, i.nd .Development
i, DC 20460
EPA-600/R-97-115
October 1997
AIS iiJiSIONS FRQiyt
iCMUlii COMBUSTiON
JK;& --,v- - v
V" /'^-5
^-'LfA'C^',iaS^-:,'f ----^f.'i-4-,s?-j;.-i--=^-T- --'- - '- >~
>ared for:
* * ^
Standards
JT ! t
SfeKf.
Jion Center onJMr Eollutiori
linacipn de Ai
\~ /
fr.:fn s
'IfS^m^i^^^^iS.B^^^fM^^^^
-------
,__.._._. .
t^jpvTLroamenfcctl Fg it* c* L c- *" i^cEL Agerฑc v is
j-j, jail", and Tt
--f
,=1L"
' r"
iS.JL1Si.~jF." ~
:y Congress with'prc-
to formulate ar.d irnplprriRiif
les.d-
SET" itciti "fiur tilrtf Luc. To tnec
, El-A=e t*csittorch
.ram
ana Lecnmtai sutruort lo
"
scnEie
unerS t
necessary to _manage oiir __
i how pollutants effect our health* ฃ.od pre-
:i._Bl..i!^=!~fe
ry litLii poTiciy
-_-.-^-= .-^- .^aap. ,-g^.a., -aa&a. ^ ,-_ _KJa4Ss- -s.^.. . =-_ --^t,
j and pfgplde t&truittiai fliipporb ;a.nd infer"
jpcmentttbior: o gnvronmcntt
It is poMmtigd nijadc_^vailleb^; BPj1s Cjirce ol
to assst the
trade or
and apprgvgd for
^
nronmatiart
-------
EPA-600/R-97-115
October 1997
AIR EMISSIONS FROM SCRAP TIRE COMBUSTION
Prepared by:
Joel I. Reisman
E.H. Pechan & Associates, Inc.
2880 Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 220
Rancho Cordova, CA 95742
EPA Contract No. 68-D30035
Work Assignment No. Ill-Ill
EPA Project Manager:
Paul M.-Lemieux
Air Pollution Technology Branch
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Prepared for:
U.S.-Mexico Border Information Center on Air Pollution
Centro Informacioli sobre Contaminacion de Aire/CICA
and
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC. 27711
and
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
Two to three billion (2-3 xlCP) scrap tires are in landfills and stockpiles across the
United States, and approximately one scrap tire per person is generated every year. Scrap
tires represent both a disposal problem and a resource opportunity (e.g., as a fuel and in
other applications). Of the many potential negative environmental and health impacts
normally associated with scrap tire piles, the present study focuses on (1) examining air
emissions related to open tire fires and their potential health impacts, and (2) reporting on
emissions data from well designed combustors that have used tires as a fuel.
Air emissions from two types of scrap tire combustion are addressed: uncontrolled
and controlled. Uncontrolled sources are open tire fires, which produce many unhealthful
products of incomplete combustion and release them directly into the atmosphere.
Controlled combustion sources (combustors) include boilers and kilns specifically designed
for efficient combustion of solid fuel.
Very little data exist for devices that are not well-designed and use scrap tires for
fuel. These sources include fireplaces, wood stoves, small kilns, small incinerators, or any
device With poor combustion characteristics. Air emissions from these types of devices are
likely between that of open burning and a combustor. However, there is serious concern
that the emissions are much more similar to those of an open tire fire than a combustor.
Open tire fires are discussed. Data from a laboratory test program on uncontrolled
burning of tire pieces and ambient monitoring at open tire fires are presented and the
emissions are characterized. Mutagenic emission data from open burning of scrap tires are
compared to mutagenic data for other fuels from both controlled and uncontrolled
combustion.
A list of 34 target compounds representing the highest potential for health impacts
from open tire fires is presented. The list can be used to design an air monitoring plan in
order to evaluate the potential for health risks in future events.
Methods for preventing and managing tire fires are reviewed. Recommendations are
presented for storage site design, civilian evacuation, and fire suppression tactics.
Air emissions data from the use of tires as fuel are discussed. The results of a
laboratory test program on controlled burning of tire-derived fuel (TDF) in a Rotary Kiln
Incinerator Simulator (RKIS) are presented. Based on the results of the RKIS test program,
it was concluded that, with the exception of zinc emissions, potential emissions from TDF
are not expected to be very much different than from other conventional fossil fuels, as long
as combustion occurs in a well-designed, well-operated, and well-maintained combustion
device.
11
-------
Source test data from 22 industrial facilities that have used TDF are presented: 3
kilns (2 cement and 1 lime) and 19 boilers (utility, pulp and paper, and general industrial
applications). In general, the results indicate that properly designed existing solid fuel
combustors can supplement their normal fuels (coal, wood, and various combinations of coal,
wood, oil, coke, and sludge) with 10 to 20% TDF and still satisfy environmental compliance
emissions limits. Furthermore, results from a dedicated tires-to-energy (100% TDF) facility
indicate that it is possible to have emissions much lower than produced by existing solid-
fuel-fired boilers (on a heat input basis), when properly designed and the facility is -
controlled.
ui
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document was prepared for Paul M. Lemieux of EPA's National Risk
Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) by Joel I. Reisman of E. H. Pechan and
Associates, Inc., Sacramento, CA. The author would like to thank Michael Blumenthal of
the Scrap Tire Management Council for his assistance in collecting source test data and his
valuable referrals and insightful thoughts on the utilization of scrap tires for productive
purposes. Thanks are also extended to Paul Ruesch, EPA Region 5, for his assistance in
providing contacts and other useful information. Others who provided valuable assistance
are Rich Nickle, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; Paul Koziar, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources; Bruce Peirano, EPA ORD; Alan Justice, Illinois
Department of Commerce and Community Affairs; Jim Daloia, EPA Response and
Prevention Branch, Edison, NJ; and Gary Foureman, EPA National Center for
Environmental Assessment.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES vi
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .viii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 EMISSIONS FROM OPEN TIRE FIRES 2
2.1 LABORATORY EMISSIONS TESTING 2
2.2 MUTAGENICITY OF TIRE FIRE EMISSIONS 9
2.3 FIELD SAMPLING - AIR MONITORING DATA NEAR TIRE FIRES 13
2.4 CASE STUDIES : 16
2.4.1 Rhinehart Tire Fire - Winchester, VA . . 16
2.4.2 Somerset, Wisconsin Tire Fire 18
^.5 PREVENTING AND MANAGING TIRE FIRES 19
2.5.1 Storage Site Design :.:.'..'. 19
2.5.2 Civilian Evacuation ' 22.
2.5.3 Fire Suppression Tactics . . . 22
2.6 TIRE FIRE "TARGET" COMPOUNDS 23
3.0 TIRES AS FUEL 30
3.1 Laboratory Simulation of TDF Emissions 30
3.2 Source Test Data - Utility and Industrial Facilities 35
4.0 REFERENCES 41
APPENDIX: EMISSIONS DATA FROM CONTROLLED TIRE BURNING A-l
-------
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Tables
1. OPEN BURNING EMISSIONS: VOLATILE ORGANICS 3
2. OPEN BURNING EMISSIONS: SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS 5
3. OPEN BURNING: TOTAL ORGANICS EMISSION SUMMARY 7
4. OPEN BURNING: PAH EMISSIONS 8
5. OPEN BURNING: PARTICULATE EMISSIONS 10
6. OPEN BURNING: METALS EMISSIONS 11
7. OPEN BURNING: AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS^305 m (1000 FT) DOWNWIND 14
8. OPEN BURNING: AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS >305 m (1000 FT) DOWNWIND 15
9. PAH PLUME CONCENTRATIONS - RHINEHART TIRE FIRE 17
10. COMPARISON OF DETECTED CONTAMINANTS TO ESTABLISHED TLV AND
IDLH LIMITS 20
11. MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS FROM EPA DATASETS 25
12. TARGET COMPOUNDS BY CRITERIA 27
13. MAXIMUM REPORTED CARCINOGENS CONCENTRATIONS 28
14. COMPOUNDS WITH MAXIMUM REPORTED CONCENTRATIONS EXCEEDING 33%
OF THEIR TLVs 29
15. COMPOUNDS WITH'MAXIMUM REPORTED CONCENTRATIONS EXCEEDING A
SUBCHRONIC OR CHRONIC RFC 29
16. COMPARATIVE FUEL ANALYSIS BY WEIGHT (JONES, 1990) 31
17. PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF RKIS TEST TDF 33
18. ESTIMATED EMISSIONS OF VOCS - RKIS TEST RESULTS (BASE FUEL -
NATURAL GAS) .. ' . . 34
19. ESTIMATED EMISSIONS OF METALS - RKIS TEST RESULTS (BASE FUEL -
NATURAL GAS) '.36
20. PARTICULATE MATTER (PM) LOADING - RKIS TEST PROGRAM 37
21. CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS AT UTILITIES USING TDF 38
Figures
1. MUTAGENIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR VARIOUS COMBUSTION PROCESSES . 12
VI
-------
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ATSDR
AWMA
BaP
BTU
CTPV
EPA
ERT
ESP
GC/MS
HAP
HPLC
IAFC
IDLH
NAAQS
NIOSH
NSP
PAH
PCB
PCDD
PCDF
PIC
PM
PM10
PNA
RfC
RKIS
STMC
TDF
TLV
TPCHD
TSP
TWA
UPA
voc
VOST
WDNR
WP&L
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Air and Waste Management Association
benzo(a)pyrene
British thermal unit
coal tar pitch volatiles
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA's Emergency Response Team
electrostatic precipitator
gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy
hazardous air pollutant
high-pressure liquid chromatography
International Association of Fire Chiefs
Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health
National Ambient Air Quality Standard
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
Northern States Power
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
polychlorinated biphenyl
.polychlorinatedp-dibenzodioxins
polychlorinated dibenzofurans
product of incomplete combustion
particulate matter
particulate matter less than 10 jim in aerodynamic diameter
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
inhalation reference concentration
rotary kiln incinerator simulator
Scrap Tire Management Council
tire-derived fuel
threshold limit value
Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department
total suspended particulate
time-weighted average
United Power Association
volatile organic compound
Volatile Organic Sampling Train
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Wisconsin Power and Light
Vll
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Two to three billion (2-3 xlO9) scrap tires are in landfills and stockpiles across the
United States, and approximately one scrap tire per person is generated every year. Scrap
tires represent both a disposal problem and a resource opportunity (e.g., as a fuel and in
other applications). Of the many potential negative environmental and health impacts
normally associated with scrap'tire piles, the present study focuses on (1) examining air
emissions related to open tire fires and their potential health impacts, and (2) reporting on
emissions data from well designed combustors that have used tires as a fuel.
Air emissions from two types of scrap tire combustion are addressed: uncontrolled
and controlled. Uncontrolled sources are open tire fires, which produce many unhealthful
products of incomplete combustion and release them directly into the atmosphere.
Controlled combustion sources (combustors) are, for example, boilers and kilns specifically
designed for efficient combustion of solid fuel. Combustor emissions are much lower and
more often than not, these sources also have appropriate add-on air pollution control
equipment for the control of particulate emissions.
Very little data exist for devices that are not well-designed and use scrap tires for
fuel. These sources include fireplaces, wood stoves, small kilns, small incinerators, or any
device with poor combustion characteristics. Air emissions from these types of devices are
likely between that of open burning and a combustor. There is serious concern that
emissions would be more like those of an open tire fire than a well-designed combustor;
however, emissions testing would-have to be conducted to confirm this.
Open Tire Fires
Air emissions from open tire fires have been shown to be more toxic (e.g., mutagenic)
than those of a combustor, regardless of the fuel. Open tire fire emissions include "criteria"
pollutants, such as particulates, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SOX), oxides of
nitrogen (NOX), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). They also include "non-criteria"
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), such as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
dioxins, furans, hydrogen chloride, benzene, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); and metals
such as arsenic, cadmium, nickel, zinc, mercury, chromium, and vanadium. Both criteria
and HAP emissions from an open tire fire can represent significant acute (short-term) and
chronic (long-term) health hazards to firefighters and nearby residents. Depending on the
length and degree of exposure, these health effects could include irritation of the skin, eyes,
and mucous membranes, respiratory effects, central nervous system depression, and cancer.
Firefighters and others working near a large tire fire should be equipped with respirators
and dermal protection. Unprotected exposure to the visible smoke plume should be avoided.
Data from a laboratory test program on uncontrolled burning of tire pieces and
ambient monitoring at open tire fires are presented and the emissions are characterized.
Mutagenic emission data from open burning of scrap tires are compared to other types of
fuel combustion. Open tire fire emissions are estimated to be 16 times more mutagenic than
viii
-------
residential wood combustion in a fireplace, and 13,000 times more mutagenic than coal-fired
utility emissions with good combustion efficiency and add-on controls.
A list of 34 target compounds representing the highest potential for inhalation health
impacts from open tire fires was developed by analyzing laboratory test data and open tire
fire data collected at nine tire fires. The list can be used to design an air monitoring plan in
order to evaluate the potential for health risks in future events.
Methods for preventing and managing tire fires are presented. Recommendations
are presented for storage site design, civilian evacuation, and fire suppression tactics. For
example, tire piles should not exceed 6 m (20 ft) in height; maximum outside dimensions
should be limited to 76 m (250 ft) by 6 m (20 ft). Interior fire breaks should be at least 18 m
(60 ft) wide. Civilians should be evacuated when they may be subject to exposure by the
smoke plume. Fire suppression tactics are site and incident-specific and firefighters should
have specialized training to deal effectively with them.
Other Impacts from Open Tire Burning
The scope of this report is limited to airborne emissions. However, significant
amounts of liquids and solids containing dangerous chemicals can be generated by melting
tires. These products can pollute soil, surface water, and ground water and care must be
taken to properly manage these impacts as well.
Controlled Combustion
The results of a laboratory test program on controlled burning of tire-derived fuel
(TDF) in a Rotary Kiln Incinerator Simulator (RKIS) are presented. In all, 30 test
conditions were run, with the .TDF feed rate varying from 0 to 21.4% of heat.input. The test
conditions were achieved by varying kiln firing rate, combustion air flow rate, and tire, feed
rate. The majority of the tests were conducted with a steady-state feed of TDF. However,
variations in the mode of TDF feeding were simulated in two tests to evaluate the impact of
transient operation on air emissions.
Based on the results of the RKIS test program, it can be concluded that, with the.
exception of zinc emissions, potential emissions from TDF. are not expected to be very much
different than from other conventional fossil fuels, as long as combustion occurs in a well-
designed, well-operated and well-maintained combustion device. However, as with most
solid fuel combustors, an appropriate particulate control device would likely be needed in
order to obtain an operating permit in most jurisdictions in the United States.
Test data, from 22 industrial facilities that have used TDF are presented: 3 kilns (2
cement and 1 lime) and 19 boilers (utility, pulp and paper, and general industrial
applications). All sources had some type of particulate control. In general, the results
indicate that properly designed existing solid fuel combustors can supplement their normal
fuels, which typically consist of coal, wood, coke and various combinations thereof, with 10
to 20% TDF and still satisfy environmental compliance emissions limits. Furthermore,
results from a dedicated tires-to-energy (100% TDF) facility indicate that it is possible to
IX
-------
have emissions much lower than produced by existing solid-fuel-fired boilers (on a heat
input basis) with a specially designed combustor and add-on controls.
Depending on the design of the combustion device, some tire processing is usually
necessary before it is ready to be used as a fuel. Processing includes dewiring and
shredding and/or other sizing techniques. Some specially designed boilers and cement kilns
have had their feed systems designed to accept whole tires.
TDF has been used successfully in properly designed combustors with good
combustion control and appropriate add-on controls, particularly participate controls, such
as electrostatic precipitators or fabric filters. The resultant air emissions can usually satisfy
environmental compliance limits even with TDF representing up to 10 to 20% of the fuel
requirements. Twenty percent supplemental TDF is perceived as an upper limit in most
existing boilers because of boiler limitations on fuel or performance. However, dedicated
tire-to-energy facilities specifically designed to burn TDF as their only fuel have been
demonstrated to achieve emission rates much lower than most solid fuel combustors.
Conclusion
Air emissions have been documented from open burning of scrap tires and from TDF
in well-designed combustors. Laboratory and field studies have confirmed that open
burning produces toxic gases that can represent significant acute and chronic health
hazards. However, field studies have also confirmed that TDF can be used successfully as a
10 - 20% supplementary fuel in properly designed solid-fuel combustors. with good
combustion control and add-on particulate controls, such as electrostatic precipitators or
fabric filters. Furthermore, a dedicated tire-tb:energy facility specifically designed to burn
TDF as its only fuel has been demonstrated to achieve emission rates much lower than most
solid fuel combustors.
No field data were available for well-designed combustors with no add-on particulate
controls. Laboratory testing of an RKIS indicated that efficient combustion of
supplementary TDF can destroy many volatile and semi-volatile air contaminants.
However, it is not likely that a solid fuel combustor without add-on particulate controls
could satisfy air emission regulatory requirements in the U.S.
No data were available for poorly designed or primitive combustion devices with ho
add-on controls. Air emissions from these typ'es of devices would depend on design, fuel
type, method of feeding, and other parameters. There is serious concern that emissions
would be more like those of an open tire fire than a well-designed combustor. Stack
emissions test data would need to be collected and analyzed to confirm this.
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to summarize available information on air emissions and
potential health impacts from scrap tire combustion. The study addresses uncontrolled
burning, such as from tire fires, and controlled burning, where processed tires, or tire-
derived fuel (TDF) are used as a fuel supplement in a combustion device such as a boiler or
kiln. Controlled burning implies that the system is adequately designed to effect efficient
combustion and may have other add-on air pollution controls, most likely for particulate
control.
Air emissions from open burning of tires include "criteria" pollutants, such as
participates, carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur oxides (SQ), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs). They also include "non-criteria" hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs), such as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), dioxins, furans,
hydrogen chloride, benzene, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs); and metals such as arsenic,
cadmium, nickel, zinc, mercury, chromium, and vanadium. In open fire situations, these
emissions can represent significant acute (short term) and chronic (long-term) health
hazards to firefighters and nearby residents. These health effects include irritation of the
skin, eyes, and mucous membranes, .central nervous system depression, respiratory effects,
and cancer. . .
TDF has been used successfully in properly designed combustors with good
combustion control and appropriate add-on controls, particularly particulate controls, such
as electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) or fabric filters. Air emissions characteristic of TDF
combustion are typical of most solid fuels, such as coal and wood. The resultant air
emissions can usually satisfy environmental compliance limits even with TDF representing
up to 10 to 20% of the fuel requirements. Twenty percent supplemental TDF is perceived as
an upper limit in most existing boilers because of boiler limitations on fuel or performance
(Clark et al., 1991). However, dedicated tire-to-energy facilities specifically designed to
burn TDF as their only fuel have been demonstrated to achieve emission rates much less
than most solid fuel combustors.
-------
2.0 EMISSIONS FROM OPEN TIRE FIRES
Airborne missions from open tire fires have long been suspected of representing a
serious impact to health and the environment. However, due to the lack of sufficient data, it
was uncertain as to exactly what was being emitted, how much was being emitted, and how
dangerous these emissions were, especially to sensitive individuals (e.g., children and the
elderly). In recent years, a number of laboratory and field test programs have been
conducted to identify and quantify these emissions. This section summarizes the results of
a number of key studies in this area and briefly discusses certain aspects of preventing and
managing tire fires.
2.1 LABORATORY EMISSIONS TESTING
A controlled simulation test program designed to identify and quantify organic and
inorganic emission products during the simulated open combustion of scrap tires was
conducted by EPA (Ryan, 1989) and further documented in an Air and Waste Management
Association Paper [(AWMA) Lemieux and Ryan, 1993]. This important study is .
summarized in detail below.
Small quantities of 4.5 to 9 kilograms {kg [10 to 20 pounds (Lb)]} of scrap tire material
were burned under two controlled conditions in a 2.4 x 2.4 x 2.4 m [8 x 8 x 8 foot (ft)]
ventilated, instrumented burn hut. Two sizes of tire material were burned: "chunk," about
1/6 to 1/4 of an entire tire and "shred", where the tire pieces were 5x5 'centimeters {cm [2 x
2 inches (in)]}. EPA's Hazardous Air Pollutants Mobile Laboratory was used to monitor
fixed combustion gases. Organics were collected using the volatile organic sampling train
and a semi-volatile collection system using XAD-2 resin and particulate filters. Particulate
was also collected to assess airborne metals and to measure the amount of particulate less
than 10 microns (fim) in aerodynamic diameter (PM10). The organic constituents were
analyzed using gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy (GC/MS), gas chromatography/flame
ionization detection, and high pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC).
'The results of the test program are presented in Tables 1 through 4. Table 1
presents an averaging of the three sets of volatile organic sampling train (VOST) samples
taken at each run condition, each taken at different periods during the burn. Benzene is
emitted in large quantities under both conditions. The majority of the volatile organic
emissions are aliphatic-, olefinic-, or acetylenic-substituted aromatics. Cyclic alkanes,
alkenes, and dienes were also present. Butadiene, a major constituent of the tire fabrication
process was also present. The estimated emissions were calculated assuming that dilution
air was added at a constant volume flow and the amount of air entering equaled the amount
exiting the burn hut. A well-mixed condition is also assumed (i.e., the sample collected at
the duct is representative of the gas mixture in the hut).
Semi-volatile organic emissions data are presented in Table 2. Substituted mono-
-------
TABLE 1. OPEN BURNING EMISSIONS: VOLATILE ORGANICSa'b
(LABORATORY SIMULATION)
Compound
Benzald.eh.yde
Benzene
Benzodiazine
Benzofiiran
Benzothiophene
1,3-Butadiene
Cyclopentadiene .
Dihydroindene
Dimethyl benzene
Dimethyl hexadiene
Dimethyl methyl propyl
benzene
Dimethyl dihydroindene
Ethenyl benzene
Ethenyl cyclohexane
Ethenyl dimethyl benzene
Ethenyl methyl benzene
Ethenyl dimethyl
cyclohexane
Ethenyl methyl benzene
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl methyl benzene
Ethynyl benzene
Ethynyl methyl benzene
Heptadiene
Exhaust
Cone.
(mg/m3)
0.260
1.910
0.017
0.049
0.014
0.152
0.081
0.013
0.413
0.008
ND
0.007
0.678
0.006
0.014
0.016
ND
0.129
0.182
0.120
0.322
0.562
0.009
Chunk
Emission Factor
(mass/mass tire)
mg/kg
299.2
2,156.3
13.7
25.1
26.3
308.4
48.6
40.6
779.7
28.3
ND
22.0
941.8
26.2
7.2
14.1
ND
221.6
460.8
334.5
190.0
530.6
25.4
Ib/ton
0.5984
4.3126
0.0274
0.0502
0.0526
0.6168
0.0972
0.0812
1.559
0.0566
ND
0.0440
1.88
0.0524
0.014 .
0.0282
ND
0.4432
0.9216
0.6690
0.3800
1.061
0.051
Shred
Exhaust
Cone.
(mg/m3)
0.215
1.40
0.014
ND
0.011
0.096
ND
0.021
0.629
0.049
0.008
0.008
0.395
0.060
0.014
0.014
0.193
0.028
0.164
0.262
0.110
0.226
0.028
Emission Factor
(mass/mass tire)
mg/kg
330
2,205
17.4
ND
14.7
160
ND
42.8
1,078
90.9
14.9
17.7
611.4
107.6
23.7
19.5
350.4
40.9
295.1
475.8
131.5
258.7
51.4
Ib/ton
0.660
4.410
0.0348
ND
0.0294
0.320
ND
0.0856
2.156
0.182
0.298
0,0354
1.223
0.2152
0.0474
0.0390
0.7008
0.0818
0.5902
0.9516
0.2630
0.5174
0.103
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 1. OPEN BURNING EMISSIONS: VOLATILE ORGANICSa'b
(LABORATORY SIMULATION) (Cont.)
Compound
Isocyanobenzene
Limonene
Methyl benzene
Methyl cyclohexane
Methyl hexadiene
Methyl indene
Methyl naphthalene
Methyl thiophene
Methyl ethenyl benzene
Methyl methylethenyl
benzene
Methyl methylethyl benzene
Methyl methylethyl
cyclohexane
Methyl propyl benzene
Me.thylene indene
Methylethyl benzene
Naphthalene
Pentadiene
Phenol
Propyl benzene
Tetramethyl benzene
Thiophene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trimethyl benzene
TOTALS
Exhaust
Cone.
(mg/m3)
0.341
0.011
0.976
0.005
0.021
0.138
0.287
0.006
' 0.027
0.046
0.041
. ND
ND
0.038
0.0.45
1.29
0.077
0.002
0.026
ND
0.023
0.158
0.022
8.53
Chunk
Emission Factor
(mass/mass tire)
mg/kg
348
27.5
1,606
21.1
71.3
316
312
5.5
55.7
98.0
111
ND
ND
48.5
135
1,130
164
0.5
72.4
ND
54.6
57.6
46.9
11,182
* Concentrations determined using system responses
These data are averaged over six sets of VOST tube
Ib/ton
0.696
0.055
3.21
0.420
0.143
0.632
0.624
0.011
0.111
0.196
0.'222
ND
ND
0.097
0.270
2.26
0.388
0.001
0.145
ND
0.109
0.115
0.0938
22.364
Shred
Exhaust
Cone.
(mg/m3)
0.191
0.513
0.714
0.023
0.068
0.087
0.135
0.007
0.045
0.373
0.165
0.086
0.020
0.022
0.092
0.607
0.680
0.016
0.046
0.130
0.021
ND
0.042
8.03
to toluene.
s taken over 2 days.
Emission
Factor
(mass/mass tire)
mg/kg
290
893
1,129
40.1
127
140
197
12.6
. 76.6
683
283
170
41.6
34.4
169
824
1,163
14.3
84.2
256
27.9
ND
74.9
13,068
Ib/ton
0.580
1.79
2.26
0.080
0.254
0.280
0.394
0.025
0.153
1.37
0.566
0.340
0.083
0.069
0.338
1.65
2.33'
0.029
0.168
0.512
0.056 .
ND
0.150
26.136
ND = None detected.
-------
TABLE 2. OPEN BURNING EMISSIONS: SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS
(LABORATORY SIMULATION)
Compound
1-Methyl naphthalene
1,1' Biphenyl,methyl
1H fluorene
2-Methyl naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Benzaldehyde
Benzisothiazole
Benz(b)thiophene
Biphenyl
Cyanobenzene
Dimethyl benzene
Dimethyl-
naphthalene .
Ethyl .benzene
Ethyl dimethyl
benzene
Ethynyl benzene
Hexahydro-azepinone
Indene
Isocyano- naphthalene
Limonene
Methyl benzaldehyde
Methyl benzene
Methyl indene .
Exhaust
Cone.
(mg/m3)
0.292
0.013
0.187
0.314
0.580
0.218
ND
0.050
0.186
0.199
. 0.254
0.034
0.181
ND
0.254
0.062
0.462
0.011
0.047
ND
1.105
0.093
Chunk
Emission Factor
(mass/mass tire)
mg/kg
330.7
11.1
210.3
350.7
633.8
244.1
ND
44.2
209.5
223.7
305.0
41.1
205.2
ND
275.8
75.1
503.4
9.4
56.1
ND
1,212.2
111.8
Ib/ton
0.6614
0.0222
0.4206
0.7014
1.267
0.4482
ND
0.0884
0.4190
' 0.4474
0.6100
0.082
0.4104
ND
0.5.516
0.150
1.007
0.019
0.112
ND
2.4244
0.02360
Shred
Exhaust
Cone.
(mg/m3)
0.133
ND
0.183
0.255
0.318
0.180
0.094
ND
0.193
0.300
0.544
0.096
: 0.197
0.158
0.112
0.445
0.201
ND
1.361
0.047
0.816
0.234
Emission Factor
(mass/mass tire)
mg/kg
227.6
ND
308.4
429.2
531.1
333.9
173.9
ND
330.1
516.8
935.1
178.1
337.6
272.4
187.4
748.5
339.2
ND
2,345.5
86.6
1,390.1
400.7
Ib/ton
0.4552
ND
0.6168
0.8584
1.062
0.6678
0.3478
ND
0.6602
1,034
1.870
0.3562
0.6752
0.5448
0.3748
1.497
0.6784
ND
4.6910
0.173
2.7802
0.8014
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 2. OPEN BURNING EMISSIONS: SEMI-VOLATILE ORGANICS
(LABORATORY SIMULATION) (Cont.)
Compound
Methyl methylethyl
benzene
Methylethyl benzene
Naphthalene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Propenyl naphthalene
Propenyl methyl
benzene
Propyl benzene
Siyrene
Tetramethyl benzene
Trimethyl benzene
Trimethyl
naphthalene
TOTALS
Exhaust
Cone.
(mg/m3)
0.107
0.040
1.578
0.173
0.330
0.027
ND
.' ND
0.605
. ND
ND '
ND
7.593
Chunk
Emission Factor
(mass/mass tire)
mg/kg
127.9
48.3
1,697.9
183.7
365.9
23.5
ND
ND
659.9
ND
209.4 .
ND
8,369.7
Ib/ton
0.2558
0.0966
3.3958
0.3674
0.7318
0.0470
ND
ND
1.320
ND
0.4188
ND
16.739
Shred
Exhaust
Cone.
(mg/m3)
0.821
0.133
0.671
0.119
0.412
ND
0.282
0.127
0.380
0.049 .
0.446
0.185
9.492
Emission Factor
(mass/mass tire)
mg/kg
1,426.1
229.1
1,130.7
187.0
700.2
ND
523.6
219.6
645.5
91.9
751.4
315.8
16,293.1
Ib/ton
2.8522
0.4582
2.2614
0.3740
1.400
ND
1.047
0.4392
1.291
0.184
1.502
0.6316
32.5862
ND - None detected.
-------
TABLE 3. OPEN BURNING: TOTAL ORGANICS EMISSION SUMMARY
(LABORATORY SIMULATION)
Organic
Component
Volatile
Semi-Volatile
Participate
TOTALS
Exhaust
Cone.
(mg/m3)
8.53
3,514.6
4,048.0
7,571.1
Chunk
Emission Factor
(mass/mass tire)
mg/kg Ib/ton
11,182 22.364
9,792.0 19.584
11,223.5 22.4470
32,197.5 64.3950
Shred
Exhaust
Cone.
(mg/m3)
8.03
8,473.0
4,151.9
12,632.93
Emission Factor
(mass/mass tire)
mg/kg Ib/ton
13,068 26.136
31,686.0 63.3720
14,888.0 29.7760
59,642.0 119.284
-------
TABLE 4. OPEN BURNING: PAH EMISSIONS (LABORATORY SIMULATION)
Compound
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
TOTALS
Exhaust
Cone.
(mg/m3)
0.786
0.802
0.282
0.243
0.225
0.053
0.324
0.030
0.076
0.068
0.064
0.069
0.08
0.001
0.060
0.049
3.212
Chunk
Emission Factor
(mass/mass tire)
mg/kg
815.9
861.3
290.3
260.5
237.5
56.3
338.7
33.8
82.2
70.8
69.4
74.3
84.8
1.1
66.0
51.6
3,394.5
Ib/ton
1.632
1.722
0.5806
0.5210
0.4750
0.113
0.6774
0.0676
0.164
0.142
0.139
0.149
0.170
0.0022
0.132
0.103
6.7890
Shred
Exhaust
Cone.
(mg/m3)
0.289
0.334
1.404
0.112
0.149
0.029
0.273
0.090
0.062
0.056
0.053
0.059
0.068
ND
0.095
0.051
3.124
Emission Factor
(mass/mass tire)
mg/kg
486.0
561.8
2,445.7
186.8
252.5
49.6
458.0
151.7
102.4
91.6
88.4
99.4
113.9
ND .
159.4
85.5
5,332.7
Ib/ton
0.9720
1.124
4.8914
0.3736
0.5050
0.099
0.9160
0.3034
0.2048
0.183
0.177
0.199
0.2278
ND
0.3188
0.171
10.665
8
-------
and polyaromatics were also the predominant products of incomplete combustion (PICs).
The data represent an average of three samples taken over the entire course of the day's
run. The organic emissions summary is presented in Table 3.
PAH emissions data are presented in Table 4. The 16-PAHs include several
compounds known to be carcinogenic. In particular, the presence and magnitude of
benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) is of major concern. BaP is often a highly-scrutinized compound
during evaluations of combustion processes, due to its high cancer potency.
Particulate was collected using three separate systems, a semi-volatile organic
system, airborne metals particulate collection, and a medium volume ambient PMg sampler
located inside the burn hut [operated at 0.11 cubic meters per minute (m3/min) or 4 cubic
feet per minute (ft?/min)]. The particulate emissions data generated from the use of these
three systems are presented in Table 5. The authors found that the particulate emissions
rate decreases with decreasing burn rate, and that nearly 100 g of particulate is emitted for
every kilogram of tire combusted.
A separate particulate collection system was used to analyze 17 metals found in
combusted-tire ash residues. The results of the metals analysis are presented in Table 6.
The only significant metals emissions compared to blank samples were lead and zinc
emissions. The authors concluded that both average gaseous concentration and estimated
emissions of zinc increase with increasing burn rates.
2.2 MUTAGENICITY OF TIRE FIRE EMISSIONS
In a follow-up study to the 1989 Ryan report, Lemieux and DeMarini (1992)
analyzed, the air emissions data collected in the laboratory study to evaluate potential
health impacts. An experimental technique called bioassay-.directed fractionation combined
with additional GC/MS analyses was used to evaluate quantity and potency of airborne
mutagens from the PICs emitted during open tire burning. The method of bioassay-directed
fractionation uses mutagenic assays of chemical fractions of complex mixtures such as PICs
to identify chemical classes and species responsible for mutagenic activity. It was concluded
that: "The mutagenic emission factor for open tire burning is the greatest of any other
combustion emission studied previously. For example, it is 3-4 orders of magnitude greater
than the mutagenic emission factors for the combustion of oil, coal, or wood in utility .
boilers" (Lemieux and DeMarini, 1992). A mutagen is defined as a substance that causes
mutations. A mutation is a change in the genetic material in a body cell. These mutations
can lead to birth defects, miscarriages, or cancer (ATSDR, 1990). Mutagens are of concern
because "the induction of genetic damage may cause an increased incidence of genetic
disease in future generations and contribute to somatic cell diseases, including cancer, in .
the present generation" (Amdur, 1991).
Mutagenic emission factors are compared in the bar chart presented as Figure 1 for
various combustion processes [units: revertants per kilogram (revertants/kg) of fuel. A
revertant is represented by a bacterial colony that forms after the organic effluent from a
tire burn is mixed with a specific bacteriological strain. The number of colonies are
-------
TABLES. OPEN BURNING: PARTICULATE EMISSIONS (LABORATORY SIMULATION)
Sample
Organic
Particulate
Filter
Metal
Particulate
Filter
PM10 Filter a
Exhaust
Cone.
(mg/m3)
93
111.55
444.14
Chunk
Emission Factor
(mass/mass tire)
mg/kg Ib/ton
97,100 1,940
105,000 210
113,500 227.0
Extractable
Organic
(%)
10.6
N/A
N/A
Shred
Exhaust
Cone.
(mg/m3)
43.75
37.9
92.85
Estimated
Emissions
mg/kg
73,400
64,500
149,000
Ib/ton
147
129
298
Extractable
Organic
(%)
19.65
N/A
N/A
N/A = not analyzed.
a The PM10 sampling filter became heavily loaded during the initial part of each run. The results are biased high due to higher
burning rates that occurred during this portion of the run.
-------
TABLE 6. OPEN BURNING: METALS EMISSIONS (LABORATORY SIMULATION)
Metals
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Nickel
Selenium
Sodium
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Exhaust
Cone.
(mg/m3)
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0079
ND
ND
ND
0.0004
0.0012
ND
ND
0.0084
ND
ND
0.0409
Chunk
Emission Factor
(mass/mass tire)
mg/kg
ND
ND
ND
ND
8.54
ND
ND
ND
0.47 -
1.26
ND
ND
9.51
ND
ND
31.17
Ib/ton
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0171
ND
ND
ND
0.0094
0.00252
ND
ND
0.0190
ND
ND
0.06234
Shred
Exhaust
Cone.
(mg/m3)
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.0028
ND
ND
ND
0.0001
0.0005
ND
ND
0.0035
ND
ND
0.0146
Emission Factor
(mass/mass tire)
mg/kg
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.80
ND
ND
ND
0.10
0.75
ND
ND
5.80
ND
ND
24.35
Ib/ton
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.00960
ND
ND
ND
0.00020
0.0015
ND
ND
0.0116
ND
ND
0.04870
ND = Not detected.
11
-------
Mutagonlc Emlulon Factor
Rev/kg of Fuel x 10 '
d
ป
H
I
1
II
Q
.M
O2
O
H
O
ป
02
*J
O
O
d
02.
o
o
O
o
H
CO,
02
I
M
ง
o>
S
Natural Gas (kiln)
Cardboard & Sorbent
(kiln)
Polyethylene (kiln)
Toluene (kiln)
Polyethylene/PVC
(kiln) ,
Toluene/CC14 (kiln)
Utility Oil
Utility Coal
Utility Wood
Stage Dinoseb (boiler)
Stage & Reburn
Dinoseb (boiler)
Residential Oil
Residential Wood
Municipal Waste
Combustion
Open Ag. Plastic
Burning
Open Tire Burning
ง
02
-------
counted to determine the number of revertants per mass of organics. The authors concluded
that open burning of tires, wood, and plastic results in exceptionally high mutagenic
emission factors and that "open burning, regardless of the feed stock or fuel, results in
greater mutagenic emission factors than does controlled combustion provided by various
types of incinerators or boilers" (Lemieux and DeMarini, 1992).
The authors found similar mutagenic emission factors of semi-volatile organics
produced by the large (chunk) and small (shred) tire pieces. They also found that the
mutagenic emission factors for the particulate organics were much greater than those for
organics.
The report's final conclusion serves as a potentially serious warning: "Considering
the (a) relatively high mutagenic potency of the particulate organics, (b) high mutagenic
emission factors, and (c) presence of many mutagens/carcinogens, especially PAHs, in the
effluent from the open burning of tires, such burns pose a genuine environmental and
health hazard" (Lemieux and DeMarini, 1992).
2.3 FIELD SAMPLING - AIR MONITORING DATA NEAR TIRE FIRES
Field sampling data from uncontrolled open tire fires is lacking. This is a result of
the inherent difficulties encountered in obtaining the data due to safety concerns and the
variable nature of the event (e.g., fire size and duration, meteorological conditions, terrain
effects, combustion conditions and fire-fighting activities). Furthermore, the primary
concern on the part of officials in charge is to provide for the safety and welfare of those who
may be affected by the heat and smoke from the fire.
TRC Environmental Corporation collected, evaluated, and documented air
monitoring data from 22 actual tire fire emergencies for the EPA (TRC, 1993). The
concentration data that was collected were intended primarily for use by public officials to
determine evacuation areas. Seventeen analytes common to tire fire incidents were
analyzed, all VOCs.
The ambient concentration data were extremely scattered. This is not unexpected,
given the difficulties in obtaining reliable field data during an open tire fire. The summary
data are presented in two groups, concentrations measured within 305 m (1000 feet) of the
fire and concentrations measured beyond 305 m (1000 feet). Summary statistics are
presented in Tables 7 and 8. Of the 17 analytes studied, benzene, toluene, and styrene had
the highest overall concentrations. The report acknowledges that particulate matter
containing PAHs and heavy metals are known tire fire emissions, however because of the
lack of PM monitoring data, these compounds were not addressed. Therefore, the available
data are not fully representative of the. potential health risks from exposure to open tire fire
emissions.
13
-------
TABLE 7. OPEN BURNING: AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS_<305 m (1000 FT)
DOWNWIND
Analyte
Benzene
Toluene
Styrene
Xylenes5
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
Ethyl benzene
Trichloroethene5
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane
1, 1-, 1-TrichloroetHane
1, 1-Dichloroe thane
Chlorobenzene
Trichloroethane5
Carbon tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethene
No. Fires
n1 where
meas.
taken
101
94
86
41
30
49
39
33
57
45
. 33
'43
26
33
17
31
28
21
21
14
9
6
10
10
9
12
11
7
12
10
11
7
10
9
Concentrations (fig/m3)
Median
121
220
85
17
76
35
8
42
'49
ND
ND '
ND
ND
ND
ND'
ND
ND
90%
LCL2
33
38
20
ND
1
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
-ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
90%
UCL2
525
527
174
607
282
109
89
197
204
41
. 82
10
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
a3
17
16
15
11
9
12
10
9
12
11
9
11
8
9
7
9
9
90th
Pent4
6,375
3,766
2,320
1,424
912
336
565
533
502
425
316
39
16
2
1
ND
ND
Max
79,693
206,753
2,705
3,809
999
564
836
1,085
.1,477
881
542
817
'42
11
1
44
ND
1 n = number of measurements
z The 90 percent confidence limits lower and upper as determined for the median.
3 Where a is the number of data values from the median to the upper and to the lower 90 percent
confidence limits.
4 The analyses in this table are arranged in order of 90th percentile (except for the o-xylene isomer).
8 Contains mixed isomers.
ND = Not detected.
14
-------
TABLE 8. OPEN BURNING: AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS >305 m (1000 FT)
DOWNWIND
Analyte
Styrene
Ethyl benzene
Toluene
Benzene
Xylene5
m,p-Xylene
o-Xylene
Chlorobenzene
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethane5
Carbon tetra chloride
Trichloroethene5
1, l-.Dichldroef hane
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane
Chloroform.
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethene
No. Fires
n1 where
nieas.
taken
45
18
45
47
20
28
38
29
30
34
8
6
7
6
3
14
8
5
5
10
10
4
3
6
5
5
4
4
4
3
2
3
3
4
Concentrations (i^g/m3)
Median
1
3
5
4
ND
2
1
1
1
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
90%
LCL2
ND
ND
1
ND
ND
1
1
ND
ND
ND
. ' ND
ND
ND
ND
' ND
ND
ND
90%
UCL2
16
172
37
29
ND
9
5
1
1
1
ND
18
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
a3
11
7
11
11
7
9
10
9
9
10
4
' 3
3
3
1
6
4
90th
Pent4
554
172
156
67
4
14
13
1
1
1
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Max
2,705
1,390
634
524
20
999
521
1
7
3
ND
18
ND
ND
ND
660
ND
1 n = number of measurements
2 The 90 percent confidence limits lower and upper as determined for the median.
3 Where a is the number of data values from the median to the upper and to the lower 90 percent
confidence limits.
4 The analytes in this table are arranged in order of 90th percentile (except for the o-xylene isomer).
5 Contains mixed isomers.
ND = Not detected.
15
-------
2.4 CASE STUDIES
2.4.1 Rhinehart Tire Fire - Winchester, VA
A fire of unknown origin began on October 31, 1983 in a dump in Winchester,
Virginia. This event became known as the Rhinehart Tire Fire. The dump contained
approximately 5 million scrap tires over a 1.6-hectare [ha (4-acre)] site. A black smoke
plume rose to 910 m (3000 ft) and extended some 48 - 80 kilometers [km (30 - 50 miles)].
On November 2, 1983, EPA requested immediate technical assistance from the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to evaluate site safety and worker
exposure to potentially hazardous emissions from the tire fire.
NIOSH industrial hygienists collected air samples on November 4 and 9, 1983
(NIOSH, 1984). Because of varying meteorological conditions, it was not possible to collect
air samples near the burning tires without being in the smoke plume. Analysis of the air
samples taken in the plume indicated potentially hazardous levels of CO and PAHs. CO
concentrations varied in the 50 to 100 parts per million (ppm) range. The NIOSH-
recommended worker exposure limit, or Threshold Limit Value (TLV), for CO is 35 ppm [40
milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m3)] over a 10-hour time-weighted average (TWA). The TLV
refers to airborne concentrations that a healthy adult worker may be repeatedly exposed to
for up to 10 hours per day, five days per week, without adverse health effects. TLVs are
guidelines and not strict standards for determining safe or unsafe conditions for
occupational exposures. The NIOSH TLV is not applicable'to sensitive receptors such as
children and the elderly, who may suffer health effects at lower levels.
Several PAH compounds were detected. Plume concentrations of PAHs are "
presented in Table 9 (NIOSH, 1984). The concentrations are averaged over approximately
405 minutes. No details are available concerning meteorological data and only a non-scaled
, sketch was presented in the report describing the monitoring location with respect to the
fire area. Personal samples were also collected with personal portable sampling pumps
attached to the clothing of line workers, equipment operators, and other personnel at the
site. However, due to problems with the sampling and analysis, the authors concluded that
the personal sampling results represented inaccurate (low) estimates of exposure.
Therefore, personal sampling results are not reported here.
The concentrations of lead, iron, and zinc in the plume were 11 fig/m1, 14 (Jg/m3, and
122 jig/m3, respectively. All other metals were present at less than 2 (ig/nl Metals were
sampled at a stationary location in the plume. The sampling method employed included the
use of a low-volume sampling pump (flow rate of 1.0 liter per minute) and a cellulose ester
membrane filter. The analytical method was low temperature ashing nitric acid digestion
followed by inductively coupled argon plasmography, atomic emission spectroscopy
(although no specific method was cited, the procedures are consistent with NIOSH Method
7300).
Analysis of the tire residue showed it to be extremely complex, containing thousands
of individual compounds. The air space in a vial above a sample of the residue
16
-------
TABLE 9. PAH PLUME CONCENTRATIONS - RHINEHART TIRE FIRE
PAH
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Anthracene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
. Benzo(a)pyrene
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
. Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Indenopyrene
TOTAL PAHs
Concentration
Oig/m3)*
461
ND
9
26
54
35
16
11
6
18
.1 '
1
3
ND
ND
3
644
Limit of
Detection(fig)
5
7
1
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.005
0.1
0.005
0.10
0.003
0.005 .
0.005
.0.05
0.05
0.02
*Sample duration = 405 min.
ND - Not detected
Sampling Method: Zefluor filter + ORBD 43 sorbent; flow rate 1.0 LPM.
Analytical Method: HPLC with UV detection.
17
-------
was analyzed using GC/MS. Low concentrations of toluene, benzene, xylenes, and limonene
were detected. More extensive GC/MS analysis also showed alkanes, substituted benzenes,
substituted hydrazines, ketones, halogenated hydrocarbons, substituted phenols, nitriles,
benzoic acids, and substituted benzene amines. Several PAHs were also detected including
anthracene, pyrene, naphthalene, and fluoranthene. An Ames test for mutagenicity of the
tire residue showed positive mutagenic activity.
2.4.2 Somerset, Wisconsin Tire Fire
Stofferahn and Simon (1987) present an overview of events surrounding a tire fire
that began on October 13, 1986 near Somerset, Wisconsin. Approximately six million tires
were consumed out of an estimated eight to nine million scrap tire stockpile. The stockpile
occupied about 6 hectare (15 acres) on a 10 hectare (25 acres) property. The smoke plume
was visible for "several miles downwind." An intense fire raged for three days, after which
it subsided and the threat of the fire spreading off-site was eliminated. The fire burned
itself out after a period of approximately two weeks.
A trailer park was approximately 0.8 km (one-half mile) north of the yard fence line.
At the initial stage of the incident, a thick black smoke plume entered the park. Officials in
charge decided to evacuate the trailer park, since the nature of potential health threats
resulting from exposure to such a plume were not known. The evacuation remained in
effect for one day, after which shifting wind patterns eliminated the heavy exposures that
occurred on the first day. ,
Recommendations to the general public were broadcast via local radio stations:
Those experiencing discomfort from the smoke should evacuate the area
impacted by the plume or stay indoors in a sealed residence; and
Outdoor items with which people might come into contact on a routine basis
(e.g., autos, laundry, outdoor furniture) or that would be ingested (e.g., garden
vegetables) should be washed thoroughly.
Air monitoring conducted by the US EPA Emergency Response Team (ERT)
indicated a concentration of total suspended particulate (TSP) exceeding the 260 ng/m3
primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) in effect at that time. The ERT
also concluded that the smoke became visible at about 250 ng/n? TSP. The rough
correlation to the primary standard resulted in the recommendation to response personnel
to don respiratory protection or to avoid areas where the smoke plume was visible. No
details on the method of sampling or analysis were given.
Air samples collected by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
were analyzed for concentrations of total coal tar pitch volatiles (CTPV). At times, these
concentrations exceeded the threshold limit value time-weighted average (TLV-TWA) of 0.2
mg/m3.
The authors compared the air concentration levels measured by the ERT and WDNR
at the Somerset site with concentrations reported at two other major tire fires, the Everest,
18
-------
Washington fire (September 25 - October 10, 1984) and the Rhinehart tire fire, Winchester,
Virginia, 1984 (presented above). These results are presented in Table 10. For reference,
the TLV-TWA and Immediately Dangerous to Life arid Health (IDLH) values are also
presented. IDLH concentrations represent the maximum concentration from which, in the
event of a failure of a worker's respirator device, the worker could escape within 30 minutes
without experiencing any escape-impairing (e.g., severe eye irritation) or irreversible health
effects.
The authors conclude that "although no consistency with respect to
sampling/monitoring methodologies or approach may be assumed among these three
incidents, the data do not suggest that severe, acute health threats . . . were present at any
of the three incidents." However, the authors also note that, as the mixture of carbon black
and PAHs is considered carcinogenic, the smoke plume or its residues may present a chronic
health threat.
2.5 PREVENTING AND MANAGING TIRE FIRES
The Scrap Tire Management Council [(Council, or STMC) Washington D.C.] is an
independent advocacy organization created by the North American tire industry. The
Council's goal is to create sufficient market capacity to consume all scrap tires generated
annually. The Council provides assistance in developing and promoting the utilization of
scrap tires as a valuable resource.
The Council offers a seminar (there is a fee for expenses and contribution to STMC
Education and Research) on the prevention arid management of scrap tire fires. At the
seminar, the Council uses a document, which it developed in concert with the International
Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), called Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of
Scrap Tire Fires [(Guidelines) IAFC and STMC, 1992]. STMC also offers the document for
sale. The seminar and guidelines were developed with the contribution of over a dozen'
experienced fire chiefs and emergency response personnel.
Preventing and managing tire fires is a complex subject and many site-specific issues
must be considered. Only a few of these issues are reviewed here in the following
subsections.
2.5.1 Storage Site Design
The Guidelines recommend the following storage site design requirements:
tire piles be limited to 6 m (20 ft) in height with maximum outside dimensions
of 76 m (250 ft) by 6 m (20 ft);
the edges of the pile should be at least 15 m (50 ft) from the perimeter fence
and this area should be free of debris or vegetation;
interior fire breaks should be at least 18 m (60 ft) wide;
the area extending 60 m (200 ft) from the outside perimeter of the piles
should be devoid of any vegetation;
19
-------
TABLE 10. COMPARISON OF DETECTED CONTAMINANTS TO ESTABLISHED
TLV AND IDLH LIMITS (mg/irf)
Compound
Sulfur dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Zinc
Lead
Iron
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Benzene
Toluene
Styrene
Xylenes
Ethyl benzene
Ethyl toluene
Methyl chloride
1,1, 1-Trichloroethene
Acetone
Heptane
Hexane
Hexene
Naphthalene
Pentane
Ibiophene
Benzo(a)pyrene
TLV- IDLH
TWA
5
55
..
0.15
~
40
..
--
30
375
215
435
435
-
(350)
1,900
1,780
1,600
180
-
50
1,800
-
..
Wisconsin Washington
ERT DNR
-
--
0.013
--
--
..
--
0.22 -- 9.68-10.6
0.140 -- 0.03-6.70
0.043 -- 0.04-3.41
total styrene/
\J.\JI6
toluene
0.047
0.011 - '
0.003
0.024
0.55-0.57
<0.02
0.18-0.21
0.02
0.82-1.32
0.61-0.66
0.25-0.30
0.013
Virginia
-
..
0.122
0.011
0.014
-
--
-
~
-
--
--
--
-
-
.
-
~
0.461
-
--
0.003
(Continued)
20
-------
TABLE 10. COMPARISON OF DETECTED CONTAMINANTS TO ESTABLISHED
TLV AND IDLH LIMITS (mg/rrf) (Cont.)
TLV- IDLH
Compound TWA
Pyrene
Chrysene
Flourene
Anthracene
Phenanthrene ' ~
Perylene
Coal tar pitch volatiles 0.2 400
Wisconsin Washington
ERT DNR
..
0.446
..
--
..
2.623
4.218
Virginia
0.011
0.018
0.026
0.033
0.054
--
--
-- = not measured.
+ = detected, value not reported.
() = estimated values in 1987.
21
-------
buildings, vehicles, etc. should also be at least 60 m (200 ft) from the piles;
the site should be flat, with a concrete or hard clay surface and should be
designed to capture and contain water run-off;
scrap tire storage should not be on wetlands, floodplains, ravines, canyons, or
on any steeply-graded surfaces;
Any open-air burning should be at least 305 m (1000 ft) from the tire pile;
heat generating devices (e.g., welders) should not be within 60 m (200 ft) of
the pile; and
lightning rods should be installed, but away from the tire piles.
2.5.2 Civilian Evacuation
Evacuation of civilians should be considered as the highest priority by the incident
commander. The Guidelines suggest that areas subject to evacuation be anticipated during
a pre-fire planning process (all scrap tire and rubber products storage facilities should be
considered high-risk storage sites and be pre-planned accordingly). The Guidelines
recommend that "any areas exposed to the smoke plume, or subject to such exposure from
shifting winds, should be evacuated as a precaution."
Staging locations, transportation time, and equipment requirements must be
carefully planned. Evacuees should not be allowed to return to the vicinity until
appropriate environmental monitoring has been conducted and the area is deemed safe and
habitable. '
2.5.3 Fire Suppression Tactics
For a variety of reasons, conventional fire suppression tactics are only partially
effective in controlling scrap tire fires. The unique shape of tires makes it extremely
difficult to reach all burning surfaces and allows air to be trapped to continue support of
combustion throughout the pile. The intense heat generated by burning tires further adds
to the difficulty.
The Guidelines recommend that the major objective in addressing a tire fire is to
separate the unburned tires (fuel) from the burning fuel. The burning fuel should be
allowed to burn as freely as possible. Heavy equipment (i.e., front-end loaders, track .
excavators, mid-size bulldozers, etc.) are necessary for this type of work. Burning sections of
rubber can be removed from the pile, isolated and extinguished using hand, lines set on fog
pattern (i.e., a wide disperse spray), or if a water reservoir is available, submerged.
Direct water application is not always effective, given the intense heat and burning
characteristics of rubber. However, if a decision is made to use conventional techniques,
constant pressure fog nozzles are more effective than solid streams.
In many cases, fire control has only been achieved by smothering the burning
portions of the pile with dirt or fill material. However, even in this state, fires can continue
to smolder deep in the base of the pile for weeks. Thus, continued observation and
environmental monitoring is necessary.
22
-------
It may be necessary to create fire breaks and/or access routes into the pile. These
should be at least 18 m (60 ft) wide or wider if high winds are a factor. Also, as the piles
tend to be unstable, sturdy platforms should be provided to fire fighters who are operating
atop the pile. Wooden pallets work well for this purpose.
The summaries of several Guidelines issues presented above only address a small
portion of the issues and problems of preventing and fighting a tire fire. To effectively
protect public health, safety, and property, a fire-fighting management team trained to deal
with tire fires should be in charge of planning and execution of such an event.
2.6 TIRE FIRE "TARGET" COMPOUNDS
Recognizing the dangers to health and environment associated with tire fires, the
Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department (TPCHD) conducted a study on hazardous
airborne chemical compounds. TPCHD published a report that identified, through a series
of screening steps, a subset of 34 target compounds (weighted based on toxicity and expected
ambient air concentrations) that should be considered for air monitoring during a tire fire
(Adolfson Associates, 1994).
There is a potential for a wide range of health effects from exposure to the
hydrocarbons, metals, and inorganic gases and vapors identified. The health effects include
irritation of the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes, central nervous system depression,
respiratory effects, and cancer.
In developing the target list, the authors gathered air monitoring data collected by
EPA at nine tire fire locations (Wisconsin, Washington, Virginia, Arkansas, Colorado, North
Carolina, New York, Pennsylvania, and Utah), as well as the data from the test burn
discussed earlier in this report (Ryan, 1989; Lemieux and DeMarini, 1992). Compounds
identified as either a suspected or confirmed human carcinogen were automatically listed as
target compounds, regardless of recorded air concentration or emission level. As a group,
PAHs in low concentration were not singled out, and CTPV was used to represent the PAH
class of compounds. Individual PAHs with a concentration high enough to qualify as a
target compound (see below) were listed separately, however.
The compounds were also evaluated based on whether their maximum measured
airborne concentration exceeded 33% of the TLV for that compound. If so, the compound
was considered a target compound. Thirty-three percent of the TLV was used, to
approximate an equivalent worker inhalation dosage, because exposure to a tire fire could
occur 24-hours per day, as opposed to the 8-hours that the TLV is based upon.
The last evaluation criteria the authors applied was to compare the ratio of detected
value to the subchronic and chronic inhalation reference concentrations (RfC). The RfC is
an estimate of the exposure concentration that would not result in appreciable risk of
adverse health effects. Compounds were ordered by decreasing ratios (e.g., of detected
concentration to subchronic RfC). Target compounds were determined by selecting the top
25% of compounds from each data set.
23
-------
If a compound had not already been targeted according to the methods outlined
above, further review was conducted. The decision process included evaluating other
aspects of the compound's toxicology and potential concentrations. If information was
lacking, the compound was not included as a target compound.
A list of all EPA field-monitored compounds considered and their maximum reported
values is presented in Table 11. Data from the controlled test program for the "chunk"
configuration (considered most representative of actual tire fire emissions by Adolfson in
their evaluation) were presented in Tables 1 through 6 above and are not repeated in Table
11 (Ryan, 1989). In some cases, where data are available for the same compound, the
laboratory test data may be higher than the EPA field data. The authors used the highest
concentration of the two data sets in selecting the target compounds.
Some further clarification of the Adolfson Associates reference is necessary. The text
of the report refers to 38 target compounds, however, only 37 were presented. Furthermore,
concentration data for "chloride" and "fluoride" were presented. These are omitted in this
report because these values represent the total concentration of each respective ion and not
specific toxic compounds. Adolfson Associates assumed data for zinc was zinc chromate, a
carcinogen, and reported it as a target compound. However, this was not substantiated
based on a review of the tire fire data, which simply reported "zinc." Therefore zinc, which
is not a carcinogen, was also eliminated from the Adolfson target list. The net result is that
, only 34 compounds are target compounds, using the Adolfson screening method.
The 34 target compounds and their criteria for selection are presented in Table 12.
The carcinogenic target compounds and their maximum reported concentration are
presented in Table 13 (the source of the data, i.e., "Field" for EPA field data, or "Lab" for
controlled test data is indicated). Compounds that had reported concentrations exceeding
33% of-their TLV are presented in Table 14. Compounds that had reported concentrations
exceeding .their subdironic and/or chronic reference concentrations are presented in Table
15.
The compilation of data reported in Tables 11 and 13 includes field monitoring data
that is often hastily collected and is influenced by changing fire conditions, meteorological
variations, and other factors. The quality of this data is questionable, and no detailed
analyses of individual monitoring data were performed as part of this study. However, the .
data are-useful in identifying those compounds that are clearly present during a tire fire.
It is recommended that ambient monitoring of air contaminants be conducted during
the initial approach and over the course of the fire. This monitoring data will assist policy
managers and fire management personnel in making decisions on the level of protective
equipment to be worn and evacuation of civilians. Direct-reading instruments are
recommended for the initial response to the fire. This type of equipment can be useful in
providing immediate data on IDLH conditions, toxic levels of airborne contaminants, and
flammable atmospheres. This data will allow the emergency response team to size up the
situation and begin making informed decisions. For more complete information on the
24
-------
TABLE 11. MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS FROM EPA DATASETS (mgM)
Compound
Concentration
Compound
Concentration
Acetone 0.3700
Anthracene 0.0330
Benz(a)anthracene 0.0018
Benzene 10.59
Benzo(a)pyrene 0.0130
Benzylchloride 0.0190
Bromochloromethane 1.1360
4-tert-Butyl toluene 0.1310
Carbon monoxide 114.00
Carbon tetrachloride 0.0500
Chloroform . 2.0580
Chrysene 0.4460
Coal tar pitch volatiles 4:2180
Cumene 0.0940
Cyclohexane ' 0:0630
1,2-Dichlorobenzene 0.0696
1,4-Dichlorobenzene 0.1187
1,2-Dichloropropane 0.0350
Ethyl benzene 0.1554
Ethyl toluene 0.0540
Ethylene dichloride 0.3230
Ethyltoluene, meta 0.5800
Fluoranthene 0.0040
Fluorene . 0.0260
Iron
Lead
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methylene chloride
3-Methylstyrene
4-Methylstyrene
Methylstyrene, alpha-
Naphthalene
n-Nitrate
Nitric acid
N-octane
Orthophosphate
Pentane
N-pentane
Phenanthrene
Phosphoric acid
Pyrene
Pyrylene
Styrene
Sulfate
Sulfur dioxide
Sulfuric acid
Thiophene
Toluene
0.0140
0.0110
0.5800
2.1000
0.0960
0.0500
0.0500
1.3200
220.00
0.2550
0.0850
280.00
0.6600
0.2960
0.0340
0.2650
0.0001
2.6230
5.4100
230.00
2.7000
0.7900
0.3000
6.7000
(Continued)
25
-------
TABLE 11. MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS FROM EPA DATASETS (mgM)
(Cont.)
Compound
Heptane
n-Heptane
Hexachloroethane
Hexane
n-Hexane
Hexene
Hydrobromic acid
Hydrochloric acid
Hydrofluoric acid
Concentration
0.0200
-0.0830
0.2980
0.2100
0.1580
0.0200
0.2550
4.0000
0.2700
Compound
1,1, 1-Trichloroethane
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofl.uorometh.ane
m,p-Xylene
m-Xylene
o-Xylene
Zinc
Concentration
0.0760
0.0030
1.5600
0.0510
131.00
0.8400
1,564.00
0.0130
Note: Above data was taken directly from reference; no adjustment was made to significant
digits.
26
-------
TABLE 12. TARGET COMPOUNDS BY CRITERIA
Target Compound
Criteria
CA
TLV
Subchronic
RfC
Chronic
RfC
Acenaphthene
Acenaphthylene
Arsenic
Barium
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzene
Benzo (a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzylchloride
Butadiene
Carbon monoxide
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Chromium
Chrysene
Coal tar. pitch volatiles
Cumene
1,2-Dichloropropane
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
Ethylene dichloride
Hexachloroethane
Hexane
Lead
Methylene chloride
Nickel
Phenol
Styrene
Sulfur dioxide
Sulfuric acid
Toluene
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vanadium
o-Xylene
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CA = Suspected or Confirmed Human Carcinogen.
TLV = Eeported Value is 33% of Threshold Limit Value.
RfC = Inhalation Reference Concentration.
27
-------
TABLE 13. MAXIMUM REPORTED CARCINOGENS CONCENTRATIONS
Compound
Acenaphthene
Acenapthylene
Arsenic
Benz(a)anthracene
Benzene
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzyl chloride
Butadiene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Chromium. (Assumed to be all Cr VI+)
Chrysene
Chrysene . .
Coal tar pitch volatiles
Dibenz(a,h)anthracene
1,2-Dichloropropane .
Ethylene dichloride
Hexachloroethane
Lead (inorganic dust)
Lead (inorganic dust)
Methylene chloride
Nickel
Phenol
Styrene
Styrene
1, 1,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Concentration
(mg/m3)
1.027
0.897
0.0002
0.226
10.59
3.872
0.481
0.013
0.344
0.019
0.314
0.052
2,058
0.012
0.446
0.368
4.218.
.0.007
0.035
0.323
0.298
0.0007
0.011
0.210
0.007
0.473
5.41
0.795
0.003
1.6
Data Source
Lab
Lab
Lab
Lab
Field
Lab
Lab
Field
Lab
Field
Lab
Field
Field
Lab
Field
.Lab
Field
Lab
Field .
Field
Field
Lab
Field
Field
Lab
Lab
Field
Lab
Field
Field
28
-------
TABLE 14. COMPOUNDS WITH MAXIMUM REPORTED CONCENTRATIONS
EXCEEDING 33% OF THEIR TLVs
Compound
Carbon monoxide
Coal tar pitch volatiles
Sulfur dioxide
Sulfuric acid
Vanadium (as pentoxide)
Concentration
mg/m3
116.0000
4.2180
2.7500
0.7900
0.0175
TLV
mg/m3
29
0.2
5
1
0.05
% TLV
400.00
2,109
52.00
79.00
35.00
TABLE 15. COMPOUNDS WITH MAXIMUM REPORTED CONCENTRATIONS
EXCEEDING A SUBCHRONIC OR CHRONIC RFC (mg/m3)
Compound
Barium
Cumene
1,2-Dichloropropane
. Hexane
Styrene
Toluene
Concentration
0.0035
0.094
0.035
0.21
5.41
6.7
Subchronic RfC
0.005
0.09
0.013
0.2
none
2
Chronic RfC
0.0005
0.009
0.004
0.2
1
0.4
type and concentration of specific air contaminants over the course of the fire, the data
obtained with direct-reading instruments must be supplemented by collecting and analyzing
air samples.
A tire fire can smolder for months. The smoldering phase can produce excessive
emissions due to the fact that it is not a hot burning phase and does not result in complete
combustion. Therefore, air sampling should continue, and data reviewed, during the
smoldering phase as well to ensure that appropriate health and safety decisions can be
made.
Developing an air monitoring plan and/or recommending air sampling equipment
and methods are beyond the scope of this document, however Adolfson et al., (1994) present
a detailed discussion of this topic.
29
-------
3.0 TIRES AS FUEL
Tire-derived fuel (TDF) has been successfully utilized as a source of energy in cement
and lime manufacturing, steam generation for electricity, and other industrial processes.
Results of source test reports have been collected and are summarized by source type.
Typical sources that have been successful in integrating TDF with other fuels are:
Cement Kilns;
Pulp and Paper Mills;
Utilities (including dedicated Tire-to-Energy facilities); and
General Industrial Boilers.
TDF has long been recognized as a potential fuel. It compares favorably to coal, as
presented in Table 16. It has a higher heating value than coal, and less moisture content.
TDF contains more carbon, about as much sulfur as medium-sulfur coal, but much less fuel-
bound nitrogen.
Whether burning TDF in a new facility or as a modification to an existing facility,
several issues must be considered. One consideration is the need convert scrap tires into a
, useable fuel. This requires a system to dewire, and shred, or otherwise size the tires so they
can accommodated by a combustor. In addition to aiding in feeding, the sized fuel generally
allows for more efficient combustion. However, some large combustor configurations, such
as cement kilns, wet-bottom boilers, and stoker-grate boilers can be modified to accept whole
tires. Modifications to hardware, combustion practices and/or other operating practices may
also be necessary in order to burn TDF. These modifications are case-specific, and must be
addressed by engineering staff when considering using TDF.
3.1 Laboratory Simulation of TDF Emissions
Pilot-scale emissions testing of TDF was conducted in a 73 kW (250,000 BTU/hr)
rotary kiln incinerator simulator (EKIS) in EPA's Environmental Research Center in
Research Triangle Park, NC (Lemieux, 1994). This size simulator has been established as
exhibiting the salient features of full-scale units with ratings 20 to 40 times larger.
The test program was undertaken to provide assistance to state and local pollution
agencies in establishing permitting guidelines and evaluating permit applications for
facilities seeking to supplement its fuel with tires or TDF. A list of analytes would defer
some of the expenses of stack sampling.
The purposes of the test program were to (1) generate a profile of target analytes for
guidance in preparing a full-scale stack sampling program and (2) provide insight into the
technical issues related to controlled combustion of scrap tires. Because of the differences in
scaling, such as gas-phase mixing phenomena and other equipment-specific factors,
Lemieux specifically states that emission factors from the RKIS cannot be directly
30
-------
Fuel
TABLE 16. COMPARATIVE FUEL ANALYSIS BY WEIGHT (JONES, 1990)
Composition, (percent)
Heating Value
Carbon Hydrogen Oxygen Nitrogen Sulfur Ash Moisture
TDF 83.87 7.09 2.17 0.24 1.23 4.78 0.62
Coal 73.92 4.85 6.41 1.76 1.59 6.23 5.24
kJ/kg Btu/lb
36,023 15,500
31,017 13,346
CO
-------
extrapolated to full-scale units. Furthermore, there are significant differences between
kilns and other combustion devices, such as boilers, and the study does not address these
issues. Nevertheless, the simulator is useful in examining the fundamental phenomena of
TDF combustion and to gain an understanding of the qualitative trends that would be
found in a full-scale rotary kiln.
The TDF tested was wire-free crumb rubber sized to <0.64 cm (
-------
TABLE 17. PROXIMATE AND ULTIMATE ANALYSIS OF RKIS TEST TDF
Proximate Analysis
Moisture
Volatile Matter
Ash
Fixed Carbon
Ultimate Analysis
Moisture
Carbon
Hydrogen
Kjeldahl Nitrogen 1 Nitrogen Nitro
Sulfur
Total Halogens
(calculated as chlorine)
Ash
Metals
Cadmium
Chromium
Iron
Lead
Zinc
Heating Value
0.84%
65.52%%
7.20%
26.44%
0.84%
76.02%
7.23%
0.34%
1.75%
0.31%
7.20%
<5 ppm
<5 ppm
295 ppm
51 ppm
2.14%
37,177kJ/kg
33
-------
TABLE 18. ESTIMATED EMISSIONS OF VOCS - RKIS TEST RESULTS (BASE FUEL - NATURAL GAS)
Compound
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
2-Methyl propene
2-MethyI-2-propanoI benzene
Benzene
Bromomethane
Carbon disulfide
co
ฃ>
Chlorobenzene
Chloromethane
Ethylbenzene
Heptane
Hexane
lodomethane
m,p-Xylene
Nonane
o-Xylene
Styrene
Toluene
0% TDF
(Natural Gas
Only)
ng/J Ib/MMBtu
2.24E-04
9.60E-04
2.13E-04
6.71E-04
2.00E-04
2.13E-04
2.13E-04
2.40E-04
2.13E-04
2.13E-04
2.01E-04
2.13E-04
6.21E-04
2.77E-04
1.85E-04
2.63E-04
3.97E-04
5.21E-07
2.23E-06
4.95E-07
1.56E-06
4.65E-07
4.95E-07
4.95E-07
5.58E-07
4.95E-07
4.95E-07
4.67E-07.
4.95E-07
1.56E-06
6.44E-07
4.30E-07
6.12E-07
9.23E-07
7% TDF
(steady-state)
ng/J Ib/MMBtu
3.75E-04
2.30E-03
2.15E-04
1.25E-04
2.15E-04
3.43E-04
2.15E-04
7.15E-04
2.15E-04
2.83E-04
2.45E-04
2.15E-04
4.17E-04
7.29E-04
2.15E-04
7.85E-04
5.02E-04
8.
8,
5.
72E-07
,35E-06
OOE-07
2.91E-07
5.
, OOE-07
7.98E-07
5. OOE-07
1
5,
.66E-06
, OOE-07
6.58E-07
5
5
9
.70E-07
.OOE-07
.70E-07
1.70E-06
5.00E-07
1
1
.83E-06
.17E-06 '
17% TDF
(steady-state)
ng/J Ib/MMBtu
4.41E-04
1.94E-03
1.81E-03
1.25E-04
2.58E-04
2.30E-04
2.30E-04
3.90E-03
2.70E-04
2.48E-04 .
2.45E-04
2.30E-04
1.06E-03
4.25E-04
3.18E-04
7.16E-04
4.64E-04
1.03E-06
4.51E-06
4.21E-06
2.91E-07
6.00E-07
5.35E-07
5.35E-07
9.07E-06
6.28E-07
5.77E-07
5.70E-07
5.35E-07
2.47E-06
9.88E-07
7.40E-07
1.67E-06
1.08E-06
19% TDF
(ramp)
ng/J Ib/MMBtu
2.24E-04
7.37E-04
2.24E-04
7.36E-03
1.22E-03
2.24E-04
2.24E-04
2.38E-02
2.24E-04
2.24E-04
2.24E-04
2.35E-04
2.64E-04
2.24E-04
2.24E-04
7.03E-04
3.48E-04
5.21E-07
1.71E-06
5.21E-07
1.71E-05
2.84E-06
5.21E-07
5.21E-07
5.53E-05
5.21E-07
5.21E-07
5.21E-07
5.47E-07
6.14E-07
5.21E-07
5.21E-07
1.63E-06
8.09E-07
15% TDF
(batch)
ng/J Ib/MMBtu
2.17E-04
2.33E-04
2.33E-04
2.19E-02
3.82E-04
9.43E-04
2.20E-04
5.16E-02
4.96E-04
2.33E-04
2.36E-04
2.33E-04
1.78E-03
2.71E-04
5.24E-04
7.80E-04
1.29E-03
5.05E-07
5.42E-07
5.42E-07
5.09E-05
8.88E-07
2.19E-06
5.12E-07
1.20E-4
1.15E-06
5.42E-07
5.49E-07
5.42E-07
4.14E-06
6.30E-07
1.22E-06
1.81E-06
3.00E-06
-------
(1994) concludes that when TDF is combusted in a well-designed and well-operated facility,
emissions of SVOCs are not significantly different from natural gas.
PCDD and PCDF were coUected during two test conditions: 0% TDF and 17% TDF
(steady-state). No PCDD/PCDF were detected in either test.
Metal aerosol samples were collected during two test conditions; 0% TDF and 17%
TDF (steady-state). Estimated metals emissions from these tests are presented in Table 19.
The TDF-only column is a linear extrapolation and was calculated by dividing the values in
the TDF+natural gas column by 17% (0.17). Elevated emissions of arsenic, lead, and zinc
were found in the stack gas. Zinc was present in significant concentrations.
Total particulate matter (PM) measurements were made from the MM5 and
MultiMetals trains. The PM results are presented in Table 20. The PM emissions
represent uncontrolled emissions, such as found prior to any installed PM control device. As
expected, the PM emissions during TDF combustion are higher than those from natural gas
combustion alone.
The PM results from the batch feed run are significantly higher than for any of the
others. This may suggest that burning TDF in batches, which roughly approximates feeding
of whole tires, has the potential to form significant transient emissions. This phenomenon
could be exacerbated in a system that exhibits significant vertical gas-phase stratification,
or operates at low excess air levels, such as cement kiln's. However, Lemieux (1994) believes
.that the size of the facility will serve to mitigate the intensity of transient emissions
resulting from batch charging of tires of TDF, because for an extremely large facility, a
constant stream of whole tires may roughly approximate steady-state operation. Even so,
Lemieux (1994) cautions that the potential for generation of large transients should not be
ignored, especially in smaller facilities.
Based on this test program, it is concluded that, with the exception of zinc emissions,
potential emissions from TDF are not expected to be very much different than from other
conventional fossil fuels, as long as combustion occurs in a well-designed, well-operated and
well-maintained combustion device. If unacceptable particulate loading occurs as a result of
zinc emissions, an appropriate particulate control device would need to be installed.
3.2 Source Test Data - Utility and Industrial Facilities
Source test data from a variety of source types have been collected and are presented
in Table 21 and Appendix Tables A-l through A-22. Test data of criteria pollutant
emissions from seven utility boilers are summarized in Table 21. In general, particulates .
and NOX decreased as the percent TDF increased. Emissions of SQ did not follow a
pattern. There are insufficient data on CO emissions from utilities to draw a conclusion.
Data summaries from field source tests are presented in the Appendix. Beginning
with Table A-l, each table is divided into two parts. Part "a" presents a summary of
35
-------
TABLE 19. ESTIMATED EMISSIONS OF METALS - RKIS TEST RESULTS (BASE FUEL - NATURAL GAS)
CO
Metal
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Selenium
Zinc
0% TDF (Natural Gas Only) 17% TDF (steady-state)
ng/J Ib/MMBTU ng/J Ib/MMBTU
7.72E-05
4.80E-04
nd
1.76E-04
2.78E-04
3.45E-03
1.21E-03
3.00E-04
3.56E-04
1.23E-01
1.80E-07
1.12E-06
nd
4.09E-07
6.46E-07
8.02E-06
2.81E-06
6.98E-07
8.28E-07
2.86E-04
9.05E-04
1.59E-02
2.14E-05
4.54E-04
1.66E-03
2.83E-02
2.48E-03
1.50E-03
1.93E-03
15.21
. 2.10E-06
. 3.70E-05
4.98E-08
1.06E-06
3.86E-06
6.58E-05
5.77E-06
3.29E-06
4.49E-06
3.54E-02
TDF Only (estimated)
ng/J Ib/MMBTU
5.32E-03
9.35E-02
1.26E-04
2.67E-03
9.76E-03
1.66E-01
1.46E-02
8.82E-03
1.14E-02
89.47
1.24E-05
2.17E-04
2.93E-07
6.21E-06
2.27E-05
3.86E-4
3.40E-05
2.05E-05
2.65E-05
2.08E-01
-------
TABLE 20. PARTICULATE MATTER (PM) LOADING - RKIS TEST PROGRAM
% TDF
0.00
0.00
14.97
15.50
16.95
17.14
17.30
19.18
Feed Type
Steady-state
Steady-state
Batch
Steady-state
Steady-state
Steady-state
Steady-state
Ramp
Particulate Loading
(mg/Nm3)1
4.14
17.37
285.46
95.28
43.67
137.24
101.01
132.95
1 Nm3 is a normal cubic meter of gas at 0ฐ C and 1 atmosphere pressure.
37
-------
TABLE 21. CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS AT UTILITIES USING TDF
co
00
Power Plant
Facility A
100% Tires
Facility B
0% TDF
5% TDF
10% TDF
Facility C
0% TDF .
7% TDF
Facility D
0% TDF
5% TDF
10% TDF
15% TDF
20% TDF
Facility E
0% TDF
7% TDF
Facility F
2% TDF
Particulates (Total)
g/MJ
9.5 xlO'7
0.090
0.0064
0.004
0.22
0.060
0.027
0.0308
0.0242
0.0350
0.0195
0.036
0.133 -
0.073
Ib/MMBTU
2.2 xlO'6
0.21
0.015
0.009
0.52
0.14
0.063
0.0717
0.0564
0.0815
0.0453
0.083
0.310
0.17
Sulfur Oxides :
g/MJ
6.0 xlO'6
0.606
0.774
0.658
0.490
0.37
2.28
. 2.46
2.46
2.35
- 2.30
0,0090
0.032
2.49
Ib/MMBTU
1.4 xlO'5 '
1.41
i:so
1.53
1.14 .
0.87,
5.30
5.73
5.71
5.47
5.34'
0.021
0.074
5.78
Nitrogen Oxides
g/MJ
4.2 xlO'5
0.34
0.25
0.13
0.34
0.39
0.258
0.219
0.188
0.190
0.166
0.082
0.0537
NT
Ib/MMBTU
9.8 xlO'5
0.78
0.58
0.30
0.79
0.91
0.601
0.510
0.436
0.443
0.387
0.19
0.125
NT
Carbon Monoxide
g/MJ
S.lxlO'5
NT
NT
NT
0.654
3.12
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
Ib/MMBTU
7.2 xlO'5
NT
NT
NT
1.52
7.26
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT = Not tested or data not available.
Note: Above data taken directly from reference; no adjustment was made to significant digits.
-------
information on the facility, source type, baseline fuels, air pollution controls, test conditions,
test methods, and fuel handling/feed data, as available. Part "b" of the table presents the
source test data.
Individual power plant test data are presented in Tables A-l through A-8. Table A-l
presents emissions data from utility "A", the only dedicated tires-to-energy facility examined
in this report. Data for utilities B through H are given in Tables A-2 through A-8,
respectively. All plants are coal-fired, except for plant E, which burns wood, plant G, which
burns coal and wood, and plant H, which burns coal and/or petroleum coke.
Data from two cement kilns and one lime kiln are presented in Tables A-9 through
A-11. Cement kilns burn a variety of fuels. Facility I burns natural gas and coal, while
facility J burns a mixture of coal and coke. Facility K, a lime kiln, burns natural gas. The
combination of long residence time and high temperatures make cement kilns an ideal
environment for TDF. Emissions are not adversely affected compared to baseline fuels and
often represent an improvement (Clark, et al., 1991).
Emissions data from pulp and paper mills are presented in Tables A-12 through A-17
for facilities L through Q, respectively. Pulp and paper mills burn various mixtures of wood,
coal, oil, and sludge from onsite wastewater treatment facilities. For the pulp and paper
boilers reported here, particulate, zinc, and SOX emissions tended to increase with percent
TDF added. Emissions of PAHs from facility M decreased, while those from facility L
varied; Zinc is used in the tire manufacturing process, and is expected to increase with
increasing TDF supplementation. Furthermore, zinc oxide has a small particle size and
may not be controlled efficiently by venturi scrubbers.
Emissions from general industrial boiler applications are presented in Tables A-18
through A-22 for facilities R through V, respectively. These facilities are coal-fired, except
for facility V which burns wood. They cover cogeneration and process heat for
manufacturing and food processing.
The data presented in the appendix tables are taken from many data sources and are
presented in various formats. Some source data are expressed in an emission factor format,
i.e., mass of pollutant per unit of heat input [e.g., grams per megajoule (g/MJ) or pounds per
million British Thermal Units (lb/MMBTU)]. The emission factor format is the most useful,
because these results can be compared to a similar combustion/control system. However,
these data should not be considered as recognized emission factors, because they have not
undergone all the rigors of quality assurance and statistical analysis that are necessary
before EPA will consider them valid emission factors.
Because many of the source tests were conducted in response to an environmental
compliance requirement, they are reported in the source test as an emission limit on a mass
per unit time basis (e.g., kg/hr or Ib/hr). This type of data is less useful for comparison
between facilities. In these cases, often the best information that can be inferred is how the
TDF emission rate compares with the baseline (no TDF) emission rate for any given
pollutant.
39
-------
In the summary, or "a" section of the tables, the "Test Methods" entry may indicate
"Unknown." While the details may be unavailable, all facilities with the reference "Clark, et
al., (1991)," refer to the EPA report Burning Tires for Fuel and Tire Pyrolysis: Air
Implications, and have had their methods procedures evaluated and accepted as creditable
by EPA as a condition of being included in that report.
It is extremely difficult to establish a universal emission factor, or even a range of
emission factors as a function of TDF added, because of the limited amount of emissions
data when compared to all the other variables influencing the emission rate of any
pollutant, such as:
Baseline fuel type and variability, such as sulfur, nitrogen, ash, metals,
chlorine, moisture content, etc. Furthermore, many sources were tested with .
multiple fuels (e.g., coal and wood), making it even more difficult to identify
the impact of TDF.
Air pollution control device efficiency varies with the type of fuel. For
example, the efficiency of a venturi scrubber typically falls when handling the
smaller particulate common to TDF. Fabric filters and electrostatic
precipitators (ESPs) are preferable for particulate control for TDF exhaust
streams.
Combustor design. There are several boiler design types; suspension
(fluidized bed and cyclone types) and grate firing (traveling, reciprocating,
and chain stokers; stokers may be either spreader, underfeed, or overfeed).
TDF combustion efficiency varies for each design type. For example, TDF is
typically difficult to burn in suspension (e.g., in fluidized bed and cyclone-type
boilers), because of its size and weight. However, this problem may be
remedied with further research and development. To date, the spreader
stoker is the most successful and widely used boiler configuration with TDF.
However, with consistent and well-controlled processing of TDF (i.e., sizing
and de-wiring), most well-maintained solid fuel combustors can successfully
accommodate TDF as a supplemental fuel.
The amount and type of processing/sizing that is used to convert a scrap tire
to TDF. Size of TDF (whole tires, chunk, shredded, or crumb rubber) and type
(wire-included or de-wired) influences the rate and type of air emissions.
40
-------
4.0 REFERENCES
Adolfson Associates, Inc., 1994. Adolfson Associates, Inc., in association with Kim Coble,
"Tire Fire Contingency Plan - Toxicology Aspects," prepared for Tacoma-Pierce County
Health Department, Tacoma, WA, September 1994.
Amdur, 1991. Editors M. Amdur, J. Doull, C. Klaassen, "Casarett and Doull's
TOXICOLOGY," Pergamon Press, 1991.
Am Test, Inc., 1991. Am Test, Inc., "Source Emission Evaluation, Volume I - State of
Washington, Department of Ecology, Rubber Tire Chip Trial Burn at Holnam Incorporated
Industries Stack Testing & Chemical Analysis, October 15-19, 1990," January 23, 1991.
ATSDR, 1990. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Toxicological Profiles,
"Toxicological Profile for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons," U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Public Health Service, Atlanta, GA, 1990.
CAE, 1989. Clean Air Engineering (CAE), "Report on Diagnostic Testing Performed at
Nekoosa Packaging, Tomahawk Mill, Units 7, 8, and 10," prepared for State of Wisconsin,
Department of Natural Resources, CAE Project No. 4842/2, November 7, 1989.
CAE, 1991. Clean Air Engineering (CAE), "Report on Diagnostic Testing - Manitowoc
Power Station, Manitowoc, WI," CAE Project No. 5727/3, December 4, 1991.
Clark, et al., 1991. C. Clark, K. Meardon, and D. Russell, Pacific Environmental Services,
"Burning Tires for Fuel and Tire Pyrolysis: Air Implications," prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Control
Technology Center, EPA-450/3-91-024 (NTIS PB-92-145358), Research Triangle Park, NC,
December 1991.
Compliance Services, 1996. Compliance Services, Inc., "Source Test Report Boiler No. 8
Coal Trial Burn (PM10, SOX, NOX, and CO)," John Deere Works-Waterloo, Waterloo, IA;
January 16, 1996.
Dennis, 1991. Daniel Dennis, "TDF - Report on Test-Burning of Tire-Derived Fuel in Solid
Fuel Combustors, Revision 2," source test of Monsanto K. G. Krummrich Plant, Sauget, IL,
prepared for Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs, July 22, 1991.
IAFC and STMC, 1992. International Association of Fire Chiefs and the Scrap Tire
Management Council, "Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Scrap Tire Fires,"
available through the Scrap Tire Management Council, Washington, D.C.
Interpoll, 1991. Interpoll Laboratories, "Results of the May 21 - 23, 1991 Air Emission Tests
in Support of a Trial Burn at the NSP Bay Front Plant," Northern States Power Company,
Eau Claire, WI, Report Number 1-3301, September 6, 1991.
41
-------
Interpoll, 1992. Interpoll Laboratories, "Results of the December 9 - 14, 1991 Air Emission
Tests in Support of the Iowa DNR Alternative Solid Fuels Testing Program at the
University of Iowa in Iowa City," Report Number 1-3473, Submitted to State of Iowa
Department of Natural Resources, Des Moines, LA, February 27, 1992.
InterpoU, 1993. Interpoll Laboratories, "Results of the June 30 and July 1, 1993 Air
Emission Compliance Tests on the No. 1-2-3 Boilers Baghouse at the Cargill Plant in
EddyvIUe, Iowa," Report Number 3-9827, Submitted to Cargill Incorporated, Corn Milling
Division, EddyvIUe, IA, August 5, 1993.
Jones, 1990. R.M. Jones, J.M. Kennedy, Jr., and N.L. Heberer, "Supplementary Firing of
Tire-Derived Fuel (TDF) in a Combination Fuel Boiler," TAPPI Journal, May 1990.
Lemieux, and Ryan, 1993. P. M. Lemieux and J. V. Ryan, "Characterization of Air
Pollutants Emitted from a Simulated Scrap Tire Fire," Journal of the Air and Waste
Management Association, Volume 43: 1106-1115, August 1993.
Lemieux and DeMarini, 1992. P. M. Lemieux and D. DeMarini, "Mutagenicity of Emissions
from the Simulated Open Burning of Scrap Rubber Tires," U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Control Technology Center, Office of Research and Development, EPA-600/R-92-127
(NTIS PB-92-217009), July 1992.
Lemieux, 1994. P.M. Lemieux, "Pilot-Scale Evaluation of the Potential for Emissions of .
Hazardous Air Pollutants from Combustion of Tire-Derived Fuel," U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Control Technology Center, EPA-600/R-94-070 (NTIS PB-94-169463),
April 1994. . .
Malcolm Pirnie, 1991. Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., "Air Emissions Associated with the Combustion
of Scrap Tires for Energy Recovery," prepared for Ohio Air Quality Development Authority,
May i99i.
NIOSH, 1984. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, "Rhinehart Tire Fire,
Winchester, VA," U.S. Department of Health and'Human Service, " - Health Hazard
Evaluation Report," HETA 84-044-1441, March 1984.
Ohio Edison, 1990. Ohio Edison Company, "Results for the Ohio Edison Tire Burn Test at .
Ohio Edison Company, Toronto Plant, Toronto, Ohio, May 21 through 25, 1990 - Results for:
Air Emissions Tests, Bottom Ash Transport Water Tests, Fly Ash Waste Analysis, and
Bottom Ash Waste Analysis," prepared for Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, August
1990.
Pace, 1988. Pace Laboratories, Incorporated, "Results for the October 28-30, 1987 Criteria
and Non-Criteria Emission Compliance Testing on the Unit 3 Stack at the Champion
International Facility Located in Sartell, Minnesota; Volume 1 of 2 - Results," February 3,
1988.
Pace, 1990. Pace Laboratories, Incorporated, "Results for the March 12-16, 1990 Tire
42
-------
Derived Fuel Trial Burn Testing on the Unit 3 Stack at the Champion International
Corporation Facility Located in Sartell, Minnesota," Minneapolis, MN, May 24, 1990.
Radian, 1988. Radian Corporation, "Modesto Energy Company, Waste Tire to Energy
Facility, Westley, California, Final Emission Test Report," prepared for Oxford Energy
Company, Boston, MA, Research Triangle Park, NC, April 1988.
Ryan, 1989. J. Ryan, Acurex Corporation, "Characterization of Emissions from the
Simulated Open Burning of Scrap Tires," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Control
Technology Center, EPA-600/2-89-054 (NTIS PB-90-126004), Research Triangle Park, NC,
October 1989.
State of Washington, 1986a. State of Washington, Department of Ecology, "Source Test
Summary of Emissions to Atmosphere at Boise Cascade, Wallula, Source Test 86-08," July
16, 1986.
State of Washington, 1986b. State of Washington, Department of Ecology, "Polynuclear
Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Metals Emitted from the Burning of Tires at Boise Cascade,
Wallula, May 20 and 21, 1986 - Source Test 86-08a," November 25, 1986.
State of Washington, 1986c. State of Washington, Department of Ecology, "Measurement of
Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbons and Metals Emitted from the Burning of Tires at
Crown Zellerbach, Port Angeles, Source Test 86-10a," November 25, 1986.
State of Washington, 1986d. State of Washington, Department of Ecology, "Source Test
Summary of Emissions to Atmosphere - Crown Zellerbach, Port Angeles, Source Test 86-10,"
1986.
State of Washington, 1986e> State'of Washington, Department of Ecology, "Source Test
Summary of Emissions to Atmosphere - Port Townsend Paper Company, Port Townsend,
Source Test 86-01," 1986.
Stofferahn and Simon, 1987. Jeffery A. Stofferahri and Verneta Simon, "Emergency
Response to a Large Tire Fire: Reducing Impacts to Public Health and the Environment," .
presented at Haztech International Conference, St. Louis, MO, August 1987.
The Almega Corp., 1990. The Almega Corporation, "Summary of Emission Rates,"
prepared for Oxford Energy Company, 1990.
TRC, 1993. TRC Environmental Corporation, "Analysis of the Ambient Monitoring Data in
the Vicinity of Open Tire Fires," EPA-453/R-93-029 (NTIS PB-94-156197), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC, July 1993.
43
-------
-------
APPENDIX: EMISSIONS DATA FROM CONTROLLED TIRE
BURNING
A-l
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Page
A-la. Facility A - Dedicated Tires-to-Energy Power Plant A-4
A-lb. Facility A - Dedicated Tires-to-Energy Power Plant A-5
A-2a. Facility B - Coal-Fired Power Plant A-9
A-2b. Facility B - Coal-Fired Power Plant A-10
A-3a. Facility C - Coal-Fired Power Plant A-ll
A-3b. Facility C - Coal-Fired Power Plant A-12
A-4a. Facility D - Coal-Fired Power Plant A-13
A-4b. Facility D - Coal-Fired Power Plant A-14
A-5a. Facility E - Wood-Fired Power Plant A-15
A-5b. Facility E - Wood-Fired Power Plant A-16
A-6a. Facility F - Coal-Fired Power Plant A-17
A-6b. Facility F - Coal-Fired Power Plant - 2% TD A-18
A-7a. Facility G - Coal and Wood-Fired Power Plant A-19
A-7b. Facility G - Coal and Wood-Fired Power Plant A-20
A-8a. Facility H - Coal and Petroleum Coke-Fired Power Plant A-22
A-8b. Facility H - Coal and Petroleum Coke-Fired Power Plant A-23
A-9a. Facility I- Cement Kiln A-24
A-9b. Facility I - Cement Kiln .' A-25
A-lOa. Facility J - Cement Kiln A-26
A-lOb. Facility J - Cement Kiln A-27
A-lla. Facility K - Lime Kiln ' . A-29
A-lib. .Facility K --Lime Kiln : A-30
A-12a. Facility L - Pulp Mill. '. A-32
A-12b. Facility L - Pulp Mill - PNA and Metal Emissions A-33
A-13a. Facility M - Pulp and Paper Mill.. . A-35
A-13b. Facility M - Pulp and Paper Mill - PNA and Metal Emissions A-36
A-14a. Facility N - Pulp and Paper Mill A-38
A-14b. Facility N - Pulp and Paper Mill - PM A-39
A-14c. Facility N - Pulp and Paper Mill - Non-particulate Testing A-40
A-15a. Facility O - Paper Mill A-42
A-15b. Facility O - Paper Mill : A-43
A-16a. Facility P - Pulp and Paper Mill A-44
A-16b. Facility P - Pulp and Paper Mill A-45
A-17a. Facility Q - Pulp and Paper Mill A-48
A-17b. Facility Q - Pulp and Paper Mill A-49
A-18a. Facility R - Cogeneration A-50
A-18b. Facility R - Cogeneration A-51
A-19a. Facility S - Industrial Boiler A-52
A-19b. Facility S - Industrial Boiler A-53
A-20a. Facility T - Industrial Boiler A-55
(Continued)
A-2
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont.)
A-20b. Facility T - Industrial Boiler A-56
A-21a. Facility U - Industrial Boiler A-57
A-21b. Facility U - Industrial Boiler . A-58
A-22a. Facility V - Industrial Boiler A-59
A-22b. Facility V - Industrial Boiler A-60
A-3
-------
Table A-la. Facility A - Dedicated Tires-to-Energy Power Plant
Source Description
Facility Name,
Location:
Facility Type:
Source Type:
Test Dates:
Other fuel(s):
Air pollution control
device(s) used:
Test Conditions:
Test Methods:
Fuel
Handling/Feeding:
Testing Company:
Environmental
Agency:
Modesto Energy Company
Westley, CA
Utility - Dedicated Tires-to-Energy
Two Boilers (designed for 100% TDF).
December 4-5, 1987, January 9 - 12, 1988, October 9-11, 1990
None
NOX: Selective non-catalytic reduction (ammonia injection).
PM: Fabric filter with Gore-Texฎ bags.
SOX: Wet scrubber with lime injection.
100% TDF
GARB Methods 5, 8, 100, 421, Method 5 (metals), Modified
Method 5 (Semi-VOST), Modified Method 6 (NH,)
Whole tires up to 4 feet in diameter, 350 to 400 tires per hour
feed rate (assuming 20 Ib/tire; approximately 7,000 to 8,000
Ibs/hr), total energy feed rate 190 MMBtu.
Radian (1988), The Almega Corp. (1990)
Stanislaus County APCD (now San Joaquin Valley Unified
APCD)
Source Test Data Evaluation
Yes No Unknown
Data Expressed in Emission Factor Form
Baseline Fuel Test Data Available
Accurate Fuel Feed Rates
Multiple Baseline Fuels
Test Witnessed by or Prepared for
Governmental Agency
X
X
X
X
X
A-4
-------
Table A-lb. Facility A - Dedicated Tires-to-Energy Power Plant
Pollutant
Criteria
CO
NOX
PM
sox
HC
Metals
Lead
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Mercury
Arsenic
Zinc
Chromium (hex)
Copper
Manganese
Limit
kg/day
157.4
227.2
51.36
113.6
67.44
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Ib/day
346.4
500.0
113.0
250.0
148.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
kg/day
112.6
174.7
14.2
57.7
0.294
0.012
0.00082
0.00050
O.OOOOl
0.0012
3.52
. NT
0.0068
0.011
1988
Ib/day
247.8
384.3
31.2
127
0.646
0.026.
0.0018
0.0011
<0.00003
0.0026
7.75
NT
0.015 .
0.023
October
kg/day
141.6
193.0
42.32
28.1b
NT
0.003ฐ
0.0073
0.0091
0.001
ND
0.283
ND
0.015ฐ
0.003
9-11, 1990"
Ib/day
311.5
424.6
93.12
61.9b
NT
0.006ฐ
0.016
0.020
0.003
ND
0.623
ND
0.032ฐ
0.007
October
g/MJ
3.1 xlO'5
4.2 xlO'5
9.4 xlO'6
6.0 xlO-6(b)
NT
5.5 x!0-7(c)
1.6 xlO'6
2.0 xlO'6
2.9 xlO'7
ND
6.0 xlO'4
ND
3.2 xlO-6
6.9 xlO-7(Q)
9-11, 1990a
Ib/MMBtu
7.2 xlO'5
9.8 xlO'5
2.2 xlO'5
1.4 xlO-5(b)'
NT
1.3 x!0-6(c)
3.7 xlO'6
4.7 xlO'6
6.7 xlO'7
ND
1.4 xlO'4
ND
7.5 xlO'6
1.6 x!0-6(c)
(Continued)
-------
Table A-lb. Facility A - Dedicated Tires-to-Energy Power Plant (Cont.)
Pollutant
Nickel
Tin
Aluminum
Iron
Beryllium
Organics
Dioxin and Furan
PAH
PCB
Naphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Acenaphthene
Fluorene
Anthracene
Fluorantherie
Limit
kg/day
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Ib/day
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
. N/A-
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A.
N/A
1988
kg/day
NT .
NT
0.13
0.28 '
NT
<10.1
1.9 xlO'7
0.0054
2.60 xlO'
4
NT.
NT'
NT
NT
NT
NT
Ib/day
NT
"NT
0.28
0.62
NT
<22.3
4.2 xlO'7
0.012
5.71 xlO'4
NT
' NT
NT
' NT
NT
NT
October 9-11, 1990"
kg/day
0.012C
0.0082
0.0459C
. 0.144ฐ
ND
NT
NT
NT
NT
0.002ฐ
ND
l.lxlO-5(c)
3.3 xlCT5(c)
2.2 xlO-5(c)
3.3 xlO-5(c)
Ib/day
0.027C
0.018
o.ior
0.316ฐ
ND
NT
NT
NT
NT
0.005ฐ
ND
2.4 xlO'5(c)
7.2 x!0'5(c)
4.8 x!0'5(c)
7.2 xlO'5(c)
October 9-11, 1990'
g/MJ
2.7 x!0-6(c)
1.8 xlO'6
9.9 x!0-6(c)
3.1xlO-6(c)
ND
NT
NT
NT
NT
5.1 x!0-7(c)
ND
2.4 xlO-9(c)
7.3 xlO'9(c)
4.7 xlO'9(c)
7.3 xlO'9(c)
Ib/MMBtu
6.3 xlO'6(c)
4.2 xlO'6
2.3 x!0-5(c)
7.3 x!0-5(c)
ND
NT
NT
NT
NT
1.2 x!0-6(c)
ND
5.6 xlO'9(c)
1.7 xlO'8(c)
1.1 xlO'8(c)
1.7 xlO'8(c)
(Continued)
-------
Table A-lb. Facility A - Dedicated Tires-to-Energy Power Plant (Cont.)
Pollutant
Pyrene
Benz(a)anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)
anthracene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Indeno
(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Monochlorobiphenyl
Limit
kg/day
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A.
lb/day
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1988
kg/day
NT
NT
NT
NT .
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT' .
NT.
NT
NT
lb/day
NT
'NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
.NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
. NT
October 9-11, 1990a
kg/day
4.4 xlO-5(c)
ND
ND
1.1 x!0-5(c)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
l.lxlO'4(c)
ND
0.334ฐ
ND
ND
lb/day
9.6 xlO'5(c)
ND
ND
2.4 xlO'5(c)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.4 x!0-4(c)
ND
0.735ฐ
ND
ND
October 9-11, 1990"
g/MJ
9.5 x!0-9(c)
ND
ND
2.4 xlO-9(c)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
2.4 x!0-9(c)
ND
7.3 xlO'5(c)
ND
ND
Ib/MMBtu
2.2 xlO-8(c)
ND
ND
5.6 xlO-9(c)
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
5.6 x!0-9(c)
ND
1.7 xlO'4(c)
ND
ND
(Continued)
-------
Table A-lb. Facility A - Dedicated Tires-to-Energy Power Plant (Cent.)
Pollutant
Dichlorobiphenyl
Trichlorobiphenyl
Tetrachlorobiphenyl
Pentachlorobiphenyl
Hexachlorobiphenyl
> Heptachlorobiphenyl
00
Nonachlorobiphenyl
Decachlorobiphenyl
Vinyl chloride
Limit
kg/day
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Ib/day
N/A
N/A
N/A '
N/A '
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
. N/A :
1988
kg/day
NT
NT '
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
Ib/day
NT
NT
. 'NT -
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
October 9-11, 1990"
kg/day
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Ib/day
ND
ND
ND
ND
' ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
October 9-11, 1990"
g/MJ
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
Ib/MMBtu
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
a Assumed 24 hr/day operation.
b As sulfur trioxide; sulfur dioxide not reported.
c MQL or trip blank showed significant measurement.
N/A = Not applicable.
NT = Not tested or data not available.
ND = Data not determined.
-------
Table A-2a. Facility B - Coal-Fired Power Plant
Source Description
Facility Name,
Location:
Facility Type:
Source Type:
Test Dates:
Other fuel(s):
Air pollution control
device(s) used:
Test Conditions:
Test Methods:
Fuel
Handling/Feeding:
Testing Company:
Environmental
Agency:
Reference:
United Power Association
Elk River, MN
Utility
Three boilers, TDF tested in 2 stoker-fired with traveling
grate, 135,000 Ib steam/hr; 12 MW capacity.
May, 1979
Coal
Fabric filter
100% coal
95% coal, 5% TDF
90% coal, 10% TDF
Unknown
Coal/TDF blending system at reclaim hoppers. Variable speed
conveyor belt used to control mixture during fuel reclaim.
System worked well up to 10% TDF.
Burns & McDonnell
Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs has
been spearheading efforts to support the use of TDF.
Clark, et al (1991)
Source Test Data Evaluation
Yes No Unknown
Data Expressed in Emission Factor Form
Baseline Fuel Test Data Available
Accurate Fuel Feed Rates
Multiple Baseline Fuels
Test Witnessed by or Prepared for
Governmental Agency
X
X
X
X
X
A-9
-------
Table A-2b. Facility B - Coal-Fired Power Plant
Pollutant
Particulate
S02
NOX
H2S04
Chloride
(as C1-)
inlet to
fabric filter
0% TDF
kg/
hr
2.50
173
91.8
1.8
3.7
Ib/hr
5.49
380
202
4.0
8.1
g/MJ
0.0090
0.606
0.34
0.0065
0.013
lb/
MMBtu
0.021
1.41
0.78
0.015
0.029
kg/
hr
1.61
206
65.4
1.6'
3.3
5% TDF
Ib/hr
3.55
454
144
3.6
7.2
g/MJ
0.0064
0.774
0.25
0.0060
0.013
lb/
MMBtu
0.015
1.80
. 0.58
0.014
0.029
kg/hr
1.19
195
41
1.5
3.5
10% TDF
Ib/hr
2.61
430
90
3.3 -
7.7
g/MJ
0.004
0.645
0.13
0.0052
0.012
lb/
MMBtu
0.009
1.53
0.30
0.012
0.027
-------
Table A-3a. Facility C - Coal-Fired Power Plant
Source Description
Facility Name,
Location:
Facility Type:
Source Type:
Test Dates:
Other fuel(s):
Air pollution control
device(s) used:
Test Conditions:
Test Methods:
Fuel Handling/Feeding:
Testing Company:
Environmental Agency:
Reference:
Wisconsin Power & light (WP&L) - Rock River Generating
Station, Beloit, WI
Utility
Two Boilers, cyclone-fired, @ 75 MW capacity; 525,000 Ib
steam/hr.
February/March 1991
Coal
ESPs
100% Coal
93% Coal, 7% TDF
Unknown
Initially, existing coal crushers did not significantly reduce
size of TDF and magnets pulled small crumb rubber from
conveyor. Additional coal yard conveyor was added to
safely blend TDF with coal downstream from coal crushing
equipment.
Unknown
Wisconsin DNR
Clark, et al (1991), Malcolm Pirnie (1991)
Source Test Data Evaluation
Yes
No
Unknown
Data Expressed in Emission Factor Form
Baseline Fuel Test Data Available
Accurate Fuel Feed Rates
Multiple Baseline Fuels
Test Witnessed by or Prepared for
Governmental Agency
some
X
X
X
X
A-ll
-------
Table A-3b. Facility C - Coal-Fired Power Plant
bo
Pollutant
Particulate Matter
Sulfur Dioxide
Nitrogen Oxides
Carbon Monoxide
Hydrocarbons (as CH4)
HC1
HF
Emissions Units
g/MJ
Ib/MMBtu
g/MJ
Ib/MMBtu
g/MJ
Ib/MMBtu
kg/hr
Ib/hr
kg/hr -
Ib/hr
kg/hr
Ib/hr
kg/hr
Ib/hr
100% Coal
0.22
0.52
.0.490
1.14
0.34
0.79 '
0.691
1.52
2.35 .
5.16
11.71
25.77
0.845
1.86
7% TDF
0.060
0.14
0.37
0.87
0.39
0.91
3.30
7.26
4.668
10.27
9.040
19.89
0.609
1.34
% Change
-73
-73
-24
-24
+16
+16
+377
+377
+99
+99
-23
-23
-28
-28
a Semivolatile organic samples at 4% TDF were lost in a lab accident; thus, baseline results are not included here.
b Baseline = 82% coal, 13% bark, 5% sludge, 0% TDF.
c TDF = 80% coal, 12% bark, 4% sludge, 4% TDF.
-------
Table A-4a. Facility D - Coal-Fired Power Plant
Source Description
Facility Name,
Location:
Facility Type:
Source Type:
Test Dates:
Other fuel(s):
Air pollution control
device(s) used:
Test Conditions:
Test Methods:
Fuel
Handling/Feeding:
Testing Company:
Environmental
Agency:
Reference:
Ohio Edison
Toronto, Ohio
Utility
Boiler - Pulverized coal feed, front-fired, wet bottom,
noncontinuous tap.
May 21 - 25, 1990
Coal
ESP
0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% TDF
EPA Methods 2, 3, 5, 6, 7A
Pulverized coal-fired boiler required modifications; an
additional opening was created in the boiler wall to feed
whole tires into the boiler.
Entropy Environmentalists
Ohio EPA
Ohio Edison (1990), Clark, et al (1991), Malcolm Pirnie
(1991)
Source Test Data Evaluation
Yes No Unknown
Data Expressed in Emission Factor Form.
Baseline Fuel Test Data Available
Accurate Fuel Feed Rates
Multiple Baseline Fuels
Test Witnessed by or Prepared for
Governmental Agency
X .
X
X
X
X
A-13
-------
Table A-4b. Facility D - Cpal-Fired Power Plant
*-
Tire Feed Particulate
Day 1
0%
Tires
Day 2
5%
Tires
Day3
10%
Tires
Day 4
15%
Tires
Day 5
20%
Tires
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
Average
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
Average
Runl
Run 2
Run 3
Average
Runl
Run 2
RunS
Average
Runl
Run 2
RunS
Average
Rate
g/MJ
0.0328
None 0.0159
0.0327
0.0271
1 tire per 0.0203
34 seconds 0.0412
0.0309
0.0308
1 tire per 0.0178
17 seconds 0.0384
0.0166
0.0243
1 tire per 0.0336
11.3 seconds 0.0334
0.0382
0.0350
1 tire per 0.0162
8.5 seconds 0.0163
0.0259
0.019
Ib/MMBtu
0.0764
0.0370
0.0760
0.0631
0.0472
0.0959
0.0719
0.0717
0.0414
0.0892
0.0385
0.0564
0.0781
0.0776
0.0889
0.0815
0.0377
0.0380
0.0603
0.0453
g/MJ
2.03
2.21
2.59
2.28
2.34
2.51
2.55
2.46
2.42
2.48
2.47
2.46
2.09
2.49
2.47
2.35 '
2.16
2.31
2.41
2.30
SO2
Ib/MMBtu
4.71
5.15
6.03
5.30
5.44
5.83
5.93
5.73
. 5.62
5.76
5.74
5.71
4.85
5.80
5.75
5.47
5.03 -
5.38
' 5.60
5.34
g/MJ
' 0.327
0.257
0.191
0.258
0.168
0.235
0.255
0.219
0.139
0.206
0.217
0.188
0.147
0.196
0.228
0.191
0.135
0.175
0.201
0.166
NO,
Ib/MMBtu
0.761
0.598
0.445
0.601
0.391
0.547
0.593
0.510
0.324
0.478
0.504
0.436
0.342
0.455
0.531
0.443
0.313
0.407
0.440
0.387
Lead
g/MJ
4.03 xlO'6
4.00 xlO'G
4.39 xlO'5
4.02 xlO'5
4.18 xlO'5
4.29 xlO'5
4.34 xlO'5
4.27 xlO'5
4.20 xlO'G
4.15 xlO'5
4.07 xlO'5
4.14xlO'5
4.00 xlO'5
4.24 xlO"5
4.22 xlO-5
4.15 xlO'5
3.79 xlO'5
4.02 xlO 5
3.96 xlO'5
3.92 xlfl-5
Ib/MMBtu
9.38 xlO'6
9.31 xlO'5
1.02 xlO'4
9.63 xlO'5
9.73 xlO'5
9.97 xlO'5
1.01 xlO'4
9.93 xlO'5
9.77 xlO'5
9.66 xlO'5
9.47 xlO'5
9.63 xlO'5
9.31 xlO'5
9.86 xlO'5
9.82 xlO"5
9.66 xlO'5
S.SlxlO'6
9.34 xlO'5
9.21xlO'5
9.12 xlO'5
-------
Table A-5a. Facility E -Wood-Fired Power Plant
Source Description
Facility Name,
Location:
Facility Type:
Source Type:
Test Dates:
Other fuel(s):
Air pollution
control device(s)
used:
Test Conditions:
Test Methods:
Testing Company:
Environmental
Agency:
Reference:
Northern States Power Company, French Island Plant
French Island, WI
Utility
Bubbling Fluidized Bed Boiler, 150,000 Ib steam/hr capacity.
1982
Wood waste
Unknown
100% Wood waste
91% Wood waste, 9% Rubber Buffings
93% Wood waste, 7% TDF
Unknown
Unknown
Wisconsin DNR
Clark, et al (1991)
Source Test Data Evaluation
Yes No Unknown
Data Expressed in Emission Factor Form
Baseline Fuel Test Data Available
Accurate Fuel Feed Rates
Multiple Baseline Fuels
Test Witnessed by or Prepared for
Governmental Agency
X
X
X
X
X
A-15
-------
Table A-5b. Facility E -Wood-Fired Power Plant
05
100% Wood-Waste
Pollutant
Particulate
S02
NOX
CO
Aldehydes
Benzene
Phenols
Polyaromatic
hydrocarbons
kg/hr
NT
3
41
1,050
30.3
8.2 '
28
59.1
Ib/hr
NT
7
90
2,300
66.6
18
61
130
g/MJ
0.036
0.086
0.082
NT
NT '
NT
NT
NT
MMBtu
0.083
0.020
0.19
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
kg/hr
NT "
NT
NT
1,200
6.4
NT
NT
NT
9% Rubber Buffings
Ib/hr
NT
NT
NT
2,700
14
NT
NT
NT
g/MJ
0.11"
NT
'NT
NT'
NT
NT
NT
NT
lb/
MMBtu
0.25ฐ
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
kg/hr
NT
23
22
1,000
5.5
11
6.4
77.3
7% TDF
Ib/hr
NT
50
48
2,200
12
25
14
170
g/MJ
0.13ฐ
0.032
0.0538
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
lb/
MMBtu
0.31"
0.074
0.125
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
a Exceeds Wisconsin limit of 0.15 Ib/MMBtu.
NT = Not tested or data not available.
-------
Table A-6a. Facility F - Coal-Fired Power Plant
Source Description
Facility Name,
Location:
Facility Type:
Source Type:
Test Dates:
Other fuel(s):
Air pollution control
device(s) used:
Test Conditions:
Test Methods:
Fuel
Handling/Feeding:
Testing Company:
Environmental
Agency:
Reference:
Illinois Power - Baldwin Generating Station
Baldwin, IL
Utility
Two cyclone fired boilers, universal pressure, balanced draft,
turbine rated 560 MW, capacity: 4,199,000 Ib steam/hr.
March 21, 1991
Coal
ESP (Western Precipitation)
2% TDF
Unknown
Mixing of coal and TDF occurs at front of closed conveyor
system. TDF went through hammer mills at time of test, but
size did not decrease appreciably.
Burns & McDonnell
Unknown
Clark, et al (1991)
Source Test Data Evaluation
Yes No
Data Expressed in Emission Factor Form
Baseline Fuel Test Data Available
Accurate Fuel Feed Rates
Multiple Baseline Fuels
Test Witnessed by or Prepared for
Governmental Agency
X
X
X
Unknown
X
X
A-17
-------
Table A-6b. Facility F - Coal-Fired Power Plant - 2% TD
00
Pollutant
PM (ESP inlet)
PM (ESP outlet)
so/
Beryllium
Cadmium
Total Chromium
Lead
Zinc (filter catch only)
kg/hr
8,147.790
419.4
NT
0.00439
0.01085
0.25565
0.03679
0.00220
Ib/hr
17,926.93
922.7
NT
0.00966
0.02387
0.56249
0.08095
0.00484
g/MJ
1.478
0.0740
2.27
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
Ib/MMBtu
3.438
0.1722
5.28
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
a Stack concentration = 2,396.
NT = Not tested or data not available.
-------
Table A-7a.
Source Description
Facility G - Coal and Wood-Fired Power Plant
Facility Name,
Location:
Facility Type:
Source Type:
Test Dates:
Other fuel(s):
Air pollution control
device(s) used:
Test Conditions:
Test Methods:
Testing Company:
Environmental
Agency:
Reference:
Northern States Power Company, Bay Front Plant
Eau Claire, WI
Utility
Boiler - two drum (Sterling) equipped with Detroit rotograte
and spreader stoker (150,000 Ib steam/hr capacity) .
May 21-23, 1991
Wood chips, coal
Electrolyzed gravel bed filter (EFB, Inc., manufacturer)
100% wood chips,
95% wood chips, 5% coal,
95% wood chips, 5% TDF
For PM, SO2, CO: EPA Methods 1 - 6 and 10 CFR Title 40,
Part 60, Appendix A (rev. July 1, 1990). (Method 5; front and
backhalf extraction.)
For benzene: EPA Method 18
For formaldehyde: Modified NIOSH 3500.
For.PAHs: EPA Method 0010, using modified method 5
sampling train. Analyzed in accordance with EPA Method
8270.
Interpoll Laboratories, Inc.
Wisconsin DNR
InterpoU (1991)
Source Test Data Evaluation
Yes No
Data Expressed in Emission Factor Form
Baseline Fuel Test Data Available
Accurate Fuel Feed Rates
Multiple Baseline Fuels
Test Witnessed by or Prepared for
Governmental Agency
some
X
X
X
Unknown
X
A-19
-------
Table A-7b. Facility G - Coal and Wood-Fired Power Plant
to
o
Compound
PM
S02
CO
Formaldehyde
Benzene
Benzo(a)anthracene
Benzo(b)flouranthene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)anthracene
Indeno(l,2,3)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,h)acridine
Emission Factor or Rate
g/MJ
Ib/MMBtu
g/MJ
Ib/MMBtu
kg/hr
Ib/hr
kg/hr
Ib/hr
kg/hr
Ib/hr
ug/sec
ug/sec
ug/sec
ug/sec
ug/sec
ug/sec
100% Wood Chips
0.0490
0.114
0.003
0.006
188'
414
0.0773
0.170
0.0741
0.163
>66
>36
>14
>32
>33 '
>552
Wood Chips + 5% Coal
0.037
0.085
0.001
0.003
50.4
111
0.0727
0.160
<0.010
<0.022
>66
>37
>14
>33
>33
>553
Wood Chips +5% TDF
0.040
0.093
0.001
0.003
34.5
76.0
0.0477
0.105
<0.011
<0.023
>66
>37
>14
>33
>33
>553
(Continued)
-------
Table A-7b. Facility G - Coal and Wood-Fired Power Plant (Cont.)
Compound
Dibenzo(a,j)acridine
7H-dibenzo(c, g)carbazole
Dibenzo(a,h)pyrene
Dibenzo(a,i)pyrene
Idenol(l,2,3-cd)pyrene
Emission Factor or Rate
ug/sec
ug/sec
ug/sec
ug/sec
ug/sec
100% Wood Chips
>552
. >44
>737
>737 '
NT
Wood Chips + 5%
Coal
>553
>44
>738 '
>738
>33
Wood Chips +5% TDF
>553
>44
>738
>738
>33
a Semivolatile organic samples at 4% TDF were lost in a'lab accident; thus, baseline results are not included here.
b Baseline = 82% coal, 13% bark, 5% sludge, 0% TDF.
c TDF = 80% coal, 12% bark, 4% sludge, 4% TDF.
NT = Not tested or data not available.
-------
Table A-8a. Facility H - Coal and Petroleum Coke-Fired Power Plant
Source Description
Facility Name,
Location:
Facility Type:
Source Type:
Test Dates:
Other fuel(s):
Air pollution control
device(s) used:
Test Conditions:
Test Methods:
Fuel
Handling/Feeding:
Testing Company:
Environmental
Agency:
Reference:
Manitowoc Power Station
Manitowoc, WI
Utility
Circulating fluidized bed boiler (220,000 Ib steam/hr capacity).
May 30-31, 1991, September 25-26, 1991, October 29-30, 1991
Coal, petroleum coke
Pulse jet baghouse with air-to-cloth ratio of 3:1.
Test 1: 100% Coal
Test 2: 100% Petroleum coke
Test 3: 80% Petroleum coke, 20% TDF
Unknown
Unknown
Clean Air Engineering
Wisconsin DNR
CAE(1991)
Source Test Data Evaluation
Yes No Unknown
Data Expressed in Emission Factor Form
Baseline Fuel Test Data Available
Accurate Fuel Feed Rates
Multiple Baseline Fuels
Test Witnessed by or Prepared for
Governmental Agency
X
X
X
X
X
A-22
-------
Table A-8b. Facility H - Coal and Petroleum Coke-Fired Power Plant
to
CO
Pollutant
TSP
S02
N02
CO
VOC
HCOH
Benzene
Metals
Be
Hg
Lead
Ni
As
Cd
Cr
Test 1 -
Coal
5/30-31/91
0.0089
0.47
0.061
0.067
0.0012
<124
<33
<1.38 xlO'8
<7.10xlO'4
<2.67 xlO'3
<3.94 xlO'3
<3.13 xlO'4
<1.61 xlO'3
<2.5 xlO'4
Test 2 -
Pet. Coke
9/25-26/91
0.0069
0.66
0.063
0.013
NT
<32.4
<18.4
<1.0 xlO'7
<1.57 xlO'2
<4.05 xlO'3
<3.42 xlO'3
<1.35 xlO'4
<1.01 xlO'3
<2.06 xlO'3
Test 3 -
Pet.
Coke/TDF
10/29-30/91
0.003
0.51
0.032
0.032
0.0004
<150
10.5
<9.9 xlO'7
<1.59 xlO'2
<5.87xlO'3
<3.2 xlO'3
<5.25 xlO'4
<1.19xlO-3
<2.35 xlO'3
Limit
g/MJ
0.01
0.38
0.24
0.3
0.069
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
Ib
/MMBtu
0.03
0.89
0.55
' 0.74
0.16
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
kg/yr
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
113
136
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
Ib/yr
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
250
300
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
kg/hr
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
1.8 xlO'5
7.7 xlO'3
9.1 xlO'5
1.8 xlO'4
1.8 xlO'3
6.4 xlO'3
0.13
Ib/hr
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
4.0 xlO'5
1.7 xlO-2
2.0 xlO'4
4.0 xlO'4
4.0 xlO'3
1.4 xlO'2
0.29
Compl.
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
NT = Not tested or not available.
-------
Table A-9a. Facility I - Cement Kiln
Source Description
Facility Name,
Location:
Facility Type:
Source Type:
Test Dates:
Other fuel(s):
Air pollution
control device(s)
used:
Test Conditions:
Test Methods:
Fuel
Handling/Feeding:
Testing Company:
Environmental
Agency:
Reference:
Ash Grove Cement
Durkee, OR
Cement Plant
Cement Kiln
October 18 - 20, 1989
Natural gas and coal
ESP
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Oregon DEQ
Clark, et al (1991)
Source Test Data Evaluation
Yes
No
Unknown
Data Expressed in Emission Factor Form
Baseline Fuel Test Data Available
Accurate Fuel Feed Rates
Multiple Baseline Fuels
Test Witnessed by or Prepared for
Governmental Agency
some
X
X
X
X
A-24
-------
Table A-9b. Facility I r Cement Kiln
to
en
Pollutant
Particulate
S02
CO
Aliphatic compounds
Nickel
Cadmium
Chromium
Lead
Zinc
Arsenic
. Chloride
Copper
Iron
g/MJ
Ib/MMBtu
g/MJ
Ib/MMBtu
ppm
g/MJ
Ib/MMBtu
ug
ug
ug
ug
ug
ug
kg/hr
Ib/hr
ug
ug
Baseline, 0% TDF
0.417
0,969
0.119
0.276
0.046
0.00047
0.0011
30
3.0
30
ND
35
.0.2
0.122
0.268
37
400
9-10% TDF
0.382
0.888
0.0950
0.221
0.036
0.0004
0.0009
ND
2.0
ND
ND
35
0.2
0.0895
0.197
13
200
% Change
-8
-8
-20
-20
-27
-18
-18
NA
-33
NA
NA
0
0
-26
-26
-65
-50
ND = Not detected.
NA = Not applicable.
-------
Table A-lOa. Facility J - Cement Kiln
Source Description
Facility Name,
Location:
Facility Type:
Source Type:
Test Dates:
Other fuel(s):
Air pollution control
device(s) used:
Test Conditions:
Test Methods:
Fuel
Handling/Feeding:
Testing Company:
Environmental
Agency:
Reference:
Holnam Incorporated Industries
Seattle, WA
Cement Plant
Cement Kiln
October 15 - 19 1990
Coal/coke
ESP
0%, 11%, 14% TDF (as heat input)
EPA Methods 1, 2, 3A, 4, 5 (front and backhalf extraction), 6C,
7E, 10, 12, 0010 (Semi-Volatile Organic Sampling Train), TO-
14.
Tire chips
Am Test, Inc.
Washington DOE
Am Test (1991), Clark, et al (1991)
Source Test Data Evaluation
Yes No
Data Expressed in Emission Factor Form
Baseline Fuel Test Data Available
Accurate Fuel Feed Rates
Multiple Baseline Fuels
Test Witnessed by or Prepared for
Governmental Agency
X
X
X
X
Unknown
X
A-26
-------
Table A-lOb. Facility J - Cement Kiln
Pollutant
Acenaphthalene
Acenaphthylene
Anthracene
Benzo(b)anthracene
ty" Benzole Acid
K)
Benzo(a)pyrene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Bis(2-
chloroethoxy)methane
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Dibenz(g,h)phthracene
Di-N-Butylphthalate .
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
Fluorene
Baseline,
100% Coal,
0% TDF
10-"g/MJ
1.19
0.095
1.06
4.25
4.498
0.877
ND
95.641
2.57
45.877
0.959
1.38
5.749
3.29
lO^lb
/MMBtu
2.76
0.22
2.46
9.88
10.46
2.04
. ND:
222.42
5.98
106.69
2.23
3.21
13.37
7.65
10"6g/MJ
0.864
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1.34
74.583.
ND
20.50
ND
ND
4.29
3.02
11% TDF
10-*lb
/MMBtu
2.01
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
3.11
173.45
ND
47.67
ND
ND
9.97
7.03
% Change
-27
-100
-100
-100
-100
-100
NA
-22
-100
-55
-100
-100
-25
-8
10-"g/MJ
0.886
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
4.442
118.57
ND
28.88
ND
ND
3.87
3.06
14% TDF
lO^lb
/MMBtu
2.06
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
10.33
275.75
ND
67.17
ND
ND
9.00
7.12
% Change
-26
-100
-100
-100
-100
-100
NA
+24
-100
-37
-100
-100
-33
-7
(Continued)
-------
Table A-lOb. Facility J - Cement Kiln (Cont.)
to
00
Pollutant
Hexachlorobenzene
Naphthalene
2-Nitroanaline
N-Nitrosodiphenyl-
amine
Pyrene
1,2,4-Tricholrobenzene
4,6-Dinitro-2- :
methylphenol
4-Methyl Phenol
2-Nitrophenol
4-Nitrophenol
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
Baseline,
100% Coal,
0% TDF
10'6g/MJ
31.60
146.20
2.01
39.05
2.14
7.504
2.38
8.407
83.846
ND
ND
140
ND
lO^lb
/MMBtu
73.49
340.00
4.67
90.81
4.97
17.45
5.53
19.55
194.99
ND
ND
32
ND
lO^g/MJ
17.38
76.944
ND
20.47
1.02
1.11
ND
3.93
72.747
21.34
ND
69.247
ND
11% TDF
lO^lb
/MMBtu
40.42
178.94
ND .
47.60
2.38
2.57
ND
9.13 '
169.18
49.62
ND
161.04
ND
% Change
-45
-47
-100
-48
-52
-85
-100
-53
-13
NA
NA
-50
NA
lO^g/MJ
22.99
68.456
2.16
21.47
0.959
ND
ND
6.570
74.012
12.80
ND
131.89
ND
14% TDF
lO^lb
/MMBtu
53.46
159.20
5.02
49.92
2.23
ND
ND
15.28
172.12
29.77
ND
306.71
ND
% Change
-27
-53
+7
-45
-55
-100
-100
-22
-12
NA
NA
-4
NA
NA = Not applicable.
ND = Not detected.
-------
Table A-lla. Facility K - Lime Kiln
Source Description
Facility Name,
Location:
Source Type:
Test Dates:
Other fuel(s):
Air pollution control
device(s) used:
Test Conditions:
Test Methods:
Fuel
Handling/Feeding:
Testing Company:
Environmental
Agency:
Reference:
Boise Cascade
Wallula, WA
Pulp and Paper Mill - Rotary Lime Kiln
May 20-21, 1986
Natural Gas
Air Pol variable throat venturi scrubber (27 - 29 inches E|O,
1100 gallons water/hour).
Approximately 15% TDF by heat input
Washington DOE Methods 3 and 5
Unknown
Washington DOE
Washington DOE
Clark, et al (1991), State of Washington (1986a, 1986b)
Source Test Data Evaluation
Yes
. Data Expressed in Emission Factor Form
Baseline Fuel Test Data Available
Accurate Fuel Feed Rates
Multiple Baseline Fuels
Test Witnessed by or Prepared for
Governmental Agency
X
X
X
No Unknown
X
X
A-29
-------
Table A-llb. Facility K - Lime Kiln
CO
o
Pollutant
Organics"
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(a) anthracene
Chrysene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k) fluoranthene
Metals
Arsenic
Copper
Zinc
Iron
Nickel
Chromium
100%
10-% /MJ
1.6
22.3
3.7
2.8
0.47
0.47
0.3
0.1
0.82
1.4
98.5
99.63
2.4
35.8
Gas Fired
lO-Mb/MMBtu
3.7 '
51.9
8.6
6.6
1.1
1.1
0.8
0.3
1:9
3.2
28.8
231.7
5.6
83.3
85% Gas,
10% /MJ
0.77
12.5
3.8
2.7
0.47
0.47
0.3
0.2
1.5
1.3
183.9.
72.37
1.5
137.0
15% TDF
10'6lb/MMBtu
1.8
29.1
8.8
6.2
1.1
1.1
0.8
0.4
3.5
2.9
427.7
168.3
3.5
318.6
% Change
-51
-44
+2
-6
0
0
0
+33
+84
-9
+1,385
-27
-38
+282
. (Continued)
-------
Table A-llb. Facility K - Lime Kiln (Cont.)
Pollutant
Cadmium
Lead
Vanadium
Barium
100%
10-8g/MJ
0.60
1.8
2.5
10.7
Gas Fired
10-6lb/MMBtu
1.4
4.1
5,7 ;
24.9
85% Gas,
lO^g/MJ
0.56
0.56
1.6
22.4
15% TDF
lO^lb/MMBtu
1.3
1.3
3.8
52.1
% Change
-7
-31
-33
+109
a Also measured, but not detected with or without (TDF) were naphthalene, acenaphthalene, benzo(a)pyrene, dibenzo(a,h)anthracene,
benzo(g,h,i)perylene, and indeno(l,2,3-cd)pyrene.
CO
-------
Table A-12a. Facility L - Pulp Mill
Source Description
Facility Name,
Location:
Facility Type:
Source Type:
Test Dates:
Other fuel(s):
Air pollution control
device(s) used:
Test Conditions:
Test Methods:
Fuel
Handling/Feeding:
Testing Company:
Environmental
Agency:
Reference:
Port Townsend Paper Company
Port Townsend, WA
Kraft Pulp MiU
Power Boiler, No. 10. 200,000 Ib/hr steam
February 25 and March 5, 1986
Hogged fuel, oil
600 tube multiclone followed by venturi scrubber. Multiclone
operated at 3.5 - 4 inch E^O pressure differential. Venturi
operated at 15 inches HjO when tires burned and 13 inches
when tires were not burned. Venturi water rate 2,500 - 2,900
gpm.
Approximately 7% TDF by heat input
Washington DOE Methods 3 and 5
Shredded tires
Washington DOE
Washington DOE
State of Washington (1986e)
Source Test Data Evaluation
Yes No Unknown
Data Expressed in Emission Factor Form
Baseline Fuel Test Data Available
Accurate Fuel Feed Rates
Multiple Baseline Fuels
Test Witnessed by or Prepared for
Governmental Agency
X
X
X
X
X
A-32
-------
Table A-12b. Facility L - Pulp Mill - PNA and Metal Emissions
CO
CO
Pollutant
Particulate
Metals
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
PNA's
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
Port Townsend Paper (2/25/86)
Waste Wood + 5% Oil
kg/hr
21.0
NT
NT
0.004
0.005
NT
NT
0.05
0.05
0.09
1.4
0.01
0.05
Ib/hr
46.2
NT
NT
0.009
0.01
NT
NT
0.1
0.1
0.2
3.1
0.03
0.1
g/MJ
. . NT
NA
110.7
18.4
23.6
1,038.7
859.91
259.7
296.3
388.2
6,359.96
4.3
180.5
io-6ib/
MMBTu
NT
NA
257.4
42.8
54.9
2,415.6
1,999.8
603.9
689.0
902.9
14,790.6
9.9
419.8
kg/hr
29.0 .
NT
NT
0.003
0.05
NT
NT
0.01
0.05
0.0005
22.2
0.05
0.09
Waste Wood + 7% TDF
Ib/hr
63.8
NT
NT
0.007
0.01
NT
NT
0.03
0.01
0.001
48.8
0.01
0.2
g/MJ
NT
NA
150.7
12.5
15.0
987.62
1,106.8
56.89
25.4
3.8
107,276.4
11.5
332.0
10-6lb/
MMBtu
NT
NA
350.5
31.3
34.9
2,296.8
2,574.0
132.3
59.0
8.9
249,480.0
26.7
772.2
(Continued)
-------
Table A-12b. Facility L - Pulp Mill - PNAand Metal Emissions (Cont.)
>
CO
Pollutant
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)fluoranthene
Chrysene
TOTAL PNA's
Port
Townsend Paper (2/25f8ff)
Waste Wood + 5% Oil
kg/hr
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
Ib/hr
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
g/MJ
197.6
. 107.3
0.3
0.3
0.7 .
1.4
NT
10-6lb/ *
MMBTu
459.4
249.5
0.6
0.6
1.6
3.2
NT
kg/hr
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
0.1
Waste Wood + 7% TDF
Ib/hr
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
0.3
g/MJ
101.3
163.5
0.52
0.3
0.95
1.0
NT
lo-nb/
MMBtu
235.6
380.2
1.2
0.6
2.2
2.4
NT
NT = Not tested or data not available.
-------
Table A-13a. Facility M - Pulp and Paper Mill
Source Description
Facility Name,
Location:
Facility Type:
Source Type:
Test Dates:
Other fuel(s):
Air pollution
control device(s)
used:
Test Conditions:
Test Methods:
Fuel
Handling/Fe e ding:
Testing Company:
Environmental
Agency-
Reference:
Crown Zellerbach
Port Angeles, WA
Pulp and Paper Mill
Wood-fired Boiler
June 10-11, 1986
Hogged fuel, oil
Multi-clone followed by venturi scrubber (scrubber uses single
pass fresh water and operated at 11 - 12 inches I|O pressure
drop during test.).
Approx. 2% TDF heat input on June 11 (oil = 11% of heat
input; balance was wood).
Washington DOE Methods 3 and 5
Unknown
Washington DOE
Washington DOE ;
Clark, et al (1991), State of Washington (1986c, 1986d)
Source Test Data Evaluation
Yes No Unknown
Data Expressed in Emission Factor Form
Baseline Fuel Test Data Available
Accurate Fuel Feed Eates
Multiple Baseline Fuels
Test Witnessed by or Prepared for
Governmental Agency
X
X
X
X
X
A-35
-------
Table A-13b. Facility M - Pulp and Paper Mill - PNA and Metal Emissions
to
Ci
Pollutant
Participate
Metals
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Vanadium
Zinc
PNA's
Anthracene
Phenanthrene
'Crown Zellerbach Corp. (6/10/86)
Waste Wood + 12% Oil Waste Wood + 2% TDF + 11% Oil
kg/hr
5.00
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
. NT
NT
NT
Ib/hr
11.0
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
lO^g/MJ
NT
1.4
4.86
1.3
0.2
13.2
113.1
27.5
1.5
1.3
1,055.7
0.43
19.5
l(T6lb
MMBtu
. NT
3.3
. 11.3
2.9
0.5
30.7
263.1
64.0
3.5
3.0
2,455.0
1.0
45.3
kg/hr
7.00
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
1.41
NT
NT
Ib/hr
15.4
NT
NT
NT
' NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
3.1
NT
NT
lO^g MJ
NT
2.70
12.5
2.49
1.51
17.2
163
31.1
1.55
3.23
7,044
0.3
7.18
lO^lb
MMBtu
NT
6.28
29.1
5.8
3.5
40.0
377.8
72.4
3.6
7.5
16,381.4
0.6
16.7
(Continued)
-------
Table A-13b. Facility M - Pulp and Paper Mill - PNA and Metal Emissions (Cont.)
Crown Zellerbach Corp. (6/10/86)
>
CO
Pollutant
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzo(a)fluoranthene
Chrysene
TOTAL PNA's
Waste Wood + 12% Oil
kg/hr
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
Ib/hr
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
10'6g/MJ
16.1
20.6
0.99
0.3
ND
ND ' .
NT
lO^lb
/MMBtu
37.4
47.8
2.3
0.7
ND
ND
NT
kg/hr
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
0.009
Waste Wood + 2% TDF + 11% Oil
Ib/hr
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
0.02
10% /MJ
6.11
9.33
ND
ND
ND
ND
NT
lO^lb
/MMBtu
14.2
21.7
ND
ND
ND
ND
NT
NT = Not tested or data not available.
-------
Table A-14a. Facility N - Pulp and Paper Mill
Source Description
Facility Name,
Location:
Facility Type:
Source Type:
Test Dates:
Other fuel(s):
Air pollution control
device(s) used:
Test Conditions:
Test Methods:
Fuel
Handling/Feeding:
Testing Company:
Environmental
Agency:
Reference:
Smurfit Newsprint
Newburg, OR
Pulp and Paper Mill
Wood-fired boiler
May 28, June 3, July 16, 1987
Wood
Venturi scrubber
May 28 - wood only
June 3 - 1% TDF
July 16 - 1.5%
Unknown
Tire chips
Horizon Engineering
Oregon DEQ
Clark, et al (1991)
Source Test Data Evaluation
Yes
No
Unknown
Data Expressed in Emission Factor Form
Baseline Fuel Test Data Available
Accurate Fuel Feed Rates
Multiple Baseline Fuels
Test Witnessed by or Prepared for
Governmental Agency
some
X
X
X
X
A-38
-------
Table A-14b. Facility N - Pulp and Paper Mill - PM
Date
5/28/87
5/28/87
5/28/87
11/14/89
8/14/90
% TDF
0
1
1.5
1
1
PM Emissions
kg/hr
12.2
20.7
26.0
13.9
11.8
Ib/hr
26.8
45.6
57.2
30.5
26.0
Mg/yra
106
182
228
122
103
tons/yra
117
200
251
134
114
Assumes 8,760 h/yr.
CO
CD
-------
Table A-14c. Facility N - Pulp and Paper Mill - Non-particulate Testing
Pollutant
Criteria
VOCa
N0xb
>
o SO2C
cod
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Date
5/28/87
5/28/87
5/28/87
11/14/89
8/14/90
11/14/89
8/14/90
11/14/89
8/14/90
11/14/89
8/14/87
11/14/89
11/14/89
11/14/89
11/14/89
11/14/89
%TDF
0
1
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
kg/hr
11.4
3'.6
" 31.8
0.55
0.46
37.6
15.2
2.2 '
NT
43.1
66.4
ND
0.0077
.0.003
0.0091
0.118
Ib/hr
25.1
8.0
69.9
1.2
1.0
82.8
33.4
4.8
NT
94.9
146
ND
0.017
0.006
0.020
0.260
Mg/yr
99.9
31.9
278
4.8
4.0
33.0
133
19
NT
379
580
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
tons/yr
110
35.1
306
5.3
4.4
36.3
146
21
NT
417
639
NT
NT
NT
NT
NT
(Continued)
-------
Table A-14c. Facility N - Pulp and Paper Mill - Non-particulate Testing (Cont.)
Pollutant
Lead
Zinc
Titanium
Date
11/14/89
11/14/89
11/14/89
%TDF
1.0
1.0
1.0
kg/hr
0.017
1.74
ND
. Ib/hr
0.037
3.82
ND
Mg/yr
NT
NT
NT
tons/yr
NT
NT
NT
a VOC Hmit is 189 TPY.
b NOX limit is 2,850 TPY.
0 S02 limit is 250 TPY.
d CO Hmit is 570 TPY.
ND = Not detected.
NT = Not tested or data not available.
-------
Table A-15a. Facility O - Paper Mill
Source Description
Facility Name,
Location:
Facility Type:
Source Type:
Test Dates:
Other fuel(s):
Air pollution
control device(s)
used:
Test Conditions:
Test Sampling
Procedures:
Fuel
Handling/Feeding:
Testing Company:
Environmental
Agency:
Reference:
Packaging Corp. of America (Formerly Nekoosa Packaging)
Tomahawk, WI
Paper Mill (Corrugated paper products)
Traveling grate spreader/stoker boilers (3)
August 4-11, 1989
Coal, bark
ESP
Tested on overall facility basis; all three boilers ducted to
common duct, then to two ESPs.
EPA Methods 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, MM5, 6, 7E, 10, 12, 13B, 18, 25A,
and 101A.
Unknown
Clean Air Engineering (Report Date November 7, 1989)
Wisconsin DNR
CAE (1989), Clark, et al (1991)
Source Test Data Evaluation
Yes No Unknown
Data Expressed in Emission Factor Form
Baseline Fuel Test Data Available
Accurate Fuel Feed Rates
Multiple Baseline Fuels
Test Witnessed by or Prepared for
Governmental Agency
X
X
X
X
X
A-42
-------
Table A-15K Facility O - Paper Mill
*>.
CO
Pollutant
Particulate
NOX
CO
S02
Chromium VI
Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Mercury
Chloride
Benzene
kg/hr
8.64
51.977
50.490
82.3
0.00586
0.001
0.0010
0.0086
O.004
0.325
0.0002
0.44
O.0253
0% TDF
Ib/hr
19.0
114.36
111.09 .
180.67
0.0129
0.003
O.0023
0.019
O.008
0.715
0.0005
0.96
O.0557 .
kg/hr
9.41
48.659
66.916
121.81
0.016
0.001
O.0010
0.0082
0.004
0.367
0.0003
0.827
0.0303
1-2%TDF
Ib/hr
20.7
107.06
147.23
268.00
0.036
0.003
O.0023
0.018
O.008
0.851
0.0006
1.82
0.0665
% Change
+9
-6
+33
+48
+179
0.0
ND
-5
ND
+19
+20
+90
+20
NOTE: All three boilers are ducted to common duct and then to two ESP's.
ND = Not detected.
-------
Table A-16a. Facility P - Pulp and Paper Mill
Source Description
Facility Name,
Location:
Facility Type:
Source Type:
Test Dates:
Other fuel(s):
Air pollution
control device(s)
used:
Test Conditions:
Test Methods:
Fuel
Handling/Feeding:
Testing Company:
Environmental
Agency:
Reference:
Champion International, Inc.
SarteU, MN
Pulp and Paper Mill
Stoker boiler with traveling grate.
October 28 - 30, 1987
Coal, wood, sludge
Zuran multi-clone as a pre-separator followed by a Neptune
AirPol venturi scrubber.
Baseline: Approximately 55% coal, 25% tree bark, 20% sludge,
0% TDF
Unknown fuel mix, 15% TDF
Unknown fuel mix, 30% TDF
EPA Methods 1- 5, MM5, 7, 8, 25A
Unknown
Pace Laboratories, Inc.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
Pace (1988), Malcolm Pirnie (1991)
Source Test Data Evaluation
Yes No
Data Expressed in Emission Factor Form
Baseline Fuel Test Data Available
Accurate Fuel Feed Rates
Multiple Baseline Fuels
Test Witnessed by or Prepared for
Governmental Agency
X
X
X
X
Unknown
X
A-44
-------
Table A-16b. Facility P - Pulp and Paper Mill
Test Type
Particulate 'g/dscm
gr/dscf
kg/hr
Ib/hr
g/MJ
Ib/MMBtu
Sulfur Oxides
[ฃ. SO2 g/dscm
i
w gr/dscf
kg/hr
Ib/hr
g/MJ
Ib/MMBtu
H2SO4 g/dscm
gr/dscf
kg/hr
Ib/hr
Test 1, 0% TDF
0.05
0.02
8.04
17.7
0.02
0.05
0.23
0.10
35.5
78.2
0.11
0.25
0.02
0.01
4.64
10.2
Test 2, 15% TDF
0.09
0.04
13.5
29.8
0.04
0.09 .
0.32
0.14
47.54
104.6
0.14
0.33
0.02
0.01
4.55
10.0
Test 3, 30% TDF
0.2
0.09
33.7
74.1
0.095
0.22
0.46
0.20
75.40
165.9
0.19
0.45
0.02
0.01
4.59
10.1
(Continued)
-------
Table A-16b. Facility P - Pulp and Paper Mill (Cont.)
Test Type
Nitrogen
Oxides
Metals
Cd
Cr (total)
g/MJ
Ib/MMBtu
g/dscm
gr/dscf
kg/hr
Ib/hr
g/MJ
Ib/MMBtu
mg/dscm
gr/dscf
kg/hr
Ib/hr
10-2g/MJ
10'2lb/MMBtu
mg/dscm
gr/dscf
Test 1, 0% TDF
0.01- '
0.03
0.589
0.257
91.4
201
0.28
0.64
0.004
1
0.001
0.001
0.0002
0.0005
0.022
9.61
Test 2, 15% TDF
0.01
0.03
0.631
0.276
98.2
216
0.29
0.67
0.014
6.1
0.002
0.005
0.00065
0.0015
0.010
4.37
Test 3, 30% TDF
0.01
0.03
0.484
0.212
75.9
167
0.20
0.47
0.028
12
0.004
0.009
0.0011
0.0026
0.25
109
(Continued)
-------
Table A-16b. Facility P - Pulp and Paper Mill (Cont.)
Test Type
Pb
Zn
PAH
Total
Hydrocarbons
kg/hr
Ib/hr
10'2g/MJ
10'2lb/MMBtu
mg/dscm
gr/dscf
kg/hr
Ib/hr
10'2g/MJ
10'2lb/MMBtu
mg/dscm
gr/dscf
kg/hr
Ib/hr
10'2g/MJ
10'2lb/MMBtu
ppm
kg/hr
Ib/hr
Test 1, 0% TDF
0.004
0.008
0.0099
0.0023 .
0.066
28.8
0.011
0.023
0.0031
0.0071
0.231
101
0.036
0.080
0.011
0.025 '
ND
959
75.0-
165
Test 2, 15% TDF
0.5
0.003
0.0004
0.0009
0.21
91.8
0.035
0.076
0.095
0.022
36.4
15,900
5.59
' ' 12.3
1.7
3.9
ND
16
1.2
2.7
Test 3, 30% TDF
0.039
0.085
0.010
0.024
0.34
149
0.055
0.12
0.014
0.032
90.0
39,300
14.1
31.0
3.7
8.6
ND
3
0.3
0.6
ND = Not detected.
-------
Table A-17a. Facility Q - Pulp and Paper Mill
Source Description
Facility Name,
Location:
Facility Type:
Source Type:
Test Dates:
Other fuel(s):
Air pollution
control device(s)
used:
Test Conditions:
Test Methods:
Fuel
Hand ling/Fe e ding:
Testing Company:
Environmental
Agency:
Reference:
Champion International, Inc.
Sartell, MN
Pulp and Paper Mill
Stoker boiler with traveling grate
March 12 - 16, 1990
Coal, wood, sludge
Zuran multi-clone as a pre-separator followed by a Neptune
AirPol venturi scrubber.
Baseline: 82% coal, 13% bark, 5% sludge, 0% TDF
TDF: 80 % coal, 12% bark, 4% sludge, 4% TDF [Clark, et al
(1991)]
Method 5, with both front and back-half catch included.
Unknown
Pace Laboratories
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA)
Pace (1990), Clark, et al (1991)
Source Test Data Evaluation
Yes No
Data Expressed in Emission Factor Form
Baseline Fuel Test Data Available
Accurate Fuel Feed Rates
Multiple Baseline Fuels
Test Witnessed by or Prepared for
Governmental Agency
X
X
X
X
Unknown
X
A-48
-------
Table A-17b. Facility Q - Pulp and Paper Mill
*>
CD
Particulate
SOX
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
kg/hr
8.95
121
0.0011
0.022
0.023
1.7 xlO"4
0.11
0% TDFa
Ib/hr
19.7
266
0.0025
0.048
0.050
3,8 xlO'4
0.23
kg/hr
11.0
126
0.00082
0.0020
' 0.016
3.6 xlO'5
1.56
4% TDFb
Ib/hr
24.3
277
0.0018
0.0046
0.036
8.0 xlO'5
3.43
% Change
+23
+4
-28
-90
-28
+111
+1,391
a Baseline = 82% coal, 13% bark, 5% sludge, 0% TDF.
b TDF = 80% coal, 12% bark, 4% sludge, 4% TDF.
-------
Table A-18a. Facility R - Cogeneration
Source Description
Facility Name,
Location:
Facility Type:
Source Type:
Test Dates:
Other fuel(s):
Air pollution
control device(s)
used:
Test Conditions:
Test Methods:
Fuel
Handling/Feeding:
Testing Company:
Environmental
Agency:
Reference:
Monsanto - K.G. Krummrich Plant
Sauget, IL
Industrial (Cogeneration)
Boiler - four-drum chain grate stoker
December 18-19, 1990
Low-sulfur coal
ESP
80% coal, 20% TDF
Unknown
Tire chips blended with coal. Delivered to plant pre-blended
and handled as a single fuel.
The Almega Corp.
Test not conducted for environmental compliance. Test
commissioned by Illinois Department of Commerce and
Community Affairs to study feasibility of use of TDF.
Dennis (1991)
Source Test Data Evaluation
Yes No
Data Expressed in Emission Factor Form
Baseline Fuel Test Data Available
Accurate Fuel Feed Rates
Multiple Baseline Fuels
Test Witnessed by or Prepared for
Governmental Agency
Unknown
X
X
X
X
X
A-50
-------
Table A-18b. Facility R - Cogeneration
Ol
Particulate
CO
VOC
S02
NOX
HC1
HF
Metals
Chromium (total)
Mercury
Zinc
Cadmium
Lead
Beryllium
kg/hr
1.64
0.17
0.473
37.7
15.8
6.14
0.42
0.00217
7.95 xlO'5
0.27
0.00165
0.045
ND
100% Coal
Ib/hr
3.60
0.38
1.04
83.0
34.7
13.5
0.93
0.00478
1.75 xlO'5
0.59
0.00363
0.099
ND
80% Coal,
kg/hr
0.814
0.24
0.33
49.54
11.0
4.36
0.38
0.00207
.7.27 xlO'5
0.20
0.00120
0.002
ND
20%TDF
Ib/hr
1.79
0.53
0.73
109.0
24.3
9.59
0.84
0.00456
1.60 xlO'4
0.44
0.00263
0.005
ND
% Change
-50
+40
-30
+31
-30
-29
-10
-4
-9
-25
-28
-95
NT
ND = Not detected.
NT = Not tested or data not available.
-------
Table A-19a. Facility S - Industrial Boiler
Source Description
Facility Name,
Location:
Facility Type:
Source Type:
Test Dates:
Other fuel(s):
Air pollution control
device(s) used:
Test Conditions:
Test Methods:
Fuel
Handling/Feeding:
Testing Company:
Environmental
Agency:
Reference:
University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa
Industrial/Commercial
Boiler (Riley - 1975) with stoker and economizer (170,000 Ib
steam/hr capacity).
December 9 - 14, 1991
Coal
Seven-section coldside ESP (Buell)
100% Coal
96% Coal/4% TDF
92% Coal/8% TDF
EPA Methods 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 (front and back half), 6,.7, 201A, 26,
13B, Multi-Metal Modified Method 5 (4M5), 23.
Unknown
Interpoll Laboratories, Inc.
lowaDNR ' .
InterpoU (1992)
Source Test Data Evaluation
Yes No Unknown
Data Expressed in Emission Factor Form
Baseline Fuel Test Data Available
Accurate Fuel Feed Rates
Multiple Baseline Fuels
Test Witnessed by or Prepared for
Governmental Agency
X
X
X
X
X
A-52
-------
Table A-19b. Facility S - Industrial Boiler
Oi
CO
Particulate1
PM l
rivi10
S02
NOX
CO
Fluoride
HC1
THC
1 Dry catch only
Dioxins
PCDD/PCDF
Metals
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
100%
kg/hr
14
4.2
265
68.2
3.9
0.00082
5.0
9.5
ng/sec
18
g/hr
2.97
1.25
0.04
Coal
Ib/hr
31
9.3
582
150
8.5
0.0018
11
2.1
10'12lb/sec
40
10-3lb/hr
6.55
2.75 '
0.086
kg/hr
9.5
4.1
246
66.4
6.8
0.00064
6.8
0.95
ng/sec
10
g/hr
2.08
0.93
0.03
96% Coal/4%
Ib/hr
21
9.0
542
146
15
0.0014
15
2.1
10-12lb/sec
22
lO^lb/hr
4.58
2.05
0.064
TDF
Difference
-32.3%
. -3.2%
-6.9%
-2.7%'
76.5%
-22.2%
36.4%
0.0%
Difference
-44.4%
Difference
-30.1%
-25.5%
-25.6%
kg/hr
13
8.6
244
64.1
5.5
0.00077
8.6
0.68
ng/sec
6.0
g/hr
11.9
3.13
0.19
92% Coal/8% TDF
Ib/hr
29
19
537
141
12
0.0017
19
1.5
10-12lb/sec
6.9
10-3lb/hr
26.2
6.90
0.41
Difference
-6.5%
104%
-7.7%
-6.0%
41.2%
-5.6%
72.7%
-28.6%
Difference
-82.6%
Difference
300%
151%
(Continued)
377%
-------
Metals
g/hr
Table A-19b. Facility S - Industrial Boiler (Cont.)
lO^lb/hr g/hr lO^lb/hr Difference g/hr
lO^lb/hr
NT = Not tested or data not available.
Difference
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Mercury
Nickel
Zinc
<0.19
0.92
2.13
2.02
9.730
1.42
1.41
36.40
O.419
2.03
4.69
4.45
21.48
3.13
3.11
80.35
' O.188
0.779
2.47
2.26
7.506
1.21
1.77
163.56
O.414
1.72
5.44
4.99
16.57 /
2.67
3.90.
361.07-
NT
- -15.3%
16%
12.1%
-22.9%
-14.7%
25.4%
349%
0.45
2.11
9.100
10.32
15.57
1.15
4.34
1,575.5
0.99
4.66
20.09
22.79
34.38
2.53
9.56
3,478.0
NT
130%
328%
412%
60.1%
-19.2%
207%
4,229%
-------
Table A-20a. Facility T - Industrial Boiler
Source Description
Facility Name,
Location:
Facility Type:
Source Type:
Test Dates:
Other fuel(s):
Air pollution control
device(s) used:
Test Conditions:
Test Methods:
Fuel
Handling/Feeding:
Testing Company:
Environmental
Agency:
Reference:
John Deere Works - Waterloo
Waterloo, Iowa
Industrial
Boiler
November 6 - 16, 1995
Coal, oil
Unknown
100%-coal
-90% coal, 10% oil
84% coal, 7.4% oil, 8.9% TDF (by weight)
88% coal, 12% TDF
EPA Reference Methods 1, 2, 3, 4, 201A, 202, 6C, 7E, 10
Unknown
Compliance Services, Inc.
lowaDNR
Compliance Services (1996)
Source Test Data Evaluation
Yes No
Data Expressed in Emission Factor Form
Baseline Fuel Test Data Available
Accurate Fuel Feed Rates
Multiple Baseline Fuels
Test Witnessed by or Prepared for
Governmental Agency
some
X
X
X
Unknown
X
A-55
-------
Table A-20b. Facility T - Industrial Boiler
100% Coal 90% Coal/10% Oil Diffe- 84% Coal/7.4% Diffe- 88% Coal/12%
Pollutant rence" Oil/8.9% TDF rence" TDF
PM10
S02
NOX
CO
kg/hr Ib/hr kg/hr Ib/hr % kg/hr Ib/hr % kg/hr Ib/hr
10.484 23.067 4.5814 10.080 -57.9 .5.4940 12.088 -49.5 4.265 9.384
528.22 1,162.2 495.81 1,090.9* -5.60 , 449.3 988.6 -14.5 527.54 1,160.7
49.90 109.8 48.54 106.8 -53.3 50.81 111.8 -51.3 56.40 124.1
3.0 6.5 5.18 11.4 81.3 6.09 13.4 109 6.14 13.5
ence*
%
-60.8
0.33
-45.8
114
% Difference with respect to 100% coal emission rate.
01
05
-------
Table A-21a. Facility U - Industrial Boiler
Source Description
Facility Name,
Location:
Facility Type:
Source Type:
Test Dates:
Other fuel(s):
Air pollution control
device(s) used:
Test Conditions:
Test Methods:
Fuel
Handling/Feeding: .
Testing Company:
Environmental
Agency:
Reference:
Cargill Inc. Corn Milling Division
Eddyville, Iowa
Industrial (Food Processing)
Boiler
June 30 - July 1, 1993
Coal
Ten section reverse baghouse (Joy Manufacturing).
100% Coal
95% Coal, 5% TDF
EPA Methods 7, 10, 201A
Unknown
Interpoll Laboratories
Iowa DNR
InterpoU (1993)
Source Test Data Evaluation
Yes
No
Unknown
Data Expressed in Emission Factor Form
Baseline Fuel Test Data Available
Accurate Fuel Feed Rates
Multiple Baseline Fuels
Test Witnessed by or Prepared for
Governmental Agency
some
X
X
X
X
A-57
-------
Table A-21b. Facility U - Industrial Boiler
en
00
Parameter
Particulate
PM10
Nitrogen Oxides
Carbon Monoxide
g/dscm
gr/dscf
g/MJ
Ib/MMBtu
g/dscm
gr/dscf
kg/hr
Ib/hr
ppm,d
g/MJ
Ib/MMBtu
ppm.d
kg/hr
Ib/hr
100% Coal
0.117
0.0514
0.0424
0.0987
0.1048
0.0458
35
77
134
0.0972
0.226
4,305
1,663
3,659
5% TDF
0.0670
0.0293
0.024
0.056
0.0558
0.0244
18
40
152
0.105
0.245
2,048
789.9
1,738
-------
Table A-22a. Facility V - Industrial Boiler
Source Description
Facility Name,
Location:
Facility Type:
Source Type:
Test Dates:
Other fuel(s):
Air pollution control
device(s) used:
Test Conditions:
Test Methods:
Fuel
Handling/Fe e ding:
Testing Company:
Environmental.
Agency:
Reference:.
Dow Corning
Midland, MI
Manufacturing
Boiler
March 9 - 29, 1989
Wood
ESP
i.00% Wood, 0% TDF
95% Wood, 5% TDF
90% Wood, 10% TDF
85% Wood, 15% TDF
Unknown
Tire chips 2-3 inches in diameter, with wire.
Unknown.
Michigan DNR
Clark, et al (1991) and Malcolm Pirnie (1991)
Source Test Data Evaluation
Yes No Unknown
Data Expressed in Emission Factor Form
Baseline Fuel Test Data Available
Accurate Fuel Feed Rates
Multiple Baseline Fuels
Test Witnessed by or Prepared for
Governmental Agency
. X
X
X
X
X
A-59
-------
Table A-22b. Facility V - Industrial Boiler
Pollutant
Particulate
Cadmium
Chromium
(total)
Zinc
Beryllium0
> NOXC
so,'
0%
Ib/hr
4.29
4.9 xlO"1
1.28 xlO'4
0.0634
ND
NT
NT
TDF
MMBtu
0.012
1.39 xlO'6
3.64 xlO'6
1.8 xlO'4
ND
0.153
0.026
5% TDF
Ib/h lb/
r MMBtu
7.53 0.0205
NT
NT NT
NT
--
0.162
0.028
% Ib/hr
Change
+68 11.22
N/T
-
N/T
N/T
+6
+8
10% TDF
lb/ % Ib/hr
MMBtu Change
0.0305" +150 38.10
N/T 0.0028
N/T 0.0019
N/T 11.32
N/T ND
0.133 -13
0.037 +42
15% TDF
lb/
MMBtu
0.11303
8.21 xlO'B
5.57 xlO'6
0.03
ND
0.081
0.059
Change
+826
+491
+53
+16,567
ND
-47
+127
Pollutant
Particulate
Cadmium
Chromium
(total)
Zinc
0%
kg/hr
1.95
0.00022
0.00005
8
0.0288
TDF
/MJ
0.00525
5.98 xlO'7
1.57 xlO'6
7.7 xlO'6
5% TDF
kg/hr gxlO"*
/MJ
3.42 0.0088
..
--
--
% kg/hr
Change
+68 5.099
N/T
N/T
N/T --
10% TDF
gxlO-6 % kg/hr
/MJ Change
0.0131" +150 17.32
N/T 0.0013
N/T 0.00086
N/T 5.144
15% TDF
gxlO-*/MJ
0.0486s
3.53 xlO'6
2.40 xlO'6
0.01
Change
+826
+491
+53
+16,567
(Continued)
-------
Table A-22b. Facility V - Industrial Boiler (Cont.)
no/
Pollutant
kg/hr
Beryllium" ND
NOXC
SO/
,TDF
gxlO-6
MJ
ND
0.0695
0.011
' 5% TDF.
kg/hr gxlfl-6 . %
/MJ Change
N/T
0.0697 +6
0.012 +8
10% TDF
kg/hr gxlO"6 % kg/hr
/MJ Change
N/T ND
0.0572 -13
0.016 +42
15% TDF
gxlO^/MJ
ND
0.035
0.025
%
Change
ND
-47
+127
a Emission limits of 0.035 Ib/MMBtu at 12 percent CO2.
b No limit for Beryllium was 7.3 xlO'5 Ib/hr.
c NOX limit is 0.7 Ib/MMBtu.
d S02 limit is 0.8 Ib/MMBtu.
N/T = Not tested.
ND = Not detected.
Ref.: Clark, et al (1991)
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing).
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/R-97-115
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Air Emissions from Scrap Tire Combustion
. REPORT DATE
October 1997
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7.AUTHOR(S)
Joel I. Reisman
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
E.H. Pechan& Associates, Inc.
2880 Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 220
Rancho Cordova, California 95742
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-D3-0035,W.A. Ill-111
12.SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final; 10/96-9/97
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
is.SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES AppCD project officer is Paul M. Lemieux, Mail Drop 65, 919/
541-0962.
16. ABSTRACT,
The report discusses air emissions from two types of scrap tire combus-
tion: uncontrolled and controlled. Uncontrolled sources are open tire fires, which
produce many unhealthful.products of incomplete combustion and release them direc-
tly into the atmosphere. Controlled combustion sources (combustors) include boi-
lers and kilns specifically designed for efficient combustion of solid fuel. Very little
data exist for devices that are not well-designed and use scrap tires for fuel. These
sources include fireplaces, wood stoves, small kilns, small incinerators, or any
device with poor combustion characteristics. Air emissions from these types of
devices .are likely between that of open burning and a combustor. However, there is
a serious concern that the emissions are much more similar to those of an open tire
fire than a combustor. Open tire fires are discussed. Data from a laboratory test
program on uncontrolled burning of tire pieces and ambient monitoring at open tire
fir.es "are presented and the emissions are characterized. Mutagenic emission data
from open burning of scrap tires are compared to mutagenic data for other fuels
from both controlled and uncontrolled combustion. A list of 34 target compounds rep-
resenting the highest potential for health impacts from open tire- fires is presented.
The list can be used to design an air monitoring plan to evaluate health risk potential
J7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution
Emission
Tires
Combustion
Boilers
Kilns
Fireplaces
Wood
Stoves
Incinerators
Monitors
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Scrap Tires
Wood Stoves
13B
14G
13F
21B
13A
11L
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
115
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 222O-1 (9-73)
A-62
-------
-------
------- |