United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/3-88-017
December 1988
Air
&EPA
Hospital Waste
Combustion
Study: Data
Gathering Phase
Final
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards Division of the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, and approved for publication.
Mention of trade names or commercial products is not intended to constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use. Copies of this report are available
through the Library Services Office (MD-35), U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, or from National Technical
Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.
-------
EPA-450/3-88-017
Hospital Waste Combustion Study
Data Gathering Phase
Final Report
Emission Standards Division
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ,,, December 1988
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, It 60604-3590
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section paqe
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Description of the Industry 1-2
1.2 Waste Characterization 1-6.
1.3 References 1-14
2.0 PROCESSES AND EQUIPMENT 2-1
2.1 Incinerator Technology 2-2-
2.1.1 Excess Air Incinerators 2-2
2.1.2 Controlled Air Incinerators 2-5
2.1.3 Rotary Kiln Incinerators. 2-8
2.2 Waste Feed and Ash Handling Systems 2-10
2.3 Waste Heat Recovery 2-15
2.4 References 2-16
3.0 AIR EMISSIONS/FACTORS FOR HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATORS 3-1
3.1 Formation Mechanisms / 3-1
3.1.1 Acid Gases 3-1
3.1.1.1 Hydrogen Ch-loride 3-1
3.1.1.2 Sulfur Dioxide 3-3
3.1.1.3 Nitrogen Oxides 3-3
3.1.2 Particulate Matter 3-4
3.1.3 Trace Metals 3-6
3.1.4 Organic Emissions 3-7
3.1.4.1 Dioxins and Furans 3-9
3.1.4.2 Low Molecular Weight Organic
Compounds 3-12
3.1.4.3 Carbon Monoxide 3-12
3.2 Emissions Test Data 3-12
3.2.1 Acid Gases 3-16
3.2.2 Particulate Matter 3-16
3.2.3 Trace Metals 3-24
3.2.4 Organic Emissions 3-26
3.2.5 Carbon Monoxide 3-30
3.2.6 Pathogens Bacteria 3-30
3.2.7 Preliminary Emission Test Data 3-35
3.3 References 3-40
CML.024 ii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
4.0 CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES AND EFFICIENCIES 4-1
4.1 Source Separation 4-1
4.2 Combustion Control 4-2
4.2.1 Acid Gas Control 4-3
4.2.2 Particulate Matter Control 4-5
4.2.3 Trace Metals Control.. 4-6
4.2.4 Polycyclic Organic Matter (POM),
PCDDs, and PCDFs 4-8
4.3 Flue Gas Controls 4-27
4.3.1 Fabric Filters (Baghouses). 4-28
4.3.2 Scrubbers 4-30
4.3.3 Afterburners 4-38
4.4 References 4-39
5.0 REGULATORY STATUS AND STRATEGIES 5-1
5.1 Federal Regulations and Programs 5-1
5.1.1 New Source Performance Standards 5-1
5.1.2 National Emission Standards for the Hazardous
Air Pollutants 5-2
5.1.3 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Requirements 5-2
5.1.4 Prevention or Significant Deterioration
Requi rements 5-3
5.2 State Regulations and Programs.. „„„.. 5-3
5.2.1 State Requirements for Waste Handling......... 5-3
5.2.2 State Air Emission Requirements . 5-4
5.2.3 State Air Toxics Programs 5-5
5.2.4 State Permitting Requi rements 5-8
5.3 Foreign Regulations..oo 5-13
5.4 References 5-15
6.0 HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATOR MODEL PLANTS 6-1
6.1 Population Characteristics 6-1
6.1.1 Population Distribution ...... 6-1
6.1.2 Model Incinerator Stack Parameters 6-6
6.1.3 Model Incinerator Operating Parameters 6-15
6.2 References 6-20
APPENDIX A - STATE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO INFECTIOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT. A-l
CML.024 iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
APPENDIX B - ADDITIONAL HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATION EMISSION DATA . B-l
6-1 Introduction B-2
B-2 Test Data for the Hospital Refuse Incinerator at
Sutter General Hospital, Sacramento, CA R-3
B-3 Test Data for the Refuse Incinerator at Stanford
University Environmental Safety Facility,
Stanford, CA B-19
iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 Waste Generation Rates for Seventeen Hospitals in the
1-2
1-3
1-4
1-5
3-1
3-2
3-3
3-4
3-5
3-6
3-7
3-8
3-9
3-10
3-11
State of Florida
Hospital Waste Characterization
Canadian Characterization of Biomedical Waste
Incinerator Institute of America Solid Waste
Cl assi f icati ons
Ultimate Analyses of Four Plastics
Pol 1 utants Measured/Tested
Test Site Design and Operating Parameters for
Comprehensive Emission Test
Data/Factors for Hydrogen Chloride Emissions from
Hospital Waste Incinerators . ....
Data/Factors for S02 and NO Emissions from Hospital
Waste Incinerators.: v
Data/Factors for Particulate Emissions from Hospital
Waste Incinerators
Data/Factors for Trace Element Emissions from Hospital
Waste Incinerators „
Data/Factors for Chlorinated Oibenzo-p-Oioxins Emissions
from Hospital Waste Incinerators
Data/Factors for Chlorinated Dibenzofurans Emissions
from Hospital Waste Incinerators
Fabric Filter Dioxin/Furan Ash Analysis for Cedar Sinai
Incinerator
Emission Factors for Selected Organic Low Molecular
Weight Organics from Hospital Waste Incinerators
Emissions/Factors for Carbon Monoxide and Hydrocarbon
Emissions from Hospital Waste Incinerators
1-4
1-7
1-8
1-11
1-13
3-2
3-14
3-17
3-20
3-21
3-25
3-27
3-28
3-29
3-31
3-32
CML.024
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Paoe
3-12 Incinerator Characteristics 3-33
3-13 Efficacy of Incinerator Operations in the Destruction
of the Microflora Associated with Municipal Solid Waste... - 3-34
3-14 Preliminary HC1 and PM Emissions Test Data 3-36
3-15 Preliminary Metals Emissions Test Data.... 3-37
3-16 Preliminary Dioxin and Furan Emissions Test Data 3-38
3-17 Preliminary Results of Three Biomedical Waste
Incinerators Located in Canada 3-39
5-1 Guideline Emission Limits for Incinerators Burning
Hospital Waste 5-6
5-2 Acceptable Annual Ambient Concentrations Reported for
Selected Pollutants 5-7
5-3 Foreign Emission Regulations for Hospital Waste 5-14
6-1 Summary of Model Incinerator Stack Parameters 6-14
6-2 Summary of Emissions Factors and Rates for Hospital
Incinerator Model Sizes 6-17
vi
CML.024
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
B-l Sutter G.eneral Hospital - Average Refuse Feed Rate
to Incinerators During Test Period B-3
8-2 Daily Average Stack Conditions for Incinerator at
Sutter General Hospital . B-4
B-3 Daily Average Concentrations of Selected Gaseous Air
Pollutants from the Sutter General Incinerator B-5
B-4 Daily Average Concentrations of Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide,
Carbon Monoxide, Oxides of Nitrogen, Sulfur Dioxide,
Total Hydrocarbons, Particulate Matter and Hydrochloric
Acid in the Stack Gas at Sutter General Hospital,
Sacramento, CA «, B-6
B-5 Sutter General Hospital - Particulate Matter and Hydro-
chloric Acid Concentrations and Mass Emission Rates . . R-7
B-6 Sutter General Hospital - PCDD/PCDF Mass Emission Rates .
B-7 Sutter General Hospital - PCDD/PCDF Concentrations in
Stack Gas B-9
B-8 Sutter General Hospital - PCDD/PCDF Concentrations in
Stack Gas B-10
8-9 Sutter General Hospital - PCDD/PCDF Mass Emission
Rates in Stack Gas B-ll
B-10 Sutter General Hospital - PCDD/PCDF Concentrations in
Stack Gas (Corrected to 12 percent C02) B-12
8-11 • Sutter General Hospital - PCDD/PCDF Concentrations in
Stack Gas „ B-13
B-12 Sutter General Hospital - Mass Emission Rate of Trace
Metals in Stack Gas B-l4
B-13 Sutter General Hospital - Concentrations of Trace
Metals in Stack Gas B-15
B-14 Sutter General Hospital - Mass Emission Rates of
Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Iron, Manganese, Nickel
and lead in Stack Gas B-16
B-15 Sutter General Hospital - Concentrations of Arsenic,
Cadmium, Chromium, Iron, Manganese, Nickel and Lead in
Stack Gas
VII
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
B-16 Sutter General Hospital - Mass Emission Rates of
Selected Chlorinated and Aromatic Organic Compounds
Based on Analysis of Resin Samples ........... 8-17
B-17 Sutter General Hospital - PCDD/PCDF Concentrations
in Bottom Ash Sample .................. 8-18
B-18 Stanford University - Daily Average Operating
Parameters ........ . .............. 8-20
B-19 Stanford University - Daily Average Concentrations of
Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Oxides of
Nitrogen, Sulfur Dioxide, Total Hydrocarbons,
Parti cul ate Matter and Hydrochloric Acid in the Stack
Gas .......................... B-21
B-20 Stanford University - Concentrations and Mass Emission
Rates of Particulate Matter . ............. 8-22
B-21 Stanford University - Concentration and Mass Emission
Rates Hydrochloric Acid . . .............. 8-23
B-22 Stanford University - PCDD/PCDF Mass Emission Rates . . B-24 &
B-25
B-23 Stanford University - PCDD/PCDF Concentrations in Gas
(corrected to 12% C02) ................ B-26 ft
B-27
B-24 Stanford University - Mass Emission Rates of Selected
Metals in the Stack Gas ................ 8-28
B-25 Stanford University - Concentrations of Selected Metals
in the Stack Gas Concentrations ........... B-29
B-26 Stanford University - Mass Emission Rates of
Selected Chlorinated and Aromatic Compounds Based
on Analysis of Resin Samples ............. B-30
B-27 Stanford University - PCDD/PCDF Concentrations in
Bottom Ash and Scrubber F.f fluent ........... B-31
vin
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2-1 Multiple-Chamber Pathological Waste Incinerator 2-3
2-2 In-Line Multiple-Chamber Incinerator 2-4
2-3 Schematic for Controlled Air Incinerator 2-6
2-4 Adiabatic Temperature Versus Excess Air for a Controlled
Air Incinerator 2-9
2-5 Refractory Rotary Kiln System 2-11
2-6 Schematic and Example of a Mechanical Loading System 2-13
3-1 Impact of Temperature and Fuel Nitrogen on NO Emissions
for Excess Air Conditions 3-5
3-2 Process Schematic for Primary Chamber Hospital Waste
Combustion „. 3-8
3-3 Hypothetical Mechanisms of CDD/CDF Formation Chemistry 3-11
4-1 Fraction of As and Sb Collected with Fume as a Function
of the Extent of Total Ash Vaporization (Data Points) 4-7
4-2 Concentration of Selected Elements in Ultra-fine
Particulates as a Function of Reciprocal Particle
Diameter 4-9
4-3 Adiabatic Equilibrium Species Distribution 4-13
4-4 First Stage Hydrocarbon Production... 4-15
4-5 One Possible Formation Mechanism for 2,3,7,8-TCDD 4-17
4-6 Benzo(a)Pyrene Emissions from Coal, Oil, and Natural Gas
Heat-Generation Process 4-19
4-7 Variation of Adiabatic Flame Temperature with Percent
Theoretical Air and Percent Moisture in the MSW. 4-23
4-8 Hydrocarbon Breakthrough as a Function of Percent
Theoretical Air 4-25
4-9 Typical Fabric Filter System 4-29
4-10 Open Spray Tower Scrubber 4-31
ix
CML.024
-------
Figure
4-11
4-12
4-13
4-14
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-6
6-7
6-8
6-9
LIST OF FIGURES
Fixed Orifice Scrubber
Baffle Impingement Scrubber
High Energy Venturi Scrubber
Teller Dry Scrubbing System
Distribution of Hospital Sizes According to Bed Number....
Waste Feed Rate Distribution of Incinerators in N.Y.
Database by Number
Waste Feed Rate Distribution of Small (Less Than
200 Ib/hr) Incinerators in N.Y. Database by Number
Waste Feed Rate Distribution of Incinerators in N.Y.
Database by Capacity
Average, High, and Low Stack Heights According to
Sel ected Feed Rate Ranges
Average, High, and Low Stack Gas Exit Temperature
According to Selected Feed Rate Ranges
Average, High, and Low Stack Gas Exit Velocities
Accordi ng to Sel ected Feed Rate Ranges
Average, High, and Low Stack Diameters According to
Sel ected Feed Rate Ranges
Annual Operating Hours According to Selected Feed
Rate Changes
Page
4-32
4-33
4-34
4-37
6-3
6-4
6-5
6-7
6-8
6-10
6-11
6-13
6-16
CML.024
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report contains the results of a study of air emissions from
hospital waste combustion. It represents an effort to gather currently
available data in a manner that will allow the EPA to assess the need for
and feasibility of regulating multipollutant emissions from hospital waste
combustion. The work was performed by Radian Corporation under contract
to EPA's Pollutant Assessment Branch of the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAOPS).
During the course of this study, information was gathered from State
and local environmental agencies, from vendors of incineration equipment,
from the open technical literature, from the American Hospital Association,
and from visits to three incineration facilities. Information was sought
concerning feed characteristics, combustor designs and operating
characteristics, emissions of air pollutants, applied and potential
control technology, numbers and locations of hospital waste combustors,
and applicable regulations. In addition, parameters needed to model
exposure and health risk have been developed for use in EPA's Human
Exposure Model.
A final draft report for this study was prepared in October 1987.
This report was widely circulated by EPA/OAQPS for review and comments by
EPA Regional Offices, State agenices, related trade associations, incinerator
vendors, and interested individuals. Comments received were evaluated
and incorporated into this report where appropriate. While some new
emissions data were received, they were of a preliminary nature and thus
have been reported as a separate category of data in Section 3.
The remainder of Section 1 is devoted to a description of the industry
(Section 1.1) and characterization of hospital waste (Section 1.2).
Section 2.0 contains information about the processes and equipment used
for hospital waste combustion. Data gathered concerning air pollutants
emitted from hospital waste incinerators and their formation in the
combustion process are presented in Section 3.0. Section 4.0 contains a
discussion of control techniques and possible control efficiencies. \
environmental regulations affecting hospital waste combustion are presented
in Section 3.0. Section 4.0 contains a discussion of control techniques
and possible control efficiencies. Environmental regulations affecting
hospital waste, combustion are presented in Section 5.0. Model plants
suitable for EPA's use in assessing regulatory strategies are developed
in Section 6.0.
CML 1-1
-------
1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY
"Hospital waste" refers to wastes produced by a hospital or hospital -
type facility. These wastes include both infectious wastes (i.e., materials
which come in contact with hospital patients and which have a potential to
carry disease-producing organisms) and non-infectious or general house-
keeping wastes. The volume of infectious waste produced by a facility can
vary widely, depending primarily on guidelines or practices employed. Based
upon CDC guidelines, infectious waste would only comprise 3 to 5 percent of
the total hospital waste. Conversely, hospital infectious waste could com-
prise 80 percent or more of total waste based upon the Universal Isolation
Precaution Guidelines of August 1987. In addition to these guidelines, the
waste segregation practices employed by hospitals will influence the total
volume of waste which is considered infectious. Although segregation of
infectious and non-infectious waste introduces additional handling
complications and expense, comments received from the American Society for
Hospital Engineering (of the American Hospital Association) indicate that
2
most hospitals have waste segregation programs in place.
In many States, laws have been enacted in the past ten years which
prohibit the disposal of Infectious wastes in landfills. To qualify for
disposal, wastes must first be rendered innocuous. The two primary
sterilization methods used by hospitals are autoclaving and incineration.
Sterilization with ethylene oxide and waste shredding followed by chemical
disinfection are available alternatives but are not commonly used. Due to
limitations associated with autoclaving (i.e., limited capacities, handling
problems, and questionable effectiveness) and ethylene oxide units (i.e.,
worker health risks), incineration has become the most practical waste
sterilization and disposal option for many hospital facilities, according
to authorities in Illinois.
Incineration reduces waste volumes by up to 90 percent. Hence, the
volume and cost of ultimate disposal of residual wastes in a landfill can be
reduced significantly by this method. An additional benefit of incineration
systems, in some cases, is that they can be designed for heat recovery with
the potential to supply a portion of the hospital's steam or hot water
requirements.
CML.026 1-2
-------
The total number and capacity of hospital waste incinerators in the ""
United States is uncertain. As of 1985, there were a reported 6,872
hospitals in the nation with 1,318,000 beds.4 Estimates of waste generation
rates range from about 8 to 45 Ib/bed/day.5,6,7 For example, Table 1-1
shows hospital waste generation per bed for seventeen hospitals in the State
of Florida. The waste generation rate for these seventeen hospitals ranged
from 8 to 45 Ib/bed/day and averaged 23 Ib/bed/day. Using this average
generation rate and an average occupancy rate of 69 percent, the total
hospital waste generation rate in the United States is estimated to be about
10,500 tons/day. However, not all hospital waste is sent to incinerators,
as discussed above. To estimate actual incinerator tonnage, this rate would
need to be reduced by the amount of infectious waste handled by other
treatment processes and the amount of general waste that is segregated and
sent via trash disposal to landfills. Unfortunately, it is not possible to
estimate these quantities based on the information gathered to date. As a
point of reference, however, about 18,000 tons/day of municipal solid waste
were disposed of by combustion by municipalities in 1985.8
With regard to geographic distribution, hospitals are located in every
State as well as in the District of Columbia. At least one hospital was
located in almost all metropolitan and non-metropolitan statistical areas in
1985 according to American Hospital Association statistics9 Of the total
number of hospitals, approximately 53 percent were located in metropolitan
statistical areas with the balance in non-metropolitan areas.
Detailed statistics are available only for community hospitals, which
comprised over 83 percent of the total number of hospitals in 1985. During
the 1975 to 1985 period, the number of community hospitals declined by
2.4 percent; the total number of beds increased by 6.2 percent, however,
a shift attributed to hospital closures, mergers, and conversion to
nonacute-care facilities.1° Although the occupancy rate for community
hospitals declined from 75 to about 65 percent, the number of surgical
operations (which produce higher levels of infectious waste) increased by
almost 21 percent. Taking these off-setting factors into account, the
CML.026 1-3
-------
TABU 1-1. HASTE GSHERAIIO* RATES FOR SIVEKEBB HOSPITALS IH THE STATE OF FLORIDA*
Hospital Pathological
Miaart Jewish
HOBM ( Hospital
Coral Reef Hospital ~
Miasti. General 2
Horth Ride* Saneral 17
South Miami Hospital
Cedar* Mtdleal C«nt«r ~
Aoorleaa Hospital
of Mlaol
Bascosi Paloar Eye
Institute
Larkin General
Hoapltal 10Z
Miaari. Children's 3
Grant Center Hospital —
Berth Gables Hospital 7
MlaaU. Heart Instltuta
Paabrok* Plnas Canaral 21
Jawia Archar S«lth 29
Baptist Hospital
of Mlaal 1.500
Doctor's Hospital —
Infectious
23
320b
689
93
300
900
3,140
103b
131
103
93
4.7
l,200b
137
837
730
333b
*Kafaraac« 7 . Ratas ara la Ib/day unless notad
*a»unt Includaa Patholocleal vastas.
O j«.Jt
C«naral
1,330
2.367°
3.370°
3.440*
3,400
6,800
4.386°
2,304°
53Z
1,413
1,800*
203
7,440°
1,330°
143
3,300
2,160*
otharvlaa.
Food Cardboard Total
6.120 403 7,898
~ -- 2,887
~ — 4,237
301 3,833
1.700 567 3,967
300 1,000 9,200
7,726
2,407
10X 10Z H/A
100 ' 1 1,620
2.3«2 — 4,485
630 29 876
8,640
— -- 1.308
71 143 1,2*3
4,300 2.000 14,230
3.888 — 6,381
Avarac*
I Bods
376
127
237
168
350
355
300
100
60
137
100
S3
191
195
80
383
165
»/B«d/Day
21
23
18
23
17
26
26
24
H/A
12
45
16.5
45
3
16*
37*
39*
Amount lnalud«« Food wastes.
Includaa Cardboard vastes.
*Thase questionnaires arrived after the computations were coopleced and so are not included In the average
Ibs/bed/day fl«ure.
CML.026 1-4
-------
overall hospital waste generation rate appears to have remained relatively
constant over this 10-year period. No factors were identified which would
significantly change this trend in the near future.
No comprehensive information was found during this study regarding the
total population of hospital waste incinerators in the nation. One
manufacturer's representative estimated that over 90 percent of operating
hospitals have an incinerator on-site, if only a small retort-type unit for
pathological or special wastes.11 The number of larger, controlled air type
incinerators operating on hospital wastes is not known. However, based on
discussions with two of the leading controlled-air incinerator manufacturers,
it is estimated that at least 1,200 of these systems have been installed at
United States hospitals over the past 20 years.12,13 This implies that there
are approximately 5,QUO retort-type incinerators installed. While some of
these units have been retired, a great majority are felt to be currently in
operation.1^
Some insight into the incineration population distribution was gained
by examining a recent New York State data base which was developed from.an
in-state survey of over 400 hospital waste incinerator units. This data
base, and the analysis conducted by Radian Corporation during this study,
are described in detail in Section 6.1. Highlights of the analysis
are as follows:
0 Almost 60 percent of the New York incinerators have design feed
capacities of less than 200 Ib/hr.
0 The population distribution is bimodal with respect to feed
capacity, with peaks in the 50 to 74 Ib/hr range and in the
100 to 124 Ib/hr range.
0 About 14 percent of the incinerator population in New York is
above 600 Ib/hr feed capacity and about 6.5 percent is above
1,000 Ib/hr feed capacity.
A comparison of the New York and total U.S. hospital populations indicates
that the two populations have similar overall distributions although there
is a greater proportion of large hospitals above the 500-bed size in NY than
in the nation as a whole. The conclusions drawn from this analysis is that
CHL.026 1-5
-------
there are many small hospital waste incinerators but that the larger
incinerators account for a significant fraction of total waste handling
capacity.
1.2 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
Hospital waste is characteristically heterogeneous, consisting of
ofjects of many different sizes and composed of many different materials.
The daily activities and procedures within a hospital can vary dramatically
from day-to-day, thus making it difficult to predict what will be thrown
away. During the course of this study, very little data were found on the
composition of hospital waste. This may be due to the fact that the amount
of sampling and chemical analyses required to generate representative
characterization data would be extensive and costly. In addition, industry
practice for many years has been to utilize the simplified waste
classification system developed by the Incinerator Institute of America
(IIA), discussed below, rather than to sample and chemically analyze waste.
Table 1-2 contains one general breakdown of the composition of typical
hospital waste.
As discussed above, the experience of hospitals in Illinois indicates
that above 85% of a hospital's waste stream can be categorized as general
refuse, while the remaining 15% is contaminated with infectious agents.ls
This is only a generalization, however, and actual wastes from a given
hospital can vary significantly from day to day and from hour to hour. For
example, refuse collected after a major surgical procedure, such as a heart
transplant, may contain significantly more infectious wastes and disposable
plastics than is usually generated in a routine operation.16 Also, to the
extent that the infectious waste is mixed with a hospital's general waste,
more waste will be generated that is considered infectious.^7
Most of the public attention concerning hospital waste management has
centered on infectious waste. Unfortunately, a number of general and vague
terms are used to refer to these wastes, including "pathological waste,"
"biological waste," "hazardous waste," "biomedical waste," and "contaminated
waste." In Canada, the term biomedical waste is popular and a color-code
classification scheme for the waste has been developed as shown in Table
1-3. In the United States, all these categories of wastes are generally
classified as "red bag" waste.18
r.ML.O?6 i-fi
-------
TABLE 1-2. HOSPITAL WASTE CHARACTERIZATION3
Approximate h
Product Percent by Weight0
Paper 65
Plastic 30
Moisture 10
Other 5
Reference 19.
Percentages do not add to 100 since they are approximations.
CML.026 1-7
-------
TABLE 1-3. CANADIAN CHARACTERIZATION OF BIOMEDICAL WASTEa
Waste Class
Component Description
Typical Component
weight percent
(as fired)
Al
(Red Bag)
A2
(Orange Bag)
A3a
(Yellow Bag)
A3b
(Yellow Bag)
Lab Waste
A3c
(Yellow Bag)
R&D on DNA
Bl
(Blue bag)
Human Anatomical
Plastics
Swabs, Absorbents
Alcohol, Disinfectants
Animal Infected
Anatomical
Plastics
Glass
Beddings, Shavings,
Paper, Fecal Hatter
Gauze, Pads, Swabs,
Garments, Paper,
Cellulose
Plastics, PVC, Syringes
Sharps, Needles
Fluids, Residuals
Alcohols, Disinfectants
Plastics
Sharps
Cellulose Materials
Fluids, Residuals
Alcohols, Disinfectants
Glass
Gauze, Pads, Swabs
Plastics, Petri Dishes
Sharps, Glass
Fluids
Non-infected
Animal Anatomical
Plastics
Glass
Beddings, Shavings,
Fecal Matter
95-100
0-5
0-5
0-0.2
80-100
0-15
0-5
0-10
60-90
15-30
4-8
2-5
0-0.2
50-60
0-5
5-10
1-20
0-0.2
15-25
5-30
50-60
0-10
1-10
90-100
0-10
0-3
0-10
Reference 6 .
CML.026
1-8
-------
In Europe, hospital wastes are divided into the general categories of
normal housekeeping wastes and "hazardous" wastes. The latter category
consists of bacterially infected pathological waste, oil and chemical waste,
and radioactive isotopic contaminated waste.2n A typical cross-section of
this type of waste has included the following itens:
Disposable linens
Paper
Flowers
Waste food
Cans
Diapers
Plastic cups
Syringes
Scalpels
Tweezers
Rubber gloves
Pathological objects
Blood test tubes
Test tubes from miscellaneous service
Petri dishes
Dropper bottles
Medicine bottles
Drop infusion equipment
Transfusion equipment
Suction catheters
Bladder catheters
Urinal catheters
Colostomi bags
The general practice in the United States is to classify wastes
according to the IIA system described in Table 1-4. The popularity of this
system is reinforced by the fact that most incinerator manufacturers rate
their equipment in terms of these categories.21
While useful for general design purposes, the IIA classification scheme
does not address concerns such as the plastics content of waste or possible
hazardous components. Hospital wastes typically can contain about 20
percent plastics with levels as high as 30 percent being reported.22 The
types of plastic most commonly encountered include polyethylene, poly-
propylene, and polyvinyl chloride.23 Potential combustion products from
CML.026 1-9
-------
the burning of these plastics, including hydrochloric acid and toxic air
contaminants, are discussed in Section 3.1. Ultimate analyses for four
common plastics are shown in Table 1-5.
Hospital waste may also contain potentially toxic components. For
example, red bag waste in the United States may contain potentially toxic
compounds generated by hospital operations that are currently exempt from
regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).24
Such chemicals include waste Pharmaceuticals, cytotoxic agents used in
chemotherapy, and anti-neoplastic agents.25 Mercury from dental clinics
and other heavy metals used in hospitals may also cause air emission
concerns if they enter the combustor along with other hospital wastes.
CML.026 1-10
-------
TABLE 1-4. INCINERATOR INSTITUTE OF AMERICA SOLID WASTE CLASSIFICATIONS3
Type 0 Trash, a mixture of highly combustible waste such as paper,
cardboard, cartons, wood boxes, and combustible floor sweepings
from commercial and Industrial activities. The mixtures contain
up to 10 percent by weight of plastic bags, coated paper,
laminated paper, treated corrugated cardboard, oily rags, and
plastic or rubber scraps.
This type of waste contains 10 percent moisture, 5 percent
incombustible solids and has a heating value of 8,500 Btu per
pound as fired.
Type 1 Rubbish, a mixture of combustible waste such as paper, cardboard
cartons, wood scrap, foliage, and combustible floor sweepings,
from domestic, commercial, and industrial activities. The mixture
contains up to 20 percent by weight of restaurant or cafeteria
waste, but contains little or no treated papers, plastic, or rubber
wastes.
This type of waste contains 25 percent moisture, 10 percent
incombustible solids, and has heating value of 6,500 Btu per pound
as fired.
Type 2 Refuse, consisting of an approximately even mixture of rubbish and
garbage by weight.
This type of waste is common to apartment and residential
occupancy, consisting of up to 50 percent moisture, 7 percent
incombustible solids, and has a heating value of 4,300 Btu per
pound as-fired.
Type 3 Garbage, consisting of animal and vegetable wastes from
restaurants, cafeterias, hotels, hospitals, markets and like
installations.
This type of waste consists of up to 70 percent moisture, up to
5 percent incombustible solids, .and has a heating value of 2,500
Btu per pound as-fired.
Type 4 Human and animal remains, consisting of carcasses, organs, and
solid organic wastes from hospitals, laboratories, abattoirs,
animal pounds, and similar sources, consisting of up to 85 percent
moisture, 5 percent incombustible solids, and having a heating
value of 1,000 Btu per pound as fired.
CML.026 1-11
-------
TABLE 1-4. INCINERATOR INSTITUTE OF AMERICA SOLID WASTE CLASSIFICATIONS3
(Continued)
Type 5 Byproduct waste, gaseous, liquid or serailiquid, such as tar,
paints, solvents, sludge, fumes, etcs., from Industrial
operations. Btu values must be determined by the individual
materials to be destroyed.
Type 6 Solid bydproduct waste, such as rubber, plastics, wood waste,
etc., from Industrial operations. Btu values must be determined
by the individual materials to be destroyed.
Reference 26 .
CML.026 1-12
-------
TABLE 1-5. ULTIMATE ANALYSES OF FOUR PLASTICS*
(Weight Percent)
Moisture
Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Chlorine
Ash
Higher heating
value, Btu/lb
Polyethylene
0.20
84.38
14.14
0.00
0.06
0.03
tr
1.19
19,687
Polystyrene
0.20
86.91
8.42
3.96
0.21
0.02
tr
0.45
16,419
Polyurethane
0.20
63.14
6.25
17.61
5.98
0.02
2.42
4.38
11,203
Polyvinyl
Chloride
0.20
45.04
5.60
1.56
0.08
0.14
45.32
2.06
9,754
Reference 27.
CML.026
1-13
-------
1.3 REFERENCES
1. Doucet, I. G. "Infectious Waste Incineration Harket Perspectives and
Potentials," presented at the Waste-to-Energy 1987 Conference Exploring
the Total Market, Washington, D. C. September 1987.
2. Private communication between R. Morrison, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency and M. Ficht, American Society for Hospital Engineering
of the American Hospital Association, June 7, 1988.
3. Brenniman, G. R.; R. J. Allen, and P. J. Graham. "Disposal of Infectious
Hospital Waste: The Problems in Illinois." The Environmental
Professional, Vol. 6, 1984, pp. 250-251.
4. American Hospital Association. Hospital Statistics: 1986 Edition.
Chicago, Illinois, 1986, p. 2.
5. Faurholdt, G. "European Experience with Incineration of Hazardous and
Pathological Wastes." Presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Air
Pollution Control Association, New York, June 21-26, 1987.
6. Ooucet, L. G. "Controlled Air Incineration: Design, Procurement, and
Operational Considerations." Prepared for the American Society of
Hospital Engineering of the American Hospital Association. Technical
Document Series, Technical Document Number: 055872, January 1986.
7. Cross/Tessitore and Associates. "Centralized Incinerator Study."
South Florida Hospital Association. December 16, 1985.
8. Radian Corporation. Municipal Waste Combustion Study; Characterization
of Municipal Waste Combustion Industry.EPA 530-SW-87-021h, July 1987,
pp. 2-5.
9. Reference 3.
10. Reference 4, p. xvii.
11. Private communication between E. AuT, Radian Corporation and R. Laine,
Southern Corporation, August 25, 1987.
12. Consumat Systems, Inc. Installations List. Richmond, Virginia.
Received by Radian Corporation in June 1987. p 1.
13. Private communication betwwn E. Aul, Radian Corporation and S. Shuler,
Ecolaire Combustion Products, Inc., August 25, 1987.
14. Reference 11.
15. Reference 3.
CML.026 1-14
-------
16. Doyle, B. W.; 0. A. Drum, and J. D. Lauber. "The Burning Issue of
Hospital Waste Incineration." presented at Israel Ecological Society
Third International Conference, Jerusalem, Israel, .lune 1986.
17. Brunner, C. R., "Biomedical Waste Incineration." Presented at the 80th
Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, New York,
June 21-26, 1987.
18. Reference 17.
19. Jenkins, A. C., "Evaluation Test on a Hospital Refuse Incinerator at
Saint Agnes Medical Center, Fresno, CA." California Air Resource Board,
Stationary Source Division, January 1987.
20. Reference 5.
21. Reference 6.
22. Murnyak, G. R., and D. C. Gazenich. "Chlorine Emissions from a Medical
Waste Incinerator," Journal of Environmental Health, Sept/Oct 1982.
23. Reference 17
24. Lauber, J. D. "Controlled Commercial/Regional Incineration of Biomedical
Wastes." Presented at the Incineration of Low Level Radioactive and
Mixed Wastes, St. Charles, Illinois. April 21-24, 1987..
25. Reference 5.
26. Reference 6.
27. Kaiser, E. R. and Carotti, A. "Municipal Incineration of Refuse with Two
Percent and Four Percent Additions of Four Plastics: Polyethylene,
Polyurethane, Polystyrene, and Polyvinyl Chloride, "Proceedings of the
1972 National Incinerator Conference," June 1972. pgs. 230-45.
California Air Resources Board. ATF Pollution Control at Resource
Recovery Facilities. May 24, 1984
CML.026 1-15
-------
2.0 PROCESSES AND EQUIPMENT
The primary objectives of hospital waste incinerators are (1) to render
the waste innocuous, and (2) to reduce the size and mass of the waste.
These objectives are accomplished by exposing the waste to high temperatures
over a period of time long enough to destroy threatening organisms and by
burning all but the incombustible portion of the waste. As discussed in
Section 1.1, incineration has become the primary sterilization and disposal
option for many hospital facilities.
The design of a hospital waste incinerator, like any combustion system,
requires consideration of a number of interrelated factors including
residence time, temperature, and turbulence (i.e., the three "T"'s of
combustion). Other factors which can influence combustion performance are
fuel feeding patterns, air supply and distribution, heat transfer, and ash
disposal. Like municipal solid waste (MSW), hospital waste is a difficult
fuel to combust relative to conventional fuels such as oil, gas, coal, or
wood. Some of the problems associated with hospital wastes which must be
considered by the combustion system designer and equipment operator are:
o Fuel of non-homogenous and variable composition - The physical and
chemical composition of hospital waste is highly variable.
Furthermore, the waste feed consists of chemically diverse
articles of different sizes and shapes. Hospital waste is seldom
pre-processed; it is burned in bulk on a mass feed basis.
Non-homogenous and variable compositions should be accounted for
in system design and operation to ensure that these factors do not
pose problems in feeding, flame stability, particle entrainment
and emission control.
o Variable ash content - Hospital waste contains varying amounts of
glass, metals and ceramics which are not consumed in the
combustion process. Fluctuations in ash composition and
combustion temperatures can lead to clinker formation, slagging
and fouling in some systems. To avoid these problems, primary
combustion chamber temperatures are generally maintained below
1800 F. However, this tends to reduce carbon burnout and the
overall energy utilization efficiency.
o Low heating value - Hospital wastes often have low heating values
due to high moisture contents. This causes flame stability
problems and, in some cases, it becomes necessary to fire an
auxiliary fuel to maintain proper combustion conditions.
CML.026 2-1
-------
Alternately, dry waste batches (especially those with a high
plastics content) can produce high flame temperatures which result
in overheating of the hearth or other combustion system
components. To avoid these problems, the combustion conditions
(principally excess air, air distribution, and auxiliary fuel
firing rate) must be controlled closely.
o Corrosive materials - Hospital wastes contain varying amounts of
fluorine and chlorine, principally from plastics. The acid gases
produced from the incineration of these materials can corrode
combustion and air pollution control equipment, especially
conyective heat transfer tubes. For this reason, hospital
incinerators should be constructed of corrosion - resistant
materials.
2.1 INCINERATOR TECHNOLOGY
There are three major types of incinerators currently used to
incinerate hospital wastes in the United States: excess air, controlled air,
and rotary kiln. The design and operating principles for each of these
three major types are discussed in this section.
2.1.1. Retort Incinerators
Retort Incinerators are variable capacity units which are mostly field
fabricated. These units also typify older, existing hospital incinerators.
They are also referred to as "pyrolitic," "multiple chamber," and "excess
air" incinerators in the literature. These incinerators appear as a compact
cube from the outside with a series of chambers and baffles on the inside.
The two principal design configurations for retort incinerators are
illustrated in Figures 2-1 and 2-2.
In both types of retort incinerators, combustion of the waste begins in
the primary, or ignition, chamber. The waste is dried, ignited, and
combusted by heat provided by a primary chamber burner as well as by hot
chamber walls heated by flue gases. Moisture and volatile components in the
waste feed are vaporized and pass, along with combustion gases, out of the
primary chamber and through a flame port connecting the primary chamber to
the secondary, or mixing, chamber. Secondary air is added through the flame
port and is mixed with the volatile components in the secondary chamber.
CML.026 2-2
-------
Flame Port
Stack
Charging
Door
Ignition
Chamber
Hearth
Secondary
Air Ports
Secondary
Burner Port
Mixing
Chamber
First
Underhearth Port
Secondary
Combustion
Chamber
Mixing
Chamber
Flame Port
Side View
Cleanout
Doors
Charging Door
Hearth
Primary
Burner Port
Secondary
Underhearth Port
Source: Reference 3.
Figure 2-1. Multiple-Chamber Pathological Waste Incinerator
oc
0>
1C
00
«
o
2-3
-------
Charging
Door
Rama _ . _
Port Secondary Curtain
Air Port Wall
Secondary
Combustion
Chamber
Grates
Cleanout
Doors
Location of
Secondary
Burner
Mixing
Chamber
Clean Out
Doors
Curtain Wall
Port
Source: Reference 4.
Figure 2-2. In-Line Multiple-Chamber Incinerator
oc
CO
CO
00
O)
o
2-4
-------
Burners are also fitted to the secondary chamber to maintain adequate
temperatures for combustion of the volatile gases. Incinerators designed to
burn general hospital waste operate at total excess air levels of up to
300 percent; if only pathological wastes (i.e., animal and human remains)
are combusted, excess air levels near 100 percent are more common.
For in-line incinerators, combustion gases pass in a straight-through
fashion from the primary chamber to the secondary chamber and out of the
incinerator with 90 degree flow direction changes only in the vertical
direction. The other common configuration for retort incinerators, on the
other hand, causes the combustion gases to follow a more "tortuous" path
through the incinerator with 90 degree flow direction changes in both the
horizontal and vertical directions. These flow direction changes, as well
as contraction and expansion of the combustion gases, enhance turbulent
mixing of air and gases. In addition, fly ash and other particulate matter
drop from the gas stream as a result of the direction and gas velocity
changes and collect on chamber floors. Gases exiting the secondary chamber
are directed to the incinerator stack.
Retort incinerators are described as "unwieldy" by one .source in sizes
above 500 Ib/hr capacity while in-line incinerators are felt to be most
suitable in capacities of 750 Ib/hr or greater.
2.1.2 Controlled Air Incinerators
Controlled air incineration has become the most widely used hospital
waste incinerator technology over the past 10 to 15 years and now dominates
0
the market for new systems at hospitals and similar medical facilities.
This technology is also known as "starved air" incineration, "two-stage"
incineration, and "modular" combustion. While there are some similarities
in operating principles between retort and controlled-air incinerators,
overall equipment design and appearance are quite different, as illustrated
in Figure 2-3. The two-stage incinerator shown in Figure 2-3 is capable of
Q
99.9 percent combustion efficiency.
Like retort incinerators, combustion of waste in controlled air
incinerators occurs in two stages. Waste is fed into the primary, or lower,
combustion chamber which is operated, as the name implies, with less than the
full amount of air required for combustion. Under these sub-stoichiometric
CML.026 2-5
-------
Figure 2-3. Schematic for Controlled Air Incinerator
2-6
-------
conditions, the waste is dried, heated, and pyrolized, thereby releasing
moisture and volatile components. The non-volatile, combustible portion of
the waste is burned in the primary chamber to provide heat while the
non-combustible portion accumulates as ash. Depending on the heating value
of the waste and its moisture content, additional heat may be provided by
auxiliary burners to maintain desired temperatures. Combustion air is added
to the primary chamber either from below the waste through the floor of the
chamber or through the sides of the chamber. The air addition rate is
usually 40 to 70 percent of stoichiometric requirements.
Because of the low air addition rates in the primary chamber, and
corresponding low flue gas velocities and turbulence levels, the amount of
solids entrained in the gases leaving the primary chamber is minimized. As
a result, most controlled air incinerators can meet current State and local
particulate matter emission limits without add-on gas cleaning devices.
Moisture, volatiles, and combustion gases from the primary chamber flow
upward through a connecting section where they are mixed with air prior to
entering the secondary, or upper combustion chamber. If the primary chamber
gases are sufficiently hot, they will self-ignite when mixed with air. A
second burner 1s located near the entrance to the upper chamber, however, to
provide additional heat for ignition of the combustible gases and to
maintain a flame in the chamber at all times of operation. Mixing of these
gases with air is enhanced by the flow direction changes and contraction/
expansion step which the gases undergo as they pass from the lower to upper
chambers. The air injection rate 1n the secondary chamber is generally
between 100 and 140 percent of total stoichiometric requirements (based on
the waste feed). Thus, the total air added to both chambers can vary
between 140 and 210 percent of stoichiometric requirements (i.e., between 40
and 110 percent excess air).
The secondary chamber burner is located near the entrance to this
chamber to maximize the residence time of gases at high temperatures in this
chamber. Bulk average gas residence times in the secondary chamber
typically range from 0.25 to 2.0 second. Design exit gas temperatures
generally range from 1400 to 2000°F.12 Natural gas or distillate oil are
the normal fuels used for both primary and secondary chamber burners.
Temperatures in the primary and secondary chambers are monitored by
CML.026 2-7
-------
thermocouples and controlled automatically by modulating the air flow to
each chamber. Thermocouples are normally located near the exits of these
chambers. In the primary (air-starved) chamber, combustion air flow is kept
substoichimetric to release volatiles and to keep the gas velocities low to
prevent particulates from going out through the secondary combustion
chamber. In the secondary combustion chamber, air is generally increased to
burn the volatile organics and to create extra turbulence to get mixing
between the air and volatiles for proper combustion efficiencies. The logic
for this control scheme is illustrated in Figure 2-4. Flue gases exiting
the secondary chamber are sent either directly to a stack, to air pollution
control equipment (if required), or to a waste heat recovery boiler.
Both the primary and secondary chambers are usually lined with
refractory material. One manufacturer, however, offers a membrane water
wall in the primary chamber. Most chambers are cylindrical; however, some
are rectangular. Smaller units (i.e., with waste feed capacities less
than 500 Ib/hr) are usually vertically oriented with both chambers in a
single casing. Larger units generally include two separate horizontal
cylinders located one above the other.13 Some manufacturers offer a third
chamber for final air addition to the combustible gases and a fourth chamber
for gas conditioning (i.e., gas cooling and condensation of vapors) to
minimize effects on downstream heat recovery equipment or air pollution
control equipment.
Waste feed capacities for controlled air incinerators range from about
75 to -6500 Ib/hr of Type 0 waste (at 8500 Btu/lb). Capacities for lower
heat content wastes may be higher since feed capacities are limited by
primary chamber heat release rates. Heat release rates for controlled air
incinerators typically range from about 15,000 to 25,000 Btu/hr-ft3.16
2.1.3 Rotarv Kiln Incinerators
Like other incinerator types, rotary kiln incineration consists of a
primary chamber in which waste is heated and volatilized and a secondary
chamber in which combustion of the volatile fraction is completed. In this
case, however, the primary chamber consists of a horizontal, rotating kiln.
The kiln is inclined slightly so that the waste material migrates from the
waste charging end to the ash discharge end as the kiln rotates. The waste
migration, or throughput, rate is controlled by the rate of rotation and the
CML.026 2-8
-------
MIMATC TIMMIUnjm Of A
WMTV
Source: Reference 15.
Figure 2-4. Adiabatic Temperature Versus Excess Air for a
Controlled Air Incinerator
2-9
-------
angle of incline, or rake, of the kiln. Air is injected into the primary
chamber and mixes with the waste as it rotates through the kiln. A primary
chamber burner is generally present for heat-up purposes and to maintain
desired temperatures. Both the primary and secondary chambers are usually
lined with refractory brick, as shown in the schematic drawing in
Figure 2-5.
Volatiles and combustion gases from the primary chamber pass to the
secondary chamber where combustion is completed by the addition of
additional air and the high temperatures maintained by a second burner.
Like other incinerators, the secondary chamber is operated at above-
stoichiometric conditions. Due to the turbulent motion of the waste in the
lower primary chamber, particle entrainment in the flue gases is higher for
rotary kiln incinerators than for the other two chamber incinerator designs
previously discussed. As a result, rotary kiln incinerators generally
require stack gas clean-up to meet applicable participate matter and/or
opacity limits.
2.2 WASTE FEED AND ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS
Feed systems for hospital waste incinerators range from manually
operated charging doors to fully automatic systems. Ash removal systems
also range between periodic manual removal of ash by operators to continuous
automated quench and removal systems. In general, automated systems are
prevalent among large continuously-operated incinerators while manual
systems are employed on smaller incinerators or those which operate on an
intermittent basis. Waste feed and ash removal systems are discussed below
for each of the major incinerator design types.
For retort incinerators, waste loading 1s almost always accomplished
manually by means of a charging door on the incinerator. The charging door
is attached to the primary chamber and may be located either at the end
farthest away from the flame port (for burning general wastes) or on the
side (for units handling pathological wastes such as large animals or
cadavers). As much as 10 percent of the total air supplied to retort units
19
is drawn through these charging doors. Ash removal from retort units is
accomplished manually with a rake and shovel at the completion of the
incinerator cool-down period. Typical operation for a retort incinerator
CML.026 2-10
-------
Secondary
Combustion
Chamber
Charging
Hopper
Rotary Kiln
Ash
Discharge
Source: Reference 18
Figure 2-5. Refractory Rotary Kiln System
00
o
2-11
-------
calls for incinerator heat up and waste charging at the end of the operating
day, waste combustion and burnout by morning, and cool-down and ash cleanout
?Q
during the following day.
Controlled-air incinerators may be equipped with either manual or
mechanical loading devices. For units with capacities less than 200 Ib/hr,
manual loading through a charging door in the primary chamber is typically
the only option. Mechanical loaders, on the other hand, are standard
features for incinerators with capacities above 500 Ib/hr waste. For units
between these size ranges, mechanical feed loaders are usually available as
21
an option. Most mechanical loader designs currently offered employ a
hopper and ram assembly, as illustrated in Figure 2-6. In this system,
waste is loaded into a charging hopper and the hopper cover is closed. The
fire door isolating the hopper from the incinerator opens and a ram comes
forward to push the waste into the front section of the incinerator. After
reaching the end of its travel,.the ram reverses and retracts to the point
where it just clears the fire door. The fire door closes and the ram
retracts to its starting position. These operations are normally controlled
by an automatic control panel. For smaller incinerators, waste loading into
the charging hopper is usually accomplished manually, bag by bag. Larger
systems frequently use such waste loading devices as car dumpers, conveyors,
skid-steer tractors, or pneumatic systems.
In addition to improving personnel and fire safety, mechanical loaders
limit the amount of ambient air which can leak into the incinerator during
waste feeding operations. This is important for controlled air incinerators
since excess air in-leakage can cause lower temperatures, incomplete
combustion, and smoking at the stack. Mechanical loaders also permit the
feeding of smaller waste batches at more frequent, regular intervals. As
the intervals become shorter, this feeding procedure approximates continuous
or steady-state operation and helps to dampen fluctuations in combustion
24
conditions.
Ash removal techniques for controlled air incinerators also range from
manual to mechanical systems. For smaller units below about 500 Ib/hr
capacity (and units constructed before the mid-1970s), operators must rake
and shovel ash from the primary combustion chamber into disposal containers.
CML.026 2-12
-------
murr
WASTE LOADED INTO HOPPER
STIP1
FIRE DOOR OPENS
•TIP]
COMES FORWARD
STEP 3
RAM REVERSES TO CLEAR FIRE DOOR
STEP 4
FIRE DOOR CLOSES
TOPS
HAM RETURNS TO START
Source: Reference 22
Figure 2-6. Schematic and Example of a Mechanical Loading System
2-13
-------
For larger systems, mechanical ash removal may be accomplished by extension
of the waste charging ram, augmented by internal transfer rams. The
positive displacement action of the rams pushes the ash along the bottom of
the primary chamber until it reaches a drop chute. Another mechanical
system offered by one manufacturer uses a "pulsed hearth" whereby ash is
moved across the chamber floor by pulsations created by end-mounted air
cushions. After falling through the drop chute, ash either falls into a
drop cart positioned within an air-sealed enclosure or into a water quench
trough. The drop cart is removed manually, generally after spraying the
ash with water for dust suppression. In the water trough system, quenched
ash is removed either by a drag conveyor or a backhoe trolley system.*6
When estimating air emissions for controlled air incinerators with
manual ash removal, it is important to recognize that operating, and hence
emission, rates will vary over time. A typical operating cycle for such a
unit is given by:
Operation Duration
Ash-clean-out 15-30 minutes
Preheat 15-60 minutes
Waste loading 12-14 hours
Burn-down 2-4 hours
Cool-down 5-8 hours
The waste loading period of 12 to 14 hours per operating day is a maximum
value for units with manual ash removal; based on observations at one
incinerator a more typical value might be 5 to 6 hours since this
00
corresponds to waste incineration during one shift per day. On the other
hand, large incinerators with continuous mechanical ash removal systems may
operate on an around-the-clock basis.
Since rotary kiln systems operate in a continuous mode, the waste feed
system and ash removal system which service these incinerators must also be
29
of a continuous or semi-continuous type. A charging hopper and ram system
is commonly used to load waste into the kiln. After travelling through the
kiln, ash is discharged on a continuous basis either into an ash cart or
water quench system. Both this feed system and ash removal system are
described above for controlled air incinerators.
CML.026 2-14
-------
2.3 WASTE HEAT RECOVERY
Waste heat recovery operations are generally not considered for excess
air incinerators due to the smaller gas flow rates, lower temperatures,
higher particulate matter loadings, and intermittent operations that
characterize these systems. For controlled air and rotary kiln
incinerators, however, the relatively higher stack gas temperatures and flow
rates can make heat recovery economically attractive in cases where steam or
hot water generation rates can be matched with the needs of the hospital.
For most systems, heat is recovered by passing hot gases through a waste
heat boiler to generate steam or hot water. Boiler equipment can range from
a spool piece with heat exchange coil Inserted in the stack to a single-drum
D-type watertube waste heat boiler. Most manufacturers, however, use
conventional firetube boilers because they are low in cost and simple to
operate. Options for these boilers include supplemental firing of oil or
natural gas and automatic soot-blowing systems. Outlet temperatures from
waste heat boilers are generally limited to about 400°F by stack gas dew
point considerations. As mentioned above, one manufacturer also offers a
water-wall membrane in the primary chamber to enhance heat recovery.
Other methods to improve overall system efficiency in controlled air
incinerators and, thereby, to reduce the need for expensive auxiliary fuels,
are modulating burners and air preheating. EPA-sponsored testing programs
of controlled air incinerators equipped with these types of systems have
shown that heat recovery efficiencies are typically limited to about 50 to
60 percent of the theoretical maximum.32
CML.026 2-15
-------
2.4 REFERENCES
1. Radian Corporation. Municipal Waste Combustion Study; Data Gathering
Phase. EPA Contract No. 68-02-3889. November 1986. p. Ml.
2. Brunner, C. R. "Biomedical Waste Incineration." Presented at the 80th
Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association. New York, New
York. June 21-26, 1987. p. 10.
3. Block, S. S. and J. C. Netherton. Disinfection. Sterilization, and
Preservation. Second Edition. 1977. p. 729.
4. Reference 3. p. 727.
5. Reference 3. p. 730.
6. Reference 3. p. 728.
7. Reference. 3. p. 730.
8. Doucet, L. G. Controlled Air Incinerationt Design. Procurement, and
Operational Considerations. Prepared for the American Society of
Hospital Engineering. Technical Document No. 55872. January 1986.
p. 1. -
9. Lauber, J. G. New Perspectives on Toxic Emissions form Hospital
Incinerators. Presented at the N. Y. State Legislative Commission on
Solid Waste Management Conference on Solid Waste Management and
Materials Policy. New York, New York. February 12, 1987. p. 11.
10. Reference 10, Appendix.
11. Reference 2, p. 11.
12. Reference 8, p. 5.
13. Basic, J. N. "Multiple Stage Combustion Design Can Minimize Air
Pollution Problems." Presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Air
Pollution Control Association. New York, New York. June 21-26, 1987.
p. 3.
14. Reference 2. p. 12.
15. Reference 2. p. 16.
16. Reference 8. p. 14.
17. Reference 2. p 12.
CML.026 2-16
-------
18. Reference 15.
19. Reference 3. p. 730.
20. Reference 2. p. 10.
21. Reference 8. p. 6.
22. Consumat Systems Inc. Consumat Waste Handling System Technical Data
Sheet. Richmond, Virginia. Received by Radian Corporation in June
1987. p. 1.
23. Reference 8. p. 7.
24. Reference 8. p. 6.
25. Reference 8. p. 8.
26. Reference 8. p. 8.
27. Reference 8. p. 14.
28. Allen, R. J, G. R. Brenniman, and C. Darling. "Air Pollution Emissions
from the Incineration of Hospital Wastes." Air Pollution Control
Association Journal. Volume 36, No. 7, July 1986. pgs; 829-831.
29. Reference 2. p. 12.
30. Reference 8. p. 9.
31. Reference 8. p. 9.
32. Reference 8. p. 9.
2-17
-------
-------
3.0 AIR EMISSIONS/FACTORS FOR HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATORS
Many sources of Information were used to collect available hospital
incinerator emissions data. A survey of pertinent literature was performed
and contacts were made within EPA, State and local government organizations,
trade organizations, and incinerator vendors.
Table 3-1 contains a list of pollutants covered by this study. The
compounds shown here are those for which emissions data could be located for
hospital incinerators. As expected, data for some pollutants were
plentiful, while few data were found for others. One large data gap in the
current hospital waste incinerator emissions data base is for lower
molecular weight organic compounds. In addition, emission data located were
primarily for larger, controlled air incinerators; few data were located for
the smaller, retort-type incinerators which comprise a large portion of the
existing population by number.
This section first contains brief descriptions of formation mechanisms
for pollutants for which data were found. Where applicable, information on
formation mechanisms for these compounds has been taken from the municipal
solid waste (MSW) literature. Next, the emissions test data are presented
along with other data which were located as part of the study. A discussion
relating emissions data to design and operating factors follows. Finally,
the emissions factors developed for each pollutant are presented.
3.1 FORMATION MECHANISMS
3.1.1 Acid Gases
The acid gases considered in this study were hydrogen chloride, sulfur
dioxide, and nitrogen oxides.
3.1.1.1 Hydrogen Chloride. Based on thermodynamic considerations,
chlorine which is chemically bound within the hospital waste in the form of
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or other compounds will be predominately converted
to hydrogen chloride (HC1), assuming there is hydrogen available to react
with the chlorine. However, the rate of HC1 formation is inhibited and
subsequently reversed when too much excess air is added to the combustion
chambers. Too much excess air can lower the combustion temperature by
dilution and increase the oxygen content, thereby promoting greater free
CML.026 3-1
-------
o
ro
at
TABLE 3-1. POLLUTANTS MEASURED/TESTED
Polycycllc
Trace Organic
Metals Matter
Arsenic Dioxins
Cadmium Furans
u> Chromium
i
ro
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
Lead
Low Molecular
Weight Organic
Compounds Acid Gases
Ethane Hydrochloric Acid
Ethylene Sulfur Dioxide
Propane Nitrogen Oxides
Propylene
Trlchlorotrlfluo-
roethane
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachl oroethyl ene
Others
Paniculate Matter
Carbon Monoxide
Pathogens
Viruses
-------
chlorine exhaust concentrations. Considering the high hydrogen content of
hospital waste owing to its high paper, plastics, and moisture content,
there should be a ready supply of hydrogen available in most cases to
promote HC1 formation.
Swedish studies have found that 60 to 65 percent of the fuel-bound
2
chlorine in MSW is converted to HC1. There is no apparent thermodynamic
reason for the less than full conversion. HC1 has also been shown by other
studies to be the predominate chlorine product at high temperatures.
3.1.1.2 Sulfur Dioxide. Sulfur, which is chemically bound within the
materials making up hospital waste, is oxidized during the combustion
process to form SO-. The rate of SO- emissions is, therefore, directly
proportional to the sulfur content of the waste. Some SO- removal may take
place through reaction of the S02 with alkaline reagents also present within
the waste; however, the amount of removal is expected to be negligible due
to the high HC1 content of the flue gas. Because it is a stronger acid than
S02, HC1 will react more quickly with available alkaline compounds than SO-.
The high HC1 content of flue gases will likely tie-up the alkaline compounds
before they have a chance to react with SO-.
3.1.1.3 Nitrogen Oxides. Nitrogen oxides, or NO , represent the
mixture of NO and NOg. In combustion systems, predominantly NO is produced
due to kinetic limitations in the oxidation of NO to NO-. NO is formed by
b A
one of two general mechanisms. "Thennal NO " is the result of the reaction
between molecular nitrogen and molecular oxygen, both of which enter the
combustion zone in the combustion air. "Fuel NO " results from the
oxidation of nitrogen which enters the combustion zone chemically bound
within the waste material.
Although the detailed mechanism of thennal NO formation is not well
understood, it is widely accepted that the thermal fixation in the
combustion zone is described by the Zeldovich equations:4
N2 + 0 ?± NO + N
N + 02 ^ NO + 0
CML.026 3-3
-------
The first reaction is the rate limiting step and is strongly
endothermic due to the requirement of breaking the NZ triple bond. It is
the high endothermlclty of this process which has led to the term "thermal
NOX." The reaction rates of these equations are highly dependent on both
the mixture stoichiometric ratio (i.e., the molecular equivalent air-to-fuel
ratio, with rich and lean describing the fuel amount) and the flame
temperature. The maximum NOX formation levels occur at slightly lean fuel
mixture ratios due to the excess availability of oxygen for reaction within
the hot flame zone. A rapid decrease in NOX formation is seen for ratios
which are slightly higher or lower than this. The rate of thermal NO
formation is extremely sensitive to the flame temperature, dropping almost
an order of magnitude with every 100°C drop in flame temperature.
The mechanisms by which nitrogen compounds (primarily organic)
contained in liquid and solid fuels evolve and react to form NO are much
more complex than the Zeldovich model, and the empirical data are less
conclusive.
The impact of temperature and fuel nitrogen on NOX emissions for excess
air conditions is shown 1n Figure 3-1. The figure indicates that thermal
NO formation is extremely sensitive to temperature, but fuel NOV formation
^ X
is less sensitive.
3.1.2 Particulate Matter
Particulate matter (PM) is emitted as a result of incomplete combustion
and by the entrainment of noncombustibles in the flue gas stream. PM may
exist as a solid or an aerosol, and may contain heavy metals or polycyclic
organics. Depending on the method used to measure the PM in the flue gas,
lower boiling point volatile compounds (i.e., boiling point below 100°C) may
or may not be included in the measurement.
There are three general sources of PM :
o inorganic substances contained in the waste feed that are carried
into the flue gas from the combustion process,
o organometallic substances formed by the reactions of precursors in
the waste feed, and
o uncombusted fuel molecules.
CML.026 3-4
-------
10.00C
1000
100
10
1.0
3UO 2813
T(°F)
2509 2310
2112 1941
0.1
MAX
EXPECT
AOIA-
BATIC
TEMP.
0.5* FUEL N
30* EXCESS AIR
r. 0.5 SEC.
THERMAL NO
K FUEL N
0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70
103/T(IT1)
Source: Reference 5
Figure 3-1. Impact of Temperature and Fuel Nitrogen on NOx
Emissions for Excess Air Conditions
3-5
-------
Inorganic matter 1s not destroyed during combustion; most of this material
leaves the Incinerator as ash. Some, however, becomes entrained In the
stack gas as PN.
Organometalllc compounds present in the waste stream which Is being
Incinerated can be volatilized and oxidized under the high temperatures and
oxidizing conditions in the incinerator. As a result inorganic oxides or
salts of metals can be formed. Elemental analysis of flyash from MSW
incinerators has shown that particulate emissions are largely inorganic in
nature and that they are from one-third to one-half soluble in water. The
water soluble phase 1s principally chloride and sulfate salts of Na, P, Ca,
Zn, and NH^+. The insoluble phase is comprised of oxides, silica, and
phosphate salts of Al, Si, Ca, Pb, Zn, and Fe along with some insoluble
carbon compounds. To the extent that a particular hospital waste is
similar to municipal waste, the resulting ash might be expected to be
similar. (See Section 1.2 for discussion of hospital waste composition and
categorization.) The fuel molecules themselves can also contribute
significantly to PM formation. It 1s known that pyrolitlc reactions can
lead to the formation of large organic molecules. Inorganics, which may act
as nucleation sites, may then further induce growth. The result can then be
g
organic particles with inorganic cores.
In general, good combustion conditions which depend on residence time,
temperature, and turbulence, lead to lower PM emissions. As the residence
time increases, particle size and the mass of PM tend to decrease. Smaller
particle sizes and lower PM emissions are also associated with higher
temperatures since, at higher temperatures, oxidation rates are increased so
that more of the combustible PM is oxidized to gaseous products.
3.1.3 Trace Metals
The amount of trace metals in the flue gas 1s directly related to the
quantity of trace metals contained in the Incinerator waste. Some of the
trace metal sources in the waste feed include surgical blades, foil
wrappers, plastics, and printing inks. Plastic objects made of PVC contain
cadmium heat stabilizing compounds. In addition, cadmium, chromium, and
lead may also be found in inks and paints.
CML.026 3-6
-------
Some metals are selectively deposited on the smaller particulate sizes
which are emitted. This is known as fine-particle enrichment. Although
such data were not found for hospital incinerators, metals generally thought
to exhibit fine-particle enrichment are As, Cd, Cr, Mn, Ni, Mo, Pb, Sb, Se,
V, and Zn. Results of one study performed at a MSW facility indicate that
trace metals are found predominately in the respirable particulate fraction,
even when the bulk of the particulate matter emissions are in the
nonrespirable fraction. Studies conducted by Trichon, et. al. have shown
that certain metals when exposed to a reducing atmosphere can be converted
to sub-oxides or even pure metal vapors. The end product of these overall
reactions can result in particulate distributions less than 0.1 microns.11
There are three general factors affecting enrichment of trace metals on
12
fine particulate matter :
o particle size,
o number of particles, and
o flue gas temperatures.
The influence of particle size on trace metal enrichment of fine particles
is thought to be due to specific surface area effects (i.e., the ratio of
particle surface area to mass). Particles with large specific surface areas
show more enrichment since there is more surface area for condensation per
unit mass of PM. The influence of the number of particles is simply due to
the increased probability of contact associated with higher particle
population. There is some evidence that less enrichment occurs at higher
flue gas temperatures. Higher temperatures are thought to lead to
increased activity levels which, in turn, make the metals less likely to
condense and bond with PM.
Mercury, due to its high vapor pressure, does not show significant
particle enrichment; rather it is thought to leave largely in the vapor form
due to high typical exit gas temperatures. For example, the results of one
study performed at a MSW facility indicated that less than 25 percent of the
mercury emissions were found to be in the particulate phase of the stack
gas.14
3.1.4 Organic Emissions
Figure 3-2 presents a schematic of the processes which are involved
during hospital waste combustion in a two-stage incinerator. After startup,
CML.026 3-7
-------
o
C02. H20. 02. N2
o
ro
en
CO * OH — C02 + H
OH * H — H20
HIGH TEMPERATURE
HIGH 0, H. OH RADICALS
00
HOSPITAL-
WASTE
CM.. + OH — CO
OH + H
RADIATION
HEAT
TRANSFER
FLAME FRONT
Figure 3-2. Process Schematic for Primary Chamber
Hospital Waste Combustion
-------
the hospital waste 1s heated by the burning gases being combusted in the
primary chamber and by the natural gas or oil burner operating in that
chamber. It is the burning of volatile matter above the waste bed which
provides the heat which continues the pyrolysis and volatile matter
evolution from the waste. The amount of radiant heat transfer to the waste
is strongly dependent on the local flame temperature of the compounds being
combusted; the flame temperature, in turn, is a function of moisture
content, volatile matter heating value, and the local air stoichiometry.
Not all the volatile matter is combusted in the primary chamber. Combustion
gases are swept from the primary chamber to the secondary chamber where
volatile matter combustion continues, augmented by the heat generated by a
second fossil fuel burner.
The volatile matter combustion process is controlled by chemical
kinetics and proceeds through complex reactions involving 0, H, and OH
radicals. The kinetics of these processes are strongly temperature
dependent. An efficient burning process will result in a high degree of
conversion of volatile organics to CO* and H,0. Failure to achieve
efficient combustion can result in high emission rates of unreacted or
partially reacted organics.
Generally, Insufficient combustion can occur as a result of charging
the incinerator with waste materials in a batch mode. A study has shown
that when waste materials are initially charged into the incinerator, the
oxygen level in the incinerator is momentarily reduced, resulting in higher
emission rates of unburned gaseous and particulate hydrocarbons.
The unreacted or partially reacted combustion products discussed in
this report include the chlorinated isomers of dibenzo-p-dioxin (CDD) and
dibenzofuran (CDF), lower molecular weight organic compounds for which
emissions data were available, and carbon monoxide (CO). A brief
description of the formation mechanism and factors which influence the
formation of these compounds is presented 1n the following subsections.
Other important classes (e.g., PICs, BaP, PCBs, PAH, POM) are not included
due to lack of emissions data.
3.1.4.1 Dioxins and Furans. Many factors are believed to be involved
in the formation of CDDs and CDFs and many different theories exist
CML.026 3-9
-------
concerning their formation. The best supported theories are illustrated in
Figure 3-3. The first theory shown involves the breakthrough of unburned
COD/CDF present in the feed.17 A few measurements of MSW feed streams have
indicated the presence of trace quantities of CDD/CDF in the refuse feed.
No such measurements have been made for hospital waste streams, but some
potential for COD/CDF in the feed may exist due to similarities in the
wastes.
The second mechanism shown in Figure 3-3 involves the more plausible
combination of precursor species which have structures similar to the
dioxins and furans to form the COD/CDF compounds. Such a reaction would
involve the combination of chlorophenols or polychlorinated biphenyls to
form CDD/CDF. These precursors can be produced by pyrolysis in
oxygen-starved zones, such as those which exist in multichamber
18
incinerators. The potential for PVC-bearing wastes, a typical component
of hospital waste, to form precursors during combustion has been studied by
19 20
several researchers„ '
The third mechanism shown in Figure 3-3 involves the synthesis of
CDD/CDF from a variety of organics and a chlorine donor.21 The simplest
mechanisms here involve the combination of those species which are
structurally related. Many plausible combustion intermediates can also be
proposed which lead to precursors and eventually to CDD/CDFs. Analysis of
intermediates formed during the combustion of complex fuels such as coal or
wood indicate measureable yields of unchlorinated dioxin and furan species.
These compounds could become chlorinated in systems such as hospital waste
incinerators where high concentrations of molecular chlorine exist in the
combustion zone.
The final mechanism presented in Figure 3-3 involves catalyzed reactions
on fly ash particles at low temperatures. In research sponsored by the
Ontario Ministry of Environment, formation of CDDs/CDFs were observed when
the thermolysis products of PVC combusted in air were heated to 300°C in the
22
presence of clean fly ash.
There is a growing consensus that the formation of dioxins and furans
in combustion furnaces requires excess air. Excess air combustion leads
CML.026 3-10
-------
I. DIOXIN IN REFUSE
Cl
Cl
o
Cl
Cl
Combustion.
Zone
Unreacted
COO/CDF
II. FORMATION FROM RELATED CHLORINATED PRECURSORS
Cl
Cl
Cl
o
Cl OH Cl
Chlorophenol
Cl
Cl ^ 0 " Cl
D1ox1n
Cl Cl
PCS
III. FORMATION FROM ORGANICS AND CHLORINE DONOR
PVC Chlorine donor.
Lignln * NaCl, HC1, C12
CDO/CDF
IV. SOLID PHASE FLY ASH REACTION
Precursor
CDO
Cl .Donor
low
temp
Source: Reference 16
Figure 3-3. Hypothetical Mechanisms of CDD/CDF Formation Chemistry
3-11
-------
to lower combustion temperatures which favor in-situ chlorine formation over
HC1 formation. The additional presence of chlorine is then believed to
promote the formation of dioxins and furans.
CDOs and CDFs may exist in both the vapor phase and as fine particulate
in hospital waste incinerator emissions. They may be split between phases
with as much as 80 percent in the vapor phase.24 At temperatures below
300°F, they condense onto the fine particulate. Furthermore, based on a
national study of combustion sources, a range of 0,05 to 135 ppb of PCDD and
0.07 to 3,734 ppb of PCDF has been detected in the bottom and fly ashes of
four hospital incinerators.25
3.1.4.2 Low Molecular Weight Organic Compounds. Low molecular weight
organic compounds (LC) are products of incomplete combustion of the
volatiles which are evolved from the waste. They may be present due to some
of the same mechanisms previously discussed above for dioxins and furans;
that is, they may be compounds which were present in the fuel, combinations
of precursors, or the dioxin and furan precursors themselves. LCs are
produced when the combustion conditions are other than optimal. In general,
the optimum combustion conditions can be characterized by the three T's;
time, temperature, and turbulence. The longer the time, the higher the
temperature, and the greater the degree of turbulence in the zone where the
organics are combusted, the better the combustion and the lower the LC
emissions will be.
3.1.4.3 Carbon Monoxide. Carbon monoxide (CO) is also a product of
incomplete combustion. As shown, CO is one chemical reaction away from
being C02 which represents the end product of combustion and this signifies
complete combustion. Its presence can also be related to the time,
temperature, and turbulence conditions which exist above the region in which
the LCs are vaporized.
3.2 EMISSIONS TEST DATA
Two different categories of emissions test data were collected during
this study: 1) data which had been reviewed and were considered final and
2) preliminary data which had not received final review and inspection.
Both categories of data are reported in this section for the sake of
completeness but only the final data are used to calculate typical emission
CML.026 3-12
-------
factors. Final emissions data were acquired from seven comprehensive
M£ AQ JA M«
emissions tests of hospital incineration units. ' In addition,
results of several less detailed tests at hospital incinerator units were
located through the literature. A description of each of the seven units
for which comprehensive information was obtained and the operating
conditions recorded during the emissions tests are presented in Table 3-2.
As shown, most of the units are large incinerators near the upper end of the
size range for hospital incinerators. The smallest unit for which
comprehensive test results were located is an 175 Ib/hour unit and the
largest was a 2000 Ib/hr unit. Over the period of the comprehensive
emissions tests, four of the units operated at 82 to 99 percent of feed rate
design capacity. The remaining three incinerator feed rates ranged from
396 to 1,493 Ib/hr during the test; maximum design capacities for these
incinerators are not known.
All of the units shown in Table 3-2 are starved air incinerators with
two combustion chambers. The operating temperature of the secondary
combustion chamber is slightly lower for the Illinois hospital incinerator
than for the other units. It should be noted that the secondary chamber
temperature data for the Illinois incinerator include both start-up and
shutdown periods. Thus, the lower end of this range most likely corresponds
to these transient operating conditions. Three of the test reports did not
include incinerator design specifications.
The stack parameters for all of the units are within what was
determined to be the normal design range (see Section 6.0). Unfortunately,
little information is available regarding the operating conditions of the
Illinois, Queen of the Valley, Swedish-American, and University of Michigan
units. No information was available regarding the characteristics of the
hospital wastes which were incinerated by any of these units. In addition,
sufficient flue gas composition data were not available to normalize
emission values to a single 0- or CO* level.
No emissions data were located for the smaller retort-type incinerators
which comprise a large portion of the total population by number. It is
important to remember that the emission data and factors discussed in this
CML.026 3-13
-------
TABLE 3-2. TEST SITE DESIGN AND OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR COMPREHENSIVE EMISSION TEST
o
Incinerator Mfg.
Model *
Design Feed Rate (Ib/hr)
Actual Feed Rate (Ib/hr)
Incinerator Load (%)
Operating Temperature (°F):
Primary Chamber
Secondary Chamber
£ Stack Parameters:
Temperature ( F)
Flowrate (dscfm)
Velocity (ft/s)
Diameter (in.)
Moisture (vol %)
No. of Tests
Cedar Sina1a
Medical Center
Los Angeles, CA
Ecolaire
1,500 TES
1,200
980
82
1,600-1,800
1,800-2,000
332
2,710
43
18
9.3
3
St. Agnesb
Medical Center
Fresno, CA
Ecolaire
1,000 TE
800
783
98
1,500-1,600
1,800-2,000
238
2,766
34.7
19
9.6
3
Royal Jubileec
Hospital
Victoria, BC
Consumat
C-760
2,200
1,930
88
1,400
1,700
312
7,000
37.9
29
6.4
8
Illinois*1
Hospital
Test
N/A
N/A
N/A
500-800
N/A
1,350-1,900
1,200-1,950
390-500
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-
Reference 26.
Reference 27.
'Reference 28.
^Reference 29.
-------
o
TABLE 3-2. TEST SITE DESIGN AND OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR DETAILED TESTS
(Continued)
o
ro
en
Queen of the
Valley Hospital
Napa, CA
Swedish-American
Hospital
Rockford, IL
University o
Michigan Hospital
Ann Arbor, MI
Incinerator Mfg.
Model f
Design Feed Rate (Ib/hr)
Actual Feed Rate (Ib/hr)
Incinerator Load (%)
Operating Temperature (°F):
Primary Chamber
Secondary Chamber
Stack Parameter:
Temperature ( F)
Flowrate (DSCFM)
Velocity (ft/s)
Diameter (in.)
Moisture (vol %)
No. of Tests
NR
NR
NR
Avg - 396
NR
NR
NR
275
760
16.0
15
10.2
3
Consumat
C-75-P
175
174
99%
NR
NR
601
1170
16.9
21
6
5
Basic Environmental
Engineering
1500
NR
1493
NR
NR
1800
385
6333
38
30
10
3
Reference 40.
Reference 41.
^Reference 42.
-------
section are based on the performance of relatively large controlled air
incinerators. More data are needed to accurately characterize emissions
from smaller, retort incinerators.
3.2.1 Acid Gases
Hydrogen Chloride. Table 3-3 contains a summary of the hydrogen
chloride (HC1) emissions data which were gathered during this study.
Emissions factors are also shown for each of the units. The HC1 emissions
results of Table 3-3 include the units described in Table 3-2 as well as
units in the United States and Canada for which information was obtained
from a survey article.30 There is no apparent correlation between the unit
feed rates and the HC1 emissions. This is understandable because, as
previously stated, the level of HC1 emissions should be directly related to
the percentage of chlorine-containing compounds in the waste fed to the
unit. Unfortunately, no information was given regarding the chemical
composition of the wastes being burned.
Two of the units for which emissions data are available have scrubbers
which are used for acid gas control. These units have the lowest emissions
rates of those shown. The type of wet scrubbers used was not identified in
Reference 30.
Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxides. Table 3-4 summarizes the emissions
data and calculated emission factors for S02 and NOX. As can be seen, there
are limited data available for these compounds. The only two sources found
were two test reports from the state of California.
On a concentration basis, the emission rates for the pollutants in
Table 3-4 are relatively low. For the highest S02 concentration, 50 ppmv,
an equivalent S02 emissions rate of 0.15 Ib/million Btu would be expected,
assuming a mean heat content of 10,000 Btu/lb for hospital waste. A mean
heating value of 5,000 Btu/lb would correspond to an S02 emissions rate of
0.3 To/million Btu. The corresponding maximum NOX emissions rates (based on
the 270 ppmv concentration) are 0.4 and 0.8 Ib/million Btu for heat contents
of 10,000 and 5,000 Btu/lb, respectively.
3.2.2 Particulate Matter
A great deal of PM emissions data have been collected for controlled
air hospital waste incinerators. Some of the most readily available data
are shown in Table 3-5. Much of this data has been collected because
CML.026 3-16
-------
TABLE 3-3. DATA/FACTORS FOR HYDROGEN CHLORIDE EMISSIONS
FROM HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATORS
Hospital
Cedar Sinaia
High
Low
Average
St. Agnes
High
Low
Average
Royal Jubilee0
High
Low
Average
Illinois Unitd
High
Low
Average
Queen of the Valleyh
High
Low
Average
Swedish -American1
High
Low
Average
University .
of Michigan*1
High
Low
Average
Add On Incinerator
Control Device/ Feed Rate
Heat Recovery (Ib/hr)
Fabric Filter/Yes 980
None 783
None 1,930
None 500-800
NR
412
374
396
NR
175
172
174
NR
1493
HC1
Concentra-
tion
(ppmv)
521.0
403.0
462.0
926.0
764.0
845.0
1,520.0
983.0
1,252.0
1,490.0
170.0
550.0
445
282
341
174
172
173
928
644
788
Emissions
Factor
(Ib/ton
feed)
16.3
12.7
14.5
15.5
12.0
13.7
65.7
42.5
54.1
10.6*
6.6*
8.6e
8.7
6.4
7.2
12
12.9
12.5
45.4
31.1
87.8
CML.026
3-17
-------
TABLE 3-3. DATA/FACTORS FOR HYDROGEN CHLORIDE EMISSIONS
FROM HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATORS (CONTINUED)
Hospital
Athabasca
Misericordia
Misericordi a
Royal Alex
Royal Alex
Foothillsf
Lethbridge Gen.
Univ. of Albertaf
Univ. of Alberta
Bonnyville
Willingdonf
Lacombe
Ft. McMurrayf
Ontario Hospitals
St. Michael sk
Queen Elizabeth IIk
Queen Elizabeth IIk
Queen Elizabeth IIk
Add On Incinerator
Control Device/ Feed Rate
Heat Recovery (Ib/hr)
None
None
None
None/Yes
None/Yes
None
Wet Scrubber/Yes
Wet Scrubber/Yes
Wet Scrubber/Yes
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
85
740
740
1,160
1,200
2,500
1,060
1,400
1,400
130
130
150
265
408
465
575
700
700
HC1
Concentra-
tion
(ppmv)
41.0
670.0
687.3
553.0
562.0
702.0
44.6
64.7
25.4
62.2
308.0
234.5
700.0
NR
2,095.0
115.0
287.0
378.0
Emissions
Factor
(Ib/ton
feed)
68.1
63.1
63.1
84.5
79.6
72.8
5.99
0.79
4.49
16.5
24.3
14.6
48.6
17.4
99.4
22.3
19.1
25.3
CML.026
3-18
-------
TABLE 3-3. DATA/FACTORS FOR HYDROGEN CHLORIDE EMISSIONS
FROM HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATORS (CONTINUED)
Hospital
Medi waste
Shore Memorial"1
Nyack Hospital"
Add On
Control Device/
Heat Recovery
• None
None
None
Incinerator
Feed Rate
(Ib/hr)
1,200
650
NR
HC1
Concentra-
tion
(ppmv)
NR
NR
NR
Emissions
Factor
(Ib/ton
feed)
9.5
9.2
2.9
Reference 26.
Reference 27.
Reference 28.
Reference 29.
eBased on emissions factors presented in Reference 29.
Reference 30.
9Wet scrubber may have reduced HC1 emisssions.
Reference 40.
Reference 41.
^Reference 42.
Reference 43.
Reference 46.
""Reference 47.
"Reference 48.
NR - Not Recorded
CML.026
3-19
-------
TABLE 3-4. DATA/FACTORS FOR SOg AND NOX EMISSIONS
FROM HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATORS
Cedar Sinaia
Medical Center
Los Anaeles. CA
Pollutant
Sulfur Dioxide
High
Low
Average
Nitrogen Oxides
High
Low
Average
(ppmv)
50
25
37
270
160
217
(Ib/ton
feed)
3.01
1.51
2.22
7.82
4.64
6.29
St. Agnesb
Medical Center
Fresno. CA
(ppmv)
20
19
19
155
155
155
(Ib/ton
feed)
1.54
1.47
1.47
5.75
5.75
5.75
Emissions
Factor
(Ib/ton
feed)
3.01
1.47
1.85
7.82
4.64
6.02
Reference 26.
'Reference 27.
CML.026
3-20
-------
TABLE 3-5. DATA/FACTORS FOR PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
FROM HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATORS
m
Hospital
Cedar Sinaia
High
Low
Average
Swedish-American1
High
Low
Average
Queen of the Valley
High
Low
Average
St. Agnesb
High
Low
Average
Illinois Unitd
High
Low
Average
University .
of Michigan3
High
Low
Average
Royal Jubilee0
High
Low
Average
Athabasca
Willingdon
Bonny ville
Add -On
Control Device/
Heat Recovery
Fabric Filter/Yes
NR
NR
None/Yes
None/No
NR
None/No
None/No
None/No
None/No
Incinerator
Feed Rate
(Ib/hr)
980
175
172
174
412
374
396
783
500-800
1493
1930
85
130
130
Particulate
Loading
(gr/dscf)
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.209;!
0.050^
0.1279
0.105
0.073
0.084
0.090
0.080
0.080
0.170
0.020
0.040
0.0468
0.0382
0.0438
0.028
0.022
0.025
0.050
0.070
0.080
Emissions
Factor
(Ib/ton
feed)
0.10
0.05
0.07
2.39
0.57
1.45
1.4
0.85
r.i
5.45
4.84
5.15
Q
3.20®
2.00*
2.60-
3.42
2.77
3.16
1.82
1.37
1.60
26.92
1.69
11.85
CML.026
3-21
-------
TABLE 3-5. DATA/FACTORS FOR PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
m
FROM HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATORS'" (CONTINUED)
Hospital
Lacombe
Ft. McMurray
W.C. McKen.
Red Deer
St. Michaels
Queen Elizabeth II
Queen Elizabeth II
Misericord! a
Misericordia
Northwest
Medical Center
Royal Alex
Royal Alex
Foothills
Lethbridge Gen.
Univ. of Alberta
North Erl anger
High
Low
Average
South Erl anger
High
Low
Average
Add-On Incinerator
Control Device/ Feed Rate
Heat Recovery (Ib/hr)
None/No
None/No
None/No
None/Yes
None/No
None/No
None/No
None/No
None/No
None
None/Yes
None/Yes
None/No
Wet Scrubber/Yes
Wet Scrubber/Yes
NR
NR
150
265
275
410
465
575
700
740
740
1,015
1,160
1,200
2,500
1,060
1,400
Parti cul ate
Loading
(gr/dscf)
0.070
0.050
0.020
0.080
0.080
0.030
0.030
0.060
0.100
0.229
0.030
0.070
0.060
0.040
0.020
0.0752
0.0434
0.0565
0.0913
0.0536
0.0743
Emissions
Factor
(Ib/ton
feed)
5.87
13.28
3.20
36.49
1.70
6.12
2.70
2.97
4.76
6.7
3.41
3.30
1.76
2.12
1.23
CML.026
3-22
-------
TABLE 3-5. DATA/FACTORS FOR PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
FROM HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATORS1" (CONTINUED)
Hospital
Medi waste"
Shore Memorial0
Nyack Hospital p
Add-On
Control Device/
Heat Recovery
None
None
None
Incinerator
Feed Rate
(Ib/hr)
1,200
600
NR
Parti cul ate
Loading
(gr/dscf)
0.08
0.06
0.16
Emissions
Factor
(Ib/ton
feed)
5.6
1.5
1.5
Reference 26.
Reference 27.
Reference 28.
Reference 29.
eBased on emissions factors presented in Reference 29.
All of the information from Athabasca to Univ. of Alberta are from
Reference 30.
9Corrected to 12 percent CO-
Reference 40.
Reference 41.
^Reference 42.
Reference 44.
Reference 45.
'All the incinerators identified in this table were two-stage controlled air
units. The University of Alberta unit had a rotating hearth for a primary
chamber; all other units had a fixed primary chamber.
Reference 46.
°Reference 47.
pReference 48.
m
n
CML.026
3-23
-------
several states require hospital incineration units to meet PM emission
limits. Therefore, testing is carried out on a routine basis. In addition,
as previously stated, vendors frequently offer guarantees regarding PM
emissions.
The PM emission results in Table 3-5 include the results of the
comprehensive emissions tests (the first four hospitals) and test results
obtained from the survey article. These units are the same units for
which HC1 data were presented. The data shown from the survey article are
arranged in order of ascending feed rate to show any effect of unit size on
PM emissions. The emission factors in Table 3-5 show no clear trend between
specific PM emission rates and unit size. It is interesting to note that
the highest emission factors (above 10 Ib/ton feed) are associated with the
smaller units (below 400 Ib/hr). Based on the information in Section 2.1,
these units may well be retort-type incinerators. Unfortunately, no design
information is available to confirm this hypothesis.
Emissions results for units operating with PM control equipment are
also shown in Table 3-5. The Cedar Sinai unit, which was installed with-a
fabric filter for PM control, had the lowest PM emissions factor of those
presented. The control efficiency for the filter was 98 percent. The other
two units which had PM control equipment are the Lethbridge General and
University of Alberta units. The emissions factors for these two units are
considerably higher and are not markedly different from incinerators
operated without PM control equipment. Both wet scrubber systems for
Lethbridge General and the University of Alberta are designed and operated
for acid gas control and not for PM removal. In general, wet scrubbers
designed for acid gas removal operate at low gas-side pressure drops for
purposes of low energy consumption. High energy and high gas-side pressure
drops are required to obtain high efficiencies for PM control.
Unfortunately, no inlet data were given for these units, so the control
efficiencies could not be determined.
3.2.3 Trace Metals
Table 3-6 contains a summary of the available trace metal emission data
for hospital waste incinerators. An emissions factor based on the waste
feed rate to the unit is also given for each of the emissions rates
CML.026 3-24
-------
TABLE 3-6. DATA/FACTORS FOR TRACE ELEMENT EMISSIONS FROM HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATORS
O
U)
A*
Device
Cedar Slnal*'d
High
Low
Average
High
Low
Average
St. Asnesb'd
High
Low
Average
Jubilee0
-------
presented. In addition, for the Cedar Sinai unit, results for upstream and
downstream of the fabric filter are presented.
No additional trace metals data were identified by the study. Because
two of the reports are from California, a state recently beginning to
require testing, it can be assumed that future tests will be a source for
additional data.
Analysis of the Cedar Sinai data indicate that there is a substantial
reduction in trace element emissions across the fabric filter. No apparent
trends in the data were observed relating trace metal concentration to
incinerator size.
3.2.4 Organic Emissions
Tables 3-7 and 3-8 contain summaries of the available emissions data
for CDD and CDF compounds from hospital incinerators. An emissions factor
based on waste feed rate to the unit is also given for each of the
concentration value presented. The homolog emission data from three
emissions tests are shown. Limited isomer emission data were available for
the Cedar Sinai and St. Agnes tests. For the Cedar Sinai unit results from
both upstream and downstream of the fabric filter are presented.
At this time, these are the only finalized COO and CDF emissions test
results for hospital incinerator units which have been reported. An addi-
tional unit located at Stanford University Medical Center in California was
also recently tested for CDDs and CDFs.32 The results of this test were not
available as of the writing of this report. The California Air Resource
Board (CARB) has recently begun to require testing for CDDs and CDFs at
newly installed hospital incinerators, so additional data will be available
through CARB in the future.
Analysis of the emissions data presented for the unit at Cedar Sinai
indicates that for most of the dioxin and furan homologs, a slight reduction
occurs across the fabric filter. The subgroups for which this reduction was
not seen are the TCDD and TCDF homologs. Ash analyses for the Cedar Sinai
incinerator are presented in Table 3-9.
No statements can be made relative to trends in the data related to
unit size or operating characteristics because too little is known about the
operation of each of the facilities during testing.
CML.026 3-26
-------
o
TABLE 3-7. DATA/FACTORS FOR CHLORINATED DIBENZO-P-DIOXIHS EMISSIONS FROM HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATORS
O
ro
01
i
ro
Cedar Slnai*'d
Medical Center
Lo* Angeles
. CA
(Fabric Filter)
(Tetra) TCDD
High
Low
Average
(Pent a) PeCDD
High
Low
Average
(Hexa) HxCDD
High
Low
Average
(Hepta) HpCDD
High
Low
Average
(Oct.) OCDD
High
Low
Average
Total PCDD
High
Low
Average
(ng/nM3)
6.09
5. 85
5.97
18.30
14.50
16.40
27.40
20.40
23.90
51.10
49.40
50.25
39.20
26.50
32.85
130.00
129.00
129.50
(Ib/ton
feed)
(«10~'>
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.38
0.30
0.34
0.57
0.42
0.49
1.05
1.02
1.04
0.81
0.55
0.68
2.69
2.67
2.68
Cedar Sinai
Medical Center
Loa Angeles
. CA
(Uncontrolled)
(ng/nM3)
6.7
2.1
4.3
16.2
11.0
12.9
36.3
24.7
31.9
94.8
62.1
77.2
114.0
62.5
83.8
259.0
163.0
210.3
(Ib/ton
feed!
(KlO"*>
0.13
0.04
0.08
0.32
0.20
0.24
0.71
0.45
0.60
1.76
1.14
1.45
2.12
1.15
1.58
4.82
2.99
3.96
b d
St. Agnes
Medical Center
Fresno,
CA
(Uncontrolled)
(ng/nM3)
38.5
3.3
20.9
23.5
18.2
20.9
54.4
38.7
46.6
137.0
85.5
111.3
196.0
145.0
170.5
450.0
290.0
370.0
(Ib/ton
feed)
(»10~6)
1.07
0.09
0.58
0.66
0.48
0.57
1.52
1.02
1.27
3.83
2.25
3.04
5.47
3.81
4.64
12.52
7.64
10.08
Royal Jubilee0'*1
HoipltaX
Victoria.
BC
(Uncontrolled)
(ng/nM3)
ND
KD
ND
28.6
4.1
10.2
9.7
19.2
13.8
19.2
11.4
16.7
26.7
12.4
22.8
83.5
51.8
68.9
(Ib/ton
feed)
(*10~6)
ND
ND
ND
0.76
0.11
0.42
0.52
0.27
0.37
0.50
0.32
0.45
0.74
0.34
0.61
2.23
1.43
1.85
Emissions
Factor
(Uncontrolled)
(Ib/ton feed)
(«10~6)
1.07
0.04
0.33
0.76
0.11
0.41
1.52
0.27
0.75
3.83
0.32
1.65
5.47
0.34
2.28
12.52
1.43
5.30
^Reference 26.
Reference 27.
Reference 28.
High and low valuea are results of individual test runs.
-------
o
TABLE 3-8. DATA/FACTORS FCR CHLORINATED DIBEHZOFURANS EKISSIOMS FROM HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATORS
O
IN)
01
U)
I
ro
CO
Cedar Slnal*'d
Medical Cental:
Los Angeles
, CA
(Fabric Filter)
(Tetra) TCDF
High
Low
Average
(Pent*) PeCDF
High
Low
Average
(He«a) HxCDF
High
Low
Average
(Hepta) HpCDF
High
Low
Average
(Octa) OCDF
High
Low
Average
Total PCDF
High
Low
Average
"Reference 26.
Reference 27.
(ng/nM3)
67.10
56.50
61.80
103.00
80.40
91.70
118.00
90.90
104.45
110.00
109.00
109.50
49.10
38.00
43.55
435.00
106.00
270.50
(Ib/ton
£"do
U10 )
1.38
1.17
1.28
2.12
1.67
1.89
2.44
1.88
2.16
2.27
2.25
2.26
1.02
0.78
0.90
8.98
8.01
6.50
Cedar Slnal
Medical
Center
Los Angeles, CA
(Uncontrolled)
(ng/nM3)
79.8
35.5
59.2
106.0
68.9
92.6
163.0
116.0
144.0
204.0
152.0
169.7
163.0
67.7
105.1
695.0
441.0
570.7
(Ib/ton
feed)
(xlO~°)
1.55
0.65
1.12
2.06
1.91
1.74
3.03
2.12
2.71
3.79
2.82
3.19
3.03
1.24
1.97
10.74
8.09
10.74
St. Agne*b>d
Medical Center
Fresno,
CA
(Uncontrolled)
1
(ng/nM3)
78.7
64.9
71.8
136.0
130.0
133.0
202.0
170.0
186.0
232.0
160.0
196.0
166.0
150.0
158.0
785.0
704.0
744.5
(Ib/ton
£"do
(«10 )
2.07
1.81
1.94
3.79
3.42
3.61
5.63
4.46
5.04
6.46
4.19
5.33
4.35
4.19
4.27
21.87
18.51
20.19
c d
Royal Jubilee
Hospital
Victoria.
BC
(Uncontrolled)
(ng/nM3)
34.9
18.9
27.0
53.1
48.3
46.2
57.5
29.8
42.9
35.4
20.8
25.7
27.7
7.7
13.8
196.5
117.3
155.6
(Ib/ton
feed)
<»10~ )
0.93
0.50
0.73
1.45
0.90
1.24
1.51
0.82
1.15
0.96
0.55
0.70
0.75
0.21
0.37
5.36
3.25
4.19
Emissions
Factor
(Uncontrolled)
(Ib/ton feed)
<»10 )
2.07
0.50
1.26
3.79
0.90
2.20
5.63
0.82
2.97
6.46
0.55
3.07
4.35
0.21
2.21
21.87
3.25
11.71
Reference 28.
tilgh and low values are results of Individual test runs.
-------
TABLE 3-9. FABRIC FILTER DIOXIN/FURAN ASH ANALYSIS
FOR CEDAR SINAI INCINERATOR1
Loadings
(ng/g)
Dioxins
Tetra
Penta
Hexa
Hepta
Octa
Total PCDD
Furans
Tetra
Penta
Hexa
Hepta
Octa
Total PCDF
1.6
3.7
8.9
33.6
65.7
114.0
13.6
19.0
22.6
42.2
43.5
141.0
Reference 26.
CML.026 3-29
-------
Table 3-10 contains emissions factors for the low molecular weight
organics for which emissions results were identified. These factors were
determined from information collected at three of the comprehensive test
sites.
3.2.5 Carbon Monoxide
The CO emissions data which were identified during this study are
presented in Table 3-11. Also presented are the hydrocarbon (HC) data which
were found. It should be noted that the HC data are reported as propane.
The CO concentrations measured were below the detection limit of 50 ppmv and
are, therefore, reported as less than 50 ppmv for two of the three inciner-
ators tested. The concentration of CO from the Swedish-American incinerator
was reported at 9.5 ppmv.
A comparison of the HC emissions factors of Table 3-11 to the LC
factors of Table 3-10 suggests that only a small portion of the total HC
reported in Table 3-11 is comprised of the compounds listed in Table 3-10.
A definitive conclusion can not be reached, however, because the results
presented are from different tests.
3.2.6 Pathogens Bacteria
There are primarily two routes by which pathogens may be released into
the environment from incineration of infectious materials. These are: 1)
discharge air streams; and 2) post-incineration residue.
As part of a recent test, 15 samples were taken from the stack of a
hospital waste incinerator which had been charged with hospital waste
33
containing pathogenic material . Bacteria with a mean concentration of
231 colonies/m of gas sampled were found in the stack as opposed to an
ambient mean level of 148 colonies/m . However, due to experimental
uncertainty, no statistically significant difference could be found between
the two measurements.
Tables 3-12 and 3-13 show the results of a U. S. Department of Health
Study which measured the bacterial population of residues from various types
34
of municipal solid waste incinerators. No data were located regarding
bacterial populations in residue from hospital waste incinerators.
Evaluations of atmospheric release of pathogens in incinerator
discharge air streams have primarily focused on the minimum operating
temperature required to prevent this release. Laboratory studies report
CML.026 3-30
-------
TABLE 3-10. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SELECTED ORGANIC LOW MOLECULAR WEIGHT
ORGANICS FROM HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATORS
Ethane
Ethyl ene
Propane
Propyl ene
Tri chl orotri f 1 uoroethane
Tetrachl oromethane
Tri chl oroethyl ene
Tetrachl oroethyl ene
Emissions Factor
(Ib/ton feed)
<0.003
<0.02
<0.024
<0.022
8.25 x 10"5
9.91 x 10"5
2.39 x 10"5
2.49 x 10"4
Reference
Source
24
24
24
24
21, 22
21, 22
21, 22
21, 22
CML.026 3-31
-------
o
ro
TABLE 3-11.
EMISSIONS/FACTORS FOR CARBON MONOXIDE AND HYDROCARBON
FROM HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATORS
Cedar Sinai4
Medical Center
Los Anaeles. CA
Pollutant
Carbon Monoxide
High
Low
Average
HC (as Propane)
High
Low
Average
(ppmv)
<50e
<50
<50
7
3
4
(Ib/ton
feed)
<1.32
<1.32
<1.32
0.29
0.12
0.17
St. Agnesb Swedish-American"1
Medical Center Hospital
Fresno. CA Rockford. IL
(ppmv)
<50
<50
<50
4
1
2
(Ib/ton (Ib/ton
feed) (ppmv) feed)
<1.69 19.0 1.17
<1.69 0.0 0.0
<1.69 9.5 0.59
0.21
0.05
0.11
Emissions
Factor
(Ib/ton
feed)
<1.69
<1.32
<1.2
0.29
0.05
0.14
^Reference 26.
Reference 27.
Reference 41.
"Corrected to 50 percent excess air.
eBelow detection limits.
-------
o
TABLE 3-12. CHARACTERISTICS OF INCINERATORS EVALUATED
FOR DESTRUCTION OF MICROFLORA3
ro
cn
ca
i
u»
u>
Incinerator
Characteristics
Design Capacity1*
No. of furnaces
Feed mechanism
Grate
Operating temperature
Duration of burning (hr)
Total burning rate (tons/hr)
Quench water recirculated
Estimated volume reduction
I
500
2
Continuous
Traveling
1,800-2,000°F
(980-1, 090°C)
1.75-2.0
22
No
80-85%
II
500
4
Batch
Circular
1,800-2,000°F
(980-1,090°C)
1.5-1.75
20
No quench water
80-85%
III
1,200
4
Continuous
Rotary- kiln
1,200-1,700°F (primary)
(650-9256C)
1, 700-2, 200°F (secondary)
(925-1, 205°C)
0.5-1.5
50
Yes
80-85%
IV
200
2
Batch
Reciprocating
1,800-2,000°F
(980-1, 090°C)
1.0
6.5
No quench water
80-85%
aSource: Reference 34.
"Expressed as tons per 24-hour period.
-------
TABLE 3-13. EFFICACY OF INCINERATOR OPERATIONS IN THE DESTRUCTION OF
THE MICROFLORA ASSOCIATED WITH MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE3
o
Bacterial h
Material Population0
Solid waste Total cells
Heat resistant0
Total conforms
Fecal conforms
Residue Total cells
Heat resistant6
u> Total conforms
i
£ Fecal conforms
Incinerator**
1
7.6 x 107
4.2 x 104
6.2 x 105
9.1 x 104
4.4 x 107
1.0 x 105
1.5 x 104
2.4 x 103
11
4.1 x 108
6.8 x 104
4.8 x 106
4.0 x 105
1.7 x 106
2.0 x 104
2.3 x 102
9
ill
5.6 x 107
2.7 x 104
5.4 x 105
1.2 x 103
1.2 x 106
3.9 x 103
4.1 x 101
5
IV
3.8 x 108
1.7 x 104
1.2 x 105
2.3 x 104
7.1 x 103
4.4 x 103
5
<1
*Source: Reference 34.
"Expressed as counts per gram.
Expressed as spores per gram.
"See Table 3-12 for Incinerator characteristics.
-------
chamber temperature requirements of 575°F (302°C) for destruction of
vegetative cells and 1,600°F (871°C) for spores. ' The minimum operating
temperature is an incinerator-specific phenomenon which can be determined
only by challenging the unit with highly resistant organisms and measuring
bacterial content of stack emissions to determine the temperature required
for sterilization.37
3.2.7 Preliminary Emission Test Data
Presented in this section are preliminary emissions data for six
hospital incinerators. Tables 3-14 through 3-16 present preliminary
emissions data for three hospital incinerators located in California; these
data, presented at the Hospital Waste Combustion Workshop in Baltimore,
Maryland in May 1988, represent the high emission values obtained during
38
stack tests. Table 3-17 presents preliminary results of emissions tests
performed at three biomedical waste incinerators (BWI) located in
39
Canada. All these emissions test data are preliminary; the accuracy of
the data has not been assessed. For the sake of completeness and for future
reference, these data are presented separately from the previous emissions
data. Furthermore, due to the preliminary nature of the data, these data
have not been included in the estimates of the emission factors.
In reference to Table 3-17, it should be noted that the concentrations
of HC1 reported for incinerators Bl and B2 are arithmetic averages and do
not account for the variable flow rates as a result of batch testing. No
microorganisms were detected in the air emissions or ash deposits of the
three Canadian biomedical waste incinerators.
Continuous monitors were used to measure opacity, THC, and CO emissions
at two of the Canadian biomedical waste incinerators. Measurements were
taken over 24-hour periods when the incinerators were operating as well as
when they were not operating (i.e., during "dormant" periods). The
preliminary results showed that opacity levels were significant even during
dormant periods and peaked during the ash clean-out period prior to
incinerator startup. In addition, THC and CO emissions were also
significant during dormant periods. These emissions are ascribed to the
continued pyrolysis of unburned waste present in the ash and left in the
furnace overnight, sustained by air entering through open doors or leaks.
CML.026 3-35
-------
TABLE 3-14. PRELIMINARY HC1 AND PM EMISSIONS TEST DATA
Hospitals
Aa
Bb
Cc
Emissions
Control s
Wet Scrubber
None
None
Incinerator
Feed Rate
(Ib/hr)
550-805
369-593
70-100
HC1
(ppm)
1.86
315
770
PM
(gr/dscf)
0.003
0.057
0.04
aTwo-chamber controlled air incinerator.
Two-chamber controlled air incinerator.
CSingle chamber incinerator with afterburner.
ND - Not Detected
CML.027 3-36
-------
TABLE 3-15. PRELIMINARY METALS EMISSIONS TEST DATAa
Hospital
Aa
B
C
Arsenic
0.
0.
0.
01
01
29
Cadmi um
0.
1.
7.
50
55
43
Chromium
0
0
.07
.25
ND
Iron
5.90
24.0
16.86
Manganese
0
0
0
.06
.60
.86
Nickel
NO
NO
NO
Lead
11.58
27.9
102.57
aUnits for all data are gm/ton.
NO- Not Detected
CML.027 3-37
-------
TABLE 3-16. PRELIMINARY DIOXIN AND FURAN EMISSIONS TEST DATA3
Dioxin
Hospital
Aa
B
C
TCDD
0.02
0.14
0.004
PeCDD
0.10
14.60
0.038
HxCDD
0.49
44.10
0.196
HpCDD
1.72
169.00
1.575
TCDF
0.21
6.05
0.038
Furan
PeCDF
1.37
67.6
1.492
HxCDF
3.86
213.9
1.829
HpCDF
5.11
292.4
5.242
aUnits for all data are ng/sec.
CML.027
3-38
-------
TABLE 3-17. PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THREE BIOMEDICAL WASTE
INCINERATORS LOCATED IN CANADA*
U>
i
to
Hospital Total
Incinerator Partlculate
(./*,)
Bl 1
B2 1
RF 13
D lox Ins / Fur ans
PCDDs PCDFs
(ng/dscm)
10 30
32 260
NA NA
ChlorobenEene s
(ng/dscm)
4 to B
NA
NA
Polychlorlnated Polyaromatlc
Blphenyls (PCBs) Hydrocarbons
(ng/dscm) (ng/dscm)
ND ND
NA NA
NA NA
HC1
(ppm)
478
612
1,250
Total
Hydrocarbons SO
(ppm) (ppm)
3 25
18 23
14 30
NO
(ppm)
68
63
100
Reference 39.
NA - Not Analyzed
ND - Not Detected
-------
3.3 REFERENCES
1. Doyle, B.W., D. A. Drum, and J. D. Lauber. "The Smoldering Question of
Hospital Waste." Pollution Engineering, 17:7, July 1985. p. 35.
2. Kaiser, E. R. and Carotti, A. "Municipal Incineration of Refuse with Two
Percent and Four Percent Additions of Four Plastics: Polyethylene,
Polyurethane, Polystyrene, and Polyvinyl Chloride, "Proceedings of the
1972 National. Incinerator Conference*. June 1972. pp. 230-245.
California Air Resources Board. Air Pollution Control at Resource
Recovery Facilities. May 24, 1984.
3. Reference 1.
4. Seeker, W. R., W. S. Lanier, and M. P. Heap. Municipal Waste Combustion
Study: Combustion Control of MSW Combustors to Minimize Emission of
Trace Organics, EPA 530-SW-87-021c. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington, D. C., May 1987. p. 4-9.
5. Reference 4. p. 4-10.
6. Edwards, J. B. Combustion: Formation and Emission of Trace Species. Ann
Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1977. (Second
Printing), p. 65-68. California Air Resources Board. Air Pollution
Control at Resource Recovery Facilities. May 24, 1984.
7. Henry, W. M., R. L. Barbour, R. J. Jakobsen, and P. M. Schumacher.
Inorganic Compound Identification of Fly Ash Emissions from Municipal
Incinerators. PB 83-146175. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. October 1982.
8. California Air Resources Board. Air Pollution Control at Resource
Recovery Facilities. May 24, 1984.
9. Reference 6.
10. Jacko, R. B. and D. W. Neuendorf. "Trace Metal Particulate Emission Test
Results from a Number of Industrial and Municipal Point Sources." APCA
Journal Volume 27, No. 10, October 1977. p. 989.
11. Trichon, M. and J. Feldman. "The Formation of Trace Toxic Metal
Emissions Resulting from Incineration," Roy F. Weston Company, NJ.
Presented at Air Pollution control Association National meeting, Poster
Session. June 24, 1987, New York, NY. p. 10.
12. Reference 6.
13. Block, C. and R. Dams. "Inorganic Composition of Belgian Coals and Coal
Ashes," Environmental Science and. Technology. Vol. 9, No. 2, February
1975. pp. 146-150 as cited in reference 23.
CML.026 3-40
-------
14. Gallorini, M., et al. CEP Consultants Ltd. Heavy Metal Contents in the
Emission of Solid Waste Refuse Incineration. 1981. p. 56.
15. Linak, VI. P., et al. "On the Occurrence of Transient Puffs in a Rotary
Kiln Incinerators Simulators." Journal of Air Pollution Control
Association. January 1987, Volume 31, No. 1.
16. Reference 5. p. 4-3.
17. Germanus, 0. "Hypothesis Explaining the Origin of Chlorinated Dioxins
and Furans in Combustion Effluents." Presented at the Symposium on
Resource Recovery, Hofstra University, Long Island, New York, 1985.
18. Axelrod, D., MO. "Lessons Learned from the Transformer Fire at the
Binghampton (NY) State Office Building." Chemosphere 14 (6/7),
p. 775-778.
19. 01ie, K., M. V. D. Berg, and 0. Hutzinger. "Formation and Fate of PCDD
and PCDF Combustion Processes." Chemosphere 12 (4/5), p. 627, 1983.
20. Hutzinger, 0., M. J. Bluraich, M. V. D. Berg, and K. 01ie. "Sources and
Fate of PCDD and PCDFs: An Overview." Chemosphere 14 (6/7), p. 581,
1985.
21. Reference 3.
22. Technical Report, "Municipal Waste Combustion Study; Recycling of Solid
Waste," Prepared by Radian Corporation for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA Contract 68-02-4330, p. 5-6.
23. Remarks of Dr. T. Galdfarb at the Conference "Health, Environmental and
Financial Impacts of Trash Incineration" George Mason University
November 15, 1986, Fairfax, Virginia.
24. Doyle, B. W. Drum, D. A., and Lauber, J. D., "The Smoldering Question of
Hospital Waste," Pollution Engineering Magazine, July 1985.
25. Radian Corporation. National Dioxin Study Tier 4 - Combustion Sources,
EPA-450/4-84-014h. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina, September 1987.
26. Jenkins, A., "Evaluation Test on a Hospital Refuse Incinerator at Cedar
Sinai Medical Center. Los Angeles, CA," California Air Resources Board,
April 1987.
27. Jenkins, A., "Evaluation Test on a Hospital Refuse Incinerator at Saint
Agnes Medical Center, Fresno, CA," California Air Resources Board,
January 1987.
CML.026 3-41
-------
28. Bumbaco, M. J., "Report on a Stack Sampling Program to Measure the
Emissions of Selected Trace Organic Compounds, Particulates, Heavy
Metals, and HC1 from the Royal Jubilee Hospital Incinerator. Victoria,
B.C." Environmental Protection Programs Directorate. April 1983.
29. Allen, R. J., G. R. Brenniman, C. Darling. Air Pollution Emissions from
the Incineration of Hospital Waste, Journal of the Air Pollution Control
Association 36:7 1986. pgs. 829-831.
30. Powell, F. C., "Incineration of Hospital Wastes the Alberta Experience,"
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, 37:7, July 1987, p. 836.
31. Reference 25.
32. Meeting Notes from Ecolaire Presentation, August 4, 1987, at Radian
Corporation.
33. Kelly, N., G. Brenniman, and J. Kusek,. "An Evaluation of Bacterial
Emissions from a Hospital Incinerator," Proceedings from Vlth World
Conference on Air Quality, Vol. 2, May 1983, pp. 227-234.
34. Peterson, M. L., and F. J. Stutzenberger. "Microbiological Evaluation of
Incinerator Operations." Applied Microbiology, 18:1, July 1969.
p. 8-13.
35.' Barbeito, M. S., G. G. Gremillion. Microbiological Safety Evaluation of
an Industrial Refuse Incinerator," Applied Microbiology, February 1968.
p 291-295.
36. Barbeito, M. S., M. Shapiro. "Microbiological Safety Evaluation of a
Solid and Liquid Pathological Incinerator," Journal of Medical
Primatology. July 1977, pp. 264-273.
37. Reference 32.
38. Private communication between G. Yee, California Air Resource Board and
R. Morrison, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, June 22, 1988.
39. Ozvacic, V. "Biomedical Waste Incinerator Testing Programs in Ontario,"
Biomedical Waste Workshop, San Francisco, May 10-12, 1988.
40. Queen of the Valley Hospital Test Report. Chemecology Corporation,
Emissions Test Results of Incinerator at Queen Of the Valley Hospital,
Napa, California, July 1985.
41. Swedish-American Hospital Consumat Incinerator. Bel ing Consultants, Test
Report for Swedish American Hospital Consumat Incinerator, Rockford,
Illinois, December 1986.
42. University of Michigan Medical Center Test Report. Almega Corporation,
Emission Test Results of Incinerator at University of Michigan Hospital,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, May 1987.
CML.026 3-42
-------
43. HC1 Emissions from Hospital Waste Incinerators. Ian C. McClymont Proctor
and Redfern Group Richard J. Urbanski Independent Measurement and
Technology Emission Test Results of 10 hospitals in Ontario, Canada.
44. Summary of Results of Participate Emission Determinations on No. 4 Boiler
at Northwest Medical Center - Thief River Falls. Minnesota. Emission Test
Results of No. 4 Boiler at Northwest Medical Center, Thief River Falls,
Minnesota, June 1987.
45. Erlanaer Medical Center - Chattanooga. Tennessee. Almega Corporation,
Emission Test Results of Incinerator at Erlanger Medical Center,
Chattanooga, Tennessee, February 1984.
46. Galson, Source Test Report, Participate Emissions, Visible Emissions, and
Combustion Index Testing of Incinerator A and B at Mediwaste, Inc., West
Babylon, New York, September and October 1986.
47 York, Final Test Reported for an Emission compliance Test Program on a
Pyrolytic Incinerator System at Nyack Hospital, Nyack, NY, Report No.
01-4550-00, November 17, 1986.
48. Environmental Laboratories, Inc. Test of Shore Memorial Hospital, Somers
Point, NJ, September 1985.
49. Reference 39.
50. Reference 39, p. 4.
CML.026 3-43
-------
-------
4.0 CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES AND EFFICIENCIES
To date, hospital waste incinerators have operated largely without
requirements for add-on pollution control equipment or special combustion
modification techniques. Municipal waste incinerators, on the other hand,
have received closer scrutiny in recent years and considerable attention has
been given to potential emission control techniques. The process equipment
and systems used to incinerate these two types of wastes are similar in
design and operation, at least for the larger, controlled air incinerators.
This section extrapolates knowledge which has been gained from municipal
waste incinerators to hospital waste incinerators and considers the
applicability of various emission control techniques.
There are three broad categories of methods which can be applied to the
control of emissions from waste incinerators:
(1) Source Separation,
(2) Combustion Control, and
(3) Flue Gas Controls (add-on control devices).
The application of each of these categories of emission control to hospital
waste incinerators is addressed in this section.
4.1 SOURCE SEPARATION
Source separation refers to both the segregation of infectious and
non-infectious wastes and the removal of specific compounds from the waste
stream prior to incineration. As discussed in Section 1.2, from the
experience of hospitals in Illinois, it may be estimated that about 85
percent of a hospital's waste stream can be categorized as general refuse,
while the remaining 15 percent is contaminated with infectious agents.
Thus, segregation of wastes at the point of generation can reduce the volume
of infectious waste significantly. During a visit of project personnel to
the Iredale Hospital in Statesville, North Carolina, such waste segregation
practice was observed through the use of colored trash bags. The extent to
which this practice reduced infectious waste volume was not known, however.
CML.027 4-1
-------
After segregation of infectious and non-infectious wastes, further
segregation of the non-infectious portion could be possible. Plastics and
metal-containing components of the waste, such as sharps, could be
segregated; this could result in lower HC1, polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDOs), polychlorinated dibenzo-p-furans (PCOFs), and
trace metal emission rates. However, no data are available on the
effectiveness of such practices at hospital waste incinerators in lowering
these emissions. Another approach to possibly lowering HC1 and PCDD/PCDF
emission rates would be to have hospitals use low chlorine content plastics.
This could be accomplished if the health care industry were to use plastics
such as polyethylene and polystyrene in place of polyvinyl chloride, which
contains over 45 weight percent chlorine. Again, no data are available to
indicate the effectiveness of such practices on emissions from hospital
waste incinerators.
4.2 COMBUSTION CONTROL
Data presented in Section 3 illustrate that there is significant
variation in the uncontrolled emission rates from hospital incinerators.
These variations are partially due to variability in chemical and physical
properties of hospital wastes, partially due to variations in incinerator
design, and partially due to variation in operating practices. This section
addresses how waste combustion processes influence emission rates for the
pollutants of interest and how combustion process control may be used as an
emission control strategy. The general format is to address each pollutant
.group separately, discussing how combustion processes influence the emission
rate and how the adjustable process parameters may be used to reduce
emissions and achieve emission control.
The following sections provide discussions of the relationships between
combustion processes and emissions of major pollutants of concern, namely:
o acid gases,
o particulate matter,
o trace metals, and
o polycyclic organic matter (including dioxin and furans).
CML.027 4-2
-------
4.2.1 Acid Gas Control
The primary acid gas that will be emitted from a hospital waste
incinerator is hydrochloric acid. As stated in Section 3.1, based on
thermodynamic equilibrium considerations, any chlorine content in the waste
will be effectively converted to HC1, assuming that there is sufficient
hydrogen available. Therefore, based on the thermodynamic and kinetic
consideration presented in Section 3.1, combustion modification does not
appear to be a viable control approach for hydrochloric emissions from
hospital incineration units.
From a combustion control standpoint, emissions of SCL are similar to
HC1. Thus, combustion modification is not a viable approach for SCL
emissions either.
Based on NOX reduction techniques applied to other combustion
processes, at least three control options may be applicable to reduce NO
emissions from incinerator processes: flue gas recirculation (FRG),
reburning, and ammonia (NHj) injection. However, none of these techniques
are currently being applied to hospital incinerators even though they are
being used on MSN incinerators.
Flue gas recirculation is a technology which has been used for the
control of NOX in boilers. FGR introduces a thermal diluent and reduces
combustion temperatures. However, lowering of flame and furnace
temperatures could be counter to the control of PCDD/PCDF. The significance
of the detrimental impact of reduced bulk temperatures on PCDD/PCDF
emissions has yet to be determined. Testing completed on the Pittsfield MSW
incinerator by the State of New York could provide information addressing
the impacts of FGR when they become available. Information gained from this
test and other future tests could be used to further evaluate the potential
application of FGR to hospital incinerator units.
Reburning is used for a control technique which uses a hydrocarbon-type
fuel such as natural gas or oil as a reducing agent. Hydrocarbon radicals
produced by the reburning fuel react with NOX to form N2> H20, and C02.
This control technology is being developed for use in fossil fuel-fired
CML.027 4-3
-------
boilers because only minor modifications are required to the main heat
release zone. The effectiveness of reburning for NO control in boilers has
^
been shown to be a function of:
Initial NO level: the reduction decreases as the initial NO
level decreases. x
Reburning fuel type: nitrogen-free reburning fuels are most
effective, particularly at low initial NOX levels.
Temperature: reburning effectiveness increases as the temperature
of the reburning zone increases.
Residence time: gas residence time in the reburning zone of at
least 0.5 seconds is required to maximize the effectiveness of
reburning.
Two aspects of the reburning process make it attractive for hospital
incinerators. First, it is a relatively effective control technique,
potentially reducing NOX on the order of 50 percent. Second, the process of
burning the secondary fuel increases both the flue gas temperature and the
concentration of 0, H, and OH radicals. The high radical concentrations in
the fuel-rich reburning zone drive the gas speciation towards the
equilibrium state of complete combustion (i.e., CO- and H20 as products).
Thus, reburning not only provides an approach for destroying NO , it also
creates an environment which favors the destruction of any dioxins or furans
created in the primary flame zone. Extensive research and development
efforts would be required to develop reburning for hospital incineration,
but the potential exists for a multi-purpose combustion control technology.
A third option available for NO reduction on incinerators is NH,
A 0
injection. When injected into combustion gases, NH., can react with NO to
-------
4.2.2 Particulate Matter Control
As stated previously, particulate matter exiting the furnace consists
of both inorganic material entrained into the combustion gases and organic
materials which were not completely burned. In evaluating the influence of
combustion control on PM emissions, it is necessary to separate the organic
and inorganic fractions and to distinguish between the volatile and
non-volatile inorganic contributions.
When waste is fed into an incinerator, it is heated by radiant energy
from the hot furnace walls and from burning combustion products above the
bed. The waste is dried and, as the temperature increases, a
devolatilization (pyrolysis) process begins. The released volatile matter
is entrained by the underfire air and begins to burn. Heat transfer from
the burning volatiles to the bed material helps to ignite the waste in the
bed and sustain the combustion process. The non-volatile, inorganic
constituents of the waste generally remain in the ash pit. Non-volatile
inorganics can contribute to the PM emission rate if an ash-containing
particle is entrained by the underfire air and bed combustion products as
they pass through the waste bed into the primary chamber.
An ash-containing particle in the bed will be subjected to a series of
forces including a drag force tending to accelerate the particle to the
local air velocity and a gravity force tending to hold the particle in the
bed. The drag force is proportional to the frontal area of the particle
times the velocity differential squared. The opposing gravity force is
simply gravitational acceleration times particle density times particle
volume. Assuming a spherical particle, the gravity force varies with the
diameter cubed. The ratio of drag force to gravity force will vary
inversely with particle diameter. Thus, small particles are more likely to
be entrained by the primary chamber combustion gases.
If it is assumed that the ash content of hospital waste is
approximately 25 percent and that emitted PM is totally inorganic, then the
uncontrolled PM emission rate data presented earlier in Table 3-5 may be
used to estimate the extent of entrainment. The PM emission rates were
shown to vary from 36.5 to 1.37 Ib/ton refuse. This estimate would indicate
that between 92.7 and 99.7 percent of the ash remains in the ash pit.
CML.027 4-5
-------
The volatile Inorganic material in the feed will also contribute to the
total PM emission rate. It is convenient to discuss combustion control of
this PM fraction in the context of trace metal emission even though all of
the trace metals emitted may not be associated with the particulate. A
discussion of trace metal emissions is presented in Section 4.2.3.
Finally, organic compounds are also associated with emitted PM. These
organic components are generally heavy hydrocarbons, products of incomplete
combustion (PICs), or polycyclic organic matter (POM). An extensive
discussion of these emissions and potential combustion control is presented
in Section 4.2.4.
4.2.3 Trace Metals Control
In Section 3.0, the available trace metal emissions data from hospital
incinerators were discussed and it was pointed out that many of the volatile
metals of concern tend to selectively deposit on the smaller particles. The
physical processes responsible for these phenomena are complex, as is the
potential influence of combustion processes on the associated phenomena.
The following provides a brief review of key features which may be
significant relative to hospital incineration combustion control.
The majority of the available research concerning the process of fine
particle metal enrichment has been performed on pulverized coal-fired
utility boilers. Those conditions are somewhat different from the
conditions found in hospital incinerators, but the basic processes should be
similar in both systems. It has been found that the distribution of
volatile metals among the different size fractions of ash is influenced by
the quantity of ultra-fine particulate matter produced during combustion.
Figure 4-1 illustrates this point in a plot of the fraction of arsenic and
antimony collected with the ultra-fine particles (referred to as fume)
versus the fraction of the total ash vaporized. A surface deposition model
to interpret these data was developed. The model's predictions for
quantities of trace metal deposited on ultra-fine particles are presented as
solid lines on Figure 4-1.
The issue of how the metals are distributed throughout the total fly
ash as a function of particle size has health effect implications as well as
being an issue of engineering significance. Based on the probable
CML.027 4-6
-------
(0
-------
mechanisms of fine particulate formation, it is suspected that the trace
metals should tend to concentrate on the surface of fine particles rather
than being uniformly distributed throughout the entire particle size range.
The theory is that refractory oxides which are vaporized in the flame would
be the first species to condense and would become the nuclei for the fine
particulate matter. As the combustion gases cool, volatile salts of alkali
metals and other volatile trace species would be expected to condense on the
outer surface of these particles.
A group at MIT, led by Professor Adel Sarofira, has confirmed this
2
theory in several experimental studies. Figure 4-2 illustrates their
findings in a plot of the concentration of selected species versus
reciprocal particle diameter. The elements Fe and Mg, which form the core
of the particles, show no size dependence while those present as a surface
coating show concentration variation proportional to 1/d. Note that the
trace metals of concern for hospital incinerators were largely present as
surface coatings.
The key to the above observation is that the ultra-fine particles
present a very high specific surface area and, thus, receive a
disproportionate share of the condensing elements. Based on the findings of
this research, any process that enhances refractory oxide vaporization would
be expected to increase the number of sub-micron particles and to enhance
the fine particle enrichment process.
The above information provides clues relative to the mechanisms
responsible for trace metal enhancement on sub-micron particles. It does
not, however, define a combustion control approach to minimize trace metal
emissions. Incinerators operated with relatively higher temperatures in the
fuel combustion zones should have higher concentrations of sub-micron
particles which could potentially increase the trace metal enrichment
process. Therefore, the use of controlled air, or two-stage, Incineration
with its lower primary combustion zone temperatures should reduce or
minimize trace metal emissions. Unfortunately, data from retort-type
incinerators are not available as yet to confirm this hypothesis.
4.2.4 Polvcvclic Organic Matter (POMK PCDDs. and PCDFs
Available data from MSW incinerators indicate that the PCDD and PCDF
emission rates are closely related to efficiency of the combustion process.
CML.027 4-8
-------
10*
1
(D
o
§
U
101
10°
0.00
40
Diameter mm
20
10
x -Mg
O-Fe
D-Ca
A-Na
V-Znx 10»
+ -Asx 10*
O-Sbx 10*
0.03 0.06 0.09
Inverse Diameter mm'1
0.12
Source: Reference 2
Figure 4-2. Concentration of Selected Elements in Ultrafine
Particulates as a Function of Reciprocal Particle Diameter
CO
4-9
-------
Generally speaking, when the flame temperature and combustion efficiency are
increased, PCDD and PCDF emission rates decrease. Due to the overriding
toxiological importance of these pollutant species, discussion will be
presented on how poor combustion conditions can lead to POM, dioxin and
furan emissions and how the combustion process may be controlled to minimize
these emissions. Emissions and their control will be considered from the
standpoint of the thermodynamic equilibrium and kinetics of combustion
reactions. In addition, the formation of dioxins/furans subsequent to the
combustion zone will be considered.
The vast majority of the information on dioxin and furan emissions has
been obtained only recently and primarily consists of stack emission rate
measurements from municipal waste combustors. This information is taken
primarily from testing results at large industrial and municipal
incinerators; little work has been done on smaller hospital waste
incinerators. There are also essentially no data from experimental programs
specifically designed to identify the combustion processes responsible for
PCDD/PCDF formation or to verify the effectiveness of proposed combustion
control approaches on hospital waste incinerators. In the absence of direct
data, discussion of how combustion modification might be used to control
PCDD or PCDF emissions must be considered theoretical in nature.
The PCDD and PCDF compounds are dicyclic, nearly planar, aromatic
hydrocarbons within the broad category of POM. Polycyclic organic matter
emissions have been the subject of intense investigation for many years with
multi-ring compounds such as benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) being the primary species
of interest. The following discussion is based on available information on
how POM emissions are influenced by the combustion process. In basing the
discussion on POM, the implicit assumption is made that variation in POM
emissions corresponds to variation in dioxin and furan emissions.
Equilibrium Considerations. If waste material is mixed with air and
allowed to react for sufficient time, the concentration of the resultant
products is determined by the elemental composition of the mixture (moles of
CML.027 4-10
-------
C, H, N, 0, Cl, etc.), the reaction temperature, and the thermodynamic
properties of the species. Consider first the case of oxidizing conditions
(excess air) in which the overall oxidation process is represented by:
Waste + n,0- —>n2C02 + "3^0
where n,, n« and n- are the stoichiometric coefficients required to balance
the reaction and are dependent on the chemical structure of the waste. The
equilibrium level of the unreacted waste in the combustion products is
related to the concentrations of C02, 0- and H-0 by the equilibrium
constant:
n2 n
P P
K K
K
p "l
P * Pni
waste 02
where P represents the partial pressure of a given constituent and K is the
equilibrium constant. The equilibrium constant is related fundamentally to
a measurable thermodynamic property called the Gibbs free energy (AG) by:
Kp - EXP (-AG/RT)
where T is temperature and R is the universal gas constant.. Gibbs free
energy values are compiled in many sources. For typical stack gas C02, FLO
and 02 concentrations of 8 percent, the Gibbs free energy required for there
to be 1 ppb equilibrium level of waste at 1,OOOK is roughly 40 Kcal/mole.
The Gibbs free energy of furan at 800K is reported to be 492 Kcal/mole.
Thus, Gibbs free energy considerations predict an equilibrium furan partial
pressure of less than 10" . The Gibbs free energy values for dioxins are
even larger than those for furans; thus, the equilibrium concentration under
oxidizing conditions would be expected to be even less. These
considerations show that given sufficient reaction time and mixing, the
CML.027 4-11
-------
fundamental equilibrium limit for dioxins and furans may be considered zero
for overall fuel-lean conditions, even at typical incineration operating
temperatures.
Since PCDDs and PCDFs can be formed in hospital incinerators, it is
important to identify conditions where their presence is thermodynamically
favored. An obvious area to examine is the high temperature, oxygen starved
environment which is characteristic of isolated regions within poorly mixed
combustion processes. An initial area to examine is high temperature
pyrolysis without air which is the limiting case for poor mixing.
TRW, Inc. performed an extensive series of equilibrium calculations for
incineration of military pesticides.* An initial set of calculations
indicated that solid carbon (graphite) was a predominant species.
Recognizing the kinetic limitations of graphite formation, a second set of
calculations were performed eliminating graphite as a possible product
species. Those results indicated greater than 1 ppm concentrations of a
wide variety of POM species as well as chlorobenzenes and chlorophenols
(potential precursors to dioxins and furans).
The issue of poor mixing can also be addressed by examining the
equilibrium product distributions for combustion of various chlorinated
benzene/air mixtures. Sample results are shown in Figure 4-3 as
concentration versus percent theoretical air assuming that the mixture is at
the adiabatic flame temperature. With at least 45 percent theoretical air,
formation of light hydrocarbon gases (e.g., CH^ and C2H2) is avoided. At 20
percent theoretical air, the formation of benzene or toluene as equilibrium
products is avoided. This leads to the postulatlon that POM, dioxins and
furans are thermodynamically favored only if the incinerator creates very
fuel-rich (and hence oxygen-poor) pockets of gas at low temperatures in the
presence of chlorine.
The above discussion illustrates two significant aspects of combustion
control for POM. First, existence of these species (either in the flame or
the exhaust) indicates a combustion process characterized by insufficient
mixing and by local fuel-rich pockets of gas. These are the conditions
which characterize the primary combustion chambers of controlled air
incinerators. However, at temperature levels typically encountered in these
CML.027 4-12
-------
o
'^
o
CO
to
o
10°
10'1
10-*
10-to
0 20 40
[CCi4] <10^to Over Entire Range
60 80 100 120 140
Percent Theoretical Air
160
180 200
Source: Reference 5.
Figure 4-3. Adiabatic Equilibrium Species Distribution
tr
to
eo
o
4-13
-------
units, there is no thermodynamic barrier to achieving essentially zero
emission levels for these species and their precursors that are below the
ppt levels.
Kinetic Considerations. The preceding discussion addressed equilibrium
formation of POM under excess air and starved air conditions. It is
important to recognize that combustion of any fuel proceeds through a
complex series of reaction steps leading toward (but not necessarily
reaching) the product distribution predicted by equilibrium calculations.
Some of these steps may be kinetically limited, however, causing certain
reactions to be effectively terminated at an intermediate state.
Consideration of equilibrium conditions (see Figure 4-3) indicate that
light hydrocarbon gases are thermodynamically not favored at mixture ratios
above 45 percent theoretical air. Chemical kinetic limitations may,
however, result in substantial concentrations of unburned hydrocarbon at
stoichiometric ratios well above 45 percent. Experimental data obtained in
the development of the EPA's low-NO heavy oil burner may be used to
illustrate this fact. Figure 4-4 indicates the measured total hydrocarbon
(THC) concentration exiting the fuel-rich zone of a two-stage heavy oil
flame. As shown, substantial THC was detected at first stage stoichiometric
ratios below 80 percent theoretical air. The principal factor responsible
for this hydrocarbon breakthrough was depressed flame temperature due to
heat loss through the furnace walls. The kinetic rates of chemical
processes vary exponentially with local temperature. Similar experiments,
conducted in a higher temperature environment, showed negligible THC
concentrations until the fuel-rich zone stoichiometry was less than about
60-65 percent theoretical air.
In the above tests, the transition from fuel-rich to fuel-lean
conditions was achieved through the use of multiple air jets designed to
achieve thorough mixing of air with the effluent from the fuel-rich zone.
By changing the split between primary and secondary air, it was possible to
vary the fuel-rich zone stoichiometry while maintaining a constant overall
excess air condition. In many respects, this is similar to the basic design
in a controlled air incinerator. An important observation is that whenever
the primary zone stoichiometry was sufficiently fuel-rich to cause
CML.027 4-14
-------
PPM Hydrocarbons (Wet as Measured)
8
Tl
CQ'
c
—•
Ul
(A
01
CQ
(D
o
o
0)
T
cr
o
O
a.
c
o
«-»•
o"
a
C/)
o
bi
a>
p
vj
p
bo
[I
p
CO
I i m
j __ I i i M M
III
0981465R
-------
hydrocarbon breakthrough in the primary zone exhaust, there was a
precipitous increase in the boiler exhaust smoke level. The important point
relative to hospital incineration is that the presence of substantial
hydrocarbon concentrations in fuel-rich regions can easily result in the
formation of soot and organic particulate matter. The secondary chamber
must be designed to accommodate these materials to achieve complete
burn-out.
Equilibrium product distribution calculations for very fuel-rich
conditions indicate ppm level concentrations of chlorobenzenes and
chlorophenols. In one study, the likely chemical kinetic processes leading
to formation of PCDDs were reviewed and it was concluded that the prime
dioxin precursors are chlorinated phenols. Shaub and co-workers suggested
a kinetic path for forming 2,4,7,8-TCDD, illustrated in Figure 4-5. The
process proceeds by removal of hydrogen from the OH group, joining of two
phenols to form a reactive 2-phenoxyphenol, and an elimination reaction to
form dioxin.
The above discussion provides several important insights into the
combustion processes controlling the formation of POM, dioxins and furans.
Those same insights Indicate important incinerator design and operating
parameters which might be used to minimize emissions of those species.
Equilibrium and kinetic considerations both indicate that an essential
feature required for the formation of POM, dioxin or furans is a fuel-rich
pocket of gas. Defining how rich that pocket must be to form these species
will depend on the local gas temperature. Increased temperature reduces the
thermodynamic stability of the species (and their precursors) as well as
accelerating the kinetic rate of destruction reactions. The discussion
suggests that these POM compounds are, in all likelihood, formed in the
primary chamber of controlled air hospital incinerators. However, these
compounds must pass through the oxidizing zones in the primary and secondary
chambers before being emitted to the atmosphere. The residence time and
temperature characteristics of the overall combustion process will dictate,
in large measure, the extent to which these materials are destroyed before
flue gases are emitted.
CML.027 4-16
-------
H
OH
Cl
Cl
Cl
c
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Source: Reference 7.
HC1
Figure 4-5. One Possible Formation Mechanism for 2,3,7,8 - TCDD
-------
Fuel Effects. A third issue to be examined is whether the chemical
form of hospital waste has a significant impact on POM, dioxin or furan
emissions. It is difficult (if not impossible) to accurately quantify the
chemical form of waste being fed into an incinerator over the time period
required to extract a sample for POM analysis. There are, however, data
quantifying POM emissions from gas, oil, and coal-fired boilers. Figure 4-6
shows benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) emissions data from different size boilers firing
coal, oil or natural gas. The shaded area in this figure represents
coal-fired boiler results. Units with heat inputs greater than 1010 cal/hr
were utility boilers while units in the 10 cal/hr range were small
stoker-fired or hand-stoked coal furnaces. The measured BaP emissions from
gas and oil-fired boilers were generally on the same order as those from
coal-fired utility boilers.
Utility boilers burn pulverized coal in large diffusion flames which
are very similar to the flame types in gas and oil-fired boilers. The
flame produced by a hand-stoked boilers is similar to that in a poorly
designed and operated mass fed MSW incinerator.
As noted in Figure 4-6, the BaP emission rates from gas-, oil and
coal-fired boilers with similar flame shapes are generally below 1: g/Mcal.8
For comparison with other data in this report 1 g/Mcal is approximately
equal to 500 ng/m which is on the same order as the PCDO and PCDF emission
rates indicated in Tables 3-7 and 3-8 for hospital incinerators. The BaP
emission rates from the hand-stoked coal boilers are as much as 5 orders of
magnitude above the levels produced by the diffusion flames. These
comparisons suggest that the chemical structure of the fuel may have a
relatively minor influence on POM emissions but that other parameters
related to the manner in which the fuel is burned can have a significant
influence. This underlines the fact that combustion controls, through
careful incinerator design and operation, have the potential to achieve
significant PCDO and PCDF emission reductions.
Air Distribution Effects in Controlled Air Incinerators. Using the
waste burning process description of Section 3.1.4.1 in conjunction with the
equilibrium, chemical kinetic, and fuel composition considerations of this
section, it is possible to identify a variety of combustion control
approaches for POM, PCDD and PCDF emissions, all based on elimination of
CML.027 4-18
-------
10s
CO
CD
I
en
CO
2
u
1
CO
o
'35
CO
LU
Q.
co
00
10*
~ 10J
a
10a
101
10°
10'1
10-*
• Coal
• Oil
A Gas
< Emission less than
value plotted
} Tests on Same
j Unit
I
I
I
I
10T 10* 10* 1010
Gross Heat Input to Furnace, cal/hr
101
Source: Reference 8.
i
Figure 4-6. Benzo(a)Pyrene Emissions from Coal, Oil, and Natural Gas £
Heat-Generation Process §
4-19
-------
fuel-rich, low temperature pockets. A discussion of the design or operating
conditions which lead to the formation of these pockets follows.
Controlled air incinerators will be used for the purpose of discussing
air distribution effects on combustion control techniques for control of
POM, PCDD, and PCDF. This type unit is chosen because of its wide use in
the past 10 to 15 years. Retort incinerators share some similarities with
controlled air units because of their two-stage design; this discussion will
therefore also have some relevance to retort units. The design and
operation of these units will be discussed by combustion stage.
Primary Combustion. As stated in Section 2.1.2, waste is fed into the
primary combustion chamber which is operated with less than the full amount
of air required for combustion. The air addition rate is usually 40 to 70
percent of stoichiometric requirements. Under these sub-stoichiometric
conditions the waste is dried, heated, and pyrolized, thereby releasing
moisture and volatile components. The primary chamber can therefore be
considered a large fuel-rich pocket from the standpoint of POM, PCDD and
PCDF formation. Conditions for formation of these compounds can, therefore,
be considered optimum in the primary stage.
Waste is fed to the primary combustion chamber by either manual or
mechanical loading devices. Manual loading is done by charging a bag at a
time into the primary chamber while most mechanical loaders employ a hopper
and ram assembly. Both feed mechanisms are non-continuous feed processes
which deliver the feed in a batch-type manner. Therefore, the potential for
an extremely fuel-rich system exists when waste is initially charged to the
incinerator. A dynamic air supply system which can follow the transient is
required if the system is to maintain its stoichiometric set point. Failure
to maintain a consistent air-to-fuel ratio will make control in the
secondary combustion chamber more difficult.
Most incinerators control combustion in the primary combustion chamber
by measuring the temperature in the primary chamber and adjusting the air
flow rate to that chamber to meet a temperature set-point. When
temperatures are too low, air is added to accelerate the burning process.
Conversely, the air rate is decreased when the temperature is too high.
CML.027 4-20
-------
In conclusion, the operation of the primary combustion chamber is such
that a fuel-rich combustion environment exists. Smooth control of the
air-to-fuel ratio is needed to counteract transients due to the feed
mechanism; this will minimize the amount of fluctuation in the gas rate and
characteristics of the gas entering the secondary combustion chamber.
Secondary Combustion. Moisture, volatiles, and combustion gases from
the primary chamber flow upward through a connecting section where they are
mixed with air prior to entering the secondary combustion chamber. If the
gases from the primary chamber are hot enough they will self-ignite when
mixed with the secondary chamber air. However, a burner is located near the
entrance to the secondary chamber to provide additional heat when it is
needed. The air injection rate into the second chamber is generally between
100 and 140 percent of total stoichiometric requirements. Thus, the total
combustion process in the incinerator (including both stages) operates at
between 40 to 110 percent excess air.
If operation of the secondary air flow is kept at design levels, the
amount of oxygen added to the combustion process is sufficient to complete
the combustion process without exceeding the lean fuel flammability limits.
The critical issue is that the fuel-rich exhaust from the primary chamber
must be mixed with air on a molecular level to achieve complete destruction
of all POM, PCDD and PCDF, and potential precursors. Simply injecting
additional air into the secondary chamber is not sufficient to ensure high
combustion efficiencies. Consequently, great care must be taken in
designing the secondary air chamber so that complete and thorough mixing
will occur. One design approach to increase mixing currently in use is to
introduce air at right angles to the flow of primary chamber gases and to
use a series of staggered manifolds on either side of the gas. A second
design approach is the enlargement of the secondary combustion chamber.
This approach leads to greater residence times at temperature while also
increasing the chance for mixing.
From an operational standpoint, the primary air flow rate control,
secondary air flow rate control, and the extent of mixing in the secondary
chamber, all could have a significant impact on POM, PCOD and PCOF
emissions. Further research is required to better understand how
incinerator design and operating parameters influence these emissions.
CML.027 4-21
-------
Thermal Environment. In EPA's Tier 4 study, it was observed that
trends in PCDD and PCOF emissions could be detected based on the combustion
temperature. It was also noted in this report that MSW incinerators
burning high moisture content waste tended to have low combustion
temperatures and higher PCDD/PCDF emissions. The following discussion
considers the theoretical relationship between temperature and emission
rates for PCODs, PCDFs, and other POMs.
Thermal environment and chemical kinetic processes are intimately
related to each other. Flame temperature rise is the result of chemically
converting fuel to combustion products while the rate of the chemical
reactions is exponentially dependent upon the local temperature. In the
discussion of equilibrium considerations it was shown that formation of
fuel-rich pockets of gas favors production of POM, PCDD and PCDF. In the
discussion of kinetic processes, Figure 4-4 showed that substantial .
hydrocarbons can persist in 80 percent theoretical air mixtures if there is
heat extraction. Thus, removing heat from combusting gases tends to
increase the stoichiometric ratio at which hydrocarbon species can persist.
An important set of variables influencing flame temperature is the
excess oxygen level in the combustor and the moisture content of the waste.
To illustrate these effects, a series of adiabatic flame temperature
calculations were performed as a function of percent theoretical air. To
demonstrate that flame temperature is controlled by combustion of waste
volatile matter, methane was used as the fuel for these calculations. To
simulate the moisture content of the waste, various quantities of liquid
water (0-40 percent) was added to the "fuel." Results from these
calculations are presented in Figure 4-7. As shown, increasing the
combustion air from 150 to 200 percent of the theoretical requirement
decreases the adiabatic flame temperature by approximately 300°C (540°F).
At 150 percent theoretical air (50 percent excess air), increasing the
moisture content from 0 to 40 percent decreases the adiabatic flame
temperature by approximately 150°C (270°F).
The important operational consideration is to maintain the excess air
in a range which is high enough to insure that oxygen is available for fuel
burnout but low enough to prevent excessive depression of the flame
temperature. The requirement for operation within an excess air window is
CML.027 4-22
-------
2200 -
Ad1*b«t1c Fltat Ttnptraturts
ofCH4/HjO(l) - Air
Nlxturtsf T0 • 298JC
1000
50
100 150 200
Ptrctnt Thtorttleal A1r
250
300
Source: Reference 10
Figure 4-7. Variation of Adiabatic Flame Temperature with Percent
Theoretical Air and Percent Moisture in the MSW
4-23
-------
Illustrated in Figure 4-8 which shows the measured total hydrocarbons in the
exhaust of a highly cooled laboratory furnace as a function of excess air
level (see Reference 5). It should be noted that the data in this figure
are hardware-specific and that the acceptable excess air operating window
will vary with both incinerator design details and characteristics of the
waste being burned (e.g., heating value, moisture content, and halogen
content).
The moisture content of hospital waste is dependent on the daily
operation of the hospital. As illustrated in Figure 4-7, adjusting the
excess air level can offset the thermal influence of large variations in
moisture content. The thermal influence of adding 40 weight percent water
to the fuel may be offset by decreasing excess air level by about 20
percent. From a combustion control standpoint, hardware could be developed
to continuously monitor the exhaust gas H-0 content; that data could be used
in a control system to appropriately, adjust the excess air level. Research
1s required to define the proper mode of excess air control, but theoretical
considerations indicate that it is likely that minimum POM, dioxin and furan
emissions control would be^acMeyed-b^ adjusting- excess air rates in the
primary and secondary chambers to achieve desired temperature levels and gas
residence times.
An additional operational consideration influencing thermal environment
and possibly having a major impact on POM, PCDO and PCDF emissions is the
unit start-up and shut-down procedure. Some facilities may have greatly
different warm-up periods depending on operator awareness. Based on
considerations presented earlier in this section, extensive warm-up using
auxiliary fuel (natural gas or distillate oil) is the preferable operating
procedure. The start-up period may have little impact on steady-state
emission rates but a substantial mass of POM, PCDO and PCDF could be emitted
during start-up with cold walls. By the same token, sufficient air and
temperature levels should be maintained during burn-down periods to assure
complete combustion.
Post-Combustion Formation Mechanisms. In addition to formation in
fuel-rich pockets of the incinerator combustion zone, it is possible that
PCDD and PCDF may be formed by flue gas reactions taking place downstream of
the first or second stage combustors.
CML.027 4-24
-------
4000
2000
Q.
Q.
O)
'5
'CD
o
*3
O
co
0.01
0.005
50
CO
Hydrocarbon
O CHCI,
A C,H,N
AC.H,
D C.H.CI
I
100 150 200
Percent Theoretical Air
250
300
Source: Reference 11
Figure 4-8. Hydrocarbon Breakthrough as a Function of Percent
Theoretical Air
00
0)
o
4-25
-------
Several mechanisms have been hypothesized by various researchers to
account for the formation of PCDD and PCDF downstream of the combustion
chamber in municipal waste combustors. These hypotheses include a) reaction
of products of incomplete combustion, for example, chlorophenols and
chlorobenzenes in the gas phase or on the fly ash to form PCDD and PCDD;
b) de novo synthesis of PCDD/PCDF on fly ash involving metal chloride
catalysis; or c) de novo synthesis from particulate carbon. All of the
hypothesized mechanisms include temperature "windows" for the formation
reactions. For example, recent studies of PCDD formation and destruction by
Vogg and Steiglitz indicate that formation of PCDD in fly ash can occur at
temperatures between approximately 430°F and 750°F (220°C and 400°C),
peaking at 570°F (300°C).12 The authors heated fly ash for two hours and
found no change in PCDD/PCDF concentrations below 390°F (200°C), a 10-fold
increase at 570°F (300°C) and complete destruction at 1110°F (600°C).13'14
Other researchers have proposed that PCDD/PCDF can be formed from
particulate carbon in MWC flue gases at temperatures of about 570°F
(300°C).15
Summary. The above discussion illustrates that emissions of POM, PCDD
and PCOF are either the products of incomplete combustion or are formed by
post-combustion mechanisms. A critical component in the combustion
formation process is presence of fuel-rich pockets of gas. The primary
combustion chamber in a controlled air incinerator is operated as a large
fuel-rich pocket. To maximize the extent of combustion, the following steps
can be taken:
o Control the combustion air supply to the primary chamber to
minimize transients in the outlet flow rate and composition;
o Proportion combustion air between the primary and secondary
chambers to maintain desired temperatures; and
o Promote efficient mixing of air and combustion gases in the
secondary chamber.
Each of these combustion parameters are adjustable during the
incinerator design and/or as part of the unit operating procedure. The
assertion that combustion-generated PCDD and PCDF emissions can be reduced
by combustion control is clear, but the types of modifications likely to be
CML.027 4-26
-------
effective will depend upon the specific design and operating conditions of a
given model and size. That is, combustion modifications must be tailored to
the specific type of incineration hardware under consideration. Appropriate
control strategies for existing facilities must be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis and some processes may require extensive hardware
modification and/or altered operational procedures.
To the extent that PCDD/PCDF emissions are formed downstream of the
combustion chambers, emission reductions will be influenced by the
mechanisms involved and practices employed in this area. If emissions are
the result of reactions between products of incomplete combustion (PICs),
these products must be avoided in the temperature window in which the
reactions occur. Possible emission reduction techniques would be the
elimination of PICs in the secondary combustion chamber by operating the
chamber at higher temperatures and/or larger gas residence times. Another
approach would be to remove the PICs from the flue gas stream either by
scrubbing an adsorption. If PCDD/PCDF emissions are the result of de novo
synthesis on fly ash or from particulate carbon within a given temperature
window, then the removal of fly ash and carbon al temperatures above the
critical window would reduce flue gas emissions. However, it may still be
necessary to rapidly quench the captured particles (e.g., with a scrubbing
liquid or air) or to cover their active surface area with an inert material
(e.g., powdered lime) in order to minimize subsequent de novo synthesis from
captured particles. The processes available for such flue gas treatments
are discussed in the next section.
4.3 FLUE GAS CONTROLS
Add-on devices may be employed for post-combustion treatment of flue
gas. As shown in Section 3.0, two devices presently in use on hospital
incinerators are fabric filters (baghouses) and wet scrubbers. Other
potential add-on controls not presently in use are dry scrubbers and dry
injection. Dry scrubbers and dry injection have demonstrated acid gas and
organic emissions control on MSW incinerators and, when coupled with fabric
filters, offer good particulate control as well. In addition, after-burners
are potential controls for organic compound emissions. These same devices
are candidates for control of emissions from hospital waste incinerators.
CML.027 4-27
-------
4.3.1 Fabric Filters (Baohouses)
Fabric filters offer very high efficiencies for particle removal from
flue gas with attainable efficiencies greater than 99.9 percent. Currently,
there are at least four MSW incinerator installations utilizing baghouses in
the U. S. Similar efficiencies would be expected for hospital waste
incinerators because of the similar nature of the wastes. At least one
baghouse has been installed and operated on a hospital waste combustor (see
Section 3.2.2).
Fabric filters rely on porous glass fabric to facilitate removal of
very fine PM. Figure 4-9 shows a typical arrangement. Collected PM is
"shaken," either mechanically or by air, from the bag and disposed of with
bottom ash from the incinerator. Some advantages and disadvantages of
baghouses are as follows:
Advantages
1. High PM removal efficiencies can be obtained.
2. High efficiencies for finer PM means good removal of those metals
which concentrate on fine PM.
3. There are no wastewater disposal requirements.
4. Variations in flue gas flow rate or chemical composition do not
usually affect fabric filter performance.
5. Submicron particle collection improves as the thickness of the
dust layer on the collection surface increases.
Disadvantages
1. Fabric filters are designed only for PM control and do little to
control gaseous pollutants.
2. High pressure drops may occur if bags become plugged with solids
which could lead to large power requirements.
3. The upper temperature limit of most widely used filter media is
about 260°C (500°F).
4. "Sparklers" (i.e., incandescent waste particles) carried by the
flue gas can cause fires in the fabric filter.
CML.027 4-28
-------
•prttttd Air
Dirty Air
Pabrle FHUrt
Air
Figure 4-9. Typical Fabric Filter System
4-29
-------
5. The dew point of the flue gas must be considered. An excursion
below the dew point can result in condensation and hence blinding
of bags. In addition, due to the typically high HC1 content of
hospital waste incinerator flue gases, condensation can lead to
the formation of corrosive HC1 acid.
4.3.2 Scrubbers and Drv In.iection Systems
Wet scrubbers currently in use offer lower efficiencies for the
collection of PM but higher efficiencies for acid gas removal. Wet
scrubbers use liquid to remove pollutants from the gas stream. Scrubber
design and the type of liquid solution used largely determine contaminant
removal efficiencies. Efficiencies for the removal of acid gases with plain
water are in the range of 30 percent, while the addition of Ca(OH)2, CaCo3,
or CaO to the scrubber liquor has been shown to result in efficiencies of
18
93-96 percent. In general, high gas-side pressure drops must be used to
obtain high efficiencies for PM control.
There are basically three types of wet scrubbers:
(1) low energy (spray tower),
(2) medium energy (impingement scrubbers such as packed column, baffle
plate, and liquid impingement), and
(3) high energy (venturi).
Low energy scrubbers (spray towers) are usually circular in
cross-section (see Figure 4-10). The liquid is sprayed down the tower as
the gases rise. Large particles are removed by impingement on the liquor
pool, and finer particles are removed as the flue gas rises through the
tower. Low energy scrubbers mainly remove particles in the 5-10 micron
19
range and larger.
Medium energy devices mostly rely on impingement to facilitate removal
of PM. This can be accomplished through a variety of configurations, two of
which are diagrammed in Figures 4-11 and 4-12.
High energy scrubbers use a venturi mechanism for PM removal (see
Figure 4-13). The flue gases impinge on the liquor stream in the venturi
section. As the gases pass through the orifice, the shearing action
atomizes the liquor into fine droplets. As the gas leaves the venturi
CML.027 4-30
-------
LJqultf
DUtrlfcutor
CUan
-------
C!««n
O«tl«t
Olrty Q««
lnl«t
Plow NoxzU
Or«pl«tt
C«ntrlf«fl«l
Orlfle«
OvtUt
Liquor
R«««rvolr
Figure 4-11. Fixed Orifice Scrubber
4-32
-------
CUan Q««
OvtUt
0«*fntralnm«nt
•••lion
im«t
Nn«l4lflo«tlon
W«t«r
Figure 4-12. Baffle Impingement Scrubber
4-33
-------
Dirty Oat
Distribution
W«ir
V«nturl
•AnnvUr
Orlfl4«
0«-lfitr«lnm«nt
S««tlon
u«i«.
ft««lre«l«tloit
Figure 4-13. High Energy Venturi Scrubber
4-34
-------
section it decelerates, resulting in further contact between particles and
liquid droplets. The droplets are then removed from the device by the
centrifugal action in the de-entrainment section.20
Like baghouses, wet scrubbers offer both advantages and disadvantages.
Some of the major advantages and disadvantages of wet scrubbers are:21
Advantages
1. Particle collection and gas absorption can be accomplished
simultaneously with proper design.
2. High collection efficiencies can be obtained for any particle size
range with sufficient energy input.
3. Viscous materials can be collected without plugging.
4. High temperature gaseous effluent streams can be handled.
5. Moisture content and/or dew point of the effluent gas is not
critical to scrubber operation.
6. Heat transfer, chemical reactions, and evaporation are
characteristics of wet scrubber operations that can be varied to
improve pollutant removal efficiencies.
7. Capital costs are relatively low.
8. Semi-volatile organic collection, such as dioxins and furans. To
remove dioxins/furans, an outlet temperature at near 150°C or
below is required. Typically, wet scrubber systems quench flue
gases between 150 and 200UC. * This magnitude of heat loss should
reduce the volatile compounds in the flue gas.
9. Trace semi-volatile metal collection, such as arsenic, chromium,
and nickel. In general, metal removal efficiencies of wet
scrubber systems vary widely between the 11 trace metals listed in
Section 3.1.3. A recent emissions test program conducted at a
sewage sludge incinerator has shown wet scrubber removal
efficiencies greater than 95 percent for chromium, arsenic, and
nickel. Furthermore, it was shown that 50 percent of the
cadmium was scrubbed from the gas stream while an average of 40
percent of the lead was removed.
Disadvantages
1. High energy input is required for collection of the finer dust
particles.
2. Corrosion and erosion are characteristic of all wet processing.
CML.027 4-35
-------
3. An effluent liquor disposal system is required.
4. Discharge of a water-saturated gas stream can produce a visible
steam plume.
5. Re-entrainment of PM may be a problem.
6. Wet scrubbers are not effective for control of insoluble gaseous
organics.
Dry scrubbers combined with fabric filters applied to MSW incinerators
have received considerable attention recently. In these systems, a lime
slurry is injected into the scrubber where it contacts the flue gas. The
water is evaporated and dry salts result from the reaction of lime with
constituents of the flue gas. The salts, unreacted lime, and particulate
matter are collected in fabric filters downstream of the reactor. It has
been theorized that filter cake build-up provides available reaction sites
for continued reaction with pollutants from the flue gas.
Test results from MSW incinerators for dry scrubbing/fabric filter
systems show enhanced PM emission reduction in all particle size ranges
compared to wet scrubbers operating with even larger pressure drops. Acid
gas and metal removal efficiencies have also been high.24"28 Also of
interest are the low dioxin/furan emissions from the dry scrubbing system.
A diagram of a commercially available dry injection system, the Teller
29
system, is shown in Figure 4-14. In this system a dry venturi is located
between the dry scrubber (quench reactor) and the baghouse. The dry venturi
reportedly causes agglomeration of small particles formed in the dry
scrubber which results in reduced pressure drop in the baghouse. This
reduced pressure drop translates to longer cleaning cycles which are
associated with higher removal efficiencies for small particles. The Teller
system employs a lime slurry in the quench reactor for acid gas absorption
and a proprietory dry crystalline product (called Tesisorb) in the dry
venturi to promote capture and agglomeration of sub-micron particles. Other
dry injection systems applied to MSW incinerators utilize only pulverized
lime injected into the flue gas stream in a dry venturi upstream of a
baghouse.
CML.027 4-36
-------
Source: Reference 29
Figure 4-14. Teller Dry Scrubbing System
-------
Advantages cited for dry scrubbing/injection followed by fabric
filtration include the following:
(1) Insensitive to changes in inlet particulate loading or
characteristics within the combustion chamber.
(2) Effective and efficient particle capture in the submicron range.
(3) Efficient S02 and HC1 removal.
(4) Produces dry particulates that can easily be disposed.
(5) Because flue gas is not saturated with moisture, there is less
potential for a visible plume exiting the stack.
(6) Reduction of organic emissions due to low operating temperatures.
Disadvantages cited include the following:
(1) Reduced exit gas temperatures can affect gas plume rise, thus
affecting pollutant dispersion.
(2) Reagents costs are high.
4.3.3 Afterburners
A third combustion chamber on some incinerators acts as an afterburner.
This control device can be expected to further reduce organic emissions.
The most likely location for such a device would be before the scrubber.
Direct flame afterburners operating at a 2,000°F temperature and 1.0 second
residence time can typically achieve greater than 98 percent destruction
even for chlorinated organics.
CML.027 4-38
-------
4.4 REFERENCES
1. Cooper, M. J., Foster Wheeler USA, Corp. The State-of-the-Art MSW
Facility at Commerce, California. Presented at the Air Pollution
Central Association Conference on Incineration of Wastes. Wakefield,
Massachusetts. April 12-13, 1988.
2. Haynes, B. S., M. Neville, R. J. Quann, and A. F. Sarofim, J. Colloid.
Interface Sci.. 87, 266-278 (1982)
3. Stull, R. D., E. F. Westrum, and G. C. Sinke: The Chemical
Thermodynamics of Organic Compounds. Wiley (1969).
4. Shih, C. C., R. F. Tobias, J. F. Clausen, and R. J. Johnson: Thermal
Degradation of Military Standard Pesticide Formulations, TRW Report
24768-6018RU-00, U. S. Army Medical R&D Command, (December 1974).
5. Kramlich, J. C., W. D. Clark, W. R. Seeker, and 6. S. Samuelsen,
Theoretical Evaluation of Exhaust Emissions of CO and THC as Indicators
of Incineration Performance, Final Report, Work Assignment 3, EPA
Contract No. 68-02-3113, 1984.
6. England, G. C., M. P. Heap, D. W. Pershing, J. L. Tomlinson, and
T. L. Corley, "Low-NO Combustors for High Nitrogen Liquid Fuels,"
Proceedings of the Jotnt Symposium on Stationary Combustion of NO
Control. Vol. V, Fundamental Combustion Research and Advanced x
Processes. EPA Report No. IERF-RTP-1087a, 1980.
7. Shaub, W. M. and W. Tsand, "Dioxin Formation in Incinerators," Environ.
Sci. Techno!.. 17, 1983, pp. 721-730.
8. National Environmental Research Center, "Scientific and Technical
Assessment Report on Particulate Polycyclic Organic Matter (PPOM),"
EPA-600/6-74-001, March 1984.
9. Miles, A. J., et. al. Radian Corporation. Draft Engineering Analysis
Report, National Dioxin Study, Tier 4: Combustion Sources. EPA
Contract No. 68-02-3889, Work Assignment No. 40. November 1985.
10. Final report. "Municipal Waste Combustion Study Data Gathering Phase,"
prepared for Morrison, R., EPA, by Radian Corporation, November 1986.
11. Reference 5.
12. Stieglitz, L. and H. Vogg. "New Aspects of PCDD/PCDF Formation in
Incineration Processes." Preliminary Proceedings. Municipal Waste
Incineration. October 1-2, 1987, Montreal, Quebec.
13. Clark, M. "Air Pollution Control Status Report." Waste Aoe.
November 1987. p. 102-117.
CML.027 4-39
-------
14. Hagenmaier, H., M. Kraft, H. Brunner, and R. Haag. "Catalytic Effects
of Fly Ash from Waste Incineration Facilities on the Formation and
Decomposition of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Polychlorinated
Dibenzofurans." Environmental Science adn Technology. November 1987
Vol. 21, No. 11, p. 1080-1084
15. Vogg, H. and L. Stieglitz. Chemosohere. 1986. Vol. 15, p. 1373.
16. California Air Resources Board. Air Pollution Control at Resource
Recovery Facilities. May 24, 1984.
17. Devitt, T. W., et al. PEDCo Environmental, Inc. Air Pollution
Emissions and Control Technology for Waste-As-Fuel Processes.
October 1979.
18. Reference 5.
19. Reference 16.
20. Reference 16.
21. Reference 16.
22. Sedman, C. B., T. G. Brna. Municipal Waste Combustion Study: Flue Gas
Cleaning Technology. EPA/530-SW-87-021d. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. June 1987.
23. Radian Corporation, Site 4 Draft Final Emission Test Report - Sewage
Sludge Test Program, Work Assignment No. 71, EPA Contract 68-02-6999.
1988
24. Cleverly, D. H. Emissions and Emission Control in Resource Recovery.
Office of Resource Recovery, NYC Department of Sanitation. December 9,
1982.
25. Teller, A. J. Dry System Emission Control for Municipal Incinerators.
Proceedings of National Waste Conference, 1980. ASME. New York, as
cited in Reference 109.
26. Teller, A. J. The Landmark Framingham, Massachusetts Incinerator,
presented at The Hazardous Materials Management Conference,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. June 5-7, 1984.
27. Teller, A. J. New Systems for Municipal Incineration Control. '
National- Waste Processing Conference, 1978. ASME., as cited in
Reference 109.
CML.027 4-40
-------
28. Teller, A. J. Teller Systems Incineration - Resource Recovery Flue Gas
Emission Control. Presented at Acid Gas and Oioxin Control for Waste
to Energy Facilities. Washington, O.C. November 25-26, 1985.
29. Reference 28.
30. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Register 48:48932.1983.
CML.027 4-41
-------
5.0 REGULATORY STATUS AND STRATEGIES
Regulatory strategies in the United States to control air emissions
from hospital waste incinerators have not been addressed to date at the
Federal level but have been a focus of attention at the State level.
Because of their relatively small size, emissions from hospital waste
incinerators are not subject to Federal regulations which control emissions
from larger MSW incinerators and solid waste-fired boilers. Instead,
hospital waste incinerators are subject to a "patchwork quilt" of State and
local guidance and regulations. Currently, most States recommend, but do
not require, the control of particulate matter (PM) emissions and opacity
for hospital waste incinerators. However, with the growing public concern
over handling and disposal of hospital wastes, several States have developed
emission limit regulations for incinerators which have recently been
promulgated or are now in the proposal stage.
This section discusses the current regulatory environment for hospital
waste incinerators at both the Federal and State level. The information
presented on State programs is accurate as of June 1988. However, due to
the rapidly changing nature of these programs, this information is expected
to become quickly out-of-date.
In addition to Federal and State regulations in the United States, this
section also reviews regulations which have been established for hospital
waste incineration in Canada and European countries.
5.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS
5.1.1 New Source Performance Standards
Hospital waste incinerators are not currently a source category subject
to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). However, they would be subject
to the NSPS for industrial, commercial, and institutional steam generating
units (i.e., boilers) at 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Db if units have a heat
input capacity above 100 million Btu/hr and recover heat to generate steam
or to heat water (or other heat transfer media). At 8,500 Btu per pound of
CML.027 5-1
-------
Type 0 (see Table 1-3) waste, a hospital incinerator must be sized to feed
over 11,700 Ib/hr of waste to be subject to the boiler NSPS. The largest
system offered for on-site hospital waste incineration is approximately
6,000 Ib/hr capacity, and most units are well below this size. Hence
hospital waste incinerators are unlikely to be impacted by the current
boiler NSPS.
EPA is currently evaluating NSPS for smaller boilers with capacities
below 100 million Btu/hr. The lower size cutoff is one of the factors to be
determined during the rulemaking process. A lower size cutoff below
50 million Btu/hr would affect at least a fraction of new, modified, or
reconstructed hospital waste incinerators. The pollutants being evaluated
for the small boiler NSPS are PM, opacity, NOX, and SCL. Proposal of this
standard is scheduled for June 1989.
NSPS limiting PM emissions to 0.08 gr/dscf (equivalent to about 0.18
ID/million Btu) corrected to 12 percent C02 have been promulgated at 40 CFR
Part 60 Subpart E for incinerators having a design capacity of 50 ton/day
(i.e., 4,167 Ib/hr) or greater and which burn more than 50 percent municipal
type waste. This waste is defined as "waste consisting of a mixture of
paper, wood, yard wastes, food wastes, plastics, leather, rubber, and other
combustibles, and noncombustible materials such as glass and rock."
Although hospital waste would seem to qualify under this definition, the
size limit for Subpart E would apply to only the largest of hospital waste
incinerators.
5.1.2 National Emission Standards for the Hazardous Air Pollutants
Of the 12 NESHAPs promulgated pursuant to Section 112 of the Clean Air
Act which address hazardous pollutants, none pertain to hospital waste
incinerators.
5.1.3 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Requirements
As a first step in fulfilling the Congressional mandate to establish a
hazardous waste management system, EPA published proposed regulations in the
Federal Register on December 18, 1978, which included a proposed definition
and treatment methods for infectious waste. During the public comment
CML.027 5-2
-------
period for this rulemaking, EPA received approximately sixty comments which
specifically addressed the infectious waste provisions of the proposed
regulations.
On May 19, 1980, EPA published the first phase of the hazardous waste
regulations. The Agency stated in the preamble to the regulations that the
sections on infectious waste would be published when work on treatment,
storage, and disposal standards was completed. Recently, EPA published a
Federal Register notice of data availability and request for comment on
issues pertaining to infectious waste management.3
5.1.4 Prevention or Significant Deterioration Requirements
Hospital waste incinerators are not among the 28 named prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) source categories. Even though waste
generation rates vary among hospitals, emissions from incinerators are
typically less than 250 tons per year. Therefore, in most states best
available control technology (BACT) is not required for emitted pollutants.
5.2 STATE REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS
•5.2.1 State Requirements for Waste Handling
Most states have requirements for licensing of hospital that may
include general requirements for infectious waste disposal. Usually, these
general requirements are limited in scope and do not apply to other sources
of infectious waste, such as crematoria. The only restriction on the
pathological or biomedical waste incinerators in many states is that they
not create a public nuisance. That has meant that no odors are to be
generated and that the opacity is to be low.5
A majority of states have passed hazardous waste legislation to control
the treatment, storage, and disposal of infectious waste (as part of their
hazardous waste program). Some states have already promulgated regulations
controlling infectious waste, while other states are preparing such
regulations. Since there is no unanimity of opinion on the hazards posed by
CML.027 5-3
-------
infectious waste and appropriate techniques for safe disposal of these
wastes, state control varies. Most states do not have specific
requirements for hospital incineration that limit air pollutant emissions.
To determine what efforts different states have taken to regulate
infectious wastes, the National Solid Wastes Management Association's
(NSWMA) Infectious Waste Task Force surveyed the state health and
environmental agencies in January 1987. The general purpose of the survey
was to determine where treatment and disposal of infectious waste are
subject to regulations distinct from those that apply to municipal solid
waste (MSW).7 The survey's results indicated the following:8
o The solid waste and/or health departments in 28 states do define
infectious waste items and subject these items to special rules or
recommendations in management.
o Some states such as Massachusetts and Louisiana expect to revise
their definitions soon to capture all generators of infectious
wastes and not just hospitals.
o In general, hospitals and health-care facilities are prevented
from disposing of wastes in a landfill without rendering the
wastes non-infectious.
o Thirteen states have written or endorsed specific guidelines or
requirements for transporting untreated infectious wastes.
5.2.2 State Air Emission Requirements
Radian has contacted several states to clarify their infectious waste
management requirements; the information collected from the states is
presented in Appendix A. The appendix contains an updated list of
infectious waste regulations and requirements as well as a list of state
offices that may be contacted for additional information. Where data were
missing from non-contacted states, data available from the EPA Guide for
Infectious Waste Management were listed. Most states did not list a
specific regulation concerning the incineration of hospital or infectious
waste.
Pennsylvania has recently established best available control technology
guidance for hospital infectious waste incineration. These guidelines
require stack emission limitations on particulate matter, carbon monoxide,
CML.027 5-4
-------
hydrochloric acid and visible air contaminants. The guidelines are listed
in Table 5-1 along with guideline emission limits set by New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut, and Illinois.
5.2.3 State Air Toxics Programs
A majority of states and localities use some form of ambient guidelines
or standards for the control of toxic air emissions from hospital
incinerators. Several states regulate new hospital waste incinerators in a
manner similar to that required by the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) hazardous waste incineration regulations, I.e.; 100 ppm CO, 90%
control or 4 Ib/hr HC1 emissions, and 0.08 gr/dscf (corrected to 12 percent
C02) for particulates.9 The city of Philadelphia is requiring that new
hospital incinerators have scrubbers, which are used to control acid gases
and toxic air contaminants.
The State of Pennsylvania also requires ambient impact analyses for
arsenic, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, lead, mercury, nickel,
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, and polychlorinated dibenzofurans. The
acceptable ambient air concentrations for these pollutants are listed in
Table 5-2. Stack sampling is required to demonstrate compliance with
ambient limits based on dispersion modeling calculations.
The State of New York has drafted operating guidelines for hospital
waste combustion. These guidelines require stack emission limitations for
particulate matter, carbon monoxide, hydrochloric acid, and visible air
contaminants. Also, continuous monitoring and recording of temperature in
the secondary chamber are required to show an exit temperature of at least
1800°F. In addition, the State requires demonstration of compliance with
acceptable ambient air quality levels for toxic air contaminants (or
acceptable risk assessments for carcinogens) under its Air Guide policy (see
Table 5-2).H'12
In the State of California each local air quality district can
establish its own emission limit requirements. Presently, guidelines on
emission limits MSW and hazardous waste facilities are serving as guidelines
for hospital waste incineration. However, California is in the process of
developing new restrictions that pertain directly to hospital waste
incineration.
CML.027 5-5
-------
TABLE 5-1. GUIDELINE EMISSION LIMITS FOR IKCIHERATORS BURNING HOSPITAL WASTE
3C
•
O
01
o»
State/Facility
New York
Pennsylvania
(Facility with
capacity £500 Ib/hr)
Pennsylvania
(Facility with capacity
>500 Ib/hr, £2000 Ib/hr)
Pennsylvania
(Facility with
capacity >1000 Ib/hr)
New Jersey
Connecticut
Illinois
(Facility with
capacity >6000 Ib/hr)
Illinois
(Facility with capacity
>2000 Ib/hr, <6000 Ib/hr)
Illlnol*
(Facility with
capacity <2000 Ib/hr)
Partlculate Matter Opacity
0.015 gr/dscf (at 7X CO ) maximum continuous
6-mlnute average <10X
0.08 gr/dacf (at 12X CX>2) OOX at all tlmeai
maximum 3-mlnute
average <10X In any hour
0.03 gr/dscf (at 7X O ) OOX at all tlmai
maximum 3-mlnute
average <10X In any hour
0.015 gr/dscf (at 7X 0 ) OOX at all t lines i
—"'••'" 3-mlnute
average <10X In any hour
0.02 gr/dscf (at 12X 2)
0.02 gr/dscf (at 12X CO^
0.05 gr/scf (at 12X (X>2) 30X
O.OB gr/scf (at 12X CO ) 30X
0.1-0.20 gr/scf (at 12X CO ) 30X
Pollutant
HC1 CO
50 ppmv 3-hour 100 ppm hourly
average or shall be average (at 7X 0
reduced by 90 X or
uncontrolled rate
less than 4 Ib/hr
for facilities below
580 Ib/hr total
charging rate
<41b/hr or shall 100 ppmv hourly
be reduced by 90X average (at 7X O )
by weight
30 ppmv hourly 100 ppmv hourly
average (at 7X O ) average (at 7X 0 )
or shall be reduced
by 90X by weight
30 ppmv hourly 100 ppmv hourly
average (at 7X O ) average (at 7X O )
or shall be reduced
by 90X by weight
—
—
"
500 ppm at 50X
excess air
..
so2
— —
30 ppmv hourly
average (at 7X O )
or shall be reduced
by 7SX by weight
30 ppmv hourly
average (at 7X 0 )
or shall be reduced
by 75X by weight
—
~
"
--
"
References 21-25.
-------
TABLE 5-2. ACCEPTABLE ANNUAL AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS
REPORTED FOR SELECTED POLLUTANTS3
Metal/Compound Pennsylvania New York
Arsenic and Compounds 0.23 x 10 0.67
Beryllium and Compounds 0.42 x 10
Cadmium and Compounds 0.56 x 10 2.0
Hexavalent Chromium 0.83 x 10"4 0.167
and Compounds
Lead and Compounds 0.50 1.5b
Mercury and Compounds 0.08 0.167
Nickel and Compounds 0.33 x 10"2 3.3
PCDD and PCDFC 0.30 x 10"7 -d
References 26 and 27; all concentrations in ug/m .
Federal standard for lead; not yet officially adopted by New York State,
but currently being applied to determine compliance status.
Expressed as tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin equivalents
Emission sources of chlorinated dlbenzofurans and dibenzodioxins are
reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the Department of Health (DOH). The
NY State DOH has determined that basing an acceptable ambient level on
TCDDs does not adequately represent public health risks for the dioxin
compounds.
CML.027 5-7
-------
5.2.4 State Permitting Requirements
Radian contacted several states with relatively stringent air emission
limitations to discuss procedures and analyses required to obtain an
operating permit for an infectious waste incinerator. The objective of this
effort was to identify the range of analyses and requirements currently
associated with the permitting process. Operator training and ash disposal
requirements are also addressed, where applicable. The results of the
contacts are summarized below, by state, in alphabetical order:
Connecticut - Department of Environmental Protection
o Infectious wastes are currently regulated as special wastes.
o BACT analysis is required in lieu of emission limits for any
pollutant emitted at rates greater than 5 tons/year. This
includes HC1, PM, and toxics.
o Ambient impact/risk analysis are not required, although stack
emissions are limited to levels dictated by ambient Hazard
Limiting Values (HLV) at the facility fenceline. The HLVs are
based on the State's air toxics control program.
o Incinerator ash is evaluated using the Extraction Procedure (EP)
toxicity test. If the ash fails the test, it must be handled as a
hazardous waste. If the ash passes the test, which is more
common, it is sent to a permitted special waste landfill. The ash
must be isolated and contained in a separate cell at the landfill.
14
Illinois - Environmental Protection Agency
o No BACT or ambient impact analyses are required unless the source
qualifies under Federal PSD rules.
o Infectious waste incinerator ash is treated as a hazardous waste.
It must be sent to a permitted special waste landfill. The ash
must be shipped in accordance with the State's manifest system.
o If the waste is to be incinerated, the permit applicant must
describe the incinerator to be used; wastes to be incinerated; gas
cleaning devices; methods to dispose of bottom ash, fly ash and/or
scrubber sludge; and indicate operating temperatures and gas
residence time.
Massachusetts - Division of Air Quality Control
o A BACT analysis is required for all infectious waste incinerators.
Emissions of concern include PM, PM1Q acid gases, dioxins, furans,
CML.027 5-8
-------
pathogens, and metals. The analysis is performed from a
"top-down" perspective (i.e., the most stringent technology
applicable must be examined and rejected on the basis of costs or
other factors before less stringent alternatives can be
considered).
In addition to the BACT analysis results, permit applicants must
specify procedures for incineration warm-up, burn-down, feed
charging, and waste handling which meet State requirements. For
example, infectious waste must be placed in boxes prior to
disposal.
Michigan - Department of Natural Resources
16
o Applicants for a permit to operate must submit a complete
description of the incineration and potential pollution control
equipment which includes the following:
-Plot plan and nearby building information
-Description of the incinerator
-Description of the waste stream
-Operating schedule
-Temperature profile and retention time
-Temperature monitoring and recording system
-Procedures to insure that prescribed temperatures are monitored
-Flue gas volume and composition
-Description of combustion controls
-Discussion of the physical and economic feasibility of installing
and operating an acid gas scrubbing system and a high efficiency
particulate collector
-Description of proposed emission control equipment
-Description of emission control equipment by-pass, if applicable
-Discussion of stack sampling ports
-Description of ash handling system
-Description of preventative maintenance and malfunction abatement
system
CML.027 5-9
-------
-Maximum uncontrolled and controlled emission rates for specified
pollutants
-Demonstration that the proposed emissions will not cause
injurious effects to human health and safety
In lieu of their own emissions data, applicants may use the DNR's
statistical emission rate data (95th percentile) compiled on the
basis of available test data.
To demonstrate that emissions do not cause injurious effects to
human health and safety, applicants must perform dispersion
modeling and determine ambient concentrations at both ground level
and air intake levels for nearby buildings. Acceptable ambient
air concentrations have been established for the following
pollutants:
-Particulate matter
-Sulfur dioxide
-Nitrogen oxides
-Carbon monoxide
-Polychlorinated biphenyls
-Mercury
-Arsenic
-Cadmium
-Chromium
-Total polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCOD)
-Total polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF)
-Hydrogen chloride
The applicant may request the DNR to perform the necessary
dispersion analysis using the methods developed by the Michigan
Air Pollution Control Commission.
As discussed, ambient pollutant concentrations must be below
acceptable levels at both ground and air intake levels. Options
to remedy predicted concentrations above required levels are to
increase stack height and to install emission control equipment
such as scrubbing systems and baghouses.
CML.027 5-10
-------
New York - Department of Environmental Conservation
o Applicants must submit engineering data relative to waste
characterization, Incinerator design, combustion air systems,
incinerator control devices, and flue gas cleaning devices.
o An ambient air quality impact analysis must be performed with
respect to the following pollutants:
-Total particulates
-Sulfur dioxide
-Nitrogen dioxide
-Carbon monoxide
-Hydrocarbons
-Hydrogen chloride
-Lead
-Cadmium
-Chromium
-Arsenic
-Mercury
-Nickel
-Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
-Polychlorinated biphenyls
-2,3,7,8 tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (TCDD)
-Total TCDD
-Total PCDD
-Total PCDF
Pennsylvania - Department of Environmental Resources18
o Ambient impact analyses must be conducted for: a) arsenic and
compounds; b) beryllium and compounds; c) cadmium and compounds;
d) hexavalent chromium and compounds; e) lead and compounds; f)
mercury and compounds; g) nickel and compounds; h) PCDD and PCDF
expressed as 2,3,7,8 TCDD equivalents using toxicity equivalents
CML.027 5-11
-------
factors (TEF). Using available emission factors, the emissions
from the facility must be estimated and the analyses must be
conducted by performing dispersion modeling using the facility's
exhaust characteristics.
If the application is subject to "Prevention of Significant
Deterioration" (PSD) requirements, the analyses shall be conducted
in accordance with the "Guidelines on Air Quality Modeling" dated
January 1983 (as revised). The applicant is advised to discuss
the modeling requirements with the Department prior to starting
any modeling study. The analysis must show that predicted
concentrations do not exceed the levels shown in Table 5-2.
Compliance must be verified by stack sampling. Using the actual
stack emission rates, the exhaust parameters from each test and
the dispersion modeling techniques specified in the application as
approved by the Department, the calculated maximum annual ambient
concentrations must not exceed the stated levels.
Incinerator ash must be landfilled. The landfill must be
permitted by the Department to accept such wastes. By the end of
the decade, the Department intends that only landfills that meet
new municipal waste disposal regulates, similar to these for
hazardous waste landfills, continue to operate.
An application for disposal of special waste must be filed and
approved which includes a detailed description of the type and
source of waste and of the incinerating conditions. The
Department requires ash to be tested under conditions that
simulate a landfill and may, if necessary, impose special disposal
conditions in a permit to prevent loading of heavy metals.
Before construction, hospital waste incinerators must undergo a
plan review in which the Department reviews the design to insure
that all applicable standards are capable of being met. The plan
approval application must include a description of each specific
waste and approximate quantity of each such wastes which will be
charged to the incinerator. The application must, as a minimum,
contain the final design specifications of the incinerator and the
associated air pollution control devices with dimensioned drawings
indicating the locations of burners, air injection ports and
monitors.
In addition to emission estimates and the results of the ambient
impact analyses, the plan must include a set of calculations for
estimating secondary chamber residence times using specified
procedures.
Facilities capable of burning hospital/infectious wastes at rates
greater than or equal to 50 tons per day must also meet the
permitting criteria established for municipal waste incinerator.
CML.027 5-12
-------
Prior to startup, all incinerator operators must be trained as to
proper operating practices and procedures. The content of the
training program must be submitted to the Department for approval.
The applicant must submit a copy of a certificate verifying the
satisfactory completion of a training program by all operators
prior to issuance of an operating permit.
5.3 FOREIGN REGULATIONS
In Canada, air pollution regulations are established by each provincial
government. Table 5-3 lists emission limits established in Alberta, Canada
and technical requirements established in several European countries. This
study did not include the investigation per se of foreign procedures or
regulations. However, the data presented in Table 5-3 were extracted from
References 19 and 20.
CML.027 5-13
-------
TABLE 5-3. FOREIGN EMISSION REGULATIONS FOR HOSPITAL WASTE3
Pollutant
Alberta, Canada
European3
Particulate matter
0.20 kg/1000 kg b
of gaseous effluent
0.60 kg/1000 kg
of gaseous effluent
200 mg/Nm dry
at 7% CO- maximum
HC1
100 ppm at 50%
excess air
300 mg/Nm dry
at 7% CO maximum
CO
SO,
HF
Opacity
500 mg/Nm dry
at 7% CO. maximum
200 mg/Nm dry
at 7% CO- maximum
5 mg/Nm dry
at 7% CO- maximum
Not to exceed 30%
References 19 and 20.
For incinerators with a capacity of greater than 227 kg/h.
cFor incinerators with a capacity of less than 227 kg/h.
CML.027
5-14
-------
5.4 REFERENCES
1. EPA Guide for Infectious Waste Management. Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. EPA-530/SW-86-014 Washington, DC. May, 1986.
2. Reference 1.
3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Register 53:20140.
1988.
4. Reference 1, p. 1-3.
5. Vogg H., Metzger M., Stieglitz E., "Recent Findings on the Formation
and Decomposition of PCDD/PCDF in Solid Municipal Waste Incineration"
presented at International Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Association
specialized seminar on Emissions of Halogenated Organics from Municipal
Solid Waste Incineration, January 22, 1987, Copenhagen, Denmark.
6. Reference 1, p. 1-3.
7. Pettit, C. L., "Infectious Waste State Programs Survey." Waste Age,
April 1987, pp. 115-128.
8. Reference 7.
9. Reference 5.
10. Lauber, J.D., "Controlled Commercial/Regional Incineration of
Biomedical Wastes." Presented at the Incineration of Low Level
Radioactive and Mixed Wastes, 1987 Conference, St. Charles, Illinois,
April 21-24, 1987.
11. Reference 10.
12. New York State Air-Guide-1. N.Y.S. Department of Environmental
Conservation 1985-86 Edition, July, 1986 printing.
13. Private communication between E. Aul, Radian Corporation and W. Howard
and P. Florkosky, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection,
June 14, 1988.
14. Private communication between E. Aul, Radian Corporation and
M. Scholenburger and J. Cobb, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,
June 13, 1988.
15. Private communication between E. Aul, Radian Corporation and
W. Sullivan, Massachusetts Division of Air Quality Control,
June 15, 1988.
CML.027 5-15
-------
16. Private communication between R. Morrison, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency and L. Fiedler, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, January 15, 1988.
17. Private communication between R. Morrison, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency and C. Konheim, Konheim & Ketchum, January 11, 1988.
18. BAT and Chapter 127 Plan Approval Criteria: Hospital/Infectious Waste
Incinerators. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resource Office
of Public Liaison. Harrisburg, PA. January 1988.
19. Powell, F.C., "Air Pollutant Emission from the Incineration of Hospital
Wastes, The Alberts Experience." J. Air Pollution Control Association,
Vol. 37, No. 7, July 1987.
20. Faurholdt, B., "European Experience with Incineration of Hazardous and
Pathological Wastes." Presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Air
Pollution Control Association, New York, New York, June 21-26, 1987.
21. Reference 18.
22. Revised 6NYCRR Part 219 Incinerators Draft, New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY. April 1988.
23. Reference 10, p. 14.
24. Environmental Register No. 230: Proceedings of Illinois Pollution
Control Board, December 18, 1980.
25. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Register 39:20792
1974.
26. Reference 18.
27. Reference 12, p. 27 to 31.
CML.027 5-16
-------
6.0 HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATOR MODEL PLANTS
One of the objectives of this study was to develop modeling parameters
emissions and exposure from hospital incinerator units. The parameters
developed in this study will be used in EPA's Human Exposure Model (HEM).
Results of the HEM analysis will then be used to provide a preliminary
estimate of chronic exposure to emissions from hospital waste incinerators.
This objective was accomplished by developing input data for model
incinerators which are felt to be representative of the general population
instead of using actual hospital incinerator sites and stack parameters.
This approach was taken because of the difficulty involved in characterizing
the capacity and location of all hospital incinerators on a national level.
The approach used was to analyze a segment of the population for which
detailed information could be obtained regarding unit capacity, stack
parameters, and operation. In this case, a recent database of hospital
incinerators in the State of New York was located during the study and used
as a population segment. Through analysis of the distribution of
incinerator capacities in the New York population, model plants were
identified. The appropriate stack parameters (height, diameter, gas
velocity, and temperature) were then determined by further evaluation of
this data set. Finally the emissions factors of Section 3.0 were applied to
to these model plants to estimate the short-term and long-term emissions
rates.
This section contains a brief discussion of the relationship between
hospital populations and incinerator populations. Next, the model
incinerator capacities and stack parameters selected for the analysis are
presented. Finally, the corresponding emissions rates for pollutants of
concern are presented for the model plants, based on the emissions data from
Section 3.
6.1 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
6.1.1 Population Distribution
As noted in Section 1.1, there are currently over 6,000 hospitals in
the U.S.; it is estimated that over 90 percent of these facilities operate
CML.027 6-1
-------
incinerator equipment of some kind, if only a small retort-type unit. The
population of controlled air incinerators is smaller but still substantial.
The development of a national inventory of hospital incinerators was not
feasible for this study. Instead, an analysis of a subset of the population
for which the necessary information was available was performed. A recent
New York (NY) State database was located during the study which contained
information gained through an in-state survey of incinerator units. This
database contained unit size, location, annual operation, and stack
parameters for 433 incinerators located 1n NY.
To estimate the "representativeness" of the NY hospital population
relative to the U.S. population, the distribution of hospital sizes was
examined. The distribution of hospital sizes according to bed number is
2
presented for both NY and the U.S. in Figure 6-1. Both these distributions
have similar shapes for hospital sizes between 0 and 500 beds. However,
there is a greater proportion of hospitals above the 500 bed size in NY than
in the U.S. population. This is probably due to the fact that NY has
several densely populated areas. Therefore, a model Incinerator capacity
which corresponds to hospitals with greater than 500 beds was selected to
model hospitals in densely populated areas in the U.S. The potential impact
of these larger incinerator units on the associated populations will likely
be of interest to EPA.
No information was found during this study which relates hospital size
to the use of incineration or to incinerator capacity. Therefore, a
correlation between hospital size and incinerator capacity could not be
developed. A study of the population distribution of incinerator units
within the NY incinerator database was, therefore, undertaken. Figure 6-2
presents the results of this investigation. As shown, 59.6 percent of the
population are units with design feed capacities of less than 200 Ib/hr.
A model incinerator was, therefore, chosen from within the less than
200 Ib/hr capacity range.
A further breakdown of the smaller size incinerator population in NY by
unit capacity is shown in Figure 6-3. As can be seen, this population is
bimodal with peaks for units between 50 and 74 Ib/hr and 100 and 124 Ib/hr.
A detailed analysis of these two size ranges reveals that the majority of
units in each of the ranges are 50 and 100 Ib/hr, respectively. Since a
CML.027 6-2
-------
O
I
a.
o
VVxj
us
NY
us
50-99
100-199 200-299
NUMBER OF BEDS
N««Yortt
300-399
U.S.
400-499
NY
us
/\
2500
Figure 6-1. Distribution of Hospital Sizes According to Bed Number
-------
I
it.
O
27.0
10.4
8.3
7.9
7.4
6.5
T
0-99 100-199 200-299 300-399 400-599 600-999
WASTE FEED RATE (Ib/hr)
Figure 6-2. Waste Feed Rate Distribution of Incinerators
in N.Y. Database by Number
*1000
-------
01
z
D
It.
O
111
2
O
26
24 -
22 -
20 -
18 -
16 -
14 -
12 -
10 -
8 -
6 -
4 -
2 -
0
5.7
8.2
23.7
24.5
16.3
A
5.3
9.0
7.3
0-24 25-49 50-74 75-99 100-124 125-149 150-174 175-199
WASTE FEED RATE (Ib/hr)
Figure 6-3. Waste Feed Rate Distribution of Small (Less Than 200 Ib/hr} Incinerators
in N.Y. Database by Number
-------
100 Ib/hr feed rate is closer to the median of this population segment than
the 50 Ib/hr feed rate, a model incinerator of 100 Ib/hr capacity was chosen
to represent the small incinerator population.
A study of the capacity distribution for the incinerators in the NY
database was also undertaken. Figure 6-4 presents the results of this
investigation. As can be seen, incinerator units which burn 1,000 Ib/hr or
greater make up 33.5 percent of the incineration capacity. Units which burn
600 Ib/hr or greater make up 52 percent of the incineration capacity. A
model unit size of 1,000 Ib/hr was chosen to represent this half of the
incineration population. The 1,000 Ib/hr model size was chosen because it
represents the median point within the population of units with feed rates
of 600 Ib/hr or above (see Figure 6-2) and is an order of magnitude greater
than the 100 Ib/hr model incinerator capacity.
6.1.2 Model Incinerator Stack Parameters
The stack parameters required as inputs to the HEM include stack
height, diameter, and exit gas temperature and velocity. The NY incinerator
database was used to determine values for each of these stack parameters for
modeling purposes. The approach taken was to evaluate a given stack
parameter as a function-of the previously presented incinerator capacity
ranges of Figure 6-2. From this analysis, the variation of a given
parameter was evaluated as a function of unit capacity. If the given stack
parameter appeared to be a function of unit capacity, then a value based on
units in a similar capacity range to the model was chosen. If the parameter
of interest was not a function of unit size, then a mean value based on the
entire population of units was used.
Stack Height. The average, high, and low stack height values for a
given feed rate range are shown as a function of feed rate ranges in
Figure 6-5. The data shown are for incinerators with feed rates ranging
from 1 to 2,700 Ib/hr. As can be seen, stack heights vary greatly within a
given capacity range. Also, stack height values as low as 6 to 8 feet were
observed within the database. Although these low stack heights appear to be
unrealistic, no reasons were identified which could be used to discount
their use. One possible explanation is that this is the height of the stack
above the nearest adjacent building and not above the base of the
incinerator. Its inclusion as part of an average value for HEM modeling
CML.027 6-6
-------
33.5
1
i
b_
O
U
O
O
£
0.
34
32 -
30 -
28 -
26 -
24 -i
22 -
20 -
IB -
16 -
14 -
12 -
10 -
a
6
4 -
2 -
0
6.0
18.5
12.0
12.6
9.3
8.1
0-99 100-199 200-299 300-399 4OO-599
WASTE FEED RATE (Ib/hr)
600-999
ilOOO
Figure 6-4. Waste Feed Rate Distribution of Incinerators
in N.Y. Database by Capacity
-------
I
D
*
i
cr\
i
00
^uu
350 -
300 -
250 -
200 -
150 -
100 -
50 -
0 -
f^m
X
x
x
/
x
/
/
'/
y
y
/
66
^
\
\
\
\
i
y\
r—
y
'/
/
/
/,
y
//
y
y
'/
/
/
/
/
84
\
\
\
\
N^
1
rrA
y
/A
/
y
^^^S^
Z Y////T
'
P y
X
X
X
\XXX\N
82
i
y
/
y
/
y
//
y
/
X
x
x
x
x
x
y
87
\
\
\
\
\
1
X
^
/
I
'
w
/,
X
'/
/
/
y
87
\
\
\
\
\
%
0-99
100-199
HIGH
200-299 300-399 400-599 600-999
ilOOO
RATE (Ib/hr)
AVERAGE
LOW
Figure 6-5. Average, High and Low Stack Heights According to
Selected Feed Rate Ranges
-------
purposes should have a conservative effect on the stack height estimates. A
lower stack height should correspond to higher exposure levels for the
population and therefore a conservative estimate of the associated risk.
The results presented in Figure 6-5 show little variation in the
average stack height between ranges of unit capacities. In addition, no
correlation was found between stack gas temperature (as an indicator of heat
recovery equipment) and stack height. The highest of the average stack
heights is 87 feet and the lowest is 66 feet. An average stack height of
78 feet would therefore be a representative value for use as the HEM input
value, regardless of unit size or heat recovery equipment.
Stack Gas Temperature. The average, high, and low exhaust gas
temperature values within a given feed rate range are shown as a function of
feed rate ranges in Figure 6-6. As can be seen, the low in all cases is
400°F. Analysis of the NY database indicated several vent streams with exit
gas temperatures of less than 400°F. Because it was known that outlet
temperatures for units which have heat recovery equipment are limited to
approximately 400°F by the stack gas dew point, units with exit gas
temperatures which were below 400°F were excluded from analysis. A high
value of 2,220°F is shown. Little variation is seen in the average exhaust
gas temperatures over the entire range of capacities. For the entire
population, the high value of the average temperatures is 1,237°F and the
low value is 1,081°F. The average stack gas temperature for the entire
database is 1,I44°F. This temperature could be used for both the 100 and
1,000 Ib/hr model incinerators. Because heat recovery is known to be
employed on larger units, an additional 1,000 Ib/hr model unit with an exit
stack gas temperature of 450°F could be used to show the effects of heat
recovery in the modeling. An exit gas temperature of 450°F is appropriate
because it provides a comfortable margin above the 400°F acid dew point.
This temperature also corresponds to a known unit located at the University
of Michigan. If heat recovery equipment is employed, an induced draft fan
is often added to overcome the associated pressure drop and maintain design
pressures in the combustion chambers.* Thus, stack heights should not be
affected by the addition of heat recovery equipment.
Stack Gas Exit Velocity. The average, high, and low stack gas exit
velocities for a range of feed rates are shown in Figure 6-7. Once again,
CML.027 6-9
-------
Ol
I
£:
31
*£
'«>-,M ,00-** ao^ «,o-SM ^l^ ^
IZ2I HKH "^f^v^*^
-------
u
1JU -
120 -
110 -
100 -
90 -
-
rmm
70 -
-
M_
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
7]
X
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
V
8.0
s.
V
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
x
X
X
x
X
x
V
6.8
1
»
X
XXXXXXXX^
9.6
1
x«-a
' y IL
§
I
7.1
1
•
1
/
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
x
/
/
X
X
vXXXXXXXX
3.1
:r— i
x
x
y
/
!
16.0
0-99
100-199 200-299 300-399 400-599 600-999
1771 HIGH
RATE (Ib/hr)
AVERAGE
V77X LOW
ilOOO
Figure 6-7. Average, High and Low Stack Gas Exit Velocities According to
Selected Feed Rate Ranges
-------
the variation within a given capacity range is large. In general, the
average stack velocities shown also increase with the capacity of the unit.
This is understandable in view of the increasing volumetric flow rate
of stack gases with increasing incinerator capacity. Therefore, the average
stack gas velocity that applies to a particular model incinerator should be
used for modeling. Exit gas velocities of 16.5 and 26.0 ft/sec would be
appropriate for the 100 and 1,000 Ib/hr model incinerators, respectively.
The exit gas velocity for the 1,000 Ib/hr heat recovery model should be
reduced to 14.8 ft/sec to reflect the reduced exit gas temperature.
Stack Diameter. The average, high, and low stack diameter values for
ranges of feed rates are shown in Figure 6-8. As was the case for the other
stack parameters, the stack diameters vary within a given size range.
If the same approach used to determine the velocities is used to
determine the stack diameters, diameters of 25 and 34 inches would be
determined for the 100 and 1,000 Ib/hr models, respectively. Unfortunately,
these diameters are not realistic when the volumetric flow rate associated
with the two models are considered; the volumetric flow for a 1,000 Ib/hr
unit would be expected to be 10 times greater than the volumetric flow from
a 100 Ib/hr unit.
Instead, after allowing for the gas velocity differences discussed
above, the 25 and 34 inch diameters correspond to a volumetric flow ratio of
only 3. To address this inconsistency, the diameter for the 100 Ib/hr model
was chosen as a base point. The diameter for the 1,000 Ib/hr unit was then
determined by assuming a gas flow rate 10 times greater than that for the
smaller unit. The resultant diameter for the 1,000 Ib/hr model unit,-after
allowing for volume and velocity differences, would be 63 inches. For the
case of the 1,000 Ib/hr heat recovery model, the diameter was assumed to
remain constant. In actual practice, the stack diameters for these units
would be determined by the tradeoff between stack draft flow losses and
costs.
The results of the stack parameter analysis of the NY database are
summarized in Table 6-1. Model incinerators of 100 and 1,000 Ib/hr, with
two cases for the 1,000 Ib/hr model, are recommended as representative for
CML.Q27 6-12
-------
160 -
150 -
140 -
130 -
120 -
110 -
1OO -
• ww
90 -
80 -
70-
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
O -
r-,
^
/
/
x
x
x
/
X
/
X
x
x
x
y
X
1
26
!
771
F3
X
x
x
x
x
x
X
x
X
x
x
x
x
X
1
25
1
J> •
x
x
X
x
X
x
X
x
/
X
1
30
!
1
\7\
X
x
x
X
X
x
X
x
X
x
x
X
/
X
^
29
1
//
x
X
1
26
1
1
rr-\
7.
/
X
/
X
1
32
1
1
f
X
/
X
I
34
i
1
0-99
100-199
1771 HIGH
200-299 300-399
WASTE FEED RATE (Ib/hr)
AVERAGE
4OO-599
600-999
LOW
ilOOO
Figure 6-8. Average, High and Low Stack Diameters According to Selected
Feed Rate Ranges
-------
TABLE 6-1. SUMMARY OF MODEL INCINERATOR STACK PARAMETERS
100 Ib/hr Model 1,000 Ib/hr Model 1,000 Ib/hr Model
Incinerator with Incinerator with Incinerator with
No Heat Recovery No Heat Recovery Heat Recovery
Stack Height
ft
(•)
Exit Gas Temperature
°F
(K)
Exit Gas Velocity
ft/sec
(m/s)
Stack Diameter
in
(»)
78
(24)
1,144
(891)
16.5
(5.0)
25
(0.64)
78
(24)
1,144
(891)
26.0
(7.9)
66
(1.60)
78
(24)
450
(506)
14.8
(4.5)
66
(1.60)
CML.027 6-14
-------
modeling purposes. The recommended stack height, stack exit gas
temperature, and velocity values for each of these models are shown in the
table.
6.1.3 Model Incinerator Operating Parameters
The operating parameters required as inputs to the HEM include the
annual operating hours and hourly and yearly emissions rates. To determine
values for each of these operating parameters, the NY incinerator database
was again used to determine the annual operating hours associated with each
of the model incinerators. Next the hourly emission rates were determined
for each of the models by combining the emissions factor of Section 3.0 with
the model capacities previously developed. Finally, the yearly emission
rates for each of the models were determined by applying the annual
operating hours to the hourly emissions rates.
Annual Operating Hours. The average annual operating hours for a given
feed rate range are shown as a function of feed rate ranges in Figure 6-9.
As can be seen, the number of annual operating hours increases with
increasing unit capacity. Smaller units (less than 200 Ib/hr), which
operate approximately 1,000 hrs/year, can be characterized as operating five
days a week for about 4 hours each day. Larger units (greater than
600 Ib/hr), which operate approximately 2,350 hrs/year, can be characterized
as operating five days a week for 8 to 10 hrs each day. Therefore, annual
operating operating hours of 1,000 and 2,350 may be considered
representative for the 100 and 1,000 Ib/hr model sizes, respectively.
Hourly Emissions Rates. The emission factors previously developed in
Section 3.0 are shown in Table 6-2 along with the corresponding hourly and
yearly emissions rates for each of the model incinerators. High and low
emissions rates are given for each of the compounds for which data exist.
For compounds where only one data point exists, only one rate in shown.
Different particulate matter (PM) emissions rates were used for the two
model capacities because, as previously stated, for units of less than 400
Ib/hr capacity a larger variation in PM emissions was seen over those of
larger units. The high and low emission rates corresponding to this
capacity breakpoint are shown. A controlled PM emissions rate is also
shown. This rate is based on the baghouse data from the St. Agnes emission
test.
CML.027 6-15
-------
I
t—'
en
i
o
z
2.6
2.4 -
2.2 -
2 -
1.8 -
1.6 -
1.4 -1
1.2 -
1 -
0.8 -
0.6 -
0.4 -
0.2 -
0
242B
778
1147
1414
1910
2157
2088
0-90 100-199 200-299 300-399 400-599 600-999 klOOO
WASTE FEED RATE (Ib/hr)
Figure 6-9. Annual Operating Hours According to Selected Feed Rate Changes
-------
TABLE 6-2. SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS FACTORS AND RATES FOR HOSPITAL INCINERATOR MODEL SIZES
O
O
CVJ
O»
Group /Compound
Acid Cases
Hydrochloric Acid
High
Low
Sulfur Dioxide
High
Low
Nitrogen Oxide*
High
Low
Partlculate Matter
Uncontrolled (100 Ib/hr)
High
Low
Uncontrolled (1,000 Ib/hr)
High
Low
Controlled (all size*)
High
Low
Trace Metals (Uncontrolled)
Arsenic
High
Low
Cadmium
High
Low
Chromium
High
Low
Iron
High
Low
Emissions
Factor
(kg/Kg feed)
49.700
1.450
1.505
0.735
3.910
2.320
13.460
.285
18.24
0.685
1.06
.025
1.46 x 10~*
3.55 x 10
3.40 X 10~*
7.75 x 10"
9.75 x 10~*
5.10 x 10
9.15 x 10~*
1.99 x 10
Hourly Emissions
100 Ib/hr
Modal
2.2564
.0658
0.0683
0.0334
0.1775
0.1053
0.6111
.0129
.0481
.0011
6.62 x 10*'
1.61 x JO
1.54 x 10~*
3.51 x 10
4.42 x 10~*
2.32 * 10
4.15 x 10~*
9.03 x 10"
Rates (kg)
1,000 Ib/hr
Model
22.5638
.6580
0.6833
0.3337
1.7751
1.0533
8.2758
0.3110
.4808
.0114
6.62 x 10~*
1.61 x 10
1.54 x 10~*
3.51 x 10
4.42 x 10~*
2.32 x 10
4.15 x 10~*
9.03 x 10
Yearly Emissions
100 Ib/hr*
Model
2.256.38
65.80
68.33
33.37
177.51
105.33
611.08
12.90
48.10
1.14
6.6 x 10~3
1.61 x 10
1.54 x 10~*
3.51 x 10
4.42 x 10~*
2.32 x 10
4.15 x 10~*
9.03 x 10
Rates (kg)
1.000 lb/hrb
Model
53,024.93
1,545.59
1,605.68
784 . 17
4,171.58
2,475.21
19,448.13
730.83
1,129.88
26.67
1.56 x 10~*
3.79 x 10
3.63
.824
1'°* -2
5.44 x 10
9.76
2.12
-------
TABLE 6-2. SIMMRY OP EMISSIONS FACTORS AND RATES FOR 9OSPITAL IHCIHERATOR MODEL SIZES (CONTINUED)
ro
cn
i
•—*
00
Group/Compound
Manganese
High
Low
Hlckel
High
Low
Lead
High
Low
Dloxtos
(Tetra)TCDD
High
Low
(Penta)PeCDD
High
Low
(Hexa)HxCDD
High
Low
(Hepta)HeCDD
High
Low
(Oeta)DCOD
High
Low
Total PCDD
High
Low
Furans
(Tetra)TCDF
High
Low
(Penta)PeCDF
High
Low
Emissions
Factor
(kg/Mg feed)
-4
5.70 X 10
7.90 x 10*
.4
2.50 x 10
5.40 x 10
2.9 x 10*
1.52 x 10*
.7
5.35 x 10
2.00 x 10
3.80 x 10~g
5.50 x 10
7.60 x 10*
1.35 x 10*
-6
1.92 X 10 °
1.60 x 10*
2.74 x 10*'
1.70 x 10*
-6
6.26 x 10 ?
7.15 x 10*
1.04 x 10*'
2.50 x 10
1.90 x 10**
4.50 x 10*
Hourly Emissions
100 Ib/hr
Model
2.59 x 10~*
3.59 x 10*
-5
J.14 x 10
2.45 K 10
1.31 X 10~*
6.90 x 10
2.43 x 10"
9.08 x 10
1.73 x 10*'
2.50 x 10
_•
3.45 x 10 "
6.13 x 10
-a
8.69 x 10 "
7.26 x 10
1.24 x 10~*
7.72 x 10
_
2.84 x 10~
3.25 x 10
4.70 x 10**
1.14 x 10*
8.60 x 10~*
2.04 x 10*
Rates (kg)
1,000 Ib/hc
Model
-4
2.59 x 10
3.59 x 10
-4
1.14 X 10 *
2.45 x 10
_»
1.31 x 10 "
6.90 x 10*
-7
2.43 x 10
9.08 x 10
1.73 x ID**
2.50 x 10
-7
3.45 x 10 '
6.13 x 10
-7
8.69 x 10 '
7.26 x 10
1.24 x 10*'
7.72 x 10
-*
2.84 x 10
3.25 x 10
4.70 x 10*!
1.14 x 10
8.60 x 10~*
2.04 x 10
Yearly Emissions
100 Xb/hr*
Model
2.59 x 10* *
3.59 x 10*
_,
1.14 x 10
2.45 x 10
1.31
6.90 x 10
-5
2.43 x 10 7
9.08 x 10*
1.73 x 10~*
2.50 x 10
-5
3.45 x 10 "
6.13 x 10*
-S
8.69 x 10
7.26 x 10*
1.24 x 10**
7.72 x 10
-A
2.84 x 10 *
3.25 x 10
4.70 x 10~*
1.14 x 10*
8.60 x 10**
2.04 x 10
Rates (kg)
1,000 lb/hrb
Model
6.08 x 10*j
8.43 x 10
.
2.67 x 10 *
5.76 x 10
30.8
16.2
.4
5.71 x 10
2.13 x 10
4.05 x 10~*
5.87 x 10
-4
8.11 x 10
1.44 x 10
.
'2.04 x 10 "
1.71 x 10*
2.92 x 10* jj
1.81 x 10*
-3
6.68 x 10
7.63 x 10
1.10 x 10**
2.67 x 10
2.02 x 10**
4.80 x 10
-------
TABLE 6-2. SlMiARY OF EMISSIONS FACTORS AND RATES FOR HOSPITAL INCINERATOR MODEL SIZES (CONTINUED)
O
ro
-vl
Group /Compound
(Hexa)HxCDF
High
Low
(Hepta)HeCDF
High
Low
(Octa)DCDF
High
Low
Total PCDF
High
Low
Low Molecular Organic*
Ethane
Ethylene
Propane
Propylene
Trlchlorotrlfluoroethylene
Tetrachloroma thane
Trlchloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Carbon Monoxide
High
Low
Emissions
Factor
(kg/Mg feed)
2.82 x 10~*
4.10 x 10*
3.23 x ID**
2.75 x 10
2.18 x 10**
1.05 x 10*
1.09 x 10~*
1.63 x 10
0.0015
0.0100
0.0120
0.0110
4.13 x 10*'
4.96 x 10* "
1.20 x 10*
1.24 x 10
0.85
0.66
Hourly Emissions Rates (kg)
100 Ib/hr
Model
1.28, x 10**
1.86 x 10
1.47 x 10'1
1.25 x 10*
9.87 x 10~*
4.77 x 10
4.96 x 10**
7.38 K 1O
0.0001
0.0005
0.0005
0.0050
1.87 x 10~*
2.25 x 10~*
5.43 x 10*
5.65 x 10*
0.0384
0.0300
1,000 Ib/hr
Model
1.28 x 10~*
1.86 x 10*
1.47 x 10~*
1.25 x 10
9.87 x 10**
4.77 x 10
4.96 x 10*'
7.38 x 10
0.0007
0.0045
0.0054
0.0050
1.87 x 10**
2.25 x 10*'
5.43 x 10*°
5.65 x 10
0.3836
0.2996
Yearly Emissions Rates (kg)
100 Ib/hr*
Model
1.28 x 10~*
1.86 x 10*
1.47 x 10~*
1.25 x 10*
9.87 x 10~*
4.77 x 10*
4.96 x 10~*
7.38 x 10*
0.07
0.45
0.54
0.50
1.87 x 10~*
2.25 x 10~'
5.43 x 10*
5.65 x 10
38.36
29.26
1,000 lb/hrb
Model
3.00 x 10*'
4.37 x 10*
3.45 x 10**
2.93 x 10
2.32 x 10"|
1.12 x 10*
1.17 x 10**
1.73 x 10
1.60
10.67
12.80
11.74
4.40 x 10 *
5.29 x 10~*
1.27 x 10**
1.33 x 10
901.53
704.15
Based on 1,000 hours of yearly operation.
Based on 2,350 hours of yearly operation.
-------
6.2 REFERENCES
1. Air Pollution Source Management System, Current Application Data List,
Hospital Incinerator List. Compiled by New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, Albany, New York. Transmitted from
W. Sountag, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation to
T. Moody, Radian Corporation, June 9, 1988.
2. Summary Report, Hospital Statistics. American Hospital Association,
1986 Edition.
3. Doucet, L. G., and Mainka, P. C., Hospital Incinerator Emissions, Risk
and Permitting - A case Study. Presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of
APCA, New York, New York, June 21-26, 1987.
4. Private communication between E. Aul, Radian Corporation and S. Shuler,
Ecolaire Combustion Products, Inc., June 9, 1988.
CML.027 6-20
-------
APPENDIX A
CML.024 A-l
-------
APPENDIX A
STATE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO INFECTIOUS HASTE MANAGEMENT1
State
Statutory Authority and
Regulation Citation
Summary of Requirement*
Scat* Agency
Alaba
Alaaka
Arlsona
Arkansas
1973 Cod* of Alabama,
Section 22-21-20. Alabi
Board of Health Rule* and
Regulation* for Muralng Bane*
and Hospital*.
No regulation*.
State
Law* of Alaaka. Title 44,
Chapter 46| Title 46,
Chapter 3.
Arizona Revlaed Statute*,
Title 36, Article 2,
General Hospital*. Regulation
R9-10-220, Environmental Service*.
Subiectlon E.
Act 414 of 1961, a* amended by
Act 444 of 1965 and Act 454 of
1965. Rule* and Regulation* for
Hoapltal* and Related
Institutions In Arkansas.
All Infectious waate generated
by nuralng home* and hospitals
mat be Incinerated on *lte.
Policy la to reeoonend treatment
of Infectious waate prior to
disposal.
All Infectious wast* generated
by medical and veterinary
facilities must be Incinerated
prior to final disposal.
The state has atatutory authority
to regulate Infectious waate,
but haa not yet promulgated
regulation*.
All infectious, wast* must be
either (1) autoclaved and
dlapoaed of In an approved
sanitary landfill, or
(2) Incinerated In an approved
Incinerator. Variance* are
given for disposal of untreated
waate when there 1* Insufficient
treatment capacity.
All Infectlou* waste generated
by hospital* and related
Institutions oust be Incinerated
or dl*po*ed of by other approved
method*. Revision* are expected
In 1986.
Bureau of Llcenaure and Certification
State Health Department
Room 652
State Office Building
Montgomery. Alabama 36130-1701
(203) 261-3105
Alabama Department of Environmental
Management
Land Division
1751 Federal Drive
Montgomery. Alabama 36130
(205) 271-7700
Air and Solid Waate Management
Department of Environmental Conservation
Pouch 0
Jun*au, Alaska 99811
(907) 465-2666
Bureau of Health Care Institution
Llcenaure
Arizona Department of Health Service*
1740 Heat Adam* Street
Phoenix, Arlcona 83007
(602) 255-1115
Department of Health
Division of Health Facilities Service*
4815 W. Markham Street
Little Rock, Arkansas 72205-3867
(501) 661-2201
-------
APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)
State
Statutory Authority and
Regulation Citation
Summary of Requirements
State Agancy
California
Colorado
Connactlcut
Delaware
Th* Solid Ua»ta Kanacamaot Act
(237) of 1971. Arkanaaa Hasardoua
Haste Management Act of 1979
(Act 406 of 1979).
California Health and Safety Code
Chapter 6.9, Article 2,
Section 23117.3 California
Administrative Code, Title 22.
Dlvlalon 4, Chapter 30i Minimum
Standards for Management of
Hazardous and Extremely Hazardous
Wastat Infectious Waste Regulations,
effective November 16, 1983.*
Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973, as
amendedi Title 23, Article IS.
Part* 1, 2, and 3i Hazardous Waste
Management Act.
Chapter 4, Regulation* Governing
General Hospitals.
Connecticut General Statutes of
1979, Public Act 79-603.
Code 22A-4483 and 22A-113.
Delaware Code, Title 7, Chapter 60s
Solid Waste Act. Delaware Solid
Waste Disposal Regulations,
August 1974.
The state has atatutory authority
to regulate Infectious waste aa a
hatardou* waste, but has not yet
promulgated regulations.
Infectious waste must be
Incinerated, sterilized or treated
by other approved methods.
The atate has statutory authority
to regulate. Infectious waste as a
hasardous waste, but has not yet
promulgated regulations.
Pathological waste must be
incinerated. Off-site disposal In
approved aites 1* possible.
The atate has statutory authority
to regulate Infectious waste as a
hazardous waste, but has not yet
promulgated regulations.
Infectious waste disposal is
approved on a case-by-case basis.
None has been allowed to go to
landfills untreated since the
approval process was Initiated.
Revised regulations have been
proposed.
Solid Waste Management Division
Department of Pollution control and
Ecology
P.O. Box 9583
8001 National Drive
Little Rock. Arkansas 72219
(301) 362-7444
California Department of Health
Services
Hazardous Materials Management Section
714/744 P Street
Sacramento, California 93814
(916) 324-1798
Wast* Management Dlvlalon
Colorado Department of Health
4210 E. llth Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
(303) 320-8333 Ext. 4364
Dlvlalon of Health Facilities
Regulations
Colorado Department of Health
4210 E. llth Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220
(303) 320-8333 Ext. 6306
Hazardous Waste Management
Department of Environmental Protection
State Office Building
163 Capitol Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
(203) 366-4869 or 366-3712
Waste Management Section
Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
89 King Highway
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, Delaware 19903
(302) 736-4781
-------
APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)
State
Statutory Authority and
Regulation Citation
Summary of Requirement*
Stete Agency
District of
Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
District of Columbia Bacardou*
Waste Management Act of 1977,
D.C. Lav 2-64.
Florida Resource Recovery and
Management Act (Florida Statutes
Annotated, Title 27, Public Health,
Chapter 403, Part IV. Enacted by
the Laws of 1974, Chapter 142, as
amended). Florida Resource
Recovery and Management Regulations;
Rules of the Department of
Environmental Regulation,
Chapter 17-7.04.*
Code of Georgia, Annotated,
Title 43, Chapter 43-16, Solid
Waste Management Act of 1972, as
amended. Georgia Department of
Natural Resources Rules and
Regulations for Solid Haste
Management. Chapter 391-3-4, 1972,
as amended through 1974.
Hawaii Environmental Laws and
Regulations, Vol. I, Title 19,
Chapter 342, Part V, as amended
by Chapter 230, Laws of 1974.
Title II, Department of Health,
Chapter 58, Solid Waste
Management Control Regulations,
November 1981.
Idaho Code, Title 39. Chapter 1.
Idaho Solid Waste Management
Regulations, Title I, Chapter 6.
The District has statutory
authority to regulate infectious
waste as a hasardous waste, but
has not, yet promulgated
peculations.
Infectious waste must be
incinerated or treated by an
approved treatment method before
being placed in a landfill.
Infectious waste is considered a
special waste. Policy is to
require incineration or
autoclaving before land disposal.
All infectious waste must be
treated or otherwise rendered
safe before disposal. Double
bagging is considered a means of
rendering an untreated waste
safe.
All solid waste eust be managed
to prevent health hazards,
public nuisances, and pollution
of the environment during
treatment, storage and disposal.
Policy is to recommend that
infectious waste be double
bagged prior to disposal.
Department of Consumer and Regulatory
Affairs and Environmental Control
Division
5010 Overlook Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20032
(202) 767-8414
Solid Haste Management Program
Department of Environmental Regulation
Twin Towers Office Building, 6th Floor
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-0300
and
Department of Health and Rehabilitative
Services
1317 Hinewood Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-2903
Land Protection Branch
Environmental Protection Division
Department of Natural Resources
Room* 724
270 Washington Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
(404) 636-2833
Air and Solid Haste Permit Section
Department of Health
Amelco Building. 3rd Floor
645 Halefcau Wlla Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96313
Hazardous Materials Bureau
Department of Health and Welfare
State House
Boise, Idaho 83720
(208) 334-4107
-------
APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)
State
Statutory Authority and
Regulation Citation
Summary of Requirement*
State Agency
Illlnola
Indiana
Iowa
Kanaaa
Kentucky
Illinois Reviled Act 101-103,
January 1985. State of Illlnola
Rule* and Regulation* 35,
Subtitle 6, Subpart P,
Section. 700.601-700.60S.
Indiana Code, Title 13, Article 7,
Environmental Management Act.*
Refuje Dlaposal Act: Recodlfled
aa Indiana Solid Waate Dlapoaal
Law 1C-36-9-30. Rule 330 IAC 4.
Iowa Code 1985, Section 4558.30*.
900—100.3(2) Iowa Administrative
Code (IAC)
Kansas Statute* Annotated,
Chapter 65, Article 34, aa amended.
Kanaa* Administrative Regulation*,
Title 28. Public Health,
Article 29, Regulation 27,
Effective May 1984.
Kentucky Revl*ed Statute*,
224.00S(227)(a).
All Infectious hospital waate must
be rendered Innocuou* by
aterlllcatlon or Incineration
before dlapoaal.
The *tate ha* statutory authority
to regulate infectlou* waat* aa a
hasardou* watte, but ha* not yet
promulgated regulation*.
Regulation* are being drafted.
Written approval suit be obtained
before•disposal of Infectlou* waate
In a sanitary landfill. A 5-year
permit ayatem waa eatabllahed In
April, 1987.*
Land dlapoaal of Infectlou* waat*
la prohibited unla** a apeclal
waate authorisation 1* granted
that require* autoelavlng or
formalin treatment before land
dlapoaal.
Infectlou* waate muat be
Incinerated, treated before land
dlapoaal, or ground to the aever.
Untreated Infectlou* waate may be
aent to a hasardou* waat* land
dlapoaal facility or to a sanitary
landfill with authorisation from
the Department.
The atate has statutory authority
to regulate Infectious waate aa a
hazardous waate, but has not yet
promulgated regulation*.
Division of Land Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illlnola 62706
(217) 782-6762 or 782-6760
Division of Land Pollution Control
State Board of Health
1330 Heat Michigan Street
Room A304
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
(317) 243-9100
Air and Waste Permit Branch
Program Operation* Division
Iowa Department of Hater,
Air and Uaat* Management
Henry A. Wallace Building
900 Eaat Grand Street
De* Molnea, Iowa 50319
(515) 281-8692
Solid Waste Management Section
Department of Health and Envl
Forbes Field, Building 321
Topeka, Kansas 66620
(913) 862-9360, Ext. 309
Division of Uaat* Management
Cabinet of Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection
18 Rellly Road
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
(502) 564-6716
-------
APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)
St»t«
Statutory Authority and
Regulation Citation
Summary of Requirements
State Agency
Loulalana
Main*
Maryland
Certificate of Mead and Licensure
Lav, aa revised, (originally
effective January 1, 1973).
902 Kentucky Administrative
Regulations, 20)009, Hospital
Facility Regulation.
Louisiana Revised Statutes,
Act 449, 30i 1133,
Environmental Affairs Act.*
Title 38 of Main Revised
Statutes Annotated.
Annotated Maryland Code, Health
Environment Article, Sections
9-210(g) and 9-229, effective
July 1, 1984.
Amended Guidelines for the Disposal
of Infectious Haste, effective
July 1, 1984.
Hospitals saist have an Incinerator
capable of destroying Infectious
waste. Hospitals which satisfy
the treatment, packaging, and
transportation requirements can
secure waivers to Incinerate the
waste In city facilities. Revised
regs effective 6/4/85 require that
sharp waste (needless, glass, etc.)
be separated from other Infectious
waste. Sharp waste Is to be
packaged In rigid containers for
either Incineration or disposal In
approved landfills.
The state has statutory authority
to regulate infectious waste as a
hazardous waste, but has not yet
promulgated regulations. Policy
la to allow disposal of treated
Infectious waate In selected
sanitary landfills. Revisions
are expected.
The state has statutory authority
to regulate Infectious waste as a
hazardous waste, but has not yet
promulgated regulations.
Infectious waste cannot be disposed
of in a landfill.
Incineration is the preferred
method of treatment.
Division for Licensing and Regulation
Department of Human Resources
275 I. Main Street
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
(302) 564-2800
Hacardous Haste Division
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 44066
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804
(504) 342-1216
Bureau of Oil and Hacardous Haste
Materials
Department of Environmental Protection
State House, Station 17
Augusta, Maine 04333
(207) 289-2651
Air Management Administration
Department of Health and Mental Hygiene
201 Heat Preston Street, 2nd Floor
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
(301) 225-5260
-------
APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)
State
Statutory Authority and
Regulation Citation
Suomary of Requirement*
Stata Agancy
Maa»achu*atta
Michigan
Mlnneaota
Mississippi
Mlaaourl
Maaaachuaatta General Law*,
Chapter 111, Sub*aetlon* 3 and
91-56, and Chapter 1110.
103 CMt 130.35* and 130.355.
Hasardoua Infection* Waate Dlapoaal
Regulation*i and 105 CMR 180.275,
Regulation for Dl*po*al of
Infeotlou* Material* from
Independent Laboratories.
Maaaachuaett* General Lava,
Chapter 21-C.*
Maaaachuaatta General Law*,
Chapter 21-C.*
Mlnneaota Statute* Annotated,
Chapter* 115A and 116, Enacted
by Law* of 1980, aa amended,
Mlnneaota Code of Agency Rule*,
Title 6, Part 4, aa amended
SW1-12 and SW6-2vlll.
No lawa or regulation* pertaining
to Infectloua waate management.
Mla*ourl Hospital Llcanalng Law,
Chapter 197 of Ml**ourl Ravlaed
Statute*, Rule* and Regulation*
for Hospital*.
Infactloua waate mu*t be
Incinerated or treated before
dlapoaal.
The atat* ha* atatutory authority
to regulate Infaotlou* waata aa a
haaardoua waate, but ha* not yet
promulgated regulation*.
Aa of December 28, 1985, Michigan
deleted It* ll*t of Infectlou*
waate* from the regulation*.
Land dlapoaal of Infectloua waate
la prohibited.
Infectloua waate generated by
hoapltal* must be either
Incinerated or *utoelaved before
being aent to a landfill permitted
to accept the waste. Waate la
required to be treated on alte.
The atat* expect* to revise
regulations.
Maaaachuaett* Department of Public
Health
150 Tremont Street
Boaton, Ma**achuaetta 02111
(617) 727-2700
Division of Solid and Baaardoua Haate
1 Winter Street
Boaton, Maaaachuaatta 02108
(617) 292-5582
Office of Haaardoua Waate Management
Michigan Department of Natural Reaourcea
P.O. Box 30038
Lanalng, Michigan 48909
(517) 373-1220
Dlvlalon of Solid and Hazardous Waat*
Mlnneaota Pollution Control
1935 Weat County Road B-2
Roaevllle. Minnesota 55113
(612) 296-7373
Dlvlalon of Solld/Hasardoua Waata
Management
Bureau of Pollution Control
Department of Natural Reaourcea
P.O. Box 10385
Jackaon, Mlaalaalppl 39209
(601) 961-5171
Mlaaourl Department of Health
Bureau of Hoapltal Llcenalng
P.O. Box 570
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102
(314) 751-2713
-------
APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)
State
Statutory Authority and
Regulation Citation
Summary of Requirement*
Stata Agency
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
Hlaaourt Hazardous Waata Management
Law, Chapter 260 of Revised
Statutaa of Mlaaourl, 1985, a<
amended.
Hlaaourl Solid Wa.te Management
Law, Chapter 260.200 of Revised
Statutaa of Mlaaourl. 1975.
Missouri Solid Wa«te Management
Rule* and Regulation*, 10CSRBO,
Chapter* 1-5.
Montana Solid Waate Management
Act of 1976. Adalnlatratlve Rule*
of Montana, Title 16, Chapter 14,
Subchapter 5, Solid Wait*
Management/Refuaa Dlapoaal.
Montana Basardoua Wait* Act of
1981.
Hebra*ka Environmental Protection
Act, Section 81-1501 through
§1-1340.
Nevada Ravlaed Statute*,
Chapter 459, Bacardoua Wa*te
Dlapoaal and Solid Haata Disposal.
Regulations Governing Solid Waate
Management, Effective 1977.
The atate ha* atatutory authority
to regulate Infectloua waate aa a
hasardoua waate, but haa not yet
prooulgeted regulation*.
Sterilised Infeetloua waate *>ay be
dl*po*ed of In any permitted
aolld waate landfill.
Policy la to receaoMnd treatment
of Infeetloua waate before land
dlapoaal.
The atate haa atatutory authority
to regulate Infeotlou* waate aa a
hasardoua waate, but haa not yet
promulgated regulation*.
The atate haa atatutory authority
to regulate Infectious waate aa a
hasardoua waate, but haa not yet
promulgated regulation*.
The atate haa atatutory authority
to -regulate Infectious wa*te as a
hasardoua watte, but haa not yet
promulgated regulation*.
Infectloua waate generated by
hoapltala may be placed In a land
disposal facility only under
approval of the Department.
Waate Management Program
Department of Natural Resource*
P.O. Box 176
Jefferacn City, Mlaaourl 65102
(314) 791-3241
Solid and Basardoua Waste
Management Bureau
Department of Health and Envl
Sciences
Cogmll Building, loom B201
Helena. Montana 59620
(406) 444-2821
tal
Land Quality Division
Department of Environmental Control
State Bouae Station
P.O. Box 94877
Lincoln, Nebraaka 68509
(402) 471-2186
Division of Environmental Protection
Department of Conservation and Natural
Reaourcea
Capital Complex
Carson City, Nevada 89710
(702) 885-4670
-------
APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)
Stata
Statutory Authority and
Regulation Citation
Suanary of Requirements
State Agency
Maw Hampshire
Haw Jersey
Maw Mexico
Maw York
Maw Hampshire Ravlaad Statutaa
Annotatad 151, 1979. Baalth
Facilities Rulai and Regulations,
effective February 198*. General
Requirement* for all Facilities,
HEP-801.
Maw Jaraay Statuaa Annotatad,
Title 13i Conaarvmtlon and
Development, Chapter 1B-1.
Mew Jaraay Administrative Coda,
Title 7, Chapter 26, aa amended.
Mew regulation* dealing with
hazardous waataa expected.*
Mew Jersey Health Care Facllltla*
Planning Act. Mew Jaraay
Administrative Coda 8i43-B-3.6.*
Haiardoua Uaite Act, Section
74-4-3, a* amended through 1981.
Environmental Conservation Law,
Article 27. Title 6 NCRR
part 364. Collection and Transport
of Industrial, Coomerclal, and
Certain Other Ma*taa.*
Part* 219 and 222i General
Regulation of Refuse and Waste
Incineration.*
Infectloua waate generated by
health care facilities oust be
Incinerated.
Infectlou* waate ouat be rendered
nonlnfeetleua in accordance with
the standard* of the Mew Jeraey
Department of Health.
AIL Infectloua waate generated
by hospital* sust be treated before
land disposal. Infectious waate
that 1* not autoolaved or
incinerated can be double-bagged
for land disposal by a method
approved by the Department of
Environmental Protection.
Mo specific regulations on
infectious waate. Incineration
or sterilisation of Infectloua
waste followed by land disposal
la
Anyone transporting a hospital
waate off-site (Including
infectious waate) swat have a
waste transporter's permit.
These regulations limit emissions
of paniculate matter and smoke.
Bureau of Health Facilities
Administration
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Welfare
6 flaxen Drive
Concord, Mew Hampshire 03301
(603) 271-4392
Division of Waste Management
Department of Environmental Protection
33 Eaat Hanover Street
Trenton, Mew Jersey 08625
(609) 292-9877
Mew Jersey Department of Health
Division of Health Facilities Evaluation
CM 370
Trenton, Mew Jeraey 08625
(609) 292-7834
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management
Programs
Health and Environment Department
P.O. Box 968
Santa Fa, New Mexico 87504-0968
(505) 827-5271 or 827-0020
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Room 417
Albany. Hew York 12233
(518) 457-3254
Mew York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233
(518) 457-5618
-------
APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)
State
Statutory Authority and
Regulation Citation
Summary of Requirements
State Agency
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Dragon
10 NYCRR 403.3(b)(3)i Handling of
Potentially Infection! Waste.*
North Carolina Solid and Hasardoua
Waste Act. aa revised, July 1983.
10 NCAC IOC, Solid Watte Management,
July 1, 1983.
No governing atatute or regulation*.
Ohio Ravlaed Code, Title 37,
Chapter 34, aa amended. Ohio
Administrative Code, Regulation!
3743-27 and 3743-37, effective
July 29, 1976.
Oklahoma Statuea. Title 63, 1981.
Section 1-2001 et aaq., Oklahoma
Controlled Industrial Maate
Dlapoaal Act.*
Oregon Revlaed Statutes,
Chapter 459, a* amended. Oregon
Administrative Rules, Chapter 340,
Division 61.
The various oategorlea of
potentially Infections waste and
acceptable methods of disposal
for each are presented. All
waste must be autoclaved or
Incinerated prior to disposal.
Infectious waste must be treated
by an approved method prior to
disposal In a landfill.
Policy la to require autoclavlng
or Incineration of all Infectious
waste generated by hospitals and
nursing homes. No untreated
Infectious waste may be disposed
of In a landfill. Every hospital
and nursing home must have access
to a double-chambered, approved
incinerator in order to be
licensed.
The atate has statutory authority
to regulate Infectious waste aa a
haaardous waate, but has not yet
promulgated regulations.
The atate baa statutory authority
to regulate infections waste aa a
haiardous waate, but has not yet
promulgated regulations. Current
policy la baaed on CDC guidelines.
Infectious waste regulatlona are
being drafted.
Land disposal of Infectious waste
1« controlled through the
permitting process for land
disposal facilities.
New York State Department of Health
Office of Health Services Management
Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Pla
Corning Tower, Room 1821
Albany. Mew York 12237
(318) 474-2121
Solid and Hazardous Haste
Management Branch
Division of Health Services
Department of Human Resources
P.O. Box 2091
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
(919) 733-2178
Dlvlalon of Health Facilities
Department of Health
State Capitol Building
Blamark, North Dakota 38303
(701) 224-2332
Division of Solid and Haaardous Waste
Management
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
361 East Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43213
(614) 466-7220
Institutional Services, Medical
Facilities
Department of Health
P.O. 33331
1000 N.E. 10th Street, 4th Floor
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73132
(403) 271-6811
Hazardous and Solid Waste Division
Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 1760
Portland, Oregon 97207
(503) 229-6266
-------
APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)
State
Statutory Authority and
Regulation Citation
Sunaary of Requirement*
State Agency
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Pennsylvania Statute*,
62 PS 901-1039. Public Welfare
Coda. Pennsylvania Coda, Title 28,
Chapter 147.74, Pennsylvania Stata
Health Department Regulationsi
Disposal of Bacterial and
Pathological Wastes that ara
Generated In Hospitals and Medical
Car* Facilities.*
23 Pa. Coda 127.12(a)(5)*
Rhode Island Hasardoua Waste
Management Act of 1978.
Hasardous Hast* Rules and
Regulations for Hasardoua Waste
Generation, Transportation,
Treatment, Storage and Dlapoaal
Effective July IS, 1984.
Coda of Laws of South Carolina,
1976, Sections 44-36-10 through
44-56-140, Hazardous Wastes.
South Dakota Codified Lava,
Chapter 34A-6-2, Solid Waste
Disposal Act.
Current policy la to allow off-site
sterilisation of Infectious waste.
New regulations ara being drafted.
Bast Available Technology
requirements for hospital/
Infections wast* Incinerator
facilities Include stack emission
limitations, ambient Impact
analyses, operating, testing and
monitoring requirements. These
regulations are In draft review,
affective June 9, 1987.
Infectious waste la regulated as
a haaardous wasta.
The stata has statutory authority
to regulate Infectious waste aa a
hazardous wasta, but'has not yet
promulgated regulations. The
atate recommends that Infectious
hospital waste be Incinerated or
otherwise treated before land
disposal.
The state has statutory authority
to regulate Infectious waste as a
hazardous waste, but has not yet
promulgated regulations.
Bureau of Haste Manage
Department of Environmental Resources
Fulton Building, 8th Floor
P.O. Box 2063
Harrlsburg, Pennsylvania 17120
(717) 787-6239
Bureau of Air Quality Control
Department of Environmental Resources
Fulton Building, 18th Floor
P.O. Box 2063
Harrlsburg, Pennsylvania 17120
(717) 787-4324
Division of Air Hazardous Materials
Department of Environmental Management
204 Cannon Building
73 Davis Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02908
(401) 277-2797
Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Haste
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
(803) 738-3681
Office of Air Quality and Solid Haste
Department of Hater and Natural
Resources
Joe Foss Building
323 East Capitol Avenue
Pierre, South Dakota 37301
(605) 773-3153
-------
APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)
State
Statutory Authority and
Regulation Citation
Summary of Requirement*
State Agency
Texaa
•**ee Basardoua Haate
at Act of 1977, a* amended.
Tennessee Solid'Haste Disposal Act,
aa amended.*
Tennessee Coda Annotated,
6811-201 through 217 Minima
Standard* and Regulation* for
Hoapltala, 1974.*
Kavlaad Civil Statutea of the
State at Texaa Annotated, Article
4477-7 Texas Solid Haata Dlapoaal
Acti and Article 4477-1, Taxat
Sanitation and Health Protection
Law, aa amended. Texaa
Administrative Code 325.136(b)(l),
Taxaa Department of Health,
Municipal Solid Haste Management
Regulation*, affective July 1983,
The atate la Initiating rulemalrlng
action.
All infactioua waste generated
by hoapltala auat be Incinerated
In oloaed Incinerator* on
elevated platform*.
Infectlou* waate la regulated aa a
apeclal waata. Incineration 1* the
preferred method of treatment.
Untreated waata may be double
bagged and dlapoaed of In a Type I
aunlclpal landfill.
Dlvlalon of Solid Haate Management
Tanneaaee Department of Public Health
and Environment
Cuatoaia Houae, 4th Floor
601 Broadway Street
Nashville, Tenneaaee 37219-5403
(CIS) 741-3424
Hospital Licensing Board
283 Plua Park
Naahvllla, Tenneaaee 37210
(615) 367-6200
Bureau of Solid Waate Management
Texaa Department of Health
1100 Weat 49th Street, T601A
Auatln, Texa* 78796 - 3199
(312) 458-7271
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Utah Code Annotated, Title 26,
Chapter 14, Utah Solid and
Hasardoua Uaata Act, Effective
June, 1981.
Vermont Statute* Annotated,
Title 10, Chapter 159. Hasardoua
Haate Management Regulations, aa
amended September 13, 1984,
Section 6602(2)(a)(14).
Code of Virginia, Title 32.1,
Chapter 6. Article 3. Virginia
Regulation* Governing Dl*po*al
of Solid Waste, April, 1971.
The atate has statutory authority
to regulate Infactlou* waata as a
hasardous waate, but has not yet
promulgated regulations.
Infectious waste la regulated as a
hasardoua waste.
Infectious wastes are not as
regulated as hasardoua wastes.
Haste generators must have apeclal
permission to dispose of
nonmunlclpal waate. Rules do
not preclude land disposal of
untreated infectious waste.
Bureau of Solid and Hasardous Haate
Departatent of Health
P.O. Box 43500
Salt Lake City, Utah 84145-0501
(801) 533-4143
Hasardoua and Solid Haata Management
Dlvlalon
Department of Hater Resource* and
Environmental Engineering
Agency of Environmental Conservation
State Office Building
Montpeller, Vermont 05602
(802) 828-3395
Dlvlalon of Solid and Hasardoua Uaate
Management
Department of Health
Monroe Building, llth Floor
101 North 14th Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 225-2667
-------
APPENDIX A (OOHTIWIKD)
Stata
Statutory Authority and
Regulation Citation
Suanary of Requirements
Stata Agency
Washington
Uaat Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Ravlaad Coda of Washington,
Hazardous Waata Dltpoaal
Chapter 70.105.
Ravlaad Coda of Washington.
Hospital Licensing and Regulation
Statute, Chapter 70.41.
Washington Administrative Coda,
248-180-170, Hoapltal Rules and
Regulations.
Coda of West Virginia, Chapter 20,
Article SB, Effective July 7, 1981.*
Wisconsin Statutea Annotated,
Chapter 144, as amended.
Chapter HR 181, and guidance
aumnary *Handling and Disposal
of Pathological Waste."
No regulations pertaining to
Infectious waste management.
The atate has statutory authority
to regulate Infectious waste as a
hazardous waste, hut has not yet
promulgated regulations.
Infectious waste generated by
hospitals must be Incinerated or
disposed of by other approved
methods. Approved methods Include
autoclavlng, retorting, or double
bagging before land disposal.
Infectious waste sust be autoclavad
and/or Incinerated before land
disposal. Infectious waste
regulations are being revised.
The state has statutory authority
to regulate Infectious waste as a
haaardous waste, but has not yet
promulgated regulations.
Policy la to recommended
Incineration of Infectious waste.
Infectious waste which aa been
autoelaved or sterilised may be
bagged and disposed of In an
engineered landfill.
Haaardous Waste Section
Department of Ecology
Mall Stop PV-11
Olympla, Washington 98504-8711
(206) 459-6322
Department of Social and Health Services
Facility Licensing Certification Section
of the Health Services Division
Mall Stop ET-31
Olympla, Washington
(206) 753-7039
State Health Department
1800 Washington Street, East
Charleston, West Virginia 25305
(304) 348-2970
Bureau of Solid Waate Management
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
(608) 266-2111
Solid Waate Management Program
State of Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality
Herachler Building
122 West 25th Street
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
(307) 777-7752
Department of Health and Social Services
Division of Health and Medical Services
4th Floor Hathaway Building
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
(307) 777-7121
•Denotes regulations as of June, 1987.
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
APPENDIX B - ADDITIONAL HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATOR EMISSIONS DATA
The Monitoring and Laboratory Division of the California Air Resources
Board conducted evaluation tests on the refuse incinerator at the Stanford
University Environmental Safety Facility, Stanford, California, and a
retest on a hosital refuse incinerator at the Sutter General Hospital,
Sacramento, California. The results of these tests are presented in two
reports titled "Evaluation Retest on a Hospital Refuse Incinerator at Sutter
General Hospital, Sacramento, CA." April 1988 (ARB/ML-88-026) and "Evaluation
Test on a Refuse Incinerator at Stanford University Environmental Safety
Facility," Stanford, CA., August 1988 (ARB/ML-88-025). To provide these
test results, EPA has extracted tables of emissions data for particulate
matter, hydrogen chloride, chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans
and .other compounds from these reports and incorporated them into Appendix
B.
-------
Test Data for the Hospital Refuse Incinerator at Sutter General Hospital,
Sacramento, CA., California Air Resources Board Test Report, ARB/ML-88-026,
April 1988.
The staff of the California Air Resources Board tested and, after design
modifications were made, retested the dual chamber, Thermtec - Model/No.
67-SA, hospital refuse incinerator at the Sutter General Hospital,
Sacramento, CA. The hospital has a heat recovery system, Model HR-1000-2-
SK-9 manufactured by Thermtec, to recover heat from the exhaust gases.
The initial tests were conducted from April 28 through May 1, 1987. The
system was modified to reduce, the amount of dilution air entering the
exhaust, gas system. The system was then retested during the period from
July 29 through August 3, 1987. The results of these tests are presented
in the following tables:
TABLE 1
Average Refuse.Feed Rate to the Incinerator During the Test Period
DATE
•••••MMi^M^nBH
7-29-87
7-30-87
7-31-87
8-3-87
TIKE
1300-1800
0900-1400
osoo-igooi'
1300-2300
NUriBER OF $/
INFECTIOUS
(pounds)
13 (264)
14 U84)
37 (751)
34 (690)
NUMBER OF £/
CARTS
(pounds)
36 (2700)
29 (2175)
49 (3675)
40 (3000)
PROCESS
WEIGHT
KATE, LB/KR
593
492
443
369
-------
TABLE B-2
DAILY AVERAGE STACK CONDITIONS FOR i
AT SUTTEk GENER.-.L HOSPITAL
Date
7-29-87
7-30-87
7-31-87
8-3-87
Stack Gas
Velocity
(Ft/Sec)
1U.9
13.4
13.0
11.9
Stack Gas
Flow Rate
(OSCFh)
2687
3145
2633
2894
f.oisture Stack Gas
Content, Temperature
(i By Volume) (°F)
n.z
13,2
15.5
10.9
3^8
369
409
357
ARB/ML-88-026
B-4
-------
TABLE B-3
MIL* A.s?;:» C'.^KTfiiTIOf^ 0? SELECTED MS=OUS AIR
iX
C2
•XaT
15.6
12.!
i^t
j s
•j. *
il
COS
PC-KENT
*.o
5.5
5.2
4. fl
iX
CO
PPXV
(50
(SO
<50
(50
BX
NOX
PP»?;
130
30
60
100
bX ScX cX
SK H: -;L
PJWV PP-.; p:r..
50 (3
J3 <2 2^5
*X ;x
1! >2 ' 22v
22 12 -
PK
7-23-a? -
7-30-87 r
"
7-31-S7 0.0i<, 12. 5
n>
S-3-S7 . 0.030
a/ Th£ 05, COS ft'O Cu ^.L:£S blRe USsu TO E7sR:!IKs THe
«^CU.A1 t,clti" Or TrI S7fiu< 6S3.
OX NOK, SC2 flfO hi ;A.L« fi«£ COH^sCTED TO 3 PtfiCcNT 02.
cX TOTAL HYBSSISSrJ-, .V'ft KspCSTED A3
dX SePORTED «7 «TUA. R.L; GA3 02 CaCE
e/ SK A'tftYZEi? I?,3;s:;T:/£ ftjfllNi WOT 0? TS3T ciR
fX fiVs«93c 0? FOwS ^ST fij-3 ( O.(ic7 , 0.021 , 0.023 fl\j O.Oi* GSXiSIf i
oX AVESflSS 0= T-'C TtST 8^-5 ( 263 ftvo 133 p^v i
nX AVeJMK 0? TN'J TtJT S.-.3 ( 0.0*3 fif.D 0.057 GS'&il? )
?»>:-J. (0 I;.DIC5"E3 H-J- EsTsCTAJui LJ«IT.
ARB/ML-88-026
B-5
-------
TABLE B-4
DAILY AVERAGE CONCENTRATIONS OF OXYGEN,CARBON DIOXIDE,
CARBON MONOXIDE,OX IDES OF NITROGEN,SULFUR DIOXIDE,
TOTAL HYDROCARBONS,PARTICULATE MATTER AND HYDROCHLORIC
ACID IN THE STACK GAS AT SUTTER GENERAL HOSPITAL,
SACRAMENTO,CA
DATE
4-28-87
4-29-87
3-1-87
PM
GR/DSCF
0.023
0.023
0.012
*/
02
PERCENT
19.4
19.4
19.3
a/
C02
PERCENT
1.2
1.3
1. I
»/
CO
PPMV
<:so
•-5O
<50
b/
NOX
PPMV
70
70
60
b/
SO2
PPMV
2O
30
6
be/ b/
HC HCL
PPMV PPMV
<1 860
< 1 250O
<1 2130
*/ THE O2,C02 AND CO VALUES WERE USE TO DETERMINE THE
MOLECULAR WEIGHT OF THE STACK GAS.
b/ NOX,S02,HC AND HCL DATA CORRECTED TO 3 PERCENT O2.
c/ TOTAL HYDROCARBON DATA REPORTED AS PROPANE.
SYMBOL «> INDICATES BELOW DETECTABLE LIMIT.
ARB/ML-88-026
C-86-018
B-6
-------
TABLE B-5
TTER AKO
AND MASS EMISSION RATES
— — — •»—• — —
DATE RUN
7-30-87
7-31-87
8-3-87
Date
4-28-87
4-29-87
5-1-87
NO.
HC1-1S
HC1-2S
HC1-3S
K5-1S
M5-2S
MS-3S •
M5-4S
H5-5S
N5-6S
GR/DSCF
„
-
-
0.027
0.021
0.023
0.024
0.043
0.057
SR/OSCF
0.023
0.023
0.012
PH
LB/HR
.
-
0.74
0.50
0.55
0.53
1.09
1.38
PH
LB/HR
0.94
1.05
0.49
HC1
PPM LB/HR
315
282
159
72
210
191
5.79
4.46
2.59
HCL
PPM LB/HR
1.98
6.54
5.21
ARB/ML-88-026
B-7
-------
TABLE B-6
PCDO/PCDF MASS EMISSION RATES
(ng/sec)
RUN «
0 IOX INS
2,3,7,8-TCDO
Total TCOO
1,2,3.7,8-PeCDO
Total PeCDO
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1 ,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDO
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCOO
Total HxCDO
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCOD
Total HpCDO
Total OCOO
Total PCOO
FURANS
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Total TCOF
1.2.3.7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,,7,8-PeCDF
Total PeCOF
1,2.3,4,7,8-HxCOF
1,2.3.6,7,8-HxCOF
1 ,2,3,7.8.9-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCOF
Total HxCOF
1.2,3,4.6,7.8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7.8,9-HpCOF
Total HpCDF
Total OCDF
Total PCOF
OT-1S
<0.042
<0.394
<0.167
<0.256
<0.394
<0.361
<0.328
0.788
3.778
6.932
7.294
15.66
0.072
<0.328
0.124
.<0.147
<1.839
0.328
<0.325
<0.689
<1.084
<3.548
2.858
0.108
2.858
0.591
9.166
OT-2S
<0.039
<0.058
<0.111
0.544
<0.212
<0 . 226
-------
TABLE B-7
PCOO/PCDF CONCENTRATIONS IN STACK GAS
(ng/dscm corrected to 12% CO )
RUN
DT-1S
OT-2S
DT-3S
DT-4S
OIOXINS
2,3,7,8-TCDO
Total TCOO
1.2,3,7,8-PeCOO
Total PeCOO
1,2,3,4.7,8-HxCOD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCOO
1,2,3,7,8.9-HxCOO
Total HxCDO
1.2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCOO
Total HpCDO
Total OCDO
Total PCOO
FURANS
2,3,7,8-TCOF
Total TCDF
1.2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
Total PeCOF
1,2.3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,8,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCOF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCOF
Total HxCOF
1.2,3,4,6.7,8-HpCDF
1.2,3,4,7.8,9-HpCDF
Total HpCOF
Total OCOF
Total PCOF
<0.188
<1.732
<0.736
<1 . 126
<1 .732
<1 .587
<1.443
3.464
16.60
30.45
32.04
<0.140
<0.210
<0 . 400
1.949
<0.759
<0 . 809
<0 . 580
5.196
3.398
7.195
9.993
0.280
19.07
1.159
32.90
1.215
2.056
<1.028
51.22
43.37
89.35
94.40
<0.168
<0.157
<0.765
<0.457
<0.429
<0.429
<0.429
2.612
2.985
5.970
12.31
68.81
24.54
286.9
21.51
<0.317
1 .443
<0.548
<0.649
8.08
<1.443
<1.429
<3.031
<4.762
15.59
12.56
<0.476
12.56
2.60
0.470
13.99
2.099
1.279
19.89
2.458
1.399
0.530
0.500
23.88
10.39
2.199
20.99
21.79
3.664
221.3
15.6
10.6
196.8
13.3
13.8
4.673
14.2
206.9
136.3
28.4
252.9
330.7
<0.448
11 85
• • • ww
1-.716
1.082
24.81
<1 .492
<2.798
<1.847
<3.545
26.49
1 1 66
ii* WW
2.500
24.81
38.62
40.3
100.5
1209
126.6
NOTES
< indicates below limit of detection (MOD
Chemical Interference
"* MPC (Maximum possible concentration)
- Total includes MOLs for homo.ogues be.ow the detection
imit
C-86-018
ARB/ML-88-026
B-9
-------
TABLE B-8
PCOO/PCOF CONCENTRATIONS IN STACK GAS
(ng/dscm)
RUN w
DIOXINS
2,3,7,8-TCOO
Total TCDO
1,2,3,7,8-PeCOO
Total Pecoo
1,2,3,4.7,8-HxCOO
1,2.3,6,7,8-HxCOO
1 ,2,3,7.8,9-HxCOO
Total HxCOO
1.2,3,4.6,7.8-HpCDO
Total HpCOO
Total OCDD
Total PCOO
FURANS
2.3,7,8-TCOF
Total TCOF
1,2.3,7,8-PeCOF
2.3.4.7,8-PeCDF
Total PeCOF
1,2,3,4.7,8-HxCOF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,3,9-HxCOF
2,3,4.6.7,8-HxCOF
Total HxCDF
1 ,2,3,4,6,7,8r-HpCOF
1,2,3.4,7,8.9-HpCDF
Total HpCOF
Total OCOF
Total PCOF
DT-1S
OT-2S
<0.019
<0.173
<0.074
<0.113
<0.173
<0.159
<0.144
0.346
1.660
3.045
3.20
6.88
<0.031
0.144
<0.054
<0.064
0.808
<0.144
<0.142
<0.303
<0 . 476
1.558
1.255
<0.047
1.255
0.259
4.026
<0.015
<0.023
<0.043
0.211
<0.082
<0.088
<0.063
0.563
0.368
0.779
1.083
2.659
0.050
1.515
0.227
0.138
2.154
0.266
0.151
0.057
0.054
2.587
1.125
0.238
2.273
2.360
10.89
DT-3S
0.026
1 .748
0.106
3.016
0.111
0.188
<0.094
4.695
3.975
8.19
8.65
26.30
0.335
20.28
1.432
0.971
18.03
1.216
1.267
0.428
1.305
18.96
12.49
2.607
23.18
30.31
110.7
DT-4S
<0.015
<0.014
<0.070
<0.042
<0.039
<0.039
<0.039
0.239
0.274
0.547
1.129
1.97
<0.041
1.085
0.157
0.099
2.274
<0.136
<0.256
<0.169
<0.324
2.423
1 .068
0.229
2.274
3.539
11.60
NOTES
< Indicates below limit of detection (MOD
* Chemical Interference
** MPC (Maximum possible concentration)
- Total includes MOLs for homologues below the detection limit
C-86-018
ARB/ML-88-026
B-10
-------
TABLE B-9
PCDD/PCDF MASS EMISSION RATES IN STACK GAS
(ng/sec)
RUN f
Sampling date
DT-1S
7-29-87
DT-2S
7-30-87
DT-3S
7-30-87
DIOXINS
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Total TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
Total PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
Total HxCDD.
1,2,3,4,6,7/8-HpCDD
Total HpCDD
Total OCDD
Total PCDD
0.24
25.4
4.03
138
10.9
21.5
13.4
291
157
349
237
< 0.11
21.0
2.39
103
8.96
18.7
10.5
236
13.8
334
265
1041
959 **
0.140
33.3
3.8
106
10.1
21.5
12.5
242
169
355
269
1005
FURANS
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Total TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
Total PeCDF
1,2, 3,4,7, 8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
Total HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6, 7, 8-HpCDF
l,2,3,4,7,8;9-HpCDF
Total HpCDF
Total OCDF
Total PCDF
6.51
329
30.0
36.4
407
50.0
53.2
14.5
115
463
233
45.5
437
381
2016
4.86
253
25.2
29.7
342
43.6
41.1
13.9
104
374
244
51.1
462
404
1334
6.05
256
30-6
37.0
333
49.6
43.8
17.5
1O3
431
236
S6..2
477
3'3 6
1893
NOTES
< indicates below limit of detection (MDL)
** - Total includes MDLs for hc-ologues below the detection 1
ARB/ML-88-026
B-ll
C-87-OSO
-------
TA51E B-10
PCDD/PCDF CONCENTRATIONS IN STACK GAS
(corrected to 12 percent C02)
RUN £
Sampling date
DIOXINS
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Total TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
Total PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3, 6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
Total HxCDD
1,2,3,4, 6,7, 8-HoCDD
Total HpCDD
Total OCDD
DT-1S
7-29-87
(ng/dscm)
0.56
60.0
9.53
327
25.9
50.9
31.8
688
372
827
560
DT-2S
7-30-87
(ng/dscm)
< 0.22
43.2
4.91
212
18.4
38.5
21.5
486
28
686
545
DT-3S
7-30-87
(ng/dscir.)
0.25
68. I
7.83
218
20. c
44.1
25.7
495
347
727
551
Total PCDD 2462 1972 ** 2055
FURANS
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Total TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
Total PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7, 8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2, 3,7, 8,9-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
Total HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HoCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8, 9-HoCDF
Total HpCDF
Total OCDF
Total PCDF
15.39
779
71.0
86.2
962
118.2
125.8
34.3
273
1095
552
107.7
• 1033
SOO
477C
9.05
520
51.8
61.1
702
89.6
84.4
28.6
213
768
502
105.1
950
830
3770
12.36
525
62. 7
75.6
681
101.6
89.7
35.6
211
833
453
115.2
976
812
3577
NOTES
dscm - dry standard c^bic meter at 68 F and or.s atrcsphere
< indicates below lir.it cf detection (MDL)
*" - Total includes l-'.ZLs for honologues below zhe detection li:
ARB/ML-88-026
C-c^-CrC
B-12
-------
TA3LZ B-ll
PCDD/PCDF CONCENTRATIONS IN STACK GAS
(nc/dscr.)
RUN f
Sampling date
DIOXINS
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Total TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
Total PeCDD
1,2,3, 4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1, 2,3,7, 8, 9-HxCDD
Total HxCDD
1, 2,3,4, 6,7,8-HpCDD
Total HpCDD
Total OCDD
Total PCDD
FURANS
2, 3,7,8-TCDF
Total TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
Total PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3, 6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7, 8, 9-HxCDF
2,3,4, 6,7,8-HxCDF
Total HxCDF
1,2,3, 4, 6, 7, 8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
Total HpCDF
Total OCDF
Total PCDF
DT-1S
7-2S-87
0.19
20.0
3.18
109
6.63
17.0
10.6
229
124
276
187
321
5.13
260
23.7
28.7
321
39.4
41.9
11.4
91.1
365
184
35.9
344
3CO
1550
DT-2S
7-30-67
< 0.07
14.4
1.64
70.5
6.14
12.8
7.17
162
5.48
229
182
657 *-
3. 02
173
17.3
20.4
234
29.9
28.1
5.55
71.0
256
167
25.0
317
277
1257
--3C-S7
f • n
V. . — U
22 . 7
"2 6
• «• • \J
6 £6
» * W W
14.7
C"^ 7
0 W *
* ~ fi
4» -B O
242
154
5 = 6
£
' ~ "5
* • W
V C
^» ^ • */
227..
"3 9
V W • ^
23 9
• * • ^
i : o
• « •
-------
TABLE B-12
- MASS EMISSION RATES OF TRACE METALS IN STACK GAS
MASS EMISSION RATES,
RUHNO- *• cd Cr Fe
H1
MS-IS 0.45E-5 5.90E-4 9.84E-5 2.99E-3 1.14E-4 < 6.71E-5 7.65E-3
M5'2S H° ]-86E-4 4-'2E-5 3.12E-3 2.55E-5 <6.09E-5 2.U1E-3
H5'3S N° 1'S5£-4 5.20E-5 0.37E-3 1.67E-5 <6.96E-5 2.97E-3
K5-4S N0 2'07E-4 ^«&7E-5 0.70E-3 0.31E-4 <7.30E-5 2.34E-2
^-5S NO 6.68E-4 7.30E-5 1 .52E-3 0.80E-4 O.13E-5 6.31E-3
M5-6S 0.11E-S ' 6.S5E-4 1.16E-4 J.C6E-2 2.55E-4 ^7.94E-5 1.23E-2
i/ Symbol (<) indicates below limit of detection.
NO Not Determined
C-87-OSO
ARB/ML-88-026
B-14
-------
TASLE B-13
CONCENTRATIONS OF TRACE hETALS Hi STACK GAS
GRAINS/DRY STAKOAfcD CUBIC FOGTi'
RUN NO.
MS-IS
M5-2S
M5-3S
M5-4S
HS-55
MS -65
As
1.65E-7
NO
NO
NO
NO
0.43E-7
Cd
2.18E-5
7.98E-6
7.96E-6
9.13E-6
2.65E-5
2.«U-5
Cr
3.63E-6
1.81E-6
2.12E-6
<2.l9£-6
2.89E-6
4.78E-6
.
Fe
I C
1.10E-4
1.34E-4
1 .52E-5
3.13E-5
0.60E-4
4.33E-4
i. ^
t,n
4.22E-6
1.05E-6
0.68E-6
1.40E-6
3.13E-6
1.05E-5
•"—————
Nf
<2.47E-6
<2.61E-6
<2.84E-6
0.28E-6
<3.62E-6
O.26E-6
" — —
Pb
2.82E-4
8.64E-5
1.21E-4
1.05E-4
2.50E-4
5.05E-4
i/ Symbol (<) Indicates below limit of detection
NO Not Determined
ARB/ML-88-026
C-87-090
B-15
-------
TABLE B-14
CH™,«™ OF ARSENIC*
CHROMIUM, IRON , MANGANESE, NICKEL AND LEAD
IN STACK GAS
MASS EMISSION RATES, POUNDS/HOUR^
M
W Cd Cr Fe Mn N1
Pb
MS-IS 1.5E-05 4.9E-04 ,1.4E-4 4.6E-03 1.7E-04
-------
TABLE B-16
MASS EMISSION RATES OF SELECTED CHLORINATED
AND AROMATIC ORGANIC COMPOUNDS BASED ON
ANALYSIS OF RESIN SAMPLES. LB/HR
SAMPLE 1
DAT
NO. COMPOUND
1. 01 CHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
2. DICHLOROMETHANE
3 . TR 1 CHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
4. TRICHLOROMETHANE
5. 1.2-DICHLOROETHANE
6 . 1 . 1 . 1 -TR I CHLOROETHANE
7. CARBON TETRACHLORIOE
8 . 1,1. 2-TR I CHLOROETHYLENE
9. 1,2-DIBROMOETHANE
10. TETRACHLOROETHYLENE
11. TR I CHLOROTR I FLUOROETHANE
12. BENZENE
13. TOLUENE
14. ETHYL BENZENE
15. P-XYLENE
16. M-XYLENE
17. CUMENE
18. 0-XYLENE
19. MESITYLENE
20. NAPHTHALENE
21. METHYL ISOBUTYL KETONE
RT-1S
4-28-87
4.9e-5
a/
8.3a-5
a/
a/
2.46-4
a/
5.46-5
a/
8.4e-5
1.96-4
3.46-4
5.96-4
1 . 46-4
1.16-4
2.76-4
a/
1.56-4
5.16-5
7.7e-5
a/
RT-2S
4-29-87
1 . 26-4
3.96-4
3.66-6
a/
™/
a/
1 .56-4
a/
3.66-5
a/
8.66-5
1.26-4
2.66-4
5.9e-4
2.06-4
1.7e-4
3.8e-4
a/
2.16-4
7 . 5e-5
a/
a/
RT-3S
5-1-87
7.76-5
a/
1 . 46-4
« /
a/
a/
4.20-4
»/
«/
9.56-5
. /
a/
6.76-4
8.06-5
1.36-4
4.56-4
1.16-4
8.76-5
1.96-4
* /
a/
1.16-4
3.7e-5
S.Oe-5
a/
a/ Below minimum detection level
ARB/ML-88-026
C-86-018
B-17
-------
TABLE B-17
PCDO/PCDF CONCENTRATIONS IN BOTTOM ASH SAMPLE
(ng/g)
RUN «
BA-1S
0 (OX INS
2,3,7,8-TCDO
Total TCOO
1.2.3.7,8-PeCOO
Total PeCDO
1,2.3.4,7,8-HxCOD
1.2,3.8,7,8-HxCOO
1,2,3,7,8.9-HxCDD
Total HxCOO
1,2.3,4,6,7,8-HpCDO
Total HpCOO
Total OCDD
FURANS
2,3,7,8-TCDF
.Total TCOF
*1s2,3,7,8-PeCOF
2.3,4,7.8-PeCDF
Total PeCOF
1.2,3,4,7.8-HxCOF
1.2.3.6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3.7,8.9-HxCDF
2.3.4,6,7,8-HxCOF
Total HxCOF
1.2,3.4.6.7,8-HpCOF
1.2,3,4.7,8,9-HpCOF
Total HpCOF
Total OCOF
<0.015
<0.019
<0 . 046
0.018
< 0.11
< 0.11
< 0.11
0.24
< 0.17
< 0.17
< 0.23
< 0.12
< 1.7
0.077
0.059
0.73
< 0.14
< 0.10
< 0.13
< 0.19
0.42
< 0.17
< 0.17
< 0.17
< 0.24
C-86-018
< Indicates below the detection limit (MOD
ARB/ML-88-026
B-18
-------
Test Data for the Refuse Incinerator at Stanford University Environmental
Safety Facility, Stanford, CA., California Air Resources Board Test
Report, ARB/ML-88-025.
The staff of the California Air Resources board tested the air
emissions from a dual chamber Ecolaire refuse incinerator located at the
Stanford University Environmental Safety Facility in Stanford, CA. This
refuse incinerator has a sodium hydroxide scrubber control system followed
by a natural gas fired reheater. These test were conducted from June 29
through July 7, 1987 to determine the emissions from the Stanford refuse
incinerator. Test were conducted before (inlet) and after ('exhaust) the
sodium hydroxide scrubbers. The results of these test are presented in
the following tables:
B-19
-------
TABLE B-18
DAILY AVERAGE OPERATING PARAMETERS
Date
6-30-87
7-1-87
7-2-87
7-7-87
Trash
Rate,
LB/HR
550
620
725
805
Natural^7
Gas Use,
MM btu/HR
4.3
4.3
4.6
4.2
Lower
Chamber
Temp., OF
1854
1964
1916
1776
Control
Chamber
Inlet
Temp., OF
1930
1998
1S93
1943
Control
Chamber
Outlet
Temp., op
1990
2059
2072
2000
Control
Chamber
Outlet
Oxygen ,
Percent
8.6
a.o
7.0
8.8
Natural gas heat, 1000 Btu/FT3
Includes reheater natural gas consumption,
1.2 MM Btu/HR
ARB/ML-88-025
3-20
-------
TABLE £-19
WILY AVEXA6E CONCENTRATIONS OF OXY6EN, CARBON DIOXIDE.
CARBON MONOXIDE, OXIDES OF NITROGEN, SULFUR DIOXIDE
TOTAL HYDROCARBONS, PARTIOLATE MATTER AND
HVDflOOtORIC ACID IN THE STACK 6AS
« C02 CO NOX a/ HC** *"
PERCENT PPMV PPMV PPMV PPMV PPNV
8-3IM7 0.069 9.6 6.7 170 'l70 NA 160 2.76
7-1-87 , O.J28 10.6 13
-------
TABLE B-20
CONCENTRATIONS AND MASS EMISSION RATES OF PARTICULATE hATTERi/
SCRUBBER STACK
•INL£T OUTLET
PM, gr/DSCF PM gP/osCF~-
FRONT BACK FRONT * BACK
0.037 0.028
0.024 Q.004
0.026 0.003
STACK
OUTLET
PM, LB/HR
FRONT BACK
0.679 0.512
0.442 0.079
0.495 0.064
6-30-87
7-1-87 .
7-2-87
.
6-30-87
7-1-87
7-2-87
0.028
0.028
0.053
PM
FRONT
•
0.421
0.475
0.962
0.026
0.020
0.021
SCRUBBER
INLET
, LB/HR
BACK
0.393
0.339
0.377
£§P.JI indicates the amount of particulate matter found in the Method 5
L?S!,rinSV!d !!USr CatCht S££K indicates the amount of particular
natter found in the Method 5 after-filter sample recovery
C-87-022
ARB/ML-88-025
B-22
-------
TABLE B-21
CONCENTRATIONS AND MASS EMISSION RATES HYDROCHLORIC ACID
— •— — — —
6-3U-87
7-1-87
7-2-87
e
.
6-30-87
7-1-87
7-2-87
SCRUBBER
INLET
HC1 , PPMV
-^
•^ •••• "•^^"••••^"^•••••••••i
628
538
759
SCRUBBER
INLET
HC1, LB/HR
- 6.19
6.01
9.14
STACK
OUTLET
HC1, PPMV
2.78
0.052
1.86
STACK
OUTLET
HC1, LB/HR
0.034 .
0.006
0.024
ARB/ML-88-025
B-23
-------
TABLE B-22
PCDD/PCDF MASS EMISSION RATES
(ng/sec)
RUN 1
DIOXINS
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Total TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
Total PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,.6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
Total HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Total HpCDD
Total OCDD •
Total PCDD
FURANS
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Total TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
Total PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
Total HxCOF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
Total HpCDF
Total OCDF
Total PCDF
DT-1D
Scrubber
inlet
<0.01S
0.142
0.044
0.26S
0.092
0.142
0.156
2.610
3.866
7.966
21.84
32.82
0.133 *
3.174
0.546
0.702
12.30
1.200
1.232
0.764
3.243
23.93
21.73
2.401
40.19
39.61
119
i
DT-1S
Stack
<0.029
<0.014
<0.040
<0.068-
<0.054
<0.050
<0.081
<0.080
0.179
0.318
0.497
0.976 **
<0.030
<0.037
<0.025
<0.022
<0.138 .
<0.023
<0.023
<0.028
<0.026
0.043
<0.032
<0.032
<0.032
<0.057
0.306 **
DT-2D
Scr-ubber
inlet
0.081
1.924
0.366
4.452
0.350
0.445
0.525
6.519
4.690
10.65
14.20
37.75
0.816
20.57
1.733
1.779
28.71
1.933
1.894
0.779
2.926
17.43
13.37
1.097
21.08
13.14
• 101
DT-2S
Stack
<0.020
0.279
<0.099
1.330
0.148
<0.195
<0.144
3.003
1.716
4.227
2.951
11.79
0.214
4.933
0.622
0.751
10.08
0.987
1.137
0.343
1.394
9.008
4 719
0.386
7.228
1.501
'32.75
NOTES
< indicates below minimum detection limit (MDL)
* - Max:.-.urn possible emission rate
** - Total includes MDLs for homologues below the detection limit
ARB/ML-88-025
C-87-022
B-24
-------
TABLE B-22
PCDD/PCDF MASS EMISSION RATES
(ng/sec)
RUN 1
DIOXINS
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Total TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
Total PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
.1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
Total HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Total HpCDD"
Total OCSD *
DT-3D
Scrubber
inlet
<0.017
0.975
0.294
5.956
0.557
1.533
1.010
18.67
20.85
41.75
75.53
DT-3S
Stack
<0.010 .
0.176
<0.026 *
0.134
<0.038
<0.040
<0.033
0.329
0.576
1.129
2.986
DT-4D
Scrubber
inlet
0.081
0.940
0.517
6.365
0.705
1.488
2.066
18.01
18.36
38.37
59. 6T
DT-4S
Stack
<0.045
<0.019
<0.094
0.111
<0.207
<0.188
<0.173
0.357
0,244
0.613
0.902
Total PCDD
142.9
4.115
123.4
2.001 **
FURANS
2,3,7,
Total
1,2,3,
2,3,4,
Total
1,2,3,
1,2,3,
1,2,3,
2,3,4,
Total
1,2,3,
1,2,3,
Total
Total
8-TCDF
TCDF
7,8-PeCDF
7,8-PeCDF
PeCDF
4,7,8-HxCDF
6,7,8-HxCDF
7,8,9-HxCDF
6,7,8-HxCDF
HxCDF
4,6,7,8-HpCDF
4,7,8,9-HpCDF
HpCDF
OCDF
0.434
16.18
1.376
1.637
27.78
2.351
2.299
1.550
4.702
51.95
64.96
4.789
107.2
93.18
296.3
0.026
0.470
<0.028
0.047
0.230
0.056
<0.075
<0.066
<0.061
0.193
0.329
<0.031
0.494
0.174
1.561
0.798
22.18
.2.867
3.987
47.22
6.155
6.703
4.730
14.34
84.32
84.28
8.050
136.1
125.9
415.7
<0.109 *
1.296
<0.096
<0.060
0.451
<0.244
<0.225
<0.319
<0.301
1.018
0.789
0.051
1.071
0.490
4.327
Total PCDF
NOTES
< indicates below limit of detection (MDL)
*^- Chemical interference
- Total includes MDLs for homologues below the detection limit;
ARB/ML-88-025
B-25
C-87-022
-------
TABLE B-23
PCDD/PCDF CONCENTRATIONS IN GAS
(ng/dscm corrected to 12% CO )
2
RUN 1
DIOXINS
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Total TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
Total PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3, 6,7, 8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
Total HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Total HpCDD-
Total OCDO •
DT-.1D
Scrubber
inlet
<0.034
0.330
0.102
0.616
0.214
0.330
0.363
6.070
8.993
18.53
50.80
DT-1S
Stack
<0.062
<0.029 '
<0.085
<0.144
<0.115
<0.106
<0.174
<0.171
0.383
0.677
1.060
DT^2D
Scrubber
inlet
•
0.210
4; 973
0.945
11.51
0.904
1.151
1.356
16.85
12.13
27.54
36.71
DT-2S
Stack
<0.042
0.589
<0.208
2.808
0.313
<0.412
<0.303
6.342
3.624
8.928
6.233
Total PCDD
76.35
2.081 ** 97.58
24.90
FURANS
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Total TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2-,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
Total PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7, 8-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
Total HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
Total HpCDF
Total OCDF
Total PCDF
0.308 *
7.383
1.269
1.632
28.61
2.792
2.865
1.777
7.542
55.66
50.55
5.584
93.48
92.14
277
<0.065
<0.079
<0.053
<0.047
<0.294
<0.050
<0.050
<0.059
<0.056
0.091
<0.068
<0.068
<0.068
<0.121
0.653 **
2.109
53.19
4.480
4.599
74.23
4.998
4.895
2.014
7.563
45o05
34.57
2.836
54.50
33.96
261
0.453
10.42
1.314
1.585
21.29
2.084
2.401
0.725
2.944
19.02
9.965
0.815
15.27
3.171
69.17
NOTES
dscm - dry standard cubic meter at 68 F and one atmosphere
< indicates below minimum detection limit (MDL)
* - Maximum possible concentration
** - Total includes'MDLs for'homologues below the detection limit
-------
TABLE B-23
PCDD/PCDF CONCENTRATIONS
(ng/dscra corrected to 12% CO )
2
RUN #
DIOXINS
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Total TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
Total PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6, 7, 8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
'Total HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
Total HpCDD
Total OCDD •
DT-3D
Scrubber
inlet
<0.035
2.092
0.631
12.77
1.195
3.287
2.166
40.04
- 44.71
89.53
162.0
DT-3S
Stack
<0.018
0.323
<0.047 *
0.245
<0.069
<0.073
<0.060
0.603
1.054
2.066
5.466
J>T-4D
Scrubber
inlet
0.161
1.860
1.023
12.60
1.395
2.945
4.090
35.66
36.34
75.96
118.1
DT-4S
Stack
<0.075
<0.031
<0.157
0.185
<0.345
<0.313
<0.288
0.595
0.407
1.022
1.504
Total PCDD 306.4 7.532 244.2
FURANS
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Total TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
Total PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1/2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
Total HxCDF
1/2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
Total HpCDF
Total OCDF
Total PCDF
0.930
34.70
2.951
3.511
59.58
5.042
4.930
3.324
10.08
111.4
139.3
10.27
230.1
199.8
636
0.047
0.861
<0.052
0.086
0.422
0.103
<0.138
<0.121
<0.112
0.353
0.603
<0.056
0.904
0.318
2.858
3.34
1.581 <0.182 *
43.91 2.16
5.677 <0.160
7.894 <0.100
93.48 0.75
12.18 <0.407
13.27 <0.376
9.363 <0.533
28.40 <0.501
166.9 " 1.70
166.8 1.316
15.94 0.085
269.4 1.79
249.3 0.818
823 7.22
NOTES 0
dscm -dry standard cubic meter at 68 F and one atmosphere
< indicates below limit of detection (MDL)
* - Chemical interference
- Total includes MDLs for homologues below the detection limit
ARB/ML-88-025
B-27 C-87-022
-------
TABLE B-24
MASS EMISSION RATES OF SELECTED METALS IN THE STACK GAS
MASS EMISSION RATES, POUNDS/HOUR
RUN NO. Cd Cr Fe hn N1 Pb
MS-IS 4.24E-4 7.96E-5 12.04E-3 "l.llE-4 <7.37E-5 f.SU-2
2S 3.46E-4 8.30E-5 1.25E-3 0.51E-4 <7.88E-5 1 .47E-2
3S 6.71E-4 9.94E-5 3.49E-3 1.12E-4 <8.11E-5 1.78E-2
10 2.61S-4 6.86E-5 U.93E-3 0.53E-4
-------
TABLE B-25
CONCENTRATIONS OF SELECTED METALS
IN THE STACK GAS CONCENTRATIONS.
GRAINS/DRY STANDARD CUBIC FOOT^'
RUN NO.
MS-IS
-2S
-3S
-ID
-2D
-30
HC1-1S
-2S
-3S
-ID
-20
-3D
Cd Cr Fe
2.28E-5 4.28E-6 6.47E-4
1 .88E-5 4.52E-4 0.68E-4
3.46E-5 S.13E-6 1 .80E-4
1.75E-5 4.61E-6 0.62E-4
4.00E-5 5.62E-6 Q.69E-4
5.86E-5 8.98E-6 0.82E-4
-
_ _
** •
^
Mn Ni Pb
5.97E-6 <3.96E-6 8.13E-4
2.8QE-6 <4.29E-6 7.98E-4
5.79E-6 *4.18E-6 9.19E-4
3.59E-6
-------
TfiBLE B-26
MASS EMISSION RATES OF SELECTED CHLORINATED AND
AROMATIC ORGANIC COHPOUHOS BASED-ON ANALYSIS OF RESIM SAHPLES Cug/*»c>
STAMFORD UNIUERSITV
SAMPLE 10
DATE
1. DICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
2. OICHLOROMETHANE
3. TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE
4. TRICHLOROMETHANE
5 . 1 , 2-D I CHLOROETHANE
t . 1 , 1 . 1 -TR I CHLOROETHANE
7. CARBON TETRACHLOaiDE
9 . 1 , 1 , 2- TR I CHLOROETHYLEME
9. 1,2-OIBROHOETHANE
ID. TETkriCHLORQETHENE
11. T&ICHLOROTRIFLUOROETHANE
12. BENLENE
13. TOLUENE
!4. ETHYLBENZENE
15. P-,,YLEHE
i£. M-XYLENE
17. CUHENE
la. C-;;Y_£N£
IS. MESITYLENE
20. NAPHTHALENE
2 1 . METHYL I £OBUTYLKETONE
RT-1S
£-30-87
1.80E+00
3.24E+01
< 4.63E-01
1.02E+01
5.57E+01
1 . SOEfOO
3.54E-01
3.S4E-01
< 3.54E-01
1.2&E+00
< 3.54E-01
2." 1QE+01
3.95E+00
3.23E+QO
S.99E+00
< l.SQE+00
2.01E+Q1
RT-2S
7-2-S7 J
3.40EfOO •
1.17E+01
< 2.34E-01
5. IcE-i-OO
3.29E+01
9.35E-01
< 2.34E-01
2.34E-01
< 2.34E-01
&. 13E-01
< 2.34E-01
6.69E+01
5.£3E*00
2.46E+00
1 . 29EtOO
2. 23E+00
1.17E*00
2.23E+00
< 1.17E+00
1.10E+01
7.51E-H01 .
RT-3S
7-7-67
9.66E-01
1.07E+01
1.94E-01
4.S5E+00
1 . 45E-*-00
< 1.94E-01
2.SSE-01
< 1.94E-01
1.2&E+00
2. 13E+00
S.O&E-i-Ol
1.6£E-«-01
1 . 94E+00
2.32E+00
4.17E+00
1 . 3£E+OQ
3.00E+00
< 9.£sE-Ol
3.49E+00
< 9.£5E-01
RT-10
£-30-67
1.90E+OQ
i.40Ef01
< 2.00E-01
S.99E-01
g 55£_0,
< 2.00E-01
7.99E-01
< 2.00E-01
£.99E-01
5.6BE+00
1 . 50E+00
1 . 90E+00
1.8£E+OI
9. 19E+00
4.39E+00
S.OOEfQO
S.29E+00
MM
RT-2D
7-1 -S7
I . 07E+00
3.30E+01
< 1.91E-01
< 1.91E-01
< 1.-31E-01
3.11E+00
5.6ol-0i
3. 40E+00
£.32E*02 x
4. £££+00
1 . 75E+00
4.52E+Q1
5.70E+01
3.30E+00
2. 33E+00
4.&4E+01
1.3SE+01
!
MM
RT-3D
7-2-S7
1. IbE+OQ
1 . 97E*01
< 2.30E-01
l.SlEfQQ
< 1.1£E+01
71 AC* ^. rin
. l^h+UU
1 . 04E+00
3.71E*00
2.30E-01
3.24E+00
1 . 04E+00
>• ^ 7F -4. i^t 1
f^ • £t { & " LJ \
5.45E+00
< 1.1£E*00
9.43E+01
1 . 74E+00
4.0£E*00
5. 5£E*00
X*
*< Po£*ibl* coslution of anothar unknown coit.pound
*H Test r*sult« withheld pending confini.ition by a,ift «p*ctro.i,etry
< 1*** than ^
RT-1S
RT-3S
RT-3S
RT-1D
RT-2D
RT-3D
First Sample in Stack
Second Sample in Stack
Third Sample in Stack
First Sample at Inlet of Scrubber
Second Sample at Inlet of Scrubber
Third Sample at Inlet of Scrubber
C-87-022
-------
TABLE B-27
PCOD/PCOF CONCENTRATIONS IN BOTTOM ASH
AND SCRUBBER EFFLUENT
a/
SAMPLE No.
DIQXINS
2,3,7,8-TCDO
Total TCDD
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
Total PeCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
Total HxCDD
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCOO
Total HpCDD
Total OCOO
• •
Total PCDD
9.015
2.4
3.0S5 *
2.6
).076
>.091
>.06O *
O.27
0.61
1.4
0.76
-------
-------
4. Title and Subtitle
Hospital Waste Combustion Study - Data Gathering Phase,
Final Report
7. Authorfi)
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Radian Corporation
P.O. Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711
1 Report Data
December 1988
«. Performing Organization Rapt. No.
DCN- 88-239-001-30-12
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
Assignment Nos. 30
Work
& 40
U. ContracKQ or Grant(G) No.
-------
c
c
cr. 'J
c. <.
C'
ct
C
I-'
,tl
1
------- |