Revised 9/74
Particulate Emissions From
Apartment House Boilers
And Incinerators
(74 - 187).
Presented at the 67th APCA Annual Meeting, June 3-13, 1974
Denver, Colorado
Gerard Soffian and Peter R, Westlin
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Soffian is an Environmental Engineer with the Air Programs Branch,
Region II of the Environmental Protection Agency at 26 Federal Plaza, New
York City, New York 10007. Mr. Westlin is presently a Mechanical Engineer
with the Emission Measurement Branch of the Environmental Protection Agency
in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711.
-------
2
(74 - 187)
Abstract
The body of information presented in this paper is directed to re-
searchers in stack testing methodology and to those concerned with re-
duction of emissions through equipment upgrading programs. An extensive
number of tests were made using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Method 5 stack sampling train to obtain emission factors for existing
apartment house boilers and incinerators in the City of New York. In addi-
tion to calculating emission factors, stack emission data were examined to
compare results of simultaneous emission tests and to compare the dry parti-
culate catch of the sampling train with the total particulate catch which
included the impinger catch.
Conclusions reached as a result of the testing were that published
emission factors for boilers burning moderately high-sulfur residual oil are
applicable to New York City boilers burning low-sulfur residual oil. In
addition, it was found that the back half of the sampling train — the
impinger section ~ collects a relatively constant amount of material when
sampling oil-fired boilers. This may be due to'absorption of S02 and $03
in the impingers and the subsequent formation of sulfuric acid. Comparision
of simultaneous boiler tests indicated that the sampling train may be sen-
sitive to variations in operating personnel; sampling conditions, and
boiler operation.
From tests of on-site incinerators, it was determined that previously
published emission factors may be too high for well-maintained and properly
operated incinerators. The back half particulate catch was found to be
relatively large which was likely a result of condensation of unburned
organics from the burning waste material.
-------
3
(74 - 187)
Acknowledgements
Edward Savoie and Michael Kormanik of the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation supervised all field work and collection
of data. Their effort is gratefully acknowledged.
Special thanks are also given to Mitchel Saed and Charles Theophil
of the New York City Department of Air Resources for their thoughtful guid-
ance during the study.
-------
4
(74 - 187)
Introduction
Sources of particulates .in the South Bronx and Upper Manhattan area of
New York City include more than 5000 non-upgraded residual oil-fired boilers
and 2000 non-upgraded flue-fed incinerators. These installations are esti-
mated to contribute significantly to the area's total particulate emissions.
The South Bronx and Upper Manhattan area has been experiencing annual sus-
pended particulate levels in excess of the primary national ambient .air
quality standard of 75 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3)J Consequently,
the State of New York in its State Implementation Plan placed primary
reliance on the use of low-sulfur residual oil and the upgrading of existing
oil-fired boilers,as well as the sealing or upgrading of existing on-site
incinerators to reduce the ambient levels of particulates. for achievement
of primary standards.
In order to determine the expected reduction in emissions from this
control strategy, a reliable emission factor was needed for existing sources.
Apartment house sized boilers and incinerators have been tested previously,
2,3,4,5,6 i-^ on]y minimal data is available for non-upgraded primitive instal-
lations tested with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Method
5 particulate sampling train. A non-profit corporation, Environmental
Conservation Research, Inc., maintained by Ne'w York State Department of
Environmental Conservation, was contracted by EPA to source test approximately
25 boilers and 25 incinerators in the South Bronx and Upper Manhattan for use
in establishing particulate emission factors. Stack test results were
used not only to determine the overall emission factors, but also to
-------
5
(74 - 187)
examine the relationship between the front half catch of the sampling train-
with the total catch, the influence of equipment upgrading on source perform-
ance, the uniformity in particulate catch from simultaneous tests, and the
effect of boiler soot blowing on emissions.
Experimental Methods
Description of Test Units
Sites representative of the variety of non-upgraded installations in
the study area were selected for testing. Moreover, several upgraded sites,
certified by the New York City Department of Air Resources for meeting
789
minimum performance and design criteria, ' ' were also tested. The
installation's ranged in age from less than 1-year to 50-years old. Some
were well maintained while others were almost totally neglected. Boiler
firing rates ranged from 16 to 100 gallons per hour. All boilers tested
were equipped with horizontal rotary cup burners, some had windboxes, and
most had either a sequential draft controller or barometric damper. Incin-
erators were of single flue design and most consisted of only one combustion
chamber. Several units had auxiliary burners and gas scrubbers.
-------
6
(74 - 187)
Sampling and Measurements
Participates were sampled with the EPA Method 5 procedure and sampling
train, and optional impinger section, as noted in December 23, 1971, Federal
Register. Sampling therefore included both dry and total catches. The dry
catch consists of all particulate matter obtained from washings of the probe
and cyclone and particulate collected by the filter. This is the same as the
particulate catch of the EPA sampling train. The sum of the dry catch partic-
ulate and the particulate found in the impinger section of the sampling
train is the total particulate catch.
In many stack tests, a 12-foot-long stack insert with.a 12-inch-square
cross section and built-in ports was placed in the chimney. The insert was
used to prevent reentrainment during testing of particulate matter found
adhered to the chimney wall and to impart a needed higher exhaust gas
velocity so that tests could be conducted efficiently. Fiber glass insula-
tion was used to secure a seal between the insert plate and stack exit.
Oil flow meters were installed by licensed servicemen at all the
boiler test sites. Most boiler installations required two meters, one each
in the oil supply and return lines. Oil samples were obtained at each site
for analysis of sulfur, ash, Btu, and carbon content, as well as oil viscosity
and specific gravity. All fuel was found to be low-sulfur (less than 0.5
percent sulfur) residual oil with low ash content. Two or three 1-hour
sample runs were completed at each boiler site. Some of the boiler emission
tests were conducted with two sampling trains operating simultaneously.
-------
7
(74 - 187)
The stack test runs at incinerator sites were conducted consecutively
with each test lasting approximately 1-hour. Three tests were attempted
at each installation. Where gas burners were present, their firing rates
were calculated from existing gas meters. The length of time of the burner
operation was also recorded.
Equipment Operating Procedures
The major objective of the program was to obtain emission data for
residual 'oil-fired boilers and on-site flue-fed incinerators during their
typical modes of operation. All installations were tested in an "as found"
condition. Except for the use of stack inserts, no adjustments were made
to the existing equipment. Where possible, units were placed on manual
controls so that operation could coincide with testing. Modifications to
normal boiler and incinerator operations were kept to a minimum.
Boilers. Stack sampling started immediately upon burner startup, so
there was no attempt to achieve steady state conditions. The boilers were
allowed to operate until boiler pressure reached optimum safety levels,
typically 5 to 10 psi. Boiler operation was discontinued during the port
changes. To ensure that sampling and boiler operation coincided, constant
communication via intercom was maintained between personnel on the roof and
in the boiler room.
Soot blowing of boiler tubes was regularly performed at several sites
using compressed air jets. The soot blowing equipment was normally acti-
vated three times daily for a duration of 30 minutes. To measure the effect
of the soot blowing on particulate emissions, tests at these sites were con-
-------
8
(74 - 187)
ducted during both soot blowing and non-soot blowing periods. On days of
soot blow testing, boiler operating personnel were advised to postpone their
early morning soot blowing operation until time of testing.
Incinerators. The quantity of refuse charged was determined from the
volume of the combustion chamber. Assuming an average refuse density of 4.1
pounds per cubic foot,7 the weight of refuse charged was determined by filling
the combustion chamber to one-half its volume. Though the amount of refuse
normally charged in apartment house varies considerably, charging the com-
bustion chamber to half its volume introduced some uniformity to the incin-
erator tests. The refuse used during testing was actual waste generated by
tenants of the buildings being tested, and, if needed, from nearby apartment
g
houses. The typical practice of using a prepared standard waste was there-
fore, not followed. All charges approximated type 2 waste.
Before the first test run at a site, the sizes of the chamber and grate
were measured, and although not typical of normal operation, the combustion
and cleanout chambers were completely cleared of ash. All the weighed refuse
was then charged and ignited, either by match or gas burner. Since composi-
tion of the refuse varied between tests, it was difficult to estimate
accurately the length of time for each burn. If after 1-hour a significant
amount of refuse remained, each sampling point was sampled again for a
period of 3 to 4 minutes to allow for more complete burn-down of material.
The fire was stoked only to continue a burn to finish a test.
-------
9
(74 - 187)
After a test was completed, the remaining refuse, which was often still
burning or smoldering, was sprayed with a 'minimum of water from a precali-
brated garden hose. Half the water was assumed to be evaporated or run-off,
and the remainder absorbed by the ash. After the fire was extinguished,
the ashes were placed in cans and weighed. In later stages of the study,
the procedure was modified so that the still-burning refuse was shovelled
into cans which were immediately covered to smother the flame. This method
eliminated the need for water and the uncertainty factor related to its use.
The waterless procedure, however, increased the safety risk from exploding
aerosol cans and permitted the continued burning of some refuse after the
test was completed. At the conclusion of each test run, the incinerator
was cleaned and charged for the next test.
Charging hopper doors on each floor of the apartment buildings were
sealed with tape, and trash bags were provided for use by the tenants.
This practice prevented unknown amounts of refuse from being added to the
incinerator and disturbing the fire during testing.
-------
10
(74 - 187)
Discussion of Results
Boilers Emission Results
Emissions for boilers are reported in two ways. For the purposes of
determining the emission factors, the results are reported in kilograms
per thousand liters (kg/103 1} of residual oil burned. This number can be
compared with published emission factors. Some of the emission tests were
conducted with two sampling trains operated simultaneously. For comparison
of these test runs and for comparison of dry catch to total catch, the
emissions are expressed as milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/dscm).
The dry catch emission factor determined from the stack tests of the
apartment house boilers was 2.78 kg/103 £. Including the impinger catch as
part of the total particulate emissions results in an emission factor of
3.98 kg/103 £. Though all boilers tested burned low-sulfur fuel, the dry
catch compares favorably with the emission factor of 2.75 kg/103 L published
in the "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors". This factor was
associated with fuel oil of moderately high sulfur content. Results from
a recent study of boilers burning low-sulfur residual oil suggest that a
dry catch emission factor of 1.5 kg/lO3 t nrfgtrt be more appropriate for such
fuel. This emission factor may apply only to well-maintained boilers but
is consistent with the results obtained from many of the better performing
installations tested. Table I shows the emission factors for all boiler
tests reported as dry catch and total catch.
-------
11
(74 - 187)
Emission concentrations varied greatly from site to site for non-up-
graded boilers as indicated in Table II. The average emission concentra-
tion based on the dry participate catch was 111.8 mg/dscm with a standard
deviation of 172.7 mg/dscm. The average total emission factor was 150.3
mg/dscm with a standard deviation of 175.4 mg/dscm. Even though the emis-
sion factors varied greatly from site to site, the difference between the
dry catch and the total catch, or the impinger catch, remained relatively
constant. The average impinger catch was 38.5 mg/dscm with a standard de-
viation of only 15.9 mg/dscm. This represents a 41 percent deviation whereas
the dry emission concentration had a deviation of over 150 percent. The
relatively constant amount of material collected in the impinger section
of the sampling train during boiler sampling, despite varying particulate
emission levels, may suggest the presence of sulfur oxides in relatively
constant concentrations in the boiler gas exhaust. Sulfur dioxide and
sulfur trioxide are formed by the oxidation of sulfur in the fuel oil.
These gases are possibly absorbed in the impinger solution and upon storage
IP
may form sulfuric acids. The acids are then measured as particulate after
evaporation of the impinger solutions. All of the oil used during the
testing period had nearly the same low sulfur content; thus the sulfur oxide
concentrations in the boiler exhaust would be constant depending only on vary-
ing amounts of excess air.
Data for upgraded boilers are shown in Table III. The data were in-
.sufficient to show, any significant difference between upgraded boiler emis-
sions and non-upgraded boiler emissions.
-------
12
(74 - 187)
Emissions determined during the soot blowing periods are shown in Table
IV. The average dry emission concentration found during soot blowing was
24.2 mg/dscm. The average dry emission concentration from the same sites
during normal conditions was 21.6 mg/dscm. Data from these sites were in-
sufficient to show any significant difference in emissions during soot blow-
ing periods and during other periods. Only four sites were sampled during
soot blowing and the results were varied. Though previous literature^ in-
dicates that soot blowing substantially increases emissions, the failure to
find such an effect may be attributed to excellent maintenance practices.at
the soot blowing sites, the frequency at which the soot blowing is conducted,
and the low ash content of the fuel. A larger number of emission samples
would be needed, however, to determine the difference in emissions during
soot blowing and normal operating periods.
During the program, 15 of the boiler emission tests were conducted
with two sampling trains operating simultaneously in the same stack. The
trains were operated along different-traverses and not at the same sampling
point. Table V shows the data from these tests. To obtain some measure
of the relative difference between paired sampling runs, the ratio of differ-
ence in concentrations to the average of the two concentrations was calcu-
lated for all of the tests. The average value for the variation factor was
53 percent. Seven of the 15 runs had a variation factor of less than 25
percent. The greater variation in the other duplicate test runs may be due
in part to the variation in equipment operators, sampling sites, and boiler
-------
13
(74 - 187)
operating parameters. The variation may also be due to incomplete or in-
sufficient traversing of the stack cross-section. As noted previously,
the two sampling trains were operated in different parts of the stack.
Incinerator Emission Results
Incinerator emissions are reported in two ways. For the purposes of
determining the emission factors, the results are reported in kilograms
per metric ton (kg/MT) of refuse burned. This number can be compared with
published emission factors. For comparison of dry catch to total catch,
the emissions are expressed, as for boilers, in milligrams per dry standard
cubic meter (mg/dscm).
The emission factor for flue-fed single chamber incinerators reported
in the "Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors"^ is 15 kg/MT of
material burned. For the emission tests conducted at non-upgraded incin-
erators in New York City the average emission factor was 10.4 kg/MT based
on the dry catch of the sampling train. Using the total particulate catch
of the sampling train produces an emission factor of 17.9 kg/MT. For this
project the incinerators were operated at optimum conditions and charges
were carefully weighed and charged. This was done to obtain an accurate
measure of burning rate. These factors may account for the difference be-
tween previously published values and the emission factors determined during
this program. Table VI shows the emission factor data for incinerators.
-------
14
(74 - 187)
Non-upgraded incinerators averaged 209.3 mg/dscm in dry emission
concentration or more than twice the upgraded incinerator emissions
concentration of 99.'6 mg/dscm. This indicates that upgrading of New York
City apartment house incinerators leads to substantial reductions in air
pollutant emissions. The difference between concentrations based on dry
catch and concentrations based on total catch for non-upgraded incinerators
was 148.4 mg/dscm with a standard deviation of 64.5 mg/dscm. The rela-
tively large back half catch could be expected because of the potentially
large amount of condensible organic material generated during burning of
waste. This organic material would condense in the impinger solutions
and be measured as part of the total mass. The standard deviation of
the back half catch was greater than that found for the boilers. This
might also be expected since the refuse was not as consistent in composi-
tion as the fuel oil. Table VII shows the emission concentration data
for non-upgraded incinerators and Table VIII slews similar data for up-
graded incinerators. Upgrading of incinerators reduced not only the
front half particulate catch but also reduced the impinger catch. This
suggests that unburned condensible organics may be controlled by auxiliary
burners or wet scrubbers which were installed in the upgraded incinerators.
-------
15
(74 - 187)
Conclusions
Several conclusions about the EPA Method 5 sampling train and its
application to sampling apartment house boilers and incinerators can be
made. The data indicate that the amount of particulate captured in the
impinger section of the sampling train is relatively constant and is inde-
pendent of the amount of dry particulate catch found during boiler
emission sampling. This possibly results from the absorption of sulfur
dioxide in the impingers and the subsequent formation of relatively
constant quantities of sulfuric acid. Possibly because of the variation'
in refuse composition, no similar effect on impinger catch was noted with
the incinerator emission data. The relatively large impinger catch
found in the incinerator tests is consistent with the expectation that
organics condense and are collected in the impinger section of the
sampling train.
The varied emission results of paired simultaneous tests on 15 of the
boilers may only be indicative of variations in operating personnel,
sampling conditions, and boiler operation. The paired test runs were made
simultaneously in the same stack, but not. at the same point-in .the gas
stream, suggesting that traverses done in different parts of the same
stack may not produce identical results. An effort should be made to
isolate the reasons for the observed variations in the test results.
-------
16
(74 - 187)
The;,emission factor determined during the New York City boiler tests
compares favorably with the published values found in the "Compilation of
Air Pollutant Emission Factors"!' For incinerators, however, the emission
factor determined during testing was less than the published value. This
may indicate that the incinerators were operated during the testing at or
neafc optimum conditions by experienced operators.
Upgrading has an apparent minimum effect on the emissions from apart-
ment house boilers. This might be attributable to the fact that many of the
upgraded boilers tested were not maintained in optimum operating condition.
Upgraded incinerators had substantially lower emissions than did non-up-
graded units. This implies that auxiliary burners and wet scrubbers may be
effective in reducing emissions of unburned hydrocarbons that are emitted
from apartment house incinerators.
-------
17
(74 - 187)
Table I Emission factor results from emission tests of apartment house
boilers.
Site Emission Factor Emission Factor Difference
drya total b
kg/103 I kg/103 I
1 1.57 3.20 1.63
2 3.24 4.36 1-12
3 0.92 2.98 2.06
4 5.03 7.90 2.87
5 3.67 4.81 1.14
6 2.54 4.60 2.06
7 1.57 3.06 1.49
8 1.99 3.00 1.01
9 1.13 2.26 1.13
10 1.41 2.00 0.59
11 0.53 0.89 0.37
12 0.61 2.35 1.74
13 2.04 2.68 0.64
14 0.97 1.83 0.86
15 17.08 17.71 0.63
16 1.40 2.46 1.06
17 0.99 1.41 0.42
18 4.09 5.27 1.18
19 2.04 2.91 0.87
20 4.10 5.18 1.08
21 0.65 1.04 0.39
22 2.13 3.08 0.95
23 9.38 10.08 0.70
aBased on particulate catch of probe, cyclone, and filter
bBased on particulate catch of probe, cyclone, filter and impingers
-------
18
(74 - 187)
Table II Emission concentrations from emission tests of non-upgraded
apartment house boilers.
Si te
Emis. Cone.
drya
mg/dscm
Emis. Cone.
totalb
mg/dscm
Difference
mg/dscm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
31
141
10
71.0
78.4
62
60
67
48.0
121.1
47.8
6.9
38.
35,
.5
.7
804.8
50.3
44.8
246.6
155.8
63.8
190.9
32.9
111.9
102.9
111.8
118.9
102.2
96.8
172.0
79.9
27,
50.
67.
834.
88.
63-. 3
317.5
222.6
,5
,9
,3
,6
,7
32.8
49.1
22.
40.
24.
49.
57.
34.
48.8
50.9
32.
20.
12.
31
,7
.6
.5
.6
,9
.3
.1
.6
.4
.6
29.8
38.
18.
70.
66.8
a Based .on particulate catch of probe, cyclone, and filter
b Based on particulate catch of probe, cyclone, filter and
impingers
-------
19
(74 - 187)
Table III Emission concentrations from emission tests of upgraded
apartment house boilers.
Site Emis. Cone. Emis. Cone. Difference
drya totalb
mg/dscm mg/dscm mg/dscm
222.3
55.1
116.9
491.5
46.3
20.7
36.0
33.7
20 176.0
21 34.4
22 80.9
23 457.8
a Based on particulate catch of probe, cyclone, and filter
b Based on particulate catch of probe, cyclone,, filter, and
impingers
-------
20
(74 - 187)
Table IV Emission concentrations from emission tests of apartment
house boilers during soot blowing.
Site Emis. Cone. Emis. Cone.
dry9 totalb
mg/dscm mg/dscm
With soot blowing
1 26.2 72.7
3 38.5 83.5
12 11.2 29.8
13 20.9 42.4
No soot blowing
1 31.0 63.8
3 10.2 32.9
12 6.9 27.5
13 38.5 50.9
a Based on particulate catch of probe, cyclone, and filter
b Based on particulate catch of probe, cyclone, filter,, and
impingers
-------
21
(74 - 187)
Table V. Emission concentrations from simultaneous emission tests of
apartment house boilers.
Site
2
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
19
21
23
Emis. Cone.
Run 1
mg/dscm
134.8
41.0
53.4
72.0
47
183
21
10
65
945
53.9
36.0
77.1
51.2
414.6
Emis. Cone.
Run 2
mg/dscm
148.8
83.5
67.8
Difference Diff./average
63.
48.
58.
74.
12.
11
663.
46.
53.6
234.4
17.6
499.7
,7
,6
.5
.6
1
,6
.7
,7
mg/dscm
14.0
,5
,4
42.
14.
8.3
1,1
125.1
53.6
1.
53,
282.2
7.2
17.6
157.3
33.6
85.1
9.9
68.3
23.8
12.2
2.3
103.3
112.1
140.
35.
14,
39,
101,
97,
16.1
18.6
-------
22
(74 - 187)
Table VI. Emssion factors from emission tests of apartment house
incinerators.
Site Emis. Factor Emis. Factor Difference
drya totalb
kg/MT kg/MT kg/MT
1 10.4 17.6 7.2
2 5.6 10.4 4.8
3 10.4 17.2 6.8
4 14.0 22.4 8.4
5 10.7 16.9 6.2
6 10.4 22.0 11.6
7 9.3 16.1 6.8
8 12.6 17.4 .4.8
9 10.2 17.1 13.9
10 22.5 30.5 8.0
11 5.0 13.6 8.6
12 5.2 9.1 3.9
13 6.9 15.8 8.9
14 16.6 33.1 16.6
15 9.0 15.0 6.0
16 8.4 15.0 6.6
17 9.6 15.1 5.5
18 10.0 17.4 7.4
19 4.8 8.8 4.0
20 4.4 7.8 3.4
21 1.7 3.6 1.9
22 3.0 4.6 1.6
a. Based on particulate catch o;f probe,. eycTone, and filter
b. Based on particulate catch of probe, cyclone, filter, and
impingers
-------
23
(74 - 187)'
Table VII. Emission concentrations from emission tests of non-upgraded
apartment house incinerators.
Site Emis. Cone. Emis. Cone. Difference
dry9 totalb
mg/dscm mg/dscm mg/dscm
1 123.6 215.0 91.4
2 133.5 246.1 112.6
3 240.7 398.0 157.3
4 218.6 344.4 125.8
5 208.9 338.7 129.8
6 140.2 300.5 160.5
7 192.8 348.3 155.5
8 415.2 572.8 157.6
9 230.9 374.2 143.3
10 324.3 439.3 115.0
11 58.2 154.6 96.4
"12 130.4 228.8 98.4
13 220.5 487.8 267.3
14 364.2 705.5 341.3
15 157.2 263.1 105.9
16 163.5 297.3 133.8
17 234.8 366.1 131.3
a. Based on particulate catch of probe, cyclone, and filter
b. Based on particulate catch of probe, cyclone, filter, and
impingers
-------
24
(74 - 187)
Table VIII. Emission concentrations from emission tests of upgraded
apartment house incinerators.
Site
18
19
20
21
22
Emis. Cone.
dry3
mg/dscm
220.7
98.8
63.1
37.9
77.7
Emis. Cone.
total b
mg/dscm
384.6
182.0
105.8
81.0
120.3
Difference
mg/dscm
163.9
83.2
42.7
43.1
42.6
a. Based on particulate catch of probe, cyclone, and filter
b. Based on particulate catch of probe, cyclone, filter, and
impingers
-------
25
(74 - 187}
References
1. City of New York Department of Air Resources, "Data Report: Aerometric
Network, Calendar Year 1972".
2. Burroughs, L. C., "Report on the American Petroleum Institute Survey
of Emissions From Fuel Oil Combustion", Presented at the National Fuel
Oil Institute, April 18, 1963.
3. Tomaras, Z. G. and Reckner, L., "Technical Report on Tests of a Rotary
Cup Burner-Boiler Unit Using No. 6 Oil", U.S. Public Health Service,
National Center for Air Pollution Control by Scott Research Labora-
tories, Inc., Perkasie, Pennsylvania, April 4, 1968..
4. Barrett, R. E., Miller, S. E., and Lock!in, D. W., "Field Investigation
of Emissions from Combustion Equipment for Space Heating", American
Petroleum Institute and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, API 4180
by Battelle Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio, June 1973.
5. Kaplan, L. M. and Risman, A., "Field Evaluation of On-Site Incineration
and Waste Compaction Processes", Presented at the 62nd Annual Meeting
of APCA, June 1970.
6. Sableski, J. J. and Cote, W. A., "Air Pollutant Emissions from Apart-
ment House Incinerators", J. Air Poll. Control Assoc., 22(4): 239, 1972.
7. City of New York Department of Air Pollution Control, "Criteria Used
for Uparading Existing Apartment House Incinerators in the City of
New York", January 1967-
8. City of New York Department of Air Pollution Control, "Criteria Used
for Oil Fired Equipment", March 1967.
9. City of New York Department of Air Resources, "Engineering Criteria -
Fuel Oil Burning Equipment", July 1, 1973.
10. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, "Specifications
for Incinerator Testing at Federal Facilities", Durham, North Carolina,
October 1967-
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Compilation of Air Pollution
Emission Factors", Second Edition, AP-42, April 1973.
-------
26
(74 - 187)
12. Hillenbrand, L. J., Enqdahl, R. B., and Barrett, R. E., "Chemical
Composition of Participate Air Pollutants From Fossil Fuel Combustion
Sources", to Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Programs,
Contract No. EHSD 71-29, November 29, 1972.
13. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Air Pollution Engineering Manual",
Second Edition, AP-40, May 1973.
------- |