INCINERATION
IN
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
This publication {SW-141) was prepared by the Hazardous Waste
Management Division of tnD Office of Solid Waste Management Programs.
This report was prepared by A. C. Scurlock, A. W. Lindsey, T. Fields, Jr.
and D. R. Huber.
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1975
-------
Third Printing
Mention of a commercial product or organization does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use by the U. S. Government.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Background 2
Types of Incinerators 3
Incineration Criteria 16
Research and Development 18
References 23
APPENDIX
I Rotary Kiln 29
II Multiple Hearth 37
III Liquid Injection 43
IV Fluidized Bed 58
V Molten Salt 63
VI Wet Oxidation - Zimmerman Process 66
VII Plasma Destruction 70
VIII Multiple Chamber 72
IX Gas Combustion 76
X Pyrolysis ' 82
XI Incineration of Specific Materials 84
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
APPENDIX
I
I
II
II
III
III
III
IV
VI
VIII
IX
IX
Portable Rotary Kiln Incineration Units
Typical Major Industrial Rotary Kiln
Incineration Facility
Multiple Hearth Incineration System
Pilot Furnace System
Typical Vertically Fired Liquid
Waste Incineration
Vortex Liquid Waste Incinerator
Typical "SUE" Burner Cross-Section
Schematic of a Fluidized Bed Combustor
Wet Oxidation System Schematic
Multiple Chamber Incinerator
Direct-Flame Thermal Incinerator
Catalytic Incinerator
PAGE
30
32
38
40
45
46
52
59
67
73
77
78
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
I Rotary Kiln Incineration
II Multiple Hearth Incineration
III Liquid Injection Incineration
IV Fluidized Bed Incineration
V Molten Salt Process
VI Wet Oxidation - Zimmerman Process
VII Plasma Destruction
VIII Multiple Chamber Incineration
IX Gas Combustion
X Pyrolysis
PAGE
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
-------
1
INTRODUCTION
Incineration has been developed over a number of years as a means of
treating or disposing of various types of waste materials. Only recently,
however, has the application of the incineration process to solving hazardous
waste problems been investigated in any depth. This work has been sporadic
and widely spread. In 1973 an effort was made by TRW Systems Group under
EPA contract to review the available information and summarize the state-of-
the-art of hazardous waste incineration. This work was included in a
broader effort to identify and analyze all treatment and disposal practices
potentially applicable to hazardous wastes.
Since issuance of this pioneer study, sufficient additional information
has surfaced to justify a new compendium. In this report OSWMP has extracted
the most useful information from the "TRW report" and added pertinent infor-
mation from office files.
The information and data contained are for information and guidance
purposes only. The report does not present regulations or guidelines for
treatment or disposal. It is meant simply to be a digest of the most useful
technical and economic information on the subject known to the Hazardous
Waste Management Division of the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
EPA. Much of the information has been received from contractors and other
outside sources and has been accepted largely on face value. OSWMP therefore
cannot confirm data presented or formally endorse the processes or equipment
discussed.
This report will prove most useful to those not intimately familiar with
hazardous materials or with incineration technology. It can serve as a
starting point in addressing any situation or question involving hazardous
waste incineration. The report body presents an overview of the state-of-
the-art, summaries of data on various types of incinerators, and a list of
general considerations to be addressed when evaluating hazardous waste
incineration questions. Appendices I through X contain more detailed dis-
cussions of process technology economics and known experimentation with
hazardous wastes. Reference to these appendices should provide the reader
with a process concept and basic understanding of the capabilities of the
incinerator type in question and some insight into its potential for
hazardous waste disposal. Appendix XI is a matrix indicating known incin-
eration criteria for individual wastes. Reference to this matrix is useful
in determining if incineration of the material is feasible, whether resource
recovery methods may be available, potential off gas constituents of concern,
and in some cases estimates of satisfactory temperature/residence time
conditions.
OSWMP anticipates revising this periodically as additional information
becomes available.
-------
BACKGROUND
As we become increasingly aware of the problems and potential problems
created by ocean dumping, well disposal, indiscriminate land-filling, and
other relatively cheap disposal options for hazardous wastes, and as air
and water pollution controls are applied, incineration is being looked to
as the overall best means of destroying the increasing quantities of many
hazardous wastes. The number and types of commercial and industrial
hazardous waste incinerators are proliferating at a rapid rate.
Incineration is a very versatile process. It can be considered as an
energy recovery process if the heat generated is converted into steam and
power or is put to some other beneficial use. It can be considered as a
volume reduction process in that many of the component elements of organic
materials, including the most common ones (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, chlorine,
sulfur), are wholly or partially converted to gaseous form leaving only the
non-combustible inorganic volume. Incineration is also a viable means of
detoxifying many materials. If the toxic or otherwise hazardous property is
due to the structure of the organic molecule as opposed to the properties of
the elements which it contains, then, in most cases, it is possible to destroy
the hazardous property by destroying the organic molecular structure through
oxidation or the application of sufficient heat. There are additional
advantages to the use of incineration:
(a) Burning of wastes and fuels in a controlled manner has been
carried on for many years and as such, the basic process
technology is available and reasonably well developed. This
is not the case for some of the more exotic chemical
degradation processes.
(b) It is broadly applicable to most organic wastes and can be
scaled to handle very large volumes.
(c) Large land areas are not required.
There are some generally applicable disadvantages:
(a) The equipment tends to be more costly and complicated to
operate than many other alternatives.
(b) It is not always a means of ultimate disposal in that normally
an ash remains which may or may not be toxic, but which, in
any case, must be disposed.
-------
(c) Unless controlled by application of air pollution control
technology, the gaseous and particulate products of combustion
can be hazardous to health or damaging to property.
The decision to incinerate a specific waste will therefore depend first, on
the environmental adequacy of incineration as compared to other alternatives,
and second, on the relative costs of incineration and the environmentally
sound alternatives.
TYPES OF INCINERATORS
For purposes of consideration in this synopsis, an incinerator is any
engineered device used to thermally decompose a hazardous waste. There are
10 general types which may prove adequate for destruction of at least some
hazardous wastes. Other types, such as flares and open pit methods, are not
considered adequate for hazardous waste disposal, due, in most cases, to
uncontrolled dispersal of products of combustion, breakdown products, and
ash.
Most incinerators currently routinely burning hazardous materials are
installed either at industrial plant sites where the wastes are generated,
or at privately owned central disposal facilities. On-site incinerators
are usually installed only by larger companies having quantities of incin-
eratable materials large enough to justify the expense. By operating on-site
facilities, shipping charges can be eliminated. On the other hand, for
small volume, very difficult to handle wastes, it is frequently cheaper and
certainly easier to pay the shipping and disposal charges to a private
central facility than to build and operate an on-site facility. In recent
years, a number of firms have gone into the contract waste disposal business.
These central facilities usually have some incineration capability. In many
cases, incineration is the only operation carried on.
Chem-Trol Pollution Services, Inc., of Model City, New York, and Rollins
Environmental, Services*\ Inc.x, Bridgeport, New Jersey, are two of the larger,
more complex central disposal operations currently in existence. Chem-Trol
claims capabilities to handle and treat virtually any liquid industrial waste
which is not radioactive or explosive. Plant operations include distillation,
filtration, neutralization, chemical fixation, centrifugation, extraction,
special landfilling, and incineration.* The Rollins operation in New Jersey
is similar, having neutralization, chemical oxidation, physical separation,
dewatering, land disposal, trickling filtration, oxidation ponding, and
incineration capabilities. Several other firms offer incineration disposal
services as well.
-------
All hazardous waste incinerators in this country are land based.
However, in Europe, the Hansa Company of Germany has outfitted a 102 meter
(335 foot) long tanker with two liquid injection incinerators and routinely
destroys liquid chlorinated hydrocarbons 80 to 100 Km. (50-60 miles) at
sea under contract to Dutch and German chemical companies.4 The company
is currently investigating the feasibility of operating a similar vessel
off the U.S. Eastern seaboard. The claimed advantages of burning at sea
include:
1. Environmentally preferable to ocean disposal. Pollutants are
dispersed over wide areas, distant from land.
2. The cost of destructing toxic wastes at sea is less than the
comparable destruction on land. The cost of destructing
chlorinated hydrocarbons at sea is estimated at $61/metric
ton ($55/ton). The cost savings over land disposal is due to
the absence of any pollution control equipment on the incinera-
tor vessel. The overall environmental impact of incinerating
hazardous wastes on this vessel is not known.
The tables included in this section summarize available data for each
of the incinerator types. Detailed process descriptions, flow diagrams, and
available cost information are presented in Appendices I through X. The
potential for application of the process for hazardous waste destruction is
also addressed and experimental experience discussed in the Appendices.
Emission control facilities are usually required for hazardous waste
incineration. Control devices are normally adaptable to flue gas streams
from any of the incinerator types or models covered in this report.
Scrubbing devices, the most common emission control equipment, are useful
in reducing sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, particulates, and hazardous
breakdown products. Packed tower and venturi scrubbers are the most
widely used types, although there are a great many other types which may
be applicable. Caustic solutions are frequently used when scrubbing
acidic materials such as halogenated combustion products. Neutralization
and proper disposal of the scrubber solution blowdown is necessary.
Electrostatic precipitators, demisters, bag houses, and other mechanical
devices also find use for particulate control.
-------
TABLE I
ROTARY KILN INCINERATION
Process Principle: Slowly rotating cylinder mounted at slight incline
to horizontal. Tumbling action improves efficiency of solid waste
destruction. Technology adapted from lime processing.
Application: Most organic wastes; well suited for solids and sludges;
liquids and gases fired through auxilairy nozzles.
Combustion Temperatures: 81QO-16500C (15000-300QOF)5
Residence Times: Several seconds to several hours^
(liquids and gases-short, solids much longer)
Economics: Installed capital - $2800-$!!.200/daily metric ton
($2500-$10,000/daily ton)5>6
Kiln maintenance - 5-10% of installed cost/yr.-7
Examples:
(1) Thumbleburner^ - manuf. by Bartlett-Snow
Commmerically available
Capacity - 45 Kg-1.8 metric tons/hr. (100 lbs.-2 tons/hr.)
Solid waste heating values acceptable - 550-8250 Kg.-cal./Kg.
(1000 - 15,000 BTU/lb.)
(2) Dow Chemical-Midland, Michigan
Industrial chemical waste unit
Temperatures - 810°C (1500°F) normal9'™.!!
Heating value capacity - 16xl05 Kg.-cal./hr.9
(65xl06 BTU/hr.)
(3) Rollins Environmental Services-Logan Township, New Jersey^
Central industrial waste facility
Temperatures - 870°C (1600°F)
(4) Chemical Agent Munitions Disposal System^
U.S. Army Materiel Command
Under development - obsolete munitions
Temperatures - 260°C-650oC (500°F-1200°F)
-------
TABLE II
MULTIPLE HEARTH INCINERATION
Process Principle: Solid feed slowly moves through vertically stacked
hearths, gases and liquids fed through side ports and nozzles. Current
applications largely in sewage sludge incineration.
Application: Most organic wastes; well suited for solids and sludges,
also handles liquids and gases.
Furnace Temperatures: (with sewage sludge)1
drying zone - 320-540<>C (600-1000°F)
incineration zone - 760-980°C (1400=1800°F)
Residence Times: Up to several hours for solids
Economics: Basis dry solids (sludge 75% moisture)
Installed cost - $55-$495/Kg./hr. ($25-225/15./hr.) capacity
Operating cost - $3-$24/metric ton ($2-$22/ton)14,16
Example:
(1) Palo Atlo, California municipal sludge incinerators, 2-6 hearth
units, each 450 Kg. (1000 lb.)/hr. dry solids capacity
-------
TABLE III
LIQUID INJECTION INCINERATION
Process Principle: Vertical or horizontal vessel; wastes atomized
through nozzles to increase rate of vaporization.
Application: Limited to pumpable liquids and slurries (750 SSU or
less for proper atomization)''
Combustion Temperatures: 650
-------
TABLE III (con't)
8
(6) Dow Chemical-Midiand, Michigan10'26
Four industrial chemical waste incinerators
Heat release capacities:
(a) 20xl06Kg.-cal. (81xlOfBTU)/hr.
(b) 14x10%.-cal. (56xl06BTU)/hr.
(c) 8xl06£g.-cal. (32xl06BTU)/hr
(d) 16xl06Kg.-cal. (65xl06BTU)/hr.
Temperatures - 980°C (180QOF) normal
(7) Thermal Destructor - Canadian Defence Research Establishment,
Ralston, Alberta 27>28,29
Constructed to dispose of DDT
Designed by - Garver Davis, Inc., Cleveland, Ohio
Capacity - 380L (100 gals.j/hr.
Temperature - 90QOC (1650°F) normal
Operating cost - $.05/L ($.20/gal.)
(8) Hansa Company-Rotterdam, Netherlands4'30,31
Shipboard contract industrial waste incineration service (2 incinerators)
Capacity - 9 metric tons (10 tons)/hr. each
Temperature - 1650°C (30000F) maximum
Projected U.S. cost - $61/metric ton ($55/ton)
(9) Sudden Expansion (SUE) Burner!,32,33,34,35
Marquardt Company, Van Nuys, California
Temperatures - 54QO-3150°C (1000°-57000F)
Residence time - 1/2 second
-------
TABLE IV
FLUIDIZED BED INCINERATION
ocess Principle: Wastes are injected into a hot agitated bed of
ert granular particles; heat is transferred between the bed material
ften sand) and the waste during combustion.
plication: Most organic wastes; ideal for liquids, also handles
lids and gases.
mbustion Temperatures: 750°-870°C (1400°-1600°F)1
isidence Times: Seconds for gases, liquids; longer for solids
:onomics: Reported capital costs - Fog liquids $265-$635/liter/hr.
($1000-$2400/gal./hr.)3b
For solids - $110-$290/Kg./hr. ($50-$130/lb./hr.)
Operating cost - approx. $28/metric ton ($25/ton) dry solids1*'
Project operating costs - For liquids - $.0025-$.021/liter
($.01-.08/gal)
For sludges - $22-$44/metric ton ($20-$40/ton) dry
-------
10
TABLE V
MOLTEN SALT PROCESS
Process Principle: Wastes are injected into a bed of molten salt (usually
sodium carbonate) where combustion occurs; salts may react with and retain
off gases.
Application: Most organic wastes
Combustion Temperatures: 810-980°C (1500-18000F)45
Residence Times: 3/4 second average^
Economics: Proposed investment cost for complete portable 230Kg (500 lb)/hr unit
$500,OOO47. for a 90 Kg (200 lb)hr. unit with salt regeneration,
$800,000.46
Examples:
(1) Atomics International, Canoga Park, Calif.48
Pilot plant stage
Capacity - 4.5 metric tons (5 tons)/day
-------
11
TABLE VI
WET OXIDATION - ZIMMERMAN PROCESS
Process Principle: Oxidation of organic materials in a liquid state
under high pressure at moderate temperatures. Sulfur, nitrogen, and
halogen breakdown products are retained in liquid effluent.
Application: Soluble and water miscible organic wastes.
Oxidation Pressure: 316,000 - 1,758,000 Kg/m2 gauge (450-2500 psig)49'50
Residence Time: 10-30 min.51
Economics: Total treatment costs (capital and operating) - $.025-.525/1iter
(.00.-.02
-------
12
TABLE VII
PLASMA DESTRUCTION
Process Principle: Wastes are injected into high energy plasma; energy
transfer degrades organic bonds.
Application: Work has been limited to gases, perhaps adaptable to liquids
and solids.
Temperatures: 150°C (300°F)52
Residence Times: 0.1-1.0 seconds
Economics: Installed cost (laboratory unit) - $10,00053
Cost of electricity - 22<£/Kg destroyed™ (lOtf/lb.)
Example:
'^C/l
(1) Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Research Labs., Palo Alto, Calif.»*
Only known developer
Laboratory scale unit
-------
13
TABLE VIII
MULTIPLE CHAMBER INCINERATION
Process Principle: Wastes are combusted on a grate or hearth in an ignition
chamber; gases travel through mixing and secondary combustion chambers; most
common application is municipal refuse incineration.
Application: Limited to solid materials; sludges, powders, tars and other
wastes not acceptable.
Combustion Temperatures: 540°C (100QOF) normal1
Residence Times: Solids-minutes, Gases -seconds
Economics:
Installed cost: $17.50-$37.50/hourly Kg capacity
($8.00-$17.00/hourly pound capacity)1
Operating costs: $16.00-$18.00/metric ton
($15.00-$16.00/ton) (includes capital cost)
-------
14
TABLE IX
GAS COMBUSTION
Process Principle:
a. Flare - open burning from a nozzle
b. Direct flame - combustion at elevated temperatures in presence
of flame.
c. Catalytic oxidation - waste gas is preheated prior to exposure
to catalyst bed where the oxidation reaction occurs.
Application:
a. Flares - not environmentally suitable for hazardous materials.
b. Direct flame - gases with BTU values less than 25% of the lower
flammable limit.
c. Catalytic oxidation - gases with low BTU values (about 180 Kg-cal/m3
(20 BTU/scf) max.)
Combustion Temperatures:
a. Flares - dependent upon waste heat value
b. Direct flame - 450-810°C (850-15000F)1
c. Catalytic combustion - 320-5400C (600-100QOF)1
Residence Times:
a. Flare - negligible
b. Diredt flame - 0.3-0.5 seconds'
c. Catalytic oxidation - 1 second
Economics: 1'21' 55> 56> 57
a. Flare - capital cost $.22-$22/SCMM ($.006-$.60/SCFM)
b. Direct flame - Capital cost
w/o heat exchanger $54-$71/SCMM ($1.50-$2/SCFM)
with heat exchanger $71-$161/SCMM ($2-$4.50/SCFM)
Operating cost - $3.07-$3.78/100 SCMM ($.86-$l.06/1000 SCFM)
c. Catalytic oxidation - Capital cost
140 SCMM (5000 SCFM) unit $71/SCMM ($2/SCFM)
w/o heat exchanger
280 SCMM (10,000 SCFM) unit $71-$89/SCMM ($2-$2.50/SCFM)
w/o heat exchanger
280 SCMM (10,000 SCFM) unit $100-$161/SCMM ($2.80-$4.50/
with heat exchanger SCFM)
Fuel cost - $0-$15,000/yr
-------
15
TABLE X
PYROLYSIS
Process Principle: Thermal decomposition in the absence of oxygen
transforms organic materials into solids, liquids, and gaseous organic
materials of simpler structure.
Application: Primarily useful with solids and sludges-potential for
resource recovery of breakdown products (primarily as fuel).
Retort Temperatures: 480-81 (PC (900-1 500°F) normal
Residence Times: 12-15 minutes normal ^
Economics: (municipal refuse) Total investment cost
$ll,000-$15,000/daily metric ton capacity
($10,000-$14,000/daily ton capacity)
Project operating cost
$4.50-$10/metric ton ($4-$9/ton)
Examples:
(1) Kemp Converter - Kemp Reduction Corp. °9' 60> 61' 62
Pilot plant stage - untried with hazardous materials
(2) San Diego, California - Garrett Research Corp. design, EPA
demonstration - municipal refuse
181 metric TPD (200 TPD), fuel oil recovery
(3) Baltimore, Maryland - Monsanto design - Landgard, EPA
demonstration - municipal refuse
907 metric TPD (1000 TPD), fuel gas recovery
(4) Erie County, New York - Carborundum design
Municipal and special wastes - pilot unit
68 metric TPD (75 TPD) - pyrolysis unit, combustion unit
-------
16
INCINERATION CRITERIA
A vast number of different waste materials, representing a broad
spectrum of physical and chemical characteristics, can be destroyed by
incineration. However, temperature and residence time conditions necessary
for complete destruction vary widely depending on chemical structure and
physical form. Also, the characteristics and capabilities of the 10 major
types of incinerators (and the many models of each) differ widely. Thus,
the ideal combination of incinerator type and model, and temperature/dwell
time conditions will vary widely for each waste. This contrasts with
municipal waste incinerators where the feed (refuse) is relatively uniform
with time and from place to place.
Our knowledge of specific incineration criteria for individual wastes
is limited. Appendix XI presents known requirements for some materials.
It is possible, however, to formulate general considerations which, if
addressed, should be helpful in planning incineration activities and in
precluding serious health hazards or environmental degradation.
(1) Generally speaking, only organic materials are candidates for
incineration although some inorganics can be thermally degraded.
(2) Chlorine-containing organics emit extremely corrosive hydrogen
chloride gas upon incineration. Other halogens behave similarly.
Materials of construction should be chosen accordingly and
suitable emission scrubbers provided (packed tower, venturi, or
equivalent). Scrubbing solutions of caustic soda appear to be
the most suitable. Combustion units have been developed which
are capable of recovering useable hydrogen chloride.
(3) Organic materials containing dangerous heavy metals (mercury,
arsenic, selenium, lead, cadmium) should not be incinerated
unless the fate of the metal components in the environment is
known or can be satisfactorily controlled by air and water
pollution control equipment. These heavy metals may be
vaporized but more commonly will exist as an oxide in the ash
or as a particulate. Resource recovery of metals from the
ash or scrubber effluent should be considered. If the
residuals are hazardous, landfilling of the ash or scrubber
sludge should be examined with care to ensure that health
hazards or environmental degradation do not occur due to
leaching of toxic metal ions to subsurface waters or wind
dispersal of toxic ash. Encapsulation prior to burial or
permanent storage may be necessary.
-------
17
(4) Sulfur-containing organic materials will normally emit sulfur
oxide on incineration. Care should be taken to remove these
materials from stack gases if present in appreciable concentration.
(5) Formation of nitrogen oxides can be minimized by keeping incinera-
tion temperatures below IIOOOC (200QOF).
(6) The destruction ratio of a given material upon incineration is
dependent to a large extent on the relationship of incineration
temperature to dwell time at that temperature. The higher the
temperature used, the shorter the permissible dwell time necessary
to achieve a given destruction ratio. As a general rule most
organic hazardous materials can be virtually completely destroyed
at 10000C (18300F) at a dwell time of 2 seconds. Many are com-
pletely destroyed at lower temperature/dwell time conditions; a
few require more rigorous conditions. Incineration of hazardous
organics should not be carried out unless the necessary conditions
are known or unless test burns are first conducted to determine
off-gas characteristics.
(7) The hazard posed by incineration of a hazardous material is
largely a function of amounts, nature, and distribution of
the combustion products entering the environment. These
products may be undegraded hazardous material, partially
degraded toxic breakdown products, or hazardous end-products
such as sulfur oxides, hydrogen chloride, or heavy metals.
They may exist as a gaseous or particulate emission to the
atmosphere, or in the scrubber water, or as ash residue. Care
must be taken that these materials are not dispersed or disposed
of in concentrations capable of affecting health or damaging
property or the environment. All applicable Federal, State,
and local air emission and water effluent standards and regulations
must be complied with.
(8) Incinerators burning hazardous materials should be equipped with
automatic feed cut-off provisions in the event of either a
flame-out or a reduction in reactor temperature below the tempera-
ture known to give complete combustion. This will help to prevent
emission of unburned or only partially degraded materials to the
atmosphere in the case of equipment malfunction.
-------
18
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
As with the application of any new technology, there are a great many
unanswered questions. Because the demand for use of the incineration
process is already large and rapidly accelerating, there is an urgent
need for answers to such questions as:
(a) Which materials can be satisfactorily incinerated?
(b) What are the necessary temperature-dwell relationships and
the resulting destruction efficiencies?
(c) What are the characteristics of the off-gases and ash residues?
(d) Which incinerator types (fluid bed, molten salt, liquid
injection, sewage sludge, etc.) are environmentally suitable
for which wastes and what are the related costs?
(e) How can an incinerator be evaluated for suitability?
The search for answers has generated a number of research and development
projects on the part of generators and manufacturers of equipment and to a
lesser extent, the Government. Much of this work, particularly that carried
on by industrial generators and commercial disposal facilities, can be
characterized as efforts to refine existing practices and to determine
environmental adequacy of existing techniques. EPA actions to ban use of
some exisiting pesticides and to recommend disposal procedures for others
have generated experimental work to determine incineration criteria for
pesticides.
Since 1967, the Mississippi State University has been conducting
pesticide disposal studies of a fundamental nature, under the sponsorship
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Initial laboratory and pilot scale
studies in incineration included the following:
1. Determination of combusting temperatures and volatile off-gases
of selected pesticides.
2. Determination of design requirements for readily combustible
pesticide containers.
3. Development of specifications for an incinerator or other device
for the disposal of pesticides and containers.
-------
19
This initial work was completed in 1970. The investigations involved
20 analytical grade pesticides and 20 of their most commonly used formula-
tions. The 20 pesticides included 13 herbicides, 4 insecticides, 2 fungi-
cides, and 1 nematocide as follows: 2,4-D, 2,4,5-T, dicamba, dalapon,
picloram, DDT, dieldrin, atrazine, bromacil, paraquat, carbaryl, vernolate,
DNBP, diuron, malathion, DSMA, DBCP, PMA, trifluralin, and zineb.
The several different pesticide container materials investigated were:
Lithate 2,4-D, polyvinylchloride, clear polyethylene, amber polyethylene,
polypropylene, Teflon, and milk cartons. Significant results included the
following^4' 65» 66> 67
1. Combustible containers are completely combusted at 900°C (1650°F).
2. Combustible containers incinerate at 700°C (1290QF). Mixtures of
pesticides and containers incinerate more readily than single
pesticides or single containers.
3. Primary and secondary burning at 900°C (16500F) achieves more
complete combustion with minimum discharge of particulate matter.
4. The ashes of wettable powders contain bromine, arsenic, mercury
and zinc among many other elements.
5. Incineration of pesticides and containers at 900°C (1650°F)
produces hazardous and corrosive gases such as chlorine, fluorine,
bromine, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and ammonia.
MSU also performed an investigation into the thermal decomposition of
orange herbicides for the Air Force in 1972. The objectives of this work
were to:
1. Determine the temperatures required for complete thermal degradation.
2. Determine the degradation products.
3. Determine the nature of the volatile off-gases of orange herbicide
including dioxin content.
4. Evaluate suitable scrubbing agents to remove toxicants from the
emissions.
This work was done in a laboratory scale incineration unit. Significant
conclusions were the following:
1. A minimum temperature of lOOOQC (183QOF) is necessary to insure
complete destruction of pure dioxin.
-------
20
2. The bulk of the dioxin is disintegrated at 850°C (156QOF).
3. Herbicide orange is completely destroyed at 900°C (1650°F).
4. No dioxin was detected in the incombustible residues, particulate
matter, or the emission scrubbing solutions following incineration
of herbicide orange at 7500C, 80QOC, and 85QOC (138QOF, 147QOF,
and 1560°F).
5. Sodium hydroxide solutions of appropriate strength are for all
practical purposes found to be the most efficient and desirable
scrubbing solutions for the effluent stream.
6. One or more secondary burning chambers appear to be desirable
for efficient incineration of herbicide orange.
Current MSU work, which will conclude in 1975, involves investigating
the effects of thermally shocking pesticides at 300-400°C (570-750°) for
30 minutes and then land disposing them. It has been found that many
pesticides degrade to relatively harmless materials at these low temperatures,
OSWMP supported a research contract in 1970 entitled Organic Pesticides
and Pesticide Containers; ^ Study of Their Decontamination and Combustion
which was performed by Foster Snell, Inc. The project objectives were to
investigate the use of oxidizing agents and binding agents to aid in the
destruction of pesticides, and to investigate the thermal destruction of
pesticides in containers. Pesticides utilized included DDT, aldrin,
diapon, dalapon, Sevin, and malathion. Notable conclusions and recommen-
dations include the following;68
1. Binding agents retain the pesticide to ensure complete combustion.
2. Oxidizing agents aid in pesticide oxidation and lower the
temperature required for completing combustion.
3. Binding agents alone were as effective in aiding pesticide
destruction as a combination of oxidants and binding agents.
4. Polyethylene serves the same purpose as a binding agent and also
serves as a suitable liner for most pesticide containers.
5. For combustion purposes, it is recommended that combustible
pesticides be packaged in light polyethylene packs surrounded
by a combustible container such as a corrugated package or fiber
carton.
-------
21
The Department of Defense is also funding research and demonstration
activities to determine optimum methods for incineration of the many military
hazardous wastes (pesticides, chemical warfare agents, obsolete munitions,
etc.). The Combustion Power Corporation's LSW incinerator, a fluidized bed
unit, is test burning six common military wastes for the Air Force. Included
are: herbicide orange, aircraft washrack wastes, paint stripping wastes, and
three types of petroleum lubricant wastes.37 (See Appendix IV for details).
Lockheed's Microwave Plasma Destructor has test destructed small quantities
of nerve gas-like materials for the Army.53 (See Appendix VII for details).
Atomics International has done some work for the Navy in a pilot scale molten
salt combustor to test destruct explosives and propellants.47 (See Appendix
V for details). The Marquardt Sudden Expansion (SUE) Burner, a sophisticated
liquid injection model, has test destructed quantities of herbicide orange,
solvent fumes, boron slurries, propel!ants, chlorinated hydrocarbons, DDT,
and hydrazine.35 TRW Systems is test destructing various pesticides for the
Army in a laboratory liquid injection unit of in-house design.6^ (See Appendix
III for details). The Canadian Defence Research Establishment has destroyed
large quantities of DDT in its Thermal Destructor, a full-scale liquid
injection incinerator, and intends to burn other hazardous materials.27
(See Appendix III for details).
Some equipment manufacturers have undertaken demonstration programs on
their own in efforts to gain acceptance for their equipment. For instance,
Atomics International has destroyed test quantities of four pesticides
(chlordane, Weed B Gon, malathion, and Sevin) in a laboratory molten salt
unit.27 (See Appendix V for details).
Most of the EPA effort relating to incineration has been directed toward
burning of municipal refuse and to a lesser extent, sewage sludge. However,
with the formation of OSWMP's Hazardous Waste Management Division (May 1973)
and the identification of an increasing hazardous waste disposal problem,70
EPA involvement in hazardous waste incineration began. A survey of the
available information, as summarized in this report, was sufficient to
quickly indicate the dearth of existing knowledge concerning specific
incineration criteria. It was obvious that work in progress, being carried
on by others and summarized above, would not be sufficient to fill the
wide informational gaps. Clearly, to evaluate the place of incineration
in the anticipated hazardous waste disposal regulatory program an EPA
technology assessment, demonstration, and research effort in hazardous
waste incineration is essential. In developing such a program, the
overall goal of fostering the presence of adequate treatment/disposal
technology and facilities for all hazardous wastes must be balanced
against the immediate need for real world solutions to problems involving
specific materials such as DDT and other pesticides. Key elements for
the program are as follows:
-------
22
a. Pesticide/Sewage Sludge Co-incineration Demonstration - A full
scale demonstration of the feasibility of burning pesticides in
conjunction with sewage sludge is to be carried out in the Palo Alto,
California, multiple hearth sewage sludge incinerator facility.
The work is expected to prove the suitability of one type of
existing incinerator for the disposal of an excess pesticide,
DDT, and one being considered for cancellation, 2,4,5-T.
b. Pesticides Incineration Criteria Research - The Solid and
Hazardous Waste Research Laboratory (SHWRL/ORD) has contracted
with the Midwest Research Institute to develop destruction
ratio curves for various temperature/dwell time combinations
for a series of pesticides. The pilot scale incinerator in
use is a liquid injection model with solid feed capability.
Pesticides to be included in this work are: DDT, picloram,
malathion, zineb, captan, atrazine, mi rex, toxaphene, and
several others. The unit is equipped with a three stage
scrubber system. Breakdown products will be analyzed.
To date, preliminary test burns of DDT have been conducted
and a 99.5% destruction ratio was reportedly achieved.71,72,73
c. Technology Assessment - An OSWMP in-house technology assessment
program is underway which is characterized by a large number of
on~site visitations and interviews with experts in the various
technology areas. This work is expected to provide both short-term
answers to currently identified problems, and also to identify
available technology which can be brought to bear on identified
problem areas. While this effort is not limited to incineration
processes, it is one of the focal points of study along with
landfilling and chemical degradation.
d. Hazardous Waste Incineration Demonstration - A large scale
demonstration project is being developed by OSWMP to test the
suitability of various types of thermal destruction units for
the disposal of representative types of organic hazardous
wastes. Preliminary plans call for test incinerating approx-
imately 50 materials in a variety of incinerator models.
Destruction ratios and breakdown products will be determined
for various temperature/dwell time conditions.
In addition to the above scheduled work, OSWMP is making a^ in-house
assessment of the impact of air and water pollution control implementation
on the types and quantities of potentially hazardous wastes for land
disposal. This work is expected to identify the waste types which are
likely to cause the greatest problems. This information coupled with the
technology assessment work previously discussed will'identify where
future technology development and demonstration efforts must be
concentrated.
-------
23
REFERENCES
1. Ottinger, R. S., J. L. Blumenthal, D. F. Dal Porto, G. I. Gruber,
M. J. Santy, and C. C. Shih. Disposal process descriptions-
ultimate disposal, incinerations, and pyrolysis processes. JJT_
Recommended methods of reduction, neutralization, recovery or
disposal of hazardous waste, v.3. Washington, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, August 1973. 251 p. (Distributed by National
Technical Information Service, Springfield, Va., as PB-224 582.)
2. Personal Communication. E. Schuster, Chem-Trol Pollution Services,
to A. W. Lindsey and T. Fields, Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs, Jan. 16, 1974.
3. Rollins Environmental Services* Inc. Unpublished data, July 1973.
4. Personal Communication. D. Carruth and W. Allen, American Eagle
Foundation, to A. W. Lindsey and A. C. Scurlock, Office of
Solid Waste Management Programs, Dec. 1973.
5. Santy, M. Rotary kiln incineration. Cleveland, Bartlett-Snow
Company, Jan. 1972. (Unpublished report.)
6. Witt, P. A., Jr. Disposal of solid wastes. Chemical Engineering,
78(22):62-78, Oct. 4, 1971.
7. Perry, R. H. and C. H. Chi 1 ton, eds. Chemical engineers'
handbook. 5th ed. New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company,
[1973.] Iv. (various pagings). (McGraw-Hill Chemical
Engineering Series.)
8. Tumble-burner. Bulletin 205B. Cleveland, Bartlett-Snow Company,
1970. 6p.
9. Novak, R. G. Eliminating or disposing of industrial solid wastes.
Chemical Engineering, 77(21):78-82, Oct. 5, 1970.
10. Novak, R. G. Industrial solid waste disposal. Presented at
Solid Industrial Wastes Symposium, Annual Meeting, American
Institute of Chemical Engineers, Houston, Feb. 28-Mar. 4,
1971. 13 p.
11. Personal communication. R. Novak, Dow Chemical Company to
J. P. Lehman and S. Morekas, Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs, Nov. 1972.
-------
24
12. Personal communication. Rollins Environmental Services, Inc.,
to Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, July 1973.
13. Department of the Army, Edgewood Arsenal. Transportable
disposal systems; environmental statement. Special publication,
EASP 200, July 1971. 297 p.
14. Sebastian, F. P., and P. J. Cardinal. Solid waste disposal.
Chemical Engineering, 75(22):112-117, Oct. 14, 1968.
15. Unterberg, W., R. J. Sherwood, and G. R. Schneider: Component
costs for multiple-hearth sludge incineration from field
data. ^Proceedings; 1974 National Incinerator Conference,
Miami, Florida, May 12-15, 1974. New York, American Society
of Mechanical Engineers, 1974. p. 289-309.
16. Personal communication. R. Fox, Envirotech, Inc., to A. Scurlock,
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Mar. 5, 1974.
17. Ross, R. D., ed. Industrial waste disposal. New York, Reinhold
Book Corporation, [1968.] 340 p. (Reinhold Environmental
Engineering Series.)
18. Demarco, J., D. J. Keller, J. Leckman, and J. L. Newton.
Municipal-scale incinerator design and operation. Formerly
titled "Incinerator Guidelines-1969." Public Health
Service Publication No. 2012. Washington, U. S. Government
Printing Office, 1969. 98 p.
19. PCB retreats again. Chemical Week, 110(5): 14-15, Feb. 2, 1972.
20. Prenco; the modern approach to liquid pollution control. Detroit,
Pickands Mather and Company. 7p.
21. Lund, H. F., ed. Industrial pollution control handbook. New York
McGraw-Hill Book Company, [1971.] Iv (various pagings.)
22. Wagner, L. E. Contract waste disposal. Presented at Open
Meeting, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New
York, Sept. 9, 1971. 6 p.
23. Personal communication. Rollins-Purle, Inc. to S. Morekas and
J. Lehman, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, and
x H. Johnson, Office of Research and Monitoring, July 27, 1972.
24. Williamson, P. Processing of industrial wastes at regional
treatment facilities. Presented at Open Meeting, American
Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, Sept. 9, 1971. 4 p.
25. Personal communication. General Electric Company to D. Huebner
and I. Leighton, EPA Region I, Nov. 20, 1973.
-------
25
26. Waste control at Dow-Midland. Midland, Mich., Dow Chemical
Company. 20 p.
27. Montgomery, M. L., B. G. Cameron, and R. S. Weaver. The
thermal destructor; a facility for incineration of
chlorinated hydrocarbons. Suffield Report No. 270.
Ralston, Alta., Defence Research Establishment, Suffield,
Oct. 1971. 14 p.
28. Defence Research Establishment, Suffield. Unpublished data,
Nov. 1972.
29. Personal communication. R. S. Weaver, Defence Research
Establishment, Suffield, to R. A. Carnes, Solid and
Hazardous Waste Research Laboratory, Feb. 13, 1974.
30. M/T Vulcanus-incineration vessel. Rotterdam, Ocean
Combustion Service, 1973. 18 p.
31. Composition of chlorinated hydrocarbons presently being burnt
in Europe by the M/T "Vulcanus" for a major chemical
company. Rotterdam, Ocean Combustion Service, June 14,
1973. 1 p.
32. Babbit, R. P. and J. L. Clure. Report of the development and
testing of the Marquardt SUE fume incinerator. Marquardt
Report No. S1203. Van Nuys, Calif. Marquardt Company,
Jan. 1972. 28 p.
33. Marquardt's SUE incinerator. Van Nuys, Calif., Marquardt
Company. 14 p.
34. Personal communication. R. J. Haas, Marquardt Company, to
J. Talty, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
July 6, 1973.
35. Personal communication. R. J. Haas and L. Boy!and, Marquardt
Company, to Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
staff, Jan. 23, 1974.
36. Personal communication. M. I. Kerr, Combustion Power Company,
to A. C. Scurlock, Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs, Mar. 14, 1974.
37. Ferrell, J. F. Sludge incineration. Pollution Engineering,
5(3):36-39, Mar. 1973.
-------
26
38. Hescheles, C. A., and S. L. Zeid. Investigation of three systems
to dry and incinerate sludge, jn^ Proceedings; 1972 National
Incinerator Conference, New York, June 4-7, 1972. New York,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1972. p. 265-280.
39. Determining the feasibility of disposing of Air Force liquid
wastes in the LSW-500 industrial prototype. Progress
Reports Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Menlo Park, Calif.,
Combustion Power Company, Aug. 14, Oct. 22, Nov. 15,
Dec. 20, 1973, and Feb. 1, 1974.
40. LSW-liquid and solid waste disposal systems for municipal
wastes; engineering report. Menlo Park, Calif., Combustion
Power Company. 33 p.
41. Personal communication. R. A. Chapman to N.,B. Schomaker,
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Laboratory, Sept. 25,, 1973.
42. Personal communication. D. P. Van Buren, Combustion Power
Company, to R. Chapman, Solid and Hazardous Waste Research
Laboratory, Dec. 14, 1973.
43. Personal communication. M. I. Kerr, Combustion Power Company,
to A. C. Scurlock, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
Nov. 29, 1973.
44. Hydrasposal/fiberclaim. Middletown, Ohio, Black Clawson Company,
1971.
45. Molten salt combustion process for waste disposal. Canoga Park,
Calif., Atomics International Division of Rockwell International
Inc. 11 p.
46. Personal communication. W. Botts, Atomics International, to
A. W. Lindsey, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
July 10, 1974.
47. Personal communication. J. D. Gylfe, Atomics International, to
A. W. Lindsey and A. C. Scurlock, Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, Jan. 11, 1974.
48. The Atomics International molten salt process for special
applications. Canoga Park, Calif., Atomics International
Division of Rockwell International, Inc., Nov. 16, 1973.
54 p.
-------
27
49. Packaged waste treatment systems. Sunnyvale, Calif.,
Biotechnology Division, Lockheed Missiles and Space
Company, Inc., 1974. 11 p. (Unpublished report.)
50. Advances in wet oxidation waste treatment systems. Sunnyvale,
Calif., Biotechnology Division, Lockheed Missiles and Space
Company, Inc. 8 p.
51. Personal communication. T. M. Olcott and B. M. Greenough,
Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, Inc., to Office of
Solid Waste Management Programs staff, Feb. 7, 1974.
52. Microwave plasms decomposition of toxic wastes. Sunnyvale,
Calif., Lockheed Research Laboratory, Lockheed Missiles
and Space Company, Inc., 1973. 17 p. (Unpublished report.)
53. Personal Communication. L. Bailin, E. Littauer, R. Simmons,
and J. Burback, Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, Inc.,
to Office of Solid Waste Management Programs staff, Nov. 7,
1973.
54. Personal communication. L. Bailin, E. Littauer, and J. Burback,
Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, Inc., to A. C. Scurlock,
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Nov. 29, 1973.
55. Personal Communication. J. Brewer, Air Correction Division of
UOP, to M. Santy, TRW Systems, Mar. 21, 1972.
56. Brewer, G. L. Fume incineration. Chemical Engineering, 75(22):
160-165, Oct. 14, 1968.
57. Direct flame method of incineration for combustible solvents.
Air Engineering, 10(4): 32-33, Apr. 1968.
58. Office of Solid Waste Management Programs. Unpublished data.
59. Personal communication. K. Kemp, Kemp Reduction Corporation,
to H. Trask, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
Nov. 11, 1973.
60. Personal Communication. K. Kemp, Kemp Reduction Corporation,
to A. C. Scurlock, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
Jan. 9, 1974.
61. Personal communication. K. Kemp, Kemp Reduction Corporation,
to H. Trask, Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
Sept. 11, 1973.
62. Kemp waste converter. Santa Barbara, Calif., Kemp Reduction
Corporation. 8 p.
-------
28
63. Pesticides and containers; acceptance, disposal, and storage;
proposed rulemaking and issuance of procedures. Federal
Register. 38(99): 13622-13626, May 23, 1973.
64. Stojanovic, B. J., F. L. Shuman, Jr., and M. V. Kennedy. Basic
research on equipment and methods for decontamination and
disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers; annual
report, 23 June 1968 to 23 June 1969. [State College],
Mississippi Agricultural Experiment Station, June 1969. 178 p.
65. Stojanovic, B. J., F. L. Shuman, Jr., and M. V. Kennedy. Basic
research on equipment and methods for decontamination and
disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers; annual report,
23 June 1969 to 23 June 1970. [State College], Mississippi
Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, June 1970. 125 p.
66. Stojanovic, B. J., F. L. Shuman, Jr., and M. V. Kennedy. Basic
research on equipment and methods for decontamination and
disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers; final report,
June 23, 1967 to June 23, 1970. [State College], Mississippi
Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station, June 1970. 31 p.
67. Technical report on thermal decomposition of orange herbicides. State
College, Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station
and Plant Science Research Division, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
June 1, 1972. 79 p.
68. Putnam, R. C., F. Ellison, R. Protzmann, and J. Hilovsky. Organic
pesticides and pesticide containers; a study of their decontamina-
tion and combustion. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971.
175 p. (Distributed by National Technical Information Service,
Springfield, Va., as PB-202 202.)
69. Personal communication. R. S. Ottinger, R. Johnson, and C. Shih,
TRW Systems .Group, to A. C. Scurlock, Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, Jan. 11-14, 1973.
70. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs. Disposal of hazardous wastes; report to
Congress. Environmental Protection Publication SW-115. Washington,
U. S. Government Printing Office, 1974. 110 p.
71. Personal communication. D. Oberacker, Solid and Hazardous Waste
Research Laboratory, to A.C.Scurlock, Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, Jan 8, 1974.
72. Personal communication. D. Oberacker, Solid and Hazardous Waste
Research Laboratory, to L. Ferguson, Midwest Research
Institute, Jan 9, 1974.
73. Personal communication. D. Oberacker, Solid and Hazardous Waste
Research Laboratory, to H. Trask, H. Day, and A. C. Scurlock,
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, Jan 17, 1974.
-------
29
APPENDIX I
Rotary Kiln
Rotary kiln incinerators have been used at both industrial and
municipal installations for disposal of combustible solids, liquids, and
gaseous wastesJ including obsolete chemical warfare agents and munitions.2
While municipal rotary kilns normally handle only solid wastes,
industrial kilns are generally designed for both solid and Itquid feeds
(gaseous disposal is usually of secondary importance).
The rotary kiln is a cylindrical, horizontal, refractory-lined shell
which is mounted at a slight incline. Rotation of the shell causes mixing
of the waste with the combustion air, thus improving combustion efficiency.
The length to diameter ratio of the combustion chamber normally varies
between 2/1 and 10/1 and the peripheral speed of rotation is -normally in
the range of 0.3m to 1.5m (1 to 5 feet) per minute.3 Combustion temperatures
vary according to the characteristics of the material being incinerated but
normally range from 810°-1,650°C (1,500°-3,000°F). Residence times vary
from several seconds to hours, depending on the waste; gaseous and liquid
wastes having the shorter dwell times.
Most rotary kiln installations, particularly those handling hazardous
wastes, are equipped with wet scrubber emission controls. Heat recovery
equipment is also common. The latter may take the form of heat exchangers
to preheat combustion air or of waste heat boilers for steam generation
(usually practical only in large installations).
Capital and operating costs of rotary kiln incineration systems vary
considerably according to the characteristics and quantities of the wastes
being incinerated and the extent of air pollution control equipment.
Uninstalled costs of a rotary kiln incinerator are reported to run between
$1,100-2,200/m3 ($30-60/ft3) of kiln,4 with installation normally equal to
200 percent of these figures.5 For a small industrial system, such as the
one shown in Figure 1, installed cost ranges from ($2,750 to $5,500 per
daily metric ton ($2,500 to $5,000 per daily ton) of feed capacity.3
Installed costs for large municipal rotary kiln incinerators, including
a waste heat boiler, are approximately $11,000 per metric ton ($10,000
per daily ton) of feed capacity.6 Kiln maintenance per year averages
5-10 percent of the total installed cost, though it is largely dependent
on refractory life. Total operating costs are scarce.
A variety of small portable rotary kilns are being marketed to handle
relatively hazardous feed materials. One such unit is the compact THUMBLE-
BURNER which is designed by Bartlett-Snow and which is shown in Figure 1.8
-------
30
^
•
^
u
Z
uj
3
O
CQ
10
o
.p
rj
O
u
O
oc
LU
CO
or
u
< UJ
^ £
Zee.
u.
UJ I
5 Z
2 2
o
u
LU
O
Q
Q u.
d" < g
- CtfLU H-UJ^H-
V 21 Ig 22 1§
o, 2 -
°
ee
S
_
< Z
r O
u>-
-H
•,
8
-
>i
!•!
O
«
0)
»-l
o
A
-H £Q
-P
T>
(0
M 0)
(0 H -P
.
co
-------
31
These units can handle solid wastes with a 550-8,250 kg.-cal./kg. (1,000
-15,000 BTU/lb.) heating value. Gaseous and liquid waste can be injected .
into the unit through auxiliary burners. Throughput for these units
ranges from 45 kg. (100 pounds) to 1.8 metric tons (2 tons) per hour.
The unit can be mounted on a movable skid or truck body.
A typical large rotary kiln industrial facility is operated by Dow
Chemical at their Midland, Michigan, plant (see Figure 2).y'lu'M This
incineration system includes four liquid injection-type combustors as
well as a 16 million kg.-cal./hr. (65 million BTU/hr.) rotary kiln. The
latter disposes of solid waste chemicals, solid refuse, liquid residues,
paper, wood, and other solids.
Liquid wastes for incineration are stored in receiving tanks. Those
in drums are drained into an agitated holding tank. Before incineration the
wastes are strained, then mixed and blended to produce a suitable mixture
for burning. Many liquid residues are chlorinated and can contain as high
as 50 percent chlorine plus unknown amounts of ash as iron, calcium,
magnesium, and sodium oxides and chlorides. Solid wastes consist of. tars,
plastic sheets, trimmings, strands, powders, plastic foam, paper, boxes,
and wood.
In the operation of this rotary kiln, the solid refuse is fed by crane
from the dumping pit to the charging hopper. Solid tars in drums are fed
into the 4 meter (13 foot) diameter kiln by a hydraulically operated drum
and pack feeding mechanism. While solids are being fed, the liquid wastes
are fired horizontally into the rotary kiln. The typical rotary kiln
temperature is 810°C (1,500°F). Resulting ash from the combustion process,
consisting of slag and metallic objects, is water quenched. The gaseous
products enter a secondary combustion chamber which permits sufficient
dwell time to assure complete combustion. No secondary fuel or afterburners
are used. The emission gases then pass through a water spray chamber for
fly ash removal, under a stack damper, and out through a 61 meter (200 foot)
stack.
Rotary kiln equipment, using the basic Dow design, but modified to
accomodate different wastes, is in use by the Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
Corporation at their St. Paul, Minnesota, and Decatur, Alabama, chemical
production complexes. Another unit is planned for Eastman Kodak's Rochester,
New York, facility. These units are used primarily for incineration of
captive industrial wastes and do not routinely accept wastes from outside
producers.
Rollins Environmental Services' operation in New Jersey is an example
of an incineration facility which accepts solid and liquid chemical wastes
in a system composed of a rotary kiln and a liquid injection unit attached
-------
32
H
O
-P
•H
rH
•H
CJ
Q)
G
O
C
rH
•H
Cn|
0
CQ
-------
to a common afterburner.12 The rotary kiln feed includes solids such as
contaminated paper, fabric, plastics, sludges, slurries, and drums.
Operating temperatures of 1,870°C (1900°F) are normal. The combined heat
release from both units is 29x1O6 kg.-cal./hr. (115x106 BTU/hr.). Combustion
gases pass through an afterburner and a venturi scrubber, which uses an
alkaline scrubbing solution. Effluents are pH adjusted and discharged
to a settling pond prior to overflow to a three to four day retention pond.
The U.S. Army Materiel Command is currently developing an incineration
system based on a rotary kiln for the destruction of explosives and obsolete
munitions. This is known as the Chemical Agent Munitions Disposal System.'3
In this system, an automated conveyer feeds wastes into the 7 meter (24 foot)
long rotary kiln deactivation furnace. Movement of waste material through
the kiln is accomplished by steel screws and is countercurrent to the fuel
oil burner flame. The temperature at the feed end is 260°C (500°F), and
at the burner end is 650°C (1,200°F). Combustion gases exit through a
cyclone for particulate removal. Alternately, the gases may pass through
an afterburner for completion of carbon monoxide oxidation, and then through
a packed tower scrubber. Caustic soda or soda ash solutions will be
recirculated as the scrubbing solution.
-------
34
REFERENCES
1. Bartlett-Snow Company. Thumbleburner, advertising brochure, Bulletin
205B. Cleveland, Ohio, 1970. 6p.
De Marco, J., D. J. Keller, J. Leckman, and J.L. Newton. Incinerator
guidelines - 7969. Public Health Service Publication No. 2012.
Rockville, Maryland, Bureau of Solid Waste Management, 1969. 105p.
ITT Research Institute. Utilization of red-mud wastes for lightweight
structural building products. Final report prepared for the U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines under Contract No.
14-09-0070-382, May 1969. 41 p.
Novak, R.G. Eliminating or disposing of industrial solid wastes.
Chemical Engineering. 77(21): 79-82, October 5, 1970.
As reported In:
Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Rotary
kiln incinerators. Jji^ Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal,
incineration, and pyrolysis processes. Jji^ Recommended methods of
reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous wastes.
V3. Publication No. PB 224-579. Springfield, Virginia, National
Technical Information Service. 249p.
2. Department of the Army, Edgewood Arsenal. Transportable disposal systems,
environmental statement. Special Publication, EASP 200-11, July 1971.
Horea, F.I., J. Wichmann, and W.A. Bullerdick. Disposal of waste or
excessive high explosives. Progress report, January - March 1972, prepare^
for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Albuquerque Operations Office
by Mason and Hanger. Silas Mason Co., Inc.
TRW internal correspondence. G.I. Gruber to R.S. Ottinger, April 7, 1972.
Trip report March 22-24, 1972. (Mason and Hanger, 01 in Comapny:
Army Materiel Command) Hazardous Waste Disposal.
As reported In;
Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Rotary
kiln incinerators. Jto Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal,
incineration, and pyrolysis processes. lr\_ Recommended methods of
reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste.
Publication No. PB 224-579. Springfield, Virginia, National Technical
Information Service. 249p.
-------
35
3. Personal communication. E. Dobak, Bartlett-Snow Company, to M. Santy,
TRW Systems, May 11, 1972.
As reported In:
Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Rotary
kiln incinerators. Ir± Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal,
incineration, and pyrolysis processes. Jji Recommended methods of
reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste. V3.
Publication No. PB 224-579. Springfield, Virginia, National Technical
Information Service. 249p.
4. Personal communication. J. Verfurth, Traylor Div., Fuller Co., Compton,
California, to J. Land, TRW Systems, December 14, 1971.
Personal communication. E. Dobak, Bartlett-Snow Company to M. Santy,
TRW Systems, May 11, 1972.
As reported In:
Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Rotary
kiln incinerators. Ir^ Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal,
incineration, and pyrolysis processes. lr^ Recommended methods of
reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous" waste.
V3. Publication No. PB 224-579. Springfield, Virginia, National
Technical Information Service. 249p.
5. Personal communication. J. Verfurth, Traylor Division, "Fuller Company,
Compton, California, to J. Land, TRW Systems, December 14, 1971.
As reported In:
Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Rotary
kiln incinerators. Jj^ Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal,
incineration, and pyrolysis processes. Jj^ Recommended methods of
reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste.
V3. Publication No. PB 224-579. Springfield, Virginia. National
Technical Information Service. 249p.
6. Witt, P.A. Jr. Disposal of solid wastes. Chemical Engineering. 78(22)
62-78, October 4, 1971.
As reported In;
Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Rotary
kiln incinerators. Jj^ Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal,
incineration, and pyrolysis processes. Jj^ Recommended methods of
reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste.
V3. Publication No. PB 224-579. Springfield, Virginia, National
Technical Information Service. 249p.
-------
7. Perry, R.H. Chemical Engineers' Handbook. 3rd Edition. New York,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1969.
As reported In:
Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Rotary
kiln incinerators. Jji Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal,
incineration, and pyrolysis processes. Jji Recommended methods of
reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste.
V3. Publication No. PB 224-579. Springfield, Virginia, National
Technical Information Service. 249p.
8. Bartlett-Snow Company. Thumb!eburner, advertising brochure.
Bulletin 205B. Cleveland, Ohio, 1970. 6p.
As reported In:
Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Rotary
kiln incinerators. Jj^ Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal,
incineration, and pyrolysis processes. Jji Recommended methods of
reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous wastes.
V3. Publication No. PB 224-579. Springfield, Virginia, National
Technical Information Service. 249p.
9. Novak, R.G. Eliminating or disposing of industrial solid wastes.
Chemical Engineering, 77(21);79-82, October 5, 1970.
As reported In:
Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Rotary
kiln incinerators. J^n Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal,
incineration, and pyrolysis processes. Ir^ Recommended methods of
reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste.
V3. Publication No. PB 224-579. Springfield, Virginia, National
Technical Information Service. 249p.
10. Novak, R.G. (Dow Chemical Company). Industrial solid waste disposal.
Presented at Solid Waste Symposium, Solid Waste Section of Environmental
Division, National AICHE Meeting, Houston, Texas, Feb. 28-March 4, 1971.
13p.
11. Personal visit. J.P. Lehman, S. Morekas, Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, to R. Novak, Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Michigan,
November 1972.
-------
37
APPENDIX II
Multiple Hearth
Multiple hearth incinerators may be used in the disposal of all forms
of combustible waste materials, including sludges, tars, solids, liquids,
and gases. Initially, these incinerators were developed to handle sewage
sludges but application has now been extended to various types of industrial
wastes.
The basic furnace is a refractory-lined circular steel shell with
vertically stacked refractory hearths (see Figure !).' Sludges are normally
fed to the top hearth, greases and tars through side ports, and liquid and
gaseous wastes through auxiliary nozzles.
The rotating central shaft is equipped with horizontal plows which
push the waste material across the face of the hearth to the drop holes.
The wastes fall through the holes to the next hearth, and so on, until
residual ash falls to the furnace floor. Air and combustion products
flow countercurrently to the feed from the bottom to the top of the
combustion chamber. Gases normally exit at 260°C to 540°C (5000-1000°F)
and in most cases pass through emission control devices prior to atmospheric
discharge.!
When incinerating sewage sludge, the furnace can be divided into three
operating zones: the top hearths which serve to dry the feed material to
about 48 percent moisture at temperatures from 3100-54QOC (6000-lOOOOF);
the incineratipn/deodorization zone, which has a temperature range of
760°-980°C (14000-1800QF); and the ash cooling zone from which ash is
discharged at about 10 percent of the original feed volume. For sewage
sludge, this ash usually contains less than one percent combustible
material and is usually land disposed.!
Waste characteristics impacting on the operation of the multiple hearth
incinerator include moisture content, which is critical because of its
effect on thermal load, and calorific value which is affected by the content
of volatile and inert materials. These characteristics determine the need
for supplementary fuel during operation. Waste combustion characteristics
and water content are important along with total waste volume in incinerator
sizing.
Costs for multiple hearth incinerators vary significantly depending
upon the type and quantity of waste being burned, the sophistication of air
and water pollution control equipment, waste pretreatment requirements,
construction materials, supplementary fuel needs, and labor. The installed
cost for only the incinerator ranges from $55-$495/kg./hr. ($25-$225/lb./
hr.).2'3 Operating costs range from $3.10-$23.80/metric ton ($2.80-21.60/ton
-------
co
\
4J
CO
>i
CO
G
O
•H
4J
(0
M
0)
C
•H
O
A
•P
M
(0
a)
0)
rH
I
(U
M
10
o
•r|
§
X!
U
CO
Cn
C
•0 4J
§0
COH|
•r|
•CiQ
a-s
2°
2 °
i> (U
•O
•H CO
rH f£
O
CO •
• rH
H I
Id CM
C rH
•H rH
Id
U
CO
VO
£
id
-p
o
o
C
id
•rl
4J
CO
id
0)
cu
0)
ti
•H
tr
c
i-H
id
A
G
cu
co W
-------
39
The joint Incineration of hazardous wastes and sewage sludge In
multiple hearth Incinerators has recently been forwarded as a promising
concept.4 In 1972, 25 percent of the total raw sewage sludge generated
in the United States was incinerated, and new incinerator Installations
were expected to average 70 units per year in the 1970's.5 With this
current availability and the expected proliferation of sewage sludge
incinerators, the concept, if proven practical, would be applicable to
a large number of sites. The Environmental Protection Agency (Office
of Programming and Evaluation sponsorship, OSWMP technical guidance) is
sponsoring a contract with Versar, Inc., of Springfield, Virginia, to
determine the feasibility of this joint incineration concept.
Since the most immediate disposal problems are related to pesticides,
the project is concentrating on destruction of DDT (both powder and
emu!sifiable concentrate) and 2,4,5-T. The project consists of two phases;
test burns in a pilot plant facility and test burns 1n a full scale facility.
The pilot multiple hearth incinerator, designed by Envirotech Systems, has
six hearths and is equipped with auxiliary fuel firing capabilities.
Emission controls include an afterburner and water scrubber (see Figure 2
for the system flow).7
Two test burns have been completed at the pilot scale facility in
Brisbane, California. Problems shortened the first test burn, but the
second test burn went well and was run over a two week period. Two and
five percent mixtures of pesticide in sewage sludge (about 20 percent
solids) were incinerated at maximum temperatures of 870°C-930oc
(1600°-1700°F). The powders were mixed with the sludge prior to
injection, whereas liquid sludge mixtures were fed to the third hearth.
Stack gas, scrubber, and ash samples were analyzed for undestructed
pesticides and breakdown products.6,7,8,9,10,11 The high destruction
ratios found (99.9 percent) led to the scheduling of full-scale tests
at the Palo Alto sewage sludge incineration facility for July 1974.
Envirotech has test burned a mixture of polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB's) and sewage sludge in their multiple hearth pilot incinerator.
Test results showed over 99.9 percent destruction of the PCB's. The
maximum operating temperatures used were 810°-930°C (1500o-i700op)
with an exhaust temperature of 5900C (1100°F)J2 Emission tests by
an independent investigator are now scheduled.
-------
*
l
CO
0)
o
(0
c
-P
0
•H
•rH
04
0)
M
3
tn
•H
cu
I
CO
o
o
-p
II)
•H
0)
•H
14-1
tn
C
•rH
o
c
(0
in
M
tu
>
C •
O ro
•H r~-
4J
-------
41
References
1. Sebastian, P.P., and P.O. Cardinal. Solid waste disposal. Chemical
Engineering. October 14, 1968. p.112-117.
As reported In:
Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Multiple
hearth incineration. Jji Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal
incineration, and pyrolysis processes. J.^ Recommended methods of
reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste.
V3. Publication No. PB 224-579. Springfield, Virginia, National
Technical Information Service. 249p.
2. Personal communication. R. Fox, Envirotech, to A. Scurlock, OSVIMP,
Washington, D.C., March 5, 1974.
3. Unterberg, W., Sherwood, R.J., and 6.R. Schneide'r. Component costs
for multiple-hearth sludge incineration from field data. In Proceedings,
1974 National Incinerator Conference, Miami, Florida, May 12-15, 1974.
New York, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1974. p.289-309.
4. Personal communication. Versar, Inc., Springfield, Virginia, to OSWMP,
Washington, D.C., 1973. 8p.
5. Olexsey, R.A., and J.B. Farrell. Sludge incineration and fuel conservatioi
News in Environmental Research in Cincinnati, U.S. Environmental Protect"
Agency, May 3, 1974. 4p.
6. Personal communication. Versar, Inc., Springfield, Virginia, to OSWMP,
Washington, D.C. October 24, 1973. 5p.
7. Personal communication. Versar, Inc., Springfield, Virginia, to OSWMP,
Washington, D.C., 1973. 3p.
8. Whitmore, F.C., and Durfee, R.L. A study of pesticide disposal in a
sewage sludge incineration-first monthly progress report. Springfield,
Virginia, Versar, Inc., December 10, 1973. 3p.
9. Whitmore F.D., and Durfee, R.L. A study of pesticide disposal in a
sewage sludge incineration-second monthly progress report. Springfield,
Virginia, Versar, Inc., January 10, 1974. 3p.
0. Personal communication. T. Carleson, Envirotech, Brisbane, California,
to F.C. Whitmore, Versar, Inc., Springfield, Virginia, November 26, 1973.
1. Personal visit. A. Scurlock, OSWMP, to Envirotech, Brisbane, California,
November 27-28, 1973. Recorded in trip report from A. Scurlock, OSWMP, to
J. P. Lehman, OSWMP, Washington, D.C., December 13, 1973.
-------
42
12. Private communication. Rollins Environmental Services, Inc., to
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, July 1973.
13. Department of the Army, Edgewood Arsenal. Transportable disposal
systems, environmental statement. Special publication.
EASP 20.0-11, July 1971. 297p.
Honea, F.I., J. Wichman, and W.A. Bullerdick. Disposal of waste or
excess high explosives. Progress report, January-March 1972, prepared
for U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Albuquerque Operations Office by
Mason and Hanger. Silas Mason Company, Inc.
As reported In:
Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al. (TRW Systems. Inc.).
Nitrocellulose. Jji Propel!ants, explosives, chemical warfare. I_n_
Recommended methods of reduction, neutralization, recovery, or
disposal of hazardous waste. V7. Publication No. PB 224-579.
Springfield, Virginia, National Technical Information Service. 249p.
-------
43
APPENDIX III
Liquid Injection
Liquid injection combustors can be used to dispose of almost all
combustible liquid wastes. High viscosity, with the consequent feeding
and combustion problems, is the important limiting factor. Liquid
injection combustors are of two general types, vertical and horizontal.
Table 1 gives an indication of the type of wastes currently burned in
liquid combustors. Normal temperatures maintained vary widely; from
650° to 1650QC (120QO-30000F). A typical temperature is 870<>C
(1600°F). Residence times also vary, from less than 1/2 second to
better than one second. Normal heat release rates approximate 225,000
kg. cal./hr.-m3 (25,000 BTU/hr.-ft.3), although for special types, such
as the vortex combuster, heat release rates as high as 900,000 kg. cal./
hr.-m3 (100,000 BTU/hr.-ft.3) may be reached.1
To increase the rate of vaporization and thus of combustion, the
liquid wastes are atomized to present a heat transfer surface area as
large as possible. Normally this is done when entering the combuster
by mechanical means, by internal mixing nozzles, by two phase nozzles.
or by pressure nozzles. Droplet size is less than 40 microns (16x10-4 inches)
in diameter. If viscosity precludes atomization, heating and mixing or
other means may be necessary to reduce apparent viscosity. A forced draft
must also be supplied to the combustion chamber to provide for the necessary
mixing and turbulence.*
A typical vertical-fired liquid combustor system is shown in Figure 1.
This particular unit is designed and built by the Prenco Division of Pickands
Mather and Company. It can be operated at temperatures from 870°-1650°C
(1600°-3000°F) and features a short start-up period which permits
non-continuous operation. During start-up, an auxiliary burner is used to
heat the chamber to the desired temperature. The waste is then fed into
the waste air entrainment section and then through the combustion chamber.
Additional heated pressurized air is injected near the top of the chamber
to create an afterburner effect.
The vortex combustor shown in Figure 2 features a very high heat
release rate, 900,000 kg.-cal./hr.-m3 (100,000 BTU/hr.-ft.3); approximately
four times the normal rate.4 in operation, the ignition chamber is preheated
to 430°-5400C (800°-1000°F) for one hour. The liquid waste is fired
tangentially by a modified oil burner into the bottom of the ignition
chamber. . This firing creates a vortex of the hot gas and primary air.
This vortex is maintained as it rises through the chamber by tangential
injection of secondary air. Normal operating temperatures are 650°-870°C
(12000-1600°F), with 20 percent excess air. In actual operation, the
high heat release rates have resulted in some slagging and erosion of
-------
44
TABLE 1*
LIQUID WASTES CURRENTLY BURNED IN LIQUID WASTE INCINERATION
Separator Sludges
Skimmer Refuse
Oily Waste
Detergent Sludges
Digester Sludges
Cutting Oils
Coolants
Strippers
Phenols
Wine Wastes
Potato StarchV
Vegetable Oils
Washer Liquids
Still & Reactor Bottoms
Soap & Detergent Cleaners
Animal Oils & Rendering Fats
Cyanide & Chrome Plating Wastes
Lube Oils
Soluble Oils
Polyester Paint
PVC Paint
Latex Paint
Thinners
Solvents
Polymers
Resins
Cheese Wastes
Dyes
Inks
* Ottinger, R. S. , Blumenthal, J. L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.).
Liquid waste combustors. In Disposal process descriptions
ultimate disposal, incineration, and pyrolysis processes.
In Recommended methods of reduction, neutralization, recovery,
or disposal of hazardous waste. V3. Publication .No. PB
224-579. Springfield, Virginia, National Technical Information
Service. 249 p.
-------
45
EFFLUENT DIRECTLY TO ATMOSPHERE
OR TO SCRUBBERS AND SV ACK
FREE STANDING
INTERLOCKING REFRACTORY
MODULES
TEMPERATURE MEASURING
INSTRUMENTS
UPPER NACELLE
TURBO-BLOWER
IGNITION CHAMBER
HIGH VELOCITY
AIR SUPPLY
AIR-WASTE ENTRAINMENT
COMPARTMENT
WASTE LINE
AIP IKJTAK-F
FOR lUWO BLOWER
AND AFTFRf'UlSER FAN
AIR CONE
DECOMPOSITION CHAMBER
DECOMPOSITION STREAM
AFTER-BURNER FAN
FLAME SENSITIZER
TURBULENCE COMPARTMENT
LOWER NACELLE
AUXILIARY FUEL LINE
TUBULAR SUPPORT COLUMNS
ELECTRICAL POWER LINE
Figure 1: Typical Vertically Fired Liquid
Waste Incinerator*
Prenco. The modern approach to liquid pollution control.
Detroit, Michigan, Pickands Mather and Co. 7 p. As
recorded In Ottinger, R. S., Blumenthalj- J. L. et al.
-------
46
ANNULAR SPACE FILLED
WITH AIR UNDER
PRESSURE FOR TUYERES
BAFFLE SHELL
AIR TUYERES
EFFLUENT TO SCRUBBERS
AND STACK
REFRACTORY WALL
TUYERE AIR SHELL
AND PLENUM
REFRACTORY WALL
COOLING AIR PORTS
CAST IN REFRACTORY SLAB
AIR TUYERES
COMBUSTION AIR
TO TUYERES
REFRACTORY
COOLING AIR
COMBUSTION
AIR
BURNER
NOZZLE
GAS BURNER
RING
COOLING AIR
(FORCED DRAFT)
TUYERE AIR SHELL
BAFFLE SHELL
Figure 2: Vortex Liquid Waste Incinerators*
Lund, H. F. Industrial pollution control handbook. 1
New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1971.
Witt, P.A., Jr. Disposal of solid wastes. Chemical
Engineering, 78(22): 62-78, Oct. 4, 1971. As recorde
In Ottinger, R. S., Blumenthal, J. L., et al.
-------
47
the refractory. Heat recovery may be practiced by using exhaust gases to
preheat combustion air, or to generate steam in a waste heat boiler, a
method which is generally practical only at large installations.
Two central disposal operations which accept liquid waste for incineration
in liquid combustors are Chem-Trol Pollution Services, Inc., of Model City,
New York, and Rollins Environmental Services, Inc., of Bridgeport, New Jersey.
Chem-Trol's incinerator or "thermal oxidizer" is basically a liquid injection
type and is capable of handling slurries up to 20 mesh.^ Temperatures
of up to 1,65QOC (3,000°F) can be maintained. Breakdown gases are scrubbed
prior to emission. Rollins operates a rotary kiln as well as a liquid
injection unit.5'7 The latter can burn up to 3,800 liters/hour (1,000 gph)
of waste material. Operating temperatures of 1,100°-1,200°C (2,0000-2,?OOOF)
can be maintained with dwell times in excess of 2.5 seconds. The two
incinerators have a combined heat release of 29xl06kg.-cal./hr. (115x10^ BTU/hr.
Combustion gases pass through a common afterburner and a venturi scrubber
which uses an alkaline scrubbing solution. Effluents are pH-adjusted and
discharged to a settling pond prior to overflow to a 3-4 day retention pond.
Typical examples of industrial in-house liquid combustor facilities
are the General Electric plant at Pittsfield, Massachusetts, and the Dow
Chemical plant at Midland, Michigan. General Electric's waste incineration
system, which includes a liquid waste combustor and a solid waste retort,
was installed in 1972.2 The liquid combustor was designed by G.E. and
fabricated by the John Zink Company of Tulsa, Oklahoma. Liquid storage
facilities include six 11,400 liter (3,000 gal.) tanks and three 76,000
liter (20,000 gal.) tanks. Storage capacities are readily expandable by
25 percent within exisiting diking areas. Liquid wastes are atomized by
pressurized steam and are fed at the rate of 7.6-11.4 liters (2-3 gallons)
per minute into the 10.7 meter (35 foot) long refractory-lined vessel.
Temperatures up to 1,650°C (3,000°F) can be maintained, though the usual
operating temperature is 850°C (1,600°F). Dwell times range from 1 to 12
seconds. Auxiliary fuels used are restricted to waste oils and chemicals.
Gaseous products of combustion are cooled by a surface film evaporation
process followed by a series of cooling water sprays. They are then polished
by a scrubber packed with polypropylene saddles utilizing recycled plant
cooling water as a scrubbing medium. The scrubber bleed, after neutraliza-
tion treatment, is sent to a 4.9 million liter (1.3 million gallons) per day
oil/water separator plant.
The liquid combustor is presently operated at 50 percent capacity with
2.3xl06 kg. (5x10° Ib.) being processed annually. G.E. reports no signi-
ficant NOX generation at temperatures up to 1,310°C (2,400°F). The only
experience with sulfur-containing wastes (2.5 percent by weight) resulted
in a pH-control problem; at the time, only 10 percent caustic was being
used. The present unit is not equipped to handle dusts and wettable
powders unless they are put into solution. EPA's Region I is discussing
with G.E. the possibility of test burning approximately 28 barrels of
DDT in the summer of 1974, the success of which could lead to the similar
destruction of other hazardous materials.
-------
48
Dow Chemical's incineration system, at the Midland, Michigan, plant
includes four liquid combustors and a rotary kiln incinerator."''" The
four liquid combustors include a 20.4 million kg.-cal. (81 million BTU/hour)
liquid residue incinerator, a 14 million kg.-cal. (56 million BTU)/hour
Bigelow Liptak liquid residue incinerator, an 8 million kg.-cal. (32 million
BTU/hour) Hooker liquid residue incinerator, and a 16.2 million kg.-cal.
(65 million BTU/hour) vertical liquid residue incinerator. The last three
are normally used only as spares. Generally only low ash liquid wastes are
burned in these units; other materials being burned in the kiln. Residues
are fed into the combustion chamber, which is maintained at 980°C (1800°F)
by four dual fired nozzles. The combustion gases are quenched in a spray
chamber to a temperature of 150°C (300°F) and passed through a high pressure
drop venturi scrubber and demister-cooler. About 11,400 liters/minute
(3,000 gpm) of water is recycled from the primary tanks of the waste
treatment facilities to furnish scrubbing water. This scrubbing water
flows back to the waste treatment plant.
The Canadian Government's Defence Research Establishment owns and
operates the Thermal Destructor, a liquid combustor, in Ralston, Alberta.11
It was constructed in 1971 specifically for the destruction of chlorinated
hydrocarbons with provisions for expansion to also incinerate sulfur
containing compounds.
The Thermal Destructor incinerator, designed by Garver Davis, Inc., of
Cleveland, Ohio, has a horizontal cylindrical combustion chamber with a 2.1m
(7 foot) diameter and a 4.5m (15 foot) length and has a dual-fired burner
(natural gas and the waste feed). A vertical scrubbing tower of 2.1m
(7 foot) diameter and 7.9m (26 foot) height with a cooling water flow rate
of 910 liters (240 gallons)/ minute is located after the Destructor gas exit.
The nominal feed rate of the Destructor is 380 liters (100 gallons)/hour,
and the combustion chamber destruction temperature for the 5 percent
DDT/kerosene mixture is 900°C (165QOF).11
The first objective of this facility was to destruct the 550,000 liters
(145,000 gallons) of 5 percent DDT/kerosene solution owned by the Department
of National Defence. Continuous burning (24 hours/day, 7 days/week) of
this material began late in 1971 and was completed in early 1973. Then
approximately 159,000 liters (42,000 gallons) of 5 percent DDT/kerosene
solution was destructed for the Federal Department of the Environment.
These 5 percent DDT solutions were destructed at the rate of 4,500-5,300
liters (1,2000-1,400 gallons) per day.12
Test results for the 5 percent DDT burns showed 99.999 percent to 100
percent destruction of the DDT. Using the lower figure, it has been estimated
that less than .065 kg. (2.3 oz.) of DDT escaped undestructed from the
total incineration of the 708,000 liters (187,000 gallons), 610 metric tons
(670 tons) of DDT/kerosene solution. As a precaution against hazardous
operation, destructor effluents and emissions are monitored on a regular
basis."H.'3
-------
49
After destruction of the 5 percent DDT, small quantities of 24
percent and 30 percent DDT formulation in various solvents and emulsi-
able concentrates were test destructed. Throughput rates had to be
reduced from the 5 percent DDT values because of the escape of some
HC1 and/or chlorine into the atmosphere. With these test burns the
pesticide destruction program was completed.
The Defence Research Establishment has recently undertaken the disposal
of over 635 metric tons (700 tons) of mustard gas. It was concluded that
direct incineration of the mustard gas was potentially hazardous, so a
chemical procedure involving hydrolysis was pioneered. The hydrolysate
is fairly innocuous and so last fall test burns of it in the Destructor
were performed. Results were encouraging enough that preparation for
large-scale destruction is being made. These results showed that HC1
generated was 100 percent scrubbed out and the SOn generated was 50 percent
scrubbed out. A suitable stack is being erected so that exhaust gases
will meet Canadian Clean Air Standards.°'^
The Hansa Company of Germany has adapted the vertical liquid combustor
for use on board a tankerJ^,15 Operating through their shipboard incinera-
tion operations subsidiary, the Ocean Combustion Service, they have outfitted
a 102 meter (335 foot) long tanker with two incinerators to burn liquid
chlorinated wastes.16 This vessel operates out of Rotterdam, Holland, and
destroys wastes for Dutch and German chemical companies (including the
gaint Bayer complex in Germany). Normally, incineration is carried out
80-96 kilometers (50-60 miles) from the nearest coastline, and the burning
details are recorded for government inspection. The vessel has 15 storage
tanks with a total capacity of 3.5 million liters (930,000 gallons).
There are no emission controls. Hansa reports that the small amounts of
ash produced are dispersed as a participate. Hydrogen chloride and other
pollutants are also dispersed. The combined capacity of the two
incinerators is about 18 metric tons (20 tons) per hour and a maximum
temperature of 1650°C (3000°F) can be maintained. Normal temperature
is 1450°C (2450°F). Gas, diesel fuel, or waste oils provide auxiliary
fuel. Waste must be liquid and pumpable, but entrained solids up to
5 cm. (2 in.) in length can be accomodated. The claimed advantages of
burning at sea include:
1. Environmentally preferable to ocean disposal. Pollutants are
dispersed over wide areas, distant from land.
2. The cost of destructing toxic wastes at sea is less than the
comparable destruction on land. The cost of destructing
chlorinated hydrocarbons at sea is estimated at $61/metric ton
($55/ton). The cost savings over land disposal is due to the
absence of any pollution control equipment on the incinerator
vessel, and no transporting or landfilling of residues.
-------
50
Any overall environmental benefit from this method as compared to
controlled land incineration is questionable.
TRW Systems, Inc., of Redondo Beach, California, and the Marquardt
Company of Van Nuys, California, have adapted burners originally developed
for rocket and ramjet applications for use in hazardous material destruction
TRW Systems has developed a liquid injection type incinerator which
boasts high destruction efficiencies and short dwell times. A central
element injection technique is utilized. In this configuration air is
injected as a continuous cylindrical sheet which interacts with the fuel
stream, which is injected radially outward. A deflector on the control
element contributes to the high degree of mixing attained, which results
in a short reaction zone and low NOX formation, the same claim made for
Marquardt1s SUE burner. The combustion chamber is followed by an after-
burner, a quench chamber, and a packed bed scrubber for hydrogen chloride
removal. Several sizes are installed at TRW's laboratory facilities.
Commercialization of these burners has not been undertaken.
TRW is test burning 12 different formulations of pesticides for the
Army. Test burns have been conducted on 5 percent DDT in oil, 20 percent
in oil, 25 percent DDT emulsifiable concentrate, and 15 percent dieldrin
solution.22 Ten to fifteen tests, covering 1-2 weeks, were made on each
formulation in a .3m (1 ft.) inside diameter by 2.4m (8 ft.) long burning
chamber. Temperatures were maintained at 930°-980°C (1700°-1800°F).
In all, twelve different formulations of pesticides will be tested.
In addition to the pesticide work the TRW burner has been used to burn
POL wastes, distillate oils, and kerosene. A Japanese firm has now been
licensed to produce the burner in Japan for boiler uses.
The SUE (Sudden Expansion) burner was originally developed 14 years
ago by the Marquardt Company of Van Nuys, California, as a source of
high temperature, high pressure air for testing air-breathing ramjet
engines.23,24,25 Approximately 50 burners have been sold for related
purposes with operating temperatures ranging from 5400-3150°C
(100QO-57000F) ancj pressures from 10,500-1,050,000 kg/m2 (15-1,500 psia).
Several years ago, Marquardt used the SUE concept to develop an
incinerator for solvent fumes. As a further extension of this work, the
SUE burner was tested as a waste liquid, boron slurry, and waste pro-
pel lant incinerator and the company reported go^f results. Marquardt
has also developed a high efficiency heat recovery system for off gases.
They are currently marketing the SUE burner as a liquid waste disposal
system.
-------
51
The typical SUE burner cross section is shown in Figure 3.^3 The
burner consists of an oxidizer inlet pipe connected to a larger diameter
combustion chamber by means of a flat plate. Fuel nozzles protrude
through the plate spray fuel radially into the inlet oxidizer stream.
A poppet fuel nozzle can also be inserted in the oxidizer entrance.
Burning begins in the recirculation zone formed by the flat plate and
the combustion chamber wall and continues downstream until completed.
Total dwell time at temperature is very short, nearly always less than
one-half second. Very rapid, complete mixing is thought to be the
reason for high destruction efficiencies claimed at the short dwell times.
Normally the burning is nearly completed within a combustion chamber
lenght of twice the inside chamber diameter. The chamber is uually
lengthened to ensure complete combustion and the desired final temper-
ature. The combustion chamber is constructed of 310 stainless steel
which is highly oxidation resistant.
In the SUE combustion chamber, a 4.6m (15 ft.) reaction tailpipe
follows the 1.2m (4 ft.) SUE incinerator burner section. Combustion gas
passes from the reaction tailpipe through a venturi scrubber and stack.
Caustic or soda ash solutions are used in the scrubber. Scrubber
solution is normally recycled. The installation is equipped with a
flame-out automatic feed cutoff to prevent dispersal of incompletely
destructed materials in the event of a burner malfunction.
Advantages claimed for the SUE burner include:^6
1. Low NOX, CO, hydrocarbon emissions as a result of very rapid
and complete combustion.
2. No refractories and thereby lower maintenance costs.
3. Simple and reliable. No secondary air controls. Start-up
is simple.
4. Operation possible with a wide variety of fuels and oxidizers.
5. Wide combustion stability limits - the burner has a turndown
ratio (maximum heat release rate/mininum heat release rate)
as high as 50:1.
Units with nominal diameters of 2.5-76 cm (1-30 in.) have been
tested.23 Due to instability in larger units, the 30.5 cm (12 in.)
size has been adopted as the most practical and reliable. Nominal fuel
input for a 30.5 cm (12 in.) unit is 150 liters (40 gallons) per hour
with an air input of .5 to .7 kg (1-1.5 Ibs.) per second, to handle
greater volumes of waste materials, additional 30.5 cm (12 in.) units
are combined in modular fashion. Fuels used have included hydrogen,
ethane, propane, fuel oil, chlorinated hydrocarbons, DDT in solution,
herbicide orange, and hydrazine. Oxidizers have included air, oxygen,
and nitrous oxide.
-------
52
O%
vf
K
Q
ny
o
^
k
>
fe
5
0
£:
SJ
0=4
^O
1
<0
,
U
\N
-X.
\ ^
J^\
0
X5
iJ
1+-I
0
tn r3
C -H
•-i C
P M
tn C
0) IM
-P -H
j
tJ fo
C 0
rfl
-P W
C >i
O "1
P ^
a,
o c
. j (7^
i 1 {()
G "->
>
O
T3 •
ro
G 0
fi CM
4-> rH
'-M C/l CM
O
-P CO
4-) M CN
!H O
o a •
d, 0) rvj
i
P O M
rH 4-> Rj
U r3 TJ
i-l C
• P) rd
i-q C f?)
•H
• o -
^^ -^ ^
-H f
tj a,
C 'D T-i
r3 S r
r5 o
- M tL)
CM :.; 4^
^ Tj
• v.O M
P^ rj
J TJ
- d o'
4^ ^ S-l
11 rj cj
• H rZ PI
,G D'
.0 M O
TJ '"' .C
f-1 --J i-"-1
ro
(J
H
t.
-------
53
Marquardt has incinerated one drum each of 5 percent and 20 percent
DDT solution for the Army. Tailpipe exit temperatures were maintained at
109Q°C (2000°F) and total residence time amounted to 0.14 seconds.
According to the company, chlorinated hydrocarbons were not detectable in
the scrubber water (0.5 microgram per liter (4x10-91b./gal.) detection
limit), nor in the combustion gases.
The first herbicide orange tests for the Air Force were performed in
1972 with inconclusive results due to operating problems.23,27 The second
tests were conducted under a $100,000 contract in November and December of
1973 with good results being reported by Marquardt. Twenty-eight 208-liter
(55 gal.) drums were destructed. Runs were made at 1090°-1370°C
(2000°-2500QF) with no detectable herbicide orange or dioxin content
in the scrubber water (detection limit is .5 ppb). However, carbonaceous
material did build up on the reactor walls and accumulated in the scrubber
water during the 3 to 4 hour runs. These materials tested negative for
dioxin but the actual chemical nature was not determined. Iron oxides
were detected in the exhaust gases due to the presence of rust in the drums.
Operating and capital costs for liquid combustor installations differ
widely, depending on such factors as the volumes and types of waste to be
combusted, air pollution control equipment, scrubber water treatment faci-
lities, and the extent to which heat recovery is practiced. The Canadian
Defence Research Establishment's Thermal Destructor facility which includes
a horizontal combustor and a scrubber was built at a cost of $195,000,
including $46,000 for site preparation. This facility has burned
4,500-5.300 liters (1,200-1,400 gal.) of 5 percent DDT daily on a 24-hour
basis.'^ The approximate cost of a nominal 150 liter (40 gal.)/hour
capacity, .3 meter (12 in.) diameter skid mounted burner with accessory
equipment (not including a scrubber) is $35,000.23 jhe cost for a
stationary 150 liter (40 gal.)/hour SUE incinerator is approximately
$30,000.2° Reported operating costs for liquid combustors range from
$.25-65/1,000 liters ($1-$250/1,000 gal.) of waste.29 The Canadian
Government's Thermal Destructor installation has approximate operating
costs (including labor, water, electricity, and natural gas) of
.05/liter ($.20/gal) for continuous operation.12 The projected cost
of shipboard incineration of chlorinated hydrocarbons in the U.S. is
$61/metric ton ($55/ton).13
-------
54
References
1. Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Liquid
combustors. Jj^ Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal,
incineration, and pyrolysis processes, jh^ Recommended methods of
reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste.
V3. Publication No. PB 224-579. Springfield, Virginia, National
Technical Information Service. 249p.
2. Ross, R.D. Industrial waste disposal. New York, Van Nostrand
Reinhold Book Corporation, 1968. 340p.
As reported In:
Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Liquid
combustors. lr± Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal,
incineration, and pyrolysis processes. Jjx recommended methods of
reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste.
V3. Publication No. PB 224-579. Springfield, Virginia, National
Technical Information Service. 249p.
3. Prenco. The modern approach to liquid pollution control. Detroit,
Michigan, Pickands Mather and Co. 6p.
As reported In:
Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Liquid
combustors. Jj^ Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal,
incineration, and pyrolysis processes. Jji Recommended methods of
reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste.
V3. Publication No. PB 224-579. Springfield, Virginia, National
Technical Information Service. 249p.
4. Lund, H.F. Industrial pollution control handbook. 1 v.
New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1971.
Witt, P.A., Jr. Disposal of solid wastes. Chemical Engineering.
78(22): 62-78, October 4, 1971.
As reported In:
Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Liquid
combustors. Jj^ Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal,
incineration, and pyrolysis processes. ln_ Recommended methods of
reduction, neutralization, recovery or disposal of hazardous waste.
V3. Publication No. PB 224-579. Springfield, Virginia, National
Technical Information Service. 249p.
-------
55
5. Wagner, I.E. (Chem-Trol Pollution Services, Inc.) Contract waste
disposal. Presented at open meeting. American Society of Mechancial
Engineers' Incinerator Division, September 9, 1971. 6p.
6. Personal visit. S. Morekas, J.P. Lehman, OSWMP, and H. Johnson, ORM,
to Rollins-Purle Inc., Logan Township, New Jersey, July 27, 1972.
Recorded in trip report by S. Morekas, OSWMP, Washington, D.C.,
August 3, 1972.
7. Williamson, P. (Rollins-Purle, Inc.). Processing of industrial wastes
at regional treatment facilities. Presented to the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers' Incinerator Division, New York, New York,
September 9, 1971. 4p.
8. Personal visit. D. Huebner and I. Leighton, EPA Region I, to
General Electric Co., Pittsfield, Massachusetts, November 20, 1973.
Recorded in trip report from I. Leighton to S. Colamaris, EPA
Region I, Boston, Massachusetts, November 21, 1973.
9. Dow Chemical Company. Waste control at Dow-Midland. 20p.
10. Novak, R.G. (Dow Chemical Co.). Industrial solid waste disposal.
Presented at Solid Waste Symposium, Solid Waste Section of Environmental
Division, National AICHE Meeting, Houston, Texas, Feb. 28-March 4, 1971.
13p.
11. Montgomery, W.L., B.G. Cameron, and R.J. Weaver. The Thermal Destructor
a facility for incineration of chlorinated hydrocarbons. Defence
Research Establishment Report No. 270. Suffield, Ontario, Defence
Research Establishment, October 1971. 15p.
12. Personal communication. R.S. Weaver, Defence Research Establishment,
Suffield, to R.A. Carnes, SHWRL, Cincinnati, Ohio, February 13, 1974.
13. Defence Research Establishment. Summary-test runs. November/1972
-Thermal Destructor. Unpublished data. Ip.
4. Ocean Combustion Service. M/T Vulcanus - incineration vessel.
Rotterdam, the Netherlands. 1973. 18p.
5. Personal visit. A.W. Lindsey and A. Scurlock, OSWMP, to D. Carruth
and W. Allen, American Eagle Foundation, Washington, D.C., December 1973.
6. Ocean Combustion Service. Composition of chlorinated hydrocarbons
presently being vurned in Europe. Unpublished information,
June 14, 1973. Ip.
7. American Eagle Foundation. Washington, D.C.
-------
56
7. Perry, R.H. Chemical Engineers' Handbook. 3rd Edition. New York,
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1969.
As reported In:
Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Rotary
kiln incinerators. Jj^ Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal,
incineration, and pyrolysis processes. Ir± Recommended methods of
reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste.
V3. Publication No. PB 224-579. Springfield, Virginia, National
Technical Information Service. 249p.
8. Bartlett-Snow Company. Thumbleburner, advertising brochure.
Bulletin 205B. Cleveland, Ohio, 1970. 6p.
As reported In:
Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Rotary
kiln incinerators. Ir± Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal,
incineration, and pyrolysis processes. J_n_ Recommended methods of
reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous wastes.
V3. Publication No. PB 224-579. Springfield, Virginia, National
Technical Information Service. 249p.
9. Novak, R.G. Eliminating or disposing of industrial solid wastes.
Chemical Engineering. 77(21);79-82, October 5, 1970.
As reported In:
Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Rotary
kiln incinerators. Ij^ Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal,
incineration, and pyrplysis processes. Ir[ Recommended methods of
reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste.
V3. Publication No. PB 224-579. Springfield, Virginia, National
Technical Information Service. 249p.
10. Novak, R.G. (Dow Chemical Company). Industrial solid waste disposal.
Presented at Solid Waste Symposium, Solid Waste Section of Environmental
Division, National AICHE Meeting, Houston, Texas, Feb. 28-March 4, 1971.
13p.
11. Personal visit. J.P. Lehman, S. Morekas, Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs, to R. Novak, Dow Chemical Company, Midland,
Michigan, November 1972.
-------
57
18. Personal communication. D. Camith. American Eagle Foundation,
to C.L. Elkins, EPA, December 10, 1973.
19. Personal communication A.B. Early, OSWMP to D. Carruth, American
Eagle Foundation, January 31, 1974.
20. Personal communication. 6.W. Frick, EPA, to A.B. Early, OSWMP,
January 23, 1974.
21. Shin, C.C. Technical brief: characterization of incineration parameters
for the safe disposal of pesticides. Redondo Beach, California, TRW
Systems Group, 1973. 18p.
22. Personal communication. R.S. Ottinger, R. Johnson, and C.C. Shin,
TRW Systems Group, to A. Scurlock, OSWMP, Washington, D.C.,
January 11-14, 1974.
23. Personal communication. Briefing meeting. R.J. Haas and L. Boyland,
Marquardt Co., to OSWMP staff, Washington, D.C., January 22, 1974.
Babbitt, R.P., and J.L. Clure. Report of the development and testing
of the Marquardt SUE fume incinerator. Marquardt report S 1203.
Van Nuys, California, The Marquardt Company, January 1972. 28p.
24. Marquardt Company, Marquardt total capabilities. Van Nuys, California.
The Marquardt Company. lOp.
25. Marquardt Company. Marquardt's SUE incinerator. Van Nuys, California.
The Marquardt Co. 14p.
26. Personal communciation. R.J. Haas, Marquardt Co., to J. Talty, OSWMP,
Cincinnati, Ohio, July 6, 1973.
27. Babbitt R.P. and J.L. Clure. Report on the feasibility of destroying
herbicide orange by incineration using the Marquardt SUE burner.
Van Nuys, California, The Marquardt Company, August 1972.
28. Jones, H. R. Environmental control in the organic and petrochemical
industries. Park Ridge, New Jersey, Noyes Data Corporation, 1971.
264p.
PCB Retreats Again. Chemical Week, 110(5);14-15, February 2, 1972.
As reported In:
Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Liquid
combustors. Jji Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal,
incineration, and pyrolysis processes. Jji Recommended methods of
reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste.
V3. Publication No. PB 224-579. Springfield, Virginia. National
Technical Information Service. 249p.
-------
58
APPENDIX IV
Fluidized Bed
Fluidized bed incinerators are quite versatile, being usable for the
disposal of solid, liquid, and gaseous combustible wastes. The utilization
of this process for waste disposal is relatively new, having been in
commerical use for only about the last dozen years. At present, the most
popular applications are in the petroleum and paper industries, in the
processing of nuclear wastes, and in sewage sludge disposal.
The basic fluidized bed combustor is shown in Figure 1.' The bed is
essentially a vessel containing inert granular particles, such as sand.
Blower-driven air enters at the bottom and proceeds vertically through
the bed, agitating or "fluidizing" it and causing it to behave in a nature
similar to a dense liquid mass. Wastes are injected pneumatically,
mechanically, or by gravity into the bed. Rapid and relatively uniform
mixing of wastes and bed material occurs.
In the combustion process, heat transfer occurs between the bed
materials and the injected waste materials. Typical bed temperatures
are in the range of 760°-870°C (HOO°-16000F). Due to the high heat
capacity of the bed material the heat content of the fluidized bed is
approximately 142,000 kg.-cal./m3 (16,000 BTU/ft.J), which is about three
orders of magnitude greater than the heat capacity of flue gases in
typical incinerators operating in the same temperature rangeJ Heat
from combustion is transferred back to the bed material. Solid materials
remain in the bed until they have become small and light enough to be
carried off with the flue gas as a particulate. Collected ash is generally
land disposed.
Gas velocity, bed diameter, bed temperature, waste type, and composition
are important in designing a fluidized bed incinerator. Due to waste
particle size constraints, gas velocities are usually low, around 1.5 to
2.1m (5-7 ft.) per second. With present design technology, bed diameters
are limited to 15.3 meters (50 ft.) or less. Bed depths range from 38
centimeters (15 in.) to a few meters. To avoid softening and agglomeration,
bed temperatures are restricted to below the material softening point.
Certain wastes have to be pre-sized before feedingJ
For adequate combustion, pre-drying of wastes may be necessary. The
use of recycled combustion gases in such a drying system can recover waste
heat, thus reducing auxiliary fuel input and costs. For start-up and for
conditioning of the bed, an auxiliary burner system is required.
-------
59
FLUE GAS
MAKEUP SAND
ACCESS DOOR
AUXILIARY
BURNER (OIL OR GAS)
BED:
•. r
i i
WASTE INJECTION
FLUIDIZING AIR
r
ASH REMOVAL
FIGURE 1. Schematic of a Fluidized Bed Combustor*
)ttinger, R. S. Blumenthal, J. L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.).
'luidized bed incineration. In Disposal process descriptions
Itimate disposal, incineration, and pyrolysis processes.
in Recommended methods of reduction, neutralization, recovery
>r disposal of hazardous waste, V3. Publication No. PB 224 579,
ipringfield, Virginia, National Technical Information Service.
!49p.
-------
60
As with most other incineration techniques, fluidized bed combustion
may generate particulate and/or gases which may require air pollution
controls prior to emission to the atmosphere. Wet scrubbers, dry collectors,
electrostatic precipitators, apd fabric filters have proven to be effective
in reducing air stream particulates. The method used to control gaseous
pollutants will depend upon the particular combustion products. Normally,
no odors and little nitrogen oxide is produced from fluidized bed combustion.
Advantages of fluidized bed incineration include:
(1) General applicability for the disposal of combustible solids,
liquids, and gaseous wastes;
(2) Simple design concept, requirring no moving parts in the
combustion zone;
(3) Compact design due to high heating rate per unit volume
(900,000-1,800,000 kg.-cal./hr. m3 (100,000-200,000 BTU/hr.
-ft.3)) which results in relatively low capital costs; and
(4) Relatively low gas temperatures and excess air requirements
which tend to minimize nitrogen oxide formation and contribute
to smaller, lower cost emission control systems.
Disadvantages include:
(1) With present design technology, unit capacity is limited by
a maximum bed diameter of about 15m (50 ft.);
(2) A potential problem in removing residual materials from the bedJ
The LSW (Liquid and Solid Waste) Disposal System of Combustion Power
Company (CPC) is a fluidized bed incinerator which is actively being
promoted for the destruction of hazardous wastes. The use of primary and
secondary beds with the consequent high fluidizing velocity reportedly
provides higher capacity than conventional fluidized beds. Exhaust gas
temperatures from the bed do not exceed 810°C (1500°F). The exhaust
cleaning system consists of a two stage cyclone for initial particle
separation and a CPC-designed dry scrubber. Final exhaust temperature
is about 760°C (140QOF), indicating the potential application of thermal
recovery.2,3
CPC has an LSW system at their Menlo Park, California, facility which
was under contract to the Air Force to test burn six common military wastes;
herbicide orange, aircraft washrack wastes, paint stripping wastes, and
three types of petroleum lubricant wastes.
-------
61
A three phase test program was set up:
I. Determination of the heating value and chemical composition
of the liquid wastes.
II. Incineration of the wastes in a model combustor to determine
operating conditions for the test burns in the LSW prototype unit.
III. Verification of phase II operating conditions plus final four
hour test burns in the prototype unit.4
Project work began in June 1973 and test burns were completed in
January 1974. The phase II test for herbicide orange indicated 99.99%
destruction of the 2,4-D and 2,4,5,-T normal butyl esters at a bed tempera-
ture of 810°C (15000F). Total herbicide orange input was small (230 and
290 grams (0.51 and 0.64 Ibs.), respectively), however, during the phase II
burns. Results of testing for the possible presence of dioxin in the
emissions are not yet available. Different bed materials were tried to
obtain optimal hydrogen chloride suppression and reportedly, a dolomiter
sand mixture proved best. A final herbicide orange test burn was conducted
in mid-January with sampling by an independent laboratory.4.5,6
Extensive research on municipal waste incineration in fluidized beds
has been conducted by Dr. Bail lie at West Virginia University, including
a three year EPA grant program. The fluidized, bed incinerator at the
Franklin, Ohio, resource recovery plant, partially funded by an EPA grant,
burns nonrecoverable municipal organic residues. This 7.6 meter (25 ft.)
diameter incinerator was constructed for easy modification to the burning
of industrial liquid wastes and sludges.
Capital and operating costs for fluidized beds vary significantly
depending on the waste characteristics such as form, heating value,
concentration, and the emission control devices. Reported capital costs
for fluidized beds burning liquid wastes range from $265-$635/liter/hr.
($1,000-$2,400/gal./hr.) and for fluidized beds burning solid wastes the
costs range from $110-$290/kg./hr. ($50-$130/lb./hr.). Projected operating
costs for liquids wastes range from $.0025-$.021/liter ($.01-$.08/gallon).7>8
For sludges an actual cost of $27.50/metirc ton ($25/ton) of dry solids has
been/reported,8 and expected costs range from $22-$44/metric ton
($20-$40/ton) of dry solids.7,8,9
-------
62
REFERENCES
1. Ottinger, R.S. Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Fluidized
bed incineration. In. Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal,
incineration, and pyrolysis processes. Ir± Recommended methods of
reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste.
Publication No. PB 224-579. Springfield, Virginia, National
Technical Service. 249p.
2. Combustion Power Company. LSW - Liquid and solid waste disposal systems
for municipal wastes—engineering report. Menlo Park, California,
Combustion Power Company. 33p.
3. Personal visit. A.C. Scurlock, OSWMP, to M.I. Kerr, Combustion Power
Company, Menlo Park, California, November 29, 1973. Recorded in trip
report from A.C. Scurlock, OSWMP, to J.P. Lehman, OSWMP, Washington,
D.C., December 13, 1973.
4. Combustion Power Company. Determining the feasibility of disposing of
Air Force liquid wastes in the LSW-500 industrial prototypes—progress
reports 1,2,3,4 and 5. Menlo Park, California, Combustion Power
Company, August 16, October 22, November 15, December 30, 1973, and
February 1, 1974.
5. Personal communication. R.A. Chapman, Solid and Hazardous Waste
Research Laboratory, Menlo Park, California, to N.B. Schomaker, SHWRL,
Cincinnati, Ohio, September 25, 1973.
6. Personal communication. D.P. Van Buren, Combustion Power Company, to
R^A. Chapman, SHWRL, Menlo Park, California, December 14, 1973.
7. Personal communication. M.I. Kerr, Combustion Power Company, to
A.C. Scurlock, OSWMP, Washington, D.C., March 14, 1974.
8. Ferrel, J.F. Sludge incineration. Pollution Engineering, 36-39, March 1973.
9. Hescheles, C.A., and S.L. Zeid. Investigation of three systems to dry
and incinerate sludge. White Plains, N.Y., Malcom Pirnie, Inc. 16p.
-------
63
APPENDIX V
Molten Salt
Molten salts have long been used in the metallurgical industry to
recover metals, especially aluminum. Extensive research has been done
on possible applications in nuclear power generation and fuel cells, but
none of these were put into actual practice. Recently work has been
done on the disposal of gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes by molten salt
methods. These methods reportedly have the following advantages for hazardous
materials disposal:
(1) reaction of salt with pollutant off-gases such that scrubbing
may not be needed;
(2) entrapment of particulates in the salt media; and
(3) rapid and complete destruction of carbonaceous materials in the
salt media at lower than normal temperatures.
In addition to waste disposal, the molten salt process has potential
application for coal gasification and stack gas desulfurization.
In the basic molten salt concept for waste disposal the waste is injected
below the surface of a molten salt bath. Typically, salt composition is
90 percent sodium carbonate and 10 percent sodium sulfate. In the reactor,
temperatures are typically maintained at some point in the range 810°-980°C
(1500°-1800°F)J Lower temperatures can be employed by using a lower
melting point salt such as potassium carbonate. Pyrolysis of the feed
material occurs first and depending on the oxygen input and the reactor
temperature, the pyrolyzed gases may be combusted in the reactor or in
a subsequent afterburner. In most cases, combustion is accomplished
within the reactor. Sulfur oxides react with the salt to form sodium
sulfate, and hydrogen chloride reacts to form sodium chloride. Particu-
lates are entrapped in the salt and the temperatures used minimize NOX
generation. Project developers feel that for most materials no subsequent
pollution abatement equipment is necessary. Depending on the circumstances,
the spent molten salt may be either regenerated or land disposed. Gas,
oil, and coal have been used as an auxiliary fuel.2
Atomics International (AI), a division of Rockwell International, has
developed the molten salt process for use in waste disposal. In their
waste related work to date, they have conducted both laboratory bench scale
and pilot plant tests. Four commercial pesticides; chlordane, Weed B Gon,
malathion, and Sevin; have been test combusted in a small laboratory molten
salt pot which held 6.8 kg. (15 Ibs.) of salt. Destruction rates were
reported as 99.9 percent pi us.2
-------
64
Atomics International completed construction in 1973 of a 0.8 million
dollar 90 kg.(200 lb.)/hr. pilot combustor facility which has an approximate
one ton salt capacity. Combustor projects and their current status are
as follows:
(1) A navy contract to investigate the feasibility of recovery of
silver from photographic film has been completed.
(2) One phase of an Office of Naval Research contract has been
completed which is investigating the disposal of explosives and
propel 1 ants; and
(3) An Office of Coal Research contract is currently being performed
on coal gasification.2
Anti-Pollution Systems, Inc., of New Jersey, in partnership with other
firms on specific projects has also done development work on the use of
molten salt for waste disposal. A unit has been built which destroys
plastic production wastes, reportedly with good efficiency. Under EPA
contract, a demonstration unit was constructed to handle the total wastes
of a Alaskan Eskimo village. Current activities include the marketing
of the sanitary disposal units for small towns and the development of a
prototype for paint spraying and solvent drying gas cleanup.3
The Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories of Richland, Washington,
has also developed a molten salt process and have proposed a research
program to investigate retention of heavy metals (mercury, lead, cadmium,
arsenic, selenium) in the salt bath.4 At present, conventional incineration
of most metallo-organic hazardous materials must be discouraged to preclude
excessive heavy metal atmospheric emissions.
Atomics International estimates that a 200 Ib./hr. unit with salt
regeneration capabilities would cost about $800K installed. Claimed cost
advantages include compactness and potential fuel efficiency. Atomics
International believes their system is more cost competitive for hazardous
material destruction than for less complex problems such as municipal
waste disposal. A proposal has been made to the State of California by
Atomics International for approximately one-half million dollars for a
portable molten salt unit that would dispose of waste pesticide bags.
This unit would consist of a truck mounted shredder, a combustor of a
230 kg. (500 lb.)/hr. capacity, and a particle separator device.5
-------
65
REFERENCES
1. Atomics International. The molten salt combustion process for
waste disposal. Unpublished information, lip.
2. Atomic International. The Atomics International molten salt process
for special applications. Canoga Park, California, Atomics
International, November 16, 1973. 54p.
3. Lessing, L. The salt of the earth joins the war on pollution.
Fortune, 88(1): 138-147, July 1973.
4. Personal communication. Proposal. V.L. Hammond, Battelle Northwest,
to C. Wiles, Solid Waste Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio,
April 25, 1973.
5. Personal visit. J.D. Gylfe, Atomics International, to A.W. Lindsey
and A.C. Scurlock, OSWMP, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., January 11, 1974.
-------
66
APPENDIX VI
Wet Oxidation—Zimmerman Process
Wet oxidation is a physical/chemical treatment process capable of
breaking down organic materials via fTameless oxidation. The process has
probably achieved its greatest success in stablizing sewage sludge and
has been applied to reclaiming potable water on NASA spacecraft.'
Solids are first solubilized and complex hydrocarbons are broken down
via hydrolysis reactions. The relatively simple hydrocarbons are then
oxidized to alcohols, aldehydes, acids, and ultimately to carbon dioxide
and water. The process is carried out at moderate temperatures. 150°-
340°C (30QO-6500F), and high pressures 316,000-1,758,000 kgs./m3 gauge
(450-2500 psig), higher than steam pressure at the temperatures being
used. Dwell times vary widely, but usually are in the 10 to 30 minute
range.2
Figure 1 is a flow schematic for the basic system. Wastes entering
the system must be readily pumpable, soluble, or water miscible at the
temperatures and pressures used. The waste is preheated via a waste heat
exchanger and external heaters to the reaction temperature. Hydrolysis
occurs during this period. Compressed air is normally used as an oxygen
source and the oxidation reaction proceeds in the reactor vessel at the
prescribed temperature and pressure. Once the reaction is underway, i.e.
after a startup period, it may be self-sustaining, permitting shutdown
of the auxiliary heaters. From the reactor, wastes travel through the
waste heat exchanger and into a phase separator under atmospheric
pressure where gaseous combustion products separate.'
The gas phase, ideally, will contain only carbon dioxide, excess
oxygen, and nitrogen (from the air). Sulfur, nitrogen, and halogen com-
bustion products will be in the liquid phase as salts. Any ash and
undestructed or partially destructed organics will typically also be
retained in the liquid phase. Heavy metals are unaffected by the process
and exist in the liquid phase as salts.2
The reaction rate is affected by temperatures and pressures; higher
temperatures and pressures speed the reaction. The addition of nobel
metal catalysts also substantially speeds the reaction. Rhodium,
ruthenium, iridium, and platinum have been tried; the latter is most
effective. Lower pH's also tend to increase reaction rates.3
The Zimpro Division of Sterling Drug, Inc., was first to promote the
use of the process focusing primarily on sewage sludge stabilization.
-------
67
o
h-
U
<
LU
(0
a
(0
>.
(0
c
0)
s
(fl
(U
cd
O
«/>
(/)
LU
0£
1
S£O
-------
68
The Biotechnology Division of the Lockheed Missiles and Space Company, Inc.,
has done experimental work in the destruction of hazardous organics and
other industrial wastes and are actively promoting the concept for certain
hazardous wastes.. Apparent advantages of the process include:^
(1) Sulfur, nitrogen, and halogen end products are retained in the
liquid phase eliminating the need for scrubbing emission gases.
(2) Land requirements are small compared to biological treatment
processes.
(3) It is applicable to toxic materials which cannot readily be
treated biologically.
(4) No oxidizing agents or other chemical additives are required,
although noble metals and acids will speed the reaction.
The major disadvantage to the system appears to be relatively low
destruction ratios. As measured as a percentage total of organic carbon
(TOC) reduction, destruction figures reported by Lockheed have ranged
widely, from 17 to 99 percent at pressures of 1,055,000 kg./nr gauge
(1500 psig) and temperatures of 270°C (550°F) with a 30 minute contact
time. TOC however, measures not only residual undestructed wastes, but
also organic breakdown products.' Lockheed's tests did not include an
identification of the residual organics or the residual toxicity. Before
the process could be recommended for use with hazardous wastes, the
nature of residual organics would have to be determined.
Economic information for hazardous waste treatment has not been well
developed. Lockheed reports that treatment costs (capital amortized and
operating) are in the range of .03 to .53
-------
69
REFERENCES
1. Personal visit. Briefing. T.M. Olcott and B.M. Greenough, Biotechnology
Division, Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, to OSWMP Staff, Washington,
D.C., February 7, 1974.
2. Lockheed Missiles & Space Company. Advances in wet oxidation waste
treatment systems. Sunnyvale, California, Biotechnology Division,
Lockheed Missiles & Space Company. 8p.
3. Biotechnology Division, Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Packaged waste treatment systems. Unpublished information, 1974. lip.
-------
70
APPENDIX VII
Plasma Destruction
The Palo Alto, California, research laboratories of Lockheed Missiles
and Space Corporation have developed a novel way of potentially destroying
toxic materials by injection into a microwave plasma system. In the
Lockheed system, microwave energy is applied to excite the molecules of
a carrier gas (such as helium or air), thus raising electron energy levels
and essentially forming very reactive free radicals. The gas in this high
energy condition is called plasma. The excited electrons transfer this
energy to break chemical bonds of materials in close proximity. Carbon-carbon
bonds are among those most susceptible. Thus, theoretically any organic
waste-liquid, solid, or gas-placed into the plasma can be degraded to
intermediate or ultimate products, perhaps destroying their toxic properties.
Residence time within the plasma varies from 0.1 to 1.0 second.'
Work to date has been confined to gaseous materials (though Lockheed
believes the concept is applicable to liquids and solids) and has been
limited to a laboratory scale unit. Under contract to the Army in 1970,
quantities of dimethylmethylphosphonate and diisopropylmethylphosphonate
were destructed to determine the feasibility of using such a process for
the destruction of nerve gas laden air. Phosphonate conversions ranging
from 94.7 to 99.5 percent were achieved.1
Lockheed believes the process is especially suited to destruction of
chemical warfare agents, organophosphorus agents, and pesticides. Through
choosing the composition of carrier and oxidant gases the company believes
that decomposition can be controlled so as to limit it at any intermediate
breakdown product desired. The recovering of usable breakdown products
appears possible. The company is attempting to obtain funding to continue
research on a new, larger reaction chamber.2.3 Advantages claimed for
plasma decomposition include:
(1) Low operating temperatures - cold discharges; 150°C (300°F);
(2) Low cost-22tf/kg. (10£/lb.) for electricity, about $10,000
capital cost for an installed small unit; and
(3) Small size, potential portability.1
-------
71
REFERENCES
1. Lockheed Research Laboratory, Lockheed Missile & Space Company.
Microwave plasma decomposition of toxic wastes. Unpublished
information, 1973. 17p.
2. Personal visit. Briefing. L. Bailin, E. Littauer, R. Simmons,
J. Burbach, Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, to OSWMP Staff,
Washington, D.C., November 17, 1973. Recorded in meeting report
by A.C. Scurlock, OSWMP, Washington, D.C., January 9, 1974.
3. Personal visit. A.C. Scurlock, OSWMP, Washington, D.C., to L. Bailin,
E. Littauer, J. Burbach, Lockheed Palo Alto Research Laboratories,
Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Palo Alto, California, November
29, 1973. Recorded in trip report by A.C. Scurlock, OSWMP, Washington,
D.C., December 13, 1973.
4. Lockheed Research Laboratory, Lockheed Missiles & Space Company.
Microwave plasma decomposition of toxic wastes. Unpublished
information, 1973. 17p.
-------
72
APPENDIX VIII
Multiple Chamber
The multiple chamber incinerator is widely used for combusting municipal
and industrial solid wastes, including paper, wood, refuse, phenolic resins,
rubber, wire coatings, acrylic resins, epoxy resins, and PVC. Though for
applicable solid wastes the multiple chamber design does offer the advantage
of relative simplicity and ease of operation; the inability of the basic
design to handle liquids, sludges, slurries, powders, and tars precludes
its use for processing most hazardous wastes. It is likely that most new
hazardous waste incinerators will be of the more universally applicable
incinerator designs such as the multiple hearth, fluidized bed, or rotary
kiln types.
A typical multiple chamber incinerator consists of three separate
chambers (see Figure 1); an ignition chamber, a mixing chamber, and a
secondary combustion chamber. The solid wastes are charged to the grates
in the ignition chamber where drying occurs and combustion begins. From
the ignition chamber the gases travel to the mixing chamber. Mixing occurs
here due to: (1) abrupt changes in direction entering and leaving the
chamber, (2) sudden expansion and contraction of ducts and chambers,
and (3) addition of 20 percent of the air makeup within the chamber.
From this chamber the gases enter the secondary combustion chamber in
which combustion is completed. Ash is removed from ports within each
chamber and emission scrubbing systems are necessary. Approximately
200 percent excess air is normal, with 80 percent of it added to the
ignition chamberJ
When the input waste is less then 10 percent mositure, auxiliary
burners are generally not needed. Moisture content from 10 to 20 percent
usually requires auxiliary burners in the mixing chamber burners, while
moisture contents greater than 20 percent often require additional
ignition chamber burners.
The average temperature of the combustion products, 540°C (1000°F),
is not high enough to ensure complete destruction of many hazardous
materials. Higher temperatures could be maintained by additional
auxiliary burners and proper construction materials.
As with most incinerator installations, there appears to be an economy
of scale factor involved in costs. Typical multiple chamber incinerator
and scrubber installation costs (1968 dollars) exclusive of foundation
costs are as follows:
Capacity Kg./hr. (Ib./hr.) Incinerator Costs ($) Scrubber Costs ($)
45 (100) 1,700 3,000
225 (500) 5,000 6,200
450 (1,000) 12,000 8,800
900 (2,000) 25,000 13,200
-------
73
s
td
n
a)
c
•H
u
a
H
0)
U
a>
CO
0)
•H (0
•P
C -P
-H 0)
J-I
-P
C
(U
CO
UH
O
(0
.p
c
g
-P 'rH
C D ffl
3
O - •
u • w
u
U
•H
CO
•H
Q
O
-P
(U
tP
C-H
•H 4J
X! 4J
W O
-p IS
c
o
rH 0)
C (0
o
•H
n
o
-P (fl U
3 g Q)
. 4 1 [
rH tn
O C co
0)
-H CN
C 00
OJ
i-o O r-
•rH VD
- -P H MH
•H MH
<3 O
o
H
-------
74
Total processing costs reportedly are in the range of $16 to $18/metric
ton ($15 to $16/ton) of waste incinerated.' This includes capital and
operating costs.
-------
75
REFERENCES
Ottinger, R.S. Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.).
Multiple chamber incinerators. Ir± Disposal process descriptions
ultimate disposal, incineration, and pyrolysis processes.
jjl Recommended methods of reduction, neutralization, recovery,
disposal of hazardous waste. V3. Publication No. PB 224 579.
Springfield, Virginia, National Technical Information Service. 249p.
-------
76
APPENDIX IX
Gas Combustion
There are a number of types of incinerators or burners used to combust
gaseous materials. They are used to purify contaminated gas streams by
either direct combustion or with the aid of auxiliary burners. They are
also potentially applicable to incineration of volatile liquids, such as
solvents.
There are three basic types of gas incinerators: flare, direct flame,
and catalytic oxidation types. Flares consist of a pipe equipped with a
flame attachment and an automatic pilot. Readily flammable waste gases
are simply flared to the open atmosphere. Flares are generally used for
disposal of large quantities of combustible gases and aerosols and have
found application primarily in petroleum refining and petrochemical
operations. Flares are generally not environmentally satisfactory for
disposal of hazardous gases since uncombusted wastes and breakdown products
such as chlorides, flourides, cyanides, and sulfur compounds are simply
emitted.
The direct flame thermal incinerator (see Figure 1) is used for the
disposal of low concentration (usually less than 25 percent of the lower
flammability limit) combustible gaseous waste. In the combustion chamber
the contaminated gases are completely mixed with the flames and burner
combustion gases to ensure good combustion. The gaseous contaminants
are destroyed at temperatures ranging from 450°-8100C (850°-1500°F).'»2»3
Low concentration combustible gases (usually at or below 25 percent
of the lower flammability limit) may also be disposed of through the use
of catalytic incinerators. Catalytic combustion, or catalytic oxidation,
has been used to destroy paint solvents and odors from chemical manufacturing
and food processing. In catalytic incineration operation, the waste gases
are preheated before exposure to the catalyst, usually to about 320°-5400C
(600°-1000°F) (see Figure 2). Most of the combustion occurs during flow
through the catalyst bed which operates at maximum temperatures of 810°-870°C
(150QO-16000F). Maintaining increased temperatures in the catalyst bed
generally results in increased destruction efficiency. The ability to
carry out combustion at relatively low temperatures while achieving high
destruction efficiencies is a major advantage of the catalytic incinerator.
Representative sizes for catalytic units including heater and catalyst
sections are as follows:
Flow Rate Length Maximum Outside Diameter
SCMH (SCFH) mm (ft.) mm (ft.)
500 (18,000) 2500 (8.2) 600 (2)
6000 (216,000) 3500 (11.5) 1400-2000 (4.6-6.6)
-------
77
c
O (Q
•H <
H ft
O (N
00
z*
0<
u
o
+j
0)
*H O .
4J O •
(0 rl
•H •
Q W •
O H
rl » «J
•P -X!
C U -P
o . a
U Q (U
C •> 3
O C H
•r| O «
-p -p
3 Cn -
rH c •
rH -rl CO
OX!
0,j [Q •
id PS
fa ^
4J
O
0)
•H
Q
0)
M
3
g^ Ij
0)
•H cn
• (0 C
•< 3-H
• id -P
ra g O
- tncl
a c H|
O-rl
w ^-i *d
rH flj 0)
d) O 'O
•H C rl
§-r| O
tn O
Q C Q)
* 0) M
-------
78
DISCHARGE TO
ATMOSPHERE
CATALYST
PREHEAT
BURNERS
GASEOUS
INFLUENT
CONTAINING
COMBUSTIBLE
Figure 2: Catalytic Incineration* MATERIAL
*Danielson, J. A. (Air pollution Control District, County of Los Angeles).
Air pollution engineering manual. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1967. 892p. As recorded In Ottinger, R. S., Blumentnal,
j. L., et al.
-------
79
Sufficient oxygen supply and retention time are important in the catalyst
section. Platinum, palladium, rhodium, copper chromite, and the oxides of
copper, chromium, manganese, nickel, and cobalt have been successfully used
as catalysts. Fouling and erosion of the catalyst surface present a constant
maintenance problem. Additionally, certain chemicals in the gaseous stream
may act to poison the catalyst, thereby reducing or eliminating its
effectiveness.
Since the choice of catalyst and the necessary design parameters of the
system depend heavily on the waste gas characteristics (chemical nature
and concentration), extreme care must be taken in designing individual
catalytic incinerators if satisfactory destruction efficiencies are to be
achieved.
Capital costs for gas combustors vary significantly depending on the
complexity of the overall system and the type and quantity of waste gas.
Typical capital costs are shown by the following:
Flares- 1»2,5,6
$0.22-$22.00/scmm
($.006-$.60/scfm)
Direct-Flame- ^ a) Without heat exchanger
b) With heat exchanger
$54.00-$71.00/scmm
($1.50-$2.00/scfm)
$71.00-$167.00/scmm
($2.00-$4.50/scfm)
Catalytic- 8
a) (140 scmm) unit
without heat exchanger
b) (280 scmm) unit
without heat exchanger
c) (280 scmm) unit
with heat exchanger
$107/scmm
($3/scfm)
$71-$89/scmm
($2.00-$2.50/scfm)
$100.00-$161.00/scmm
($2.80-$4.50/scfm)
Some representative flare costs for various production plants are $250,000
for a 27,000 metric ton (30,000 ton)/year synthetic rubber plant and $5,000
for a 600,000 m3 (20 million ft.3) per day natural gas production plant.9
Operating costs for most gas combustors are scarce. Operating costs for
direct-flame incineration are reported to be $3.07-$3.78/100scmm
($.86-$l.06/1000 scfm) with heat recovery providing savings up to 30
percent in some situations.10
-------
80
REFERENCES
1. Daniel son, J.A. (Air Pollution Control District, County of Los Angeles).
Air Pollution engineering manual. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1967. 892p.
As recorded Jjx
Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Gas
combustors. ^n Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal,
incineration, and pyrolysis processes. In_ Recommended methods of
reduction, neturalization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste.
V3. Publication No. PB 224 579. Springfield, Virginia, National
Technical Information Service. 249p.
2. Brewer, G.L. Fume incineration. Chemical Engineering, October 14, 1968.
As recorded Ir\_
Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Gas
combustors. Jj^ Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal,
incineration, and pyrolysis processes. I_r^ Recommended methods of
reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste.
V3. Publication No. PB 224 579. Springfield, Virginia, National
Technical Information Service. 249p.
3. Pauletta, C. Incineration. In Pollution Engineering, March/April 1970.
pi.
As recorded I_n_
Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Gas
combustors. L^ Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal,
incineration, and pyrolysis processes. Jji Recommended methods of
reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste.
V3. Publication No. PB 224 579. Springfield, Virginia, National
Technical Information Service. 249p.
4. Volvo Flygmotor. Gas emission control. Trollhattan, Sweden.
Volvo Flygmotor.
5. Personal communication. J. Feldstine, Hirt Combustion Engineers, to
M. Santy, TRW Systems, March 21, 1972.
-------
81
As recorded In
Ottinger, R.S.., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Flares.
J£ Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal, incineration, and
pyrolysis processes. J_n_ Recommended methods of reduction, neutraliza-
tion, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste. V3. Publication
No. PB 224 579. Springfield, Virginia, National Technical Information
Service. 249p.
6. Personal communication. C. Cantrel, John Zink Co., to M. Santy,
TRW Systems. March 21, 1972.
As recorded J_n_
Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Flares.
Ir± Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal, incineration, and
pyrolysis processes. Jji Recommended methods of reduction, neutraliza-
tion, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste. V3. Publication No.
PB 224 579. Springfield, Virginia, National Technical Information
Service. 249p.
7. Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Gas
combustors. I_r^ Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal,
incineration, and pyrolysis processes. J!n_ Recommended methods of
reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste.
V3. Publication No. PB 224 579. Springfield, Virginia, National
Technical Information Service. 249p.
8. Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Catalytic
incineration. Jhi Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal,
incineration, and pyrolysis processes. Jji Recommended methods of
reduction, neutralization, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste.
V3. Publication No. PB 224 579. Springfield, Virginia, National
Technical Information Service. 249p.
9. Stone, R. and H. Smallwood. Intermedia aspects of air and water
pollution control. EPA Publication No. 600/5-73-003. Washington,
D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, August 1973.
10. Direct flame method of incineration for combustibe solvents. Air
Engineering. 10(4): 32-33, April 1968.
As recorded In^
Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.) Flares.
J,n_ Disposal process descriptions ultimte disposal, incineration, and
pyrolysis processes. J_n_ Recommended methods of reduction, neutraliza-
tion, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste. V3. Publication No.
PB 224 579. Springfield, Virginia, National Technical Information
Service. 249p.
-------
82
APPENDIX X
Pyrolysis
Pyrolysis is the thermal decomposition of organic material into solid,
liquid, and gaseous constituents, the amounts of each depending on the
initial waste and operating conditions. Organic waste placed inside a
pyrolytic reactor or retort is subjected to a temperature of from 4800-810°C
(900°-1500°F).1 To preclude oxidation or combustion, little or no oxygen is
added to the reactor as the waste thermally decomposes. Typical gaseous
products include steam, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, and
methane. Liquid condensate can contain such potentially valuable organic
chemicals as methanol, ethanol, and various other alcohols, acids, and tars.
The solid product is similar to charcoal, but also contains the nonorganic,
nonvolatile constituents of the waste. Depending on the waste material,
all three forms of the product could be used as a fuel source.
A major attraction of pyrolysis is the potential for recovery of
economic value from waste products. Pyrolysis has only recently (1968) been
applied to waste processing. It is potentially applicable to municipal and
industrial organic wastes, with recent emphasis being placed on municipal
waste disposal. Designs of pyrolysis units, have been developed by numerous
organizations including the Bureau of Mines, West Virginia University,
the Union Carbide Corp., the Garrett Research and Development Corporation,
Monsanto, Inc., the Battelle Northwest Laboratories, and the Kemp Reduction
Corp. Full scale municipal waste disposal facilities utilizing the Garrett
and the Monsanto designs are currently being demonstrated by OSWMP
resource recovery grants.
An example of a typical pyrolysis unit is the Kemp Converter which is
being developed by the Kemp Reduction Corp. Municipal and oil wastes have
been test destructed in a 4.5 metric ton/day (5TPD) pilot plant unit. The
concept features recovery of a low BTU fuel gas as well as the liquid and
solid fractions. The company is currently designing a 91 metric ton/day
(100 TPD) test unit which will be located in Los Angeles, and is negotiating
with the U.S. Corps of Engineers to supply a shipboard converter for harbor
dredge spoils processing. Though the company believes their process is
suitable for hazardous waste destruction, no unit testing on this applica-
tion has been done.^.3,4
Capital costs for pyrolysis facilities will vary depending on the
particular system chosen, the size, and on the use of heat recovery equipment.
No capital or operating costs are available for hazardous waste facilities.
Capital costs for municipal waste facilities vary from $11,000-$15,500/
metric ton ($10,000 to $14,000/ton). Projected operating costs for these
facilities vary from $4.40-$9.90/metric ton ($4.00-$9.00/ton).5
-------
83
REFERENCES
1. Ottinger, R.S., Blumenthal, J.L., et al (TRW Systems, Inc.). Pyrolysis.
JjX Disposal process descriptions ultimate disposal, inineration, and
pyrolysis processes. In. Recommended methods of reduction, neutraliza-
tion, recovery, or disposal of hazardous waste. V3. Publication
No. PB 224 579. Springfield, Virginia, National Technical Information
Service. 249p.
2. Personal communication. K. Kemp, Kemp Reduction Corp., to H. Trask,
OSWMP, Washington, D.C., September 11, 1973.
3. Personal communication. K. Kemp, Kemp Reduction Corp., to H. Trask,
OSWMP, Washington, D.C., November 11, 1973.
4. Kemp Reduction Corp. Kemp waste converter. Santa Barbara, Co.,
Kemp Reduction Corp. 8p.
5. Personal communication. K. Kemp, Kemp Reduction Corp., to A. Scurlock,
OSWMP, Washington, D.C., January 9, 1974. Recorded in telecon report
by A. Scurlock, OSWMP, Washington, D.C., January 24, 1974.
-------
84
APPENDIX XI
Incineration of Specific Materials
The attached matrix lists hazardous waste stream constituents for which
incineration is considered an acceptable waste treatment alternative and
includes additional parameters of interest where known. It is obvious that
a great deal of additional detailed information on suitable operating
parameters is needed. Plans to develop needed information were previously
summarized.
The material in these tables comes primarily from the TRW Systems, Inc.,
report entitled Recommended Methods of Reduction, Neutralization, Recovery
and Disposal of Hazardous Waste, which was performed as an adjunct study
conforming to the requirements of Section 212 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act of 1965 As Amended. Some additional material from OSWMP files was
added where appropriate. Reference to these tables will provide the user
with an indication of whether or not a material in question may be
incinerated, and in many cases, some of the operating problems, parameters,
and procedures involved. These tables should be used in making preliminary
investigations to indicate the overall practicality of the incineration
approach to a specific hazardous waste problem. In many cases, more
detailed information can be obtained by referring to the TRW report or
to the Hazardous Waste Management Division of the Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs (OSWMP).
To simplify presentation, the available information has been condensed
as follows:
Column 1-presents the volume number and page number in the TRW series
in which the subject substance is discussed in more detail.
Column 2-check marks indicate whether incineration is considered acceptabl
for wastes of a concentrated and dilute nature. In most cases, where
concentrated wastes are checked, but dilute wastes are not, the indication
is that preferable, usually more economical approaches exist.
Columns 3-8-A cross mark indicates potential for formation of the
pollutant. The type of heavy metal or additional pollutants of concern
are indicated by chemical formula.
Column 9-where recycling or reclamation is a known alternative for at
least some wastes containing the subject material, this column is checked.
More information can be obtained from the previously mentioned TRW report.
-------
85
Column 10-contains footnote numbers referring to additional criteria
and information presented at the end of the table. This was done to
preclude needless repetition of identical explanations.
In considering this information it must be remembered that most actual
wastes are not only mixtures or solutions of the materials discussed here
but also contain other materials, organic and/or inorganic. These may
affect a decision on incineration and will affect the types and amounts
of products of combustion to be in emissions and residues.
Although the Hazardous Waste Management Division of OSWMP believes,
from current knowledge, that incineration is an acceptable treatment for
the named materials, these tables should not be construed as an unqualified
EPA endorsement, since detailed studies have not been performed with EPA
monitoring to confirm the information. In the end, any decision regarding
the environmental adequacy and safety aspects of incinerating a given
waste material must depend on an overall analysis of the individual
situation (incinerator characteristics, waste properties, etc.).
Experimental or test burns may be desirable prior to full scale
incineration to determine required operating parameters for complete
destruction. Because of the health and environmental damage potential
incineration of hazardous materials must not be entered into lightly.
Reference is made to the list of considerations in Section I which
should be addressed in analyzing any hazardous waste incineration
proposal.
It is OSWMP's plan to update these tables on a periodic basis as
more information is gathered. In this regard, users of this information
can assist by notifying OSWMP of new information coming to their
attention regarding test incineration results for various hazardous
substances or waste materials.
-------
86
FOOTNOTES
1. Controlled incineration of materials acceptable if equipped with a
scrubber, catalytic or thermal unit to reduce NOX, or SOX emissions.
2. Incineration of concentrated materials and dilute organic mixtures
is acceptable.
3. Incineration acceptable - preferably after mixing with another
combustible fuel; care must be exercised to assure complete combustion
to prevent the formation of phosgene. A scrubber is necessary to
remove the halo acids produced.
4. It is believed that surplus military munitions, high explosives, and
chemical warfare agents will be adequately destructed by the Armed
Forces' Chemical Agent Munition Disposal Systems, which is nearing
development completion. The main component of this system is a
rotary kiln incinerator.
5. Concentrated waste containing no peroxides: discharge liquid at a
controlled rate near a pilot flame. Concentrated waste containing
peroxides are extremely explosive. No enviornmentally satisfactory
technique has yet been discovered for disposal; storage is dangerous.
Interim approach involves perforation of a container of waste from
a safe distance (using rifle or explosive) in the open, away from
habitation; followed by open burning. Incinerate dilute wastes at
815°C (150QOF) minimum. Spray aqueous materials into hot incinerator.
6. Incineration at 1000°C (1800°F) for two seconds is believed adequate.
Alternately, primary conditions of 815°C (1500°F), one-half second
and secondary conditions of 1200°C (2200QF), one second are considered
equivalent.
7. Additional detailed criteria can be found in the TRW Systems report
entitled Recommended Methods of Reduction, Neutralization, Recovery
and Disposal of Hazardous Waste.
-------
87
INCINERATION OF SPECIFIC MATERIALS
Substance
Acetaldehyde
Acetic Acid
Acetic anhydride
Acetone
Acetone cyanohy-
drin
Acetonitrile
Acetylene
Acetyl chloride
Acridine
Acrolein
..v'
.>'•
Acrylic acid
Aery Ion itrile
Adipic acid
Aldrin
Allyl alcohol
Allyl chloride
TRW Vol.
(page)
10 (1)
10(21)
10(21)
10(1)
10(41)
10(41)
10(55)
10(21)
10(213)
8(51)
10(101)
10(41)
10(101)
5(1)
10(115)
10(147)
Cone.
Criteria
o
c
O
u
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dilute
X
X
X
X
X
Potential Com-
bustion Products
CN
\H
1-3 U
uo
wu
X
X
X
X
O
w
X
O
z
X
X
X
X
Other
10
>*H
> <0
(0-P
0) <1)
as
Recycling
Potential
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other
Criteria
1
1
3
1
6
1
-------
88
INCINERATION OF SPECIFIC MATERIALS
Substance
Aminoethylethanol
amine
Ammonium picrate
Amyl acetate
(Banana oil)
Amyl alcohol
(Fusel oil)
Aniline (oil~
amino ben.zene)
Anthracene
Atrazine (2-chloro
-4-ethylamino - 6-
iso propylamine
S-triazine)
Benzene
Benzene hexachlo-
ride (lindane)
Benzene sulfonic
acid
Benzoyl peroxide
Benzyl chloride
Beryllium carbo-
nate
Beryllium chloride
Beryllium hydrox-
ide
TRW Vol.
(page)
10(155)
7(69)
10(187)
10(115)
10(213)
10(55)
10(55)
5(29)
10(231)
11(1)
10(237)
12(243)
12(243)
12(243)
Cone.
Criteria
u
C
O
U
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dilute
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Potential Com-
bustion Products
»H
> nj
(B4-1
(1) Q)
WS
Be
Be
Be
Recycling
Potential
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other
Criteria
1
4, 7
1
1,2,6
2
6
•1
7
6
-------
89
INCINERATION OF SPECIFIC MATERIALS
Substance
Beryllium Selenate
Boron hydrides
Bromacil (5-bromo-
3- sec-butyl- 6-
raethyluracil)
Butadiene
Butane
1,2, 4-Butanetriol
trinitrate
Butanols
Butyl alcohol
1-Butene
Butyl acetate
Butyl acrylate
ri -Butylamine
Butylene
Butyl mercaptan
Butyl phenol
Butyr aldehyde
Camphor
TRW Vol.
(page)
12(243)
7(21)
—
10(55)
10(55)
11(9)
10(115)
10(55)
10(187)
10(187)
10(155)
10(55)
10(263)
10(245)
10(1)
10(1)
Cone.
Criteria
CJ
c
o
o
X
X
X
X-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dilute
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Potential Com-
bustion Products
rH
> (0
-------
90
INCINERATION OF SPECIFIC MATERIALS
Substance
Carbolic acids
(phenols)
Carbon disulfide
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachlor-
ide
Chloral hydrate
Chlorates with
red phosphorus
Chlorobenzene
Chlordane
Chlorine trifluo-
ride and
Chlorine penta-
fluoride
Chloroform -
(trichlorome thane)
Chloropicrin
Copper chlorote-
trazole
Creosote (coal
tar)
Cresol (cresylic
acid)
Crotonaldehyde
TRW VO1.
(page)
10(245)
10(275)
12(91)
10(283)
10(283)
13(5)
10(283)
5(1)
7(9)
10(283)
11(15)
7(83)
10(55)
10(245)
10(1)
Cone.
Criteria
Cone.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dilute
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Potential Com-
bustion Products
(N
\H
JO
uo
B3U
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
Other
C12
HF
C12
F2
C12
CuOx
w
>»-!
> (0
(0-P
0) 0)
KS
Cu
Recycling
Potential
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other
Criteria
1
3
3
2,3,6
3, 7
3
1,3,6
1
2
-------
91
INCINERATION OF SPECIFIC MATERIALS
Substance
Cumene
Cyanoacetic acid
Cyclohexane
Cyclohexanol
Cyc lohexanone
Cyclohexylamine
ODD
DDT
DNBP (alkanola-
mine salt of 4,6-
dinitro-sec-buty^
-phenol) (pr^m.era«
Dalapon (sodium
salt of 2,2-di-
chloropropionic
acid)
Decyl alcohol
Demeton
Diazodinitro-phe-
nol
Dicamba
O-Dichlorobenzene
TRW Vol.
(page)
ia(55)
10(41)
10(55)
10(115)
10(1)
10(155)
5(29)
5(29)
)
—
10(115)
5(73)
7(89)
—
10(283)
Cone.
Criteria
•
0
c
o
u
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dilute
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Potential Com-
bustion Products
r-l
> a
<0 4->
0) 0)
xs
Recycling
Potential
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other
Criteria
2
1
2
1
6
6
1,6
2,6
1,2,6
1<4,7
2,6
3
-------
92
INCINERATION OF SPECIFIC MATERIALS
Substance
Dichlorofluoro-
me thane (Freon)
Dichloroethyl
ether
Dichlorome thane
(methylene chlor-
ide)
2,4-D (Dichloro-
phenoxy acetic
acid)
1, 2-Dichloropro-
pane
1, 3-Dichloropro-
pene (propylene
dichloride)
Dichlorotetra-
fluoroethane
DicyclOpentadiene
Dieldrin
Diethanolamine
Diethylamine
Diethylether
Diethylstilbes-
trol
Diethylene glycol
Diethyltrimine
TRW Vol.
(page)
10(283)
10(283)
10(283)
5(55)
10(283)
10(283)
10(283)
10(55)
5(1).
10(155)
10(155)
11(27)
10(245)
10(115)
10(155)
Cone.
Criteria
Cone.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dilute
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Potential Com-
bustion Products
CN
\.-i
1-3 U
DO
WU
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
n
0*
?
X
X
X
Other
C12
HF
ci2
ci2
HF
0)
>*H
> (0
(0-P
0) 0)
MS
Recycling
Potential
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
. X
X
Other
Criteria
3
3
3
2,6
3
3
3
2
1,2,6
1
1
5
1
-------
93
INCINERATION OF SPECIFIC MATERIALS
Substance
Diisobutylene
Diisobutyl ketone
Diisopropanola-
mine
Dimethylamine
Dimethyl sulfate
(methyl sulfate)"
2 , 4-Dinitroani-
line
Dinitrobenzol
(dinitrobenzene)
Dinitro/cresols
Dinitrophenol
Dinitrotoluene
(DNT)
Dioxane
(Diethylene oxide)
Dioxin
Dipentaerythritol
hexanitrate
(DPEHN)
Diphenylamine
(phenylaniline)
Dipropylene glyc-
ol
Diuron [3-(3,4-di-
chloropheny 1 ) - 1 ,
1-dimethylurea]
TRW Vol.
(page)
10(55)
10(1)
10(155)
10(155)
8(59)
10(213)
11(43)
5(101)
11(51)
7(97)
11(27)
7(103)
11(63)
10(115)
Cone.
Criteria
o
G
O
u
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dilute
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Potential Com-
bustion Products
tN
\H
JU
00
wu
X
X
0
w
X
0*
S3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
"
Other
to
>r-t
> m
<0 -P
0) Q)
KS
Recycling
Potential
X
X
X
X
X
Other
Criteria
1
1
1,6
1
1,6
1,2,6
1,6
1,3,7
5
2,6
4,7
i
1,6
-------
94
INCINERATION OF SPECIFIC MATERIALS
Substance
Dodecylbenzene
Endrin
Epichlorohydrin
Ethane
Ethanol
Ethanolamine
(monoethanolamine )
Ethyl acetate
Ethyl acrylate
Ethylamine
Ethylbenzene
Ethyl chloride
Ethylene
Ethylene bromide
Ethylene dibromide
Ethylene cyanohy-
drin
Ethylene diamine
Ethylene dichlor-
ide
TRW Vol.
(page)
10(55)
5(1)
10(283)
10(55)
10(115)
10(155)
10(187)
10(1ET7)
10(155)
10(55)
10(283)
10(55)
11(69)
10(41)
10(155)
10(283)
Cone.
Criteria
o
c
o
o
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dilute
X
X
X
X
X
X
>:
X
Potential Com-
bustion Products
fS
\H
^)CJ
UO
KU
X
X
X
X
X
o"
w
X
Z
X
X
X
X
Other
HBr
w
>»H
> (0
(O-P
OJ
-------
95
INCINERATION OF SPECIFIC MATERIALS
Substance
Ethylene glycol
Ethylene glycol
nonoethyl ether
Ethylenimine
Ethyl mercaptan
Ethyl methyl
ketone
Ethyl phenol
Ethyl phthalate
Fatty acids
Fluorine
Formaldehyde
Formic acid
Furfural alcohol
GB (Non-persis-
tent nerve gas)
Gelatinized nitro-
cellulose (PNC)
Glycerine
Glycerolmonol-
acetate trinitrate
(OLTN)
TRW Vol.
(page)
10(115)
11(27)
11(91)
10(263)
10(1)
10(245)
10(187)
10(101)
8(25)
10(21)
10(101)
10(115)
7(231)
7(55)
10(115)
11(99)
Cone.
Criteria
Cone.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dilute
X
X
X
X
X
Potential Com-
bustion Products
CN
\H
t^U
CJO
wu
X
o
w
X
ox
K
X
X
X
Other
H2S
HF
(0
>*H
> rt
(O-P
01 01
«S
Recycling
Potential
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other
Criteria
5
1
1
1,7
I,7
1,4/7
1
-------
96
INCINERATION OF SPECIFIC MATERIALS
Substance
Glycol dinitrate
(DON)
Gold fulminate
Guthion
n-Heptane
1-Heptene
Heptachlor
Herbicide orange
(mixture of 2,4-D
and 2,4,5-T)
Hexachlorobenzene
(HCB)
Hexachlorophene
Hexamethylene
diamine
Hexane
Hydrazine (Anhy-
drous diamine)
Hydrazine oxide/
hydrazine
Hydrocyanic acid
(aq. )
Hydrogen cyanide
Hydroquinone
TRW Vol.
(page)
7(111)
7(83)
5(73)
10(55)
10(55)
5(1)
10(283)
10(155)
10(55)
12(327)
11(105)
13(57)
13(57)
11(111)
Cone.
Criteria
•
0
c
o
U
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dilute
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Potential Com-
bustion Products
CM
\iH
iJO
oo
wu
X
X
X
X
X
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other
AuOx
P
POX
C12
NH3
NH3
V)
>r-t
> (0
rd-P
-------
97
INCINERATION OF SPECIFIC MATERIALS
Substance
Isobutyl acetate
Isopentane
Isophorane
Isoprene
Isopropy] acetate
Isopropyl aroine
Isopropyl ether
Lead 2 , 4-dinitro-
resorcinate (LDNR!
Lead styphnate
(lead 2,4,6-trini-
troresorcinate)
Lewisite
Malathion
Maleic anhydride
Manganese methcy-
clopentadienyltri-
carbonyl
Mannitol hexani-
trate
MCPA (2-raethyl -
4-chlorophenoxya-
cetic acid)
TRW Vol.
(page)
10(187)
10(55)
10(1)
10(55)
10(187)
10(155)
11(27)
7(137)
7(145)
7(247)
11(119)
11(127)
7(155)
Cone.
Criteria
o
C
o
u
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dilute
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Potential Com-
bustion Products
CN|
\rH
H)U
uo
KU
X
X
X
o
w
I
X
X
o
13
X
X
X
X
Other
PbOx
PbOx
AS03
P
POX
Mn°x
in
>r-t
> (0
«54J
(1) 0)
IBS
Pb
Pb
As
Mn
Recycling
Potential
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other
Criteria
2
2
1
5
1,4,7
1,4,7
3,7
1,2,6
2,3,6,
7
1,4,7
2,3,6
-------
INCINERATION OF SPECIFIC MATERIALS
Substance
Mercury compounds
(organic)
Mercuric fulminate
Mesityl oxide
Methanol
Methyl acrylate „
Methylamine
Methyl amyl alco-
hol
n-Methylaniline
Methyl bromide
Methyl chloride
Methyl chlorofor-
mate
Methyl formate
Methyl isobutyl
ketone
Methyl mercaptan
Methyl methacry-
late monomer
Methyl parathion
TRW Vol.
(page)
6(55)
7(163)
10(1)
10(115)
10(187)
10(155)
10(115)
10(213)
11(69)
11(69)
10(283)
10(187)
10(1)
10(263)
10(187)
5(73)
Cone .
Criteria
u
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dilute
X
X
X
X
X
X
Potential Com-
bustion Products
fS
\^
d8
scu
X
X
X
0
X
X
ox
X
X
X
X
X
Other
HBr
H2S
POX
P
01
>»H
> rt
«J*J
01 Q)
KS
Hg
Hg
•
Recycling
Potential
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other
Criteria
1,4,7
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
1,2,6
-------
99
INCINERATION OF SPECIFIC MATERIALS
Substance
Morpholine
Naphtha (crude)
Naphthalene
B-Naphthalamine
Nemagon (1,2-di-
bromo-3-chloro-
propane)
Nickel carbonyl
Nitroaniline
(meta , para-nitre—
aniline)
Nitrobenzene
Nitrocellulose
Nitrochloroben-
zene (meta or para
Nitroethane
Nitrogen mustard
Nitroglycerin
Nitrome thane
Nitroparaf f ins
4-Nitrophenol
TRW Vol.
(page)
10(155)
10(55)
10(55)
10(213)
8(35)
11(137)
11(145)
7(47)
11(153)
11(161)
7(255)
7(171)
11(161)
11(161)
11(173)
Cone.
Criteria
u
O
U
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dilute
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Potential Com-
bustion Products
cs
•XrH
JU
uo
KU
X
X
X
X
co
X
O
z
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other
Cl2
HBr
Br2
ca
>»-!
> CO
«4J
(U 0)
ws
Recycling
Potential
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other
Criteria
1
2
2
1
2,3,6
1
1,6
1,6
1,4,7
1,3,6
1
1,3,7
1,4,7
1
1
1
-------
100
INCINERATION OF SPECIFIC MATERIALS
Substance
Phthalic anhy-
dride
Picloram
Picric acid
Polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB's)
Polypropylene gly-
col methyl ester
Polyvinyl chloride
Polyvinyl nitrate
Potassium dinitro-
benzfuroxan
(KDNBF)
Potassium oxalate
Primers & Detona-
tors
Propane
Propionaldehyde
Propionic acid
n-Propyl acetate
n-Propyl alcohol
n-Propylamine
TRW Vol.
(page)
10(21)
7(189)
11(199)
11(27)
10(283)
11(219)
7(197)
12(145)
7(205)
10(55)
10(1)
10(101)
10(187)
10(115)
10(155)
Cone.
Criteria
Cone.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dilute
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Potential Com-
bustion Products
rH
> flj
<04J
0)
-------
101
INCINERATION OF SPECIFIC MATERIALS
Substance
1 & 2 Nitropropan
4-Nitrotoluene
Nonyl phenol
Octyl alcohol
(ethyl hexanol)
Oleic acid
Oxalic ecid
Paraformaldehyde
Paraquat
Parathion
Pentaborane
Pentachlorophenol
Pentaerythritol
tetranitrate
(PETN)
n-Pentane
Perchloroethylene
Phenylhydrazine
hydrochloride
Phosphorus (white
or yellow)
TRW Vol.
(page)
11(161)
11(173)
10(245)
10(115)
10(21)
11(183)
10(1)
—
—
7(21)
8(67)
7(179)
10(55)
10(283)
10(213)
13(163)
Cone.
Criteria
•
o
1
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dilute
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Potential Com-
bustion Products
fN
\H
iJU
oo
KU
X
X
X
X
K
O
w
X
X
3
z
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other
POX
B2°3
B
C12
P40l0
P
W
>rH
> a
fl4J
QJ 0)
«a
Recycling
Potential
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other
Criteria
1
1
1
1,2,3,6
1,2,6
7
3
1,4,7
2
3
1,3
-------
102
INCINERATION OF SPECIFIC MATERIALS
Substance
Propylene
Propylene glycol
Propylene oxide
Pyridine
Quinone
Salicylic acid
Sevin
Silver azide
Silver styphnate
Silver tetrazene
Smokeless gunpow-
der
Sodium alloy
Sodium aaide
Sorbitol
Styrene
Sulfur mustard
TRW Vol.
(page)
10(55)
10(115)
11(27)
10(213)
11(223)
10(101)
7(211)
7(83)
7(83)
7(119)
13(229)
13(237)
10(115)
10(55)
7(263)
Cone.
Criteria
Cone.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dilute
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Potential Com-
bustion Products
CN
\-H
h^U
uo
33U
X
n
X
0*
2
X
X
X
X
Other
AgOx
AgOx
AgOx
Na
NaOH
Najpa
Na
NaOH
Na20C
w
>*H
> (0
(04-1
0) <1>
S3 S3
Ag
Ag
Ag
Recycling
Potential
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Other
Criteria
2
5
1
6
1,2,6
4,7
4,7
4,7
1,7
1
2,7
1,7
-------
103
INCINERATION OF SPECIFIC MATERIALS
Substance
2,4,5-T
Tricresyl phos-
phate
Triethanolamine
Triethylene glyco]
Triethylene tetro-
mine
Trifluralin
Trimethylamine
Tripropane (Norene)
Turpeotine
Urea (plus salts)
Vernolate
Vinyl acetate
Vinyl chloride
VX (persistent
nerve gas)
Xylene
Xylenol (xylol)
TRW Vol.
(page)
11(247)
10(155)
10(115)
10(155)
10(155)
10(55)
10(55)
10(155)
10(187)
10(283)
7(231)
10(55)
10(245)
Cone.
Criteria
•
0
§
u
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Dilute
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Potential Com-
bustion Products
n
Xr-l
l4O
oo
KU
X
X
ox
w
X
X
0*
•z
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
~1
Other
P
POX
HF
P
POX
co
>rH
> (fl
a-v
01 0)
KS
Recycling
Potential
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•
X
X
Other
Criteria
2,3,6
1
1
1,2,6
1
2
2
1
1,2,6
3
1,7
2
-------
104
INCINERATION OF SPECIFIC MATERIALS
Substance
Zineb
TRW Vol.
(page)
Cone.
Criteria
Cone.
X
Dilute
X
Potential Com-
bustion Products
rv
i-PU
00
wu
X
X
X
3
X
Other
ZnO
w
^ flj
(0 4-J
Zn
Recycling
Potential
Other
Criteria
1,2,6
i
ycfl 1 1
-------
-------
------- |