450289006
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning And Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EPA-450/2-89-006
April 1989
AIR
SEPA
LOCATING AND ESTIMATING
AIR TOXICS EMISSIONS
FROM MUNICIPAL
WASTE COMBUSTORS
-------
-------
EPA-450/2-89-006
April 1989
LOCATING AND ESTIMATING AIR TOXICS EMISSIONS
FROM MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
By
Radian Corporation
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
EPA Project Officer: William B. Kuykendal
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office Of Air And Radiation
Office Of Air Quality Planning And Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
April 1989
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Office Of Air Quality Planning
And Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, and has been
approved for publication as received from the contractor. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views
and policies of the Agency, neither does mention of .trade names or
commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for
use.
EPA-450/2-89-006
ii
-------
CONTENTS
Figures iv
Tables v
1. Purpose of Document 1-1
2. Overview of Document Contents 2-1
3. Background Information 3-1
3.1 Characterization of the Industry 3-1
3.2 Combustor Process Descriptions 3-2
3.3 Emission Controls 3-20
3.4 References 3-32
4. Emission Factors 4-1
4.1 Emission Factors for Mass Burn Refractory-Wall
Combustors 4-2
4.2 Emission Factors for Older Mass Burn Water-wall
Combustors 4-2
4.3 Emission Factors for New Small to Medium-Sized Mass Burn
Waterwall Combustors ... 4-7
4.4 Emission Factors for New large Mass Burn Water-wall
Combustors 4-7
4.5 Emission Factors for Rotary-Waterwall Mass Burn
Combustors 4-7
4.6 Emission Factors for Modular Starved-Air Combustors. . . 4-7
4.7 Emission Factors for Modular Excess-Air Combustors . . . 4-16
4.8 Emission Factors for Modular Excess-Air Combustors . . . 4-16
4.9 Other Combustor Types 4-16
4.10 References ' 4-21
5. Sampling and Analysis Procedures 5-1
5.1 References 5.4
Appendices
A. Existing Municipal Waste Combustion Facilities A-l
B. Planned Municipal Waste Combustion Facilities B-l
*.__ nni
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
3-1 Geographic Distribution of Municipal Waste Combustion
Facilities 3.3
3-2 Refractory-Wall Batch Combustor 3-5
3-3 Typical Mass Burn Refractory-Wall Combustor with
Traveling Grate ' 3-6
3-4 Typical Mass Burn Refractory-Wall Combustor with
Grate/Rotary Kiln 3-7
3-5 Typical Mass Burn Waterwall Combustor 3-9
3-6 Simplified Process Flow Diagram, Gas Cycle for a Rotary
Waterwall Combustor 3-10
3-7 Cross-Section of a Waterwall Rotary Combustor 3-12
3-8 Typical Modular Starved-Air Combustor with
Transfer Rams 3-13
3-9 Typical Modular Excess-Air Combustor 3-16
3-10 Typical RDF-Fired Spreader Stoker Boiler 3-19
3-11 Electrical Resistivity of Municipal Incinerator Dust 3-22
3-12 Typical Precipitator Cross-Section 3-24
3-13- Typical Spray Dryer and Particulate Control System 3-27
3-14 Process Flow Diagram for a Typical Lime or Limestone
Wet Scrubbing System 3-29
5-1 Example EPA Reference Method 5 Sampling Train 5-2
gep.OOl iv
-------
TABLES
Number Page
3-1 ASTM Classification of Refuse-Derived Fuels 3-17
4-1 Emission Factors in SI Units for Mass Burn Refractory-Wall
Municipal Waste Combustors 4-3
4-2- Emission Factors in English Units for Mass Burn Refractory-Wall
Municipal Waste Combustors 4-4
4-3 Emission Factors in SI Units for Older Mass Burn Waterwall
Municipal Waste Combustors 4-5
4-4 Emission Factors in English Units for Older Mass Burn Waterwall
Municipal Waste Combustors 4-6
4-5 Emission Factors in SI Units for Small to Medium-Sized Mass
Burn Waterwall Municipal Waste Combustors 4-8
4-6 Emission Factors, in English Units for Small to Medium-Sized
Mass Burn Waterwall Municipal Waste Combustors. . . 4-9
4-7 Emission Factors in SI Units for Large Mass Burn Waterwall
Municipal Waste Combustors. 4-10
4-8 Emission Factors in English Units for Large Mass Burn Waterwall
Municipal Waste Combustors 4-11
4-9 Emission Factors in SI Units for Mass Burn Rotary-Waterwall
Municipal Waste combustors. . '4-12
4-10 Emission Factors in English Units for Mass Burn
Rotary-Waterwall Municipal Waste Combustors 4-13
4-11 Emission Factors in SI Units for Modular Starved-Air Municipal
Waste Combustors 4-14
4-12 Emission Factors in English Units for Modular Starved-Air
Municipal Waste Combustor 4-15
4-13 Emission Factors in SI Units for Modular Excess-Air Municipal
Waste Combustors 4-17
4-14 Emission Factors in English Units for Modular Excess-Air
Municipal Waste Combustors. . 4-18
nan rtftl
-------
TABLES
Number paqe
4-15 Emission Factors in SI Units for RDF-Fired Municipal Waste
Combustors 4-17
4-16 Emission Factors in English Units for RDF-Fired Municipal
Waste Combustors 4-20
5-1 List of EPA Reference Methods for Stack Testing of Municipal
Waste Combustors 5-2
-------
1. PURPOSE OF DOCUMENT
This document is designed to assist Federal, State, and local air
pollution agencies in inventorying air emissions of potentially toxic
substances. It is one of a series the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is preparing to compile information on sources and emissions of these
pollutants. Specifically, this document deals with emissions from municipal
waste combustors (MWCs).
The emissions information in this document will be most useful in making
preliminary estimates of air emissions and should not be used in exact
assessments of emissions from any particular facility. The reason for this
is that insufficient data are available to estimate the statistical accuracy
of these emission factors. In addition, variability in waste composition
contributes to variations in emission factors. In fact, the difference
between actual and calculated emissions could be as great as orders of
magnitude in extreme cases. The size of error would depend on differences in
source configurations, variability of waste composition, control equipment
design and operation, and overall operating practices. A source test is the
best way to determine air emissions from a particular source. However, even
when a source test is used for a specific facility, variability of waste
composition could change the composition of emissions, especially for metals.
gep.002 1-1
-------
-------
2. OVERVIEW OF DOCUMENT CONTENTS
This section briefly outlines the contents of this report.
Section 3.0 is an overview of the municipal waste combustion (MWC)
industry, describing the major types of MWCs in the existing population: mass
burn, modular, and refuse-derived fuel (RDF)-fired combustors. Included is a
process description for each type of combustor, as well as current and planned
facility lists. In addition, this section describes the air emission control
technologies currently in use at MWC facilities, including electrostatic
precipitators, fabric filters, wet scrubbers, dry sorbent injection, spray
dryers, and combustion control.
Section 4.0 focuses on the emissions from MWCs. Emission factors are
given in tabular format for acid gases, organics, and metals.
Section 5.0 discusses the EPA reference methods and generally accepted
methods of sampling and analysis for each pollutant.
Appendix A contains a list of the existing facilities in the MWC
population and Appendix B contains a list of planned MWC facilities.
This document does not discuss health or other environmental effects of
emissions from MWCs, nor does it discuss ambient air levels or ambient air
monitoring techniques for emissions associated with MWCs.
Comments on this document are welcome, including information on process
descriptions, operating practices, control measures, and emissions
information that would enable EPA to improve the contents. All comments
should be sent to:
Chief, Pollutant Characterization Section (MO-15)
Noncriteria Pollutant Programs Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
nrn
-------
-------
3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Incineration is a means of disposing of municipal solid waste (MSW)
discarded from residential, commercial, and industrial establishments. When
compared to landfill ing, incineration has the advantages of reducing solid
mass approximately 90 percent and the potential for recovering energy through
combustion of waste products. Disadvantages include the necessity of ash
disposal and the potential for air emissions of toxic pollutants.
Section 3 provides background information on the current status of MSW
incineration. In Section 3.1, the municipal waste combustion industry is
briefly overviewed. Combustor and emission controls are described in detail
in Sections 3.2 and 3.3, respectively.
3.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE INDUSTRY
There are currently 161 municipal waste combustion (MWC) facilities known
to be operating in the United States (U.S.). Major types of combustors
include:
(1) Mass burn
(2) Modular
(3) Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) - fired (including co-firing)
Of the 161 known facilities, 70 (43 percent) are modular, 59 (37 percent) are
mass burn, 19 (12 percent) are RDF-fired, and the remaining 13 (8 percent) are
either fluidized-bed combustors or of unknown configuration.
It is estimated that the total U.S. MWC capacity is about 68,300 tons of
MSW per day (tpd). Of this capacity, about 39,300 tpd (58 percent) is in mass
burn facilities, 19,800 tpd (29 percent) is in RDF-fired facilities, 6,400 tpd
(9 percent) is in modular facilities, and 2,800 tpd (4 percent) is in other
types of MWCs.
Facilities are comprised of between one and eight individual combustors.
Unit capacities range from 5 to 1,000 tpd, and total facility capacities range
from 5 to 3,000 tpd. The oldest facility in the existing population was
constructed in 1955.
aeo.002 i_i
-------
Figure 3-1 shows the geographic distribution of the existing MWC
population. New Hampshire has the greatest number of existing
facilities (15), followed by New York (13), Texas (11), and Minnesota (9). In
terms of total capacity, however, Florida is the leader with a capacity of
about 9,200 tpd of MSW. Massachusetts is second at 8,960 tpd, and New York is
third at 8,765 tpd.
Lists of the existing facilities are in Appendix A.1 Table A-l is sorted
by combustor technology, and Table A-2 is sorted by state. These tables also
show combustor type, unit capacity, year of facility start-up, whether heat
recovery is used, and type of air pollution control device.
There are at least 111 facilities currently in the planning stages that
will commence construction by the end of 1989. The majority of these plants
are mass burn waterwall designs (79). The remaining planned facilities are
either modular (15), RDF-fired (14), or of unknown design (12).
The majority of planned facilities are being built in the Northeast and
in California. New York and Pennsylvania each have 15 planned facilities,
followed by New Jersey with 11. California has nine facilities in the
planning stages.
Lists of planned facilities that will commence construction by 1989 are
in Appendix B.1 Table B-l lists these facilities sorted by combustor
technology, and Table B-2 lists them sorted by state. These tables also show
combustor type, number of units, total plant capacity, whether heat recovery
is used, and the projected year of facility start-up.
3.2 COMBUSTOR PROCESS DESCRIPTIONS
As mentioned in Section 3.1, there are three major categories of
combustor: mass burn, modular, and RDF. Other types of combustors, such as-
fluidized-bed combustors, comprise a much smaller percentage of the population
than these categories. Detailed descriptions of the three major categories of
MWCs are contained in the following sections.
3.2.1 Mass Burn Combustors
Mass burn combustors are used to combust MSW that generally has not been
pre-processed except to remove items too large to go through the feed system.
Processed waste can be combusted in these units. These combustors are usually
qeo.002 3-2
-------
• i
It - 1 I » - 1 | Ofl - «
I -.'.."i7--r-'v^-";
i / ' i c. i^
;-..J«-i.*i.-i\«A-i
•i4.ii . •'
Figure 3-1. Geographic Distribution of Municipal Waste Combustion Facilities1
-------
field-erected and range in size from 50 to 1,000 tpd MSW per unit. Many mass
burn facilities have two or more combustors and have site capacities of
greater than 1,000 tpd. The mass burn category can be further divided into
waterwall and refractory-wall designs. Most refractory-wall combustors were
built prior to the early 1970s. These units may incorporate separate waste
heat recovery boilers, but most do .not. Newer units are mainly waterwall
designs used to recover heat for production of steam and/or electricity.
Refractory-wall mass burn combustors have at least three distinct
combustor designs. The first design is a batch-fed upright combustor, which
may be cylindrical or rectangular in shape. Figure 3-2 shows the typical
configuration of a batch-fed rectangular combustor. This type of combustor
was prevalent in the 1950's, but no additional units of this design are
expected to be built.
A second, more common design consists of rectangular combustion chambers
with traveling, rocking, or reciprocating grates. This type of combustor is
continuously fed and operates in an excess-air mode with both underfire and
overfire air provided. The primary distinction between plants with this
design is the manner in which waste is moved through the combustor. The
traveling grate moves on a set of sprockets and does not agitate the waste bed
as it advances through the combustor. A schematic of a traveling grate
combustor is shown in Figure 3-3. Rocking and reciprocating grate systems
agitate and aerate the waste bed as it advances through the combustion
chamber, allowing more waste surface area to be exposed to combustion air and
increasing bumout of combustibles. The system generally discharges the ash
at the end of the grate to a water quench pit for collection and disposal.
The third major design type in the mass burn refractory-wall population
is a system which combines grate burning technology with a rotary kiln.
Figure 3-4 shows a schematic of this design. Two grate sections (drying and
ignition) precede a refractory-lined rotary kiln, where combustion is
completed.
Refractory-wall combustors typically operate with high excess air levels
(150 to 300 percent). These high levels are used to prevent excessive
temperatures which can lead to refractory damage, slagging, fouling, and
corrosion problems.
nan HH9 t-A
-------
CHARGING
GATf
OUCKfT
CHARGING
HOPPlff
CAB
OV£RFlRf
AIR
CONTROL
ASH HOPPER— -— X 157
U~ ASH \
GATE ^
J ^
1 I ^5
\f Cv > .
FTx j («) ^'
„ ..i-A,.,. ,.,..S..j .........
' L
-/•
1
y
ijnn$
^
>ytJxXA^
iH/iZZA
Figure 3-2. Refractory-
STORAGE
•FLU£ TO
EXPANSION
CHAMBER
i STACK
r
TIPPING
-------
o
o
0»
I
o»
Figure 3-3. Typical Mass Burn Refractory-Wall Combustor with Traveling Grate
-------
Tipping Floor
Charging
Hopper
Emergency
Stack
Grate
Refractory
Arch
Ignition
Grate i
/ Rotary
ESP
yap f '' ' • \i
rOverfire I I H J T*
Air Vibrating T >
cad Fan Conveyor I
_£^ _
- »^i«
Forced Fan
Draft
Fan
ODD
ODD
O
,, .. Cooling
Coolmg chamber
x Sprays
Bottom
Ash Asn
Quench Conveyor
Pit
Rotary
Conveyors
Figure 3-4. Typical Mass Burn Refractory-Wall Combustor with Grate/Rotary Kiln
00
GO
-------
A typical mass burn waterwall system is shown in Figure 3-5. Unprocessed
waste (with large, bulky, noncombustibles removed) is delivered by an overhead
crane to a feed hopper from which it is fed into the combustion chamber.
Earlier mass burn designs utilized gravity feeders, but it is more typical
today for feeding to be accomplished by single or dual hydraulic rams that
operate on a set frequency.
Nearly all modern conventional mass burn facilities use reciprocating
grates to move waste through the combustion chamber. The grates typically
include two or more separate sections where designated stages in the
combustion process occur. For example, the initial grate section is referred
to as the drying grate, where moisture is removed prior to ignition. The
second grate section is the burning grate, where the majority of active
burning takes place. The third grate section is referred to as the burnout
or finishing grate, where remaining combustibles are burned. Smaller units
may include two rather than three individual grate sections. In a typical
mass burn waterwall system, bottom ash is discharged from the finishing grate
into a water-filled quench pit. Dry ash systems have been used in some
designs, but are not widespread.
Combustion air is added to the waste from beneath the grate by way of
underfire air plenums. Most mass burn waterwall systems supply underfire air
to the individual grate sections through multiple plenums. As the waste
burns, additional air oxidizes fuel-rich gases and completes the combustion
process. This additional air, referred to as overfire air, is injected
through rows of high-pressure nozzles (usually two to three inches in
diameter) located above the grate.
Typically mass burn waterwall MWCs are operated with 80 to 100 percent
excess air. Normally 25 to 40 percent of total air is supplied as overfire
air and 60 to 75 percent as underfire air. These are nominal ranges that may
vary between specific designs.
Rotary waterwall combustors, another type of mass burn combustor, are of
a single design. A schematic of a facility with a rotary waterwall combustor
is shown in Figure 3-6. The waste is conveyed to a charge chute and ram fed
to the rotary combustion chamber. The rotary combustion chamber sits at an
angle and rotates at about 10 revolutions per hour causing the waste to
-------
Total Ash
DUchaiga
Quench Tank
Figure 3-5. Typical Mass Burn Waterwall Combustor
-------
SUPERHEATER
i
»-•
o
RAH RING
FEEDIN6 HEADER
SYSTEM
AFTER-
CRATEN
-------
advance and tumble as it burns. Bottom ash is discharged from the rotary
combustor to an after-burning grate and then into a wet quench pit or ram
extractor.
Underfire air is injected through the waste bed and overfire air is
provided directly above the waste bed, as shown in Figure 3-7. Approximately
80 percent of the combustion air is provided along the combustion chamber
length with most of this provided in the first half of the length. The rest
of the combustion air is supplied to the afterburner grate and above the
rotary combustor outlet in the boiler chamber. As shown in Figure 3-6, this
type of system uses preheated combustion air. Combustion air is drawn from
the tipping floor and passes through the air heater, where heat from the flue
gas preheats the combustion air to 450°F. Water flowing through the tubes in
the rotary chamber recovers heat from combustion. Additional heat recovery
occurs in the boiler waterwall, superheater and economizer.
Mass burn combustors have a variety of emission controls. Most mass burn
combustors have electrostatic precipitators (ESPs) for control of particulate
'matter (PM). Some older refractory-wall units have wet PM control devices
such as wet scrubbers. Several newer units have acid gas control devices and
PM control. The types of acid gas controls used include wet scrubbers, spray
dryers and dry sorbent injection. The PM control devices used with acid gas
control include ESPs and fabric filters. These emission control technologies
are described in detail in Section 3.3.
3.2.2 Modular Combustors
Modular combustors are similar to mass burn combustors in that they burn
waste without pre-processing. However, they are typically shop-fabricated
and generally range in unit size from 5 to 120 tpd of MSW throughput. The
most common type of modular combustor is the starved-air or controlled-air
type. Another type of modular combustor, which is functionally similar from a
combustion standpoint to the larger mass burn waterwall systems described
above, is referred to as an excess-air combustor.
A typical modular starved-air MWC is shown in Figure 3-8. The basic
design includes two separate combustion chambers (referred to as the "primary"
and "secondary" chambers). Waste is batch-fed to the primary chamber by a
aeo.QQ?
-------
SHROUD
WEBS
SUPPORT
BEAM
STRIP
SEAL
WATER-
COOLED
TUBES
WATER
FLOW
DETAIL 'A'
WEB
Figure 3-7. Cross-Section of a Waterwall Rotary Combustor
-------
To Dump Stack or
Waste Heat Boiler
4
Tipping Floor
Primary
Gas Burner
Feed
Clta
///////////77//7
Ram
Feeder
Secondary
Air
p.
Door
Primary Chamber
Transfer Rams
Charge
Hopper
Primary Air
Secondary
Chamber
Secondary
Burner
Ash
Quench
Figure 3-8. Typical Modular Starved-Air Combustor with Transfer Rams
00
fM
-------
hydraulically-activated ram. The charging bin is filled by a front-end
loader. Waste feeding occurs automatically on a set frequency (generally 6 to
10 minutes between charges).
Waste is moved through the primary combustion chamber by either hydraulic
transfer rams or reciprocating grates. Systems using transfer rams have
individual hearths upon which combustion takes place. Grate systems generally
include two separate grate sections. In either case, waste retention times in
the primary chamber are long (up to 12 hours). Bottom ash is usually
discharged to a wet quench pit.
Combustion air is introduced in the primary chamber at substoichiometric
levels, causing the primary chamber to essentially function as a gasifier.
The combustion air flow rate to the primary chamber is controlled to maintain
an exhaust gas temperature set point (generally 1,200 to 1,400°F), which
normally corresponds to about 40 percent theoretical air. Other system
designs operate with a primary chamber temperature between 1,600 and 1,800°F,
which requires 50 to 60 percent theoretical air.
As the hot, fuel-rich gases flow to the secondary chamber, they are
mixed with excess air to complete the burning process. The temperature of
the exhaust gases from the primary chamber is above the autqignition point.
Thus, completing combustion is simply a matter of introducing air to the
fuel-rich gases. The amount of air added to the secondary chamber is
controlled to maintain a desired flue gas exit temperature, typically
1,800 to 2,200°F. Approximately 80 percent of the total combustion air is
introduced as secondary air, so that excess air levels for the system are
about 100 percent. Typical operating ranges vary from 80 to 150 percent
excess air.
The walls of both combustion chambers are refractory-lined. Early
starved-air modular combustors did not include heat recovery, but a waste heat
boiler is common in newer facilities, with two or more combustion modules
manifolded to a common boiler. Combustors with heat recovery capabilities
also maintain dump stacks for use in an emergency, or when the boiler is not
in operation.
Most modular starved-air MWCs are equipped with auxiliary fuel burners
located in both the primary and secondary combustion chambers. Auxiliary fuel
nan f\M 1 1 *
-------
can be used during startup or when problems are experienced maintaining
desired combustion temperatures. In general, the combustion process is
self-sustaining through control of air flows and feed rate, so continuous
co-firing of auxiliary fuel is normally not necessary.
A typical modular excess-air MWC is shown in Figure 3-9. The design is
similar to that of the starved-air units. The basic design includes primary
and secondary combustion chambers. Waste is batch-fed to the refractory-lined
primary chamber and moved through the primary chamber by hydraulic transfer
rams, oscillating grates, or revolving hearth. Bottom ash is discharged to a
wet quench pit.
Unlike the starved-air type, and similar to mass burn units, the modular
excess-air combustor is operated with up to 200 percent excess air in the
primary chamber. Excess-air modular combustors also use recirculated flue gas
for combustion air to maintain desired temperatures in the primary, secondary,
and tertiary chambers. Flue gas burnout occurs in the secondary chamber,
which is also refractory-lined. Heat is typically recovered in a waste heat
boiler.
Most modular systems do not have air emission control devices. This is
especially true of the smaller, starved-air facilities. Those facilities
which use PM control devices typically have ESPs, although other controls such
as cyclones, electrified gravel beds, and fabric filters have been used.
Descriptions of the major types of control devices are provided in
Section 3.3.
3.2.3 Refuse-Derived Fuel-Fired Combustors
Refuse-derived fuel-fired combustors burn processed MSW which may vary
from shredded waste to finely divided fuel suitable for co-firing with
pulverized coal. Combustor sizes range from 320 to 1,400 tpd. Most RDF
facilities have two or more combustors, and site capacities range up to
3,000 tpd. Refused-derived fuel facilities typically recover heat for
• production of steam and/or electricity.
In an RDF facility, raw MSW is processed to RDF before combustion,
raising the heating value of the waste. A set of standards for classifying
RDF types has been established by ASTM and is presented in Table 3-1. The
type of RDF used is dependent on the boiler design. With few known
-------
Flue Gas Recirculation Manifold
Figure 3-9. Typical Modular Excess-Air Combustor
00
m
-------
TABLE 3-1. ASTM CLASSIFICATION OF REFUSE-DERIVED FUELS
Type of RDF Description
RDF-1 (MSW) Municipal solid waste used as a fuel in as-discarded form,
without oversize bulky waste (OBW).
RDF-2 (c-RDF) MSW processed to coarse particle size, with or without
ferrous metal separation, such that 95 percent by weight
(wt %) passes through a 6-inch square mesh screen.
RDF-3 (f-RDF) Shredded fuel derived from MSW and processed for the removal
of metal, glass, and other entrained inorganics. The
particle size of this material is such that 95 wt % passes
through a 2-inch square mesh screen. Also called "fluff
RDF.'"
RDF-4 (p-RDF) Combustible-waste fraction processed into powdered form,
95 wt % passing through a 10-mesh (0.035 inch square)
screen.
RDF-5 (d-RDF) Combustible waste fraction densified (compressed) into the
form of pellets, slugs, cubettes, briquettes, or some
similar form.
RDF-6 Combustible-waste fraction processed into * liquid fuel.
RDF-7 Combustible-waste fraction processed into a gaseous fuel.
-------
exceptions, boilers that, are designed to burn RDF as a primary fuel utilize
spreader stokers and fire RDF-3 (fluff, or f-RDF) in a semi-suspension mode.
This mode of feeding is accomplished by using an air-swept distributor, which
allows a portion of the feed to burn in suspension and the remainder to be
burned out after falling on a horizontal traveling grate. A schematic of a
typical RDF spreader stoker boiler is shown In Figure 3-10.
Suspension-fired RDF boilers, such as pulverized coal (PC)-fired boilers,
can co-fire RDF-3 or RDF-4 (powered or p-RDF). If RDF-3 is used, the fuel
processing must be more extensive so that a very fine fluff results.
Currently, several PC boilers co-fire fluff with pulverized coal. Suspension
firing is usually associated with larger boilers due to the increased boiler
height and retention time required for combustion to be completed in total
suspension. Smaller systems firing RDF in suspension require moving or dump
grates in the lower furnace to handle the falling material that is not
completely combusted in suspension. Boilers co-firing RDF in suspension are
generally limited to 50 percent of total heat input by RDF alone.5
The emission controls for RDF systems are typically ESPs alone, although
spray dryer systems for acid gas control have been used with particulate
control devices.
3.2.4 Other Combustor Types
Although the vast majority of municipal waste combustors are mass burn,
modular, or RDF units, other technologies are available. The other
significant technology used is fluidized-bed combustion (FBC). Fluidized-bed
combustors have typically been used for combustion of other materials, but are
beginning to be used with MSW. Fluffed or pelletized RDF (see RDF
classifications in Table 3-1) is combusted on a turbulent bed of heated
noncombustible material such as limestone, sand, silica, or aluminum. The bed
is suspended or "fluidized" through introduction of underfire air at a high
flow rate. Overfire air is used to complete combustion.
There are two basic types of FBC systems: bubbling bed combustors and
circulating bed combustors. With bubbling bed combustors, most of the
fluidized solids are maintained near the bottom of the combustor by using
relatively low fluidization velocities. This helps prevent the entrapment of
solids from the bed into the flue gas, minimizing recirculation or reinjection
-------
Steam Coil
Air Preheater
Figure 3-10. Typical RDF-Fired Spreader Stoker Boiler
DC
1^
CO
00
O)
O
-------
of bed particles. Circulating bed combustors operate at relatively high
fluidization velocities to promote carry-over of solids into the upper section
of the combustor. Combustion occurs in both the bed and upper section of the
combustor. By design, a fraction of the bed material is entrained in the
combustion gas and enters a cyclone separator which recycles unburned waste
and inert particles to the lower bed.
3.3 EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS
Refuse combustors have the potential to emit pollutants to the
atmosphere at rates above EPA defined significant levels. One of these
pollutants is particulate matter (PM), which is emitted because of the
turbulent movement of the combustion gases with respect to the burning refuse
and resultant ash. Particulate matter is also produced when metals that are
volatilized in the combustion zone condense in the exhaust gas stream. The
particle size distribution and concentration of the particulate emissions
leaving the incinerator vary widely, depending on the composition of the
refuse being burned and the type and operation of the combustion process.
Combustion of refuse under improper combustor design or operating
conditions can result in emissions of intermediate products (e.g., volatile
organic compounds, toxic organic compounds and carbon monoxide). Other
potential emissions include hydrogen chloride (HC1), sulfur dioxide (SO-),
nitrogen oxides (NOX), metals, and other acid gases. Acid gas and SO-
emissions are a result of reaction of sulfur, chlorine, and fluorine in the.
feed. Metals are emitted when they are volatilized by the heat of combustion.
Nitrogen oxides are formed during any combustion process and depend largely on
combustion temperature and the nitrogen content of the fuel.
A wide variety of control technologies are used to control emissions from
MWCs. For PM control, electrostatic precipitators are most frequently used,
although other PM control devices (including fabric filters, cyclones,
electrified gravel beds, and venturi scrubbers) are also used. Processes used
for acid gas control include wet scrubbing, dry sorbent injection and spray
drying (or semi-dry scrubbing). Both fabric filters and ESPs are used in
combination with acid gas control devices for particulate removal.
-------
3.3.1 PM Control Technologies
The most frequently used PM control devices are electrostatic
precipitators and fabric filters. Although other PM control technologies
(such as cyclones, electrified gravel beds, and venturi scrubbers) are used,
they are infrequently used on systems currently installed and it is
anticipated they will not be frequently used in future MWC systems.
Therefore, the following discussion focuses on ESPs and fabric filters.
In electrostatic precipitators, flue gas flows between a series of high
voltage (20 to 100 kv) discharge electrodes and grounded metal plates.
Negatively charged ions formed by this high voltage field (known as a
"corona") attach to PM in the flue gas, causing the charged particles to
migrate toward the grounded plates. Once the charged particles are collected
on the grounded plates, the resulting dust layer is removed from the plates by
rapping, washing, or some other method and collected in a hopper. When the
dust layer is removed, some of the collected PM becomes reentrained in the
flue gas. To assure good PM collection efficiency during plate cleaning and
electrical upsets, ESPs have several fields located in-series along the
direction of flue gas flow that can be energized and cleaned independently.
Particles reentrained when the dust layer is removed from one field can be
recollected in a downstream field.6
In general, fly ashes with resistivities between 1 x 108 and
5 x 10 ohm-cm are most efficiently collected in ESPs. If the resistivity of
the collected dust layer increases above roughly 2 x 1011 ohm-cm, the
electrical charge of the collected dust layer is sufficient to create a "back
corona" that significantly reduces collection efficiency by interfering with
the migration of charged fly ash particles to the collecting electrode. At
resistivities below 108 ohm-cm, the electrical charge of individual particles
is so low that reentrainment of collected dust during electrode cleaning or by
scouring from moving flue gas can become severe.7 A graph of resistivity
versus temperature for three MSW fly ashes is shown in Figure 3-11. As
indicated in the figure, most ESPs on MWCs have traditionally operated at
440 to 550°F (225 to 290°C) to avoid potential problems with ash resistivity
and acid gas corrosion.8 However, individual ESPs with temperatures as low as
non fid?
-------
TEMPERATURE. °F
100 200 300 400 500 600
E
u
E
e
•
>
10"
10"
SxlO10 .
22/2
u
cc
a
u
u
•J
u
10
10*
10'
TRADITIONAL
ESP
OPERATING
TEMP.
AREA OF BACK
CORONA
DEVELOPMENT
RANGE OF
RESISTIVITY
BEST SUITED
FOR ESP
OPERATION
50 100 150 200 250 3OO 350
TEMPERATURE, °C
1 Samples taken at furnace outlet on a 250 ton/day municipal Incinerator
using a dry separation chamber for part1culate control.
2 Samples taken at furnace outlet and exhaust stack Inlet on a 250 ton/day
municipal Incinerator using a wet baffle cooling chamber for participate
control.
3 Samples taken at furnace outlet and exhaust stack outlet on a 120 ton/day
municipal Incinerator using a vertical wetted baffle participate
collection device.
Source: Walker, A.8. and Schmltz, Characterlsties of Furnace Emisslons
fro* Large Mechanically-Stoked Municipal Incinerators.
Research-Cottrell
Figure 3-11. Electrical Resistivity of Municipal Incinerator Dust
3-22
.8
-------
250°F are currently operating in the U.S. as a result of being coupled with
acid gas control. In addition, operating temperatures high as 600°F are also
found on individual units.
Small particles generally have lower migration velocities than large
particles, and are therefore more difficult to collect. This factor is
especially important to MWCs because of the large amount of total fly ash less
than one micron. As compared to pulverized coal-fired combustors, in which
only 1 to 3 percent of the fly ash is generally less than 1 micron, 20 to
70 percent of the fly ash at the ESP inlet for MWCs is reported to be less
than 1 micron. As a result, effective collection of PM from MWCs requires
greater collection areas and lower flue gas velocities than many other fuels.
The most common types of ESPs used by MWCs are (1) plate-wire units in
which the discharge electrode is a bottom-weighted or rigid wire and (2) flat
plate units which use flat plates rather than wires as the discharge
electrode. A typical plate-wire ESP is shown in Figure 3-12. Plate-wire
ESPs generally are better suited for use with fly ashes with large amounts of
small parti oil ate and with large flue gas flow rates (>200,000 acfm). Flat
plate units are less sensitive to back corona problems and are thus well
suited for use with high resistivity PM.10 Both of these ESP types have been
widely used on MWCs in the U.S., Europe, and Japan.
The theoretical efficiency of PM removal by ESPs can be predicted using
the Oeutsch-Anderson equation:
Collection Efficiency (%)•(!- exp(-Aw/V))100
where exp is the natural log (2.718...), A is the surface area of the
collecting electrodes (ft2), w is the effective migration velocity of
individual PM particles toward the collecting electrode (ft/sec), and V is
the actual flue gas flow rate (acfm). However, because of variations in the
size and resistivity of individual particles in the flue gas, the effective
migration velocity of bulk fly ash is not easily defined.
To account for these variations in PM characteristics, the modified
Deutsch-Anderson equation is used:
Collection Efficiency (%) - (1 - exp(-Aw/V)k)100
den.00?
-------
BUS OIICT
INSULATOR
COMPARTMENT
RAPPER INSULATOR
HIGH VOLTAGE SVSTEM
SUPPORT INSULATOR
COLLECTING SURFACE
RAPPER
DISCHARGE ELECTRODE
RAPPER
THANSFOHMER
RECTIFIER
GAS
OISTIIIBUTION
DEVICE
Figure 3-12. Typical Precipitator Cross-Section
-------
where k is an empirically derived constant (generally around 0.5, but can vary
between 0.4 and 0.8) that depends on the electrical resistivity and particle
size of the fly ash.
As an approximate indicator of collection efficiency, the specific
collection area (SCA) of an ESP is frequently used. The SCA is calculated by
dividing the collecting electrode plate area by the actual flue gas flow rate
(A/V in the Deutsch-Anderson equation) and is expressed as square feet of
collecting area per 1,000 acfm of flue gas. In general, the higher the SCA,
the higher the collection efficiency. Other factors that effect ESP
efficiency include sneakage control, gas flow distribution, control of rapping
losses, and electrical charging methods.
Fabric filters are also used for particulate control. They are
frequently used in combination with acid gas control. When used following
acid gas controls, fabric filters typically achieve greater than 99 percent
removal of particulate. Additionally, the filter cake on fabric filters
following acid gas controls can provide secondary acid gas removal because of
the presence of unreacted sorbent.
Removal of particulate matter from the flue gas by fabric filters is
achieved through five basic mechanisms: 1) inertia! impaction, 2) Brownian
diffusion, 3) direct interception, 4) electrostatic attraction, and
5) gravitational setting. The dominant collection mechanism is inertial
impaction. As the particulate matter is collected on filter media, a
particulate filter cake is formed, increasing the pressure drop across the
filter. Once excessive pressure drop across the filter cake is reached, the
filter is cleaned.
The effectiveness of the fabric filter depends on flue gas and filter
characteristics, including 1) the air-to-cloth ratio (ratio of flue gas flow
to filter surface area), and 2) the filter cleaning mechanism. The
air-to-cloth ratio is optimized to give increased surface area without excess
pressure drop. Collection efficiency increases for decreased air-to-cloth
ratio. Two main filter cleaning mechanisms are used: reverse-air and
pulse-jet. In a reverse-air fabric filter, flue gas flows through unsupported
filter bags, leaving the particulate on the inside of the bags. The bags are
cleaned by blowing air through the filter in the opposite direction of the
gep.002 3-25
-------
flue gas flow, causing the filter bag to collapse. The filter cake falls off
and is collected in the hopper located below the filter bags. In a pulse-jet
fabric filter, flue gas flows through supported filter bags, leaving
particulate on the outside of the bags. Compressed air is introduced at the
top of the bag, causing the bag to expand and the filter cake to fall off.
Because pulse-jet fabric filters remove more filter cake than reverse-air
units during the cleaning cycle, pulse-jet filters can be operated at higher
air-to-cloth ratios with equal removal efficiencies.
3.3.2 Acid Gas Control Technologies .
The three most frequently used acid gas control technologies are wet
scrubbing, dry sorbent injection, and spray drying. It is anticipated that
all three of these technologies will be used on future MWC systems. A
description of each of the technologies is provided in this section.
Spray drying is the most frequently used acid gas control technology for
MWCs in the U.S. A typical spray drying system is shown in Figure 3-13. In
the spray drying process, lime slurry is injected into the spray dryer (SO)
through either two-fluid nozzles or a rotary atomizer; the water in the slurry
evaporates to cool the flue gas and the lime reacts with acid gases to form
salts that can be removed by a PM control device. The simultaneous
evaporation and reaction increases the moisture and particulate content in the
flue gas. The particulate exiting the SD contains fly ash plus calcium salts,
water, and unreacted lime.
The key design and operating parameters that significantly affect SD
performance are SO outlet temperature and lime-to-acid gas stoichiometric
ratio. The SO outlet temperature is controlled by the amount of water in the
slurry that is injected into the SD. More effective acid gas removal occurs
at lower temperatures, but the temperature must be kept high enough to ensure
the slurry and reaction products are adequately dried prior to collection in
the PM control device. For MWC flue gas containing significant chlorine, a
minimum SO outlet temperature of around 240°F is required to control
agglomeration of PM and sorbent by calcium chloride.11 The stoichiometric
ratio is the molar ratio of calcium fed to the theoretical amount of calcium
required to react with the inlet hydrogen chloride (HC1) and S02. Sufficient
lime is fed to react with the peak acid gas concentrations expected without
gep.002 3-26
-------
Head Tank
Clean
Exhaust
From
Stack
Lime
Partial Recycle
Dry End Product
Figure 3-13. Typical Spray Dryer and Particulate Control System
CL
ro
oo
CM
-------
severely decreasing performance. The lime content in the slurry is generally
about 10 percent by weight, but cannot exceed roughly 30 percent by weight
without the lime slurry feed system and spray nozzles clogging.
Spray drying can be used in combination with either a fabric filter or an
ESP for PM control. Both combinations have been used for MWCs in the U.S.,
although SD/fabric filter systems are more common. Removal efficiencies range
from 50 to 90 percent for S02 and for 70 to 95 percent for HC1, with typical
values of 70 percent for S02 and 90 to 95 percent for HC1. These removal
efficiencies are based on stack tests using a grab sample approach. These
tests are typically performed for compliance demonstration when the system is
operated in an optimum fashion.
Many types of wet scrubbers have been used for controlling acid gas
emissions from MWCs. These include spray towers, centrifugal scrubbers, and
venturi scrubbers. No new MWCs are being built with wet scrubbers, however.
In these devices, the flue gas enters the absorber where it is contacted with
enough alkaline solution to saturate the gas stream. The alkaline solution,
typically containing calcium hydroxide [Ca(OH)2], reacts with the acid gas to
form salts, which are generally insoluble and may be removed by sequential
clarifying, thickening, and vacuum filtering. The dewatered salts or sludges
are then landfilled. A schematic of a typical wet scrubbing system is shown
in Figure 3-14.
Two dry sorbent injection technologies exist. The more widely used of
these systems, referred to as duct sorbent injection (DSI), involves injecting
dry alkali sorbents into flue gas downstream of the combustor outlet and
upstream of the particulate control device. The second approach, referred to
as furnace sorbent injection (FSI), injects sorbent directly into the
combustor.
In DSI, powdered sorbent is pneumatically injected into either a
separate reaction vessel or a section of flue gas duct located downstream of
the combustor economizer. Alkali in the sorbent (generally calcium or sodium)
reacts with HC1, S02, hydrogen fluoride (HF), and sulfur trioxide (SO-) to
form alkali salts (e.g., calcium chloride [CaClg], calcium fluoride [CaF2],
and calcium sulfite [CaS03]). By lowering the acid content of the flue gas,
downstream equipment can be operated at reduced temperatures while minimizing
gep.002 3-28
-------
SO, ABSORBER
TO STACK
LIME
OR
LIME
STONE
i
ro
SOL ID LIQUID
SEPARATOR
CRUSHING
AND
ORINOINQ
SECOND STAGE
SOLID LIQUID
SEPARATOR
OR
SETTLING POND
SOLID WASTE
Figure 3-14. Process Flow Diagram for a Typical Lime or Limestone Wet Scrubbing System
-------
the potential for acid corrosion of this equipment. Reaction products, fly
ash, and unreacted sorbent are collected with either a fabric filter or ESP.
Acid gas removal efficiency with OSI depends on the method of sorbent
injection, flue gas temperature, sorbent type and feed rate, and the extent of
sorbent mixing with the flue gas. Flue gas temperature at the point of
sorbent injection can range from 350 to 600°F depending on the sorbent being
used and the design of the process. Sorbents that have been successfully
tested include hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2), soda ash (NaOH), and sodium
bicarbonate (NaHCOj). Based on published data for hydrated lime, some DSI
systems can achieve removal efficiencies comparable to spray dryers. Removals
of 60 to 95 percent for HC1 and 40 to 70 percent for S02 have been reported.
Limestone (CaC03) has also been tested, but is relatively unreactive at
temperatures of 350 to 600°F.12"17
By combining flue gas cooling with DSI, it may be possible to increase
the potential for removing dioxins and furans (CDD/CDF) which is believed to
occur through a combination of vapor condensation and adsorption onto the
sorbent surface. Cooling may also benefit PM control by decreasing the
effective flue gas flow rate (i.e., acfm) and reducing the resistivity of the
particles.
Furnace sorbent injection involves the injection of powdered alkali
sorbents into the furnace section of a combustor. This can be accomplished
by addition of sorbent to the overfire air, injection through separate ports,
or mixing with the waste prior to feeding to the combustor. As with DSI,
reaction products, flyash, and unreacted sorbent are collected using a fabric
filter or ESP.
The basic chemistry of FSI--reaction of sorbent with acid gases to form
alkali salts—is similar to DSI. However, several key differences exist in
these two technologies. First, by injecting sorbent directly into the furnace
(at temperatures of 1,600 to 2,200°F) limestone can be calcined in the
combustor to become more reactive (forms lime), thereby allowing use of less
expensive (than hydrated lime or pebble lime) limestone as a sorbent.18
Second, at these temperatures, S02 and lime react in the combustor, thus
providing a mechanism for effective removal of S02 at relatively low sorbent
feed rates. Third, by injecting sorbent into the furnace rather than into a
aeo.002
-------
downstream duct, additional time is available for mixing and reaction between
the sorbent and acid gases. As a result, it may be possible to remove HC1 and
S02 from the flue gas at lower sorbent stoichiometric ratios than with DSL
Fourth, if a significant portion of the HC1 is removed before the flue gas
exits the combustor, it may be possible to reduce the chlorination of dioxins
and furans (COD/CDF) in latter sections of the flue gas ducting. However, HC1
and lime do not react with each other at temperatures above 1,400°F.19 This
is the flue gas temperature that exists in the heat exchanger sections of the
combustor train.
gep.002 3-31
-------
3.4 REFERENCES
1. Radian Corporation. Municipal Waste Combustion Industry Profile -
Facilities Subject to Section lll(d) Guidelines. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina. September 16, 1988.
2. Chesner Engineering, P. C. and Black and Veatch Engineers. Energy
Recovery from Existing Municipal Incinerators. Prepared for New York
Power Authority and New York State Energy Research and Development
Authority. NYSERDA Report 85-14. Albany, New York. November 1984.
p. 3-11.
3. Beach!er, 0. S., et. al. (Westinghouse Electric Corporation). Bay
County, Florida, Waste-to-Energy Facility Air Emission Tests. Presented
at Municipal Waste Incineration Workshop, Montreal, Canada.
October 1987. p. 2.
r i
4. Reference 3. p. 6.
5. Radian Corporation, and Energy and Environmental Research Corporation.
Municipal Waste Combustion Retrofit Study (Draft). Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
August 5, 1988. p. 6-4.
6. Turner, J. H., P. A. Lawless. T. Yamamoto, D. W. Coy, G. P. Greiner,
J. D. McKenna, and W. M. Vatavuk. Sizing and Costing of Electrostatic
Precipitators (Part I. Sizing Conservations). Journal of Air Pollution
Control and Waste Management (JAPCA). April 1988. pp. 1988.
pp. 458-459.
7. Sedman, C. B., and T. G. Brna. Municipal Waste Combustion Study: Flue
Gas Cleaning Technology. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA Publication No. EPA/530-SW-87-021d.
June 1987. pp. 2-3 to 2-4.
8. California Air Resources Board. Air Pollution Control at Resource
Recovery Facilities. Sacramento, California, May 24, 1984. pp. 153-156.
9. Reference 8. pp. 147-151.
10. Reference 6. pp. 459-460.
11. Brown, B., et al., (Joy Technologies, Inc.), Dust Collector Design
Considerations for MSW Acid Gas Cleaning Systems. Presented at:
7th EPA/EPRI Participate Symposium. Nashville, Tennessee. March 1988,
p. 4.
gep.002 3-32
-------
12. Foster, J. T., M. L. Hochauser, V. J. Petti, M. A. Sandell, and
T. J. Porter. (Wheelabrator Air Pollution Control) Design and Start-up
of a Dry Scrubbing system for Solid Particulate and Acid Gas Control on a
Municipal Refuse-fired Incinerator. Incineration of Wastes Conference,
New England Section, Air Pollution Control Association, April 1988.
13. Muzio, L. J., G. R. Offen. Assessment of Dry Sorbent Emission Control
Technologies. Journal of Air Pollution Control and Waste Management
(JAPCA). May 1987. pp. 642-654.
14. Ishikawajima-Harima Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. Performance of HC1
Removal Dry Scrubber. Tokyo, Japan. Undated.
15. Takuma Co., Ltd. Air Quality Control Technology. Itoh Takuma Resource
Systems, Inc., New York, New York. Undated.
16. U.S. Patent No. 4,681,045. Treatment of Flue Gas Containing Noxious
Gases. July 21, 1987.
17. The National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation Program: Air Pollution
Control Technology. Report EPS 3/UP/2, Environment Canada, Ottawa.
September 1986. pp. 64-70.
18. Beittel, R., et. al. Studies of Sorbent Calcinator and S0,-Sorbent
Reactions in a Pi lot-Scale Furnace. Proceeding of the DryzSO, and
S02/N0 Control Technology Symposium, San Diego, California. z
Novemblr 1984. pp. 16-5 through 16-7, 16-18, 16-20.
19. Albertson, D. .M., and M. L. Murphy (Energy Products of Idaho). City of
Tacoma Steam Plant No. 2 Pilot Plant Testing and Ash Analysis Program.
Prepared for City of Tacoma, Department of Public Utilities Tacoma,
Washington. December 1987. p. 28.
gep.002 3.33
-------
-------
4. EMISSION FACTORS
Emission factors have been developed for the various pollutants emitted
from MWCs. These factors relate the amount of pollutant emitted in the flue
gas to the amount of waste combusted and may be used to estimate emissions
from a facility. Flue gas emissions are the only significant source of
air toxics emissions from municipal waste combustors. The estimated emissions
should be used with caution, however, because the emission factors are
generally averages from several facilities and are not necessarily
representative of the emissions from any particular facility. Additionally,
because of limited data, a representative number of facilities could not
always be used in evaluating an emission factor. Also, variations in waste
composition affect the resulting emissions. If more accurate emission factors
are needed, source testing should be done. Data collected should include MSW
input composition and rate, ash composition, and stack emissions. The actual
air toxics emissions from any given facility are a function of variables such
as capacity, throughput, operating characteristics, and air pollution control
device operations. The effect of these factors need to be considered when
testing.
In this document, emission factors are presented for acid gases including
hydrogen chloride (HC1), hydrogen fluoride (HF), and sulfur trioxide (S03);
metals including arsenic (As), beryllium (Be), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr),
mercury (Hg), and nickel (Ni); and organics including chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (COD and CDF), polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB), formaldehyde, benzo(a)pyrene (BaP), chlorinated benzene (CB), and
chlorinated phenol (CP). Emission factors for lead, criteria pollutants, and
volatile organic compounds (VOC) are presented in the EPA document,
"Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, AP-42."1
Average emission factors for each pollutant were evaluated per combustor
type (see Section 3.2) and emission control type (see Section 3.3). These
overall averages were derived by combining the average emission factors for
each facility of the same general combustor and emission control type. For
facilities where multiple operating conditions were evaluated or multiple
gep.002 4-1
-------
tests were performed over different years, the average emission factor from
each test condition or test date was used in deriving the overall average per
combustor and emission control type.
The individual emission factors at each facility were derived by dividing
the mass emission rate of the pollutant by the measured or estimated waste
feed rate. When a pollutant was not detected, the detection limit was used.
Based on the theoretical nature of the F-factor and the lack of heating value
data, this method was not used to calculate emission factors.
Emission factors for the different types of combustors and emission
controls are presented in Sections 4.1 to 4.8.
4.1 EMISSION FACTORS FOR MASS BURN REFRACTORY-WALL COMBUSTORS
Emission factors for mass burn refractory-wall combustors are presented
in Tables 4-1 and 4-2 in System International (SI) and English units,
respectively. The emission factors are for uncontrolled flue gas emissions as
well as controlled flue gas emissions. Emission factors for controlled
emissions are separated by the different types of emission controls used with
mass burn combustors which include: PM control only, and spray drying with PM
control. These types of emission controls are described in detail in
Section 3.
4.2 EMISSION-FACTORS FOR OLDER MASS BURN WATERWALL COMBUSTORS
Emission factors for mass burn waterwall combustors built prior to 1980
are presented in Tables 4-3 and 4-4 in SI and English units, respectively. In
general, state-of-the-art combustion technology was not widespread until the
early 1980s. Because these older combustors are not able to provide as
thorough combustion as recently installed units, uncontrolled emissions are
generally higher than for new units, especially for organics. When combined
with particulate control devices that are generally not as effective as new
units, higher controlled emissions generally results as well. Because older
units generally do not have acid gas controls, controlled emission factors are
for PM control only. If acid gas and new PM controls were added later, the
controlled emission factors would be expected to be similar to those for new
units of the same size. An exception exists for the case of medium size units
(250 to 800 tons/day). Older medium size units generally have emissions
gep.002 4-2
-------
TABLE 4-1. EMISSION FACTORS IN SI UNITS FOR MASS BURN REFRACTORY-WALL MUNICIPAL UASTE COHBUSTORS
UncontroIiTd
Act4 C»i and PM Control
Rang*
Aftar ESP Quit
Av.r.f.
Rang*
•.f.r.nc*. Av.r.g.
Pnr Sggbant InUctlon
Avarag.a Rant*
R.f.r.nc.«
Id C»»ai. fca/Ma
HCI
HF
0.002S
1.4
D.041
•.*>
0.021
2.1 2
0.010 4
0.011
0.0011*
Ar..nlc
l.rrlllua
Chco.li>.
Mvrcury
ttnlci . u«IM|
Jll»-TCno
2)?t-TCDF
lot. I TCDD
Total TCDr
CDO
cor
PCI
Cl
cr
200*
ISO*
ooo"
ooo*
I.*
O.M
1.400 4.100
10 4»
100 140
1.'00 l.JOO
1,000 1.000
12.000 12.000
11,000 12.000
4.0 4
t.fOO
M
210
1.000
4.100
12.000
14,000
...0*
*<
11*
410*
150*
« li PCI . polfchlarln.t.d Blph.nrl.1 i(.)r - b.iuo(.>prr.n.,
« .ppllc.tlon. of Duct Sorb.nt InJ.ctlon h.v. control .fflcl.nct.. co^ur.bl. to Spr.r Orrln. (... dl.cu..l.n |n ..ctlon 1.1.21. W
.-p-dlo.lni
• P •"«'»'
. .„,„,„„.„ „.„„„.,
,„,. „ .„. c... ^ ^
-------
i
1
s
I
u
i
i
i
a
i
s
i
!
s
1
5
I
m
h
i
3
5
M
U
=
H
V
i
}
1 i
Jj
1 °
•
O
2
U
i
3
c
fl
J
s
t
at
M
M
jj
*
«
1
i
j
:
<
]j
i
c
2
S
m
I
I
to
a
\
'
j ' ' ' i i • . i i • ,
•
111
j ' ' ' i i i t i , , , , , , , , , , , ,
1 ' ' i i i i i i , i i
I • • • • . i
t » i i , i i i i
5 Vl
| ••-• --Vs'li • , , ,
I •
•
:
". ". °.
*• '.'•'' 8 ' § § f f | | ' ' ' ' '
S " •' s g
[ -; :•
«• 8 »• 5 § ?•
M
• S «
. " • • •"••«• 838888
• o •• « « w a o
[ s " -" s s
i
11 ' 1*1)1111111
1
' . 1 .
11
111 ' « 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1 1
's •
§
. b . Vo . S S S
5 S •-».".
a ": J .
- S § i 2 8 S 8 8 £
.; i |= i| &- " B B f f - fc
JIiaT 1 lllsll *5 H I I § § 2 J ! s &
2 • •
II
•
a
1
2
j
&
*
1*
i
u
|
1
J 2
. 1 :
« •• :
1 I ".
H i
J ? I
1 « J
s ' t ~
2 7 ".
• w <•«
111 -g
•* « i H
•^ tt
' ?J I
^ SjS e
J - : 7
•'i i
!ii *
IK 1
III -i
1*1 *
!? !
si* "
2 - • 2
5:8 |
1 m \ t
8 II J
5 • j t
i>2 1
« S 2 5
218 T!
& a a 'o
i si s
S£ ; s
2-SS .
lit \
u to w M «•
3 •* ^ 0 M
to • .1 e a
• " ' •! "
i • to M
SS x •»
0 • • w
•. » « . e
i « S Jl
sBiH
H U U
S • ' • *
I ° ;
w -1
e M
9 u
• "a
S 3-
*>« I
-------
lit
X
H
a
3
8
S
fc
U
i
i
i
I
i
i
*•
m
a
M
•
M
^
M
M
S
*
3
2
8
s
3
1
u
3
t«
<
*
<
j
s
J
^
a
i
t
1
^
i
j
j
8
to
t
J
4
1
i
i
j
j
j
i
]
«
«
1
|
2
I
*
i
*
:
J!
j
1
»
i
•
• • i • -
M MM
••.
•«
i I i 1 i 1 i t i i i i i i t i i , , ,
ill i i i i i l t i i i t 1 i i i | i
-.77..... "
:" §:m- i i § i i § i • § § §
" ""2 " " 5 a 3 " * § §
M
I
" ' !'M5' " = * ! I I 5 ' 1 | 1
** M * ft m m
• • - A »
s'lill = S ! ! i 1 ! I 1 ! s
MM MM
* «
^ ^ 1 1 1 1 1 I | ,, ,
* • • •
^
' ' ' I'lii'
- S22
111 2 ' ||3 '
M M
**•** A
••« 8 s a
•-• |"||si *| -
* S" 2 o
i 1 s *• i
L „ ^ Illlil •] 5 i 3 ? § 5
^ss ^ ^aadls |ss25g§2£s85
a
|
?
K
to
Q
K
to
U
•M
5
u
*
m
I
S 2
: -
e
. * •
e * S
- , .
7 1 "
* s •
i? \
1 ° j
-; S \. "
•i 27"
i« •« • T
« sli !
• M O .2 W
: it: "•
\ !l! i
§ !lf I
S III 1
i lili
M w A
^ * ** ' w
i siS •
| S 2- 2
1 2 • *
* ill 1
• S i S *
* :g* 1
o lc-2 S
S 5 S ] 5
* - » e •
Si's o 2
1 M ^ M
S. 2 S-g S
i 52 1 S
'1 » .
i u; i
5 !2J2l
M M • M e u
1 s;*s 1
M to « e
1 • « 3 2
to O — -
to *• W 3 «
• "3*16
2 . SSfc -
• ^ »• u u a
s ! ^
5 s r
. — •
5i i
• « ^
•5-5 *
-------
•* ft. ft,
-g • s *
v e » »
: Is?
1 ; i •
e n n *4 t* C »
p i * * •*
Z r § 8 § '
* £ e i IT
r iris *
ffHI! i
^r g * •» * £
f 'Hi !"
r tfl I
: :if :
i ill f
I si* !
«• e ft. •*
• a n •- *
Ml E • A •
S IS S •
• * «. •
f I i r
« £.13 *
j s . 8 s
1 !:• i
• - • M ft.
' a- " f
• 8 • • •
: • - 1 t
? Iii |
4 T5&S 1
? Is f :
^ n n L •*
c r * ^ w
* * " F °
: ^fs. i
• J £ - f
: r ss I
§ • f " •
f M » 1
«• r F s •
^ • • e »
- t I r
Ml"
r i i
s : r
: z \
I I \
n B. ^
• 9
•* I
r f
__
8
e
MI
• o
f
•5
^
^
J
i
?
c
M
&
* * ? s 3 § § s s t 55" ^??£::"^*Es1
^•8 5-s-??*ft»?i£is?** *"5
| g § S 8 . i | |
g „ • _ » a _ r»
.• s er.-f .•
.ir "Mil. I ..s
s ss
V •
.- ill .!
i i i . i . , ,
:••:• •
§M W *• *• M *• •* »•
O»*>V*»M*M*» MO**M*>
i i I I i I 1 1 5 I S Uis.g , _
s s-
s s s H
1 I I , s i s § r S . ,§§i.g , ,M
H £ M
•
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 * 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 III
r .*•
iii ssicr»M 8M, M
i 1 1 . i 1 I i i I i ,111.8 , ,-
£ •
£;. SSS^^SS * i
.
•
w
M
e •*
< I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I lOIMii IIW
' ' V
> ' ' • i i i i i i i i i i i i i i(i
•i
m
•
n
b>
)
k
!)
»
i
i
>
k.
3
ft
!
4
>
•4
|
f
5
51
w
i
s
p
i
i
•4
i
i
g
i
j
a
I
i
0
5
F
S
1
s
1
•
-------
comparable to newer medium size units. For medium size mass burn waterwall
combustors, regardless of age, use the emission factors in Tables 4-5, 4-6,
4-7, or 4-8.
4.3 EMISSION FACTORS FOR NEW SMALL TO MEDIUM-SIZED MASS BURN WATERWALL
COMBUSTORS
Emission factors for mass burn waterwall combustors built after 1980 and
with capacities less than 600 ton/day are presented in Tables 4-5 and 4-6 in
SI and English units, respectively. Emission factors are presented for
uncontrolled and controlled emissions. The controlled emission factors are
differentiated by type of emission control, which includes PM control only,
dry sorbent injection with PM control, and spray drying with PM control.
4.4 EMISSION FACTORS FOR NEW LARGE MASS BURN WATERWALL COMBUSTORS
Emission factors for mass burn waterwall combustors built after 1980 and
with capacities greater than 600 ton/day are presented in Tables 4-7 and 4-8
in SI and English units, respectively. Emission factors are for uncontrolled
and controlled emissions. The controlled emission factors are differentiated
by type of emission control, which includes PM control only and spray drying
with PM control. Emission factors with dry sorbent injection and PM control
are expected to be similar to those for spray drying and PM control.
4.5 EMISSION FACTORS FOR ROTARY-WATERWALL MASS BURN COMBUSTORS
Emission factors for rotary-waterwal1 mass burn combustors are presented
in Tables 4-9 and 4-10 in SI and English units, respectively. Emission factor
data are available for only two units and do not include any organics data.
Uncontrolled and controlled emission factors are available for some
pollutants, but are only for units with PM control. The emission factors for
the pollutants without data are expected to be similar to the emission factors
for mass burn waterwall combustors of similar size and with the same emission
control.
4.6 EMISSION FACTORS FOR MODULAR STARVED-AIR COMBUSTORS
Emission factors for modular starved-air combustors are presented in
Tables 4-11 and 4-12 in SI and English units, respectively. Emission factors
are for uncontrolled and controlled emissions. The controlled emission
factors reflect PM control only. Acid gas controls have been used on these
gep.002 4-7
-------
s
i
s
?!
-
5 S 5 5 S a
I I
ll
11 iiiiii • b * «•> « »*
MAM
-I ' ^ "
<3|| "'' • ' 8- ' • • * 2 S S S ' '
• s s
* • s
•• • • "am
o o i ' * 2 ° 3 * ' ' ' * ' ' ' '
? a I"s -.1
I "• -•«!!!
N M
j 1* *J " ™ ™ ™ »• •» «^
ssa asaaaa a 8 s s s s a a a
•
-------
TAll.E4-t. B..,SIC» fACTOM I. ENGLISH UNITS W« SMAIL TO HEDIUH-SIUD HASS ,UU, UATERWAU. HUWCIfAL UASTE COH.USTORS'
— ; vilcont..l[t-t Afl.r ESP Onl ~~ "" "
'""* " »«•»• tan.. i.I.r.nc.. Awraaa j,.,,.. : ., ftftf BrrtM
^ -•»•• •af.r.nc.a Av.r.«. Ran|O
Id Cat... Ib/ton ~ •
w' V *2 ' " "-»• «o 4.'t - ,. „,.,,
- : : » " Mr .•:.•,. : MT n.» m? ?~ : 2:2-
l«l». lb(|o£ j 1°*
Ar«*nlc
l.rylltu. - . " »* fc «0 - 70 21 1 »k
C.d.1. 0.200k ... „ « °« ' 22 o].,, ,..„. . ^ „„
Ct.ro.lu. J.200* - - - 17 ,„ " M0 *' «0 24 - 70
Harcurjr l.OOo" »» •• - 200 21 4.000 IS - 0 000
--.. I *•'£ '••«• - ...OO ».t2 ,..0. 2.2M -J:!o1
ijoujc , *• •« - 00 21 1..00 ,. . , ....
2IIO-TCOO 2 Ok
" » ' ••«• - » ... 20.22 0 J.k
,2110-TCDT 14 ' . .,
" *° " - « ».22 .,.k . . .
Tot.l TWO t.4k - ,.
" " » - 52 20.22 , ,k
Tot.l TCOr i4k
" "" »« - «"> M.22 2.tk - - .
«» l»ok . . .,
1 ».000 ISO - 1.000 20-22 • ok
c"f nok .
" l-»00 «0 - 1.200 20-22 , »k
PCi
10,000 1.000 - M.OOO 21
Foraialdahyd. ....
Cl
50.000 24.000 - loo.ooo 21
CP '
"0.000 44.000 .- 2.0.000 21
a ar. fro. ««rf»,,,or. bu,u ,>
data point only
to oroanlci: 2170-TCOO - 2»M-t*trachlorodlba
Total TCDf . total t.lr.chlorodlbwiofurr',ncOO • .ua of"t«tr!"'tht*Cl>h*rOdlk^O<'"*1" tOt*' *a>° " tO"1 '•"•cla°r<>dlkonao-p-dloMlni
^^ * '*** *f i.tra- throuah octa-chlorlnat A Jik* f octa chl#«lnat«d dibonio-p-dtoMUi.i
CP - chlorlnat.d ph.no 1 . "" "'*"*' " Polfehlorlnat^ blphanyl., 1(.)P . b.n.a(a)pfr.n.i d - cUoilnatad b.n».n.i
. .... ,n v».i».i.i
Drr focbont Inl.etlon'1
Avorao. Ran*. R.f.r.nc..
1.1 0.14 - 2.2 15-1*. 21. 24
- - It. 17
1*
k
0.040 - - - ,,.,,
*'°k - - - l».l*.24
'•• • I>.1*,24
" b " " '•.*»
»•' - - U.It. 24
0.50 0.10 - 1.0 17.21.24.50
0-0 1-4 - 10 17.21.24.50
*° »l - M U. 21. 24. 50
•00 54 - 220 17.21.24.50
»«0 110 - ItO 17.21.24.50
200 ISO - 140 17.21.24.50
-
-
- -
-------
i : s ?
S 8 • •
IMF
,!rii
i s s u
r sȤ! f
— e • S-
2 ! ?:"
s r] If
\ «|l
« ft ~~
n * •»
I is
r:?
[f?
— * M
111
iii
Wi
ill
S 3
i-
, i
f
f i r
S Sr
w e
S i § s r = 5
I I § i 2 s 5
U A A
. . . . i x s s x r
I * 5 3 5 S S S S S S S S
S ,88 8 8 8 8
f S S S S S S
i
i . « .
» «* •• O W M
lii^i^I^sSSss. .Is«.!
" " *** 8
V
* •*
II... Sis*,.. ..ss .:
* .
888S8888888 888888
88 88 8 8 8 8 SS S
** ** •* w w w
M M M M M M
rsst-;
0 S S S M S
S S
S2
II!
I
5
M
W
i
|
i
s
I
I
-------
TAKE 4-0. EMISSION FACTORS IN OWLISH UNITS FOR LARGE MASS lUM UATCRUALL HUHICirAL HASTI COMUSTORS*
— — _
..,.,. Aft.r Acid G.a and FM Control
• ramlar
eld Ca.«a. Ik/t
HF
SO.
Kali. Ib/ton •
l.irllliaa
Cadalia.
Chromium
Mmtcurj
Mlck.l
aanlca . Ibftoj
2171-TCDO
2170-TCDF
Total TCDO
Total TCDF
COO
cor
PCI
Fofataldahfd.
l(a)P
Cl
CP
UnconttoILd
Av«a|. Rant*
0.4 . » . i,
_u>!
2 M0k
22.0OOk ...
, . „»
SO 1.1 - u
«o o.o - no
'• 22 - IM
ttO 110 - 1,400
MO IM - I.SOO
1.700 2M - 1.400
2t.OOOk'C ...
-
I20.000k<€
t.400k'e
n.oook-e
Alt.i ISP Onl.
M.27 S.O It
0.070 0.040
-
» 44 2t
o.ia*
IM SO
1* 120. 14
0.4M*
It - -
20.20. 11. St 2.4 O.S4
at.20.ll.St M 7.2 -
21.20. 11. St 22 t.2
2«.20.11.St 4M IM
20.20. 11. St 740 230
24.21.11.5* 1.000 420
b.«
20.000
S.OM.OOOk
at iao.ooob<<
»« 0,400 S.MO
»• t.JOO 0.000
t.4 2f.20.2t.17 0.22 0.004 - 0.14
0.11 20. 2*. SI 0.00t4 0.0070 - 0.011
0.11 0.12 - 0.11
tO 20.10 10 14-42
ao 4.0" 1.0" - 4.0"
100 20.2* IM IM - 1*0
2M 20,10 IM 440 - tM
M 7,000 5,200 - O.OM
aO IM IM - 220
10 21.20, 11. 12 0.70k - - .
2M 20.20.11.12 t.0k
• 20 20.20.11.12 l|k ...
000 20.20.11.12 130k
I.MO 20.20.11.12 IIOk - -
2.1M 20. 20. 11. la 170k
at - ...
12 - ...
2t - ...
7.000 20.20 - ...
10,000 ao.ao - ...
Orr Sorbant InLctlon
27
27
27
- . j,
- - 27
27
- - 27
27
27
27
- - 27
27
- - 27
- - 27
.
. .
— — — _ — :
.t. >f« (to» coMbuatora built cltac IMO Kith capacUUa (caatar tnan MO tpd.
M data point only.
'I datactad. Datactlon Hull |lv«n
, I. onanlca, 2170 TCDO - 271. t.lr.chl.,odlb.n.o-p dlo.ln, 2170- TCOT . 2»0-tat(Mla.rodlb«>..iuraa, Total TCDO . total t.t.acblo.odlb*,.. p-dlo.ln,
Total TCDF - total t.t..chl.rodlt.n..Iur.«, COD - .«. of t.tca- throuah octa-chlorlnatad dlb.na.-pdlo.ln., •e""odlM"" ' -"-1"'
' ~"-€fcUrl-t- «•—•— '« - .«lrcnUrln..ad tlphan,!., OOP - banaoCa^..^, CO - .Wo.mat^ b.
.pplU.,,.n, „, Duct So.b.nt .n|.c.,o,, «... CMnt ...IcIancU. .o^a.ak,. ,. Sp,., Dryl^ .... dl.cu.aloo ,„ ..ctun 1.1.2,. »« thl. I. th. ..... ,„. ..,..,.„ ,.«„.
-------
1 r
i I
I 8
e n n *4 ^
-, -.30
? ' , t
n n i
•» S» • -4
?! §
r 8 -•
9 ***»*• 1
If-:
s I?; R
* m
' sll
i •. ?3
8 If*
i r «.
• 9 S S
5 5 S *
i f:l
1 li!
? 2=1
0 t f> •
fill
o S e S
a ssi
1 fif
• Lot
•• l^i
1 1*;
: rts
s - rt
» s| .,
s • i;
rM 0
• t
H i" !
i, 3 S
r ! S
f H
j * r
•• O i
• * v
r ! ?
0 & i
S •• 2
• s
* g
r 1
• •
•
1
§
|T
s
f
9
•t
Q
**
£
1
*
e
L
« • U 8 « i j r i itifrfnf^'Br
| 8§jj§L 3i*jBK r
f " * |
W M «•
ssllsl -o.
"•L *
•
'
'
y» w w w w w wt*w
1*111111111
» M
1 < • 1 ' I I t 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i i lit
' ' ' " ' < • 1 1 t 1 | 1 1 1 1 1 1 III
s r
• ' < * i i * i i i i i i i i i i iii
* • i * i i i i i i i i t i i i it.
• • i i i
• • * * • t i i . i i i i i i i i it.
• ' ' ' * * i * i i * i i i i i . iii
• * i ' * * i * i i i i i i i i i iii
• • • * i i i i i i iii
• • * • • ...... ...
i
s
1
m
*
r
!
r
m
1
r
*
|
r
5
*
jf
C
S
f
J
1
"
t
m
>
n
1
I
1
1
m
s
1
t
ft.
1
in
p
*
n
J
<
0
3
r
B
3
r
r
i
!
!
n
:
»
n
r
i
n
t
»
i
3
?
)
i
)
;
i
*
5
*•»
e
s
1
*
in
s
a
1
5
i
E
1
M
5
P
i
n
f
5
S
n
g
•>
3
m
-------
** fc
« • 5
•o e •
<• •»
8 ! 1
" — 9
— n M
o *
5 g
S. S§?S T
S I'. *l
0 « "*
rt:>:
" IS S S
I?!:!
« S 9- » •
*. ^ i, 1, n
MM
< o S 8.
I R|?
i "ft
i f S.T
i 1;|
£. 7 i S
i Hi
v/ «* ^
r g: s
i ill
J -Si
i [if
L r s
fl!
rss
2i M
§:e
ifi
» i r
n 3 5
r 1 1
r -. i
z '* I
- ? ?
" ? *"
nil
1 r '
r [
l
•
I
I
s
?
PI
»
|
1
r
I
« s | - s i § s ? 1 1 1 im*i : -s^e?
"*£ ^-as-"q?i5l? r
• . P. •
9 • ^* • i1*
• M V • O N
1 iii, *&•»•••• B, M e •»
e^e M
M
1 i i i t i i i i i i i i i i i i iii
i 1 i i i i 1 i i t i i 1 i i i i iii
I I I * I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 i i ill
I 1 t 1 1 i i 1 1 i i
1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Illlll Ml*
" •• ' ' '
< 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ' . Ill
» »
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 1 t 1 lit
1 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 III
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Illlll III
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Illlll III
'
' ' ' ' ' '
[
r
1
i
r
g
•
r
1
•
i
r
?
j>
•
r
*
,
!
r
1
1
•
:
f
•
r
i
£
£
S
9
t
f
4
[
9
I
r
9
i
h
t
i
k
n
i
i
L
z
}
)
*
t
•4
:
0
5
•A
VI
i
g
w
m
i
X
s
-1
VI
1
5
JJ
g
!
B
|
i
n
i
1
a
1
|
-------
TAIL! 4-11. miSSIOM FACTO*S III SI UNITS KM HOMJLM StMVtO-AI* MUNICIPAL UAITI COOUSTCMI
MMtar
d Catat. ka'tff
NCI
HF
SO.
1
Arcanlc
••rrlllua
Chra»lua
Harcurr
Ntckal
inlci*. ualtif
2IIO-TCOO
2170-TCDT
Total TCOO
Total TCOF
COO
cor
PCI
Focm.ld.hyd.
I(.)F
Cl
CP
Avaraoa
1.1
0.014
„
170
1.1
2.700
700
2.400
1.100
4.4
I2C
20
220
170
270
2.100
1.400
l.MO*
17.000
ll.OOO
Uncontroll.d
lUnga
0.01 - 4.4
0.0040 - 0.040
2* - 100
0.41 - 1.0
1.000 - 1.000
17 - 1.400
140 - 1.400
11 - 1,»00
2.1 - 4.1
-
4.0 - 01
41 - 110
210 - 120
07 - 040
210 - 1.700
140 - 2.400
.
11.000 - 22.000
11.000 - 20.000
Bafarancaa
11-17
11,14
11-17.41
11.17.42
11-11.42
11-17.41.42
11-17
11.17.42
11.17
17
11-17
11-17 '
14,17
14,17
14,17
11,17
17
1*
14
ACtar ESP flnlv
Avaraga Ian..
4.4 2.4
01 22 -
0.12 0.22
400 01
100 14
4.100 2.400
110 0.1
4.0 0.00
1.100 1.4 .
010 11
7.400 110
ll.OOO 170
17.000 MO
-
1,500*
.
-
-
Altar Acid Caa and FN Control
• .1 11-40 - ... . ...
. - -
... ....
140 10-41 - ... . ...
0.41 10-40 - ... . ...
070 10-40 - ... . ...
100 M-41 . ... . .
1.400 10.40 - ... . ...
120 10.40 - ... . ...
12k 10.40 - ... . ...
2.100 10.40 - ... . ...
1.000 10.40 - ... . ...
IS. 000 10,40 - ... . ...
01.000 JV..O - ... . ...
74.000 10,40 - ... . ...
...
» - ...
-
*
- - - - ...
R.l.c.nc..
-
-
-
-
-
- — — — — - . —
I. or,.Mc,:
2 Hi TCOO - 2730 t.tr.cM.rodl..n..-p-dl..l., 2170-KOr - 2170-tatraeMorodl.«».tU(H,l Total TCOO - t.t.l t.tracUorodlkan..-, dlo.lo,
J" " " ««'«l>l<«odlban«ofurani COO - lua .1 t.tra- through Mla-chl.rln.ta4 dlbanio-p-dloilnn
™. . .t . .. . Mjji Kt ^ poilehieri,,.t.4 fciphan,!., |(.)p . banaa(a)pfr.aai C» . chlorln.t.d kansanai
r.* " !T '.' .
ir • chiorinatod pn*no|
-------
1
M
i
u
i
i
!
3
2'
s
i
§
m
f
3
M
M
a
n
3
i
•o
1
I
_ ""
S e
H
1 1
s
1
. to
«
G
j
t,
fl
M
»
I-
M
Ir
5
i
1
9
1
i
!
•
f
^
!
j
%
to
4
to
:
i
2
*ii *
i i i » t
111 i < » i i t , i i i , (
1 • ' i i i i i i i , , , , ,
1
i
J
| • • . . . ' .
| 5 S3S3SS 5 S 5 5 3 5
a aaaaaa a a a a a a a
*i
•" s - " a a a
—. "*
[ .'
S 2 .
- • --5Sjp • • a a g §
^ «
• * ^
> s iiss ~ 1 I I 1 I ' | ' ' '
; • " - 2 J 2 -
3
M-M M M M
••• rilll = S 8 § | § 8 | 8
- " - S - 5 *
-I : , ,
"e ' R*|s§s * 'SSSSS'SS
M* — * "" ** *" °. °.
s s
fS
% x s
•5 * *
s 5 Izll !i i ^ - - f ..
Jiss" ; 5i3sls s » 2 j § § g j | . fc
' *t i
1
a
JS
^
i
i
*
_ ^
t
*
*
j
|
1
.' 1
- J
8 •
1 1 i
f i =
J 1 1
I i ' '
1 ^
I 1 1
HI 1
•;; I
S|I J
J?| :
5 * \ *
IK !
It! 5
l|f !
»t *
?:i 3
5 S* 3
iil !
S ' 2 |
iU 1
:i| i
Hi i
iii i
• * »
2 a f . g
U to to ^ ^
* — « "S. e ?
=:!] ! j
ilH s
° " S "
Si§S 1 i Tj
1 |i|
s ? 1 i
-------
systems, but no data are currently available. Emission factors for a modular
starved-air unit with acid gas and PM control are expected to be similar to
the results from a modular excess-air unit.
4.7 EMISSION FACTORS FOR MODULAR EXCESS-AIR COMBUSTORS
Emission factors for modular excess-air combustors are presented in
Tables 4-13 and 4-14 in SI and English units, respectively. Emission factors
are for uncontrolled and controlled emissions. The controlled emission
factors are differentiated by type of emission control, which includes PM
control only and dry sorbent injection with PM control. Emission factors for
a system with spray drying and PM control are anticipated to be similar to the
emission factors for dry sorbent injection with PM control.
4.8 EMISSION FACTORS FOR RDF COMBUSTORS
Emission factors for RDF combustors are presented in Tables 4-5 and 4-6
in SI and English units, respectively. These emission factors are for systems
combusting 100 percent RDF and do not cover systems which co-fire RDF with
other fuels. The emission factors are for uncontrolled and controlled flue
gas emissions and represent the amount of pollutant emitted per amount of RDF
combusted. The uncontrolled flue gas emission factors are not differentiated
by the different types of RDF and RDF combustors described in Section 3.2.3.
Different types of RDF may be fifed in the same combustor type. The
controlled flue gas emission factors are for systems with PM control only and
for system with spray drying and PM control.
4.9 OTHER COMBUSTOR TYPES
Emission factors for the other combustor type described in Section 3.2.4,
fluidized-bed combustors, have not been separately prepared because of
insufficient data. The expected emissions from a fluidized bed combustor
cannot be quantified with the available data.
nan f\M » 1C
-------
TAIL! 4-IJ. EMISSION FACTOHS ID SI UNITS KM MXNILM BUXSS-AII HUNICIrAL UASTI COOUStOUt
Aflat Acid Cat and n Control
Uncontrolled
r..a~ta, A..ro,o »an«. Kafaranca.
Acid Caiaa. ka/Ha
MCl »•• - 0.1* - 4.* 41.44
HF 0.00003* ... 4,
SO, ,.,* ... 4,
•sitli. ttttit
Acaante - . .
larrlllua - ...
CadaUuo, - ...
Chronliaa . ...
Marcury . ...
Nlckal - ... ~
»t«anlca . ua/ffr
21IO-TCDD - ...
21IO-TCDT - ...
Total TCDO - ...
Total TCDT - ... .
CDO
cor - ...
...T""" . . . . .
CO . ...
CP - ...
•» data point on If .
l..i :rt«cted. Detection lloilt flnn.
«> to orianlca: 2»0-TCDD • ]7)l-tatrachlacodl»anio-p-dloalni 2170-TCOT
AJtor ESP Onl» Sor.T Drrlna
» » l.» - t.O 4»,4t - ...
0.1« 0.1* - 0.17 4* - ...
• »k 4.1 - 40 4S-40 - ...
J.» 1.1* - U* 4J-40 - ...
"0* 45 . Ill
"• «*« • 1.000 4*. 40 - ...
MO* ... „ . ...
O.JI O.SI - 0.11 4*. 40 - - . .
>• 4.4 - -11 4*. 40 - -
M 0.0 - U 41.4* - ...
»°« •> - 140 4*. 40 - ...
»»• IM - OM 41.40 . ...
«» 410 - 040 t*.40 - ...
M.OOO* - - - 40 - ...
- - - -
*
Dr* Sorbont Intact Ion
0.0012* ... 47
0.0000*0* ... 4}
0.000000* ... 4|
0.0001** ... 4;
0.00090 ... 4)
0.00001* ... 47
0.022* ... „
O.l»* ... 4,
l.l* ... 4»
4.»* ... »,
1.1* - - - 4»
U* ... 4,
. .
- -
CP - chl.rln.lod ph.n.1
-. appllca,,™. ol Du« ,.tk.nt ,„,.«„„, h ..... nlr.|
b.n.ono,
ira.1. to Sp»F BTtng
-------
TAILt 4-14. MISSION rACTOM » ENGLISH UNITS FOB MODULI* EXCCSS-AM HUH 1C I PAL HAITI
COOUSTOBS
P.ru»t*t «*•»*• fen** fefirmcot
HCI »•* . 0.70 - 0.2 41.44
HF 0.0017* - - - 41
SO, «..* - - 41
Ar.vnlc - ...
l.rrlllu. . ...
ChromluM . ...
M*rcury . ...
Nlck.l - ...
OfAanlc. . Iblton • 10
2171-TCOO - ...
2170-TCDF - . '
Tot. I TCOO - ...
Total TCDF - ...
COT - -
CDF - ...
Foim.14.hr4* - ...
CO - ...
CF . ...
On* d.t* point only.
b
Not d.t.ct.d D*t*ctlon ll.lt *lv.n.
(*r to oci.nlci: 2170-TCDO - 27)0-1. ti.chloro4lb*nu-»-4lo»lni 2170-TCDT
Alt.r ISP OnlT
• • > * - 0.2 41.4*
0.72 0.70 - 0.74 41
V • \ - 02 41-4*
1\ «•» - 14* 41-4*
14 - - 43
1*0 - - 41
1.100 020 - 2.000 41.4*
100* . 4}
!•• >-0 - 1.0 41.4*
>• 0.0 - M 41.4*
«• 14 - M 41.4*
200 110 - 200 41.4*
1.100 100 - 2,000 41.4.
1.100 020 - 1.100 41.4*
'
41.000* - - -4*
-
Sor» Dnrlna Drr Sottxnt Inlo<;||an^
0.0012* - - - 47
- -
' • - - - 0.00010* ... 47
0.00012* ... 47
0.0011* ... 47
0.0010* ... 47
0.0017* ... 47
0.044* - - - 47
0.14* ... 47
22* . . . „
0.* ... 47
- •»' ... 47
*•' ... 47
"
- - - - ...
- -
tot.i Tcor - ....i t.t..«hi.c^ib«,..«uc«, cm - .. .( ,.„.- ,hc«,.h Mt..
-------
o * •
* f»
1
S
? s
i S8?2 S ?
?•:£•?
* a:*?
r ? — i »
i S . . 2 .
8 • • e - ~
?*«•:? *
11;.5
= ^r?s
I
9* e
ifi
• ft e S
** & r
i in
i ri
i Hi
: :ss
• S? ?
s , -:
nfi
2 BAD
*• *< f« ft*
* HI
i HI
- rt
s s
i. 3
H
•r
8
S
*
2 §
? 5 s
=?9?r?
£ ill
.
sss
1 I 1 i s r .'i'i'i.i
f
IP
• • • i S I S a = III,!
»
P
r
•
« r r .- ~= S?
I I I £ i. 2 I S S s..s miii ,. «
i
• • • s . S s s . - . »sss.s , , - fe
f»
i . i . . i i i i . . , , . *
.«• .• r =ss
I i i i I s * iiiiii
s a B B i BBBB'BB i £
s » g s §
S S 5 "S
isSs..t!r ... r
5. *
?
I
3
,f
1 ' '•-•!•!*»?• . SS , , S
** ** • U » e *
s » B
Its
s
« - . i i ; sszs; s p
Mt
•
i
§
i
i
-------
8
f
M
1
i
i
§
b
§
8
h>
8
i
3
I
2
S
i
5
hi
!
*
*«
i
t
i *
\ *
* •
1 t
1 °
o
•
51
i
1
«
i
!•
A.
M
hi
5
1
i
i
•
1
:
!
J
1
I
1
]
1
\
1
*
!
a.
111 i » i i i (
• ' ' i i i > i i i i , , , , , , , , ,
iii iiii(i i i i i i i |
•
1 • • • •
j II. llll(| 1 1 1 1 ( 1 ( ( ( ( ,
*s - !
: *s -. s s s . .
j ^ * • • . . . ~ *.
s - alsl
*
! a S 8 S
1 ' a a a i a a
( 8 as s as:: a" a" a a" s s a
a a aaaaaa a" a' a" a" a' a" a a" a a a
••
• "• • 328388 2 S 8 8 8 8 ' 8 ' ' '
* » • • «» o M S « 5 a 3
*"S*S "* " S 8 "*"
^ . . , ,1.111 . i . . . . i . i , ,
:> ' !-SIs! : : = 2 S 5 § ' '
\ ^ Ulili s « ! I 1 ! '§ 1 'I 'I '1
i g " ~ - « » «* - a S 8
i "• "*
1
•
-
1 * I I . .
5 S S3 S SSS"""
5 5 5S5S t 8 8 8 5 5'
1 sis 8 1 ! I I §
•* * * * *»*!>**
]
*'' § ' 88 g ' ""SSSSS
5 «-w«- " • • •
2' ' i'lil'l.,- S 2 1 ! §
__ o •
I • s
i I iljit- 2 f J I fi I
Jiss" ; iiJali "s s s J 2 § § g I I j. &
2 • •
331
3
i
j
7
I
S
*
3
w
i
i •
i i i
1 i *
f S 2
S3.
j ; i
! 8. I
1 l »
• MM
M •
III i
S ^- a
^8S g
s i • •
i-1 -
3t- :
l!i j
*s| :
Iff *
W M
« • - «
•I i t
Is-' :
S i J J!
M o ^ e
i§: 1
III i
Sjl |
Hi S
i^s .
is8 s
ss* ••
IS!- J
• - f a «
I sis? f
I !f •! I
fc s s 2 o o ~
1 j .
Ill 1
W to ^
• * O &
54s •
111 J
-------
4.10 REFERENCES
1. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors AP-42. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
September 1985.
2. Neulicht, R. (Midwest Research Institute) Emission Test Report: City of
Philadelphia Northwest and East Central Municipal Incinerators. Prepared
for U.S. EPA, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. EPA Contract No. 68-02-3891.
October 31, 1985. pp. 8, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19.
3. Hahn, J. L. Air Emissions and Performance Testing of a Dry Scrubber
(Quench Reactor) Dry Venturi and Fabric Filter System Operating on Flue
Gas From Combustion of Municipal Solid Waste in (Tsushima) Japan.
Prepared for California Air Resources Board by Cooper Engineers.
July 1985. p. 98.
4. Clean Air Engineering, Inc. Report on the Compliance Testing Conducted
for Waste Management, Inc. at the McKay Bay Refuse-to-Energy Project
Located in Tampa, Florida. October 29, 1985. pp. 2-4 through 2-11.
5. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency. Operational Studies at the
SYSAV Energy From Waste Plant in Malmo, Sweden. Publication
No. SNV PM 1807. June 1983. pp. 80, 106, 167, 168.
6. Howes, J. E., et. al. (Battelle Columbus Laboratories). Characterization
of Stack Emissions from Municipal Refuse-to-Energy Systems (Hampton,
Virginia; Dyersburg, Tennessee; and Akron, Ohio). Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Atmospheric Sciences Research
Laboratory. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. 1982. pp. 5, 6,
21, 28, 29, 33, 34, 38, 42, 44, 49.
7. Nunn, A. B., III. (Scott Environmental Services). Evaluation of HC1 and
Chlorinated Organic Compound Emissions from Refuse Fired Waste-to-Energy
Systems (Hampton, Virgina; and Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio).
Prepared for U.S. EPA Atmospheric Sciences Research Laboratory. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. 1983. pp. 27, 28, 33, 38, 42, 45, 48,
*y •
8. Cooper and Clark Consulting Engineers. Air Emissions Tests of Solid
Waste Combustion in a Rotary Combustor/Boiler System at Kure, Japan.
Prepared for West County Agency of Contra Costa County. California.
June 1981. pp. 51-53, 57, 67, 68, 84, 85, 87-89.
9. Midwest Research Institute. Environmental Assessment of a
Waste-to-Energy Process—Braintree Municipal Incinerator. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental Research
Laboratory (Midwest Research Institute) Cincinnati, Ohio. April 1979.
pp. 45, 48, 49.
aeo.002 1.91
-------
10. Halle, C. L., et. al. (Midwest Research Institute). Comprehensive
Assessment of the Specific Compounds Present in Combustion Processes,
Volume I--Pilot Study of Combustion Emissions Variability (Chicago,
Illinois MWC). Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office
of Toxic Substances. Washington, D.C. EPA 560/5-83-004. June 1983.
pp. 7, 44-51, 99-102.
11. Haile, C. L., et al. (Midwest Research Institute). Assessment of
Emissions of Specific Compounds From a Resource Recovery Municipal Refuse
Incinerator (Hampton, Virginia). Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, O.C. EPA-560/5-84-002. June 1984.
pp. 4, 27, 54, 77-80.
12. Scott Environmental Services. Sampling and Analysis of Chlorinated
Organic Emissions from the Hampton Waste-to-Energy System. Prepared for
The Bionetics Corporation. Hampton, Virginia. March 1985. pp. 2,
24-30.
13. Knisley, D. R., C. L. Jamgochian, W. P. Gergen, and D. J. Holder (Radian
Corporation). Draft Emissions Test Report for Dioxins/Furans and Total
Organic Chlorides Emissions Testing at Saugus Resource Recovery Facility.
Prepared for Rust Corporation, Birmingham, Alabama. October 2, 1986.
pp. 2-2, 2-7, 2-54, 3-1.
14. Memorandum to-Aldina, J., Rust Corporation from D. Knisley, Radian
Corporation. Dioxin/Furan Testing at the Saugus Resource Recovery
Fadility. October 7, 1986.
15. Almega Corporation. SES Claremont, Claremont, NH, NH/VT Solid Waste
Facility, Unit 1 and Unit 2. EPA Stack Emission Compliance Tests,
May 26, 27, and 29, 1987. Prepared for Clark Kenith, Inc. Atlanta,
Georgia. July 1987. pp. 2, 8-14.
16. McOannel, M. 0., L. A. Green, and B. L. McDonald (Energy Systems
Associates). Air Emissions Tests at Commerce Refuse-to-Energy Facility,
May 26-June 5, 1987. Prepared for County Sanitation Districts of
Los Angles County. Whittier, California. July 1987. pp. 2-1, 2-2,
3-12, 3-13, 4-8 to 4-11, 4-14, 4-15.
17. Vancil, M. A. and C. L. Anderson (Radian Corporation). Summary Report,
COD/CDF, Metals, HC1, SO-, NO , CO and Particulate Testing, Marion County
Solid Waste-to-Energy Facility, Inc., Ogden martin Systems of Marion,
Brooks, Oregon. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA Contract No. 68-02-4338.
EMB Report No. 86-MIN-03A. September 1988. pp. 2-3, 2-5, 15, 1$, 27-29.
18. C. L. Anderson, et. al. (Radian Corporation). Characterization Test
Report, Marion County Solid Waste-to-Energy Facility, Inc., Ogden Martin
Systems of Marlon, Brooks, Oregon. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA Contract
No. 68-02-4338. EMB Report No. 86-MIN-04. September 1988. pp. A-6, 7.
««_ nnt t 44
-------
19. Hahn, J. L., et. al. (Cooper engineers) and J. A. Finney, Jr. and
B. Bahor (Belco Pollution control Corp.). Air Emissions Tests of a
Deutsche Babcock Anlagen Dry Scrubber System at the Munich North
Refuse-Fired Power Plant. Presented at: 78th Annual Meeting of the Air
Pollution Control Association. Detroit, Michigan. June 1985. pp. 16,
19, 20.
20. McDonald, B. L., M. D. McDannel and L. A. Green (Energy Systems
Associates). Air Emissions Tests at the Hampton Refuse-Fired Steam
Generating Facility, April 18-24, 1988. Prepared for Clark-Kenith,
Incorporated. Bethesda, Maryland. June 1988. pp. 4-6, 4-7
21. Laval in. Inc. National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation Program: The
Combustion Characterization of Mass Burning Incinerator Technology;
Quebec City (DRAFT). Prepared for Environmental Protection Service,
Environmental Canada. Ottowa, Canada. September 1987. pp. 182, 183.
22. Seelinger, R., et. al. (Ogden Projects, Inc.) Environmental Test Report,
Walter B. Hall Resource Recovery Facility, Unit 1 and 2. Prepared for
Ogden Martin Systems of Tulsa, Inc. Tulsa, Oklahoma. September 1986.
pp. 9, 20-28, 36-48, 52-55.
23. Zurlinden, R. A., et. al., (Ogden Projects, Inc.). Environmental Test
.Report, Alexandria/Arlington Resource Recovery Facility, Units 1, 2,
and 3. Prepared for Ogden Martin Systems of Alexandria/Arlington, Inc.
Alexandria, Virginia. Report Nos. 144 A (Revised) and 144 B. 1988.
pp. 1, 26-29; 1, 2, 4-6.
24. Hahn, J, L. (Cooper Engineers, Inc.). Air Emission Testing at the Martin
GmbH Waste-to-Energy Facility in Wurzburg, West Germany. Prepared for
Ogden Martin Systems, Inc. Paramus, New Jersey. January 1986.
25. Zurlinden, R. A., H. P. Von Dem Fange, and J. L. Hahn (Ogden Projects,
Inc.). Environmental Test Report, Marion County Solid Waste-to-Energy
Facility, Boilers 1 and 2. Prepared for Ogden Martin Systems of Marion,
Inc. Brooks, Oregon. Report No. 105. November 1986. pp. 52-55, 60,
62-65, 81.
26. Radian Corporation. Results from the Analysis of MSW Incinerator Testing
at Peeksill, New York. Prepared for New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority. Albany, New York. January 1989. pp. 2-1, 4-43,
4-44, 4-47; Appendix 0 (0182-0195).
27. Entropy Environmentalists. Emission Testing at Wheelabrator Millbury,
Inc. Resource Recovery Facility, Unit Nos. 1 and 2. Prepared for Rust
International Corporation. February 8-12, 1988. pp. 2-12, 14, 17, 19,
20, 22, 23, 26, 30, 33, 35, 36, 38, 39, 41, 42, 3-1, 3-2.
060.002
-------
28. Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. Stationary Source Sampling Report,
Signal RESCO, Plnellas County Resource Recovery Facility, St. Petersburg,
Florida, CARB/DER Emission Testing, Unit 3 Precipitator Inlets and Stack.
February and March 1987. pp. 2-13, 24-56, 65, 66, 326.
29. Letter with attachments from David Uojichowski, Project Engineer,
Uestchester RESCO, to Jack R. Farmer, Director, Emissions Standards
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. June 28, 1988.
30. PEI Associates, Inc., Method Development and Testing for Chromium, No. 2
Refuse-to-Energy Incinerator, Baltimore RESCO. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
EMB Report 85-CHM-8. EPA Contract No. 68-02-3849. August 1986.
pp. 2-21, 2-22, 5-1.
31. Anderson, C. L., et. al. (Radian Corporation) Summary Report, COD/CDF,
Metals and Particulate, Uncontrolled and Controlled Emissoins, Signal
Environmental Systems, Inc., North Andover RESCO, North Andover,
Massachusetts. Prepared for U.S EPA, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. EMB Report No. 86-MIN-02A. March 1988. pp. 2-3, 3-1.
32. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Emission source
Test Report--Preliminary Test Report on Westchester RESCO.
January 8, 1986. pp. 1, 5.
33. Cooper Engineers, Inc. Air Emissions Tests of Solid Waste Combustion in
a Rotary Combustion/Boiler System at Gallatin, Tennessee. Prepared for
West County Agency of Contra Costa County, California. July 1984.
pp. 77, 79, 115, 119, 123.
34. Beachler, D. S., et. al. (Westinghouse Electric Corporation). Bay '
County, Florida, Waste-to-Energy Facility Air Emission Tests. Presented
at Municipal Waste Incineration Workshop, Montreal, Canada.
October 1987. pp. 9, 15.
35. Reference 6. pp. 5, 6, 22, 30, 31, -33, 34, 39, 43, 44.
36. Environment Canada. The National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation
Program: Two Stage Combustion (Prince Edward Island). Report
EPS 3/UP/l. September 1985. pp. 38, 2.1-2, 2.2-2, 2.3-2, 2.4-2.
37. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Emission Source
Test Report--Preliminary Test Report on Cattraraugus County ERF.
August 5, 1986. pp. 5, 9, 11.
38. Perez, Joseph. Review of Stack of Performed at Barron County
Incinerator. State of Wisconsin: Correspondence/Memorandum.
February 1987.
-------
39. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Emission Source
Test Report—Preliminary Report on Oneida County ERF.
September 26, 1986. pp. 6, 11, 13.
40. Cal Recovery Systems, Inc. Final Report, Evaluation of Municipal Solid
Waste Incineration. (Red Wing, Minnesota facility) Submitted to
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Report No. 1130-87-1. January 1987.
pp. V-2, 23, 26, 27, 30-32, 35, 36, 64.
41. PEI Associates, Inc. Method Development and Testing for Chromium,
Municipal Refuse Inicnerator, Tuscaloosa Energy Recovery, Tuscaloosa,
Alabama. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. EMB Report 85-CHM-9. EPA Contract
No. 68-02-3849. January 1986. pp. 2-5, 2-10, 2-20, 5-3.
42. Higgins, 6. M. (Systech Corporation). An Evaluation of Trace Organic
Emissions From Refuse Thermal Processing Facilities (North Little Rock,
Arkansas; Mayport Naval Station, Florida; and Wright Patterson Air Force
Base, Ohio). Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of
Solid Waste. Washington, D.C. July 1982. p. 33.
43. York Services Corporation. Final Reort for a Test Program on the
Municipal Incinerator Located at Northern Aroostook Regional Airport,
Frenchville, Maine. Prepared for Northern Aroostook Regional
Incinerator. Frenchville, Maine. January 26, 1987. pp. 1, 2, 5.
44. Midwest Research Institute. Results of the Combustion and Emissions
Research Project at the Vicon Incinerator Facility in Pittsfield,
Massachusetts. Prepared for New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority. Albany, New York. June 1987. pp. 4-25, 4-33,
4-36.
45. Letter with attachments from Philip Gehring, Plant Manager. Pigeon Point
Energy Generating Facility, to Jack R. Farmer, Director, Emissions
Standards Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. June 30, 1988. pp. 1-1, 1-3,
7-1 to 7-23, Appendix A.
46. Interpoll Laboratories. Results of the July 1987 Emission Performance
Tests of the Pope/Douglas Waste-to-Energy Facility MSW Incinerators in
Alexandria, MN. Prepared for HDR Techserv, Inc. Minneapolis, Minnesota.
October 1987. pp. 13, 17, 20, 26, 27, 60.
47. Interpoll Laboratories, Inc. Results of the June 1988 Air Emission
Performance Test on the MSW Incinerators at the St. Croix Waste to Energy
Facility in New Richmond, Wisconsin. Prepared for American Resource
Recovery. Waukesha, Wisconsin. September 12, 1988. pp. 6, 8, 11, 12,
XO •
48. Reference 5. pp. 108, 111, 169.
gep.002 4-25
-------
49. Klamm, S., G. Scheil, M. Witacre, J. Surman (Midwest Research Institute)
and W. Kelly (Radian Corporation). Emission Testing at an ROF Municipal
Waste Combustor (Biddeford, Maine). Prepared for U.S. EPA, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. EPA Contract No. 68-02-4453 May 6, 1988.
pp. 2-4, 2-6, 2-7, 2-20, 2-26, 3-1, 3-12.
50. Reference 6. pp. 5, 6, 20, 26, 27, 33, 34, 37, 41, 44.
51. Kerr, R., et. al. Emission Source Test Report--Sheridan Avenue RDF
Plant, Answers (Albany, New York). Division of Air Resources, New York
Department of Environmental Conservation. August 1985. pp. 3-3.
52. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. Emission Source
Test Report--Preliminary Report on Occidental Chemical Corporation EFW.
January 16, 1986. pp. 5, 9, 11.
53. Anderson, C. L. (Radian Corporation) CDD/CDF, Metals, and Particulate
Emissions Summary Report. Mid-Connecticut-Resource Recovery Facility,
Hartford, Connecticut. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. January 1984. pp. 2-4, 2-7, 2-8, 2-18, 3-1, 3-6.
54. Knlsley, D. R., M. A. Palazzolo* and A. J. Miles (Radian Corporation)
Emissions Test Report, Dioxin/Furan Testing, Refuse Fuels Associates,
Lawrence, Massachusetts. Prepared for Refuse Fuels Associates.
Haverhill, Massachusetts. June 3, 1987. pp. 2-4, 2-11, 2-30, 3-1.
55. Entropy Environmentalists. Stationary Source Sampling Report. Ogden
Martin Systems of Havenhill, Inc., Lawrence, Massachusetts Therman
Conversion Facility, Lawrence Massachusettes, Particulate,
Dioxins/Furans, and Nitrogen Oxides Emissions Compliance Testing.
Prepared for Ogden Projects, Inc. September 2-4, 1987. pp. 2-3, 2-7.
56. Reference 7. pp. 27, 29, 34, 39, 43, 46, 49.
57. Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. Baltimore RESCO Company, L. P.,
Southwest Resource Recovery Facility. Particulate, Sulfur Dioxide,
Nitrogen Oxides, Chlorides, Fluorides, and Carbon Monoxide Compliance
Testing, Units 1, 2, and 3. Prepared for RUST International, Inc.
January 1985. pp. 2-4, 2-.5 (for boilers II, 2, and 3).
58. Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. Stationary Source Sampling Report, SES
Claremont, Claremont, NH, NH/VT Solid Waste Facility. February and
March 1987. pp. 2-2 through 2-5, 3-1, 3-3.
59. Entropy Environmentalists, Inc. Preliminary Data Summary for Municipal
Waste Combustor Study, Wheelabrator Resource Recovery Facility, Millbury,
Massachusetts. Prepared for U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. EMB Contract No. 68-02-4336. April 1988. pp. 4, 5.
qeo.002 4-26
-------
5. SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
The purpose of this section is to provide a brief discussion of the EPA
reference methods and/or generally accepted methods of sampling and analysis
used to gather emissions data on air toxics emitted from municipal waste
combustors. Most of these methods are discussed in detail in Reference 1.
Different sampling and analytical methods than the ones listed have been used
previously. Slight modifications of the methods listed may be specified by
some State agencies to make results consistent with their regulatory
compliance results. However, the sampling methods described in this section
and in Reference 1 are widely used and accepted and should yield results
comparable with data from other facilities.
Acid gases (HC1, HF, and SOj) are tested by a variety of sampling and
analytical methods. Sampling for HC1 is performed with an EPA Reference
Method 5 sampling train with either water, NaOH, or sodium carborate in the
impingers. An example Method 5 train is shown in Figure 5-1. Continuous
emission monitors for HC1 are currently being evaluated. Sampling for SO,
(H2S04) is performed with a Method 5 train using hydrogen peroxide in the
impingers in accordance with EPA Reference Method 8 procedures.2 Sampling for
HF is performed in accordance with EPA Reference Method 13A procedures, again
using a Method 5 train. Analytical techniques for these three acid gases
include ion chromatography (for HC1, S03, and HF), the mercuric nitrate method
(for HC1), and ion selective electrode (for HC1, S03, and HF).
Sampling for metals (As, Be, Cd, Cr, Ni, and Hg) is done by a variety of
methods. Arsenic is sampled using EPA Reference Method 108. Beryllium is
sampled using EPA Reference Method 104.3 Sampling for Hg is performed using
EPA Reference Method 101A.3 The sampling trains used for these metals are
similar to the EPA Reference Method 5 trains. Cadmium, total chromium, and
nickel are sampled according to EPA Reference Method 12. Because of the cost
for individual metal sampling, a draft protocol for combined metals sampling
has been proposed by EPA. Analyses for cadmium, chromium, nickel, arsenic,
and beryllium are performed using atomic absorption spectroscopy or
inductively coupled plasma spectroscopy. Mercury is analyzed using manual
cold vapor atomic absorption spectrophotometry.
gep.002 5-1
-------
Ul
I
ro
Temperature
Sensor
-cat:
i *
Pitot Tube
-Probe
Temperature
Sensor
Impingers Train Optional, may be replaced
by an Equivalent Condenser
Thermometer
Thermometer
Check
Valve
-
Probe
Reverse-Type
Pilot Tube
Pitot
Manometer
Thermometers
.
Impingers
Of\ Vacuun
(1 By-Pass Valve Gauge
^™™^^T" ^^^^^^™"*i ^'^^ ^^fc^
Dry Gas Meter Ajr.Tjgh|
Pump
Vacuum
Line
Figure 5-1. Example EPA Reference Method 5 Sampling Train
CO
CO
-------
Semivolatile organic compounds are sampled by using a modified EPA
Reference Method 5 train. A water-cooled condenser and XAD-2 resin cartridge
are placed immediately before the impinger section. The organics are
extracted off the resin by using toluene or benzene. The aqueous components
and rinses are extracted using methylene chloride. Analysis of the organics
is accomplished by using gas chromatography and mass spectroscopy.
Requests for additional information on reference and experimental methods
should be sent to:
Chief, Emissions Measurement Branch (MO-14)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
-------
5.1 REFERENCES
1. Haile, C.L. (Midwest Research Institute) and J.C. Harris
(Arthur D. Little, Inc). Guidelines for Stack Testing of Municipal Waste
Combustion Facilities. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management.
EPA-600/8-88-085. July 1988.
2. 40 CFR, Part 60, Appendix A.
3. 40 CFR, Part 61, Appendix B.
4. Methodology for the Determination of Trace Metal Emissions in Exhaust
Gases from Stationary Source Combustion Processes (Draft). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
1987.
gep.002 5-4
-------
APPENDIX A
EXISTING MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTION FACILITIES
(As of September 16, 1988)
-------
-------
TABLE A-l. EXISTING MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTION FACILITIES SORTED BY COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY
City
State
Type'
No. of
Units
Unit Size
(tpd)
Year of
Start-up
Heat
Recovery
Air Pollution Control Device
Traveling Grit* R«f ractorv-Uall Conbustors (6)
Honolulu
Eaat Chicago
Berkley (S.I. Oakland Co.)
Haw York (Batta Avenue)
Phlladalphla (Northwest Unit)
Phlladalphla (E. Central Unit)
Stamford II
New Canaan
Uaahlntton(Solld Waste Red. Cent. I)
Pall River
Baltimore (Pulaakl)
Clinton (Crosse Polnte)
Brooklyn(N Henry St . /Craenpolnt . SU)
Euclid
She boy (an
Waukasha
HA
IN
MI
NY
PA
PA
CT
CT
DC
MA
HD
MI
NY
OH
WI
HI
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
2
2
2
4
2
2
1
1
4
2
4
2
4
2
2
2
300
225
300
250
375
175
360
12S
250
300
300
300
240
100
120
•8
1970
1971
1965
1980
1957
1965
1974
1971
1972
1972
1982
1972
1959
1955
1965
1971
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Ho
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Venturl Wat Scrubber
Wet Scrubber
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Venturl Wet Scrubber
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Vanturl Wet Scrubber
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Wetted Baffles
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Crate/Rotary Kiln Refractory-Wall Combustora (5)
Tampa
Louisville
Framing ham
•.Dayton
S.Dayton
Savannah
Davla County
g>f Factory-Wall Rotary Kiln Only <1>
Calax
latch-fed Refraetorv-Wall Combustors
Hoora County
Port Washington
Hereford
Stamford I
Huntlntton
Lewlsburf,
Reads bo ro
Stamford
PL
KV
MA
OH
OH
(?)
GA
UT
VA
(8)
TX
WI
IX
CT
NY
TN
VT
VT
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
4
4
2
3
J
NA
1
1
250
250
250
300
300
500b
400
56
90
75
90
200
150
60
10
10
1985
1960
1970
1970
1970
1987
1987
NA
1972
1965
.1965
1974
NA
1980
1974
1973
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Vanturl Wet Scrubber
Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Electrostatic Preclpltator
NA
Fabric Filter
None
Electrostatic Praclpltator
None
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Wet Scrubber
Wet Scrubber
None
NA
NA - Information not available
faMB - Mass Burnt RDF - Refuse-derived fueli HOD/SA - Modular Starved-aln MOD/EA
Total plant capacity (tpd)
Modular Excess-air: FBC - Fluldlzed Bed Combustor
CEP/EPE.003
-------
TABLE A-l. EXISTING MUNICIPAL HASTE COHBUSTION FACILITIES SORTED BY COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY (cont.)
City
Mass Bum Waterwall Conbustora (24)
Bridgeport
Plnellaa Co.
Saugua
North Andover
Mlllbury
Baltimore (Reaco)
Ueatcheater Co.
Commerce (Loa Angeles Co.)
Hlllaborough County
Chicago (NU)
Tulaa
Marlon County
Harrlsburg
Nashville
Alexandria/Arlington
Key Meat (Monroe Co.)
Jackson
Rochester (Olautaad County)
Ullmlngton (New Hanover Co.)
Claremont
Glen Cove
Norfolk (Sewell Pt. Navy Station)
Harrlsonburg
Hampton
Rotarr Hatervall Combustora (3)
Panama City (Bay County)
Dutchess County (Poughkeepale)
Gal latin
RDF-Flred Combuftpr, 119)
Hartford
Dade Co.
Havarhlll /Lawrence
Nlagra Falls
Penobscot
Blddeford/Saco
Red King (MSP Co. )
Mankato
Albany
Columbus
Akron
juLcon
State
CT
PL
MA
MA
MA
MD
NY
CA
FL
IL
OK
OR
PA
IN
VA
PL
MX
MN
NC
NH
NY
VA
VA
VA
FL
NY
TN
CT
FL
MA
NY
ME
HE
MH
MN
NY
OH
OH
typ.'
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
No. of
Units
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
1
3
4
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
' 6
2
Unit SUe
(tpd)
750
1000
750
750
750
750
750
300
400
400
375
275
360
360-400
325
75
100
100
100
100
125
180
30.
100
255
253
100
667
750
1000
1000
360
350
360
360
300
400
300
Year of
Start-up
1988
1983
1975
1985
1988
1985
1984
1987
1987
1970
1986
1986
1973
1974
1987
1986
1987
1987
1984
1987
1983
1967
1982
1980
1987
1987
1981
1988
1982
1984
1981
1988
1987
1988
1987
1981
1983
1979
Heat
Recovery
Yas
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yea
Yes
Yas
Yea
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yas
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yes
Yea
Yes
Yes
Yea
Yea
Yes
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yas
Yas
Air Pollution Control Device
Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Elactroatatlc Preclpltator
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Spray Dryer/Electrostatic Preclpltator
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Electrostatic Praclpltator
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Spray Dryar/Fabrlc Filter
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Duct Sorbent Injection/Fabric Filter
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Fabric Filter
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter
Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Electrostatic Preclpltator
Electrostatic Praclpltator
Electrostatic Preclpltator
NA - Information not available
bMB - Mass Bum, RDF - Refuse-derived fuel, HOD/SA - Modular Starvad-.lr, MOD/EA - Modular E«c...-alr, FBC - FluldUad Bad Combustor
Total plant capacity (tpd)
CEP/EPE.OO)
-------
TABLE A-l. EXISTING MUNICIPAL WASTE COHBUSTION FACILITIES SORTED BY COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY (cont.)
City
State
Type
No. of
Unit*
Unit SUe
(tpd)
Year, of
Start-up
Heat
Recovery
Air Pollution Control Device
RPF-Ftred Combustors fcont.i
Portsmouth (Norfolk Navy Yard)
Lakeland
AM*
Keokuk
Madlaon (Oaear Mayer)
SlouK Center (Dordt College)
Sioux Center (Coonunlty School*)
Madlaon (Ca* and Electric Co. )
Modular Starved-alr Combustors (60)
Edgevood (Barford County)
City of Red Wing
Hampton
Portsmouth
Tuacalooaa
Pertuua (Quadrant)
Portsmouth
Auburn
Bataavllle
Belllnghaai
One Ida Co. (Rone)
Johiuonvllle
Dye ra burg
Oawego County (Volney)
Plttafleld
City of r«cgua Fall*
Barron County
Fosaton (Polk Co.)
Livings ton
Cuba (Cattaraugua Co . )
Carthage City
Center
Wlndham
BlythevllU
Durhaai
Newport News (Ft. Eustls)
Skaneatelaas
Ullton
Fort Leonard Wood
North Little Rock
Greensburg (Westmoreland Co.)
Hunt svl lie (Walker County) (DOC)
VA
FL
IA
IA
HI
IA
IA
WI
MO
MM
SO
VA
AL
KM
NH
ME
AR
UA
NY
SC
IN
NY
NH
MM
WI
MM
MI
NY
TX
IX
CT
AR
NH
VA
NY
NH
MO
AR
PA
TX
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
RDF
MOD/SA
MQD/SA
MOD/SA
HOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
. MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
4
1
2
HA
1
HA
HA
2
4
1
9
2
4
2
4
4
2
2
4
1
1
4
1
2
2
2
4
2
1
500
100
100
HA
400
NA
NA
200
90
90
90
80
75
57
50
50
50
SO
SO
50
SO
50
4B
47
40
40
JB
3B
36
36
36
36
36
35
35
30
26
25
25
25
1988
1981
197S
NA
1983
NA
NA
1979
1987
1982
1985
1971
1984
1987
1982
1981
1981
1986
1985
NA
1980
1986
NA
1987
1986
1988
1982
1983
1985
1985
198.1
1983
1980
1980
1975
1979
NA
1977
1987
1984
Yea
Ye*
Ye*
NA
Ye*
NA
NA
Ye*
Ye*
Yea
Ye*
Ye*
Ye*
Ye*
Ye*
Ye*
Ye*
Ye*
Ye*
Ye*
Ye*
Ye*
Ho
Ye*
No
Yaa
Yea
Ye*
Ye*
Ye*
Yea
No
Yea
Yea
No
No
Yea
Ye*
Yea
No
Electrostatic
Electrostatic
Electrostatic
NA
Electrostatic
NA
NA
Preelpltator
Preelpltator
Preelpltator
Preelpltator
Cyclone/Electroatatlc Preelpltator
Electrostatic
Electrostatic
Electrostatic
Electrostatic
Elect roatat Ic
Electrostatic
Fabric Filter
Fabric Filter
None
None
Elect roatatlc
Electrostatic
None
Elect roatatlc
None
Preelpltator
Preelpltator
Preelpltator
Preelpltator
Preelpltator
Preelpltator
Preelpltator
Preelpltator
Preelpltator
Venturl Wet Scrubber
Electrostatic
Electrostatic
None
None
None
None
Fabric Filter
None
Cyclone
None
None
None
None
None
Electrostatic
None
Preelpltator
Preelpltator
Preelpltator
NA - Information not available
bMB - Mass Bumi RDF - Refuse-derived fueli MOD/SA - Modular Starved-alri MOO/EA - Modular E*c«»s-«lri FBC - Fluldlzed Bed Combustor
Total plant capacity (tpd)
GEP/EPE.003
-------
TABLE A-l. EXISTING MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTION FACILITIES SORTED BY COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY (cont.)
City
Scat*
Type'
No. of
Unit*
Unit Sis*
(tpd)
Y«ar of
Start-up
H*at
Recovery
Air Pollution Control 0*vlc*
Modular Starv*d-*lr Conbustors (cont.)
Bracorla County (DOC)
Burl*y (Cassia County)
Wrlghtsvlll* Beach
Waicahachla
Coos County (I)
Osceola
Catesvllle (DOC)
Salem
Crimes County (DOC)
Anderson County (DOC)
Brook Ings
Croveton
Coos County (II)
Lincoln
Stuttgart
Lltchfleld
Ft. Dlx
Plymouth
Candla
Miami
Rot Spring*
Pelham
Canterbury
Wolfeboro
Harpswell
Auburn
Franklin (Simpson Co.)
Modular Excess-air Combustor* (10)
Sltka
Wilmington (Pigeon Point)
Mayport Naval Station
PlttsfUld
Aroostook County (Frenchvllle)
Alexandria (Pope/Douglas Co.)
Pascagoula
Nottingham
Clebume
Rutland
TX
ID
ME
NC
TX
OR
AR
TX
VA
TX
TX
OR
NH
OR
NH
AR
NH
HI
NH
NH
OK
AR
NH
NH
NH
ME
NH
KY
AK
DE
PL
MA
ME
MM
MS
NH
TX
VI
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
HOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/EA
MOD/EA
HOD/EA
MOD/EA
MOD/EA
MOD/EA
MOD/EA
MOD/EA
MOD/EA
MOD/EA
2
5
1
3
NA
1
2
1
3
2
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
24
24
24
24
23
22
20
16
15
13
13
10
10
8
6
5
38
120
48
120
50b
100
75
a
38
110
1983
1982
1973
1981
1982
1978
1980
1984
1970
1984
1980
1979
1980
1980
1980
1971
NA
1986
1976
NA
1982
HA
1980
NA
1975
1975
1979
NA
1985
1987
1978
1981
1982
1986
1985
1972
1986
1987
No None
Yes None
No None
No None
Yes None
No None
Yes None
No None
Yes None
No None
No None
No None
Yes None
Yes Electrostatic Preclpltator
No None
No None
No None
Yes Wet Scrubber/Fabric Filter
No Non*
No Nan*
Yes Nan*
No Nona
No NA
No Nona
No None
No None
No None
Yes None
Yes Electrostatic Preclpltator
Yes Electrostatic Preclpltator
Yes Cyclone
Yes Electrified Gravel Bed
NA None
Yes Electrostatic Preclpltator
Ves Electrostatic Preclpltator
No None
Yes Electrostatic Preclpltator
Yes Electrostatic Preclpltator
NA • Information not available
bMB - Mass Burnt RDF - R*fus*-d*rlv*d fueli MOD/SA - Modular Starved-alri MOD/EA - Modular Excess-alri FBC - Fluldlzed Bed Combustor
Total plant capacity (tpd)
CEP/EPE.003
-------
TABLE A-l. EXISTING MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTION FACILITIES SORTED BY COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY (cone.)
City
State
No. of
Unit*
Unit Slca
(tpd)
Year of
Start-up
Heat
Recovery
Air Pollution Control Device
FluldUed led Coabuitort (3)
Duluth
La Croaae County
Tacoaa
Unknown (10)
Prudhoe Bay
Chllton
Shreveport
Lone Beach (CEO Corp)
Mlaal Internet*1 Airport
Savage
Anchorage
Cedarvllle
Elkhart Lake
Juneau
HN
HI
UA
FBC
FBC
FBC
AK UNK
MI UNK
LA UNK
NY UNK
FL UNK
MN UNK
AK UNK
OH UNK
MI UNK
AK UNK
2
2
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
200
200.
500
100
NA
200.
200
NA
450
NA
NA
*"b
70°
1986
1987
1988
1981
NA
1983
NA
NA
1969
1986
Yea
Ye*
NA
NA
NA
No
NA
NA
Yea
NA
NA
No
No
Cylcone/Venturl
Electrified Gravel Bed
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Electroatatlc Preclpltator
NA
HA
Met Scrubber
NA - Information not available
bMB - Maaa Burnt RDF * Refuae-derlved fueli MQD/SA - Modular Starved-alri HQO/EA - Modular Eiiceaa-alri FBC - Fluldlsed Bed Coubuator
Total plant capacity (tpd)
GEP/EPE.003
-------
TABLE A-2. EXISTING MUNICIPAL HASTE COHBUSTION FACILITIES SORTED BY STATE
City
Scat*
type"
No. of
Unit*
Unit Sis*
(tpd)
Year of
Start-up
Heat
Recovery
Air Pollution Control D«vlc«
Anchorage AK NA HA
Junaau AK NA NA
Prudho* Bay AK NA NA
Sltka • AK NOO/EA 2
Tuacalooaa AL HOD/SA 4
Batesvllle AR MQO/SA 2
Blythevllle AR HOO/SA 2
Hot Springs AR HOO/SA
North Little Rock AR MQO/SA
0*c«ola AR HOO/SA
Stuttgart AR HOO/SA
Comaerce (Loa Angelea Co.) CA MB
Bridgeport CT MB
Hartford CT RDF
Naw Canaan CT MB
Stamford I CT MB
Stamford II CT KB
Ulndhaat CT HOD/SA
Washington (Solid Waate Rad.Cant.I) DC MB
Ullmlngton (Pigeon Point) DE HOD/EA
Dad* Co. FL RDF
Rlllsborough County FL MB
Kay Uaat (Honro* Co.) FL MB
Lakeland FL RDF
Mayport Naval Station FL HOD/EA
Miami Internet'1 Airport FL NA NA
Panama City (Bay County) FL MB 2
Plnellaa Co. FL MB 3
'•«*>• FL MB . 4
Savannah GA MB NA
Honolulu HA MB 2
. *«•• IA RDF 2
Kaokuk IA • RDF NA
Slouji Center (Conounlty School*) IA RDF NA
Sioux Center (Dordt College) IA RDF NA
Burley (Cassia County) ID HOO/SA 2
Chicago (NU) IL MB 4
East Chicago IN MB 2
Franklin (Stapaon Co.) KY HOO/SA 2
Loulavllle KY MB 4
Shreveport LA NA 1
Fall River MA MB 2
Framlngham HA MB 2
Haverhlll/Lawrence HA RDF 3
7°b
100
13
75
SO
. 36
13
"
25
23
300
750
667
125
200
360
36
250
120
750
400
75
100
4B
NA
255
1000
250
500
300
100
NA
NA
NA
.25
400
225
38
250
200
300
250
1000
NA NA NA
1986 No NA
1981 NA NA
1985 Yea Electrostatic Preclpltator
1984 Yea Electrostatic Preclpltator
1981 Yea None
1983 No None
NA No None
1977 Yea None
1980 Yea None
1971 No None
1987 Yea Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter
1988 Yes Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter
1988 Yea Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter
1971 No Venturl Uet Scrubber
1974 Yea Electrostatic Preclpltator
1974 Yea Electrostatic Preclpltator
1981 Yea Fabric Filter
1972 No Electrostatic Preclpltator
1987 Yea Electrostatic Preclpltator
1982 Yea Electrostatic Preclpltator
1987 Yea Electrostatic Preclpltator
1986 Yea .Electrostatic Preclpltator
1981 Yea ' Electrostatic Preclpttator
1978 Yea Cyclone
NA NA NA
1987 Yea Electrostatic Preclpltator
1983 Yea Electrostatic Preclpltator
1985 Yea Electroatatlc Praclpltator
1987 Yea Electroatatlc Preclpltator
1970 No Electrostatic Preclpltator
1975 Yea Electrostatic Preclpltator
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
1982 Yes None
1970 Yes Electrostatic Preclpltator
1971 No Venturl Wet Scrubber
NA Yes None
I960 No Venturl Uet Scrubber
NA No NA
1972 No Venturl Wet Scrubber
1970 No Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter
1984 Yes Electrostatic Preclpltator
NA - Information not available
bMB - Mass lurni RDF - Refuse-derived Fueli HOD/SA - Modular Starv*d-aln HOO/EA - Modular E»ce»s-alri FBC - Fluldlz«d Bed Corobustor
Total plant capacity (tpd)
CEP/EPE.003
-------
TABLE A-2. EXISTING MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTION FACILITIES SORTED BV STATE (cont.)
City
Sect*
No. of
Unit*
Unit Sic*
(tpd)
Year of
Start-up
Heat
Recovery
Air Pollution Control Device
Mlllbury
North Andover
Plttafleld
S*u|u*
Baltimore (Pulaakl)
Baltlanre (Raaco)
Edievood (H»rford County)
Arooatook County (Frenchvllle)
Auburn
Blddeford/Saco
Harpawell
Penobacot
Ulndhaai
Berkley (S.I. Oakland Co.)
Clinton (Croat* Pointe)
Jack* on
Alexandria (Popo/Doutlaa Co.)
City of Pargua Pall*
City of Red Uln« .
Dulutb
Po»*ton (Polk Co.)
Mankato
Perhan (Quadrant)
Red Uln« (NSP Co.)
Rochetter (Olautead County)
Savage
Port Leonard Wood
Paacafoula
Llvlnfaton
UllMlnfton (New Hanover Co.)
Urlthtavllle Beach
Auburn
Candle
Canterbury
Clarenont
Durhaai
Groveton
Lincoln
Lltchfleld
NottlnftuoB
Pelham
Plttafleld
Plymouth
Portaatouth
MA
MA
MA
MA
MD
MD
MD
ME
ME
HE
ME
MB
ME
MI
MI
MI
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MM
MD
MS
MT
NC
NC
NH
NH
NH
NH
NU
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NH
NU
MB
MB
MOD/EA
MB
MB
MB
MOD/SA
MOD/EA
MOD/SA
RDP
MOD/SA
RDP
MOD/SA
MB
MB
MB
MOD/EA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
PBC
MOD/SA
RDP
MOD/SA
RDP
MB
HA
MOD/SA
MOD/EA
MOD/SA
MB
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MB
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/EA
MOD/SA
HOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
2
2
3
2
4
3
4
NA
4
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
HA
750
750
120
750
300
750
90h
50b
50
350
6
160
25
300
300
100
100
47
90
200
40
360
57
360
100
450
26
75
3«
100
25
5
15
10
100
36
24
24
22
a
10
48
16
50
1988, Ye* Spray Dryer/Electroitatlc Preclpltator
1985 Ye* Electroatatlc Preclpltator
1981 Ye* Electrified Gravel Bed
1975 Ye* Electroatatlc Preclpltator
1982 No Electroatatlc Preclpltator
1985 Yea Electroatatlc Preclpltator
1987 Yea Electroatatlc Preclpltator
1982 NA Nona
1981 Yea Pabrlc Filter
1987 Ye* Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter
1975 No None
1988 Yea Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter
1973 No None
1965 No Met Scrubber
1972 No Electroatatlc Preclpltator
1987 Yea Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter
1986 Yea Electroatatlc Preclpltator
1987 Yea Venturl Met Scrubber
1982 Yea Electroatatlc Preclpltator
1986 Yea Cylcone/Vanturl
1988 Yea Electroatatlc Preclpltator
1987 Yea Electroatatlc Preclpltator
1987 Yea Electroatatlc Preclpltator
1988 Yea Electroatatlc Preclpltator
1987 Ye* Electrostatic Preclpltator
1985 Yea Electroatatlc Preclpltator
NA Yea Hone
1985 Yea Electroatatlc Preclpltator
1982 Yea None
1984 Yea Electroatatlc Preclpltator
1981 Ho Hone
1979 No None
NA No None
NA No None
1987 Yea Duct Sorbent Injection/Fabric Filter
1980 Yea Cyclone
1980 Yea None
1980 No None
NA No None
1972 No None
1980 No NA
NA No None
1976 No None
1982 Y*a Fabric Filter
NA • Infonnatlon not available
*MB - Maaa Bumi RDP - Refuae-derlved Fuelt HOD/SA - Modular Starved-alri MOD/EA - Modular Exceaa-aln FBC » Fluldlzcd B«d Combust or
Total plant capacity (tpd)
CEP/EPE.003
-------
TABLE A-2. EXISTING MUNICIPAL HASTE COMBUSTION FACILITIES SORTED BY STATE (cont.)
City
Stata
No. of
Units
Unit Sl»«
(tpd)
V«ar of
Start-up
Heat
Recovery
Air Pollution Control Device
Wilton NH NOD/SA 1
Wolfeboro NH HOD/SA 2
Ft. Dl* NJ MOO/SA 4
Albany NY RDF 2
Brooklyn(N Henry St./Greenpolnt,SU) NY MB 4
Cuba (Cattarau.ua Co.) NY MOD/SA 3
Dutches* County (Poughkaapala) NY MB 2
Clan Cove NY MB 2
Huntln«ton NY MB 3
Long Besch (CED Corp) NY NA NA
New York (Betts Avenue) NY MB 4
Nlasra Fall* NY RDF 2
OneIda Co. (Rose) . NY MOO/SA 4
Oavego County (Volney) NY MOD/SA 4
Skanaatalasa NY MOD/SA 1
Uestchester Co. NY MB 3
Akron OH RDF 2
Cedarvllle OB NA NA
Coluabua OH RDF «
Euclid OH MB 2
N.Dayton OH MB 3
S.Dayton OH MB 3
MlaaU OK MOD/SA 3
Tulsa OK MB 2
Brooklngs OR MOD/SA 2
Coos County (II) OR MOD/SA 1
Coos County (I) OR MOO/SA 2
Marlon County OR MB 2
Graanaburg (Ueatatoreland Co.) PA MOD/SA 2
Harrlsburg PA MB 2
Philadelphia (E.Central Unit) PA MB 2
Philadelphia (Northwest Unit) PA MB 2
Hampton SC MOD/SA
Johnsonvllle SC MOD/SA
Dyeraburg IN MOD/SA
Gallatin TN MB
Lawlaburg TN MB
Nashville TN MB
Anderson County (DOC) IX MOD/SA
Bracorla County (DOC) TX MOD/SA
Carthage City TX MOD/SA
Canter TX HOD/SA
Clebume TX MOD/EA 3
Catesvllla (DOC) TX MOD/SA 1
30
B
20
300
240
3B
251
125
"°b
200
2SO
1000
50
50
31
750
300
NA
400
100
300
300
13
37S
24
24
25
275
25
360 '
373
373
•0
50
50
100
60
360-400
25
25
36
36
38
25
1979 No Nona
1975 No Nona
1986 Yea Hat Scrubber/Fabric Filter
1981 Yea Electrostatic Preclpltator
1959 No Electrostatic Preclpltator
1983 Yea Nona
1987 Yea Fabric Filter
1983 Yea Electrostatic Preclpltator
NA No Uet Scrubber
NA NA NA
1980 Yea Electrostatic Preclpltator
1981 Yea Electrostatic Preclpltator
1985 Yes Electrostatic Preclpltator
1986 Yes Electrostatic Preclpltator
1975 No None
1984 Yes Electrostatic Preclpltator
1979 Yes Electrostatic Praclpltator
HA NA HA
1983 Yea Electrostatic Praclpltator
1955 No Electrostatic Praclpltator
1970 No Electrostatic Preclpltator
1970 No Electrostatic Preclpltator
1982 Yes Nona
1986 Yea Electrostatic Praclpltator
1979 No Nona
1980 Yea Electrostatic Preclpltator
1978 No Nona
1986 Yea Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter
1987 Yea Electrostatic Preclpltator
1973 Yea Electrostatic Preclpltator
1965 No Electrostatic Preclpltator
1957 No Electrostatic Preclpltator
1985 Yea Electrostatic Preclpltator '
NA Yes , Electrostatic Preclpltator
1980 Yea Hone
1981 Yes Electrostatic Preclpltator
1980 Yes Uet Scrubber
1974 Yes Electrostatic Preclpltator
1980 Ho Hone
1983 No None
1985 Yes Hone
1985 Yes Hone
1986 Yes Electrostatic Preclpltator
1984 Ho None
NA - Infonnatlon not available
£MB - Mass Bumi RDF - Refuse-derived Fueli MOO/SA • Modular Starved-aln MOD/EA - Modular Encess-alri FBC - Fluldlccd Bed Combustor
Total plant capacity (tpd)
CEP/EPE.003
-------
TABLE A-2. EXISTING MUNICIPAL HASTE COMBUSTION FACILITIES SORTED BY STATE (cone.)
City
Stata
Type
No. of
Unit*
Unit SUe
(tpd)
Year of
Start-up
Heat
Recovery
Air Pollution Control Device
Grlsies County (DOC)
Hereford
Huntsvllle (Ualker County)(DOC)
Moore County
Uaaahachle
Davl* County
Alexandria/Arlington
Gala*
Hampton
Herr1sonburg
Newport New* (Ft. Eustl*)
Norfolk (Sewell Ft. Navy Station)
Portsmouth
Portsmouth (Norfolk Navy Yard)
Sale*
Readsboro
Rutland
Stanford
Belllnghan
Tacoota
Barren County
Chllton
Elkhart Lake
La Cross* County
Hadlaon (Gas and Electric Co.)
Hadlson (Oscar Mayer)
Port Washington
Shaboygan
Uaukeaha
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
III
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VI
VI
VI
UA
UA
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
HI
UI
HI
MOO/SA
MB
MOO/SA
MB
MOD/SA
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MOD/SA
MB
MOD/SA
RDF
MOD/SA
MB
MOD/EA
MB
MOD/SA
FBC
MOD/SA
HA
HA
FBC
RDF
RDF
MB
MB
MB
1
1
1
1
2
1
3
1
2
2
1
2
2
4
4
1
2
1
2
HA
2
NA
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
25
90
25
90
25
400
325
56
100
SO
35
180
80
500
25
10
110
10
50b
500
40
NA
48
200
200
400
75
120
88
1984 No None
1965 No None
1984 No None
1972 No Hone
1982 Ye* Hone
1987 Ye* HA
1987 Ye* Electrostatic Preclpltator
NA Yea Fabric Filter
1980 Yea Electrostatic Preclpltator
1982 Yes Electrostatic Preclpltator
1980 Ye* Hone
1967 Ye* Electrostatic Preclpltator
1971 Ye* Electrostatic Praclpltator
1988 Yea Electrostatic Preclpltator
1970 Yea Hone
1974 Ho Hone
1987 Ye* Electrostatic Preclpltator
1973 Ho HA
1986 Yea Hone
1988 NA HA
1986 Ho Electrostatic Preclpltator
HA HA HA
1969 Ho Uet Scrubber
1987 Yea Electrified Gravel Bed
1979 Ye* Cyclone/Electrostatic Preclpltator
1983 Yes Electrostatic Preclpltator
1965 No Electrostatic Preclpltator
1965 Ho Hatted Bafflea
1971 Yes Electrostatic Preclpltator
NA • Information not available
*MB - Maa* Burnt RDF - Refuse-derived Fueli MQD/SA - Modular Starved-aln MOD/EA • Modular Exceaa-alri FBC - Fluldlsed Bed Combuator
Total plant capacity (tpd)
CEP/EPE.003
-------
-------
APPENDIX B
PLANNED MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTION FACILITIES
(As of September 16, 1988)
-------
-------
TABLE B-l. PLAIWED HUMICIPAL WASTE CQHBUSTION FACILITIES SORTED BV COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY
City
Scat*
Type
No. of
Unit*
Total Plant
Capacity
(tpd)
Heat
Recovery
Year of
Start-up
Mass Burn Watervall (70)
Uklah
Feyettevllle
Hanover Borough
Long Beach
Eau Claire Co.
Hlddleton
Charlotte
St. Lawrence County
Uarren County
Hudson Fall* (Washington Co.)
We at Daptford
Concord
Glendon
BCOOOM County
Pennaauken
Portland
Gloucester County
Chattanooga
Charleston
St. Louis (North) (Bl-State)
Preston
Kent County
Brlatol
Buntavllle
North Kingstown (Quonaet)
Rockland County
Babylon
Huntlngton (Long laland)
Pierce County
Dakota County
Spokane County/City
Stanislaus Co.(Crowa Landing)
Austin
Pa»co County
North Heapslead
Snohoalah County
Irwlndale
Oyster Bay
Long Beach
CA
AR
PA
NY
WI
CT
NC
NY
NJ
NY
NJ
NH
PA
NY
NJ
ME
NJ
TN
SC
MO
CT
MI
CT
AL
RI
NY
NY
NY
UA
MM
WA
CA
TX
FL
NY
WA
CA
NY
CA
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
KB
MB
MB
MB
KB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
2
NA
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
100
150
200
200
225
230
234
250
400
400
432
500
500
500
500
500
575
600
600
600
600
625
650
690
710
720
750
750
•00
BOO
BOO
BOO
BSO
900
990
1000
1000
1150
1170
Yes
Yea
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yea
Yes
Yes
Yea
Yes
NA
NA
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yea
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
1989
NA
1988
1990
1989
1989
1990
1989
1990
1989
1989
1990
1991
1990
1988
1990
1989
1990
1991
1989
1990
1988
1990
1990
1991
1988
1990
1991
1991
1990
1989
1989
1991
1991
1990
1991
1991
1989
NA *• Information not available
*HB - Mass Burnt RDF - Refuse-derived fueli MOD/SA
Modular Starved-alriMOD/EA - Modular Excess-air
CEP/EPE.003
-------
TABLE B-l. PLANNED MUNICIPAL UASTE COMBUSTION FACILITIES SORTED BY COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY (cent.)
City
Scat*
No. of
Unit*
Total Plant
Capacity
(tpd)
H«at
Recovery
Year of
Start-up
Man Bum Hatarvall (cant.)
Lancaatar County PA MB
Plymouth PA MB
Montfoawry Co. (LandadaU Tnahp) PA MB
Bark* County (Reading Araa) PA MB
Maahlngton County (Craanwlch Tnap. ) NY MB
Bannapln County (Mlnneapolla) MN MB
Paaaale County NJ MB
Caadan County NJ MB
Boaton MA MB
Kanaaa City MO MB
Paaadana • TX MB
Haat Haverhlll MA MB
South Bronx NY MB
San Antonio (Loon Craak) TX MB
Brovard Co.(North) PL MB
Broward Co.(South) . PL MB
Heavatead NY MB
San DU(0 (Sander) CA MB
Eaaaii County NJ MB
lodlanapolla IN MB
Fairfax VA MB
Barton County (Rldcefleld) NJ MB
Brooklyn Navy Yard NY MB
MoCord APB (Ft. Uwla) UA MB
Suite* Co.(Lafayette) NJ MB
Out(aa>le (County) UI MB
Gaaton County RR NC MB
Craatwood IL MB
Stratford CT MB
Knox Co. (Knoxvilla) TN MB
Union County RR NJ MB
Rotary W»t»rvaU (9)
Dutches* County NY MB
Skag.lt County (Mt. Vernon) UA MB
BlooaUngton (Monroe Co.) IN MB
Lubbock TX MB
lallp NY MB
Bethlehcai (Lettish Valley) PA MB
San Juan RR PR MB
York Co. (Hanchaatar. Tnahp) PA MB
Delaware County RR PA MB
NA
NA
2
2
NA
2
NA
NA
3
3
NA
NA
4
NA
4
3
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
3
3
NA
1200
1200
1200
1200
1200
1212
1300
1400
1500
1SOO
1S40
16)0
1700
1800
2200
2250
22SO
2250.
2250
23*0
3000
3000
3000
1BO
400
450
450
450
600
1000
1440
178
220
500
710
1000
1040
1344
1500
Yea
Yea
Ye*
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
NA
Yaa
Yaa
Ye*
NA
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yea
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
NA
Yaa
Yaa
NA
Yaa
Yaa
Ye*
Ye*
Yea
Ye*
Ye*
Ye*
1990
1989
1990
1990
1991
1989
1991
1990
1990
1988
1988
1989
NA
1988
1989
1990
1989
1989
1991
1989
1990
1990
1992
1988
1988
1989
1990
1989
1991
1991
1991
1988
1988
1991
1989
1988
1990
1990
1990
1990
NA - Information not available
*MB - Ma*a Burnt RDF - Refuae-derived fueli MOD/SA - Modular Starved-alriMOD/EA
Modular Excea*-alr
CEP/EPE.003
-------
TABLE 1-1. PLANNED MUNICIPAL WASTE COHBUSTION FACILITIES SORTED BY COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY (cont.)
City
State
Mo. of
Unit*
Total Plant
Capacity
(tpd)
H«at
Recovery
Year of
Start-up
Modular E»ceia-Alr (6)
Uabatar
Naucatuck
Anaonla
Ualllncford
Springfield
Manchaater
Modular Starved-Alr (9)
Potter County
Katchtkan
El Dorado
Haw Richmond (St. Crol* County)
St. laaxuny Pariah (Handovllla)
Edgewood/Harford
Ulnona County
Monroa Co. (Eaat Strauabura,)
Hull
RPF-Ftrad <141
Heyotouth
Philadelphia Municipal (SU)
Bantor (PERC) (OrrUigton)
Elk River
Portland (St. Helena)
San Marcoa (San Dlago Co.)
Rochaatar
Pal* Baacb County (North)
Uaat Pal* Baach Co.
Redwood City (San Matao County)
Honolulu (Caaftball Ind. Park)
Detroit
Charokaa County
Chatter
MA
CT
CT
CT
MA
NU
PA
AK
AR
HI
LA
MD
MH
PA
MA
MA
PA
ME
MH
OR
CA
MA
PL
PL
CA
HI
MI
SC
PA
MOD/EA
HOO/EA
MOD/EA
MOD/EA
MOD/EA
MOD/EA
HOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
MOD/SA
RDP
RDP
RDP
RDP
RDP
RDP
RDP
RDP
RDP
RDP
RDP
RDP
RDP
RDP
2
NA
HA
3
3
*
2
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
NA
NA'
NA
NA
NA
360
360
420
420
480
360
48
50
100
US
120
120
ISO
300
ISO
300
330
800
1080
1200
1600
1800
2000
2000
2750
2800
3300
4000
4800
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
MA
Yea
Yea
Yea
HA
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
X««
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
1989
1988
1989
1989
1988
1990
1989
1990
1988
1988
1990
1988
NA
1989
1991
1990
1991
1988
1989
1990
1989
1990
1990
1989
1991
1989
1989
1991
1991
MA - Intonation not available
*MB - Maaa Burnt RDP - Refuae-derlved fueli MOD/SA - Modular Starved-alriMOD/EA - Modular Eiicaaa-alr
CEP/EPE.003
-------
TABU B-l. PLANNED MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTION FACILITIES SORTED BY COMBUSTION TECHNOLOGY (cone.)
City
Scat*
No. of
Unit.
Total Plant
Capacity
(tpd)
Haat
Racovary
Yaar of
Start-up
Unknown (12)
Tacoma
Coaur D' Alana
Taxaa City (Galvaaton County)
Suaquahanna
Fraano County
Erla County
Rano
Oakland County (Pontlao)
SI Baltlaora
Hlthfrova
Oarry
Soottraat Co. (Brldgawatar)
WA
10
TX
PA
CA
PA
NV
MI
MD
CA
MB
NJ
HA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
HA
J
NA
2
2
NA'
HA
1
300
349
400
525
600
BSD
1000
1200
1200
40
400
600
Yaa
HA
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
NA
NA
NA
Yaa
1989
NA
1990
1991
19B8
1990
1988
1991
1990
1989
1988
1989
HA - Information not avallabla
T« • Maaa Burnt RDF - Rafuaa-darlvad fuali MODISA - Modular Starvad-alriMOD/EA - Modular Excaaa-alr
CEP/EPE.003
-------
TABLE 1-2. PLANNED MUNICIPAL HASTE COMBUSTION FACILITIES SORTED BY STATE
City
State
No. of
Unit*
Total Plant
Capacity
(tpd)
Heat
Recovery
Year of
Start-up
Ketchlkan
Huntavllla
El Dorado
Payattovllle
Fresno County
Blghgrove
Irwlndale
Long Beach
Redwood City (San Hateo County)
San Diego (Sander)
San Marcoe (San Diego Co.)
Stanislaus Co.(Crow* Landing)
UkUh
Ansonla
Bristol
Hlddleton
Naugatuek
Preaton
Stratford
Ualllngcord
•reward Co.(North)
•reward Co.(South)
Pal* Beach County (North)
Pa*co County
West Pal* Beach Co.
Honolulu (Caapbell Ind. Park)
Coeur D* Alene
Crestvood
BlooaUngton (Honroe Co.)
Indlanapalla
St. TaaMny Pariah (Mandevllle)
Boston
Bull
Rochester
Springfield
Debater
Heat Baverhlll
Uajmouth
Edgewood/Herford
Se Baltimore
Bangor (Perc) (Orrlngton)
AK
AL
AR
AR
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
CT
FL
PL
PL
PL
PL
HI
ID
IL
IN
IN
LA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MD
MD
ME
MOD/SA
MB
MOD/SA
MB
UNK
UNK
RDP
MB
RDP
MB
MB
MOD/EA
MB
MB
MOD/EA
MB
MB
MOD/EA
MB
MB
RDP
MB
RDP
RDP
UNK
MB
MB
MB
MOD/SA
MB
MOD/SA
RDP
MOD/EA
MOD/EA
MB
RDP
MOD/SA
UNK
RDF
NA
NA
NA
1
NA
NA
NA
3
HA
3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
3
3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA.
2
NA
3
2
2
NA
NA
NA
2
SO
690
100
ISO
600
40
1000
1170
27SO
2250
1600
•00
100
420
650
230
360
600
600
420
2200
2250
2000
•00
2000
2800
349
450
220
2360
120
1500
ISO
iaoo
4BO
360
1650
300
120
1200
800
Ye*
Yea
NA
Yes
Yea
NA
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yes
Yes
Yea
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yea
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yea
Yea
Yes
Yes
Yea
Yes
NA
NA
Yea
Yes
Yes
Yea
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
NA
Yes
1990
1990
1988
1989
1988
1989
1991
1989
1991
1989
1989
1989
NA
1989
1988
1989
1988
1989
1991
1989
1989
1990
1990
1991
1989
1989
NA
1989
1991
1989
1990
1990
1991
1990
1988
1989
1989
1990
1988
1990
1988
NA - Information not available
*MB • Mass Burnt RDF - Refuse-derived Fueli MOD/SA - Modular Starvcd-alri M90/EA - Modular Excess-ale
GEP/EFE.003
-------
TABLE 1-2. PLANNED MUNICIPAL HASTE COMBUSTION FACILITIES SORTED BY STATE (cont.)
City
Stata
typ.
No. of
Unit*
Total Plant
Capacity
(tpd)
Heat
Recovery
Yaar of
Start-up
Portland
Detroit
Kant County
Oakland County (Pontlac)
Dakota County
Elk River
Hannapln County (Mlnnaapolla)
Hlnona County
Kan*a* City
St. Loul* (North) (Bl-Stat«)
Charlotte
Caaton County RR
Concord
Darry
Manchaatar
Berg an County (Rldgefleld)
Caarien County
laaax County
Cloueaatar County
Paaaale County
Pannaaukan
Soaaraat Co. (Brld(awatar)
Suaaox Co.(Lafayette)
Union County RR
Warran County
Watt Daptford
Rano
Babylon
Brooklyn Navy Yard
Bronma County
Dutch* •• County
Haopataad
Hudaon Palla (Maahlngton Co.)
Huntlngton (Long Island)
la lip
Lone Baach
North Henpatead
Oyatar Bay
Rockland County
South Bronx
St. Lawranca County
ME
MI
MI
MI
MN
MM
MN
MN
MO
MO
NC
NC
NH
MB
NH
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NV
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
RDP
MB
UNK
MB
RDP
MB
MOD/SA
MB
MB
'MB
MB
MB
UNK
MQD/EA
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
UNK
MB
MB
MB
MB
UNK
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
MB
HA
NA
HA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
4
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
NA
NA
2
NA
2
NA
4
3
2
3
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
500
3300
625
1200
•00
1080
1212
ISO
1500
600
234
450
500
400
560
3000
1400
2250
575
1300
500
600
400
1440
400
432
1000
750
3000
500
NA
2250
400
750
710
200
990
1150
720
1700
250
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Ya*
Yaa
NA
NA
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
NA
Yaa
NA
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
NA
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yaa
Yai
Yaa
Yaa
Ya*
Y*«
1988
1989
1990
1991
1991
1989
1989
NA
1988
1991
1989
1990
1989
1988
1990
1990
1990
1991
1990
1991
1990
1989
1988
1991
1989
1989
1988
1988
1992
1991
1988
1989
1990
1990
1988
1988
1991
1991
1991
NA
1990
NA - Information not available
*MB - Ma*« Burnt RDP - Rafu*a-darlv*d Fuali MOD/SA - Modular Starvad-alri MOD/EA - Modular E«c**i-«Lr
CEP/EPE.003
-------
n
PI
•B
f*
§
is
ii
8-
n
•-
e.
r
f f r f s » F p r r ? f
R | i i i?r: ?s-s 5-
VIBflofBE-r-
- • p *
»a ?" s
Itrtl
B-
i s y
?
~ €
««
If
»•«•(•
fell
1 8~S
|5Jfo
ff r f I
^tr*
^i?
«r I
^: *
~ &
?
^
0>
n
•
n
•
ft
It
• s,
M
i
f:
• n
•:
£ °
•6 HI
n
-------
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(flease read Instructions on the reverse before completing}
EPA-A50/2-89-006
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
IO SUBTITLE
Locating And Estimating Air Toxics Emissions From
Municipal Waste Combustors
5. REPORT DATE
April 1989
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
MS)
Eric P. Epner, Michael A. Vancil
a. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
'ERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Radian Corporation
P.O. Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
I'- CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-4392, Work Assignment
Number 27
2. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental.Protection Agency
OAR,- OAQPS, AQMD, NPPB, PCS (MD-1'5)
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
"inal 8/88-3/89
14. SPONSORING AGENCy.COOE
IOTES
EPA Project Officer: William B. Kuykendal
This document is intended to assist groups interested in inventorying air emissions
of various potentially toxic substances from municipal waste combustors. Its
intended audience includes Federal, State and local air pollution personnel. The
document presents information on the process description of the various types of
municipal waste combustors and their air pollution control equipment. Emission
factors are presented for each major type of municipal waste combustor for the
following: acid gases including hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, and sulfur
trioxide; metals including arsenics, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, mercury and
nickel; and organics including chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, dibenzofurans,
polychlorinated biphenyls, formaldehyde, benzo(a)pyrene, chlorinated benzene, and
chlorinated phenol.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATI Field/Group
Municipal Waste Combustors
Air Toxics Emissions
Emission Facotrs
Dioxin
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
19. SECURITY CLASS (Tliis Report/
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (Tliispagei
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
.2Q
22. PRICE
6PA For* 2230-1 (R«». 4-77) PREVIOUS COITION is oasoccrc
-------
-------
-------
------- |