United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Air and Energy Engineering
Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
Research and Development
EPA/600/S8-89/064 Aug. 1990
EPA Project Summary
Municipal Waste Combustion
Multipollutant Study, Emission
Test Report, Maine Energy
Recovery Company Refuse
Derived Fuel Facility, Biddeford,
Maine
G. Scheil, S. Klamm, M. Whitacre, J. Surman and W. Kelly
This report describes results of an
emission test of a new municipal solid
waste combustor that burns refuse-de-
rived fuel and Is equipped with a lime
spray dryer/fabric filter (SD/FF) emis-
sion control system. The facility tested
is operated by the Maine Energy Re-
covery Company and is located in
Biddeford, Maine.
Control efficiency of the SD/FF
emission control system was measured
for polychlorinated dibenzodioxins
(PCDD), polychlorinated dibenzofurans
(PCDF), paniculate matter (PM), cad-
mium (Cd), chromium (Cr), arsenic (As),
lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), and hydrogen chloride (HCI). Ad-
ditional continuous monitoring was
conducted at various locations for oxy-
gen (O?), carbon dioxide (CO), carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx),
and total hydrocarbons (THC). Process
samples were also collected and ana-
lyzed for metals and selected physical
properties.
Average emissions of total PCDD
were 290 ng/dscm* (uncontrolled) and
1.3ng/dscm (controlled). Total PCDF
emissions were 590 ng/dscm (uncon-
trolled) and 2.9 ng/dscm (controlled).
The control efficiency was about 99.5%
for both dioxins and furans. All of the
above results are corrected to 12% CO2.
The 17 specific PCDD/PCDF isomers, as
well as the tetra through octa chlori-
nated total congeners, showed no sig-
(*) To convert to nonmetric units, use the
conversion factors at the end of this Sum-
mary.
nificant change in distribution across
the control device.
Uncontrolled particulate emissions
averaged 7,400 mg/dscm, and con-
trolled particulates averaged 33 mg/
dscm (corrected to 12% CO.) for an av-
erage particulate control efficiency of
99.5%.
Metals emissions (uncontrolled)
varied from 500 ng/dscm for As and Hg
to 30,000 |ig/dscm for Pb. Controlled
metals emissions varied from 6 (ig/dscm
for As and Cr to 160 ^g/dscm for Pb.
Metals control efficiencies varied from
98.2% for Hg to 99.8% for Cr. The pro-
cess ash sample results were in general
agreement with the con-centratlons
measured in the stack samples.
The continuous monitoring results
and process data logging indicated that
the combustion process was never un-
der optimum operating conditions.
There were frequent problems with
feeder conveyors during all three test
runs. CO concentrations averaged 70
ppm, with some short duration excur-
sions above 200 ppm.
The automatic SD/FF control sys-
tem was not operating during these
tests; therefore, the lime slurry and dilu-
tion water feed rates were set at constant
values for these tests. During the first
test, the molar stoichiometric lime-to-1/
2 HCI + SO2 ratio was 1.7, which resulted
in an SO2 removal efficiency of 66% and
an HCI removal efficiency of 98%. Dur-
ing the early stages of the second test,
the lime feed rate was doubled to give a
stoichiometric ratio of 3.4. During the
third test the stoichiometric ratio was 3.9
-------
and removal efficiencies were improved
to 90% for SO and 99.4% for HCI.
This Project Summary was devel-
oped by EPA's Air and Energy Engi-
neering Research Laboratory, Research
Triangle Park, NC, to announce key
findings of the research project that is
fully documented in a separate report of
the same title (see Project Report or-
dering information at back).
Introduction
As part of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) efforts to develop
and support new source performance
standards (NSPS) for municipal waste
combustors, (MWCs), EPA is sponsoring
test projects at several new MWC facilities.
These test projects include measurements
to determine the emission levels and col-
lection efficiency of criteria pollutants, acid
gases, heavy metals, and semivolatile or-
ganic compounds.
Prior to EPA's decision to develop
NSPS for MWCs, Midwest Research Insti-
tute under contract to EPA, compiled the
available data base for the pollutants of
interest (i.e., criteria pollutants, acid gases,
metals, and semivolatile organic com-
pounds). The emission data base was re-
viewed to determinethe information gaps in
achievable emission levels. Virtually no
information was available on the control of
the pollutants of interest from new MWC
facilities that fired refuse-derived fuel
(RDF). The Maine Energy Recovery
Company (MERC) located in Biddeford,
Maine, was identified as the first new RDF-
firing MWC with dry scrubbing and a high
efficiency particulate collector to come on-
line in the U.S. in the 1980s. To take
advantage of the first opportunity to fill this
information gap, EPA entered into a coop-
erative agreement with KTI Holdings, Inc.
(the owner/operator of MERC) to measure
emissions forthe pollutants of interest. This
report summarizes the measurement pro-
cedures and the results of the MERC test
project.
Facility Operations
The MERC plant (Figure 1) is an RDF-
fired facility with an operational capacity of
454 Mg/d of municipal waste and wood
chips. The test program data presented in
this report are for RDF-fired conditions
alone. The wood chips and, to a lesser
extent, fuel oil and natural gas, are
supplements to accommodate fluctuations
in refuse volume and energy content of the
boiler fuel. The two identical combustion
systems consist of a Detroit Stoker RDF
spreader stoker and a Babcock & Wilcox
Controlled Combustion Zone boiler, each
rated at 158,200 MJ/h .
Municipal waste is received in packer
trucks and transfer trailers and is off-loaded
onto the floor of the tipping floor building.
Noncombustibles and potentially explosive
or hazardous items are sorted and removed
by visual inspection and bucket loader,
magnetic separation, and screening. The
"cleaned" refuse is shredded into a nominal
10-cm sized RDF.
Each boiler is a balanced-draft (em-
ploying both forced and induced draft fans)
waterwall power boiler with a superheater,
economizer, and air preheater. The stoker
is a traveling grate located at the bottom of
the furnace. Fuel from metered feeders is
admitted above the grate at the front of the
boiler. A single auxiliary burner (natural gas
or No. 2 fuel oil) is on the right furnace
sidewall, directly above the primary fuel
combustion zone. It is used for start-up,
shutdown, and during periods when load
stabilization is required.
Combustion air for the solid fuels is
introduced into the furnace as undergrate
and overfire air. The boiler configuration
and location of the overfire airports are
designed to promote mixing and complete
burnout of organic material injected into the
furnace. Medium pressure superheated
steam is delivered from the boilers to a
steam turbine which powers an electric
generator.
Combustion gases from each boiler
pass through a cyclone, a lime spray dryer,
and a fabric filter baghouse. The exhaust
from both baghouses vents to the atmo-
sphere through a common 74-m stack.
The acid gas scrubber is a reaction
vessel where slurry of slaked lime is
sprayed into the flue gas, which contains
particulate matter, acid gases, and other
pollutants in gaseous and aerosol form.
The slurry water is evaporated by the flue
gas heat, and the acid gases react with the
slaked lime. Particulates, postreaction
compounds, and excess sorbent likely
serve as nucleation points for absorption
and agglomeration of semivolatile organics
and trace metals. A baghouse then collects
the particulate from the gas stream. The
excess sorbent in the bag filter cake pro-
vides a second stage reaction site for fur-
ther acid gas removal.
The ash system removes residue from
the stoker discharge, generating bank
hopper, air heater hopper, mechanical dust
collector (cyclone) hopper, spray absorber
hopper, and baghouse module hoppers.
All of the hopper discharges are
through rotary seal valves. This ensures a
positive seal and prevents boiler gases
from entering the ash conveyors and air
from entering the hoppers and boilers.
Test Conditions
Three tests were run from December 9
through December 12, 1987. The facility
burned 100% RDF at full load conditions
during all three tests.
Intermittent process problems oc-
curred during all three tests and were pri-
marily related to RDF conveyor feeder
malfunctions. During test runs 1 and 3 the
problems were severe enough to end the
test early. In both runs, the sampling teams
had completed at least 65% of the test
period, and the partial tests were judged to
be acceptable by EPA personnel on site.
The automatic SD/FF control system
was not operated during this test project.
During run 1, the molar lime-to-1/2 HCI +
SO2 ratio was 1.7. During the early stages
of run 2, the lime feed rate was doubled,
resulting in a stoichiometric ratio of 3.4.
During run 3, the lime feed rate resulted in
an average stoichiometric ratio of 3.9.
The facility records process data on
selected process measurements every 4
minutes. A summary of average operating
values for key parameters recorded during
each run is presented in Table 1.
Sampling and Analysis
Summary
Sampling locations used during th<
test program are depicted in Figure 1. Fre<
stream process conditions measured im
mediately upstream of the spray dryer an
referred to as "uncontrolled" emissions
Free stream process conditions measurei
downstream of the fabric filter baghous-
are referred to as "controlled" emission;
Conditions between the spray dryer an
baghouse are called "midpoint" condition;
Table 2 shows the complete test matri:
including all sampling locations and activ
ties. The basic sampling program includei
1. Sampling for PCDD, PCDF, PM
Cd, Cr, As, Pb, Hg, O2, and CO,
at the spray dryer inlet.
2. Continuous emission monitorinc
of O2, CO, CO2, SO2, HCI, and'
THC at the spray dryer inlet.
3. Continuous monitoring of HCI, C
and GO2 at the baghouse inlet.
4. Sampling for PCDD, PCDF, Ph
Cd, Cr, As, Pb, Hg, O2, and CC
at the baghouse outlet.
5. Continuous monitoring of HCI,
CO SO2, NOX, and O2at the
bagnouse outlet.
-------
I
8
en
I
"3
-------
Table 1. Key Operating Parameters During the MERC Test Program in Biddeford, Maine
Superheater steam
Flow rate (1,000lb/h)
Pressure (psig)
Outlet temperature (°F)
Combustion air
Total airflow rate (1,000 Ib/h)
Undergrate airflow rate (1,000lb/h)a
Overfire airflow rate(1,000 Ib/h)
Overfire air distribution (%)b
Undergrate air pressure (in. H2O)
Overfire air fan pressure (in. H2O)
Air heater inlet air temperature (°F)
Air heater outlet air temperature (°F)
Excess oxygen (% by volume, wet)
Left side
Right side
Heat release (1 06 Btu/h)
Total (RDF + auxiliary fuel)
RDF only
Flue gas temperatures f°F>
Economizer inlet
Economizer outlet/air heater inlet
Air heater outlet
Spray dryer inlet
Spray dryer outlet/fabric filter inlet
Fabric filter outlet
Gas differential pressures (in. H2O)
Undergrate to furnace
Dust collector (cyclone)
Spray dryer
Fabric filter
Flue gas pressures (in. H2O)
Spray dryer inlet
Spray dryer outlet
I. D. fan suction
Lime slurry feed rate (gpm)
Dilution water feed rate (gprrO
Total lime slurry and water feed rate (gprrO
Run 1
12-09-87
106
663
746
124
53
71
57
-0.23
25.3
127
381
,
5.59
7.91
150
150
779
515
374
374
277
268
0.46
3.02
4.24
7.16
-7.20
-11.5
-18.7
2.91
6.95
9.86
Run 2
12-10-87
109
676
751
123
50
73
59
-0.86
25.6
66
368
5.77
8.13
153
153
788
523
363
364
278
268
0.34
3.07
4.84
7.89
-7.25
-13.1
-21.0
6.70
3.39
10.1
Run 3
12-12-87
108
671
748
134
63
70
52
-0.26
25.0
118
385
5.78
8.02
151
150
801
532
383
384
279
268
0.44
3.37
5.17
8.22
-7.39
-13.4
-21.7
7.80
4.89
12.7
Average
108
670
748
127
55
71
56
-0.45
25.3
104
378
5.71
8.02
151
151
789
523
373
374
278
268
0.41
3.15
4.75
7.75
-7.28
-12.7
-20.5
5.80
5.07
10.9
Undergrate airflow rate was calculated as the difference between the total airflow rate and overfire airflow rate.
Overfire air distribution was calculated as the overfire airflow rate divided by the total airflow rate.
-------
t/j
0
u
c3
co
0
Paramet
(0
'55
To
c
^
•o
ci
o>
c
Q.
co
to
evi
£
(0
H~
Analytical
method"
Preparation
method1"
Analytical
parameters
CD
N
•55
Q.
E
CO
s>
!|
co fc
o
1
Sampling
frequency/d
for each run
8.
n.
*^
"5.
E
CO
CO
c
.Q
g,
1.
CO
CO
Gravimetric
Desiccation
Particulate
3=
o
CM
Al
o
2
0.
in
2
sz
^
Continuous
c
.9
«
^
E
!_
CD
•o
1
CO
T-
(EPA M5)
ICAP/AAS'
c
O
1
.s>
•a
S
3
Metals"
to
0)
1
IRGC/MS"
Orsat
c
o
0
Solvent extra
N/A
NDIR analyzer
Paramagnetic
Electrochemical
Heated FID
o>
~
Gas conditior
o»
Q
Q- cv/D
QOO
O M N cgO
o O O cO a:
Q. OOO CO H-
2=
o -1
•* 0
TT- CO
Al ?
5
§
CO
$«
22
^
^t
z
^— ^
tr
2
UJ
O
o S--
c?
E—
1
?
8
CO
«- ftl __
o o ~ o
X O O I
<•
z
1 i
O •*— • O
i Si £
vy. 5. ty.
CO CO CO
UJ UJ LU
O O O
x:
^
u>
3
§
<§
C
.g
w
3
tf)
,Q co
U O>
w
CD
•o
n
a. =
to °
CM
Gravimetric (EPi
Desiccation
Particulate
S=
O
CM
T—
Al
0
2
D.
in
2
^
^-
Continuous
C
.0
-&
3
E
8
CD
•j=
O
1
0.
co
M5) ICAP/AAS8
(0
CO
O)
I
o
CD O '
N ^ 2
« tf 1
S c »- *- ^
S-^ES.!
ggsltl
I O Z D. coO
o
c B
.0 2
IS
.5>-p < <
"° ®ZZ
S > ZZ
^0?
ll
a
o
„ Q. ~
^QO
•2 Q _«-f ^«
« O O O ~ O
2 Q.O O O z
t
o — '
•* o <
*- 00^
Al ? 2
^-s.
o ^
> ^
«P CO
" S
2 co UJ
S 2 O
scence
Electrochemical
IR gas filter
correlation
Archived
I
go
E
-Q
CD
.Q
u.
S:
g
•£
UJ,
CO
UJ
o
[5
"35
0
U)
CD
9
C
dc
u_
o
cr
(Continued)
d
L
i s.
in O. <"
n i CD -Q
"s -1 ^ 2
D> g, c "^
CD •*— ^ ®
2> : ^ 2
| ||j
-------
•o
(U
o
o
CM
Ot
a
1§
_c
E
1
"ro
c
•— -Q
co 5
Jo -C
|-|
M
11
fi
< Si
CL.C
E tf
(0 c.
CO fc
Sampling
frequency /duration
for each run
ample type
CO
"c
3.
£
a.
to
CO
, O j^
^ LU LU
111
c
g
co
CD
0)
T3
111
V)
JS
'€
ill
23? 3?
o>
^f
^^-
K
O
o
co.
CO
Two grab samples
every 30 min. com-
posited into two
separate samples
each run
1
LL
1 Q>
CD E>
0 JC
"E. «
0=6
S
O t*1* ^
< LU HI ^
mil
c
0
'«
CD
g>
-Q
lllll
CO
CD
rQ
M
5 2'f
]o E -| -| o
2 3? 3? IT 2
O)
^f
,_^
s
co.
g-
u
CO
r
One grab sample ev
60 min. composited
and split into four
jars for each run
n
1!
CO CD
>•£•
U. 13
P
It
CO
* § £
|LU£
<^ i— \—
c
g
to
0)
05
T3
||1
_s
-Q
"3 c
23? 3?
01
;f
^^
0
o
12-
a
Q
CO
Two grab samples
every 30 min. com-
posited into two
separate samples
each run
1
1
m
-C
E If
O -C
•*-• o
cp =6
6
CO
S
Q_
s
c
g
"55
o>
.0)
•Q
1
In
"5
"5)
_, J3
E rT\
O i-
°a.
^
8
CO.
ex
S 0 CD
One grab sample e\
hour composited int
one sample for entir
test
CD
E
—1
J?
•—
5
T3
CO"
Q
T3
C
CO
co
O
"CD
CO
CO
§
CO
0>
c
g
0)
l»
*CD
C
to
Q.
O
1
R
o
c
2
CO
.2-
CO
0
CD
2
n
CD
r-
t-i
X
C
CD
D
S&
$
CD
~
•—
"cf
CD
"0
_c
ithods are described
CD
^ E
CD "CO
Lu "ra
O CI
® "i
"S CO
co £
^ -2
CD ti
e 2
r S
Numbers 01
Sample pre|
n xi
J2
O
D.
JO
0)
E
CO
0)
CO
en
CD
"to
in for particu
2
LO
T3
O
-C
Modified Me
0
o
'c
CO
CO
"U
c
mium, mercury, lead
o
1
E"
3
'E
fft
8
w.
CO
J2
*-•
E
en
•D
&-
0}
E
9
I
co
.1
o
E
CO
U
'E
o
«
CD
O
CO
CD
.-ts
-§.
2
o>
c
CO
o!
8
nic emission spectro
•*-
CO
1
CO
0.
o
D>
CO
T3
CD
Q.
R
Inductively <
a>
1 1
U~
Q
O
X
*
°i
^
"O
c
CO
LL
a
a!
i
co
^r
co
1
_«
en
V)
c
aj
S?
0)
CD
.C
O
•o
c
CO
en"
CD
E
.i
I
is
3
00
K
00
CN
15
en
c
e organics.
octa dioxins and f ura
'•co o>
-=• 3
n for semivo
all tetra thro
'cO
en
CD
T3
C
3
D)
C
O
lass spectroscopy.
lucting the HCI monit
C U
"^ 0
.C ft
iromatograp
lists Inc., is c
o jS
^
« CD
D> fc
C C
.S 2
3 '>
§ X
x: o
.o> ^
1 LU
-------
Results and Discussion
PCDD/PCDF Emissions
Table 3 summarizes the controlled and
uncontrolled emissions of PCDD and
PCDF. The PCDF fraction was about twice
as large as the PCDD for both controlled
and uncontrolled emissions. There was no
significant variation among the three runs.
The average total PCDD/PCDF combustor
emission rateforthe three runs was 877 ng/
dscm (corrected to 12% CO2), measured
at the inlet to the spray dryer. The average
total PCDD/PCDF emission rate down-
stream of the baghouse was 4.3 ng/dscm
at 12% CO2. This represents an average
emission control rate of 99.5%.
The uncontrolled samples had sepa-
rate analyses for the front and back halves
of the sampling train. The back half frac-
tions showed concentrations near detec-
tion limits indicating that the PCDD/PCDF
emissions are associated with the particu-
late matter at the control device inlet.
All 17 dioxin and furan isomers for
which analyses were conducted were well
above detection limits in the uncontrolled
samples. For the controlled samples, all 17
isomers were detected in the completed
test run, and most were also detected in the
partial runs. Distributions of these isomers
did not change significantly across the
control devices.
The EPA 2,3,7,8-PCDD toxic equi-
valencies were calculated for both uncon-
trolled and controlled emissions. Due to
lower equivalent toxicity for f urans, the total
toxicity is similar for the dioxin and furan
emissions. 2,3,7,8-TCDD itself accounts for
about 10% (uncontrolled) to 20% (con-
trolled) of total toxicity.
Paniculate Emissions
Particulate mass loading was deter-
mined by gravimetric analysis of the filter,
cyclone, and front half acetone rinses of the
metals train. After reaching constant
weight, these fractions were digested for
metals analysis. Particulate results were
blank corrected as specified m EPA Method
5 Uncontrolled emissions averaged 7,400
mg/dscm, and controlled emissions aver-
aged 33 mg/dscm , for an average control
efficiency of 99.5 % for the three runs.
Metals Emissions
Table 4 summarizes the emission data
for selected hazardous metals (As, Cd, Cr,
Pb, and Hg). Pb emissions dominate, with
an average of 27 mg/dscm (uncontrolled)
and 0.15 mg/dscm (controlled). The control
fficiency varies from 98 % for Cd to 99.8
percent for Cr, which is in general agree-
ment with the relative volatilities of the met-
als.
The ratio of the selected metals to total
particulate mass shows little change across
the control devices. The ratio for Cr de-
creased by about a factor of 2. The other
ratios increased by between 1.5 (Pb) and 3
(As and Hg).
Process Sample Characteristics
Table 5 shows the characteristics of
the process samples collected. The se-
lected metals are absent in the lime slurry
except for about 4 jig/g of As. Cd was not
detected in the bottom ash, and the other
metals were present at levels of a few
hundred micrograms per gram. Lead ac-
counted for about half of the total. At the
cyclone ash hopper (immediately upstream
of the uncontrolled emissions test location)
and in the baghouse ash hopper, Pb
dominated the data, as it had in the un-
controlled emissions measurements. As,
Cd, and Pb are more concentrated in both
cyclone and baghouse ash than in the un-
controlled emissions samples. Uncon-
trolled Cr emissions fall between the con-
centrations found in the same two ash
samples.
ACID Gases
Table 6 summarizes the results of the
CEM measurements for SO HCI, and NCK
The acid gas results are difficult to assess
because the process was on manual con-
trol instead of the design automatic system.
The changed lime feedrate during run 2 is
reflected in increased SO2 and HCI control
efficiencies during runs 2 and 3.
Calculated molar ratios of actual lime to
stoichiometric lime for 1/2 HCI +SO2 in-
creased from 1.7 for run 1 to 3.9 for run 3.
Since the peak concentrations of HCI and
SO2 are about twice the averages, the lime
feedrate for run 1 was too low to neutralize
the acid gases during periods of peak fur-
nace emissions.
Other Gases
Table 7 summarizes the results of
CEM measurements for O2, CO2, CO, and
THC. The O2 and CO2 results indicate that
no significant leakage, dilution, or reaction
of CO2 occurred across the control devices.
The CO analyzer at the spray dryer outlet
shows fewer excursions than the other
analyzers because of slower response time
for this instrument.
Average CO emissions for runs 1, 2,
and 3 were 62.8, 68.5, and 89.9 ppm,
respectively. The THC monitor was only
operational during run 3. THC emissions at
the spray dryer inlet averaged 1.1 ppm
during this test. CO emissions, which are
used as an indicator of combustion condi-
tions, exhibited short transients which oc-
casionally exceeded 200 ppm. One
transient exceeded 700 ppm. The facility
was experiencing problems with the con-
veyor which supplies RDF to the combus-
tor, and these transient CO conditions are
most likely due to sudden changes in the
amount or properties of RDF being fed to
the boiler.
Quality Assurance
Several QA checks were performed as
part of the sampling and analysis program
as specified in the project QA plan. These
results are discussed below. An internal
data audit revealed no significant problems.
External systems audit of field and labora-
tory operations were conducted by Re-
search Triangle Institute and EPA . Both
QA reports gave acceptable ratings forthe
project.
PCDD/PCDF Analyses
The primary QA/QC checks used for
monitoring the PCDD/PCDF analyses were
method internal standard surrogate recov-
eries, relative response factors, sampling
train blanks, duplicate analyses, and audit
samples.
Recovery of the 13C-PCDD/PCDF
surrogates was consistently around the
lower limit of 50 %. No reason for the low
results was found. The impact of the low
recoveries should be minimal because the
spiked performance audit samples showed
good recovery efficiency.
The relative response factors for 38
isomers and homologs were monitored
daily with never more than 1 of the 38
factors in any of the calibration samples
exceeding the ±20 % criterion.
The blank samples analyzed included
one initial proof rinse, a field blank train, and
a posttest blank from the control device
outlet. Varying levels near the detection
limits were found for Tetra and Octa - CDD.
No blank correction was used because the
blank levels detected were all less than 10%
of any stack sample.
The sample from run 1 outlet was
analyzed by duplicate injection. All com-
pounds detected above 0.08 ng total
showed a relative difference of less than
12%.
Four spiked unknown samples were
prepared and analyzed with the field
samples. The homolog totals showed re-
coveries between 70 and 104% with sur-
rogate recoveries similar to those found in
the field samples.
-------
SI
"8
0
8
l£.
o
£E
UJ
2
<§
•o
_cu
~B
'c
8
§
CD
8
cn
o>
co
co p
o in i-'
CM *~ '"
in
co'
in
o>
cn
CM
CM
oo
o
CO
00
o
o
o
m
CM"
O
O
O
P!
CM
m CM
i-1 CO
p co
T- CD W
CO i- i-
CO
CM
CO
CO
o
00
O
co
CO
CM
O)
K
cn
O
co
CM
co
S
cri
cn
CO
CO
i- O
in in
oo
00
CM
cn
CO
O
CM
•*
co
O)
co
CD
C\i
in
••*•
in
CM
CO
CD
CD
CO
CM
CM
o
CO
in
O)
CM
CD
CM
o
O>
m
CM
CO
cn
CD
CD
CO
CM
« S'5 —
c ^ fQ ~
o ^ ° ^
1 S 3
VJ *-*
E CM 1
UJ C 0
UL CM O
Q C -r,
o d i
§ 1
8 §
Q- 33
-a
c. — fr
ra S cico-
cyj c .2 £,
c o o
o — I O E
w ^ ^;
•^3 00 <"
s: i "D
T3 CD CB
CO =
8 ^ 1
« (S
W^j
^ ^^
0 §
8 ^ *
°- 2
T3 $
« 8
m c
^? r>
0)
CO
CO
o
A
(0
I-
1 1 1
in
O CD CO
O CO i-
r- CM
5
•*
0 CM •*
O "*
•^ >%
«£ -°
)o «-*?
"< -fc^o*1
3 S^O *-
cn
CD
in
CD
O
cn
0
cn
m
CM
cn
CD
in
CM
CD
0
CO
0
cn
CD
cn
in
CM
Q Q
Q -pQ
O E O
Q- % o.
CM
co
CM
CD
cn
cn
co
CD
co
CM
o
CO
oo
CO
CD
CD
CO
m
O
in
oi
CD
CO
CM
O
Tf
in
oo
co
cn
CD
CO
o
co
m
o
in
CD
cn
CD
CM
cn
m
-
^ 00
-------
o fr
CD
c
O
o
CO
o
3
.2
£ c ^
"JS Q) ^
t) "O ****
^^3
CD O
a o
5 -o
2 §
< =
e
"c
o
CJ
c
->
2 IT?
>•: r; o
c .2 "•"
5i,
»d CD
op =5
CM 4=
i— C
* 8
CO "§
c —
=* 2
c
Q
3
"o «
Q £ S£
Q.
,_
in
cri
in
CM
•*'
^
^,
CO
s
oi
o
O)
CO
CO
in
cn
o
C7)
o>
s
in
CM
CO
CO
C7)
en
CM
CO
8
CO
o
-o ^
•5 Q _5»
5J O ^T f
t >? ^ •-
§^«: s
•Hr- CM '-
^*
^
0>
cn
N.
o
d
CO
c\i
in
cri
cn
CO
in
o
d
CO
CO
co
CO
0)
01
.^
§
d
cn
Ovi
OJ
•^~
O)
cn
CO
CO
o
d
?
i/>
<" . *
o O°* ^
|0 |
C.CM |
LLJ
i i i
CO
S' CO »-
co r^
i- CM
o o o
O 0 0
T- O_ T-
co t^ in
*- co m
CM
d T- T-
l*~ CO CO
•r- CM
o o o
O 0 0
in rj- 01
CM" o" CM"
CM -^ CO
, i i
T- O) O
O T- CM
T- CM CO
0 0 O
O O O
CO ^ CM
r-~ in" co"
r- CO in
i i i
CO
CO CO T-
co r~ CD
•r- CM
O 0 0
o o o
O CM CM
•t" in" cn
i- CO •<*
LL
Q
O
Q LL. Q
Odd
O O G
0. Q. 0.
YJ (0 (0 CO
JjB B B
cvi
o
CO
CM
CO
Q.
LU
.
ii
Q
O
o.
To
O
Q
O
"o
jE>
I
0
(/)
(U
(0
8.
x
LU
-C
I
.—
8
(/>
U)
^
U)
tr
D)
To
LU
i-
CO
CD
X)
CD
U
o
(t
E
0>
^
CL
LU
CO
Z)
w
-------
en
in
m
i- o r^
a> o CM
i- OJ
i- OJ CO CD
o in r^ CM o
CM ^ co ^ T- m
CM O O O T- O
CO
2
0)
in
in
OJ
r*** oj oo
00 00 OJ
OJ OJ OJ
•* CM
OJ 00
OJ OJ
o>
o
in
CO
N."
in o o o
en co r^ o
•»* o_ co co_
I-" OJ CD"
CM
p
CO
CO
t*~ co a>
CO CM CD 00
CD' CM in in CD'
i- in
CO
0
O
Cvl
^—
o
•4-i
n
^
col
c|
ir|
o
CO
^J
o
in
in
OJ
OJ
o
Is* CD m o •«t
CO OO CM CO CM
CM cn
•»"•
*- O 0 0 i-
T- CO i- 0 •*
in CM i- ^r co
_N
15
o
m
co
CD
CO
T- .„ CO
CD CM CO
co •>-_ -^ ; o
O r^ O CO O
m
•r-; 001 CO ^t N-
o co O) o> r*^-
in
CO •* fv.
•* CD CM (^
oo
T- co"
2,
C/)
O
rrt
TO
CC
c
O
«._
CO
E
HI
CO
CO
2
Is
Q}
!^
_o
'£j
CD
Q.
T3
§
1
2
0
S
3
O
tr
CO
Q.
1
.C
O)
CMl
1
E
o
-y
-?
^t
.c
D)
T-l
9
ca
o
00
5
J
T3 co CD co h^ >i
O OO CM O CM O
i — ^" ^* ^" ^* ^" C
.-* co cocoinooj-o CM cicscioo.^
5CMCOr~-OOOCMCO T- O
— "^ -r- OJ 7= *y- c\i| O
o T-"2 ujcini^-oco^T-
^ "^ — 3|c3Jo6oJoJoJcd
c ?; (OCCIcnoJOJOJCoco
8 0 g
^^ ^ -D -O iT
-* o OJ a CO 0 ®
CO [^; CM ("-; O CC
b co o o o in CM' CD o' in' t- to'
• O)
• CT) CT) CJ) O) O) O)
V
O JD »8
o co c in co
OJ in i^- h* o
b CM o o o i- T^ [--' i-' in CM CM'
T- eoojooco CM -^ •*./
^•^"OJCOr*-^ T— v
1^-" CM" in"
CM
|jEE ie| ^EE
CO
.Q
'
CO
8.
13
.E
x
E
aj
a>
_3
CO
^
T3
CO
•c
o
a,
CO
CC
1
c
o
'c5
a>
CO
T3
|
"CD
J3
CO
o
t5
Some fra
co"
01
O)
2
CO
fo
c
o>
T3
13
O
C
0
^
E
o
"o
CO
"S
T3
$
o
s
All fractio
£2
CO
0)
o
k:
o
•g
CO
-a
c
£*
~o
CO
Q.
to
2
DJ
L_T
O
JT
S.
2
D)
.2
10
-------
Table 5. Process Characteristics
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average
Cyclone as
As,u.g/g
Cd,u.g/g
Cr, ug/g
Pb,u.g/g
Hg,|Kj/g
Carbon, %
Ash, %
Baghouse ash
As,u.g/g
Cd, jig/g
Cr, ug/g
Pb, ng/g
Hg, ng/g
Carbon, %
Ash, %
Bottom ash
As,u,g/g
Cd, |ig/g
Cr, u.g/g
Pb, |ig/g
Hg, ng/g
Carbon, %
Ash, %
Lime slurry
As, ug/g
Cd, jig/g
Cr,|ig/g
Pb, ug/g
Hg, u.g/g
CaO, %
Solids, %
Specific gravity
32.2
30.7
383
2,100
15.3
1.06
98.3
47.6
129
152
2,770
80.2
5.48
89.1
7.24
< 1 .50a
169
417
0.0640
1.30
75.2
4.25
< 0.226a
< 0.943a
< 5.78"
< 0.224a
11.8
20.6
1.13
32.7
35.2
438
2,090
5.00
0.89
98.3
47.2
80.1
159
1,290
34.0
2.62
96.0
14.0
2.73
312
585
1.22
1.11
75.5
2.20
<0.231a
<0.960a
<5.88a
<0.216a
9.58
18.3
1.12
38.9
38.1
424
2,070
13.4
1.60
95.8
53.6
77.4
167
2,130
29.4
3.67
90.2
b
b
b
b
b
4.19
<0.199a
< 0.830a
<5.09a
0.419
12.3
22.1
1.14
34.6
34.7
415
2,087
11.2
1.18
97.5
49.5
95.5
159
2,063
47.9
3.93
91.8
10.6
2.73
241
501
0.64
1.20
75.3
3.55
< 0.21 9
< 0.911
<5.58
< 0.286
11.2
20.4
1.13
a Some fractions below detection limit. Reported value is maximum.
6 Bottom ash was not collected during run 3.
11
-------
Table 6. GEM Data Summary -Acid Gases
Average (ppm) RSD'
Run 1
S02
HCI
NO,
Run 2"
S02
HCI
NOx
Pun 3
S02
HCI
NOx
Average of 3 runs
S02
HCI
Dryer inlet
Baghouse outlet
Removal efficiency
Dryer inlet
Dryer outlet
Baghouse outlet
Removal efficiency
Baghouse outlet
Dryer inlet
Baghouse outlet
Removal efficiency
Dryer inlet
Dryer outlet
Baghouse outlet
Removal efficiency
Baghouse outlet
Dryer inlet
Baghouse outlet
Removal efficiency
Dryer inlet
Dryer outlet c
Baghouse outlet
Removal efficiency
Baghouse outlet
Dryer inlet
Baghouse outlet
Removal efficiency
Dryer inlet
Dryer outlet
Baghouse outlet
Removal efficiency
83.2
28.4
66.0
478
63
9
98.2
203
76.9
21.2
72.3
566
8
4
99.3
206
115
12.0
89.6
540
1
3
99.4
210
91.8
20.5
76.0
528
24
5
99
16.1
43.3
-
NAd
NA
NA
-
8.72
11.3
45.6
-
NA
NA
NA
-
8.25
20.3
18.6
-
NA
NA
NA
-
8.76
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
NOx Baghouse outlet 206
• RSD (relative standard deviation) = (100 x standard deviation)-;- mean.
" Spray dryer lime slurry flow rate was increased by 100% at about 13:45
during run 2.
c HCI results at the dryer outlet are questionable for run 3.
d NA = Data is not available for HCI, which is contained in a separate report.
12
-------
TABLE 7. GEM Data Summary --Other Gases
Average
• RSD (relative standard deviation) = (100 x standard deviation)-*-mean.
6 The total hydrocarbon analyzer was not functioning properly for runs 1
and 2 and had span drift during run 3.
RSD
Run1"
02>%
C02, %
CO, ppm
Run 2"
02,%
C02, %
CO, ppm
Run 3"
02, %
C02, %
CO, ppm
THCa, ppm
Dryer inlet
Dryer outlet
Baghouse outlet
Dryer inlet
Dryer outlet
Baghouse outlet
Dryer inlet
Dryer inlet
Dryer outlet
Baghouse outlet
Dryer inlet
Dryer outlet
Baghouse outlet
Dryer inlet
Dryer inlet
Dryer outlet
Baghouse outlet
Dryer inlet
Dryer outlet
Baghouse outlet
Dryer inlet
Dryer inlet
7.9
7.4
8.0
11.6
11.5
11.6
62.8
8.5
7.9
8.4
11.2
11.7
11.1
68.5
8.4
7.8
8.6
11.2
11.7
11.3
89.9
1.14
14.8
14.9
14.3
8.45
6.78
8.71
36.1
10.6
13.7
12.4
7.29
2.82
8.47
17.3
13.3
15.5
15.4
12.0
3.42
10.8
55.9
86.0
13
-------
MM5 Sampling Equipment
The sampling trains for both PCDD/
PCDF and particulates/metals met all re-
quirements for nozzle dimensions, meter
factor, temperature, barometer, and pilot
tube calibration. All samples were collected
at 90 to 110 % isokinetic. One train, run 3
outlet PCDD/PCDF, failed its leak checkfor
the final 30 min because of accidental jar-
ring of the probe, but was accepted as
usable after the moisture data were re-
viewed. The moisture data and overall data
were consistent with the other two runs.
Metals Analyses
The results of the nine duplicate
sample analyses showed acceptable
agreement. Instrument calibration drift met
the QA plan objectives. Only Hg was found
consistently in the blank samples. It was
found in the front half rinse at an average of
about 8 u.g, which was the only blank cor-
rection used for metals. OneofthefourEPA
metals audit samples showed Cr at 135% of
the true value. Analysis of a second EPA
sample at twice the concentration showed
close agreement with its true value. Further
analyses of these EPA samples showed
little change in relative accuracy values.
Continuous Emission
Monitoring
The three sets of analyzers used
passed all leak checks. Comparisons of the
working standard cylinders against EPA
Protocol 1 cylinders showed no significant
errors. Only the SO2 monitor located at the
spray dryer inlet failed to meet the analyzer
drift criteria of 10%. The drift was probably
caused by poisoning of the sensor and
changed suddenly instead of being a
gradual drift. Only the test data before the
first sudden change each day are reported,
and only the initial calibration data for each
day areused to calculate results.
Conclusions and
Recommendations
Based on the results obtained d u r -
ing this project, the following conclusions
are drawn:
Removal efficiency across the
spray dryer/fabric filter was
about 99.5% for dioxins, furans,
and particulates.
• The PCDF levels were about twice
as large at the PCDD levels for
both controlled and uncontrolled
emission values.
No significant change occurred
across the control devices for the
molar distributions of the tetra-
through octa-CDF and CDD.
• Metals (As, Cd, Cr, Pb, and Hg)
removal efficiencies varied from
98.2% for Hg to 99.8% for Cr.
• Concentrations of the five se
lected metals measured in the ash
samples were in general agree
ment with those found in the stack
samples.
Removal efficiency for SO. varied
from 66% in run 1 to 90% in
run 3, in direct relation to the
amount of slaked lime fed to the
spray dry adsorber.
Control efficiency for HCI varied
from 98% in run 1 to 99% in
run 3.
No air dilution or absorption of CO2
occurred across the control de
vices.
The following recommendations are
suggested for further study of this type of
facility:
• Data should be obtained for the
performance of the automatic lime
control system.
• The effect of combustion condi
tions on the emission of PCDD/
PCDF, CO, NO,, and other pol
lutants should be investigated.
Conversion Factors
Metric units are used in this Summary. Readers more familiar with nonmetric units may use the following conversion factors:
Multiply
Nonmetric
By
To obtain
Metric
Btu/h
°F
ft
ft3/min
gal.
gr/dscf
in.
in. H.O
to/h
tons/day
1 .05488
5/9 (°F-32)
0.3048
28316.8
3.785
2288
2.54
0.0394
0.4536
0.907
MJ/h
°C
m
cmVmin
liter
mg/dscm
cm
mm H2O
kg/h
mg/day
14
-------
G. Scheil, S. Klamm, M. Whitacre, J. Surman are with Midwest Research Institute,
Kansas City, MO 64110; and W. Kelly is with Radian Corp., Research Triangle
Park, NC 27709.
James D. Kilgroe is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Municipal Waste Combustion Multipollutant Study,
Emission Test Report, Maine Energy Recovery Company Refuse Derived Fuel
Facility, Biddeford, Maine" (Set Order No. PB90-228 826/AS; Cost: $116.00 cost
subject to change)
"Volume I. Summary of Results, "(Order No. PB 90-228 834; Cost: $23.00, subject
to change).
"Volume II. Appendices A-F," (Order No. PB 90-228 842; Cost: $53.00, subject to
change).
"Volume III. Appendices G- N," (Order No. PB 90-228 859; Cost: $60.00, 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:
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
United Slates
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
EPA/600/S8-89/064
CCCOB5833 PS
0 S Eiflfi PHGTECTICS AGEHCT
REGION 5 LI88ARI
23 C S 0EA8B08S SWEET
CHICAGO IL 60604
------- |