ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
OF MUNK'.IPAI SCALE INCINERATORS
I H\i (H • -NM , -:. . i-5 PROT KC1 ION AGENCY
-------
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT OF MUNICIPAL-SCALE INCINERATORS
An Open-File Report (SW-111) prepared
by WILLIAM C. ACHINGER and RICHARD L. BAKER
for the Processing and Disposal Division
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1973
-------
-------
CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1
INTRODUCTION 4
STUDY METHODOLOGY 5
STATUS OF MUNICIPAL-SCALE INCINERATION 6
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 11
Air Pollution 11
Water Pollution 18
Land Pollution 26
REFERENCES 31
TABLES - 1. Summary of Operating Municipal Incinerators -
May 1972 7
2. Examples of Particulate Emission Standards for New
Municipal-Scale Incinerators 8
3. Estimate of Major Pollutant Emissions on a
Nationwide Basis 12
4. Estimate of Air Pollution Emissions from Municipal-
Scale Incinerators - 1972 13
5.. Incinerator Wastewater Analysis - Quench Water ... 19
6.. Incinerator Wastewater Analysis - Scrubber Water . . 20
7.. Incinerator Wastewater Analysis - Final
Effluent Water 21
8. Estimate of Wastewater Discharges from Municipal-
Scale Incinerators - 1972 23
9. Estimated Volume of Industrial Wastes 25
-------
PAGE
TABLES (CONT'D.) -10.
n.
FIGURES
1.
Residue Composition 27
Estimate of Residue Volumes and Tonnages
from Municipal-Scale Incinerators - 1972
Graphical Distribution of Incinerators
in the Northeastern Quarter of the
U.S
30
10
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
On a nationwide basis, municipal-scale incinerators* contribute
a very small portion of the total air pollutants generated by
stationary combustion sources and are responsible for only a
fraction of the water pollution resulting from industrial-type
operations. On the other hand, individual facilities contribute
significantly to environmental degradation, especially in the urban areas
in the northeastern part of the United States, where the majority of
incinerators are located.
Municipal-scale incinerators should not have significant negative
impact on the environment if they: (1) are equipped with air
pollution control devices that will ensure compliance with air
pollution emission standards; (2) treat their wastewaters either
by neutralization or sedimentation on-site or by discharge to a
municipal sewage treatment plant to comply with applicable standards;
(3) dispose of their residue in a sanitary landfill; (4) adhere to a
litter control program.
Although only particulate air pollution emissions from municipal-
scale incinerators are now regulated nationally, future standards may
have to be considered for carbon monoxide and hydrogen chloride. The
emissions of hydrocarbons, oxides of sulfur, and oxides of nitrogen from
municipal-scale incinerators are too low to warrant their regulation
at this source type at this time.
At present, the quality of wastewater discharges from
municipal-scale incinerators can only be regulated by means of sewer
*Incinerators designed to process at least 50 tons of municipal
solid waste per day.
1
-------
ordinances and by means of standards for receiving surface waters.
If specific discharge standards are established for municipal-scale
incinerators they should include, as a minimum, standards for
temperature, pH, and suspended solids. Other pollutants that may
require regulation include dissolved solids, phosphates, sulfates,
chlorides, and oxygen demand.
Several factors are at work that will eventually reduce the
total pollution load generated by municipal-scale incinerators and
that will mitigate the impact such facilities have in areas where
they are employed:
1. Environmental standards are being established to regulate
pollution of all types. Some of these regulations will be
applicable to municipal-scale incinerators.
2. The construction rate for municipal-scale incinerators has
been on the decline since 1968, and there is reason to believe
that this trend will continue and may even accelerate. Environ-
mental standards established by Federal, State, and local regula-
tory agencies to ensure that environmentally acceptable facilities
are built will increase already high capital investment costs.
3. At the same time the construction rate is falling, older
facilities continue to be closed down, primarily because of
their high operating and maintenance costs but also because of
growing concern over their effect on the environment.
Frequently these incinerators are not replaced with new
incinerators.
-------
4. Resource recovery systems and new types of systems for thermal
processing of solid waste are being developed -- systems such as
pyrolysis, gasification, vortex Incinerators, and utility boilers
which can process solid wastes. Municipalities that require
some form of processing to achieve maximum volume reduction of
their solid wastes may consider using these newer systems instead
of municipal-scale incinerators. However, until these evolving
systems are perfected, municipal-scale incinerators offer a
proven method for achieving maximum volume reduction.
-------
INTRODUCTION
The public and pollution control agencies often put great
pressure on incinerator owners and operators to abate the amount
of pollutants their facilities discharge to the environment. This
was one of the factors that prompted the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Office of Air Programs to include municipal-scale incinerators
in the first five sources categories for which it established new
source performance standards. This paper is the end product of an
effort to evaluate the total environmental impact (air, water, and
land) of municipal-scale incinerators in 1972 and to place it in
proper perspective.
-------
STUDY METHODOLOGY
The starting point in the study was a list of municipal-
scale incinerators developed for the Office of Air Programs by
Arthur D. Little, Inc. This list, which was current as of 1970,
was then updated to 1972 on the basis of information obtained from
State air pollution control agencies. (They were contacted rather
than the solid waste management agencies because of the information
available to them from the permit system they are developing).
Concurrently, estimates were also gathered on the tonnages processed
at each facility.
The next step was to obtain pollutant emission factors from
published literature for air pollutants, wastewater contaminates,
and residue quantities. These factors are generally presented as a
quantity of pollutant emitted per ton of waste processed. These
factors and tonnages processed were used to calculate various
emissions from municipal-scale incinerators. The results were then
compared to other environmental data obtained from the literature in
an effort to place the environmental impact of municipal-scale
incinerators in proper perspective.
-------
STATUS OF MUNICIPAL-SCALE INCINERATION
Since 1920, 322 municipal-scale incinerators have been built and
42 modifications made to increase the capacity of the facilities.
Their total installed design capacity is 100,656 tons per day.
In 1969 only 251 incinerators with a design capacity of 79,567
tons per day were actually operating. An inventory conducted by
the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs (OSWMP) showed that as
of May 1972 only 193,with a daily design capacity of 70,667 tons, were
operating (Table 1). Installed design capacities, of course, are never
utilized to the maximum because of downtime and because some facilities
operate less than 24 hours per day.
During the period 1945 to 1967, an average of over 13 separate
increases in installed design capacity took place each year, but fewer
than four per year have occurred since 1967.
Possible reasons for the decline in construction and in the
increased closing of old incinerators are: (1) all cities that want
or need incinerators have them and have sufficient processing capacity
or are putting off construction plans; (2) capital and operating
costs are high; and (3) pressures are mounting to control air pollution
emissions from municipal-scale incinerators.
The decline in utilization of municipal-scale incinerators may be
accelerated further if political jurisdictions at various levels
continue to set standards more stringent than those of the Federal
Government. Federal standards for new or modified units are established
at a level that the best available technology can achieve with reasonable
costs (Table 2). In addition, resource recovery systems and new systems
-------
TABLE 1
SUMMARY OF OPERATING MUNICIPAL INCINERATORS - MAY 1972
Region Number of
Incinerators
National Summary
Region I
Maine
Vermont
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Massachusetts
Connecticut
Region II
New York
New Jersey
Region III
Pennsylvania
West Virginia
Virginia
District of Columbia
Maryland
Del aware
Region IV
Kentucky
Tennessee
Georgia
Florida
North Carolina
South Carolina
Mississippi
Alabama
Region V
Ohio
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Wisconsin
Minnesota
Region VI
New Mexico
Texas
Oklahoma
Arkansas
Louisiana
Region VII
Kansas
Nebraska
Missouri
Iowa
Region VIII
South Dakota
Montana
Utah
Colorado
North Dakota
Region IX
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
Region X
Idaho
Washington
Oregon
Alaska
193
45
0
0
3
4
21
17
SO
45
5
22
11
0
6
1
4
0
23
7
0
2
14
0
0
0
0
37
14
8
1
4
10
0
10
0
2
0
0
8
2
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Dally design
capaci ty
(tons) '
70,667
12,518
0
0
250
960
5.994
5,314
18,570
17,240
1,330
11.012
4,272
0
2,320
1,500
2.920
0
8,025
1.525
0
1,100
5,400
0
0
0
0
15.392
5.050
6.200
450
1,750
1.942
0
3.450
0
1.150
0
0
2.3CO
800
0
0
800
0
300
0
0
300
0
0
600
0
0
600
0
0
0
0
0
0
Average tonnage processed
Dally Yearly
(tons) (10* tons)
49.932
5.700
0
0
68
560
2.410
2.662
14,058
13.167
891
8,138
3,529
0
1,550
1,000
2.059
0
6.034
1,525
0
990
3.519
0
0
0
0
12.279
3.887
6.311
100
1.180
801
0
2.355
0
850
0
0
1.505
1,000
0
0
1,000
0
300
0
0
300
0
0
600
0
0
600
0
0
0
0
0
0
16.66
2.16
0
0.02
0.23
0.88
1.03
S.OO
4.80
0.20
2.48
1.14
0
0.44
0.26
0.64
0
1.98
0.38
0
0.32
1.28
0
0
0
0
3.92
1.11
2.15
0.03
0.41
0.22
0
0.65
0
0.24
0
0
0.41
0.26
0
0
0.26
0
0.06
0
0
0.06
0
0
0.16
0
0
0.16
0
0
0
0
0
0
-------
for thermal processing of solid wastes such as pyrolysis, gasification,
vortex incinerators, and utility boilers which can process solid wastes
are being developed. Communities which require processing to achieve
volume reduction may utilize these new systems instead of municipal -
scale incinerators.
However, increased urbanization will increase the pressure to
use processing methods to reduce the volume of solid waste. At this
time municipal-scale incineration is the only demonstrated technique
for achieving this objective, and communities may select it.
TABLE 2
EXAMPLES OF PARTICULATE EMISSIONS STANDARDS
FOR NEW MUNICIPAL-SCALE INCINERATORS
Regulatory unit Grains per standard
cu ft at 12% COo
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency 0.08
Maryland 0.03
Massachusetts 0.05
District of Columbia 0.03*
*Converted from 0.03 Ib particulate per 100 Ib
of solid waste burned.
8
-------
Of the 193 municipal incinerators operating in the United
States, 153 are in the northeastern quarter* (Figure 1). Of the 153,
90 are in the area designated as the "Incinerator Belt" (area enclosed
with the dashed line box shown on Figure 1). Thus, almost half of
the total number of incinerators in this country are concentrated
in only 0.06 percent of the land area where 13 percent of the nation's
2
population live.
*This includes: New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont, Massachusetts,
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, and
Maine.
-------
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Three potential environmental problem areas are associated
with incineration of municipal solid waste: (1) air pollution—from
stack gases; (2) water pollution—from water used in residue quenching
and gas cleaning operations; and (3) land pollution—from litter and
from organics and inorganics in the residue.
Air Pollution
There are a tremendous number of air pollution sources in the
United States, including about 100 million passenger autos and diesel
trucks and a great number of stationary air pollution sources such as
power plants, industrial processes, and municipal-scale incinerators.
The major pollutants identified by EPA's Office of Air Programs as
being of concern nationally from all sources are particulates, sulfur
oxides, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, and nitrogen oxides. Concern
is increasing over other pollutants such as hydrogen chloride, asbestos,
cadmium, lead, nickel, fluorides, mercury, arsenic, beryllium, and
vanadium.
Most of the 11.2 million tons of air pollution attributable to
solid waste disposal is generated by on-site incineration and other
solid waste disposal practices, such as open burning, burning of wastes
from land clearing operations, and slash burning, which involve poor
combustion techniques (Table 3). Municipal-scale incinerators emit
only 0.46 million tons of pollutants—or 0.51 million tons including
hydrogen chloride, a major pollutant emitted from incinerators but not
included in the national inventory (Table 4). Thus, emissions from
municipal-scale incinerators contribute only 0.21 percent of the total
11
-------
CO
U3
•k
CO
CO
-
CO S-
Z CO
00.
1— 1
CO CO CO
CO C
UJ •— i o
S^M
«=c <•-
P 1—0
2 £
=3 0
^ r*—
O r—
0. •!-
O
2?
u_
o
UJ
t
2^
1— 1
1—
CO
UJ
*
o
H-
4~)
c
(O
3
^_
1— »
o
a.
CO
TD
•^™
X
o
c
CO
en
e
£
CO
^
o
X}
S.
(O
(J
o
i.
-O
>^
^T"
CO
TJ
•r—
X
o
c
f^
fm
o
f)
S-
to
CO
CO
-a
X
o
s-
3
^3
CO
to
CO
0
o
CO
CT> CM LO CO CO CM
Lf) r— O CT> C^ ^-
^- r- en CM co i—
CM
o O
• • • • • •
O i— U3 *± CO CM
i— CO
cn co co r*» cr> r—
• • • • • •
t— p*- CO CT» ^ O
VO i— O
r_
^i- r— co co vo CM
• * • * • •
^- o o r*. o co
CM CO
CT1 i — CM Lf) IO CO
• • * • • •
co i— i— r-» cr> co
CM
CO i—
3 (B
c: co c o *>
>> O 4-> O i— CO O
1- -r- CO i— -r- •!-£ 3O O
IB O i— *^~ X3 O "O ^ to
+JO OT3 OO CQ.T-
co co 2: >-" s:
CO
_0
CO O CO
S- -!-> to
O T-
S- >
co co •— E
C T- «B O
•r- •— C i.
o a> o i-
C -0 -I-
•^ -»-> -a
CO ro CO
CO S- C >
r- IO •!-
(B CO S-
O CO (£> CO
CO C CT> -O
1 Oi—
i — CO CO
IO T- CO C
a. s- j= o
•r- rO +-> -r-
O Q- CO
"2 -r- E +-> 3
c C O , o
CO O CO r—
o {_ x: co co
c «i- (— J^ x:
CO .r- 4->
S- 4-> r—
Q> 0 C -4->
lj- (0 • 3 $-
CO o. fB O
S- E -P-O 4->
»i— ro CO CO
E TD S- -r-
O i — CO "O
& ro CO-O
«4- 4J co -i- O
C CO CO +J
12 co x: c
^ E ••-> 0 >,
•"-"C O r—
"0 •«-
X C CO +J 0
CO CO S- ••- •!-
UD CO C
CO CT> -Q CO IB
•r- i— r— J= •
-t-> CO XJ O CO
0) O tO IO C
•4-> 4-> -C C CO O
CO O > CO
C CM CO IB M-
•r- t^ IB J= S-
CO •*-* i— t- IB CL
+J S- +J E
O CO C CO
-------
*
CSJ
!-.
ft
C£
0
I-H
LU
s
CO
•a:
Q.
>— l
O
i— i
Z3
«3-
UJ O
_i o:
CO U-
T;
< EMISSIONS
0
1— 1
1—
Z3
_l
0
a.
a:
i— i
3
Q.
(U
+•»
(0
at
-o
o
to
c
0
•r—
O>
«>O CM O CM
cr»o>Oi^ir>cocoi-^ rocMi—
voor>.r^.u>ooi^p— «* i— Or—
«> «> fx. LO I— r— i— U> IO
r— i— vn i h*
OOOCDOOOOO O
OOOOOOCDOO O
co">**r-to«*«>i— r^ r>x
vor>.n<-cr»i— «*r— CM i—
CO CO «3- CO U> r— O»
CM
OCDOOOCDOOO O
ooooooooo o
COCDtOOO»OOOCMin CM
vo u> r-v m f— CM o
i— .— • U>
OOOOC3OOOO O
OOOOOOIOIOIO 00
i— omoop^cM i— r^
CM If) CM CM **• VO
ooooooooo o
OOOOOOOIOCM r>.
VOOOCTtLOOinCM f— (O
f— CO i— i— CO CM
ooooooooo o
OOOOOOOLOCM r^
VDOOCTtLOOlOCM r— VO
r— CO r— r— CO CM
ooooooooo o
OOOOOOOOO CD
incocoo^— i^ooini— co
como>CM^-cor- i— r*.
•— ^- r— t— CM CM
§00000000 o
OOOOOOOO o
OOOOOOOOO o
ooooooooo co"
VOOCOCOCMinVOVOVO Ot^
t— O <4- Cn 0 VO CM r—zvO
CM U> CM r- CO vo
5
1— II— II— 1>>|— II— II— IX X|S
HH 1— 1 1— 1 > (— 1 »— t 1— 1
1— 1 > 1— «s
>
•o
o
0) 4->
+3-0
•i- QJ
•M i.
« s.
g-l
-0°
C 0)
««- <0
-13
o o>
•r- «/>
in a)
(0 J=
•r- 4J
§ 4->
(0
0>-=
c -t-1
I/I O
3 ">
* Calculatec
** Subtractec
13
-------
air pollution generated, excluding hydrogen chloride.
Comparing the data in Tables 3 and 4 shows that pollutant
emissions from municipal-scale incinerators contribute to the major
air pollutant categories as follows:
particulates 0.04 percent
sulfur oxides 0.04 percent
carbon monoxide 0.03 percent
hydrocarbons 0.04 percent
nitrogen oxides 0.08 percent
Air pollution from municipal incinerators consists of:
particulates 26 percent
sulfur oxides 2 percent
carbon monoxide 57 percent
hydrocarbons 2 percent
nitrogen oxides 3 percent
hydrogen chloride 10 percent
100 percent
Thus, particulates, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen chloride
comprise 93 percent of the total air pollution emissions from municipal-
scale incinerators. In addition, unpublished data from EPA's Office
of Air Programs indicate that the particulate emissions from municipal-
scale incinerators contain small amounts of cadmium, lead, and mercury.
The data are too limited to permit comment on asbestos, nickel,
fluorides, arsenic, beryllium, and vanadium, although they may be
present in incinerator effluents.
14
-------
Since the contribution of municipal-scale incinerators to the
total air pollution burden or to any of the major pollutant categories
is always less than 0.5 percent and in some cases less than 0.1 percent,
it would seem that the national attention focused on air pollution
from municipal-scale incinerators is unwarranted. However, analysis
of the air pollution emissions from municipal-scale incinerators in
urban areas lends some insight as to why the attention has been
generated.
Since most of the country's municipal-scale incinerators are
concentrated in urban areas, their presence exacerbates any existing
air pollution problems caused by other emission sources (industrial,
commercial, and vehicular) in the area. For example, in its air
quality implementation plan, New York State estimates that 127,000
tons of particulates are emitted per year in the New York City area
and that almost 20 percent (24,000 tons) of the total comes from
municipal-scale incinerators. This clearly illustrates that even though
municipal-scale incinerators contribute little to air pollution on a
nationwide basis, they can have a significant impact in a metropolitan
area.
Because incinerators are concentrated in urban areas, oarticularly
in the northeastern part of the United States, the regional effect of
air pollution from them cannot be ignored. Based on the data in
Table 4, 31 percent of all air pollutants generated by municipal-scale
incinerators is emitted in EPA Region II, 23 percent in Region V, and
15 percent in Region III. The emissions in each of the other Regions
15
-------
is below 15 percent and for Region X it is zero. The incinerator
belt (Figure 1) which includes the majority of the facilities in
Region II, accounts for 60 percent of all the air pollutants emitted
from municipal-scale incinerators in the United States.
Municipal-scale incinerators are point sources of air pollution
and if not controlled properly, can have a significant impact on tiie
immediate environment. One uncontrolled 1,000 tons per day incinerator
could be responsible for emitting 5,500 tons of particulate per year.
If this same facility were controlled to meet the Federal standard of
0.08 grains per standard cubic foot at 12 percent C02, the facility
would emit only 290 tons of particulates each year. The use of
control equipment to meet this standard will change the characteristics
of the particulate emissions. Particulate control equipment preferentially
removes the large particles, permitting most of the small particles
to pass through. Thus, even with good control the small particles
will still tend to be emitted. This change in particle size
distribution means that although larger particles will no longer be
emitted to fallout in the vicinity of the incinerator, the smaller
particles, which remain suspended in the atmosphere longer, will
still be emitted.
Since particulates, carbon monoxide, and hydrogen chloride
comprise 93 percent of the total air pollution emissions from
municipal-scale incinerators, they are potential candidates for
control regulations. In fact, particulates are already being
regulated nationally. Although hydrocarbon and oxides of sulfur
and nitrogen are of concern nationally, their emissions from municipal-
16
-------
scale incinerators are so small that control regulations are not
warranted at this time.
Participates can be controlled to meet the Federal standard
by improving combustion characteristics at the incinerator (to
eliminate combustible particulates) and by using air pollution
control equipment (to collect noncombustible particulates). If all
presently operating incinerators were upgraded to meet the Federal
standard for particulate emissions the total tonnage would be
reduced from 0.13 million tons per year to 0.012 million tons per year.
If control requirements were established, carbon monoxide could
be controlled by improving combustion characteristics and hydrogen
chloride by use of control equipment.
The only criterion that can be used to judge how a given facility
impacts on the environment is to determine whether it complies with
the established environmental standards. The standard on particulate
emissions, the only air pollutant regulated at municipal-scale
incinerators by the Federal Government, can be met at reasonable
cost. Some local standards are more stringent than the Federal standard
and may require large capital investments for adequate pollution
control equipment.
Municipal-scale incinerators controlled to meet the Federal
emission standard can be operated in a manner that will not
significantly degrade the air environment.
17
-------
Water Pollution
The major water pollutants of concern nationally are heat,
solids (both suspended and dissolved), biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), total organic carbon (TOC),
phosphates, nitrates, heavy metals such as lead and mercury, pH,
and pesticides.
The liquid effluent from a municipal-scale incinerator is hot
and contains suspended and dissolved solids. Its pH can vary from
acidic to basic, depending on how it was used within the incinerator
(Tables 5, 6, and 7). Except for pH, the data for each incinerator
shown in these tables are averages for five grab samples collected
on separate days. Although the data in Tables 5, 6, and 7 do not
show it, the wastewater discharges from municipal-scale incinerators
will probably exert an oxygen demand (both BOD and COD) and may contain
heavy metals.
At some incinerator facilities, wastewater is treated on-slte
using one or more of the following: lagoons, settling tanks,
pH adjustment. Liquid effluents from incinerators are either
discharged into surface waters or into a sewer system to be treated
at a sewage treatment plant.
Since the data in Tables 5, 6, and 7 are expressed in concentration
units, discharge rates must be known before the total pollution load
imposed on the environment can be determined. The only measured data
available for use in this paper were obtained during a single 1972 OSWMP
incinerator study of a 240 ton per day incinerator. (Such information
is lacking because water consumption and discharge rates are not
measured at most municipal incinerators).
18
-------
6
1
R
"
U
8-
i
CO
M
CO
SH
in 2
M
p3 pyj
H ^
EH
en
g
P
«
K
M
£
HI
_
to
<» .->
u 1-1
0) —
.£ 00
a. 0
to *-^
o
X
PL,
m
"i d
U r-4
to *>*
IM 00
rH 0
3 -•'
I/I
B CO
i^s
.S oo a
C e u
3~
T3 y— .
iH i-H
M ^-
O 00
° |"
>C *••*'
O
' >,
1 1
•H
C <~s
•rt CO
rH i-l O
OJ •»- U
A! M CO
rH 0 0
^J ^^
rH CO ^^
81 T) i-l
*J T-( ^^-
O rH CO
H 0 S
CO v^
T3
4) CO ^-^
> -S rH
rH -rt ^~
O rH 00
to o S
to co * —
•H
n
•o
01 cfl ^N
•0 -O rH
C iH ^
41 rH 00
o. o e
CO CO ^^
3
CO
V
M
3
u
M ^-N
M pu
41 o .
§•"
S
X
0,
n
o
u
2
V
a
•H
U
,e
h
m
O 00 rH
CO CM
o o o
CO CM 00
CM rH CM
O O O
MD oo m
-» a\ m
000
CM 00 VO
^ MO CO
o o o
CM CM O
i-H r» *£>
o o o
-» vO O
I-H o> m
CO CO CM
O 0 O
oo vo -a-
CM VO O
i-H CM CM
O O O
vO O VO
00 CO ^a
i-H rH
. s ,
rH
CM in
• rH
iH rH .
1 1 1
•* CM CTv
OO rH in
rH
< tO O
rH
CM
in
CM
o
CJ\
CM
O
O
CM
O
-a-
CM
o
o\
•*T
rH
O
O>
m
o
o
o>
o
CM
rH
O
•
1
en
CO
u
•
s± vO 09 -3- i-H
rH rH IA
m co o o o
•^ m oo vj- oo
OO i-H
-
o m o o o
00 O"* CM in a" *a~ CM rH
00 00 O
SO 00 CO II '
rH
OS rH
i-H . . CT» cr\ vo oo / /
^ /
/
1** O W M r, , '
'
r*
41
u
S
rl
4)
14H
4)
M
1!
cd
Q
°
4-t
41
h
a
^
u a
**
C-OM
3
o
M
5
<;
a
V
o
4J
CQ
' S
5
o
e
45
e
o
S
: «
u
s
vO
4)
0
C
41
rl
41
IM
' ' 4)
• , r<
! , 41
4)
CO
'• »
*
0
' Z
to
h
o
u
0}
rl
S
•H
g
•H
C
o
(d
4J
flj
•o
ffi
P
0
4J
2
S
•rl
O
C
•H
C
O
a
u
ttt
•e
15
MH
a
4)
iH
•s
4;
5J
CO
o
•a
41
to
iH
rH
J3
3
(X
C
3
C HI
41 U
4) a
2-°
4i e
•°|
^§
41
4J •
ta \o
•H
a 4)
C o
o a
U 41
rl
to 4)
•H IM
41
W rl
a
^5
°->
•So
tu r~
•O
IH o
4)
4J •>
u m
41
i-H 41
rH
41 43
efl
a were
u
a
T>
S
u
•h
H
O
u
a
H
9)
5
o
s
o
•H
iw
•H
O
41
O.
CO
a
h
O
IH
"O
4)
4J
a
4)
a
41
rl
a
u
o
a
4)
rl
«
a
•H
si
a
**4
o
CO
41
CD
O
o.
u
a.
41
X
U
S
«W
41
rH
Ji
«S
4J
•H
3
00
u
o
a
4)
K
s
Vl
o
TJ
41
4J
U
«J
i-H
rH
O •
U h
41
•u a.
o a
a P.
19
-------
cc
LU
i—
!Z
a:
CO,
CO
o:
00
00
10 5;
LU Z
CO
«C o:
I—
1
H-
C£
0
1—
S
LU
•z.
O
1—1
+J
u
•o
c
o
t-J
2—
IO ^
.c co
ex s
in — .
o
0.
"^
10 en
M- E
3
i.
IO
:r
U>
0)
•r^^-"
i- **^
o en
i— E
-cO.
CJ
jj
•r-
-.- CO
i— i— O
IO ~-^C_)
^£ cn 10
•—^0
^«~
Or— O)
1— O E
to — •
-o
4J trt *•—••
*Or^ en
WOE
u) • — •
•r-
O
•o
4) ^-»
-0-0 r-
4) i — cn
o-o e
oo
2!
3
to'-'
S-LU
41 O^
4)
1—
or
CL
S..
o
10
O)
c
'o
c;
,__
LO
O
CM
l>«
O
CO
CO
o
o
CO
CM '
O
i —
O
r—
o
co
LO
O
IO
CO
1
CM
oo
CO
«t
CO
o
CM
o
CO
UD
CM
O
*!•
LO
CO
CO
CM
0
1— ~
cn
o
S
oo
o
CM
CO
in
LO
^t
in
i
oo
«3-
CO
CT>
O
CM
CM
O
O
CD
O
O
0
CO
o
CM
o
CM
o
o
oo
CM
1
in CM
CM VO
CM LO
00 CM 1
n—
O CO «*
o oo i—
CO CO 00
u. x 1-1
•^
c
to
***
01
3
2
-C
^
c ui
o s-
£ 5
fQ
l|_ 4)
* ^
•O 41
41 S-
4-> 41
(J *t—
4) 41
r— S-
O Q)
0 41
4)
CL ••
E v>
1 S
Q
* 5
•r- t/l
•r->
Cr-
0-Q
3
<0 0.
+-• C
•0 3
S. 0
o s-
0)
S-T3
41 C
41
S- t->
c5
Ol TJ
4-> C
"° 3
C
0
cn
•r- «
U) 1^
0)
"°«>"
I-
41 -
4-> in
i «
VI
i- 4«
iE*
20
4)
i- u«
^5
(O O
-o
0>
0) w>
sg.
fcl
si
01
C i.
i- O
c
t- 01
r™
0-Q
•r- •»-
41 01
a.
10 +*
o
A) C
J32
*-s
"S..
+> o
c
41 T3
l/l 41
O) 1 *
clS
1 • ^
o o •
C 0 «-
£+J a.
o «
n> c o.
-------
H
s
y
1
«
1
1
CO
l-f
ANALYS:
S
LTOR WASTEWAT!
i
w
i
01
0 ^x
4J rH
'o. S
CO ^-^
o
JC
m
4-1 rH
« -^
IH M
3 >&
CO
S «
c? S
J§ o> a"1
n
•S y->»
iH rH
S"w
rH E
4J
1-1
•rl To
rH rH O
etf ^*. CJ
^ oo ed
< v£°
~
rH ffl <—
es tjj rH
4J -H -~
O rH 00
HOE
W ^^
Dissolved
Solids
Og/1)
•a
0 W ^N
•O -O rH
0 rH 60
CX 0 S
to to ^
CO
0
3
2*
F
0
X
p.
t4
J
g
X
II
H
U
a
M
en co H •*
VO rH
co I o "°> O O O
CO 1 f"^ 00 CO 00 O\
VO - CO
*•<
o o o ^ ® o o
r, co 0 «0 r- -» -»
CM rH H •» «N «-< M
girt Q Q O O *n
o in rH co -* in
CM ^- rs rH rH -^
o o o m o in
rH -» rH rH 1 O\ CO
rH rH CO "
m o o a o o o
in o m O o rH o
\D O\ CM CM 00 vO -*1
H ••» <-l
o o o o o o o
ri CM rH *O rH r* C3\
m co CM O in •* rH
•-H -* rH
* * •<
m o o o o o o
00 00 -tf- *1" OV ^ rH
in — ( CM rH CM
o m o m o
rH vo r~ CM i i en
rH rH
CO 'H rH Ot
O\ O\ . • • •
. . o m a> a.
I I I I I I I
in oo -a- so en m
•* in ejs «*t r* oo
^
0
s?
M
0
W u. o M W >-) <
1
B
•H
U
•H
tu
W
CO
60
thus reducin
n
•o
•rH
O
CO
•s
rH
rH
rl
CO
0
a
a
a
0
Sf
rH
3
•°
00 60
e a
TH -rl
rH rH
U 4J
4J 4J
0 0
ID CO
h IH
0 0
IH IH
eg eg
* +
PS
3
a
o
c
o
eg
4-1
•3
IH
fs- CO
0
0 -H
O -O
S3
M O
0
pr* PC
CO
•B°
-•s
o x
CO
O TH
4J rH
H 3
O
u s
eg 0
M H
0 IH
B
•rl 0
0 >4
B eg
•rl
B "*
n
4J
0] H
rl rl
O O
*• «
0
(U C
U 10 rH
0 _rt
rH « eg eg
\O | «
0 IH -H
fi « O 3
(-4 m MH n
21
-------
In incinerator operations, water is used for one or more of the
following reasons: to quench residue as it is discharged from the
furnace, to cool stack gases, and to scrub particulates from the stack
gases. (At the facility investigated by OSWMP, 370 gallons of water
per ton of waste processed were used for residue quenching; no water
was used for stack gas scrubbing or cooling.)
The quantity of water used for any of these functions varies
widely from facility to facility. For example, when collecting data
for this paper, operating personnel of 12 facilities estimated the
water used in their scrubber operations. These estimates ranged
from 720 to 2,880 gallons per ton of waste processed. The average
was 1530 gallons. The reasons for the scatter are variances in:
(1) desired stack gas exit temperatures; (2) furnace operating
temperatures; and (3) water usage rates of different scrubber
configurations.
Because of the sparcity of data and the many variables that
could come into play, the following assumptions were used in
making an estimate of the pollution load placed on the environment
by wastewater discharges from municipal incinerators (Table 8):
(1) the discharge rate is 1,900 gallons per ton (370 gallons for
residue quenching and 1,530 for the scrubber operation); and (2)
the average concentrations in Table 7 are representative of those
present in wastewater discharges from municipal incinerators.
To put these discharges into proper perspective nationally, a
national inventory of suspended solids (the only inventory data
*
available for the preparation of this paper) shows that 13,100
22
-------
00
UJ
_l
CO
CO
1
_J
i— i
ID
S
s:
o
a:
U-
co
UJ
f n
Vi*
ac.
-'
CO
cu
1 «
tO Q CO
't- co c
3 CO 4->
CO rtCS
fD ^"^^
CO
cu
-o
£ •— to
O O C
_^ ^5
-C tO 4->
o to — -
-a
0) tO^-o
>T> to
i r- C
Ovw /"\
r-™ U
co o -t->
to to» —
o
-o
CU co^»
-o -o to
E -i- C
air- o
O_ ft -* *
UJ. *J T^
to to* —
3
CO
y"^
r—
S_ <0
CU T3 O>
-M (ucn
r~ tO CU
o to uvo
CO 2 00
O N •"
C
o
•r~
o>
cu
QC.
0
^~
CM
o
o
rs.
vo
o
CD
CO
r^
o
CD
co
o
CM
o
0
VO
co
CD
^>
vo
CM
I-H
o
in
in
CD
CD
si-
in
^_
o
0
o
CO
0
o
I-*.
«*
o
0
CO
CO
o
in
cn
o
0
in
I-H
I-H
0
r-^
CM
o
o
r>~
r^
o
CD
cn
CO
CD
CD
CO
CO
CM
o
o
si-
_
r^
sl-
CO
sj-
CM
I-H
1— 1
K- 1
o
CM
CM
o
CD
vo
o
CD
1-^
o
o
l>»
CO
o
o
CO
CO
vo
«•*.
co
CO
cn
_
>•
1— 1
o
co
si-
o
o
CM
o
o
si-
o
o
CD
1^
CO
o
CD
in
vo
m
si-
l-x.
CM
cn
co
>
0 0
r^ co
0 0
0 0
O CO
CM
0 0
CD CO
si- O>
CM
0 0
0 0
CM sj-
VO CM
0 0
0 0
f— Sj-
,
Si"
CM sf
i— O
in vo
IO CM
CD 0
I-H I-H
^> •— *
>
o o
i— CM
o o
oo cn
f— si-
o o
1— 1^
CM in
o o
o cn
VO sl-
_
o o
o o
t— CO
f— O
T— CO
o o
vo vo
CD
sl-
co
A
!—
0
r^
sj^
,_
in
o
^—
o
CD
VO
CD
o
in
CD"
(^
1
CD
0
r-».
r>*
CM
VO
CO
CD
co
r>.
VO
VO
r_
tO
1 *
o
1
1
>, to
4-> C
•i- O
-!-> T-
C +•>
ca d.
3 £
CT 3
CO
^J t/)
C ro
- UJ
Q. i-
(O
4->
C C
fO 10
3 3
cr cr
»*o
to E
S- 10
0
4-> tO
U 4-
(0 O
t>- -M
C flS
0 t>-
to c
CO O
£= to
cu to
•r—
o> e •
Ci Ti i *
UJ •+-»
••- X
to 0>
3 • -M
-a
-a 3
-------
billion gallons of wastewater containing 18 billion pounds of
suspended solids were discharged from all manufacturing operations in
1964 (Table 9). The authors recognize that conclusions on environmental
degradation from municipal-scale incinerators should not be based solely
on suspended solids, but national discharges of other pollutants are
not available. By way of contrast, OSWMP estimates that only 31
billion gallons and 0.06 billion pounds of suspended solids were
discharged from municipal Incinerators in 1972, 0.24 and 0.31
percent of the 1964 industrial wastewater and suspended solids
discharges respectively.
Not unexpectedly, the largest wastewater and solids discharges
occur in EPA Regions II, III, and V.
To determine whether an individual facility can cause significant
degradation of the water environment, the average daily wastewater
discharge for a 300 tons per day* incinerator serving a city of 120,000
people was calculated. The daily discharge from such a facility would
be 570,000 gallons of wastewater and approximately 1,020 pounds of
suspended solids. Using a daily discharge rate of 150 gallons per
person per day, sewage effluents from the same city would total 18
million gallons and 24,000 pounds of suspended solids if the effluent
were untreated. The latter figure would drop to 8,400 pounds (65 percent
removal) and 1,200 pounds (95 percent removal) if primary and secondary
treatment, respectively, were given.
* Size selected based on a waste generation rate of five pounds
per person per day.
24
-------
TABLE 9
ESTIMATED VOLUME OF INDUSTRIAL WASTES, 1964
Source
Factor
Wastewater volume
(109 gal/yr)
Suspended solids
(106 Ib/yr)
Food & Kindred Products
Meat Products
Dairy Products
Canned & Frozen Food
Sugar Refining
All Other
Textile Mill Products
Paper & Allied Products
Chemical & Allied Products
Petroleum & Coal
Rubber & Plastics
Primary Metals
Blast Furnaces & Steel Mills
All Other
Machinery
Electrical Machinery
Transportation Equipment
All Other Manufacturing
Total
Sewered Population of U.S.
Discharged from Municipal
Incineration (from Table 6)
690
99
58
87
220
220
140
1,900
3,700
1,300
160
4,300
3,600
740
150
91
240
450
13,100
5,300*
31
6,600
640
230
600
5,000
no
not estimated
3,000
1,900
460
50
4,700
4,300
430
50
20
not estimated
930
18,000
8,800++
55
* Columns may not add, due to rounding
+ 120,000,000 persons x 120 gallons x 365 days
++ 120,000,000 persons x 0.2 pounds x 365 days
Note; Statistics presented in this table are extracted from
reference 5 and pertain to 1964. The environmental impact from
municipal-scale incineraotrs in 1972 has been compared to these
data. These comparisons are believed to be reasonable because
it is considered unlikely that the 1964 national emissions data
have changed sufficiently to distort the conclusions derived from
the comparisons.
25
-------
From strictly a quantitative standpoint, the sewage wastewater
has the potential to be a greater polluter than the effluent from the
municipal incinerator. However, the incinerator wastewaters contain
a concentration of suspended solids that is 27 times greater than
sewage effluents that have been given secondary treatment.
If the effluent from an incinerator were processed through a
primary sewage treatment plant the suspended solids would be reduced to 360
pounds per day (65 percent removal); if processed through a secondary
sewage treatment plant the suspended solids discharged would be
reduced to about 100 pounds per day (95 percent removal). Therefore,
if treated to the same degree as effluents from a sewage treatment
plant the wastewater discharges from a municipal incinerator will not
significantly affect the water environment. This conclusion is based
on the assumption that water quality can be reflected in the suspended
solids concentrations.
For ease of operation at the incinerator it is desirable to
treat the wastewater discharges at the municipal sewage treatment
plant. However, if on-site treatment is used, it should include as
a minimum pH adjustment and sedimentation. Wastewater recycle
should always be a consideration during the design of the incinerator.
Land Pollution
Municipal-scale incinerators impact directly on the land environment
in two ways: the disposal of the residue and blowing litter escaping
the facility.
The differences in the composition of residue from 10 incinerators
tested by OSWMP are illustrated in Table 10. The table shows that there
is a wide range of unburned combustibles present in residues. , This
26
-------
x^.
0 *4J
i-« -C
1— O)
H- 1 •!—
O 00 0>
•-OS
QL
UJ S >»
_j o -a
CO O
«C 4->
1— Ul C
^-i OJ
0 U
1— 1 S-
co 01
LO Q.
2 --i-
j_
o
4J
/rt
2
0)
E
o
fz
I—I
*
•-3
•X
zc
CD
u_
UJ
O
CO
•K
eT
4->
C
0)
c
o
a.
Q
<_>
LO i— i— CO
CM CM O LO
CM r- VO
r- i— CO CD
oo vo r^ co
r— r- i — ^"
LO CM LO CO
• • • •
LO CO LO O
«d- •— co
VO r— O CO
• • • •
CM i— O VO
10 CM CM
•* r*. co •—
• • • •
en o vo co
i-» i —
LO i— «* CD
• • • •
SJ- O r- *f
?;. CM
«*• CO LO CO
• • • •
vo LO ^j- co
CO CO r— i—
LO vo cn
• + • •
CM «d" CM
LO f— CO
cn cn CM
• + • •
^i- co r—
•&• CM CO
in
01
r— -^
JQ U
•r- O
-o +> t-
0) Ut
C 3 -
l/> i. JD i— W»
O) 3 E (O O
C -Q O •«-» r-
Lu ZD S CD
•a
(O
CD
-C
0>
3 •
O
S-
J=
+J
<:
-o
a>
4->
C
m 4.}
M/ ^^
10 to O
0» O) C
I— l_
-Q Q. fl)
(O S-
t— 4J fl)
_ 0 X
to c c
J_ 0) $.
O 0) O) O
4J s i-
OJ 4J (Q -O
$_ 0) 0)
0) -Q (0 •«->
c A, +* o
r- +•» «O Ol
0 C -Or-
C -a -i- w i- •
j. -a ••- t a> (o fl) O D- «— 01
C -r-
•r- O
4- C
•r-
c
•i- C
o
O) rd
tJ +*
3 (O
i — iC3
O
C S-
••- o
<«-
(/)
a* vo
jQ Q)
•r- O
id 3 Q) f-
™00-= S- 0>.C
0) O O J= +J
c S -S ** ,
r- -O fl> +* t«-
o a» „ ••- " o
C^= 1- S i-
r- (/) O O c/)
•r- 1- O +» Ol
c i— co id
O-Q E •— »- O
3 o id at ex
n» ex-'- c i.
+3 c •** -O -r- 3
•!- Ol
s. o "- o -e
OS- <" •— O -t->
14- . o> c T- o
to o>
3 S-
-Q at
§V)_
01
0) 0 J-
"Q. -o a>
E 01 at
(O C CO
10 i-
>» ^ ;•
s. c w>
Q Z3 0»
•»->
* I- 0
s- s- « o i-
01 nt 01 01
0 *J «Q.OI
c "-3 +* r^. — « id -P
I*. ,d 0} i--r-
ai ^ •« o 3
S_ i-t r— LO «*- 10
27
-------
variation occurs not only between incinerators, but also at a given
incinerator on different days. Incinerator residue disposal sites are
frequently dumps. Daily cover is not used and the operations fail to
meet criteria for sanitary landfills. When incinerator residues are
disposed of in this unacceptable manner, they generate odors and provide
a breeding place for vectors.
The residue from a municipal-scale incinerator generally retains
a considerable amount of water after quenching. It is not uncommon for a
residue truck to go to the landfill site with water pouring out of it.
Because incinerator residues can contain considerable quantities of
free moisture, they present a potential leachate threat to the disposal
site. This free moisture readily drains from the residue and could
contribute to leachate generation at the disposal site. The implication
is that incinerator residues should be drained at the incinerator with
the drainage being collected and treated just like the other wastewater
discharges.
In addition, inorganic materials in the residue are in a highly
oxidized state and can leach, as is witnessed by the contaminates picked
up by the quench waters (Table 5). The residue from a municipal-scale
incinerator must be disposed of properly in a sanitary landfill, not
put in open dumps. Designers of sanitary landfills handling incinerator
residues should consider these potential problems in their design.
Municipal-scale incinerators achieve an 80 to 95 percent volume
reduction.6'8 Thus, a landfill accepting only municipal solid wastes
would have a longer life if the waste were processed in a municipal-scale
incinerator prior to disposal. The increase in landfill life, however,
28
-------
is not in direct proportion to volume reduction since most municipal
g
incinerators cannot process all the solid wastes that must be landfilled.
The weight reduction achieved in a municipal incinerator is approximately
60 percent. The volumes and tonnages of incinerator residues that must
be landfilled are summarized according to EPA Regions in Table 11.
Even with the use of an incinerator, final disposal is needed
for the incinerator residue and for wastes that cannot be processed
by the incinerator. Final disposal of the residues should be in a
sanitary landfill to prevent environmental degradation.
A litter control program is required at every municipal-scale
incinerator to prevent this type of impact on the surrounding area.
29
-------
CVJ
o*
oo
a:
o
Ul
oo
i
a.
>—i
o
LU
CO
00
UJ
o
o
o
oo
UJ
UJ
o
I—I
to
UJ
a:
u.
o
UJ
CO
• - o
t/> Q
a>
*
xi -a
O vi s-
10 Q) >>
O
i»_ o 3
O i- <->
E aj
i— to'
O m
XJ -a
r— '
U
cu o
c
o
cS
CMCMVOOi— <£>CMO
IT)
coor»«.LO<\ji— oo
OCJOOi— OOOO
LD
r-si— ooevjoooovor^
CM Lf) OJ CM «d-
LT>
WD
OOOOOCVJLOIO
O«rf-O1CT>VOCVJ
S ¥
CJ
cooooo:^
43
l—tl— II— <>>•—!•— II— IXX
§§
3 3 =»
°"° "S
.a s- s-
o ^= £
(I) O
^ S £
«/> 1- S-
c cu ^
OJ Q. Q.
'oo
IO
fO (O <«
CQ CQ CQ
* + t
30
-------
REFERENCES
1. Niessen, Walter R., "Systems Study of Air Pollution from
Municipal Incinerators", USEPA, 1971.
2. U.S. Bureau of the Census, "National Census, 1960", USBC, 1970.
3. Duprey, R.L., "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors",
USEPA, 1972.
4. "Implementation Plan to Achieve Air Quality Standards",
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1972.
5. "The Cost of Clean Water", USDI, 1968.
6. Achinger, W.C., and Daniels, L.F., "An Evaluation of Seven
Incinerators", USEPA, 1971.
7. Hahn, Jeffery L., "Study of the Delaware County No. 3
Incinerator in Broomall, Pennsylvania", USDHEW, 1970.
8. Black, et. al., "The National Solid Wastes Survey - An
Interim Report", USDHEW, 1968.
9. "Municipal-Scale Incinerator Design and Operation", USEPA,
Washington, D.C. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973. 95 p.
U0847
•A US. GOVERNMENT PBIHnNG OFFICE 1972- 759-556/1174 31
-------
------- |