-------
4.5.1 MRI Quality Assurance Results
4.5.1.1 Particulate/HCl—
Table 20 reports the results of the blank analyses for the particulate
and HC1 sampling. No problems were identified.
4.5.1.2 PCDD/PCDF Analyses —
Audit results
Prior to initiating analysis of any samples, accuracy was checked by
analyzing^blind audit samples provided by MRI's Quality Assurance Unit.
Two different samples were submitted to the laboratory; one sample was ana-
lyzed on two separate occasions. Results of the blind audit analyses are
presented in Table 21. All accuracy results were within the range of 88 to
134%; the quality assurance objective of 60 to 115% accuracy, as assessed
by the audit samples, was exceeded for some analyses.
ESP fly ash
Precision of the analysis for PCDDs and PCDFs in fly ash was assessed
by conducting duplicate and triplicate analyses; accuracy was assessed by
calculating percent recovery of the spiked surrogate. Table 22 summarizes
the results of replicate analyses for the four ESP fly ash samples which
were analyzed in duplicate. For each sample analyzed in duplicate the
range percent difference was calculated for each homolog. Range percent is
calculated as follows:
33
-------
1
I
1
1
i
I
IV
H
3
1 !
2:
^
*-3
1 =
s
i I
u
*^h- ^
I ^
"•
.
fo
a
o
1 *
1
'""-
1
OJ
u
c
u
OJ
34
J-c
-------
TABLE 21. RESULTS OF AUDIT SAMPLES
Cone, (ng/pl)
Sample
QA-1
QA-1
QA-2
QA-2
QA-1
QA-1
QA-2
QA-2
QA-1
QA-1
QA-1
QA-1
QA-1
QA-1
Analyzed
04/09/85
04/09/85
04/25/85
04/25/85
04/09/85
04/09/85
04/25/85
04/25/85
05/02/85
05/02/85
05/02/85
05/02/85
05/02/85
05/02/85
Analyte
Tetra CDD
Tetra CDF
Tetra CDD
Tetra CDF
Penta CDD
Penta CDF
Penta CDD
Penta CDF
Hexa CDD
Hexa CDF
Hepta CDD
Hepta CDF
Octa CDD
Octa CDF
Actual
17
17
122
122
17
17
122
122
87
87
87
87
173
173
Found
17.9
17.7
141
145
22.8
17.2
159
155
83
87
91
91
176
153
Accuracy (%)
106
104
116
119
•134
101
130
127
95
100
105
105
102
88
35
44<
-------
I
I
I
I
+*
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
.'
I
I
I
I
TABLE 22. RESULTS OF REPLICATE ANALYSES FOR ESP
FLY ASH SAMPLES
Range percent difference
_for replicate analyses
Analyte
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Tetra CDD
Penta CDD
Hexa CDD
Hepta CDD
Octa CDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Tetra CDF
Penta CDF
Hexa CDF
Hepta CDF
Octa CDF
Mean
22
22
30
46
38
34
16
26
33
32
39
30
Range of values
(8-33)
(14-35)
(9-51)
(19-77)
(0-71)
(5-56)
(0-37)
(9-41)
(8-56)
(6-59)
(6-63)
(14-47)
Mean of range percent calculated for replicate
analyses of four samples [runs 1,5,7,8].
36
45 -c
-------
R% = ^ =* x 100
C
where: C± - highest value determined
C2 = lowest value determined
C = mean value of set
and
n C.
* Z -i
where: C. = ith determination
n = number of determinations
The four precision values for each homolog obtained from the four samples
were averaged to calculate the mean value reported in Table 22. The range
of values for the calculated precision (range percent difference) of the
four samples also are reported for each homolog in Table 22. For example,
for 2,3,7,8-TCDD the range percent difference for the duplicate analyses
of samples from runs 1, 5, 7, and 8 were 40, 8, 33, and 25%, respectively.
Therefore, the mean precision value is [(40% + 8% + 33% + 25%) -r 4 = 27%];
the values ranged from (8 to 40%). The results generally were within the
QA precision objective of S 30% for 2,3,7,8-TCDD/TCDF, tetra CDD/CDF, and
octa CDD/CDF, and i 60% for the penta, hexa, and hepta CDD/CDF homologs.
Accuracy of the fly ash analyses was assessed by calculating the per-
cent recovery for the surrogate 37C14 TCDD. Table 23 reports the recovery
results for the ESP fly ash. The calculated recoveries are very good and
within the QA objective of 60 to 115%. The surrogate recovery of 37C14-
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDD could not be measured because of interference due to the
large (relative to the spiked amount) quantity of 1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HPCDD in
the samples. This is also true for the bottom ash and MM5 stack emission
samples. \
27
-------
1
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
i
i
i
t
«*
*
i
i
TABLE 23. RESULTS OF SURROGATE RECOVERY
FOR FLY ASH SAMPLES
• Run % Accuracy3
1A/B (replicate 1) 105
1A/B (replicate 2) 73
1A/B (replicate 3) 102
3A/B NAb
2A/B 90
• 4A/B 79
f5A/B (replicate 1) 82
5A/B (replicate 2) 101
6A/B 96
7 (replicate 1) 95
7 (replicate 2) 69
8 (replicate 1) 89
8 (replicate 2) 97
8 (replicate 3) 82
8 (replicate 4) 99
Percent recovery of 37C14 TCDD.
Not available; sample being reanalyzed.
-------
Two fly ash method blanks and a field sample bottle blank were ana-
lyzed; all results were below detection limits.
!
Bottom ash
The same procedures that were used to assess precision and accuracy for
the ESP fly ash samples were used for the bottom ash samples. Table 24 re-
ports the precision results for replicate analyses and Table 25 reports the
accuracy results as surrogate percent recovery.
The precision for the bottom ash samples is not as good as the precision
measured for the fly ash samples. The nonhomogeneity of the bottom ash sam-
ples is expected to be the cause of the greater imprecision. The percent
accuracy (surrogate recovery) is very good and witain the desired range of
60 to 115%, with the exception of sample 4A/B (replicate 1) which was 53%.
Two bottom ash method blanks and a field sample bottle blank were
analyzed; all results were below detection limits.
Stack emissions
*
Precision for the analysis of MM5 stack emissions samples was assessed
by analyzing spiked blanks. Two filters and two XAD resin traps were spiked
and analyzed. Table 26 reports the results of the analyses. The range per-
cent differences were all less than 30%, except for one analyte which was 34%.
Accuracy for the MII5 samples was assessed by calculating percent
recoveries for the surrogate 37C14-TCDD for each emissions sample and the
spiked blanks. Table 27 reports the surrogate recovery results. With the
exception of run 6A, the surrogate recoveries were within the QA objectives
(60 to 115%). Because the surrogate recovery on run 6A is so low (21%),
the results from this sample should be considered as estimates.
39
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
i
I
i
i
•»
J
I
I
TABLE 24. RESULTS OF REPLICATE ANALYSES
FOR BOTTOM ASH SAMPLES
Range percent difference
Analyte
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Tetra CDD
Penta CDD
Hexa CDD
Hepta CDD
Octa CDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Tetra CDF
Penta CDF
Hexa CDF
Hepta CDF
Octa CDF
Mean"
54
41
68
71
51
37
42
51
65
64
61
29
Range of values
(16-76)
(6-69)
(36-96)
(32-98)
(40-78)
(6-68)
(25-64)
(41-63)
(43-95)
(9-99)
(24-100)
(0-81)
a
Mean of range percent calculated for replicate
analyses of four samples [runs 1, 5, 7, 8].
-------
TABLE 25. RESULTS OF SURROGATE RECOVERY
FOR BOTTOM ASH SAMPLES
Run % Accuracy3
1A/B (replicate 1) 85
1A/B (replicate 2) 99
2A/B • 89
3A/B 85
4A/B (replicate 1) 53
5A/B (replicate 1) 96
5A/B (replicate 2) 94
6A/B 89
7A/B (replicate 1) 87
7A/B (replicate 2) 92
8A/B (replicate 1) 78
8A/B (replicate 2) 95
8A/B (replicate 3) 69
Percent recovery of 37C14 TCDD.
-------
1
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
4
•»
1
*
I
I
TABLE 26. RESULTS OF REPLICATE ANALYSES FOR
MODIFIED METHOD 5 SAMPLES
Range percent difference
Analyte
2>3,7,8-TCDD
Tetra CDD
Penta CDD
Hexa CDD
Hepta CDD
Octa CDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Tetra CDF
Penta CDF
Hexa CDF
Hepta CDF
Octa CDF
for replicate
Spiked filter
blank
(%)
21
21
13
29
34
25
7
7
ND
c
c
28
analyses
Spiked XAD
resin blank
(%)
1
1
10
5
18
3
2
2^
ND
c
c
13
Two samples.
Not detected.
HxCDF and HpCDF not spiked.
-------
Run
1A
2A
3B
4A
5A
6A
XAD spike (1)
XAD spike (2)
Filter spike (1)
Filter spike (2)
Blank train
% Accuracy3
58
96
100
122
96
21
80
100
101
102
103
Percent recovery of 37C14 TCDD.
-------
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,»
_»
r"
I
I
A MM5 "blank train was set up in the field and the recovered sample
analyzed along with the emissions sample. The results of this blank train
were reported in Table 9. With the exception of two analytes where very
low levels were found (contamination from previous GC/MS injection sus-
pected) all analytes were below the detection limit.
Control samples
In order to obtain data comparable to data obtained by other labora-
tories, two control samples were analyzed. The samples were National Bureau
of Standards (NBS) urban dust and a fly ash composite ("Eastern Fly Ash").
The eastern fly ash (EFA) was provided by MRI and had been previously ana-
lyzed by MRI and other laboratories. Results of the analyses are provided
in Table 28. Previously reported results for the NBS dust are 0.12 ng/g for
2,3,7,8-TCDD (plus four isomers) and 0.28 ng/g for TCDD. The previously
reported result for the EFA is 2.0 ng/g for 2,3,7,8-TCDD. The results ob-
tained during this project compare reasonably well with the results reported
for the NBS dust and compare very well with the previously reported results
for the ETA.
4.5.2 Second Laboratory Results (Triangle Laboratories, Inc.)
Samples from test run 5 were split and submitted to a second laboratory
for analysis. The eight samples which were split and sent were:
1. ESP fly ash, replicate 1
2. ESP fly ash, replicate 2
3. Bottom ash, replicate 1
4. Bottom ash, replicate 2
5. NBS urban dust
6. Eastern coast fly ash (EFA)
7. MM5 extract
8. MRI calibration standard
44
-------
TABLE 28. RESULTS FOR NES DUST AND EASTERN PLY ASH
Concentration ng/g
2,3,7,8-TCDD
TCDD
PCDD
HxCDD
HpCDD
OCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
TCDF
PCDF
HxCDF
Hp CDF
OCDF
NBS
replicate 1
0.063
0.12a
2.2
3.8
19
67
0.21
1.4
3.1
d
4.7
2.6 -
NBS
replicate 2
b
b
b
5.3
16
61
b
b
b
0.94
4.9
5.3
EFA
replicate 1
2.3C
75
230
b
b
b
4.0
110
160
b
b
b
EFA
replicate 2
1.9C
71
220
112
68
96
4.2
120
170
108
76
19
*
Data reported by L. Lamparski and T. J. Nestrick (Anal. Chem. 1980, 52,
2045-54); TCDD (0.28 ng/g) and 2,3,7,8-TCDD plus four isomers (0.12 ng/g).
Not analyzed.
Data reported by Kuehl et al. (4th International Dioxin Symposium, Ottawa,
October 1984); 2,3,7,8-TCDD (2.0 ng/g).
Not detected.
45
54-
-------
t
I
I
i
I
I
I
/•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,»
I
I
I
The fly ash, bottom ash, NBS urban dust, and EFA were sent to the sec-
ond laboratory for extraction and analysis; aliquots of the extracted MM5
sample and the calibration sample were sent for analysis. Table 29 sum-
marizes the results of the analyses by the second laboratory. MRI' s results
for the same samples also are presented in Table 29 for comparison. Percent
accuracy of the second lab compared to MRI's standard was calculated; the
accuracy for the different homologs ranged from 27% (HxCDF) to 298% (HpCDD)).
46
-------
« « — %e
)« o -
•»» o
(-1 O
« irt
s§
o o
— o
— o*
«•<• *O SI'*' *" ^ i*-J O
C —• — "^-oO O
i a--
«a« o
"•sJsO «-)
in o o
U ~
— a
a— ee
3 « 3 3
»/•» irt »rt «rt
e e a s
i: i i £
I-S
'J'
:
m
c.
« -^
' — a
J
N ^ -• «|
>. 4J T3 ta
— V ^
C V *" C
• ^r it hi
u
J J S £
V *• «• JS
-
4 §
= i
•
i 1
47
56-
-------
^^H
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,»
I
I
I
L
SECTION 5.0
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
This section, briefly describes the sampling, sample recovery/prepara-
tion, and analytical procedures used during the test program. Table 30
presents an overview of the sampling/analysis protocol.
Section 5.1 identifies the sampling locations. Section 5.2 presents
the sampling procedures and the sample recovery/handling procedures. Sec-
tion 5.3 briefly describes the analytical procedures.
5.1 SAMPLING LOCATIONS
5.1.1 Stack Emissions
Figure 2 identifies the MM5 sampling locations for the NW Units 1 or
2 (units are nearly identical). The sample was collected at 24 traverse
points chosen according to EPA Reference Method 1 (40CFR60). The CEM sam-
pling location for the NW units also is shown in Figure 2; the CEM sample
was taken from a single point in the stack of each unit.
The continuous emission monitor sampling location for the EC
Units 1 or 2 is depicted in Figure 3; the sample was taken from a single
point in the breeching of each unit.
48
-------
C/3
fi-C
o
H
£2
w
z
1— 1
CJ
z
•^
.™«4
™
c-
^-1
£-J
a
.^
1^
H-4
£5
c-
C*u
o
^•4
&•*
hH
U
fl£
a
o
fa
f-
C/l
N^
w
J
^
z
a
z
rj
z
JB.J
M
2™
<
w
.
O
rn
bl
a
H
I
.a
- CM
-J CJ
f
"u i-*
f3
CU CJ
19
U
C «N
2 3:
Z
i— i
O
u
41 —
.a
E 3:
3 Z
Z
U]
U
4)
,j
41
E
a
u
m
H
•rt
M
^
•rt
(Q
C
^
u
£
3
c-
41
U
1-4
•^x^
•3
O
^^
«J
O
eo
c
^4
c.
E
W3
— -. „ f-. — OOO
« rt. — rt. ^i 0 0 O
-
m cn en cncncncno
0^ PO P^ PO ^^ ^^ PO ^^
U 1
o u
-J 4!
CO C
1- -rt C.
41 U CO M ^rt
ecu: o u
•rt -rt SO 5=
u •-
c •- a
•rt 41 1* • N 41
U 3 W U U Q -JU U
••• 3 (0 td b^ bu ' ft fa fa
4) ^j u 41 a a •• rtH a a
4-1 (T! 5J -J CJ CJ OX>> 3CJU
co U Id oj C. Cu O O *-J U C. &.
|^ ^j r\l g •x^ *%^ Jg -rt «rt ^s^ •***,
^o«cQa a ~ u ^aa
41 ss w w a a . >. I
^J U U i— i • .
e . 4i 4i —
E.C 4)41 4)4) C-SCV'rt
3 U rtl 'rt O ^ '^
UCN C--^ C-rt U-rt — 4i x-\^>Jtf
rtl ^s^ 4IV3 4JU O 1- C — i- '- C
yj ^H ^fi O • Jfi O • *J CJ rt jj _r* jo
•• <3 £L CJ (fl CJ^ CJ "rt £^ ^^ ^J *rt
•rt ^\ 4iJ E *"^ 4^ E ^^ C 41 Ifl >7 ^7 •«•!
U O Q. OC.O4JS4I •— "— ' v-<
j-^4) v>UE tnu= E -i ->
c > u a u a cj< 'rt 3 2T y T*
££ W r^ ,M« .rt CJ rt* *rt CJ " O > "^ y " T?
tfl
hd
41
«
4)
^^
£
CO
U
CO
£„
^j
SO «J CO
2« I C CO fl
= | -rt J5 CO
^
1C
— J E vj
f3 O (8 Jtf
U ^ u
41 -i — *S
^M ^ ^Q ™J
O a a oo
< ea d a
CsJ
jj
CO
w
4J
41
iJ
e
£
o
CN
41
U
4J . .
3 -a fa
CM a a
U CJ CJ
-> o
•rt ±J C3 C5
3 .-0 -J JJ
• rj u u u
CM 41 O O
U C
_> O -rt - -
•rt -> u a fa
s 19 - a a
*^l lyrf
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
> *
i
r
I
I
METHOD 5
MODIFIED METHOD 5
SAMPLING LOCATION
CONTINUOUS
MONITOR
SAMPLING
LOCATION
Stoinlni St*>l Srasx
Dio Nipal*. -*"
Protruding 1,2' Into S'aek
Flaw Sf
ana Turning
Figure 2. Method 5, MM5, and continuous monitoring sampling locations,
Northwest facility (Units 1 and 2 identical).
50
-------
Stack
Stack
t
ES?
Ground Level-
CEMS —
Sample
Location
oooo
i >
Fan
End View
Side View
Not To Scale
Figure 3. Coatinuous emission monitoring sampling location
East Central incinerator.
51
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• •«
p
I
I
1
5.1.2 Fly Ash
For both units the ESP fly ash is discharged to the atmosphere just
above the wasting pit. The fly ash samples were taken from the discharge
of the ESP hoppers before the ash entered the wasting pit.
Figure 4 shows the ESP ash sampling locations for the NW facility.
Sampling locations for Units 1 and 2 are essentially the same. The fly ash
samples were taken from locations C and D (Figure 4); grab samples were
taken alternately from locations C and D.
Figure 5 shows the ESP fly ash sampling location for the East Central
incinerator Units 1 and 2. The units are essentially the same. At the EC
facility there is a single ESP screw feed (for each unit) to the waste pit;
therefore, all ESP fly ash samples were taken from point C (Figure 5).
5.1.3 Bottom Ash
The bottom ash samples were taken from the inclined grate at the dis-
charge end of the waste pit; the location is depicted as location E, Fig-
ure 4, for the NW facility units; the bottom ash sampling location for the
EC units is depicted as location D, Figure 5. Note that at this sampling
location the bottom ash is composed of both the ESP fly ash and the furnace
bottom ash.
5.2 SAMPLING AND SAMPLE HANDLING PROCEDURES
Table 30 summarized the sampling procedures used during the test pro-
gram. The following paragraphs briefly describe the sampling and sample
handling procedures used in the field.
5.2.1 Fly Ash Sampling
Individual grab samples of the fly ash were collected at 1/2-hr inter-
vals during the test period.
52
-------
o
c
o
U
_c
M»
<
X
i!
LJ
t
LJ
u
•—^
X
1
o
O
fS
u
e
4J
•O
•o
c
«9
w
*j
c
U
03
in
e
o
a
u
a
oa
e
u
3
00
o
c
o
53
-------
I
I
I
«
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
I
^_N
I
* •
r
I
I
U
3
£
t/t
O *.
o
x
0)
>
o
U
U
LJ
o
03
Q_
i/l
u.
C-4
•o
e
1 I
I I
LJ
O
O
0)
u
CO
c
aj
u
U]
B
O
U
o
C -H
••^ (8
F- O
C. -H
£ •>->
eg C
CO
-------
All Impingerj ore of the Modified Grocrtburg-Smith Type
Imoinger 1 and 2 Contain 100 ml Water
Impinger 3 Contain! 100 ml 0.1 N KCH
Impinger 4 Confaint 200-300 Grams Silica G«l
All Joinrj Up to and Nof Including t+ie Second Imoinger Hove Vlton
"O" Ringj, All Other Joirtrj UM Apiezon "L"
Figure 6. Modified Method 5 (MM5) train.
-------
I
I
I
I
1
. «
I
I
I
Impinger 1: 100 mL water
Impinger 2: 100 mL water
Impinger 3: 100 mL 0.1 N KOH
Impinger 4: 200 g silica gel
One of the requirements of the method is that no grease be used for sealing
joints in the train. Viton® 0-rings were used to seal all joints prior to
and including the first impinger; Apeiezon "L" grease was used for sealing
1,
i
1,
,
i
t
i
the remaining impinger joints.
With the exception of Run 1, the sampling time for each test was 4-hr
(240 min);
test 1 was 192 min long. The sampling time was increased after
test 1 to increase the sample volume collected to over 3 m3 .
Sample
procedures .
Container 1
•
Container 2
Container 3
Container 4
Container 5
Container 6
Container 7
Container 8
recovery — Both sampling trains were recovered using identical
The containers recovered included:
: Probe, nozzle, and filter front half rinse (hexane/
acetone)
: Filter
: XAD resin cartridge
: Hexane/acetone rinse of filter back half, condenser, and
glassware connecting the filter and condenser ("organic
> tf *\
rinse")
: First impinger condensate and organic rinse of impinger
: Second impinger condensate and impinger rinse
: Third (KOH) impinger contents and impinger rinse
: 25-mL aliquot of first impinger condensate (for HC1
analyses)
The contents of all four impingers were gravimetrically measured dur-
ing sample recovery to calculate stack gas percent moisture.
56
-------
All samples were recovered in the field laboratory; the samples were
stored in chilled containers in the field, during transport to the labora-
tory, and at the laboratory.
Oxygen measurement
An integrated bag sample was collected according to the procedures of
EPA Reference Method 3. The bag sample, was collected from a single point
in the stack throughout the duration of the MM3 test. The sample was ana-
lyzed for oxygen and carbon dioxide by Orsat immediately after the test.
The measured carbon dioxide concentration was used to correct the measured
particulate concentration to a 12% C02 concentration basis.
5.2.3.2 Continuous Emission Monitoring—
Stack effluent gases were continuously monitored during each 4-hr test
period. The gas sample was drawn from a single point in the stack through a
single heated Teflon line to a common sampling manifold mounted in a field
van. The gas sample was split from the manifold so that all monitors con-
tinuously obtained a sample of the gas. Figure 7 is a simplified schematic
of the continuous emission monitoring system. Gases monitored and the in-
struments used are shown, in Table 31. Prior to initiating any testing, the
calibration of each monitor was checked and documented by a three-point
calibration. All calibration gases were certified calibration gases (certi-
fied i2* accuracy by the manufacturer); to verify monitor calibration, one
of the three gases used for calibration of each monitor was an EPA protocol
gas. Before every run, each monitor was zeroed and spanned with zero and
high level calibration gases. At the completion of every run, the calibra-
tion of each instrument was rechecked, and documented using the same zero/
span gases. Sample line integrity was verified prior to each run by plugging
the sample line inlet and monitoring the gas volumetric flow rate at the
manifold to assure a no-flow condition.
57
-------
1
1
.1
V
i
i
i
r—
1'
" i
1 i
•' !
I !
I . L
§
Stack Ge. Wnf
Heated Ttflon |
Heated Lines
SaiTiole
®Cal 0
s$>*-&£
\ 3-Woy Valv«
1 —
i
-------
TABLE 31. SUMMARY OF CONTINUOUS MONITORING PARAMETERS
Instrument
Parameter Monitor range
C02 Horiba PIR-2000 0-15%
CO Horiba PIR-2000 0-1,700 ppm
02 Beckman 741 0-25%
S02 Beckman 865 500 ppm
THC Beckman 402 10 ppm propane
NO Bendix 8101-R 5 ppm with
X 1:50 dilution
59
-------
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
1.1
I
p
I
I
5.2.3 Opacity--
A certified (Method 9) opacity reader recorded stack opacity readings
every 15 sec per EPA Method 9. The visible emission observers were EPA
inspectors from Region III.
5.3 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
5.3.1 PCDD/PCDF Analyses
A brief summary of the procedures used for compositing, extracting,
and analyzing the samples for PCDDs and PCDFs are presented in the follow-
ing paragraphs.
5.3.1.1 Sample Compositing—
Fly ash
For each test run, 10 g of each of the 10 grab samples were composited
to form a single composite fly ash sample. Therefore, the final composite
fly ash sample was 100 g, except for run 1 which was 80 g (run 1 was a
shorter test); a 10 g aliquot of the composite was taken for extraction.
Bottom ash
The bottom ash samples presented some problems for compositing since
the samples were very wet and contained materials of varying size fractions
(glass, wire, bottle tops, etc.). In order to achieve more uniform com-
posites, the bottom ashes were air dried and separated into three size
fractions. A 0.250-in. mesh screen was used to separate the largest pieces
of debris (fraction 1) from the composited materials. A second cut of the
bottom ashes using a 0.0937-in. sieve resulted in the removal of additional
fragments of glass, rock, paper, etc. (fraction 2). The resulting sieved
materials (fraction 3) were mixed well and were analyzed as the final com-
posites. Table 32 provides the masses of the three size fractions for the
composited bottom ash samples.
60
-------
TABLE 32. SAMPLE COMPOSITES - BOTTOM ASH
Composite
Run No. fraction
1 Fraction 1
fraction 2
Fraction. 3
Total
2 Fraction 1
Fraction 2
Fraction 3
Total
3 Fraction 1
Fraction 2
Fraction 3
Total
4 Fraction 1
Fraction 2
Fraction 3
Total
5 Fraction 1
Fraction 2
Fraction 3
Total
6 Fraction 1
Fraction 2
Fraction 3
Total
7 Fraction 1
Fraction 2
Fraction 3
Total
8 Fraction 1
Fraction 2
Fraction 3
Total
Mass
c
196 g
373 g
569+g
c
195 g
330 g
525+g
c
111 g
198 g
309+g
111 g
147 g
238 g
496 g
341 g
249 g
410 g
1,000 g
23 g
48 g
206 g
282 g
128 g
131 g
176 g
435 g
105 g
127 g
167 g
399 g
Laboratory,
sample No.
120-BA-8281
220-BA-8281
320-BA-8281
420-BA-8281
520-BA-a281
620-BA-8281
720-BA-8281
820-BA-8281
Extract
sample No.
121-BA-8281-14
122-BA-8281-15
(duplicate)
220-BA-8281-16
320-BA-8281-17
420-BA-8281-18
521-BA-8281-19
522-BA-8281-20
(duplicate)
620-BA-8281-21
721-BA-8281-21
722-BA-8281-22
(duplicate)
821-BA-8281-23
822-BA-8281-34
823-BA-8281-35
(triplicate)
Contents of all field samples were combined, mixed, and allowed to air
dry. Each composited sample was sieved through a 0.250-in. mesh screen.
The residual materials from this step are classified as fraction 1.
The sieved material was taken through a second sieve (0.0937 in.). The
retained material is considered fraction 2 and the sieved material is
fraction 3.
Fraction 3 was given the laboratory sample number.
were returned to the sample bottles.
Tractions 1 and 2
This material was erroneously discarded prior to weighing.
61
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
f
• *
*
I
I
I
L
MM5 samples
The MM5 sample fractioas for each test run were:
a. filter
b. XAD resin
c. first impinger contents/rinse ("condensate")
d. back-half organic rinse
e. front half probe rinse
For each run, the back-half organic rinse and the front-half probe rinse
were combined prior to extraction. All other fractions were extracted
separately, and the extracts combined for analysis (see Section 5.3.1.2
for extraction procedures).
5.3.1.2 Sample Extraction—
MM5 trains
Each MM5 sample consisted of the components presented in Table 33. For
each run, one component of the MM5 train was spiked with 20 uL of a solution
containing the internal standards and surrogates as specified in Table 33.
The composition of the spiking solution is presented in Table 34. The final
impinger contents (water/hexane) were allowed to come to room temperature,
spiked as necessary, and transferred to 1-L separatory funnels. The con-
tents were shaken vigorously, allowed to separate, and the hexane fractions
were removed. The aqueous condensates were each extracted with three ali-
quots of 60 mL of methylene chloride (Burdick and Jackson, distilled in
glass). The methylene chloride extracts were combined with the hexane frac-
tion and the combined extracts were back extracted with Milli-Q water. The
organic layers were separated, dried over sodium sulfate, and stored in a
walk-in cooler until combined with the remaining train component extracts.
The organic rinses and MM5 probe rinses were spiked (20 pL of internal
standards and surrogates solution), where necessary, and were concentrated
62
71
-------
TABLE 33. MODIFIED METHOD 5 SAMPLE FRACTIONS AND SPIKING SCHEME
Sample fraction
Fraction suiked
Run
Blank
Filter
XAD resin
First impiuger condensate
and rinse
Organic/probe rinse
53
-------
I
I
I
•T
*r
I
•
TABLE 34. SPIKING SOLUTION
Mass of compound
_ Compound in 20 pL
•'
13C12-2,3,7,8-TCDD 2.5 ng
P 37Cl4-2,3,7,8-TCDD 12 ng
w*"
_ 13C12-2,3,7,8-TCDF 2.5 ng
•' 37Cl4-l,2,3,4,6>7,8-HpCDD 10 ng
'• 13C12-OCDD. 10 ng
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
using flowing prepurified nitrogen to approximately 5 ml. The extracts
and associated particulate were quantitatively transferred to 6-dram vials
with additional hexane rinses and were concentrated to 1 ml.
The MH5 filters and particulate were placed in Soxhlet apparatus. The
filter samples for runs 1 and 6 were spiked with 20 pi of the surrogate and
internal standards. The combined organic rinses and MM5 probe rinses were
added to the respective filter extractions. The extractors were charged
with 350 ml of benzene and the systems were allowed to cycle for 16 hr.
The extracts from this procedure were combined with the first impinger ex-
tracts and were concentrated to 2 mL using Kuderna-Danish evaporators and
flowing prepurified nitrogen.
The contents of the MM5 XAD-2 resin cartridges were transferred to
large Soxhlet extractors. Samples from runs 2 and 5 were each spiked with
20 pL of the internal standard and surrogate spiking solution. The Soxhlet
apparatus were charged with 500 ml of benzene (Burdick and Jackson, dis-
tilled in glass) and were allowed to extract for at least 16 hr. The re-
sulting extracts were combined with the extracts from the other MM5 train
components and reduced in volume to 1 ml using Kuderna-Danish evaporators
and flowing prepurified nitrogen.
One complete MM5 field blank was prepared along with the actual sam-
ples. In addition, a laboratory method blank was prepared to parallel all
actual sample preparations.
Fly ash/bottom ash samples
Ten-gram aliquots of the composite fly ash samples were each mixed
with anhydrous sodium sulfate, spiked with 200 pL of the internal standard/
surrogate spiking solution, and transferred to Soxhlet extractors. Each
extractor was charged with 350 mL of benzene and the samples were extracted
overnight (16 hr). The extracts were removed and concentrated as described
above.
65
74-
-------
I
I
1
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
'* *
i
i
i
Replicate sample analyses were completed for runs 1, 5, 7, and 8. Two
fly ash method blanks and one field blank were extracted along with the
actual samples. However, only 20 uL of the internal standard/surrogate
spiking solution was added to the blanks.
Bottom ash samples were prepared following the same procedures as dis-
cussed for the fly ash except 20-g aliquots of the bottom ash composites
were spiked with 20 |JL of the internal standard/surrogate spiking solution.
5.3.1.3 Extract Cleanup--
All sample extracts were cleaned using z two-part column chromatography
procedure. The first column (1 x 30 cm) was packed with 1.0 g of silica gel
and 4.0 g of 40% (w/w) sulfuric acid modified silica gel. The second column
(1 x 30 m) was packed with 6.0 g of acidic alumina topped with 1 cm of an-
hydrous sodium sulfate. The sample extracts were added at approximately 1-tnL
final volume in benzene to the silica/sulfuric acid modified silica column,
followed by 90 ml of hexane. This eluent was collected and eluted through
the acidic alumina column, followed by 45 ml of additional hexane and 20 mL
of 20% methylene chloride in hexane. The 20% methylene chloride fraction
was collected for PCDD/PCDF analysis. The extracts were concentrated using
flowing prepurified nitrogen and transferred to 1-mL reactivials. The final
extracts were concentrated just to dryness and refrigerated until HRGC/MS
analysis.
5.3.1.4 High Resolution Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry (HRGC/MS)
Analysis--
The sample extracts were analyzed by high resolution gas chromatography/
mass spectrometry with selected ion monitoring (HRGC/MS-SIM) using the para-
meters specified in Table 35. The level of the PCDDs and PCDPs were calcu-
lated by comparison of the response of the samples to calibration standards
which contained the compounds listed in Table 36.
66
-------
TABLE 35. INSTRUMENT AND OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR HRGC/MS-SIM ANALYSES
OF PCDDs/PCDFs
Instrument:
Column:
Column temperature:
Carrier gas:
Injector:
Mass resolution:
Ions measured:
Homolog
Finnigan MAT 311A
60-m fused silica, wall-coated with SP-2330
(TCDD/F-P5CDD/F) or with DB-5 (HxCDD/F-OCDD/F)
1108C hold 2 rain, 10°C/min to 340°C, hold 10 min
(HxCDD/F-OCDD/F)
Helium
Grob type split/splitless (1-pL injection)
•v 1,000 (M/AM, 10% valley)
Dioxins (m/e) Furans (m/e)
PFK Diphenyl ether
(reference) Interference
Tetrachloro-
Pentachloro-
Hexachloro-
Heptachloro-
Octachloro-
319.9/321.9
355.9/357.9
389.8/391.8
423.8/425.8
457/459.7
303.9/305.9 330.9
337.9/339.9
373.8/375.8 380.9
407.8/409.8
441.7/443.7
373.8
407.8
443.7
477.7
511.7
Internal standards
Tetrachloro-
(37C14)
Tetrachloro-
(13c12)
327.9
331-9/333-9
330.9
315.9/317.9
Heptachloro-
(37C14)
Octachloro
(13C12)
329/331
469.7/471.71
380.9
67
-------
1
1
1
V
V
1
1
1
1
•
1
1
1
1
i
i
i
TABLE 36. ANALYTICAL STANDARDS AND SOURCES
•
Analyte
Tetra-CDD
37C14-
Tetra-CDD
Tetra-CDF
Penta-CDD
Penta-CDF
Hexa-CDD
Hexa-CDF
Hepta-CDD
37C14-
Hepta-CDD
Hepta-CDF
Octa-CDD
Octa-CDF
3 The 13C
Compounds in
calibration standard
2,3,7,8-TCDD
37Cl4-2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-P5CDD
1,2,3,8,9-P5CDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD
37C14-1,2,3,4,6,7,8-
HpCDD
'
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
OCDD
OCDF
12-2,3>7,8-TCDD, 13C12
Source
EPA QA Materials
Branch
KOR Isotopes
Cambridge Isotope
Laboratories
Cambridge Isotope
Laboratories
Cambridge Isotope
Laboratories
Cambridge Isotope
Laboratories
Cambridge Isotope
Laboratories
Cambridge Isotope
Laboratories
KOR Isotopes
Cambridge Isotope
Laboratories
Ultra Scientific
Ultra Scientific
-2,3,7,8-TCDF, and the
Internal
quantitation standard
2,3,7,8-TCDD-13C12a
2,3,7,8-TCDD-13C12
2,3,7,8-TCDF-13Cl2
2,3,7,8-TCDD-13Cl2
2,3,7,8-TCDF-l3Cl2
OCDD-13C12
OCDD-13C12
OCDD-13C12
OCDD-13C12
OCDD-13C12
OCDD-13C12
OCDD-13C12
13C12-OCDD were
from Cambridge Isotope Laboratories.
68
-------
Concentrations of each dioxin or furaa homolog were calculated by first
calculating a relative response factor, then calculating a final concentra-
tion in nanograms per sample using the following equations, which are an
example for TCDD.
A
Relative Response Factor (RET) = ('Std) x
A(IS) L(std)
where: A, ,-. = area of ions m/z 320 and 322 for the unlabeled
2,3,7,8-TCDD in the standard
A(IS) = area of ions m/Z 332 and -334 for
in the standard
CCIS) = concentrati011 of 13Cj.2-2,3,7,8-TCDD in the standard
C, .» = concentration of unlabeled 2,3,7,8-TCDD in the standard
(ag)
c - ^sample) __ C(IS)
L(sample) ~ A, RRJ
where: C, . « = total concentration of all TCDD isomers in the
(sample)
sample (ng)
Af . , = total area of ions m/z 320 and 322 for all TCDD
(sample)
isomers in the sanple
Ax,.--. = area of ions m/z 332 and 334 for the 13C12-2,3,7,3-
TCDD in the sample
= concentration of 12Ci2-2,3,7,8-TCDD in the sample (ng)
The concentration of total TCDF was calculated with the above equations
using the response of ions m/z 304 and 306 to measure the concentration of
unlabeled TCDF and the response of ions m/z 316 and 313 for the 13C12'2,3,7,8-
TCDF. Similar procedures were used for each of the PCDD/PCDF homologs. Ta-
ble 36 indicates the internal standard used to calculate the RRJ values for
each of the PCDD/PCDF horaologs.
69
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
^ **
'f
I
I
1
The calibration standard included 2,3,7,8-TCDD and 2,3,7,8-TCDF; there-
fore, concentrations of these isomers in the stack gas emissions were deter-
mined by quantifying directly against the internal standard.
Stack gas concentrations of specific 2,3,7,8-substituted isomers for
the penta-hepta dioxin and furau homologs also were of interest. There are
thirteen 2,3,7,8-substituted dioxin/furan isomers; these are listed in Ta-
ble 37. Nine of the 13 isomers were identified by matching their retention
times to the retention time of the isomer included in the calibration stan-
dard. Information on relative retention times was provided by the two
sources:
1. Rappe, C. , "Analysis of Polychlorinated Dioxins and Furans,"
Environ. Sci. Tech., _18, 78A-90A (1984).
2. Hale, D. H. , F. D. Hileman, T. Mazer, T. L. Shell, R. W. Noble,
and J. J. Brooks, "Mathematical Modeling of Temperature Programmed
Capillary Gas Chromatographic Retention Indexes of Polychlorinated
Dibenzofurans," Anal. Chem., 57 640-648 (1985).
Once the isomer peaks were identified, concentrations were calculated
using peak areas and the relative response factor previously calculated for
each homolog.
5.3.2 Particulate Matter Concentrations
The probe rinse and particulate filter from the separate sample train
designated as the particulate sample (train B, except run 3) were analyzed
gravimetrically according to EPA Reference Method 5 procedures. The probe
rinse was transformed to a tared 250 ml beaker, evaporated to dryness at
room temperature, desiccated for 24 hr and weighed to a constant weight.
The filter was desiccated for 24 hr and weighed to a constant weight.
70
-------
TABLE 37. 2,3,7,8-SUBSTITUTED DIOXIN/FURAN ISOMERS
Isomer Results reported
1,2,3,7,8 P5CDD Yes
1,2,3,7,8 P5CDF Yes (with 1,2,3,4,8 PCDF)
2,3,4,7,8 PSCDF Yes
1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD Yes
1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD No
1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD No
1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF Yes
1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF Yes
2,3,4,6,7,8 HxCDF No
1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF No
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD Yes
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HPCDF Yes
1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF Yes
Stack gas concentration results are reported in
Tables 10 and 11.
71
-------
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. 1
I
I
I
5.3.3 HC1 Analysis
The first, second, and third impinger contents/rinse of the designated
particulate sampling train were analyzed for Cl . A Technicon autoanalyzer
was used to conduct the analyses by the colorimetric, ferricyanide method
(Method 325.2, "Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes," EPA-
600/4-79-020, March 1979). '
72
-------
-------
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
THRU:
Ambient
for the
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 19107
Air Dioxin Concentration Predictions
Philadelphia Northwest Incinerator
Alan J. Cimorel1i
Source Emissions &
Ap.
E/alu
DATE: JAN 10
luation Section (3AM12)
W. Ray Cunningham, Director
Air Management Division (3AMOO)
James E. Sydnor, Chief /^r,
Air Programs Branch (3AMIO)'
Lewis K. Felleisen, Chief ^ jf^#^~
-------
I
I
I
l»
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
I
L
-2-
In order to address the questions raised, an analysis
of ambient concentrations impacts and risk, were performed
for both the NWI & ECI. It is important to note, at the
outset, that results derived from the ECI analysis are open
to question since stack tests for dioxin were conducted
only at the NWI.
Given the proximity of the two incinerators, and a
desire to define their separate impacts three distinct
analyses were performed. They are:
(1) Impact due to the NWI alone,
(2) Impact due to the ECI alone,
(3) Impact due to the combined operation of
the two incinerators.
SOURCE DATA
At each of the two facilities there exist two inciner-
ator units each serviced by separate but identical stacks.
Since the distance separating the two stacks is small and
the exit gas parameters are the same for each unit it was
possible to model each facility's total emissions as if
they emanated from a single stack.
The total dioxin emissions used in modeling the NWI
were provided by David Cleverly. The procedures that were
used are fully documented in the previously cited memo.
These emissions were derived from the results of a stack
test conducted by Midwest Research Institute (MRI) in March,
1985 and from subsequent calculations using the toxic
equivalency method.
With regard to the ECI, an assumption was made that
the ratio of the emissions from the ECI to the emissions
from the NWI would be equal to the ratio of charging rates
of the two incinerators. The charging rates of the
two facilities were found to be 300 tons/day and 340 tons/day
for the ECI and the NWI respectively. Therefore, it was
assumed that dioxin emissions from the ECI would be approxim-
ately 88% of the emissions from the NWI.
-------
>1 00
ID I-*-
•O 3
i n
re re
en
Q rr
3 3"
rr n
tn
cr
rr C
3- >-•
ft —
TO
ft
rr Ti
re o
i *-i
0 ST
-r, O
rr
BI y
n
to
o
cr «
£. 0>
i-i it
a. re
o "
r-r, fli
rt, 0<3
"° Ei
i B
§• rr
1 ST
i*. re
s?
u CL
!->•
r-( TO
re
B) C
« i-*
a.
rr
3"
m
3
»->•
Wl
ui
H«-
o
3
(n
a.
0>
O
rr
Q>
3"
re
£
O
C
3
B>
rr
m
(u
n
3"
1-1 n K
3 ro »
n g
o
I-l
1
1 u.
1 vO
1 o
' Ul
~J
c-
o
1
1
(
1 -J
Ul
o
i »
1 0
i v£)
i
i
1
1 JN
i 0
1
]
i
i
1
i
i
r
i w
i
1 u>
i r
! -
i
— • — — —
ro
N>
•
t^t
I
\ M Z
3 0
0 r,
M- rr
= ~
n> c
i ro
to ui
rr r^
i S
1
1
o
' 0
1 ^
ro
_
u>
q
(-
-J
-.
^
J>
0
.
£v
.
UI
^
CD
L ^
LJ
0
•
0
u>
Ul
•
Ui
Ion
0
c
,r-|
0
'ro
i
i
i
i
i..
1
f
tu
rr
i_i.
rC
C
Q.
n
I
r
1
S
c
0.
(T)
-
C
TO
0)
•-'
p.
r
**~r
-— -
9
N^-
>*"V
3
^^.
(n
en
s
H-
ca
u;
M-
O
3
M
O
0)
•
a:
ro
H»
era
3"
<
re
o
n
^
^<
'
1
i
(
'
I
1
1
I
1
1
I
!
I
I
1
\
\
1
1
I
1
|
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
I
1
1
H1
O i
x ;
H-l
0 |
n1
J3 !
C '
< >
C" I
fTi '
ru
3 '
rr '
*'
00'
rr •
Si '
O '
^i
i
1
C/l'
rr •
to 1
n '
*"!
i
i
CO!
rr I
X '
n '
?r|
]
I
1
wi
NJ
0
1
Ul
U>
*-
--> H oo
Cm rr
X- 3 B)
— on
i ' *•
ro
Ln
•
C
-^i
^
•
cr.
r
^
C —
.
L_ , l_n
ac en
^-v ro i_
3 M. a
^K Oq
3- •
h •" J
^ C 0=
5 B. a.
v_< rr JQ
ff :
53
CD
c-
-------
I
I
I
*
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
%
I
I
L
-3-
Table 1, presents For each facility, a complete list-
ing of the source parameters and total emissions data used
in this study •
An analysis was performed to determine if the dry
deposition of dioxin would be significant and thus would
need to be accounted for in the modeling analysis. It was
assumed that the entire mass of dioxin emitted was adsorbed
onto the surface of the particulate matter emission. Then,
usinq a typical particle size distribution for ESP-controlled
municipal' incinerators a transformation was performed which
took the distribution from a weight percent by volume to a
weight percent by surface area. This transformation provided
a means of estimating how the total mass of dioxin emissions
would distribute itself among particle sizes. Then, knowing
the percentage of the mass within a particular size range
that, upon encountering the ground surface, would reflect,
(i.e., eddy reflection coefficient) the maximum percentage of
emitted dioxin mass that could dry deposit was estimated.
This was determined to be 0.78%. Therefore, for purposes of
the air modeling analysis, it was assumed that the dioxin
emissions acted as a qas and thus would not dry-deposit as a
result of gravitational settling. This above-described
analysis is presented, in detail, in Appendix A.
MODEL SELECriON;
In order to determine the most appropriate modeling
technique, for any given situation an analysis must be made
of: the relationship between terrain heights and stack/plume
heights. Such an analysis was performed for the area around
each incinerator. Maior results are presented below:
Northwest Inc inerator:
(1) Terrain in most directions achieves stack height
at about 500 m from the plant.
(2) There does not exist any terrain within at least
25 km which could be impacted by a stable plume.
(3) Considering the quite typical condition of "D"
stability 5.0 m/s wind speed, in general, the
terrain rises approximately 50% of the plume's
height above stack top.
85-
-------
I
I
I
A.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
i
I
I
L
-4-
East Central Incinerator;
(1) Terrain in the entire N.W. quadrant achieves stack
heiqht within 5.0 km of the nlant.
(2) There exists a piece of terrain 13 km to the N.W.
which could he impacted under a condition of " F"
stability 2.5 m/s wind speed.
(3) Considering the meteoroloqical condition of "n"
stability 5.0 m/s wind speed, terrain in the N.W.
quadrant beyond about 7 km, in qeneral, rises
apnrox imately 509; of the plume's heiqht above stack top.
Pased on the above results, and considerinq present aaency
Guidance, it was determined that two models were needed in
order to appropriately consider the substantial amount of
terrain which exists between stack heiqht and plume heiqht.
Poth a simple and complex terrain model were run on this
"in-between" type of terrain. The hiqher of the two predic-
tions were then used to represent the predicted concentration
at each terrain location. This procedure produced hybrid
concentration fields which were then provided as input to the
HEM model .
In addition to the oeneral type of models needed it is
necessary to determine the appropriate modes (urban/rural)
for runninq the models. Tn order to do this the Auer '7R
classification scheme was applied, as required by aqency
ouidance, to the area surroundinq each of the two inciner-
ators. For the East Central Incinerator the area was deter-
mined to be urban. For the Northwest Incinerator the area
was determined to be rura] . Therefore, all model runs for
the Fast Central and Northwest incinerators were made usinq
the urban and rural modes of the models resoectively.
Considerinq the above discussion it was determined that
the ISCLT s, T.OMnz models would be most applicable in this
study. A brief rationale for their selection is as follows:
ISCLT:
Can be run in either an urban or rural mode.
Can account for effects on qround level concentrations
produced by buildinq down wash.
Is capable of considerinq all terrain hpiqhts up
to stack top.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
L
-5-
LONGZ;-
. Can be run in either an urban or rural mode.
. LONGZ is capable of considering all terrain above
stack top.
. Is the only readily available, agency sponsored, complex
terrain model which can produce an output that can
serve as input to HEM.
A brief description of each of these models can be
found in Appendix B.
METEOROLOGY:
Based on data availability and the height of the plume
above terrain it was felt that meteorological data taken from
the Philadelphia airport's National Weather Service (NWS)
station would be representative of the two sites. Since
long-term average predictions of concentration are needed for
risk assessment purposes, a 17 year joint frequency distribution
of the necessary meteorological parameters was used. This data
set was chosen since it is the largest set readily available
from the Philadelphia airport. Appendix C provides a complete
listing of the meteorological data set.
RECEPTOR GRIDS:
Two polar receptor grids were used in the modeling
exercise. One centered on the East Central Incinerator and
the other centered on the Northwest Incinerator. Each grid
was designed to contain 16 radials in order to be consistent
with the input requirements of the HEM model. The number and
location of the rings for each grid were designed specific to
the needs of the analysis of each incinerator. Specific ring
placements for each grid are as follows:
East Central Polar Grid (ECG ) :
This grid contains 13 rings located as follow:
. 0.3 km - downwash considerations.
. 0.78 km, 1.0 km, 1.3 km, 1.8 km, 2.3 km, 3.0 km, 4.1 km,
5.3 km & 7.0 km - based on agency modeling guidance.
. 10.0 km - Chosen to include higher terrain receptors.
. 20.0 km & 50.0 km - chosen to extend the analysis to
the limit of modeling capability and thus include the
largest possible affected population.
8
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'»
I
I
-6-
Northwesit Polar Grid
This arid contains 15 rinqs located as fol]ows:
. 0.? km - downwash considerations.
. 0.5 km, 0.65 km, O.R5 km, 1.7 km, 1.5 km, 2.0 km,
?. f km, 3.4 km 5 4.5 km - based on aqency mod el inn
guidance .
. 9.0 km, 10.0 km f, 12.0 km - chosen to include hioh
population areas.
. nn.o km & 5n.n km - choosen to extend the analysis
to the limit of modelino caDability and thus include
the laroest possible affected population.
MOPFLTNG APPROACH :
As was stated previously three distinct analyses
were performed. They are:
(I) Impact due to NWI alone
(II) Impact due to RCI alone
(III) Impact due to the combined operation of the two
incinerators.
Presented below is the approach which was followed for
each of the three analyses.
(I) Northwest Alone:
. This analvsis considered only the impacts of
the Northwest Incinerator on the M.W. qrid.
. The LONH? & ISCTT models were run separately
on the M.H. qr id .
the ISOLT run, all terrain elevations
qreater than stack heiaht were modeled at stack
height: whereas, for the LONGZ model actual
terrain heiqhts were used in the analysis.
. Roth models were run in their rural modes.
. Results of the two runs were compared at each
receptor and the higher of the two concentrations
was assirjned to the q iven receptor.
-------
I
I
I
•^
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-7-
(II) East Central Alone;
. This analysis considered only the impacts of the
East Central Incinerator on the East Central grid.
. The LONGZ & ISCLT models were run separately
on the E.C. grid.
. For the ISCLT run, all terrain elevations greater
than stack height were modeled at stack height;
whereas, for the LONGZ model actual terrain
heights were used in the analysis.
. Both models were run in their urban modes.
. Results of the two runs were compared at each
receptor and the higher of the two concentrations
was assigned to the given receptor.
(Ill) Combined Impacts;
In order to determine the combined impacts of the
two incinerators it was necessary to sum the impacts of the two
sources on each of the two grids. The procedure used is as
follows:
(A) Combined Impacts - E.C. Grid:
. The Northwest Incinerator was modeled on the
E.C. grid with LONGZ & ISCLT separately.
. Terrain was cut-off at stack top to accomplish
the ISCLT run.
. Both models were run in their rural modes.
. The highest of the two modeled concentrations
at each receptor point was assigned to the given
receptor.
. The results of this analysis were added, receptor
by receptor, to the results of the analysis
for the East Central Incinerator alone. This
produced the combined impacts from both
incinerators on the E.C. grid.
-------
I
I
I
«»
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• V
I
i
i
L
-8-
(B) Combined Impacts - N.W. Grid;
. The East Central Incinerator was modeled
on the N.W. grid with LONGZ and ISCLT
separately.
. Terrain was cut-off at stack top to
accomplish the ISCLT run.
. Both models were run in their urban modes.
. The highest of the two modeled concentrations
at each receptor point was assigned to the
given receptor.
. The results of this analysis were added,
receptor by receptor, to the results of
the analysis for the Northwest Incinerator
alone. This produced the combined impacts
from both incinerators on the N.W. Grid.
In order to determine both individual risk and annual
incidence the HEM model was run to evaluate each of the three
cases described above. Documentation of the procedures
followed, the results determined, and the conclusions formed
can be found in the previously mentioned memorandum by David
Cleverly.
Results:
A complete listing of the results found in each of the
three analyses are presented in Appendix D.
In summary, the highest concentrations found are as
follows:
(I) NWI alone - 1.39 (picogms/m3}
(II) ECI alone - 0.7 (picogms/m3)
(III) Combined Impacts - 1.4 (picogms/m3)
cc: I). Barnes (OPTS/ DC TS-788)
J. 'Sydnor (3AM10)
L. Felleisen (3AM12)
D. Cleverly (OAQPS, RTF MD-12)
J. Pearson (OAQPS, RTF MD-14)
I. Milner (3AM12)
-------
Appendix A
This appendix presents the analysis performed to determine
whether the dry-deposition of dioxin emission could be
s i nn i f i r3 r».f flnri fhprpfnrp wnu 1 r5 nopH t- n hp srrnnnhpH fnr in <-hf
air modeling.
I
I Appendix A
•whether the dry-deposition or dioxin emission could be
significan-t and therefore would need to be accounted for in the
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• *
I
*
I
I
The first portion of the analysis is a derivation of the
transformation need to convert a volume weight-based particle
size distribution to a surface area weight-based particle size
distribution. With this transformation a typical volume-based
distribution, for ESP controlled municipal incinerators was
converted, to a surface-based distribution. The surface-based
distribution provides an approximation of how the weight of
dioxin is distributed among existing particle sizes. Basic to
this approximation is the assumption that the vast majority of
the emitted dioxin mass is adsorbed on the sur.face of the
fly-ash particles.
As particles of a particular size approach the ground
surface, a portion of these particles could dry-deposit with
the complement portion eddy reflecting. The fraction of
particles which will reflect is a function of particle size and
can be defined by the parameter (y ); the eddy reflection
coefficient. A functional relationship between £f and particle
size can be found in the ISCLT Users Manual.
Once the distribution has been transformed to a surface
area base, the percentage of the weight which resides in each
size range can be multiplied by (1-2T) to determine the maximum
amount of dioxin that could dry-deposit from the particular
size category. Summing the maximum deposition over each size
category produces an estimate of the maximum percentage of
emitted dioxin one would expect to dry-deposit.
The detailed results of this analysis are presented in
Table Al. Examination of the Table indicates that the maximum
weight percent expected to dry-deposit is 0.78%. Therefore it
was assumed that the emitted dioxin would act as a gas
exhibiting essentially no settling.
A-l
-------
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
* *
i
i
i
L
The following is a derivation of the previously discussed
transformation .
The percentage of the weight of the total distribution of
particulates which resides in the i th category ( V"^ ) is
given by:
where :
Vii, "=" precentage of weight by volume
Vi, «CTotal weight within the £*K category
VT
-------
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
^
If we assume that the mass of interest resides on the
surface of the particles then the percentage of the weight of
the total distribution which resides in the t.'^category is
given by:
where:
I, S Percentage of weight by surface area
since:
M
then:
substituting (1) into (2):
n I
• This expression allows one to transform a distribution of
weight percent by volume to a distribution of weight percent b;
surface area.
I
I
• t
I
i
i
«
-------
I
I
I
I
*»
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
i
•
i
i
L
TABLE Al - MAXIMUM EXPECTED DEPOSITION
SI7E RANGE
(u)
MASS MEAN
RADIUS
(u)
HEIGHT PERCEOT
BY VOLUME
V% x 100
WEIGHT PERCEOT
BY SURFACE
S%i X 100
I 0.7 >
1.0
1.6
3.1
4.8
.0
7.0 -
10
16,
*( Co limn 6) = (Column 5) x (Column 4)
FRACTION EXPECTEC
DEPOSITED WEIGHT
(1 -^ ) PERCRNTT
DEPOSIT!:
| 0.7
0.7 | 0.9
1.0
1.3
1.6 | 2.5
3.1
4.8
7.0
4.0
6.0
8.8
10.3 | 13.7
16.5
20.0
31
24
11
3
3
1
4
3
20
53
32
10
1.4
0.9
0.2
0.5
0.3
1.2
1
0
0
0
0
0.1
0.15
0.21
0.29
0.39
TOTAL =
0
0
0
0
0.09
0.03
0.105
0.087
0.468
0.78%
A-4
-------
I
I
vl
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
L
APPENDIX B
The following paragraphs provide a brief description
of the two models which were used in the study; namely,
LONGZ and ISCLT.
LONG_Z
The LONGZ computer program is designed to calculate
long-term, ground-level pollutant concentrations produced at
a large number of receptors by emissions from multiple
stack, building and area sources.
LONG?, uses statistical wind summaries to calculate
long-term (seasonal, annual or longer) average concentrations.
The LONGZ program is applicable primarily to areas of
complex terrain: i.e., areas where terrain elevations exceed
stack-top elevations.
A summary of the major capabilities of this model follows
B-l
-------
1
I
I
t
f
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
* 1
I
r
i
Reference: -
Availability:
Abstract:
Bjorklund, J. R., and J. F. Bowers. "User's Instructions
for the SHORTZ and LONGZ Computer Programs. Volumes 1
and 2," EPA 903/9-82-004, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106, 1982.
The model is available as part of UNAMAP (Version 6). The
computer code is available on magnetic tape from:
Computer Products
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, Virginia 22161
Phone (703) 487-4763
The accession number of the UNAMAP tape is PB
LONGZ utilizes the steady-state univariate Gaussian plume
formulation for both urban and rural areas in flat or
complex terrain to calculate long-term (seasonal and/or
annual) ground-level ambient air concentratins attribut-
able to emissions from up to 14,000 arbitrarily placed
sources (stacks, buildings and area sources). The output
consists of the total concentration at each receptor due
to emissions from each user-specified source or group of
sources, Including all sources. An option which considers
losses due to deposition (see the description of SHORTZ) is
deemed inappropriate by the authors for complex terrain,
and is not discussed here.
Input Requirements
Source data requirements are: for point, building or area, sources,
location, elevation, total emission rate (optionally classified by
gravitational settling velocity) and decay coefficient; for stack
soruces, stack height, effluent temperature, effluent exit velocity,
stack radius (inner), emission rate, and ground elevation (optional);
B-2
-------
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
i
I
I
for building sources, height, length and width, and orientation; for
area sources, characteristic vertical dimension, and length, width
and orientation.
Meteorological data requirements are: wind speed and measurement
height, wind profile exponents, wind direction standard deviations
(turbulent intensities), mixing height, air temperature, vertical
potential temperature gradient.
Receptor data requirements are: coordinates, ground elevation.
Output
Printed output includes:
Total concentration due to emissions from user-specified
source groups, including the combined emissions from all
sources (with optional allowance for depletion by deposi-
tion) .
Type of Model
LONGZ is a climatological Gaussian plume model.
Pollutant Types
LONGZ may be used to model primary pollutants. Settling and deposition
are treated.
Source-Receptor Relationships
LONGZ applies user specified locations for sources and receptors.
Receptors are assumed to be at ground level.
Plume Behavior
Plume rise equations of Bjorklund and Bowers (1982) are used.
Stack tip downwash (Bjorklund and Bowers, 1982) is included.
All plumes move horizontally and will fully intercept elevated
terrain.
Plumes above mixing height are ignored.
Perfect reflection at mixing height is assumed for plumes below the
mixing height.
Plume rise is limited when the mean wind at stack height approaches
or exceeds stack exit velocity.
B-3
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
i
i
L
Perfect reflection at ground is assumed for pollutants with no
settling velocity.
Zero reflection at ground is assumed for pollutants with finite
settling velocity.
LONGZ does not simulate fumigation.
Tilted plume is used for pollutants with settling velocity speci-
fied.
Buoyancy-induced dispersion is treated (Briggs, 1972).
Horizontal Winds
Wind field is homogeneous and steady-state.
Wind speed profile exponents are functions of both stability class
and wind speed. Default values are specified in Bjoriclund and
Bowers (1982).
Vertical Wind Speed
Vertical wind speed is assumed equal to zero.
Horizontal Dispersion
Pollutants are initially uniformly distributed within each wind
direction sector. A smoothing function is then used to remove
discontinuities at sector boundaries.
Vertical Dispersion
Vertical dispersion is derived from input vertical turbulent inten-
sities using adjustments to plume height and rate of plume growth
with downwind distance specified in Bjorklund and Bowers (1982).
Chemical Transformation
Chemical transformations are treated using exponential decay. Time
constant is input by the user.
Physical Removal
Gravitational settling and ary deposition of particulates are treated
Evaluation Studies
Bjorklund, J. R., and J. F. Bowers. "User's Instructions for the
SHORTZ and LONGZ Computer Programs," EPA-903/9-82-004, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Region III, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19106, 1982.
B-4
-------
I
I
I
•
I
K
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
• »
I
1
f
I
ISCLT
The Industrial Source Complex (ISC) Dispersion Model
combines and enhances various dispersion model algorithms
into a set of two computer programs that can be used to
assess the air quality impact of emissions from the wide
variety of sources associated with an industrial source
complex. For plumes comprised of particulates with
appreciable gravitational settling velocities, the ISC
Model accounts for the effects on ambient particulate
concentrations of gravitational settling and dry deposition.
Alternately, the ISC Model can be used to calculate dry
deposition. The ISC long-term model (ISCLT) is a sector-
averaged model that extends and combines basic features of
the Air Quality Display Model (AQDM) and the Climatological'
Disoersion Model (COM). The long-term model uses statistical
wind summaries to calculate seasonal (quarterly), annual
and/or longer term, ground-level concentration or deposition
values.
A summary of the major capabilities of this model
follows:
B-5
-------
I
I
I
1
»»
I
I
I
i
t
I
i
i
I
i
i
*«
•
i
IP<
i
Reference: Bowers, J. R. , J. R. Bjorklund and C. S. Cheney. "Indus-
trial Source Complex (ISC) Dispersion Model User's Guide,
Volumes 1 and 2." Publication Nos. EPA-450/4-79-030,
031 (NTIS Numbers: Volume 1, PB-80-133044; Volume 2, PB-
80-133051; Magnetic tape, PB-80-133036) Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina 27711, 1979.
Availability: This model is available as part of UNAMAP (Version 6).
The computer code is available on magnetic tape from:
Computer Products
National Technical Information Service
U.S. Department of Commerce
Springfield, Virginia 22161
Phone (703) 487-4763
Abstract: The ISC model is a steady-state Gaussian plume model
which can be used to access pollutant concentrations from
a wide variety of sources associated with an industrial
source complex. This model can account for settling and
dry deposition of particulates, downwash area, line and
volume sources, plume rise as a function of downwind
distance, separation of point sources, and limited ter-
rain adjustment. It operates 1n both long- and short-
term modes.
1GO<
B-6
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
Input Requirements
Source data requirements are: location, emission rate, pollutant
decay coefficient, elevation of source, stack height, stack exit
velocity, stack inside diameter, stack exit temperature, particle
size distribution with corresponding settling velocities, surface
reflection coefficient, and dimensions of adjacent buildings.
Meteorological data requirements are: for short term modeling,
hourly surface weather data from the EPA meteorological preprocessor
program. Preprocessor output includes hourly stability class, wind
direction, wind speed, temperature, and mixing height. For long-term
modeling, stability wind rose (STAR deck), average afternoon mixing
height, average morning mixing height, and average air temperature.
Receptor data requirements are: coordinates of each receptor.
Output
Printed output options Include:
B-7
-------
I
i
I
1
*
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- *
I
I
I
L
program control parameters, source data and receptor data;
tables of hourly meteorological data for each specified day;
"N"-day average concentration or total deposition calcu-
lated at each receptor for any desired combinations of
sources;
concentration or deposition values calculated for any
desired combinations of sources at all receptors for any
specified day or time period within the day;
tables of highest and second-highest concentration or
deposition values calculated at each receptor for each
receptor for each specified time period during an "N"-day
period for any desired combinations of sources; and
tables of the maximum 50 concentration or deposition
values calculated for any desired combinations of sources
for each specified time period.
Type of Model
ISC is a Gaussian plume model.
Pollutant Types
ISC may be used to model primary pollutants. Settling and deposi-
tion are treated.
Source-Receptor Relationships '
ISC applies user-specified locations for point, line, area and
volume sources, and user-specified receptor locations or receptor
rings.
Receptors are assumed to be at ground level, and must be at eleva-
tions not exceeding stack height.
Actual separation between each source-receptor pair is used.
Plume Behavior
ISC uses Briggs (1971, 1972) plume rise equations for final rise.
Stack tip downwash (Bjorklund and Bowers, 1982) and building downwash
(Huber and Snyder, 1976) are used.
For rolling terrain (terrain not above stack height), plume centerline
is horizontal at height of final rise above source.
Fumigation is not treated.
102<
B-8
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
• Rural dispersion coefficients from Turner (1969) are used, with no
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
Perfect reflection 1s assumed at the ground.
I Chemical Transformation
I
I
L
Horizontal Vlinds
Constaat, uniform (steady-state) wind is assumed for an each hour.
Straight line plume transport is assumed to all downwind distances.
Separate wind speed profile exponents (Irwin, 1979) for both rural and
urban cases are used.
Vertical Wind Speed
Vertical wind speed is assumed equal to zero.
Horizontal Dispersion
adjustments for surface roughness or averaging time.
Urban dispersion coefficients from McElroy and Pooler (1968), as
formulated by Briggs (1974) are used.
Buoyancy induced dispersion (Pasquill, 1976) is included.
Six stability classes are used, with Turner class 7 treated as class 6.
Vertical Dispersion
Rural dispersion coefficients from Turner (1969) are used, with no
adjustments for SL.-face roughness.
Urban dispersion coefficients from McElroy and Pooler (1969), as
formulated by Briggs (1974) are used.
Buoyancy induced dispersion (Pasquill, 1976) is included.
Six stability classes are used, with Turner class 7 treated as class 6.
Mixing height is accounted for with multiple reflections until the
vertical coefficient equals 1.6 times the mixing height; uniform
vertical mixing is assumed beyond that point.
Chemical transformations are treated using exponential decay. Time
constant is input by the user.
B-9
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
» *
I
I
I
L
Physical Removal
Settling and dry deposition of particulates are treated.
Evaluation Studies
Bowers, J. F., and A. J. Anderson. "An Evaluation Study for the
Industrial Source Complex (ISC) Dispersion Model," EPA-450/4-81-
002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711, 1981.
Bowers, J. F., A. J. Anderson, and W. R. Hargraves. "Tests of
the Industrial Source Complex (ISC) Dispersion Model at the
Armco Middletown, Ohio Steel Mill," EPA-450/4-82-006 (NTIS PB
82-257-312), U..S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, 1982.
Scire, J. S., and L. L. Schulman. "Evaluation of the BLP and ISC
Models with SF6 Tracer Data and S02 Measurements at Aluminum
Reduction Plants," APCA Specialty Conference on Dispersion
Modeling for Complex Sources, 1981.
B-10
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
1
*
i
I
L
flPPENDIl C
''he following series of tables provides a
co«olete list of Meteorological data
which »as mout to the Models.
HETEDROLDGICftL INPUT DflTfl
fWBIENT ftlR TEKPERflTURE (DEBREES KELVIN)
STABILITY STflBILITY STABILITY STABILITY STABILITY STflfllLITY
1 CflTEBORY 2 CflTEBORY 3 CflTEBQRY * CflTESORY 5 CflTEBOHY &
2S6.0000 286.0000 2B6.0000 2B&.0000 286.0000 286.0000
HIZINE LAYER HEISfT OCTDE)
UIND SPEED UIND SPEED UIND SPEED WIND SPEED UIND SPEED UIKD SPEED
CflTEBQRY 1 CflTEBORY 2 CflTEBORY 3 CflTEBORY 4 CflTEBORY 5 CflTEBORY 6
STflBILITY CATEBORY 1 .160000+004 .180000+004 .180000+004 .180000+004 .160000+004 .160000+004
S'RBlLlTY CflTEBORY 2 .160000+004 .160000+004 .160000+004 .160000+004 .160000+004 .160000+004
STflBILITY CflTEBORY 3 .140000+004 .140000+004 .140000+004 .140000+004 .140000+004 .140000+004
STABI.ITY CflTEBORY 4 .100000+004 .100000+004 .100000+004 .100000+004 .100000+004 .100000+004
STABI_I~Y CATEGORY 5 .100000+005 .100000+005 .100000+005 .100000+005 .100000+005 .100000+005
STABILITY CflTEBORY 6 .100000+005 .100000+005 .100000+005 .100000+005 .100000+005 .100000+005
C-l
5
-------
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
i
I
i
i
i
i
i
I
- •»
%
i
i
L
FDEDUDCY OF ODCURREJCE OF WIM) SPEED, DIRECTION AND STflBILITY
STWILITY CflTEBORY 1
SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED WIND SPEED HIM) SPEED HIM) SPEED
CflTEBORY 1 CfiTESORY 2 CflTEBORY 3 CflTEBORY 4 CflTEBORY 5 CflTEBORY 6
DIRECTION
(DEE WEES)
.000
22.500
45.000
67.500
90.000
112.500
135.000
157.500
160.000
202.500
225.000
2*7.500
270.000
232.500
315.000
337.500
( .7500HPSH
.00004493
.00002900
.00003399
.00003000
.00008899
.00003599
.00009099
.00010798
.00013398
.00008499
.00015797
.00013198
.00007299
.00004699
.00007499
.00005099
2.50QOMPSM
.00016197
.00006799
.00004699
.00008099
.00015498
.00022196
.00017497
.00020897
.00032295
.00026896
.00041693
.00037594
.00029595
.00010798
.00016797
.00014098
4.3000KPSM
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
6.8000WSH
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
9.5000WS)
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
U2.5000WS:
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
STABILITY CRTEGDRY 2
UIND SPEED UIW SPEED WIfffl SPEED U1W) SPEED UIH) SPEED HIND SPEED
CflTEBORY 1 CflTEBORY 2 CflTEBORY 3 CflTEBORY 4 CflTEBORY 5 CflTEBORY 6
DIRECTION
(DEGREES)
.000
22.500
45.000
67.500
90.000
112.500
135.000
157.500
1 BO. 000
202.500
225.000
247.500
270.000
292.500
315.000
337.500
( .7500WSM
.OCO&009Q
.00016097
.00023896
.00018697
.00060090
.00046892
.0004%92
.0005319!
.00054686
.00053191
.00072188
.00072088
.00095185
. 00047&92
.00048392
.00037094
2.5000MPSH
.0012220
.00039594
.00040294
.00061090
.00126180
.00122880
.00122180
.00098684
.00151676
.00128179
.00291253
.00255059
.00186570
.00126880
.00124680
.00114082
4. 3000MPS) (
.OQ12£SSO
.00030895
.00028895
.00039594
.00091985
.00052392
.00052392
.00046393
.00069789
.00115481
.00344245
.00240261
.00151076
.00084586
.00106783
.00089986
6.8000HPS)
.OOOOOOCO
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
( 9.5000HPS)!
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.ooccoooo
.00000000
I12.5000WS
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.OOOOOOCO
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
C-2
106'
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
e
i
i
i
i
i
»
i
i
STABILITY CflTEBORY 3
UIND SPEED WIND SPEED UIND SPEED WIND SPEED UIND SPEED UIND SPEED
CRTE60RY 1 CflTEBORY 2 CflTEBORY 3 CflTEBORY 4 CfiTESORY 5 CATEGORY 6
DIRECTION
(DEEREES)
.000
22.500
45.000
67.500
90.000
112.500
135.000
157.500
180.000
202.500
225.000
247.500
270.000
292.500
315.000
337.500
( .7500KPSM
.00035594
.00013496
.00012096
.00013598
.00034594
.00036294
.•00039394
.00044893
.00052991
.00036094
.00055291
.00051692
.00066789
.00039694
.00032195
.00027096
2.5000KPSH
.00196668
.00063090
.00063090
.00067189
.00157075
.00118781
.00105363
.00104683
.00148976
.00109382
.00365741
.00316749
.00253059
.00125580
.00144977
.00133579
4.3000WSH
.00543613
.00150376
.00110082
.00224164
.00355643
.00134878
.00117481
.00122880
.00240261
.00267757
.01089825
.00881758
.00542213
.00424132
.00478523
.00410734
6.8000KPSM
.00107383
.00020697
.00020897
.00030895
.00042293
.00006799
.00014798
.00012098
.00032895
.00059790
.00196668
.00138978
.00102684
.00116181
.00140277
.00098684
9.500CWS)
.00002100
.00000700
.00000000
.00002100
.00000700
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000700
.00010796
.00002100
.00005399
.00006099
.00008099
.00004099
(12.500WPS
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000700
.00001400
.00000700
.00000700
STftBILITY CflTEBORY *
UIND SPEED UIND SPEED UIND SPEED UIND SPEED UIND SPEED UIND SPEED
CATEGORY 1 CflTEBORY 2 CftTEBQRY 3 CflTEBORY 4 CflTEBORY 5 CflTEBORY 6
DltCTIOS
(DEBREE5)
.000
22.500
45.000
67.500
90.000
112,500
135.000
157.500
180.000
202.500
225.000
247.500
270.000
292.500
315.000
337.500
( . 7500f.PS) (
.00088586
.00039594
.00047692
.00077488
.00174472
.00157875
.00165473
.00148276
.00186070
.00088086
.00122780
.00120082
.00153175
.00067786
.00078487
.00060590
2.5000WPSH
.00620700
.00173872
.00251058
.00526116
.00940849
.00724784
.00628799
.00585206
.00648896
.00342245
.00800571
.00661694
.00658294
.00357743
.00322148
.00347644
4.3000NPSM
.01709826
.00673092
.00834166
.01794312
.01659402
.00724084
.00670392
.00722784
.01620540
.00971044
.02680070
.01331986
.01382378
.01101223
.01060930
.00653563
6.BOOOMPSM
.01826606
.00779775
.00918653
.01639337
.01043532
.00222864
.00228863
.00339545
.01156313
.00751579
.01677631
.00909954
.02144656
.02711665
.02780054
.01662133
9.5000WS)
.00173172
.00094685
.00149676
.00240261
.00122180
.00013498
.00017497
.00046992
.00111482
.00069189
.00151076
.00068489
.00481123
.00827467
.00724084
.00274456
ULSOOOWS:
.00011498
.OC01W33
.000228%
.00031595
.00012798
.00004099
.00000700
.00002700
.00023496
.00008099
.00016197
.00024196
.00153675
.00186570
.00132879
.00040993
107 <
r-3
-------
I
I
I
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
STflBILITY CflTEBORY 5
UIND SPEED UIND SPEED WIND SPEED UIND SPEED UIND SPEED HIND SPEED
COTE60RY 1 CftTESORY 2 CflTEBORY 3 CATEGORY 4 CRTEHJJ7Y 5 CfiTEECRY 6
DIRECTION
(DEBREE5)
.000
32.500
45.000
67.500
90.000
112,500
135.000
157.500
1BO.OOO
202.500
225.000
247.500
270.000
292.500
315.000
337.500
( .7500HPSH
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
: 2.5000WPSH
.00438230
.00065386
.00112782
.00202068
.00371140
.00314749
.00344945
.00425432
.00666393
.00361042
.00835158
.00648896
.00689183
.00401336
.00268457
.00283234
4.3000HPSM
.01138117
.00258359
.00117481
.001B1271
.00158375
.00068483
.00090685
.00124180
.00497920
.00337936
.01177011
.00513418
.01415873
.01155515
.00637466
.00591205
6.BOOOKPSM
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
9.5000HPS)
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
(12.5000WS
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
STflBILITY CflTEBORY 6
HIND SPEED MIND SPEED UIND SPEED UIHD SPEED UIND SPEED HIND SPEED
CflTEBORY 1 CRTEBORY 2 CflTEBORY 3 CflTEBORY 4 CflTEBORY 5 CflTEBORY 6
DIRECTION
(DESREES)
.000
22.500
45.000
67.500
90.000
112.500
135.000
157.500
180.000
202.500
225.000
247.500
270.000
292.500
315.000
337.500
( .TSOOflPSH
. 00303451
.0009%64
.00100384
.00109982
.00199068
.00180371
.00222164
.00263158
.0044892B
.00277455
.00441929
.00544413
.00691089
.00313650
.00280755
.00246260
2.5000HPSX
.00969141
.00167773
.00104683
.00140977
.00230863
.00190669
.00202068
.00232653
.00589905
.00402035
.01176311
.01071628
.01596444
.00803270
.00630099
.00590505
4.3000HPSH
.00000000
.ocoococo
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
6.9000KPSH
.00000000
.ccoccooo
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
9.5000KPS>
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.OOOOOC30
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
(12.5000WS
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
.00000000
C-4
-------
I
I
• . Appendix D
The following Tables present the result of the
• concentration predictions for each of the three analyses.
For the combined impacts analysis there are two tables since
• the combined impacts were modeled on each of the two grids.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
D-l
-------
1
•
1
; _
•
™
•
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
IWWCT RUM
NOOTHE5T IttlNOHTOR CLDC
OXENTOTID6 IN UB/M3
S
SSU
su
USU
u
uw
m
MM
N
ItC
1C
ec
£
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSU
su
USU
u
INI
Ml
wu
N
we
1C
9C
E
ESE
SE
SSE
.200 ta
1.3519-012
6.7120-013
6.0570-013
1.3645-012
1.0896-011
2,9799-011
1.4061-010
5.7808-010
fl. 4867-011
2.6969-010
6.6144-010
1.6963-010
1.9587-010
1.2657-010
7.7934-012
2.4147-012
8.000
4.9219-008
1.6233-006
2.4995-008
4.5647-008
4.8914-008
2.4997-006
2.2067-006
2.5366-008
4.5290-008
2.9246-008
9.7119-008
5.7395-006
7.1809-008
5.3063-008
4.8550-008
13746-006
.500
11298-009
5.6876-010
4.7891-010
1.6257-009
8.9136-009
5.6711-009
6.5717-008
1.2478-007
1.4137-007
1.8213-007
4.8433-007
3. 1613-007
1.3946-007
3.6189-008
1.1282-008
8.4890-009
10.000
4.3356-008
1.3866-006
2,0433-006
2.7958-008
4.1153-008
1.5241-008
1.472S-OOB
2.5697-008
19200-008
2.3051-008
6. 2564-008
17245-008
5.2903-008
4.5300-008
4.0607-008
2.9040-008
_-
.650
7.8687-009
2.0861-009
1.8598-009
10912-009
5.8778-009
1.2630-008
9.4536-006
2.5066-007
4.1900-007
10170-007
8.0194-007
5. 1274-007
4.5251-007
14028-007
1.2730-007
1.1643-006
12.000
18358-008
1.2001-006
1.6386-006
2.8145-008
15198-008
1.3326-006
1.3227-008
2.2882-006
10824-008
1.9675-008
7.1341-008
14253-006
4.7459-008
19238-008
14960-008
2.5340-006
.850
2. 4638-006
4.9281-008
1.3021-007
1. 1437-007
2.0523-008
1.4667-008
4.7662-008
1.6636-007
9.5419-007
5.2998-007
[l.3962-0o4
8.0010-007
6.0224-007
2.6462-007
1.996S-007
2.2576-008
20.000
2.5420-008
7.5110-009
9.6757-009
1.7652-008
2.1379-008
9.4339-009
9.4642-009
1.4746-008
2.9726-008
1.7124-008
17612-008
2.3027-006
12973-008
2.4900-008
2.1665-008
1.6431-008
1.200
1.1006-007
1.2099-007
2.7620-007
2.9573-007
18256-007
11953-008
2.2626-007
1.9055-007
7.5124-007
4.9400-007
9.9451-007
6.4257-007
8.8395-007
6.9970-007
10597-007
6.1954-006
50,000
1.0519-008
2.9103-009
L9636-009
5.9191-009
7.8251-009
5.2045-009
5.4964-009
6.4949-009
1.1921-008
7.5274-009
1.7997-006
1.0664-008
1.4890-008
9.9335-009
6.4639-009
6.7B57-009
1.500
12321-OC7
6.1771-OOa
2.9291-007
14102-007
4.1648-007
4.8577-008
1.7680-007
2.1949-007
7.SC7S--OC7
4.1204-007
9.5918-007
19357-007
4.9400-007
5.1933-007
2.7973-007
6.6781-008
2.000
4.329S-007
1.6262-007
1.9992-007
2.9728-007
2.0686-007
1.0609-007
1.7673-007
2.7122-007
5.51E9-C07
10191-007
7.0681-007
4.1010-007
4.6170-007
4.6134-007
2.6269-007
1.2626-007
2.600
2.7581-007
9.703C-COa
1.2550-007
1.6352-007
2.2532-007
1.0547-007
1.1021-007
1.6579-007
16195-007
1.9911-007
16854-007
2.6464-007
2.8612-007
10431-007
2.0958-007
1.7625-007
1400
2.33*3-007
6.9E27-OOS
6.1923-006
1.3326-007
1.6921-007
9.1700-008
6.6407-006
9.6062-006
2.13fi6-007
1.0853-007
13334-007
2.3797-007
10155-007
2.0059-007
1.5716-007
1.4400-007
4. SCO
1.4A56-007
4.4144-OM
4.9662-008
8.2622-008
1.1135-007
6.7140-008
4.7269-006
6.6182-006
1.1585-007
8.7266-008
3,1345-007
1.6039-007
1.9711-007
1.3296-007
9.4341-008
9.8774-006
110-
0-2
-------
I
1
WPACTF1W
EAST CDfnWL
INCINERATOR
RUM
OKENDttriCK IN IE/K3
1
1
"
I
•
1
•
1
1
1
S
SSU
su
usu
u
VNU
NU
WAI
N
we
HE
ENE
£
ESE
SE
SSE
S
SSU
SU
usu
y
IMi
m
wj
N
we
ME
oe
E
ESE
SE
SSE
.300 KB
3.3907-008
1.0691-008
1.1341-008
1.8941-008
2.2448-008
1.0170-008
1.0410-006
1.0345-008
2.0147-008
2.3340-008
6.7684-008
4.7364-008
4.8674^006
4.8624-008
4.9426-008
3.0606-008
10.000
3.5247-006
1.1590-006
1.2693-006
2.5632-008
2.9208-008
1.4664-008
1.2889-008
1.6153-COa
3.3606-008
2.1658-008
4.8250-006
2.6620-008
4.4046-008
3.6838-006
3.7354-008
2.4199-008
.780
4.7223-007
1.7289-007
2.1382-007
3.9489-007
3.9495-007
1.7398-007
1.5680-007
1.7180-007
3.6397-007
2.5131-007
6.6127-007
4.3533-007
5.6467-007
5.4833-007
5.3886-007
3.5897-007
20.000
1.9598-008
6.0428-009
6.2012-009
1.2642-008
1.4447-008
7.6808-009
7.4298-009
8.225E-009
1.6303-008
1.0306-008
2. 5327-008
1.6120-008
2.3125-008
1.9933-008
1.7735-008
1.3176-008
.
1.000
5.0881-007
1.7761-007
2.1113-007
3.8943-007
4.1479-007
2.0316-007
1.8620-007
2.0318-007
4.0786-007
2,7179-007
7.0460-007
4.7117-007
6.1622-007
5.4820-007
5.2590-007
3.6556-007
50.000
6.4506-009
1.9269-009
2.0091-009
3.8771-009
4.6467-009
2.6725-009
2.6111-009
2.9199-009
5.3807-009
3.3799-009
8.6620-009
5.8670-009
8.0015-009
6.0951-009
5.3815-009
4.1352-009
1.300
4.7291-007
1.5671-007
1.7941-007
3.3914-007
3.6991-007
2.0471-007
1.9334-007
2.1179-007
3.9411-007
2.5460-007
6.4978-007
4.4574-007
5.8992-007
4.8391-007
4.5187-007
3.2649-007
1.800
3.6081-007
1.1395-007
1.2601-007
2.3134-007
2.7563-007
1.6330-007
1.6117-007
1.7355-007
3.1519-007
1.9802-007
4.9386-007
3.4955-007
4.6696-007
3.5663-007
3.2465-007
2.4274-007
2.300
2.6626-007
8.2182-008
8.9316-006
1.6117-007
1.9756-007
1,2404-007
1.2474-007
1.3228-007
2.3817-007
1.4755-007
3.6432-007
2.6286-007
3.5225-007
2.5965-007
L 3345-007
1.7753-007
3.000
1.7897-007
5.4391-008
5.6392-008
1.0389-007
1.3008-n07
8.333J-008
8.4449-006
9.2328-006
1.6121-007
1.0014-007
2.4504-007
1.7963-007
2.4102-007
1.7312-007
1.5432-007
1.1679-007
4.100
1.0563-007
3.1774-008
3.3816-008
5.9220-006
7.5699-008
4.8289-006
4.9235-008
5. 4793-006
9.8169-008
6.0283-008
1.4477-007
1.0753-007
1.4431-007
1.0167-007
9.0102-008
6.9966-006
5.300
6.6394-008
1.9878-008
2.1069-006
3.6876-006
4.8047-006
2.9939-008
3.0363-008
'3.4<43c-006
6.1472-008
3.8469-006
9.106£-006
6.6147-006
9.2819-006
6.3771-008
5.6770-008
4.395B-008
7.000
4.5216-006
1.5413-006
1.6894-008
3.5296-006
3.9310-006
1.7B47-OG6
1.8108-008
2. Cool -003
4.2532-006
2.6015-006
5.9223-006
4.0793-008
6. 0305-008
5.0907-008
4.6237-006
3.1569-008
I
I
D-3
-------
1
1
1
I
. •
1
•
I
•
1
1
1
1
CBBHO lowers at ERST CEHTWL SRID
COGMTHftTKBG IN U6/K3
s
ssw
SH
USW
y
tra
MI
Ml
N
we
1C
DC
E
ESE
SE
SSE
S
ssw
SH
usu
y
uw
m
N
we
1C
EtC
E
ESE
SE
SSE
.300 KB
6.6020-006
4. 2865-008
4.4235-006
5.1629-008
5.5484-008
4.3553-008
4.4082-OOG
4.4196-006
5.4041-006
5.7086HD06
1.0116-007
8.0576-008
8.1584-008
8.1209-008
8.1749-008
6.2766-008
10.000
5, 1418-008
11883-008
4.0270-008
5.9819-006
6.4049-006
1.0606-007
1.7615-007
1.8568-007
8.981H30fl
6.7318-008
B. 4690-008
5.7265-008
6.7501-006
5.7631-008
5.6380-006
4.1525-006
.780
5.0302-007
2.0385-007
2.4525-007
4.2705-007
4.2801-007
2.0999-007
1.9163-007
2.0705-007
19898-007
2.8582-007
6.9510-007
4.6843-007
5.9709-007
5.8022-007
5.7017-007
18969-007
20.000
12260-008
2.4254-008
1.8938-006
2.0562-008
2.8953-008
4.7B70-008
13246-008
19675-OOfl
6.8344-006
18042-008
4.9950-008
4.0725-008
4.1246-008
14741-008
10862-008
2.4771-008
1.000
5.3903-007
2.0602-007
2.4211-007
4.2132-007
4.4785-007
2.3746-007
2.2159-007
2.3903-007
4.4339-007
10664-007
|7. 3857-007]
5.0421-007
6.4841-007
5.7972-007
5.5677-007
19594-007
50.000
1.4069-008
8.0695-009
4.8341-009
7.8977-009
1.29H-008
1.0665-006
9.9605-009
1.3541-006
1.6377-OOfl
1.8825-008
2.0313-008
1.7547-008
1. 8968-008
1.3825-008
1.2046-006
9.8527-009
1.300
5.0237-007
1.8639-007
2.0978-007
17065-007
4.0293-007
2.3939-007
2.2951-007
2.4848-007
4.3034-007
2.8992-007
| 6. 8394-007
4.7869-007
6.2179-007
5. 1494-007
4.8216-007
15616-007
1.800
18907-007
1.4245-007
1.5534-007
2.6215-007
10871-007
1.9860-007
1.9871-007
2. 1170-007
15264-007
2.3412-007
5.2830-007
18233-007
4.9830-007
18687-007
15401-007
2.7130-007
2.300
2.9340-007
1.0955-007
1.1761-007
1.9121-007
2.3022-007
1.5993-007
1.6376-007
1.7199-007
L 7687-007
1.6440-007
19900-007
2.9545-007
18307-007
2.8913-007
2.6193-007
2.0506-007
1000
2.0467-007
8.0263-006
B. 5238-006
1.3274-007
1.6221-007
1.1994-007
1.2571-007
1.3439-007
2.0171-007
1.3800-007
2.7999-007
2. 1192-007
2.7112-007
2.0158-007
1.8161-007
1.4497-007
4.100
1.2928-007
5.5492-008
5.8436-008
8.3996-008
1.0655-007
8,5667-008
9.4455-008
1.0092-007
1.4160-007
9.9603-008
1.7998-007
1.3925-007
1.7327-007
1.2862-007
1.1568-007
9.4235-008
5.300
ft. 8061-006
4.1462-008
4.4399-008
6.4440-006
7.8642-008
6.7361-008
8.1229-006
8.5655-006
1.0815-007
7.9237-008
1.2633-007
9.9130-008
1.2055-007
8.9223-008
8.0700-006
6.6419-006
7.000
6.4566-008
15260-008
4.2303-008
6.7129-006
7.7254-008
6.2647-008
8.6589-008
8.8766-006
9.3869-008
7. 1171-008
9,5071-008
7.0545-008
8.6384-006
7.4474-008
6.8143-006
5.1690-008
D-5
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
* •
I
•
*
I
L
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Risk Assessment of Emissions of CDDs/CDFs from
,.
the Philadelphia Northwest Municipal Incinerator , /'•'// //
^ - 1 r- n"1'* 7/
D '. / .*' •' vj ' "
-f
FROM: David H. Cleverly, Environmental Scientist
Pollutant Assessment Branch, SASO
TO: Donald Barnes
Chairperson/Chlorinated Dioxin Workgroup
W. Ray Cunningham, Director
Air Management Division, Region III
On January 3, 1986, the Chlorinated Dioxin Work Group (CDWG) reviewed
and approved the preliminary risk assessment of emissions of CDDs/CDFs from
the Philadelphia NW municipal incinerator. The following is a synopsis of
the risk assessment methodology used in estimating the risks. The contractor,
MRI, was able to resolve the speciation of 2,3,7 ,8-chlorine substituted
compounds within each homologue group, thus providing a unique application
of the toxic equivalence method in risk assessment.
Description of City of Philadelphia Northwest Incinerator
The City of Philadelphia Northwest Incinerator plant operates two
refuse furnaces which can each process up to 375 tons of trash per day.
The operation of the units is designed to achieve a 90% volume reduction
in refuse. Each furnace consists of a single (primary) excess air
combustion chamber with air cooled walls. Exhausts from each furnace pass
through cooling sprays, two evaporation towers, a two-stage (field) ESP, and
the stack. Figure 1 is a schematic of the northwest incinerator furnace.
An elevated crane with a clam-shell bucket lifts the refuse from the
storage bin into a charging hopper and water-cooled gravity chute. Refuse
drops from the chute onto the inclined traveling grate, which continuously
feeds the refuse onto a horizontal traveling grate. Each grate is driven
by independent variable speed motors. The total effective grate area pro-
vided by the two grates is 480 ft^ per furnace. Combustion air (taken from
outside the building) is provided to each furnace by a 50 HP forced draft
fan. The underfi re/overf ire air ratio is adjusted by dampers in the forced
draft ductwork. The refractory lined furnaces are designed to operate at
a maximum temperature of 2100°F.
Incinerator residues drop off the edge of the horizontal grate and
fall through a series of residue-quenching sprays and onto a. submerged
-------
CM
I*
O
.-I
c
(3
b
u
c
(A
CJ
U
O
O
O
U
•Jl
114 <
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
residue conveyor. The ESP fly ash also is discharged onto-the submerged
residue conveyor. Residue is discharged into trucks.
Furnace flue gases exit the furnaces through spray chambers where air-
atomized water cools the gases to the designed ESP operating temperature.
The cooling water evaporates in the two evaporation towers so that flue
gases entering the ESP are between 550° and 600°F. The cyclonic flow in
the two towers is also designed to remove the largest particles from the flue
gases prior to their entry into the ESP.
Flue gases leave the towers and travel through the precipitator breech-
ing where turning vanes .and baffle plates ensure even gas distribution
throughout the device. Treated flue gases are drawn from each precipitator
by an induced draft variable speed fan and exit the plant through a single
stack.
Risk Assessment Methodology
Stack tests for PCDO/PCDF emissions were completed for both the Unit
1 furnace and Unit 2 furnace in March, 1985. Tables 8 and 10 (copied from
the MRI test report) report the homologue specific and isomer specific
analysis of emissions from Unit 1. Tables 9'and 11 report the same analysis
for Unit 2.
The risk assessment procedure utilized the method discussed in Interim
Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated with Exposures to Mixtures of
(Thlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins ancl Dibenzofurans (CDDs and CDFsJ, October
1985, initially produced by the COWG and reviewed and endorsed by the Risk
Assessment Forum. In general, an assessment of the risk to human health of
mixture of CDDs and CDFs, using the TEF approach, involves the following steps:
1. Analytical determination of the CDDs and CDFs in the sample.
2. Multiplication of congener concentrations in the sample by the toxic
equivalence factors (TEFs) in Table I to express the concentration
in terms of 2378-TCDD equivalents.
3. Summation of the products in step 2 to obtain the total 2378-TCDD
equivalents in the sample.
4. Determination of human exposure to the mixture in question, expressed
in terms of equivalents of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
5. Combination of exposure from step 4 with the carcinogenicity potency
estimate for 2378-TCDD to estimate risks associated with the mixture.
In this case in which the concentrations of the fifteen congeners
• of concern are known:
2378-TCDD Equivalents - sum of: (TEF of each 2378-CDD/CDF congener x the
I concentration of the respective congener)
+ (TEF of each non-2378 CDD/CDF congener x
the concentration of the respective congener)
I
kl
-------
The contractor laboratory providing analytical quantitation of the
stack samples did not have isotopic standards to speciate some of the 2378-
substituted congeners listed in Table 1. Therefore, estimates of mass
emission rates of 1,2,3,7,8,9,-HxCDD, 1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD, 1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF and
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF were made by averaging the emission rate of the quantitated
compound in the homologue by: (1) observing the concentration of the known
compound(s) within the homologue group, and (2) averaging these concentrations
for the stack tests at the same unit. This average concentration of the
quantitated compounds was assumed to represent the concentration and emission
rate of the non-quantitated 2378-CDD/CDF of concern. Refer to Tables 2 and
3 for the calculated results of all the congeners, including the non-
quantitated compounds, in the stack emissions of both Units 1 and 2. For
example, the emission rates for 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF and 1,2,3,6,7-HxCDF in
test 4A are 1.8 pg/sec. and 2.2 ug/sec., respectively. The average of the
emissions for these isomers is 2.0 ug/sec., and therefore, was used to
estimate the emission rate of the other two HxCOF isomers in test 4A. When
only one compound is known, then the emission rate of this compound is
assumed to be the emission rate of the unknown compound. Again referring
to Table 2, since only 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD is known, the emission rate of
this isomer is used to estimate the emission rate of the other HxCDD
compounds not speciated by the contractor laboratory. In test 6B (Table 2)
the ^1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD compound was estimated by observing the percent dis-
tribution of this compound relative to the PeCDD homologue in tests 4A and 5A.
The average percent distribution of the reported 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD compound in
in those tests is 8%. The 8% was multiplied by the PeCDD homologue con-
centration of test 6B in Table 8 (39 ug/s) to estimate the emission rate
of 3.12 ug/s shown for 1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD in test SB (Table 2). A similar
procedure was used to estimate 1,2,3,7,8 and 2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF in test 6B, Table
2, as well as 1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF in test 3B, Table 3. Although emissions of
CDDs/CDFs were reported by the EPA contractor for the stack sample designated
6A of unit 1, the laboratory reported only a 20% recovery of the isotopic
standard used in the analysis. This low recovery rate does not fall within
the range of acceptability (50% to 120% recovery rate), and therefore was
not included in the risk assessment.
The Philadelphia incinerator plant operates two incineration units,
therefore the 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalent emission rate at each unit was combined
to estimate the total emission rate from the complex. About 4.4 micrograms
2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalence are estimated to be emitted each second of plant
operation, or about 16 milligrams 2,3,7,3-TCDD equivalence per hour. This
emission rate was estimated by averaging the three tests at each unit, and
summing the emissions of unit 1 and unit 2. If the incinerator is
operational 365 days each year, then approximately 0.14 kg 2,3,7,8-TCDD
equivalence are emitted into the atmosphere in a year.
A modeling procedure described in detail is given in Alan J. Cimorelli's
memorandum ("Ambient Air Dioxin Concentration Predictions for the Philadelphia
Northwest Incinerator") to W. Ray Cunningham dated January 10, 1986. The
procedure was used to estimate the maximum annual ground-level concentration
of 2378-TCDD equivalence resulting from the estimated mass emission rate.
The procedure used both the ISCLT and LONGZ air diffusion models. The
116 <
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f •«
I
*
I
I
1
TABLE I
COO/CDF ISOMERS OF MOST TOXIC CONCERN3
DIOXIN
Isomer
TEFb
DIBENZOFURAN
Isomer TEF
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1
1,2,3, 7,8-PeCDD 0.5
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD 0.04
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD 0.04
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDD 0.04
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDD 0.001
2,3,7,8-TCDF
1,2,3,7,8-PeCOF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCOF
1,2,3,4, 7,8, 9-HpCDF
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.001
0.001
a/ In each homologous group the relative toxicity factor for the isomers
not listed above is 1/100 of the value listed above.
b/ TEF = toxic equivalence factor = relative toxicity assigned.
-------
TABLE 2
CALCULATION OF STACK EMISSION RATE (MICROGRAMS/SECOND) OF 2378-TCDD
EQUIVALENT CONCENTRATION OF CDDs/CDFs DURING THE OPERATION OF UNIT 1
Congener
2378-TCDD
Other TCDDs
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
Other PeCDOs
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
*l,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
*l,2,3,7,8-HxCDD
Other HxCDDs
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCOD
Other HpCDD
2378-TCOF
Other TCDFs
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
Other PeCDFs
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
*1,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
*2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
Other HxCDFs
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
Other HpCDFs
2378-TCDD Equivalence:
Test
5A
Test
68
1
.01
.5
.005
.04
.04
.04
.0004
.001
.00001
.1
.001
.1
.1
.001
.01
.01
.01
.01
.0001
.001
.001
.00001
0.19
6.70
1.80
20.20
1.40
1.40
1.40
6.8
2.20
**
0.95
18.05
2.20
2.70
18.10
1.80
2.00
2.20
2.00
*•*•
2.6
0.25
**
0.190
0.067
0.900
0.100
0.056
0.056
0.056
0.003
0.002
**
0.095
0.018
0.220
0.270
0.018
0.018
0.020
0.022
0.020
**
0.003
**
**
0.16
5.34
1.27
14.73
1.50
1.50
1.50
6.5
2.8
**
0.54
12.46
1.50
1.90
11.60
1.40
2.10
2.80
2.10
**
3.3
0.25
**
0.160
0.053
0.635
0.074
0.060
0.060
0.060
0.003
0.003
**
0.054
0.130
0.150
0.190
0.012
0.014
0.021
0.028
0.021
**
0.003
**
•**
0.260
18.74
3.12
35.88
2.60
2.60
2.60
15.20
4.60
**
1.20
37.8
6.6
5.12
55.
7.0
5.8
4.6
5.8
18.8
8.1
.31
**
0.260
0.187
1.560***
0.179
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.006
0.005
**
0.120
0.038
0.660***
0.512***
0.006
0.070
0.060
0.080
0.060
0.002
0.008
**
-**
2.13
1.73
4.11
* Estimated values; refer to text for method used.
** Emission rate considered too small
to factor into the analysis
*** Estimated by mutiplying the average percent distribution of the reported
congener in tests 4A and 5A by the homologue in which the unreported
congener is grouped.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
L
TABLE 3
CALCULATION OF STACK EMISSION RATE (MICROGRAMS/SECOND) OF 2378-TCDO
EQUIVALENT CONCENTRATION OF CDDs/CDFs DURING THE OPERATION OF UNIT 2
Congener
2378-TCDO
Other TCDDs
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDD
Other PeCDDs
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDD
*l,2,3,7,8,9-HxCDD
*l,2,3,7,8-HxCDD
Other HxCDDs
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDO
Other HpCDO
2378-TCDF
Other TCDFs
1,2,3,7,8-PeCDF
2,3,4,7,8-PeCDF
Other PeCDFs
1,2,3,4,7,8-HxCDF
*l,2,3,7,8f9-HxCDF
1,2,3,6,7,8-HxCDF
*2,3,4,6,7,8-HxCDF
Other HxCDFs
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-HpCDF
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-HpCDF
Other HpCDFs
TEF
1
.01
.5
.005
.04
.04
,04
.0004
.001
.00001
.1
.001
.1
.1
.001
.01
.01
.01
.01
.0001
.001
.001
.00001
Test
1A
0.14
4.26
1.10
8.90
2.50
2.50
2.50
10.50
3.30
•**
0.35
6.55
0.39
0.52
9.09
2.50
1.38
0.25
1.38
12.49
4.40
0.35
*•*
TCDD
Equiv
0.140
0.043
0.550
0.045
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.004
0.003
**
0.035
0.007
0.039
0.052
0.009
0.025
0.013
0.003
0.013
0.001
0.004
**
**
Test
2A
0.28
8.62
2.20
22.80
1.40
1.40
1.40
7.80
2.80
**
0.76
17.24
2.40
2.40
19.20'
1.60
1.60
1.60
1.60
**
**
0.48
*•*
TCDD
Equi v
0.280
0.086
1.100
0.114
0.056
0.056
0.056
0.003
0.003
**
0.076
0.017
0.240
0.240
0.019
0.016
0.016
0.016
0.016
**
**
0.001
•**
Test
3B
0.17
3.83
1.10
12.90
1.50
1.50
1.50
8.50
3.40
**
0.52
10.48
1.05
2.10
11.50
1.20
1.90
2.60
1.90
**
2.3
**
*•*
TCDD
Equi v
0.170
0.038
0.550
0.066
0.060
0.060
0.060
0.003
0.003
**
0.052
0.011
0.105*
0.210
0.012
0.012**
0.019
0.026
0.019
**
0.002
**
**
2378-TCDD Equivalence:
1.29
2.41
1.48
* Estimated values
** Emission rate considered too small to factor into the analysis
*** Estimated by multiplying the average percent distribution of
the reported congener in tests 1A and 2A by the homologue in
which the unreported congener is grouped.
-------
modeling results were provided as input to the risk assessment. The Human
Exposure Model (HEM) was used for the computation of estimates of maximum
individual lifetime excess cancer risk, and the estimated annual cancer
incidence in the population living within a 50 km radius of the incinerator.
Table 4 summarizes the results of this analysis. The lifetime excess
cancer risk to the most exposed individuals is estimated to be about 5
chances in 100,000 (5 x 10~5). The upper limit excess annual cancer incidence
is estimated to be about 0.07 cases per year (or about 1 case every 14
years) in the exposed population of 5 million living within 50km of the
Philadelphia NW incinerator.
The City of Philadelphia operates a second municipal incinerator,
Philadelphia East Central incinerator (ECI) located 13 kilometers southeast
of the Philadelphia NW (NWI) incinerator. This incinerator has not been
stack tested for emissions of CDDs/CDFs. However, the two incinerators are
of similar design, and are operated in a similar manner, and, therefore, EPA
Region III has requested that estimates of emissions and risk be made based
solely on measured emissions of CODs/CDFs at the Philadelphia NW incinerator
(NWI). To estimate a mass emission rate (grams/second) of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
equivalence at ECI, an assumption was made that the ratio of the emissions
from the ECI to the emissions from the NWI would be equal to the ratio of
charging rates of the two incinerators. The charging rates of the two
facilities were 300 tons/day and 340 tons/day for ECI and NWI, respectively.
From this ratio it is assumed that the emission of 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalence
from the ECI is approximately 88% of the measured emission of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
equivalence at NWI. Therefore the estimated emission rate of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
equivalence is about 3.9 ug/s at ECI.
The estimated maximum annual ground level concentration of 2,3,7,8-
TCDD equivalence in the vicinity of ECI is 0.7 picograms/nP. This corresponds
to an estimated maximum lifetime excess cancer risk to the most exposed
individuals of about 2 chances in 100,000 (2 x 10'5). The upper
upper limit excess annual cancer incidence is estimated to be about 0.06
cases per year (or about 1 case every 17 years) in the exposed population
of 5 million living within a 50 km radius of the incinerator.
Estimates of the risks associated with CDD/CDF emissions from both the
ECI and NWI operating in the City of Philadelphia were made on the basis of
combined impact. The estimated maximum annual ground level concentration
resulting from the combined impact of 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalence from ECI and
NWI is about 1.4 picograms 2,3,7,8-TCDD equivalence m^ of air. The
estimated maximum lifetime excess cancer risk to the most exposed individuals
is about 5 chances in 100,000 (5 x 10"^). The upper limit excess annual cancer
incidence resulting from the combined impact of CDD/CDF emissions from ECI
and NWI is estimated to be about 0.12 cases per year (or about 1 case every
8 years) in the exposed population of about 5 million people living within
a radius of 50 km of the incinerators.
This memorandum is intended to present a summary of the risk assessment.
The reader is referred to the emissions test report for descriptions of
analytical and test protocols used to estimate emissions of CDDs/CDFs (MRI,
-------
I
I
I
i
i
I
•
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE 4
Maximum Individual Lifetime Risk At Receptor Where
Residences Could Be Located, Including Expected
Annual Cancer Incidence Within The Population
Residing Within 50 km of the Philadelphia NW Incinerator
x / » , x Annual
)' Distance(b) Max Individual (c> Cancer
(pg/m3) (km) _ Direction Lifetime Risk Incidence
1.40 0.85 NE 5.0 x 1Q-5 0.07
(a) MAAGL = maximum annual ground level concentration of 2,3,7,8-TCDD
equivalence at receptor where residences could be located.
(b) Distance MAAGL is from source.
(c) Maximum individual lifetime risk of cancer resulting from continuous
70-year exposure to (a), based upon the unit cancer risk estimate
for inhalation exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD of 3.3 x lO"5 (pg/m3)'1
as derived by assuming 100% of 2,3,7,8-TCDD is adsorbed onto particulate;
75% of the inhaled particles are absorbed into the human system; a
breathing rate of 20 m^ of air/day for a 70 kg person. These assumptions
factored with the carcinogenic potency slope of 1.56 x 10^ (mg/kg-day)"^
for 2,3,7,8-TCDD equals the unit risk estimate.
(d) Annual incidence is the aggregate of risks from PCDD/PCDF exposure to
people living within the vicinity of the plant expressed as the number
of cancer cases expected per year. There are 5 million people residing
within 50 km of the incinerator.
-------
10
Emission Test Report: City of Philadelphia Northwest and East Central
Municipal Incinerators. Vol I - Technical Report. EPA Region III. October 31)
cc: R. Campbell
L. Felleisen (Region III)
S. Garg (WH-565-E)
6. Kellam
E. Li 11 is
J. Mil liken (WH-562A)
J. O'Connor
D. Patrick
-------
1
1
*
1
M
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
* *
1
1
1
i e a 2 9 S 2 «
, «ii 90600 =
b< fH a o ri >f> if) a
1) 2S~"i;:
' 1 ' ~ r <7
S
*-
i
s
«"
w
in
i/j
i
l
3
1
?
o
a
gfc
3
i i
a
5
-Ol
1
i
-j
^ so — , jt^oeoooe
O ^4 ^A -^ 3B l ^ O »/^ ^*- O O
. • • trt ^»J »fl ••• si0 fS ^ <^
| « i Z Z S - «**
>«^ 5 S SSSi'^S
i *^ I* • •• • "-
— - ~ - s - iiisiji
a 3 o 9 e o o
Vil 9^ QQO9O9
II KoOOOO
fl ^2|S2JS
,' »v oe «»
1 «> •« n S " 1 *•
•s — « i^ j«eaaeog
ae J " ' - *^a ••MOfc^(^^*
| I!i25 :• 5s"" 2 " - |2gg||
i v 5T ^» f^l ^4
'
1 • >» *
i
[
1
•••»•»«« j^ 0000-5
^^"^3^ ^ >/I>>'ill3i*'« « i!H
~uw ^ 2 2 Z
"ifll-i- l; J s s s si i « 9§§§s*
I 0 « «l 0» « tf u> w W 0 W 0. ^ V. 0, B a 0 t-
a o a e a o a
o e e e a S S
«s e a a «n « o
• • . • . .
— e» ^ N » e
•n -* « 2
.
* • • •
— o o a e r»o
•o e o a •« IT a
Sa a a a e a
a S 3 3 e S
IN e o a e •010
— o> «» a ^ •• o
— — — N a
f*< irt »n o ^i -* a
w « a a o o O
oo a 3 2 5 — g
-•-•*-- „•
! »!!•}
•* o PX o e eio
•^ «o o y fv **1O
^ »*T rt ^ 1^*
i-T
" liilsl
-
3 iisssi
* Q a a w^ ~ a
l
— a a e a oro
(N -» 1/1 *- O •• G
—
o o a e a 4 g
u
* !
u •-
H •*
t
1
V
r
1
.
1
i j *
"". 1» S S B I*. "• J
""_ p u u u 3 •*
- i i •
-------
12
I
*"•
I
F-
i
*
tn
S
to
£
< i
£
u. '
a
z
Ul
S3
a
x
o
a
a
X
ce
O
<
5
S
Ul
p-
I
to.
e
s-
1
i
w
mi
O
f
i
^
a>
•
•
i
1
s
1
1
f
0
z
i
e
i
!
i
_«j < X C Z Z K Z
•a
Bi
i ' il
*-J X X Z Z X X Z
*•)
•»• **i *n ^p K vt o
o« *• *» +& o o •— f*
« z z z 2 z z z z z z z * e. °. ° ° °. -
o e o o o o o
a***"""' lv
page
ui a e a e a oie
u p. o o 0 O 0 0
•1 — e o o « osje
-v -* S "* — 2 "* NIS
in IN ^>
o» 2 «s £ "•) .» e o a o •» o
eo .... >J .. ri 0~«lM«-» BI 1—
a^f^akn p"i tfir*
n a M *x P* < o> v *v •• *^
Cl •
ui e eooeoe
« «o o o o o o o
Sic- "' "" *
•' ~T e' S «, i ™
»«C m ~ ~. z N — eo 1-1 ui o
B .... -^ is — B-'KC a •
— : z o • u k.
— «;^>0-»«c4><-"«M JKM^JKJg^OI' ^^ Saa mm
i uu i-Q. I^IWLILIM^W - a c e a e •
~ « r: i i •!««•>••.». m auuufiw
iQ^Civa ^ W^MXVU . UIAH&UO
1 »40i«lV3V3 M U3KCOOU^ »JS
-s-- Is
S S 2 2 =!§
^f in *N n
._
§000 iMie
o « — v o
r- C. s S S H
j
e
Q
u
^
c
"2
«
2
«
1
l> K
•M !•
c
u •
— e
«• u
u
«* >
a a
6 ,,
" to
^ •
X W
• mm
-------
1
1
1
m
*
1
I
•
I
^^p
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
*
1"
i
it
*
i
i
,
i
>•
X
2 i
S
i
i
3
Q i
£
aa
a
1 ;
*
i ;
a
^ '
e
r-
a !
g ;
t
£
( ..
09
Kp
O
i
w
S
.*
5
«5 |
O
*•
1 i
1
•
1 r
4
"*
i
i
j
;
i
i
i
'
i
i
<
i
i
i
i
1
»
X
§
at
13
: «j>ooQOQ o a o a a
"' S S 5 a a a» —
1 (4 ...---.
el CM •• W — "- -» ao
~ 3 - I] "
**-HB ^""'^S? s^^sssrs
i £ 1 ~ ~ *'4'"
i ^^'
u •# QOOO o 99$9$^^
V ^C ^^ 9 a Q *tf O O O O w k^ ^*
M «^»PSJ«- Hf^^^ltl^
n o
e *» *•
"• « f* •• ~ 1 *
« — com Jl* •*•><** •» O«QO>«O
• vo - »~-v'^«~ a
O -» — Q •» r» ^1• 4B **T ^4 (•*•• 9\ fN f» £ ^4 'S ^« **i
— ' -* Isi !
^« M
O •*- ao -^
^ ^. « ^ Jl^ ^2*"~ ^ — sae<-rtNOO
x. •%. _ •• « *A •« ut ^ *a
CMOO o <*i in4-M o at
O ^ M O sO — !^lfN t—
•^. M •%, ^ . , - 1
rt » — CJ PW CN * 1
<* OOOO O 0 « O 0 O OB sD >
— ("1 O -JS « "^ i«5 ^ ^ -fl ^ "• t— «g 2 * CO'
•- .••^U'^tou 3 x ^i o w ae s
* • rtUO&M^ue S «S ' * ^ ^ "* ' '
* I V"5^tOfe-^ a r l ^." * *u>>*"
at/).*Ju)cA vi VI ,
111
, - -
-------
14
g_
s
o
2
u
|
3S
jg
o
•M
a
b
6 j
z
ce
S
£
I
i
-I
fM
O *
£a
i?
0 «"
if
52
tA
W
S
*
I
0
I
PM
1
<
|
1
e
X.
e
og
i
1
i j
i f
~ ~
0 n _ ^
O fl »fl —
« «0 CO Irt
1/1 ^ WF w* *•••
O «T N
o o — • « « « *••
I
1
i
^* «•»
l"l «0 f <~
. . ca
• ~ o IN
09
BON « « in ^
rxo — Oro •* t£CM
(S — — *N ft ft «•
o ^
~ « e> m
S " 2 "* •
«» m o> •< • • •
V
V
— K ^ e
• ** -Eo"
^s a • —
*«•• o
_ .u
-. - ~ ;••
e £ u • - -
~> MI ta* W •
1 » w u o Ck
- • v ^ UlLfW
U
s s
"si
"•! «
T'a:^r? a v
« — "*». S
3 ••
u
•1 «
3 01
ei
"i
<-i in »-. P-. xj *
«£*s r
s 2
•1 £\
3 S
a V
Jl "
• • • • »j *<
•» m * •» « r-
fs •« » e\^r
r*f
^
10 «
ei x
— ,
|
9 •
> r* ^
»* -c
e AJ
- o w
« -^ s u
k. «< O —
9 • U ->
•— a ^ —
e «i — - o
• WHO S
COB U
Mill
W M ^9 U •
w • • u -
o o o e
0000
~ "^ "*. *.
t— » \« «f
r- ^ *° '"*
t» O O 0
- » •
P-^ T
o ooaeeeo
•a oooootnv
»>- -r-»»«>fleMfs)rf
w *•* *• •• n »rsiomoin«
esT V
*^» *^
to 6 ^ ^ ^ o ^o *n
«s O ~ O O O • 0
u.
a
u
a.
i
•- fcfc§|
n u u s =
P^O S S • 9>
•0 r- f- -* so •* •«
^ P) iff ff ^1 w ^> J
1
e
u
c
*
•
i
o
*
b
e
s
j
^
e
u
t»
a
X
-------
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
^B
1
1
t
1
1
i
-
i
i
*
R-585-11-M1
A FIELD TRIP REPORT FOR
NORTHWEST INCINERATOR DIOXIN SCREENING
PREPARED UNDER
TDD NO. F3-8410-02
EPA NO.
CONTRACT NO. 68-01-6699
FOR THE
HAZARDOUS SITE CONTROL DIVISION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FEBRUARY 11, 1985
NUS CORPORATION
SUPERFUND DIVISION
SUBMITTED BY REVIEWED BY APPROVED BY
/I/ 7 / ./^ i //y
ANDREW FREBOWITZ WILLIAM WENTWORTH GARTH GLENN
ENVION. ENGINEER ASST. MANAGER, REPORTS MANAGER, FIT III
•8 *>*"•*__
.L/c. t <^
-------
Site Name: Northwest Incinerate
TDD No.: F3-8410-02
TAoLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 AUTHORIZATION
1.2 SCOPE OF WORK
1.3 SUMMARY
2.0 FIELD TRIP REPORT
2.1 SUMMARY
2.2 PERSONS CONTACTED
2.2.1 PRIOR TO FIELD TRIP
2.2.2 AT THE SITE
2.3 SYNOPSIS OF DAILY EVENTS
2.4 SAMPLE LOG
2.5 SITE OBSERVATIONS
2.6 PHOTOGRAPH LOG
APPENDICES
PAGE
1-1
1-1
1-1
1-1
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-5
2-6
A
6
1.0 COPY OF TDD
1.0 MAPS/SKETCHES
1.1 SITE LOCATION MAP
1.2 ON-SITE SAMPLE LOCATIONS
1.3 OFF-SITE SAMPLE LOCATION
A-l
6-1
u
-------
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
t
• . ... SECTION!
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
Site Name: Northwest Incinerator
TDD No.: F3-S410-02
1.0 INTRODUCTION
t
*
1.1 Authorization
•
NUS Corporation performed this work under Environmental Protection Agency
Contract No. 68-01-6699. This specific report was prepared in accordance with
Technical Directive Document No. F3-8410-02 for the Northwest Incinerator site
jocated in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
1.2 Scope Of Work
NUS FIT III was tasked to conduct a dioxin screening at the Northwest Incinerator
site, and to conduct an off-site sampling within a 2-kilometer radius of the site.
1.3 Summary
The Northwest Incinerator is an active incinerator used for the reduction of
municipal solid waste from the city of Philadelphia. The site is owned and
operated by the city of Philadelphia. The incinerator consists of 2 burner units
designed to reduce waste volume by 85 percent. Furnace no. 1 was shutdown for
rebricking on October 12, 1984; however, furnace no. 2 is inoperation. Each unit
has emissions controlled by electrostatic precipitators (ESP). The incinerator fly
ash is collected and mixed with the reduced waste, bottom ash. The ratio of ESP
fly ash to bottom ash is 1:250.
The residue is collected and stockpiled on site. The pile under investigation
consists of 200,000 cubic yards of residue, approximately 1 year's accumulation.
Residue from the City of Philadelphia's East-Central Incinerator is also stored at
the Northwest Incinerator pile. The city of Philadelphia contracts for the removal
and disposal of the waste pile. «»
The analysis of samples of ESP fly ash taken in August 1984, revealed the presence
•
of 2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin). The levels of dioxin in furnace no. 1 fly ash were as high
as 28.2 parts per billion (ppb). The concentrations of dioxin in furnace no. 2 fly
ash ranged from 3 to 5 ppb.
1-1
-------
I
I
I
I
*
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
t
1
Site Name: Northwest Incinerator
TDD No.: F3-8410-02
FIT III conducted a sampling of the waste pile and bottom ash and tiSP fly ash from
the operating burner (furnace no. 2). In addition, off-site samples were collected
within a 2-kilometer radius of the site, at locations determined by an EPA
meteorological study. All samples were collected and processed in accordance
with established protocol.
-------
SECTION 2
-------
I
I
I
I
*
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
j»«*
i
f
i
Site Name: Northwest Incinerator
TDD No.: F3-S410-02
2.0 FIELD TRIP REPORT
2.1 Summary
From Tuesday, October 16 through Thursday, October 18, 1984, NUS FIT III staff
members Andrew Frebowitz, 3effery Case, Michael Nalipinski, Thomas Pearce,
Charles Meyer, Mark Volatile, James Strickland, and Robert Howell visited the
Northwest Incinerator site to conduct a dioxin screening. Weather for the duration
of the sampling was clear and mild with morning low temperatures of 55°F and
afternoon highs near 70°F.
The team collected 38 on-site samples; 32 samples were from the waste pile,
including 3 samples from a 4.5 foot trench dug into the top of the pile by the
Philadelphia Streets Department. Three samples each were collected of bottom
ash and ESP fly ash. Off-site sample were collected from 38 locations within a 2-
kilometer radius of the site. Split samples were processed and custody of the
samples was given to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (3
on-site samples) and to the city of Philadelphia (all samples).
2.2 Persons Contacted
2.2.1 Prior to Field Trip
Walter Lee
EPA Region III
Sixth and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215)597-6623
Richaro Zipin
City of Philadelphia
of Public Health
500 South Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19146
(215) 686-5151
Al Cimorelli
EPA Region III - Meteorologist
Sixth and Walnut Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215) 597-6563
Bruce Gledhill
Philadelphia Streets Department
Municipal Services Building
15th and 3FK Boulevard
Philadelphia, PA
(215)686-5554
2-1
-------
Site Name: Northwest Incineratoi
TDD No.: F3-8410-02
2.2.2 At the Site
Walter Lee
EPA Region III
Sixth and Walnut Street
Philadelphia, PA 19106
(215)686-5131
Richard Zipin
City of Philadelphia
Department of Public Health
500 South Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19146
(215) 686-5151
William Lowry
Senior Environmental Specialist
N3DEP
8 East Hanover Street
Trenton, NJ
(609) 984-3068
Bruce Gledhill
Philadelphia Streets Department
Municipal Services Building
15th and JFK Boulevard
Philadelphia, PA
(215) 686-5554
Charles Elmendorf
Senior Environmental Specialist
New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection (N3DEP)
8 East Hanover Street
Trenton, NJ
(609) 984-3068
2-2
-------
I
Site Name: Northwest Incinerator
TDD No.: F3-8410-02
I
I
*
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i - -
I
I
I
.> v
v
I
•*
I
2.3 Synopsis of Daily Events
Date:
Weather:
Personnel:
October 16,
Clear, 60-70°F
FIT III: Frebowitz, Case, Nalipinski, Volatile, Meyer,
Strickland, Pearce, and Howell
Other: Lee, Elmendorf, Lowry, Gledhill, and Zipin
Activities:
7:15 AM
7:15-7:50 AiM
8:15 AM
8:ftO AM
9:50 AM
1:00 PM
1:30 PM
FIT III arrived on site
Command post set up
First team downrange; sampling begins
Hot line declared; blenders in
Janet Luffy (EPA), Channels 3 and 6 arrived on site
Sampling ends
Blenders out; equipment breakdown, leave site
All waste pile samples, except Trenches A-C, were collected. ESP fly ash and
bottom ash samples were also obtained.
Date:
Weather:
Personnel:
October 17, 198*
Clear and cool, 55°F; afternoon highs of 70°F
FIT III: Frebowitz, Case, Nalipinski, Volatile, Meyer,
Strickland, Pearce, and Howell
Other: Lee and Zipin
Activities:
7:<*0 AM
7:^0-8:00 AM
8:10-1:25
9:05 AM
1:^5 PM
2:00 PM
FIT III arrived on site
Command post set up
Off- and on-site samples collected
Hot line declared; blenders in
Blenders out; equipment breakdown
Team off site
2-3
-------
Site Name: Northwest Incinerator
TDD No.: F3-8410-02
Twenty-six off-site samples collected. Trench samples A, b, and C collected. ESP
no. 2 and bottom ash no. 2 obtained.
Date:
Weather:
Personnel:
October IS,
Cloudy, 55-6QQF
FIT III: Frebowitz, Case, Nalipinski, Volatile, Meyer,
Strickland, Pearce, and Howell
Other: Lee and Zipin
Activities:
8:05 AM
8:05-8:30 AM
8:10-11:50 AM
11:05 AM
12:35 PM
12:45 PM
FIT III arrived on site
Command post set up
Off- and on-site samples collected
Hot line declared; blenders in
^lenders out; equipment breakdown
Team off site
Twelve off-site samples were collected. ESP no. 3 and bottom ash no. 3 samples
were also collected.
136-
2-4
-------
1
1 !
I -i
" '^A
'ft ^
f -^
I ^
• I
1
I
1
• 8
1 3
•' 0.
, - ""
1
1
1
I ,
i i
On
«~1
i
X
1 I!
e &
>
^i^
V)
x
N
e
0
^>
c
J
z
0
tt
UJ
tc
0
Z
U
?
0
U
'a
QJ
P
u
O
Z
O
c
u
IU
0
Ul
0.
<
Ul
Z
a
I)
5
J
z
ZJ
0.
Z
1
z
2
UJ J^
* S
a «f
E 1
<5
-j
^
•s».
Q
1
|
V.U
XJ
M
Q
rsj
v>
X
^
^
\
"V
V-
-%
•Vi
..^
X
^
§
^
~^
-------
•, V
N
\>
7t
U
c.
S
V)
•-s
X)
X,
I *
II
X
0
I
1
s
u
O
O
u
u
2
P
u
O
DESCRIPTION
a.
O
G L
AMP
3
* S
u ?•
S
6
t
a
•S'
*$.
XI
'fti
O-
"O
o-
-J
X
Or,
K
Qo
NO
k.
138-
-------
1
I 5
I 4
1 1
t* i •*,
* f^,
% -^
1 j
1
1
1
Q
i i
1- *
i
I
i
•* •*
i ^
™ ^
• — x
I i
t 1
• z
H o
C
^
Tt
i
LABORATORY
COMMENTS/OBSERVATIONS
*
OJ
O
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
PHASE
- _
SAMPLING LOCATION
TRAFOC REPORTS
Or|i»nlc lnor(»nlc Hlih H.riud
^v*
\
^x X
•o
~'
o
-t;
^
0
t
o
s^
s
"
1
-
X
I
cS
-I
~^.
'.i.
' X
-
->
^
13
3<
•
-------
a
z
U
_J
CL
2
-s
eg
o
i
C
o
z
u
5
O
U
u
P
<
O
o
u
O
IU
a.
<
X
1
S s
CC
2 u
U —
^ s
£ !
-j
Ob
V/0
a
>-
QJ
o-
•G
o
0
O
't
(X
j
-K
r*
-------
I
1 ^
9 Wo
I' V.
;
i ^
;
1 l
>m •"
1
1
i §
u
* i
10
1-
1
1
I
g
* i
1-^
t\?,
1 7
• z
• Q
*- e
1
£
X
r
<
0
e
|
|
n:
aj
O
Z
LLt
0
u
=-
p
Bj
Q
SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
in
•z
SAMPLING LOCATION
a
•*» —
»— z
a-
RAFRC RETO
Incrgvilc
V
1
6
,VJ
k\J
Si
s
'3
*** ^
•ij
$
^
^
0
o
Tl
4
^
.*-
I
.
<
i
o
"- -*.
^
&
-±
5
s
X,
^
>
1
Xj
-
«
-
1.
- -
-
«
•
->
-------
C
3
Z
n
§
in
H,
\
"Xj
Oo
C c >
I I
el
K
O
K
2
o
e
O
O
u
nJ
O
O
o
u
.j
0.
U
X
z
o
NG L
e !
I *
* £
c 6
0,
H
/-t
"o
6
N.
o-
&
"S
r-
-------
I
^
1 4
1 ^
t 1
» l-S)
1 1
C
3
i i
i
i
t
i i
, . *j
u
i i
1-
i
i
i
T
1 ,
i I
^p •>-
I \
i
m * 1
• o <
•k. o C.
»- 3
:
"VQ
•^
~»^
rr»
"5.
^
i
e
o
a
|
o
*•
UJ
O
z
o
u
^^
a
u
2
P
O
0
u
UJ
O
UJ
a.
Z
•n
yj
10
Z
U
Z
o
^
•^
u
z
^
&.
z
<
|
*— X
It
2 u
W —
* I
tu —
ft
^»
u
1
6
t
'•?
-^
^J
I
^
~
rC
to
—
' 1
"^
4
^
O
!
(5
v?
-••— .
|
•0
"j
-^
^f
"f
^
^
^
_
.
v-i
-^— ~— -
'-.,
<
i
0
"X*
^0
^>>.
o
^
— — M —
1
£U^7
.>
?
^-
£
\
•^
1
«>_
5.
-
^
v
^
S
iii
^.
• *5
*^
-
14
3<
. -
-
»
-------
Site Name: Northwest Incinerate
TDD No.: F3-S41Q-Q2
2.5 Site Observation
o The site is active. Furnace no. 2 is operating, while furnace no. 1 is
shutdown for repairs.
o Residue is stockpiled on site.
o Residue from the East-Central Incinerator is also stored on site.
o The waste pile was approximately 200 feet by 4-00 feet. Its maximum
elevation was 80 feet.
o The slope of the waste pile was approximately 30 to 40 percent.
o Waste material in the pile consists of burnt metal and glass and compacted
ash. Paper, which was not destroyed by the incineration process, was also
seen in the waste pile.
o The pile is compacted by a bulldozer.
•
o No HNU or mini-alert readings were recorded above background.
o There is a diversion ditch on the western side of the waste pile.
o The northern end of the pile extends to a rock wall.
o A water-treatment pond is immediately east of the pile.
o The site is fenced on all but the northern end. The rock wall prevents
access from the north.
o Off-site samples were collected from the city property (within 10 feet of
the curb) in residential areas. Consent by property owners was given
before collection of any samples from private property.
2-6
-------
1
1 *
TV.
""NJ
f\
S
1 1
*. -J
si-
1 4
><
* !
tf
.
i
* 8
1 E
u.
1 5
§<
to
i . -*
i
•
I
i
r
r~{
• c\
i
1 £
w^O
t
1 £
a
L 1
5
-
-.
1
f i
x)
N
3
^
»
XJ
1
1
fh
o
a.
|
*
bTI
Z
o
a
UJ
e
O
Z
u
%
o
u
*
C
u
a
o
e
c.
£
U
*o
U
O
UJ
.J
a
UJ
Z
fc.
i
§
_j
o
Ij
a.
5
<
*\
•c
3
i
c i
a
2 „
5 i
* S
< ~
u
1
A
'_';
'->
X
'o
o
^
^
— *
t?
jj ^
I"
r-
r~
~~
^
x
<^?
^V>
-s
t
'^
•v.
^
IT
iS
*j i*^
V.
^
IV^I
~-
;°
^
N
^
|3
<$
,o
3
*
1:
N
VN*
-t ^
1
r-
-i
rv.
~
V
^+~>
v/7
^
1
^
cV,
-
C.
^O V
^
^
1
Vj
'5
C
^
^
^
' *
4
v^
Ct
xS-
'
€
"• vt
-J
^
j »
' j ^
-n
i
U
"^
(^
^^"
^
\
^
^
7
^
^
^.
,
"f
.
rj'
* '*j
c
•v
r-
**;
~*
CO
I
^
c
•4
*^>
*\
N
^
-x
^ M
^
Q
i
\J
~\
rv.
^
^
^
1,
^
I
?
^
'j
-.. '';
^ '"*•
J>
«
i**
r~>
"
)
.-s
^
\ v
,N;-
X
I
o
^
'^
i-
C.
r>.
-^
AO
"^
^
~?
^
"fl »j
^
'
•v.
,
X
X,
X
»
^
'i
u
.-^
~>
""
^
f^l
^
5<
'^
un
i
X^)
x-
^
a1
>^
,
,'f
'S
J
— ^
f-'n
^
^
X
.';•
^
|
IV
^x.
fa
X
Ij;
\
V
(N
^
O^
"-
r
'~
"**
* j
^
<
(X
<
t
X
*
fX
•^
*>
• "^
^
s
c
^
-s
5
o
^
';
£
V
—^
l-n
.
CO
1
i
<^
•-
•j*1
,
3
^
\,
*x
^ 1
-~
J
Vj
^
on
^
.
.
\^i
>
^
^
c
'
V
V^
*~\
•s
V,j
^
^
*V
CX.
^
^^
f^
"^
^
^
X-
%
:-
r ,-'
•f X
^ --t
^ <"
-?-
*. '1
X-
_- i
_ Q
•3 "
^
•*%
-*^T>
f
^
IX
^ o
•^^
^,
^"'
,
0
«i.
^
>
^5
X
\)
^.
'»
,
r.
''
'•i
V?
o
1
. i-
X
V;
N
•")
O
r
^
^'
^
xO
N
-
-------
2.6 PHOTOGRAPH LOG
Phoro 1 - Charles Mever collecting
TP6A sample. e
••--•*=-3 •• r-.v- "'----'^ '* '^v-f'r^jS.Ttt»^i'"<-«»';
^^MS-^^^^®^1^^
•w£J#g$£*^-:.f ':^'<&*^g&
•4JS3, •>>'":*^'~^ --cr*->'?"*-•*Ti"l^r. «
^l^^^^^^^*53^^«?au^«5:?i
Phoro 2 - View of TP5A and TP5B
samples locations.
_4B<
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
i
i
i
i
i
1 r
I
I
I
L
Photo 3 - Sampling at locations TP4A and_
TP4B.
Photo 4 - James Strickland collecting
sample TP2A.
"1
&-
47<
-------
_ Photo 5 - Thomas Pearce and Chuc' reye_r_
at sample locations TP3A and TP3"'>
•~^ ""x^.:.
'"^^-c-r.^'^i''
^r^l^' >_-.„ *
fjfl*'
Photo 6 - James Strickland collecting
TP1B sample.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
Photo 7 - Collection of samples S2A
~ and S2B.
1
I
I
i
I
I
«
I
I
Photo 8 - Sample locations S3A and
S3B.
143-
-------
Photo 9 - Sampling of East-Central
— Incinerator residue.
Photo 10 - Thomas Pearce collecting
sample S4A.
-------
I
I
I
•
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
Photo 11 - Collecting samples S5A and
~ S5B.
Photo 12 - Sampling at locations S7A
and S7B.
-------
_ Photo 13 - Thomas Pearce collecting
sample no. 7.
Photo 14 - Jeffrey Case collecting sample
no. 1 at Saul High School.
-------
1
I
I
i
»
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
!"•'
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
Photo 15 - Surveying and collecting off-
~ site location no. 17.
Photo 16 - Station no, 16, sampling 712
Shawmont Avenue.
153-
-------
~~ .Photo 17 - Off-site sampling location
— no. 13.
Photo 18 - Thomas Pearce collecting
sample no. 21 at Schuylkill Valley Nature
Center.
-------
1
I
1
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
'^^^llpfp
Photo 19 - Thomas Pearce collecting
~~ off-site location no. 1 sample.
Photo 2C - Michael Nalipinski and Thomas"
Pearce at off-site location no. 2.
1
-------
- ••>
Photo 21 - View of trench diprgins and
sampling. Taken from com.rKITnd cost.
156-
— Photo 22 - James Strickland collecting —
_ off-site sample no. 5 at Channel 57. '
Incinerate: is in background.
-------
1
. ^
y*-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
I
I
I
I
Photo 23 - View of command post and
blending/decontamination area.
_ Photo 24 - View of sample processing.
-H c;i"H*«
JL«J a
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
I
COST CENTER:
ACCOUNT NO..
REM/FIT ZONE CONTRACT
TECHNICAL DIRECTIVE DOCUMENT (TOO)
2. NO,.
F3-8410-02
3. PRIORITY
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
4. ESTIMATE OF
TECHNICAL HOURS:
450*
4A. ESTIMATE OF
SUBCONTRACT COST:
5. EPASITEID
5A. EPA SITE NAME:
Northwest Inclnerajor
Roxborough, PA
6. COMPLETION DATE:
4 wks after field
work
7. REFERENCE INFO..
QYES QNO
ATT ACHED
Contact Waltei
8. GENERAL TASK nFsrmpTiriN- Perform dloxin sampling at the subject site (enforcement support)
9. SPECIFIC ci EUCMTC- 1.) Obtain all available background information from EPA.
2.) Perform field recon of site to determine sample locations.
3.)
All sampling to be performed according to the most recent dloxin protocol
as written by EPA Region VII.
4.) EPA (Walter Lee) will coordinate lab analysis.
5.) Triple splits will be provided for all on site samples. Doable splits wfll be
provided for all off site samples.
6.) Maintain chain of custody for all samples.
7.) Document all sampling and related activities.
8.) Drum for proper disnosal all contaminated clothing and materials, drums
10. INTERIM
DEADLINES:
11 DESIRED REPORT FORM: FO RMAL REPORT Q
w'll remain on site, EPA will arrange.
9.) EPA w:.l arrange for spiked samples.
OTHER (SPECIFY):
LETTER REPORT
FORMAL BRIEFING
10.) Prepare and submit field trip report including photo documentation.
Coordinate activities with Walter Lee.
'Authorized overtime for field sampling if needed.
13. AUTHORIZING RPO:
14. DATE:
15. RECEIVED BY:
ACCEPTED WITH EXCEPTIONS
(CONTRACnTRRPM SIGNATURE)
REJECTED
16. DATE:
She«t 1
ShMt 2
White - FITL Copy
Canary - DPO Copy
Sheet 3 Pink - Contracring Officer's Copy (Wajhington. D. C. )
Sheet 4 Goldenrod - Project Officer's Copy (Washington, D. C. )
-------
APPENDIX B
1&0<
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
*
I
1
L
./ .j I J?ss 3
, • i f&'XZtT I * ,'> .
,. (WPBS-TV).f ,-
' 'r" -C^ «• -^
-' ' A'lBflTv'l 4 "' ..;. * "i
"—.=-. - Piaygronruv
. -V fct. 3^-^
^1" *^r c«w
MOO 3000 4000 MOO MOD 7000
SOURCE:(7.5 MINUTE SERIES) USGS GERMflNTOWN a NORRISTOWN, PA QUADS.
SITE LOCATION MAP
NORTH WEST PHILA. INCINERATOR, PHILA., PA.
SCALE 1:24000
FIGURE
CXDF=»=)CDRATON
A Halliburton Company
-------
MAINTENANCE
BUILDING
ON SITE SAMPLE LOCATION
NORTH WEST PHILA. INCINERATOR, PHILA.,PA.
(NO SCALE)
CORPORATOR
A Halliburton Compan
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
*
i
A
I
I
L
"\^ -X \ -r?^
^ »
» A i ^-» t
IZ?\bePJ. <*"&
'^High Sch—5°JR;
i v f*. _~" j^3^.
Vr/f'4L
••^•^UT
^J^Wis ^£
; ^- =TrR-t* lO ^ .^
* -.3(»OC»^^ -7
Ji» -V h> 34
^.-
'-" 'A' •".
--. ' ; •' ' v •
-'
1000
200C
3000
•4000
5000
6000
'000 FEET
OFF SITE SAMPLE LOCATIONS
NORTH WEST PHILA. INCINERATOR,PHILA.,PA.
CORPCFlAnC
A Halliburton Compa
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
* J^
I
I
I
IL
DEC 27'
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region III - 6IH 4 Walnut SIS
Philadelphia, Pa 19106
EPA Laboratory Analysis
SUBJECT: Dixoin Concentration - Ash Storage DATE:
Philadlephia NW Incinerator
FROM: Robert Kramer, Coordinator ;
NSWS (3ESOO) \
TO: Bruce Smith, Chief
Hazardous Waste Enforcement Branch (3ES10)
Ray Cunningham, Director
Air Management Division (3AMOO)
Attached are the analytical results of dioxin concentration.
The analytical results have been quality assured and can.be used
to answer all questions regarding dioxin concentration.
Please note that eight sample results are being provided instead
of the nine that were planned. Sample location S7B (Sample //DC009702)
wasn't sent to the EPA labs for analysis.
164-
-------
I
I
I
V
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t -
I
*
I
\
Z
l-l
z
M
Oi
M
U
I—I
Z
s
H
C/3
H
&
O
Q
a,
o
O
M
Q
H
pu
CM
1
Q
a
cj
H
00
m
»
CM
"~^
W
U
1— 1
3
U)
K
C
O
TH
CO
u
a
0)
X:
E
3
Z
•a
&)
^H
Ct,
<;
a.
w
u
J2
E
3
Z
to
1-1
0
H
.c
CB
«£
Cu
U
p_
•*
^
CM
^0
O
1
CM
cn
r-^
CM
o
W
^
oo
pa
^C
1
CU
H
*^
1— (
1
CM
m
i— i
03
CM
O
U
**c
CO
(H
U
C
t-J
H
r**
Cv|
i
CM
CO
i-H
CJS
CM
C
w
CJN
-»
o
CJ
c
(U
H
00
CM
1
CM
CO
<— 1
O
f"O
0
w
OJ
1— 1
«J
^J
C
en
?n
0
a
on
f^
<;
rH
i
P-
H
CM
O
in
>-i
O
CJ
c
>^f
r*^
o
u:
^D
CM
33
rH
|
Cw
H
en
O
m
^
O
(^J
c
t/1
r-i
O
U
oo
vd
^
W5
r-H
C
m
•^
C
CJ
0
vO
rn
O
w
•
o
•
z
^
c
*Q
1— 1
tr.
X
•»-(
i3
JS
r^
m
O
u
•
p
•
z
Jj^
c
re
fMf
cc
X
•**
4-1
CO
S
oo
r-i
O
W
165 <
-------
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
DEC I 7 1984
-Ms. Georgi Jones , . \ . .: .
'Chamblee 28 S - - .-- -
Poom 9 , S.I .G.
Center for Disease Control
Atlanta. GA 30333
Dear Ms. Jones :
As a follcwup to our telephone conversation on December
13, 1984, the information you requested regarding Phi ladelprua1 s
incinerator ash disposal site and material characteristics
are presented below:
Waste Characteristics - The majority of combined bottom ash
and flyash samples from the Philadelphia Northwest and East-
Central Municipal 'Incinerators are expected to yield non-
detectable levels of dioxin. There is a possibility that sone
samples may be in the range of very low concentrations not to
exceed 3-5 ppb of 2,3,7,8 TCDD.
Expected Information on Disposal Site -
Facility Name: Sanitary Landfill Company, Inc.
PA 15fl62
facility Location: v»«~ straoreland County, PA
PA Dept. of Environmental Resources Landfill Pern it »100277
Landfill Fng inoer ing C^sractt-r i st ics : Ncitjral cl-iy 1 inr.t
with a pecniiabi 1 i ty of 10~ CTI/S^C. gravity flow ieachats
collection system with i r-t^rc^^ t ion , tr*-atp>.-?nt and "' isc^artjfc .
Please not^ that other landfills with similar eng inhering.
character istiacs are being considered as possiole ctisfosal sides,
/
In addition, I nave enclosed information coll«.-cted duri'ng oth
municipal incineratcr stucUes dealing with measurements of dioxin.
^%"-?n though w.-> do not h^vu th^ final dioxin asn sample rssults
tor the Northwest and East-Ce-ntral Incinerators, we tuli^ expect
those sajnples to be within the range stated abov^. • \'
As we discuKsea durir.ij o'jr telepnorio conversation or
13, 1984, I ask that you consider tris inronaation during your
health assessn*>r. t subject to verification when additional ash ' N
?djr\ples (9) become availaM- during th«> week of Decenoer 23, 19')4.">-
I ^ at all possible, we wculd appreciate your response by December ;V
1^ . 1984. " • {
-------
-------
If you have further questions concerning either the information
presented in this correspondence or the sample results when they
become available, please do not hesitate to call W. Pay Cunningham
(215/597-9390) or me at (215/597-9812).
EPA appreciates your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Stanley L. Laskowski
Deputy Regional Administrator
Enclosure
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
facility
Ccnbined results
of 5 municipal
incinerators
Typical
Stack Concentration
ng/dson
Total TCDD
N.D.- 8.5
2,3,7,8, TCDO
N.D. - 3.5
2,3.7,8, TCDD |
Flyash Concentration, |
ppb _ |
Hot EJetormined
Total TCDD
Flyash Concentrati
ppb
Not Deterrained
VA incinerator
240
50
1.4 - 2.9
170
Incinerator C
2.0
7.3
-------
I
^ a i
I
, PubNc Ke:lih,£\.'rvic8,(
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH L HUMAN SERVICES ^ ^D^*^
Memorandum
December 26, 1984
Aaeistent Administrator
for Toxic Substances and Disease
Review of Horthwost Incinerator Dioxin Screening Results of Ash Pile
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Charles J. Walters
Public Health Advisor
KPA Region III
As requested, the Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease
Control has reviewed the subject data provided on Deceaber 26, 1984, on the
torthvsst Incinerator to determine if the concentrations detected would
prohibit movement and storage of the ash in the landfill as described in the
eowaanication from Stanley L. Laskowski, Deputy Regional Administrator EPA
d*ted December 14, 1984.
It is our understanding that the level of detection used in the analysis of
the specimens was 20 parts per trillion
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ti
Public Health Service
EPARTMENT OF HEALTH A HUMAN SERVICES Aa«ncy for Tox* Substances
and Disease Registry
Memorandum
Dan December 26, 1984
From Assistant Administrator
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Subject R,vi»w of Northwest Incinerator Dioxin Screening Results of Ash Pile
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
To Charles J. Walters
Public Health Advisor
KPA legion HZ
As requested, the Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease
Control has reviewed the subject data provided on December 26, 1984, on the
Vorthwest Incinerator to determine if the concentrations detected would
prohibit movement and storage of the ash in the landfill as described in the
comnunication from Stanley L. Laskowaki, Deputy Regional Administrator EPA
dated December 14, 1984.
It IB our understanding that the level of detection used in the analysis of
the specimens was 20 parts per trillion (ppt) of 2,3,7,8 TCDD and that usual
and customary sampling and analytical procedures were used. We further
understand that full quality control and quality assurance checks have been
successfully passed.
Given the values ranging from non-detect to 89 ppt of 2,3,7,8 TCDD we do not
feel that a significant public health threat will be posed by the dioxin
utilizing the proposed disposal plan, this assumes that the usual
compaction and cover practices at the sanitary landfill are maintained.
Houk, H.D.
r~<
-------
I
I
I
1 "J
Ci <:>' of Philade 1 ph. i,-j
Room 154O MSB
Philadelphia, PA I"l0e
'/
L.JI''r"1
dvicaster Caboratones
.LI
I
D .-., t ,= p e r-> o r t .---- r|
D^le llutjmv 1: f-c-'d
D i sc.j rd l~J--it.=
p . n . r IG .
Collected by i" 1 I/--D t
1 .-? / 1 4
1 ^/ i 0
L •' 14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f -
I
I
I
EP Toxicity Leachats of Solid Wact>
Collected on 13/10/84 (0830) by BG
5 AS RF.CF.T'.'En
ANALYSTS
PH
Ammonia Nitrogen
Oil .?/. Grease
PhRnolics
An**" imony
Arsenic
Ba r i urn
5
1
2
0
0
i "*,
Q
"0
0
0
1
r.
O
o
0
o
•'U
o
£0
.07
1>
.
. 007
.004
.'X>'i
. !•>
.571
.05
.°B
.7?
. OO 1
. L
. S'j
. 1
.01
. 7
.02
.
m^
mg
1 1 r 4
mg
TTi-J
mg
m-j
mg
m aval en'. C h rom i UTTI
Total Org. Halogen
The above analyses U)I:-T>=> performed an ^n
submitted waste prepared according to tt
Federal Register Ma/ 1'"? 19HO P. 33127.
Leachate Preparation:
1SO.O grams uaste / 2400 ml distilled uia t-e r
Initial pH = 3.07 324 ml of 0.5 N Acetic Acid 'jar. u-ed
to maintain the pH at 5.0 Final, volume was. 3000 ml.
The characteristic of EF Toxicity is d*=termin&-d t:/ whet her :.n/ of th>~
contaminant concentrations (mg/1) \n thp? l^cichat? eiceed thi= t-'o I It .iui n-^
maxima ( 10O X's Primnry Drinking Water "^tand -ir -\-~ •> • Arsenic S.O;
Barium IOO.Q; Cadmium l.O; Chromium 5.O; Lead 5.0 ; Mercury 0. r:;
Selenium 1.0; Silver 5.0; flndrin O.OcJ Liddane O.4; Mf-->thox/chlc-r 10
ToxTphene 0.5; 2,4-D 1O.O; 2f4,c>-TP l.O
rhp» tbove analyses indicate th^it the ••>( il'tni *• t^-d s.^mpl-3 l.)Ot-.S Ni.VI r'-pj =r.pt.'Ci tritr'"l :. n
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
' • ' - • Continued on P.-jqir? c:
i rS^roduced Horn
best availablecopy_
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
*
I
I
ANALYSIS REPORT
L-jiiLLister Laboratories
City of Philadelphia
Room 1540 MSB
rhiladplphiar PA ' 191.OS
EP Taxi city Leachate of Solid W«=5t
Collected an 12/10/84 (0830) by BG
ANALYSIS AS RECEIVED
1 COPY-TO City of Philadelphia
i L T ':-I..iiup 1 e MI j . TL
0 -:.. 1- < ^> r.u t?m 1 1: •* ecJ I ::: /' 1 C-
0 t =C,T rd D %-;:,- I •' ] 4
P . 0 . No .
Ojl 1 r .,-- l,-.,l h .- •". 1 i.-.n-i:
I..AC CD
Attn: Mr. T/ler Wren 1'Jep Ci
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR EXPLANATION OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS
PL '^F--?-: t f i.i
P f • .' i L--IU ~-f1 a i >
; . l-Ji L -,r)n ! !
T n v i r '-tur.i--n t
si it 'in i i i .--d
ii , i • i 1 i -ir i - • -: ,
Apr- r >." •. i- ' I t .
- -I ,>- , t-| /; . r
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
f — -
• TASK FORCE REPORT
JANUARY, 1986
*
i
\
i
NORTHWEST INCINERATOR
OPERATING PROCEDURES AND
CONDITIONS STUDY
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
PURPOSE AND SCOPE 2
TASK FORCE ORGANIZATION 3
FINDINGS
I
Agency Records Review ........ 4
Plant Records Review ......... 6
On-Site Observations ......... 9
Literature Review ......... 13
I
RECOMMENDATIONS 15
• REFERENCES 18
I APPENDIX A - OBSERVATION PROCEDURES A 1
I APPENDIX B - FACILITY DESCRIPTION B 1
I APPENDIX C - DATA AND CALCULATIONS Cl
t
I
m 174
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
L
INTRODUCTION
The Northwest Incinerator was constructed in 1960. During the twenty-four years that this
facility has been utilized for trash disposal by the City of Philadelphia, air pollution control
efforts have been primarily directed toward reducing and maintaining the emission of
particulates and odorous gases to compliance levels. Several fly ash collection and
combustion control improvements have been implemented to achieve this goal.
Numerous stack tests have been conducted during the past ten years to determine
particulate emission concentrations. Several of the reported results exceed the compliance
standard (.10 gr/DSCF at 12% C02)- However, values obtained during the most recent
particulate emissions testing, conducted in 1981, are well within the above standard.
Inspections, visible emissions observations and investigations of odor and flyash complaints
have been routinely conducted by Air Management Services and intermittently by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources and/or the Environmental Protection
Agency, to evaluate the effectiveness of air pollution control measures. These activities
identified the need for the previously noted improvements and have indicated areas of
continuing concern - temperature fluctuations, equipment breakdowns, residue removal
problems, defective control panel gauges and the lack of continuous emission monitoring
equipment.
On August 1 and 2, 1984, an EPA contractor conducted testing at the Northwest incinerator.
The testing included analysis of flyash samples to determine dioxin levels. The dioxin
content of two samples taken from the unit #2 collector was higher than anticipated.
As a result of questions raised by the above testing and prior environmental concerns, an
assessment of Philadelphia's trash incineration facilities was undertaken in November, 1984.
The above assessment included an examination of operating practices related to air
contaminant emissions.
This report contains the findings and recommendations resulting from the operating
practices examination.
-fi
JL
-------
I
I
I
I
*
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
«
I
I
L
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
PURPOSE
To evaluate operating procedures and process parameters related to:
1. Oxidation/thermal destruction of combustible air contaminants
2. Control of particulate emissions and odors
SCOPE
The study included the following activities:
Agency Records Review
Prior inspection findings, descriptions of equipment/operating modifications and stack test
reports contained in Air Management Services' and Department of Environmental Resources'
files were reviewed to extract background operating practices/control information,
Plant Records Review
Plant records (temperature charts, draft charts, precipitator data and maintenance log)
covering operations during the third quarter of 1984 were analyzed to obtain a profile of
incinerator operating conditions and maintenance procedures.
On-Site Observations
Extensive on-site observations of operating procedures and process conditions were
conducted on December 3, 1984 (night shift), December 4, 1984 (evening shift) and
December 5, 1984 (daylight shift). Data available from on-site instruments was
supplemented with volumetric flow measurements.
Literature Review
Reports of dioxin studies available in recent literature publications were reviewed to obtain
emission/control information pertinent to municipal incinerator operations.
-------
I
I
I
I
«•
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
I
i
i
i
i
TASK FORCE ORGANIZATION
Primary Group
William Thompson*
Blaine DeHaven
John Egan
Norman Glazer
Rao Kona
John Knauber
Doug Lesher
Hartwin Weiss
Deborah Woltjen
Agency Records Review Team
Rao Kona*
James Keil
Richard Ruhl
Plant Records Review Team
Hartwin Weiss*
Doug Lesher
On-Site Observation Team
John Egan*
James Keil
Doug Lesher
John Pitulski
Diane Simini
Deborah Woltjen
Literature Review
John Knauber*
DER - Air Quality Control
DER - Air Quality Control
DER - Air Quality Control
Philadelphia - Air Management Services
DER - Air Quality Control
DER - Air Quality Control
DER - Air Quality Control
DER - Air Quality Control
EPA - Air Management Division
DER - Air Quality Control
DER - Air Quality Control
DER - Air Quality Control
DER - Air Quality Control
DER - Air Quality Control
DER - Air Quality Control
DER - Air Quality Control
DER - Air Quality Control
DER - Air Quality Control
Philadelphia - Air Management Services
EPA - Air Management Division
DER - Air Quality Control
*Coordinator
- 3 -
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I. AGENCY RECORDS REVIEW
Finding #1 - During the twenty-four years that the Northwest Incinerator has been
utilized as a trash disposal facility, several flyash collection and combustion control
improvements have been implemented to reduce and/or maintain the emission of
particulates and odorous gases to compliance levels.
Discussion- The significant air pollution control initiatives that have been previously
implemented are summarized below:
Flyash Collection Improvements
1. Replacement of the original cyclone collectors with electrostatic precipitators.
2. Installation of baffles at the precipitator inlet to improve gas distribution.
3. Installation of additional water sprays between the combustion chamber and the
cooling towers to improve furnace exhaust gas temperature control.
4. Rebuilding of the gas cooling and drying towers to improve performance and
reliability.
5. Development of a new Operation and Maintenance Manual for the precipitators.
Combustion Control Improvements
1. Revision of operating procedures to avoid loss of the feed chute seal.
2. Installation of new furnace discharge chutes and an automatic water level
control in the quench tank to prevent combustion upsets resulting from loss of
the discharge chute water seal.
3. Relining of the furnaces to reduce air leakage and improve temperature control.
In addition to the above, the electrostatic precipitators were rebuilt to increase
collection efficiency and taller stacks were erected to improve pollutant dispersion.
Trash and Residue Flow Improvements
1. Installation of warning lights to signal seal breaks in the feed hopper.
2. Modification of cooling tower bottoms to prevent water seal breaks.
3. Rebuilding of the residue conveyors to reduce breakdowns.
4. Purchase of new residue trucks to improve residue loadout.
Finding #2 - The results of numerous stack tests conducted during the past ten years
to determine particulate emission concentrations indicate several exceedances of the
compliance standard.
Discussion - The results of particulate emission testing conducted at the Northwest
incinerator since 1976 are listed in the table on the following page.
- 4 -
178<
-------
1
1
1
„
I
• m
_
,
I
^^B
1
1
•V
1
.
1
1
t ^
1
1
1
STACK TEST RESULTS
PARTICULATE EMISSION CONCENTRATIONS
Test Date(s)
June 22-24, 1976(D
Air Management Services
May 25 - June 1, 1978<1)
Air Management Services
December 19, 1978^)
Air Management Services
January 31, 1979^)
Air Management Services
June 28 - July 3, 1979^)
Air Management Services
December 1-8, 1980
Engineering Science
*August 5-7, 1981
Engineering Science
*Measured ESP efficiencies
**AMS STD. for compliance
Unit
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
during these three
is .10 gr/DSCF at
(l)Incinerator operating data not available for
**Results at 12% CO 2
.0398 gr/DSCF
.0458 gr/DSCF
.0469 gr/DSCF
.0567 gr/DSCF
.1189 gr/DSCF
.1201 gr/DSCF
.3608 gr/DSCF
1.1500 gr/DSCF
.1367 gr/DSCF
.1100 gr/DSCF
.0443 gr/DSCF
.0484 gr/DSCF
.0478 gr/DSCF
.1045 gr/DSCF
.0355 gr/DSCF
.1034 gr/DSCF
.1074 gr/DSCF
.1560 gr/DSCF
.0471 gr/DSCF
.1008 gr/DSCF'
.0475 gr/DSCF
.052 gr/DSCF
.059 gr/DSCF
.039 gr/DSCF
(3) tests varied from 95.8% to 96.1%.
12% CO 2. (Reg. XI, Section III(a)>.
these tests.
- 5 -
1
-------
1
1
^^f-
-
I
5«
I
•
1
1
•
•
1
.
i
1
1
1
I
i
i
L
Finding #3 - Ambient odor problems have been significantly diminished.
Discussion - Improved housekeeping and general operations, e.g., better
of feed chute and residue discharge seals, have diminished odor problem
Very few odor complaints have been received since mid 1983.
maintenance
complaints.
Finding 14 - Measured concentrations of the 2,3,7,8-TCDD dioxin isomer in flyash
samples taken from the #1 furnace in early August 1984 were found to
expected.
be higher than
Discussion - The results of 2,3,7,8-TCDD dioxin testing conducted at the Northwest
incinerator on August 1 and 2, 1984 are summarized below:
LEVELS OF 2,3,7,8-TCDD IN ASH SAMPLES*
Date Furnace # 2,3,7,8-TCDD-pob
8/1 1 ' 28.2
8/1 2 3.2
8/2 2 3.4
8/2 1 16.7
8/2 2 4.4
8/2 1 23.0
*Taken from sampling and analysis report prepared by
Engineering Science.
II. PLANT RECORDS REVIEW
The following records were reviewed:
1. Circular Charts (Units 1 and 2, August/September/October, 1984)
- Furnace Temperature
- Precipitator Inlet Temperature
- Furnace Draft
- Inclined Stoker Speed
2. Precipitator Data (hourly readings, same period as #1 above)
- Primary Voltage
- Primary Current
- Secondary Current
J
-
3. Preventative and Corrective Maintenance Log for 1982, 1983 and 1984
4. Operation and Maintenance Manual
- 6 -
ISO-c
-------
1
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
•
I
•»
I
I
1
Finding 15 - During August, September, and October, 1984, the two units provided for
a combined 128 operating days (unit #1 was not operating for the second half of
October). Over 80% of the operating days (103) contained reports of a total of
320 upset conditions
Number of Occurrences
1. Wet Rubbish 82
2. Hopper (jam-ups or empty unrelated
to crane operation) 80
3. Crane Operation (malfunction or operator absence) 57
4. Other (restarts, emergencies, fan problems, etc.) 41
5. Conveyor 34
6. Precipitator 15
7. Trucks 11
Total 320
Discussion
The primary objective of the plant records review was to determine the type and
frequency of operating problems occurring at the incinerators. The data and
information contained in this finding focuses upon the above parameters and should not
be interpreted as directly proportionate to the cumulative upset time resulting from
the widely variable duration of the identified upset conditions.
1. Wet Rubbish Problems
This problem, accounted for more than a quarter of all upset conditions. The
operating log does not indicate efforts are undertaken to mix wet rubbish with
dry rubbish. Operating adjustments are apparently not properly utilized to
prevent or remedy combustion problems resulting from wet trash, e.g., the
inclined stoker speed is not used to compensate for unusual conditions by speed
adjustments. Instead, the stoker speed almost-always is maintained at a constant
setting. It is totally shut off when furnace temperature is too high which would
cause gaps in the refuse rather than a thinner bed.
The following example illustrates the problem. Monday, August 6, 1984, start-up
occurs for both units with wet rubbish, 1400°F is not reliably reached for Unit #1
in 17 hours and for Unit #2 for 12 hours. The incline stoker for #1 was shut down
four times during the first two hours and ran for the remaining time between 64
and 68 fph. The #2 incline stoker was shut down once during the first hour and
rant at a constant 75 fph for the remaining time.
2. Hopper Problems
Upset conditions caused by low trash levels in the feed hoppers, empty feed
hoppers and jammed feed hoppers were frequently recorded. The above
conditions cause breaks of the feed chute air seal and voids on the furnace grate.
Lack of trash in the feed hopper indicates operator absence or improper use of
the pit as a buffer.
- 7 -
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
Jamming problems were often reported to have been caused by large objects like
refrigerators, metal doors, and other items which should be separated prior to
charging. Stress to cranes and stokers caused by such objects will promote
frequent failures of such mechanical equipment. The problem is compounded by
the use of the crane grapple as a ramming device to force trash through the
hopper. The grapple has been reported stuck inside the hopper. This condition
aggravates the jamming problem and is potentially damaging to both the grapple
and the hopper.
3. Crane Operating Problems
Cranes are recognized as being subject to frequent breakdown in this type of
operation and, therefore, require a great deal of preventative maintenance and
care. Crane problems will have an effect on the operation only in case of
simultaneous breakdown of both units or operator absence, both of which make
this the third most frequent cause for upset conditions.
4. Other Problems
This area covers a variety of malfunctions {restarts, fans, emergencies, etc.).
There were 21 occasions (other than after weekends) that an incinerator had to
be restarted after the fire was allowed to go out. Restarts can give rise to
excessive emissions of air contaminants. Many of these problems appear to be
related to operational and maintenance practices.
At the present time, operational and maintenance practices are such that
corrective action is frequently required after an unusual event has taken place.
The records do not document that preventative actions (i.e., slowing of stoker
speed in response to a decrease in temperature is at or~below criticaj levels) are
undertaken.
5. Conveyor Problems*
A review of the operator logs indicates that three areas of concern need to be
addressed relative to residue conveyors.
a. Winter time breakdowns are frequently caused by freezeups after weekend
shutdowns.
b. On several occasions unburned rubbish resulted in residue conveyor
jamming problems. Wet leaves are frequently mentioned in the logs as
culprits.
c. Jamming caused by large objects is similar to that which causes feed
hopper jammings and is often caused by the same objects.
6. Truck Problems*
These problems seem to affect incinerator operation when residue removal
cannot take place. A disabled vehicle may block access or all vehicles may be
disabled. The log books reveal a large number of breakdowns although only some
cause operational pro'biems for the incinerator.
8
-
-------
I
I
I
I
M
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- »
I
I
I
7. Electrostatic Precipitator
These units may be considered oversized or overdesigned and capable of full
control of a normally operated incinerator. The records show a relatively high
degree of reliability. The logs do not, however, substantiate that preventative
maintenance as required by the compliance agreement plan is taking place.
*As noted on page 4, the residue conveyor's were rebuilt and new residue tracks
were purchased following the period covered by the plant records review.
On 15 of the total 128 operating days reviewed, precipitator problems of one
type or the other were reported. Incinerator operations frequently continued
during the time required to correct the precipitator problems. In August, the #
precipitator "B" field was reported out for up to 8 consecutive days. The
incinerator appears to have been operated during most of the time the "B" field
was down.
ON-SITE OBSERVATIONS
Finding f 6 - Operating conditions during the observed Monday morning start-up
(following the routine weekend shutdown) were Inadequate to achieve good combustion
and resulted in excessive visible emissions.
Discussion - The #1 furnace was restarted at approximately 12:40 a.m. on December 3,
1984 following the weekend shutdown.
Prior to lightoff, the auxiliary systems (induced draft fan, residue conveyors,
electrostatic precipitator, precipitator hopper heaters, insulator blower and flyash
conveyor) were activated. Refuse was then fed to the charging hopper and the
inclined stoker was run until the refuse reached the discharge end.
There is a free fall from the inclined stoker to the horizontal stoker of approximately •
3 feet. An opening below the inclined stoker discharge provides access to this free fall
area. The opening is about 8' wide by 2' high and is equipped with two loose fitting,
free swinging metal flaps.
For light off, the flaps covering the above opening were opened and crumpled
newspapers were inserted on the horizontal stoker grate below the discharge end of
the inclined stoker. The newspaper was set on fire to ignite the refuse and the forced
draft fan was turned on with the inlet dampers set in an almost fully closed position.
The fire was allowed to spread up the inclined stoker before the stokers were turned
on.
Refuse levels in the plants holding pits were very low. Wet leaves were a major
constituent of the remaining material and, therefore, a large portion of the refuse fed
to the unit at startup and for several hours thereafter consisted of wet leaves.
In the early stages of operation after light off, the operator had to continually check
the fire through the rear view port and make adjustments accordingly. The speed of
both stokers was gradually increased as was the volume of forced combustion air. The
ID fan modulated automatically to maintain a relatively constant furnace draft. The
- 9 -
-------
I
I
I
1
I
I
operator started and stopped the inclined stoker and varied the speed of that stoker
._ numerous times between light off and 2:00 a.m., at which time the speed was fixed at
• 66 feet per hour.
The precipitator inlet temperature reached 400°F within 20 minutes from light off and
f within 40 minutes of light off the precipitator inlet temperature stabilized at
approximately 560°F. It required one hour and 10 minutes from light off for the
Furnace to mnpratnpp tn rpar*h IJOftOF.
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
The average grate loading, based upon the 15.9 tons/hr. charging rate, was
66.25 Ibs./ft.Z/hr. Assuming an average refuse heating value of 4,400 BTU/lb., the
calculated volumetric heat release for the furnace was approximately
15,000 BTU/hr./ftA These grate loading and furnace heat release values are within
accepted design limits for this tyoe of incinerator. However, the above loading is
considerably above the 40 Ibs./ft.Vhr. grate loading recommended by EPA in its "Field
Surveillance and Enforcement Guide: Combustion and Incineration Sources"
(APTD - 1449, 1973, pg. 9-3).
The most surprising observations were the thickness of the bed at the discharge end of
the horizontal stoker and the large quantities of unburned and partially burned
furnace temperature to reach
One inspector observed the incinerator exhaust stack during startup. Darkness
prevented reading accurate opacities, but it was observed that excessive smoking
occurred during the first hour following light off.
Finding #7 - Bulky and/or non-typical trash items were frequently charged to the
incinerator.
Discussion - Bulky and/or non-typical items, i.e., large pieces of furniture, mattresses,
carpets, tires, etc. were frequently included in the refuse charged to the incinerator.
Some of these materials resulted in diminished burning of localized areas of the refuse
bed and appeared to contribute to the discharge of partially combusted and/or
uncombusted materials from the furnace grate.
Finding #8 - Combustion of the refuse bed was observed to be incomplete and the
residue discharged from the furnace grates contained significant quantities of
unburned and/or partially burned trash,
Discussion - Failure to achieve effective burnout of the refuse bed appeared to be, in
part, due to the Limited mixing action inherent in the grate design. Observed charging
procedures and stoker operating practices also appeared to contribute significantly to
the burnout problem.
The clam shell buckets used for charging have a 3 yard** volume. However, it was
typical for the bucket to pick up 1? times its closed volume. During the 3 days of
observation, the charging rate was 18.9 buckets/hr. Plant records indicate that the
average mass charging weight for the week beginning December 3, 1984 was
15.9 tons/hr. These values yield a trash density of approximately 560 Ibs./yd.^, based
upon a 3 yard** bucket volume. Given the >3 yard^ actual pickup volume, it is
reasonable to conclude that the actual trash density was somewhat less than the above
value, but near the high end of municipal trash densities referenced in the literature.
(Reference densities range from 270-540
- 10 -
-------
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
* V
I
I
I
IL
materials being discharged to the residue sump. Occasionally, the bed appeared to be
as much as 4 feet deep and typically was at least 2$ feet deep at the point of
discharge. At times, observers estimated that as much as 50% of the residue consisted
of unburned refuse. It is important to note that the bed depth and trash burnout
conditions described above depict refuse that had been in the furnace chamber for
approximately 45 minutes.
As the residue was discharged from the stoker, newly exposed material would quickly
flame up as if it had been starved for oxygen and it was obvious that some of the
refuse was being totally insulated from combustion conditions. An automobile tire was
observed in the residue that had apparently been buried on the grate in a standing
position. The top portion was completely burned away to the reinforcing wires while
the entire bottom section of side wall and tread remained totally intact. Plastic soda
bottles which hadn't been burned or melted were observed in the residue along with
partially burned newspaper, rags and branches.
Given the above conditions, it is possible that materials that could contribute to the
formation or release of organic air contaminants may not be exposed to combustion
conditions until just prior to discharge. Air contaminants released at this point may
not be exposed to adequate retention time/temperature conditions for complete
oxidation as the area at the discharge end of the stoker is also the shortest distance
from the furnace gas exit and lies outside the normal flame path.
Finding f 9 - Numerous large pieces of entrained refuse blown from the refuse bed or
drawn from the stoker discharge area were observed to be incompletely combusted and
still burning as they were exhausted from the furnace and entered the quench spray
area.
Discussion -"Velocity traverses were made during the observation inspections
conducted on December 3, 4 and 5, 1984. The volumetric flow rates determined by
these under normal operating conditions were consistent. The following flow rates are
representative of these measurements:
Traverse Site Volume SCFM
Exhaust Stack 67,000
Under fire air-inclined stoker 11,000
Under fire air horizontal stoker 19, OOP
Total underfire 30,000
Over fire 7,000
Wall cooling air duct 3,000
Total forced draft air 40,000
Unaccounted for induced air* 27,000
"Signficant quantities of air were drawn into the combustion chamber through the
flaps beneath the inclined stoker. Other sources, e.g., the access door at the rear of
the furnace, view ports, etc. were also noted. It is reasonable to conclude that the
unaccounted for induced air entered from these sources and air leaks occurring in the
system down stream of the furnace.
- 11 -
185 <
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I *
I
I
I
Calculation of an actual underfire to overfire air ratio is complicated by the
uncertainties regarding1 air volumes induced through door flaps and other openings.
Based upon the air volumes delivered by the forced fan system, the underfire to
overfire air ratio would be in the range of 3.5:1 to 4.0:1. An underfire to overfire air
ratio of 1:2 to 1:1, depending upon the moisture content of the refuse, is recommended
by the reviewed municipal incineration reference literature. If it is assumed that 50%
of the unaccounted for air is induced into the combustion chamber as overfire air, the
underfire ratio would be reduced to approximately 1.25:1. This circumstance could not
be confirmed from the available measurements or observations. Given the
uncertainties resulting from the large volume of unaccounted for air, the actual
underfire to overfire air could not be precisely determined. However both the values
determined from delivered air rates and observations indicate the underfire to overfire
air ratio may be signifinantly above the recommended range.
Theoretical combustion air for municipal refuse is, of course, dependent upon the
combustibles content and composition of the refuse. Based upon typical municipal
refuse composition and the 15.9 tons/hr. charging rate, it is reasonable to expect that
the theoretical air requirement during the observed intervals was within the 15,000 to
20,000 scfm range. Based upon the above, fan delivered combustion air would
represent aproximately 125% of theoretical air requirements. It is important to note
that significant quantities of combustible materials were not burned, and excess air
levels for the refuse actually undergoing combustion would therefore be significantly
higher than the 125 to 150% range as determined by theoretical requirements for the
refuse charged.
The average measured stack exhaust volume was measured to be approximately
67,000 scfmn. However, it is important to recognize that only 40,000 scfm was
introduced to the furnace by the combustion air delivery system. A significant portion
of this 27,000 scfm may have entered the system downstream of the combustion
chamber and the workroom air that was drawn into the furnace through observed
openings could not be considered overfire air and, at least in part, may not have been
effectively available for combustion.
Finding 910 - Temperatures in the expanded section at the exhaust end of the
combustion chamber were consistently maintained at levels above 1400°F.
Discussion - The operators were able to consistently maintain relatively high furnace
temperatures, primarily by adjustment of both overfire and underfire air dampers.
This was apparently a priority objective that overshadowed consideration of the other
factors required for complete combustion.
The necessity to maintain required temperature levels was explained as the basis for
not reducing stoker speeds during the frequent occasions when significant quantities of
unburned refuse were being discharged from the discharge end of the stoker. (The
records indicate that stoker speeds are sometimes reduced without loss of
temperature, e.g., during the 12 to 8 shift on December 4, 1984 the recorded inclined
stoker speed was 40 ft/ht and furnace temperatures were maintained within the
1500°F to 1700°F range.)
Gas mixing and retention time are also critical factors that must be considered to
access the combustion effectiveness that can be achieved at a given furnace
temperature level. The internal furnace configuration does not appear to provide the
- 12 -
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I
- »
I
i
i
L
turbulence needed to achieve good mixing of the combustion gases and the actual
flame pattern inside the furnace appeared to follow a nearly straight line from the
stoker to the furnace exhaust gas exit.
Finding 111 - Particulate emissions appeared to be well controlled.
Discussion - With the exception of the previously noted start up emissions, visible
emissions appeared to be minimal at the stack exit, although a light colored emission
could be seen trailing off from the dissipating steam plume. Precipitator performance
is undoubtedly enhanced by the low gas velocity through the collector. (The actual
average flow rate of approximately 168,000 acfm is well within the 219,300 acfm
design capacity.) The effective gas conditioning provided by the quench sprays also
contributes to the good performance of the particulate emission control system.
No significant precipitator operating or maintenance problems were observed during
the on-site inspection.
IV. LITERATURE REVIEW
Finding 112 - The studies published in currently available literature indicate that
emission of dioxins and furans from municipal incinerators can be controlled to a level
that is protective of public health by controlling temperature, retention time,
combustion air and the turbulence of the gas stream within the combustion chamber.
Discussion - The references reviewed for toxic emissions from municipal refuse
incineration are listed on Page 17.
Municipal waste incineration and potention emissions are extensively reviewed in the
"Hart Report," which was prepared by a consultant for the New York Department of
Sanitation. This study was undertaken as a result of New York's proposal to construct
an incinerator at the Brooklyn Navy Yard.
Incinerator operating conditions and resultant emissions are also detailed in the Pilot
Study Information of Specific Compounds from Combustion Sources.
Several studies of European resources recovery incinerators have also been published.
However, the reports of this work that were available for review do not contain
complete operating conditions and sampling procedures information.
The above studies indicate that combustion gas temperatures in the 1600°F - 1800°F
range maintained for approximately two (2) seconds is sufficient for destruction of
dioxin and furans, provided adequate gas mixing and proper oxygen levels are also
maintained. These conditions cannot be maintained if waste fuel feed rates are too
high to achieve effective combustion.
Finding f 13 - High efficiency collection of particulate emissions may be required to
control dioxin and furan compounds that are condensed on flyash particles,
Discussion - It has been suggested that the apparently high absorption of dioxin and
furans on the surface of flyash particles may be a key factor in the control of these
-13 - 187-
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
f
I
I
r
i
L
substances. The condensation/absorption of dioxin is increased as the gas is cooled to
the 500°F - 700°F range.
Finding #14 - Insufficient data is available to quantitatively relate operating
conditions to dioxin emission rates or guideline ambient concentrations.
Discussion - The ambient guideline for dioxin adapted by the City of Philadelphia is
35 pg/M^. The results of stack tests conducted in early 1985 to determine dioxin
emissions should provide the data required to evaluate the level of destruction and/or
collection achieved, and any impact upon ambient levels.
- 14 -
-------
I
I
-«*
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
«
1
I
1
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation II - Perform an accurate assessment of the weight and volume of refuse
being charged to the units and the weight and volume of residue being discharged from the
units over a given period of time while operating utilizing current practices.
The operating practices identified by this study appear to be directed at feeding refuse at
fixed predetermined stoker speeds and maintaining combustion chamber temperatures within
certain parameters irrespective of residue burnout. As a result, poor burnout - i.e., weight
and volume reduction of the refuse was observed. The information obtained should be used
as a baseline for comparison with similar assessments to be conducted following
implementation of modifications to current furnace firing procedures as recommended
herein.
Recommendation 12 - Implement changes in the furnace firing procedures aimed at
achieving maximum refuse burnout while maintaining combustion chamber temperatures
above 1600°F. Refuse feed rates, stoker speed rates and overfire and underfire air
distribution settings should be adjusted to optimize furnace combustion conditions while
achieving proper refuse burnout. (Proper refuse burnout should yield a trash to residue
weight rate reduction in the range of 70 to 75%.)
Incomplete refuse burnout contributes to less than optimum furnace combustion conditions
regardless of furnace chamber temperatures and could contribute to the formation of
organic air contaminants. During the study observations it was noted that due to high
furnace grate loadings some materials were being totally insulated from combustion
conditions until the actual point of discharge from the furnace.
Recommendation 13 - Identify air infiltration points and associated volumes. To the degree
feasible, eliminate significant air leaks.
Traverses conducted as a part of the on-site evaluation determined that the stack exhaust
to be approximately 27,000 scfm greater than the volume attributable to delivered air,
moisture evaporation and combustion products. Air supply measurements were limited to
delivered air and the distribution of leaked air entering through openings/leaks in the
combustion chamber and/or downstream of the furnace exhaust is not known. This
information and control of infiltrated air is important to further assessment of combustion
conditions and adjustment of the parameters identified in Recommendation #2.
Recommendation 14 - Undertake a study to determine the feasibility of physically
modifying the furnace and overfire injection system to increase residence time and
turbulence in the combustion chamber.
The current furnace design does not include a gas mixing or secondary combustion chamber
and the current overfire air distribution system does not appear to provide good mixing of
the combustion gases. Adequate gas mixing and retention time are required to significantly
improve furnace exhaust gas oxidation.
Recommendation #5 - Implement improved measures to control the type of material
deposited and the segregation of waste in the refuse pit.
Large bulky non-combustibles (water heaters, refrigerators, etc.) and difficult to burn
materials (grass clippings, wet leaves, etc.) should be excluded from the trash to the
- 15 -
Kl
•c
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
* »
I
I
I
maximum extent possible. These items should be diverted to alternative disposal facilities,
i.e., landfills, composts.
Combustion and/or charge chute jamming problems result from the current practice of
dumping large, bulky combustibles such as sofas, mattresses, etc. directly into the refuse
pit. These items should be diverted to a landfill or pre-processed in a shredder.
The trash pit frequently contains segregated deposits and the existing stoker design does not
provide significant mixing of the refuse in the furnace. It is, therefore, important that
pre-mixing be implemented to achieve a more homogenous distribution of the feed refuse.
Improved refuse distribution can be accomplished by utilizing the charging bucket to more
thoroughly mix the waste in the pit.
Recommendation 16 - Install a CEM to monitor visible emissions in accordance with DER
provisions.
The above equipment is needed to monitor and evaluate smoke emissions. This capability is
particularly important to assess emissions during startups, restarts and upset conditions.
Recommendation #7 - Discontinue the current practice of shutting the incinerator down
over the weekend.
There are several problems associated with shutting the incinerator down on the weekend.
These include cold conditions at startup, smoke emissions during restart, thermal shock to
. the equipment and low refuse levels in the pit that are more likely to consist of wet
materials that sink to the bottom, e.g., wet leaves. Continuous operation for longer periods
(30 to 60 days) would greatly reduce the above problems and may be required if
implementation of Recommendations #1 and #2 results in reduced charging rates. The
operational cost increase may be, at least in part, offset by reduced residue disposal costs
resulting from improved burnout.
Recommendation #8 - Place increased emphasis upon proper crane operation and charging
practices.
The crane operator should avoid charging the items identified in Recommendation #5. In
addition to previously identified problems, these items have caused jamming of the charging
chute, combustion upset and breakdowns. These circumstances have sometimes been
exacerbated when the clam shell was used as a ramming device to drive jammed material
through the chute. Efforts should be undertaken to assure that reasonably dry refuse is
available for startup and vigilance of the refuse level in the charging chute should be
maintained to assure that the feed seal is not broken.
Recommendation #9 - Implement timely operational adjustments to minimize air
contaminant emissions following the occurrence of process upsets and/or equipment
breakdowns.
Failure to undertaken appropriate actions to reduce air contaminant emissions during
upset/breakdown conditions was noted during review of plant records. Continued operation
of the furnace at the normal rate during periods when the residue removal system was down
and continued operation of the furnace during precipitator field outages are examples of this
problem.
-16-
-------
I
I
I
I
•*
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
• *
I
I
I
Recommendation #10 - Place greater emphasis upon preventative maintenance to reduce
breakdowns.
Scheduled maintenance as outlined in existing maintenance manuals should be continued. In
addition, increased emphasis should be placed upon preventative checks of equipment known
to be subject to breakdown (charging cranes, residue removal system trucks and
precipitators). For example, one of the charging cranes is usually sufficient to maintain
required feed rates, permitting alternation of use each shift or day. This circumstance
provides an excellent opportunity to routinely inspect and maintain both cranes when they
are rotated to standby status. Warning signs, i.e., unusual observations, sounds and
instrument readings, should be used whenever possible to undertake corrective action before
actual breakdown occurs. If the recommended seven days/week operation is implemented,
periodic shutdowns should be scheduled to provide for inspection and maintenance of all
system components.
Recommendation #11 - Implement an ongoing combustion principles and practices training
program for supervisor and operators.
This training is important to the development of skills and abilities directly related to the
primary objective of plant operations, i.e., good combustion of municipal refuse.
-17-
191-
-------
1
1
1
. '•
*
.*•
1
^B
1
1
I
•
1
1
«
1
1
1
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
11)
12)
References
Principles <5c Practices of Incineration, edited by Richard Corey, John Wiley
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
•i
I
I
I
i
i
I
; <
I
i
I
1
APPENDIX A
OBSERVATION PROCEDURES
The Northwest Incinerator facility includes two combustion chambers with identical design
features and capacities. The #1 furnace was selected for the purpose of conducting on-site
evaluations of operating practices. Typically five team members were on-site during the
observation periods. Assignments were rotated intermittently to increase familiarity with
the overall process. During the first day of observation and a portion of the second day a
sixth team member was also present for the purpose of off site observation of visible
emissions.
The first individual was positioned on the charge hopper floor and counted every load
delivered to the #1 furnace feed hopper throughout the observation shift. This individual
also made notes regarding the time that the charge took place, any unique materials
included in the charge and provided an estimate of the volume of the charge in terms of a
closed bucket volume.
The second individual was located at the #1 furnace control panel on the stoker floor level
of the incinerators. This individual recorded the readings from each instrument on the
control panel at 15 minute intervals. Along with the panel readings this observer also
checked and recorded the various windbox damper and overfire air duct damper positions
and intermittently observed the conditions inside of the furnace through the two available
viewports. Notes were made regarding the general atmosphere inside of the furnace
including flame pattern and flame position along the horizontal grate, entrained flyash,
excessive smoke, the depth of the burning refuse bed and any unique items observed in the
bed. Intermittently this individual would also walk out on the platform above the residue
troughs'and conveyors and observe and make notes regarding the condition of the residue.
Individuals 3 and 4 were responsible for conducting the various velocity traverses performed
in each of the combustion air delivery ducts, the wall cooling air delivery duct and in the
furnace exhaust stack. The traverses were performed using a calibrated S type pitot tube
and a liquid manometer. Each of the traverses was done according to the EPA Method 1
requirements. These individuals also performed Orsat and Fyrite analyses on exhaust gas
samples at a location in the breeching connecting the furnace outlet and the first quench
tower inlet downstream from the quench spray nozzles.
Individual #5 supervised and coordinated the other team members and spent considerable
time observing, evaluating and making notes regarding general overall aspects of the facility
equipment and operation, spent time discussing the operations with plant personnel and staff
members from the City Streets Department, filled in for other members as necessary,
performed additional Fyrite analysis on the furnace flue gas, physically inspected the
operation of the electrostatic precipitator and spent considerable time looking at the refuse
being charged, looking inside the incinerator, looking at the residue being discharged from
the unit and observing the stack discharge for visible emissions.
As mentioned previously, the sixth individual, when available, performed off site visible
emissions observations.
Most of the operating data presented in this report was obtained direcltly using on-site
and/or DER instrumentation. The design data (capacities, dimensions) and certain operating
data (weight rate charged, quench water flows) were obtained from plant representatives.
A-l
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
I
1
1
«
I
»
*-
* .
L
APPENDIX B
FACILITY DESCRIPTION
The facility includes two identical Tynan continuous feed, refractory-lined incinerators.
Construction of the facility was completed in 1960. In 1974, electrostatic precipitators
were retrofitted onto each of the furnaces. The facility is reported to handle only municipal
refuse and each unit is currently rated to handle 375 tons per day. Waste is charged to the
furnaces from either of two 500 tons holding pits to overhead cranes equipped with clam
shell-type buckets.
Stokers
Each furnace is equipped with a water cooled gravity feed charging chute and two travelling
grate stokers.
grate area -
The feed stoker is inclined 20° from horizontal and measures 22 feet in length by
8 feet in width. The second stoker is the horizontal stoker measuring 40 feet in length
by 8 feet in width. The combined effective grate area for each furnace is 480 feet^.
stoker speed -
The speed of the inclined and horizontal stokers can be independently varied. A speed
range of 12 to 100 ft./hr. is reportedly available for both stokers. The speed of the
inclined stoker determines the feed rate to the incinerator and the speed of the
horizontal stoker determines the depth of the burning refuse bed.
The speed of the inclined stoker is continuously recorded by a circular chart recorder
located on the furnace control panel, while a speed gauge for the horizontal stoker is
located near the discharge end of the furnace. The speed rate settings of both of the
stokers must be manually adjusted.
Combustion Chamber
Each furnace consists of a single combustion chamber approximately 55 feet long by 8 feet
wide. From the feed end the first 34 feet of the chamber measures roughly 17 7 feet in
height above the surface of the horizontal stoker grate. The roof of the chamber then
increases to a height of over 30 feet above the horizontal stoker grate for the remainign
21 feet of the length of the furnace. Exhaust gases leave the combustion chamber through
an opening on the upper rear wall measuring 12 feet, 8 inches high by 8 feet wide. The total
furnace combustion chamber volume is reported to be 9,360 feet^. A sketch of the furnace
is attached.
Combustion Air
Combustion air is provided by a single forced draft fan rated to deliver over 50,000 SCFM at
4^ inches static pressure. Three separate ducts deliver the air from this fan to different
zones in the furnace. One supplies underfire air to the inclined stoke, one supplies underfire
air to the horizontal stoker and one supplies to the overfire air system.
B-l
-------
I
I
I
n
I
«
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
4
I
i
I
i
3 *
«,
*~
4 .
There is a pneumatically controlled louver-type inlet damper on the forced draft fan which
is activated by a manual switch on the furnace control panel. A draft gauge on the furnace
control panel which indicates the forced draft static pressure. The furnace operator varies
the total combustion air flow rate by adjusting the control switch damper position.
underfire air -
There are individual dampers on each of the four air zones under the inclined stoker
and on each of the six air zones under the horizontal stoker. By manually changing
these damper positions, the operator can control the quantity of combustion air being
delivered to any grate area thereby adjusting the actual location of the fire in the
furnace as well as to some degree the intensity of the fire.
At one time, there were individual draft gauges for each of the horizontal stoker
underfire air zones. These are now all inoperable. The operators only reference, other
than the total combustion air draft gauge, is to visually observe the fire and adjust the
windbox dampers accordingly based upon experience.
overfire air -
The overfire air system includes three delivery ducts each of which feeds a series of
seven approximately 4" diameter feed pipes distributed in three rows in the roof of the
lower first section of the combustion chamber. The first two rows are located above
the inclined stoker while the third row is located over the beginning of the horizontal
stoker. Each of the three overfire air delivery ducts has a manually adjustable damper
which is set in either the full open or full closed position.
Originally, there were additional overfire air injection ports located in both side walls
of the furnace about li - 2 feet above the horizontal stoker grate. Refractory now
covers the openings of these ports into the furnace and on one side, the delivery duct
has been sealed.
auxiliary air -
These incinerators have air-cooled refractory walls, and all of the cooling air is being
injected into the combustion chamber through 114 small (approximately 2i" inch dia.)
openings located on both sidewalls of the stoker. The supply fans for the wall cooling
system on each furnace are direct drive blowers rated to deliver 3600 SCFM at
6 inches static pressure. Since all of the wall cooling air ends up in the combustion
chamber, it must be included as combustion air. The wall cooling fans run at all times
and the operator makes no adjustments or variations to these systems.
Furnace Temperature Control
There are two separate thermocouples located on the upper side wall in the large rear
section of the combustion chamber. These thermocouples monitor the combustion
chamber temperature and are each tied to a continuous recorder, one a circular chart
recorder on the furnace control panel and the other a strip chart recorder located in
the plant superintendent's office. There are no automatic controls tied to these
B-2
-------
I
I
I
I
*
I
I
I
I
J_
•i
I
i
i
I
- -*
*•>
•i
i
L
furnace temperature sensors. The operator must constantly monitor the temperatures
on the circular recorder and decide what adjustments to make, if any, to the furnace
controls.
Furnace Exhaust Gas
draft -
One of the few automatic controls on the furnace is a draft controller. The controller
senses the furnace draft in the upper area of the combustion chamber and signals
changes to the systems 400 HP variable speed induced draft fan. There is a draft
gauge located on the furnace control panel as well as a circular chart recorder which
provides a continuous record of the furnace draft. The automatic controller appears
to be set to maintain the furnace draft within a range of approximately 0.2"
During typical operation the furnace draft is maintained at about 0.3 to 0.5"
Because the ID fan speed is constantly varying to maintain the draft, the fan motor
amperage is monitored continuously and recorded on a circular chart recorder on the
furnace control panel. It is also tied into a high current motor shut off to protect the
motor.
cooling -
As the exhaust gases leave the furnace, they pass through a section of refractory-lined
breeching connecting the furnace to the inlet of the first of two quench towers. A
series of air atomized water spray nozzles are located in this breeching immediately
following the furnace exit. These nozzles can provide up to 200 gpm for quenching the
furnace exhaust gases. The actual water flow rate to the nozzles is controlled by
another of the few automatic controls on the furnace. An array of thermocouples
located in the duct at the inlet to the electrostatic precipitator, downstream from the
quench towers, signals the controller to adjust the quench water spray rate to maintain
a relatively constant precipitator inlet temperature. A circular chart recorder on the
furnace control panel continuously records the precipitator inlet temperature and a
continuous strip chart recorder on the control panel records the actual water flow
rate. The precipitator inlet- temperature is typically maintained at approximately
550°F. Excessive inlet temperatures will first sound an alarm and then shut down the
system ID fan.
Flyash Collection
The incinerators are equipped with electrostatic precipitators to control flyash
emissions. The precipitators on both furnaces are identical two-field units
manufactured by Combustion Engineering. Design values for each unit are
summarized below:
Collection plate area - 45,000 ft.2
Volumetric flow - 219,000 ACFM at 550°F
Gas velocity - 4 ft-/sec.
Gas reduction time - 6 seconds
The two quench towers which precede the precipitator were installed at the same time
and provide adequate time for quenching the gases while also acting as precleaners
removing much of the larger flyash particles exhausted from the furnaces.
B-3
-------
I
I
I
*
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
I
1
I
I
1
I
A
I
s
•a*
•|
i
*..
i
Both fields of the precipitators are equipped with instrumentation for monitoring
primary voltage, primary current and secondary current. The instruments are located
on the furnace control panel and the furnace operator records all of the precipitator
gauge readings hourly. There are also timer controllers located on the control panel
for activating the precipitator rapping systems.
The collection hoppers in both precipitator fields are equipped with resistance heaters.
Temperature controllers for these heaters are located on the furnace control panel.
There is a single blower which provides preheated air from a resistance heater to the
insulators on both fields of each precipitator. An ammeter is located on the furnace
control panel for monitoring the insulator blower motor current.
Flyash/Furnace Residue Sump System
The flyash collected in the preicipitators is discharged via sealed drag conveyors and
gravity chutes directly into the same wet sumps which receive the residue discharged
from the furnaces. Gravity chutes located below the discharge end of the horizontal
stokers terminate below the top of the water level in the wet sumps sealing the
residue discharge area from the furnace draft. The quench towers are also equipped
with wet bottom sumps which overflow into the main sump on each system.
The combined residue is pulled up an inclined drag conveyor from the bottom of the
main sump and excess water from the residue drains back into the sump. The residue
itself is discharged from the end of the drag conveyor into waiting 20 yard^ residue
receiving trucks. A. dedicated number of these vehicles are kept on-site.
The residue and ash handling systems on each furnace are totally independent and
material from one furnace cannot be diverted to the sump on the other, therefore, any
extended breakdown on the residue system dictates a shutdown of the feed to that
furnace. The plant discharges between 200-300 gpm of wastewater to the city's
sewage system.
B-4
-------
I
•i_
I.
B-5
-------
I
I
I
I
»
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
I
i
j_
{*
i
•* -
i
1
APPENDIX C
DATA AND CALCULATIONS
-------
I
I
I
I
*
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
i
i
v -
Date:
Time:
PHILADELPHIA NORTHWEST INCINERATOR TRAVERSE DATA
December 3, 1984
Traverse
Site
Exhaust Stack
Under-Fire Horizontal Stoker
Over Fire Air Duct
Under-Fire Inclined Stoker
Wall Cooling Air Duct
8:00 A.M.)
Traverse
Time
2i51 A.M. -3:19 A.M.*
4:55 A.M. - 5:08 A.Mr,
4:21 A.M. - 4:35 A.M. > a
3:59 A.M. - 4:15 A.M. \
3:30 A.M. - 3:45 A.M.J
I
I
Ave. Ts
op
486
43
45
40
76
Reproduced from it'll
best available copy. %[^
Ave. Vs
Ft./Min.
•••••••MHiW
48.0
53.0
17.0
33.9
31.5
Volume
ACFM
108065
19497
6213
12441
3365
Date: December 4, 1984
Time: Second Shift (4:00 P.M.
RV *J
Traverse A "^,
Site
- 12:00 A.M.) First Series of Traverse
Traverse Ave. Ts
Time °F
Exhaust Stack 5:04 P.M. - 5:30 P.M.3 505
Under-Fire Horizontal Stoker 6:15 P.M. - 6:30 P.M.") 37
Over-Fire Air Duct 6:42 P.M. - 6:52 P.M. ( i 40
Under-Fire Inclined Stoker 6:57 P.M. - 7:07 P.M. j 40
Wall Cooling Air Duct 7:17 P.M. - 7:23 P.M/ 101
Second Series of Traverses
Traverse jj -7 Traverse Ave. Ts
Site */" * Time °F
Exhaust Stack
Under-Fire Horizontal Stoker
Over -Fire Air Duct
Under-Fire Inclined Stoker
Date: December 5, 1984
Time: Third Shift (8:00 A.M. -
Traverse ^ iJ
Site ^ V
Exhaust Stack
Under-Fire Horizontal Stoker
Over -Fire Air Duct
Under-Fire Inclined Stoker
Wall Cooling Air Duct
9:03 P.M. - 9:36 P.M. ~^, 513
10:04 P.M. - 10:22 P.M. ' 36
10:37 P.M. - 10:49 P.M. ". ~ 37
10:56 P.M. - 11:07 P.M. / 36
4:00 P.M.) First Series of Traverses
Traverse Ave. Ts
Time °F
8:49 A.M. - 9:26 A.M. M 493
10:04 A.M. - 10:16 A.M.") 38
10:23 A.M. - 10:31 A.M.? ^ 40
10:35 A.M. - w*:46 A.M. ) 40
10:54 A.M. - 11:01 A.M/ 108
Ave. Vs
Ft./Min.
63.0
50.4
16.7
25.8
29.8
Ave. Vs
Ft./Min.
• 75.0
49.7
17.7
26.5
Ave. Vs
Ft./Min.
66.0
47.4
18.8
27.9
27.0
Volume
ACFM
142074
18515
6124
9494
3182
Volume
ACFM
169547
18279
6495
9755
Volume
ACFM
148765
17408
6919
10269
2900
o r?-r ?rt<
ci=- TV.-/.
."^2 <
-------
I
I
I
I
Second Series of. Traverses
Traverse
Site •
Exhaust Stack
Under-Fire Horizontal Stoker
Over -Fire Air Duct
Under-Fire Inclined Stoker
Traverse
Time
1:20 P.M. - 1:43 P.M.
2:32 P.M. - 2:44 P.M.
2:52 P.M. - 3:02 P.M.
3:08 P.M. - 3:18 P.M.
Ave. Ts
QF
514
39
40
40
Ave. Vs
Ft./Min.
73.8
41.3
22.9
30.4
Voiurm
ACFV
16635
1519
840
1117
we.
m
rL <~
I
m
6 3 "7
/*
&**
*
-------
I
I SyMWLsy OF IVtt-y ^/7/e^v^ #&za3 3V
I
-yf
33.
i
WV
| f:-0o.=m53 /«fir JL/
f———
j I
r
/6
/7
r
£
, n / V.
I .
-------
I
4
I
0-
7VX
*
v~~
r
i
-------
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
I
*i«-
3--
u
$ *
^ s
§
is
a
/"I
«,->
Co
u
rl
r
•o
>U,
r.
n
a-
r\
In
'I
V^Vn
s*
rr
n
'•0
O
s?^
-------
I
I
I
I
«
I
I
I
1
I
i..
I
i
I
Oo
I
fc
|p
i
L
cl
•G?+l
:.ra
sb
-
*U*
a£
3-
1
>-x
i,^
^ •«
.^1^
4fe<'
2 Vi Vi
^ V-
41
1%
l-fro
14*\_
i-
viS
^y-
,y (7
/d-i
\u
5
IL
<*>
In
rf
•rs
3
VJ
Q
n
«ol
\A
'\J
•J
d^
0
V;
Si
rt
0
0
.a
T
'•O
n
0
0
0
HI
-------
-------
-------
-------
I
t
I
I
i
i >a
r
i
i
Q-
4
•><
«t£>
1
^.
^
x^^
S
\r
r
«>TX
m
\r
&«
rv
Q
~3
r\
•-r,
r(
re (f\
&
r
Vr
cd
r
Q)
3-^
Q
3
n
0
n
n
X
b-^-
ri
ri
c*
ff
S2
rt
r(
rs
3
Vn
n
s§
ri
>^
n
?(
-------
I
I
1
I
I
i
i
1
i
I
i
Ci
m
a?-C
ik
S£
•^ ***
iv-
^ .5
w
:^
/Q'
:k
• Oo
r^
n
rs
0
0
0
&
si
v
ry
^
0
n
£&)•
-------
-------
-------
I
I
ER-AG-39 REV. 8/79
fl */
Comntonwialth of Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources
Bureau of Air Quality Control
File No.
VISIBLE EMISSIONS OBSERVATION RECORD
•^Description of Source: N.W. :DN/C.i A/er^fl-rafi^^ ^ .X Observers Name: .TX^es KE i\_
•Owner of Source: Cl^i of PH»U*VO«VJ!IHIA (TN Title: ftfC£ 3 - C^sen^a®
• • ' >-X'*-^v
^Location of Source: fto*.^++m^ H ?ggf"*| pencil Date: •
0 Time interval: from "f: Q7 to
PART OF MINUTES
I
I
i
l
i
i
i
>*
i
j .,
a
I
0
1
2
3
L^_
5
6
7
8
9
10
i ;
12
0
d
1/4
o
o s-
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
1/4
0
o
(5
o
o
o
5
p
o
s
o
^
o
o
0
o
o
o
o
o
1/2
o
0
o
o
o
5
P
5
O
c
o
p
o
o
o
o
c,
0
0
o
n
o
o
0
o
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
0
1/4
1/2
3/4
Distance to source:
Wind speed and direction.
P7aaM ys^fij^
Sky conditions:
-"^tt •^4r 0 S«tf*v
'< U Mi^i^iA STR tL&T*
/
SUMMARY
No. of
Opacity Readings
< 20% / 6 O
>120% O '
O: her Comments: PLUMS. ^S~£^y^.O^> AT" &&F
5» 60% O
r/t ***
-------
I
I
I
*
§
I
I
i;
i
1 *
Lr
I
± .
i
a
li
A
A
or
r,
f\
r\
n
na
rs
r\
aw
o
ri
4 A
0
ri
n
1
wm
*a
«i^
u
ri.
rJ
&
%K
3*
S&ft
A
n
h
o
d
M
-------
I
I
Oo
V»
I
I
I
1
I
i
I
f
I
I
I
V
>ti
<5
£
. • f".
CC;
c-l
Q
r
^'J^
^
<•*
V
H
^
4'
\
d
5-1^
VJ
/i/A
r\
rO
V J C)
^rl ^
^
Rr
n
r(
N
n
ri
n
91
rt
It
^
N
N
n
n
r\
V)
ri
Si
N
Oo
a
o
a
HdHHHf
n
\nte
N
0
rT.
n
0
r
N
^
U
H^i
rs^
n
n
A
{^icb
r
A
4
'vj
^
p-
Tl
d
..4|-
-------
KM$Mw^^
HA.
-------
-------
1
1
i
*
i
.
i
i
i
.
V
1
m
i
I
•\f
•*
a -
1
THEORETICAL AIR
I. Based on average characteristics of Mum
Moisture: 0.26 Ib/lb waste
Ash: 0.258 Ib/lb waste
Combustibles: 0.482 Ib/lb waste
It is assumed that combustibles consist
plastics.
PVC: 0.05 Ib/lb waste
C-18
CALCULATIONS
cipal Solid Waste at Akron OH.
of cellulose type waste and PVC type
Cellulose: 0.432 Ib/lb waste
BTU as Received: 4100 Btu/lb
Combustion Air Requirements:
A. Cellulose: 02 in air combines with cellulose stoichiometri cal ly
C6 H10 05 + 602
162 + 192
1 + 1.185
As received lb. 0.432 + 0.512
1 Ib 0;? requires 4
0.512 x 4.32 = 2
B. PVC
C ~CH2CH - CHpCH ]n + n 50
Cl Cl
n 125 + n 160 -> n 176
1 * 1.28 -> 1.408
As received lb 0.05 + 0.064 -> 0.0704
fl Ofid •!• 1 ">0 - n 0-7fi^ lh -M r rrnrl
Total stoichiometric air reqd: 2.212 + 0
Feed rate : 15.9 tons/hr.
Stoichiometric air = 2.489 x 15.9 x 2000
60
One mole of any gas occupies 359ft^ at 14.
Stoich. air volume: 1318.90 * 03-04 * joT
Total forced draft ai r = 40000 scfm
Excess air = 40000 - 17fi8fi = 223143
% excess ai r = 126%
-> 6C02 + 5H20
-> 264 + 90
-> 1.63 + 0.555
-> 0.704 + 0.24
.32 lb air
.2 12 lb air reqd.
2 -> n [4 C02 + 2 H20 + 2 HC1 1
* n 36 + n!3
+ 0.288 + 0584
+ 0.0144 + 0.0292
•
.2765 = 2.489 Ib
= 1318.9 Ib/min
7 psia and 32°F
= 176857 scfm
scfm
-------
I
I
I
C-19
Products of Combustion (PC):
Cellulose PVC
Dry Gas: C02 0.704 -t- 0.0704 = 0.7744 Ib/lb waste
N2 2.1885 - (0.512 + 0.064) = 1.9125 Ib/lb waste
Moisture: H20 from waste = 0.26 Ib
*" ^B
r
1
I
1
I
1
I
1
i
i
i
t
i
I
i
H20 from air: 2.4885 x 0.0063 0.0156 Ib
0.0063 Ib H20/lb dry ai r 9 60% RH + 60°DB
H20 from combustion 0.2544 Ib
0.24 + 0.0144
HC1 0.0292 Ib
Material Balance Verification:
PC 3.2461 Ibs Waste
Ash 0.258 Ib Stoch. Air
3.5041 Ibs H?0 Air
3.2461 Ib
1.00 Ib
2.4885 Ibs
0.0156 Ib
3.5041 Ibs
Volume PC Converted to Std Conditions (70°F 14.7 psia)
Product Weight (Ib/min)
CO? 0.7744 x 15.9 x 2000
60
N2 1.9125 x 15." x 2000
60
H?0 0.53 x 15.9 x 2000
60
Air
HC1 0.0292 x 15.9 x 2000
Total Exhaust
Air leak
Heat Balance:
Volume (scfm)
3607.4
13999.9
6035.1
22314.3
163.97
46120.67 scfm
67000 scfm
20879.33 scfm
Heat Input 4100 Btu/lb
Heat losses: (assume 1SOO°F outlet temp rel to 60°F)
Ib/lb waste enthalpy (Btu/lb)
Moisture: 0.53 x 1948.02 = 1032.45 Rtu/lb waste
C02: 0.7744 x 469.1 = 363.27
N2 1.9125 x 464.8 * 888.93
Ash 0.258 x 377.6 = 97.42
HC1 0.0292 x 469.1 = 13.70
Radiation 10% of input = 410.00
Excess Heat: 4100-2805.77
Excess air requirement 1294.23 Btu/1
453.24 Rtu/1
Excess air read, volume: 2.855 x -=-|^
bU
2805.77
= 1295.23 Btu/lb waste
b waste = 2.855 Ib/lb waste
b
9 359 530
- x 2000 *2inT4x "JgT = 20294 scfl
218
-------
I
f
I
f
I
'f
I
I
1
1
I
I
I
\
I
I
I
I
**v
I
-» -
I
I .
C-2(
II. Data: Fuel Analysis
(Ref: p. 658 19R4 National Waste Processing ASME Conference Proceedings)
Carbon - 28.6%
Moisture - 28.8%
- Ash - "21.8%
Sulfur - 0.1%
C12 - 0.3%
HHV as fired - 4600 Btu/lb
Due to low contents of chlorine and sulfur the entire combustibles are
assumed to be cellulose type
Moisture - 0.288 Ib/lb waste
Ash - 0.218 Ib/lb waste
C6 H10 °5 - 0-494 Ib/lb waste
C6 H10 °5 + 6n2 -> 6C02 + 5H2°
162 + 192 -> 264 + 90
1 •(• 1.185 -> 1.63 + 0.555
As received Ib 0.494 + 0.585 -> 0.805 + 0.274
1 Ib 02 requires 4.32 Ib air
0.585 x 4.32 = ?.527 Ib air reqd.
Feed rate : 15.9 tons/hr.
Stoichiometric air = 2.527 x 15.9 x 2000 = 1339.42 Ib/min
60
One mole of any gas occupies 359ft3 at 14.7 psia and 32°F
Stoich. air volume: 1339.42
Total forced draft air = 40,000 scfm
Excess ai r = 22,039 scfm
% excess ai r = 123%
Products of Combustion (PC)
Dry ftas C02:
N2:
Moisture H2fl from waste:
H20 from air: 2.527 x 0.0063
0.0063 Ib H20/lb dry ai r 0 60% RH -t- 60°DB
H?0 from combustion:
Mass Balance Verification:
= l7961 scfm
0.805 Ib/lb waste
1.942 Ib/lb waste
0.288 Ib/lb waste
0.016 Ib/lb waste
0.274 Ib/lb waste
3.325 Ib/lb waste
PC 3.325 Ibs
Ash 0.218 )b
3.543 Ibs
Waste 1.00 Ib
Stoich. Air 2.527 Ibs
H20 Ai r 0.016 1 b
3.543 Ibs
-------
1
1
Wi
1
r
-4
1
I
I
'
1
Volume PC Converted to Std Conditions
Product Weight (Ib/min)
CO? 0.805 x 15.9 x 2000
60
N? 1.942 x 15.9 x 2000
60
H?0 0.578 x 15.9 x 2000
60
Air
Total Exhaust:
Ai r leak:
Heat Balance:
(70°F, 14.7 psia)
Volume (scfm)
3749.9
14215.8
6581.7
22039.0
46586.4
67000
20414
Heat Input: 4600 Btu/1
Heat Losses: (assume 1800°F outlet temp rel to
Ib/lb waste enthalpy
Moisture: : 0.578 x 1948.02
C02 : 0.895 x 469.1
N? : 1.942 x 464.8
Ash : 0.218 x 377.6
Radiation (10% of input) =
Excess Heat: 4600-2948.55 = 1651.
(Btu/lb)
1125.96 Btu/1
377.63 Btu/1
902.64 Btu/1
82.32 Btu/1
460.00 Btu/1
2948.55 Btu/1
b
60°F)
b waste
b waste
b waste
b waste
b waste
b waste
45 Btu/lb waste
Excess Air Read = 1651.45 Btu/lb waste
1
453.24 (Btu/lb)
= J.b4
Ib/lb w,
I
I
J
I
t
i .
IL
Excess air volume reqd: 25895 scfm
-------
I
I
I
•4-
I
C-22
III. Based on Essex County, NJ Data:
Moisture: 23% by wt.
Btu/lb: 5475
1
p
1
I
.
I
1
1
§>
1
Combustibles: 56% Plastics (PVC
Cellulose
Entire plastics portion is assumed to
the combustibles is assumed to be cell
Comb'ustion Air Requirements:
.
. Oxygen in air is assumed to combine
A. Cellulose waste
C6 H10 05 + 602
162 + 192
1 + 1.185
As received Ib. 0.51 + 0.604
1 Ib 02 • requi res
For each Ib of waste: 0.604 x 4
B . PVC
I ~CH2CH - CH2CH - + n 502 -
L C1 C1 J n
n 125 + n 160 -> n 176 + n
1 + 1.28 -> 1.408 + 0
As received Ib 0.05 + 0.064 -> 0.0704 -t- 0
Ib ai r
Pi nfid f A 1° -- n '''fiR lh 11 p rr
1 b 03
) 5%
51%
be polyvinyl chloride and the rest of
ulose type waste.
with cellulose stoichiometrical ly.
-> 6C02 * 5H20
-> 254 + 90
-> 1.63 + 0.555
-> 0.831 + 0.283
4.32 Ib air
.32 = 2.609 Ib ai r reqd.
> n [4C02 + 2H20 + 2HC1]
36 + n 73
.288 + 0.584
.0144 -t- 0.0292
qd.
, Total theoretical air reqd: 2.609 + 0.2765 = 2.8855 Ib
f
T^
4
Products of Combustion (PC)
Cellulose PVC
Dry Has C02 0.831 + 0.0704
N2 2.8855 - (0.6D4 + 0.064)
Mnicf-iiro 'J^» H f r*nm ui a c •h o
= 0.9014 Ib/lb waste
= 2.2175 Ib/lb waste
= n 11 IK/lh i.iacta
H20 from air: 2.8855 x 0.0094 = 0.0271 Ib/lb waste
0.0094 Ib H20/lb dry ai r
-------
1
(
1
T
1
1
1
I
1
.
i
i ^
i
n ^
Feed rate :
Theoretical
One mole of
Theoretical
15.9 tons/hr.
air = 2.8855 x 1.5.9
= 91758.9 -p^ or
x 2000
1529.315 1£
mi n
any gas occupies 359ft^ at 14.7 psia and
air volume: 1529.315 •
Total forced draft ai r = 40,000
Ib „ 359 (460
min *28.84X (460
scfm
32°F
H- 70)
+ 32)
% excess ai r = 40,000 - 20507.23 x 100 = 95%
20507.23
Excess air: 40000 - 20507.
23 = 19492.77 scfm
Volume PC Converted to Std Conditions (70°F 14.7 psia)
Products
C02
N2
H20
Air
HC1
Heat Balance
Heat Input
Heat losses:
Moi sture:
C02:
Ash
HC1
Weight (Ib/min)
0.9014 x 15.9 x 2000
60
2.2175 x 15.9 x 2000
60
0.5545 x 15.9 x 2000
60
19^92.77 scfm
0.0292 x 15.9 x 2000
60
Total Exhaust
Air leak
Volume (scfm)
4199
16232.55
6314
19492.77
163.97
46402.3 SCfm
67000 scfm
20597.7 scfm
: 5475 Btu/lb waste
Ib/lb waste enthalpy
0.5545 x 1948.02
0.9014 x 469.1
2.2175 x 464.8
0.21 x 377.6
0.0292 x 469.1
Radiation loss
(Btu/lb)
= 10R0.18 Btu/lb
= 422.85 Btu/lb
= 1030.69 Btu/lb
79.30 Btu/lb
13.70 Btu/lb
= 547.50 Btu/lb
3174.22 Btu/lb
waste .
waste
waste
waste
waste
waste
waste
f
• „
I
Excess Heat: 5475-3174.22
Excess air reqd. volume:
= 2300.78 Btu/lb waste
- Btu/lb waste = 5.076 1b
Btu/lb
c-2;
= 20507.23 scfm
acta
waste
= 36077 scfm
222<:
-------
I
I
I
f
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I
I
I
I
a
C-24
IV. Data: Ultimate Analysis of Refuse
(Ref: p. 228 1984 National Waste Processing ASME Conference Proceedings)
Calculated from performance test data.
Carbon - 0.2472 Ib/lb waste
Hydrogen - 0.03484
Sulfur - 0.011
Moisture - 0.2774
Nitrogen - 0.006
Ash - 0.21817
Oxygen - 0.21529
Heat Content - 4443 Btu/lb
Combustion Calculation:
C + 02 -> C02
12 + 32 -> 44
1 2.666 3.666
As received Ib 0.2472 0.6592 0.9064
0.2472 Ib C requires 0.6592 Ib Oxygen or 2.848 Ib air
2M2 + 02 -> 2H20
4 +• 32 36
1 ' 8 9
As received Ib 0.03484 0.279 0.3136
0.03484 Ib H requires 0.279 Ib Oxygen or 1.205 Ib air
S + 02 -> S02
32 32 64
1 1 2
As received Ib 0.011 0.011 0.022
0.011 Ib S requires 0.011 Ib 02
= 0.0475 Ib air
Total 02 required : 0.6592 + 0.279 + 0.011
= 0.9492 Ib
Less 02 in waste 0.21529 Ib
= 0,73391 Ib 02
= 3.17 Ib air
Required stoichiometric air - 3.17 Ib
Feed rate : 15.9 tons/hr. -
Stoichiometric air = 3.17x15.9 x 2000 x.,4%,, x 4S = 22533 scfm
~~60~ "
-------
1
"mi
•
'•
1
1
r
1
1
I
1
Products of Combustion
C02:
S02:
\\2§ from combustion:
H20 from waste:
H?_0 from ai r (Stolen.) :
N2 from waste:
from air:
Vol ume
CO? 0.9064 x 15.9 x 2000
60
SO? 0.022 x 15.9 x 2000
60
H20 0.6208 x 15.9 x 2000
60
N2 2.442 x 15.9 x 2000
60
Air 40,000 - 22532.7
Total Exhaust
Air leak
0,9064 lb/lb waste
0.022 Ib/lb waste
0.3136 lb/lb waste
0.2774 lb/lb waste
0.0298 Ib/lb waste
0.006 lb/lb waste
2.436 lb/lb waste
scfm
4222.3
70.5
7069.0
' 17876.6
17467.3
46705.7
67000
20294
C-25
- -X--
I
Heat Balance
Heat Input: 4443 Btu/lb waste
Heat losses: (assume 1800°F outlet temp rel to 60°F)
Ib/lb waste enthalpy (Btu/lb)
,
1
1
1
i
•
§'•
-
i
•
m
Moisture:
CO?
N2'
Ash
Radiatio
Excess Heat:
CY^~OCC 31 r* ^ o *n 1 1 1
t_XLcbb air rc<-ju I
0.6208 x 1948.02
0.9064 x 469.1
2.442 x 464.8
0.21817 x 377.6
n loss {10% of input)
4443-3296.24 Btu/lb waste
= 1146.76 Btu/lb waste
_,,„<: T* .. 15.9 x 2000
o U
= 607782.36 Rtu/min
rcmcnt. 607782.36 _ f
rement. 453>24 Rtu - 1340..
Ib
= 1209.33 Btu/lb waste
= 425.19 Rtu/lb waste
= 1135.04 Btu/lb waste
82.38 Btu/lb waste
= 444.30 Rtu/lb waste
3296.24 8tu/lh waste
Ih
min
•>*•»,
= 17982 scfm
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read fnuntctions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
4. TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
Dioxin Analysis of Philadelphia Northwest Incinerator
Summary Report. Volume 2, Appendices A - F
7 AUTHOR(S)
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
US EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut St.
Philadelphia, PA 19107
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
MR 6 1 fa 2 0 1 3 /A
5. REPORT DATE
January, 1986
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
s
coc
REP
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD CC
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
1,6. ABSTRACT
A study was conducted by US EPA Region 3 to determine the dioxin-related impact
of the Philadelphia Northwest Incinerator on public health. Specifically, it
was designed to assess quantitatively the risks to public health resulting from
emissions into the ambient air of dioxins as well as the potential effect of
deposition of dioxins on the soil in the vicinity of the incinerator. Volume
1 is an executive summary of the study findings. Volume 2 contains contractor
reports, laboratory analysis results and other documentation.
""
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a DESCRIPTORS
Dioxins
Incinerators
Public health
Air pollution sources
13 DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDEDTERMS
Philadelphia
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
N/A
20 SECURITY CLASS (This page)
C. COSATI
Ficld/C
68A
68G
21. NO. OF
212
PAGES
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
-------
Reproduced by NTIS
m^^m «
o 05
a«>c
* Q.OQ
0£.So
-
h £E
Z0.2.S
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161
This report was printed specifically for your order
from nearly 3 million titles available in our collection.
For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
collection of technical reports. Rather, most documents are printed for
each order. Documents that are not in electronic format are reproduced
from master archival copies and are the best possible reproductions
available. If you have any questions concerning this document or any
order you have placed with NTIS, please call our Customer Service
Department at (703) 605-6050.
About NTIS
NTIS collects scientific, technical, engineering, and business related
information — then organizes, maintains, and disseminates that
information in a variety of formats — from microfiche to online services.
The NTIS collection of nearly 3 million titles includes reports describing
research conducted or sponsored by federal agencies and their
contractors; statistical and business information; U.S. military
publications; multimedia/training products; computer software and
electronic databases developed by federal agencies; training tools; and
technical reports prepared by research organizations worldwide.
Approximately 100,000 new titles are added and indexed into the NTIS
collection annually.
For more information about NTIS products and services, call NTIS
at 1-800-553-NTIS (6847) or (703) 605-6000 and request the free
NTIS Products Catalog, PR-827LPG, or visit the NTIS Web site
http://www.ntis.gov.
NTIS
Your indispensable resource for government-sponsored
information—U.S. and worldwide
-------
I
I
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Technology Administration
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161 (703)605-6000
-------