each pollutant on Units 1 and
2, with the exception that measurements for Hg, trace chlorinated organic
compounds, and opacity were made at the stack common for both units.
Front- and back-half M5 determinations were made to measure the amount of
particulate and condensible matter, respectively. The M5 1mp1nger liquid
was analyzed to determine the amount of ammonium sulfates, Inorganic
chlorides, and fluorides. The M5 filter and impinger liquid were both
analyzed to determine HF and HC1 levels. Emissions of Pb and Be were
measured by modifying EPA M12 by charging the first Impinger with
distilled water and the second impinger with dilute aqua regia.
3.1.6 Peekskill, 1985 (Mass Burn. Waterwall)10
The Westchester facility in Peekskill, New York, consists of three,
identical boilers, each of which has a design capacity of 76,000 kg
(167,700 Ibs) of steam per hour at 440°C and 6,200 kPa (830°F and
900 psig) from the combustion of 682 Mg (750 tons) of refuse per day. The
Von Roll reciprocating-grate mass burners are fed uniformly by a ram
system, which is in turn fed at random by grapplers. Primary air is
Introduced from beneath the grates while secondary air is Introduced
through nozzles located above the grates. The refuse 1s combusted on
licensed Von Roll grates in the furnace, which operates at temperatures
exceeding 980°C (18008F). Odor from the refuse pit area is controlled by
drawing combustion air from the pit area to maintain negative pressure
over the pit. Electricity 1s produced by a turbine generator that 1s
driven by superheated steam from a water-wall boiler above the grate
area.
3-7
-------
Each boiler is serviced by a three-field ESP designed to keep
particulate emissions below 68 mg/Nm (0.03 gr/dscf) at 12 percent C02.
From the ID fans, the gases are fed into three separate flues within the
single stack.
Sampling at the plant was conducted on Unit 1 during April 1985 in
the ductwork between the ESP's and ID fans. Throughout testing, the unit
operated at 95 to 112 percent of design capacity. Concentrations of the
following compounds were measured during the normal operation of the
plant:
PM Hg
2,3,7,8-TCDD Cd
2,3,7,8-TCDF Cr
PCDD (tetra-octa) Pb
PCDF (tetra-octa) Manganese
Chrysene Ni
PCB Vanadium
BaP Zinc
Formaldehyde S02
HC1 N0y
As CO
Be CO 2
02
Measurements for criteria and other pollutants were performed using
applicable EPA reference methods. Measurements for PCDD/PCDF were made
using the ASME draft protocol. The organics train consisted of a glass-
lined probe, a heated glass-fiber filter, a cooling condenser, a water-
cooled glass cartridge containing 40 g of XAD-2 resin, and several glass
impingers. All sections of the train were glass and were connected by
Teflon" unions except the 316 stainless steel nozzle. The resin was
spiked before sampling with a known quantity of isotopically tagged
1,2,3,4-TCDD to determine retention efficiency.
3.1.7 Gallatin, 1983 Tests (Mass Burn, Haterwall)11
The Gallatin facility fires unprocessed municipal waste to two,
91-Mg/day (100-ton/day), O'Connor, water-cooled rotary combustors. Waste
received at the facility is transferred to the feed hoppers by overhead
cranes and then fed to the combustor by a ram-feed system. The inclined
combustor rotates between 10 and 20 revolutions per hour (rph) to process
the refuse through the combustion zone. Combustion air is preheated to
3-8
-------
230°C (450°F) and is fed as both underfire and overfire air 1n the rotary
combustor and as overfire air to the boiler zone. The rotary combustor is
mated to a Keeler water-wall boiler for radiative and convective heat
transfer. The boiler is designed to produce 12,000 kg/h (27,000 Ib/h) of
steam at 2,930 kPa (425 psig).
At the time of the test, the emissions from the Gallatin facility
were controlled by a cyclone and an electrostatically assisted FF. The FF
was an innovative technology that was eventually replaced with an ESP due
to several problems associated with the unit. No other design information
on the control system was provided in the report.
Particle size distribution and heavy metals emission rates were
determined at the outlet from the combustor using a Flow Sensor, five-
stage, multiclone sampling system. A total of four runs, each about 1.5
hours in duration, were made. After the cyclone catch from each stage was
weighed for particulate loadings, metals analyses were conducted using
AA. Those metals analyzed were As, Be, Cd, Cr, Ni, and Pb. Four separate
tests at the combustor outlet measured Hg using M101 with analyses by
AA. In addition to particulate and metals measurements, emission rates of
S02 and S03 were determined using EPA M8. The HC1 and HF rates were
measured with an M6-type train. A continuous emission monitoring system
was used to measure stack gas concentrations of 02 (paramagnetic), CO and
C02 (NDIR), NOX (chemiluminescence), S02 (ultraviolet), and total
nonmethane hydrocarbons (GC/FID).
3.1.8 Kure, Japan. 1981 Test (Mass Burn. Haterwall)12
The Kure facility consists of two, 75-Mg/day (165-ton/day), mass-
burn, O'Connor, water-cooled rotary combustors equipped with separate
waterwall boilers. The facility began commercial operation 1n
November 1980. Two cranes mix the solid waste and deposit the loads into
the feed chutes for each of the combustors. The ram behind the entrance
to the rotary combustor pushes the solid waste from the bottom of the feed
chute into the rotary combustor on a scheduled cycle that sets the
volumetric feed rate. As the solid wastes are combusted, they are mixed
by the rotation of the combustor barrel (10 to 20 rph) and moved the
length of the rotary combustor. The bottom ashes pass through the base of
the boiler on a small traveling grate into a quench tank, then along a
3-9
-------
conveyor into the ash pit. A crushing plant recovers recyclable materials
after crushing and shearing the bulky waste and delivers the remaining
waste material by conveyor to the solid waste receiving pit for combustion
in the rotary combustors. Combustion gas passes through the boiler, FD
fan, and combustion air preheater.
The air pollution control system consists of an ESP followed by a wet
scrubber. The ESP was manufactured by Ishipawajima-Harima Heavy
Industries Company, Ltd. The wet scrubber has a turbulent contacting
absorber design.
Testing was performed on Unit 1 and consisted of a comprehensive
evaluation of waste feed combustor process parameters along with uncon-
trolled and controlled emission measurements. Emission measurements
included: PM by M5; S02 and S03 by M6 and MS; NO, N0¥, 02, and SO, by
A
continuous emission monitors (CEM's); hydrocarbons by 6C/FID after
collection in charcoal tubes and metal bombs; and particle sizing with an
Andersen impactor. Heavy metals were analyzed for the different particle
size ranges by emission spectrophotometry and from M5 filters by NAA.
Measurement methods for HC1 and HF were not described in detail.
3.1.9 Munich, 1984 Tests (Mass Burn, Waterwall)13
The Munich North III MWC facility consists of two, mass-burn
incinerator-boiler units, each designed to burn 480 Mg/day (530 tons/day)
of municipal waste and 260 Mg/day (290 tons/day) of clarified sludge to
produce 50,000 kg/h (110,000 Ib/h) of steam. A hydraulic ram located
under the feed chute charges the waste onto reciprocating grates.
Combustion airflow is controlled by an inlet damper on the primary air
fan. The firing rate is controlled by 02 and temperature monitors in the
first boiler pass, which regulate the refuse feed rate and combustion
airflow. The refuse feed rate is determined by the stoke rate of a
hydraulic feeder under the feed chute. Air flow is controlled by an inlet
damper on the primary air fan. The bottom ash falls off the end of the
grate into a water quench ash extractor. A bar grizzly at the extractor
discharge separates oversize materials (mostly metal) from the ash, which
is transported by belt conveyor to the ash bunker. The oversize material
is manually removed to a dumpster.
3-10
-------
The emission control system consists of a DBA SO reactor followed by
a DBA ESP. Flue gas from the boiler enters the SD at about 260°C
(SOOT). The lower Inlet section of the SD 1s a cyclonic preseparator
where approximately 70 percent of the fly ash is removed from the flue gas
and pneumatically transported to the ash bunker. From the preseparator
section, the flue gas flows upward through a distribution grid and into
10 flow tubes arranged annularly on the reactor perimeter. Each tube
contains a dual-fluid nozzle used for spraying the lime slurry Into the
gas stream. The atomized Hme slurry, which 1s a composite of concen-
trated lime slurry and dilution water, 1s prepared from calcium oxide
(CaO) 1n a slaker. The add gases are removed from the flue gas by an
absorption-reaction process while the water component of the droplet 1s
evaporated. The result is a dry particulate which includes calcium salts
and excess lime. The evaporation process lowers the temperature of the
flue gas to approximately 150°C (300°F). The solid reaction products from
the SD reactor, together with the dust that has passed through the
cyclone, are carried over into a two-field ESP and removed from the flue
gas. The collected material 1s mechanically and pneumatically transported
to the ash bunker. The ESP exhaust is routed through an ID fan and a
concrete stack.
The Intent of the test program was to establish the ability of the
control system to maintain air pollutant emissions at levels acceptable in
the U.S. Test conditions were selected to optimize the emission control
system performance over a range of SD operating conditions but were
limited during testing by certain plant operating requirements. During
these tests, only MSW was fired. Uncontrolled and controlled emission
testing was performed for PM, particle size distribution, HC1, and SOX.
Controlled emission tests were conducted for several selected metals,
including As, Be, Cd, Cr, Pb, and N1. The sampling and analysis methods
used in the test were: (1) M5 for PM; (2) M8 for S02 and S03; (3) M6 for
HC1, modified by using distilled water 1n the implngers; (4) particle
sizing with an Andersen cascade Impactor and three-stage Flow Sensor
multlclone; and (5) heavy metals with Flow Sensor multlclone sampling and
AA analysis.
3-11
-------
3.1.10 Quebec. 1985-86 Pilot-Scale Tests (Mass Burn, Water-wall)1**
The Quebec incinerator is a mass-burn design developed in the early
1970's to burn as-received refuse in a water-wall furnace. There are four
incinerators, each rated at 227 Mg/day (250 tons/day) with a common refuse
storage pit and stack. Each incinerator consists of a vibrating feeder-
hopper; feed chute; drying/burning/burn-out grates (Von Roll design);
refractory-lined burning zone; waterwalled, partially lined upper burning
zone; waste heat recovery boiler with superheater and economizer (Dominion
Bridge); two-field ESP; an ID fan; and wet ash quench/removal system. The
Incinerator receives municipal, commercial, and suitable industrial solid
waste. Each of the four units is capable of independent operation and is
rated to produce 37,000 kg/h (81,500 Ib/h) of steam when burning
227 Mg/day of refuse with a heating value of 13,950 kJ/kg
(6,000 Btu/lb).
Environment Canada in cooperation with Flakt Canada, Ltd.,
established an extensive test program to evaluate the capability of two
pilot-scale scrubber and FF control systems to remove PM, acid gases,
heavy metals, PCDD, PCDF, and other organic compounds. Evaluation of
operating conditions to minimize these contaminants also were of
interest. Flakt constructed a large-scale pilot facility at the Quebec
plant equipped with:
1. A flue gas slipstream from the ESP inlet of Unit 3 to deliver
58 Nm3/min (2,000 ft3/m1n) at 260°C (5008F) to the pilot facility;
2. An SD—Flakt's DRYPAC design (also used as a gas cooler) with
slurry spray nozzle and bottom screw conveyor;
3. A WSH/DI—Flakt's DAS design, with a single, dry hydrated lim«
injection nozzle and an internal cyclone integral with the scrubber at the
entrance; and
4. A pulse-jet FF—Flatk's OPTIPULSE design, using high-temperature
Teflon™ bags as the filtering media with an air-to-cloth ratio of 4.4
to 1.
Testing and process monitoring were conducted during normal operation
of the full-scale incinerator producing 31,000 to 34,000 kg/h (68,000 to
75,000 Ib/h) of steam. Key operating parameters of the pilot system were
controlled and monitored at the selected test conditions. Note that these
3-12
-------
controlled conditions, particularly the constant flow rate of the
slipstream, obtained during the pilot-scale testing may not be
representative of the fluctuations typically experienced by full-scale
operations. Uncontrolled and controlled emission measurements were
performed for PCDD, PCDF, HC1, S02, metals (As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb, N1,
et a!.), PCB, C1B, PAH's, and C1P.
Samples were taken at three locations: before the scrubber, between
the scrubber and the FF, and at the stack of the FF. Four sampling trains
were operated simultaneously during the testing. In the PM/metals/HCl
train, which 1s based on the M5 train, gaseous HC1 and metals were
scrubbed by a series of water- and aqua regia-filled implngers. In the
dedicated HC1 train, two water-filled midget impingers were employed.
Chlorides were analyzed by 1C. In the Hg train, Hg was scrubbed by two
impingers containing KMnO*. Metals were analyzed using DCPES with these
exceptions: Hg was determined by measuring the Hg vapor concentration by
fTameless atomic absorption (FAA), and As was determined by the formation
of its hydride and analysis by FAA. In the organics train, gaseous
organics were trapped in an XAD-2 resin tube and an ethylene glycol-filled
impinger; analysis was by GC/MS.
Continuous gas monitoring was performed at the Inlet for S02 (by
nondispersive ultraviolet spectrophotometry [NDUV]), HC1 (gas filter
correlation), and THC (by FID). At the midpoint, HC1 and S02 were
continuously analyzed, and at the outlet, all of the above and CO (by
NDIR) were continuously monitored.
3.1.11 Malmo. 1983 Report (Mass Burn and RDF-Fired Waterwall)15
The Malmo plant has two MWC units capable of burning as-received and
RDF municipal waste at a rate of 10 tons/h. Each unit 1s designed with
Martin, reverse-acting, traveling grates and Wagner-B1ro two-stage
boilers. The RDF processing includes a ballistic separator, a magnetic
separator, and sorting and shredding equipment to produce 3,200 kcal/kg
(5,200 Btu/lb) fuel. Fuel is charged through a hopper and onto an
inclined grate. The refuse is dried, Ignited, and combusted on the grate
during transport through the furnace. Primary air is distributed through
fine areas in the grate while secondary air is introduced through nozzles
located on front and rear walls at the boiler entrance. Both primary and
3-13
-------
secondary air flow rates are manually adjusted for different operating
conditions. Each furnace is equipped with a two-stage waste heat boiler
having a nominal capacity of 32 MW. In the boilers, the flue gas is
cooled from 1000° to 11008C (1800° to 2000°F) to approximately 290°C
(550°F) by circulating 540,000 kg/h (1,200,000 Ib/h) of hot water which 1s
heated from 110° to 160°C (230° to 320°F). The flue gas 1s further cooled
1n two additional boilers to improve the gas cleaning process and to
Increase energy efficiency.
The emission control system Includes cyclones, a 01, an ESP, and an
FF designed to treat 1,300 m3/min at 220°C (46,000 acfm at 430°F). The
flue gas 1s first directed to the cyclones, which remove approximately 60
to 70 percent of the PM. The gas then enters the reactors where Hme 1s
mixed with the flue gas. The top of the reactor is designed as an axial
cyclone in which coarse lime particles are collected and then returned to
the point of injection. An ESP followed by an FF collects the entrained
DI particles and incinerator fly ash.
The test program was conducted to measure and compare emission
control system performance during as-received waste and RDF
Incineration. Thirty process and control parameters were monitored by a
data logger. Sampling was performed upstream and downstream of the
control system for PM, HC1, CO, gas- and solid-phase metals (i.e., Cd, Hg,
Pb, and Zn), medium-weight hydrocarbons (C6-C18), and polycycllc and
chlorinated compounds.
Measurements for PM were performed with isokinetic extraction and
collection on quartz filter fabric at 160°C (320°F). The sample gas was
cooled, dried, and measured with a flowmeter and volume meter. Sampling
for HC1 was performed using NaOH in two impingers 1n series, and HC1
analysis was performed by filtration with silver nitrate using an ion-
selective electrode. Sampling for Hg was performed using three Impingers
with separate solutions of soda and KMnO* with sulfuric acid, followed by
AA analysis. Sampling for Cd, Pb, and Zn was conducted using two
impingers with HN03, and analysis was by AA. Sampling for medium-weight
hydrocarbons (C6-C18) was performed by absorption tubes with Tenax" GC
with analysis by GC/FID and capillary column. Polycyclic and chlorinated
hydrocarbon sampling was performed by Isokinetic sampling 1n an all-glass
3-14
-------
train equipped a heated filter, water-cooled condenser, condensate trap,
and XAD-2 resin trap. Concentrations of PCDD and PCDF were determined for
three sampling train components (filter catch, XAD-2 catch, and
condensate) by GC/MS using Swedish reference methods.
3.1.12 Wurzburq. West Germany. 1985 Tests (Mass Burn. Waterwall)16
The facility tested at Wurzburg is a new, Martin GmBH, reverse-
red procating-grate, water-wall furnace. During the test period, refuse
flow to the incinerator ranged from 260 to 280 Mg/day (290 to
310 tons/day), and steam production was about 27,000 kg/h at 4,200 kPa
(59,000 Ib/h at 610 psig). No additional Information on the process was •
presented in the preliminary letter report.
Emissions are controlled with a WSH/DI/FF system. No description of
the air pollution control system was presented in the preliminary letter
report.
Particle size distribution at the outlet of the control system was
determined during one run by using a Flow Sensor multiclone sampling
system. The PM catches from the five cyclones were combined and analyzed
for As, Cd, Cr, Ni, and Pb.
3.1.13 Marion County. 1986 Test (Mass Burn, waterwall)17
The Marion County facility in Brooks, Oregon, consists of two,
250-Mg/d (275-ton/d), mass-burn, water-wall combustor units. Solid waste
is fed to the Martin GmbH reverse-reciprocating grates by a hydraulically
operated ram feeder. The refuse is neither shredded nor sorted prior to
incineration. Generally, auxiliary fuel is not fired during normal
operation. However, natural gas burners ignite automatically when the
flue gas temperature falls below 980°C (1800°F). (This condition may
occur during those tests that require the incinerator to operate at
reduced waste loads.) Heat 1s recovered using waterwalls 1n the furnace
and a specially designed boiler system. The steam generated in the boiler
is directed to a 13.1-MW turbine-generator to produce electricity. Bottom
ash from the combustion grates is quenched before it 1s combined with the
fabric filter ash, dry scrubber cyclone ash, and boiler fly ash. The
combined ash 1s stored in an enclosed residue storage area for final
disposal at a landfill.
3-15
-------
The air pollution control systems are Identical for each of the two
units. Each unit 1s equipped with a Teller-design SO and FF to control
add gas and PM emissions, respectively. The flue gases leave the boiler
economizer and enter the bottom of the SO through a cyclonic Inlet that
removes large particles. Slaked pebble lime is used as a reagent; the
lime 1s mixed with water and Injected into the SO through an array of two-
fluid nozzles. The stoichiometric ratio of lime to HC1 1s approximately
2.5. A dry venturl 1s located immediately before the FF Inlet gas
plenum. Tes1sorbm material is injected into the dry venturi to enhance
collection performance and reduce pressure drop across the FF. The FF has
a reverse-air design for cleaning the bags and consists of six
compartments. The bag cleaning cycle for each compartment is typically 60
to 75 minutes. After exiting the FF, the combustion gases are discharged
through a 78.6-meter- (258-foot-) high stack.
Compliance tests were conducted from September 22, 1986, to
October 8, 1986, by Ogden Projects, Inc. The tests were conducted on
Units 1 and 2 during normal operation to determine controlled emission
levels for: vl) PM by Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Method 5; (2) Pb (Boiler 1 only), Be, and Hg by EPA M12, M104, and M101A,
respectively; (3) NOX and CO by EPA M7E and M10, respectively; (4) S02 and
HC1 by EPA M6C and M5, respectively; (5) PCDD and PCDF (Boiler 1 only) by
EPA MM5; (6) chlorides (Boiler 1 only) and fluorides (Boiler 1 only) by
EPA M13B; (7) VOC by California Air Resources Board Method 100; and
(8) opacity by EPA M9.
3.1.14 McKay Bay. 1986 Tests (Mass Burn. Waterwall)18"20
The McKay Bay Refuse to Energy Project consists of four boilers, each
controlled by an ESP. Units 1 and 2 are vented through the west stack and
Units 3 and 4 through the east stack. Information concerning the
operating conditions of the boilers and ESP's is considered confidential
by plant personnel.
Tests were conducted in August 1986 using M104 for both sampling and
analysis of Be. Emission tests for PM were conducted in September 1986
using M5o
3-16
-------
3.1.15 North Andover. 1986 Test (Mass Burn. Haterwall)21*22
The North Andover facility, which began operation in 1985, consists
of two, identical, mass-burn, waterwall incinerators. Each unit is
designed to burn 680 Mg/d (750 tons/d) of municipal waste and produce
90,000 kg/h (198,000 Ib/h) of steam at 4,140 kPa (600 psig) and 400°C
(750°F). Steam from both boilers drives a 40-MW turbine-generator.
Nonprocessed waste is transferred by overhead cranes from a contained pit
to gravity-feed hoppers. Hydraulic rams, located at the bottom of the
feed hoppers, charge the waste onto Martin reciprocating grates.
Underfire and overfire air is drawn from the pit area to fuel the
combustion process, which is designed to achieve temperatures in excess of
1370°C (2500°F). Underfire air is supplied through the grates, and
overfire air is distributed through nozzles located on the front and rear
walls above the flame zone. Each furnace has a volume of 820 m
(29,000 ft3), and each furnace/boiler has 4,900 m2 (53,000 ft2) of heat
transfer area. Bottom ash is quenched before being combined with the
boiler fly ash and ESP ash. The facility is equipped with two CEM systems
for CO, C02, 02, NOX, S02, and opacity.
The air pollution control system consists of two, identical ESP's
designed to reduce the particulate matter to a level of 115 mg/Nm3
(0.05 gr/dscf) at 12 percent C02, which corresponds to about a 98 percent
collection efficiency. Design data for the ESP's are considered
confidential by the ESP manufacturer.
The emission measurement program at the North Andover facility was
conducted from July 8 to July 16, 1986. Particulate loading was measured
according to EPA MS at the ESP outlet for Runs 1 through 6. During
Runs 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, sampling for PCDD/PCDF at the ESP inlet and outlet
was conducted according to the December 1984 draft of the ASME protocol.
The PCDD/PCDF sampling was conducted simultaneously at the ESP inlet and
ESP outlet. The PCDO/PCDF samples were analyzed by HRGC/HRMS.
As part of an EPA in-house study, trace metals (As, Cd, Cr, and Ni)
testing was conducted simultaneously at the ESP inlet and ESP outlet
during Runs 7, 8, and 9. Sampling followed EPA Alternative Method 12,
which also allows for the concurrent determination of PM emissions. The
EPA M12 train has been demonstrated specifically for lead and cadmium
3-17
-------
only. However, for the purposes of the In-house study, the method was
used as a screening analysis for the other metals of interest. The method
was also modified by using NAA as the analysis method rather than atomic
absorption. The results for arsenic, cadmium, total chromium and nickel
were included 1n the test report.
Continuous emission monitoring for 02 and C02 was also conducted
during Runs 7, 8, and 9.
3.1.16 Saugus. 1975 Test (Mass Burn, Water-wall)23
The Saugus facility is a mass-burn, waterwall combustor that began
commercial operation in 1975. Two parallel process lines each process up
to 680 Mg (750 tons) of municipal solid waste per day. The refuse is
transferred from the receiving pit to the furnace feed hoppers by overhead
cranes. The refuse is neither shredded nor sorted prior to incineration,
and auxiliary fuel 1s not used during normal operation. Heat is recovered
using water-walls in the furnace and an external convection boiler
section. Each boiler produces 72,600 kg (160,000 Ib) of steam per hour at
4,600 kPa and 450°C (650 psig and 850°F). Each process line includes a
two-field ESP for the control of particulate emissions.
Sampling and analysis for PCDD and PCDF were conducted as specified
by the ASME draft protocol. The protocol was modified to Include the use
of a horizontal condenser and the use of methylene chloride for final
recovery of PCDD/PCDF. The samples were analyzed by GC/HRMS. Oxygen, CO,
and C02 were measured by a CEM system at the stack.
3.1.17 Umea. 1984 Test (Mass Burn, Water-wall)"*
The Umea incinerator is a mass-burn, waterwall design equipped with a
boiler. The incinerator is of the cross-grate type and was built in
1970. Raw refuse is charged at a rate of 6 Mg/h (6.6 tons/h). The air
pollution control device is an ESP.
Tests were conducted during the fall of 1984 and the spring of 1985
to assess PCDO and PCDF emissions. Measurements were made during both
normal and low temperature operations in the fall and during normal
operation in the spring. Particulate, condensate, and XAD-2 absorbent
tube samples were collected. Analysis was by HRGC/MS. The isomer-
specific analysis did not allow the separation of 1,2,3,7,8-PeCOF from
1,2,3,4,8 PeCDF nor 1,2,3,4,7.8-HxCDF from 1,2,3,4,7,9-HxCDF.
3-18
-------
3.1.18 Philadelphia, Northwest. 1985 Tests (Mass Burn, Refractory)25
The incinerator plant comprises two refuse furnaces, each of which is
designed to process up to 340 Mg (375 tons) of trash per day. The units
are designed to achieve a 90 percent volume reduction in refuse with a
maximum temperature of 1150°C (2100°F). Each furnace consists of a single
(primary), excess-air combustion chamber with air-cooled, refractory-lined
walls. An elevated crane with a clamshell bucket ^ifts the refuse from
the storage bin into a charging hopper and water-cooled gravity chute.
Refuse drops from the chute onto the inclined traveling grate, which
continuously feeds the refuse onto a horizontal traveling grate. Each
grate is driven by independent, variable-speed motors. The total
effective grate area provided by the two grates is 45 m2 (480 ft2) per
furnace. Combustion air drawn from outside the building is provided to
each furnace by an FD fan. The underfire/overfire air ratio 1s adjusted
by dampers in the FD ductwork. Incinerator residues drop off the edge of
the horizontal grate and fall through a series of residue quenching sprays
and onto a submerged residue conveyor.
The air pollution control system consists of two, two-field ESP's.
Furnace flue gases exit through spray chambers where air-atomized water
cools the gases to the ESP design operating temperature of between 288°
and 316°C (550° and 600°F). The gas streams in the two evaporation towers
are subjected to cyclonic flow to remove the largest particles from the
flue gases prior to the ESP. Flue gases leave the towers and travel
through the precipitator breeching where turning vanes and baffle plates
ensure even gas distribution throughout the device. Treated flue gases
are drawn from each precipitator by a variable-speed ID fan and exit the
plant through a single stack. The ESP fly ash is discharged onto the
submerged residue conveyor.
Testing was conducted in 1935 to determine incinerator emissions
during normal operation (i.e., furnace temperature between 760° and 980°C
[1400° and 1800°F] and indicated inclined grate speed of 70 ft/h). The
test protocol included sampling and analyses of ESP fly ash and
incinerator bottom ash for PCDD and PCDF; continuous monitoring of stack
gas emissions for CO, C02, 02, THC, NOX, and S02; and recording of
incinerator and ESP operating parameters. In addition, MM5 was used to
3-19
-------
determine the PCDD, PCDF, PM, and HC1 stack emissions from Unit 1 and
Unit 2. One MM5 sample train with a condenser and XAO resin trap was
analyzed for PCDD and PCDF by HRGC/HRMS; the other train was analyzed for
PM and HC1. Precision and accuracy for the MM5 analysis were assessed by
analyzing spiked blanks, determining surrogate recovery results, using
National Bureau of Standards (NBS) control samples, and second laboratory
analysis.
3.1.19 Washington, D.C., 1976 Test (Mass Burn. Refractory)26*27
The Washington Solid Waste Reduction Center No. 1 (SWRC No. 1)
Incineration facility comprised six, two-chamber, mass-burn, excess-air
units. The facility 1s no longer 1n operation and has been demolished.
The facility had a total capacity of 1,360 Mg/day (1,500 tons/day) and was
not equipped with energy recovery equipment. Waste was fed to each
furnace by a gravity-feed system. Solid material was moved through the
primary chamber on a stoker-grate feed system consisting of four
individual sections of continuous-feed grate. Both underfire and overfire
air were fed to the primary chamber. Combustion gases left the primary
chamber through a cross-over flue and were passed to the secondary
chamber.
Emissions from SWRC No. 1 were controlled by a multiple-cyclone
collector in series with an ESP. The ESP was a two-field unit with a
design efficiency of 95 percent.
Particulate matter samples were collected isokinetically at the
scrubber outlet using a modified form of an M5 sampling train. The
primary modification was use of an in-stack filter or impactor system.
Typical collection time was 30 min. Analyses for most metals were
conducted using instrumental NAA. However, some samples were analyzed for
Pb and Ni using AA.
3.1.20 Mayport, 1980 Tests (Mass Burn, Refractory)28'29
The Mayport Naval Station facility has one, 45-Mg/day (50-ton/day),
mass-burn, refractory combustor with a 6,400-kg/h (14,000-lb/h) steam
boiler. It is designed to burn municipal refuse and waste oil. The
manufacturers of the combustor and boiler are Detroit Stoker Company and
Eclipse, respectively. The combustor 1s designed with primary and
secondary chambers, with a bridge wall and air-cooled refractory baffle
3-20
-------
between the chambers. The primary chamber 1s equipped with an automatic
ram feeder-hopper, an inclined refractory hearth, a water-cooled throat,
an oil-fired burner, a stoker grate, and an ash quench tank. Another oil
burner is located in the bridge wall-baffle passage. The secondary
chamber has refractory lining and enough volume for a 3-s residence
time. A steam heat boiler with a surface area of 411 m (4,430 ft ) is
designed to cool the 110-Nm3/min (4,000-scfm) gas stream from 870° to
260°C (1600°F to 500°F).
The emission control system consists of a 40-tube, multiple-cyclone
dust collector.
Tests were conducted in December 1980 to determine PCDO and PCDF
emissions while the combustor was burning as-received municipal refuse and
waste oil (primarily fuel oil containing unknown contaminants). The unit
was operated at a nominal 50 percent capacity level for the 3-day test
period. Fuel and ash characteristics and feed rates were determined, and
process conditions were monitored. Emission measurements downstream of
the cyclone were made for: (1) PM by M5; (2) metals (Cd, Cr, Pb, Ni,
et al.) by digesting M5 filter in HN03 and analysis by inductively coupled
plasma techniques; (3) particle size using a seven-stage MRI Cascade
Impactor 1n-situ; (4) chlorides using H202 solution 1n the first impinger
of the M5 train; and (5) SOX and CO with CEM's.28 Emissions of TCDO and
TCDF were determined by MM5 and reported 1n Reference 28. Sampling was
accomplished with a heated filter, cooled XAD-2 sorbent resin trap, and
glass-distilled, HPLC-grade water in an impinger. Analyses were performed
for 2,3,7,8 TCDD and TCDF isomers and total TCDD and TCDF by GC/HRMS.
Packed-column chromatogrophy was used for analysis, identifying TCDD's and
TCDF's as either preelutors or coeluters of the 2,3,7,8 Isomers. Reported
results are presented as "maximum 2,3,7,8" TCDD and TCDF concentrations
because of the inclusion of coeluting isomers.
3.1.21 Alexandria. 1976 Test (Mass Burn, Refractory)26*27
The Alexandria Municipal Incinerator consists of two, mass-burn,
excess-air units with a combined capacity of 270 Mg/day (300 tons/day).
The system has a primary and a secondary combustion chamber but does not
have energy recovery equipment. Waste 1s gravity fed to the primary
chamber through a charging chute. Solid materials are moved through the
3-21
-------
chamber by a series of three, inclined, rocking grates. Underfire
combustion air is supplied to the primary chamber. Combustion gases from
the chamber pass through a flue, where overfire combustion air is added,
and into a secondary chamber, where complete combustion is achieved. No
data on the distribution of underfire and overfire air are available.
Emissions from the incinerator are controlled by a spray-baffle
scrubber. No data on scrubber pressure drop or flows are available.
Particulate matter samples were collected isokinetically at the
scrubber outlet using a modified form of an M5 sampling train. The
primary modification was use of an 1n-stack- filter or impactor system.
Typical collection time was 30 min. Analyses for most metals were
conducted using instrumental NAA. However, some samples were analyzed for
Pb and Ni using AA.
3.1.22 Nicosia. East Chicago. 1976 Tests (Mass Burn, Refractory)27*30
The Nicosia municipal incinerator operated by the City of East
Chicago, Indiana, consists of two, identical, mass-burn, excess-air
units. Each unit is capable of firing 200 Mg/day (225 tons/day) of
unprocessed municipal waste. The system is not equipped with energy
recovery equipment. Waste is fed by ram to the combustion chamber and
moved through the system on a series of inclined grates. No data are
available on combustion airflow to the system.
Atmospheric emissions from each furnace are controlled by a spray
chamber followed by a three-stage, horizontal-plate-type scrubbing
tower. The liquid/gas ratio of the scrubber is 0.34 s,/m
(2.5 gal/1,000 acf)
Particulate matter sampling was conducted at the outlet to the
scrubber by an M5 train modified to include 1 M HN03 in the first two
impingers. The filters were analyzed for most metals using instrumental
NAA. Analyses for Pb and Ni were performed by AA of the material leached
from the filters with HN03.
3.1.23 Tsushima, Japan. 1983 Test (Mass Burn, Refractory)31
The Tsushima facility consists of two, identical, mass-burn, excess-
air incinerators with no energy recovery. Each Incinerator has a capacity
of 150 Mg/day (165 tons/day). Waste is fed to the system by a ram
charging system. A clamshell transfers the waste from the storage pit to
3-22
-------
the waste charging chute where 1t is gravity fed to the ram-feed system.
A ram feeder pushes the waste onto the furnace grates 1n a batch
process. The waste 1s transported through the furnace section by
Inclined, Martin, reverse-reciprocating grates. The combustion air is
taken from the waste storage area, preheated, and fired to the furnace as
underfire air at a constant rate by an FD fan. No overfire air is used.
Combustion gas leaves the chamber at 900°C (1650°F) and is cooled to 450°C
(840°F). It then passes through the combustion air preheater where 1t is
cooled to 3608C (680°F) and on to the air pollution control system.
The air pollution control system is a Teller Environmental Systems,
Inc., dry scrubbing system. It comprises a cyclone separator, a quench
reactor, a dry venturi, and an FF. The combustion gases pass through a
cyclone separator and upward through the quench reactor. Nozzles atomize
the lime slurry and Inject it upwards into the reactor. The lime slurry
is 1.5 to 2 percent calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) and is prepared onsite
from hydrated lime. The gases pass from the quench reactor to the Inlet
of the dry venturi where particles (Teslsorb") are Injected with air to
reduce bag pressure drop and improve collection and bag pressure drop
performance. The exhaust from the venturi is ducted to a reverse-air FF
that contains fiberglass bags with sIlicon-graphite/Teflon" coating. The
FF inlet temperature is about 230°C (440°F), and the air-to-cloth ratio is
0.58 m/min (1.9 ft/min).
The metals testing at Tsushima was conducted as a part of a
comprehensive test program to characterize PM, metals, acid gases, and
organic emissions from the facility. Metals emission rates were measured
at the inlet to the dry venturi on two runs and at the FF Inlet on three
runs. The samples were collected using a Flow Sensor multiclone
apparatus. Metals concentrations were determined for each stage by AA.
In addition to the metals tests, PM emissions were determined at the dry
venturi inlet, the FF inlet, and the FF outlet using M5. Measurements for
Hg emissions were made for two runs each at the quench reactor inlet and
FF outlet using MIDI. Analyses for Hg also were performed by AA.
3.1.24 Pittsfield, 1985 Test-Phase I (Mass Burn, Refractory)32
The Pittsfield facility consists of three, 110-Mg/day (120-ton/day),
two-stage, refractory-lined incinerators with two waste heat boilers, each
3-23
-------
with a dedicated EGB precipitator and stack. The facility is designed to
operate two units at a time. An overhead crane transfers the waste onto a
charging floor from which a front-end loader fills the charging hoppers of
the incinerators. Each incinerator has one feed ram and four stoking/ash
rams located at various levels along the grates in the primary chamber.
Each incinerator has a primary chamber where the refuse is burned, with
the hot effluent gases passing into a secondary combustion chamber.
Effluent from the secondary chambers passes into a common collection duct
that splits off to two waste heat boilers.
Gases from each waste heat boiler pass through an ID fan, Into an EGB
participate control device, and to the atmosphere via a stack.
The 1985 tests at Pittsfield consisted of two phases: Phase I to
obtain basic information about plant operations and combustion quality
over a wide range of test conditions, and Phase II to establish facility
parametric relationships among incinerator combustion and operating
variables, refuse quality, suspected precursors, and concentrations of
various trace compounds including PCDD and PCDF. Only the Phase I results
were completed prior to publication of this volume. Comprehensive process
monitoring and continuous emission monitoring were performed and recorded
on a data logger for subsequent analyses. Three CEM systems were used to
measure 02, C02, CO, THC, and NOX simultaneously at the secondary chamber
outlet and at the boiler inlet and outlet locations. Two CEM systems also
were equipped to measure S02 and H20. Sampling by MM5 to measure PCDD,
PCDF, and their alleged precursors was conducted simultaneously at the
boiler inlet and outlet during two of the test conditions. The two
conditions selected were polyvinyl chloride-free material burned at 1010°C
(1850°F) and normal refuse burned at 680°C (1250°F) to represent minimum
and maximum PCDD/PCDF concentrations, respectively. Chloride analysis was
conducted on samples collected at these two test conditions and at two
additional conditions. Modified Method 5 sampling and analysis were
performed in accordance with the ASME/EPA protocol using an XAD-2 resin
cartridge and a condenser. Blank trains, surrogate spiking, and recovery
were employed for quality control and quality assurance.
3-24
-------
3.1.25 Cattaraugus County. 1984 Test (Starved Airl33
The Cattaraugus County Energ<> Facility, located near the village of
Cuba, New York, consists of a tipping floor and three, Identical, two-
stage, refractory-lined incinerators followed by fire-tube waste heat
boilers. Each unit has a maximum capacity of 40 tons of refuse per day.
The system has no air pollution control devices. The waste 1s moved by a
skid loader from the tipping floor to the incinerator feed hopper. The
refuse is fed by hydraulic ram to the Incinerator. The combustion gases
discharge through the fire-tube steam boilers to Individual 63-foot-high
stacks.
The tests were conducted from September 24 to October 26, 1984, by
the New York State Region 9 source testing team. The Incinerator operated
at an average of 94 percent of maximum capacity during the sampling.
Concentrations of the following compounds were measured during the normal
operation of the plant:
Particulate Zinc
2,3,7,8-TCDD Be
2,3,7,8-TCDF Cr
PCDD (tetra-octa) Cd
PCDF (tetra-octa) Ni
Chrysene Vanadium
PCB As
BaP S02
Formaldehyde NOY
HC1 CO
Pb CO 2
Hg 02
Manganese
Sampling was carried out with EPA-approved or adaptions of EPA-
approved methods. In addition, the PCDO/PCOF sampling train was designed
by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Source
Testing Section and is an adaptation of the train proposed by ASME. This
MM5 sampling train consisted of a glass-lined probe, a heated glass
filter, a cooling condenser, a water-cooled glass cartridge containing
40 grams of XAD-2 resin, and several glass Impingers. All sections of the
train were glass, connected by Teflon" unions. The resin was spiked
before sampling with a known quality of isotoplcally labeled 1,2,3,4-TCDD
to assess loss or breakthrough of PCDD/PCOF from the resin during
3-25
-------
sampling. The CDD/PCDF train also was used to sample for the other
organics, except formaldehyde. All sampling was carried out at sampling
ports on the south stack (Unit No. 1).
3.1.26 Dyersburq, 1982 Tests (Starved Air)8
The Dyersburg facility consists of a modular, starved-air incinerator
designed to burn 90 Mg/day (100 tons/day) of refuse. The unit was
manufactured by Consumat and began operation in 1980. There 1s no add-on
emission control system.
Testing was performed in June 1982 to characterize air emissions
during normal operation at an estimated feed rate of 45 Mg/day
(50 tons/day) burning approximately 30 percent industrial and 70 percent
municipal waste. Detailed data on process operation were not available.
Comprehensive emission measurements included: (1) PM by M5; (2) particle
size with an Andersen impactor; (3) particle-phase metals from
cyclone/filter catch from SASS by XRF (As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb, and N1) and
SSMS (Be only); (4) volatile metals (As, Hg, Pb, et al) from SASS
impingers with H202 followed by ammonium persulfate/silver nitrate
solutions by AA; (5) HC1 and HF by M6 train with NaOH solution in first
two Impingers by 1C; (6) polyaromatic hydrocarbons (BaP, et al.),
2,3,7,8-TCDO/TCDF, total TCDD/TCDF, and PCDD/PCDF with SASS cyclone,
filter, and XAO-2 resin catch by HRGC/MS; (7) anions in flyash (sulfate,
nitrate, chloride, bromide, fluoride, and phosphate) with SASS Impingers
with distilled water by 1C; and (8) aldehydes (formaldehyde, et al.) with
an M6 train with HC1, 2,4-dinitrophenyl-hydrazine, and isooctane in the
first two Impingers by reverse-phase HPLC. Organic screening analysis to
estimate concentrations of various compounds was performed by HRGC/MS from
aliquots of the sample extracts, but the reported estimates were not
included in the EPA data base.
3.1.27 North Little Rock. 1980 Tests (Starved Air)23'35
The North Little Rock facility consists of four, Consumat Model
CS-1200, 23-Mg/day (25-ton/day), modular, starved-air incinerators with
heat recovery. The facility is contracted to produce an average of
6,800 kg/h (15,000 Ib/h) of steam at 150 psi to be delivered 24 hours per
day, 5 days per week. Refuse 1s combusted in two chambers: the primary
chamber is designed for 690°C (1200°F) operation for substoichiometric
3-26
-------
conditions; the secondary chamber 1s designed for 1000°C (18258F)
operation through control of primary and secondary air. Two rams 1n the
primary chamber hearth are cycled to push residue and break up clinker
formations. A drag chain removes the wetted ash for disposal. Combustion
gas is cooled to 380°C (600"F) after it passes through the boiler, which
is equipped with five banks of vertical water tubes. There 1s no add-on
emission control system.
The tests were conducted in March, May, and October 1978.
Particulate matter and heavy metals in particulate form were captured by
the filter of an EPA MM5 train. Heavy metal vapors and other gases were
captured by the impingers in an EPA M5, M7, or M8 train. Particulate
matter was captured for size distribution analysis by a seven-stage,
vertical cascade impactor. The concentrations of 02, CO, C02, N0¥, and
A
sulfur oxides were monitored continuously.
3.1.28 Prince Edward Island, 1985 Test (Starved Air)3"
The Prince Edward Island facility uses two-stage, starved-air
combustion of municipal solid waste in combination with waste heat
recovery. The plant comprises three, two-stage, Consumat CS 1600 modular
incinerators, each rated at 33 Mg/d (36 tons/d), with a common exhaust
manifold leading to a single waste heat boiler and economizer and an
exhaust fan and stacks. Waste is fed to the primary chamber 1n a batch
mode and is moved through the primary chamber by a sequence of water-
cooled hydraulic rams. Low-velocity combustion air enters the lower
portion of the bed in the primary chamber. Combustion gases leave the
primary chamber through a short breeching at the front end of the
secondary chamber. In the secondary chamber, these gases are mixed with
preheated secondary combustion air, and combustion is completed. The
combustion gases leave the secondary chamber through the waste heat boiler
and economizer. During the testing, only the gases from incinerator unit
No. 1 were passed through the waste heat boiler. The facility has no
add-on air pollution control system.
The metals testing at Prince Edward Island was conducted during the
second phase of the test program—the performance test phase. During the
performance tests, three replicate runs were conducted at each of four
test conditions—normal operation, long feed cycle, high secondary chamber
3-27
-------
temperature, and low secondary chamber temperature. The selection of test
conditions was based on the results of 22 characterization tests conducted
during the first phase. These results indicated that the major variables
that affected operations were secondary chamber temperature, primary
chamber airflow rate, and refuse loading rate. The normal operation test
was selected as a baseline for comparison. During the long cycle tests,
the number of feed cycles was reduced from 8 per hour to 6 per hour with
an increase in mass fired per charge to maintain a constant mass feed
rate. This condition was expected to improve combustion and reduce
demands on the loader operator. The high and low secondary temperature
conditions were achieved by increasing the secondary chamber temperature
set point by 135°C (240°F) and decreasing it by 100°C (180°F) from normal
condition, respectively. The high and low temperature conditions were
selected because the secondary chamber temperatures appeared to have a
significant impact on organic emissions.
The measurement scheme for each test was complex with a wide variety
of waste, process, and flue gas parameters monitored during each run. The
waste feeds were monitored for metals, and stack gases were monitored for
both PM and gas-phase metals. A sampling train similar to an M5 with five
impingers was used. The first two impingers contained 5 percent aqua
regia, and the third impinger contained 2 percent KMnO^ in 10 percent
H2SO\ for metals collection. Metals analyses generally were conducted
with a direct-coupled plasma analyzer. Mercury was analyzed by AA.
Organic pollutants measured at Prince Edward Island included homolog-
specific analyses of PCDD and PCDF, PCS, total polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, chlorophenol, and chlorobenzene. The organic sampling train
was an MM5 train modified as specified by the ASME draft protocol for
PCDD/PCDF. Quantitation of all organics was by gas chromatography/mass
spectroscopy-multiple ion detection (GC/MS-MID).
Acid gas emissions were measured by using a glass-lined probe and a
series of Impingers containing caustic solutions. Single-point sampling
was used. Impinger solutions were analyzed by 1C. Pollutants that were
measured were HC1, HF, and S03.
A continuous emission monitoring train was used to measure stack gas
concentrations of CO, C02, S02, NOX, and THC.
3-28
-------
3.1.29 Tuscaloosa. 1985 Test (Starved A1r)37
The Tuscaloosa Energy Recovery incinerator facility consists of four,
modular, starved-air municipal refuse incinerators manufactured by
Consumat Systems and installed 1n 1984. Each Incinerator has a rated
capacity of 80 Mg/d (90 tons/d) and typically operates 24 hours per day,
5 days per week. Exhaust from the four Incinerators is fed through two
heat recovery boilers to produce 24,900 kg (55,000 Ib) of steam per
hour. Approximately 99 percent of the refuse Incinerated 1s from residen-
tial sources, and the remaining 1 percent consists of scrap tires.
Temperature in the primary chamber of each incinerator 1s maintained
between 540° and 760°C (1000° and 1400°F). Secondary chamber temperatures
typically are 1150°C (2100°F).
Particulate matter emissions are controlled by an ESP manufactured by
Predpltair Pollution Control. Exhaust from the four incinerators is
routed through the ESP prior to exiting through a single stack. An ID fan
1s located after the ESP and before the stack.
All tests were conducted while the four Incinerator modules were
operating normally at approximately 90 percent of capacity. Lower and
upper chamber temperatures were monitored and controlled to operate in the
typical ranges of 530° to 650°C (980° to 1200°F) and 1130° to 1160°C
(2080° to 2120°F), respectively. Controlled emission results were not
considered representative because (1) ESP power levels were not steady and
were substantially less than the design level and (2) excessive air
inleakage at the ID fan flange occurred throughout most of the test
period. Uncontrolled and controlled emission testing included PM by M5,
NOX by M7, inorganic As by M108, Cr+s by digesting M5 filters in an
alkaline solution with analysis by the diphenylcarbazide colorimetric
method, and particle sizing with an Andersen Mark III impactor and an
Andersen heavy grain loading impactor/cyclone.
3.1.30 Barren County. 1985 Test (Starved Air)38
The Barren County waste-to-energy facility consists of two Consumat
Model No. CS-1600 incinerators. Each Incinerator has a rated capacity of
45 Mg/d (50 tons/d) and 1s equipped with a heat recovery boiler featuring
an economizer. The boilers have a nominal steam output of 4,500 kg/h
(10,000 Ib/h) at 4,100 kPa (600 ps1) each. Secondary chamber temperatures
are maintained above 820°C (1500°F).
3-29
-------
Emissions are controlled by a two-chamber, two-stage ESP.
During the test, the incinerators were firing about 79 Mg/d
(87 tons/d), the boilers were producing about 7,700 kg/h (17,000 Ib/h) of
steam at 3,400 kPa (500 psi), and the ESP's first and second stages were
energized at 38 kV and 28 kV, respectively. Controlled emission testing
was by EPA M5 for PM. The M5 filters and probe washes were analyzed by AA
for Pb, Cr, Ni, As, and Cd. The impinger portion of the M5 train was
analyzed for HC1 with a specific ion probe.
3.1.31 Red Wing, 1986 Test (Starved Air)39"*2
The Red Wing MSW incinerator is a twin-unit facility manufactured by
Consumat Systems. The total capacity of 65 Mg/d (72 tons/d) from the two
incinerators produces an average solid waste heating value of 10,500 kJ/kg
(4,500 Btu/lb). The combined incinerator flue gases heat one steam boiler
that has a nominal steam output of 8,000 kg/h (17,700 Ib/h) at 1,100 kPa
(150 psig). The bottom ash and ESP ash are combined in the conveyor and
transported to a landfill.
Particulate matter emissions are controlled by an ESP. Exhaust from
the two incinerators is routed through the ESP prior to exiting through a
single stack. No ESP design data were provided in the test report.
Controlled emission testing included PM and trace metals by EPA M5;
PCDO and PCDF by MM5; HC1 by caustic impinger; Hg by kMnO^ impingers and
gold amalgamation; and CO, C02, 02, S02, and NOX by CEM. Analysis
included PM by EPA M5, trace metals by ICAPS, PCOD and PCDF by GCIMS, MCI
by EPA 325.2, Hg by cold vapor AAS, CO and C02 by NDIR, 02 by paramagnetic
analyzer, S02 by pulse fluorescence, and NOX by chemilumiscence.
3.1.32 Akron. 1981 Test (RDF Fired)8
The Akron facility is designed to burn 910 Mg/day (1,000 tons/day) of
RDF in a semi suspension, stoker-grate combustor. Processing of RDF
includes shredding, air classification, and magnetic separation. Emission
control is provided by an ESP. No other information on the process or the
control system was included in the report.
Testing was performed in May 1981 to characterize MWC stack emissions
during normal operation at an estimated feed rate of 550 Mg/day
(600 tons/day). Comprehensive emission measurements included: (1) PM by
M5; (2) particle size with an Andersen impactor; (3) particle-phase metals
3-30
-------
from cyclone/filter catch from SASS by XRF (As, Cd, Cr, Hg, Pb, and Ni)
and SSMS (Be only); (4) volatile metals (As, Hg, Pb, et al.) from SASS
impingers with H202 followed by ammonium persuIfate/si Tver nitrate
solutions by AA; (5) HC1 and HF by M6 train with NaOH solution in first
two impingers by 1C; (6) polyaromatic hydrocarbons (BaP, et al.).
2,3,7,8-TCDD/TCDF, total TCDD/TCDF, and PCDD/PCDF with SASS cyclone,
filter, and XAD-2 resin catch by HRGC/MS; (7) anions in flyash (sulfate,
nitrate, chloride, bromide, flouride, and phosphate) with SASS impingers
with distilled water by 1C; and (8) aldehydes (formaldehyde, et al.) with
M6 train with HC1, 2,4-dinitrophenyl-hydrazine, and isooctane in first two
Impingers by reverse-phase HPLC. Organic screening analysis to estimate
concentrations of various compounds was performed by HRGC/MS from aliquots
of the sample extracts, but the reported estimates were not included in
the EPA data base.
3.1.33 Albany. 1984 Test (RDF Fired)"3
The Albany facility consists of two, identical, 276-Mg/day
(300-ton/day) combustors and 45,000-kg/h (100,000-lb/h) steam
generators. The RDF feed to the plant has been mechanically processed
offsite. Waste processing includes air and magnetic separation of
noncombustible material followed by shredding to facilitate combustion.
The RDF feed is moved to the incinerator by screw conveyors and fed to the
combustion chambers by two air-blast distributors. The incinerator is a
single-chamber, waterwall unit with a traveling grate stoker for ash
agitation and movement. The heat recovery system includes superheater
tubes, a convection bank, an economizer, and a combustion air preheater.
Particulate matter emissions from the combustion chambers are
controlled by two, identical ESP's. Each ESP has a conventional wire-to-
plate design with three separately energized fields in the direction of
gas flow. Both precipitators discharge into a single stack. Difficulties
with the plate rapping systems were experienced during the test period.
The metals testing at Albany was conducted as a part of extensive
testing of air emissions from the facility. Three replicate runs were
conducted at each of two replicate test conditions—one with RDF and
natural gas and one with RDF only as fuel. Particulate matter sampling
was conducted at the ESP inlet on Unit 8 and at the stack (the combined
3-31
-------
exhaust from Units 7 and 8). The inlet sampling was conducted with an M5
train. The train at the stack was modified by adding 100 ml of 3 M HN03
in the first two impingers for collection of Cd, Cr, Pb, and Ni. Sampling
at the stack was also conducted for Hg using EPA Method 101A, for As using
M108, and for Be using EPA M104. Analyses for the metals in the M5 train
were conducted by AA. Other analyses were: Hg—AA, As—cold vapor AA,
and Be~AA.
Organic pollutants measured at the Albany RDF plant were PCOO and
PCDF (including the 2,3,7,8-tetra isomers), BaP, chrysene, PCB, and
formaldehyde. Sampling for PCOO and PCDF was conducted using an MM5 train
similar to the train specified in the ASME draft protocol. Teflon™
connectors were used to eliminate grease problems. Analyses were
conducted by GC/MS using the New York Department of Health Protocol. The
same type of train was used for sampling BaP, chrysene, and PCB. Sampling
for formaldehyde was performed with an M6 train modified by using sodium
bisulfite in the midget impingers. Analysis was by colorimetry.
Hydrochloric acid was collected by placing 100 ml of 0.1 N NaOH in
each of the first two impingers of the particulate train. The chloride
concentration in the impinger catch was determined by specific ion
electrode (SIE).
A continuous emission monitoring system was used to determine stack
gas concentrations of 02 (electrochemical cell) and CO and C02 (NDIR).
Limited continuous monitor data also were presented for NOX (M7) and S02
(methodology was not described).
3.1.34 Hamnton-Wentworth, Ontario. 1984 Tests (RDF Fired)1"*'*5
The Hamilton-Wentworth facility consists of two, identical,
272-Mg/day (299-ton/day) combustors and 48,200-kg/h (106,000-lb/h) steam
generators. Municipal waste is mechanically processed onsite and fed into
two Babcock and Wilcox Canada Limited spreader-stoker boilers. Waste
processing includes shredding, magnetic separation, and transport on
conveyors before the waste is pneumatically spread into the boiler through
.he overfire air ports. Overfire air is supplied through nozzles located
along the upper and lower rear walls, along the front wall below the feed
chutes, and through slots in the feed chutes. Underfire air is supplied
separately through holes in the traveling grates. Bottom ash is
3-32
-------
discharged by the grates into a water quench hopper and trucked to a
landfill. Combustion gas is cooled by the steam boiler and combustion air
preheater to about 310°C (590°F).
The PM emissions from each unit are controlled by a two-field
Wheelabrator Frye ESP. Both precipitators discharge emissions through
separate ID fans and oval flues contained in one circular stack.
The purpose of testing was to examine the effect of MWC operational
variables on PCDD/PCDF emissions. The test program was divided into four
field tasks: a pretest program, a cold flow study, combustion runs, and
diagnostic tests. The pretest program and cold flow study were
preliminary in nature. The combustion runs were made to measure boiler
parameters and PCDD/PCDF emissions under different operating conditions in
order to select conditions for the diagnostic tests. These tests were
conducted with various combinations of overfire air ports. Two tests were
run without overfire air port use for each load condition (F/None and
H/None). One test was conducted under full load with the lower back
overfire air port in use (F/Low back) while two tests were conducted under
half-load conditions (H/Low back). Under full load, four tests were
conducted with both back air ports in use (F/Back), and two tests were
conducted with both back and lower front overfire air ports in use
(F/Back, low front). These tests were not repeated under half-load
conditions. Each diagnostic test has been averaged separately and
included in the EPA data base. All the diagnostic tests were conducted on
Unit 1.
The methodology for trace organic emission sampling included an MM5
train equipped with two adsorbent traps containing Florisil located
between the third and fourth impingers, nickel-plated nozzles, glass
probes, and Teflon™ seals throughout the train. Sample
recovery/extraction procedures included sample probe, nozzle, and all
glassware rinses with pentane followed by rinses with methylene
chloride. Analyses for PCDD/PCDF were performed using data from HRGC/MS
analyses. Analysis for ClB's, CIP's, and PCB was by GC using dual
capillary column separation with dual ECD. Contir-'ous emission monitors
were used to measure CO, C02, 02, S02, NOX, and THC.
3-33
-------
3.1.35 Niagara, 1985 Test (RDF Fired)**6
The RDF facility located in Niagara Falls, New York, 1s operated by
the Occidental Chemical Corporation and has two combustors rated at a
total of 1,100 Mg/day (1,200 tons/day). The plant consists of a tipping
floor, bulk storage building, shredders, metal separators, two identical
furnaces with 25-MW steam turbine generators, and ESP's. The refuse is
moved from the storage building to the shredders by hydraulic rams and a
conveyor. The shredded refuse is conveyed to the ferrous metals
separation operation by conveyor. After the ferrous metals are removed,
the RDF is fed to the furnaces through surge bins. The fuel is Introduced
to the furnaces using air-swept distributors in front of each furnace.
Particulate matter emissions at the facility are controlled by ESP's.
Sampling at the plant was conducted during May and June 1985 while
Unit 1 operated normally at 75 to 90 percent of the maximum steam load.
No process or ESP operating parameters were included in the preliminary
test report. Concentrations of the following compounds were measured
during the tests:
PM Be
PCDD Cr
PCDF Cd
Chrysene Ni
PCS Vanadium
BaP As
Formaldehyde S02
HC1 N0y
Pb COX
Hg CO 2
Manganese 02
Zinc
Sampling was carried out with EPA-approved or adaptions of EPA/ASME-
approved methods. The PCDD/PCDF sampling train consisted of a glass-lined
probe, a heated glass-fiber filter, a cooling condenser, a water-cooled
glass cartridge containing 40 g of XAD-2 resin, and several glass
impingers. All sections of the train were glass and were connected by
Teflon™ unions. The resin was spiked before sampling with a known
quantity of isotopically labeled 1,2,3,4-TCDD to determine sample
retention efficiency. The same train was also used to sample for the
other organics.
3-34
-------
3.1.36 Wright Patterson A1r Force Base. 1980 and 1982 Tests
(RDF Fired)7'28
The Wright Patterson facility has an 11,000-MJ/h (100xl06-Btu/h),
spreader-stoker, water-wall boiler (Detroit Rotograte Stoker Boiler), which
is designed to burn coal for steam production and plant heating. Fuel is
gravity fed through a bin and chute and mechanically spread Into the
combustion chamber. Combustion air is preheated by the exhaust gas
through a heat exchanger. The facility operators were investigating the
possibility of switching from coal to RDF for fuel.
The emission control system consists of a multiclone cyclone followed
by an ESP.
Tests were conducted in April 1980 to assess PCDD and PCDF emissions
from refuse burning resource recovery facilities. 8 The unit was operated
at a 2.1-Mg/h (2.3-ton/h) feed rate (nominal 30 percent capacity level)
burning densified RDF for 1 day. Fuel and ash characteristics and feed
rates were determined, and process conditions were monitored. Controlled
PM and organic emissions were determined by MM5. Sampling was
accomplished with a heated filter, cooled XAD-2 sorbent resin trap, and
glass-distilled, HPLC-grade water in an impinger. Analyses were for
2,3,7,8 isomers and total TCDD and TCDF by HRMS/GC. Packed-column
chromotography was used for analysis, identifying TCDD's and TCDF's as
either preelutors or coeluters of the 2,3,7,8 Isomers. Reported results
are presented as "maximum 2,3,7,8" TCDO and TCDF concentrations because of
the inclusion of coeluting isomers.
Tests were also conducted in June 1982 to evaluate measurement
methods for sampling chlorinated hydrocarbons, gaseous HC1, and
particulate chloride.7 The unit was operated at a feed rate of 8.5 Mg/h
(9.4 tons/h) and burned RDF during the test period. During the night, the
unit was cofired with coal to conserve the RDF. Process conditions were
not reported. Organic compounds were sampled using an MM5 train with
glass beads in the first two Impingers and an XAD-2 sorbent resin (60 g)
cartridge located between the third and fourth Impingers. Organic
compound analysis was performed with HRGC/HRMS to measure (1) tetra-
through octa-PCDD and PCDF homologs; (2) di- through hexa-ClB homologs;
(3) tr1- through penta-ClP homologs; and (4) tri- through hexa-PCB.
3-35
-------
Measurements for HC1 were by an M6 train with NaOH 1n all four Impingers
and also by an M5 train with NaOH in the first two impingers. Analysis
for HC1 was by the mercuric nitrate method modified by treating the sample
with H202.
REFERENCES FOR CHAPTER 3
1. PEI Associates, Inc. Emission Test Report - Baltimore RESCO
Incinerator, Baltimore, Maryland. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Emissions Measurements Branch, Research Triangle
Park, N.C. July 1985. (Draft—Pending Determination and Final
Metals Analyses).
2. Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. Stationary Source Sampling Report
(Baltimore Resco Company L. P., Southwest Resource Recovery facility,
Baltimore, Maryland). Performed for RUST International Corp.
January 1985.
3. Midwest Research Institute. Environmental Assessment of a
Waste-to-Energy Process - Braintree Municipal Incinerator. Prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. April 1979.
4. Halle, C. L., et al. Comprehensive Assessment of the Specific
Compounds Present in Combustion Processes, Volume I—Pilot Study of
Combustion Emissions Variability (Chicago, Illinois MWC). Prepared
for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Toxic Substances
by Midwest Research Institute. Washington, D. C. Publication No.
EPA 560/5-83-004. June 1983.
5. Haile, C. L., et al. Assessment of Emissions of Specific Compounds
From a Resource Recovery Municipal Refuse Incinerator (Hampton,
Virginia). EPA-560/5-84-002. June 1984.
6. Scott Environmental Services. Sampling and Analysis of Chlorinated
Organic Emissions From the Hampton Waste-to-Energy System. Prepared
for The Bionetics Corporation. May 1985.
7. Nunn, A. B., III. Evaluation of HC1 and Chlorinated Organic Compound
Emissions From Refuse Fired Waste-to-Energy Systems (Hampton,
Virginia; and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio). Prepared for
U.S. EPA/HWERL by Scott Environmental Services. 1983.
8. Howes, J. E., et al. Characterization of Stack Emissions From
Municipal Refuse-to-Energy Systems (Hampton, Virginia; Dyersburg,
Tennessee; and Akron, Ohio). Prepared by Battelle Columbus
Laboratories for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency/Environmental
Sciences Research Labortory. 1982.
3-36
-------
9. Seelinger, R., et al. Environmental Test Report (Walter B. Hall
Resource Recovery Facility, Tulsa, Oklahoma). Prepared by Ogden
Projects, Inc., for Tulsa City County Health Department.
October 1986.
10. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Emission
Source Test Report - Preliminary Test Report on Westchester RESCO.
January 8, 1986.
11. Hahn, J. L. Air Emissions Tests of Solid Waste Combustion 1n a
Rotary Combustion/Boiler System at Gallatin, Tennessee. Cooper
Engineers. July 1984.
12. Cooper and Clark Consulting Engineers. A1r Emissions Tests of Solid
Waste Combustion in a Rotary Combustor/Boller System at Kure,
Japan. Prepared for West County Agency of Contra Costa County,
California. June 1981.
13. Hahn, J. L., et al. Air Emissions Tests of a Deutsche Babcock
Anlagen Dry Scrubber System at the Munich North Refuse-Fired Power
Plant. Presented at the 78th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution
Control Association. Ju->e 1985.
14. Flakt Canada, Ltd., and Environment Canada. The National Incinerator
Testing and Evaluation Program: Air Pollution Control Technology.
Report EPS 3/UP/2. September 1986.
15. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Operational Studies at the
SYSAV Energy From Waste Plant in Malmo, Sweden. Publication No.
SNV PM 1807. June 1983.
16. Hahn, J. L. Preliminary Report—Air Emission Testing at the Martin
GMBH Waste-to-Energy Facility in Wurzburg, West Germany. Prepared by
Cooper Engineers for Martin GMBH. January 1986.
17. Zurlinden, Ronald A., et al. Environmental Test Report (Marion
County, Oregon, Solid Waste-to-Energy). Prepared by Ogden Projects,
Inc. November 1986.
18. Clean Air Engineering, Inc. Report on the Precipitator Performance
Testing (McKay Bay Refuse to Energy Project). Conducted for
F. L. Smidth and Company. October 7, 1985.
19. Clean Air Engineering, Inc. Summary on NOX Testing Conducted for:
Waste Management, Inc. February 6, 1986.
20. Environmental Engineering Consultants, Inc. Emissions Test Report
McKay Bay Refuse to Energy Plant. August 1986. Prepared for Tampa
Waste Management Energy Systems. October 20, 1986.
3-37
-------
21. Radian Corporation. Final Emissions Test Report, Dioxins/Furans and
Total Organic Chlorides Emissions Testing. North Andover Resource
Recovery Facility, North Andover, Massachusetts. November 14, 1986.
22. Jamgochian, C. L., et al. Municipal Waste Combustion Multipollutant
Study Emission Test Report, Volume 1—Summary of Results,
Volume 2—Appendices A-D, Volume 3—Appendices E-L (North Andover,
Massachusetts, MWC). Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Emissions Measurement Branch of the Emissions Standards and
Engineering Division by Radian Corp. Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. EMB Report No. 86-MIN-02. April 1987.
23. Radian Corporation. Final Emissions Test Report, 01ox1ns/Furans and
Total Organic Chlorides Emissions Testing. Saugus Resource Recovery
Facility, Saugus, Massachusetts. October 2, 1986.
24. Marklund, S., et al. Determination of PCDO's and PCDF's 1n
Incineration Samples and Pyrolytic Products. Presented at ALS
National Meeting, Miami, Florida. April 1987.
25. Neullcht, R. Emission Test Report: City of Philadelphia Northwest
and East Central Municipal Incinerators. Prepared for U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency/Region III by Midwest Research
Institute. October 1985.
26. Greenberg, R. R.f et al. Composition and Size Distributions of
Particles Released in Refuse Incineration (Alexandria, Virginia, and
Washington, D.C., MWC units). Environmental Science and Technology.
1978. p. 566.
27. Greenberg, R. R. A Study of Trace Elements On Particles From
Municipal Incinerators (Alexandria, Virginia; Washington, D. C.; and
East Chicago, Indiana). University of Maryland, Doctoral Thesis,
1976.
28. Higgins, G. M. An Evaluation of Trace Organic Emissions From Refuse
Thermal Processing Facilities (North Little Rock, Arkansas; Mayport
Naval Station, Florida; and Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio).
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Solid
Waste by Systech Corporation. July 1982.
29. Systech Corporation. Test and Evaluation of the Heat Recovery
Incinerator System at Naval Station, Mayport, Florida. Prepared for
Civil Engineering Laboratory, Naval Construction Battalion Center,
Port Hueneme, California. Report CR.012. May 1981.
30. Jacko, R. B., and D. W. Neuendof. Trace Metal Particulate Emission
Test Results From a Number of Industrial and Municipal Point Sources
(for East Chicago, Indiana MWC unit). APCA Journal. Volume 27,
No. 10. October 1977. p. 989.
3-38
-------
31. Hahn, J. L. A1r Emissions and Performance Testing of a Dry Scrubber
(Quench Reactor) Dry Venturl and Fabric Filter System Operating on
Flue Gas From Combustion of Municipal Solid Waste in (Tsushima)
Japan. Prepared for California Air Resources Board by Cooper
Engineers. July 1985.
32. Vlsalli, J. R., et al. Pittsfield Incinerator Research Project--
Status and Summary of Phase I Report. Presented at 12th Biennial
National Waste Processing Conference, Denver, Colorado. June 1986.
33. New York Department of Environmental Conservation. Emission Source
Test Report—Preliminary Report on Cattaraugus County ERF. August
1986.
34. Systems Technology Corp. Small Modular Incinerator Systems with Heat
Recovery, A Technical, Environmental, and Economic Evaluation.
Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Solid
Waste. Report SW177c. November 1979.
35. Environment Canada. The National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation
Program: Two Stage Combustion (Prince Edward Island). Report
EPS 3/UP/l. September 1985.
36. PEI Associates, Inc. Emission Test Report - Tuscaloosa Energy
Recovery, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Prepared for U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency/Emissions Measurements Branch, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. July 1985.
37. PEI Associates, Inc. Chromium Screening Study Test Report.
Municipal Incinerator, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Prepared for U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency/Emission Measurement Branch, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. EMB Report 85-CHM-9. January 1986.
38. Perez, J. Review of Stack Test Performed at Barren County
Incinerator. State of Wisconsin Correspondence/Memorandum.
February 1987.
39. Cal Recovery Systems, Inc. Final Report, Evaluation of Municipal
Solid Waste Incineration (Red Wing, Minnesota, facility). Submitted
to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Report No. 1130-87-1.
January 1987.
40. Bordson, D. Report on the Completion of the Red Wing Municipal Solid
Waste (MSW) Incineration Evaluation Study. March 12, 1987.
41. Kalitowski, T. J. Status Report on Solid Waste Incineration in
Minnesota. Office Memorandum. March 18, 1987.
42. Kalitowski, T. J. Addendum to March 18, 1987, Status Report on Solid
Waste Incineration in Minnesota Memorandum. Office Memorandum.
March 30, 1987.
3-39
-------
43. Kerr, R., et al. Emission Source Test Report—Sheridan Avenue RDF
Plant, Answers (Albany, New York). Division of Air Resources, New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation. August 1985.
44. Ozvacic, V., et al. Determination of Chlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins,
Dibenzofurans, Chlorinated Biphenyls, Chlorobenzenes, and
Chlorophenols in Air Emissions and Other Process Streams at SWARU in
Hamilton. Prepared for Ministry of Environment by Ontario Research
Foundation. December 1983.
45. Complin, P. G. Report on the Combustion Testing Program at the SWARU
Plant, Hamilton-Wentworth. Prepared for Ministry of the Environment
by Envirocon Limited. January 1984.
46. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Emission
Source Test Report—Preliminary Report on Occidental Chemical
Corporation EFW. January 16, 1986.
3-40
-------
4. DISCUSSION OF FUTURE DATA AVAILABILITY
The growing concerns about the risks associated with projected
construction of new MWC facilities have resulted in an increased number of
ongoing and planned emission test programs that will expand data
availability. Consequently, the emission data base will continue to be in
a state of flux. The emission data base represents the core of
information on emissions that will be used to support regulatory analyses
and decisions. As new data are received, they directly impact sufficiency
of the data base for:
1. Development of emission factors and risk assessments;
2. Control technology assessments;
3. Identification of issues related to emissions, control costs,
risks, etc.; and
4. Identification of regulatory alternatives and development of
rationale in support of specific alternatives.
New data will be generated by several different groups. Because
added data are needed to make regulatory decisions, EPA is identifying
recently conducted tests for which reports are under development and is
planning additional test programs over the next 2 years. Additional data
are expected to be collected by State regulatory agencies, Environment
Canada, and MWC vendors. For example, two tests (i.e., North Andover,
Massachusetts, and Marion County, Oregon) have been conducted recently
through the joint efforts of facility owners/operators, State regulatory
agencies, and EPA.
Table 4-1 presents details of the facilities and emission data from
tests that have been completed recently or that are being planned. The
footnotes in Table 4-1 include information on the anticipated report
schedules for each of the tests. These dates are based on information
4-1
-------
TABLE 4-1. SUMMARY OF FUTURE DATA AVAILABILITY*1
Pollutant
Criteria
Pollutants
Part.
S°2
NO
X
CO
THC
(vola-
tile)
Uncon-
trolled
emissions
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
Starved air
ESP
Controlled
Missions
OS .ON
OS .ON
OS .ON
OS .OH
OS. ON
Excess air
Effi-
ciency
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
Uncon-
trolled
enlsslons
O.W
o.u
O.U.PC
W.O
W
ESP
Controlled
enlsslons
Gb .W.PC.Q
Gb.W,PC.Q
W.PC.q
w.pc.q
w.q
Effi-
ciency
W
W
W.PC
W
u
Dry scrubber
Controlled Effl-
ealsslons ciency
O.F 0
O.F 0
0 0
O.F 0
Uncon- ESP
trolled Controlled
emissions missions
R H
R
R
R
ROf
Dry scrubber
Effi- Controlled
ciency Missions
R
R
R
R
Effi-
ciency
R
R
R
R
Ionic Hetals
As
t
ro B*
Cd
Cr
Pb
H9
Nl
Acid Gases
HCI
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS. ON
OS .ON
OS. ON
OS .ON
OS .ON
OS .ON
OS .ON
OS .ON
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
O.W
U
O.W
O.U
O.W
o.u
u
O.W
w.pc.q
w.q
w.pc.q
W.PC.Q
W.PC.Q
U.PC.Q
U.PC.Q
W.Q
u
W
u
W
u
W
W
W
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O.F 0
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
R
(continued)
-------
TABLE 4-1. (continued)
Starved air
Pollutant
Organic*
TCDO
KOF
PCM
PCOF
Precur-
sors
Uncon-
trolled
emissions
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
ESP
Controlled
missions
OS .ON
OS .ON
OS .ON
OS .ON
OS .ON
* 0 - Marion County. Oregon; first
Uncon-
Effl- trolled
ciency emissions
OS
OS
OS
OS
OS
U.S
W.O.PC
U.O.PC
U.O.PC
W.O.PC
U.O.PC
Controlled
emissions
G^.U.PC.Q
Gb.U.PC.Q
u.pc.q
M.PC.Q
U.PC.Q
. state-of-the-art excess-air HWC
Excess air
ESP
Effl-
c lency
W.PC
«.PC
U.PC
U.PC
U.PC
with dry scrubber
Dry scrubber
Controlled
emissions
O.F
O.F
O.F
O.F
0
Effi-
ciency
0
0
0
0
0
; EPA paranetric test
ROF
Uncon- ESP Dry scrubber
trolled Controlled
emissions emissions
R H
R H
R H
R H
R
planned for sumer and fall
Effl Controlled
ciency Missions
R
R
R
R
R
1987; results available In
Effi-
ciency
R
R
R
R
R
early
1988.
W • Uestchester/Peeksktll. New York;
f* G • Gatax. Virginia.
cop) lance
test
oo H • Haverh111. Massachusetts; final
prel !•< nary report
on rotary MUC with
report available In
In hand; final
report availability uncertain.
baghouse; report available In summer 1987.
turner 1987.
OS • Oswego. Hew York; preliminary report In hand; final report availability uncertain.
ON • OneI da. New York; preliminary report In hand; final report availability uncertain.
PC • Plnellas County. Florida; tests conducted In February 1987; draft report available in June 1987.
R • RDF parametric test planned for spring 1988 at a state-of-the-art facility yet to be determined: sponsored by EPA and Environment Canada; results available In late
1988.
F • Framlngham. Massachusetts, compliance test; testing to occur In July 1987; draft data available In late 1987.
0 • quebec City parametric tests; final report available In July 1987.
flotation that site characteristics do not meet conventional requirements for category.
-------
provided by EPA, State agencies, Environment Canada, and MWC vendors. It
should be noted that although many of the test reports referenced on
Table 4-1 were identified as becoming available in early 1987, none of
those listed have yet been received.
4-4
-------
5. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROTOCOL
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief description of the
sampling and analysis (S&A) methodologies that were used to generate the
emission data presented in Chapter 7. Because S&A methods were not the
same for all tests, a direct comparison of the data from different :ests
is difficult. This chapter is designed to illustrate the variety of S&A
methods associated with the emission test data and to facilitate an
evaluation of the comparative quality and accuracy of those data. The S&A
methodologies for each test are identified and described in Tables 5-1 and
5-2. Table 5-1 summarizes the S&A methodologies for the criteria
pollutants, acid gases, and organics. Table 5-2 summarizes the
methodologies for the metals. Acronyms and abbreviations are listed in
Supplement B. Additional information on recommended S&A methodologies is
contained in another volume of this comprehensive report entitled
Municipal Waste Combustion Study: Sampling and Analysis of Municipal
Waste Combustors (EPA/530-SW-87-021F).
The S&A methodologies used in the tests to measure the criteria
pollutants are more uniform than those used for other categories because
EPA reference methods for criteria pollutants are well defined, and those
methods generally were used for the reported test programs. The detailed
test procedures for EPA reference methods are found in 40 CFR, Part 60,
Appendix A. Only two facilities of those listed in Table 5-1 used a non-
EPA test method for determining PM emissions. The test conducted at Malmo
utilized a quartz FF, and the test conducted at Hamilton-Wentworth
utilized an Isojet sampler with a tared filter bag for the collection of
the PM. The other facilities were tested using the standard EPA M5,
sometimes with minor modifications as indicated. Tests were conducted at
22 facilities using M5, at 4 facilities using M5 in combination with M8,
and at 1 facility using M5, M8, and M17.
5-1
-------
At most test sites, CO levels were monitored continuously, 1n most
cases using NDIR. The actual method was unspecified at several sites.
The testing methodology for S02 levels reported at 19 sites included EPA
Method 5, 6, 8, or 13, and combinations of these, as noted in Table 5-1.
Four sites also reported continuous monitoring of S02 using ultraviolet
detection methods. The test report for Kure also indicated that S02 was
verified by the Chronoamperometric Detection Method, and the report for
Mayport indicated that S02 and NOX were measured by electrochemical
detection methods. In six tests, NOX levels were measured continuous!,
using the chemilumenescence method, and in two tests, M7E was utilized.
Method 7 was used at the Tuscaloosa and Albany tests. Nitrogen oxide
levels were measured continuously at three other sites for which the
reports did not describe the test methods.
Test methods for THC were more varied. Four tests used GC/FID for
continuous monitoring, while three tests utilized FID. At three other
test sites, California Air Resources Board Method 100, charcoal tubes and
metal gas bombs, and absorption tubes containing Tenax™ GC were used. In
the last two cases, analysis was by GC/FID. At four test sites, the
testing methodology was not described.
Acid gases (HC1, HF, and H2SOU) were all tested by a variety of S&A
methods. For several tests, EPA Method 5, 6, 8, 13A, or 17 and
combinations of these were used. The S&A methodologies and modifications
used are described in Table 5-1.
The same general S&A procedures were used for the organics tests.
Sampling was isokinetic; a filter was used to capture particle-phase
organics, and some type of resin was used to absorb the gas-phase
organics. The ASME draft protocol for dioxins or some other modification
of the EPA M5 train typically was used, and analysis was performed by
GC/MS.1 The S&A methodology for testing organics 1s evolving. In the
past, Florisil and Tenax" had been used as the sorbents for collecting
semivolatile and nonvolatile organics. The ASME draft protocol for
semi volatile and nonvolatile organics established 1n December 1984
standardized both S&A procedures using an MM5 train and XAD-2 resin as the
sorbent. The actual test reports should be consulted for information
about specific differences in the S&A protocols at different sites.
5-2
-------
In general, the same S&A protocol was used to test for all the metals
at a given site. However, in some tests a different S&A methodology was
used for some of the metals, especially for those metals for which EPA
test methods are specified. At the Tulsa test, M12 and M104, modified by
combining the probe rinse and impinger liquid, were used to test for Be
and Pb, and M101A was used to test for Hg. The test at Albany also used
M108 to test for As; MIDI or M101A was used to test for Hg at the Gallatin
and Tsushima facilities.
Several facilities also were tested using identical S&A protocols.
The metals tests at Gallatin, Munich, Wurzburg, and Tst:hima were all
performed using a Flow Sensor sampling system with analysis by AA, except
where different methods for Hg are noted. The tests at Washington, D.C.;
Alexandria; and Nicosia also followed the same S&A methodology (MM5 train
with analysis by Instrumental neutron activation [INA]). The tests at
Hampton (1982), Dyersburg, and Akron were all performed by analyzing the
SASS train particulate and volatile metals catch by XRF and SSMS.
In 14 of the tests, an M5 or MM5 sampling train was used.
Modifications of the M5 train included using an in-stack filter
(Washington, D.C.; Alexandria; and Nicosia), using aqua regia in the first
two impingers and KMnOk in H2SO!, in the third impinger (Prince Edward
Island), and using nitric acid in the first two impingers (Albany). The
test at Braintree used both M5 and SASS trains. Four tests (three
performed by Copper Engineering, Inc.) used Flow Sensor multiclone
sampling systems, and two facilities (Tulsa and Malmo) used other
methodologies as noted in Table 5-2.
In addition to the variations in S&A methodologies among the tests,
different metal phases also were measured. The majority of the metals
tests analyzed the particle phase (i.e., that captured on a filter). Five
facilities (Braintree, Prince Edward Island, Dyersburg, Akron, and
Hampton, 1982) were tested for metals in both the particle phase and the
condenslble phase (i.e., absorbed in resin traps or Impingers). The test
report for Malmo indicates that only the condenslble metals were tested.
In addition, some tests also specifically sampled for Hg in the vapor
phase.
5-3
-------
Analysis techniques for the various metals also varied widely. Most
analyses were performed using AA, although other methods included SSMS,
INA, direct coupled plasma, and XRF. Table 5-2 provides details on the
various S&A methodologies.
5-4
-------
TABLE 5-1. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY SUMMARY—CRITERIA POLLUTANTS, ACID GASES, AND ORGANICS
01
I
Criteria pollutants
Facility (Test date)
Mass burn/waterwall
Bait Lore (1/8S)
Bait Lore (5/85)
Bralntree (1978)
Chicago Northwest (1980)
Hanpton (1981)
Haapton (1982)
(lanpton (1983)
Hdnpton (1984)
McKay Bay
North Andover
Peeksklll (1985)*
Saugus
Tulsa (1986)
U»ea
Gallatln (1983)"
Kur* (1981)"
Munich (1984)"
Mal»o (1983)°°
Quebec (1985)
Uurzburg (1985)"
Marlon County (1986)
Mast burn/refractory
Philadelphia (1985)
Washington. D.C. (1976)
Mayport (1980)
Alexandria (1976)
Nicosia (1986)
TsushlM (1983)
Plttsfleld (1985)
Starved air
Cattaraugui County
Dyersburg (1982)
N. Little Rock (1980)
Prince Edward Island (1985)
Barren County
Red Wing
Tuscaloosa (1985)
RDF -fired
Akron (1981)
Albany (1984)
Sa.pl ing9
Out let
Inlet and outlet9
Outlet
Inlet and outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Out let
Outlet
Inlet and outlet
Out let
Outlet
Outlet
Out let
Inlet
Inlet and outlet
Inlet and outlet
Inlet and outlet
Inlet and outlet*5
Outlet
Out let
Outlet
None
Outlet
None
None
Inlet and outlet
Inlet
No control device
No control device
No control device
No control device
Outlet
Outlet
Inlet and outlet
Outlet
Inlet and outlet*"
PM
M5C
MS
MS
MS
MS/SASS
MS
MS
MS
MS"
MS
Ms/a"
M5/8"
MS/8
FF»
MS"
MS/8
MS"
MMS
MS
MS/8/17
MS/SASS
MMS
MS1*
MS
MS
MS
MS/SASS
MS
CO
M10d
NDIR11
k
k
k
M10
M10
k
NDIR
NDIR
NDIR
k
NDIR"U
NOIR
M10
k
NDIR
k
NDIR
NDIR
NDIR
.
NOIR
"2
M8e
NDIR
M6l
MB/13*
M5/8-UV9'
MS/8 or
e-uv"
MS/8
UV
M6k
M6C
k
MS/8
k
UV
UV
k
NO
X
M7f
1
M7
M7EZ
1
1
1
M7E*
k
td
k
1
,
M71"
M7k
THC
FIDJ
1
M25P
k
CM100**
GC/FID1111
11
nq
FIDW
FID
CM100M
k
GC/FIO
GC/FID
GC/FID
HC1
M6n
M6q
M8/13A1*
M6«
•i
M*"
IT
W
M6k
MS
MS"
MS**
MS/17
M6q
t«
M5tl
MS""
M6q
MS*
Acid gases
HF H SO Organ) csb
MM5"
KM 5°
M6q SASSr
MH5S
MM 5°
MMSU
MMS"
MMS"
H8/13A H8/13A HMSCC
dd
M61' MS/8
nn M6/8
MS/8
MMS"
11
IMS
MRS*"
MMS*
MS/17
MMS*"
tf
M6q SASSr
th fl
MM5*1
M6q SASSr
KMS'P
(continued)
-------
TABLE 5-1. (continued)
CTi
Facility (Test date)
Hamilton Wentworth (1984)
Niagara (198S)V
Wright Pat. AF8 (I960)
Wright Pat. AFB (1982)
Saopl ing*
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Outlet
PM
M,.
ND"
Criteria pollutants
CO S02 NO^ IIC
NDIR k tr
ND ND
Htl
NO
M6P *u
Acid gases
HF H SO Organ lcsb
ts
HNS*'
MM 5°
Acronyas and abbreviations are listed in Supplement 8.
Inlet Mans sauries taken after the conbustor and before the control device. Outlet leans samples taken after the control device.
''includes polycycllc and chlorinated hydrocarbons. PC00, PCtf. and other organic compounds.
-------
TABLt .-1. (continued)
""Separate sampling train. Analysis by AgNO (Instead of mercuric nitrate) which measures total halogens Instead of HU only.
""Separate sampling train. Analysis by SIE.J
°°Also ROf fired.
PPlsoklnetlc extraction and collection on quart! filter fabric at 320'F.
^Hydrocarbons C -C by adsorption tubes containing Tenax" GC. Analysis by GC/F10 and capillary column.
„ Sample fro* two imliingers In series with NaOH. Analysis by filtration with AgNO using ion selective electrode.
"Testing performed before the scrubber, between the scrubber and the fabric filter1, and after the fabric filter.
"Oregon DEQ Method 5.
UUMOIR continuous annltorfng outlet only.
wAt Inlet and outlet only.
""One sample train consists of two midget Implngers containing water. MS train with a series of water and aqua regta Implngers. Analysis by 1C. Continuous monitoring with
gas filter correlation.
""Gaseous organic? trapped In XAO-2 resin tube and an ethylene glycol filled luplnger. Analysis by GC/HS.
yyEPA VOSI method for volatile organic* with analysis by GC/MS. Other organic sampling performed by ASME draft protocol with XAD resin cartridge and filter analyzed by
GC/HS SIM.
"The first three impingers of this train were analyzed b» the colorlmetric. ferrlcyanlde method. EPA Method 325.3
Sampling by MS train modified with XAD resin catrldge and condenser prior to Implngers containing water. KOH. and silica gel. Extraction with hexane and methylene
chloride, analysis by HRGC/HS-SIM.
J°H5 sample train modified to Include HO In first Implnger. Anaylsls by EPA M325.3.
TCTrace organics collected with MS sampleHraln. Modified to Include XAD ? resin trap. Sample extracted with mthanol and methylene chloride, and analyzed by GC/MS.
.Continuous monitoring using a Fuji electric monitor which Is not approved for CEM use In the U.S. because It Is based on Infrared absorption, not chemilumlnescence.
MMS sampling and analysis in accordance with ASME/EPA protocol using XAD-2 resin cartridge and a condenser.
jq Samp I Ing train designed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. It Is an adaptation of the train proposed by the ASNE.
^Similar to MS train. First two tmptngers contain 5 percent aqua regla; third lupinger contains 2 percent »*nO In 10 percent H SO .
tfGlass-Uned probe and series of standard-size Imptngers (Instead of specified midget size) containing NaOH solfltion. Single po1nt4s«mpllng; analysis by 1C.
I MMS train as specified by ASME draft protocol. Analysis by GC/MS-MID.
.klhe Implnger portion of the MS sampling train for chlorides was analyzed with a specific Ion probe.
f|H5 sampling train with 0.1 H NaOH In Implngers. Analysis using EPA H325.2 (colormetrlc. automated ferrlcyanlde) using a Technlcon AAII
HHS sampling train as recommended by the October 1984 ASME/Argonne Environmental Standards workshop. The XAO-2 resin trap Is placed between the filter and Implngers.
^-Analysis by GC/XS.
LEPA N7 performed at outlet.
f0PH sampling at Inlet and outlet; all other sampling at stack outlet only.
jpEPA HS train modified to Include NaOH In first two Implngers. Analysis by SIE.
tqSamp ling by MM 5 train similar to the train specified In the ASME protocol. Extraction by acetone and hexane, analysis by GC/MS.
i,!lsojet sampler using tared filter bag.
^Continuous monitoring by FIO.
MS train modified to contain two Flortsll tubes after the impingers. Analysis by HRGC/MS and capillary column GC with ECO.
nTest method not described.
Also used a MMS by using NaOH In first two impingers Instead of water to compare sampling methods. Analysis by SIE. Honisoklnetic.
-------
TABLE 5-2. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY SUMMARY—METALS
cn
i
CO
facility (Test date)
Mass burn/waterwall
Baltimore (1/05)
Baltlaore (5/85)
Bralntree (1978)
Chicago Northwest (1980)
Haapton (1981)
Haapton (1982)
Haapton (1983)
Haapton (1984)
McKay Bay
North Andover
Peeksklll (1985)
Saugus
Tulsa (1986)
Ualftft
Gall at in (1983)"
Kure (1981)"
Munich (1984)
Malao (1983)
Quebec (1985)
Wurjburg (1985)
Marion County (1986)
Mass burn/refractory
Philadelphia (1985)
Washington. D.C. (1976)
Mayport (1980)
Alexandria (1976)
Nicosia (1976)
Tsushiaa (1983)
Pittsfield (198S)
Starved air
Cattaraugus County
Oyersburg (1982)
N. Little Rock (1980)
Prince Edward Island (1985)
Barren County
Red Wing
Tuscaloosa (I9BS)
RDF-flred
Akron (1981)
Albany (1984)
Hamilton Uentworth (1984)
Niagara (1985)
Wright Pat. AFB (I960)
Wright Pat. AFB (1982)
Sampling
None
Inlet and outlet
Inlet and outlet
Outlet
Hone
Outlet
None
None
Outlet
Inlet and outlet
None
None
Outlet
None
Inlet
Inlet and outlet
Outlet
Inlet and outlet^
Inlet and outlet
Outlet
Outlet
None
Outlet
None
Outlet
Outlet ,,
Inlet and outlet
None
None
No control device
No control device
No control device
Outlet
Out let
Inlet and outlet
Outlet
Outlet
Hone
Outlet
None
None
As
k
M108 d
M5/SASS
1 k
SASSJ
•
M12
v
MS*
v
MS"
v
**
MMS"
ff
MMS,;
HM5
v
1 k
SASSJ
Ssq"
MS
M108
M108qq
NO"
Metals
Be Cd Cr
f
f H5 0
MS MS/SASS MS/SASS11
MS
1 • •
SASS SASS SASS
s t
Ml 2 Ml 2
»
Ml 2/104
v v v
MS" MS"
V V V
MS* MS*1 MS*1
v v
Ml 04
NH5 MMS
MM 5,| MMSii
IMS M45
v v v
1 • M
SASS SASS SASS
WS) '"•^••i "'''«•»
hM *» aaU ii
MS' MSq
MS"" MS™ MS™
M5W
Ml 04 MS MS
NO NO NO
Pb
M5/SASSf
i n
SASS J "
ft
M12q
M12
v
MS"
v
MSdd
V
M12
hh
MM5
MMsJU
MM5
v
SASSJ"
MH5«i
f
M5n"
SASS1 "
MS
NO
Hg
M5/SASSh
1 0
SASSJ
M101A q
M101A
MlOl"
y
aa
ee
M101A
M101
SASSJ°
MMS""
M5°°
SASSJn°
M101Aq
NO
Ni
•
SASS
M12*
v .,
MS*
V
M5d
-------
TABLE 5-2. (continued)
Acronyms and abbreviations are listed In Supplement B.
hlnlet means samples taken after the combustor and before the control device. Outlet means samples taken after the control device.
°EPA MI08 for As.
jjHe«avalent chromium measured by placing MS filters In an alkaline solution and analysis by the diphenylcarbazide colorlmetrlc method. Total Cr determined by NAA.
Vaporous As measured by hydride generation AA method from SASS outlet train. MS particulate filters analyzed by SSMS/hydrlde AA.
.MS filters analyzed by SSMS.
.Measured by AA with air-acetylene flame and SSMS.
?MS filters analyzed by SSMS and SASS outlet train analyzed by AA.
Special sampling train at outlet for Hg vapor; KOH solution In first Impinger; seto.ni and third Implngers contained acidic KMnO ; the fourth Implnger was dry; and fifth
contained silica gel. Vapor Hg from special tram and SASS outlet train measured by cold vapor generation AA method. Partlculite catches from MS and SASS train measured
,by SMSS and cold vapor AA.
^Samples from MS digested with aqua reqla and acid solutions. Analysis by AA with air-acetylene flame.
^Volatile trace elements trapped in the liquid Impinger train which contains HO in the first Implnger and amonium persulfate/AgNO in the following two Implngers.
•Volatile phase analysis by hydride generation techniques. SASS cyclone/filter catch analysis by XKf.
'Analysis by SSMS.
nSASS cyclone/filter catch analyzed by XRF.
0Analysis using graphite furnace and XRF
Analysis using f tameless, UV technique; EPA M24S. 1 (manual cold vpor technique).
1EPA M104 for Be.
^Analysis using AA.
'EPA M101A for Hg.
Alternate EPA M12. The outlet train contained 100 ml of 0.1 N HNO in the first three Implngers. The fourth Implnger was empty and the fifth contained silica gel.
.Particulate collected from the nozzle was not included in the metafs analysis. Analysis by NAA.
*EPA M12 for Pb and M104 for Be. Modified by combining probe rinse and impinger liquid.
ylestlng performed by Cooper.
Flow Sensor mult(clone sampling system. Analysis by AA.
XEPA M101 for Hg. Analysis using AA.
The metals analyzed at the outlet were not Identified. Samples from MS filters analyzed by MAA. Different particulate size ranges analyzed by emission spectrophotometry.
*Hg sampled at Inlet only. Two EPA methods (not Identified) used to measure Hg.
Samples from two Implngers containing HNO . Analysis by AA.
^Samples from three Implngers with separate1 solutions of MaOH and KMnO with H SO . Analysis by AA.
cclest Ing performed before the scrubber, between the scrubber and the ft, and after the FF.
^Analysis by FAA.
^Analysis by OCPCS.
Hg scrubbed by two Implngers containing KMnO . Recovery of Hg In the particulate form by washing front-half components with dlchromate and Immersing the filter In this
ffSOlutlon. Recovery of Implngers Involved thl reduction with hydroxyIdnlne hydrochloride followed by a dlchromate solution. Analysis by FAA.
MS modified by use of In-stack filter. Analysis by NAA.
??M5 modified by use of In-stack filter. Analysis by both NAA and AA.
,,M5 modified by use of In-stack filter. Analysis by AA or materials leached from filters with HC1 and/or HNO,.
(1Glass fiber filters analyzed by NAA. J
""- fiber filters analyzed by both NAA and AA.
,,Glass fiber filters analyzed by AA.
^Hg sampled at both Inlet and outlet. Other heavy metals only sampled at Inlet.
Sample train similar to that of MS. First two Implngers contained S percent aqua regfa, third Implnger contained 2 percent M4nO In 10 percent H SO . Analysis generally
by DOPES. Mercury Is analyzed by AA. 424
ooMS modified using 10 percent nitric acid In the first two Implnger». Analysis by ICAPS.
MS modified using 200 ml of S percent mnO In 1 N HNO in the first two Implngers. Analysis by cold vapor AA. Mercury was also sampled using a gold amalgamation
technique. Analysis by thermally desorbtnj the mercury from the gold followed by a cold vapor AA technique. 4j
ILCr collected on EPA MS filter, digested in an alkaline solution with analysis by the diphenylcarbazlde colorimetrlc method for Cr .
JjAnalysis by cold vapor AA.
ssCollected In an MS train modified to Include HNO acid in first two implngers. analyzed by AA.
j^Sampling using EPA approved or adaptations of EP4-approved methods.
lest methods not described.
-------
REFERENCE FOR CHAPTER 5
1. PEI Associates, Inc. Emission Test Report—Baltimore RESCO
Incinerator, Baltimore, Maryland. Prepared for U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Emissions Measurements Branch, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. July 1985. (Draft—Pending Determination and
Final Metals Analyses).
5-10
-------
6. PROTOCOL FOR DATA BASE
6.1 ENGINEERING METHODOLOGY
A thorough review of 36 test reports from U.S. and foreign MWC's was
performed to establish a data base for four classes of pollutants:
criteria pollutants, acid gases, metals, and organic compounds. Data log
forms were created to document and facilitate transfer of reported
emission and process information to pollutant-specific data base files
created using dBase III*, a data base management software package, on an
IBM-compatible personal computer (PC). A PC program was written to
perform most of the calculations and present the results in a consistent
and comparable format. Pollutant-specific tables were generated by the
computer to (1) list results for uncontrolled and controlled emission
levels and collection efficiency, (2) present emission results in a
concentration format (pollutant mass per unit volume) and as an emission
factor (EF) in pollutant mass per mass of waste feed, (3) identify the
treated facility by name and type, and (4) present separate tables for
standard international (SI) and English units. The sections below briefly
describe the methodology and rationale used to develop the data base files
and programs.
The emission data documented on the data log forms (example forms are
included as Supplement C) were averaged as the arithmetic mean of different
sampling runs prior to inclusion in the PC data base. Test programs at
most facilities consisted of three to six sampling runs conducted during
distinct operating conditions; groups of runs at the distinct conditions
were treated as separate tests. Separate results from multiple test
programs or test conditions were reported for the following facilities:
Hamilton-Wentworth, Hampton, Malmo, McKay Bay, Philadelphia, Prince Edward
Island, Quebec, Umea, and WPAFB. Tests at the Hamilton-Wentworth MWC were
6-1
-------
performed and reported for six different operating conditions based on
load and air distributions. Tests conducted four different times in as
many years were reported individually for the Hampton MWC. Distinct tests
at Malmo were performed while firing normal refuse and RDF and reported
separately. At McKay Bay, tests were conducted and results reported on
Unit 1, Unit 2, Unit 3, and Unit 4. Tests were conducted and results
reported on Unit 1 and Unit 2 at the Philadelphia Northwest MWC. The
comprehensive tests at Prince Edward Island were conducted during four
distinct and controlled operating conditions: normal operation, long feed
cycle operation, high secondary chamber temperature, and low secondary
chamber temperature. Tests at the Quebec MWC were performed and reported
for four different conditions using a slipstream controlled by a pilot-
scale WSH/DI/FF and two different conditions using a slipstream controlled
by pilot-scale SO/FF. Tests conducted during the fall of 1984 and spring
of 1985 at the Umea MWC were reported individually. At WPAFB, tests were
conducted on two occasions and reported separately.
Due to the variety of formats used to report units of measure at
different MWC facilities, the emission data required some preprocessing to
•
standardize the units of measure prior to computer calculation of emission
concentration levels and EF's. Particulate and metals data reported in
10 different units were manually converted to mg/dscm or gr/dscf and
corrected to 12 percent C02. The results were used to calculate EF's in
units of ug/Mg and Ib/ton and emissions of metals as particulate fractions
in units of pollutant mass per particulate mass. Computerized preprocess-
ing was possible with the data bases for acid gases, criteria pollutants,
and organic compounds because the variety of measurement units was
limited. The list of conversion factors used in the data base preprocess-
ing is Included as Table 6-1.
In the acid gases and criteria pollutants data bases, some pre-
processing required simple calculations in addition to unit conversions.
If the pollutant-specific data, Dl, were reported 1n ng/dscm corrected to
12 percent C02 in the test report, the following calculation
DI=Dlx(percent concentration of C02)/12
was performed in the preprocessing portion of the PC program ACALC to
6-2
-------
TABLE 6-1. LIST OF CONVERSION FACTORS
Multiply
mg/Nm3a
2
m
m /min
m/s
kg/h
kPa
1pm
kg/Mg
By
4.37x10'"
10.764
35.31
3.281
2.205
4.0
0.264
2.0
To obtain
gr/dscfb
ft2
ftVmin
ft/s
Ib/h
in. of H20
gal /min
Ib/ton
Temperature conversion equations
°F=(9/5)*°C+32
°C=(5/9)*(°F-32)
Normal conditions on a dry basis are 1 atm and 20°C.
3Dry standard conditions are 1 atm and 68°F.
6-3
-------
present the "uncorrected" value in the resulting table. When the data,
Dl, were reported in ng/dscf in the test report, the conversion
01=01x35.31
was required to present Dl as ng/dscm. Acid gas and criteria pollutant
data were presented in ppmdv corrected to 12 percent C02. In order to
convert data, Dl, from mg/dscm corrected to 12 percent C02 to ppmdv at
12 percent C02, the relation
Dl=01x(1000x0.02404)/(molecular weight of pollutant)
was employed.
Calculation of EF's was performed using conversion factors (CF's) to
relate process conditions to emission concentration levels. The CF's were
calculated manually for each facility that provided percent concentration
of C02, process feed rate, and stack gas flow measurements. The EF's in
10~10 Ib/ton were calculated using the "corrected" concentration data in
English units, El in 10~10 gr/dscf, and the following equation
EF=CFxEl
where
1+
(Percent concentration of CO,) (stack gas flow in dscfm)(7.14xlO )
CF= - .
Process rate in ton/h
The EF's in yg/Mg were then calculated using
EF in yg/Mg=(EF in 10'10 Ib/ton)x0.05
In order to calculate EF's from data presented in ppmdv at 12 percent C02,
a second conversion factor, CCF, was needed. CCF was defined as
(molecular weight of pollutant) (1.3xlO~8)(CF)
(7.14x10" )
An EF value may be calculated from
EF in Ib/ton feed=(Dl in ppmdv @ 12 percent C02)(CCF).
6-4
-------
Because test periods were nonsimultaneous, CF values for some facilities
were different for the various pollutants. Table 6-2 presents the values
for CF, C02, stack gas flow rate, and process feed rate that were used in
the data base for emission calculations. Determinations of EF's were made
only when process feed rates were documented or derivable from plant
records of refuse process rates and steam flow rates. Discrepancies (±15
percent) in EF calculations can result from interpretation of process
conditions during sampling periods and data averaging techniques. To
reduce these potential discrepencies, EF values were taken directly from
the test report whenever possible.
Quality control and quality assurance procedures were used to assure
that the data base accurately reflected the reported test data. Each data
log form was checked by a second person to assure documentation of
reported emission and process data prior to development of the computer
data base. The data log forms provided the structure for the PC data base
files and quality check. After emission tables were generated, a final
comparison was made between randomly selected test reports, their
associated data log form, and the produced emission table to assure the
quality of the data acquisition and the associated calculations.
6.2 COMPUTER PROGRAMMING METHODOLOGY
The dBase III* programs initially were modified and titled in a
pollutant-specific fashion; these gradually were developed into a more
generalized format to allow for improved quality control and consistant
data manipulation. The programs were written in a modular fashion with a
main procedure, MAINRPT, calling several subroutines. These subroutines
were designed to (1) conduct the preprocessing, correction to 12 percent
C02, emission percentage, and EF calculations; (2) print the table heading
and column identifications; (3) print the facility type, name, control
device type, and test condition; and (4) print the emission data and
calculation results.
The data base files remained pollutant-specific to check test reports
known to have measured these pollutants. These files are presented in
Table 6-3. These data files were used in their associated computer
programs to generate the pollutant-specific tables as shown in
6-5
-------
TABLE 6-2. SUMMARY OF DATA USED TO CALCULATE EMISSION FACTORS
CTV
I
en
Facl 1 Ity name
Mass burn
Waterwall
ESP
Baltimore
Bralntree
Chicago
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1982)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
PeeksMII (4/85)
Tulsa (Unit 1)
Tulsa (Unit 2)
CYC/FF
Gal latin
ESP/WS
Kure
CYC/0 I/ESP/FF
Mai mo
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Marlon County
Wurzburg
SO/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
CYC/ESP
Washington, O.C.
CYC
Mayport
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
110
125
140
200
Normal
Normal
140
140 « R.
Normal
Normal
Normal
MSN/Waste ol 1
Organic data
co2, j
11.3
4.20
8.97
6.60
12.1
12.9
6.70
7.90
9.80
9.40
10.5
6.90
11.3
7.10
7.40
7.50
7.30
7.70
8.30
7.50
5.3
4.7
7.7
SFR, dscfm
110,000
20,900
52,300
18.800
12.800
12.700
10,100
40,200
45,300
13,100
17,200
34,000
2,490
2,560
2,450
2,120
30,600
2,480
2,410
75,600
85,100
8,380
PR, ton/h
27.0
4.96
19.1
5.11
5.20
5.20
13.8
15.6
15.6
3.83
6.25
10.5
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
12.3
10.4
10.4
1.03
CF
21.7
12.5
17.5
17.4
21.2
22.4
3.52
8.0
19.5
25.6
13.6
26.2
1.21
1.29
1.26
1.06
13.6
1.41
1.24
44.7
CO 2, I
17.0
4.20
9.10
6.60
12.9
6.70
7.90
9.80
9.40
10.5
6.90
11.3
8.39
7.60
5.30
4.70
7.70
All other pollutants
SFR, dscfm
110,000
20,900
53,200
18,800
12.700
10,100
13,100
17.200
34,000
36,577
30,600
77,200
83,800
8,380
PR, ton/h
27.0
4.96
19.1
5.11
5.20
5.20
13.8
15.6
15.6
3.83
6.25
10.5
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
12.3
10.4
10.4
1.03
CF
21.7
12.5
18.9
17.4
21.2
3.52
18.0
19.5
25.6
13.6
26.2
1.21
1.29
1.26
1.06
13.5
1.41
1.24
44.7
(continued)
-------
TABLE 6-2. (continued)
en
I
Facl 1 Ity name
WS
Alexandria
Nicosia
SD/FF
Tsushima
EGB
Plttsf leld
Starved air
None
Cattaraugus County
Dyersburg
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Tuscaloosa
RDF fired
ESP
Akron
Albany
Hamllton-Mentworth
Hamllton-Hentworth
Niagara
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
Wright Pat. AFB
CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Mai mo
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Experimental
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
High
Low
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Half load
Normal
Normal
Dense RDF
RDF
Organic data
co2, i
6.20
7.03
8.00
8.00
11.1
7.00
7.00
8.10
9.50
9.70
6.40
7.60
11.5
SFR, dscfm
17,800
8,160
5,960
5,710
4,640
6,860
44,900
48,900
78,500
143,000
48,800
39,300
PR, ton/h
6.24
7.10
2.08
1.75
1.76
1.87
1.68
13.6
25.0
23.6
9.38
10.5
CF
12.6
19.4
19.3
18.5
19.7
20.5
16.5
11.3
22.6
28.3
30.7
co2, i
6.20
7.0u
8.00
8.00
11.1
7.00
7.00
9.50
9.70
6.40
7.60
11.5
All other pollutants
SFR, dscfm
17,800
8,160
5,960
5,710
4,640
6,860
44,900
77,400
48,600
39,300
PR, ton/h
6.24
7.10
2.08
1.76
1.76
1.87
1.67
13.6
25.0
23.6
41.3
9.38
10.5
CF
12.6
19.4
19.3
18.5
19.7
20.5
16.5
1.3
22.2
28.3
30.7
-------
TABLE 6-3. DATA FILES
Name
Contents
DATAEMIS
DATACID
COS02
NEWORG
DATAORG
ORGSITE
TOTFAC
COTAB
ESP
DSFF
Participate and metals emissions
Acid gas data
Criteria pollutant data
Organic data: total measured penta's, hexa's hepta's,
octa's, benzene, benzo-a-pyrene, chlorinated phenols,
and chlorinated benzenes
Organic data: 2,3,7,8-tetra's, total tetra's, and
tetra- through octa's
Facility type, name, control device, test condition,
and reference number
Percent C02 concentration, stack gas flow, process
rate, and CF
Collection efficiency, temperatures, and flow rates
ESP design and operating conditions data
OS and FF design and operating conditions data
6-8
-------
Table 6-4. These programs required simple modifications prior to
producing desired tables. These modifications included selecting desired
table number, desired data type, and altering the field name used in the
program to reflect this data type.
6-9
-------
TABLE 6-4. SUMMARY OF PROGRAMS
Name
PART 1C
METALS
ACID
ACID
ORGNEW
ORG
TOTALD
TOTALF
BEN
CONTAB
CONTAB1
CONTAB2
CONTAB3
CONTAB4
CONTAB5
Input data file
DATAEMIS
DATAEMIS
DATACID
COS02
NEWORG
DATAORG
NEWORG
NEWORG
NEWORG
ESP
DSFF
DSFF
ESP
DSFF
DSFF
Tables produced
Part icu late
Metals
Acid gases
Criteria pollutants
Total penta's, hexa's, hepta's, and
octa's
2,3,7,8-tetra's, total tetra's, and
tetra-through octa's
Total measured PCDD
Total measured PCDF
Benzo-a-pyrene, total chlorinated
benzene and phenol, and benzene
ESP design specifications
DS/FF design specifications
FF or scrubber design specifications
ESP operating conditions
DS/FF operating conditions
FF or scrubber operating conditions
6-10
-------
7. DATA BASE
7.1 DISCUSSION OF PROCESS AND CONTROL DEVICE TABLES
7.1.1 Discussion of Process Design and Operation Tables
Design and operating Information for the process equipment 1n use at
the 30 test sites 1s presented 1n tabular format 1n this section.
Specific design factors anticipated to have causal relationships with
combustion efficiency and/or pollutant emission levels have been
identified in the combustor design tables. A paucity of performance-
related design information is available 1n the emission test reports
identified in Supplement A. Tables 7-la and 7-lb present the available
structural and airflow design specifications, respectively, for the mass-
burn facilities in SI units. Process operating conditions are presented
in Table 7-2 for the mass-burn facilities 1n SI units. Comparable design
data for the starved-air facilities and RDF facilities are presented
similarly in Tables 7-3a, 7-3b, 7-5a, and 7-5b. Process operating
conditions are presented for starved-a1r and RDF-fired facilities in SI
units in Tables 7-4 and 7-6, respectively. The same table sequence is
followed for process design and operating conditions in English units for
Tables 7-59 through 7-64.
7.1.2 Discussion of Control Device Design and Operating Condition Tables
Control device design and operating characteristics are presented in
Tables 7-7 through 7-12 in SI units, and Tables 7-65 through 7-70 in
English units. Tables 7-7 and 7-65 present ESP design data 1n SI and
English units, respectively. Comparable design data for the DS systems
are presented in Tables 7-8 and 7-66. Tables 7-9 and 7-67 present design
data for WS and FF systems in SI and English units, respectively.
Operating conditions are presented for the different types of control
equipment in the same sequence 1n Tables 7-8, 7-10, and 7-12 1n SI units,
and 1n Tables 7-68 through 7-70 in English units.
7-1
-------
7.2 DISCUSSION OF EMISSION TABLES
The emission test data for the 36 test sites examined during this
study are presented for 48 specific pollutants or related pollutants in
Tables 7-13 through 7-58 and Tables 7-71 through 7-116. Each table
presents emission data for one pollutant/related pollutants either in SI
units or in English units. Data are presented in SI units in Tables 7-13
through 7-58 and in English units in Tables 7-71 through 7-116. For each
test site, the tables present the type of facility, facility name, type of
control device, test condition, and three columns of emission values for
uncontrolled and controlled emission levels upstream from and downstream
from the control device. For most tables, emission values are presented
in units of mass/stack gas volume in dry standard conditions (DSC) of 20°C
and 760 mm Hg (68°F and 29.92 in. Hg), in DSC converted to 12 percent C02
and mass of pollutant per mass of feed input.
For the metals tables, emission values are presented in units of mass
of metal emissions/mass of PM emissions in lieu of mass/stack gas volume
at DSC. The four classes of pollutants are presented in the following
sequence of tables: (1) the four criteria pollutants are presented in
Tables 7-13 through 7-16 in SI units and Tables 7-71 through 7-74 in
English units; (2) the 7 metals are presented in Tables 7-17 through 7-23
in SI units and in Tables 7-75 through 7-81 in English units; (3) the
3 acid gases are presented in Tables 7-24 through 7-26 in SI units and
Tables 7-82 through 7-84 in English units; and (4) the 21 organic
pollutants or related pollutants are presented in Tables 7-27 through 7-55
in SI units and Tables 7-85 through 7-113 in English units.
The supplementary emission data from 27 test sites for PCDD, PCDF,
and metals are presented in Tables 7-56 through 7-58, respectively, in SI
units and Tables 7-114 through 7-116 in English units.
It should be noted that the "emissions upstream from control device"
and "emissions downstream from control device" designations on the tables
in this chapter are indicative only of the location at which the
measurements were made. These designations were selected to present the
emission data in a consistent format that permits comparison. Control
efficiencies are presented for those control devices known to demonstrate
control over a specific pollutant. In some cases, these designations
7-2
-------
could result 1n negative control efficiencies for some gas-phase
pollutants like S02, NOX, and CO. However, the lack of control of such
pollutants 1s not a reflection of the efficiency of the PM control
device. Rather, variations in the measured values of such pollutants
upstream and downstream of the PM control device typically are a product
of the normal variation expected with any test method (and are suitably
footnoted as they occur in the tables).
7-3
-------
Facility type/structural and airflow design data/operating conditions 1n
SI units
7-la Mass-Burn Facility Structural Design Data
7-lb Mass-Burn Facility Airflow Design Data
7-2 Mass-Burn Operating Data for MWC Facilities
7-3a Starved-A1r Facility Structural Design Data
7-3b Starved-A1r Facility Airflow Design Data
.-_•, , .3J-SJT-; v-: •
7-4 Starved-A1r Operating Data for MWC Facilities '
7-5a RDF-F1red Facility Structural Design Data
7-5b RDF-F1red Facility Airflow Design Data
7-6 RDF-Fired Operating Data for MWC Facilities
-------
TABLE 7-la. MASS-BURN FACILITY STRUCTURAL DESIGN DATA
—I
I
Chamber configuration
Primary chamber Secondary chamber Heat transfer area
Geometric Volume, Geometric Volume, Convec-
Facility configuration m configuration «r tive, m Total, or
Baltimore 83
Braintree 1,840
Chicago
Gal latin
Hampton
Kure
Peeksk i 1 1
N. Andover Rectangular 820 4,710 4,960
Quebec
ulsa
Munich
Wurzburg
Tsushima
Mai mo
Saugus
Marion County
Grate data
Manu- No. of Pressure
facturer sections drop, kPa
a
b
c
e
d 3
e
a
c
a 3
c
c
c
c
3
Capac i ty ,
Mg/d
686
109
363
91
114
680
680
227
340
740*
150
218
680
250
Unea
Phi ladelphla
340
*Von RolI.
DRlley Stoker.
^Martin.
"Detroit Stoker.
eO'Connor water-cooled rotary combustor.
'480 Mg/d of MMS and 260 Mg/d of clarified sludge.
-------
TABLE 7-lb. MASS-BURN FACILITY AIRFLOW DESIGN DATA
Facility
Under fire air
Overfire air
No. of
Mo. of controlled Flow rate.
plenums flows • /mm
Nozzle data
Feed
JPJow distribution, percent
Dry Combustion
Burnout Location
Flow
direction
Velocity,
Number Type
Quebec
N. Andover
70
30 20
Front wall Horizontal 30 2.75 in. dia.
Backwall Inclined 31 2.75 in. dia.
-------
TABLE 7-2. MASS BURN OPERATING DATA FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR FACILITIES
I
en
Facility nane
Mass burn
Uaterwall
ESP
Baltimore. 5/85
Braintree
Chicago
Haapton (1981)
Hasten (1982)
Hasten (I9S3)
Hasten (1984)
N. Andover
Peeksklll (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Unit 1)
lulsa (Unit 2)
U»ea. fall, normal
Uhea. fall, low te*p
Utea. spring
CYC/FF
GalUtin
ESP/US
Kure
SO/ESP
Munich
CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Nalao
VSWOl/ff
Quebec. 110
Quebec. 125
Quebec. 140
Quebec. 200
Uurzburg
SD/ff
Marlon County
Quebec. 140
Quebec. 140 I R
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NU1)
Philadelphia (MW2)
CYC
Mayport
SO/FF
TsushlM
EGB
Plttsfleld
lenperatures
Feed rate, Boi ler
X design Furnace. °C outlet. "C Stack. *C
85 371 228
198
627 238
98 27S
270
804 271
86 816 360
307
95-112
804
538
782
173
221
159
816 290 963
904 18S
861 126
988
943
SO 223
210
Flow rate.
H«3/«in
3,100
592
1,480
533
362
260
287
1,140
1.280
370
487
2.150
7.50
70.5
72. 5
69.5
60.0
866
1.040
70.3
68.2
2.190
2.380
237
504
V*
11.5
16.1
11.4
13.5
7.70
6.40
11.9
10.4
10.5
9.40
14.6
12.5
11.3
12.7
12.4
12.5
12.9
10.7
11.7
11.8
12.5
13.9
14.8
12.8
14.2
10.7
Stack gas concentrations
CO . X HO. X CO. pp*
7.50 12.1
4.20 6.3 474
8.97 163
6.60
12.1
12.9 1.130
6. 70 136
9.4 13.4 32.1
7.90
10.1 30.6
9.80
9.40
10.5
6.9
7.2 17.4
7.10
7.40
7.50
7.30
7.6 15. 5 41
8.15 18.5
8.30
7.50
5.55 24.9 227
4.7 22.6 182
7.70 31.0
6.20 26.8
THC. pp.
11.3
55.7
348
3
4
4
-------
TABLE 7-3a. STARVED-AIR FACILITY STRUCTURAL DESIGN DATA
Chamber configuration
Primary chamber Secondary chamber
Geometric Geometric Heat transfer
Facility configuration Volume, m configuration Volume, m area, tn
Barren County
Cattaraugus Co.
Dyersburg
N. Little Rock
Prince Edward
Island
Red Wing
Tuscaloosa
Grate data
Manufacturer Capacity, Mg/d
45
36
91
23
33
33
82
-------
TABLE 7-3b. STARVED-AIR FACILITY AIRFLOW DESIGN DATA
Primary air
No. of Secondary air
Mo. of controlled Flow rate, Flow distribution, percent Flow No/zle data
Facility plenuns flows «3/iiin Feed Dry Combustion Burnout Location direction Nunber Type Velocity, «/s
I
00
-------
TABLE 7-4. STARVED AIR OPERATING DATA FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR FACILITIES
Faci lity na«e
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus County
Dyersburg
N. I Utle Rock
Prince Edward Island, nornal
Prince Edward Island, long
Prince Edward Island, high
Prince Edward Island, low
ESP
Tuscaloosa
Feed rate. Priwry
X design chamber, °C
94
793
693
688
704
677
90
lemperat ures
Secondary
chamber, °C
938
904
888
1,080
78?
Boiler
outlet, "C Stack, °C
254
303 200
184
183
183
195
Flow rate.
N«3/«in
231
169
16?
131
194
1,?70
V *
12.8
12.2
12.5
9.10
13.5
11.3
Stack gas concentrations
C0?. X H20. X CO, pp.
7.03
8.00 43.0
8.00 25.0
11.1 27.0
7.00 28.0
7.00
WC, ppn
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.7
I
to
-------
TABLE 7-5a. REFUSE DERIVED FUEL-FIRED FACILITY STRUCTURAL DESIGN DATA
Charter configuration
Prinary charter Secondary chaaber
Geometric Geometric Heat transfer area
conflg- config- Convec- Total. No. of
Facility uratlon Voluw. r* uratlon Volune. *3 tive. »? m2 Manufacturer sections
Akron
Albany
Hamilton -Uentworth
Malao
Grate data
Pressure Capacity,
drop. kPa Mg/d
910
272
272
218
Fuel
Fuel charging
grade •echanlsa
Wright Pat. AFB*
Niagara
1.100
Originally designed to bum coal, retrofitted to burn RDF.
t—•
CD
-------
TABLE 7-5b. REFUSE DERIVED FUEL-FIRED FACILITY AIRFLOW DESIGN DATA
Primary air
Ho. of Secondary air
No. of controlled Flow rate, flow distribution, percent Flow Nozzle data
Facility plenums flows m /min Feed Dry Combustion Burnout Location direction Number Type Velocity, n/s
-------
TABLE 7-6. RDF-FIRED OPERATING DATA FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR FACILITIES
I
t—•
ro
Facility name
RDF fired
ESP
Ai ion
Albany
Niagara
CYC/FSP
Wright Pat. AFB
Wright Pat. AFB
CYC/D1/ESP/FF
Malno
Temperatures
Feed rate. Boiler Flow rate, Stack gas concentrations
* design Furnace. *C outlet. °C Stack. *C N«3/>in 0 . X CO . X H 0. X CO. pp» THC. ppn
222
232 1.390 12.7 8.10
201 2.190 11.3 9.50 13.4 274
75 90 4.040
1.380 7.60
150 151
816 283 943 7.60 11.5
-------
Control device design and operating characteristics 1n SI units
7-7 Electrostatic Predpltator Design Specifications
7-8 Electrostatic Predpltator Operating Conditions --^7 .
7-9 Dry Scrubber/Fabric Filter System Design Specifications
7-10 Dry Scrubber/Fabric Filter System Operating Conditions ^
j«W'-*j5U , ^ • " t -
7-11 Fabric Filter or Scrubber Design Specifications :;V . ^.
c **7rt,7- "tsr -•
7-12 Fabric Filter or Scrubber Operating Conditions \0V-Cr,,
-------
TABLE 7-7. ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Facility nane
Mass burn
Waterwall
ESP
Baltinore
Braintree
Chicago
Ha«»)ton (1981)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
North Andover
Peekskill (4/85)
Saugus
SD/tSP
Munich
CYC/01 /ESP/FF
Maine
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NU1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
CYC/ESP
Washington. D. C.
Starved air
ESP
Tuscaloosa
RDF fired
ESP
Albany
CYC/OI/ESP/FF
Mai no
Specific Aspect
Participate matter col lee- Collection ratio. Inlet gas
Collection Fmssions, tion area. No. of plate Electrical length/ flow rate. Inlet gas Gas velo-
efficiency. X nq/Nn3 ' »^n3/nin fields area, n2 power. kVA height •3/«in temp. . "C city. •/$
4 9.3H) 4.925 213
93.0 0.431 1 440 1.020 1.04
9'-° IH 3.820 260 0.91
2
2
2
115 3
68 3
2
2 149
1.300 220
98-' 0.675 2 4.400 6.510 288 1.15
98-l 0.675 2 4,400 6.510 288 1.15
95.0 2
50.0 68.6 0.458 2 985 27.0 0.52 2.150 177 1.27
3
i inn ?xi
-------
TABLE 7-8. ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR OPERATING CONDITIONS
Facility name
Mass burn
Uaterwall
ESP
Baltimore
Braintree
Chicago
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
Peekskill (4/85)
ESP/WS
Kure
aC/DI/ESP/FF
Malmo
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (MWI)
7*1 Philadelphia (NW?)
f*v
Starved air
ESP
luscaloosa
RDF fired
ESP
Albany
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
Wright Pat. AFB
CVC/OI/ESP/FF
Malmo
Emiss ions
lest Collection at 12X CO Stack
condition efficiency, X ng/Nn opacity, t
Normal 99.9 6.86
Normal >S.! 547
Normal
Nui ma 1
Normal
Normal 342
Normal 37.3
Normal 9B.4 68. 6
Normal 99.5 22.9
Norma 1 252
Normal 1,100
Normal 3
Normal 97.0 318
Normal
Dense RDF 11.4
RDF 99.5
Gas
temp.. °C
198a
236b
?75a
271b
258a
27 ;b
26 7a
?67a
32 3b
20la
236a
139d
Gas flow
rate.
•3/«in
l,0?0d
?.830b
1.160a
?98b
594 a
1.130b
5,380a
5,660d
2.400b
4.080d
2.580*
Secondary voltage, kVDC Secondary current, mADC
First Second Third First Second Third
field field field field field field
22.0 22.0 68.0 216
430 300
275 575
24.0 20.0 43.0 92.0
31.0 28.0 28.0 150 280 280
•"Control device outlet.
Control device inlet.
-------
TABLE 7-9. DRY SCRUBBER/FABRIC FILTER SYSTEM DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Faci lity nane
Mass burn
Uaterwall
CVC/DI/ESP/FF
Malmo
Quebec6
Wur/burg
SD/FF
Marion County
Refractory
SD/FF
Tsushima
RDF fired
CVC/OI/fSP/FF
Ma l*o
' °A/C ratio * air-to-clo
Part icul ate natter Reagent
Collection (missions. Inlet gas flow feed Gas temperature
efficiency. X mg/Nin3 rate. m3/m1n Reagent method Inlet, °C Outlet, *C
50.1 1.300 Ca(OH) Nozzles 220
Ca(OH) Dry or wet
2 Dry
1,740C 227-268 126
Ca(OH) Two fluid 360
nozz les
50.1 1.300 Ca(OH) Nozzles 220
th ratio = gas flow rate^bag area.
VC
ratio. Bag cleaning
Bag material m/mina nethod
Teflon 1.3 Pulse-Jet
Pulse-Jet
0. 713 Reverse air
Fiberglass Reverse air
These data also apply to the SD/FF pilot scale tests.
cAt 227'C.
-------
TABLE 7-10. DRY SCRUBBER/FABRIC FILTER SYSTEM OPERATING CONDITIONS
Fdci lity name
Test
condition
Partkulate matter
Collection
efficiency, J
[missions Gas flow
at IPX CO . rate,
ing/Nin « /mm
Gas temperature
Inlet, 'C Outlet. *C
Stoichio-
metric ratio
Reagent
feed
rate, kg/h
Pressure drop
Scrubber. kPa
Bags. kPa
Mass burn
UaterwaU
CYC/DI/tSP/FF
Malmo
Quebec3
Wurzburg
Refractory
SD/FF
IsushiiM
RDF fired
CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Malno
Nornal
Pilot OS
Mornal
Norul
RDF
99.5
99.9
99.4
22.9
Z7.5
99.5
125°
1.410°
1.110°
263
2?0
354
155
185
204
3.58
19.9
0.675
1.60
aThese data also apply to the SO/FF pilot-scale tests.
Control device inlet.
cControl device outlet.
-------
TABLE 7-11. FABRIC FILTER OR SCRUBBER DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
I
I—•
—I
Faci lity naiie
Fabric filter
Paniculate matter
Co 11 ec 11 on
efficiency, X
Emssions,
Inlet gas
flow rate,
n /mm
Inlet gas
te«p., °t
A/C ratio,
m/mn
Bag
cleaning
•ethod
Scrubber
Bag
material
lype
Pressure
drop, kPa
liquid
rate. Ipn
Mass burn
Waterwall
ESP/WS
Kure
SO/fSP
Hunich
Refractory
US
Alexandria
Nicosia
?60
TCA
I up.
Imp.
3.980
-------
TABLE 7-12. FABRIC FILTER OR SCRUBBER OPERATING CONDITIONS
Paniculate matter
Inlet
Facility name
test condition
(missions gas flow
Collection at I2X CO , rate.
efficiency. % mg/Nm m /mm
Gas temperature
Inlet. 'C Outlet. "C
Pressure Bag cleaning Stoichio
drop, kPa cycle, min metric ratio
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
CVC/fF
Gallatin
ESP/MS
Kure
SD/tSP
Munich
CYC/Ul/lSP/Ff
Malno
WSH/OI/FF
Quebec
Refractory
SO/FF
Tsushima
Normal
Nornal
MS W only
Normal
Normal
98.9
98.4
99.5
99.4
73.4
68.6
??.9
77.5
518
4,310
230
?66
172
159
6.5a
I
CO
RDF fired
CYC/OI/tSP/FF
Malmo
RDF
99.5
dReagent versus HC1 and SO,
-------
Criteria pollutants 1n SI units
7-13 Summary of Particulate Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-14 Summary of Carbon Monoxide Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-15 Summary of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-16 Summary of Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions From MWC Facilities
-------
TABLE 7-13. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Baltimore, 1/85
Baltimore, 5/85
Braintree
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1982)
Hampton (1984) K
McKay Bay (Unit 1)° °
McKay Bay (Unit 2)B
McKay Bay (Unit 3)?
McKay Bay (Unit 4)D
N. Andover
Peekskill (4/85)
Tulsa (Unit 1)
Tulsa (Unit 2)
CYC/FF
Ga I 1 at i n
ESP/WS
Kure
SD/ESP
Mun ich
CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Ma Imo
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marion County
Quebec
Queoec
Refractory
ESP
Phi ladel ph ia (NW1 )
Phi ladeiphia (NW2)
CYC
Mayport
SD/FF
Tsush ima
Starved air
No control dev ice
Dyersburg
N. Little Rock, 3/78::
N. Little Rock, 5/78c.
N. Little Rock 10/78C
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Barren County
Red Wing d
Tuscaloosa
RDF f i red
ESP
Akron
Albany
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth^
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
Hami 1 ton-Wentworfh
Hami 1 ton-Wentwortha
Hami Iton-Wentworthj!
Hami I ton-Wentworth
Ni agara
Test
condition
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
MSW on 1 y
Normal
110
125
140
200
Norma 1
Normal
140
140 i R.
Norma 1
Norma 1
MSW/waste oi 1
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Norma 1
Long
High
Low
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back. low
f ront
H/None
H/Low back
Norma 1
Emissions
upstream from
control device
mg/Nm3 at kg/Mg
T2i C02 feed
4,690 23.2
2,240 6.50
4,490
4,980
3,690
3,850
2,140
6,690 21.3
4,300 18.2
6,610 24.9
4,450 25.4
8,460
7,910
6,650
5,980
5,790
7,650
4,460 12.4
303 1 . 30
327
436
297 1.52
214 0.840
234 0.870
255 1.0
173 0.680
197 0.727
10,600 51.7
Emissions
downstream from
control device
mg/Nm3 at
121 C02
5.49
6.18
546
917
424
162
29.7
26.3
6.41
17.6
11.2
98.6
21.7
11.2
73.4
68.6
23.8
23.2
9.15
16.0
252
1,330
1,530
27.5
22.9
1 1 1
142
533
318
715
88.5
518
212
230
122
220
kg/Mg
feed
0.025
0.029
1.51
3.47
1.96
0.089
0.047
0.343
0.204
0.092
0.132
0.027
0.077
6.49
0.076
0.098
0.469
0.523
1.32
1.55
Control
effi-
ciency, i
99.9
75.6
99.5
98.9
98.4
99.6
99.5
99.4
27.9
97.0
(continued)
7-19
-------
TABLE 7-13. (continued)
Emissions Emissions
upstream from downstream from
control device control device
Faci 1 ity name
CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Ma Imo
Test
condition
RDF
mg/Nirr at
T2J C02
4,330
kg/Mg mg/Nm3 at
fee
-------
TABLE 7-14. SUMMARY OF CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Emissions Emissions
upstream from downstream from
control device control device Control
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Baltimore, 1/85
Braintree
Chicago
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984) ,
McKay Bay (unit 1 )*
McKay Bay (unit 2),
McKay Bay (unit 3),
McKay Bay (unit 4)a
N. Andover
Saugus
Tulsa (Unit 1)
Tulsa (Unit 2)
CYC/FF
Gal latin
ESP/WS
Kure
CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Ma Imo
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marion County
Quebec
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Phi ladelphia (NW1 )
Phi lade I phi a (NW2)
CYC
Mayport
Starved air
No control device h
N. Little Rock 10/78°
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Barren County
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP
Albany _
Hami 1 Ton-Wentworth j
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth_
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
Hami 1 ton-Wentworthp
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Ma Imo
Test
condi t ion
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Normal
Norma I
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
110
125
140
200
Norma I
Norma I
140
140 S R.
Norma 1
Norma 1
MSW/waste oi I
Norma I
Norma 1
Long
High
Loi
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back low
front
H/None
H/Low back
RDF
ppmdv at kg/Mg ppmdv at
12* C02 feed 12* C02
19.6
1,350
189 0.842 197
1,050
242
30
35
31 .7
31.7
42.4
36.3
20.1
23.8
516
630 2.54
158
151
189
211
166
41
18.5
133
174
515
464
48.3 0.276
84.9 0.5
67.0 0.318
40.0 0.177
33.0 0.146
52.0 0.253
3.24
<2.11
346
636
501
430
4' 1
2,090
1 ,210
217
kg/Mg effi-
feed ciency, %
0.106
4.36
0.848
0.049
0.059
2.25
1.05
0.127
0.098
0.015
<0.0106
1.96
1.70
^Not corrected to 12 percent C0_
Not corrected to dry standard conditions.
^Average of two test runs.
One test run only.
7-21
-------
TABLE 7-15. SUMMARY OF SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwall
ESP
Ba 1 1 i more , 1 /85
Braintree
McKay Bay (Unit 1)
McKay Bay (Unit 3)
McKay Bay (Unit 4)a
Tulsa (Unit 1)
Tulsa (Unit 2)
CYC/FF
Gal latin
ESP/WS
Kure
SD/ESP
Munich0
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marion County
Quebec
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Phi lade 1 phi a (NW2)
SD/FF
Tsush ima
Starved air
No control device
N. Little Rock, 10/78C
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP
Albany
Hami 1 ton-Wentwortha
Hami 1 ton-wentworth
Hami lton-wentwortha
Hami Iton-Wentwortha
Ham i 1 ton-Wentworth3
Niagara
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
MSW only
no
125
140
200
Norma 1
Norma 1
140
140 A R.
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Long
High
Low
Norma 1
Normal
F/None
F/Back
F/Back, low
front
H/None
H/Low back
Norma 1
Emiss ions
upstream from
control device
ppmdv at kg/Mg
12* C02 feed
141 1.19
89.6 1.01
92.0 1.16
128
127
129
118
108
111
12.7 0.090
<29.3 <0.39
61.0 0.662
83.0 0.840
75.0 0.759
87.0 0.966
Emissions
downstream from
control device Control
ppmdv at
12* C02
114
136
98.6
111
177
94.9
80.9
141
13.5
21.7
4.86
10.8
28.2
90.3
209
41.5
35.8
44.8
401
375
0.040
124
188
58.9
54.7
57.3
49.3
67.3
kg/Mg effi-
feed ciency, %
1.37
1.00
0.995
0.917
1.75
0.098 87.1
0.281 76.4
96.2
91.5
78.1
23.5
1.63
0.517
67.0
59.6
0.0004 99.7
1.42
2.50
1.41
••Average of two test runs.
"This data represents a comomed SOj and SO, value because separate values were not reported.
cNot corrected to dry standard conditions.
7-22
-------
TABLE 7-16. SUMMARY OF OXIDES OF NITROGEN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Baltimore, 1/85
Braintree
McKay Bay (Unit 1)
McKay Bay (Unit 2)
McKay Bay (Unit 3)
McKay Bay (Unit 4)
Tulsa (Unit 1)
Tulsa (Unit 2)
CYC/FF
Gal latin
ESP/WS
Kure
WSH/DI/FF
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marion County
Refractory
ESP
Phi ladelphia (NW1 )
Philadelphia (NW2)
SD/FF
Tsush ima
Starved air
No control device
N. Little Rock, 10/78a
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Wing
Tuscaloosa
RDF fired
ESP
Albany
Niagara
Test
condi t ion
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma I
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma !
Norma 1
Norma i
Long
High
Low
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Emissions Emissions
upstream from downstream from
control device control device Control
ppmdv at kg/Mg ppmdv .at
121 C02 feed 121 CO.,
196
153
103
39
100
106
358
376
140 1.10
159 1.25
294
294
195
215
168
240 1.84
309 2.41
271 1.97
258 1.83
292 2.33
255
278
263
kg/Mg effi-
feed ciency, %
1.69
0.812
2.86
3.08
1.59
2.63
0.895
2.10
1.92
2.45
1.96
Not corrected to dry standard conditions.
7-23
-------
Metals 1n SI units
7-17 Summary of Arsenic Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-18 Summary of Beryllium Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-19 Summary of Cadmium Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-20 Summary of Total Chromium Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-21 Summary of Lead Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-22 Summary of Mercury Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-23 Summary of Nickel Emissions From MWC Facilities
-------
TABLE 7-17. SUMMARY OF ARSENIC EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
I
ro
Fac i 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Baltimore, 5/85a
Braintree
Hampton (1982)
N. Andover
CYC/FF
Gal latin
ESP/WS
Kure
SD/ESP
Mun ich
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec b
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Refractory
CYC/ESP
Washington, O.C.
WS
Alexandria
Nicosia
SD/FF h
Tsushima0
Starved air
No control device
Dyersburg
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Barren County
Red Wing
Tuscaloosa
RDF f i red
ESP
Akron
Albany
Niagara
Test
condition
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
MSW only
110
125
140
200
Norma 1
140
140 & R.
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Long
High
Loi
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Normal
upstream
pg/Nm* at
\2% C02
240
143
934
487
288
161
112
140
80.2
111
135
61.5
116
6.09
10.2
17.4
8.18
119
Emiss ions
from control
M9/9
Partic-
ul ate
51.2
63.8
436
72.9
67.0
19.0
14.2
21.1
13.4
19.2
17.7
13.8
382
28.5
43.6
68.2
47.3
605
dev ice
mg/Mg feed
1,390
415
1,590
7,500
200
497
26.0
36.0
71.0
33.0
442
downstream
yg/Nm3 at
17* C0?
6.29
45.8
233
10.4
0.452
0.022
0.044
0.043
0.073
0.007
0.042
0.032
0.327
19.5
28.8
43.7
160
19.1
Emissions
from control device
ug/g
Partic-
ulate
1.020
63.9
549
929
19.0
0.754
310
210
200
11.9
850
259
308
300
60.1
mg/Mg f eed
30.4
126
1,080
1.80
0.020
0.800
83
124
164
376
93.0
96.0
Control
efficiency, %
97.4
68.0
98.9
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
99.9
>99.9
>99.9
99.5
63.3
^Specific arsenic run used to measure reported data.
One test run only.
-------
TABLE 7-18. SUMMARY OF BERYLLIUM EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
I
ro
en
f
Fac i 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Braintree3
Hampton (1982)
McKay Bay (Unit 1)
McKay Bay (Unit 2)
McKay Bay (Unit 3)
McKay Bay (Unit 4)
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
CYC/FF
Gal latin
SD/ESP
Munich
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec^
Quebec"
Quebec!'
Quebec
SD/FF
Marion County
Quebec!'
Quebec0
Refractory
SD/FF
Tsushima0
Starved air
No control device
Dyersburg
N. Little Rock, 10/78
ESP
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP
Albany
Niagara
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
MSW only
110
125
140
200
Normal
140
140 & R.
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Norma 1
Emissions
upstream from control device
, ug/g
pq/Nm at Partic-
12$ CO- ulate mg/Mg feed
0.082 0.041 0.238
7.35 1.10 24.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
46.9 10.5 150
0.110 0.363 0.427
0.334 1.12 1.8
Emissions
downstream from control device
, wg/g
ug/Nrrr at Partic- Control
v2% CO- ulate mg/Mg feed efficiency, %
0.085 0.156 0.241
0.020 0.047 0.092
0.166
0.103
0.254
0.0915
0.003 0.140 0.012
0.0005 0.02* 0.187
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0025 0.0107
0.0
0.0
0.327 11.9 0.800 99.3
0.0961 0.866 0.413
20.6 64.8 100
0.481
An increase in concentration occurred across the control device; however, the difference between inlet and outlet values is
hwithin the imprecision assocjated with the sampling and analysis techniques.
"A 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
jOne test run only.
Not corrected to dry standard conditions.
-------
TABLE 7-19. SUMMARY OF CADMIUM EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
--J
I
ro
01
Fac i 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Walerwal 1
ESP
Brai ntree
Chi cago
Hampton (1982)
N. Andover
CYC/FF
Gal latin
ESP/WS
Kure
SD/ESP
Munich
CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Mai mo
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
Quebec.
Quebec
Quebec b
Wur/burg
SD/FF
Quebec3
Quebec3
Refractory
CYC/ESP
Washington, D.C.
WS
Alexandria
N i cos i a
SD/FF h
Tsushima
Starved air
No control device
Dyersburg
N. Little Rock 10/78C
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Barron County
Red Wing
Test
condi t ion
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
MSW only
Norma 1
110
125
140
200
Norma 1
140
140 S R.
Norma 1
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Long
High
Loi
Normal
Norma 1
upstream
pg/Nm at
1 ,260
446
3,620
984
689
1,390
1 ,450
1 ,610
1,050
1,270
1,220
120
238
360
942
800
814
639
Emi ss ions
( rom control
Uy/g
Part ic-
u 1 ale
563
208
541
229
155
165
184
242
1 76
2)6
160
26.9
784
1,210
4,400
3,420
3,190
3,690
device
mg/Mg feed
3,660
1 1 ,800
25,500
3,930
350
1 ,020
1,930
3,790
3,030
3,160
2,570
downslream
«of
475
293
500
22.3
8.57
6.22
0.483
0.480
0.0
0.636
6.86
0.0
0.0
11.3
20.9
203
Emi ssions
from control device
Part ic-
ul ate
870
1,180
1,990
360
268
750
1,900
1,100
1 ,500
412
913
1,830
mg/Mg feed
1,310
1,210
2,320
35.0
35.5
20.4
55.0
82.9
872
Control
ef f iciency , %
62.3
95
99.1
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
90.6
(continued)
-------
TABLE 7-19. (continued)
Fac i 1 i ty name
RDF f i red
ESP
Akron
Albany
Niagara
CYC/OI/ESP/FF
Mai mo
Test V
condi tlon
Normal
Normal
RDF
Emissions
upstream from control device
3 wg/g
g/Nm at Partic-
"21 CO, ulate mg/Mg feed
488 113 3,280
Emissions
downstream from control device
3 ,,^9/g
gfJ/Nl at Partic-
f2% COy ulate
373 700
33.7 106
mg/Mg feed
923
164
265
Control „
efficiency, %
?A 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
°0ne test run only.
Not corrected to dry standard conditions.
i
ro
-------
TABLE 7-20. SUMMARY OF TOTAL CHROMIUM EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
I
ro
CD
Faci 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Baltimore, 5/85a
Braintree
Hampton (1982)
N. Andover
CYC/FF
Gal latin
ESP/WS
Kure
SD/ESP
Munich
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec b
Wur/burg
SD/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Refractory
CYC/ESP
Washington, D.C.
WS
Alexandria
N i cos i a
Tsushima
Starved air
No control device
Dyersburg
N. Little Rock 10/78C
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Barren County
Red Wing d
Tuscaloosa
Test
condition
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
MSW only
no
125
140
200
Norma 1
140
140 4 R.
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Long
High
Low
Nor n, > i
Normal
Norma 1
upstream
yg/Nm3 at
12$ C02
2,180
627
4,280
1 ,200
579
3,380
2,080
2,150
1 ,950
1,510
1,770
2,700
394
3.23
43.6
26.5
117
25.4
36.6
Emi ssions
from control
gg/g
Part ic-
ul ale
465
280
2,000
180
135
399
263
323
326
260
231
605
1,300
10.9
204
1 13
459
147
186
device
mg/Mg feed
10,800
1,820
3,930
15,000
8,000
1.690
f7.3
173
99
445
102
135
downstream
pq/Nm3 at
12J C0?
21.3
106
283
767
1,020
0.483
0.480
1.07
0.542
0.618
0.229
0.774
5.35
3.57
24.5
25.7
Emissions
from control device
pg/g
Partic-
ulate
3,450
194
668
68,500
43,000
67.5
870
490
105
195
156
221
181
mg/Mg feed
101
293
1 ,310
4,020
1 .84
13.0
13.8
105
96.4
Control
efficiency, %
99.0
83.1
82.1
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
99.8
25.8
(continued)
-------
TABLE 7-20. (continued)
Emissions Emissions
upstream from control device downstream from control device
Faci 1 i ty name
RDF f i red
ESP
Akron
Albany
Ni agara
, vg/g
Test pg/Nnr at Partic-
condition \2t CO- ulate
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
pg/Nm3 at
mg/Mg feed 12% CO-
493
6,660
pg/g
Partic-
ulate
925
20,900
mg/Mg feed
1,220
32 400
452
Control
efficiency, %
?lnlet hexavalent chromium value of 0.5 pg/g presented in test report.
One test run only.
^Not corrected to dry standard conditions.
Control efficiency is not typical of most properly maintained ESP's.
i
ro
UD
-------
TABLE 7-21. SUMMARY OF LEAD EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
I
00
c
Faci 1 1 ty name
Mass burn
Water wal 1
ESP
Braintree
Hampton (1982)
McKay Bay (Unit 1)
McKay Bay (Unit 2)
McKay Bay (Unit 3)
McKay Bay (Unit 4)
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
CYC/FF
Gal latin
ESP/WS
Kure
SD/ESP
Mun ich
CYC/0 I/ESP/FF
Mai mo
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Wurzburg3
SD/FF
Marion County
Quebec
Quebec
Refractory
CYC/ESP
Washington, D.C.
WS
Alexandria
Nicosia
SD/FF
Tsushima9
Starved air
No control device
Dyersburg K
N. Little Rock 10/78°
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Barron County
Red Wing
Test
condi t ion
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
MSW only
Norma 1
110
125
140
200
Normal
Normal
140
140 & R.
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Long
High
Lo5
Normal
Norma 1
upstream
iag/Nm at
F2J C02
34 ,000
41,900
4,830
14,300
45,000
48,400
36,100
36,100
37,500
36,000
2,810
15,200
12,500
14,400
15,500
15,500
8,560
Emi ssions
from control
pg/g
Part ic-
U 1 dt O
15,200
6,260
1,120
3,210
5,320
6,110
5,430
6,030
6,490
4,710
631
50,000
42,100
67,300
66,200
60,800
49,500
device
mg/Mg feed
98,700
137,000
125,000
81,600
8,500
65.000
67,200
54,800
57,800
60,000
34,200
Emissions
downstream from control device
pq/Nm3 at
ft* C0?
15,400
9,490
3,090
1,080
886
1,180
415
88.1
131
4.30
2.89
4.92
6.53
13.7
25.1
1.23
6.44
20.8
237
3,390
pg/g
Partic-
ulate
28,200
22,400
19,100
3,700
5,650
1,500
78,000
97,000
69,000
758
10,300
34,300
mg/Mg feed
42,500
44,000
1,690
350
747
40.9
146
50.0
965
14,600
Control
ef f ic lency , %
54,7
99.1
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
99.3
(cont inued)
-------
TABLE 7-21. (continued)
Emissions Emissions
upstream from control device downstream from control device
Faci 1 ity name
RDF f i red
ESP
Akron
Albany
Niagara
CYC/DT/ESP/FF
Mai mo
Test pq/Nm3 at
condition 121 C0_
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
RDF 9,600
vg/g
Partic-
ul ate
2,220
pq/Nm3 at
mg/Mg feed \2% O>2
9,600
973
64,500
pg/g
Partic-
ulate
18,000
3,060
Control
mg/Mg feed efficiency, 1
23,700
4,730
6,450
"One test run only.
Not corrected to dry standard conditions.
i
GO
-------
TABLE 7-22. SUMMARY OF MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
I
CO
ro
Emi ss ions
upstream from control
Faci 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Braintree
Hampton (1962)
McKay Bay (Unit 1)
McKay Bay (Unit 2)
McKay Bay (Unit 3)
McKay Bay (Unit 4)
lulsa (Units 1 and
CYC/FF
Gal latin
ESP/WS
Kure
CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Mai mo
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec3
SD/FF
Marion County
Quebec
Quebec
Refractory
SD/FF h
Tsushima
Starved air
No control device
Dyersburg
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Winqc
RDF f i red
ESP
Akron
Albany
Niagara
CYC/DT/ESP/FF
Mai mo
Test
condition
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
2) Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
110
125
140
200
Normal
140
140 4 R.
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
High
Loi
Normal
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
RDF
ug/Nm5 at
12* C02
28.6
233
8.69
312
486
521
340
468
192
381
265
130
705
538
471
539
170
pg/g
Part ic-
ulate
12.8
34.9
2.02
70. \
57.1
65.7
51.0
78.4
33.3
49.8
59.5
430
3,290
2,300
1,850
3,120
39.3
device
ng/Mg feed
83.0
855
225
1,780
6,000
559
2,650
1,970
3,600
2,160
1,140
Emissions
downstream from control device
yg/Nm3 at
12* C02
40.0
2,210
647
863
931
1,080
419
187
43.4
13.7
21.1
637
280
10.4
20.4
186
596
184
441
pg/g
Partic-
ulate
73.3
5,220
19,300
8,060
6,770
5,370
345
1,390
Control
mg/Mg feed efficiency, %
110
10,300
1,790
1,070 40.1
91 .0
97.4
93.8
1,440
94.6
94.6
450 30.0
2,560
455
2,140
1,580
An apparent increase in concentration occurred across the control device; however, no reason for this increase was indicated in
hthe test reports.
"One test run only.
Measured using KMnO. impinger method.
-------
TABLE 7-23. SUMMARY OF NICKEL EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
—I
I
CO
to
Faci 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Waterwall
ESP
Hampton (1982)
N. Andover
CYC/FF
Gal latin
ESP/WS
Kure
SD/fSP
Munich
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec ,
Wur-rburg*1
SO/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Refractory
CYC/ESP
Washington, D.C.
WS
Alexandria
N i cos i a
SD/FF
Tsushima3
Starved air
Ho control device
Dyersburg h
N. Little Rock 10/78°
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Barren County
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP
Akron
Albany
Niagara
Test
condi t ion
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
MSW on
no
125
140
200
Normal
140
140 & R.
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Long
High
Low
Normal
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
upstream
gg/Nm5 at
?2J C0?
523
508
387
1.070
1,930
1,330
867
739
2,690
2,290
109
5.77
242
262
553
481
Emissions
from control device
pg/g
Part ic-
ii late mg/Mg feed
244
75.9 166
89.9 10,000
127
244
201
145
128
351
512 7,000
361 470
19.4 31
1,130 961
1 , 1 20 1 ,000
2,170 2,170
2,780 1,940
9
Emissions
downstream from control device
pg/Nm3 at
fti co2
227
477
476
1.43
0.480
0.756
1.60
0.277
1.37
2.23
297
<2.76
<1.92
128
3,590
yg/g
Partic-
ulate
535
42,600
20,000
30.2
170
200
79.0
10,800
<121
<17.3
240
11,300
mg/Mg feed
1,050
1,870
0.825
750
v
<13.8
<8.25
316
17,500
374
Control
ef f iciency , %
9
99.9
>99.9
99.9
99.8
99.8
99.9
87.0
JJOne test run only.
Not corrected to dry standard conditions.
-------
Acid gases in SI units
7-24 Summary of Hydrogen Chloride Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-25 Summary of Hydrogen Fluoride Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-26 Summary of Sulfur Trioxide Emissions From MWC Facilities
-------
TABLE 7-24. SUMMARY OF HYDROGEN CHLORIDE EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1982)
Tulsa (Unit 1)
Tulsa (Unit 2)
CYC/FF
Gal I at in
ESP/WS
Kure
SD/ESP
Munich
CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Ma I mo
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marion County
Quebec
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Phi ladelphia (NW1)
Phi ladelphia (NW2)
CYC
Mayport
SD/FF
Tsush ima
Starved air
None
Dyersburg
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Barren County
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP
Akron
Albany
Niagara
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Mai mo
Test
Condi t ion
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
MSW on 1 y
Norma 1
110
125
140
200
Norma 1
Norma 1
140
140 4 R.
Norma 1
Norma 1
MSW/waste oi 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
*Norma 1
Long
High
Low
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Norma 1
Dense RDF
RDF
Emi ssions
upstream from
control device
ppmdv at kg/Mg
12J C02 feed
477 2.64
1,010 6.28
546 3.12
742 6.45
482
498
422
429
414
476
313 1.32
159 1.04
716 4.42
706 4.07
768 4.43
627 3.97
95.9
776 7.90
Emissions
downstream from
control device Control
ppmdv at
121 C02
179
268
421
402
211
27.0
211
3.99
10.1
28.6
104
52.0
12.0
36.5
41.8
140
64.8
308
7.50
457
1,270
447
348
kg/Mg effi-
feed ciency, %
1.10
1.89
2.51
2.60
0.947 79.1
0.159 95.1
71.6
99.2
98.0
92.5
76.9
0.232
0.0794
91.2
91.2
2.79
0.031 97.6
2.84
8.27
1.68
2.57
2.54
7-34
-------
TABLE 7-25. SUMMARY OF HYDROGEN FLUORIDE EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Emiss ions
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Hampton (1982)
Tulsa (Unit 1)
Tulsa (Unit 2)
CYC/FF
Gal latin
ESP/WS
Kure
Refractory
SD/FF
Tsushima
Test
cond i t ion
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norrna 1
Normal
Normal
Normal
upstream
control
ppmdv at
12* C02
5.18
2.96
1.20
from
device
kg/Mg
feed
0.016
0.009
0.003
Emissions
downstream from
control
ppmdv at
12* C02
1.30
7.21
6.27
0.935
0.620
device Control
kg/Mg effi-
feed ciency, J
0.005
0.024
0.022
0.003 68.4
0.003 48.3
Starved air
None
Dyersburg Normal
Prince Edward Island Normal
Prince Edward Island Long
Prince Edward Island High
Prince Edward Island Low
RDF fi red
ESP
Akron Normal
1.10
12.0
10.8
15.6
12.0
0.004
0.041
0.034
0.049
0.042
2.12
0.004
7-35
-------
TABLE 7-26. SUMMARY OF SULFUR TRIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Emissions
Fac i 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Tulsa (Unit 1)
Tulsa (Unit 2)
CYC/FF
Ga 1 1 at i n
ESP/WS
Kure
SD/ESP
Munich"
Test
condition
Norma 1
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
MSW on 1 y
upstream
control
ppmdv at
12* C02
85.3
5.58
92.0
from
device
kg/Mg
feed
1 .04
0.074
1.16
Emi ss ions
downstream from
control
ppmdv at
12J C02
10.1
9.76
44.5
3.96
21.7
dev ice
kg/Mg
feed
0.084
0.086
0.830
0.058
0.281
Control
effi-
ciency, t
47.8
29.0
76.4
8This data represents a comoined SO- and SO. value because separate values were not reported.
7-36
-------
PCDD 1n SI units
7-27 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-28 Summary of Total Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-29 Summary of Total Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-30 Summary of Total Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-31 Summary of Total Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-32 Summary of Total Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-33 Summary of Tetra- Through Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions
From MWC Facilities
7-34 Summary of Total Measured Chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions From MWC
Facilities
-------
TABLE 7-27. SUMMARY OF 2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-p-DIOXIN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Emissions Emissions
upstream from control device downstream from control device
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Chicago
Hampton (1982)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
N. Andover3
Peekskill (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea, fall
Umea, fall
Umea, spring
WSH/DI/FF
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marion County
Refractory
ESP
Phi lade) phi a (NW1)
Phi ladelphia (NW2)
CYC
Mayport
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus County
Dyersburg
ESP
Red Wing
RDF f i red
ESP
Akron
Albany
Test
condi t ion
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Low temp
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Normal
MSW/waste oi 1
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Norma 1
ng/Nm at
ng/Nm3 12* C0? ng/Mg feed ng/Nm3
0.410
63.0
32.0
19.6
1.67 2 0.532
1.43
0.082
0.012
6.03
4.83
1.67
0.54
0.900 1.54 6.51
<0.175
9.83
0.413
ng/Nm3 at
12* C02
0.548
62.5
29.8
35.1
0.67
1.7
0.101
0.6
0.48
0.12
0.018
0.081
13.7
12.3
2.60
<0.278
14.6
0.522
Control
ef f i-
pg/Mg feed ciency, *
2.1
289
145
89
66.5
1 .17
0.397
0.0511
0.371
20.6
<11.7
36
2.57
aOutlet values which represent the average of test runs 3. 4, and 5 were used to obtain a co
simultaneous test runs. Inlet runs 1 and 2 were not analysed due to sampling difficulties.
control efficiency value for
-------
TABLE 7-28. SUMMARY OF TOTAL TETRACHLORODIBENZO-p-OIOXIN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
CO
CO
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Chicago
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1982)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
N. Andovera
Peekskill (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea, fal 1
Umea, fall
Umea. spring
WSH/DI/FE
Quebec:'
Quebec?
Ouebecj:
Quebec
Wurzburg
SO/FF
Mar ionL.County
Quebec0
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Phi ladelphla (NW1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
CYC
Mayport
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus County
Dyersburg
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Ming
RDF f i red
ESP
Akron
Albany
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth^
Hami Iton-Wentworth0
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
Test
condition
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Low temp
Normal
110
125
140
200
Normal
Normal
140
140 & R.
Normal
Normal
MSW/waste oi I
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Long
High
Low
Normal
Normal
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
upstream
ng/Nm3
14.2
16.3
44.4
59.2
24.1
32.3
48.5
8.1
11.2
1.95
3.18
0.839
1.65
Emissions
from control device
ng/Nm3 at
12* C02 yg/Mg feed
17
27.5
72
94.7
39.6
46.8
77.7
19.1 81
3.05 14
5.09 20
1.02 4.0
3.05 14
Emissions
downstream from control device
ng/Nm3
6.27
440
245
230
645
6.65
26.9
1.32
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.34
0.0
0.0399
167
143
3.57
27.6
174
15.8
407
580
481
ng/Nm3 at
12? C02
8.39
800
243
214
1.160
6.38
31.9
1.61
51.6
64.8
<12
1.91
0.195
0.0639
378
365
5.56
43.7
258
19.9
590
560
570
Control
eff i-
yg/Mg feed ciency, %
31,6
3,020
1,130
1,040
2,930
50.7
11.8
6.34
5.42
0.893
99.9
45.2
1,840
636
98.1
(continued)
-------
TABLE 7-28. (continued)
Emissions Emissions
upstream from control device downstream from control device
Faci 1 i ty name
Hami 1 ton-Wentworthc
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth£
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
Test
condi t ion ng/Nm
F/Back low
front
H/None
H/Low back
Normal
ng/Nm at ..
12* C02 pg/Mg feed ng/Nm3
2,430
539
402
2.20
ng/Nm3 at
12J C02
3,500
1,200
700
3.47
ixjni roi
eff i-
Vig/Mg feed ciency, %
21.5
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3. 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
hsimultaneous test runs. Inlet runs 1 and 2 were not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
A 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
^Average of two test runs.
One test run only.
i
CO
-------
TABLE 7-29. SUMMARY OF TOTAL PENTACHLORODIBENZO-p-OIOXIN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
I
4^
O
Fac i 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
N. Andover
Peekskill (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea, fal 1
Umea, fall
Umea, spring
WSH/DI/FE
Quebec!:
Quebecf,
Quebec:"
Quebec
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Mar ionbCounty
Quebec?
Quebec"
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
Starved air
Ho control device
Cattarauqus County
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Wing
RDF f i red
ESP
A 1 bany
Hami Iton-WentworthS
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth^
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
Test
condi t ion
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Low temp
Norma 1
no
125
140
200
Norma 1
Norma 1
140
140 4 R.
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Long
High
Low
Norma 1
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back low
front
H/None
H/Low back
Emiss ions
upstream from control device
ng/Nm3 at
ng/Nm 12$ CO pg/Mg feed
24.2 29
35.1 59.3
93.6 152
95.8 154
62.1 102
69.1 99.9
89.1 142
10.6
7.18 11.2 42
9.58 15.3 55
5.86 7.12 23
4.41 8.14 32
Emissions
downstream from control device
ng/Nm5
560
1,200
1.510
4.13
29.8
2.44
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.78
0.0
0.0
470
407
172
133
336
641
562
1,760
570
610
t uonrroi
ng/Nnr at ef f i-
12$ C0? pg/Mg feed ciency, %
1,020 3,840
1,120 5,440
2.700 6.860
ft. 5 60.3
11 .7
35.4
2.99 11.7
63.6
96
58.8
2.54 7.21
0.053 0.243
1,060
1 ,040
273 11,500
168 828
490
620
660
2,600
1,300
1,000
_ , f—
-------
TABLE 7-29. (continued)
Emi ssions
upstream from control device
Emissions
downstream from control device
Faci 1 i ty name
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
Test
condition ng/Nm
Norma 1
ng/Nm at
\n co2 v
ig/Mg feed ng/Nm3
0.370
ng/Nm3 at
0.584
Vig/Mg feed
3.6
Control
ef f i-
ciency ,
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3. 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
^simultaneous test runs. Inlet runs I and ? were not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
A 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
•^Average of the test runs.
One test run only.
-------
TABLE 7-30. SUMMARY OF TOTAL HEXACHLORODIBENZO-p-DIOXIN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Fac i 1 ity name
Mass burn
Water wal 1
ESP
Chicago
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
N. Andover
Peekskill (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea, fall
Umea , fall
Umea, spring
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec^
Quebec!:
Quebec
Quebec
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Mar ionKCounty
Quebec"
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NWI)
Philadelphia (NW2)
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus County
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP
Albany _
Hami 1 ton -Went worthy
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
Hami 1 ton-Wentworthc
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth^
Hami Iton-Wentworthc
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Low temp
Normal
110
125
140
200
Norma 1
Norma 1
140
140 & R.
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
High
Low
Normal
Normal
F/None
F/low back
F/Back
F/Backf low
front
H/None
H/Low back
upstream
ng/Nm3
36.7
91.9
255
226
156
185
251
13.4
12.8
13.8
8.22
8.67
Emissions
from control device
ng/Nm3 at
12* C0? pg/Mg feed
44
155
414
362
257
268
402
20.0 78
22.0 80
10.0 38
16.0 69
Emissions
downstream from control device
ng/Nm3
16.3
880
510
1,780
f8.7
29.1
4.16
0.0383
0.0
0.0
1.59
2.23
0.0
0.0915
1,220
360
300
113
361
478
659
1,220
661
742
•> Control
ng/NmJ at ef f i-
12JC CO- pg/Mg feed ciency, %
21.8 82.4
1,600 6,050
474 2,320
3.190 8,090
23.6 46.4
16
34.6
5.10 20
38.4
98.4
66
0.0647 >99.9
2.61 99.0
3.18 9.03
0.110 0.504
0.146 >99.9
2,760
919
476 20,100
142 701
520
460
790
1,800
1,400
1,300
-------
i
-P»
oo
TABLE 7-30. (continued)
Emissions
upstream from control
Faci 1 i ty name
Test
condition ng/Nm
ng/Nm at
12* C02
Emissions
device downstream from control device
ng/Nm3 at
Vig/Mg feed ng/Nm3 \2t CO-
eff i-
pg/Mg feed ciency,
I
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
Norma 1
2.50
3.95
24.3
aOutlet values which represent the average of lest runs 3. 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
hsimultaneous test runs. Inlet runs I and 2 were not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
°A 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
^Average of two test runs.
One test run only.
-------
TABLE 7-31. SUMMARY OF TOTAL HEPTACHLORODIBENZO-p-DIOXIN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Chicago
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1964)
N. Andover
Peek ski II (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea, fall
Umea, fall
Umea, spring
WSH/DI/FE
Quebec}:
Quebec;:
Quebec
Quebec
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Mar ion^County
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus County
Prince E award Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP
Albany
Hami Iron-Wentworth;;
Hamilton-Wentworth0
Hami Iton-Wentworth_
Hami Iton-Wentworthc
Hami 1 ton -Went wort hj;
Hami Iton-Wentworth
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Norma 1
Low temp
Normal
110
125
140
200
Normal
Normal
140
140 & R.
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Long
High
Low
Normal
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back. low
f roni
H/None
H/Low back
upstream
ng/Nm3
30
126
307
250
231
277
262
12.6
20.2
17.2
15.9
18.7
Emissions
from control device
ng/Nm3 at
121 C02 pg/Mg feed
36
209
489
394
374
394
413
31.5 122
27.5 103
19.3 67
34.6 142
Emissions
downstream from control device
ng/Nm3
7.57
1.060
160
1.610
2l.7
25.3
3.62
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.62
3.01
0.0
0.107
400
157
282
103
91.7
509
295
346
234
458
•, Control
ng/NmJ at effi-
12Jf COj pg/Mg feed ciency, %
10.1 38.3
1,930 7,320
149 725
2.880 7,310
27.3 24.2
23
30
4.43 17.4
21.6
64.8
67.2
2.65 99.3
4.30 12.2
0.184 0.842
0.171 >99.9
906
401
447 18,800
130 642
130
490
510
540
520
830
(continued)
-------
-~4
cr.
TABLE 7-31. (continued)
Emissions Emissions
upstream from control device downstream from control device
Faci 1 i ty name
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
Test
condition ng/Nm
Norma 1
ng/Nm3 at , ng/Nm3 at
12$ C0? ug/Mg feed ng/Nm3 12* C02
18.6 29.3
uoniroi
eff i-
yg/Mg feed ciency, %
181
aOutlet values which represent the average of tesf runs 3. 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
.simultaneous test runs. Inlet runs 1 and 2 were not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
A 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
•^Average of two test runs.
One test run only.
-------
TABLE 7-32. SUMMARY OF TOTAL OCTACHLORODIBENZO-p-DIOXIN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
I
-1^
CT>
Faci 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Chicago
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
N. Andover3
Peekskill (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea , fall
Umea, fal 1
Umea, spring
WSH/DI/FF
Quebech
Quebec;;
Quebec
Quebec
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Mar ionhCounty
OuebecP
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Phi ladelphia (NW2)
Starved air
No control device
Cattarauqus County
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP
Albany
Hami Hon-Wentwor1h^
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
Hami t ton-Wentworth
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth^
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
Test
condi t ion
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Low temp
Norma 1
110
125
140
200
Norma 1
Normal
140
140 A R.
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Norma 1
Long
High
LoS
Normal
Norma 1
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back low
front
H/None
H/Low back
upstream
ng/Nm3
24.2
105
243
204
174
221
204
13.7
28.0
24.1
21.7
34.2
Emissions
from control device
ng/Nm at
12$ C02 pg/Mg feed
29
178
395
3?6
286
318
327
43.7 172
38.6 142
26.4 95
63.1 259
Emissions
downstream from control device
ng/Nm3
2.53
280
41.0
410
17.5
31.4
3.93
0.0585
0.0
0.0
0.634
7.15
0.0
0.0
161
64.7
191
17.3
96.8
264
201
270
178
437
•» control
ng/Nm3 at ef f i-
12$ C02 gg/Mg feed ciency, $
3.39 12.8
509 1 ,930
38.1 186
734 1,870
22 24 . 1
37
37.3
4,81 18.9
14.4
16.8
63.6
0.0988 99.9
1.04 99.6
10.2 28.9
0.589 2.7
365
165
302 12,700
21.8 108
140
260
310
410
400
770
(continued)
-------
TABLE 7-32. (continued)
Emissions
upstream from control device
Emissions
downstream from control device
Facil
i ty name
Test
condi t ion
ng/Nm3
ng/Nm3 at
12$ C02
pg/Mg
feed
ng/Nm3
ng/Nm at
12$ C02
pg/Mg
feed
Control
effi-
ciency.
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
Norma 1
10.4
16.4
101
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3. 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
hsimultaneous test runs. Inlet runs 1 and ? were not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
A 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
^Average of two test runs.
One test run only.
i
-p.
-------
TABLE 7-33. SUMMARY OF TETRA- THROUGH OCTACHLORODIBENZO-p-DIOXIN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
I
->
00
Faci 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
N. Andover3
Peekskill (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea , fall
Umea, fall
Umea, spring
WSH/DI/FF
Quebech
Quebec}:
Quebec0
Quebec
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Mar ion^County
Quebec0
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
Starved air
No control device
Cattarauqus County
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP
Albany
Kami Iton-Wentworth::
Ham i Iton-Wentworth0
Kami Iton-Wentworth_
Hamil ton-Wen tworthc
Haml Iton-Wentworth^
Hami Iton-Wentworth
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Low temp
Norma 1
110
125
140
200
Normal
Normal
140
140 & R.
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
High
Low
Normal
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back. low
front
H/None
H/Low back
upstream
ng/Nm3
129
376
948
840
650
788
860
58.4
69.8
68.2
51.9
67.7
Emissions
from control device
ng/Nm3 at
I2< C02 pg/Mg feed
155
636
1,540
1,340
1,070
1,140
1,370
109 428
109 400
63.1 228
125 515
Emissions
downstream from control device
ng/Nm3
3,220
2,140
5.950
73.6
143
15.5
0.0974
0.0
0.0
3.85
15.5
0.0
0.238
2,370
1,100
976
381
1,292
2 470
2,200
6,030
2,180
2,650
t uonrroi
ng/Nm3 at effl-
12f CO- pg/Mg feed clency, f
5,850 22,100
1,990 9,700
10.700 27,100
42.8 40.1
966
169
18.9 74.5
190
341
268
0.165 >99.9
6.35 99.4
22.1 62.7
1.13 5.17
0.381 >99.9
5,370
2,890
1,540 65,200
482 2,370
1 ,870
2,390
2,840
8,850
4,820
4,600
(continued)
-------
i
.f^
<£>
TABLE 7-33. (continued)
Emissions Emissions
upstream from control device downstream from control device
Faci 1 i ty name
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
Test
condition ng/Nnr
Normal
ng/Nm at .. ng/Nnr at
12* C02 yg/Mg feed ng/Nm3 12J C02
40.8 53.7
uoniroi
ef f i-
pg/Mg feed ciency, %
398
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3. 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
hsimultaneous test runs. Inlet runs 1 and 2 were not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
"A 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
^Average of two test runs.
One test run only.
-------
TABLE 7-34. SUMMARY OF TOTAL MEASURED CHLORODIBENZO-p-DIOXIN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
I
in
o
Faci I ity name
Mass burn
Water wal 1
ESP .
Ch i cago K
Hampton (1981)°
Hampton (1982)S
Hampton (1983)?
Hampton (1984)°
N. Andover0 h
Peek ski II (4/85)D
Sauqus K
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)D
Umea, (all?
Umea, fal ID h
Umea, spring0
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec;; .
Quebec? I
Quebec® T
Quebec b
Wurzburg
SD/FF b
Marion_County
Quebec® T
Quebec6
Refractory
ESP K
Phi ladelphia (NW1)P
Phi ladelphia (NW2)°
CYC
Mayport
EGB d
Pittsf ielda
Starved air
No control device h
Cattaraugus County
Dyersburgc h
Prince Edward Island;:
Prince Edward Island?
Prince Edward Island?
Prince Edward Island
ESP K
Red Wing0
RDF fired
ESP
Akron h
Albany0 h
Hamilton-WentworthP 3
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth" n
Test
condit ion
Normal
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Low temp
Normal
no
125
140
200
Normal
Normal
140
140 4 R.
Normal
Normal
MSW/waste oi 1
Experimental
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
High
Lo2
Normal
Normal
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
upstream
ng/Nm3
141
376
948
840
650
788
860
53.6
58.4
11.2
69.8
68.2
51.9
67.7
Emissions
from control device
ng/Nm3 at
12JC C0? ug/Mg feed
169
636
1,540
1.340
1,070
1,140
1,370
19.1 81
109 428
109 400
63.1 228
125 515
Emissions
downstream from control device
ng/Nm3
32.7
3,220
245
2,140
5.950
78.9
143
15.5
0.0974
0.0
0.0
3.85
15.5
0.0
0.239
2,370
1,100
3.57
976
174
381
1,292
2,470
ng/Nm3 at
12* C02
43.7
5,850
243
1,990
10.700
99.5
169
18.9
190
341
268
0.165
6.35
22.1
1.13
0.383
5,370
2,890
5.56
1,540
258
482
1,870
2,390
Control
eff 1-
pg/Mg feed ciency, %
168
22,100
1 130
9.700
27,100
41.1
966
74.5
>99.9
99 4
62.7
5.17
>99.9
45.2
65,200
636
2,370
(cont inued)
-------
TABLE 7-34. (continued)
Emissions Emissions
upstream from control device downstream from control device
Faci 1 i ty name
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth?
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth° 9
Hami Iton-WentworthJ? -J
Hami Iton-Wentworth° g
CYC/ESP h
Wright Pat. AFBD
Test
condition ng/Nm
F/Back
F/Back. low
front
H/None
H/Low back
Normal
ng/Nm at
12< CO- pg/Mg feed ng/Nm3
2,200
6,030
2,180
2,650
40.8
Control
ng/Nm3 at eff i-
\2% CO- Vig/Mg feed ciency, %
2,840
8,850
4,820
4,600
53.7 398
of tetra- through octachlorodiben/o-p-dioxin without penta.
"Sum of tetra- through octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
rjTetrachIorod i benzo-p-d iox in on Iy.
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3. 4, ,md 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
simultaneous test runs. Inlet runs t and 2 were not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
^Presented as polychlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in test report.
'A 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
eAverage of two test runs.
One test run only.
i
tn
-------
-------
Isomer-specific PCDD in SI units
7-35 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Tetrach1orodibenzo-p-d1oxin
Emissions from MWC Facilities
7-36 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Emissions from MWC Facilities
7-37 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Emissions from MWC Facilities
7-38 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Emissions from MWC Facilities
-------
TABLE 7-35.
^-J
en
SUMMARY OF 2,3,7,8-SUBSTITUTED AND TOTAL TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN EMISSIONS FROM
MWC FACILITIES
Faci 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Chicago
Hampton (1982)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
N. Andover
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea, fal 1
Urnea, fall
Umea, spring
WSH/DI/FF
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marion County
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Phi ladelphla (NW2)
CYC
Mayport
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus Countya
Dyersburg
Emissions upstream from control device
Test 2,3 7,8-TCOO, Total TCDO,
condition ng/Nm3 at 12* CQ^ ng/Nm3 at \2% C02
Normal
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1 2 17
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Low temp
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
MSW/waste oil
Normal 0.54 8.1
Normal 1.54 19.1
Emissions
downstream from control device
2,3 7,8-TCDO,
ng/Nm5 at 12* O>2
0.548
62.5
29.8
35.1
0.67
1.7
0.101
0.6
0.48
0.12
0.018
0.081
13.7
12.3
2.60
Total TCDO,
ng/Nm3 at 12< CO2
8.39
243
214
1 ,160
8.38
31.9
1.61
51.6
64.8
<12
1.91
0.195
378
365
5.56
ESP
Red Wing
Normal
<0.278
43.7
(continued)
-------
i
en
co
TABLE 7-35. (continued)
Emissions
Emissions upstream
Test
Faci 1 i ty name
RDF f i red
ESP
Akron
Albany
from control device
2,3,7,8-TCDD,
condi t ion
Normal
Normal
downstream from control device
Total TCOD, 2,3.7,8-TCDD, Total TCDO,
ng/Nm3 at 12* C0? ng/Nm3 at 12* COj ng/Nm3 at 12* C0?
14.6
0.522
ng/Nm3 at 121 C02
258
19.9
Not corrected to 12 percent CO-.
-------
TABLE 7-36. SUMMARY OP 2,3,7,8-SUBSTITUTED AND TOTAL PENTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN EMISSIONS EROM
MWC FACILITIES
Emissions
Emissions upstream from control device downstream from control device
Faci 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
N. Andover
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea, fall
Umea, fall
Umea, sprinq
WSH/DI/FF
Wur/burg
SD/FF
Marion County
^, Refractory
i ESP
^ Phi ladelphia (NW1)
Phi lade 1 phi a (NW2)
Starved air
ESP
Red Wing
Test
condi t ion
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norms 1
Low temp
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
1 ,2,3 7,8-PeCDO, Total PeCDO, 1 ,2,3 7 ,8-PeCDD,
ng/Nm* at 12$ O>2 ng/Nm3 at 12$ C02 ng/Nm3" at 12$ C0?
1 29 1.32
3.4
0.19
3.0
3.8
2.9
0.20
0.009
82
91
12.8
Total PeCDO,
ng/Nm3 at 12$ C0?
11.5
35.4
2.99
64
96
59
2.54
0.053
1,060
1,040
273
-------
TABLE 7-37.
SUMMARY OF 2,3,7,8-SUBSTITUTED AND TOTAL HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN EMISSIONS FROM
MWC FACILITIES
Facility name
Hass burn
Uaterwall
£SP
N. Andover
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umed, fall
Umed. fall
Umea, spring
WSH/OI/FF
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marion County
Refractory
ESP
Phladelphia (NU1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
Starved air
ESP
Red Wing
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
1 ow temp
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Emissions upstream from control device Emissions
1.2.3.4,7.8- 1,2.3.6.7.8- 1.2.3.7.8.9- 1,2.3.4.7.8- 1.
HxCDO. HxCDD HxCDD. Total HxCDO, HxCOD.
ng/Nm3 ng/Nn3 ng/Nm3 ng/Nm3 ng/Nm3
at 12* CO at 12* CO at 12* CO at 12* CO at 12* CO a
1 3 2 44 1.41
1.9
0.15
1.9
6. 1
2.8
0.08
0.007
300
115
17.3
do «i stream
2.3.6,7,8
HxCDD.
ng/Nm3
it 12* CO
2.11
3.2
0.37
4.4
11
7.0
0.19
0.008
48.2
from control
1.2.3,7.8.9
HxCDD,
ng/N«
at 12* CO
1.49
0.0
0.00
1.6
4.6
2.4
0.12
0.008
69.0
device
_
Total HxCDD.
ng/Nm3
at 12* CO
23.6
34.6
5.10
38
98
66
3.18
0.110
2.760
919
475
-------
TABLE 7-38. SUMMARY OF 2,3,7,8-SUBSTITUTEO AND TOTAL HEPTACHLOROOIBENZO-P-DIOXIN EMISSIONS FROM
MWC FACILITIES
en
cr.
Emissions
Fac i 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
WSH/DI/FF
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marion County
Ref ractory
SP
Phi ladelphia (NW1)
Phi ladelphia (NW2)
Starved air
ESP
Red Wing
Test
cond i t ion
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Emissions upstream from control device downstream from
t ,2,3, 4,6,7, 8-HpCOO Total HpCDO, 1 ,2,3,4 .6,7 ,8-HpCDO
ng/Nm3 at 12$ C0? ng/Nm3 at 12* C02 ng/Nm3 at 12* C02
2.20
2.20
0.138
458
201
225
control device
Total HpCDO,
ng/Nm3 at 12* CO.
4.43
4.30
0.184
906
401
447
-------
PCDF 1n SI units
7-39 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-40 Summary of Total Tetrachlorodibenzofuran Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-41 Summary of Total Pentachlorodibenzofuran Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-42 Summary of Total Hexachlorodlbenzofuran Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-43 Summary of Total Heptachlorodibenzofuran Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-44 Summary of Total Octachlorodibenzofuran Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-45 Summary of Tetra- Through Octachlorodibenzofuran Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-46 Summary of Total Measured Chlorodibenzofuran Emissions From MWC
Facilities
-------
TABLE 7-39. SUMMARY OF 2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
I
en
—i
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Hampton (1982)
Hampton (1984)
N. Andover3 b
Peekskill (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea, fall
Umea , fall
Umea, spring
WSH/DI/FF
Wurzburg
SO/FF
Marion County
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
CYC
May port
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus County
ESP
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP
Albany
Emissions
upstream from control device
Test ng/Nm3 at
condition ng/Nm3 121 CO- ug/Mg feed
Normal
Normal
Normal 9.17 11
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Low temp
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
MSW/waste oi 1
Normal 2.70
Normal
Normal
Emissions
downstream from
-*
ng/Nm 3
73.0
250
12.9
19.6
2.37
0.180
25.3
13.2
10.3
36.9
2 !3
ng/Nm3
control device
Control
at effi-
\2% C0_ ug/Mg feed clency,
72.4
448
16.3
23.3
2.91
3
3.12
0.96
0.250
0.168
57.3
33.7
16.0
58.5
2.69
335
1,130
8.95
11.4
0.710
0.769
127
2,470
13.3
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3. 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
.simultaneous test runs. Inlet runs 1 and 2 were not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
An apparent increase in concentration occurred across the control device; however, no reason for this increase was indicated in
the test ieports.
-------
TABLE 7-40. SUMMARY OF TOTAL TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
I
<_n
CD
Faci 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Chicago
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1982)
Hampton (1985)
Hampton (1984)
N. Andover3 D
Peekskill (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea , fall
Umea , fall
Umea, spring
WSH/OI/FE
Quebec;;
Quebec:;
Quebec
Quebec
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marion County
Quebec1-
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Phi ladelphia (NW1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
CYC
May port
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus County
Dyersburq
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Wing
Test
condition
Norma 1
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Low temp
Normal
110
125
140
200
Norma 1
Normal
140
140 & R.
Normal
Normal
MSW/waste oi 1
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
High
Low
Normal
upstream
ng/Nm3
35.8
61.0
183
220
84.3
131
158
120
72.5
15.0
15.3
10.0
7.15
Emissions
from control device
ng/Nm at
121 C02 yg/Mg feed
43
103
297
352
138
189
252
124 525
23.4 93
24.4 89
12.2 43
13.2 56
Emissions
downstream from control device
ng/Nm3
89.7
2,510
385
1 ,100
1,920
49.2
153
5.97
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0317
6.73
0.0
0.0798
483
291
21.0
217
ng/Nm3 at
12* C0?
120
4,560
382
1,020
3,440
62
182
7.31
103
104
22.8
0.0521
9.60
0.322
0.128
1,090
743
32.8
345
uonrroi
ef f i-
pg/Mg feed ciency, %
453
17,200
1,770
4,990
8,720
124
28.7
>99.9
27.2
1.47
>99.9
261
14,600
(continued)
-------
TABLE 7-40. (continued)
i
en
10
Emissions
Emissions
upstream from control device downstream from control device
Fac i 1 i ty name
RDF f i red
ESP
Akron
Albany d
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
Hami Iton-Wentworthe
Hami 1 ton-Wentworthd
Hami 1 ton -Went worth
j
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth^
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
Test
condi t ion
Normal
Norma 1
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back low
front
H/None
H/Low back
Normal
ng/Nm at ,
ng/Nm-5 12$ CO^ Vig/Mg feed ng/Nm3
458
37.)
2,450
2,610
3,610
4,280
1,860
1,310
20.1
•»
ng/NnT at
12J C02
679
46.9
3,600
3,500
3,100
5,800
4,200
2,300
31.7
control
eff i-
pg/Mg feed ciency, t
1.680
231
196
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3. 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
hsimultaneous test runs. Inlet runs 1 and 2 were not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
An apparent increase in concentration occurred across the control device; however, no reason for this increase was indicated in
the test reports.
jA 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
Average of two test runs.
One test run only.
-------
TABLE 7-41. SUMMARY OF TOTAL PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
I
cr>
o
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
N. Andover3 D
Peekskill (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea , fall
Umea, fall
Umea, spring
WSH/DI/FE
Quebec::
Quebec::
Quebec
Quebec
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Mar ion County
Ouebecc
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Phi ladelphia (NW1)
Phi ladelphia (NW2)
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus County
Prince toward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Wing
RDF f i red
ESP
Albany H
Hami Iton-Wentworth"
Hami 1 ton-Wentworthe
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth A
Hami 1 ton-Wentwortha
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth^
Hami 1 ton -Went worth
Test
condi tion
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Low temp
Normal
tto
125
140
200
Normal
Normal
140
140 4 R.
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Long
High
Low
Norma 1
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back. low
front
H/None
H/Low back
upstream
ng/Nm
15
55.2
154
172
137
122
138
55.1
23.5
27.3
19.2
11.6
Emissions
from control device
ng/Nm3 at
12$ C0? ug/Mg feed
18
93.3
250
275
226
176
222
36.6 145
43.7 157
23.4 81
21.4 88
Emissions
downstream from control device
ng/Nm3
1,010
6,200
2.580
26.3
89.2
2.72
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0137
6.56
0.0
0.0931
534
403
282
30.4
1,690
3,030
2,690
3,580
1,320
1,480
, uonrroi
ng/Nm3 at ef f i-
12J C0_ wg/Mg feed ciency, %
1,840 6,940
5,770 28,100
4.620 11,700
53.2
72.6
106
3.34 13.1
116
132
51.6
0.0521 >99.9
9.26 26.3
0.044 0.201
0.148 99.9
1,210
1,030
447 18,800
38.4 189
2,500
2,900
4,000
4,900
2,900
2,600
(continued)
-------
TABLE 7-41. (continued)
Faci 1 1 ty name
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
Test
condition
Normal
Emissions
upstream from control device
ng/Nm3 at
ng/Nm 3 \2% C02 pg/Mg feed
Emissions
downstream from control device
ng/Nm3
6.97
ng/Nm3 at
12* C02
11.0
yg/Mg feed
67.9
Control
ef f i-
ciency ,
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3. 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
^simultaneous test runs. Inlet runs 1 and 2 were not analy/ed due to sampling difficulties.
An apparent increase in concentration occurred across the control device; however, no reason for this Increase was indicated in
cthe test reports.
dA 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
"Average of two test runs.
One test run only.
-------
TABLE 7-42. SUMMARY OF TOTAL HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
I
cr>
Faci 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Maternal 1
ESP
Chicago
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (198d)
N. Andover3 D
Peekskill (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea , fall
Umea , fall
Umea. spring
WSH/DI/FE
Quebec::
Quebec;:
Quebec
Quebec
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marion County
Quebec
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Phi ladelphia (NW1)
Phi ladelphia (NW2)
Starved air
No control device
Cattarauqus County
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Wing
RDF f i red
ESP
Albany .
Hami Iton-Wentworth0
Hami 1 ton -Went worth6
Hami Iton-Wentworth A
Hami Iton-Wentworth"
Hami Iton-Wentworth^
Hami Iton-Wentworth
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Low temp
Norma 1
110
125
140
200
Normal
Normal
140
140 4 R.
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Norma 1
Long
High
Loi
Normal
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back low
f ron*
H/None
H/Low back
upstream
ng/Nm3
9.17
37.6
156
151
69.1
112
139
20.7
28.7
31.1
26.7
15.4
Emissions
from control device
ng/Nm3 at
121 C02 pg/Mg feed
1 1
63.7
252
240
114
163
224
44.8 175
49.8 179
32 5 113
28.5 118
Emissions
downstream from control device
ng/Nm3
62.0
1,200
700
2.220
17.8
58 5
1 .49
0.0
0.0
0 0
0.0317
4.23
0 0
0.0931
1,240
313
301
6.53
829
1,170
1,310
1,160
895
936
-i Control
ng/NmJ at effi-
12* C02 yg/Mg feed ciency, %
82.9 313
2,180 8,230
651 3,180
3.980 10,100
7? 4
<££•*<
74 O
* *t • "
69 5
*J7 • j
1 82 7 Ifi
' • *Jf- f » t \t
^O ft
~)7 • \J
60
SI f.
j i .0
0.521 >99.9
6.04 17.1
0.013 0.0595
0.148 99.9
2,810
799
478 20,200
8.25 40.7
1,200
1,100
1,700
1,600
2,000
1,600
(continued)
-------
TABLE 7-42. (continued)
Emissions Emissions
upstream from control device downstream from control device
Faci 1 i ty name
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
Test
condition ng/Nnr
Normal
•» •, control
ng/Nm-' at ng/NfiT at effi-
\2t CO- pg/Mg feed ng/Nm-5 121 CO- pg/Mg feed ciency.
11.4 18.0 111
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3f 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
^simultaneous test runs. Inlet runs 1 and 2 were not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
An apparent increase in concentration occurred across the control device; however, no reason for this increase was indicated in
the test reports.
dA 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
Average of two test runs.
One test run only.
i
CTl
CO
-------
TABLE 7-43. SUMMARY OF TOTAL HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
I
CT>
Faci 1 1 ty name
Mass burn
Maternal 1
ESP
Chicago
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
N. Andovera D
Peekskill (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea , fall
Umea , fall
Umea. spring
WSH/DI/FF
Ouebec_
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marion County
Quebec0
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Phi lade 1 phi a (NW1)
Phi ladelphia (NW2)
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus County
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP
Albany d
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth"
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
Hami 1 ton-Wentworthj
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth 5
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
Test
condition
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Low temp
Norma 1
110
125
HO
200
Normal
Norma 1
140
140 i R.
Normal
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Long
High
Low
Normal
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back, low
front
H/None
H/Low back
upstream
ng/Nm3
8.33
31.8
107
99.8
46.9
84.9
104
4.0
21.5
21.6
20.9
15.4
Emissions
from control device
ng/Nm3 at
\n CO,, pg/Mg feed
10
53.8
174
160
77.1
123
166
33.6 133
34.6 127
25 . 4 90
28.5 118
Emissions
downstream from control device
ng/Nm3
7.47
1,190
200
1,430
47.2
30.5
1.92
1.47
0.0
0.645
0.671
1 .46
0.0
0.325
323
104
266
2.12
25.4
895
234
178
50.8"
112
, uonrroi
ng/Nm-' at ef f i-
12$ CO- gg/Mg feed ciency, %
9.99 37.6
2,160 8,160
186 907
2.560 6,500
$9.5
43.6
36.2
2.35 9.24
40.8
80.4
58.8
2.49 95.4
1.03 99.4
1.11 98.6
2.08 5.90
0.008 0.0366
0.522 99.7
731
266
422 17,800
2.68 13.2
36
870
270
290
110
210
(continued)
-------
TABLE 7-43. (continued)
Facl 1 1 ty name
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
Test
condition
Normal
Emissions
upstream (rum control device
ng/Nm3 at
ng/Nm-5 121 C0? U9/Mg feed
Emissions
downstream from control device
ng/Nm3
41.7
ng/Nm3 at
12)C C02
65.8
V»g/Mg feed
406
Control
ef f i-
ciency, )
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3. 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
bs imul taneous test runs. Inlet runs 1 and 2 were not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
An apparent increase in concentration occurred across the control device; however, no reason for this Increase was indicated in
the test reports.
JjA 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
"Average of two test runs.
One test run only.
i
cr.
tn
-------
TABLE 7-44. SUMMARY OF TOTAL OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
I
cr>
cr>
Faci 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Material 1
ESP
Chicago
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
N. Andover3 D
Peekskill (4/85)
Sauqus
lulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea, fal 1
Umea, fall
Umea, spring
WSH/DI/FE
Quebec";
Quebec
Quebec::
Quebec
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marion County
Quebec;:
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Phi lade 1 phi a (NW2)
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus County
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP .
Hamilton-Wentworth"
Hami 1 ton -Went worth6
Haml Iton-Wentworthx
Hami Iton-Wentwortha
-j
Hami Iton-Wentworth^
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth"
Test
condition
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Low temp
Normal
110
125
140
200
Norma 1
Norma 1
140
140 & R.
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
High
Low
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back. low
front
H/None
H/Low back
upstream
ng/Nm3
2.5
11.7
35.0
23.3
19.6
26.6
27.3
0.070
3.91
3.82
2.51
3.86
Emissions
from control device
ng/Nm3 at
121 C02 pg/Mg feed
3
19.7
56.8
37.2
32.3
38.5
43.6
6.10 23
6.10 23
3.05 12
7.12 31
Emissions
downstream from control device
ng/Nm3
0.600
78.0
14.0
110
51.7
14.9
0.577
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.617
0.0
0.0
21 .0
12.3
48.2
15.3
173
35.6
35.6
40.7
108
-i Control
ng/NmJ at ef f i-
12J C02 wg/Mg feed ciency, %
0.803 3.03
142 536
13.0 63.5
197 500
65.1
1 6
17.7
0.706 2.78
12
27.6
39.6
0.88 2.50
0.036 0.165
47.5
31 .4
76.3 3,220
23
170
42
52
90
200
(cont inued)
-------
TABLE 7-44. (continued)
Emi ssions
upstream from control
Faci 1 ity name
Test
condition ng/Nm
ng/Nm at
\2% C02
Emissions
device downstream from control device
ng/Nm3 at
gg/Mg feed ng/NmJ 12* C0?
Control
eff i-
pg/Mg feed ciency,
t
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
Normal
5.37
8.48
52.3
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3, 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
^simultaneous test runs. Inlet runs 1 and 2 were not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
An apparent increase in concentration occurred across the control device; however, no reason for this increase was indicated in
cthe test reports.
jA 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
Average of two test runs.
One test run only.
^J
cr>
-------
TABLE 7-45. SUMMARY OF TETRA- THROUGH OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
I
cr>
cx>
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (198ft)
N. Andover3 °
Peekskill (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea, fall
Umea, fall
Umea. spring
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec..
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Wur/burg
SD/FF
Mar Ion County
Ouebecc
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NWI)
Phi lade 1 phi a (NW2)
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus County
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP .,
Hamilton-Wentworth"
Hamilton-Wentworth8
Hami Iton-Wentworthrf
Hami Iton-Wentworth"
j
Hami Iton-Wentworthj
Hami Iton-Wentworth°
Test
condi t ion
Normal
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Normal
Low temp
Norma 1
110
125
140
200
Normal
Normal
140
140 & R.
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
Low
Low
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back. low
front
H/None
H/Low back
upstream
ng/Nm3
70.8
197
635
665
357
476
568
200
92.3
99.4
79.5
53.5
Emissions
from control device
ng/Nm5 at
12* C02 wg/Mg feed
85
334
1.030
1,070
588
689
903
144 569
159 574
96.6 340
98.7 411
Emissions
downstream from control device
ng/Nm3
5,990
8,210
8,260
192
346
12.7
1.47
0.0
0.645
0.767
19.6
0.0
0.592
2,600
1,100
1,110
5,010
8.880
6,880
9)230
4,170
2,640
Control
ng/Nm3 at effl-
121 CO- pg/Mg feed ciency, %
10,900 41,200
7,640 37,300
14,800 37,500
242
317
411
15.5 61
312
404
224
2.49 99.3
1.03 99.9
1.26 99.8
27.9 79.2
0.423 1.94
0.947 99.9
5,890
2^870
1,770 74,400
7,360
8,540
9,110
12,600
9,300
6,910
(continued)
-------
TABLE 7-45. (continued)
Faci 1 ity name
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
Test
condi t ion
Normal
Emissions
upstream from control device
ng/Nm3 at
ng/Nm3 12* CO- ug/Mg feed
Emissions
downstream from control device
ng/Nm3
85.6
ng/Nm at
12* C02
135
Vig/Mg feed
1,010
Control
effi-
ciency,
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3. 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
bsimultaneous test runs. Inlet runs 1 and 2 were not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
An apparent increase in concentration occurred across the control device; however, no reason for this increase was Indicated in
the test reports.
jA 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
"Average of two test runs.
One test run only.
i
cr>
-------
TABLE 7-46. SUMMARY OF TOTAL MEASURED CHLORODIBENZOFURAN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
—I
I
—I
o
Facl 1 Ity name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP -
Chicago h
Hampton (1981)°
Hampton (I982)£
Hampton (1983)?.
Hampton (1984)°
N. Andover0 e h
Peekskill (4/85)°
Saugus h
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)D
Umea, fal 1?
Umea, fall0 b
Umea. spring
WSH/DI/FS
Quebec,
Ouebecj 9
Quebec!
Quebec b
Wurzburg
SD/FF b
Mar ionjCounty
Quebec! 9
Quebec
Refractory
ESP b
Philadelphia (NW1)P
Philadelphia nrroi
eff 1-
pg/Mg feed clency, t
819
41,200
1,770
37,300
37,500
317
61
99.3
99.9
99.8
79.2
1.94
99.9
320
76,500
(continued)
-------
TABLE 7-46. (continued)
Emissions
Emissions
upstream from control device downstream from control device
Faci 1 i ty name
RDF f i red
ESP
Akronch
Albany" h ,
Hamilton-Wentworth? '.
Hamilton-WentworthP J
Kami 1 ton-Wentworthi: ,
Hamilton-Wentworth0 '
K !
Hamilton-WentworthP
Hamilton-Wentworth
CYC/ESP K
Wright Pat. AFBD
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back low
front
H/None
H/Low back
Normal
T
ng/Nm at .
ng/Nnr \2% C0? pg/Mg feed ng/Nm3
458
76.2
5,010
8.880
6,880
9,230
4,170
2,640
85.6
•t
ng/Nm at
\2% C02
679
96.2
7,360
8,540
9,110
12,600
9,300
6,910
135
control
eff 1-
pg/Mg feed ciency, %
1,680
474
1,010
uSum of tetra- through octachlorodibenzofuran without penta.
°Sum of tetra- through octachlorodibenzofuran.
jTetrachlorodibenzofuran only.
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3. 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
simultaneous test runs. Inlet runs 1 and 2 were not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
An apparent increase in concentration occurred across the control device; however, no reason for this Increase was indicated in
.the test reports.
Presented as polychlorodibenzofuran in test report.
eA 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
ITetra- through heptachlorodibenzofuran.
,Average of two test runs.
•*0ne test run only.
-------
Isomer-speclflc PCDF 1n SI units
7-47 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Tetrachlorodlbenzofuran
Emissions from MWC Facilities
7-48 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substltuted and Total Pentachlorodibenzofuran
Emissions from MWC Facilities
7-49 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Hexachlorodibenzofuran
Emissions from MWC Facilities
7-50 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Heptachlorodibenzofuran
Emissions from MWC Facilities
-------
TABLE 7-47. SUMMARY OF 2,3,7,8-SUBSTITUTEO AND TOTAL TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN EMISSIONS FROM
MWC FACILITIES
Faci 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Hampton (1982)
Hampton (1984)
N. Andover
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea, fall
Umea , fall
Umea, spring
WSH/DI/FF
Wur/burg
SD/FF
^j Marion County
i
r*4 Refractory
ESP
Phi lade 1 phi a (NWI)
Phi lade 1 phi a (NW2)
CYC
Mayport
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus County3
ESP
Red Ming
RDF f i red
ESP
Albany
Test
condi t ion
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Low temp
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Norma 1
MSW/waste oi 1
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Emissions
Emissions upstream from control device downstream from control
2,3" 7,8-Tf.DF, Total TCDF, 2,V7,8-TCT>F To
ng/Nm5 at 12* O>2 ng/Nm5 at 12* CO- ng/Nm7 at 12? CO- ng/Nm
72.4
448
11 43 16.3
23.3
2.91
3
3.12
0.96
0.25
0.168
57.3
33.7
16.0
2.7 120
58.5
2.69
device
tal TCDF,
3 at 12* C02
382
3,440
62
182
7.31
103
104
22.8
9.60
0.322
1,090
743
32.8
345
46.9
Not corrected to 12 percent CO..
-------
TABLE 7-48.
I
»-4
CO
SUMMARY OF 2,3,7,8-SUBSTITUTED AND TOTAL PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN EMISSIONS FROM
MWC FACILITIES
Facility name
Mass burn
Waterwall
ESP
N. Andover
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and ?)
Unea. fall
Ltiea. fall
Uhiea, spring
USH/ni/FF
Wurzburg
SD/Ff
Marion County
Refractory
ISP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
Starved air
ESP
Red Wing
Test condition
Nomal
Nomal
Homal
Nomal
Low tenp
Nomal
Normal
Nornal
Noraal
Normal
Nomal
f missions upstream front control device Emissions
1,2,3.7.8 PeCDE, 2.3.4,7.8 PeCDF , PeCOF , 1,2,3.7,8-PeCDF,
ng/N»3 at 12X CO ng/Nm3 at l?t CO ng/N»3 at 12J CO ng/Nni3 at 12% CO
2 4 18 3.71
5.9
0.56
11
10
3
0.84a
0.01
117
86
17.8
do wns tread from control device
2.3. 4, 7, 8- PeCDF.
ng/Nn3 at 12% CO
7.63
10.4
1.14
7.3
8.9
4.7
0.62
0.015
2H5
106
75.3
Total PeCDF.
ng/Nn3 at l?t CO
33.2
106
3.34
116
132
51.6
9.26
0.044
1,210
1.030
447
^Includes 1.2.3.4.8-PeCDF.
-------
TABLE 7-49. SUMMARY OF 2,3,7,8-SUBSTITUTED AND TOTAL HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN EMISSIONS FROM
MWC FACILITIES
faci lity none
Mass burn
WaterwaM
ESP
H. Andover
Saugus
lulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Uniea. fall
Umea, fall
Utaea, spring
USH/DI/FE
Wurzburg
SO/Ff
Ma, ,i County
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NU1)
Philadelphia (NU2)
Starved air
ESP
Red Wing
Emissions upstream from control device
1.2,3.4.7.8 1.2.3.6,7,8 1.2.3.7,8.9 2.3,4.6.7.8-
HxCOF. HxCOF, HxCDF, HxCDF,
Test ng/M«3 dt n
-------
TABLE 7-50.
I
-~J
en
SUMMARY OF 2,3,7,8-SUBSTITUTED AND TOTAL HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN EMISSIONS FROM
MWC FACILITIES
Facility name Test condition
Mass burn
Waterwall
tSP
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2) Nornal
WSH/D1/FF
Wur/burg Normal
SO/FF
Marion County Hornal
Refractory
tSP
Philadelphia (NW1) Normal
Philadelphia (NW2) Normal
Starved air
ESP
Red Wing Normal
Emissions upstream from control device Emissions
1.2.3,4.6.7.8- 1.2,3.4,7.8- 1,2.3.4,67,8-
4'PCDF , HpCDF. Total H>CDF. HpCBf .
ng/NmJ at 12t C0? ng/NnJ at 12* CO ng/NmJ at 12X CO ng/Nm3 at 12t CO
1.79
1.71
0.007
559
IBB
279
downstream froi
1,2,3,4.7.8,
WpCOF.
ng/MmJ at 12X
0.21
0.06
0.010
39
IB
20.6
i control device
9-
Totfll HpCOF,
CO ng/MmJ at 12X CO
2.35
2.08
0.008
731
266
422
-------
Other organic pollutants 1n SI units
7-51 Summary of Polychlorinated Blphenyls Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-52 Summary of Formaldehyde Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-53 Summary of Benzo-a-pyrene Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-54 Summary of Total Measured Chlorinated Benzene Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-55 Summary of Total Measured Chlorinated Phenol Emissions From MWC
Facilities
-------
TABLE 7-51. SUMMARY OF POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
I
^J
01
Fac i 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Chicago
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1983)
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec3
Quebec
SD/FF
Quebec3
Quebec3
Starved air
No control device
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
RDF fired
ESP
Albany
Hami Iton-Wentworth'
Hami Iton-Wentworthc
Hami Iton-Wentworth
Hami Iton-Wentworth"
Hami 1 ton-Wentworthf>
Ham! Iton-Wentworth"
Test
condit ion
Normal
Normal
Normal
110
125
140
200
140
140 i R.
Normal
Long
Low
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back, low
f ront
H/None
H/Low back
Emissions
upstream from control
ng/Nm at
ng/Nm3 12$ C02
20.7 35.1
438 711
20.6 33.0
12 19.8
12.9 18.7
13.9 22.4
522 815
36.9 59.0
69.3 128
Emissions
device downstream from control device
yg/Mg feed ng/Nm3
42.0
717
670
5.72
3.83
0.0
5.51
0.0
0.0
3,410
245
574
215
524,000
155,000
601,000
217,000
297,000
403,000
Control
ng/Nm3 at ef f i-
12X CO- yg/Mg feed ciency, %
56.2 212
1,300 4,960
623 3,040
9.66 72.4
6.21 99.1
9.06 53.7
272 1,340
762,000
150,000
714,000
293,000
666.000
654,000
bA 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received)
Average of two test runs.
One test run only.
-------
TABLE 7-52. SUMMARY OF FORMALDEHYDE EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Hampton (1982)
Starved air
No control device
Dyersburg
RDF f i red
ESP
Akron
Albany
Test
condi t ion
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Emissions Emissions
upstream from control device downstream from control device
Control
ng/Nm3 at ng/Nm3 at effi-
ng/Nm 12* CO- mg/Mg feed ng/Nm3 12X CO, mg/Mg feed ciency, 1
1.720,000 1,710,000 7,900
19,000 32,400 137
117,000 173,000 428
128,000 162,000 798
-------
TABLE 7-53. SUMMARY OF BENZO-a-PYRENE EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Emissions -nissions
upstream from control device downstrt rom control device
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Hampton (1982)
Hampton (1983)
RDF f i red
ESP
Albany
Test
condition ng/Nm
Normal
Normal
Normal
ng/Nm3 at
12J C02 yg/Mg feed ng/Nm3
9,030
12,000
21,000
ng/Nm at
12* C02
8,960
11,200
26,500
Control
eff i-
Vig/Mg feed ciency, %
41,600
54,400
131 ,000
I
•^J
Oo
-------
TABLE 7-54. SUMMARY OF TOTAL MEASURED CHLORINATED BENZENE EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
I
--4
Faci 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Chicago
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1982)
Hampton (1984)
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Wur/burg
SD/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Starved air
No control device
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
RDF fired
ESP
Hami Iton-Wentwortha
Hami Iton-Wentworthb
Kami 1 ton -Went worth
Hami Iton-Wentworth3
Hami Iton-Wentwortha
Hami 1 ton-Hentwortha
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
Test
condition
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
110
125
140
200
Normal
140
140 A R.
Normal
Long
High
Low
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back, low
front
H/None
H/Low back
Normal
upstream
ng/Nm3
2,000
8,190
11,300
7,810
4,800
7,650
9,910
2,810
2,010
3,320
2,690
Emissions
from control device
ng/Nm3 at
121 CO- ug/Mg feed
2,640 10,100
13,800
18,300
12,500
7,880
11,100
15,900
4,390 18,000
3,210 12,800
4,040 16,100
4,960 22,000
Emissions
downstream from control device
ng/Nm3
1,770
41,400
302,000
45,300
398
187
147
1,810
796
58.3
120
69,400
46,400
34,800
33,600
24,100
22,700
901
Control
ng/Nm3 at ef f i-
12J CO- ug/Mg feed ciency, %
2,370 8,920 10.2
75,300 28,400
300,000 1,390,000
81,100 206,000
671 95.1
303 98.3
236 98.1
2,970 62.4
1,240 3,700
84.3 99.2
191 98.8
101,000
44,900
41 ,400
45,300
54,100
36,800
1,420 8,780
^Average of two test runs.
-------
TABLE 7-55. SUMMARY OF TOTAL MEASURED CHLORINATED PHENOL EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
CD
O
Fac i 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Chicago3
Hampton (1961)
Hampton (1984)
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
SD/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Starved air
None
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
RDF f i red
ESP
Haml Iton-Wentworth"
Hami Iton-Wentworthc
Hami 1 ton -Went worth
Hami Iton-Wentworth"
Hami 1 ton-Wentworthfj
Hami Iton-Wentworth"
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
110
125
140
200
140
140 & R.
Normal
Long
High
Low
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back, low
front
H/None
H/Low back
Normal
upstream
ng/Nm'
2,920
19,100
15,300
18,200
11 ,900
16,000
6,280
2,790
2,360
2,230
3,570
Emissions
from control device
ng/Nm5 at
12$ C02 gg/Mg feed
3,850 14,700
32,200
24,600
29,100
19,500
23,100
10,000
4,350 18,400
3,770 15,000
2,710 10,800
6,590 29,000
Emissions
downstream from control device
ng/Nm3
3,570
122,000
214,000
535
169
218
5,290
171
248
81,100
35,600
40,900
15,600
72,700
54,100
9,080
ng/Nm' at
\2% C02 pg/Mg feed
4,780 18,000
222,000 839,000
383,000 971,000
904
274
349
8,700
248
397
118,000
34,500
48,600
21,000
163,000
87,800
14,300 88,400
Control
ef f i-
ciency, %
97.2
98.9
98.8
55.6
98.9
96.0
An increase in concentration occurred across the control device; however, no apparent reason for this increase was identified in
the test report.
Average of two test runs.
C0ne test run only.
-------
Supplementary tables 1n SI
7-56 Summary of Supplementary Chlorod1benzo-p-d1ox1n Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-57 Summary of Supplementary ChlorocMbenzofuran Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-58 Summary of Supplementary Metals Emissions From MWC Facilities
-------
TABLE 7-56. SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTARY CHLORODIBENZO-p-DIOXIN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
—I
I
oo
Facility name
Mass burn
Waterwall/ESP
Iserlohn
Montreal (1982)
Montreal (1983)
Quebec (1981)
Umea (1984)
Uiea (1985)
Zurich/Josephstrasse
Waterwall/DS/FSP
Hamburg/Stapelfeld
MVA-I Borsigstrasse
MV«-II Stellinger H.
Uaterwal 1/CYC/Dl/ESP/FF
Maine
Waterwall/SD/FF
Avg Borsigstrasse
Refractory/SPRAY/ESP
Toronto I
Refractory/ESP
Brasschaat
Harelbeke
Link oping
Stuttgart
Zaandstad
Refractory/
Beveren
Milan I
Milan II
Starved air
None
Lake Cowlchan
CS/ESP
Schio
Schlo
Fluid bed
FF
Eskjo
Test
condition
Normal
Noriul
Normal
Noriul
Nornal
Nornal
Normal
Noriul
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Processed
Unprocessed
ROF
2.3.7.8. ng/Nn3
0.014
0.5
0.1
0.17
0.1
0.2
0.7
0.01
0.02
3.0
0.97
0.025
0.4
2.0
0.5
Tetra. ng/Nm3
1.03
0.001
0.09
4. 1
43
10
4.4
6
25
19
0.15
10.5
55.8
40.0
20.0
0.45
19.4
57. 1
3.6
15.3
0.2
4.2
8.9
1.8
11.3
Penta. ng/Nm3
0.004
0.094
14.6
53
49
12
0.15
76.2
34.0
3%
34
231
6.5
47.6
Hexa, ng/Nm3
0.003
0.135
15.5
32
55
27
376
53.0
185
33.8
440
35.0
100
Hepta. ng/Nm3
0.003
0.144
12.2
18
56
26
41S
67.0
206
22.9
347
87. 5
46.2
31.5
Octa. ng/Nm3
182
0.002
0.282
1.7
12
53
54
11
13
15
57
86.9
153
202
9.8
452
125
804
113
1.39
17.7
Total
measured. ng/Nm
183»
0.013?
0.745?
48.1?
158?
223?
123b
42C
151C
114C
0.30d
142C
1.010b
347b
1.010°
0.45*
120°
1.530b
258b
820*
113a
199b
8.9«
1.8*
60. 5f
SUB of tetra- and octachlorodlbenzo-p-dioxln missions.
Sum of tetra- through octachlorodltaenzo-p-dioxin emissions.
'Sum of tri- through octachlorodibenzo-p-dloxln emissions.
"Sum of tetra- and pentachlorodibenzo-p-dloxin emissions.
fjetrachlorodibenzo-p-dloxin emissions only.
Sum of tetra-,hepta- and octachlorodibenzo-p-dloxln emissions.
-------
TABLE 7-57. SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTARY CHLORODIBENZOFURAN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
CO
r\J
Facility na»e
Mass burn
Uaterwal 1/F.SP
Iserlohn
Montreal (198?)
Montreal (1983)
Quebec (1981)
Uiea (1984)
Itoea (198S)
Zurich/ Jos ephstrasse
Waterwall/DS/eSP
Hantiurg/Stapelfeld
MVA 1 Borsigstrasse
HVA-II Stel linger M.
Waterwal 1/CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Ma 1*0
Waterwal VSO/FF
Avg Borsigstrasse
Refractory/SPRAY/ESP
Toronto I
Refractory/ESP
Brasschaat
Harelbeke
link oping
Stuttgart
Zaandstad
Refractory/
Beveren
Milan I
Milan II
Starved air
Hone
Lake Cowichan
CS/ESP
Schlo
Schio
Fluid bed
FF
Eskjo
lest
condition
Noriul
Norul
Normal
Norul
Norul
Noriul
Normal
Noriul
Nonul
Noriul
Noriul
Norul
Norul
Noriul
Norul
Norul
Norul
Horul
Norul
Norul
Norul
Norul
Processed
Unprocessed
RDF
2.3.7.8. ng/Nii3 Tetra, ng/N«3
0.21 19.2
0.002
0.179
45.9
2.5 86
0.85 19
24
1.2 37
3.0 65
4.0 127
0.5 ?
5.5 74
220
196
116
0.6 4.25
3.8 125
161
16.0
35.6
23. 7
6.6
327
Penta. ng/N*3
0.007
0.154
35.6
97
43
30
3
168
188
209
5.0
122
272
33.0
73.1
53.3
Hexa. nq/Nn3
0.005
0.095
39
33
43
20
26
344
220
35.0
169
13.3
528
318
253
59.7
Hepta. ng/Na3
0.004
0.063
8.4
34
49
14
227
372
337
20.3
293
47.5
41.6
27.7
Octa, ng/NB3
41.3
0.002
0.051
0.64
10
33
9
2
3
2
25.5
59.2
433
204
5.4
67.6
40.0
584
90.9
1.07
12.2
Total
•easured. ng/N>
ft* r&
60.5"
0.020°
0.542"
130?
260b
187*
97°
• (Ulf
109C
« i-nC
160s
f
325C
.i
31"
183C
h
1,020°
k
1.410°
901°
178d
286b
1 ,320b
L.
455b
584e
90.9e
404b
*
23.7'
6.6f
480b
'Sun of tetra- and octachlorofuran emissions.
Sun of tetra- through octachlorofuran emissions.
jjSui of tri- through octachlorofuran Missions.
"SUB of tetra-.penta-. and hexachlorofuran emissions.
'Octachlorofuran emissions only.
Tetrachlorofuran Missions only.
-------
TABLE 7-58. SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTARY METALS EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Faci 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Waterwall/ESP
Avesto, Sweden
Avesto, Sweden
MVA Lausanne, Switzerland8
MVA Munich
MVA Munich
Waterwal I/
1 ssy- 1 es-Mou 1 i neaux
Saint-ouen
Test Arsenic,
condition ng/Nm
Pilot, inlet
Pi lot, outlet
Normal , out let
Normal , inlet
Normal , outlet
Normal , out let
Normal , out let
Total
Beryllium, Cadmium, chromium,
ng/Nm3 ng/Nm3 ng/Nm3
0.038
0.024
0.04
1.29
0.02
0.07
1.11
Lead,
ng/Nm3
0.9
0.68
0.9
21.1
0.24
43.2
Mercury Nickel ,
ng/Nm3 ng/Nm3
0.225
0.028
0.12
0.08-0.45
0.05-0.2
0.013
0.52
Datum was reported in mg/Nm at tl percent 0-
i
CO
CO
-------
Facility type/structural and airflow design data in English units
7-59a Mass-Burn Facility Structural Design Data
7-59b Mass-Burn Facility Airflow Design Data
7-60 Mass-Burn Operating Data for MWC Facilities
7-61a Starved-Air Facility Structural Design Data
7-61b Starved-Air Facility Airflow Design Data
7-62 Starved-Air Operating Data for MWC Facilities
7-63a RDF-F1red Facility Structural Design Data
7-63b RDF-Fired Facility Airflow Design Data
7-64 RDF-Fired Operating Data for MWC Facilities
-------
TABLE 7-59a. MASS-BURN FACILITY STRUCTURAL DESIGN DATA
OD
-pi
Chamber configuration
Primary chamber Secondary chamber Heat transfer area
Geometric Volume, Geometric Volume, Convec- Total,
Facility configuration ft3 configuration ft3 tive, ft2 ft2
Ba 1 1 i more
Braintree 880
Chicago 19,800
Gal latin
Hampton
Kure
Peek ski 1 1
N. Andover Rectangular 29,000 50,700 53,400
Quebec
Tulsa
Munich
'urzburg
Tsushima
Mai mo
Saugus
Marion Co.
Phi ladelphia NW
Grate data
Pressure
Manu- No. of drop. Capacity
facturer sections In w.c. ton/d
a 750
b 120
c 400
e 100
d 3 125
e
a 750
750
a 250
c 375
820'
c
c 165
c 240
3 750
275
375
?Von Rol 1 .
DRiley Stoker.
^Martin.
"Detroit Stoker.
®0'Connor water-cooled rotary combustor.
ton/d of MSW and 290 ton/d of clarified sludge.
-------
TABLE 7-59b. MASS-BURN FACILITY AIRFLOW DESIGN DATA
Underfire air
"o- of Overfire atr
Mo. of controlled Flow rate. Flow distribution, percent Flow Nozzle data
Facility plenuns flows acfm Feed Dry Combustion Burnout Location direction NuiberTypeVelocity, ft/s
00
en
-------
TABLE 7-60. MASS BURN OPERATING DATA FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR FACILITIES
I
CD
cr>
Temperature*
Facility name
Mass burn
Uaterwall
ESP
Baltimore. 5/85
Braintree
Chicago
Hanpton (1981)
Hampton (198?)
Hasten (1983)
Hanpton (1984)
North Andover
Peekskill (4/85)
Sauguj
Tulsa (Unit 1)
Tulsa (Unit 2)
Uiea, fall, noraal
U»ea. fall, low teiip
Uiea. spring
CYC/ff
Gallatln
ESP/US
Kure
SD/ESP
Munich
CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Ma loo
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec. 110
Quebec. 125
Quebec. 140
Quebec. 200
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marlon County
Quebec. 140
Quebec. 140 t R
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NU1)
Philadelphia (NU2)
CYC
Mayport
SO/FF
Tsushima
EGB
Pittsfleld
Feed rate.
% design Furnace. *F
85
1160
98
1480
86 1500
95-112
1480
1000
1440
1500
1660
1580
1810
1730
SO
Boiler
outlet. -F Stack. *F
610 443
388
460
5? 7
518
520
500
585
344
430
319
554
365
259
433
400
Flow rate.
dscf«
110.000
20.900
52.300
18.800
12.800
12.700
10. 1C*.
86.900
91.800
40.200
45.300
13.100
17.200
76.100
34.000
2.490
2.560
2.450
2.120
30.600
36.600
2.480
2.410
77.200
84.000
8.380
17.800
°2" *
11.5
16.1
11.4
13.5
7.70
6.40
11.9
10.4
10.5
9.40
14.6
12.5
7.50
12.7
12.4
12. 5
12.9
10.7
11.7
11. 6
12.5
13.9
14.8
12.8
14.2
10.7
Stack gas concentrations
C02. X H20. t CO. pp»
7.50 12.1
4.20 6.3 474
8.97 163
6.60
12.1
12.9 1.130
6. 70 136
9.4 13.4 32.1
7.90
10.1 30.6
9.80
9.40
10.5
6.9
7.20 17.4
11.3
7.10
7.40
7.50
7.30
7.6 15. 5 41
8.15 18.5
8.30
7.50
5.55 24.9 227
4.7 22.6 182
7.70 31.0
6.20 26.8
THC. ppi
11.3
55.7
348
3
4
4
-------
TABLE 7-61a. STARVED-AIR FACILITY STRUCTURAL DESIGN DATA
Chamber configuration
Primary chamber Secondary chamber
Geometric Geometric Heat transfer
Facility configuration Volume, ft configuration Volume, ft area, ft
Barren County
Cattaraugus Co.
Oyersburg
N. Little Rock
Prince Edward
Island
Red Wing
Tuscaloosa
Grate data
Manufacturer Capacity, ton/d
50 '
40
100
25
36
36
90
— i
i
CO
-------
TABLE 7-61b. STARVED-AIR FACILITY AIRFLOW DESIGN DATA
Primary air_
No. of Secondary air
Ho. of controlled Flow rate. D0.* distribution, percent Flow Nozzle data
Facility plenums flow* acfn feed Dry Combustion Burnout location direction Number lype Velocity, «t/s
CD
CD
-------
TABLE 7-62. STARVED AIR OPERATING DATA FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR FACILITIES
Facility name
Starved Air
None
Cattaraugus County
Dyersburg
N. little Rock
Prince Edward Island, normal
Prince Edward Island, long
Prince Edward Island, high
Prince Edward Island, low
ESP
Tuscaloosa
Feed rate. Primary
S design chamber, *F
94
1460
l?80
1270
1300
1250
90
Temperatures
Secondary
chamber, °F
1720
1660
1630
19/0
1440
Boiler
outlet. °f Stack. °F
490
578 392
363
362
361
383
Flow rate.
dscfm
8.160
5.960
5.710
4.640
6.860
44,900
V*
12.8
12.2
12.5
9.10
13.5
11.3
Stack qas concentrations
0>2. * H20. * CO. ppm
7.03
8 i «3.0
8. 00 25. 0
11.1 27.0
7.00 28.0
7.00
IHC. ppm
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.7
I
CO
>JD
-------
TABLE 7-63a. REFUSE DERIVED FUEL-FIRED FACILITY STRUCTURAL DESIGN DATA
Chamber configuration
Priiwry charter Secondary chanber
Geonetric Geometric
conf iq - conf iq-
Facility uration Volu«e. ft3 oration Volume, ft3
Akron
Albany
Hamlton-Wentuorth
Mdlno
Grate data
Heat transfer area
fonvec total. Mo. of Pressure Capacity. Fuel
live, ft ft Manufacturer sections drop, in. w.c. ton/d grade
1.000
300
300
240
Fuel
charging
•echanisn
Wright Pat. AfBa
Niagara
1.200
Originally designed to burn coal, retrofitted to burn RUr.
-------
TABLE 7-63b. REFUSE DERIVED FUEL-FIRED FACILITY AIRFLOW DESIGN DATA
Underfire air
Ho- of Overfire secondary air
No. of controlled Flow rate, MOM distribution, percent Flow Nozzle data
Facility plenums flows acf» Feed Dry Conbustion Burnout Location direction Niaber Type Velocity, ft/s
-------
TABLE 7-64. ROF-FIRED OPERATING DATA FOR MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTOR FACILITIES
Fad Hty nane
RDF fired
ESP
Akron
Albany
Niagara
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
Wright Pat. AFB
CYC/DI/F.SP/FF
Hal no
Temperatures
Feed rate. Boiler Flow rate, Stack gas concentrations
* design Furnace. °F outlet. °F Stack. °f dscfn 0 % CO 1 HO. I CO. ppn THC . ppn
451 48.900 1?. 7 8.10
393 77.400 11.3 9.50 13.4 274
'5-90 143.000
48.800 7.60
302 303
1500 541 33,300 7.60 11.5
I
VO
ro
-------
Control device design and operating characteristics 1n English units
7-65 Electrostatic Precipitator Design Specifications
7-66 Electrostatic Precipitator Operating Conditions
7-67 Dry Scrubber/Fabric Filter System Design Specifications
7-68 Dry Scrubber/Fabric Filter System Operating Conditions
7-69 Fabric Filter or Scrubber Design Specifications
7-70 Fabric Filter or Scrubber Operating Conditions
-------
TABLE 7-65. ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
--J
I
Fad lity name
Mass burn
Waterwall
ESP
Baltimore
Braintree
Chicago
Hanpton (1981)
Hanpton (1983)
lld«pton (1984)
North Andover
Peekskill (4/85)
Saugus
SO/ESP
Munich
CYC/01/ESP/FF
Malno
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
CYC/ESP
Washington. O.C.
Starved air
ESP
luscaloosa
RDF fired
ESP
Albany
CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Ma l«o
Particulate natter
Collection f missions,
efficiency. X gr/dscf
Specif ,,.
col lee
t ion area,
ft?/acfn
93.0
97.0
0.131
0.05
0.05
0. OJ
98.1
98.1
95.0
50.0
0.03
0 ?06
0. ?06
0.140
Mo. of
fields
Collection
plate
area, ft2
Electrical
power, kVA
Aspect
ratio. Inlet gas
length/ flow rate,
height acfn
100.000
4.740
47.400
47.400
10.600
27.0
0.52
173.900
36,000
135.000
46.000
230.000
230.000
76.000
46.000
Inlet gas
temp., *F
415
500
300
428
550
550
350
428
Gas velo-
city, ft/s
3.41
3.00
3.79
3.79
4V18
-------
TABLE 7-66. ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR OPERATING CONDITIONS
Facility name
Mass burn
Uaterwall
ESP
Baltimore
Bralntree
Chicago
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
Peek ski 11 (4/85)
ESP/WS
Kure
CYC/OI/ESP/FF
Malmo
Refractory
ESP
-J Philadelphia (NU1)
^ Philadelphia (NM2)
-P-
Starved air
ESP
Tuscaloosa
RDF fired
ESP
Albany
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AfB
Wright Pat. AFB
CYC/OI/ESP/FF
Malmo
Part Icul ate matter
Emissions
Test Collection at 1?X CO Stack
condition efficiency. X gr/dscf opacity. X
Normal 99.9 0.003
Normal 75.7 0.239
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal 0.150
Normal 0.016
Normal 98.4 0.30
Normal 99.5 0.010
Normal 0.110
Normal 0.480
Normal 3
Normal 97.0 0.139
Normal
Dense RDF 0.005
RDF 99.5
Gas
temp.. -F
388*
457b
527*
520"
496*
53 lb
513*
513*
613"
393*
457*
282*
Gas flow Secondary voltage. kVDC Secondary current. mADC
rate. First Second Third First Second Third
acfm field field field field field field
36.000*
100.000b
41.000*
28. 20^ 22.0 22.0 68.0 216
21.000*
40.00011
190.000* 430 300
200.000* 275 575
84.800b 24.0 20.0 43.0 92.0
144.000* 31.0 28.0 28.0 150 280 280
91.100*
"Control device outlet.
Control device inlet.
-------
TABLE 7-67. DRY SCRUBBER/FABRIC FILTER SYSTEM DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
— 1
1
-------
TABLE 7-68. DRY SCRUBBER/FABRIC FILTER SYSTEM OPERATING CONDITIONS
Facility name
Mass burn
Water-wall
CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Malmo
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec*
Wurzburg
Refractory
SD/FF
Tsushima
RDF fired
CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Malmo
Test
condition
Normal
Pilot DS
Normal
Normal
ROF
Part Icul ate matter
[missions Gas flow Reagent Pressure drop
Collection 12! CO,, rate. Gas temperature Stolchto- feed Scrubber. Bags.
efficiency. X gr/dscf acfm Inlet, 'f Outlet. *f metric ratio rate. Ib/h in. w.c. in. w.c.
99.5 0.010
99.9 4401" 505 311 7.89
49.700C 428 365
99.4 0.012 39.200b 670 400 44.0 2.70 6.40
99.5
<£>
cr>
"These data also apply to the SO/FF pilot-scale tests.
bControl device inlet.
cControl device outlet.
-------
TABLE 7-69. FABRIC FILTER OR SCRUBBER DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
Faci lity pane
Mass burn
Waterwall
fSP/WS
Kure
SD/f SP
Munich
Refractory
WS
Alexandria
Nicosia
Fabric filter Scrubber
Particulate natter Inlet Bag Pressure liquid
Collection tnissions, qas flow Inlet qas A/C ratio, cleaning Bag drop, rate,
efficiency, X qr/dscf rate, acfn tewp. , "f ft/nm metnod material Type in. w.c. gal/nin
ICA
500
Imp.
Inp. 1,050
-------
TABLE 7-70. FABRIC FILTER OR SCRUBBER OPERATING CONDITIONS
Facility note
Mass burn
Uaterwall
CYC/FF
Gall at In
ESP/WS
Kure
SD/ESP
Munich
CYC/01 /ESP/FF
Malno
USH/DI/FF
Quebec
Refractory
SO/FF
IsushiM
RDF fired
7* CYC/DI/ESP/FF
10 Ma 1*o
CO
Paniculate natter Inlet
(Hiss ions gas flow
Collection at 12X CO,. rate. Gas tenperature Pressure Bag cleaning Stolchio-
Test condition efficiency. X gr/dscf acf« Inlet. °F Outlet, 'F drop, in. w.c. cycle, «1n netric ratio
Noraal 98.9 0.03? 18.300 446 341
Nornal 98.4 O.IJIU
MSW only 152.000 510 318 6.5a
Noraal 99.5 0.010
Pilot DS 99.9
Nonal 99.4 0.012
RDF 99.5
'Reagent versus HC1 and SO
-------
Criteria pollutants in English units
7-71 Summary of Particulate Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-72 Summary of Carbon Monoxide Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-73 Summary of Sulfur Dioxide Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-74 Summary of Oxides of Nitrogen Emissions From MWC Facilities
-------
TABLE 7-71. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Emissions Emissions
upstream from downstream from
control device control device
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwal I
ESP
Baltimore, 1/85
Baltimore, 5/85
Bra i ntree
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1982)
Hampton (1984) h
McKay Bay (Unit 1)? °
McKay Bay (Unit 2)°
McKay Bay (Unit 3)?
McKay Bay (Unit 4)D
N. Andover
Peekskill (4/85)
Tulsa (Unit 1)
Tulsa (Unit 2)
CYC/FF
Ga I 1 at i n
ESP/WS
Kure
SD/ESP
Mun ich
CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Mai mo
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marion County
Quebec
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Phi ladelphia (NW1 )
Phi ladelphia (NW2)
CYC
Mayport
SD/FF
Tsush ima
Starved air
No control device
Dyersburg
N. Little Rock, 3/78°
N. Little Rock, 5/78°,.
N. Little Rock 10/78°
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Barren County
Red Wing d
Tuscaloosa
RDF fired
ESP
Akron
Albany
Hami Iton-Wentworth?
Ham' Iton-Wentworth
H-- i ton-Wentworth,
He iton-Wentwortha
Hami Iton-Wentworthf^
Hami Iton-Wentworth
Niagara
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Norma 1
Norma I
Norma 1
Norma I
Norma 1
Norma ;
MSW only
Norma 1
110
125
140
200
Norma 1
Norma 1
140
140 4 R.
Norma 1
Norma 1
MSW/waste oi 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Long
High
LoS
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma I
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back low
f ron T
H/None
H/Low back
Norma 1
gr/Gscr
at
12* CO,
2.05
0.979
1.96
2.18
1.61
1.68
0.935
2.92
1.88
2.89
1.95
3.70
3.46
2.91
2.61
2.53
3.35
1.95
0.132
0.143
0.191
0.13
0.093
0.103
0.111
0.075
0.086
4.65
gr/ascr
1 b/ton at
feed 12* C0?
0.002
46.5 0.003
13.0 0.239
0.401
0.185
0.071
0.013
0.012
0.003
0.008
0.005
0.043
0.009
0.005
42.5 0.032
36.4 0.030
49.9 0.010
50.8 0.010
0.004
0.007
0.110
0.580
0.669
24.7 0.012
2.60
3.03
1.68
1.74
2.0
1.36
0.01
0.049
1.45 0.062
0.233
103 0.139
0.312
0.0387
0.226
0.0926
0.101
0.0533
0.096
1 b/ton
feed
0.05
0.059
3.02
6.95
3.92
0.177
0.094
0.685
0.408
0.185
0.264
0.055
0.154
13.0
0.151
0.196
0.939
1 .04
2.63
3.09
Control
effi-
ciency, {
99.9
75.6
99.5
98.9
98.4
99.6
99.5
99.4
27.9
97.0
(continued)
7-99
-------
TABLE 7-71. (continued)
Emi ss ions
upstream front
control dev ice
Faci 1 i ty name
CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Mai mo
Test
condition
RDF
gr/osct
at
12* CO,
1.89
1 b/ton
feed
58.2
Emissions
downstream from
control device
gr/oscT
at
12* CO,
uonrroi
1 b/ton ef f i -
feed ciency, %
^Average of two test runs.
"Control efficiency not calculated because inlet and outlet test runs were not simultaneous.
jNot corrected to dry standard conditions.
"Control efficiency is not typical of most properly maintained ESP s.
One test run only.
7-100
-------
TABLE 7-72. SUMMARY OF CARBON MONOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Faci 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Baltimore, 1/85
Braintree
Chicago
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984) ,
McKay Bay (unit 1)°
McKay Bay (unit 2)°
McKay Bay (unit 3),
McKay Bay (unit 4)a
N. Andover
Saugus
Tulsa (Unit 1)
Tulsa (Unit 2)
CYC/FF
Gal 1 at in
ESP/WS
Kure
CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Ma Imo
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marion County
Quebec
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Phi ladelphia (NWl )
Phi ladelphia (NW2)
CYC
Mayport
Starved air
No control device K
N. Little Rock 10/78°
Prince Edward Islar.d
Prince Edward Isiand
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Barren County
Red Wing
RDF f i red
ESP
Albany c
Hami 1 Ton-Wentworth^
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth^
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Ma Imo
j*Not corrected to 12 percent
Test
condi t ion
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
110
125
140
200
Norma 1
Norma 1
140
140 4 R.
Norma 1
Norma 1
MSn, »aste o i 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Long
Hiqfi
Loi
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back. low
front
H/None
H/Low back
RDF
CO,.
Emissions Emissions
upstream from downstream from
control device control device Control
ppmdv at Ib/ton ppmdv at Ib/ton effi-
12* C02 feed 12* C02 feed ciency, %
19.6 0.212
1,350 8.72
189 1.68 197 1.70
1,050
242
30
35
31.7
31.7
42.4
36.3
20.1 0.098
23.8 0.119
516 4.50
630 5.08
158 2.10
151
189
211
166
41 0.254
18.5 0.196
133
174
515
464
48.3 0.551
84.9 1.0
67.0 0.636
40.0 0.354
33.0 0.292
52.0 0.505
3.24 0.0317
<2.11 <0.0211
346 3.93
636
501
430
41 1
2,090
1,210
217 3.41
Not corrected to dry standard Conditions.
^Average of two test runs.
One test run only.
7-101
-------
TABLE 7-73. SUMMARY OF SULFUR DIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Baltimore, 1/85
Braintree
McKay Bay (Unit 1)
McKay Bay (Unit 3)
McKay Bay (Unit 4)a
Tulsa (Unit 1)
Tulsa (Unit 2)
CYC/FF
Gal latin
ESP/WS
Kure
SO/ESP
Mun ich
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Wurzburg
. SD/FF
Marion County
Quebec
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Phi lade 1 phi a (NWl )
Phi lade 1 phi a (NW2)
SD/FF
Tsushima
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
MSW only
110
125
140
200
Normal
Normal
140
140 4 R.
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Emissions Emissions
upstream from downstream from
control device control device Control
ppmdv at
12* C02
141
89.6
92.0
128
127
129
118
108
111
12.7
Ib/ton ppmdv at
feed 12* C02
114
136
98.6
111
177
94.9
80.9
2.38 141
2.02 13.5
2.31 21.7
4.86
10.8
28.2
90.3
209
41.5
35.8
44.8
401
375
0.180 0.040
Ib/ton effi-
feed ciency, {
2.74
2.01
1.99
1.83
3.50
0.195 87.1
0.562 76.4
96.2
91.5
78.1
23.5
3.27
1.03
67.0
59.6
0.0009 99.7
Starved air
No control device
N. Little Rock, 10/78C Normal
Prince Edward Island Normal
Prince Edward Island Long
Prince Edward Island High
Prince Edward Island Low
<29.3
61.0
83.0
75.0
87.0
<0.78
1.32
1.68
1.52
1.93
ESP
Red Wing
RDF f i red
ESP
Albany
Hami Iton-Wentworth8
Hami Iton-Wentworth
Hami Iton-Wentwortha
Hami Iton-Wentworth9
Hami Iton-Wentwortha
Niagara
Normal
Normal
F/None
F/Back
F/Back, low
front
H/None
H/Low back
Normal
124
188
58.9
54.7
57.3
49.3
67.3
2.84
5.0
2.82
'Average of two test runs.
This data represents a combined S0? and SO, value because separate values were not reported.
Not corrected to dry standard conditions.
7-102
-------
TABLE 7-74. SUMMARY OF OXIDES OF NITROGEN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Baltimore, 1/85
Braintree
McKay Bay (Unit 1)
McKay Bay (Unit 2)
McKay Bay (Unit 3)
McKay Bay (Unit 4)
Tulsa (Unit 1)
Tulsa (Unit 2)
CYC/FF
Gal latin
ESP/WS
Kure
WSH/DI/FF
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marion County
Refractory
ESP
Phi ladeiphia (NW1)
Phi lade I phi a (NW2)
SD/FF
Tsush ima
Starved air
No control device
N. Little Rock, 10/78a
Prince Edward Island
Pr ince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Wing
Tuscaloosa
RDF fired
ESP
Al bany
Ni agara
Test
cond i t ion
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Long
High
Low
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Emi ssions
upstream from
control device
ppmdv at Ib/ton
12J C02 feed
140 2.20
159 2.50
240 3.68
309 4.82
271 3.94
258 3.75
292 4.66
Emissions
downstream from
control device Control
ppmdv at
12* C02
196
153
103
39
100
106
358
376
294
294
195
215
168
255
278
263
Ib/ton effi-
feed ciency, %
3.38
1.62
5.71
6.15
3.18
5.26
1.79
4.19
3.85
4.91
3.91
aNot corrected to dry standard conditions.
7-103
-------
Metals 1n English units
7-75 Summary of Arsenic Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-76 Summary of Beryllium Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-77 Summary of Cadmium Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-78 Summary of Total Chromium Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-79 Summary of Lead Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-80 Summary of Mercury Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-81 Summary of Nickel Emissions From MWC Facilities
-------
TABLE 7-75. SUMMARY OF ARSENIC EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
—I
I
Emissions
upstream from control device
xlO"6 xlO"6 Ib/lb
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Materwal 1
ESP
Baltimore, 5/85a
Braintree
Hampton (1982)
N. Andover
CYC/FF
Gal latin
ESP/WS
Kure
SO/ESP
Munich
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec K
Wurzburg0
SD/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Refractory
CYC/ESP
Washington, D.C.
n J
Alexandria
Nicosia
Tsushima6
Starved air
No control device
Dyersburg
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Barren County
Red Ming
Tuscaloosa
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
MSM only
110
125
140
200
Normal
140
140 & R.
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
High
Low
Normal
Normal
Normal
gr/dscf at
105
62.5
408
213
126
70.2
48.9
61.3
35.1
48.4
59.1
26.9
50.6
2.66
4.45
7.59
3.57
52.0
Partlc-
ulate
51.2
63.8
436
72.9
67.0
19.0
14.2
21.1
13.4
19.2
17.7
13.8
382
28.5
43.6
68.2
47.3
605
xlO"6
Ib/ton feed
2,780
830
3,180
15,000
400
994
52.0
72.0
142
66.0
884
Emissions
downstream from control device
xlO"6
gr/dscf at
12JC C02
2.75
20.0
102
4.54
0.198
0.009
0.019
0.018
0.032
0.003
0.018
0.014
0.143
8.5
12.6
19.1
xlO"6 Ib/lb
Partlc-
ulate
1.020
43.9
549
929
19.0
0.754
310
?in
200
11.9
850
259
308
xlO"6 Control
Ib/ton feed efficiency, %
60.8 97.4
253 68.0
2,160
98.9
3.60
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
99.9
0.041
>99.9
>99.9
1.60 99.5
166
247
328 63.3
(continued)
-------
TABLE 7-75. (continued)
Emissions Emissions
upstream from control device downstream from control device
xlO"6 x10~6 It Ib xlO'6 xlO"6 Ib/lb
Test gr/dscf at Partlc- x10~° gr/dscf at Partlc- x10~° Control
Facility name condition 12* C0? ulate Ib/ton feed 12* C0? ulate Ib/ton feed efficiency, %
RDF fired ~~~~~~
ESP
Akron Normal 66.4 300 751
Albany Normal 8.35 60.1 186
Niagara Normal 192
^Specific Arsenic run used to measure reported data.
One test run only.
o
CTi
-------
TABLE 7-76. SUMMARY OF BERYLLIUM EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
o
en
Facl 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Bralntree0
Hampton (1982)
McKay Bay (Unit 1)
McKay Bay (Unit 2)
McKay Bay (Unit 3)
McKay Bay (Unit 4)
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
CYC/FF
Ga 1 1 at i n
SO/ESP
Munich
WSH/DI/FE
Quebec?
Quebec!:
Quebec;:
Quebec
SD/FF
Mar ionhCounty
Quebec?
Quebec0
Refractory
SD/FF
Tsushima
Starved air
No control device
Dyersburg A
N. Little Rock. 10/78°
ESP
Red Ming
RDF fired
ESP
Albany
Niagara
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
MSW only
HO
125
140
200
Normal
140
140 & R.
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Emissions
upstream from control device
xlO"6 xlO"6 Ib/lb ,
gr/dscf at Partic- xtO~°
12* C0? ulate Ib/ton feed
0.036 0.041 0.475
3.21 1.10 48.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.5 10.5 300
0.048 0.363 0.945
0.146 1.12 3.6
Emissions
downstream from control device
xlO~6
gr/dscf at
\2% C02
0.037
0.009
0.0725
0.0452
0.1U
0.040
0.001
0.0002
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00109
0.0
0.0
0.143
0.0420
9.00
xlO"6 Ib/lb
Part I c-
ulate
0.156
0.047
0.140
0.021
11.9
0.866
64.8
xlO"6 Control
Ib/ton feed efficiency, %
0.483
0.184
0.025
0.373
0.0214
1.60 99.3
0.826
200
0.962
An Increase in concentration occurred across the control device; however, the difference between inlet and outlet values is
hwithln the imprecision associated with the sampling and analysis techniques.
"A 0.0 Indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
sJOne test run only.
corrected to dry standard conditions.
rfune
dNot
-------
TABLE 7-77. SUMMARY OF CADMIUM EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
I
»—•
o
Emissions
upstream
from control
xlO"6 x10~6 Ib/lb
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Braintree
Chicago
Hampton (1982)
N. Andover
CYC/FF
Ga 1 1 at 1 n
ESP/WS
Kure
SO/ESP
Munich
CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Mai mo
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
Quebec.
(iuebeca
Quebec K
Nurzburg"
SO/FF ,
Quebec"
Quebec9
Refractory
CYC/ESP
Washington, O.C.
WS
Alexandria
Nicosia
Tsushima
Starved air
No control device
Dyersburg
N. Little Rock. 10/78C
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Barren County
Red Ming
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
MSN only
Normal
110
125
140
200
Normal
140
140 & R.
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
High
Low
Normal
Normal
gr/dscf at
12* C02
551
195
1,580
430
301
609
636
702
458
555
533
52.5
104
157
411
349
355
279
Partic-
ulate
563
208
541
229
155
165
184
242
176
216
160
26.9
784
1,210
4,400
3,420
3,190
3,690
device
£•
x10~°
Ib/ton feed
7,310
23,600
51,000
7,860
700
2,040
3,860
7,580
6,060
6,320
4,100
Emissions
downstream from control device
xlO-6
gr/dscf at
12* co2
208
128
219
9.75
3.75
2.72
0.212
0.210
0.0
0.278
3.05
0.0
0.0
4.94
9.13
88.7
xlO"6 Ib/lb
Partlc- x10~6 Control
ulate Ib/ton feed efficiency, %
870 2,620 62 3
2,420
1,180 4,630
1 ,990 95
360 70.0
268 70.9 99.1
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
750 40.9
1,900
1 100
1,500
412 110 90.6
913 166
1 ,830 1 ,740
-------
TABLE 7-77. (continued)
Emissions Emissions
upstream from control device downstream from control device
Faci 1 Ity name
RDF fired
ESP
Akron
Albany
Niagara
CYC/DT/ESP/FF
Mai mo
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
RDF
x10~6 xlO 6 Ib/lb
gr/dscf at Partlc-
12* C02 ulate
213 113
6 *1(r6
x10~° gr/dscf at
Ib/ton feed 12* C02
163
14.7
6,560
xlO"6 Ib/lb
Partlc-
ulate
700
106
xlO 6 Control
Ib/ton feed efficiency, %
1,850
328
530
?A 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
*.0ne test run only.
Not corrected to dry standard conditions.
o
oo
-------
TABLE 7-78. SUMMARY OF TOTAL CHROMIUM EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
I
t—>
o
Facl 1 ity name
Mass burn
Water-wall
ESP
Baltimore, 5/85°
Bra in tree
Hampton (1982)
N. Andover
CYC/FF
Gal latin
ESP/WS
Kure
SO/ESP
Munich
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec h
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Refractory
CYC/ESP
Washington, D.C.
MS
Alexandria
Nicosia
SD/FF b
Tsushima
Starved air
No control device
Dyersburg _
N. Little Rock 10/78C
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Barron County
Red Ming d
Tuscaloosa
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
MSM only
no
125
140
200
Normal
140
140 & R.
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
High
Low
Normal
Normal
Normal
upstream
x10~6
gr/dscf at
12* C02a
953
274
1,870
526
253
1,470
911
938
853
658
773
1,180
172
1.41
19.0
11.6
51.0
11.1
16.0
Emissions
from control
x10~b Ib/lb
Partic-
ulate
465
280
2,000
180
135
399
263
323
326
260
231
605
1,300
ffl.9
204
113
459
147
166
dev i ce
xlO"6
Ib/ton feed
21,600
3,640
7,860
30,000
16,000
3.380
$4.6
346
198
890
204
272
Emissions
downstream from control device
xlO'6
gr/dscf at
12< C02
9.31
46.3
124
335
446
0.212
0.210
0.465
0.237
0.275
0.100
0.326
2.34
1.56
10.7
11.2
xlO"6 Ib/lb ,
Partlc- x10"°
ulate Ib/ton feed
3,450 202
194 586
668 2,620
68,500
43,000 8,040
67.5 3.68
870
490
105
195 26.0
156 27.6
221 210
181 193
Control
efficiency, I
99.0
83.1
82.1
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
>99.9
99.8
29.8
(continued)
-------
I
I—«
I—'
o
TABLE 7-78. (continued)
Faci 1 ity name
RDF f i red
ESP
Akron
Albany
Niagara
Emissions
upstream from control
xlCT6 xlO"6 Ib/lb
Test gr/dscf at partic-
condltion 121 O>2a ulate
Normal
Normal
Normal
Emissions
device downstream from control device
A X'°"&
xlO ° gr/dscf at
Ib/ton feed 12* C02
215
2,910
xlO"6 Ib/lb
partic-
ulate
925
20,900
xlO"6
Ib/ton feed
2,440
64,700
904
Control
efficiency, %
blnlet hexavalent chromium value of 0.5 pg/g presented in test report,
One test run only.
*"Not corrected to dry standard conditions.
Control efficiency is not typical of most properly maintained ESP's.
-------
TABLE 7-79. SUMMARY OF LEAD EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Emissions
upstream
from control
xlO"6 xlO"6 Ib/lb
Faci 1 Ity name
Mass burn
Waterwall
ESP
Bralntree
Hampton (1982)
McKay Bay (Unit 1)
McKay Bay (Unit 2)
McKay Bay (Unit 3)
McKay Bay (Unit 4)
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
CYC/FF
Gal latin
ESP/WS
Kure
SO/ESP
Munich
CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Mai mo
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Wurzburg8
*»r\ irr
SD/FF
Marlon County
Quebec
Quebec
Refractory
CYC/ESP
Washington, D.C.
Vf ^
Alexandria
Nicosia
SD/FF
Tsushima8
Starved air
No control device
Dyersburg k
N. Little Rock. 10/78°
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Barren County
Red Wing
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
MSW only
Normal
110
125
140
200
Normal
Normal
140
140 & R.
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
High
Low
Normal
Normal
gr/dscf at
12| C02
14,900
18,300
2,110
6,250
19,600
21,200
15,800
15,800
16,400
15,800
1,230
6,730
5,470
6,280
6,760
6,760
3,730
Part I c-
ulate
15,200
6,260
1,120
3,210
5,320
6,110
5)430
6,030
6,490
4,710
631
50,000
42,100
67,300
66,200
60,800
49,500
dev 1 ce
f
xlO"6
Ib/ton feed
197,000
274,000
250,000
163,000
17,000
130,000
134,000
110,000
116,000
120,000
68,400
Emissions
downstream from control device
xlO"6
gr/dscf at
12* C02
6,730
4 150
1,350
474
387
514
181
38.5
57.2
1.88
1.26
2.16
2.86
6.00
11.0
0.538
2.82
9.10
103
1,480
xlO"6 Ib/lb
Partlc-
ulate
28,200
22)400
19,100
3,700
5,650
1,500
78,000
97 000
69)000
758
10,300
34,300
xlO"6 Control
Ib/ton feed efficiency, t
85,100 54.7
88)000
3,390
700
1,490 99.1
*OO Q
>OO Q
>99.*9
81.8
29?
&7A
>99.9
>99.9
100 99.3
1,930
29,100
(continued)
-------
FABLE 7-79. (continued)
Emissions Emissions
upstream from control device downstream from control device
Fact 1 Ity name
RDF fired
ESP
Akron
Albany
Niagara
CYC/DJ/ESP/FF
Hal mo
xlO~6 xlO"6 Ib/lb
Test gr/dscf at Partic-
condltion \2% CO- ulate
Normal
Normal
Normal
RDF 4.200 2,220
f. x10~6 xlO"6 Ib/lb
x!0"° gr/dscf at
Ib/ton feed 121 C02
4,200
425
129,000
Part I c-
ulate
18,000
3,060
x10~6
Ib/ton feed
47,400
9,460
12,900
Control
efficiency, %
frOne test run on I y
Not corrected to dry standard conditions.
-------
TABLE 7-80. SUMMARY OF MERCURY EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
I
I—'
I—•
CO
Emissions
upstream from control device
Faci 1 Ity name
Mass burn
Water-wall
ESP
Bralntree*
Hampton (1982)
McKay Bay (Unit 1)
McKay Bay (Unit 2)
McKay Bay (Unit 3)
McKay Bay (Unit 4)
Tulsa (Units 1 and
CYC/FF
Ga 1 1 at 1 n
ESP/WS
Kure
CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Mai mo
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
ouebec
Quebec „
Quebec9
SD/FF
Marlon County
Quebec
Quebec
Refractory
SD/FF h
Tsushima0
Starved air
No control device
Dyersburg
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Ming0
RDF fired
ESP
Akron
Albany
Niagara
CYC/DT/ESP/FF
Mai mo
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
2) Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
110
125
140
200
Normal
140
140 & R.
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
High
Low
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
RDF
xlO"6
gr/dscf at
121 C02
12.5
102
3.80
136
213
228
148
204
84.0
167
116
56.9
307
235
205
235
74.3
xlO""6 Ib/lb
Partic-
ulate
12.8
34.9
2.02
70.1
57.1
65.7
51.0
78.4
33.3
49.8
59.5
430
3.290
21300
1,850
3,120
39.3
xlO"6
Ib/ton feed
166
1 ,710
450
3,560
12,000
1,120
5,300
3,940
7,200
4,320
2,280
Emissions
downstream from control device
x10~6 xlO"6 Ib/lb
gr/dscf at Partic- xlO"6 Control
12< C02 ulate Ib/ton feed efficiency, f
17.5 73.3 221
967 5,220 20,500
2o j
377
407
474
183 19,300 3,580
81.7 8,060 2,130 40.1
19.0 01 n
f if y 1 .U
6.0 07 4
?;• y 1 • 1
9.20 93.8
279
122 2 880
4.55 94 6
8.93 94. '6
81.2 6,770 900 30.0
260 5.370 5,100
80.4 345 909
193 1,390 4,290
3,160
(*•! upi*uivii i n\*i ***j j*» 111 wiivcii 11 a i i \Ji
bthe test report.
"One test run only.
Measured using KMnO^ impinger method.
-------
TABLE 7-81. SUMMARY OF NICKEL EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Emissions
upstream
from control device
Emissions
downstream from control device
x10~6 x10~6 Ib/lb , xlO'6
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwall
ESP
Hampton (1982)
N. Andover
CYC/FF
Gal latin
ESP/WS
Kure
SD/ESP
Munich
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec ,
Wurarburg8
SD/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Refractory
CYC/ESP
Washington, D.C.
WS
Alexandria
N i cos i a
SD/FF
Tsushima0
Starved air
No control device
Dyersburg K
N. Little Rock, 10/78°
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Barron County
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP
Akron
Albany
Ni agara
One test run only.
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
MSW only
110
125
140
200
Normal
140
140 & R
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
High
Low
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
gr/dscf at
12J C02
229
222
169
467
844
582
378
323
1,170
999
47.8
2.52
106
114
241
210
Partic- x10~°
ulate Ib/ton feed
244
75.9 332
89.9 20,000
127
244
201
145
128
351
512 14,000
361 93<)
19.4 62
1,130 1,920
1,120 2,000
2,170 4,340
2,780 3,880
gr/dscf at
12* C02
99.1
208
208
0.627
0.210
0.331
0.698
0.121
0.60
0.973
130
<1 21
<0.839
55.9
1,570
xlO'6 Ib/lb
Partic-
ulate
535
42,600
20,000
30.2
170
200
79.0
10,800
<121
<17.3
240
11,300
xlO'6 Control
Ib/ton feed efficiency. %
2,100
9
3,730
99.9
>99.9
99.9
99.8
1.65
99.8
99.9
1,500 87.0
<27.6
<16.4
633
34,900
748
bNot corrected to dry standard conditions.
-------
Add gases 1n English units
7-82 Summary of Hydrogen Chloride Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-83 Summary of Hydrogen Fluoride Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-84 Summary of Sulfur Trioxide Emissions From MWC Facilities
-------
TABLE 7-82. SUMMARY OF HYDROGEN CHLORIDE EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1982)
Tulsa (Unit 1)
Tulsa (Unit 2)
CYC/FF
Gal latin
ESP/WS
Kure
SD/ESP
Mun ich
CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Mai mo
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marion County
Quebec
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Phi lade 1 phi a (NW2)
Mayport
SD/FF
Tsush ima
Starved air
No control device
Dyersburg
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Barren County
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP
Akron
Albany
Niagara
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Mai mo
Test
condi t ion
Norma 1
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
MSW on 1 y
Norma 1
110
125
140
200
Norma 1
Norma 1
140
140 4 R.
Norma 1
Normal
MSW/waste oi 1
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
High
Low
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Normal
Dense RDF
RDF
Emissions
upstream from
control device
ppmdv at Ib/ton
12J C0? feed
477 5.27
1,010 12.6
546 6.25
742 12.9
482
498
422
429
414
476
313 2.63
159 2.08
716 8.85
706 8.26
768 8.96
627 7.86
95.9
776 15.8
Emissions
downstream from
control device
ppmdv at
12J C02
179
268
421
402
211
27.0
211
3.99
10.1
28.6
104
52.0
12.0
36.5
41.8
140
64.8
308
7.50
457
1,270
447
348
1 b/ton
feed
2.20
3.78
5.03
5.19
1.89
0.319
0.464
0.159
5.57
0.062
5.67
16.6
3.35
5.13
5.08
Control
effi-
ciency, I
79.1
95.1
71.6
99.2
98.0
92.5
76.9
91.2
91.2
97.6
7-115
-------
TABLE 7-83. SUMMARY OF HYDROGEN FLUORIDE EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Effli ssions
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwal I
ESP
Hampton (1982)
Tulsa (Unit 1)
Tulsa (Unit 2)
CYC/FF
Gal latin
ESP/WS
Kure
Refractory
SD/FF
Tsushima
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
upstream
control
ppmdv at
12J C02
5.18
2.96
1.20
from
device
1 b/ton
feed
0.031
0.018
0.005
Emi ssions
downstream from
control
ppmdv at
12J C02
1.30
7.21
6.27
0.935
0.620
device Control
1 b/ton effi-
feed ciency, %
0.010
0.047
0.044
0.006 68.4
0.003 48.3
Starved air
No control device
Dyersburg Normal
Prince Edward Island Normal
Prince Edward Island Long
Prince Edward Island High
Prince Edward Island Low
RDF f i red
ESP
Akron Normal
1.10
12.0
10.8
15.6
12.0
0.008
0.081
0.068
0.099
0.083
2.12
0.009
7-116
-------
TABLE 7-84. SUMMARY OF SULFUR TRIOXIDE EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Emissions
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
jlsa (Unit 1)
Tulsa (Unit 2)
CYC/FF
Gal latin
ESP/WS
Kure
SO/ESP
Munich8
Test
condi t ion
Normal
Norma I
Normal
Norma I
MSW only
upstream
control
ppmdv at
121 C02
85.3
5.58
92.0
from
device
1 b/ton
feed
2.07
0.148
2.31
Emi ss ions
downstream from
control
ppmdv at
12* C02
10.1
9.76
44.5
3.96
21.7
device
1 b/ton
feed
0.167
0.173
1.66
0.116
0.562
Control
effi-
ciency, I
47.8
29.0
76.4
"This data represents a combined SO. and SO^ value because separate values were not reported.
7-117
-------
PCDD 1n English units
7-85 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-86 Summary of Total Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-d1oxin Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-87 Summary of Total Pentach1orodibenzo-p-d1oxin Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-88 Summary of Total Hexachlorodibenzo-p-d1ox1n Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-89 Summary of Total Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-90 Summary of Total Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-91 Summary of Tetra- Through Octachlorod1benzo-p-diox1n Emissions
From MWC Facilities
7-92 Summary of Total Measured Chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions From MWC
Facilities
-------
TABLE 7-85. SUMMARY OF 2,3,7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZO-p-DIOXIN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
CO
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Water wall
ESP
Chicago
Hampton (1982)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
N. Andover
Peekskill (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and
Umea, fall
Umea, fall
Umea, spring
WSH/DI/FF
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marion County
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Phi ladelphia (NW2)
CYC
Mayport
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus County
Dyersburg
ESP
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP
Akron
Albany
Emissions
upstream from control device
x10-'° xlCT10
Test xlO u gr/dscf at Ib/ton
condition gr/dscf 121 CO- feed
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal 7.3 8.74
Norma 1
Norma 1
2) Normal
Normal
Low temp
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
MSW/waste oil
Normal 2.36
Normal 3.93 6.71 130
Normal
Normal
Normal
Emissions
downstream from control
x10-'°
gr/dscf
1.79
275
140
85.7
2.32
6.26
0.360
0.052
26.4
21.1
7.29
<0.765
43.0
1.81
x10-'°
gr/dscf at
12J C02
2.40
273
130
153
2.93
7.43
0.441
2.62
2.10
0.524
0.079
0.354
59.8
53.9
11.4
<1.22
63.6
2.28
dev i ce
xlO-10
Ib/ton Control
feed efficiency, %
42.0
5,790
2,900
1,780
66.5
23.4
7.95
1.02
7.42
412
<23.5
719
51.4
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3, 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
simultaneous test runs. Inlet runs 1 and 2 were not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
-------
TABLE 7-86. SUMMARY OF TOTAL TETRACHLOROOIBENZO-p-DIOXIN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Emissions
upstream from control device
Facl 1 Ity name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Ch i cago
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1982)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
N. Andover
Peekskill (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea, fall
Umea, fall
Umea, spring
WSH/DI/FE
Quebec::
Quebec::
Quebec::
Quebec
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Mar lonKCounty
Quebec0
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
CYC
Mayport
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus County
Dyersburq
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP
Akron
Albany _
Haml 1 ton-WentworthS
Ham II ton-Wentworth0
Haml 1 ton-Wentworth
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Low temp
Normal
110
125
140
200
Normal
Normal
140
140 & R.
Normal
Normal
MSW/waste ol
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
High
Low
Normal
Normal
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
gr/dscf
62.1
69.9
194
258
106
141
212
1
35.4
48.9
8.5
13.9
3.66
7.2
xlO-10 xlO-10
gr/dscf at Ib/ton
12* C02 feed
74.3
118
314
414
173
204
340
83.5 1,620
13.3 280
22.3 400
4.44 80.0
13.3 280
Emissions
downstream from control
gr/dscf
27.4
1,920
1,070
1,010
2,820
29
117
5.76
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
5.86
0.0
0.174
728
626
15.6
121
760
68.9
1,780
2 530
2,100
gr/dscf at
12* C02
36.7
3,500
1,060
935
5.050
36.6
139
7.05
226
283
<52.4
8.35
0.852
0.279
1,650
1,600
24.3
191
1.130
47.0
2,580
2 450
2,490
dev I ce
Ib/ton Control
feed efficiency, *
632
60,400
22,500
20,800
58,600
50.7
236
127
108
17.9
99.9
904
3,690
12,700
1,960
(continued)
-------
TABLE 7-86. (continued)
Facl 1 Ity name
Hami 1 ton-Wentworthc
Hami 1 ton-WentworthJ;
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
Emissions
upstream from control
xlO'10
Test x!0~'° gr/dscf at
condition gr/dscf \2% CO-
F/Back. low
front
H/None
H/LOM back
Normal
Emissions
device downstream from control device
xlo-io
Ib/ton xlO
feed gr/dscf
10,600
2,360
1,760
9.61
xlO-10
gr/dscf at
121 CO-
2
15,300
5,240
3,060
15.2
x1Q-'°
Ib/ton Control
feed efficiency, %
430
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3. 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
^simultaneous test runs. Inlet runs 1 and 2 were not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
"A 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
^Average of two test runs.
One test run only.
-------
TABLE 7-87. SUMMARY OF TOTAL PENTACHLORODIBENZO-p-DIOXIN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
-J
I
Emissions
upstream from control device
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Water wal 1
ESP
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
N. Andover0
Peek ski II (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units I and 2)
Umea, fall
Umea , fall
Umea, spring
WSH/DlM
Quebec;:
Ouebecf,
Quebec:;
Quebec0
Wurzburg
SD/FF
MarlonKCounty
Quebec?
Quebec"
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus County
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP
Albany
Hamilton-Wentworthr,
Ham II ton-Wentworth"
Haml 1 ton-Wentworth_
Hamilton-Wentworth0
Hamilton-Wentworth^
Hamilton-Wentworth0
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Low temp
Normal
110
125
140
200
Normal
Normal
140
140 & R.
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
High
Low
Normal
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back. low
front
H/None
H/Low back
KID'10
gr/dscf
106
154
409
419
272
302
390
46.3
31.3
41.7
25.6
19.2
gr/dscf at Ib/ton
121 C02 feed
127
259
662
671
444
436
622
48.9 840
66.7 1,100
31.1 460
35.6 640
Emissions
downstream from control
gr/dscf
2,450
5,240
6.600
i9.9
130
10.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.78
0.0
0.0
2,050
1,780
752
581
1,470
2,800
2 460
7 690
2,490
2,670
gr/dscf at
12* C02
4,450
4,880
11.800
40.3
155
13.1
278
420
257
11.1
0.232
4,640
4,540
1,190
734
2,140
2'710
2,880
11,400
5,690
4,370
dev 1 ce
1! 'ton Control
teed efficiency, %
76,800
109,000
137,000
60.3
234
235
144
4.85
23,000
16,600
(continued)
-------
TABLE 7-87. (continued)
EnIssIons
upstream from control device
Emissions
downstreao fro* control device
Faci 1 ity na«e
Test
condition
xlO-10
gr/dscf
gr/dscf at
12J C02
Ib/ton
feed
gr/dscf
gr/dscf at
12| O>2
XIU
Ib/ton
feed
Control
efficiency, 1
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
Norm!
1.62
2.55
72.1
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3. 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
hsi*Ailtaneous test runs. Inlet runs I and 2 Mere not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
° 0.0 Indicates below detection Halt (values of detection Unit not yet received).
.
:jAverage of two test runs.
T)ne
test run only.
-------
TABLE 7-88. SUMMARY OF TOTAL HEXACHLORODIBENZO-p-DIOXIN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
ro
co
Faci 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Chicago
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1963)
Hampton (1984)
N, Andover
Peek skill (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea, (all
Umea, tall
Umea. spring
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec^
Quebec::
Quebec
Quebec
Wur/burg
SD/FF
Mar ionbCounty
Quebec
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus County
Prince f award Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Wing
RDF fired
tSP
Albany
Hami ton-Wentworth:;
Hcimi Ion-Wen (worth
Kami ton-Wentworth
Ham! ton-Wentworth
Hami ton-Wentworth^
Hami ton-Wentworth
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
1 ow temp
Normal
110
125
140
200
Norma 1
Norma 1
140
140 & R.
Normal
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Long
High
low
Norma 1
Normal
F/None
f /Low back
f /Hack
F/Back low
1 1 onl
H/None
H/l ow back
upstream
xl(f10
gr/dscf
160
409
1,130
1,000
694
822
1,120
58.6
55.9
60.2
35.8
57.8
Emissions
from control device
xlO-'° xlO"10
gr/dscf at Ib/ton
121 C0? feed
192
68(
1 ,84u
1,610
1,140
1,190
1,790
88.9 1,560
97.7 1,600
44.4 760
71.1 1 , 380
Emi ssions
downstream from control
x10-'°
gr/dscf
71 .4
3,850
2,230
7.780
6l.7
127
18.2
0.170
0.0
0.0
7.07
9.75
0.0
0.407
5,330
1,570
1,310
492
1,580
2.090
2,080
5,330
2,890
3,240
x.O-'°
gr/dscf at
12S C0?
95.5
6,990
2,070
13,900
103
151
22.3
168
430
288
0.288
1 1 .6
13.9
0.481
0.649
12,100
4,010
2,080
622
2,270
2,010
3,450
7,870
6,1?0
5,680
dev i ce
x.O-10
Ib/ton Control
feed efficiency, %
1,650
121,000
46,400
162,000
46.4
320
401
>99.9
99.0
181
10.1
>99.9
40,100
14,000
, . _ ~f~» TT-
-------
TABLE 7-88. (continued)
I
(—'
ro
Emissions Emissions
upstream from control device downstream from control device
•o Klo-io
Fact
lity
name
Test
condition
gr/dscf
gr/dscf at
121 C02
Ib/ton
feed
xUTIU
gr/dscf
gr/dscf at
121 002
Ib/ton
feed
Control
efficiency.
I
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB NOTM! 10.9 17.3 487
"Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3. 4, and 5 Mere used to obtain a control efficiency value for
,. simultaneous test runs. Inlet runs 1 and 2 Mere not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
°A 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
SAverage of two test runs.
One test run only.
-------
TABLE 7-89. SUMMARY OF TOTAL HEPTACHLORODIBENZO-p OIOXIN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Fact 1 ity name
Mass burn
Maternal!
ESP
Chicago
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
N. Andover"
Peeksklll (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Urnea. fall
Umea, fall
Umea, spring
WSH/DI/FE
Quebec!:
Quebec?
Quebec
Quebec
Wurzburg
SO/FF
MarionbCounty
Quebec
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus County
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP
Ha* 1 1 ton-Wen tworthS
Hamllton-Wentworth"
Ha«i It on -Want worth.
Haml 1 ton -WentwortlT
Hami Iton-WentworthS
Hami 1 ton-Wentwortfr
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Low temp
Normal
110
125
140
200
Normal
Normal
140
140 & R.
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
High
Low
Normal
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back, low
f ronf
H/None
H/Low back
upstream
x10-'°
gr/dscf
131
551
1.340
1 100
l)010
1,210
1)150
55.1
88.0
75.0
69.3
81.5
Emissions
from control device
x10-'° x10-'°
gr/dscf at Ib/ton
121 C02 feed
157
929
2,180
1,750
1)660
1,750
1,830
137 2,440
120 2,060
84.4 1,340
152 2,840
Emissions
downstream from control
x.O-'°
gr/dscf
33.1
4,630
699
7.040
94.4
110
15.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
7.07
13.2
0.0
0.467
1,750
685
1,230
451
401
2,220
1)290
1,510
1,020
2)000
x10-'°
gr/dscf at
12| C02
44.3
8,420
650
12,600
119
131
19.3
94.4
283
294
11.6
18.8
0.804
0.747
3,960
1,750
1,950
569
568
2,140
2,230
2,360
2,270
3)630
device
x10-'°
Ib/ton Control
feed efficiency, %
765
146,000
14)500
146,000
24.2
460
348
99.3
244
16.8
>99.9
37,600
12,800
-------
ro
en
TABLE 7-89. (continued)
Emissions
upstream from control device
Emissions
downstream fro» control device
Facl 1 Ity name
Test
condition
xlO-'°
gr/dscf
gr/dscf at
121 C02
Ib/ton
feed
gr/dscf
X IU
gr/dscf at
12* C02
X IU
Ib/ton
feed
Control
efficiency, f
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
NOTMl
81.2
128
3,620
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3. 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
hslmultaneous test runs. Inlet runs 1 and 2 were not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
"A 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
^Average of two test runs.
One test run only.
-------
TABLE 7-90. SUMMARY OF TOTAL OCTACHLORODIBENZO-p-DIOXIN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Emissions
upstream from control device
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Materwal 1
ESP
Ch I cago
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
N. Andover"
Peekskill (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea, fall
Umea, fall
Umea, spring
Quebecb
Ouebecg
Quebec
Quebec
Wurzburg
SO/FF
MarionbCounty
Quebec!"
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus County
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP
Albany c
Hami Iton-Wentworth ^
Hami Iton-Wentworth
Hami Iton-Wentworth
Hami 1 ton -Went wort IT
Hami Iton-Wentworth):
Hami 1 ton -Wentworthc
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Low temp
Normal
110
125
140
200
Normal
Normal
140
140 & R.
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
Hlgfi
Low
Normal
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back low
f ronf
H/None
H/Low back
gr/dscf
106
458
1,060
893
760
964
893
59.9
122
105
94.6
149
gr/dscf at Ib/ton
122 C02 feed
127
778
1,730
1 420
l)250
1,390
1,430
191 3,440
169 2,840
116 1,900
276 5,180
Emissions
downstream from control
gr/dscf
11.1
1,220
179
1.790
)6.3
137
17.2
0.255
0.0
0.0
2.77
31.2
0.0
0.0
704
283
834
75.5
423
1,150
878
1,180
778
1,910
gr/dscf at
12< C02
14.8
2,220
167
3.210
96.1
163
21.0
62.9
73.4
278
0.431
4.54
44.4
2.57
1,590
723
1.320
95.3
612
1,140
1,350
1,790
1,750
3,360
dev i ce
Ib/ton Control
feed efficiency, %
255
38,600
3,720
37 400
24.1
739
378
99.9
99.6
578
53.9
25,500
2,150
-------
TABLE 7-90. (continued)
Emissions
upstream from control device
Emissions
downstream from control device
xlO
'10
xi<
10
Facl 1 Ity name
Test
condition
xlO-'°
gr/dscf
gr/dscf at
121 C02
Ib/ton
feed
gr/dscf
gr/dscf at
121 C02
Ib/ton
feed
Control
efficiency, %
Wright Pat. AFB
Normal
45.4
71.8
2,030
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3. 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
bslmultaneous test runs. Inlet runs I and 2 were not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
"A 0.0 Indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
^Average of two test runs.
T)ne test run only.
ro
oo
-------
TABLE 7-91. SUMMARY OF TETRA- THROUGH OCTACHLOROOIBENZO-p-OIOXIN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Faci 1 Ity name
Mass burn
Haterwall
ESP
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
N. Andover8
Peeksklll (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea, fall
Umea. fall
Umea, spring
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec K
1 . n
luebecj:
Cuebec
Murzburg
SO/FF
Mar ionhCounty
Quebec
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NWI)
Philadelphia (NM2)
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus County
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP
Albany ,
Hamllton-WentworthS
Ham i 1 ton-Wen tworth"
Kami Iton-Mentworth
Hamilton-Wentworttr
Ho«i 1 ton -Went worth£
Haml Iton-Wentworth''
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Low temp
Normal
110
125
140
200
Normal
Normal
140
140 & R.
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
High
Low
Normal
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back. low
front
H/None
H/Low back
upstream
gr/dscf
564
1,650
4,140
3,670
2)840
3,450
3,760
255
304
297
226
295
Emissions
from control device
gr/dscf at Ib/ton
\2% C02 feed
677
2,780
6,710
5,870
4)670
4,970
6)000
476 8,560
476 8,000
276 4,560
547 10)300
Emissions
downstream from control
gr/dscf
14,100
9,350
26)000
327
623
67.6
0.426
0.0
0.0
16.9
67.8
0.0
1.04
10,300
4)810
4,260
1.670
5,650
10)800
9)610
26)400
9.530
11)600
gr/dscf at
12* C02
25,600
8)700
46,600
406
739
82.7
830
1,490
1,170
0.720
27.8
96.6
4.94
1.66
23,300
12,600
6,730
2,110
8,170
10 400
12.400
38)700
21,100
20,100
device
x10-'°
Ib/ton Control
feed efficiency, %
442,000
194,000
540,000
40.1
19,300
1,490
>99.9
99.4
1,250
103
>99.9
130,000
47.600
-------
TABLE 7-91. (continued)
Emissions
upstreaa froa control device
En I ss ions
downstreaa fro* control device
Facility naae
Test
condition
xlO-10
gr/dscf
gr/dscf at
12J C02
Ib/ton
feed
gr/dscf
xlO'10
gr/dscf at
121 C02
Ib/ton
feed
Control
efficiency, %
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
Nonul
178
235
7,970
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3. 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
b5'!!uJlt?n5ous test runs- lnlftt rMns ' and 2 ««re no+ analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
"A 0.0 indicates below detection lieit (values of detection li«lt not yet received).
Average of two test runs.
test run only.
CO
o
-------
TABLE 7-92. SUMMARY OF TOTAL MEASURED CHLORODIBENZO-p-OIOXIN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
I
t—'
CO
Fad 1 Ity na«e
Mass burn
Water wo 1 1
ESP
Chicago" h
Hampton (1981)°
Hampton <1982)£
Hampton (1963)9
Hampton (1984)°
N. Andover h
Peekskill (4/85)°
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea, fall?
Umea; fair b
Umea, spring"
wsH/oi/FJ;
Quebec' ^
Quebec' '
Quebec'
Hurzburg**
Vi/ff
MJf II K
Marion_Countyu
Quebec' T
Quebec'
Refractory
ESP K
Philadelphia (NH1)P
Philadelphia (NW2)D
CYC c
Mayportc
EG8 K
Plttsfleld0
Starved air
No control device b
Cattaraugus County
Dyersburjr b
Prince Edward Island^
Prince Edward Island!:
Prince Edward Island!:
Prince Edward Island"
ESP b
Red Ming"
Test
condition
NOTMl
NOTMl
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
bNormal
Normal
Low temp
Normal
110
125
140
200
Normal
Normal
140
140 & R.
Normal
Normal
MSW/waste
oil
Experi-
mental
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
High
Low
Normal
upstream
x10-'°
gr/dscf
616
Normal
1,650
4,140
3,670
2,840
3,450
3,760
234
255
48.9
304
297
226
295
Emissions
from control device
x10-'° xlO-10
gr/dscf at Ib/ton
121 O>2 feed
739
2,780
6,710
5^870
4,670
4,970
6,000
83.5 1,620
476 8,560
476 8,000
276 4,560
547 10,300
Emissions
downstream from control
x10-'°
gr/dscf
143
14,100
1,070
9,350
26,000
345
623
0.426
0.0
0.0
)6.9
68.5
0.0
1.04
10,300
4)810
15.6
4,260
x10-'°
gr/dscf at
12J C02
191
25,600
1 060
8,700
46,600
435
739
67.6
830
1 ,490
1 ,170
0.720
27.8
96.5
4.94
1.66
23,300
12)300
24.3
6,730
dev i ce
xlO-10
Ib/ton Control
feed efficiency, %
3,350
442,000
22,500
194,000
540,000
41.1
19,300
82.7 1,490
>99.9
99.4
1,250
103
>99.9
904
130,000
-------
TABLE 7-92. (continued)
OJ
INJ
Emissions
upstream from control device
Emissions
downstream from control device
Faci 1 ity name
RDF fired
ESP
Akroncb
Albany K _
Hamilton-Wentworth? 9
Hamilton-Wentworth0 "
Hamilton-Wentworth? „
Hamilton-Wentworth0 9
h n
Hamilton-WentworthP 9
Hamilton-Wentworth0 9
CYC/ESP h
Wright Pat. AFB°
Test x10~10 gr/dscf at
condition gr/dscf 121 CO-
Normal
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back. IOM
front
H/None
H/Low back
Normal
Ib/ton xlO
feed gr/dscf
760
1,670
5 650
10,800
9,610
26,400
9,530
1l|600
178
gr/dscf at
12* C02
1,130
2,110
8,170
10.400
12,400
38,700
21,100
20,100
235
xlO-10
Ib/ton Control
feed efficiency, %
12,700
47.600
7,970
"Sum of tetra- through octachlorodlbenzo-p-dioxln without penta.
"Su« of tetra- through octachlorodlbenzo-p-dioxln.
jTetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin only.
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3. 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
simultaneous test runs. Inlet runs 1 and 2 were not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
^Presented as polychlorodibenzo-p-dloxin In test report.
'A 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
^Average of two test runs.
One test run only.
-------
Isomer-specific PCDD 1n English units
7-93 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Tetrachlorod1benzo-p-
dloxln Emissions from MWC Facilities
7-94 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substltuted and Total Pentachlorodibenzo-p-
dloxln Emissions from MWC Facilities
7-95 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Hexachlorod1benzo-p-diox1n
Emissions from MWC Facilities
7-96 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Heptachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxln Emissions from MWC Facilities
-------
TABLE 7-93.
SUMMARY OF 2,^,7,8-SUBSTITUTED AND TOTAL TETRACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN EMISSIONS FROM
MWC FACILITIES
--J
I
GO
Emissions
Emissions upstream from control device downstream from control device
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwall
ESP
Chicago
Hampton (1982)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
N. Andover
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea, fall
Umea, fall
Umea, spring
WSH/DI/FF
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marion County
Refractory
ESP
Phi ladelphia (NW1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
CYC
Mayport
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus County
Dyersburg
ESP
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP
Akron
Albany
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Low temp
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
MSW/waste oil
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
2,3,7.8-TCOO, Total TCOD, 2,3.7 8-TCOD,
xlO~lor gr/dscf x10~'° gr/dscf x10"'ff gr/dscf
at \2% C02 at 12JJ C02 at 12J C02
2.4
273
130
153
8.74 74.3 2.93
7.43
0.441
2.62
2.10
0.524
0.079
0.354
59.8
53.9
11.4
2.36 35.4
6.71 83.5
<1.22
63.6
2.28
Total TCOO,
x10~'° gr/dscf
at 12| C02
36.7
1,060
933
5.050
36.6
139
7.05
226
283
<52.4
8.35
0.852
1,650
1,600
24.3
191
'''IS
87
°Not corrected to 12 percent C02.
-------
TABLE 7-94. SUMMARY OF 2,3,7,8-SUBSTITUTED AND TOTAL PENTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN EMISSIONS FROM
MWC FACILITIES
--J
I
Em i ss i ons
Emissions upstream from control device downstream from control device
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Water-wall
ESP
N. Andover
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea, fall
Uroea, fall
Umea, spring
WSH/DI/FF
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marion County
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
Starved air
ESP
Red Ming
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Low temp
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
1,2,3.7,8-PeCDD, Total PeCDO, 1 ,2,3.7,8-PeCDD,
xlO 10 gr/dscf xlO~'° gr/dscf xlO~'° gr/dscf
at 121 C02 at 12* O>2 at \2% C02
4.37 127 5.77
14.9
0.83
13.1
16.6
12.7
0.874
0.039
358
398
55.9
Total PeCDO,
x!0~'° gr/dscf
at I2| C02
50.3
155
13.1
278
420
257
11.1
0.232
4,640
4,540
1,190
-------
TABLE 7-95.
—I
I
CO
en
SUMMARY OF 2,3.7.8-SUBSTITUTED AND TOTAL HEXACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN EMISSIONS FROM
MWC FACILITIES
Emissions upstream fro* control device Emissions downstream
facility name
Mass burn
Uaterwall
ESP
H. Andover
Siugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Urea, fall
Uiea. fall
Uiea, spring
USH/Ol/ff
Uurzburg
SO/fF
Harion County
Refractory
ESP
Phladelphia (MUl)
Philadelphia (NU2)
Starved air
ESP
Red Uing
Test
condition
Normal
Mora*)
Normal
Normal
Low temp
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
1.2 3.4.7 8- 1.2 3.6,7 8- 1.2,3.7.8.9- 1,2.3.4.7.8-
HxCOO. HxCDD, HxCOO. Total HxCDO. HxCOO.
xlO'10 gr/dscf xlO'10 gr/dscf xHT10 gr/dscf xlO"10 gr/dscf xlO"10 gr/dscf
at 12« C02 at 12X C02 at 121 C02 at 12» C02 at 12» C02
4.37 13.1 8.74 192 6.16
8.30
0.656
8.30
26.7
12.2
0.350
0.031
1.310
503
75.6
1.2.3.6.7.8-
HxCOO.
xlO"10 gr/dscf
at 12S tt>2
9.2?
14.0
1.62
19.2
48.1
30.6
0.830
0.035
211
from control device
1.2.3.7.8.9-
HxCOO.
xlO"10 gr/dscf
at 12S CO
6.51
0.0
0.00
6.99
20.1
10.5
0.524
0.035
302
Total HxCOO.
xlO"10 gr/dscf
at 12S O>2
103
151
22.3
168
430
288
13.9
0.481
12.100
4.010
2.080
-------
--J
I
CO
en
TABLE 7-96. SUMMARY OF 2,3,7,8-SUBSTITUTED AND TOTAL HEPTACHLORODIBENZO-P-DIOXIN EMISSIONS FROM
MWC FACILITIES
Emissions
Fac i 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Waterwol 1
ESP
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
WSH/DI/FF
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marion County
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
Starved air
ESP
Red Wing
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Emissions upstream from control device downstream from
1,2,3,4 6,7,8-HpCDO Total HpCOO, 1 ,2,3,4 6,7,8-HpCDD
xlO '° gr/dscf x10~'° gr/dscf xlO 10 gr/dscf
at \2% O>2 at 121 C02 at \2% C02
9.61
9.61
0.603
2,000
878
983
control device
Total HpCOO,
xlO"10 gr/dscf
at 121 C02
19.3
18.8
0.804
3,960
1,750
1,950
-------
PCDF 1n English units
7-97 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzofuran Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-98 Summary of Total Tetrachlorodlbenzofuran Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-99 Summary of Total Pentachlorodibenzofuran Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-100 Summary of Total Hexachlorodlbenzofuran Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-101 Summary of Total Heptachlorodibenzofuran Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-102 Summary of Total Octachlorodibenzofuran Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-103 Summary of Tetra- Through Octachlorodibenzofuran Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-104 Summary of Total Measured Chlorodibenzofuran Emissions Fr.om MWC
Facilities
-------
TABLE 7-97. SUMMARY OF 2,3.7,8-TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Materwal 1
ESP
Hampton (1982)
Hampton (198(1)
N. Andover" °
Peekskill (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea, fal 1
Umea, fall
Umea, spring
WSH/DI/FF
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marion County
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
CYC
Mayport
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus County
ESP
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP
Albany
Emissions
upstream from control device
|0 xlO-)0 xlO-10
Test xlO gr/dscf at Ib/ton
condition gr/dscf \2% C02 feed
Normal
Normal
Normal 40.1 48.1
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Low temp
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
MSW/waste oi 1
Normal 11.6
Normal
Normal
Emissions
downstream from control
xlO-10
gr/dscf
319
1,090
56.5
85.7
10.4
0.787
lit
57.7
44.9
161
9.31
x10-'°
gr/dscf at
12* C02
316
1,960
71.2
102
12.7
13.1
13.6
4.19
1.09
0.734
251
147
69.9
256
11.8
dev i ce
xlO-10
Ib/ton Control
feed efficiency, %
6,710
22,600
179
229
14.2
15.4
2,540
4,940
265
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3. 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
^simultaneous test runs. Inlet runs 1 and 2 were not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
An apparent increase in concentration occurred across the control device; however, no reason for this increase was indicated in
the test reports.
-------
TABLE 7-98. SUMMARY OF TOTAL TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
oo
co
Faci 1 Ity name
Mass burn
Water wall
ESP
Chicago
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1982)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
N. Andover" D
Peekskill (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea, fall
Umea, fall
Umea, spring
WSH/OI/FE
Ouebec-
yuebecc
tiuebec
Quebec
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marion-County
Quebec
Quebec
Re if actor y
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
CYC
Mayport
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus County
Oyersburg
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP
Akron
Albany 4
Hami 1 ton -Went worth
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Low temp
Normal
110
125
140
200
Normal
Normal
140
140 & R.
Normal
Normal
MSW/waste
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
High
Low
Normal
Normal
Normal
F/None
upstream
gr/dscf
156
266
800
960
368
574
689
oil
524
317
65.4
66.7
43.6
31.2
Emissions
from control device
gr/dscf at Ib/ton
12| C02 feed
188
449
1,300
1)540
604
827
1,100
541 10,500
103 1 ,860
107 1)780
53.3 860
57.8 1,120
downstret
gr/dscf
392
11,000
1 680
4,810
8,390
215
668
26.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.138
29.4
0.0
0.349
2,110
l)270
91.9
950
2,000
162
10,700
Emissions
MI from control
gr/dscf at
121 C02
524
19,000
1,670
4)470
15,000
271
794
31.9
451
456
99.6
0.228
41.9
1.41
0.560
4,780
3,240
143
1,510
2,970
205
15,700
dev i ce
Ib/ton Control
feed efficiency, f
9,060
344,000
35 400
99 800
174,000
2,480
575
>99.9
544
29.5
>99.9
5,230
29,100
33,500
4,630
(continued)
-------
TABLE 7-98. (continued)
Faci 1 ity name
Hamilton-Wentworth8
Hamilton-Wentworthd
Hamilton-WentMorth0
Hami Iton-WentworthlJ
Hamilton-WentMorth0
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
Emissions
upstream from control
-,o »'o-'°
Test xlO u gr/dscf at
condition gr/dscf 12( C02
F/LOM back
F/Back
F/Back. IOM
front
H/None
H/LOM back
Normal
Emissions
device downstream from control device
Ib/ton x10~
feed gr/dscf
15,800
11,400
18^700
8,130
5^720
87.8
gr/dscf at Ib/ton Control
12* C02 feed efficiency, *
15,300
13,500
25,300
18,400
10,100
139 3,920
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3. 4, and 5 Mere used to obtain a control efficiency value for
(.simultaneous test runs. Inlet runs 1 and 2 Mere not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
An apparent increase In concentration occurred across the control device; however, no reason for this increase was indicated in
-the test reports.
-------
TABLE 7-99. SUMMARY OF TOTAL PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
I
»—'
o
Emissions
upstream from control device
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwa 1 1
ESP
Hampton (1961)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1084)
N. Andover" °
Peek ski II (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units \ and 2)
Umea, fall
Umea, fall
Umea, spring
WSH/DI/FE
Quebec.
Quebec-
Quebec
Quebec
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marion-County
Quebec0
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
Starved air
No control device
Cattarauqus County
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP
Albany A
Hamilton-Wentworth"
Hamilton-Wentworth0
Hamilton-Wentworthd
Hamilton-Wentworth"
gt
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth j
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Low temp
Normal
110
125
140
200
Normal
Normal
140
140 & R.
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
Higfi
Low
Normal
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back, low
front
H/None
H/Low back
x,0-'°
gr/dscf
65.6
241
671
752
600
533
604
241
102
119
83.7
50.6
xlO-10 x10-'°
gr/dscf at Ib/ton
12* C02 feed
78.7
409
1,100
1,200
987
769
967
160 2,900
191 3,140
103 1,620
93.4 1,760
Emissions
downstream from control
xlO'10
gr/dscf
4,410
27,100
11,300
115
390
11.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.138
28.7
0.0
0.407
2,330
l|760
1,230
133
7,390
13,200
11,800
15,600
5,770
6,470
xlO-'0
gr/dscf at
12* C02
8,020
25,200
20,200
145
463
14.6
509
577
225
0.228
40.4
0.192
0.649
5,280
4|490
1,950
168
10,900
12,700
17,500
21^400
12,700
11,400
dev 1 ce
x10-10
Ib/ton Control
feed efficiency, %
139,000
562,000
234,000
1,450
262
>99.9
526
4.03
99.9
37,600
3,780
(continued)
-------
i
i—•
-^
TABLE 7-99. (continued)
Faci 1 ity name
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
Emissions
upstream from control device
Test x10~10 gr/dscf at Ib/ton
condition gr/dscf 12* C0? feed
Normal
Emissions
downstream from control device
x10~ gr/dscf at
gr/dscf 12J C02
30.5 48.1
1 b/ton
feed
1,360
Control
efficiency, %
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3. 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
hSlmultaneous test runs. Inlet runs 1 and 2 were not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
An apparent increase in concentration occurred across the control device; however, no reason for this increase was indicated in
-the test reports.
jA 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
-Average of two test runs.
One test run only.
-------
TABLE 7-100. SUMMARY OF TOTAL HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Emissions
upstream from control device
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwa 1 1
ESP
Chicago
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
N. Andover" °
Peekskill (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea, fall
Umea, fall
Umea. spring
WSH/DI/FE
Quebec!:
Quebec..
Quebec
Quebec
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Mar ion,. County
Quebec
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus County
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP
Albany *
Hamtlton-Wentworth"
Hamllton-Wentworth"
Haml 1 ton-Wentworthrf
Ham! 1 ton-Wen tworth"
A
Hami 1 ton-Wen tworthH
Hamllton-Mentworth
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Low temp
Normal
110
125
140
200
Normal
Normal
140
140 & R.
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
High
Low
Normal
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back, low
front
H/None
H/Low back
x,0-10
gr/dscf
40.1
165
680
658
302
489
609
90.5
125
136
116
67.2
xlO'10 x.O-'°
gr/dscf at Ib/ton
121 C02 feed
48.1
279
1,100
l|050
497
711
977
195 3,500
218 3)580
142 2^260
124 2,360
,
Emissions
downstream from control
xlO-10
gr/dscf
271
5,240
3,060
9.700
)7.7
256
6.50
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.138
18.5
0.0
0.407
5,430
1,370
1,320
28.5
843
5,110
5 720
5,070
3,910
4,090
x,0-'°
gr/dscf at
12$ C02
362
9,530
2 850
17 '400
97.9
304
7.96
173
262
225
0.228
26.4
0.057
0.649
12,300
3,500
2,090
361
5,240
4,810
7 430
6,990
8,740
6,990
dev 1 ce
x.O-'°
Ib/ton Control
feed efficiency, t
6,260
165,000
63,600
202,000
1,500
143
>99.9
342
1.19
99.9
40,300
814
-------
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
TABLE 7-100. (continued)
Faci 1 ity name
Emissions
upstream from control device
Test xlO"'° gr/dscf at Ib/ton
condition gr/dscf \2% O>2 feed
Emissions
downstream from control device
xlO-10
gr/dscf
xlO-10
gr/dscf at
12< C02
Ib/ton Control
feed efficiency, %
Normal
49.7
78.5
2,210
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3. 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
(.simultaneous test runs. Inlet runs I and 2 were not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
An apparent Increase In concentration occurred across the control device; however, no reason for this increase was indicated in
cthe test reports.
-------
TABLE 7-101. SUMMARY OF TOTAL HEPTACHLOROUIBENZOFURAN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
I
I—»
-pi
Emissions
upstream from control device
Facl 1 ity name
Mass burn
Water wall
ESP
Ch i cago
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
N. Andover" °
Peekskill (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea, fal 1
Umea, fall
Umea. spring
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec,.
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
wurzburg
SD/FF
Marlon-County
Quebec0
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NMD
Philadelphia (NW2)
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus County
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Ming
RDF fired
ESP
Albany A
Hamilton-Mentworth"
Hamllton-Mentworth"
Hamilton-Mentworthd
Ham! t ton-Wen tworth
j
Hamilton-Mentworthn
Hamilton-Mentworth"
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Low temp
Normal
110
125
140
200
Normal
Normal
140
140 & R.
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
High
Low
Normal
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back low
front
H/None
H/Low back
x10-'°
gr/dscf
36.4
139
467
436
204
371
454
17.5
93.9
94.2
91.1
67.2
xlO-10 xlO-10
gr/dscf at Ib/ton
121 C02 feed
43.7
235
760
698
337
538
724
146 2,660
152 2^540
111 1 ,800
124 2,360
Emissions
downstream from control
x,0-'°
gr/dscf
32.6
5,200
874
6,250
206
133
8.39
6.45
0.0
2.82
2.93
6.38
0.0
1.42
1,410
453
1,160
9.26
111
3,910
1,020
778
222
489
xlO-'0
gr/dscf at
12| C02
43.7
9,460
813
11,200
260
158
10.3
178
351
257
10.9
4.49
4.84
9.08
0.035
2.28
3,190
1,160
1,840
11.7
157
3,800
1,180
1,270
481
918
dev i ce
xlO-10
Ib/ton Control
feed efficiency, %
753
163,000
18,100
130,000
871
185
95.4
99.4
98.6
118
0.732
99.7
35,500
264
-------
TABLE 7-101. (continued)
—i
i
Emissions Emissions
upstream from control device downstream from control device
Faci 1 ity name
Test
condition
xlO-'°
gr/dscf
.,.-10
xlO
gr/dscf at
12J C02
,n~10
xlO
Ib/ton
feed
gr/dscf
-10
gr/dscf at
12* C02
-10
1 b/ton
feed
Control
efficiency, J
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB Normal 182 288 8,120
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3. 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
^simultaneous test runs. Inlet runs 1 and 2 were not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
An apparent increase In concentration occurred across the control device; however, no reason for this increase was indicated in
cthe test reports.
dA 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
.Average of two test runs.
One test run only.
-------
TABLE 7-102. SUMMARY OF TOTAL OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
en
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Ch i cago
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
N. Andover0 °
Peeksklll (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea, fall
Umea. fall
Umea, spring
WSH/DI/Fg
Quebec,.
Quebecc
Quebecc
Quebec
Murzburg
SD/FF
Marion-County
Quebec.1
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
Starved air
Mo control device
Cattaraugus County
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP d
Ham! Iton-Wentworth-
Hamllton-Wentworth0
Ham II ton-Wen tworthd
Hamllton-Wentworth
Hami Iton-Wentworthd
Hamilton-Wentworth
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Low temp
Normal
110
125
140
200
Normal
Normal
140
140 i R.
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
High
Low
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back, low
front
H/None
H/Low back
upstream
x.O'10
gr/dscf
10.9
51.2
153
102
85.7
116
119
0.306
17.0
16.7
10.9
16.8
Emissions
from control device
xlO-10 x10-'°
gr/dscf at Ib/ton
\2% C02 feed
13.1
86.2
248
163
141
169
190
26.6 460
26.6 460
13.3 240
31.1 620
Emissions
downstream from control
xlO'10
gr/dscf
2.62
341
61.2
481
225
65.1
2.52
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.70
0.0
0.0
91.8
53.8
210
66.9
756
156
156
178
472
KID'10
gr/dscf at
\2% C02
3.51
620
56.9
861
284
77.3
3.09
52.4
121
173
3.84
0.157
208
137
334
101
743
184
227
393
874
dev i ce
x.O-'°
Ib/ton Control
feed efficiency, %
60.6
10,700
1 ,270
10,000
32.0
55.5
50.0
3.30
6,450
-------
TABLE 7-102. (continued)
Faci 1 ity name
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
Emissions
upstream from control
Test x10~'° gr/dscf at
condition gr/dscf 121 O>2
Normal
dev i ce
x.O-'°
1 b/ton
feed
Emissions
downstream from control device
xlO-10
gr/dscf
23.5
gr/dscf at
121 C02
37.1
1 b/ton
feed
1,050
Control
efficiency, %
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3. 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
KSimultaneous test runs. Inlet runs 1 and 2 were not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
An apparent Increase In concentration occurred across the control device; however, no reason for this increase was indicated In
-the test reports.
JjA 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
-Average of two test runs.
One test run only.
-------
TABLE 7-103. SUMMARY OF TETRA- THROUGH OCTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
-ti
CO
Emissions
upstream from control device
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwa 1 1
ESP
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1983)
Hampton (1984)
N. Andover" "
Peek ski II (4/85)
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea, fall
Umea, fall
Umea, spring
WSH/DI^FF
Quebec _
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Mar ioncCounty
Quebec
Quebec
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus County
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP ^
Hami Iton-Wentworthe
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
Hami Iton-Wentworthd
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
j
Hami Iton-Wentworthd
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth
Test
cond i 1 1 on
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Low temp
Normal
110
125
140
200
Normal
Normal
140
140 & R.
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
High
Low
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back, low
front
H/None
H/Low back
gr/dscf
309
862
2,780
2 910
1)560
2,090
2)480
874
402
433
347
233
xlO-10 xlO'10
gr/dscf at Ib/ton
12* C02 feed
371
1,450
4,490
4 670
2,570
3,010
3,970
632 1 1 ,400
694 1 1 ,500
422 6,800
431 8,220
Emissions
downstream from control
gr/dscf
26,200
35,900
36,100
841
1.510
$5.4
6.45
0.0
2.82
3.36
85.7
0.0
2.58
11,400
4,810
4,860
21,900
38,800
30,100
40,300
18,200
11)500
gr/dscf at
47,600
33)400
64)600
l)060
1.800
67.8
1,360
1,770
979
10.9
4.49
5.51
122
1.84
4.14
25,800
12,500
7,730
32,200
37,300
39,800
55,100
40,600
30)200
dev i ce
Ib/ton Control
feed efficiency, %
824,000
746)000
750)000
6,340
1,220
99.3
99.9
99.8
1,580
38.7
99.9
149,000
-------
TABLE 7-103. (continued)
Emissions Emissions
upstream from control device downstream from control device
Faci 1 ity name
Test
condition
-10
xtO 10
gr/dscf
xlO-10
gr/dscf at
12J C02
xlO-10
Ib/ton
feed
-in
xlO 10
gr/dscf
xlO-10
gr/dscf at
12* C02
xlO-10
Ib/ton
feed
Control
efficiency, J
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB Normal 374 590 20,200
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3, 4. and 5 Mere used to obtain a control efficiency value for
^simultaneous test runs. Inlet runs 1 and 2 were not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
An apparent Increase In concentration occurred across the control device; however, no reason for this Increase was indicated in
cthe test reports.
dA 0.0 Indicates below detection Unit (values of detection limit not yet received).
-Average of two test runs.
One test run only.
-------
TABLE 7-104. SUMMARY OF TOTAL MEASURED CHLORODIBENZOFURAN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
tn
O
Emissions
upstream from control
Faci 1 Ity name
Mass burn
Materwall
ESP
Chicago8 b
Hampton (1981)"
Hampton (I982>K
Hampton (1983)?
Hampton (1984)
N. Andover" " b
Peekskill (4/85)°
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea, fallb
Umea, fall0 b
Umea, spring
WSH/DI/Ff
Quebec f a
Quebec i u
Quebec <
Quebec b
Wurzburg
SD/FF b
Mar ionfCaunty
Quebec. a
Quebec
Refractory
ESP b
Philadelphia (NW1)b
Philadelphia (NW2)
CYC r
Mayport1-
EG8 f
Pittsfield
Starved air
No control device b
Cattaraugus County
Dyersburq b
Prince Edward lslandb
Prince Edward lslandb
Prince Edward Island^
Prince Edward Island
ESP
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP c
Akron h
Albany
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
bNormal
Normal
Low temp
Normal
110
125
140
200
Normal
Normal
140
140 & R.
Normal
Normal
MSW/waste oi
Experimental
Normal
Normal
Normal
Long
High
Low
Normal
Normal
Normal
gr/dscf
625
Normal
862
2,780
2^910
1,560
2,090
2,480
1
686
874
317
402
433
347
233
gr/dscf at
12« C02
752
1,450
4,490
4,670
2,570
3,010
3,970
541
632
694
422
431
Emissions
device downstream from control device
Ib/ton x10~'°
feed gr/dscf
698
26,200
1,680
35 900
36,100
1,120
1,510
6.45
0.0
2.82
3.36
85.7
0.0
2.58
11,400
4|810
91.9
10,500
11)400
11,500
6,800
8,220
5,000
2,000
333
gr/dscf at
12* C02
934
47,600
1,670
33,400
64,600
1,410
1.80U
55.4
1 ,360
1,770
979
10.9
4.49
5.51
122
1.84
4.14
25,800
12,500
143
7,930
2,970
420
Ib/ton Control
feed efficiency, %
16,400
824,000
35,400
746,000
750,000
6,340
67.8 1,220
99.3
99.9
99.8
1,580
38.7
99.9
5,230
153,000
33,500
9,490
-------
TABLE 7-104. (continued)
Faci 1 ity name
Ham i 1 ton-Wen tworth? ',
Hamllton-WentworthP J
Ha«i 1 ton-Wen tworthP ,
Hamilton-Wentworth0 '
Ham! Iton-Wentworth? !
Haws Iton-Wentworth0 '
CYC/ESP h
Wright Pat. AFBD
Emissions
upstream from control
,0 "°~10
Test xlO IU gr/dscf at
condition gr/dscf 12* C02
F/None
F/LOM back
F/Back
F/Back, IOM
front
H/None
H/Low back
Normal
Emissions
device downstream from control device
*10~'0 -.0
Ib/ton xlO IU
feed gr/dscf
21,900
38,800
30,100
40,300
18,200
11,500
374
xlO-10 x10-'°
gr/dscf at Ib/ton Control
12* C02 feed efficiency, I
32,200
37 300
39,800
55,100
40,600
30,200
590 20,200
{"Sum of tetra- through octachlorodibenzofuran without penta.
"Sum of tetra- through octachlorodibenzofuran.
jTetrachlorodibenzofuran only.
Outlet values which represent the average of test runs 3. 4, and 5 were used to obtain a control efficiency value for
.simultaneous test runs. Inlet runs 1 and 2 were not analyzed due to sampling difficulties.
An apparent increase in concentration occurred across the control device; however, no reason for this increase was indicated in
fthe test reports.
'Presented as polychlorodibenzofuran in test report.
eA 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
,Tetra- through heptachlorodibenzofuran.
•Average of two test runs.
J0ne test run only.
-------
Isomer-specific PCDF in English units
7-105 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Tetrachlorodibenzofuran
Emissions from MWC Facilities
7-106 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Pentachlorodibenzofuran
Emissions from MWC Facilities
7-107 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Hexachlorodibenzofuran
Emissions from MWC Facilities
7-108 Summary of 2,3,7,8-Substituted and Total Heptachlorodibenzofuran
Emissions from MWC Facilities
-------
TABLE 7-105.
en
ro
SUMMARY OF 2,3,7,8-SUBSTITUTED AND TOTAL TETRACHLORODIBENZOFURAN EMISSIONS FROM
MWC FACILITIES
Faci 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Hampton (1982)
Hampton (1984)
N. Andover
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Umea, fall
Umea, fall
Umea, spring
WSH/DI/FF
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Marion County
Refractory
ESP
Phi ladelphia (NW1)
Phi ladelphia (NW2)
CYC
Mayport
Starved air
No control device
Cattaraugus County8
ESP
Red Wing
RDF fired
ESP
Albany
Emissions upstream from control device
2, 3 vk 8 -TCDF, Total TCDF,
Test xlO~lu gr/dscf xlO lu gr/dscf
condition at 12* C02 at 12* C0_
Normal
Normal
Normal 48.1 188
Norma 1
Norma 1
Normal
Low temp
Norma 1
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
MSW/waste oil
Normal 11.8 524
Normal
Normal
Emissions
downstream from control device
2,3.7,8-TCDF
x10~'° gr/dscf
at 12* C02
316
1,960
71.2
102
12.7
13.1
13.6
4.19
1.09
0.734
251
147
69.9
256
11.8
TotAl TCDF,
xlO IU gr/dscf
at 12* C02
1,670
15,000
271
794
31.9
451
456
99.6
41 .9
1.41
4,780
3,240
143
1,510
205
Not corrected to 12 percent CO-.
-------
TABLE 7-106.
SUMMARY OF 2,3,7,8-SUBSTITUTED AND TOTAL PENTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN EMISSIONS FROM
MWC FACILITIES
Facility note
Mass burn
Waterwall
ESP
N. Andover
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Unea. fall
Uiea. fall
U*ea, spring
WSH/OI/FF
Uurzburg
SD/FF
Marlon County
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (NW1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
Starved air
ESP
Red Wing
Test
condition
Momal
Nomal
Nornal
Horaa)
Low tenp
Noraal
Noraal
Nornal
Nornal
Momal
Normal
Emissions upstrea* fro» control device Emissions
1,2.3.7.8-PeCDF. 2.3.4,'.B-PeCDF. PeCOF. 1,2.3.7.8-PeCOF.
«10"'° gr/dscf xlO~'° gr/dscf xlO"10 gr/dscf xlO"10 gr/dscf
at 12% C02 at 12« C0? at 121 C02 at 12« C02
8.74 17.5 78.7 16.2
25.8
2.«
48.1
43.7
13.1
3.67a
0.044
511
376
77.8
downstream fro* control
2.3.4.7. 8- PeCOF.
xlO"10 gr/dscf
•t 121 0>2
33.3
45.4
4.98
31.9
38.9
20.5
2.71
0.066
1.250
463
329
device
Total PeCDF.
xlO 10 gr/dscf
at 12S CO
145
463
14.6
509
577
225
40.4
0.192
5.280
4.490
1.950
"includes 1.2.3.4.8 PeCOF.
-------
TABLE 7-107.
SUMMARY OF 2,3,7,8-SUBSTITUTED AND TOTAL HEXACHLORODIBENZOFURAN EMISSIONS FROM
MWC FACILITIES
Faci lity nane
Mass burn
Waterwall
ESP
N. Andover
Saugus
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2)
Ifcea. fall
Uaea. fall
U»ea. spring
US1VOI/FE
Uurzburg
SO/FF
^ Marlon County
|_™»
<-" Refractory
*" ESP
Philadelphia (NU1)
Philadelphia (NW2)
Starved air
ESP
Red Wing
Test
condition
Norul
Horul
Nomal
Noriul
low teup
Noriul
Norul
Nor Ml
Noriul
Noriul
Noraal
Fnissions upstrean fro* control device El
1.2,3.4,7.8- 1.2.3.6,7,8- 1.2.3,7.8.9- 2.3.4.6.7.8- Total 1.2.3.4.7.8-
HxCDF, HxCDF. HxCDF. H»CDF, HxCDf. H«CDF.
xlO'10 xlO-'° xlO 10 xlO'10 xlO-10 ,10 10
gr/dscf gr/dscf gr/dscf gr/dscf gr/dscf gr/dscf
at 12t C0? at 12X C0? at 12S C0? at 121 CO at 12* CO at 12* CO
17.5 4.37 0.0 48.1 49.4
S68
2.93
18. 8a
27. la
23. 6a
1.84a
0.017
1.280
489
564
ilsslons doMnst re an fro* control device
1.2,3.6,7.8-
HxCOF.
,10- 10
gr/dscf
at 12» CO
15.1
34.1
1.18
19.2
26.2
24.0
2.14
0.0017
3.190
625
232
HxCOF, HxCOF.
,10- 10 .10- 10
gr/dscf gr/dscf
at 12* CO at 12X CO
0.0
0.0
0.481 3.15
4.37 13.5
6.12 26.7
18.8 22.7
0.350 2.71
0. 022 0. 022
<0.054 485
Total
HxCOF,
xlO10
gr/dscf
at 12X CO
97.9
304
7.96
178
262
225
26.4
0.057
12.300
3.500
2.090
'includes l.2,3.4,7.9-H,COF.
-------
TABLE 7-108. SUMMARY OF 2,3,7,8-SUBSTITUTED AND TOTAL HEPTACHLORODIBENZOFURAN EMISSIONS FROM
MWC FACILITIES
1
1 — »
in
in
Facility name Test condition
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Tulsa (Units 1 and 2) Normal
WSH/OI/FF
Uurzburg Normal
SD/FF
Marlon County Horaal
Refractory
ESP
Philadelphia (HU1) Horaal
Philadelphia (HW2) Horaal
Starved air
ESP
Red Wing Horaal
Emissions upstream from control device Emissions
1.2.3.4.6.7.8- 1.2,3.4,7.8- 1.2.3.4.6.7.8-
HpCDF. tfcCDF, Total HpCOF. tfcCDF.
xlO"10 gr/dscf xlO"10 gr/dscf xlO"10 gr/dscf xlO"10 gr/dscf
at 12* CO at 12* CO at 12* CO at 12* CO
7.8?
7.47
0.031
2,240
822
1.220
downstream from control
1,2.3.4.7,8.9-
HpCOF.
«10~10 gr/dscf
at 12* CO
0.918
0.262
0.044
170
78.7
90.0
device
Total tfcCDF,
xlO"10 gr/dscf
at 12* C02
10.3
9.08
0.035
3,190
1.160
1.840
-------
Other organic pollutants in English units
7-109 Summary of Polychlorinated Biphenyls Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-110 Summary of Formaldehyde Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-111 Summary of Benzo-a-pyrene Emissions From MWC Facilities
7-112 Summary of Total Measured Chlorinated Benzene Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-113 Summary of Total Measured Chlorinated Phenol Emissions From MWC
Facilities
-------
TABLE 7-109. SUMMARY OF POLYCHLORINATEO BIPHENYLS EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
in
en
Emiss ions
upstream from control device
Fac i 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Chicago
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1963)
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec8
Quebec
SD/FF
Quebec8
Quebec3
Starved air
No control device
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
RDF fired
ESP
Albany
Hami Iton-Wentworth"
Hami 1 ton-Wentworthc
Ham! Iton-Wentworth
Hami 1 ton-WentworthD
Hami 1 ton-Wentworth|>
Hamilton-Wentworth?
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
110
125
140
200
140
140 & R.
Normal
Long
Low
Normal
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back. low
front
H/None
H/Low back
x10-'°
gr/dscf
90.7
1.910
90.2
54.5
56.4
60.9
2,280
161
302
x!0-'° x10-'°
gr/dscf at Ib/ton
12* C02 feed
154
3,100
144
86.6
81.8
97.7
3,560 68,300
257 4,900
560 1 1 ,500
Emissions
downstream from control device
xlO-10
gr/dscf
184
3,130
2,930
25
16.8
0.0
24.1
0.0
0.0
941
2,290,000
677,000
2,630,000
948,000
1,300,000
1,760,000
xlO-10 xlO-'°
gr/dscf at Ib/ton Control
12* C02 feed efficiency, %
246 4,240
5,700 99,100
2,720 60,800
42.2 72.4
27.2 99.1
39.6 53.7
1,190 26,800
3,330,000
656,000
3,120,000
1,280,000
2,910,000
2,860,000
?A 0.0 indicates below detection limit (values of detection limit not yet received).
"Average of two test runs.
One test run only.
-------
TABLE 7-110. SUMMARY OF FORMALDEHYDE EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
I
t—•
en
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Naterwall
ESP
Hampton (1982)
Starved air
No control device
Dyersburg
RDF fired
ESP
Akron
Albany
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Emissions
upstream from control device
, xlO"6 xlO"6
xlO~° gr/dscf at Ib/ton
gr/dscf 12* C02 feed
8.30 14.2 275
Emissions
downstream from control
xlO'6
gr/dscf
752
51.1
56.0
xlO"6
gr/dscf at
121 C02
745
75.7
70.8
dev I ce
xlO'6
Ib/ton Control
feed efficiency, %
15,800
856
1,600
-------
TABLE 7-111. SUMMARY OF BENZO-a-PYRENE EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Facl 1 Ity name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Hampton (1982)
Hampton (1983)
RDF fired
ESP
Albany
Emissions
upstream from control
-,o "°-10
Test xlO u gr/dscf at
condition gr/dscf 121 O>2
Normal
Normal
Normal
Emissions
device downstream from control device
"'o-'°
Ib/ton xlO "
feed gr/dscf
39.500
52.400
91,800
xlO-10
gr/dscf at
12* C02
39,100
48,800
116,000
x10-'°
Ib/ton Control
feed efficiency, t
831,000
1,090,000
2,620,000
en
oo
-------
TABLE 7-112. SUMMARY OF TOTAL MEASURED CHLORINATED BENZENE EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
I
I—>
en
Facl 1 Ity name
Mass burn
Water wall
ESP
Ch i cago
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1982)
Hampton (1984)
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Wurzburg
SD/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Starved air
No control device
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
RDF fired
ESP
Haml Iton-Wentworth°
Ham II ton-Wen tworth0
Haml 1 ton -Wentworth
Hamllton-Wentworth"
Ham II ton-Wen tworth0
Haml 1 ton -Wentworth
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
Test
condition
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
110
125
140
200
Normal
140
140 & R.
Normal
Long
High
Low
F/None
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back, low
front
H/None
H/Low back
Normal
upstream
in
xlO
gr/dscf
8,740
35,800
49,300
34,100
21,000
33,500
43,300
12,300
8,750
14,500
11,700
Emissions
from control device
..-10 ,_-10
xlO xlO
gr/dscf at It; 'ton
121 C0? feed
11,500 202,000
60,400
80,000
54,700
34,500
48,400
69,400
19,200 360,000
14,000 256,000
17,600 322,000
21,700 440,000
Emissions
downstream from control device
-10
xlO IU
gr/dscf
7,730
181,000
1,320,000
198,000
1,740
818
645
7,910
3,480
254
525
303,000
203,000
152,000
147,000
105,300
99,200
3,940
-10 -10
x 10 xlO
gr/dscf at Ib/ton Control
12* C02 feed efficiency, %
10,300 178,000 10.2
329,000 568,000
1,310,000 27,800,000
355,000 4,120,000
2,930 95.1
1,320 98.3
1,030 98.1
12,900 62.4
5,420 73,900
368 99.2
836 98.8
441,000
196,000
181,000
197,000
236,000
161,000
6,220 176,000
^Average of two test runs.
-------
TABLE 7-113. SUMMARY OF TOTAL MEASURED CHLORINATED PHENOL EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
--J
I
en
O
Emissions
upstream from control device
Faci 1 ity name
Mass burn
Waterwal 1
ESP
Ch i cago
Hampton (1981)
Hampton (1984)
WSH/DI/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
Quebec
SD/FF
Quebec
Quebec
Starved air
No control device
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
Prince Edward Island
RDF fired
ESP
Hami Iton-Wentworth
Hami Iton-Wentworth
Hami Iton-Wentworth.
Hami Iton-Wentworth0
k.
Hami Iton-Wentworth"
Hami Iton-Wentworth0
CYC/ESP
Wright Pat. AFB
Test
condit ion
Normal
Normal
Normal
110
125
140
200
140
140 4 R.
Normal
Long
High
Low
F/Mone
F/Low back
F/Back
F/Back, low
front
H/None
H/Low back
Normal
x10-'°
gr/dscf
12,800
83,700
66,700
79,500
52,000
69,800
27,500
12,200
10,300
9,720
15,600
xlO-10 xlO-10
gr/dscf at Ib/ton
12* CX>2 feed
16,800 294,000
141,000
108,000
127,000
85,300
101 ,000
43,800
19,300 368,000
16,800 300,000
12.OOO 216,000
29,300 580,000
Emissions
downstream from control device
xlO-10
gr/dscf
15,600
533,000
935,000
2,340
737
951
23,100
747
1,090
354,000
156,000
179,000
68,200
318,000
236,000
39,700
xlO-10 xlO-10
gr/dscf at Ib/ton Control
12* C02 feed efficiency, %
20,900 360,000
969,000 16,800,000
1,670,000 19,400,000
3.950 97.2
1,200 98.9
1,530 98.8
38,000 55.6
1,090 98.9
1,730 96.0
516,000
151,000
212,000
91,800
712,000
384,000
62,700 1,770,000
An Increase in concentration occurred across the control device; however, the difference between inlet and outlet values within
bthe imprecision associated with the sampling and analysis techniques.
Average of two test runs.
One test run only.
-------
Supplementary tables 1n English units
7-114 Summary of Supplementary Chlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-115 Summary of Supplementary Chlorodibenzofuran Emissions From MWC
Facilities
7-116 Summary of Supplementary Metals Emissions From MWC Facilities
-------
TABLE 7-114. SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTARY CHLORODIBENZO-p-DIOXIN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
-------
TABLE 7-115. SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTARY CHLORODIBENZOFURAN EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
CTl
ro
Facility nane
Mass burn
Uaterwall/ESP
Iserlohn
Montreal (198?)
Montreal (1983)
Quebec (1981)
Ifcea (1984)
tfeea (198S)
Zurich/Jos ephstrasse
Uaterwall/DS/ESP
Hanburg/Stapelfeld
MVA-1 Borslgstrasse
MVA II Stellinger M.
yaterwal 1/CYC/DI/ESP/FF
Malno
Waterwall/DS/FF
Avg Borslgstrasse
Refractory/SPRAY/ESP
Toronto I
Refractory /ESP
Brasschaat
Harelbeke
Link oping
Stuttgart
Zaanstad
Refractory/
Beveren
Milan I
Milan II
Starved air
Hone
Lake Cowlchan
CS/ESP
Schlo
Schlo
Fluid bed
FF
Eskjo
Test
condition
NOTM!
NOTMl
NOTMl
NOTMl
Norul
NorMl
Norul
Norul
Norul
Norul
Norul
Moral
Noriul
NorHl
Norul
Norul
Norul
Norul
Norul
Norul
Norul
Processed
Unprocessed
RDF
2.3.7.8. Tetra.
xlO~'° gr/dscf xlO'10 gr/dscf
0.918 83.9
0.009
0.782
201
10.9 376
3.72 83.0
10S
S.24 162
13.1 284
17.5 555
2.19 8.24
24.0 323
962
857
507
2.62 18.6
16.6 548
704
69.9
156
104
28.8
1.430
Penta.
xlO'10 gr/dscf
0.031
0.673
156
424
188
131
13.1
735
822
913
21.9
532
1.190
144
319
233
Hexa.
xHT10 gr/dscf
0.022
0.415
170
144
188
87.4
114
1.500
961
153
739
58.1
2.310
1.390
1.110
261
Hepta.
xlO"10 gr/dscf
0.017
0.275
36.7
149
214
61.2
992
1.630
1.470
88.7
1.280
208
182
121
Octa.
xlO"10 gr/dscf
180
0.009
0.223
2.80
43.7
144
39.3
8.74
13.1
8.74
111
259
1.890
891
23.6
295
175
2.550
397
4.68
53.3
Total Beasured.
xlO"10 gr/dscf
»_ .«
264*
0.087*
2.37*
568°
1.140*
B!7£
424°
476C
J-.U.C
699e
1,410C
.
135a
798C
4.460b
6.160*
3.940P
779?
1.250*
5.780°
k.
1.990°
2.550*
397*
L
1.770°
f
104'
28.8f
2.100b
*Su« of tetra- and octachlorofuran enlsslons.
°Su> of tetra- thorugh octachlorofuran ealsslons.
cSua of tri- through octachlorofuran emissions.
dSuB of tetra-.penta- and hexachlorofuran missions.
'Octachlorofuran missions only.
fTetrachlorofuran emissions only.
-------
TABLE 7-116. SUMMARY OF SUPPLEMENTARY METALS EMISSIONS FROM MWC FACILITIES
Faci 1 i ty name
Mass burn
Waterwal I/ESP
Avesto, Sweden
Avesto, Sweden
MVA Lausanne, Switzerland8
MVA Munich
MVA Munich
Waterwal I/
1 ssy- 1 es-Mou 1 1 neaux
Saint-ouen
aDatum was reported in mg/Nm at
Arsenic, Beryllium,
Test x10"'° xlO'10
condition gr/dscf gr/dscf
Pilot, inlet
Pi lot, outlet
Normal , outlet
Normal , inlet
Normal , outlet
Normal , outlet
Normal , outlet
11 percent 0».
Total
Cadmium. chromium.
xlO-10 xlO'10
gr/dscf gr/dscf
0.166
0.105
0.175
5.64
0.087
0.306
4.85
Lead
x10~'°
gr/dscf
3.93
2.97
3.93
92.2
1.05
189
Mercury,
xlO'10
gr/dscf
0.983
0.122
0.524
0.350-1.97
0.219-O.874
0.057
2.27
Nickel.
xlO"'"
gr/dscf
cr>
CO
-------
S^DLEMENT A
AVAILABLE MWC EMISSION TEST REPORTS AND RELATED REFERENCES
-------
Available MWC Emission Test Reports
1. PEI Associates, Inc. Emission Test Report - Baltimore RESCO
Incinerator, Baltimore, Maryland. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Emissions Measurements Branch, Research Triangle
Park, N.C. July 1985. (Draft—Pending Determination and Final
Metals Analyses).
2. Greenberg, R. R., et al. Composition and Size Distributions of
Particles Released in Refuse Incineration (Alexandria, Virginia, and
Washington, D.C., MWC units). Environmental Science and Technology.
1978. p. 566.
3. Haile, C. L., et al. Assessment of Emissions of Specific Compounds
From a Resource Recovery Municipal Refuse Incinerator (Hampton,
Virginia). EPA-560/5-84-002. June 1984.
4. Scott Environmental Services. Sampling and Analysis of Chlorinated
Organic Emissions From the Hampton Waste-to-Energy System. Prepared
for The Bionetics Corporation. May 1985.
5. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Emission
Source Test Report - Preliminary Test Report on Westchester RESCO.
January 8, 1986.
6. Midwest Research Institute. Environmental Assessment of a
Waste-to-Energy Process - Braintree Municipal Incinerator. Prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. April 1979.
7. Haile, C. L., et al. Comprehensive Assessment of the Specific
Compounds Present in Combustion Processes, Volume I—Pilot Study of
Combustion Emissions Variability (Chicago, Illinois MWC). Prepared
for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Toxic Substances
by Midwest Research Institute. Washington D. C. Publication No.
EPA 560/5-83-004. June 1983.
8. California Air Resources Board. Air Pollution Control at Resource
Recovery Facilities. May 24, 1984.
9. Greenberg, R. R. A Study of Trace Elements On Particles From
Municipal Incinerators (Alexandria, Virginia; Washington, D. C.; and
East Chicago, Indiana). University of Maryland, Doctoral Thesis,
1976.
10. Jacko, R. B. and D. W. Neuendof. Trace Metal Particulate Emission
Test Results From a Number of Industrial and Municipal Point Sources
(for East Chicago, Indiana MWC unit). APCA Journal. Volume 27,
No. 10. October 1977. p. 989.
A-l
-------
11. Hahn, J. L. A1r Emissions Tests of Solid Waste Combustion 1n a
Rotary Combustion/Boiler System at Gallatin, Tennessee. Cooper
Engineers. July 1984.
12. Neullcht, R. Emission Test Report: City of Philadelphia Northwest
and East Central Municipal Incinerators. Prepared for U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency/Region III by Midwest Research
Institute. October 1985.
13. Hahn, J. L. Air Emissions and Performance Testing of a Dry Scrubber
(Quench Reactor) Dry Venturi and Fabric Filter System Operating on
Flue Gas From Combustion of Municipal Solid Waste in (Tsushima)
Japan. Prepared for California Air Resources Board by Cooper
Engineers. July 1985.
14. Nunn, A. B., III. Evaluation of HC1 and Chlorinated Organic Compound
Emissions From Refuse Fired Waste-to-Energy Systems (Hampton,
Virginia; and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio). Prepared for
U.S. EPA/HWERL by Scott Environmental Services. 1983.
15. Howes, J. E., et al. Characterization of Stack Emissions From
Municipal Refuse-to-Energy Systems (Hampton, Virginia; Dyersburg,
Tennessee; and Akron, Ohio). Prepared by Battelle Columbus
Laboratories for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency/Environmental
Sciences Research Labortory. 1982.
16. PEI Associates, Inc. Emission Test Report - Tuscaloosa Energy
Recovery, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Prepared for U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency/Emissions Measurements Branch, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. July 1985.
17. Environment Canada. The National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation
Program: Two Stage Combustion (Prince Edward Island). Report
EPS 3/UP/l. September 1985.
18. Higgins, G. M. An Evaluation of Trace Organic Emissions From Refuse
Thermal Processing Facilities (North Little Rock, Arkansas; Mayport
Naval Station, Florida; and Wright Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio).
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Solid
Waste by Systech Corporation. July 1982.
18a. Systech Corporation. Test and Evaluation of the Heat Recovery
Incinerator System at Naval Station, Mayport, Florida. Prepared for
Civil Engineering Laboratory, Naval Construction Battalion Center,
Port Hueneme, California. July 1982.
19. Kerr, R., et al. Emission Source Test Report—Sheridan Avenue RDF
Plant, Answers (Albany, New York). Division of Air Resources, New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation. August 1985.
A-2
-------
20. Ozvacic, V., et al. Determination of Chlorinated D1benzo-p-0ioxins,
Dibenzofurans, Chlorinated Biphenyls, Chlorobenzenes, and
Chlorophenols in Air Emissions and Other Process Streams at SWARU in
Hamilton. Prepared for Ministry of Environment by Ontario Research
Foundation. December 1983.
21. Complin, P. G. Report on the Combustion Testing Program at the SWARU
Plant, Hamilton-Wentworth. Prepared for Ministry of the Environment
by Envirocon Limited. January 1984.
22. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Emission
Source Test Report—Preliminary Report on Occidental Chemical
Corporation EFW. January 16, 1986.
23. Cooper and Clark Consulting Engineers. Air Emissions Tests of Solid
Waste Combustion in a Rotary Combustor/Boiler System at t\ure,
Japan. Prepared for West County Agency of Contra Costa County,
California. June 1981.
24. Rising, B. W. and J. W. Allen. Emissions Assessment For Refuse-
Derived Fuel Combustion. Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
Ohio, by Battelle Columbus Laboratories. September 1985.
25. Hall, F. 0., et al. Evaluation of Pilot-Scale Air Pollution Control
Devices on a Municipal Waterwall Incinerator (Braintree,
Massachusetts). Prepared by Pedco Environmental, Inc., for U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Waste Engineering Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. October 1985.
26. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Operational Studies at the
SYSAV Energy From Waste Plant in Malmo, Sweden. Publication No.
SNV PM 1807. June 1983.
27. Hahn, J. L. Preliminary Report—Air Emission Testing at the Martin
GMBH Waste-to-Energy Facility in Wurzburg, West Germany. Prepared by
Coopers Engineers for Martin GMBH. January 1986.
28. Flakt Canada, Ltd. and Environment Canada. The National Incinerator
Testing and Evaluation Program: Air Pollution Control Technology.
Report EPS 3/UP/2. September 1986.
29. Hahn, J. L., et al. Air Emissions Tests of a Deutsche Babcock
Anlagen Dry Scrubber System at the Munich North Refuse-Fired Power
Plant. Presented at the 78th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution
Control Association. June 1985.
30. Visalli, J. R., et al. Pittsfield Incinerator Research Project-
Status and Summary of Phase I Report. Presented at 12th Biennial
National Waste Processing Conference, Denver, Colorado. June 1986.
A-3
-------
31. Ozvacic, V., et al. Emissions of Chlorinated Organlcs From Two
Municipal Incinerators in Ontario. Journal of the A1r Pollution
Control Association. Volume 35, No. 8. August 1985.
32. Signal Research Center, Inc. Summary and Review of PCDD/PCDF
Emissions from Mass Burn, s-teste to Energy Plants. January 1986.
33. Nottrodt, A. et al. Emissions of Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins and
Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans from Solid Waste Incinerators.
Translation from German. November 1984.
34. Kurt Carlsson, Flakt Industries AB. Emission of Heavy Metals From
"Energy from Waste"-Plant-Comparison of Different Gas Cleaning
Systems. Presented at the ISWA Specialized Seminar-Incinerator
Emissions of Heavy Metals and Particulates. Copenhagen.
September 1985.
35. New York Department of Environmental Conservation. Emission Source
Test Report—Preliminary Report on Cattaraugus County ERF.
August 1986.
36. Goumon, J., Milhau, A. Analysis of Inorganic Pollutants Emitted by
the City of Paris Garbage Incineration Plants.
37. Mclnnis, R. G. and G. T. Hunt. Critical Criteria in The Development
of a Toxic A1r Emissions Inventory for Municipal Solid Waste
Incinerators. April 1986.
38. Seelinger, R. et al. Environmental Test Report (Walter B. Hall
Resource Recovery Facility, Tulsa, Oklahoma). Prepared by Ogden
Projects, Inc., for Tulsa City County Health Department.
September 9, 1986.
39. Benfenati, R., et al. Studies on the Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxins
(TCDD) and Tetrachlorodibenzofurans (TCDF) Emitted From an Urban
Incinerator. Chemosphere. Volume 15, No. 5. 1986. pp. 557-561.
40. Zurlinden, Ronald A., et al. Environmental Test Report (Marion
County, Oregon Solid Waste-to-Energy). Prepared by Ogden Projects,
Inc. November 1986.
41. Boisjoly, Lucie. Measurement of Emissions of Polychlorinated
D1benzo-p-D1oxin (PCDD) and of Polychlorinated Dibenzofuran (PCDF)
from the Des Carriers Incinerator in Montreal. Environmental Canada
Report EPS 5/UP/RQ1. December 1982.
42. Perez, Joseph. Review of Stack Test Performed at Barren County
Incinerator. State of Wisconsin: Correspondence/Memorandum.
February 1987.
A-4
-------
43. Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. Stationary Source Sampling Report.
EEI Reference No. 2740A, B, C. (Baltimore Rises Company L. P.,
Southwest Resource Recovery Facility, Baltimore, Maryland).
Performed for RUST International Corp. January 1985.
44. Radian Corporation. Final Emissions Test Report, D1ox1ns/Furans and
Total Organic Chlorides Emissions Testing. North Andover Resource
Recovery Facility, North Andover, Massachusetts. November 14, 1986.
45. Jamgochian, C. L., et al. Municipal Waste Combustion Multipollutant
Study Emission Test Report, Volume I—Summary of Results, Volume 2—
Appendices A-D, Volume 3--Appendices E-L (N. Andover, Massachusettes
MWC). Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Emissions
Measurement Branch of the Emissions Standards and Engineering
Division by Radian Corporation. Research Triangle Park, N.C.
Publication No. EMB Report No. 86-MIN-02. April 1987.
46. Radian Corporation. Final Emissions Test Report, D1ox1ns/Furans and
Total Organic Chlorides Emissions Testing. Saugus Resource Recovery
Facility, Saugus, Massachusetts. October 2, 1986.
47. Clean Air Engineering, Inc. Report on the Compliance Testing
Conducted for Waste Management, Inc., at the McKay Bay Refuse-to-
Energy Project Located in Tampa, Florida. October 29, 1985.
48. Marklund, S., et al. Determination of PCDD's and PCDF's in
Incineration Samples and Pyrolytic Products. Presented at ALS
National Meeting, Miami, Florida, April 1985.
49. Krall, M., et al. Draft Final Report, Characterization of Emissions
From the Red Wing Municipal Solid Waste Incinerator. Submitted to
Cal Recovery Systems, Inc., by Radian Corp.
50. Cal Recovery Systems, Inc. Final Report, Evaluation of Municipal
Solid Waste Incineration. (Red Wing, Minnesota facility) Submitted
to Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Report No. 1130-87-1. January
1987.
51. Bordson, David. Report on the Completion of the Red Wing Municipal
Solid Waste (MSW) Incineration Evaluation Study. March 12, 1987.
52. Kalitowski, T. J. Status Report on Solid Waste Incineration in
Minnesota. Office Memorandum. March 18, 1987.
53. KaHtowski, T. J. Addendum to March 18, 1987, Status Report on Solid
Waste Incineration in Minnesota Memorandum. Office Memorandum.
March 30, 1987.
54. PEI Associates, Inc. Chromium Screening Study Test Report.
Municipal Incinerator, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. Prepared for U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency/Emission Measurement Branch, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. EMB Report 85-CHM-9. January 1986.
A-5
-------
55. Roy F. Weston, Inc. Source Emissions Test Report. Performed for
V1con Recovery Systems, Inc. (Plttsfield, Massachusetts facility.)
November 20, 1985.
56. Systems Technology Corporation. Small Modular Incinerator Systems
with Heat Recovery, A Technical, Environmental, and Economic
Evaluation. Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency/Offlee of Solid Waste. Report SW177c. November 1979.
57. Draft Sampling and Analytical Protocols for PCDO's and PCDF's 1n
Stack Emissions. American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
December 1984.
A-6
-------
SUPPLEMENT B
SUMMARY OF SYMBOLS, ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND UNITS
-------
Summary of Symbols, Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Units
Chemical Symbols and Acronyms
Symbol
Meaning
AgN03
As
BaP
Be
CaO
Ca(OH)2
Cd
C1B
C1P
CO
CO 2
Cr
H202
H2SOV
HC1
HF
Hg
HN03
HpCDD
HpCDF
HxCDO
HxCDF
KOH
NaOH
Ni
N0¥
o2x
OCDD
OCDF
Pb
PCB
PCOO
PCDF
PeCDD
PeCDF
Silver nitrate
Arsenic
Benzo-a-pyrene
Beryllium
Calcium oxide
Calcium hydroxide
Cadmium
Chlorinated benzenes
Chlorinated phenols
Carbon monoxide
Carbon dioxide
Chromium
Hydrogen peroxide
Sulfuric acid
Hydrogen chloride
Hydrogen fluoride
Mercury
Nitric acid
Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Heptachlorodibenzofuran
Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
Hexachlorodibenzofuran
Potassium permanganate
Potassium hydroxide
Sodium hydroxide
Nickel
Nitrogen oxides
Oxygen
Octach1orod i benzo-p-d i ox i n
Octachlorodibenzofuran
Lead
Polychlorinated biphenyls
Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins
Polychlorinated dibenzofurans
Pentachlorodibenu-p-dioxin
Pentachlorodibenzofuran
(continued)
B-l
-------
Chemical Symbols and Acronyms (continued)
Symbol Meaning
S02 Sulfur dioxides
SO3 Sulfate 1on
TCDO Tetrachlorod1benzo-p-d1ox1n
TCDF Tetrachlorodlbenzofuran
Zn Z1nc
B-2
-------
Other Symbols
Symbol Meaning
AA Atomic absorption spectrophotometry
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
CEM Continuous emission monitors
CF Conversion factor
CFR Code of Federal Regulation
CYC Cyclone
DBA Oeutshe Babcock Anlagen
DCPES Direct current plasma emission spectrometr.
DI Dry Injection
DS Dry scrubber
DSC Dry standard conditions
ECD Electron capture detection
EGB Electrostatic granular bed
EF Emission factor
ESP Electrostatic predpltator
FAA Flameless atomic absorption
FD Forced draft
FF Fabric filter
FID Flame 1on1zat1on detector
GC/ECD Gas chromatography/electron capture detection
GC/IR Gas chromatography/lnfrared
GC Gas chromatography
GC/MS Gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy
HPLC High performance liquid chromatography
HRGC High resolution gas chromatography
HRMS High resolution mass spectroscopy
ICAPS Inductively coupled argon plasma spectrophotometry
1C Ion chromatography
ID Induced draft
INA Instrumental neutron activation
LREL Lowest reported emission level
M5 EPA Reference Method 5 for partlculate matter
MM5 Modified Method 5
M6 EPA Reference Method 6 for acid gases
M6C EPA Reference Method 6C for sulfur dioxide
M7 EPA Reference Method 7 for nitrogen oxides
M7E EPA Reference Method 7E for nitrogen oxides
(continued)
B-3
-------
Other Symbols (continued)
Symbol Meaning
M8 EPA Reference Method 8 for sulfur dioxide and
sulfates
M9 EPA Reference Method 9 for opacity
M10 EPA Reference Method 10 for carbon monoxide
M12 EPA Reference Method 12 for lead
M13 EPA Reference Method 13 for fluoride emissions
M13A EPA Reference Method 13A for fluoride emissions
M13B EPA Reference Method 13B for fluoride
M17 EPA Reference Method 17 for partlculate emissions
M25 EPA Reference Method 25 for total organlcs
M101 EPA Reference Method 101 for mercury
M101A EPA Reference Method 101A for mercury
M104 EPA Reference Method 104 for beryllium
M108 EPA Reference Method 108 for arsenic
M245.1 EPA Reference Method 245.1 for mercury
M325.3 EPA Reference Method 325.3 for hydrogen chloride
MID Multiple 1on detection
MS Mass spectroscopy
MSW Municipal solid waste
MWC Municipal waste combustor
NAA Neutron activation analysis
NBS National Bureau of Standards
NDIR Nond1spers1ve Infrared spectrophotometry
NDUV Nond1spers1ve ultraviolet spectrophotometry
PC Personal computer
PM Particulate matter
QA Quality assurance
QC Quality control
RDF Refuse-derived fuel
S&A Sampling and analysis
SASS Source assessment sampling system
SCA Specific collection area
SD Spray dryer
SIE Specific 1on electrode
SIM Selected 1on monitoring
SSMS Spark source mass spectroscopy
SWRC Solid waste reduction center
~~~ ~~~ (continued)
B-4
-------
Other Symbols (continued)
Symbol Meaning
THC Total hydrocarbons
UV Ultraviolet
VOC Volatile organic compounds
WPAFB Wright-Patterson Air Force Base
WS Wet scrubber
WSH Water spray humidifier
XRF X-ray fluorescence
B-5
-------
Units
Symbol Meaning
acf Actual cubic feet
acfjin Actual cubic feet per minute
am Actual cubic meters
atm atmoshere
Btu British thermal unit
°C Degrees Celsius
d Day
dscf Dry standard cubic feet
°F Degrees fahrenheit
ft Feet
g Grams
gal Gallons
gr Grains
h Hour
in. inches
kcal Kilocalorie
kg Kilograms
kJ Kilojoules
kPa Kilopascal
4 Liter
Ib Pounds
ipm Liters per minute
m Meter
M Molar
mg Milligrams
Mg Megagrams
min Minute
MJ Megajoules
mi MW inter
MW Megawatt
ng3 Nanograms
Nm Normal cubic meter
ppm Parts per million
ppmdv Parts per million dry volume
psig Pounds per square inch gauge
rph Revolutions per hour
rpm Revolutions per minute
s Second
scfm Standard cubic feet per minute
w.c. Water column
vg Micrograms
B-6
-------
SUPPLEMENT C
DATA TRANSFER LOG FORMS
-------
ID '. Ref# By
Incinerator Type/Mfg
Control Device Type/Mfg
Cornnents:
Participate Sizing on Pages
TOXIC METALS EMISSIONS DATA
Process Measurements Runs
Page Table Location Units 1 2
Feed Rate
Flow Rate
co2
Emissions
Inlet As
Be
Cd
Cr
Pb
Hg
Ni
Outlet As
Be
Cd
Cr
Pb
Hg
Ni
C-l
-------
MulJ UMJ Ci'lA JJ H-m-1 W"'"
Process Measurements Runs
Page Table Location Units 1 2
Feed Rate
Flow Rate
Emissions
Inlet H2S04
HC1
HF
Outlet H SO
2 4
HC1
HF
CRITERIA POLLUTANTS EMISSIONS DATA
Process Measurements Runs
Page Table Location Units 1 2
Feed Rate ______
Flow Rate
coo
2
Emissions
Inlet __ PM
__ NO
_ S0o
2
__ CO
Outlet __ PM
_ NO
x
s°
2
CO _
C-2
-------
TOXIC ORGANIC .MISSIONS DATA
Process Measurements
Page Table Location Units 1
Feed Rate
Flow Rate
Emissions (Units:_
Inlet
Page Table 1 2
ave
2378 TCDD
2378 TCDF
Tot TCDD
Tot TCDF
Tot PCDD
Tot PCDF
Tot HxCDD
Tot HxCDF
Tot HpCDD
Tot HpCDF
Tot OcCDD
Tot OcCDF
Tet-OctCDD _
Tet-OctCDF _
Tot PCB
Formaldehyd_
Tot C1B
Tot C1P
BaP
Benzene
Outlet
Page Table 123
C-3
------- |