United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA/600/S2-84/177 Dec. 1985
Project  Summary
Engineering Assessment
Report—Hazardous Waste
Cofiring  in  Industrial  Boilers

C. Castaldini, S. Unnasch, and H. B. Mason
  The full report documents results of
42 hazardous waste combustion tests
performed on  11  full-scale industrial
boilers. The full report discusses the
boiler operating conditions, organic and
other gaseous emissions measured in
the stack, and the achieved destruction
efficiency of principal organic hazard-
ous constituents (POHCs) present in
the waste. The report is divided into two
volumes. Volume I presents a summary
of all test data, discusses conclusions,
and highlights trends in POHC destruc-
tion and other byproduct emissions with
respect to boiler operation and POHC
type. Volume  II is a compendium of
boiler-specific test data summarized to
provide the readers with sufficient de-
tails  to perform their own analyses.
Major volatile POHCs investigated were
carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene,
trichloroethylene, and toluene. The de-
struction efficiency of 14 other volatile
and semivolatile hazardous organics is
also  reported. In  general,  industrial
boilers tested achieved individual POHC
destruction efficiencies in the range of
99.90 to 99.99996 percent under con-
ditions investigated. Although not clear-
ly evident, the collected data point out
lower destruction efficiencies with
transient or off-specification burner and
f eedrate conditions. Emissions of ident-
ifiable products of incomplete combus-
tion (PICs) were generally one to two
orders of magnitude greater than POHC
breakthrough emissions.  These emis-
sions generally included dichlorometh-
ane,  chloroform, tetrachloroethylene,
trichloroethanes, and benzene and tol-
uene when these compounds were not
POHCs in the  waste fuel. Lower PIC
emissions accompanied greater POHC
destruction effSciences. These and other
trends are highlighted to point out areas
requiring further research.
  This Project Summary was developed
by EPA's Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH,
to announce key findings of the research
project that is fully documented in two
separate volumes (see Project Report
ordering information at back).
Introduction
  Current estimates indicate that 264
million metric tons of hazardous waste
are generated annually.1 Much of this
waste has a high heating value so that
disposal by cofiring  in industrial boilers
often provides an economic advantage
over other regulated disposal practices
such as landfill or incineration. In fact,
hazardous waste incineration in industri-
al boilers is a widespread practice. The
U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
(EPA) through the Office of Solid Waste
(OSW) and the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) sponsored field tests
on  11 full-scale industrial  boilers to
evaluate the resultant air emissions of
this disposal practice and, in particular, to
determine the destruction  efficiency
(DRE) of principal  organic  hazardous
constituents (POHCs) in the waste under
typical boiler operating  conditions. The
following sections summarize the results
obtained during these tests and discuss
tentative conclusions with  regard to
POHC DREs and other organic emissions
as a function of boiler type, waste type,
and selected operating conditions.

-------
Test Site Descriptions
  The industrial boiler population com-
prises a diverse family of steam gener-
ators varying in design type, size, fuel,
and operating conditions, while industrial
organic wastes vary widely in physical
and chemical constituents. To obtain
results representative  of current or
planned industry practice, a broad range
of boiler designs and  waste types was
selected  for  testing. Within availability
and accessability constraints, preference
was given to sites which were regarded
as less likely to attain a high level of waste
destruction.  See Table 1.
  Overall, these test  sites represent a
good sample of the  industrial boiler
population. Watertube boilers  are  the
most likely candidates for hazardous
waste incineration. Their larger heat input
capacities allow higher waste firing rates
while still retaining low waste fuel ratios.
Furthermore,  these  units  are  often e-
quipped with  multiple  burners  allowing
one or  more burners to fire waste fuel
    only. Steam-atomized oil guns for waste
    firing are used in  combination  with
    natural gas firing for single burner units.
    Modifications to single burner arrange-
    ments to allow oil and  liquid waste
    cofiring are feasible  as demonstrated by
    the site E boiler. Firetube boilers are less
    likely  to constitute a  major equipment
    category for cofiring practices because of
    generally  smaller  capacities.  However,
    site G illustrates the versatility of these
    units for full-scale incineration with heat
    and resource recovery.

    Boiler Operation and Test
    Conditions
      The test protocol at each site consisted
    of a baseline test  and replicate waste-
    fuel-fired tests. During the baseline test,
    emission measurements were performed
    with the boiler firing  only the  primary
    fossil fuel. The intent of this test was to
    measure the level  of organic emissions
    attributable to the combustion of fossil
    fuel only.  Three replicate cofired  tests
                   were then performed. Baseline heat input
                   and fuel feed conditions were maintained
                   constant between these tests. At some
                   sites, the protocol was extended to meas-
                   ure the impact of  high  and low boiler
                   loads and variable excess air levels.
                     Table 2 summarizes the test conditions
                   investigated for each of the eleven sites.
                     Sites A through D were tested with as-
                   is waste fuels. Following these four initial
                   test sites, waste fuels were spiked with a
                   mixture of carbon tetrachloride,  chloro-
                   benzene, and trichloroethylene to broad-
                   en  the results on POHC destruction and
                   facilitate intrasource comparison. At site
                   H, 1,1,1 -trichloroethane was substituted
                   for trichloroethylene.

                   Criteria Gas  Emissions
                     Table 3 summarizes criteria gas emis-
                   sions  measured at each site and  high-
                   lights general boiler operation pertinent
                   to combustion  stability and combustible
                   emissions. Highest CO emissions  were
                   measured at site A. The wood combustion
Table 1.    Summary of Test Site Boilers
                               Furnace
                Steam Capacity.    Volume.
 Site  Boiler Type  kg/s (1ff> Ib/hr)    m'/ft3/
 Furnace             Number of
Waterwall             Burners
 Surface.              /Injection
 rrffft2)    Primary Fuel   Ports)
Typical Waste
   Fuels
 Injection
Mechanism
Control
Device
                                                                                                                     Typical Operation
 A   Watertube      13 (101     17.41613)   106  11,144) Wood waste
     stoker
                           Creosote sludge
                                                                                     Mixed with wood
                                                           Mult/cyclone
                                                                       Fluctuating loads.
                                                                       combustion air and
                                                                       waste teed
  B  Packaged       I 1  (8.51     1.1 1391      8.0 (831   Natural gas
     firetube
                                                                I    Alkyd wastewater
                                           Air atomized       None        Low boiler load. Maximum
                                           oil gun                       waste fire rate of
                                                                       42 ml/s I4O gph)
  C  Field-erected   29  (230)   322  (11.400) 170  (1.800) Natural gas
     watertube                             .           or oil
                                                                6    Phenolic waste
                                           One or two steam
                                           atomued burners
                                                                                                     None
                                         Low load with reduced
                                         number of burners
                                         High excess air.
  D  Field-erected   11.4  (90)     62  (2.2OO)  14O  (1.520) No. 6 oil
     convened
     watertube
     stoker
  E  Packaged      13.9  (110)    42  (1.48O)  666  (7.160) No. 6 oil
     watertube
                      4    Methanol and
                           toluene wastes
                           with chlorinated
                           organics
                      1    Methylmethacrylate
                           byproduct wastes
             One of the lower
             level steam
             atomized burners

             Two steam atomized
             waste guns in main
             burner throat
            None        About 50 percent capacity
                        with 3 or 4 burners in
                        service

            None        Part toed with maximum
                        250 ml/s (240 gph)
                        waste firing rate for loads
                        above 50 percent
  F  Field-erected    7.6  (60)     96  (3.390)  100  (1.1001 No 6 oil.       2    Paint solvents       Lower steam
     converted                                        gas. or                             atomized oil burner
     watertube                                        propane
                                                            None        Part load with maximum
                                                                       190 ml/s (180 gph) waste
                                                                       firing rate for loads above
                                                                       50 percent
  G  Modified
     packaged
     firetube
                  5.0  (40)      6.4 (226)    20  (220)  None
                       1    Highly chlorinated
                           organics
             Available air        2 scrubbers    Part load with startup on
             atomized oil gun     in series      natural gas. Total chlorine up
                                         to 80 percent of waste fuel.
  H  Field-erected   32   (250)   520  (18.400) 515  (5.54O) Pulverized   12 coal.   Methyl acetate      One or two steam
     tangentialfy                                      coal       6 oil     waste fuel         atomized oil
     fired watertube                                                                      burners
                                                                                                     ESP
                                                                       At boiler capacity with
                                                                       maximum 440 ml/s (420 gph)
                                                                       waste firing rate
  I   Packaged       7.8  (62)     41  (1.430)   76  (820)  Natural gas     2    Aniline waste high
     watertube                                                          in nitrate organics
                                           Either upper or      None         Staged combustion for low
                                           lower steam                    NO, with maximum 130 ml/s
                                           atomized burner                  (120 gph) waste flow
  J   Packaged       1.3  (1O)      1.5 (51)      2.6 (91)   None
     firetube
                       I    Artificially
                           blended fuels
             Available oil
             burner
                                                                                                     None
                        Typical excess air of
                        17 percent
  K  Packaged       7.6  (60)     65  (2.270)   47  (508)  No 6 oil        1    Blended waste with
     watertube                                                          light oil
                                           Mixed with heavy
                                           oil
                                                                                                     None
                                         Typical 70/30 percent heavy
                                         and light oil mixture

-------
Table 2.    Summary of Tests with Waste Fuel firing
       Number of
      Waste-Fuel-
 Site  Fired Tests
Volumetric
   Heat
 Release
   Rate,
 kW/m*
{1O> Btu/
  hr-ft1)
Surface Heat
Release Kate,
  kW/m3
  11O> Btu/
   hr-ft1)
    Bulk
  Furnace*
Temperature,
   Bulk
 Furnace*
Residence
 Time, sec
 Waste Fuel
  Heating
Value. MJ/kg
 U&Btu/tb)
Waste Heat
  Input,
Percent of
   Total
                                                            POHCs of Interest
                    3OO (29)
              48 (16)   1,370 (2,SOO)
                              1.2        39(17)         40     Phenol, pentachlorophenol.
                                                                naphthalene, fluorene.
                                                                2-4-Oimethylphenol
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
J
K
3
3
3
3
1
6
1
3
3
3
2
6
1
745 (72)
78 (7.5)
40O (39)
230 (22)
580 (55)
380-770
(37-74)
420 (40)
114 (11)
820 (79)
180 (17)
340 (33)
690-1.750
(65-170)
270 (26)
106 (34)
150 (48)
180 (57)
100 (33)
37(11)
24-49
(7.6-15)
26 (8.1)
104 (34)
262 (81)
183 (58)
180 (57)
1 18-3OO
(37-95)
370 (120)
1.320 (2,400)
1.320 (2.4OO)
1,430 (2.600)
1,370 (2,500)
1,550 (2,800)
1,480-1.590
(2,700-2,900)
1,480 (2.7OO)
1.370 (2,500)
1,350 (2.450)
1.370 (2.500)
1.430 (2,600)
1.310-1.370
(2.40O-2.5OO)
1.370 (2.500)
0.8
2.0
1.1
1.3
0.7
0.5-1.0
1.1
2.0
0.4
2.0
1.8
0.3-0.7
1.8
0.03-O.18
(0.013-O.077)
39 (17)
21 (8.8)
42 (18)
27 (12)
25-27 (11-12)
37 (16)
33 (14)
21 (9.0)
17 (7.0)
25 (11)
42 (18)
40 (17)
<1
38
18
48
22
19-43
56
9.0
100
2.4-4.3
8.2
100
65
Toluene
Phenol
Tetrachloroethylene
Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether, toluene
Methylmethaerylate, a-hydroxy methyl
isobuty-rate and a-hydroxy isobutyrate
methyl ether
Above plus carbon tetrachloride,
chlorobenzene and trichloroethylene
Toluene, methylmethacrylate
Carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene,
trichloroethylene, toluene
Carbon tetrachloride, epichlorohydrin,
bis(2 -chloroisopropyl)ether
Carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene,
1, 1, 1 -Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene,
trichloroethylene, toluene, aniline,
benzene, nitrobenzene
Carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene,
trichloroethylene, toluene
Carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene,
trichloroethylene, toluene, benzene
*Not measured values. Estimates of bulk gas temperature in the furnace were used to calculate bulk furnace residence time. Values to be considered
 approximate.


Table 3.     Criteria Gas Emissions and Test Conditions

                                                Criteria Emissions, as Measured, Dry Basis*
Site
A



B


C


D




Test
1.
4


2.


2.


2,




2.



3.


3,


3.




5,6,



3.



4


4


4




7

Fuels
Wood waste and creosote



Natural gas and alkyd
wastewater

Natural gas and phenolic
waste

No. 6 oil and methanol
with tetrachloroethylene



No. 6 oil and toluene with
bis(2-chloroethyl)ether
02
(percent)
6.2-16.7
(10.4)


3.8-6.0
(5.3)

7.8-11.3
(10.3)

4.3-6.4
(5.2)



5.2-6.8
(6.1)
CO2
(percent)
15.4-4.4
(9.9)


8.8-12.4
(9.6)

6.2-8.7
(7.3)

11.6-15.0
(12.7)



10.7-12.6
(12.0)
CO
(ppm)
470->1.000
O530)


35-96
(54)

10-15
(13)

70-128
(93)



89-107
(93)
NO.
(ppm)
90-124
(105)


38-60
(44)

38-43
(40)

200-23O
(216)



162-168
(165)
TUHC
(ppm)
0-50"
(4.3)


8-170
(74)

0


11-32"
(20)



14-42C
(27)
Genera/ Test Conditions
Transient boiler emissions
resulting from probable boiler load
changes, insufficient fuel-air
mixing of fuel bed combustion
Unsteady waste feed rate caused by
insufficient mixing. Several
episodes of waste fuel cut off.
Steady-state boiler operation at
very low boiler load and high excess
air
Variable concentration of
trichloroethylene in waste fuel.
Several smoke episodes during test
2 and 3 primarily. Burner flameout
and high CO during lightoff.
Steady boiler operation with well
mixed waste fuel

-------
Table 3. Table 3. (continued)

Site Test
E 2


3,4,5




6



7



8




9


F 2,3.4



G 1.2,3


H 2.3.4




1 2


4

J 1-6




K 1




Fuels
No. 6 oil and methyl-
methacrylate (MMA)

No. 6 oil and MMA waste
spiked with carbon tetra-
chloride, chlorobenzene.
and trichloroethylene

No. 6 oil and MMA waste
spiked with carbon tetra-
chloride, chlorobenzene.
and trichloroethylene
No. 6 oil and MMA waste
spiked with carbon tetra-
chloride, chlorobenzene.
and trichloroethylene
Natural gas and MMA
waste spiked with carbon
tetrachloride, chloro-
benzene, and
trichloroethylene
Natural gas with toluene/
MMA mix

No. 6 oil and solvents with
carbon tetrachloride.
chlorobenzene. and
trichloroethylene
Highly chlorinated organic
wastes with carbon
tetrachloride
Pulverized coal and methyl
acetate with carbon
tetrachloride, chloro-
benzene, and
1, 1, 1 -trichloroethane
Natural gas and aniline/
nitrobenzene waste with
carbon tetrachloride.
chlorobenzene, and
trichloroethylene
Natural gas and mixture of
toluene, benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, chloro-
benzene, and
trichloroethylene
Heavy oil and light oil with
carbon tetrachloride.
chlorobenzene, and
trichloroethylene
02
(percent)
5.3-6.9
(5.5)

5.3-8.0
(6.9)



5.2-7.4
(6.3)


6.5-8.5
(7.4)


5.3-6.8
(6.2)



6.4-8.5
(7.4)

7.0-11.3
(8.3)


8.2-9.4
(8.7)

5.7-11.9
{6.3)



2.4-2.7
(2.6)

2.5-2.7
(2.6)
3.2-7.6
(5.4)



3.8-4.3
(4.0)


Criteria Emissions, as Measured. Dry Basis*
COz
(percent)
9.5-12.8
(11.6)

9.0-12.8
(10.2)



10.0-12.8
(11.7)


9.3-11.0
(10.4)


9.0-10.4
(9.6)



7.8-10.4
(8.6)

6.7-10.4
(8.9)


8.4-10.2
(9.4)

8.4-13.6
(12.4)



. 10.2-10.7
(10.4)

10.6

10.5-14.2
(12.5)



10.5-11.7
(11.0)


CO
(ppm)
88-101
(92)

80-155
(114)



80-120
(100)


95-100
(98)


49-80
(65)



50-123
(77)

93-133
(103)


85-140
(107)

110-128
(118)



63-242
(180)

22-112
(63)
10-119
(76)



87-150
(108)


/vo.
(ppm)
292-415
(325)

270-450
(336)



325-398
(365)


320-308
(270)


345-440
(405)



100-180
(124)

168-207
(190)


43-54
(48)

322-344
(332)



384-452
(420)

1.090-1.160
(1.150)
74-192
(116)



143-151
(146)


TUHC
(ppm)
32-322"
(142)

38-142"
(91)



27-29"
(28)


17-31°
(24)


97-109°
(104)



52-61"
(56)

0-1.1
(0.4)


0.2-0.5"
(0.3)

0-2
(0.6)



5-7
(6.4)

5-6
(5.3)
NA




NA




General Test Conditions
Steady boiler/burner operation
with no smoke or high CO
emissions
Several periods of smoke and high
CO emissions due to fluctuating
waste feed and moderate burner
settings. Most transient operations
occurred during tests 3 and 4.
Low load test; no smoke emission
episodes.


Three short periods of high CO
emissions attributed to surge in
waste feed. High load test.

No significant transients. Steady
burner and waste feed operation
with low CO and smoke.


Slightly higher stack opacity
necessitated slight increase
in excess air. No significant upsets.
Inadequate burner settings caused
several flameouts and some high
CO and smoke emissions

Steady-state combustion
conditions. No recorded
operational upsets.
Steady boiler load with slightly
variable waste feed. Test 4
performed at higher excess air
condition.

Staged combustion during test 2.
Unstaged combustion during test 4.
No significant boiler transients.
Experienced feed pump problems.

Tests performed at three separate
boiler loads. High and low excess
air. No significant boiler or waste
feed transients.

No significant boiler or burner
transients. Typical load and excess
air conditions.

^Numbers in parentheses are the average.
"Based on results for test 1 only.
CTUHC for sites D and E based on the sum of Ci to Ce
hydrocarbon emissions.
"7 to 16 ppm was measured by on-site GC.
NA — not available.

-------
on a fuel bed typically results in insuf-
ficient fuel-air  mixing which leads  to
transients in excess O2, CO, and hydro-
carbon emissions. Unsteady test condi-
tions at  site B  resulted in significant
hydrocarbon emissions. Unstable burner
conditions were the result of initial tests
at site D (tests 2 and 3) and site E (tests 3
and 4 primarily). These conditions, which
caused intermittent high CO and smoke
emissions, often resulted in burner flame-
outs. Improper waste and primary burner
settings at site F also caused combustion
instability and sudden f lameouts. Several
test periods were accompanied by peaks
in high CO emissions  which generally
lasted less than 1 min. During most of the
high smoke emission periods at these
sites gas sampling was interrupted. Sites
G through K showed no significant opera-
tional transients with the exception  of
test 4 at site H where excess air surged on
a few occasions and during the staged
combustion test at  site  I  where CO
emissions increased.
POHC Destruction
  Table 4 summarizes site-specific ORE
results for volatile POHCs. These results
are based on  about 120 separate gas
measurements and a total of 35 individual
tests at 9 boiler sites. Test sites A and C
are not included  in the table because
POHCs were semivolatile. Results indi-
cate DREs ranging from about 99.90 to
99.99996 percent for all POHCs with a
total mass average for all sites of 99.998.
The bulk of the data is available for four
POHCs: carbon tetrachloride, trichloroeth-
ylene,  chlorobenzene, and toluene.  On
the average, DREs for carbon tetrachlo-
ride and trichloroethylene were higher
than chlorobenzene  and toluene.  The
ranges in DREs, however, show nearly
equal results independent of POHC.
  On a site-specific basis, DREs of volatile
organics at site F showed  the lowest
mass average DRE (99.98 percent). Next
lowest mass average DREs were recorded
for site H and  B both at 99.991 percent
and site E at 99.995 percent. It should be
pointed out that chlorobenzene results
for site J are misleading since low DREs
were calculated based on high analytical
detection limits. In reality, chlorobenzene
DREs were probably much higher and site
J mass average DRE would be increased
passing the 99.9997 percent listed in
Table 4.
  A comparison  of  site-specific  DREs
highlights some important trends. The
site F boiler was the only test site with a
total mass average DRE less than 99.990
percent for volatile POHCs. In fact, low
DREs were measured for all three cofired
tests at this site. Burner operation at site
F was characterized by nozzle coking,
probable fuel  jet impingement on  the
burner throat, intermittent periods of high
CO and  smoke emissions and burner
flameouts. These problems were brought
about by improper placement of the fuel
guns in the burner ports. Similarly, lower
DRE results at site E were recorded during
tests characterized by fluctuating waste
feedrates combined  with  intermittent
periods of high CO and smoke emissions.
Contrary to site F, low DREs for site E
were most evident with the POHC methyl-
methacrylate resulting in DREs as low as
99.95 percent. Chlorinated POHCs at site
E also showed lower  DREs during these
tests  with unstable combustion condi-
tions, however, destruction was always
greater than  99.990 percent.
Table 4.    Summary of Test Average DREs for Volatile POHCs*

POHC B
Carbon
tetrachloride
Trichloro-
ethylene
1,1,1-Tri-
chloroethane
Chloro-
benzene
Benzene
Toluene
99.991
Tetrachloro-
ethylene
Methylmeth-
acrylate
Mass weighted 99.991
average

D





99.9992-
99.99990
(99.9996)
99.994-
99.9992
(99.998)

99.994-
99.99990
(99.998)

E
99.9990-
99.9998
(99.9996)*
99.994-
99.9995
(99.998)

99.995-
99.99990
(99.998)

99.997

99.95-
99.997
(99.991)
99.95-
99.99990
(99.995)

F
99.98-
99.9990
(99.995)
99.98-
99.998
(99.996)

99.96-
99.992
(99.98)

99.90-
99.97
(99.95)


99.90-
99.9990
(99.98)
Site
G H
99.995- 99.97-
99.9990 99.9994
(99.998) (99.98)

99.97-
99.9996
(99.994)
99.990-
99.997
(99.992)




99.995- 99.97-
99.9990 99.9996
(99.998) (99.991)

1
99.9990-
99.9993
(99.9993)
99.99990-
99.99992
(99.99991)

99.997-
99.9990
(99.998)
99.97-
99.98
(99.97)
99.998


99.97-
99.99992
(99.998)

J
99.997-
99.9998
(99.9990)
99.998-
99.99993
(99.9996)

99.8-
99.97
(99.95)

99.9990-
99.9997
(99.9990)


99.8-
99.99993
(99.9990)

K Range
99.97-
99.9998
99.9998
99.98-
99.99993
99.99990
99.97-
99.9996
99.8-
99.99992
99.99992
99.97-
99.996
99.996
99.90-
99.99996
99.99996
99.994-
99.9992
99.95-
99.995
99.996- 99.8-
99.99996 99.99996
(99.9997)
Weighted
Average
99.9992
99.9994
99.994
99.992
99.990
99.998
99.998
99.991
99.998
'Each test average DRE is generally based on the weighted average of triplicate measurements.
"Numbers in parentheses represent the site-specific POHC average DRE.

-------
  These trends suggest that lower DREs
are more likely to occur during unstable
combustion conditions leading to high
combustible emissions.  Therefore,  an
attempt was made to correlate DREs with
combustion efficiency, defined  as  the
percent carbon utilization (1 -CO/CO2) x
100. Figure 1 illustrates the mass average
(total POHC fired taken as a whole) site-
specific DREs as a function of the combus-
tion efficiency. Site average DREs plotted
in Figure  1  and in all other graphical
presentations are based on all volatile
and semivolatile POHCs detected in the
waste  fuels. A complete listing of Re-
source Conservation  and Recovery Act
(RCRA) Appendix VIII  POHCs tracked for
DRE measurement is presented in  Ap-
pendix A, Volume I of the full report.
  The data presented  in Figure 1 indicate
no  definitive  trend of lower DRE with
higher CO. This is not entirely surprising
because this attempted correlation does
not account for site-specific considera-
tions such as combustion characteristics
of waste (POHC) types, boiler type  and
capacity, waste feedrate and feed mech-
anism, and temperature and residence
time profiles. Furthermore the bulk of the
data was obtained when CO emissions
were in the narrow range of 70 to  140
ppm as measured corresponding to about
99.94  to 99.84 percent  combustion ef-
ficiency as defined here. The only clear
evidence  of  low DRE  with  high  CO
emissions is offered  by the site A data
where CO emissions were  in excess of
500 ppm and the mean average DRE was
lower than 99.990 percent. A tentative
conclusion may be that DREs of 99.990
 99.99999-1
  99.9999-
 8 99.999-
 01
1
99.99


 99.9
     99.0
                      £
                    BH F
        99.99  99.97  99.90  99.68  99.0
            It - CO/COA100. percent

 Figure 1.    Site average DREs versus com-
            bustion efficiency.
percent or greater are more likely to result
from combustion  conditions leading to
CO less than 80 to 100 ppm. However, in
some cases  low CO  emissions may
represent an overly conservative require-
ment for high POHC DRE. Although the
validity  of CO as a surrogate for DRE
results remains speculative at this time,
the effect of transient boiler operation
and high CO emissions on DRE should be
investigated in greater detail.
  Figure 2 illustrates the dependence of
measured DRE results on POHC concen-
trations in the waste fuel. The DREs are
plotted versus the concentration of
POHCs in the waste fuel (ppm) normalized
by the ratio of the waste fuel heat input to
the total heat input (W/T). The data, also
based on mass average DRE for each site,
suggest that higher DREs are likely with
increasing POHC concentration  in  the
waste fuel and higher waste/fuel ratios.
This trend may indicate the importance of
PIC formation from baseline fuels as well
as the level of background contamination
and error associated with low-level de-
tection of volatile organics. PIC emission
data clearly suggests that both fossil fuels
such as oil and coal as well as waste fuels
result in significant emissions of PICs.
  Furnace waterwall heat release rate
and NO, formation can  be indicators of
the thermal environment in the flame and
throughout the furnace. Waterwall sur-
face heat release rate is a measure of the
temperature profile through  a furnace.
Although radiative properties of combus-
tion products play a  predominant  role,
generally the higher the waterwall sur-
face heat release rate, the higher the
temperature profile through the furnace.
Similarly, high flame temperature, long
residence time, and turbulent mixing are
conducive to high thermal NO formation.
These combustion characteristics are also
desirable from a POHC destruction view-
point. Therefore, higher thermal NO may
be linked with high POHC destruction.
Figure 3 illustrates the trend of weighted
average DREs with test  loads surface
heat release rates calculated for  each
site. The data illustrate a general trend of
higher  DREs with increasing waterwall
surface  heat  release rates.  This trend
suggests that thermal environments
throughout the  boiler furnace  may be
more important for high POHC DREs than
flue gas residence  time. Furthermore,
firetube boilers  can  be as effective in
thermal POHC destruction as watertubes.
This is evidenced by results obtained at
 sites G and J.
   DRE results for sites A, B, F. and H fall
below the trend  indicated by the other
99.99999-,
 99.9999-
§
  99.999-
                                                                            O  99.99
                                                                            Q.
     99.9-
     99.0-
                        K
                          CD  J
                     HF
                      A
        1.0     10*     10*      10*

       POHC Concentration, ppm x HW/HT

Figure 2.    Site average DRE versus waste
            fuel POHC concentration.

test  sites. As discussed earlier, boiler
operation  at  sites A,  B, and F  was
generally characterized by unstable com-
bustion and burner conditions often lead-
ing to high combustible emissions.  Low
DRE results for site H, the only pulverized
coal-fired boiler tested, may be attributed
in part to low POHC concentration  with
respect to total heat  input of the boiler
and  the contribution  of  background or-
ganic emissions from eombustion of coal.
Stated differently,  this trend indicates
that the lower limit of POHC DRE is likely
to increase with furnace waterwall  heat
release rate. This trend is similar for DRE
versus measured NOX emissions.


Other Organic Emissions
   Table 5 summarizes chlorinated organ-
ic emissions  identified  as products of
incomplete combustion (PICs) during
waste fuel firing for test sites D through
H. PIC identification was based on blank
corrected emission of organic compounds
not  detected in the  waste fuels.  Total
chlorinated PIC emissions ranged be-
tween 0.3 and 32 mg/s. These emissions
were one to two  orders of magnitude
greater than measured emissions of
breakthrough chlorinated POHCs. Dichlo-
romethanefmethylene chloride) and chlo-
roform generally constituted the bulk of
these emissions followed by tetrachloro-
ethylene and trichloroethanes. Methylene
chloride PIC emissions are in part suspect
because of possible contamination. This
compound is widely used in both field test

-------
 c
 01
 Q
 O
     99.99999-1
       99.9999-
99.999-
        99.99-
          99.9-
          99.0-
                               FB
                                    H
                        7
                        20
                          1
                          40
        I
       60
  I
 80
   100
             120
                                     SHRR, 1.000 Btu/hr-ft2
Figure 3.   Effect of surface heat release rate on DRE—site average data.
                                            activities and laboratory analyses. Non-
                                            chlorinated PICs were generally toluene
                                            and benzene.
                                              Figure 4 illustrates a trend in PIC emis-
                                            sions versus POHC breakthrough for total
                                            PICs (including  toluene  and benzene).
                                            The data indicate a general trend of lower
                                            PIC emissions with increasing POHC destruc-
                                            tion. This suggests that combustion con-
                                            ditions  leading to more efficient POHC
                                            destruction are  also likely  to result in
                                            lower PIC formation.
            Conclusions and
            Recommendations
              Field tests conducted at 11 industrial
            boilers burning hazardous wastes indi-
            cate that POHC OREs generally exceeded
            99.990 percent under relatively steady or
            normal boiler  operating conditions.  Al-
            though trends were not definitive, POHC
            DREs generally  increased  with  higher
            waterwall surface heat  release  rates
            (furnace or temperature), lower  CO
            emissions, and higher POHC firing rate.
            Additional research is necessary to  de-
            termine the effect of unsteady or trans-
            ient boiler operation on POHC DRE mani-
            fested by high  CO and smoke emission.
Table 5.    Volatile Chlorinated PICs Versus POHC Breakthrough
                                                                  Selected Chlorinated PICs. Percent of Total





Site
D



E


F


G



H






Chlorinated Waste
FuelPOHCs
Tetrachloroethylene

Bis(2-chloroethyl)ether

Carbon tetrachloride.
chlorobenzene. and
trichloroethylene
Carbon tetrachloride.
chlorobenzene, and
trichloroethylene
Carbon tetrachloride.
epichlorohydrin. and
bis (2-chloroisopropyll
ether
Carbon tetrachloride.
chlorobenzene, and
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
Total
Chlorinated
POHC
Break-
through
(U9/s)
630-880
(790)
3.0-6.8
14.7 >
56-570
(220)

51-133
(85)

95-307
(170)


290-4.100
(1,600)



Total
Chlorinated
PICs
(fjg/s)
2.600-7.700
(4,300)
330-3,100
(1.800)
500-32.000
(7,400)

700-23.000
(8,400)

710-7,300
(4,900)


4,000-12,000
(6.900)




Carbon
Tetra- Chloro-
chloride methane
3.6 0

1.7 0

0


12


5.2



92






Dichloro-
methane
75

49

NA


43


2.9



0






Chloro-
form
6.0

14

61


39


58



2.7



1,1.1-
TCA
and
1.1,2-
TCA
6.4

7.5

2.9


5.7


0



0.5



Dichloro-
ethylene
and
Dichloro-
ethane
2.1

4.4

0


0.09


17



0





Tetra-
chloro-
ethylene
__

23

33


0.04


6.9



2.6






PICs/
POHCs
5.4

380

34


99


29



4.3


       Average Results
                  4.7-1,600
                  (570)
1,800-8,400
(6.700)
2.7
18
34
30
3.8
                                          3.9
11
92
'Dashes indicate POHC in the waste fuel.
NA—not analyzed.

-------
 a.
 H
                                       £)G
                                       £
                                              H
                                           H
     10'
        1	1	1	1	
        93.0        99.5        99.99       99.999

                                  POHC ORE, percent

 Figure 4.    PIC emissions versus test average POHC-DRE.
            	1	
             99.9999
	1
 99.99999
The  contribution  of  PIC emissions to
POHC-DRE determination should also be
investigated further.
 Reference
  1.   Dietz, S. et al., "National Survey of
      Hazardous Waste Generators and
      Treatment, Storage and  Disposal
      Facilities Regulated under RCRA in
      1981," prepared by Westat Inc. for
      the  Office of Solid  Waste, U.S.
      Environmental  Protection Agency
      under contract  no. 68-01-6861,
      April 1984.
C.  Castaldini, S. Unnasch,  and H. B. Mason are with Acurex  Corporation,
  Mountain View, CA 94039.
Robert Olexsey is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report,  entitled "Engineering Assessment Report—Hazardous
  Waste Coining in Industrial Boilers," consists of two volumes:
    "Volume I. Technical Results," (Order No. PB 85-197 838/AS; Cost: $ 16.00.
    subject to change).
    "Volumell. Data Supplement," (Order No. PB85-197846/AS; Cost: $23.50.
    subject to change).
The above reports will be available only from:
       National Technical Information Service
       5285 Port Royal Road
       Springfield, VA 22161
        Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
       Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
        Cincinnati, OH 45268
                                                                              U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:]986/646-l 16/20737

-------
m
TJ
03
    3 =*
    Q) n
8   *;
ro

CO
-^
51

II
A
<0 3

35-
n o
< 3
  3
  (D
                  "0

                  5
                  o
                8?

                i'l
                0) s»
                =• o

                O3


                A
                en
                ro
                o>
                CD
                 T)
                 O
                   f
             oo
                 m
                 en

-------