SCREENING STUDY TO DETERMINE
  THE NEED FOR STANDARDS OF
 PERFORMANCE ,FOR INDUSTRIAL
 AND COMMERCIAL INCINERATORS

        Final Report

-------
                                            GCA-TR-78-57-G

                Prepared for
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
           Research Triangle Park
           North Carolina  27711


             EPA Project Officer
              Robert Rosensteel
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Emission Standards and Engineering Division

           Contract No. 68-02-2607
           Work Assignment No. 18
                     and
           Contract No. 68-02-3057
        SCREENING STUDY TO DETERMINE

          THE NEED FOR STANDARDS OF

         PERFORMANCE ,FOR INDUSTRIAL

         AND COMMERCIAL INCINERATORS


                Final Report
                January 1979
                     by
              Robert G. Mclnnes
              Patricia M.  Brown
                Raymond K. Yu
                Nora M. Hanley
               GCA CORPORATION
           GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
           Bedford,   Massachusetts

-------
                                 DISCLAIMER


     This Final Report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
GCA Corporation, GCA/Technology Division, Burlington Road, Bedford,  Massachusetts
01730, in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-2607, Work Assignment No. 18.   The
opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the authors and not
necessarily those of the Environmental Protection Agency.  Mention of company
or product names is not to be considered as an endorsement by the Environmental
Protection Agency.

-------
                                   ABSTRACT
     This report contains background information on the commercial and indus-
trial incinerator industry.   The industry is surveyed and categorized by pro-
cess type, capacity, class of owner, and other factors.   Incinerator designs
and control strategies are discussed, and the best system of emissions control
is determined.  State and local regulations are discussed.

     The impact of NSPS on particulate emissions is calculated using a model
(Model IV) developed by The Research Corporation of New England.
                                     iii

-------
IV

-------
                                  CONTENTS
Abstract	li:L
Figures	vii
Tables	xi
Acknowledgments  	  xv

     1.0  Task A - Industry Survey	   1
          1.1   Introduction 	   1
          1.2   Classification Systems 	   1
          1.3   Data Sources	10
          1.4   Regional Summary 	  12
          1.5   Categorization by Owner	18
          1.6   Waste Quantities and Capacities  	  22
          1.7   Categorization of Commercial and Institutional
                  Incinerators by Owner  	  22
          1.8   Categorization of Industrial Incinerators by Owner ...  23
          1.9   Categorization of Incinerators by Design 	  26
          1.10  Categorization of Incinerators by Air Pollution
                  Control Equipment  	  26
     2.0  Task B - New Construction and Modification	29
          2.1   Summary	29
          2.2   Methodology	29
          2.3   Methods of Calculating Parameters  	  33
          2.4   Pathological Incinerators  	  34
          2.5   Commercial and Institutional Incinerators  	  39
          2.6   Apartment Incinerators 	  45
          2.7   Industrial Incinerators  	  47
          2.8   Teepee Burners	52
     3.0  Industry Description 	  55
          3.1   Combustion Principles  	  55
          3.2   Single Chamber Incinerators  	  60
          3.3   Multichamber Incinerators  	  85
          3.4   Controlled Air Incineration  	 112
          3.5   Novel Methods of Incineration  	 136
          3.6   Industrial Descriptions  	 160
     4.0  Emissions Effectively Controlled by a Standard 	 238
          4.1   Introduction	238
          4.2   Pollutant Classification 	 238
          4.3   Applicability of a Standard	239
          4.4   Summary	242
                                      v

-------
                            CONTENTS (continued)
     5.0  Emission Data ........................
          5.1   Introduction  .....................
          5.2   Emissions .......................
          5.3   Summary ........................
     6.0  Emission Control Systems  ..................
                                                                        o c c
          6.1   Cyclone Separators  ..................
          6.2   Wet Scrubbers ..................... 258
          6.3   Electrostatic Precipitators .............. 263
          6.4   Fabric Filtration ................... 265
          6.5   Afterburners  ..................... 27°
          6.6   Comparison of Air Pollution Control Equipment for
                  Industrial and Commercial Incinerators  ....... 278
     7.0  Best System of Control  ................... 287
          7.1   Introduction/Rationale  ...... . ......... 287
          7.2   Control Device Applicability  . . ........... 288
          7.3   Best System Determination ............... 290
          7.4   Conclusion  ...................... 293
     8.0  Collection and Analysis Methods ............... 294
     9.0  State arid Local Regulations ................. 297
    10.0  Estimated Emission Reduction  ................ 309
          10.1  Introduction  .......... . .......... 309
          10.2  Model IV  ....................... 309
          10.3  Total Emissions .................... 314
          10.4  Results of Model IV .................. 314
          10.5  Discussion  ...................... 314
    11.0  References  .................  . ....... 317
Appendices
    A     Trip Reports	333
    B     Emission Measurement Data 	 392
    C     List of Contacts	404
    D     Potential Commercial and Institutional 100 ton/yr
            Particulate Sources 	 420
                                     vi

-------
                                   FIGURES
Number                                                                   Page
   1    Incinerator decline by EPA Regions 	  16
   2    Trends in incinerator use	18
   3    Trends in industrial waste from IR + T data	50
   4    Combustion temperature versus percent excess air for
          cellulose	56
   5    Schematic of cross-feed bed burning process (assuming com-
          bustion process raw -»• dry -* volatilize -» char -* ash)	59
   6    A schematic drawing of the dehydrating type of household
          incinerator	61
   7    Unmodified flue-fed incinerator  	  62
   8    Chart showing ignition-temperature cycle of a dehydrating
          household incinerator  	  63
   9    Combustion temperature versus percent excess air for various
          wastes	65
  10    Flue-fed incinerator modified by a roof afterburner and a
          draft control damper	77
  11    Flue-fed incinerator modified by an afterburner at the base
          of the flue	78
  12    Single-flue, single-chamber incinerator with roof settling
          chamber	79
  13    Single-flue incinerator with washer or precipitator on roof  .   .  80
  14    Conversion from single-flue to double-flue incinerator 	  81
  15    Flue-fed incinerator modified by the installation of a multiple-
          chamber incinerator	82
  16    Cutaway of a retort multiple-chamber incinerator 	  86
  17    Cutaway of an in-line multiple-chamber incinerator 	  87
  18    Relationship of grate loading to combustion rate for multiple-
          chamber incinerators 	  91
  19    Relationship of arch height to grate area for multiple-
          chamber incinerators 	  92
                                     Vll

-------
                             FIGURES (continued)

Number
  20    Effect of underfire air rate on emission factors 	
  21    Particle fluidization velocities (terminal velocities)  	
  22    Times required for combustion of carbonaceous particles  ....
  23    Effect of stoking and charging of carbon monoxide and hydro-
          carbon production - at 50 percent excess air 	
  24    Effect of stoking and charging on carbon monoxide and hydro-
          carbon production - at 150 percent excess air	100
  25    The theoretical NOX - excess air relationship	101
  26    Relationship of nitrogen oxides to temperature at 50 percent
          excess combustion air level (all samples)  	 102
  27    Relationship of nitrogen oxides to temperature at 150 percent
          excess combustion air level (all samples)  	 102
  28    Automatic in-line loaders  	 106
  29    Low energy scrubber	108
  30    Effect of primary crusher draft on particulate emissions .... 110
  31    Two-stage,  starved air incinerator 	 114
  32    One-dimensional schematic of controlled air first stage  .... 116
  33    Chamber behavior as function of chamber air supplied when
          burning constant mass of waste	•	118
  34    Controlled air incinerator air/fuel requirements 	 120
  35    Chamber behavior as function of chamber waste charging rate
          for fixed air supply	122
  36    Behavior of standard incinerator chamber batch-burning of
          high Btu waste	123
  37    Stack behavior as function of chamber waste charging rate
          for fixed air supply	125
  38    Behavior of standard afterburner-stack, batch-burning of
          high Btu waste  	
  39    System behavior of high Btu incinerator, batch-burning of
          high Btu wastes	
  40    Particulate emissions from controlled air incinerators ....   130
  41    Cumulative percent of particulate emissions measurements
          for controlled air incinerators that fall below specified
          particulate emission levels	      , „„
                                     Vlll

-------
                             FIGURES (continued)
Number
  42    Automatic charging sequence 	   134
  43    Future trends ultimate waste disposal practices
          (1972 to 1980)  	137
  44    Future trends in incinerator practices (1972 to 1980) 	   138
  45    Fundamentals of fluidized solids processing 	   140
  46    Flow diagram — fluidized-bed incinerator  	   142
  47    Sketch of 10-inch diameter fluidized-bed unit 	   144
  48    CPU-400 pilot plant and system schematic  	   146
  49    Union Carbide oxygen refuse converter 	   147
  50    Torrax solid waste disposal system  	   148
  51    American Thermogen high temperature incineration  	   149
  52    Schematic of vortex incinerator and auxiliaries 	   153
  53    Schematic - corner suspension fired furnace 	   154
  54    Schematic drawing of a typical cycloburner  	   156
  55    Schematic of a refuse pyrolysis system  	   158
  56    Sludge incineration 	   162
  57    Unit processes-sludge processing and disposal 	   163
  58    The effects of sludge moisture and volatile solids content on
          gas consumption	166
  59    Equilibrium curves relating combustion temperatures to cake
          concentration 	   167
  60    Impact of excess air on the cost of natural gas in sludge
          incineration  	   168
  61    Estimated industrial versus other residual (August 1970 to 1971)
          (dry weight in million ton/yr)  	   170
  62    Cross section of a typical multiple-hearth incinerator  ....   173
  63    Cross section of a fluid-bed reactor  	   175
  64    Flash dryer system  	   177
  65    Wet air oxidation system	178
  66    Skid-mounted cyclonic incinerator system  	   180
  67    Cyclone furnace	181
  68    Thermosonic incinerator system for treatment and disposal
          of raw sludge	182
                                     IX

-------
                             FIGURES (continued)






Number                                                                   Pag£
69
70
71
72
73

74
75

76

77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85

86
87
88

89
90
Flow chart of the hazardous waste screening model 	
Types of incinerators and their application 	
Sources of hospital wastes 	
Composition of hospital wastes 	
Estimates of hospital wastes disposed of, incineration versus
other treatments 	
Teepee Incinerator 	
Combustion Power Company, Inc. fluid-bed burner/boiler
schematic 	
Combustion Power Company, Inc. fluid-bed burner /dryer
schematic 	
Ward single-pass furnace 	
Detrick-Dennis multicell bagasse furnace 	
Traveling-grate stoker 	
Process for selection of gas-cleaning equipment 	
Typical cyclonic dust collector 	
Typical layout for spray tower 	
Shaker-type fabric filter 	
Flow diagram of a fabric filter 	
Coupled effects of temperature and time on rate of pollutant
oxidation 	
Common afterburner 	
Common afterburner with recuperative tube-type recovery ....
Composite grade (fractional) efficiency curves based on
test silica dust 	
Extrapolated fractional efficiency of control devices 	
Collector efficiency versus stack dust emissions 	
186
190
206
207

211
223

224

225
229
230
231
254
256
260
267
268

272
274
274

279
280
285

-------
                                   TABLES
Number                                                                   Page
   1    IIA Classification of Wastes to be Incinerated 	   2
   2    IIA Classification of Incinerators 	   3
   3    NEDS Source Classification Codes for Incinerators  	   4
   4    Classification of incinerators 	   6
   5    Subclassification of Incinerators by Owner 	   7
   6    Standard Industrial Classification 	   8
   7    State and Regional Summary of Commercial and Industrial
          Incinerators 	  13
   8    Distribution of Incinerators by Five Primary Categories  ....  19
   9    Maryland Pathological Incinerators 	  21
  10    Commercial and Institutional Incinerators by Owner
          (Excluding Pathological Units) 	  24
  11    Distribution of Incineration by Industry and Region (Annual
          Waste Processed, ton/yr) 	  25
  12    Distribution of Commercial, Institutional and Industrial
          Incinerators by Design  	  27
  13    APC Distribution	28
  14    APC Distribution for Maryland	28
  15    Modified APC Distribution for Maryland 	  28
  16    Summary of Projections	30
  17    Changes in Incineration Capacity and Waste Quantity Actually
          Incinerated Between 1978 and 1983	31
  18    Notation Used in Projections	32
  19    Deaths in the United States	36
  20    Hospital Facilities  	  42
  21    Comparative Teepee Burner Data 	  53
  22    Heating Value of Various Substances  	  66
  23    Analysis of Typical Commercial Refuse  	  66
                                     XI

-------
                              TABLES (continued)
Number
  24    Uncontrolled Single Chamber Incinerator Emission Data
          Expressed in Ib/ton Charged (gr/scf at 12% C02)	    70
  25    Conversion Factors  	    71
  26    Refuse Analysis:   Summary of Inorganic Constituents 	    73
  27    Refuse Analysis:   Summary of Organic Constituents 	    74
  28    Particulate Emissions from a Typical Flue-Fed Incinerator
          Modified with a Draft Control Damper and a Roof
          Afterburner	    83
  29    Emissions from Flue-Fed Incinerators Modified with a Basement
          Afterburner and Draft Control Damper  	    83
  30    Emissions from Flue-Fed Incinerator 	    84
  31    Multiple-Chamber  Incinerator Design Factors 	    93
  32    Uncontrolled Multi-Chamber Incinerator Emission Data Expressed
          in Ib/ton Charged (gr/scf at 12% C02)	104
  33    Incinerator Combustion Air Flows  	   113
  34    Effects of Prior  Process on Fuel Value	165
  35    Representative Heating Values of Some Sludge Materials  ....   165
  36    Forecast Sewage Sludge Disposal Methods Through 1985  	   171
  37    Multiple Hearth Sludge Incinerator Facility - Summary of
          Results	174
  38    Fluidized-Bed Sludge Incinerator Facility - Summary of
          Results	176
  39    Emission Factors  for Sewage Sludge Incinerators - Emission
          Factor Rating 	   184
  40    Currently Available Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal
          Processes	188
  41    Basic Data Considerations for Hazardous Wastes
          Characterization  	   189
  42    Hazardous Chemicals Which can be Disposed of by
          Incineration  	   192
  43    Incinerable Solid Hazardous Wastes  	   198
  44    U.S.  Potentially  Hazardous Waste Quantities (1975  Data)
          (Million Metric Tons Annually)   	   200
  45    U.S.  Industrial Waste Generation (1975 Data)  (Million Metric
          Tons Annually)   	2Q1
                                     xxi

-------
                              TABLES (continued)
Numb er
  46    Potentially Hazardous Waste Growth Projections 	  202
  47    Estimation on Quantity of Potential Hazardous Wastes
          Disposed of by Incineration	204
  48    General Hospital Waste 	  208
  49    Data on the Generation, Storage, and On-Site Disposal of
          Hospital Waste 	  209
  50    Air Contaminant Emissions from Pathological Waste
          Incinerators 	  213
  51    Estimates of Nationwide Air Contaminant Emissions from
          Pathological Waste Incinerators  	  214
  52    Particulate Emissions from 19 Teepee Waste Burners in
          Oregon, 1968	220
  53    Average Gaseous Emissions from Teepee Burners  	  221
  54    Air Contaminant Emissions from Teepees 	  221
  55    Estimates of Nationwide Air Contaminant Emissions from Teepee
          Incinerators 	  222
  56    Heating Values of Agricultural Waste 	  226
  57    Crop Residues as a Waste-Management Problem	227
  58    Estimates of Nationwide Air Contaminant Emissions from
          Bagasse Burners  	  232
  59    Composition of Rice Hull Waste	233
  60    Fuels and Energy used in the Primary Pulp and Paper Sector
          (1015 Btu)	236
  61    APC System Average Control Efficiency  	  240
  62    Uncontrolled Single-Chamber Incinerator Emission Data
          Expressed in Ib/ton Charged (gr/scf at 12 percent C02) ....  245
  63    Uncontrolled Multichamber Incinerator Emission Data
          Expressed in Ib/ton Charged (gr/scf at 12 percent C02) ....  246
  64    Controlled Air Incinerator Emission Data Expressed in Ib/ton
          (gr/scf at 12 percent- C02)	247
  65    Uncontrolled Incinerator Emissions in Ib/ton (gr/scf at
          12 percent C02)	250
  66    Partial Listing of Electrostatic Precipitator Installations  .  .  266
  67    Thermal Afterburners:  Conditions Required for Satisfactory
          Performance in Various Abatement Applications  	  275
                                     xiii

-------
                              TABLES  (continued)

Number                                                                    Pa£
  68    Estimated NOX Emissions  for Thermal  Afterburners  	   276
  69    Approximate Characteristics of  Dust  and Mist  Collection
          Equipment	281
  70    Advantages and Disadvantages  of Collection  Devices  	   282
  71    Comparative Air Pollution  Control  Data for  Typical
          Incinerator	286
  72    Collection Efficiencies  for Various  Types of  Municipal
          Incineration Particulate Control Systems  	   289
  73    Sample Collection  and  Analysis  Methods 	   295
  74    Particulate Emission Limitations for New and  Existing Commercial
          and  Industrial Incinerators  	   299
  75    Opacity Regulations for  New and Existing Commerical  and
          Industrial Incinerators  	   304
  76    Particulate Emission Limitations for New and  Existing Waste
          Wood Burners (Teepee)   	   308
  77    Projections Updated to 1988 (in ton/yr)  	310
  78    Parameters Used in Model IV	311
  79    Uncontrolled Emission  Factor  	   313
  80    Parameters Used in Model IV and Results of  Model  IV	315
  81    Uncontrolled Multichamber  Incinerator Emission Tests 	   395
  82    Controlled Air Incinerator Emission  Tests   	   396
  83    Sludge Incinerator Facility B:   Summary of  Results  	   398
  84    Sludge Incinerator Facility C:   Summary of  Results  	   399
  85    Sludge Incinerator Facility E:   Summary of  Results  	   400
  86    Sludge Incinerator Facility A^:  Summary of Results   	   401
  87    Sludge Incinerator Facility A2:  Summary of Results   	   402
  88    Sludge Incinerator Facility D:  Summary of  Results 	   403
  89    Size Distribution  of Commercial and  Institutional Incinerators
          in New York State	421
                                    xiv

-------
                               ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

     The authors would like to acknowledge helpful discussions with Mr. Gilbert
Wood and Mr. Larry Anderson, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Standards and Engineering Divi-
sion, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, and Mr. Norman Surprenant of
GCA/Technology Division.

     In addition, the authors would like to make a collective acknowledgment to
the personnel at state and local air pollution control agencies for their help
and cooperation; and to personnel at the incinerator installations which were
visited, for providing helpful insights.
                                     xv

-------
                        1.0  TASK A - INDUSTRY SURVEY







1.1  INTRODUCTION




     The purpose of this task is to provide a description of the incinerator




industry as it exists today; to estimate the extent to which incinerators are




used to dispose of commercial and industrial wastes, and to classify these




incinerators by process type, capacity, parent industry (or class of owner),




type of waste, and other relevant factors.




1.2  CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS




     In the past, several systems have been used to classify incinerators.  One




of these was devised by the Incinerator Institute of America (IIA),  a manu-




facturer's association which disbanded in 1975.  The IIA classified  waste into




six types with varying origins and moisture content (Table 1).1  They then used




this waste description in their system for incinerator classification, which is




based upon incinerator capacities and the types of waste which each  can handle




(Table 2).2




     While the waste classifications are frequently used today, the  incinerator




classifications lack a means for differentiating between different  incinerator




owners, and between designs such as single chamber, multiple chamber, and con-




trolled air.  These designs will be discussed in detail in Section  3 (Task C).




     A more frequently used system is that written by the National Air Data




Branch of the EPA in compiling their National Emissions Data System  (NEDS)




listing.3  This system,  presented in Table 3 describes incinerators  by owner

-------
               TABLE  1.   IIA  CLASSIFICATION  OF WASTES  TO BE  INCINERATED1


;
CbaiBcunn of W«m>
'Type Description
•0 Trash


•1 Rubbish


•2 Refuse
•* Garbage




4 Animal
solids and
organic
wastes


5 Gaseous,
liquid or
semi-li<|uid
wastes
6 Semi-solid
and mlid
wastes



Principal Cooiponena
Highly combustible
waste, paper, wood,
cardboard cartons.
including up to 10%
treated papers,
plastic or rubber
scraps; commercial
and industrial
sources
Combustible waste,
paper, cartons, rags,
wood scraps, combustible
floor sweepings;
domestic, commercial, and
industrial sources
Rubbish and garbage;
residential sources
Animal and vegetable
wastes, restaurants.
hotels, markets;
institutional.
commercial, and
club sources
Carcasses, organs,
solid organic wastes;
hospital, laboratory,
abattoirs, animal
pounds, and similar
sources
Industrial
process wastes

( Combustibles requiring
hearth, retort, or grate
burning equipment



Approximate
Composition
% by Weight
Trash 100%


Rubbish 8O%
Garbage 20%

Rubbish 50%
Garbage 50%
Garbage 65%
Rubbish 15%




100% Animal and
Human Tissue


Variable

Variable


Moisture
Content
10%


25%


50%
-0%




85%


Dependent
on pre-
dominant
components
Dependent
on pre-
dominant
components


Incombustible
Solids %
5%


10%


7%
5%




5%


Variable
according
to wastes
survey
Variable
li > u dStcS


B.T.U.
Vihie/lb.
of Refuieu
Fired
8500


6500


4300
2500




1000


Variable
according
to wastes
survey
Variable
according
to ^ .isles
survey | survey
H.T.U.
of AUX.RMI
Perlb.
of Vat
to be
included in
Combustion
Oucubnaas
0


0 :
-

0
1500




5000


Variable
according
to wastes
survey
Variable
according
to wastes
survey


Recommended
Win. BTU/hr.
Burner Input
per Ib.
Waste
0


0


150O
woe




Sooo
5000 Primary)
WOO Secondary )


Variable
according
to wastes
survey
Variable
according
to wastes
survey
'The *bove ftgurn on moisrure conicni. ASH jntl BT U u fired have been determined by anaiyso of many laiuplts The;
 txiramg rair, ^cltmry, and ort**r ilL-t^ih »f incinrrjiur designs. Any dt^ign bated on these r^kutjUiKis cjn accomni.idare r
txuniiiiended for use in computing htMi release.
jnafioiu.

-------
   TABLE  2.    IIA  CLASSIFICATION  OF
                  INCINERATORS2

Class I — Portable, packaged, completely assembled, direct
fed incinerators, having not over 5 cu. ft. storage capacity,
or 25 Ibs. per hour burning rate, suitable for Type 2 Waste.

Class IA — Portable, packaged or job assembled, direct fed
incinerators 5 cu. ft. to 15 cu. ft. primary chamber volume;
or a burning rate of 25 Ibs. per hour up to, but not includ-
ing, 100 Ibs. per hour of Type 0, Type 1, or Type 2 Waste;
or a burning rate of 25 Ibs. per hour up to, but not includ-
ing, 75  Ibs. per hour of Type 3 Waste.

Class II — Flue-fed, single chamber incinerators with more
than 2 sq. ft. burning area, suitable for Type 2 Waste. This
type of  incinerator is served by one vertical flue functioning
both as  a chute for charging waste and to carry the products
of combustion to atmosphere. This type of incinerator in-
stalled in apartment houses or multiple dwellings not more
than five stories  high.

Class IIA — Chute-fed multiple chamber incinerators, with
more  than 2 sq. ft. burning area, suitable for Type 1 or
Type  2  Waste.  (Not  recommended for industrial wastes).
This type of incinerator is  served by a vertical  chute for
charging wastes  from two  or more  floors above  the in-
cinerator and  a  separate flue for carrying  the products of
combustion to atmosphere.

Class  III — Direct fed  incinerators with a burning rate of
100 Ibs. per hour and over, suitable for Type  0, Type  1 or
Type 2 Waste.

Class IV — Direct fed  incinerators with a burning rate of
75 Ibs.  per hour or over, suitable for  Type  3 Waste.

Class V — Municipal  incinerators  suitable  for  Type  0,
Type 1, Type 2, or Type 3 Wastes, or a combination of
all four wastes,  and are rated in tons per hour or tons per
24 hours.

Class VI — Crematory and  pathological incinerators,  suit-
able for Type 4 Waste.

Class VII —  Incinerators designed for specific by-product
wastes, Type 5 or Type 6.

-------
               TABLE  3.   NEDS  SOURCE CLASSIFICATION  CODES  FOR  INCINERATORS3
            Solid waste-
            Government
            Solid waste-
      Commercial/ Institutional
                                 Solid waste-
                                 Industrial
Incinerator
  5-01-005-05   Pathological
  5-01-005-06   Sludge
  5-01-005-07   Conical
  5-01-005-99   Other/not classified

Auxiliary fuel/no  emissions
  5-01-900-04   Residual oil
  5-01-900-05   Distillate oil
  5-01-900-06   Natural gas
  5-01-900-10   LPG
  5-01-900-97   Other/not classified
  5-01-900-98   Other/not classified
  5-01-900-99   Other/not classified
Incinerator, general

  5-02-001-01  Multiple chamber
  5-02-001-02  Single chamber
  5-02-001-03  Controlled air
  5-02-001-04  Conical-refuse
  5-02-001-05  Conical-wood

Apartment incinerator
  5-02-003-01
  5-02-003-02

Incinerator
Flue fed
Flue fed-modified
  5-02-005-05  Pathological
  5-02-005-06  Sludge
  5-02-005-99  Other/not classified

Auxiliary fuel/no emissions
  5-02-900-04  Residual oil
  5-02-900-05  Distillate oil
  5-02-900-06  Natural gas
  5-02-900-10  LPG
  5-02-900-97  Other/not classified
  5-02-900-98  Other/not classified
  5-02-900-99  Other/not classified
                     . Incinerator
                       5-03-001-01  Multiple chamber
                        5-03-001-02
                        5-03-001-03
                        5-03-001-04
                        5-03-001-05
                        5-03-001-06
               Single  chamber
               Controlled air
               Conical-refuse
               Conical-wood
               Open  pit
Autobody incinerator
  5-03-003-01  w/o  afterburner
  5-03-003-02  w/afterburner

Railcar burning
  5-03-004-01  Open

Incinerator
  5-03-005-06  Sludge
  5-03-005-99  Other/not classified

Auxiliary fuel/no emissions
  5-03-900-04  Residual oil
  5-03-900-05  Distillate oil
  5-03-900-06  Natural gas
  5-03-900-07  Process gas
  5-03-900-10  LPG
  5-03-900-97  Other/not classified
  5-03-900-98  Other/not classified
  5-03-900-99  Other/not classified

-------
(commercial and Institutional, industrial, and governmental), by design and,




in some cases, by type of waste.  In addition, codes are available which may




be used to describe any auxiliary fuel used in the incinerator's burners.




     The system to be used here is basically a modification of the NEDS classi-




fication.  The NEDS system was not used in its entirety due to an overabundance




of detail in some classes which were found not to require it (such as the




distinction of five different types of conical burners).   Primary emphasis was




placed upon dividing the incinerators into the five categories which follow




(Table 4).




     Since the "commercial and institutional" category is still quite diverse,




it is further subdivided as shown in Table 5 in approximately descending




frequency of use.




     The final category, "industrial" is the most diverse in terms of incinera-




tor' design, ownership, and type of waste.   Industrial incinerators range from




small units burning general plant trash to facilities such as a suspension-fired




boiler .at Kodak Park in Rochester, New York where about 550 tons per week of




shredded plant trash, product waste, and sludge are burned.




     A subdivision of industrial incinerators by Standard Industrial Classi-




fication (SIC) number is made.  For this study, an "industrial" incinerator




was assumed to be any incinerator belonging to a manufacturing firm; i.e.,  with




a SIC number between 20 and 39.  Table 6 summarizes the SIC classification.




Since the data did not permit distinction of a separate class for agricultural




incinerators, any incinerators which were found to be agricultural were included




in the industrial division.

-------
                      TABLE 4.  CLASSIFICATION OF INCINERATORS
              Type
Type of
 waste
 (IIA)
    Average
     size
(tons per year)
Qualitative
future trend "
              Corresponding
               SCC classes
1.  Commercial and institutional
    incinerators
  0-3
      149
Varies
2.  Flue-fed and modified
    flue-fed apartment
    incinerators
3.  Pathological
    incinerators
4.  Industrial
    incinerators
  0-3
 (plus 0-3)
  0-6
      154
       87
      496
Descending
Rising
slightly

Varies
5.  Teepee burners
Wood
     8670
Descending
              5-02-001-01
              5-02-001-02
              5-02-001-03
              5-02-005-06
              5-02-005-99
              5-01-005-06
              5-01-005-99
              5-02-003-01
              5-02-003-02


              5-02-005-05
              5-01-005-05
              5-03-001-01
              5-03-001-02
              5-03-001-03
              5-03-003-01
              5-03-002-02
              5-03-004-01
              5-03-005-06
              5-03-005-99
              5-02-001-04
              5-02-001-05
              5-03-001-04
              5-03-001-05
              5-01-005-07
 Discussed in Section 1.6
1 Discussed in Section 2

-------
   TABLE 5.  SUBCLASSIFICATION OF
             INCINERATORS BY OWNER

Commercial and institutional incinerators
1.1  Hospitals
1.2  Grocery stores and shopping centers
1.3  Schools and colleges
1.4  Nursing homes
1.5  Government facilities
1.6  Warehouses
1.7  Banks
1.8  Restaurants

-------
             TABLE 6.   STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION
20.   Food and kindred products
21.   Tobacco manufactures
22.   Textile mill products
23.   Apparel and other finished products made from fabrics and similar
     material.
24.   Lumber and wood products, except furniture
25.   Furniture and fixtures
26.   Paper and allied products
27.   Printing, publishing, and allied industries
                                  &
28.   Chemicals and allied products
29.   Petroleum refining and related industries"
30.   Rubber and miscellaneous plastics products
31.  Leather and leather products
32.  Stone, clay, glass and concrete products
33.   Primary metal industries
34.   Fabricated metal products, except machinery and transportation
     equipment
35.   Machinery, except electrical
36.   Electrical and electronic machinery, equipment and supplies
37.   Transportation equipment
38.   Measuring, analyzing and controlling instruments; photographic,
     medical and optical goods; watches and clocks
39.   Miscellaneous manufacturing industries

*
 For this study, subclassification 286, Industrial Organic Chemicals,
 is excluded.
 Not included in this study.

-------
     There are several parts to the rationale for this classification.  First,




the data which, was available is most accurate for the breakdown into the five




primary categories, while  subsequent divisions must be made on less evidence.




     Second,  the  five primary categories are distinguished from each other by




their different sizes.  Teepee burners are by far the largest, burning an




average of 8,670  ton/yr, while pathological incinerators average only




87 ton/yr.




     The categories are also to an extent distinguished by type of waste burned




and by configuration or design.  Pathological incinerators are, by definition,




burning type  4 waste, although they may burn types 0 to 3 in addition to it.




Teepee burners almost always burn wood industry wastes.5'14'20'25'49'57  The




few exceptions are in the midwest, where some burn corn waste.17




     Flue fed and modified flue-fed apartment incinerators comprise an




approximate configuration  (see Section 3) and an approximate waste type




(IIA types 0  to 3).




     A final  distinction between the classes listed in Table 4 is the expected




trends in the usage of each type..  As will be discussed in Section 2,  apartment




incinerators, both modified and unmodified, and teepee burners are expected




to decline, while pathological incinerators appear to be on a slight upswing.




While generalizations of any sort are difficult to make about industrial




incinerators, it would appear that there is a trend toward some growth and




toward larger units with heat recovery capability.  Finally, the commercial




and institutional class must be once again subdivided.  Grocery store and




school incinerators appear to be on the downswing, while hospital and nursing




home incinerators, like pathological,  are probably rising slowly.
                                      9

-------
     Comparison of this classification with the NEDS system shows that incinera




tion at government facilities,  here considered to be part of the "commercial




and institutional" class, have  been given a separate class by NEDS.   While




some data on the breakdown between government and other commercial-institutional




incinerators was available, indications were that they were only a small fraction




of the total and there was no evidence to indicate that they are distinguished




by size, trends or type of waste.




     Sludge incinerators have not been treated as a separate category, such




as 5-02-005-06 or 5-03-005-06 in the NEDS system, but have been included as




part of either the commercial and institutional or the industrial class.  First,




no examples were found of a commercial sludge incinerator.  Second,  industrial




incinerators often burn a mixture of wastes, rather than pure sludge, and thus




this category is not clearly defined.




     Autobody incineration (NEDS 5-03-003-01 and 5-03-003-02) and railcar




burning (5-03-004-01) have not  been treated as separate classes, due to lack




of data.




1.3  DATA SOURCES




     State Air Quality offices  have provided most of the useful data on existing,




operating incinerators.  Listings of incinerators, containing varying amounts




of data, were obtained from California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland,




New York,  North Carolina, Ohio, South Dakota, and Washington. 5~ltt  Of




these,  the Maryland list was most detailed, giving the class of owner of each




incinerator (by SIC code), the  incinerator type (single chamber, multiple




chamber, or "other"), amount of waste processed, type of emission control and




type of waste burned.  It should be noted, however, that no incinerator cate-




gory exists with which to describe a controlled air unit.
                                       10

-------
     The California list provided data on the class of owner  (by SIC number),




the incinerator type  (by SCC code), the type of emission control, and often




included the amount of waste processed and the capacity.




     The New York list provided class of owner (by SIC code), incinerator




type, manufacturer, type of emission control, waste quantity burned, capacity,




and type of waste.  Unfortunately, this was not an exhaustive list of incin-




erators in the state.




     The other lists  gave less data; class of owner was given on the




Connecticut and Washington lists, and could be inferred from the North Carolina,




Ohio and South Dakota lists, while incinerator type was given on the Connecticut




and Washington lists.




     In addition to the lists, permit officials or other knowledgeable people




in each of the 50 State Air Quality Offices were asked to provide verbal in-




formation on incinerators in their states, and most were able to give either




an estimate or an actual count of the number of incinerators currently in




operation.15"73  Many also provided a breakdown of these incinerators




into the five categories above.  Current information on state regulations




was often given, and  occasionally some estimates of trends.




     Some qualifications to the state data should be noted.  While some areas,




such as Chicago, require that an operating permit be renewed annually,74 in




most cases a permit is valid for much longer, if not indefinitely.  Thus many




states have no means  of knowing when an incinerator ceases to operate.




     Some states, notably Florida25 and New York,53»54 are divided into smaller




Air Quality regions,  or contain areas which keep separate records, so that




not all incinerators are accounted for at the state level.
                                      11

-------
     Finally, the definition of an incinerator varies from state to state.




For example, a unit burning wood waste and recovering heat may be called either




an incinerator or a boiler.  Similarly, a piece of equipment to destroy indus-




trial process wastes would be called an incinerator in some states and "process




equipment"  in others, including New York.  The refuse-fired boiler at Kodak




Park in Rochester, New York is an example.




     NEDS provides a second source of data; a listing of incinerators by




state and by SIC code.  This listing was found to be incomplete, however.




In some cases, the number of incinerators which a state agency knew about




exceeded those listed in NEDS by a factor of 50.  Additionally, some states,58




do not list an incinerator in NEDS unless it is over a certain size (i.e.,




emitting 25 ton/yr or more of particulates).




     In light of these drawbacks, NEDS was used to estimate the total number




of incinerators in a state only when complete data was not available at the




state level.  NEDS was thus used for four states;  New York, Texas, Virginia




and Utah.   In New York, NEDS was used in conjunction with the estimate of




6,000 apartment incinerators in New York City,51 which were not included in




the NEDS file.




1.4  REGIONAL SUMMARY




     A region-by-region estimate of total numbers of commercial and institu-




tional incinerators,  based upon the state lists, state telephone estimates,




and NEDS,  is presented in Table 7.   For comparison,  Table 7 also includes the




results of a market survey completed in 1970  by CE Air Preheater of "inter-




mediate-sized units."75
                                      12

-------
TABLE. 7.  STATE AND REGIONAL SUMMARY OF COMMERCIAL  AND
          INDUSTRIAL INCINERATORS
•EPA
Region
No.l
MAa
MEb
VTb
NHb
CTd
RIC
Total
No. 2
NVb'e
NJb
Total
No. 3
PAb
wva
VAe
MDd
DEd
DCb
Total
No. 4
KYb
TNb
MSb
ALC
GAb
scb
NCd
FLe
Total
No. 5
MNa
WIf
ILd
MIf
INa
OHd
Total
Current
(1978) units
High
estimate

500
25
12
1
137
61
736

7,128
223
7,351

600
500
66
294
33
18
1,511

200
424
300
330
500
480
241
324
2,799

500
663
1,770
831
400
2,801
6,965
Low
estimate

300
20
1
1
137
61
520

1,128
43
1,171

600
200
66
294
33
18
1,211

200
424
300
330
400
450
241
319
2,664

500
27e
1,770
50e
400
2,801
5,548
CE Air
preheater
(1970) units

3,197
188
130
155
2,006
157
5,833

5,214
2,664
7,878

4,499
287
1,531
2,340
563
967
10,187

777
752
401
421
684
172
649
663
4,519

3,206
3,585
16,954
4,494
4,419
7,381
40,039
Percent reduction
to arrive at high
estimate

84
89
91
99
93
61
87

+37
91
7

87
+74
96
87
94
99
85

74
44
25
22
27
+160
63
52
38

84
81.5
89
81.5
91
62
81.5
               (continued)
                         13

-------
           TABLE  7  (continued)
No. 6
NMb
TXe
OKb
ARa
LAa
Total
No. 7
NBb
IAb
KSa
MOC
Total
No. 8
MTb
WYb
l!Te
C0a
NDb
SDd
Total
No. 9
CAd
NVb
AZb
HI3
Total
No. 10
WAd
ORb
IDa
AKb
Total
U.S.
Total

30
117
600
200
1,000
1,947

110
600
500
73
1,283

61
12
36
800
185
109
1,203

173
9
20
100
302

181
55
500
112
848

25,000

30
117
500
50
500
1,197

110
600
500
46
1,256

56
12
36
8
185
109
406

173
5
20
Oe
198

181
50
500
40
771



245
4,387
512
237
332
5,713

606
904
542
2,215
4,257

649
231
1,453
908
160
94
3,495

1,437
297
781
226
2,741

2,730
1,492
421
25
4,668

89,300

88
97
+17
16
+201
66

82
34
8
97
70

91
95
97
12
+16
+16
66

88
97
97
56
89

93
96
+19
+ 348
82

72

An order of magnitude telephone estimate by state agency
personnel .
Telephone estimate by state agency personnel.
Telephone estimate based on an actutal  count.
State list
Special  calculation,  assuming conformity with the rest
of the region.
                          14

-------
     These estimates were based upon a mail and telephone survey of state and




local agencies, in which CE Air Preheater received a 100 percent response.78




Since the basic methodology was the same as in the current study, the results




should be directly comparable.  Results of the CE Air Preheater market survey




were updated and expanded in  1972 in a study done by Ronald J. Brinkerhoff of




the OSWMP,75'77 using sales data from the members of the Incinerator Institute




of America.




     Figure 1 shows the decline by region since 1970, based upon the upper




state estimate.  The higher estimate is used because factors such as multiple




air quality regions in a state would cause them to underestimate rather than




overestimate.




     It is evident that the greatest reduction has been in Regions 1, 3, and 9,




which contain densely populated areas, and have some of the nations most




stringent standards.  Maryland, for example, has a limit of 0.03 gr/dscf




corrected to 12 percent C02 for particulate emissions, while Connecticut




incinerators built after 1972 may emit no more than 0.08 gr/dscf of particulate,




corrected to 12 percent C02-  It is also apparent that the South (Region 4)  has




seen a relatively mild downswing.




     The very small apparent reduction in Region II may be misleading.   It has




been stated51 that there were 17,700 apartment incinerators operating in New




York City in 1966, and that there are currently about 6,000 of these (now mod-




ified) in operation.  By a linear.approximation, this would mean that roughly




13,800 were in use in 1970.  The CE Air Preheater study, however, shows only




5,214 for the entire State of New York at this time.75  If the 13,800 are added



to this figure to give a total of about 19,000 in 1970, the reduction becomes




85 percent,  which is more comparable to surrounding regions.






                                      15

-------
              UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY
                  REGIONS
                           percent reduction since 1970
   Figure 1.  Incinerator decline by EPA Regions.
                       16

-------
     Nationwide, comparison of the state data with the Air Preheater study




shows a drop from 89,000 units in 1970 to 25,000 units at present (1978), a




reduction of 72 percent.  The approximate trend over the past 8 years is




shown in Figure 2.  The downtrend after 1972 appears to be the result of




increasingly strict state emissions regulations (see Section 9) combined with




rising costs of energy needed in emissions control devices.70  Several state




agencies have confirmed that there was a downtrend at this time.48>55»56»58>70




It has been stated that compaction of refuse became a popular alternative.48




     The upper limit to the number of incinerators which may be operating at




present was calculated from the 1972 Brinkerhoff study.75  In that study, 12




percent of the 102,000 incinerators were found to lack emission control




systems.  It was assumed that essentially all of these would not  be  able to




meet 1978 standards and would have been closed down.   Two sources203'204




estimated an incinerator life span to be 10 years.  Thus, of the  remaining




88 percent, -only 40 percent, or 35,200 units would be likely to remain in




1978.  This is shown in Figure 2.  It should be emphasized that this is  an




approximation, since both new construction between 1972 and 1978, and closing




of incinerators which may have been environmentally unsuitable despite control




equipment, have been neglected.




1.5  CATEGORIZATION BY OWNER




     An estimate of the breakdown of the 25,000 commercial and industrial




incinerators discussed in Section 1.4 into the five classes of Table 3 is




presented in Table 8.  This estimate was developed region by region, from a con-




sideration of each state within a region.  Basic methodology was as follows:
                                     17

-------
IT

K   100

cc
ui
?   90,
o      ^
z
ac
v>

ii
o
cc
Ul
z
2
o
o
cc
LJ
CD
    80
     70
    50
     40
     30
    20
     10
                             \
                               \
                                 \
                                  \
                                    \
                                        \
                                         \
                                            \
                                             \
           A-REFERENCE(75)


           O-CURRENT  ESTIMATE  BASED ON STATE  DATA


           D-CALCULATED(SEE TEXT)


          	I	I	I	I	1__
                                                    Q



                                                	O
      1970
               1971
1972
1973
1974


YEAR
                                                 1975
                                                         1976
                                                                  1977
                                                                           1978
                       Figure  2.   Trends in incinerator use
                                        18

-------
    TABLE 8.   DISTRIBUTION OF INCINERATORS BY FIVE PRIMARY CATEGORIES

EPA
region
1
2
3
4
1.
Commercial
and
Institutional
428
913
.433
602
2.
Pathological
117
150
130
311
3.
Flue-fed
apartment
40
6211
6
21
4.
Industrial
150
77
886
689
5.
Teepee
burners
1
0
34
119
6.
Unspecified
0
0
22
35
               (plus 1022)
 5         2691            207         62
               (plus 2381)
 6         1591            118         36
 7          756            244          0
 8          920            146          0
 9           75             28          0
10          215             21         12
               (plus 150)
 Total     8624           1472       6388
               (plus 3553)
1514

 202
 277
  72
  33
 236

4136
 10

 36
  6
 65
 66
214

551
100

  0
  0
  0
100
  0

257

-------
     *    When data was available, either in the form of a state list, or
          of a detailed verbal estimate from a state agency, that data was
          used directly.

     •    When data was not available  (i.e., only a total number of incinerators
          was available), but data existed for a nearby state in the same EPA
          region, an extrapolation of  the distribution was made.

     •    Finally, in those cases where only poor data was available through-
          out a region, or when states were so dissimilar that an extrapolation
          would not be valid, a distribution was obtained from NEDS and scaled
          up to meet the total number  of units in the state.

     Since the data did not permit complete differentiation between commercial

and  institutional, and pathological incinerators, it was assumed that the

3,553 nondifferentiated incinerators would be divided in the same ratios

as the rest, giving a total of 11,659  commercial and industrial, and 1,990

pathological incinerators.

     This figure may be compared to the number found by Brinkerhoff in 1972.

According to the IIA data, 4 percent of the 101,755 units, or 4,070 incinerators

were pathological.75  The article also stated that 13 percent of the units

were medically owned.  Thus, only 31 percent of hospital incinerators are

pathological.   Maryland state data9 supports this fact.

     Maryland has a total of 50 incinerators in hospitals, so that 40 percent

of its hospital incinerators are pathological.  It should be noted, however,

that only a fraction of the pathological incinerators are in hospitals (Table 9)

     Battelle8t* has also made an estimate of pathological incinerators.  They

projected that in 1978 there would be 227 pathological incinerators at animal

shelters, etc.,  and 202 at crematories, for a total of 427.   According to the

Maryland data,  animal shelters and crematories make up 18 percent of the total

so that 427  v  0.18,  or 1,856 would be a good estimate of all types of patho-

logical incinerators operating today.   This agrees within reason to the 1 990

found above.

                                      20

-------
           TABLE 9.  MARYLAND PATHOLOGICAL INCINERATORS


                                    Number
             Owner               pathological  Percentage
                                 incinerators

Hospitals                             20          29 %

Veterinary hospitals and animal       12          18 %
  shelters

Crematories                            5           7 %

Other, including pharmaceutical       31          46 %
  industry
                                 21

-------
     The 551 teepee burners may be compared with Battelle's estimate of

490 for 1978.83  The current estimate may be slightly high, since it was

composed of the higher values given by states.   The Battelle figure, on the

other hand, was arrived at by a survey of only  five states, in 1973, and was

projected to 1978.  Considering these factors,  agreement is reasonable.

1.6  WASTE QUANTITIES AND CAPACITIES

     The average quantities of waste processed, as given in Table 4 were

calculated as shown below.

     •    Teepee burners:  Data on 32 teepee burners from the California
          list5 gave an average of 8,670 tons per year of waste burned.
          Operating schedule data gave an average of 2,448 hours of operation
          per year, and a burning rate of 3.13  ton/hr.  Average capacity
          was found to be 4.23 ton/hr.

     •    Pathological incinerators:  Data on 74 units in New York,10
          California,5 and Maryland9 gave an average of 87 tons per year
          of waste burned.  Operating schedule  data on 11 units in New York
          and California gave 1,535 hr/yr average.  Data on 10 units in these
          two states gave a burning rate of 89.6 Ib/hr and an average
          capacity of 167 Ib/hr.

     •    Flue-fed and modified flue-fed apartment incinerators:  The only
          available data on sizes of these units was in NEDS, which gave an
          average of 154 tons per year, based on 61 units.

     •    Commercial and Institutional:  Data on 214 incinerators in New York,1"
          California,5 and Maryland9 gave an average of 149 tons per year
          of waste burned.  An average of 1,797 hours of operation per year
          was obtained from 38 units in California and New York.  Thirty-six
          units in these two states gave an average burning rate and capacity
          of 144 Ib/hr and 503 Ib/hr, respectively.

     •    Industrial:   Data on 53 units in New  York, California, and Maryland
          gave an average of 496 tons per year  of waste burned.  Operating
          schedule data on 16 units-, in New York and California gave an average
          of 1,361 hr/yr.  Data on the 16 incinerators also gave a burning
          rate of 1,046 Ib/hr and a capacity of 1,203 Ib/hr.

1.7  CATEGORIZATION OF COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL INCINERATORS BY OWNER

     Sufficient data was not available to develop a nationwide distribution of

commercial and institutional incinerators into  the classes listed in Table 4.

                                      22

-------
Table 10 presents the distribution in four states, however.  It can be


seen that schools, hospitals, stores, and nursing homes account for most of


the incinerators, but that regional variations exist.


1.8  CATEGORIZATION OF INDUSTRIAL INCINERATORS BY INDUSTRY


     This classification was based upon one representative state in each


region.  In Regions 2,3,9 and 10, data from state lists was used (New York,


Maryland, California, and Washington).   Since none of the verbal state informa-


tion went to this level of detail, NEDS was relied on for distributions in


the other regions (except Region 1, which was assumed to be like Region 2).


     The state classifications were next expanded to regional scale by means


of a factor representing the ratio of regional to state industrial incinerators


(i.e., an assumption was made that the distribution of incinerators within


a region would be the same as that for the representative state).


     Results are presented in Table 11.  Because industrial incinerators vary


widely in size, waste quantities rather than incinerator numbers have been used.


     Exceptionally high usage is seen to exist in the lumber industry and


the chemicals industry.  The quantities in the lumber industry are mostly due


to teepee burners, which were included in this table.  An effort was made,


when dealing with the chemicals industry, to include only those incinerators


burning solid waste or sludge (and some liquids), and those not belonging to


the petrochemical industry.  It is likely, however, that some incinerators


burning only liquids or vapors are included.  This may account for the


apparent abundance of incineration.  Since Table 11 is based on several
                                             i

assumptions, it should be taken qualitatively rather than quantitatively
                                      23

-------
    TABLE  10.   COMMERCIAL AND  INSTITUTIONAL  INCINERATORS  BY OWNER
               (EXCLUDING PATHOLOGICAL UNITS)
Maryland
Hospitals
Stores
Schools and
colleges
Nursing
homes
Government
facilities
Warehouses
Banks
Restaurants
Other /Owner
unclear
31
16
53

34

8

1
2
3
10

*
New York
0
16
0

0

0

0
1
1
4

North
Carolina
31
95
2

0

4

0
1
0
7

California Total
15
0
7

6

8

0
0
1
24

77
127
62

40

20

1
4
5
45

Fraction
0.20
0.33
0.16

0.10

0.05

0.01
0.01
0.02
0.12


Data from state list only.   Not  exhaustive.
                                 24

-------
                        TABLE 11.  DISTRIBUTION OF INCINERATION BY  INDUSTRY  AND  REGION
                                   (ANNUAL WASTE PROCESSED, ton/yr)
NJ
Ul
SIC
code
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
30
31
32

33
34
35
36

37

38
39





Food
Tobacco
Textile
Apparel
Lumber
Furniture
Paper
Printing
Chemical
Rubber, plastic
Leather
Stone, glass
and clay
Primary metal
Fabricated metal
Machinery
Electric
machinery
Transportation
equipment
Instruments
Miscellaneous
manufacturing



Region
1
1,600
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,500
0
0
1,070

860
2,570
4,280
320


3,560
10
0




Region
2
830
0*
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,850
0
0
1,550

440
880
2,200
160


2,750
6
0




Region
3
12,330
0
0
0
213,000
0 ..
4,610
4,170
39,960
0
12,220
0

0
330
0
0


3,690
0
110




Region
4
24,100
0
6,100
3,400
519,000
17,500
2,000
0
256,700
11,400
0
0

319,500
11,800
1,300
8,300


10,500
0
1,750




Region
5
50,900
0
0
0
0
40,200
3,090
3,100
77,200
0
0
0

160,700
52,500
119,900
680


33,100
1,200
15,400




Region
6
0
0
0
0
59,270
0
0
81,900
158,300
0
0
0

18,310
890
7,990
0


0
0
17,300




Region
7
53,700
0
0
0
4,870
1,100
0
0
3,300
0
0
0

0
660
1,000
0


5,540
110
0




Region
8
0
0
0
0
624,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0


0
0
0




Region Region
9 10
0
0
0
1,100
707,600 2,
0
0
0
150
0
0
0

1,400
230
0
1,580


0
0
0

Total


0
0
0
0
213,000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0


0
0
0

-


Total
(x 105
tons per year)
1.43
0
0.061
0.045
41.3
0.59
0.094
0.89
4.70
0.11
0.12
0.026

5.01
0.70
1.37
0.11


0.59
0.013
0.35

1.6 x io6
tons per year
(excluding SIC 24)

-------
1.9  CATEGORIZATION OF INCINERATORS BY DESIGN




     Table  12 shows the available data on this distribution.  Teepee burners




and apartment incinerators have been excluded, and pathological incinerators




have been excluded where possible.  Examination of the 1972 Brinkerhoff study75




shows that  83 percent of the nonpathological units were multiple chamber, 2




percent were single chamber, and 12 percent were controlled air, as compared




to 68 percent multiple chamber, 25 percent single chamber, and 2 percent con^




trolled air found here.  The difference may be due to older units on the state




lists, which have either closed down or been upgraded without a change made in




the listing.  It is also possible that, since the Brinkerhoff figures come from




HA sales data, the units surveyed were newer and more sophisticated than those




in the field.




1,10  CATEGORIZATION OF INCINERATORS BY AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT




     The information in Table 12 is extended in Table 13 to include APC




equipment.  These figures are based upon California, Maryland, New York, and




Washington data, since these were the only state lists to contain APC data.




From this data, 52 percent of the units lack any emissions control devices, a




far greater percentage than the 12 percent found by Brinkerhoff.




     This discrepancy may be explained in part by the reasons given in




Section 1-9.  It should also be noted that these four states have the worst




ratios of single to multiple chamber units of those in Table 12.




     If the Maryland data (the only list to give incinerator ages) is retabu-^




lated to exclude any incinerator constructed in 1965 or earlier, the fraction




of units in that state lacking APC equipment falls from 48 percent to 29 percent,




as shown in Tables 14 and 15.
                                      26

-------
     TABLE 12.  DISTRIBUTION OF COMMERCIAL, INSTITUTIONAL AND INDUSTRIAL
                INCINERATORS BY DESIGN*


Commercial and
institutional
multichamber
Industrial
multichamber
Total
multichamber
Commercial and
institutional
single chamber
Industrial
single chamber
Total
single chamber
Commercial and
institutional
controlled air
Industrial
controlled air
Total
controlled air
Other
CA IL
24 438


12 23

36 461

14 39


14 2

28 41

2 11


0 1

2 12

22 28
MD NY1" OHt
80 3 473


4 5 78

84 10 551

81 2 216


19 3 39

100 5 255

- - 10


- - 5

- - 15

19 7 -
WA
4


2

6

1


3

4

1


2

3

1
Total
1024


124

1148

353


80

433

24


8

32

77
Fraction found
Fraction by Brinkerhoff,
1972 (75)
0.61


0.07

0.68 0.83

0.21


0.05

0.25 0.02

0.01


0.00

0.02 0.12

0.05 0.03

*
 Based on incinerators for which design was given
 Data from state list only
"""Includes pathological
                                      27

-------
             TABLE  13.   APC  DISTRIBUTION
AI'C equipment
                        Incinerator type
                       	,	  Total  Fraction
              Multiple  Single   Controlled  other
              chamber   chamber     air
None or
settling chamber
Afterburner
Scrubber
Other
Afterburner
and scrubber
59

27
47
3
2

87

35
17
0
0

2

2
0
0
1

24

13
10
2
0

172

77
74
5
3

0.

0.
0.
0.
0.

.51

.23
,22
02
.01

     TABLE 14.   APC DISTRIBUTION FOR MARYLAND
                       Incinerator type
     APC equipment
                                           Total  Fraction
                   Multiple  Single
                   chamber   chamber
Other
None or
settling chamber
Afterburner
Scrubber
Other
Afterburner
and scrubber
27

12
38
2
2

61

24
16
0
0

9

6
4
0
0

97

42
58
2
2

0.

0.
0.
0.
0.

48

21
29
01
01


TABLE 15.   MODIFIED APC DISTRIBUTION FOR MARYLAND
     APC equipment
                       Incinerator type
                                           Total  Fraction
                   Multiple  Single
                   chamber  chamber
Other
   None or             12
   settling chamber
   Afterburner         12

   Scrubber            34
   Other               2

   Afterburner          2
   and scrubber
                              22
                                             37
                                                   0.29
19
15
0
0
5
3
0
0
36
52
2
2
0.28
0.40
0.02
0.02
                             28

-------
               2.0  TASK B - NEW  CONSTRUCTION AND MODIFICATION




2 . 1  SUMMARY


     Projections have been made separately for each of the five main  incinerator


classes  (commercial and institutional, apartment, pathological, industrial and


teepee burners).  Results are  summarized in Table 16.  Changes over the 5 year


period are  shown in Table 17 while  the potential impact of New Source Performance


Standards are discussed in Section  10 (see Table 80) .  Table 18 explains the


notation used in making the projections.


     The methods used to arrive at  these results are explained in Sections 2.2


and 2.3 and the calculations are  presented in Sections 2.4 to 2.8.


2 . 2  METHODOLOGY


     Basically, 'the method followed is to first calculate the current incineration


capacity (A 1978) from the number of incinerators, their average size, and the


fractional utilization rate (K) :
                              A(1978) = -UlZiL                        (i)
                                           K.


     The growth rate  (P^) is next calculated, and used to find the incineration


capacity in 1983 (A 1983) .  The increase in capacity (C) is also calculated.


     Next, the rate of modification and replacement (P]j) is calculated, and


used to find the capacity which will be modified or replaced (B) between 1978


and 1983.


     Finally, the 1983 values for waste quantity incinerated (W 1983) and


number of incinerators (N 1983) are calculated.  If the average size is expected


to change, a new value is estimated before finding N 1983.


                                      29

-------
TABLE 16.  SUMMARY OF PROJECTIONS
Incinerator type
1. Commercial and
institutional:
a. Hospital,
nursing home
b. Store,
school, etc.
2. Flue-fed and
modified flue-fed
apartment
3. Pathological

4. Industrial

5. Teepee

Fractional
. . , . . . Incineration
utilization , . , -_,.
of capacity ^1978^


0.16

0.16

0.16


0.20

0.29

0.45



a. 32.

b. 69.

61.


8.

70.



6 x

4 x

3 x


65 x

7 x

107 x




10s

10s

105


10s

10 5

105

Growth RePl^ement
modification
rate


0.026
compound
-0.10
simple
-0.083
compound

0.026
compound
0.018
simple
-0.16
compound


0.100
simple
0

0


0.100
simple
0.039
simple
0

Incineration
capacity in 1983
(A 1983) TPY


37. 1

34.7

39.6


9.83

77.1

45



x 105

x 105

x 105


x 105

x 10s

x 105

Current
average
size
TPY


149

149

154


87

496

8,670

Average
size in
1983, TPY


180

180

154


87

546

8,670

Number
operating
in 1978


a. 3,498

b. 8,161

6,388


1,990

4,136

551

Number
operating
in 1983


3,291

3,084

4,114


2,260

4,098

231


-------
TABLE 17.  CHANGES IN INCINERATION CAPACITY AND WASTE QUANTITY ACTUALLY
           INCINERATED BETWEEN 1978 AND 1983

Incinerator type
1. Commercial and
institutional
a. Hospital,
nursing home
b. Store,
school, etc.
c. Total
2. Apartment
3. Pathological
4. Industrial
5. Teepee
Added
capacity
(105 TPY)
1978 to 1983


4.5

-34.7

-30.2
-21.7
1.18
6.4
-62.0
Capacity
modified
(10s TPY)
1978 to 1983


16.3

0

16.3
0
4.32
13.8
0
Waste processed
by added capacity
(105 TPY)


0.72

-5.55

-4.83
-3.47
0.24
1.86
-27.9
Waste affected
by modification or
replacement
(105 TPY)


2.61

0

2.61
0
0.86
4.00
0

-------
               TABLE 18.  NOTATION USED IN PROJECTIONS
 K     = Normal fractional utilization rate of existing incinerator
         capacity, assumed constant over the time interval, dimensionless.

W Year = Waste quantity actually incinerated in the year specified, in
         tons per year (TPY).

A Year = Incineration capacity in the year specified, in TPY (i.e., the
         waste quantity which could be processed if all incinerators were
         operating at capacity).

B      = Incineration capacity which is affected by modification or replace-
         ment of old facilities over a specified time span (in this case
         1978 to 1983), in TPY.

 C     = Increase in incineration capacity over a specified time span
         (1978 to 1983) from new construction or modifications which
         increase capacity, in TPY.

 Pg    = Construction and modification rate to replace obsolete incineration
         capacity (decimal fraction of 1978 capacity per year)-

 PC    = Construction and modification rate to increase incineration capacity
         (decimal fraction of 1978 capacity per year).

N Year = Number of incinerators operating in the year specified.
                                     32

-------
     The above procedure is repeated for each of the five types of incinerators.
It should also be noted that "average size" refers to tons per year of waste
which is actually incinerated by a unit.
2.3  METHODS OF CALCULATING PARAMETERS
     Fractional utilization:
     The fractional utilization rate, K, is calculated from four quantities:
The actual average hourly burning rate, the actual operating schedule in hr/year,
the capacity hourly burning rate, and the maximum number of hours per year that
the average incinerator could operate.  An incinerator is considered to be at
capacity if it is operating at its maximum hourly rate throughout the year.  Thus
the equation used is:
                                                                        (2)
                        (average Ib/hr burned)(average hr/yr)
                        (capacity Ib/hr) (maximum hr/yr)
     While the maximum  number of hours  per year must be approximated, as will
be discussed in the sections that follow, the other three quantities can be
derived from data on  existing incinerators, and have been calculated in Section 1.6
     Growth rate;  The  growth rate  (PC) was calculated as either a simple or a
compound rate, as appropriate.  If  compound,  the quation used is:
 - x-y  /
 -     V
                              Capacity  in year "x"      _
                              Capacity  in year "y"    1>U
where x>y
     If  the growth  is  simple  in nature,  the value of PQ is calculated by the
following  equation:
                     „    . .   •   _____ ii __ ii   f~t _____ • j ___ j _ ______ ii __ M
                                                                         (4)
Capacity in year "x" - Capacity in year "y"
                r(-            (x-y) Capacity  in 1978
where x>y
                                        33

-------
     As was the case with the industry survey, most of the information on


trends in incinerator usage was supplied by the state air quality agencies, while


some was also obtained from incinerator manufacturers.  Since the available


information was primarily qualitative, it has been supplemented with data on


solid waste trends, etc.


     Capacity in 1983:


     If the growth rate is compound, then the capacity in 1983 (A 1983) is


calculated as follows:

                                             ,(1983-1978)
                      A 1983 = A 1978 (1 + Pc)                          (5)


     If the growth rate is simple, then:


                     A 1983 = A 1978 [~1 + Pc (1983-1978)1               (6)


     Increase in capacity:


     The increase in capacity (C) is simply the difference between the 1983 and


1978 capacities:


                               C = A 1983 - A 1978                      (7)


     Modification and replacement:


     This rate  (PB) was calculated to be simple in all cases, and was assumed


to be  zero when the growth rate is negative.  The capacity affected by modifica-


tion and replacement  (B) is then calculated as follows:


                            B = A 1978 (1983-1978) PB                   (8)


     Calculations required to obtain the remaining quantities are self-explanitory.


2.4  PATHOLOGICAL INCINERATORS


     Fractional utilization:


     The average hourly burning rate, actual operating schedule, and capacity


hourly burning rate have been calculated in Section 1.6.  A "capacity" burning
                                       34

-------
schedule is assumed of 16 hr/day (since most hospitals could operate continuously
but animal shelters and crematories would not be expected to have more than
one shift), 5 days per week, and 50 weeks per year, or 4,000 hours per year.
The fractional utilization is then:
                           _ /1513 hr/yr\  /89.6 lb/hr\
                         K ~ \4000 hr/yr/  \ 167 Ib/hr /
     Current waste quantity:
     Since the average pathological incinerator processes 87 tons per year of
waste  (Section 1.6), the current quantity of waste burned is:
               W 1978 = (1990 units) (87 TPY/unit) = 1.73 x 105 TPY
     Current incineration capacity;
                            A 1978 =    "197                        (1)
                                          K.
                                     1.73 x 1Q5
                                           0.20
                                   - 8.65 x 105 TPY
     Growth rate:
     An estimate has been1 made by TRC207 that the growth rate for pathological
incinerators is 0.026 compound.  This is based on Battelle's research81* and
takes into account those  factors which would affect crematory and animal shelter
operations.
     Another area where trends relevant to pathological incineration might be
expected is the number of deaths, but Table 19 shows that it has been approxi-
mately constant for the past several years.
                                        35

-------
                          TABLE 19.   DEATHS IN THE
                                     UNITED STATES


                             Year  Deaths (1,000)
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1,930
1,922
1,921
1,928
1,964
1,973
1,934
1,893
1,912

     Officials in the North Carolina,  Indiana,  and Rhode Island state agen-

cies55'30'61 said that there is  a slight  upswing in pathological incinerators,

while Maine and Wisconsin 6>   indicated  level  use.   In some areas,  including

Philadelphia and the state of Delaware208'23  regulations prohibit new construction

of any but pathological incinerators.

     The mild upswing can be seen as  the  result of health considerations.   The

Joint Commission on Accreditation of  Hospitals  (JCAH)  has published  guidelines

on the disposal of infectious and pathological  wastes:

     "Waste Disposal - Prior to  disposal,  solid wastes  should be packaged
     or wrapped in containers at the  site of  origin with minimum handling.
     Patient-care and laboratory-animal-care  wastes known to be potentially
     hazardous, such as isolation wastes,  and materials contaminated with
     secretions, excretions, or  blood,  shall  be sealed  in impervious con-
     tainers for handling within the  hospital.   These containers shall be
     specifically identified and kept positively closed or sealed until
     final disposition has been  made.   Special  precautions should be taken
     to prevent injury to or infection of  personnel in  the disposition of
     syringes and needles.   These items should  not be placed in easily
     punctured containers.

     Laboratory wastes such as culture plates,  tubes,  sputum cups, swabs,
     and the like shall be sterilized by  autoclaving prior to washing or
     discarding, or they may be  sealed in impervious containers clearly
     marked for special handling and  then incinerated.   Similar safety
     precautions shall be used in discarding  animal carcasses and un-
     preserved tissue from surgical and necropsy specimens;  these may
     preferably be incinerated.   Where permitted by the authority having
     jurisdiction,  infectious wastes  may  be ground up and disposed of
     through sewage channels, or may  be appropriately buried in an approved
     landfill.

                                       36

-------
     Any incinerator used by the hospital shall produce complete combustion
     of all waste products and shall be operated in accordance with all
     local, state, and federal regulations.  The incinerator used for such
     purposes shall be either on the hospital premises or in close proximity.
     The hospital shall have a current environmental certificate for the
     incinerator, where such certificate is required by the authority having
     jurisdiction.  Existing flue-fed incinerators shall be sealed by fire-
     resistive construction to prevent further use."79

     Although incineration is suggested as the preferred disposal method, the

Commission does not require hospitals to install incinerators.209

     Overall, the information which is available indicates that an annual

growth rate of 0.026 compound is appropriate for pathological incinerators.  ^

conflicting result would be obtained by calculating a growth rate based on

the 4070 incinerators found by Brinkerhoff in 1972 (see Section 1.5).
                             _ 6  1990   ,   =  _ ,,
                          PC -  ^ 4070   X      -11

     A current annual decline of 11 percent is refuted by both the state agency

data and the Battelle study.  It is more likely that pathological incinerators

followed the general downswing a few years ago (see Figure 2)  and are now

increasing again.

     Other factors which may influence growth are:

     •    Heat recovery and energy costs.  Pathological waste  is low in
          Btu's and thus is not amenable to heat recovery alone (in fact,
          auxiliary fuel is usually required).  However if a hospital can
          utilize the same incinerator to dispose of general rubbish, heat
          recovery may become more attractive.

     •    Health laws.  If state regulatory agencies or the JCAH become
          more strict on disposal of pathological and infectuous wastes,
          an upswing would be expected.
                                      37

-------
     Capacity  in  1983:




     Based  on  the 0.026  growth  rate,  pathological capacity in 1983 will be:




                     A  1983  =  A 1978 (1 + Pc)  (1983-1978)              (5)




                             =  (8.65  x 105)(1.026)5




                             =  9.83 x 105 TPY




     Increase  in  capacity:




                             C = A 1983 - A 1978                      (7)




                                = 1.18 x 105 TPY




     Modification and replacement rate:




     TRC207 estimated an annual modification and replacement rate of 0.039 simple.




From the approximate 10-year  incinerator lifespan204'205 however, this would




be closer to 0.10.  This rate is assumed to be more accurate at present.




     Capacity which will be modified or replaced:




                           B = A 1978 (1983-1978) Pfi                    (8)




                              = (8.65 x 105 TPY)(5)(0.10)




                              = 4.32  x lo5 TPY




Waste quantity to be incinerated in 1983:




                             W 1983 = (A 1983) (K)                      (9)




                                    = (9.83 x 1Q5 TPY)(0.20)




                                    = 1.97 x 1Q5 TPY




Number of incinerators  in 1983;




     Assuming that the  average size and fractional utilization will remain the




same, a total of  2,260  pathological incinerators, an increase of 270 over the




1,990 at present, will  be operating in 1983.  Approximately 993 of the units




existing today will have been modified or replaced.
                                      38

-------
2.5  COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL INCINERATORS

     Fractional utilization:

     The average hourly burning rate (144 Ib/hr), actual operating schedule

(1,797 hr/yr), and capacity hourly burning rate (503 Ib/hr) have been calculated

in Section 1.6.  A maximum current operating schedule of 13 hr/day, 5 days/wk,

and 50 wk/yr is assumed.  The 13 hr/day schedule represents a weighted average

of the hospitals and nursing homes, which could probably operate continuously,

and the schools, stores, etc. which could probably operate only 8 hr/day.

The fractional utilization is then:

                        _/ 1,797 hr/yr\/144 Ib/hr\       fi
                      K "\ 3,250 hr/yr/^503 Ib/hr/    U'ib

     For subsequent calculations, it is necessary to subdivide the commercial

and institutional class into two categories, one made up of hospital and nursing

home incinerators, and the other containing school, store, and the rest.  The

reason for this division is that the trends for the two are different, as

will be discussed later.

     Current waste quantity;

     1.   Hospital and nursing home:  From Table 10, approximately 30 percent
          of the commercial and institutional incinerators belong to hospitals
          arid nursing homes.  Applying this percentage to the 11,657 commercial
          and institutional incinerators in the United States (see Section 1.5).
          a  total of 3,498  incinerators are in hospitals and nursing homes
          (subject to the qualification that the 30 percent is based on data
          from only four states).  The current quantity of waste burned is then:

             W 1978 = (3,498 units)(149 TPY/unit) = 5.21 x 105 TPY

     2.   Stores, schools,  etc:  These make up the remaining 70 percent of the
          commercial and industrial incinerators, or 8,161 units.  The current
          waste quantity is:

             W 1978 - (8,161 units)(149 TPY/unit) = 11.1 x 105 TPY
                                       39

-------
     Current incineration capacity:



     1.    Hospital and nursing home:



                                W 1978                                   (D
                       A 1978 =
                                  K



                                -I f\ 5 rr>Tt\7

                                        = 3.26 x 106 TPY
         K



5.21 x 105 TPY
                              .16


     2.   Stores, schools, etc.:


                            11.1 x 105 TPY  _
                   A 1978 =

                                 . 16
     Growth rate:
     1.   Hospital and nursing home:



          The Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals considers not  only



pathological waste but also infectious waste to require special  treatment



(see Section 2.1).  The Commission may, in fact, be more concerned with  the



treatment of the infectious waste,209 since disease can be spread by  its



improper disposal.



          Both hospitals and nursing homes are expected to generate infectious



wastes, although what fraction of the total waste stream is actually  hazardous



is subject to interpretation.  At St. Agnes Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland,



for example, the view is taken that any waste taken from a patient's  room is



potentially infectious,2QLf and the waste is incinerated.  At the M.D. Anderson



Hospital in Houston, Texas, however, this type of waste is compacted  and



landfilled.210



          Since incineration is a preferred method for disposing of infectious



waste, trends for the nursing home and hospital fraction of the  commercial  and



institutional incinerator class should be the same as trends for pathological



incinerators.
                                       40

-------
          Additionally, the growth rate for hospital incinerators would be




expected to reflect trends in hospital waste generation.  Table 20 shows that




while the total number of hospitals is remaining essentially the same, the




number of patients is increasing.



          Assuming that the amount of hospital waste generated is proportional




to the number of patients, a growth rate is calculated:
                             P  =  5 36=1   _!

                              C    ^|31.8




                             PP =  0.026 compound
                              L«




Since this agrees with the pathological growth rate, it is assumed to be




correct for this category.




     2.   Schools, stores, etc.:




          Indications from state agencies are that at least the two largest of




the remaining categories, store and school incinerators, are on the way out.




They (and most other incinerators) are not allowed in Delaware23 and Washington,




D.C.22  Minnesota is "discouraging" supermarket incinerators.t*°  The state




has found that most will close down rather than make repairs if they are the




subject of an enforcement action.  North Dakota56, and Wisconsin71, and Illinois29




have noted a downswing in grocery store and shopping center incinerators,  Iowa32




has found that grocery store incinerators are closing down because they require




too much gas to operate.  In New Jersey48, a "wave" of supermarket incinerators




appeared about 10 years ago, but most of them have closed down by now.  Georgia26




on the other hand, reported many incinerators in food stores, and did not report




a trend to close them down, and in South Carolina63 the trend is level for all




commercial incinerators.
                                     41

-------
 TABLE 20.  HOSPITAL FACILITIES81

Year
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1978
Total
hospitals
7,123
7,097
7,061
7,123
7,174
7,156
7,082*
Total
beds
(1000)
1,615
1,555
1,549
1,534
1,512
1,465
-
Patients
admitted
(millions)
31.8
32.7
33.3
34.4
35.5
36.2
-

Oliver Johnson,  JCAH82
              42

-------
          School incinerators were stated to be decreasing in Wisconsin.71  In

Maryland, school incinerators tend to be the oldest and the least sophisticated

of any in the state.9  Many were built before 1966, and many are of a single

chamber design, lacking control devices.

          Less information is available about incinerators in restaurants,

banks, warehouses, government facilities, and other establishments, and they

are assumed to decline in the same manner as store and school incinerators.

          This rate can be calculated in two ways.  First, using the approximate

10 year incinerator lifespan, and assuming that there is no replacement of

obsolete units, the net growth rate would be approximately:

                               Pc = -0.10 simple

          Second, the number of incinerators in schools, stores, etc.  can be

compared with the 1972 Brinkerhoff number.  This study's "school" and "commercial"

categories together contained 72,246 units.  Since this figure excludes

Brinkerhoff's "medical" category, it should be directly comparable with the

8,161 units at present.  Thus the growth rate is approximately:
                               _  5 / 8.161
                            PC -    ^72,246   " X

                               = -0.35 compound

          Some data, however, indicates that the most rapid decline took place

several years ago, and that the trend is now leveling off somewhat.48*56  Thus,

the milder of the two growth rates, -0.10, is probably more accurate at present.

     Capacity in 1983:

     1.   Hospital and nursing home:

                      A1983=A1978(1+PC)(1983-1978)                 (5)

                             = (3.26 x 106 TPY)(1.026)

                             = 3.71 x 106 TPY
                                     43

-------
     2.    Schools,  stores,  etc.:



                    A 1983  = A 1978  1 + Pp (1983-1987)                    (6)
                                          L<


                           = (6.94 x 106 TPY)(0.5)



                           = 3.47 x 106 TPY



     Increase in capacity:



     1.    Hospital and nursing home:



                             C = A 1983 - A 1978                           (7)



                               = 3.71 x IQ6 TPY - 3.26 x 1Q6 TPY



                               = 4.5 x 10s TPY



     2.    Schools, stores,  etc.:



                     C = 3.47 x 106 TPY - 6.94 x 1Q6 TPY



                       = 3.47 x 106 TPY



     Modification and replacement rate:



     1.    Hospital and nursing home:



          P_ is assumed to  be the same as that for pathological incinerators,



or simple.



     2.    Schools, stores,  etc.:



          Since the total number of these incinerators is declining, P  is
                                                                      B


assumed  to equal zero.



     Capacity which will be modified or replaced:



     1.    Hospital and nursing home:



                           B = A 1978 (1983-1978) PB                       (8)
                                                   D


                             = (3.26 x io6 TPY)(5)(0.10)



                             = 1.63 x io6 TPY



     2.    Schools,  stores,  etc.:



          No units are expected to be modified or replaced.





                                     44

-------
     Number of incinerators in 1983:

     The average size of commercial and institutional units is expected to

increase.  In hospitals and nursing homes, larger units with heat recovery

should become more popular, as energy costs continue to rise.

     The 1972 Brinkerhoff report75 found an average size of 89 TPY (calculated

from the average burning rate of 228 Ib/hr and the average operating schedule

of 780 hr/yr).  Comparison to the current size of 149 TPY shows a substantial

increase of 60 TPY.  Assuming that the increase over the next 5 years will

be only half  that amount, the average size in 1983 will be 180 TPY.   Assuming

that fractional utilization will remain the same, incinerator numbers in

1983 are calculated:

     1.   Hospital and nursing homes:
                                     f,
                                N 1983 = 3,291

     2.   Schools, stores, etc.:

                                N 1983 = 3,084

2.6  APARTMENT INCINERATORS

     Fractional utilization:

     Data with which to calculate the fractional utilization was not  available,

so it is assumed that:

                                   K = 0.16

as for commercial and institutional incinerators.

     Current waste quantity:

     Since the average apartment incinerator processes 154 TPY of waste

(Section 1.6), the current quantity of waste burned is:

                      W 1978 = (6,388 units)  (154 TPY/unit)

                             = 9.8 x 105 TPY


                                     45

-------
     Current incineration capacity:

                                A1978 =1^1978                         (1)
                                           K

                                       = 9.8 x 1Q5 TPY
                                             0.16

                                       = 6.1 x 106 TPY

     Growth rate:

     An approximate growth rate can be calculated from the fate of incinerators

in New York City.  In 1966, there were 17,000 units in operation while today

there are about 6,000.211
                _ 1978-1966 /  6,000     _ 12 /
             PC ~          V 17^000  ~1 ~   V0'35  -1 - -0.083

     This time interval encompasses some years  (before 1970)  when apartment

incinerator usage was on the rise, as well as years when it was declining.  The

decline at present would be expected to more gradual than in previous years,

since essentially all of the remaining units have wet scrubbers.   Since there

is no way of estimating the true current rate of change, the -0.083 figure

will be used.

     Since more than 90 percent of the units currently operating are located

in New York City, the trend in their use will be sensitive to any changes made

in the city's  air quality regulations.

     Capacity  in 1983:

     Based on  the growth rate,  this is:

                       A 1983  = A 1978 (1-0.083)(1983~1978)             (5)

                              = 6.1 x 106(0.917)5

                              = 3.96x  106 TPY
                                      46

-------
     Increase in capacity:




                             C = A 1983 - A 1078




                               = 2.17 x IQ6 TPY




     Modification and replacement rate:




     Since many of the units are already upgraded,211 and since new flue-fed




apartment incinerators are no longer built, even as replacements, Pg is equal




to zero.




     Capacity which will be modified or replaced:




     No units are expected to be affected.




     Waste quantity to be incinerated in 1983;




                            W 1983 = (A 1983)(K)                        <9)




                                   = (3.96 x IQ6 TPY)(0.16)




                                   = 6.34 x 105 TPY




     Number of incinerators in 1983:




     Assuming that the average size and fractional utilization remain unchanged,




a total of 4,114 modified flue-fed apartment incinerators will be operating




in 1983, a decline of 2,274 units from the present.




2.7  INDUSTRIAL INCINERATORS




     Although industrial incinerators are diverse, encompassing a wide range of




sizes, designs, and waste types, they are treated here as one category, since




information with which to provide more detail, for example on trends within




each SIC code, is not available.




     Fractional utilization rate:




     The average hourly burning rate (1,046 Ib/hr), actual operating schedule




(1,361 hr/yr), and capacity hourly burning rate (1,203 Ib/hr) have been calculated
                                      47

-------
 in  Section  1.6.  A maximum  current  operating  schedule of,  16  hr/day,  5 days/wk,

 and 50 wk/yr,  or 4,000 hr/yr  is  assumed.  The fractional  utilization is then:

                    v =  (1.361 hr/yr)  (1,046  Ib/hr)  _ n  ,q
                    K    (4,000 hr/yr)  (1,203  Ib/hr)  ~ u>  *

      Current waste quantity:

      Since  the average industrial incinerator processes  496  TPY of waste

 (Section  1.6), the current  quantity of waste  burned  is:

                     W 1978 =  (4,136 units) (.496 TPY/unit)

                            =  2.05  x 106 TPY

      Current incineration capacity:

                                 A 1978 _ w_1978                          ci)
                                           K

                                       = 2.05 x 1QS  TPY
                                                .29

                                       = 7.07 x 106  TPY

      Growth rate:

      Information on trends  in industrial incineration was supplied by a few

 states.   South Carolina62   reported  an increase in industrial  chemical incinerators,

 while North Dakota64 found  an increase in industrial units with waste heat

 recovery.   Delaware23 permits construction of "contaminated  waste" (specialized

 industrial  waste) incinerators,  in addition to pathological  incinerators, but

 prohibits new refuse incinerators.  No state  reported a decrease specifically

 in  industrial incinerators.

     Since  industrial incinerators are larger, on the average,  than  commercial,

 institutional,  or pathological units, they are more  likely to  find waste heat

 recovery practical,  providing one incentive to incinerate.   In  addition, companies

which must dispose of waste solvents can save on fuel costs, since solvents are

high in Btu content  and can partially replace the fuel ordinarily  used.


                                      48

-------
     Hazardous wastes must be disposed of in some industries.  While landfilling




is the most common alternative to incineration for ordinary refuse, it is often




unacceptable for hazardous wastes.  Ocean dumping has been another alternative,




but is is now on the way out.96  Some firms exist, such as Rollins Environmental




Services212'215 which incinerate process wastes generated by other industries.




These firms concentrate on liquid wastes, however.213"216




     In  light of the qualitative information above, it is assumed that industrial




incineration will follow trends in industrial waste generation.  Several studies




have been done on industrial wastes.  These have been summarized by the Ralph




M. Parsons Company.206  Results varied from 46.6 million tons per year of dry




combustible solid (DCS) waste in 1967, found by International Research and




Technology, to 103.2 million tons per year of industrial waste in 1965, found




by Combustion Engineering.  The IR + T study is followed here, partially because




it is slightly more recent then the CE study, but more importantly because an




analysis of waste trends is included.




     The study shows an overall moderate increase in industrial wastes (Figure 3)




but a decrease in wood industry wastes (SIC codes 24 and 25).  This is due to




increasing utilization of wood residue, either as a fuel or in the paper industry.




The Ralph Parsons report adds that "informal discussions with wood industry




officials indicate that in 10 years there will be essentailly no wastage, and




that the percent sold will increase."206




     Since teepee burners, which are the primary means of incinerating (as opposed




to utilizing)  wood waste, are considered in Section 2.4, trends for industrial




incinerators in this section will be based on industrial waste, exluding waste




from SIC industries 24 and 25.   From Figure 3, 38.2 million TPY are currently
                                      49

-------
s
o
I
i
    70
    60
    50
    40
     30
    20
     10
       h - -a	_
       I                "~ - - ~  -  -
                                          -a —
      1965
  LEGEND
                  1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
                                    YEAR
         TOTAL  DCS  WASTE
   	Q DCS  WASTE  FRQM INDUSTRIES  24 AND 25 (WOOD)
   	& DCS  WASTE EXCLUDING WOOD
       Figure 3.  Trends in industrial waste from IR + T data.206
                                 50

-------
being generated  (1978) and  there will be  41.7 million  TPY  in 1983.   Since the




increase is nearly linear,  a  simple  growth  rate  is  calculated:




                               Pc =  0.018 simple




     Capacity  in 1983:




     Based on  the growth  rate, this  is:



               A  1983  = (7.07  x io6 TPY) [l  +  (1983-1978)(0.018)]




                      = 7.71 x IQ6 TPY




     Increase  in capacity:




                              C = A 1983 - A 1978                         (7)



                              C = 6.4 x  IO5  TPY




     Modification and replacement rate:



     Since no  specific information on the replacement  rate was  available,  it




was assumed to be the same  as for municipal incinerators.^^'-'




                               PB =  0.039 simple
                                D


     Capacity  which will  be modified or replaced;




                            B = A 1978  (9183-1978)  PR                    (8)




                              = (7.07 x io6 TPY)(5)(0.039)



                              = 1.38 x  106  TPY



     Waste quantity to be incinerated in  1983;




                              W 1983 = A  1983 (K)                        (9)



                                     =  (7.71 x 1Q6  TPY)(0.29)



                                     = 2.25 x 106 TPY




     Number of incinerators in 1983;




     Assuming  a  10 percent  increase  in average unit size and  the  same  fractional




utilization, there will be  4,098 units in 1983, burning an average  of  546 TPY each
                                       51

-------
2.8  TEEPEE BURNERS



     Fractional utilization:



     The average hourly burning rate (3.13 ton/hr), actual operating schedule



(2,448 hr/yr),  and a capacity hourly burning rate  (4.23 ton/hr) have been



calculated in Section 1.6.  A maximum burning schedule of 4,000 hr/yr  is assumed.



The fractional utilization is then:



                             (2,448 hr/yr)(3.13 ton/hr)

                             (4,000 hr/yr)(4.23 ton/hr)



                           = 0.45



     Current waste quantity:



     Since the average teepee burner processes 8,670 TPY of waste  (Section  1.6),



the current total quantity is:



                     W 1978 = (551 units)(8,670 TPY/unit)



                            = 4.8 x IQ6 TPY



     Current incineration capacity:



                                         W 1978
                                A 1978 =    I'
                                            K



                                       = 4.8 x 1Q6 TPY

                                             0.45



                                       = 10.67 x 106 TPY



     Growth rate:



     There is a clear trend toward elimination of teepee burners;  the  number in



use has been falling since 1968.83  New teepees are prohibited in  many



states.34'35'39'7!




     A rate of change is calculated using the current estimate in  conjunction



with Battelle's result83 (see Table 21).
                                       52

-------
                    TABLE 21.  COMPARATIVE TEEPEE BURNER DATA




                               Number       ..  ,.     ,
                                  ,.     Yearly disposal

                        Year   , °f     rate (106 TPY)
                               teepees



                        1973*    835         11.7



                        1978     551          4.8





                        *Battelle83



     The difference in  the yearly disposal rate is larger than the difference



in the number of teepees.  Battelle found an average disposal rate of 3.5 ton/hr



and an operating schedule of 4,000 hr/yr for a total of 14,000 TPY, whereas the



average disposal rate was found to be considerably smaller, only 8,670 TPY, at



present.



     The growth rate is:
                                '        -i = ~°-16 compound
     The trend is for more wood waste to be used in the paper industry31* and



as a fuel.71'206  Thus, the trend to phase out teepees could be accelerated by



rising energy costs.



     Capacity in 1983;



                       A 1983 = A 1978 (1 + p^) d983-1978)              ^




                              = 4.47 x io6 TPY



     Change in capacity;



                             C = A 1983 - A 1978                        (7)



                               = 4.47 x IO6 TPY - 10.67 x 1Q6 TPY



                               = -6.20 x 106 TPY
                                       53

-------
     Modification and replacement rate:




     Since teepee burners are declining, it is assumed that no units will be




modified or replaced.




     Waste quantity to be incinerated in 1983;




                              W 1983 = (A 1983)(K)                      (9)




                                     = (4.47 x io6 TPY)(0.45)




                                     = 2.01 x 106 TPY




     Number of incinerators in 1983:




     Assuming that the average size and fractional utilization will remain the




same, a total of 231 teepees will still be operating in 1983, a decline of




350 from the 551 at present.
                                      54

-------
                           3.0  INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION






3.1  COMBUSTION PRINCIPLES




     The combustion of any solid waste material requires that the three T's




of combustion; time, temperature and turbulence be satisfied.  When solid waste




is exposed for a sufficient time to a turbulent hot atmosphere, the waste




will be satisfactorily incinerated.  Time is designed into an incinerator through




the size of the combustion chambers.  They are made sufficiently large to




retain the gas flow long enough to allow complete combustion.  The amount of




refuse charge, the composition of the refuse and therefore its oxygen require-




ments are inputs into the combustion chamber design.




     The incinerator temperature must be sufficiently high to ignite and




completely burn the waste.  Heat is used as the driving force to sustain com-




bustion, and the heat is supplied by the waste alone, or the waste augmented




by an auxiliary burner, depending upon the specific waste being incinerated.85




The Incinerator Institute of America has established standards for the classi-




fication of waste and for the size of auxiliary fuel burners used to aid incin-




eration.  These are given in Table 1.  Once the combustion process begins,




the rate and extent of combustion is controlled by the excess air allowed into




the combustion chamber.   Excess air is defined as air which is in excess of the




theoretical (or Stoichiometric) amount required for complete combustion.  The




temperature/excess air relationship is shown for a typical material, cellulose




in Figure 4.   Generally a minimum of 50 percent excess air is provided to
                                       55

-------
     1000
      .100
                      , 100      .200

                       EXCESS AIR (!;)
Figure  4.   Combustion  temperature  versus percent
            excess air  for cellulose.^
                          56

-------
supply adequate combustion oxygen and to promote turbulence.  Too little excess




air may lead to incomplete combustion and particulate formation85 while too




much excess air can be detrimental by reducing combustion temperatures excessively




resulting in odor and smoke emissions.  Each incinerator will have an optimum




excess air level for a given type of waste and this is often determined on site,




by trial and error.  In most incineration systems, the temperature immediately




above the burning waste ranges from 2100°F to 2500°F, while the temperature




leaving the combustion chamber is in the range of 1400°F to 1600°F.  The affect




of furnace temperature on combustion products will be discussed later in this




report.  For the elimination of odors, a minimum of 1400°F for a period of 0.5




seconds is required.8^




     Turbulence of the combustion gases is designed into an incinerator by a




series of baffles or constrictions or by an overfire air supply fan.  The




baffles create changes in gas flow direction, in addition to increases and




decreases in velocity due to constrictions and expansion sections.  This




turbulence thoroughly mixes the atmospheric oxygen with the products of com-




bustion for complete oxidation.  The turbulence must be intense and must




persist long enough to ensure complete burning.  Little or no turbulence will




cause stratification of the combustion gases, allowing unburned material to




pass out the stack.




     Air is supplied to the incinerator by natural draft through a chimney or




stack.  The higher the stack, the more air can be brought into the incinerator.




Air may also be added by forced draft fans which blow air into the combustion




chamber, or by induced draft fans, mounted between the combustion chamber and




stack, which pull air through the system.  The use of an induced draft fan
                                       57

-------
requires cooling the exit gases below 600°F to protect the fan.   This is normally




accomplished by dilution of the stack gases with atmospheric air.




     For a material to burn, both surface and internal moisture must be vaporized,




or the material temperature will be kept below 212°F.   Once moisture is removed,




the temperature of the substance can be raised to its  ignition point.  This




drying step will continue throughout the burning cycle since the outer surface




of a material can reach this ignition point before the inner surface is completely




dry.  Drying mechanisms such as reflective furnace walls and air preheaters are




often designed into an incineration system to facilitate drying.




     The combustion process in incineration can be described by two overlapping




stages, which may or may not occur in the same physical combustion chamber




depending upon incinerator type.  Primary combustion refers to the physical-




chemical changes occurring in proximity to the fuel bed and consists of drying,




volatization and ignition of the solid waste.  Figure 5 is a schematic of this




primary combustion reaction.  Secondary combustion refers to the oxidation of




gases and particulate matter released by primary combustion.  Secondary com-




bustion is often aided by an external heat source (afterburner) and results




in the elimination of odor and the combustion of unburned gases and carbon in




the flue gas stream when the flue gas temperature is maintained above 1400 F.




Oxygen for the combustion process that is purposely supplied to the furnace




from beneath the grates is termed underfire air.  Overfire air is introduced




above the fuel bed.  The proportioning of underfire and overfire air is critical




to incinerator performance.  This relationship will be discussed in the section




on Multi-chamber incinerators.
                                      58

-------
        L.
Figure 5.  Schematic of cross-feed bed burning
           process (assuming combustion process
           raw -•• dry -•• volatilize -» char -» ash) . 87
                      59

-------
3.2  SINGLE CHAMBER INCINERATORS




     The single chamber incinerator consists of a vertical,  cylindrical or box




shaped combustion chamber separated by dump grates from an ash pit below.  Refuse




is batch fed and ignited through a charging door located above the grates.  An




ash cleanout door and a gas burner are located below the grates.  Openings are




provided in the charging door for overfire air and in the cleanout door for




underfire air.  The units are natural draft, the control of  which is provided




by a barometric damper.




     Several variations on this basic design were widely used in the 1950's.




Two of the most common were the dehydration unit as shown in Figure 6 and the




flue-fed apartment incinerator as shown in Figure 7.   Problems encountered




with these units were representative of most single chamber  incinerators.




     The dehydrating units locate the gas burner above the grate and rely upon




the warm circulating air to dehydrate the refuse.  Due to the reliance upon




natural draft and the manually set underfire/overfire air openings, air flow




into the combustion chamber is fairly constant.  This results in insufficient




air for complete combustion at the start of ignition and resultant smoke




formation.  After several minutes, the unit will reach equilibrium and most




paper and other high heat combustibles will burn without smoking.  However,




once the paper is consumed, combustion temperatures cannot be maintained




sufficiently high to burn garbage and other wet refuse.  A plot of gas temperature




vs. elapsed time for the dehydrating unit utilizing a known charge is shown




in Figure 8.   Since food wastes dehydrate slowly at temperatures below 200°F




and may take days at temperatures below 150°F, these units could not handle




appreciable amounts of garbage, and in fact produced strong, disagreeable




burning garbage odors over the final several hours of the burning cycle.





                                      60

-------
               •TP
   i
   2
   3
                  II    ii    M   n   I'
                                             i
                                             i
                                             I  9
                                             I
     I   Outer Metal Shell
     2   Insulation
     3   Inner Metal Lining
     4 - Constant Btu Gas Burner  (1800 Btu)
     5 - Crate
     6 - Ashpit Door and Pan
     7 - Perforated Metal Retainer Plate
     8   Passage for Gases of Combustion
     9   Vent to Chimney
    10 - Charging Door
    11 - Overfire Air Ports
Figure 6.   A  schematic  drawing of  the  dehydrating type
             of household incinerator.88
                             61

-------
COMBUSTION  CHAMBER
                                     BASEMENT
                                     FLOOR


                                  CLEANOUT DOOR
                             UNDERFIRE AIR PORT
Figure  7.   Unmodified  flue-fed incinerator.
                                                    89
                        62

-------
      600 1
      500-
  $  40°
  Of
  o
O£
UJ
O.

!^
to
o
      300 -
      200
      100-
                                    * Standard  Test  Charge; Type D
                                 1.  7  01. White  Potatoes (sliced)
                                 2.  3  oz. Cabbage (3/4" cubes)
                                 3.  2  oz. Oranges (4  unpeeled  1/8  segments)
                                 4.  2  oz. Bread  (white half slices)
                                 5.  2.4 oz.  Rice
                                 6.  1  oz. Beef Suet (3/4" cubes)
                                 7.  2.6 oz. Water
                                     6.6 oz. Corrugated Cardboard (6" squares)
                                     3.3 oz. Newspaper (22 1/2 x 33" sheets)
                                  10.  3.3 oz. Wax paper (12" wide x 3' lengths)
                                     33.2  oz. Total Weight of Charge
5   10   15
                            20   25  30  35  40
                              TIME IN MINUTES
                                                      45  50  55   60
        "Regulations for  th* Totting of Indoor  Refine  Burning EljuipmMi . Tyy« D".
        OroVnaiNM  Number  77-f.  Department  of Buildings  and  Sefety. . fttgMeerina..
        Cily of Detroit, Michigan, May 3,  1956.
Figure  8.   Chart showing ignition-temperature cycle of
               a  dehydrating household  incinerator.®8
                                   63

-------
The generation of these odors and the resultant nuisance conditions, combined




with the frequent fly-ash emissions led to the ban of these units by Los Angeles




county in 1957-89  Since then, for similar reasons, several states (among them




Texas, Georgia, New Jersey, Montana and Mississippi) have also banned single




chamber incinerators.




     Air contaminant emission problems associated with single chamber units




can be classified as either (1) design limitations or (2) operating and




maintenance problems.




     Single chamber incinerator design, while essentially simple, places limits




on the amount and nature of the refuse charged.  These design features include




(1) combustion chamber size - designed for 3 given waste quality (in Btu/lb)




to provide the mean residence time required for the burnout of carbon monoxide,




hydrocarbons, hydrogen, particulate, tars and other combustible pollutants.   In




addition, refractory materials are specified that can withstand the highest




temperature, or widest range of temperatures the unit may see.  An incinerator




designed for 100 pounds per hour of newspaper may see its refractory destroyed




by an attempt to incinerate 100 pounds per hour of polystyrene due to the higher




combustion temperature of the polystyrene.  Figure 9 indicates this change




in combustion temperature for various types of waste.  The heat content for




various types of waste must be considered in combustion chamber design for the




heat released by 1 pound of material A may be two to five times that of




material B.  Table 22 gives heat contents of various fuels, and Table 23




gives the proximate and ultimate analysis of a typical commercial refuse mix,




(2) burner size - early single-chamber model manufacturers specified burner




capacities of 1,500 to 35,000 Btu/hr88 to incinerate wet refuse.  No standard




was set until the Incinerator of America established its classification system




which was listed in Table 1.  As can be seen with this table, a burner sized at




                                     64

-------
400O—
                 COMBUSTION  TEMPERATURE  VS.  % EXCESS AIR
                           FOR VARIOUS WASTES
                                                         TOO
      Figure 9.  Combustion  temperature versus  percent
                  excess air  for various wastes.
                                                    90
                               65

-------
         TABLE 22.   HEATING VALUE OF VARIOUS SUBSTANCES95
Substance
Heating value
(Btu/lb, dry)
Substance
Heating value
(Btu/lb, dry)
Petroleum coke
Wood sawdust:
Pine
Fir
Rags:
Silk
Wool
Linen
Cotton
Cotton batting
Cor ruga ted- fiber
carton
Newspaper
Wrapping paper
Brown skins from
peanuts
Corn on the cob
15,800

9,676
8,249

8,391
8,876
7,132
7,165
7,114

5,970
7,883
7,406

10,431
8,100
Oats
Wheat
Oil:
Cottonseed
Lard
Olive
Paraffin
Fats (animal)
Butter
Casein
Egg white
Egg yolk
Candy
Pecan shells
Pecan shells
(few meats left)
Coffee grounds
7,998
7,532

17,100
16,740
16,803
17,640
17,100
16,560
10,548
10,260
14,580
8,046
8,803

10,444
10,058

TABLE 23. ANALYSIS OF TYPICAL COMMERCIAL REFUSE95

Proximate analysis
Moisture
Volatile matter
Fixed carbon
Ash and metals
Total

(percent)
10.0
59.3
8.2
22.5
100.0

Ultimate analysis
Total carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Total
(percent)
49.8
6.6
42.8
0.6
0.2
100.0
                                66

-------
2,500 Btu/hr (typical for dehydrating units88) will be undersized when attempting




to burn class 3 waste (garbage - 70 percent moisture).  This fuel deficiency




contributed to the incomplete drying of garbage and other wet waste with the




resultant odor problem, (3) grate size and configuration - single chamber unit




design paid little attention to these factors, leading to grate overloading




and plygging with a resultant decrease in air control.  In addition, grate




design affects flame propagation across the width of the ignition chamber which




can result in smoke from a smoldering fuel bed passing to the stack without




adequate mixing and secondary combustion92 if the grate is undersized, (4) charging




door locks - these are necessary on front load units to prevent flashback;88




When the unit is charged with a large amount of combustible material and then




ignited, the fuel supply exceeds the air supply by a considerable amount.  If




the charging door is opened too soon after the refuse is ignited there is con-




siderable danger of flashback.  The greatest need for locks on charging doors




was shown to be with single chamber flue fed apartment house incinerators.  In




these units, since the charging flue is also the stack gas flue, it was possible




to charge the unit while in operation.  This was shown to be (a) a safety and




fire hazard, as flue gas and odors could escape the open charging doors, and




fires could start in the stack, and (b) an air quality problem as the falling




refuse will smother and scatter the burning pile and result in smoke production




and severe fly ash emission.93




     The many deficiencies of single chamber incinerator design prompted a




research and development effort into an improved model.91+  The culmination




of this effort, funded primarily by the American Gas Association, was the




gas-fired afterburner type unit, which will be discussed in the section on




Multi-chamber units.






                                      67

-------
3.2.1  Operating and Maintenance Procedures

     The need for a good operating and maintenance procedure for single chamber

units is shown by the results of a survey on these units95 which cited pilot

light outage, burner outage and improper operation as the most common

complaints.  The causes of these problems were summarized as (1) ashes around

the burner (2) overloading the charging compartment (3)  not burning the charge

fast enough (4) not emptying the ashes (5) clogging the grates with foil or

other unburnable materials and (6) improper charging and maintenance.  It has

been stated that even single chamber units can do a commendable combustion job

if properly operated at or less than their design capacity.96  To accomplish

this, a good operating and maintenance procedure which includes the following

items must be followed:

     1)   Clean the grate and ashpit of all debris.  If the ashpit is allowed
          to become filled, overheating of the grates will occur.

     2)   Inspect dampers and the flue passage to insure they are unobstructed.

     3)   Preheat the chamber for 15 minutes with the auxiliary burner.

     4)   Fill the combustion chamber between one-half and three quarters
          full.  The initial charge should be lightweight, dry materials which
          will help raise the combustion chamber temperature.  Garbage and
          other wet refuse can be added once the temperature has reach 1200°F.
          In charging the waste, care should be taken to insure the burner is
          not blocked, and the combustion chamber is not overloaded.

     5)   Set the overfire and underfire air port openings initially at half
          open.  Ideally, theae openings should be constantly readjusted to
          account for the varying combustion temperature and load characteristics,
          but in practice they are usually reset to full open once the combustion
          chamber temperature has reached its maximum.  This readjustment is
          often neglected by small incinerator operators who normally light
          the charge and then leave the area.  In a manually controlled air
          supply system such as found in single chamber units, it is essential
          that this control be exercised for complete combustion to occur.

     6)   The refuse should be ignited, through the charging door, at the top
          and rear of the refuse pile, and the door firmly closed.


                                      68

-------
     7)   After approximately one-half of the initial charge of refuse has been
          burned, the remainder should be carefully stoked and pushed as far
          to the rear of the grates as possible.  This operation must be per-
          formed carefully to minimize fly ash emission.93  Additional refuse
          should be added to the front end of the grates and never on top of the
          Burning refuse pile.  This method will insure flame travel over the
          entire grate area and minimize the need for stoking and resultant fly
          ash emis s ions.9 2

     8)   When the refuse is fully burned out, shut off the burner and shake
          grates to allow ashes to drop into an ashpit.  Do not empty ashpit
          until a new layer 6f refuse covers grates.97  This will minimize
          re-entrainment of fly ash.

     Maintenance procedures that will minimize emissions include:

     1)   Check and clean the burner every month according to the manufacturer's
           instructions.

     2)   Inspect all refractory, grates and dampers for leaks, cracks, and
          warping every month.  Leaking refractory can lead to intrusion of
          excess air, diminishing combustion temperatures and result in the
          generation of combustible gases, oils and tars.93

     3)   Clean grate openings every week.  This will avoid grate plugging with
          resultant underfire air control loss.

3.2.2  Emissions

     There is little in the literature relative to emissions from uncontrolled

single chamber incinerators.  This is due to several factors, including:

     1)   These units were popular at a time when there were few if any
          restrictions on particulate or gaseous emissions.

     2)   The uncontrolled units were banned, starting in Los Angeles in 1957,
          due to their noxious odors and visible emissions.  Specific stack
          measurement data did not play a significant role in this decision.

     Most of the data that is available was compiled in Los Angeles prior to

their ban on these units.  A summary of all emissions appears in Table 24.  A

list of conversion factors, Table 25, is also included for reference.  As

can be seen from the data, there is a wide range of values for most pollutant

emissions.  This reflects in part the lack of a standard test procedure for

any given pollutant, but more importantly the tremendous effect that operator


                                     69

-------
           TABLE 24.  UNCONTROLLED SINGLE CHAMBER INCINERATOR EMISSION DATA
                      EXPRESSED IN LB/TON CHARGED (gr/scf at 12% C02)

Pollutant
(reference)
Particulates
Sulfur Oxides
(as S02)
Carbon Monoxide
Hydrocarbons
(as Methane)
Nitrogen oxides
(as N02)
Aldehydes
(as Formaldehyde)
Organic acids
(as Acetic Acid)
Ammonia
Esters
Phenols
AP-42llt9 AP-4089 Stern, Vol
S.C.* F.F.f S.C.* F.F.f S.C.*
15 30 23.8(0.9) 7-76(0.27-2.27) 31
2;5 0.5 - - 1.4-2.3

20 2Q 197-991
15 15 - none
2 3 <0.1 - 3.9-4.6
5-64 - 0.03-2.7
<3 - 2.0-3.9
0.9-4 - 0.33-0.5
- - -
r
.II94
F.F.1"
26.2
0.5

-
-
0.1
4.6
22.4
0.4
21.5
0.1
J.A.P.C.A.
6(2)180
-
-

197-990
23-150
<0.1
5-64
>4
0.9-4.2
-
>8

t
S.C. = standard single chamber

F.F. = flue fed apartment single chamber

-------
                                 TABLE 25.  CONVERSION FACTORS98
                       Ib/ton      lb/1000 lb  lb/1000 lb   gr/st ft3   gr/stft3   g/Nm3
                       refuse         *e %fs   flue gas at    at 50%     at 12%    at ntp,
                    (as received)          .      12% C02    excess air     C02     7% C02
                                   excess air          ^                     z

Ib/ton
  refuse                  1          0.089        0.10
  (as received)
0.047
lb/1000 lb
  flue gas at 50%        11.27       1
  excess air

lb/1000 lb
  flue gas at            10.0        0.89
  12% C02

gr/st ft3
  at 50% excess air      21.31       1.93

gr/st ft3 scf
  at 12% C02             18.85       1.71

g/Nm3
  at ntp, 7% C02         15.0        1.36
1.12
0.52
            0.46
2.16
1.92
1.53
0.89
0.704
                       0.053
                                                                         0.585
           0.52
           1.12
                                                                                    0.067
0.74
                                                                                    0.66
                                                                                    1.42
                                                                                    1.26
                                                                         0.79

-------
supervision had over total emissions.  AIlittle supervised or completely un




supervised unit could emit pollutants in quantities from two to five  times fchose




of a closely adjusted incinerator.  This fact, coupled with the knowledge that




most of these units were simply ignited and then left to burn unattended,




resulted in the emission problems that led to the banning of these units.




     The highly variable nature of refuse has an important effect upon the type




and quantities of incinerator emissions as well.  Tables 26 and 2799  summarize




the potential inorganic and organic emissions and their possible sources.




     Of all the emissions listed in Table 24, the most significant for single




chamber units may be carbon monoxide.  It has been stated that "if turbulence




above a fuel bed is high enough to provide perfect mixing, no CO should be




found in the exit gases".98  Carbon monoxide can then be thought of as an indicatoi




of an operator's ability to provide sufficient combustion air, supplied in the




correct proportions and creating the needed turbulence for complete oxidation.




The varying degree of operator performance is reflected in the wide range of




CO emissions.




3.2.3  Modifications




     In an attempt to control the emissions from single chamber incinerators,




various modifications have been made to the basic design.  Much of the work in




this area has centered on upgrading existing flue fed apartment units as these




are the most common single chamber units still in use.  An examination of these




control techniques indicates they were all aimed at overcoming three basic




problems:   (1)  charging of refuse during the burning period (2) incomplete




combustion and destructive distillation and (3)  excessive draft.93  Charging




of refuse during the burning period was easily and economically eliminated




by installing solenoid locks on each of the charging doors.   These locks are





                                     72

-------
TABLE 26.  REFUSE ANALYSIS:  SUMMARY OF INORGANIC CONSTITUENTS99

Item
Sulfur oxides, SO , SO
Silicon dioxide, SiO
Magnesium oxide, MgO
Chromium oxide, Cr O
Iron oxide, Fe 0
Sodium oxide, Na O
Calcium oxide, CaO
Aluminum oxide, Al O
Potassium oxide, K 6
Boron oxide, BO
Lead Oxide, PbO
Tin oxides, SnO , SnO
Titanium oxide, TiO
Zirconium oxide, ZrO
Beryllium oxide, BeO
Nickel oxide, NiO
Copper oxides, CuO, Cu O
Manganese oxide, MnO
Cadmium oxide, CdO
Zinc oxide, ZnO
Chlorides, CI2 (acid and salts)
Fluorides, F (acid and salts)
Ammonia, NH
Nitrogen oxides, NOx

Glass and ceramics . Dirt
X K
X X
X X
X X
x *
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X









Sources
Metals Wood products Food wastes PI
XX X
x
X
X
X









X
X
X
X
X
X


X X
X X

-------
           TABLE 27.   REFUSE  ANALYSIS:   SUMMARY  OF  ORGANIC  CONSTITUENTS99


Item
Carbohydrates
lipids ffats)

Wood
X
X

Wood products
X
X
Sources
Food wastes Plants and grass Plastics
X X
X

Rubber Pressunzei

Acrylonttrile-butadiene-
 styrene polymers
Cellulose acetate
Cellulose acetate butyrate
Cellulose nitrate
Melamine formaldehyde
Polyethylene
Polyvinyl dichloride
Urea formaldehyde
Urethane
Polymethyl methacrylate
Polypropylene
Polystyrene
Polyvinyl acetate
Poiyvinyl chloride
Halogenated hydrocarbons
Polynuclear hydrocarbons

-------
activated by a switch located next to the incinerator.  The problem of incomplete

combustion and destructive distillation was addressed by the addition of an

afterburner and/or additional controls (scrubber, settling chamber) or the con-

version of the unit to a multichamber design.

     Typical modified configurations included:

     1)   Addition of a roof afterburner and a draft control damper (Figure 10).

     2)   Addition of a basement afterburner and a draft control damper
          (Figure 11).

     3)   Addition of overfire air manifold with a roof settling chamber
          (Figure 12).

     4)   Addition of overfire air manifold with a room scrubber or precipitator
          (Figure 13).

     5)   Addition of a separate effluent gas flue (Figure 14).

     6)   Installation of a multi-chamber unit, utilizing the existing flues
          (Figure 15).

     Each of these systems reduced emissions from the standard unmodified unit.

Typical emissions are shown in Tables 28 and 29, 89 for modifications (a) and

(b) listed above.  Representative reductions in emissions due to various modifi-

cations is listed in Table 30.  While there is a net reduction of pollutants

associated with each modification, the reduction may not be sufficient to meet

applicable standards.  The success of any control strategy should be analyzed on

a site-by-site basis, taking into account the operator expertise, and the type

and variability of the waste.

3.2.4  Fugitive Emissions

     Single chamber incinerator fugitive emissions can originate from the

following points:

     1)   ash cleaning - The daily cleaning of ashpits requires transferring
          very fine dust and ash into portable containers for ultimate disposal.
          This operation will generate particulate emissions proportional to
          the lack of care and effort expended in the transfer operation.

                                       75

-------
     2)   charging the unit - Each time the charging door is opened, fly ash can
          escape due to the change in the air ciculation inside the combustion
          chamber.  Airtight charging compartments utilizing guillotine or
          similar dampers will minimize this problem.

     3)   Leaks in the equipment of flues - Small holes in the equipment will
          result in futitive dust and odor emissions under positive draft
          conditions.

3.2.5  Summary

     The history of single chamber incinerators is one of fly ash emissions and

odors.  While theoretically capable of incinerating refuse,  these units were

more often' than>noti overcharged, charged with excessive amounts of garbage

or other wet refuse and usually left unattended.   The result has been a ban

on this type of unit and a movement toward more sophisticated and controlled

incineration.  While it has been possible to upgrade these units, the degree of

success in upgrading is also very closely related to incinerator operator

skill and therefore extremely site specific.
                                      76

-------
                                       CHARGING
                                       DOOR
                                       OVERFIRE
                                       AIR PORT
                                  CLEANOUT DOOR
                            UNOERFIRE
                            AIR PORT
Figure 10.  Flue-fed  incinerator modified by a  roof
             afterburner and a  draft control damper.89
                            77

-------
                                               ILECIRIC LOCK  IN OPEN
                                               POSITION FOR CHARGING
                                              CHUTE DOOR


                                              COOLING AIR  DUCT


                                              FIRST-FLOOR  LEVEL
                                               BAROMETRIC DAMPER
                                               STEEL  FRAME

                                               AIR HOLES


                                               PORTS  FOR VENTURI
                                               GAS BURNERS

                                               DAMPER WITH ORIFICES
                                               iSHOWN IN POSITION FOR
                                               CHARGING OF REFUSE i
                                                  NOTE   DURING THE  BURNING
                                                  CYCLE  THE CHUTE DOORS ARE
                                                  LOCKED AND THE DAMPER "ITH
                                                  ORIFICES  IS PLACED IN A
                                                  HORI/ONIAL POSITION
Figure  11.   Flue-fed  incinerator  modified by  an  afterburner
                at the  base  of  the flue.
                                                 89
                                       78

-------
                   Section A-A
                                           Section B-B
       (1) Low galvanlzed-wire screen.  (2)  High stainless-steel screen.
       (3) Roof settling  chamber (optional).   (4) Hopper door (locks
       optional).  (5)  Charging and gas flue.   (6) Flat hearth.
       (7) Self-cleaning  hearth.  (8) Inadequate grate.  (9) Enlarged
       grate.  (10) Outside overfire-air manifold and fan.  (11) Alternate
       inside manifold.   (12) Auxiliary gas  burner.  (13) Underfire-air
       register.
Figure  12.   Single-flue,  single-chamber incinerator  with  roof
               settling  chamber.   Shown at left is  an incinerator;
               at right,  an  upgraded  design. 95
                                    79

-------
                           Section A-A
                                            Section B-B
                   (1) Low galvanized-wire screen.  (2) Washer enclosure.
                   (3) Washer and induced-draft fan.   (A) Hopper door
                   (locks optional).  (5)  Charging and gas flue.  (6) In-
                   adequate grate area.   (7) Flat hearth.  (8) High
                   stainless-steel screen.  (9) Bypass damper with remote
                   control.  (10) Gas inlet to washer.  (11) Steep hearth.
                   (12) Enlarged grate area.   (13) Underfire-air register.
                   (lit) Outside overfire-air manifold and fan.  (15) Alter-
                   nate inside manifold.  (16) Auxiliary burner.
Figure  13.   Single-flue  incinerator with  washer or precipitator on roof.
               Shown at  left is  an  existing  incinerator,  at  right, an upgraded
               design.
                                          80

-------
               (1) Stainless-steel spark screen.  (2) Existing flue.
               (3) Hopper door.  (4) Incinerator.  (5) Scrubber and
               Induced-draft fan.   (6) Tight damper.  (7)  Cas-flue-
               contro]  damper.  (8) Building wall.   (9) Added gas
               flues.   (10) Existing shaft or duct.   (11)  Cleanout
               door.   (12) Charging-flue gate.
Figure  14.   Conversion  from single-flue to  double-flue  incinerator.
                                                                                    95
                                         81

-------
             SLIDING DUTCH
            REFUSE COLLECT!
            CHKBfR
                 SIStlEHI FLOOR
                                                          BtROIETRIC
                                   •ULTIPLE CHIIBER IKCIHERITOR '
Figure 15.   Flue-fed  incinerator  modified by the  installation of  a
              multiple-chamber incinerator,89
                                    82

-------
        TABLE 28.  PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM A TYPICAL FLUE-FED INCINERATOR MODIFIED WITH A
                   DRAFT CONTROL DAMPER AND A ROOF AFTERBURNER89
Test
designa-
tion
C-586-A1
C-5S6-A2
C-586-A3
C-546
•
Burning
rate,
Ib/hr
100
30
63
49
Particulate matter
Ib/ton
5.9
5.2
5. 6
1.2
gr /scf
at 12% C02
0.20
0. IS
0.20 -
0. 15
gr/scf
0.004
0.035
0.034
0.027
Afterburner
efficiency,
%
80
32
30
35
Average
oxygen
content,
To
12.1
11.6
12.7
9.5
Average
stack
volume,
scim
7bO
6QO
710
590
Average
outlet
temperature,
cp
1, 130
1, 240
1, 130
1, 560
oo
u>
             TABLE 29.  EMISSIONS FROM FLUE-FED INCINERATORS MODIFIED WITH A BASEMENT
                        AFTERBURNER AND DRAFT  CONTROL DAMPER89
Test
designa-
tion
C-619
C-822
Number
of
stories
4
6
Burning
rate,
Ib/hr
32
104
Particulate matter
Ib/ton
6. 1
6.5
gr/scf
at 12% CO2
0. 22
0.23
gr/scf
0.011
0.028
Organic
acids,
Ib/ton
5.2
5.9
Nitrogen
oxides,
Ib/ton
16. 0
4.2
Alde-
hydes,
Ib/ton
3. 1
1.8
Average
stack
volume,
scfm
970
1, 400
Average
temperature
at stack
outlet, °F
640
450

-------
TABLE 30.  EMISSIONS FROM FLUE-FED INCINERATOR94

Incinerator
Basic incinerator
With overfire jets added
With jets and gas burner added
With scrubber only added
With overfire jets and scrubber added
Particulates
Ib/ton charged
26.2
15.8
10.2
2.6
1.8
Noxious
gases
Ib/ton charged
49.6
32.2
14.6
38.8
25.2
                        84

-------
3.3  MULTICHAMBER INCINERATORS




     As a result of the performance problems of the single chamber incinerator,




substantial work has been done in the development of a satisfactory multi-




chamber incinerator design.  These investigations have culminated in the




development of  two basic types of multi-chamber units; the retort type as




shown  in Figure 16 and the  in-line design, as shown in Figure  17.  Other




multi-chamber incinerator configurations are commercially available, including




those  with vertically arranged chambers, L-shaped units and units with separated




chambers breeched together, however these may be considered as variations of




the  two basic designs.  Each basic style has certain characteristics with




regard to performance and construction that limit its application.  These charac-




teristics include (1) proportioning of the flame port and mixing chamber to




maintain adequate gas velocities within dimensional limitations imposed by the




particular type involved (2) maintenance of proper flame distribution over the




flame  port and  across the mixing chamber and (3) flame travel through the




mixing chamber  into the combustion chamber.^




     In both types of multi-chamber units the two stages of combustion are




carried out in  separate chambers.  Primary or solid phase combustion occurs in




the  ignition chamber followed by secondary or gaseous phase combustion in the




secondary combustion zone.  This secondary zone is composed of two parts, a




downdraft or mixing chamber and an up-pass expansion or final combustion chamber.




The  principles  of operation of these units are as follows:




     Drying, ignition and combustion occurs in the ignition chamber.  Volatile




components of the fuel are vaporized and partially oxidized in passing from




the  ignition chamber into the mixing chamber.  Secondary air is added in the




mixing chamber,  and this combined with elevated temperatures, turbulent mixing






                                      85

-------
                                               FUHE PORT
                                                                    MIX INC CHAMBER
                                                                    BURNER PORT
                                                                  MIXING CHAKBFR
                                                             CURIAIN Mil I'l.KT
Figure  16.   Cutaway of  a retort multiple-chamber incinerator
                                                                          89
                                      86

-------
               CHARGING DOOR
               WITH OVERFIRE
               AIR FOR I
          CtEANOUT DOORS KITH
          UNOERGRATE AIR PORTS
G,UTt<:
                                MIXING CHAMBER
                                                                   CURTAIN
                                                                   WALL PORT
     Figure  17.   Cutaway  of  an in-line multiple-chamber  incinerator.
                                                                                    89
                                            87

-------
resulting from restricted flow areas and changes in flow direction, arid

auxiliary burners as necessary, optimizes the gaseous phase reaction.  Finally

the gases pass through the curtain wall port, between the mixing and combustion

chambers, where they undergo additional changes in direction, accompanied by

expansion and final oxidation of combustibles.  Fly ash and other solid partic-

ulates are collected in the combustion chamber by wall impingement and simple

settling.  The gases then pass through a gas cooler, such as a water spray

chamber or scrubber and are finally discharged through a stack.  The gas cooler

may be omitted if stack materials can withstand the elevated gas temperatures.

     The retort multi-chambered unit derives its name from the return flow

of effluent through the U shaped gas path and the side by side arrangement of

component chambers.  Retort units offer the advantages of compactness and

structural economy as the result of their cubic shape and minimal exterior wdll

length.  They perform more efficiently than the in-line models in the capacity

range of 50 to 750 pounds per hour.^2  In these small sizes, the nearly square

cross sections of the ports and chambers function well because of the abrupt

turns in this design.  In retort units sized greater than 1,000 pounds per

hour, the increased size of the flow cross section reduces the effective

turbulance in the mixing chamber and results in inadequate flame distribution

and penetration and in poor secondary mixing.  Retort units are distinguished

by the following.

     1.   The arrangement of the chambers causes the combustion gases to
          flow through 90 degree turns in both lateral and vertical directions.

     2.   The return flow of the gases permits the use of a common wall
          between the primary and secondary combustion stages.

     3.   Mixing chambers, flame ports, and curtain wall ports have length
          to width ratios in the range of 1:1 to 2.4:1.
                                      88

-------
     4.   Bridge wall thickness under the flame port is a function of
          dimensional requirements in the mixing and combustion chambers.

     This results in construction that is somewhat unwieldy in incinerators

with capacities exceeding 1000 pounds per hour.

     In-line incinerators are so named because the various chambers follow

one another in a line.  They are better suited to high capacity operation than

the retort, functioning best at capacities greater than 1000 pounds per hour.

In line units with capacities of less than 750 pounds per hour suffer from

several problems.  The shortness of the grate length tends to inhibit flame

propagation across the width of the ignition chamber.  This, coupled with thin

flame distribution over the bridge wall, may result in the passage of smoke from

smoldering refuse straight through the incinerator and out the stack without

adequate mixing and secondary combustion.  In addition the shorter grates on

the small, in-line units create maintenance problems in that careless stoking

and grate cleaning can break down the upsupported bridge wall.

     Distinguishing features of the in-line incinerator include:

     1.   Flow of the combustion gases is straight through the incinerator
          with 90 degree turns only in the vertical direction.

     2.   The in-line arrangement is readily adaptable to installations that
          require separated spacing of the chambers for operating, maintenance
          or other reasons.

     3.   All ports and chambers extend across the full width of the
          incinerator and are as wide as the ignition chamber.  Length to
          width ratios of the flame port, mixing chamber, and curtain wall
          port flow cross sections range from 2:1 to 5:1.

     Control of the combustion reaction, and reduction in the amount of mechan-

ically entrained fly ash are essential in the efficient design of a multi-

chamber incineration.  Both the physical parameters (Furnance volume, grate

area,  etc.)  and the operating parameters (Gas flow rates, temperatures, etc.)
                                      89

-------
have been optimized.  Formulas have been developed for the physical parameters




from data available through tests of units of varying proportions.  Figures 18




and 19 illustrate typical relationships developed in this area.  An entire set




of design factors for both retort and in-line units is presented in Table 31.




Substantial work has also gone into the study of operating parameters.101"104




These studies have indicated that the velocity of the underfire air was the




variable that most strongly influenced particulate emission rate.  The data




available were correlated by W = 0.48V°'548 where.W is the pounds of particulate




emitted per ton of refuse burned, and V is the underfire air rate in SCFM per




square foot of grate area.  This relationship is presented in Figure 20.




However, there is a limit on the extent to which the undergrate air rate can




be reduced.  A lower air rate will reduce the burning rate, and will increase




the amount of unburned refuse pyrolysis products leaving the top of the bed.




This could potentially increase the particulate and gaseous emission rates.




There is also a minimum undergrate air requirement necessary to protect the  ,




grate from plugging.  A balance between these factors has been reached arid the




design factors normally used are:  underfire air 10 percent; overfire air 70




percent and mixing chamber air 20 percent of total air required.  Air inlet




ports have been sized to correspond to these air flow rates.




     The mechanism for this underfire air rate affect on emission includes




(1) particle entrainment-ash particles may be entrained  when the velocity of




the gases through the fuel bed exceeds the terminal velocity of the particles.




The terminal velocity of ash particles is shown in Figure 21.  For typical




underfire air velocities of 10 SCFM per square foot of grate area to 100 SCFM




per square foot, it is expected that particles up to 70y will be entrained at
                                      90

-------
10.000
                                                FOR DRY REFUSE AND HIGH HEATING
                                                VALllfS, USF +IO%CURVE.
                                                 OH MOIST REFUSE  AND 1.0* HUH KG
                                                VALUES, USr. -io%CURVE.
                                      20              30
                                 GRATE LOADING (,LG>, Ib/ft2-hr
          Figure  18.  Relationship of grate loading  to combustion rate
                       for multiple-chamber  incinerators.*^
                                         91

-------

q

7
G

c.

•*-
•~< 4
i
h-
i
° 3
UJ J
X

I
o
tr
1




1























...
• '* .^^
•**/£*
/?-'
*























( • *
•'"/'.
t*'



















	





(L,,:
























•
' J
s t
.'







































.•
**(' *
*' r
xf *

••
1
























































^
^
*
























*
i/

i



















0\0|
\° .•
.^~) f«*

.."*/X\
•"* V^^'**O
X^^ •'* X1^








..•''
" J'
^^ .*

.•*
0

>"* VV^ !
\V^
o~
















^••1
.•














X















X
.















-^
-*














^
J












4

HA "* ( A „ 1 '
"A - 3 ( HG '


1
1


-





••
^






















4





















V ^X

-------
    TABLE  31.    MULTIPLE-CHAMBER INCINERATOR  DESIGN  FACTORS89
            Item and symbol
Primary combmticm zone]
  Grate loading, LQ
                                                    Recommended value
                                           Allowable
                                           deviation
    ate
  Average arch height, HA
  Length-to-width ratio (approx):
   Retort
   In-line
10 Log Rc; lb/hr-ft2 where Rc equals the
refuse combustion rate in Ib/hr (refer to
Figure 341)
Rc    LG; ft2
4/3 (Ar)4/'U; ft (refer to Figure 342)
 Up to 500 Ib/hr,2:1; over 500 Ib/hr,  1. 75:1
 Diminishing from about 1.7:1  'or 750 Ib/hr
 to about 1:2 for 2,000 Ib/hr capacity. Over-
 square  acceptable in units of more than 11 ft
 ignition chamber length.
                                             + 10%
                                                                                         10%
 Secondary combustion zone:
  Gas velocities:
    Flame port at 1,000°F, Vpp
    Mixing chamber at 1,000°F, VMC
    Curtain wall port at 950°F,
    Combustion chamber at 900 °F,
  Mixing chamber downpass length,
  from top of ignition chamber  arch to top
  of curtain wall port.
  Length-to-width ratios of flow cross
  sections:
    Retort, mixing chamber,  and  combus-
    tion chamber
    In-line
 55 ft/sec
 25 ft/sec
 About 0. 7 of mixing chamber velocity
 5 to 6 ft/sec; always less than. 10 ft/sec
 Average arch height,  ft
 Range -  1.3:1 to 1. 5:1
                                          Fixed by gas velocities due to constant
                                          incinerator width
                                            +. 20%
                                            + 20%
                                              20%
 Combustion air:
  Air requirement batch-charging opera-
  tion
  Combustion air distribution:
   Overfire air ports
   Underfire air ports
   Mixing chamber air ports
  Port sizing, nominal inlet velocity
  pressure
  Air inlet ports oversize factors:
   Primary air inlet
   Underfire air inlet
   Secondary air inlet
 Basis:  300% excess air.  50% air require-
 ment admitted through adjustable ports;
 50% air requirement met by open charge
 door and leakage
70% of total air required
10% of total air required
20% of total air required
0. 1 inch water gage
1.2
1. 5 for over 500 Ib/hr to 2. 5 for 50 Ib/hr
1. 0 for over 500 Ib/hr to 5. 0 for 50 Ib/hr
Furnace temperature:
  Average temperature, combustion
  products
1,000°F
                                              20°F
Auxiliary burners:
  Normal duty requirements:
   Primary burner
   Secondary burner
3,000 to 10,000 lBtu per lb of moi8ture
4, 000 to 12, 000 /the «fu«
Draft requirements:
 Theoretical stack draft,  DT
 Available primary air induction draft,
 D^.  (Assume equivalent to inlet ve-
 locity pressure.)
 Natural draft stack velocity,  V^
0.15 to 0. 35 Inch water gage
0. 1 inch water gage

Less than 30 ft/sec  at 900°F
                                              93

-------
 10.0

  8.0

  6.0


  4.0
•£2.0
o
  1.0
n>
-3
O
  0.6
T3
c
  0.4
  0.2
  0.1
               — PHS Correlation for 25% and 50% Moisture Fuels
                       4     6  8  10       20        40

                    SCFM Underfire Air Per Sq. Ft. Grate Area
60  80 100
       Figure 20.  Effect of underfire air rate on  emission
                    factors.105   Data points correspond to ash
                    content of PHS emission rates for high volatile
                    fuels.
                                 94

-------
   10 r——
      Air Velocity
        at 2000° F
      For Full-Scale
       Incinerator
  10
u
  10
"ra
c
  10
  10
                      I
                   IP.H.S. Small-Scale
    1000
100              10

Particle Diameter (Microns)
    Figure 21.   Particle fluidization velocities
                  (terminal velocities)105

-------
the lowest velocities and up to 400y at the highest.  Refuse with a high




percentage of small particle size, low density ash or high total ash content




will increase the entrainment affect of high underfire air rates.




(2) bed temperatures - limiting the underfire air will maintain a relatively




low fuel bed temperature.  This will minimize the volatilization and subsequent




recondensation of metallic salts, which contribute to the particulate emissions.




     Control of total excess air rates and therefore combustion temperatures




is also important in minimizing particulate emissions.  Combustibles have been




estimated to account for 15 percent by weight of the particulate emitted from




a furnace.105  To insure complete burnout of these particles in the 1 to 4




second residence time of conventional furnaces, the combustion temperature must




be maximized by limiting excess air, without a decrease in combustion zone




mixing.  The time requirement for combustible particulate burn out at various




excess air/temperature conditions is shown in Figure 22.  Since 70 percent




of total air requirements are supplied through the overfire air ports, the




control of this air will have the strongest effect on combustion zone temperature,




To maximize the combustion affects of overfire air, the charging door should be




located at the end of the ignition chamber furthest from the flame port, and




the fuel moved through the ignition chamber from front to rear.  In this way




the volatiles from the fresh charge pass through the flames of the stabilized




and heated portion of the burning fuel bed.  Good control of the burning rate




through proper charging of refuse and correct adjustment of combustion air




supply ports will reduce the need for stoking to only that necessary to move




the fuel bed forward prior to introducing a fresh charge.  As stoking will




increase the amount of entrained particulate, this practice will serve to




minimize emissions.
                                       96

-------
        0.1
       1              10

Particle Size (Microns)
                                                     100
Figure 22.   Times required  for combustion  of
             carbonaceous particles.105
                      97

-------
     Studies on multi-chamber incinerator operation101'102  utilizing a

fixed 25 percent moisture charge have also addressed the affect of various

operating parameters on gaseous emissions.  The results of these studies

indicate the following effects:

     1.   Hydrocarbons - at low (50 percent) excess air conditions, brief
          surges of hydrocarbons in the flue gases occurred when flash burning
          resulted from (1) introduction of fuel to the incinerator and
          (2) agitation of the fuel burning bed.  These effects are shown
          in Figure 23.  The hydrocarbon surges have been attributed  to
          a lowering of oxygen content in the fuel bed combustion zone
          to levels which preclude complete combustion.  At higher (150 percent)
          excess air levels, levels of hydrocarbons in excess of 30 PPM
          (lower level of detectability of the measuring system) could not
          be detected.  This is shown in Figure 24.  At this excess air
          level there was no significant difference in the total amount of
          hydrocarbons produced by varying (1) the fuel charging rate
          (2) the stoking interval (3) the distribution of combustion air or
          (4) the pounds of fuel per charge.

     2.   Carbon Monoxide - Carbon Monoxide generally occurred under the same
          test conditions that produced hydrocarbons, that is, when insufficient
          oxygen was available for complete combustion.  At no time was
          there a continuous measurable carbon monoxide concentration and the
          maximum peak concentration was 5 percent CO, occurring immediately
          after the fuel was charged-

     3.   Nitrogen oxides T- variables found to be significant in the formation
          of nitrogen oxides were (1) temperature (2) excess air and  (3) feed
          rate (grate loading)-  The theoretical NOx- excess air relationship
          is shown in Figure 25 for various temperatures.  In tests made
          on an actual prototype incinerator101, it was found that the con-
          centration of nitrogen oxides did not increase linearly with
          temperature but did  increase as a logarithmic function of temperature.
          This relationship is shown in Figures 26 for 50 percent excess air
          and Figure 27 for 150 percent excess air.  Increasing the excess
          combustion air resulted in increased formation of nitrogen oxides
          for a given grate loading, despite the accompanying reduction in
          temperature.  The effect of decrease in temperature with its
          corresponding decrease in oxides of nitrogen is apparently a less
          significant shift than the increase in oxides of nitrogen due to
          higher excess combustion air.  This effect is significant, from an
          operational standpoint, in that practices of reducing furnace
          temperature through  the use of high levels of excess air may result
          in increased total discharge of oxides of nitrogen.  As in the case
          of excess air, an increase in feed rate resulted in an increase
          in the formation of  oxides of nitrogen.  No distinguishing effects
                                      98

-------
                                       22 23 24 25 26
                      TIME-MINUTES
Figure 23.  Effect  of stoking and charging of  carbon
            monoxide and hydrocarbon production  -  at
            50 percent excess air.101
                         99

-------
               •—rnrn—i—ionTFTT  i rn  i  i rrr  i
                     TIME- MINUTES
Figure 24.  Effect of stoking  and  charging on carbon
            monoxide and hydrocarbon production - at
            150 percent excess air.101
                       100

-------
                              .3 NOX /1,000,000 BTU
CO
                       MOL NOX/MOL ^TD!CHiOMETRiC 0,
            Figure 25.  The theoretical NO   -  excess  air  relationship.
                                                                       106

-------
             ,0 	1_L_1.J	I- -I	I	-L--J-—L	1	1	L
              I SCO  I5OO   I70O  I»OO  2K>0  2300  2500 Z7OO
                   GAS TEMPERATURE AT BRIDGE WALL,*F
Figure 26.   Relationship of  nitrogen oxides to
              temperature at 50 percent excess com-
              bustion  air level (all  samples).101
                    , - LOO NOZ I,,.I.DC00.05« TCFI..OTM t0,,ro
                t- I  I	1—I	I	I I  I  I  I  I  I
             BOO  IOOO  1200  1400  IhOO   HIT)
                   GAS TEMPERATURE AT BRIDGE WAU . -I
Figure 27.   Relationship of  nitrogen oxides  to
              temperature at 150 percent excess com-
              bustion air level  (all  samples).101
                         102

-------
          on N02 were produced by (1)  pounds of fuel per charge (2) stoking
          interval (3) percent secondary air and (4) percent underfire air.

     4.   Sulfur oxides - the generation of sulfur oxides is directly related
          to the sulfur content of the waste charged.  Studies of municipal
          waste105 indicate that typical waste contains only 0.1 percent sulfur.
          Commercial refuse would be expected to contain a similar sulfur
          content.  For industrial waste, an assessment of the waste composition
          must be made in order to determine sulfur oxides emissions.  As with
          fossil fuel burning plants,  approximately 1 to 3 percent of the
          sulfur may appear as 803.

     5.   Hydrogen chloride - in addition to its health effects, emissions
          of hydrogen chloride (HC1) can cause corrosion in scrubbers and
          stacks.  It appears in incinerator effluents as a combustion
          product of halogenated polymers, primarily polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
          and polyvinylidene chloride.  While these materials appear in
          relatively small quantities  in municipal and commercial waste,
          industrial waste streams may contain high concentrations in the form
          of trimmings, product rejects, packaging, etc.  Incineration of
          PVC yields 1,180 pounds of HCL per ton of pure resin.100  An
          estimate of HCL emissions can therefore by made by an analysis of
          the waste charged.  Again, such an assessment must be made on a
          case-by-case basis for the industrial sector.

     6.   Aldehydes - most commonly found as formaldehyde and acrolein, they
          are formed by the partial oxidation of heating fats and oils in
          the refuse.  Like carbon monoxide, aldehydes are an indication of
          the completeness of the combustion process and will be minimized
          with tight combustion control.

     7.   Organic acids and esters - formed in the breakdown of foods, partic-
          larly the fats and oils in foods, these substances will be found
          in the effluent of all food-consuming incinerators.

     A comparison of the data for multi-chamber units, found in Table 32 with

those of single chamber units, reported in Table 24, indicates the following:

     1.   Particulates - multi-chamber units produce roughly one-half the
          particulates of standard single chamber models and one quarter those
          of the apartment flue fed unit.  This net reduction reflects the use
          of an afterburner to incinerate fly ash in the combustion chamber,
          and the longer residence times and higher combustion temperatures
          which have been designed into these units.
                                    103

-------
TABLE 32.  UNCONTROLLED MULT I -CHAMBER INCINERATOR EMISSION DATA EXPRESSED IN
           LB/TON CHARGED (gr/scf at 12% C02)"
 Pollutant
(reference)
»« /r>89
AP-40^
                                               92
                                               ^2
                                   J.A.P.C.A.   J.A.P.C.A.
                                                11(8)1Q2
                                                                         A.D.L.
                                                                        TSpoTtlO*
Particulates

Sulfur oxides
(as 802)
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
(as Methane)
Nitrogen oxides
(as N02)
Aldehydes
(as Formaldehyde)
Organic acids
(as adetic acid)
 7      1.7 -8.4-   (0.27-*185)

 2.5        -      (0 - .028)

10         2.90    (0 - .02)
 3      0.14-4.20       -
                                               0.96-8.6    2.6-84.0    0.5  ^10,5
                                               (0.34-.27)  (.04-1.94)
                                                   -           -       0.48 - 1.54

                                                0 - 28     0 - 143.5   0 - 233
                                                0 -2.5 .    0 -  13.4   0.09 - 6.3
                    0.8-3.1   (0,000017-0.107)1,6-2.9    1.8-5.7     0.05 -  .65
        0.14-.85   (3xlO"7-.005)
        1.0-10.5  (0.0005-0.071)
                                                           0.005-0.32  0.001 -  .84
                                                                       0.06  -=.16

-------
     2.   Sulfur oxides - inasmuch as they are liberated in direct proportion
          to the refuse sulfur content, these emissions are unrelated to
          incinerator type.

     3.   Carbon monoxide - again there is a reduction of one-half the emissions
          of a single chamber design.  This reflects the increased turbulence
          provided by the multi-chamber design which provides more complete
          oxidation of the carbon particles in the refuse.

     4.   Hydrocarbons - these compounds exhibit up to an 80 percent reduction
          in emissions over single chamber emissions.  Since hydrocarbons are
          volatilized in the ignition chamber, this reduction indicates the
          more complete oxidation that results from better overfire air control
          and resultant temperature control in this chamber and the effectiveness
          of a secondary burner in incinerating the hydrocarbons in the com-
          bustion chamber.

     5.   Nitrogen oxides - these compounds are the only pollutants to show
          an increase over single chamber emissions.  This is attributable
          to the higher flame temperatures of multi-chamber units.

     6.   Aldehydes, organic acids, ammonia, esters, phenols - these substances
          are all essentially due to incomplete combustion of the refuse.
          Their reduction (and elimination in some cases) again is an indicator
          of the more thorough combustion that occurs in the multi-chamber
          design.

     Fugitive emission points for multi-chamber units are identical to those

of single chamber designs.  However, multi-chamber manufacturers1''7"1'^ do

offer optional equipment that can minimize emissions.  This equipment includes:

     1.   Automatic charging equipment:  the waste is loaded into a hydraulically
          powered delivery system equipped with doors that isolate the ignition
          chamber from the ambient air during charging (Figure 28).  This
          system provides for closer combustion air control in addition to
          eliminating fugitive emissions that normally escape during the
          charging cycle.

     2.   Automatic ash removal system - available in wet or dry models -
          these systems either move the ash in an airtight system (dry) or
          pass the ash through a water reservoir (wet) as it is removed from
          the ashpit.  Either system minimizes the escape of entrained ash
          particles during ash disposal.

     Auxilliary gas burners are an integral part of multi-chamber unit design.

These burners are generally fired with either natural gas or manufactured

gas as liquid fuel fired burners have demonstrated operating difficulties with

                                      105

-------
LOADER
1 cu. yd.
3 cu. yd.
4.75 cu. yd.
A
9' 4"
15'0"
16' 8"
B
2'9"
3' 6"
4' 10"
c
TO"
8'0"
11'0"
D
2' 9"
5' 8"
5' 2"
USED WITH MODEL
A-24 thru A-39
A-39 thru A-50
A-39 thru A-50
                                        automatic in-line loaders
                                        offer  a wide  range of
                                        features:

                                        • Self-contained hydraulic power
                                          supply
                                        • Fully automatic cycle
                                        • Manual control over-ride
                                        • Safe double door system
                                        • Interlock by  temperature and
                                          time
                                        • Cycle failures alarm
                                        • Heavy duty steel frame
                                        • Refractoried  guillotine door
                                        • Custom designed controls sys-
                                          tems  can   be   supplied  to
                                          operate in conjunction  with
                                          existing waste handling systems
Figure 28.  Automatic  in-line  loaders.
                                           108

-------
both the burner and the fuel.92  If natural gas is unavailable, distillate oil




(grades 1 or 2) must be used.as heavy residual oil requires additional pre-




heating equipment and has demonstrated difficulty in completing combustion




within the available furnace space.110  Most multi-chamber units will utilize




two burners, one in the combustion chamber which should maintain a minimum




temperature of 1800°F,11:1  and one in the mixing chamber, which should maintain




a minimum temperature of 1300°F to 1400°F.110  Careful consideration should be




given when specifying burner sizes as tests have shown112 that burners will




not provide maximum incineration if they (1) are inadequately sized, (2) give




too short a retention time for the flue gases or (3) supply too much combustion




air for the required 1300°F  to 1400°F temperatures.  Incinerators burning only




paper waste and other self sustaining combustibles will often forego the use




of a burner in the combustion chamber.  If this primary burner is utilized it




should be located sufficiently high so that it will clear the highest point




of the waste.  This location assures that the radiation from the burner flame




will heat, dry and speed ignition from the top of the refuse charge and the




burner flame will incinerate vapors and smoke emanating from the burning refuse.




For waste with a high moisture content, such as pathological waste, the




primary burner should be located closer to the grates as this type of charge




is more compact and more difficult to incinerate, and a lower burner position




will provide for more effective incineration.  Auxilliary burners should be




sized, in accordance with the Incinerator Institute of America Standards




(Table 1) for the highest moisture content refuse to be incinerated.




3.3.1  Modifications




     When properly operated with primary and secondary burners, the multi-




chamber incinerator is capable of meeting most current air quality standards.
                                     107

-------
However, experience has shown that due to lack of supervision,  and  carefully

dilineated operating and maintenance procedures, an additional  control  device

is required.  While control devices and their efficiencies will be  discussed

in a separate section of this report, the device that has historically  been

used for particulate control bears mentioning at this time.

     1.   Scrubbers - the two types most commonly found on multi-chamber
          incinerators are (1) wetted baffle-spray system and  (2) wet
          scrubbers.  In the wetted baffle system the gas velocity  is slowed
          down to less than 10 feet per second and the combustion flue  gases
          are flooded from a spray system.  The contact between the water and
          the fly ash removes the particulates to the bottom of the chamber
          where they are washed to the sewer or to a settling tank.  Particulate
          removal efficiencies have found to range from 10 to 50 percent for
          this equipment.111  Pressure drop for the wetted baffle is in the
          range of 0.3 to 0.6 inches of water pressure.  This pressure  drop
          has been found insufficient to control particulate emissions  from  a
          standard Multi-chamber unit,112  and operating alone  this system
          cannot be expected to meet particulate emission standards.  Low energy
          scrubbers, those with pressure drops of 2 to 10 inches water  gauge,
          have successfully reduced incinerator emissions to acceptable levels
          and are the most common add-on modification to multi-chamber  units. A
          typical unit is shown in Figure 29.   These units operate  with col-
          lection efficiencies of 90 percent at the aformentioned pressure drop
          and are capable of meeting most particulate standards.  The main
          disadvantages of these units are the corrosion problems that  arise fron
          absorption of chemicals from the gas stream,  causing  the  scrubber water
          to become highly acidic.   This problem is normally overcome by using
          once-through water system and discharging the spent water to  a municipal
          sewer.
                               AIR INLET
                    Figure 29.  Low energy scrubber.96
                                     108

-------
     Not all modifications to multi-chamber units involve cleaning the stack




gas effluent, yet they do aid in reducing emissions.  These modifications




include (1) combustion air supply - forced overfire air and an automatic




draft control system have been used to promote turbulence in the ignition




chamber and to constantly adjust for draft changes respectively.  The affect




of primary chamber draft on particulate emissions is shown in Figure 30.




Since insufficient or excess combustion air causes high particulate emissions




and low combustion temperatures, the automatic draft control, usually in the




form of a barometric damper, is a necessary pollution limiting device.




(2) automatic controls - an automatic timer can be set to allow for adequate




pre-heating of the incinerator with both primary and secondary burners.  If




the unit is equipped with thermocouples, this timer can also insure that




minimum combustion temperatures of 1200 F to 1400°F are maintained by activating




the burners when necessary.  This system can also include a control over the




flue gas scrubber, to insure it is operated whenever there is smoldering refuse




and not just during the burning cycle.  Finally, a master control can be




installed to lock the charging door for a preset time after charging, therby




insuring each batch charge is given sufficient time for combustion.




     The purpose of automatic controls is to relieve the operator of as much




control over the incineration process as possible and thereby minimize the




excess emissions that are due to lack of proper supervision.




3.3.2  Operating and Maintenance Procedures




     It is characteristic of the well-designed multi-chamber incinerator that




emission control is built in.  For all practical purposes the discharge of




solid and gaseous pollutants is almost entirely dependent on the actions of the




operator.   As with single chamber designs, the multi-chamber incinerator should
                                      109

-------
                  0.1        0.2        0.3
                    Primary chamber draft, in. H20
0.4
Figure  30.  Effect of primary crusher draft  on
             particulate emissions.112
                         110

-------
be operated and serviced according to a set operating and maintenance procedure.
                                                                           Q O
These procedures, essentially the same as for single chamber units, include  :

     1.   Clean out grate and ashpit.

     2.   Close charging door and ashpit door.

     3.   Open overfire air port, secondary air port and undergrate air port.

     4.   Ignite mixing chamber burner and preheat mixing chamber for 15
          minutes.

     5.   Open charging door; charge^material to fill chamber 1/2 to 3/4 full.

     6.   Ignite material on grate at top rear of pile and close charging
          door.

     7.   Turn on ignition chamber burner if very moist or wet material is
          charged.

     8.   Before adding more material to the burning pile in the incinerator.

          a.  Wait until burning pile fills less than 1/2 the chamber.

          b.  Push burning pile to rear of grates (do this gently without causing
              bits of burning rubbish to fly off the pile).

          c.  Charge new material on front portion of grates.  Do not put new
              material on top of the burning pile.

     9.   Operation during burndown:  close all ports, ignite ignition chamber
          burner, leave it on until only ash is left on grate.  Leave mixing
          chamber burner on until all smoking of material on grate is stopped,
          then shut off.  Maintenance procedures are identical to those for
          single chamber design.  If a scrubber is installed, it should be
          inspected every week to insure that all structural members have not
          been corroded by the acid gases emitted by the incinerator.  The
          induced draft fan that is installed in conjunction with the scrubber
          should be inspected monthly also, as the acidic nature of scrubber
          water can rapidly deteriorate the fan blades.

     The development of the multi-chamber incinerator design has resulted in

a decrease in 50 percent for virtually all air pollutants over single chamber

units.  The key  to the successful operation, however, remains in the hands of

the conscientious, knowledgable operator.  If a unit has been properly designed

for the quantity and quality of refuse it will incinerate, all applicable emission

                                      111

-------
limitations can be met with proper operation,  those systems which utilize




automatic controls to regulate operational parameters have demonstrated  improvifc




combustion conditions and reduced operational problems with  the  incineration



       119
system.A if-




3..4  CONTROLLED AIR INCINERATION




     The inability of single and multi-chambered incinerators to meet Federal,




State and local particulate emissions requirements without the use of a




scrubber or some other air pollution control device has led to the develop-




ment of the controlled air and starved air incinerators.  Controlled air




incineration is not a new concept since it employs all the various processes




found in conventional incineration.  What is unique is the manner in which the


                *-

combustion process is controlled to minimize gaseous and particulate stack




emissions.  Starved air incineration, while generally classified as a controlled




air incinerator is a distinct type.  The difference between a starved air and




a controlled air incinerator lies not in the total amount of air supplied but




in the percentage supplied to the primary combustion chamber.  These differences




are shown in Table 33.  While the terms controlled air and starved air are




generally reported interchangeably, we must keep in mind that strictly speaking




a controlled air unit is essentially a conventional multi-chamber incineratot




with tight control on the air supply while a starved air unit is a form of




pyrolysis in which the primary chamber operates with sub-stoichiometric air




quantities.  In this section, we will use the, terms interchangeably, but in




all cases we will be discussing starved air units.




     A typical controlled air unit is shown in Figure 31.  The unit consists




of two distinct refractory lined chambers, the first stage or primary chamber




in which a reducing atmsophere is maintained and a second stage or secondary






                                      112

-------
    TABLE 33.   INCINERATOR COMBUSTION AIR FLOWS113



Underfire air
Overfire air
Secondary air
Total air
Percent
Conventional
40%
280%
80%
400%
of theoretical air
Starved air
48%
0%
232%
280%
Controlled air
48%
186%
46%
280%

Note:  Represents conventional incinerator operating
       with 1200 F exhaust temperature.   Starved air
       and controlled air incinerators operating with
       1600 F exhaust temperature.  Type 1 waste.
       No heat losses.
                          113

-------





TCZ (


.
i

1

*•
V
-
.-
i.i -
/' V
/
' 1
/ \
I I 11
	 ., \


[•'

r'
t '
r.
t
» •
t- •
i:
                                  SECONDARY
                                 -FLAME
                                  ENVELOPE
                   - ' -^ >r '^.'  "^v • ^
                                '"
      mi >T y A ir (
           n f l''orccd ,•
 "l  StCOIlJ.M1.' A j,- ( I'.llll tlM'.'if)
 H. Set (tnii.'ii y A tr (Kri' i .inii'^J)
 ')  l.fflucni
10. SnpplcmtMitiir> I IK'|
I I  Air-t'uel Mixlurr (I'.iri t-.l)
Figure  31.    Two-stage,  starved  air  incinerator.
                                                                 113
                              114

-------
chamber where an oxidizing atmosphere is present.  The performance of the anti-




pollution features of the system depends upon controlling the conditions in




these two chambers.  The waste is charged into the primary chamber where igni-




tion takes place.  Unlike conventional single and multi-chamber units, this




chamber is not supplied with sufficient air for complete combustion (hence,




the term "starved air").  The primary chamber reaction is controlled by limiting




the introduction of combustion air to an amount which will give partial oxida-




tion of the waste in the chamber.  Generally it is the fixed carbon in the




waste which is oxidized, releasing heat.  This heat causes a pyrolysis reaction




of the volatile fraction of the waste which results in a dense combustible




smoke.  This smoke will then pass onto the second stage of the unit.  The




primary chamber can then be thought of as containing four zones, each charact-




erized by a different phenomenon:  the ash bed, the char bed, the pyrolysis




zone and the overfire zone.  Refer to Figure 32 for a schematic of the




primary chamber.  These zones will be present for any waste material regardless




of its chemical composition, physical states, water content and ash content,




although  the size of each zone will vary with the type of waste charged.  The




porous ash bed is an inert region composed of the inorganic, incombustible




fraction of the waste which accumulates at the bottom of the chamber.  The




char bed is the region where the char (or fixed carbon) fraction of waste is




oxidized.   The pyrolysis region is comprised of the waste in various states




of gasification; that is, the region where the endothermic pyrolysis of the




volatile fraction and the vaporization of the moisture fraction of the waste




occur.   Finally,  the overfire zone comprises the remaining volume and is the
                                      115

-------
           OVERFIRE
          PYROLYSIS  ZONE /
                                WALLf,
Figure 32.  One-dimensional schematic of
           controlled air first  stage.113
                 116

-------
region through which the gaseous smoke must pass through before exiting.   It




should be noted that unlike multichamber units, no overfire air enters  into




the primary chamber in starved air units.




     Upon charging, a particle of waste gradually settles as mass is removed -




first water and volatiles in the pyrolysis zone, then carbon in the char bed




until it comes to rest at the ash bed interface.




     As the underfire air rises up through the primary chamber, it oxidizes




carbon in the char bed with an increase in temperature and picks up hydrocarbons




and water vapor in the pyrolysis zone with a decrease in temperature, before




exiting at the top as smoke.




     Since only a fraction of the total air required for combustion (typically




25 to 50 percent) is supplied under  the waste bed, the reactions in the primary




chamber are mild, the air stream velocities are low and hence very little  fly




ash is entrained by the smoke.  A change in the underfire air rate and there-




fore the amount of theoretical (stoichiometric) air supplied to the chamber will




drastically alter the performance of this first stage.  The effect of this




change on various operating and emission parameters is shown in Figure 33.




While the heat released in the primary chamber is normally sufficient to self-




sustain the partial oxidation reactions, it may be necessary to supply auxiliary




fuel when the moisture content of the waste exceeds 25 percent.




     The volatile gases from the primary chamber subsequently enter the after-




burner section where additional air  in injected, the mixture is ignited and




the smoke is oxidized.  If the gases are at a sufficiently high temperature,




they will ignite spontaneously as the smoke generated in the first stage is




combustible and will be the fuel for the second stage.  Additional fuel must




be used only as a pilot or as a supplement when the smoke is not rich enough







                                      117

-------
CHAMBER
EMISSION
LflVEL
TC-MPEflATUHE
 QUANTITY
  OF
 WASTt
  ASMOKE a CONDENSABLE*

 /\
 1   \  i

  /•TOTAL MASS
/w    *TOTAL PHA3£ CMAN8E
L j
                      MASS
                      MASS VOLATILIZED
                   \   «JHQXIDI2£D)
                            ,. ASH
                     100%
               TOTAL CHAMBER AIR SUPPLIED
               PgRCENT  OF  3TOICHIOMKTRIC
  Figure  33.  Chamber behavior  as  function of
               chamber air supplied when  burning
               constant mass of  waste.
                     118

-------
to sustain combustion.  The combustion temperature in the afterburner section




is established by the amount of air injected.  The tight range to which the




temperatures in both secondary and primary chambers are held is shown on




Figure 34, for a standard controlled air design.  The temperature and reten-




tion time have to be sufficient to completely burn the hydrocarbon gases and




to also burn  any solid combustible material exhausting from the main chamber.




Temperatures in the secondary chamber are normally limited to less than 2500°F115




in order to minimize nitrogen oxides production and in the interest of equip-




ment durability.  On the lower end, temperatures of at least 1400°F are main-




tained to provide for complete oxidation.  These temperatures are controlled




through the control of combustion air and auxiliary fuel input.  Additional




air is added when temperatures rise above the set-point, and the amount of air




reduced when temperatures drop below the set point.  The air control is governed




by controlled air dampers.  Control of the auxiliary fuel firing rate is




initiated by thermocouples located in both primary and secondary chambers.




These thermocouples will activate auxiliary fuel control valves when strict




air control does not produce the desired second stage temperature.




     Firing of a controlled air unit at a rate either greater or less than its




design rate will have a pronounced effect of unit operations.  A unit that is




fired at less than its design capacity will result in a condition similar to




that found in a conventional multi-stage incinerator.  There will be sufficient




oxygen to oxidize all of the waste, little pyrolysis with resultant hydrocarbon




gaseous emissions will occur due to this oxidizing atmosphere and chamber




temperatures will rise; becoming a maximum when the stoichiometric air level




for the specific charge size and composition is reached.  This condition will




cause excess fly ash emissions, due to the violent nature of combustion at this






                                      119

-------
Reducing
Atmosphere
Oxidizing
Atmosphere
                                                          Secondary
                                                          Chamber
                                                          Operating
                                                          Range
Primary
Chamber
Operating
Rate
                                      Stoichiometric
                            AIR/FUEL RATIO
            Figure 34.   Controlled air  incinerator air/fuel
                        requirements.**5
                                  120

-------
maximum temperature.116  Figure 35 depicts the effect of chamber waste




charging rate  (expressed as a percent of the stoichiometric burning rate with




100 percent equal to the rated capacity of the unit) on various incinerator




parameters.  It should be noted that the quantity of waste volatilized in




Figure 35  is at a maximum when the chamber is charged at a rate which is




200 percent the stoichiometric burning rate.  This is the equivalent of having




50 percent the required stoichiometric combustion air present, as shown on




Figure 33.  Charging below  the optimum rate will also result  in proportionally




more  afterburner fuel use which makes the operation uneconomical.  A situation




similar to that of undercharging the unit will occur during the burndown portion




of the batch cycle.  Once the volatiles or gaseous combustibles of the waste




are  consumed,  the  chamber temperature will rise and fly ash emissions will be




higher than at any other time in the entire batch cycle.  However, due to the




lack  of agitation to the waste bed and the relatively low underfire air




velocities, these emissions are much lower than fly ash from a conventional




multi-chamber  unit.  The relationship between various operating parameters and




elapsed charge time for a high-Btu, batch fed waste is shown in Figure 36.




      Overloading the primary chamber of the controlled air unit will lower




the burn rate  of the waste as less oxygen is available to oxidize the fixed




carbon and therby supply heat for the endothermic pyrolysis reaction.  This is




especially true if the waste has a high moisture content.  In these situations,




the auxiliary burner in the primary chamber must be used to aid in drying and




ignition of the waste.  The slower burn rates associated with this condition




will also require additional fuel to the afterburner,  and this will also make




the operation uneconomical.
                                     121

-------
CHAMBER
EMISSION
LEVEL
CHAMBER
Tl. MPKRATURE
QUANTITY
  OF
 WASTE
                SMOKE a
                CQNDENSABLES-
              FLYASH--V      /
                 	\. _ '
              TOTAL  WASTE
              PHASE  CMA«flEO~>
                     100%
200%
             CHAMBER WASTE CMAffOIMC RATE
             PERCENT OP STOICHIOUCTRIC BURNING
             RATC BASED ON AIR SUPPLIED TO '
             CHAMBER.
 Figure  35.   Chamber behavior as  function  of
              chamber waste charging rate for
              fixed air supply. ^^
                    122

-------
           CHAMBER
           EMISSION
            LEVEL
           CHAMBER
         TEMPERATURE
           QUANITY
             OF
           WASTE
          CHAMBER
            AIR
           %OF
          MAXIMUM
          CAPACITY
100
             SMOKE
             J.
             VOLATIZED

                OXIDIZED
                              TIME
Figure 36.   Behavior of standard  incinerator chamber
             batch-burning of high Btu waste.116
                         123

-------
     The effect of undercharging or overcharging the primary chamber and of




charging various types of waste will be to subsequently produce an irregularity




in the quantity and quality of the combustible gases that must be handled by




the secondary chamber.  Aside from the startup and burn down cycles, there is a




periodicity associated with the loading cycle.  Pulses of volatiles shortly




after a load is charged can reach as high as 200 percent of design conditions.113




In addition, flame temperatures obtainable when combusting the pyrolysis gases




will vary depending upon the waste charged.  While normal Type I waste will




produce temperatures in the 15009F to 2000°F range, maximum flame temperatures




up to 2500°F have been observed with wood waste chips.113  These factors must




be considered when sizing the afterburner to insure complete oxidation of the




volatile gases in the secondary chamber.  Assuming that the afterburner is an




on-6ff unit, then a practical capability of the afterburner should be to raise




the stack gas temperature differential no greater than 300°F to 400°F.lllt  If




the capacity is greater than this, then excessive cycling of the afterburner




will occur about the set point with the creation of puffs of smoke.  Figure 37




shows the emissions expected from the secondary chamber at various charging




rates.  Note in Figure 37A, the effect of afterburner input on stack emissions,




and in Figure 37B, the effect of undercharging the unit on stack temperatures.




The shaded areas shown on the left and right of the optimum stack temperature




reflect a chamber burning rate that can result in the discharging of hydrocarbon




gases into the atmosphere.




     In addition to the excess emissions that may result from undercharging or




overcharging the controlled air incinerator, normal operations of a controlled




air unit with minimal combustion controls will produce varying stack emissions.




The cyclical nature of these emissions is best illustrated by referring to
                                      124

-------
     STACK
  TEMPERATURE
      STACK
     EMISSION
      LEVEL
                         TACK COMBUSTION TEMP.
                        WITHOUT BURNER INPUT
                     STACK TEMPERATURE WITH
                     BURNER  INPUT
WITHOUT BURNER INPUT

  WITH BURNER INPUT
                                                   OPTIMUM
                                                   INCINERATION
                                                   TEMPERATURE
                       100%
    200%
300%
                 CHAMBER WASTE CHARGING RATE
                 PERCENT OF STOICHIOMETRIC BURNING
                 RATE BASED ON FIXED CHAMBER AIR
Figure  37.   Stack behavior as function  of chamber waste charging
             rate for  fixed air supply.114
                                125

-------
Figure 38.  The incineration system described in this figure is equipped with




a burner sized for the nominal burning rate of common types of waste.  The




stack has been preheated by an afterburner and stack combustion air is injected




at a constant rate.  No other fuel or air controls or interlocks are located




on the unit.  During the first few minutes after chamber  light-off, the stack




temperature is too low to achieve complete combustion of the volatiles and




puffs of smoke may result.  The addition of auxiliary heat or a higher stack




preheat temperature can cure this temporary opacity.  As the stack temperature




climbs and passes the minimum incineration temperature level, the stack-opacity




decreases.  As the quantity of incoming volatiles increases rapidly, the point




of stoichiometric volatiles/air proportion is reached and the stack will again




begin to smoke,  This smoking and flaring will continue until the peak volatili-




zation period in the main chamber has been passed.  The stack will then become




clean again as the stack temperature falls to the normal operation temperature




range.  As this smoking problem is caused by excessive volatiles, one must




control the rate of volatilization in the primary chamber to reduce the smoking.




This can be accomplished by control of the primary chamber temperature level




through chamber air modulation.  Controlled air units currently available115




provide for this modulation of air and auxiliary fuel in both chambers, through




an automatic control panel.  This modulation controls peak gas flows to assure




afterburner capacity is not overloaded and also minimizes primary chamber




temperatures and velocities which avoids particle entrainment and carry-over.




A final stack emission occurs as the fuel bed is expended and the smoke con-




centration generated from the primary chamber becomes so low that the stack




temperature drops below the minimum incineration temperature.  If smoke is




present at  this low temperature it will not be completely oxidized and
                                       126

-------

SUCK
EMISSION
LEVEL

TSTOI
STACK *8
TEMPERATURE
TMIN
TPM

8UAMYITY
QF
VOLVTILES
(RATE)

AIR a FUEL
LEVELS
% OF 100
MAXIMUM

0
SMO


^
f


T
/
1

/

—
f-
i






A
AT
3

«
\

\
=^~~i




. —
"x
~~A



,- STA


FERBl
ow -

SMO»
FLA

1 i *-y tc
^-~-— ._

\
\
\


	

V
\

~K A!!

['
fiMEW
U
>
E a
RE

, f





\
\
	
« C
- * 0>
V
V
XV
>o







FLYAS
— N






V
-X
DM!NC
IDIZE

>-



'

IP.

'?
^^^
t,





\
lL
FRO
> IN !


k.


• i,

STOICHIOMETftIC
COM8USTION
AFTERBURNER OH-OfF
MIN. TEMP.- SMOKELESS
STACK PREHEAT
III CHAMBER
TACK
— SHUT-OFF BY TIMER
                        TIME
Figure 38.  Behavior of standard afterburner-stack, batch-
            burning of high Btu waste.116
                           127

-------
can combine with fly ash and other inorganic aerosols to form a "burndown




haze."  Experimentation has shown116 that this haze consists of high molecular




weight polymers that are formed at high bed temperatures within the primary




chamber.  They can best be controlled by the selection of a properly sized




afterburner and stack design so that the stack temperature may be kept at a




higher level for longer periods of time until the chamber bed temperature passes




its peak.  The results of incorporating the aforementioned design features into




a controlled air unit are best illustrated in Figure 39.  Here, all variability




of volatiles generation is controlled and the resultant stack emissions are




low, when compared to Figure 38.




     Little data is currently available on particulate and gaseous emissions




from starved air incinerators.  The data that is available concerns itself




with particulate emissions and has been compiled from scattered source tests




and manufacturers data.  A summary of the published data appears on Figure 40.




This data has been plotted for five controlled air designs which differ mainly




in the placement of the afterburner and the amount of excess air used to achieve




complete combustion.  All of the designs operated without after treatment of the




flue gas in the form of cyclones, scrubbers, etc.  The data indicated that there




appears to be no significant differences among the controlled air incinerator




designs in the amount of particulate matter emitted.  A further analysis




indicated that there is no correlation between emissions and either waste




charging rate or type of waste burned.117  In all but one test, (97 percent),




the controlled air results fall below the 0.46 g/M3 (0.2 gr/SCF) level.  This




would indicate compliance with particulate emission regulations for 28 states.




Seventy-five percent of the data falls below 0.23 g/M3 (0.1 gr/SCF) which




indicates compliance with 45 state emission regulations.  The results of 32





                                      128

-------
   STACK
   EMISSION
   LEVELS
INCINERATOR
TEMPeflATURE
   LEVEL
           'AB
  QUANTITY
    OF
   WASTE
   (RATE)
AIR a FUEL
 LEVELS
 * OF
 MAXIMUU
 CAPACITY



rtf-

X"~
J-.


r~~\


(
*"-**



\
(


^COH
f
r-s

—


•"•CH



\


-*:!1
-AFT 5
•K^
CHAI


DEfiS,
I.YASJ
PACK

	


th4BEI






ACK 4

ABUR
BER


%BLE
li--

^«-
s
1
^



y


i»
/
f
i>
/
M



/~
/T\
A-




-^
~^\
\

-^
/

ISL


TL
X —
"X
V

lL
^ —
f^^~
\
\
\
IA.
•~T"
•z

UNOE»Fme AIR MODULATION
AFTERBURNER MODULATION
STACK PREHEAT
VOLATILIZED IN CHAMBER,
OXIDIZED IN STACK
OXIDIZED IN CHAMBER
SMUT-OFF
St TIMER
                       TIMt
Figure  39.   System behavior  of high Btu incinerator,
             batch-burning of high Btu wastes.116
                         129

-------
».\J
o
u
-S
^
h-

-------
emission tests on controlled air designs is summarized in Figure 41 which

plots particulate emissions versus the cumulative percent of measurements

less than or equal to a given particulate concentration.  It appears that the

excellent performance shown by controlled air incinerators results from the

design itself,117 and is not  related to a specific operating parameter.  In

addition, since the controlled air design requires a degree of automatic,

programmed combustion control, much of the variability inherent in single and

multi-chamber design is removed from the operator's control, and there is little

scatter of emission data, regardless of waste type charged.  Gaseous emission

data for controlled air units is essentially nonexistent.  As substantial

quantities of smoke and volatile gases are produced in the primary chamber, the

stack emission rate for these substances is dependent upon the efficiency of

oxidation in the secondary chamber.  Inasmuch as the low particulate emission

rate for controlled air units is due in large measure to the complete oxidation

of particulates by the afterburner, one can assume that this oxidizing atmosphere

will also result in low carbon monoxide, organic acids and aldehydes emissions.

3.4.1  Operation and Maintenance

     A controlled air incinerator will perform in accordance with design

parameters if its automatic control circuit includes the following basic

functions:118

     1.   Simple visual indication to operation of proper loading time.

     2.   Positive, automatic control of the secondary combustion chamber
          temperature.

     3.   Underfire air interlock with secondary combustion chamber temperature.

     4.   Overfire and underfire air interlock with charging door.

     5.   Secondary combustion chamber auxiliary fuel afterburner interlock
          with charging door.

                                     131

-------
             UJ
            2
            3
            O
too



80


60


40


20


  0
                                         TV   I
                 0   O.I   0.2  0.3  0.4   0.5   0.6   0.7

                 PARTICULATE EMISSION, g/m3 AT 12% C02
Figure 41.  Cumulative  percent of particulate  emissions measurements
            for controlled air incinerators that  fall below specified
            particulate emission levels.117
                               132

-------
     6.   Underfire air  interlock with primary  combustion chamber temperature.

     7-   Means  of  preventing the escape of  particulates  and flame out the
         charging  door  during loading.

     Manufacturers  of starved air incinerators  incorporate these functions by

providing for automatic  controls of their units.   The importance of these controls

can be summarized in the statement "No matter what incineration technique is

chosen,  unless the  equipment design is such  that  it will  carry out the automatic

control of  the combustion process, through the  use of air and temperature

controllers,  the incinerator cannot be expected to perform properly."119

     The operation  of a  controlled air unit  is  essentially one of obeying

commands (usually in the form of various colored  lights)  from the main control

panel.  The control panel is programmed to follow the following sequence:120

(Note the sequence  will  be the same for all  units although the time for each

cycle may vary with unit size and waste chargedi)

     1.   Purge cycle:  draft dampers are opened  and the  combustion air blowers
         are turned on  for 2 to 3 minutes to insure all  air passages  are clear.

     2.   Warmup:  the dampers are closed arid primary and secondary burners
         are ignited to warmup the respective  chambers to 1000°F to 1200°F.
         Warmup will typically last for 10  to  15 minutes.

     3.   Charge:  once  the 1200°F temperature  is reached, a charging  light
         is activated and the unit may be charged.  Typically units rated
         at greater than 400 pounds per hour are equipped with an automatic
         charging  system which insures the  operator will not be exposed  to
         direct flames  and to insure no intrusion of ambient air into the
         primary chamber.  Figure 42 indicates this automatic charging cycle
         sequence.  Units rated at less than 400 pounds  per hour will offer
         automatic charging as an option due to  cost considerations.

     4.   Recharging: an indicator light will  remain lighted during the  burning
         cycle. Once ignition chamber temperatures drop to 1400°F, the  burn
         cycle light turns off and the "charge"  light is turned on.  The unit
         may now be recharged.  The burn cycle typically lasts 30 minutes
         but will  vary  with the type of waste  charged.
                                      133

-------
        -HOPPER OPENING
     -*
    I
    FIRE DOOR
                 -RAM
V
      • FIRE  DOOR


           -HOPPER OPENJNG
      r
                -RAM .
                                1.  Waste loaded  Into loader chute.
                                2.  F1re door opens.
     — FIRE DOOR

          |— HOOPER OPENING
                  1_
     -RAM
                                3.  Ram conies  forward.
V
,-FIRE DOOR

\      I—HOPPER OPENING
        u
                                4.  Ram reverses to clear fire  door.
\_r
           HOOPER OPENING
         LRAM

     FIRE DOOR
                                5.  F1re  door closes.
\    JL
         HOPPER  OPENING
   LFIRE DOOR    t-R4M
                                6.   Ram  returns to start position.
    Figure 42.   Automatic charging  sequence.121
                          134

-------
     5.    Burn down:   after the last batch of  refuse is  charged,  an additional
          switch on the control panel is activated.   This will alter the burn
          cycle program control to turn on the auxiliary burners  when temperatures
          drop below 1200°F.   The auxiliary burners  will stay lighted for
          approximately 2 hours after the last batch charges.

     6.    Cool down:   once the auxiliary burners are shut off, the combustion
          air blowers are turned on and run for approximately 2 hours to cool
          the unit down.

     Ash handling varies  from unit to unit with automatic ash handling provided

for those units which burn continuously.  Units without  ash handling normally

require the removal of ash before each daily burn, although this  may be done

less frequently if the waste has a low ash content.

     Maintenance of controlled air units is minimal.  As solid grates are

used and an air purge cycle precedes each initial firing, the problems associated

with grate and air-line plugging are avoided.   In addition,  stacks are refractory-

lined therby precluding acid gas condensation  and stack  deterioration.   Routine

maintenance on the combustion air fan, burner  elements,  thermocouples and

charging mechanism should follow manufacturers recommendations of once per

month visual inspection and annual detailed physical inspection.

     The proven ability of controlled air units to meet  existing  air pollution

particulate emissions regulations has precluded the  use  of additional air

cleaning equipment.  The one modification that is becoming widely used with

these units is heat recovery equipment.  The applicability of this equipment

is dependent on unit  size and frequency of use of the incinerator.
                                     135

-------
3.5  NOVEL METHODS OF INCINERATIONS




     With recycle and reuse programs recently receiving a lot of attention,




resource recovery will become the fastest rising method of ultimate waste




disposal between 1978 and 1980.  However, Cross96 has shown that incinerator




installation will have a continued growth rate between 1972 and 1980




(Figure 43).  The trend will be toward large central municipal or industrial




incinerator systems (Figure 44).   This trend has been apparent over the last




decade in water and wastewater treatment systems.  Now this centralized trend




is rapidly approaching reality in incineration systems.   Industrial systems




will increase in number because of regulatory pressure on industry to elim-




inate onsite dumping and open burning.




     Considerable research and development is underway in the United States




and abroad on new design concepts for incineration, aimed at eliminating pro-




blems inherent in conventional designs.   These novel concepts are mostly in




the pilot plant stage.  The different concepts are broadly categorized as




fluidized beds, suspension burning, slagging and pyrolysis.




3.5.1  Fluidized-Bed Incinerators




     Fluidized-bed incinerators are versatile devices which can be used to




dispose of solid, liquid and gaseous combustible wastes.   The technique is a




relatively new method for ultimate disposal of waste materials and is cur-




rently limited to relatively homogeneous liquids, slurries or semisolid




mixtures, such as dewatered sewage and oily sludges.
                                      136

-------
     +30-r
                          Composting
                             Recycle
                              Reuse
     -15
                                             Incineration
                                             Sanitary
                                             Landfill
             72   73   74  75   76   77   78   79   80
                     YEARS (1972 - 1980)
Figure 43.  Future trends ultimate  waste disposal
             practices  (1972 to  1980).96
                          137

-------
                           YEARS (1971  1980)
Figure 44.  Future trends in incinerator  practices (1972 to 1980).
96
                              138

-------
     A typical fluidized-bed incinerator is shown schematically in Figure 45.

The incineration system will normally consist of the following components:

     •    the fluidized-bed combustor made up of a plenum chamber
          and an orifice plate

     •    a main air supply for fluidization and combustion

     •    a primary particulate collection system and a secondary
          particulate collection or gas scrubbing system

     •    a feed and product discharge system

     Air driven by a blower enters a plenum at the bottom of the combustor

and rises vertically through a distributor plate into a vessel containing a

bed of inert granular particles.  Sand is typically used as the bed material.

The upward flow of air through the sand bed results in a dense turbulent mass

which behaves similar to a liquid.  Waste material to be incinerated is in-

jected into the bed where combustion.occurs within the fluidized bed.  Air

passage through the bed produces strong agitation of the bed particles.  This

promotes rapid and relatively uniform mixing of the injected waste material

within the fluidized bed.

     The mass of the fluidized bed is large in relation to the injected

material.  Bed temperatures are quite uniform and typically in the 1400 F to

1600 F range.  Gas velocities are typically low, in the order of 5 to 7 feet

per second.  Maximum velocity is constrained by the terminal velocity of the

bed particles and is therefore a function of particle size.  Present fluidized-

bed design technology limits the bed diameter to 50 feet or less.  Bed depths

range from about 15 inches to several feet.  Variations in bed depth affect

waste particle residence time and system pressure drop.  The type and compo-

sition of the waste is a significant design parameter in that it will impact

storage,  processing and transport operations as well as the combustion.  If


                                     139

-------
      LIQUID WASTE FEED
      ENTRAINED MATERIAL

    FEED SPRAY DISPERSION

REACTION VESSEL
  DILUTE PHASE
 FLUIDIZED  BED
  DENSE  PHASE
  FLUIDIZED BED
  SOLID PRODUCT
        EXHAUST GASES
        CYCLONE
       SEPARATOR
        DUST RETURN
                                                    ORIFICE PLATE
FLU ID) ZING  GAS
          Figure 45.  Fundamentals of fluidized solids processing.187
                                  140

-------
the waste is a heterogeneous mixture and has a relatively low heating value,

processing operations will be more complex and auxiliary fuel addition to the

combustor will be required.  Homogeneous wastes which can be injected and

uniformly dispersed in the bed should facilitate overall system design and

minimize the bed volume.  The fluidized-bed combustor will normally be incor-

porated in an overall material handling, processing and disposal system to

simultaneously cope with solid, liquid and gaseous waste or byproducts.  This

is illustrated schematically in a block diagram in Figure 46 for sludge

incineration.

     The advantages of fluid-bed incineration are given by Niessen105 as:

     •    Simplicity of construction:  the incinerator consists of a
          vertical cylindrical chamber with no moving internal parts.
          High volumetric heat release rates can be achieved.

     •    Complete combustion at relatively low temperatures.

     •    Low NOX emission because of low-operating temperatures
          and absence of local high temperature combustion zone
          or hot spot.

     •    Low flue gas volumetric rates.

     •    High heat sink capacity.  Large thermal capacity tends
          to even out fluctuations in short-term variations in
          feed characteristics.

     •    Zone and efficiency of intermittent operation.  Only a short
          reheat time is necessary prior to beginning incineration,
          even after extended shutdown periods.

     The disadvantages are:

     •    Considerable preparation is needed to assure retention
          of particles in the bed, the complete combustion of refuse,
          and the removal of noncombustibles.

     •    Flue gas particulate loading.   The high gas velocities
          will result in high solid loading, require more highly
          efficient particle removal equipment to achieve parity
          to conventional incinerators in respect to emissions.
                                    141

-------
WASTE
                                    SUPERNATANT  TO
                                                                                ATMOSPHERE
  CENTRATE TO—I CENTRIFUGES
  TREATMENT    	"	
  PLANT
                                      FLUIDIZED-BED

                                        INCINERATOR
                                                                                     SEAL
                                                                                     WEIL
                                                                          T~1   »TO LAGOON
                                                           AIR  BLOWER
             Figure 46.   Flow diagram — fluidized-bed incinerator.
                                                                        183

-------
     •    Operational complexity and sensitivity.  Since very dense
          objects not supportable by the bed will drop out and
          interfere with fluidization, they must be removed.

     •    Adequate controls are needed to ensure that large increases
          in refuse heats of combustion do not result in extreme bed-
          temperature variations.

     •    The maximum single-unit size for refuse is estimated to be
          50 to 60 tons per day.

     •    High power consumption.

     A study carried out by the Battelle Laboratories184 for the State of Ohio

Department of Natural Resources using a 10-inch fluidized-bed incineration

unit  (Figure 47)  indicated  that  this  technique is feasible  for burning wastes

from paint industry, rubber industry and plastic industry.

     In the paint industry, an incineration process would be particularly

effective for disposal of solvent recovery sludges and aqueous wastes such as

latex washout water.  These wastes can create difficulties by disposal in

landfills or municipal sewers.  It was demonstrated that all of these materials

can be incinerated in the fluidized-bed system.

     Primary treatment sludges from plastic industry can be disposed of by

fluidized-bed incineration using supplementary fuel addition.  One source of

fuel might be the large quantities of solid plastic waste generated by this

industry.  Essentially, no toxic or noxious materials are produced during

incineration of styrene or PVC wastes other than HC1 which is removed in gas

scrubbing effluent.  Sludges from the rubber industry can be incinerated in

a manner similar to that used for plastic wastes.

     A system under development with EPA support is CPU-400185 (Combustion Power

Company).  This is an example of fluidized-bed incinerator as well as pyrolysis

process.  Shredded refuse is fed through a star-valve into a pressurized
                                     143

-------
To atmosphere

     t.
                                             Castable  insulating refractory
                                              Castable refractory
                                             Aqueous  feed (alternate)
                  71
         Air ejector
           dust return
Orifice plate
             _ _. ... .

(tubes tyal)f-Ru'dlzmg a'r
                                        X\\\\\\\\\
                                   Combustion chamber
                                               Overflow bed discharge
  Sump overflow
     Figure 47.  Sketch of  10-inch diameter fluidized-bed unit.184
                                   144

-------
fluidized bed.  The pyrolysis products are burned under pressure and the




combustion products are expanded through a gas turbine.  The particulates




carried from the fluidized bed are removed using a high-efficiency inertial




separator.   The final product is the electrical output from a generator driven




by the gas turbine.  Figure 48 shows the CPU-400 system.185




3.5.2  Slagging (Total Incineration)




     The principle of slagging is to operate at a temperature sufficiently




high that all incombustible materials are melted and drawn from the inciner-




ator as a fluid slag.  When quenched, the solid slag has a lower bulk specific




volume (cubic foot per pound) than the residue from conventional incinerators.




The slag byproduct represents the lowest possible volume of ash residue, and




a number of processes are under advanced development.  The high temperatures




required for slagging have been achieved by the use of oxygen by Union Carbide




System as shown in Figure 49, by the use of preheat air as in Torrax as




shown in Figure 50, and by the use of supplementary fuels demonstrated by




American Thermogen (melt-Zit process) as shown in Figure 51.




     Union Carbide developed the oxygen converter in which small amounts of




oxygen (of the order of 0.2 Ib/pound of refuse) are used to provide the energy




for pyrolysis and also a high-temperature zone for melting the residue.138  The




refuse is fed to the top of a shaft furnace, the molten residue is tapped




from the hearth and quenched in water, and the pyrolysis products are removed




from the top of the furnace and processed to produce hydrocarbon liquid and




gaseous fuels.  The advantages of the process are that the gas volume to be




treated is  a small fraction of that needing treatment in a conventional incin-




erator, fuel byproducts are produced, and the slagging operation provides a




97 percent  volume reduction and a putrescible-free residue.  A 200 ton per day







                                     145

-------
  Figure 48a.  CPU-400 pilot plant
                                    185
                                               Ml
                                              EXMUST
Figure 48b.  CPU-400 system schematic.185


                    146

-------
                                          OXYGEN PLANT
                                        EMERGENCY STORAGE
                                  AIR
                                                   VAPORIZER
                                  ELECTRIC
•0-trQQ
 v_x
J£
                                                                                   • HOT WATER
                                                        , GAS
COOLING
TOWER 1
1_
. ©
X^TT— fc
INCLINED
CONVEYOR
LEVELER
                 MAKEUP

                 COOL WATER
                 TO PROCESS
                 EQUIPMENT
                                                                                 GAS FROM
                                                                                 PUROX SYSTEM
                                                                                PILOT FUEL
                Figure 49.  Union Carbide/Purox oxygen refuse converter.138

-------
                                                  REFUSE
00
                  (
             AIR AND
            GAS FUEL
                2500°F
                                                               AIR
                                       FLUE
                                        GAS
                                                                                       EXHAUST
                                                                                        GASES
AIR
" J
j


I

^



rr^
                                          FLY
                                          ASH
                              HOT BLAST
                              AIR HEATER
1800° F
            SLAG
                                   50.  Torran solid waste disposal system,
                                                                         105

-------
                                     TO SECONDARY
                                     COMBUSTION
                                     CHAMBER, ETC.
                                              AIR, COKE,
                                            LIMESTONE  AND
                                               REFUSE
                                   COKE  AND LIMESTONE
                                         ELEVATOR
                                  —REFUSE COMBUSTION AIR

                                 2— COKE COMBUSTION AIR
Figure 51.  American Thermogen high temperature incineration.105
                               149

-------
pilot plant has been successfully operated at Charleston, West Virginia.  In

the Torrax unit, process air is preheated in externally-fired, silicon-carbide

tubes before being fed to the hearth of a shaft furnace.  The gases from the

shaft furnace contain gasification and combustion products which are burned

in a secondary combustion chamber.  The resulting gases are cleaned prior to

discharge to the atmosphere.  A demonstration unit has been operated at Erie,

Pa.  In the American Thermogen unit (Melt-Zit process), the refuse was fed

via a conveyer to the top of the unit.  Coke was used to achieve the slagging

conditions in the hearth.  A more detailed discussion of this process will be

given below.  The material below is based on a discussion by Bahm & Parker187

on slagging systems.

     In contrast to conventional incineration where temperatures are in the

order of 980 C (1800 F), all or part of a slagging system must operate at

temperatures approaching 1650 C (3000 F) in order to convert the ash residue

to a liquid slag.  This slag can be quenched in water to form a granular

material, or it can be allowed to cool slowly in a pit producing a solid mass.

     The principal objectives of slagging are:187

     •    Maximum volume reduction of solid waste (approximately
          95 percent)

     •    Complete combustion or oxidation of all combustible materials,
          producing a solidified slag which is sterile, free of putrescible
          matter, compact, dense and strong

     •    Elimination of the necessity for a large residue disposal
          operation adjacent to the incinerator, and

     •    Complete oxidation of the gaseous products of incineration,
          with discharge to the atmosphere after adequate treatment
          for air pollution control.
                                     150

-------
     The ability to obtain adequate slagging temperatures depends on the




following factors:




     •    Available heating value of refuse




     •    Moisture, metal and inert content of refuse




     •    Level of  excess air required for complete combustion




     •    Availability of supplementary energy




     Fusion of the  incombustible residue can be accomplished either by oper-




ating the incineration process at temperatures above the melting point of the




ash residue or by melting the ash in a separate device subsequent to conven-




tional incineration.  Temperatures in excess of 2600° to 2800°F are required




for fusion, with the actual temperature depending on the combustion of the




ash in the refuse.   However, to insure adequate fluidity of the slag, a




temperature approaching 3000 F should be maintained.




     Air pollution  from slagging systems can be controlled with conventional




air pollution control devices.  Costs for such air pollution control systems




are uncertain inasmuch as the slagging system may produce higher particulate




loadings but lower  flue gas volume flows than conventional incineration.




3.5.3  Supsension Burning




     The suspension burning method, widely used in power boilers, blows the




finely divided fuel into a vortex pattern in a furnace chamber so that it




burns while suspended in the turbulent air stream.  It can provide high heat




release in a relatively small volume without the necessity for supporting a




burning fuel bed, grate or hearth.  Wood chips, plastic wastes, or shredded




refuse, when reduced to a size at which their burnout times are lower than the




residence times of  the combustion gases in a boiler (~2 sec), may be burned




in suspension.   This criterion for the size of wastes which can be burned in




                                     151

-------
suspension may be relaxed for vortex burners in which the centrifugal forces




act to keep suspended particles in the combustion chamber for several gas




residence times.  When all the waste to be burned is finely divided, suspension-




firing in a conventional boiler or vortex burner is justified.  If a fraction




of the waste is too large to burn in suspension, spreader stokers provide a




means of combining the merits of grate and suspension-fired units.




     The U.S. Bureau of Mines188 has developed a vertical cylindrical vortex




incinerator for the burning of special wastes.  All the combustion air is




injected tangentially above the burning bed, spirals down through the outside




of the bed and up through the inside.  The burning rates reported for this




design are only slightly lower, per unit section of the incinerator, than the




rates encountered in conventional grate units.  A schematic diagram of the




pilot plant is shown in Figure 52.  The incinerator was originally developed




for the treatment of paper wastes; for this waste, or any yielding a finely




subdivided ash, all the inert is carried over with the combustion products to




the air pollution control device.  Such units can therefore be operated con-




tinuously without provision for residue removal from the combustion chamber.




     Another type of suspension burning involved tangential firing.  The term




"tangential" derives from the method used to introduce the fuel into the




furnace, in this case refuse and combustion air.  Pneumatic lines deliver




refuse to each elevation of tangential nozzles, one line per corner as shown




in Figure 53.  The refuse and the heated combustion air are directed  tan-




gentially to an imaginery cylinder in the center of the furnace.  Fuel and




air are mixed in a single fireball.  This procedure precludes the possibility




of poor distribution of fuel and air, it also permits operation with less




excess air, therefore reducing the size of the flue gas cleaning equipment.







                                     152

-------
                                                                   Stack
    Primary air
 Q~    ~
       Jets
         \

          \
                 Gases and ash
                                                        Gas
                                                       cleaner
Natural gos
                      Gos -»• air
                      Gas burner*
               Refuse
  Charge
preparation
equipment
Bagging
i
               Feed  rams
       Secondary air
                              1	Dilution air


                      Vortex chamber




                      ^Rotating  rake
                            rakes
        Figure 52.   Schematic  of vortex incinerator and auxiliaries.11
                                   153

-------
Figure 53.  Schematic - corner suspension fired furnace.
                                                        189
                         154

-------
The refuse nozzles can be tilted upward or downward to accommodate variations




in refuse characteristics and load.  With tangential firing, the fuel particles




have a longer residence time in the hottest furnace zone, thereby assuring




complete combustion of waste fuels with low heat content.




     The cyclonic incinerator is a horizontal cylindrical combustion chamber




into which pulverized solid wastes are fed pneumatically, and combustion air




is added through a number of circumferential tuyeres.  The cycloburner shown




in Figure 54 consists of a compartmented steel shell which surrounds the




refractory chamber forming an annular air space or plenum.  Fuel is conveyed




into the combustion chamber by the way of a materials handling fan or a




mechanical screw.  Both the fuel and the air enter tangentially.  Some of the




waste fuel materials burned to date have been paper products including postage




stamps, wood products including bark and planer shavings, and plastics in-




cluding polyethylene.  One hundred percent polyethylene scrap was burned




continuously without the use of an afterburner and the exhaust gas contained




no CO or visible smoke.  Typical performance values for a unit 3 feet in




diameter by 6 feet in length are a throughout rate of 3500 Ib/hr of material,




an outlet gas temperature of 2800 F and an exhaust heat content in excess of




28,000,000 Btu/hr.  By their nature, suspension burning systems can be expected




to have high particulate loadings in the effluent gases.




3.5.4  Pyrolysis




     The pyrolysis of solid wastes strictly refers to the thermal decomposition




of the wastes in an inert atmosphere.  Under such conditions a mixture of




gaseous products, tars, water-insoluble oils, and an aqueous solution of acetic




acid, methanol and other organic compounds is evolved and a solid residue com-




posed of the inert content of the waste and a char is produced.  The amounts





                                     155

-------
     REFRACTORY
                         STEEL SHELL
                                          AIR PASSAGE
  FEED
OPENING
                                      GATE  VALVES
   Figure 54.  Schematic drawing of a typical cycloburner.
                          156

-------
of the different products that are produced are dependent on the heating rate




and the final temperature to which the wastes are subjected.  In general, the




higher the heating rate and the higher the final temperature, the greater the




fraction of the initial waste that is converted into the gaseous and liquid




products.  The products of pyrolysis of refuse confined in a retort and heated




externally to different temperatures support the above generalization.  The




gaseous yield is highly variable but is about 25 percent by weight of the




air-dried, ash-free refuse and has a heating value of about 300 to 350 Btu/ft .




The solid product or char resulting from refuse pyrolysis is an impure carbon,




very similar in proximate analysis to coal.  The yield is about 17 to 25




percent by weight of the air-dried, ash-free refuse, decreasing with both




heating rate and increasing pyrolysis temperature.  Figure 55 illustrates




schematically a refuse pyrolysis system.




     Pyrolysis is not incineration, but it is a very attractive alternative




because of its potential for (a) substantial reduction of air pollution,




(b) production of useful products and (c) self-sustaining operation in terms




of energy.  The reason why pyrolysis is not incineration is because no oxygen




is used, so no carbon dioxide is produced.  The gas, especially methane, carbon




dioxide, hydrogen, carbon monoxide, water molecules and char formed from the




chemical decomposition of waste are of prime interest as sources of energy




recycle to our economic system.  The process of combustion requires the same




treatment in the presence of oxygen.  The main difference is due to the fact




that the combustion reactor is exothermic and the ensuing heat must be removed




effectively.   An efficient fluidized-bed pyrolysis process would appear to be




a good choice.
                                     157

-------
REFUSE
  IN
                                                                               AIR
  STREAMS
     SOLID REFUSE
     VOLATILE PRODUCTS AND
     ENTRAINED PARTICULATE
     SOLID PRODUCT (chor)
     VOLATILE PRODUCT
     LIQUID PRODUCT
     GAS PRODUCT
     GAS FOR HEATING
     VOLATILES FOR HEATING
                                                POSSIBLE  FUEL
        Figure 55.   Schematic  of  a refuse  pyrolysis system.105
                                      158

-------
     A pyrolysis unit at the pilot-plant stage is that developed by the




Garrett Division of Occidental Petroleum.  The process involves the coarse




shredding and drying of the solid wastes followed by air classification to




separate the combustible from the inert.  The combustible fraction is then




further shredded to a very fine size and pyrolysised.  The pyrolysis is




carried out at a very fast heating rate which maximizes the liquid fuel pro-




duced in the process.  The char is used to supply the energy needed in the




reactor.  The advantage of the process is that it produces a readily-




transportable fuel.  The process has been selected for an EPA demonstration




grant and a plant is to be constructed in San Diego, California.  A commercial




plant based on this process could deliver 480 tons per day of oil based on




2000 tons per day input of solid wastes.




     Another pyrolysis process selected for an EPA demonstration grant is the




Monsanto Landgard System.  A pilot unit of 3 tons per hour has been operated




for development purposes in the St. Louis, Missouri area and the first large




installation is under construction in Baltimore, Maryland.  The system com-




prises a pyrolysis kiln and an afterburner furnace.  Mixed refuse is shredded




and delivered to a surge bin, from which it can be fed steadily to a rotary




kiln.  The pyrolysis is carried out in the oxygen deficient atmosphere of the




rotary kiln, the kiln discharges ash, glass, metal and char through a water




seal, and the pyrolysis gases are burned with supplementary air in a stationary




afterburner furnace.  A boiler may be used if heat recovery is required.  The




combustion products are then treated in a conventional manner before discharge




to the atmosphere.
                                     159

-------
3.6  INDUSTRIAL DESCRIPTIONS
     In addition to reviewing the state of the art technology in the incinerator
industry, it is also worthwhile to examine the major solid-waste producing
industries in order to gain an insight into current solid waste generation
rates and disposal practices.  The advantages of incineration for disposal of
industrial wastes include:
     1.   It may be the most economical process available, especially if the
          heating value of the waste can be used to generate heat and power.
     2.   Recycling of useful materials can often be achieved by incineration,
          either before charging or from incineration residue.
     3.   Hazardous wastes can be handled and disposed of in an environmental
          acceptable manner.
     Different industries produce different solid wastes and consequently
different environmental pollution problems will be confronted.  To understand
the special solid waste problems faced by industry, the typical quantities
of solid waste they generate and the factors that influence their choice of
disposal methods, it is important to examine specific industrial applications.
For this reason the following industrial groups will be discussed:
     1.   Industrial sludges
     2.   Hazardous wastes
     3.   Hospital wastes
     4.   Wood industry wastes
     5.   Agricultural waste
     6.   Paper and pulp industry waste
3.6.1  Industrial Sludge Incineration1^ 153»15k
3.6.1.1  Introduction—
     The impact of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
on solid waste generation in sewerage systems is significant since the "best
practicable" and "best available" treatment processes for the near future

                                     160

-------
can greatly reduce the quantity of sludges disposed into receiving waters.

Secondary treatment produces a greater quantity of sludges and residues per

volume of waste water treated than primary or intermediate treatments.  Advanced

treatment will add even more sludges and residues.  Almost all sludges have

water contents in the range 90 to 99.5 percent:  Because of the high water

contents, solid waste incinerators can only deal with very small proportions

of aqueous slurries.  Because of the solids content, liquid incinerators

cannot handle sludges or slurries.  Special furnaces are therefore required

and the range of choices is limited.

     The basic elements of sludge incineration are shown schematically in

Figure 56.  Important considerations in evaluating incineration processes

include the composition of sludge feed and the amount of auxilliary fuel

required.  It is common to classify waste water treatment processes according

to stages of treatment.  Methods of handling waste water are classified as

preliminary, primary, secondary and tertiary treatment.   Sludge handling

processes can be classified as shown in Figure 57.

3.6.1.2  Waste Characterization—

     These are four broad classes of sludges:

     1.   Flocculent sludges from the primary sedimentation of effluents
          such as paper mills and sewage.  The solid portion may be organic
          or mineral.

     2.   Biological sludges from the secondary sedimentation of biological
          treatment processes.  These sludges will have  a low solids concen-
          tration and the solids will have a high organic content.

     3.   Chemical sludges arising from neutralization and precipitation
          processes.  The solids content will be variable and mainly inorganic.

     4.   Oil and hydrocarbon sludges such as those from the mineral and
          petrochemical industries.   The organic contents is high but also
          with considerable proportions of inorganic matter.
                                     161

-------
        AIR
AUXILIARY
  FUEL
SLUDGE
FEED
COMBUSTIBLE
ELEMENTS
INERTS
MOISTURE


1
1
INCINERATOR


            T
                                    STACK GASES

                                     MOISTURE

                                     EXCESS AIR

                                    PARTICULATES

                                 OTHER PRODUCTS OF
                                    COMBUSTION
            ASH
Figure 56.   Sludge incineration.11*2

-------
           |SLUDGE_TYPE| THICKENING |sTA^LiZATjQNicoj^i]iiQNiNGlDEWATERiNG|HEAT DRYING!  REDUCTION I  _FJNAL_  I
           I         """  j  ""Blending   J   Reduction" ^Stabilization J   —""        j             |  Stabilization  |   Disposal   |
a-.
OJ
             PRIMARY
            SECONDARY
            CHEMICAL
                            CENTRIFUGE
                                          COMPOSTING
                                           AEROBIC
                                          OlGESTlOM
                                          ANAEROBIC
                                          DIGESTION
                                                                     FILTER PRESS
                                                                     DRYING BEDS
                                                                     CENTRIFUGE
                                                                                  FLASH DRYER
  ROTARY
VACUUM FILTER  I JMULTIPLE HEARTH
                                        LIME TREATMENT
                                                       ELUT.RIATION  I  \HORI2ONTAL FILTER J
                                        ICHLORtNE TREATj
                                          HEAT TREAT, ,
                                                       HEAT TREAT.
                                                                    CYLINDRICAL
                                                                      SCREEN
                                                                                  SPRAY DRYER
                                                                                                NCINERATION
                                                                                                             LAND RECLAM
  POWER
GENERATION
                                                                                   TRAY DRYER  | tWET AIR QXIDAT10NJ I SANITARY LANOFlLLl
                                                                                                            OCEAN DISPOSAL
                             Figure  57.   Unit processes-sludge  processing  and disposal.142

-------
     Incineration is 'a two-step process involving drying and combustion.  In
addition to fuel and air, time, temperature and turbulence are necessary for
complete combustion.  The drying step should not be confused with preliminary
dewatering; this dewatering is usually by mechanical means and precedes the
incineration process in most systems.  The extent of dewatering achievable
with a particular sludge is decisive in selecting the furnace type.  Filter
presses, centrifuges, and rotary vacuum filters are representative  examples of
dewatering equipment from which the following sludge cake moisture  content
might be reasonably expected.
                     Filter press   65% moisture content
                     Centrifuge     75% moisture content
                     Vacuum filter  80% moisture content
     The extent of dewatering in each case is governed by the quality of the
original sludge and the character of intermediate treatment, especially where
this incorporates chemical conditioning.  The useful caloric value  of the sludge
cake is also influenced by pretreatment.  Table 34 gives the heat value of
various sludge types.  Table 35 gives some representative heating values of
various sludge constituents.
     For sludge incineration to be economically feasible it is necessary to
avoid or minimize the use of supplementary fuel, and this in turn will depend
on the moisture and volatile solid content of the sludge; their effect on
the sludges heat content is shown in Figure  58.  The importance of  obtaining
the maximum solid concentration is shown in  Figure 59.  The impact  of the
use of excess air on the cost of fuel in sludge incineration is shown in
Figure 60.
                                     164

-------
 TABLE 34.  EFFECTS OF PRIOR PROCESS ON FUEL VALUE143
         „     , ,                  Calorific value
         Type sludge            (Btu/lb Qf dry
Raw primary                              9,500



Anaerobically digested primary           5,500



Raw (chem. precip.) primary              7,010
   TABLE 35.  REPRESENTATIVE HEATING VALUES OF SOME

              SLUDGE MATERIALS143
     ..    .  ,            Combustibles       Heating value
     Material                 , .            .      °      .   .
                              (%)       (Btu/lb of dry solids)
Grease and scum
Raw waste-water solids
Fine screenings
Ground garbage
Digested sludge
Chemical precipitated solids
Grit
88
74
86
85
60
57
33
16,700
10,300
9,000
8,200
5,300
7,500
4,000
                          165

-------
Q1
LU
Hi
LU
g
z
o


(-'
u- 1
600
           Sludge heat content - 10,000 Btu/lb
                           volatile solids
"^
O
o
NO
O
o
O
O
o
13
O

z
o
H
Q.
3
CO
z
O
O
Cfl
<
O
_l
<
LT
D

<
Z
00
O
o
O>
O
o
£»
O
o
N)
O
o
75    76
                    77     78
                              79
                                        80
                                          81
82    83
                   MOISTURE CONTENT OF FEED (%)
    Figure 58.   The effects of sludge moisture and  volatile
                 solids  content on gas consumption.
                              166

-------
 ,	
                                            HEAT RECOVERY
                                            WITH PREHEAT OF
                                            COMBUSTION A!H
     800
            U0(
1000     1100     1200    1300

      TEMPERATURE (°F)
Figure 59.  Equilibrium curves relating combustion temperatures
            to cake  concentration.llt2
                               167

-------
  G: 4-
  o
10 Q
g r-
-J cc
0 «»
z 08
S "-
t; o
01
D
     2-
                                              $3 70/7 ON
SLUDGE @ 30% TS, 70% VOL & 10,000 BTU/LB
WITH GAS EXIT TEMPERATURE @ 1500°F
                                      NOTE:  FUEL COSTS
                                      REFLECT 1970 PRICES
              $0.92/7 ON
                        % EXCLSS Aif? F-OH SLUDGE
               EXCESS AtR FOB NMURAL GAS @ 20% (CONSTANT)
     Figure 60.   Impact of excess air on the cost of natural
                 gas in sludge incineration.
                           168

-------
3.6.1.3  Quantity of Sludges Generated—

     Figure 61  shows the percentage of industrial sludges related to residual

generation from other sources.   Sewage sludge accounts for only 7.5 million

dry tons of the total quantity  of residues generated.   The industrial waste

water sludge is 35 million ton/yr.  Mining accounts for the largest percentage.

If the sludge is incinerated before disposal, the mass is reduced by 75 percent

Incineration methods account for approximately 10 percent of all sludge

disposal as studied by Ralph Stone and Co., and shown in Table 36.

3.6.1.4  Sludge Incineration Systems—

     Sludge incineration systems include the following components in general:

     1.   Sludge thickeners

     2.   A disintegrating or macerating system

     3.   Polymer handling and feeding system or other pretreatment schemes

     4.   Centrifuge or vacuum filter or any mechanical dewatering system.

     5.   Incinerator feed system

     6.   Air pollution control devices

     7.   Ash handling facilities

     8.   Complete set of automatic controls such as fail-safe devices, stack
          temperature regulator and interlocks to permit positive control of
          excess air.  The principal types of sludge incinerators are as
          follows:

     1.   Multiple hearth furnace

     2.   Fluidized bed sludge incinerators

     3.   Flash drying with incineration

     4.   Cyclonic incineration

     5.   Wet oxidation (Zimpro Process)

     6.   Atomized suspension technique

     7.   Infrared incineration system

                                     169

-------
                                                         INDUSTRIAL
                                                       WASTEWATER SLUDGE
                                                              35
                                                          SEWAGE 7.5
                                                           WATER PLANT
                                                           SLUDGE 2.5
Figure 61.   Estimated industrial versus  other  residual  (August  1970  to  1971)
            (dry weight in million ton/yr).
                                   170

-------
             TABLE 36.   FORECAST SEWAGE SLUDGE DISPOSAL METHODS
                        THROUGH 1985146

Sludge Disposal Method

To landfills,
To landfills,
Incineration

not digested
digested

Ocean/waterways
Agricultural

01 other reuse
Totals
Percent of Total Raw Sewage Sludge for:
1971
3
62
10
15
10
100
1975
4
66
10
10
_1°.
100
1980
4
71
10
5
JO
100
1985
4
76
10
0
JO
100
SOURCE:   EPA 670/2-74-0956 (PB 238 819) 1974.
                                    171

-------
     A brief summary of the various kinds of sludge incineration systems is

given below:

     1.   Multiple Hearth Incinerator - The multiple hearth incinerator is
          generally applicable to the ultimate disposal of most forms of
          combustible wastes and represents proven technology.  It can incinerate,
          combustible sludges, tars, granulated solids, liquids and gases
          and is especiall well suited to the disposal of spent biological
          treatment facility sludge.  For that reason, a disposal facility,
          especially one which contained biological treatment facilities,
          could contain a multiple hearth unit.  There are about 120 of their
          units installed.  The units are designed with varying diameters
          from 6 ft to 22 ft, capable of handling from 5 to 1250 tons per
          24 hours with a varying number of hearths usually between 4 and 12.
          Figure 62 shows a cross sectional view of the incinerator with
          typical emissions shown in Table 37-

     2.   Fluidized Bed Incinerator - The fluidized bed incinerator is gen-
          erally applicable to the ultimate disposal of combustible solid,
          liquid and gaseous wastes, a significant advantage over most
          other incineration methods.  For that reason, it is probable that
          this type of incineration unit would find application at National
          Disposal Sites, especially considering its suitability to the
          disposal of sludges.  While the standard combustion units rely on
          the heat transfer from the hot gases which contain only 16 Btu/ft3;
          the expanded bed of the fluid bed incinerator has 1600 Btu/f3.
          Combustion occurs at 1400°F to 1500°F.  Figure 63 shows a typical
          fluid-bed system with emissions typical of the system given in
          Table 38.

     3.   Flash Drying with Incineration - Flash drying is the instantaneous
          removal of moisture from solids by introducing them into a hot
          gas stream.  A schematic of the flash drying and incineration system
          is shown in Figure 64.  Flash drying is relatively expensive
          because of fuel costs (contrasted to incineration - no heating
          value is realized from the sludge) and because pretreatment needs
          for production of sludge are also expensive.  It has been reported
          that the fuel consumption'for production of dried sludge is
          8000 Btu/lb.  Perhaps the most notable current U.S. usage of this
          process is that by the city of Houston, Texas primarily for dryup
          sludge for use as a fertilizer.

     4.   Wet air oxidation - Wet air oxidation process is based on the
          principle that any substance capable of burning can be oxidized in
          the presence of liquid water at temperatures between 25°F to
          700°F.  The wet air oxidation process has been commercialized and
          patented as the Zitnpro process.  The process does not require pre-
          liminary dewatering or drying &&> required' by convention combustion
          processes.  The general flow diagram of the wet air oxidation
          system is shown in Figure 65.


                                     172

-------
                                            COOLING AIR DISCHARGE
    FLUE GASES OUT
       DRYING ZONE
   COMBUSTION ZONE
       COOLING ZONE
                                                             INLET
                                                           RABBLE ARM
                                                           AT EACH HEARTH
                                                            COMBUSTION
                                                            AIR RETURN
      ASH DISCHARGE
                  COOLING AIR FAN
Figure  62.  Cross section of a typical multiple-hearth incinerator.
                                    173

-------
TABLE 37.  MULTIPLE HEARTH SLUDGE INCINERATOR FACILITY
           SUMMARY OF RESULTS152
Run number
Date
Test time, minutes
Furnace feed rate,
tons/hr dry solids
Stack effluent
Flow rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/ton feed
Temperature, °F
Water vapor, vol. %
CO2,vol.%dry
O2,vol.%dry
CO, vol. % dry
SO2 emissions, ppm
NOX emissions, ppm
I1C1 emissions, ppm
Visible emissions.
% opacity
Participate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf.
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
1
8-5-71
96
0.689


9840
-
135
16.3
4.2
14.9
0.0
2.01
62.8 to 46.0
11.9
<10



0.0260
0.0196
2.19
3.18

0.0335
0.0252
2.83
4.11
2
8-5-71
96
0.855


8510
-
145
18.6
4.3
14.9
0.0
2.07
83.5 to 75 .8
6.83
<10



0.0136
0.0099
0.99
1.16

0.0221
0.0159
1.61
1.88
3
8-5-71
96
0.290


10,290
-
145
14.8
2.2
16.9
0.0
2.12
44.3 to 54.7
10.9
<10



0.0134
0.0101
1.18
4.07

0.0170
0.0128
1.50
5.17
Average

96
0.611


9547
-
142
16.6
3.6
15.6
0.0
2.07
61.2
0.88
<10



0.0177
0.0132
1.45
2.80

0.0242
0.180
1.98
3.72
                          174

-------
            SIGHT GLASS
   EXHAUSTS	
   SAND FEF.3
        FLUIDIZED
        SAND .
 PRESSURE
 TAP	*•
                                               PREHEAT BURNER
ACCESS
DOORS
THERMOCOUPLE
                                                  SLUDGE INLET
                                                     FLUIDIZING
                                                     AIR  INLET
       Figure  63.   Cross section of a fluid-bed reactor.142
                              175

-------
TABLE 38.  FLUIDIZED-BED SLUDGE INCINERATOR
           FACILITY - SUMMARY OF RESULTS152
Run number
Date
Test time, minutes
l-umace feed rate,
tons/hr dry solids
Slack effluent
Row rate, dscfm
Flow rate, dscf/ton feed
Temperature, °F
Water vapor, vol. %
COj , vol. % dry
O2 , vol. % dry
CO, vol. % dry
SO2 emissions, ppm

NOX emissions, ppm

MCI emissions, ppm
Visible emission,
'/' opacity
Particulate emissions
Probe and filter catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
Total catch
gr/dscf
gr/acf
Ib/hr
Ib/ton of feed
1
7-21-71
120
0.255


1190
280,000
99
3.92
8.8
6.3
0.0
8.29 to 11.2

1 54 to 1 68

0.780 to 260
<10



0.0551
0.0468
0.562
2.20

0.0665
0.0565
0.678
2.66
2
7-21-71
96
0.237


1170
296,000
99
4.90
9.9
7.4
0.0
14.8 to 14.8

4 1.2 to 42.9

4.16 to 1.56
<10



0.0766
0.0650
0.768
3.24

0.0859
0.0729
0.861
3.63
3
7-22-71
96
0.202


1240
368,000
95
3.48
9.1
8.2
0.0
14.2 to 15.4
17.8
187 to 170
161
2.35 to 2.09
<10



0.0545
0.0467
0.579
2.87

0.0653
0.0559
0.694
3.43
Average

104
0.231


1200
315,000
98
3.83
9.3
7.3
0.0
13.8

132

2.26
<10



0.062 1
0.0528
0.636
2.77

0.0726
().()(. 18
0.744
3.24
                    176

-------
     .RELIEF VENT
                             HOT CAS DUCT
        REFRACTORY




(•/•/•A  HOT GAS TO DRYING SYSTEM




1      |  DRYING SYSTEM
f~~"   1  SLUDGE




        COMBUSTION AIR




        DEODORIZED GAS
       Figure  64.   Flash dryer  system.11*2
                         177

-------
                SLUDGE
                TANK
                STORAGE
SUUDGE
  AIR COMPRESSOR
   BIOTREATMENT
   (OPTIONAL)
SOLIDS
SEPARATION
                 STERILE
                 LIQUID

          (SETTLING
          FILTRATION OR
          CENTRIFUGATION)
                                                          REACTOR
                                                           IVBI
                                                          STEAM
                                                          GENERATOR
                                                          (OPTIONAL)
POWER
RECOVERY
(OPTIONAL)
                    CATALYTIC
                    GAS
                    PURIFIER
                    SEPARATOR
    COLORLESS
    EXHAUST
    GAS
    STERILE
    INOFFENSIVE
    SOLIDS
                                 OXIDIZED SLUDGE

                                 GASES
                              ^^  STEAM
            Figure  65.  Wet air oxidation system.
                               178

-------
5.   Cyclonic incinerators - Cyclonic incinerators are designed for sludge
     disposal in smaller waste water treatment plants.  The principle of
     the cyclonic reactors is that high velocity air, preheated with
     combustion gases from a burner is introduced tangentially into a
     cylindrical combustion chamber.  Concentrated sludge solids are
     sprayed radially towards the intensely heated combustor's walls.
     This feed is caught tip in rapid cyclonic flow of hot gases and
     combustion occurs rapidly.  These reactors process combined primary
     and secondary sludge at nominal rates up to 100 to 130 pounds of
     dry solids per hour or 500 to 650 pounds of wet sludge per hour.
     Figures 66 and 67 show two different systems commercially available.

6.   Atomized Suspension Technique - This technique is designed for high
     temperature-low pressure thermal processing of wastewater sludges.
     In this system, sludges are reduced to an innocuous ash and bacteria
     and odors are destroyed.  This system is also known as spray
     evaporation and thermosonic reactor system.  Figure 68 shows the
     basic components of the system.  The unique features of the process
     start with a sonic atomizer that produces a mist of fine particle
     spray at the top of the reactor*  The following steps are generally
     included:

     a.   Thickening of the feed sludge to 8 percent and higher.

     b.   Grinding the sludge to reduce particle size to less than 25y.

     c.   Spraying the sludge into the reactor top to form an atomized
          suspension.

     d.   Drying and burning the sludge in the reactor.

     e.   Collecting and separating the ash from the hot gases.

     It has been estimated that a raw sludge having a heating value of
     8780 Btu/lb of dry solids would have to be thickened to 14 percent
     to be thermally self-sufficient.

7.   Infrared Incinerator - an all electric furnace using an infrared
     heat source is under development by Shirco Co., Dallas, Texas, with
     the first full-scale sludge incineration units scheduled for
     Richardson, Texas (500 Ib/hr) and Greenville, Texas (900 Ib/hr).
     Recent developments in infrared lamps, coupled with the advent of
     silicon controlled rectifiers, semiconductor controls of ceramic
     reflector materials, have provided an economical means for applying
     and controlling radiant energy.
                               179

-------
CYCLONIC REACTOR
            BLOWER
                                                               SLUDGE HOPPER
                        Figure 66.   Skid-mounted cyclonic
                                    incinerator system.11*2
                                      180

-------
Figure 67.  Cyclone furnace.142
             181

-------
 RAW SLUDGE
                                                    — DUST
                                                    SEPARATOR
FILTRATE
          GRINDER
         AUXILIARY
      FUEL a AIR FEED
REACTOR
 FEED  PUMP
                                               INERT ASH
Figure  68.   Thermosonic  incinerator  system for  treatment and
             disposal  of  raw sludge.14
                                182

-------
3.6.1.5  Air Pollution--

     Emission limitations for refuse Incinerators published in the Federal

Register on December 23, 1971, include "no owner of operator subject to the

provisions of this part shall discharge or cause the discharge into the

atmosphere of particulate matter which is in excess of 0.18 g/NM3 (0.08 gr/scf)

corrected to 12 percent C021'-  Federal standards for sludge incinerator

emissions published in the Federal Register on August 4,  1978 read as follows:

     "No operator of any sewage sludge incinerator subject to the provision
      of this sub-part shall discharge or cause the discharge into the
      atmosphere of:

      1.  Particulate matter at a rate in excess of 0.65  g/kg dry sludge input
          (1.30 Ib/ton dry sludge input).

      2.  Any gases which exhibit 20 percent capacity or  greater.  Where the
          presence of uncombined water is the enly reason for failure to meet
          the requirements of this paragraph such failure shall not be a
          violation of this section."

     The emission standard for refuse incinerators is based on units of

concentration, whereas the standard for sludge incinerators is based on units

of mass.  The reasons for this difference is national emissions standards are

complex; EPA considered setting an emission standard for  refuse incinerators on

a mass basis but rejected it because it concluded that there was no reliable

method to determine the incinerator firing rate.  In the  case of sludge
                                                                         i
incinerators the original proposed regulation was based on units of concentration,

but was changed because significant dilution occurs; and  control devices,

usually wet scrubbers, absorb' some C02 in the discharge gases, and this, as

well as the CC>2  from auxiliary fuel, changes the gas composition and thus

the reference basis such as 12 percent C02-  Table 39 shows the emission

factors for sewage sludge incinerators set by EPA.11*9
                                      183

-------
TABLE 39.  EMISSION FACTORS FOR SEWAGE SLUDGE INCINERATORS
           EMISSION FACTOR RATING149

Emissions*
Pollutant

Particulate
Sulfur dioxide
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen oxides (as N02>
Hydrocarbons
Hydrogen chloride gas
Uncontrolled
Ib/ton
100
1
Neg
6
1.5
1.5
kg/MT
50
0.5
Neg
3
0.75
0.75
After scrubber
Ib/ton
3
0.8
Neg
5
1
0.3
kg/MT
1.5
0.4
Neg
2.5
0.5
0.15

t
Unit weights in terms of dried sludge.
Estimated from emission factors after scrubbers.
                              184

-------
     The most commonly used control device for pollution abatement in sludge




incineration is wet scrubbers because neither electrostatic precipitators nor




fabric filters have been successfully applied to sludge incineration in the




United States.  ESP's have been successfully applied in Japan; however, and




their performance has formed the basis for setting emission standards.




3.6.2  Incineration of Hazardous Wastes




3.6.2.1  Introduction—




     The term "hazardous waste" means that any waste or combination of wastes




which pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or living




organisms because such wastes are lethal, nondegradable, or persistant in




nature; may be biologically magnified, or may otherwise cause or tend to cause




detrimental cumulative effects.  General categories of hazardous waste are




toxic chemical, flammable, radioactive, explosive and biological.  These wastes




can take the form of solids, sludges, liquids or gases.




     Figure 69 shows a screening method as to whether or not a particular




type of waste should be regarded as hazardous.  This decision algorithm for




determining waste stream hazardousness has been developed by Battelle Memorial




Institute.




     Incineration is one method of waste treatment used throughout industry




for destroying solid or liquid combustible hazardous wastes or converting them




into less toxic, less hazardous materials.  Unless adequate controls are




exercised, incineration can lead to atmospheric release of undesired pollutants




such as ECU, SOX, NOX, hydrocarbons and particulates.  Incineration of hazardous




wastes is generally considered as a means of detoxification, as well as a




volume reduction process and in certain circumstances, an energy recovery
                                      185

-------
                  WASTE
                 STKEAM
          DOES WASTE CONTAIN
       RADIOACTIVE CONSTITUENTS
             s MFC LEVELS?
                      NO
           IS WASTE SUBJECT TO
           BIOCONCENTRATION?
                      NO
          IS WASTE FLAMMABILITY
           IN NFPA CATEGORY 4?
                      NO
           IS WASTE REACTIVITY
           IN NFPA CATEGORY 4?
                      NO
        DOES WASTE HAVE AN ORAL
             LD5r, < 50 mg/kg?
                      NO
      IS WASTE INHALATION TOXICITY
          200 ppm AS GAS OR MIST?
          LC5n < 2 mg/liter AS DUST?
                      NO
      IS WASTE DERMAL PENETRATION
        TOXICITY LD50 < 200 mg/kg?
                      NO
       IS WASTE DERMAL IRRITATION
           REACTION < GRADE 8?
        DOES WASTE HAVE AQUATIC
          96 hr TLm < 1,000 mg/liter?
                      NO
          IS WASTE PHYTOTOXICITY
            ILS „ < 1,000 mg/liter?
                      NO
            DOES WASTE CAUSE
            GENETIC CHANGES?
                      NO
             OTHER WASTES
                                     YES
                                     YES
                                     YES
                                     YES
                                     YES
YES
                                     YES
                                     YES
                                     YES
YES
                                     YES
                                                        HAZARDOUS WASTES
Figure  69.   Flow chart  of  the hazardous  waste  screening model.151
                                       186

-------
process.  Various other treatment methods commonly used based on their toxicity,




explosiveness of flammability, pathogenicity and radioactivity are shown in




Table 40.




     The purpose of this study is to develop basic background information on




industrial hazardous wastes incineration and use this information to estimate




atmospheric pollution emissions.




3.6.2.2  Waste Characterization—




     Generally, only organic materials are candidates for incineration although




some inorganics can also be thermally degraded.  In order to determine which




type of hazardous wastes can be incinerated with the minimal environmental




pollution, certain basic information about the chemical and physical properties




of the waste must be known as shown in Table 41.  In general, the chemical




content of the wastes dictates the selection of gaseous and liquid effluent




pollution control equipment downstream of the incinerator.  The thermal content




of the wastes determines the design of the incinerator, and the toxicity of the




hazardous waste and therefore its combustion products dictates the environmental




pollution and health hazard for the process.  Finally the disposal rate of




hazardous wastes determines the size of the incineration unit.  There are ten




basic types of incinerator units as shown in Figure 70; the types of inciner-




ator systems amenable to pollution abatement equipment application are also




shown.




3.6.2.3  Hazardous Wastes and Chemicals Disposable by Incineration—




     A listing of hazardous materials from industrial waste streams and their




disposal practices was prepared by Booz-Allen Applied Research in early 1973




under EPA Contract No. 68-03-002.155  A detailed study on the state of the




art review of hazardous waste incineration,  together with the methods of
                                     187

-------
                                 TABLE  40.    CUREENTLY AVAILABLE HAZARDOUS  WASTE TREATMENT AND
                                                 DISPOSAL  PROCESSES150
do
oo
Process
Physical treatment:
Carbon sorption
Dialysis
Electrodialysis
Evaporation
Filtration
Flocculation/settling
Reverse osmosis
Ammonia stripping
Chemical treatment:
Calcination
Ion exchange
Neutralization
Oxidation
Precipitation
Reduction
Thermal treatment:
Pyrolysis
Incineration
Biological treatment:
Activated sludges
Aerated lagoons
Waste stabilization ponds
Trickling filters
Disposal/storage:
Deep^well injection
Detonation
Engineered storage
Land burial
Ocean dumping
Functions
performed^

VR, Se
VR, Se
VR, Se
VR, Se
VR, Se
VR, Se
VR, Se
VR, Se

VR
VR, Se, De
De
De
VR, Se
De

VR, De
De, Di

De
De
De
De

Di
Di
St
Di
Di
Types of waste t

1,3,4,5
1,2,3.4
1,2,3,4,6
1,2,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,4,6
1,2,3,4

1,2,5
1,2,3,4,5
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4
1,2,3,4,5
1,2

3,4,6., ••''
3,5,6,7,8;

-3 ;.-
3
3
3

1,2,3,4,6,7
6,8
1,2, 3,4, 5,,6, 7,8
1,2, 3, 4, 5, =6, 7, 8
1,2,3,4,7,8
Forms
of waste §

L,;G
L
'"-'" L
L- -
L, G
L
L
L

L
L
L
L
L
L

S, L, G
S, L, G

L
L
L
;v L
t£'
- . -,g .
S S,,,L, G
S, L, G
S, L
S,L, G
Resource
recovery
capability

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes


Yes
Yes

Yes


Yes
Yes

No
No
No
No

No
No
No .
No
No
                        *Sources: EPA Contract Nos. 68*03-0089, 68-01-0762, and 68-01-0556.
                        tFunctions: VR, volume reduction; Se, separation; De, detoxification; Di, disposal; and St, storage.
                        tWaste types:  1, iflprganic chemical without :heavy metalsj 2, inorganic chemical with heavy metals; 3, organic'chemical
                  -without heavy- metals; 4, organic chemical withheavy metals; 5, radiological; 6, biological; 7, flammable; and 8, explosive*.
                            ite forms::  S, solid; L, liquidjind G, gas.

-------
       TABLE 41.  BASIC DATA CONSIDERATIONS FOR HAZARDOUS
                  WASTES CHARACTERIZATION132
   Type (s) of waste
   Liquid, solid, gas or mixtures
Ultimate analysis
Metals

Halogens
Heating value
Solids

Liquids

Gases
Special characteristics
or hazards
Chemical reactivity and
exposure hazards
Disposal rates
Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and nitrogen,
water, sulfur, and ash on an "as-
received" basis.
Calcium, sodium, copper, vanadium,
etc.
Bromides, chlorides, fluorides.
Btu/lb on an "as-received" basis.
Size, form and quantity to be
received.
Viscosity as a function of tempera-
ture, specific gravity and impurities.
Density and impurities.
Toxicity and corrosiveness, other
unusual features.
Acidity or alkalinity, reaction with
air and water.
Peak, average, minimum (present and
future).
                             189

-------
Figure 70.  Types of incinerators and their applications.132

-------
reduction; neutralization; recovery and disposal of hazardous wastes has been


carried out by TRW Systems Groups under EPA Contract No. 68-^03-0089 in late


1973, resulting a list of hazardous chemicals and wastes that can be disposed


of by incineration (Table 42).  Office of Solid Waste Management of EPA  in


1975 has extracted the information from TRW study and added pertinent informa-


tion from office files and developed a matrix indicating known incineration

                                           !
criteria for individual wastes in EPA Report SW 141.  Reference to this matrix


is useful in determining whether incineration of the material is feasible or not;


resource recovery methods may be available; potential off gas constituents


of concern; and in some cases estimates of satisfactory temperature/residence


time conditions.


     Since the scope of this study does not include incinerators in the petro-


chemical industry as defined in Organic Chemical Producers Data Base Program156


carried out by Radian Corporation under EPA Contract No. 68-02-1319 (1976),


those organic chemicals listed in the EPA report SW 141157 are deleted.


Incinerable solid hazardous wastes not listed in the Radian report and cate-


gorized as industrially disposable in the EPA SW 141 report are summarized in


Table 43.  Their sources, production rates, provisional limits and potential


pollution emissions are also given.  Because most of the wastes that are


incinerable are organic, the list given in Table 43 represents hazardous


wastes that require treatment before incineration can be carried out or they


have unique thermal properties (most of them are explosive wastes)4


3.6.2.4  Estimation of the Quantity of Incinerable Hazardous
         Wastes Generated—


     From an EPA survey in 197515^ it is estimated that the total amount of


hazardous wastes generated from 14 industrial groups studied as shown in
                                     191

-------
  TABLE  42.    HAZARDOUS  CHEMICALS  WHICH  CAN  BE  DISPOSED
                     OF  BY  INCINERATION132
According to R.S. Ottinger et al     waste organic chemical  stream constituents which injy
he subjected to ultimate disposal  in concentrated form by controlled incineration  are:
     Acetaldehyde
     Acetic Acid
     Acetic Anhydride
     Acetone1
     Acetone Cyanohydrtn: oxides of nitrogen
        are removed from the  effluent gas by
        scrubbers and/or thermal devices.
     Acctonitnle:  oxides of nitrogen are re
        moved from the effluent gas by
        sciubbers anil/or thermal devices.
     Acetyl Chloride
     Acetylene
     Acndine.  oxides of nitrogen are  removed
        horn  tin.' effluent gas by scrubber, cata-
        lytic or thcnnal device.
     Acrolem   1 500 F , 0.5 sec minimum for pri-
      rn.iiy cunibuslinn, 2000"F, 1.0 sec for sec-
      ondary combustion, combustion products
      CO, anil H2O.
     Acrylic Acid
     Aciylonilrile: NOX removed from effluent
      (|as by sciubbns and/or tberrnal devices.
     Adipic Acid
     Allyl Alcohol
     Allyl Chloride 1800"F, 2 seconds minimum.
     Aimnocfhylethanolamine. incinerator is
        equipped with a scrubber or thermal
        unit to reduce NOx emissions.
     Amyl Acetate
     Arnyl Alcohol
     Aniline'  oxides of nitrogen are removed
        from'the effluent gas  by scrubber, cata-
        lytic  or thermal device.
     Anthracene
     Ben/ene
     Bcn/ene Sulfonic  Acid:  incineration fol-
        lowed by scrubbing to lernove the SO2
        gas.
      Ben/oic Acid
      Ben/yl Chloride   1500"F, 0.5 second mini-
        mum for primary combustion; 2200 F,
         1.0 second loi secondary combustion;
   elemental chlorine  lorrnjiion may If
   alleviated through injection of steam
   or methane into the combustion ptocess.
Butadiene
Butane
Butanols
1-Butene
Butyl Acrylate
n-Butylamme:  mcineiator is equipped with
   a scrubber or thermal uml lo redun-
   NOx emissions.
Butylencs
Butyl Phenol
Butyraldehyde
Camphor
Carbolic Acid (Phenol)
Carbon Disulfide"  a sulfur dioxide se.iubbtM
   is necessary when combusting significant
   quantities ol carbon disulfidc.
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon Tetrachloride-  preferably  alter mix
   ing with another combustible fuel, can-
   must be exercised to assure complete
   combustion to prevent the lonnahon ol
   phosgene, an  acid scrubber is necessary
   to remove, the halo acids produced.
Chloral Hydrate   same as caibon tetrachloride
Chloroben^crie:  same as carbon tetrachloride.
Chloroform, same as carbon tetiachlonde.
Creosote
Cresol
Crotonaldehyde
Cumenc
Cyanoacetic Acid"  oxides ol nitruqen  are
   lemoved from the ellluent gas  by scrub-
   bets and/or thermal devices.
Cyclohexane
Cyclohexanol
Cyclohexanone
Cyclohexylamme'   incinerator  is equipped
   with a  scrubber  or theimal unit to reduce
   NOX emissions.
                                         (continued)
                                           192

-------
                          TABLE  42  (continued)
Decyl Alcohol
L)i n-Bulyl Phthalalu
Dichlorobeiwene: incineration, preferably
   after mixing with  another combustible
   fuel. Cam must be exercised to assure
   complete combustion to prevent the
   formation of phosgene.  An acid scrubber
   is necessary to remove the halo  acids pro-
   duced.
Dichlorodifluoromethane (Freon): same
   as dichlotobenzene
Dichloroethyl Ether;  same as dichlorobenzene
Dichlorornethane:  (methylene chloride}
   same as dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloropropane: same as dichlorobenzene
Oichlorototurfluoroethane:  same as dichloro-
   benzene.
Dicycloperitadiene
Diethanolamine:  incinerator is equipped
   with a scrubber or thermal unit to  re-
   duce NO,, emissions.
Diethylumine.  same  as diethanolamine.
Dielhylene  Glycol
Dinthyl Ether:  concentrated waste contain-
   ing no peroxides:  discharge- liquid at a
   controlled rate near a pilot flame.  Con-
   centrated waste containing peroxides:
   perforation of a container of the waste
   from a safe distance followed by open
   burning.
Diethyl  Phthalate
Diethylstilbestrol
Diisobutylone
Diisobutyl Ketone
Diisopropanolamine:  incinerator is equipped
   with a scrubber or thermal unit to  reduce
   NOX emissions.
Dirnethylarnine:  same as diisopropanolamine.
Dimethyl Sulfate:  incineration  (1800°F, 1.5
   seconds minimum) of dilute, neutralized
   dimethyl  sulfate waste is recommended.
   The incinerator must be equipped  with
   efficient scrubbing devices for oxides
   of sulfur.
2,4-DinitFoaniline: controlled  incineration
   whereby oxides of nitrogen are removed
   from the effluent  gas by scrubber,  cata-
   lytic or thermal device.
Dinitroben/.oli  incineration (1800DF,  2.0
   seconds minimum) followed  by removal
   of the oxides of nitrogen that are  formed
   using scrubbers and/or catalytic or  thermal
   devices.  The dilute wastes should be con-
   centrated before incineration.
Dinitrocresol:  incineration {1100F mini-
   mum) with adequate scrubbing and ash
   disposal  facilities.
Dinitrophenol:   incinerated (1800°F,  2.0
   seconds minimum) with adequate scrub-
   bing; equipment for the removal of NOX.
DinitrotoluiMie:  pretieatment  involves contact
   of the dinitrotoluenc contaminated waste
   with NaHCOj and solid combustibles
   followed by incineration in an alkaline
   scrubber  equipped incinerator  unit.
Dioxane:  concentrated waste containing
   no peroxides; discharge liquid at a con-
   trolled rate near a pilot flame. Concen-
   trated waste containing peroxides: per-
   foration of a container of  the waste
   from a safe distance followed by open
   burning.
Dipropyiene Glycot
Dodecylbenzene
Epichlorohydrin:   incineration,  preferably
   after mixing with another  combustible
   fuel.  Care must be exercised to assure
   complete combustion to prevent the for-
   mation of phosgene.  An acid scrubber
   is necessary to remove the halo acids
   produced.
Ethane
Ethanol
Ethanolamine:  controlled incineration; in-
   cinerator is equipped with  a  scrubber or
   thermal  unit to reduce NOX  emissions.
Ethyl Acetate
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethylamine:  controlled incineration; incin
   erator is equipped with a scrubber or
   thermal  unit to reduce NOX  emissions
Ethylbenzene
Ethyl Chloride:  incineration, preferably
   after mixing with another combustible
   fuel.  Care must  be exercised to assure
   complete combustion to prevent the for-
   mation of phosgene.  An acid scrubber
   is necessary to remove the halo acids pro-
   duced.
Ethylene
Ethylene Cyanohydrin:  controlled incinera-
   tion (oxides of nitrogen are removed from
   the effluent gas by scrubbers and/or ther-
   mal devices).
Ethylene Diamine: same as ethylene cyano-
   hydrin.
Ethylene Dibromide: controlled incineration
   with  adequate scrubbing and ash disposal
   facilities.
Ethylene Dichloride: incineration, preferably
   after mixing with another  combustible
   fuel.  Care must be exercised to assure
   complete combustion to prevent the for-
   mation of phosgene.  An acid scrubber
   is necessary to remove the halo  acids pro-
   duced.
Ethylene Glycol
Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ether:  concen-
   trated waste containing no peroxides; dis-
   charge liquid at a controlled rate near a
   pilot flame.  Concentrated waste contain-
   ing peroxides:   perforation of a container
   of the waste from a safe distance followed
   by open burning.
Ethyl Mercaptatv.  incineration  (2000°F) fol-
   lowed by scrubbing  with a caustic solution.
Fatty Acids
Formaldehyde
Formic Acid
Furfural
                                    (continued)
                                          193

-------
                           TABLE  42   (continued)
Glycerin
n Heptane
Hexamethylene Diamine:  incinerator  is
   equipped with a scrubber or thermal
   unit to reduce NOX  emissions.
Hexane
Hydroqumone   incineration {1800 F, 2.0
   sec  minimum} then scrub to remove
   harmful  combustion products.
Isobutyl  Acetate
Isopentane
Isophoronc
Isoprene
tsopropanol
Isopropyl Acetate
Isopropyl Amine:  controlled incineration
   (incinerator is equipped with a scrubber
   or thermal unit to reduce NOX emissions).
Isopiopyl Ether:  concentrated waste con-
   taining no peroxides; discharge liquid
   at a controlled rate  near a pilot flame.
   Concentrated waste containing peroxides:
   perforation of a container of the waste
   from a safe distance followed by open
   burning.
Maleic Anhydride:  controlled incineration:
   care must be  taken  that complete oxida-
   tion to nontoxic products occurs.
Mercury  Compounds:(Organic):  incineration
   followed by recovery/removal of mercury
   from  the gas  stream.
Mesityl Oxide
Methanol
Methyl Acetate
Methyl Acrylatc
Methyl Ammo'  controlled incineration (incin-
   erator is equipped with a scrubber  or
   thermal unit  to reduce NOX emissions).
 Methyl Amyl Alcohol
 n-Methylanilincr  controlled incineration
   whereby oxides of nitrogen are removed
   from  the effluent gas by scrubber,  cata-
   lytic or thermal device.
 Methyl Bromide:  controlled incineration
   with adequate scrubbing and ash disposal
   facilities.
 Methyl Chloride:  same as methyl bromide
 Methyl Chloroformate:  incineration,  prefer-
   ably after mixing with another combustible
   fuel.  Care must be exercised to assure
   complete combustion to prevent the for-
   mation of phosgene-  An acid scrubber
   is necessary to remove the  halo acids
   produced.
 Methyl Ethyl Ketone
 Methyl Formate
 Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
 Methyl Mercaptan:  incineration  followed
    by effective  scrubbing of the effluent
   gas
 Methyl Methacrylate Monomer
 Morpholme   controlled incineration  (incin-
    erator is equipped with a scrubber or
    thermal unit to reduce NOX emissions).
Naphtha
Naphthalene
/3-Naphthylamine:  controlled incineration
   whereby oxides of nitrogen are removed
   from the effluent gas by scrubber, cata
   lyst or thermal device.
Nitroamlme:  incineration (1800"F, 2.0 -we
   onds minimum) with scrubbing for NO*
   abatement.
Nitrobenzene:   same as nitroamhne
Nitrocellulose:  incinerator is equipped wiih
   scrubber for NOX abatement.
Nitrochloroben/cne.  incineration (1500°F,
   0.5 second for primary combustion,
   2200°F, 1.0  second for secondary combus
   tion). The formation of elemental chlo
   rine can be prevented through injection
   of steam or  methane into the combustion
   process. NOx may be abated  through the
   use of thermal or catalytic devices.
Nitroethane*  incineration, large  quantities of
   material may require NOx removal by
   catalytic or scrubbing processes.
Nitromethane'  same  as mtroethane
Nitrophenol.  controlled incineration:  can;
   must be taken to maintain complete com
   bustion at all times.  Incineration of large
   quantities may require  scrubbers to control
   the emission of NOX.
Nitropropane:   same as mtroethane
4-Nitrotoluene:  same as mtrophenol
Nonyl Phenol
Octyl Alcohol
Oleic Acid
Oxalic  Acid:  pretreatment involves chemical
   reaction with limestone or calcium oxide
   forming calcium oxalate. This may then
   be incinerated utilizing particulate collec
   tion  equipment to collect calcium oxide
   for recycling.
Paraformaldehyde
Pentachlorophenol:  incineration (600 to
   900"C) coupled with adequate scrubbing
   and ash disposal facilities.
n-Pentane
Perchloroethylene:  incineration, preferably
   after mixing with another  combustible
   fuel.  Care must be exercised to assure
   complete combustion to prevent the for
   mation of phosgene. An acid scrubbei
   is necessary  to  remove the halo acids pro-
   duced.
Phenylhydrazine Hydrochlonde   controlled
   incineration whereby oxides of nitrogen
   are  removed from the  effluent gas by
   scrubber, catalytic or thermal device.
Phthalic Anhydride
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)  incinera-
   tion (3000°F) with scrubbing to remove
   any  chlorine containing products.
Polypropylene Glycol Methyl Ether   eoncrn
   trated waste containing no peroxides   <.iis
   charges liquid at a controlled rate near a
   pilot flame.  Concentrated waste containing
   peroxides:   perforation of a  cofHanvi  of the
                                     (continued)
                                          194

-------
                                TABLE  42   (continued)
        waste from a safe distance followed by
        open burning.
     Polyvinyl Chloride:   incineration, preferably
        after mixing with another combustible
        fuel. Care must  be exercised to assure
        complete combustion to prevent the
        formation of phosgene.  An acid scrubber
        is necessary to remove the halo acids  pro-
        duced.
     Propane
     Propionaldehyde
     Propionic Acid
     Propyl Acetate
     Propyl Alcohol
     Propyl Amine:  controlled incineration (incin-
        erator is equipped with a scrubber or  ther-
        mal unit to reduce NOx emissions).
     Propylene
     Propylene Oxide: concentrated waste con-
        taining no peroxides:  discharge liquid at
        a controlled rate  near a pilot flame. Con-
        centrated waste containing peroxides:   per-
        foration of a container of the waste from
        a safe distance followed  by open  burning.
     Pyridine:  controlled incineration whereby
        oxides of nitrogen are removed from the
        effluent gas  by scrubber, catalytic or ther-
        mal devices.
     Quinone:  controlled incineration  (1800°F,
        2.0 seconds minimum).
     Salicylic Acid
     Sorbitol
     Styrene
     Tetrachloroethane:  incineration, preferably
        after mixing with another combustible
        fuel.  Care must  be exercised to assure
        complete combustion to prevent the
        formation of phosgene.  An acid scrubber
        is necessary  to remove the halo acids  pro-
        duced.
     Tetraethyl  Lead:  controlled incineration with
   scrubbing for collection  of lead oxides
   which may be recycled or landfilled.
Tetrahydrofuran:  concentrated waste contain-
   ing peroxides: perforation of a container
   of the waste from a safe distance followed
   by open burning.
Tetrapropylene
Toluene
Toluene Diisocyanate:  controlled incineration
   (oxides of nitrogen are removed from the
   effluent gas by scrubbers and/or thermal
   devices).
Toluidine:  same as toluene diisocyanate.
Trichlorobenzene:  incineration, preferably
   after mixing with another combustible
   fuel. Care must be exercised to assure
   complete combustion to prevent the
   formation of  phosgene.  An acid scrubber
   is necessary to remove the halo acids  pro-
   duced.
Trichloroethane:  same as trichlorobenzene.
Trichloroethylene:  same as trichlorobenzene.
Trichlorofluoromethane:  same as trichloro-
   benzene.
Triethanolamine: controlled incineration
   (incinerator is equipped with a scrubber
   or thermal unit to reduce NOX  emissions).
Triethylamine:  same as triethanolamine.
Triethylene Glycol
Triethylene Tetramine:  same as triethanol-
   amine.
Turpentine
Urea:  same as triethanolamine.
Vinyl Acetate
Vinyl Chloride:  incineration, preferably after
   mixing  with another combustible fuel.
   Care must be exercised to assure complete
   combustion to prevent the formation  of
   phosgene.  An acid scrubber is necessary
   to remove the halo acids produced.
Xylene
Also according to R.S. Ottinger et al (3), inorganic chemicals which may be disposed of
(after  indicated pretreatment in some cases) by controlled incineration are:

        Boron Hydrides:  with aqueous scrubbing of exhaust gases to remove B^03 particulates.
        Fluorine:  pretreatment involves reaction  with a charcoal bed. The product of the re
             action is carbon tetrafluoride which is usually vented.  Residual fluorine can be
             combusted by means  of a fluorine-hydrocarbon air burner followed by a caustic
             scrubber and stack.
        Hydrazine:  controlled incineration with facilities for effluent scrubbing to abate any
             ammonia formed in the combustion process.
        Hydrazine/Hydrazine Azide: the blends should be diluted with water and sprayed
             into an incinerator equipped with a scrubber.
        Mercuric Chloride:  incineration followed by recovery/removal of mercury from the
             gas stream.
        Mercuric Nitrate:  same as mercuric chloride.
        Mercuric Sulfate:  same as mercuric chloride.
        Phosphorus (white or yellow):   controlled incineration followed by alkaline scrubbing
             and paniculate removal equipment.
        Sodium Azide: disposal may be accomplished by reaction with sulfuric acid solution
             and sodium nitrate in a hard rubber vessel. Nitrogen dioxide is generated by this
             reaction and the gas is run through  a scrubber before it is released to the atmos
             phere.  Controlled incineration is also acceptable (after mixing with othnr combus
                                      (continued)
                                                195

-------
                              TABLE   42  (continued)
             tiblc wastes} with adequate scrubbing and ash disposal facilities.
        Sodium Formate: pretreatment involves conversion to formic acid followed by con-
             trolled incineration.
        Sodium Oxalate:  pretreatment involves conversion to oxalic acid followed  by  con-
             trolled incineration.
        Sodium-Potassium Alloy:  controlled incineration with subsequent effluent  scrubbing.

Further, according to  R.S. Ottinger et al (3), waste pesticide  streams which may  be sub
jected to ultimate  disposal by incineration are:

        Aldrm:  (150Q°F, 0.5 seconds minimum for primary combustion, 3200°F, 1.0 second
             for secondary combustion) with adequate scrubbing and  ash disposal facilities.
        Chlordane.  same as aldrin.
        ODD:  incineration (1500°F, 0.5 second minimum foi primary combustion; 2200°F,
             1.0 second for secondary combustion)  with adequate  scrubbing and ash disposal
             facilities.
        DDT   same  as ODD.
        Demuton: same  as ODD.
        2,4-D*  same as ODD.
        DnHdrm: same as aldrin.
        Guthion. same as ODD.
        Heptachlor:  same as  aldrin.
        Hexachlorophene: incineration, preferably after  mixing with another combustible fuel.
             Care must be exercised to assure complete  combustion to prevent the formation
             of phosgene.  An acid scrubber is necessary to remove the  halo acids produced.
        Methyl Parathion: same  as ODD.
        Parathion: same as ODD.

Finally, according  to R.S. Ottinger et al (3), ordnance waste streams which may be subjected
to ultimate  disposal  by incineration are:

        Ammonium Picrate:   incineration followed by  adequate particulate abatement and wet
             scrubbing equipment.
        1,2,4-Butanetnol Trinitrate.  the current method of absorption in sawdust, wood pulp
             or fullers earth  followed by open pit burning is feasible but unsatisfactory be-
             cause of  the NOX evolved. Methods currently under investigation for minimum
             environmental impact  include bacterial degradation and controlled incineration
             with afterburners and scrubbers  for abatement of NOX.
        Chlorates with Red Phosphorus:  incineration followed by effluent scrubbers to abate
             NOX, P40|{)r HCI, SO2 and metal  oxides.
        Chloropicrin:   incineration (1500 F, 0.5 second minimum for primary combustion;
             2200 F, 1.0 second for secondary combustion) after mixing with other fuel.
             The formation of elemental chlorine may be prevented by  injection of slearn
             or using methane as a fuel in the process.
        Copper Chlorotetrazole:  controlled combustion employing  a rotary  kiln incinerator
             equipped with  appropriate scrubbing devices. The explosive is fed to  the incm
             urator as a  slurry in water.  The scrubber effluent would  require treatment for
             recovery of particulate  metal compounds formed as combustion products.
        Diazodmitrophenol:   incinerator is equipped with suitable afterburner or alkaline
             scrubbing systems for the abatement of the  NOx liberated.
        Dipentaerythritol Hexanitrate:  controlled incineration in  rotary  kiln incinerators
             equipped with afterburner or flue gas scrubbers,
        GB (Nonpersistent Nerve Gas): incineration followed  by adequate gas scrubbing
             equipment, chemical reaction with sodium  hydroxide.
        Gelatinized Nitrocellulose (PNC): controlled incineration in rotary kiln incinerators
             equipped with afterburners or flue gas  scrubbers.
        Glycerolmonoacetate  Trinitrate (GLTN):   current method of absorption in sawdust,
             wood pulp or fullers earth followed  by open pit burning is feasible but unsat-
             isfactory because of the NOx evolved. .Methods currently under  investigation
             for minimum environmental impact  include bacterial degradation and  controlled
             incineration with afterburners and scrubbers for abatement of  NOX.
        Glycol  Dimtrati1  (DON):  controlled incineration in the sctubber equipped Deactivation
             Furnacf incinerator (The Chemical Agent Munition Disposal System).
                                    (continued)
                                             196

-------
                         TABLE  42   (continued)
Gold Fulminate:  controlled combustion employing a rotary kiln incinerator equipped
     with appropriate scrubbing devices.  The explosive is fed to the incinerator as a
     slurry  in water.  The scrubber effluent would require treatment for recovery  of
     paniculate metal compounds formed as combustion products.
Lead 2,4-Oinitroresorcinate (LDNRI:  controlled combustion—the lead dinitroresorcinate
     is fed to the incinerator as slurry in water. The scrubber effluent requires treatment
     for recovery of the paniculate lead oxide  formed  as a product of combustion; U.S.
     Army  Materiel Command s Deactivation Furnace.
Lead Styphnate'  controlled incineration—the lead styphnate is fed to the incinerator as
     a slurry in water.  The scrubber effluent would then require treatment for recovery
     of the paniculate lead oxide formed as a combustion product.
Mannitol Hexanitrate:  incineration followed  by an afterburner to abate NOx,  and  cyclones
     and  scrubbing towers for removal of metallic dusts and fumes.
Mercuric Fulminate:  incineration (Army Materiel Command's Deactivation Furnace) followed
     by caustic or soda ash gas scrubbing.  The mercury is removed from the scrubbing
     solution.
Nitrogen Mustards: incineration—combustion products  are carbon dioxide, water,  HCI  and
     nitrogen oxides. The nitrogen oxides require scrubbing or reduction to nitrogen  and
     oxygen before the combustion gases  are released to the atmosphere.
Nitroglycerin:   incineration—exit gases should be scrubbed in a packed tower with a solution
     of caustic soda or  soda ash.  (U.S. Army Materiel Command Deactivation Furnace)
Pentaerythritol  Tetranitrate (PETN): The  PETN is dissolved in acetone and incinerated.
     The  incinerator should be equipped with an afterburner and a caustic soda solution
     scrubber.
Picric Acid:  controlled  incineration in a rotary  kiln incinerator  equipped with paniculate
     abatement and wet scrubber devices.
Silver Styphnate:  controlled combustion employing a rotary kiln incinerator equipped
     with appropriate scrubbing devices.   The explosive is fed to the incinerator as
     a slurry in water.  The scrubber effluent would require treatment for recovery of
     paniculate metal compounds formed as combustion products.
Silver Tetrazene:  same as silver styphnate.
Smokeless Powder: controlled incineration—incinerator is equipped with scrubber for NOX
     abatement.
Sulfur  Mustards:  sulfur mustard may be dissolved in gasoline and incinerated using the
     U.S. Army Materiel Command's Deactivation Furnace (Chemical Agent Munition
     Disposal System).  The combustion products are removed  by alkaline scrubbing.
TNT:   TNT is dissolved  in acetone and incinerated.  The incinerator should be equipped
     with an afterburner and a caustic soda solution scrubber.
Tear Gas (CN) (Chloroacetophenone):   tear gas-containing waste is dissolved in an  organic
     solvent and sprayed into an incinerator equipped  with an afterburner and alkaline
     scrubber;  reaction  with sodium sulfide in  an alcphol-water solution.   Hydrogen sul-
     fide  is liberated and collected by an  alkaline scrubber.
Tear Gas,  Irritant: hydrolysis in 95%  ethanol and 5% water followed by incineration and
     then by a caustic scrubber.
Tetranitromethane: open burning at remote  burning sites.  This procedure is  not  entirely
     satisfactory since it makes  no provision for the control of the toxic effluents,
     NOx and HCN. Suggested  procedures are  to employ modified closed pit burning,
     using blowers for air supply and passing the effluent combustion gases through
     wet scrubbers.
VX (persistent nerve gas):   incineration followed by adequate gas scrubbing equipment.
                                         197

-------
                       TABLE  43.    INCINERABLE  SOLID HAZARDOUS  WASTES
Hazardous

AmionluM
nitrate


Beryll lum
carbonate
Beryllium
chloride
Beryllium
hydroxide
Beryllium
ellenate
Boronhyd rides




Carbon-
nonoxlde


FZurlne


Cold fulminate
Hvdrocyanlde ac Id
Mercuric flumlnate


Nitrogen mustard
Pntnnnliim oifllflte

™^ ("g/n3) (»g/l) Iba/yr)
I 28 0.01 O.OS 100
(at? picric acid)


X 33 0.0001 1.0 10
(as be)
X 28 0.0001 1.0 10
(as be)
X 28 0.0001 1.0 10
(as be)
X 28 0.0001 1.0 10
(aa be)
0.001 0.005
Penta-borane
0.001 0.005
Decaboranc
0.003 0.015
X 20. 28. 33 0.005 2.75 100

0.001 0.005

X 0.001 0.10 1400
ppm ppn:
(as HF)

X 28, 33, 34 0.11 0.01 410
(as CH)
X 0.005 0.005
(as Hg)

X 3 » 10~6 i.5 - 10~s
X 2B. 34 0.01 0.05
oteatlal pollutants
Ox NO* CBX Others
Concentrated: Incineration followed by adequate
particulate abatement and vet scrubbing equipment
Dilute: Chemical degradation with sodium sulfide
solution. H2S and HE 3 must be scrubbed.
Bee,, Be

BeO,, Be
_ oxide using Incineration and particulate collec-
^t' C tioo techniques. Onldes may be landfilled.
BeO^, Be
SeOx, Se
1)360? gases to remove ^2^3 particulate*.




Controlled Incineration

COC12 scrubbers to abate HO^, P<,0i0, HC1, S02 and metal
oxides.
HF Residue fluorine can be combusted by means of a
AuOx, Au fluorine hydrocarbon air burner followed by a
caustic scrubber and stack.
era tor equipped with appropriate scrubbing devices.

Incineration (Army material commend deactivatioa
furnace) followed by caustic or soda and gas
scrubbing.
X HC1
COC12
Sevln

Sllve
Snokel csf. gunpowder

Sc-dlim a! lov
Sodium aride


Sulphur Bustard
                                     (as oxal ic ac id)
                           19,22,28   0.001     0.005
                           28.  33     0.02      0.1
                                         (as NaOB)
19, 28     0.02     0.1


          3 • 1C-6 1.5 '  10"-
                                                                                     Controlled incineration  followed by alkaline
                                                                                     scrubbing and particulate removal equipment
                                                                            AgO^,     Oxidation with nitrous acid.  Silvio should be
                                                                            Ag       recovered by electrolysis.
                                                 SaOB
                                                 Na203
                                                                                       Controlled incineration
                                                                                     Sulphur custard cay be  dissolved in gasoline and
                                                                                     incinerated using L'.S-  Arny Material Contents
                                                                                     2«ac*.ivatioR rurnace.  Col loved bv alkaline
                                                                                     scrubbing.
                                                                            ZnO
                                                                            Zc
                                                              198

-------
Table 44 is approximately 29 million metric tons (wet).  Roughly  14 percent




of the industrial wastes generated by the industry categories studied is




potentially hazardous (Table 45).  The figure 200 million metric  tons of




industrial waste (wet) generated during 1975 from the 14 industrial groups




is to be compared with an estimated 344 million metric tons of waste generated




from all manufacturing industries, thus approximately 60 percent of all




industrial waste is generated by these 14 industries.  Table 46 summarizes




the growth projections of potentially hazardous waste generated for each




industry between 1974 and 1983.  Amounts of potentially hazardous waste




generated can be seen to increase about 32 percent in the next decade, probably




due in great part to installation of air and water pollution control systems.




In assessing the present techniques for treatment and disposal of potentially




hazardous wastes throughout all the industries studied, data developed by




the EPA contractors shows that less than 10 percent of all potentially




hazardous wastes are now adequately treated or disposed (secure landfills,




controlled incineration, recycling and resource recovery).  For the other




90 percent of potentially hazardous wastes inadequately managed, various




methods were used.  These included uncontrolled burning, which account for




almost 10 percent of the potentially hazardous wastes.  About 40 percent of




these wastes by weight are inorganic materials and about 60 percent are organic;




overall about 90 percent occur in liquid or semi-liquid form (1973 figures).




     Further analysis of the data given above shows that about 9 percent of




the industrial waste generated from the 14 industrial sectors disposed their




hazardous waste by uncontrolled burning, or 12 percent of the industrial waste




is burned (assuming 3 percent of the potentially hazardous wastes is




adequately incinerated).  Using the 1975 figure of 29 million metric tons (wet)





                                     199

-------
TABLE 44.  U.S. POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS WASTE QUANTITIES
           (1975 DATA) (MILLION METRIC TONS ANNUALLY)158


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Industry
Batteries
Inorganic chemicals
Organic chemicals, pesticides,
explosives
Electroplating
Paints
Petroleum refining
Pharmaceuticals
Primary metals
Leather tanning and finishing
Textiles dyeing and finishing
Rubber and plastics
Special machinery
Electronic components
Waste oil re-refining
totals (to date)
Dry basis
0.005
2.000
2.150
0.909
0.075
0.624
0.062
4.429
0.045
•^0.048
0.205
0.102
0.025
0.057
10.731
Wet basis
0.010
3.400
6 . 860
5.276
0.096
1.756
0.065
8.267
0.146
1.770
0.785
0.162
0.035
0.057
28.811
                         200

-------
TABLE 45.  U.S. INDUSTRIAL WASTE GENERATION
           (1975 DATA) (MILLION METRIC TONS-
           ANNUALLY).158


ll.
2,
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Industry category
Batteries
Inroganic chemicals
Organic chemicals, pesticides
explosives
Electroplating
Paints
Petroleum refining
Pharmaceuticals
Primary metals
Textiles dyeing and finishing
Rubber and plastics
Leather tanning and finishing
Special machinery
Electronic components
Waste oil re-refining
Totals
Total dry
0.005
40.000
2.200
0.909
0.370
0.624
0.244
100.351
0.310
2.007
0.064
0.305
0.036
0.057
147.482
Total wet
0.010
68.000
7.000
5.276
0.396
1.756
1.218
109.881
2.099
3.254
0.203
0.366
0.060
0.057
199.566
                  201

-------
                            TABLE 46.  POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS WASTE GROWTH PROJECTIONS158
K3
O
N3


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Industry
Batteries
Inorganic chemicals
Organic chemicals,
Electroplating
Paint and allied products
Petroleum refining
Pharmaceuticals
Primary, metals smelting
and refining
Textiles dyeing and finishing
Leather tanning
Special machinery
Electronic components
Rubber and plastics
Waste oil re-refining
Totals (to date)
Amount
(million metric ton/yr
wet weight)
1974
0.010
3.400
6.860
5.276
0.096
1.756
0.065
8.267
1.770
0.146
0.163
0.035
0.785
0.057
28.811
1977
0.164
3.900
11.666
4.053
0.110
1.841
0.074
8.973
1.870
0.143
0.153
0.078
0.944
0.074
34.043
1983
0.209
• 4.800
12.666
5.260
0.145
1.888
0.108
10.440
0.716
0.214
0.209
0 . 103
1.204
0.144
38.111
% Growth
1974-1983
2000
40
77
92
30
12
63
26
373
51
54
200
46
253
32

-------
hazardous wastes generated from the industries studies, about 3.5 million tons




of hazardous wastes is burned from the 14 industries, or approximately 2 percent




of the total industrial wastes generated from the 14 industries are burned




and are hazardous wastes.  Table 47 summarizes the estimation on quantity




of hazardous wastes incinerated assuming the trend for hazardous waste incinera-




tion will persist through 1983 without any increase in growth rate in incinera-




tion industry (i.e., 1975 figure of 12 percent incinerated).




3.6.3  SIC 806 Hospital Wastes




3.6.3.1  Types of Wastes—




     The majority of hospitals dispose of solid wastes by incineration, land-




fill or a combination of the two processes.  Waste material generated by hospi-




tals can be divided into several types as described by Booz-Allen Applied




Research.155




     1.   Pathological wastes (infectous waste and autopsy)




     2.   Radioactive wastes




     3.   Drug residues and solvents




     4.   Disposables - needles, syringes, test tubes, etc.




     5.   Food residues




     6.   General rubbish




3.6.3.2  Sources of Wastes—




     The sources of solid wastes in hospitals are many - nursing floors and




stations, dietary facilities, laboratory, X-ray and surgical departments,




pharmacy, emergency rooms, office and service area.  The University of Minnesota




School of Public Health in 1970 surveyed 80 hospitals in 37 states to gather




information on the kinds and amounts of wastes hospitals discard and how the
                                     203

-------
 TABLE 47.  ESTIMATION ON QUANTITY
            OF POTENTIAL HAZARDOUS
            WASTES DISPOSED OF BY
            INCINERATION


                   Amount burnt
                 (million ton/yr)
                 1974  1977  1983
Controlled       0.87  1.02  1.14
incineration

Uncontrolled     2.61  3.06  3.42
incineration     	  	  	

  Total          3.5   4.1   4.5
  incinerated

Quantity of       29    34    38
hazardous waste
generated

% Incinerated    12 %  12 %  12 %
               204

-------
wastes are handled and disposed.   In the survey,  dietary facilities account for




about 50 percent of the total wastes, followed by general nursing stations




with 20 percent, surgery and maternity about 4 percent each, and offices and




laboratories 2 percent each.  These figures generally agree with those for the




West Virginia University Medical Center hospital study,160 also funded by EPA




for examination in detail of the kinds and ammounts of wastes discarded, although




the dietary facilities there account for only 40 percent of the wastes.  The




result of the Minnesota survey is schematically shown in Figure 71.




     The composition of the wastes is typical of wastes produced by the community




in general.  Combustible rubbish accounts for about 50 percent of the total




weight of wastes in the hospitals surveyed.  Garbage accounts for approximately




28 percent, followed by noncombustible rubbish at about 9 percent (Figure 72).




3.6.3.3  Quantity of Wastes—




     The quantity of solid wastes generated by hospitals is increasing annually.




This is because of the increasing popularity of single-use items, single patient




items, unit dose and unit serving packages, and similar products.  In 1970, about




10 pounds per patient per day is commonly quoted.  The wastes generated in the




80 general hospitals surveyed by the University of Minnesota range from 4.7 to




16.2 pounds per patient per day.   The mean figure is 8.7 pounds.  The volumes




generated range from 1.0 to 4.0 cubic feet per patient per day, with the mean




being 2 cubic feet.  The data in Table 48 for the New York University Medical




Center illustrate the quantity and types of waste which are generated.  Data




for several hospitals in the Washington, B.C.162 area (Table 49) illustrates




the range of waste-generation rates which have been observed.
                                      205

-------
DIETARY
FACILITIES 49%
GENERAL
NURSING STATIONS 20%
                                                                 SURGERY 4.5%

                                                                 MATERNITY 3.8%

                                                                 LABORATORIES 2.1%

                                                                 ADMINISTRATIVE
                                                                 AND OTHER OFFICES
                                                                 1.6%
                                                            MIXED, OTHER,
                                                            AND UNKNOWN 19.0%
                  Figure  71.   Sources  of hospital wastes.159
                                      206

-------
COMBUSTIBLE
RUBBISH 50%
                                                    GARBAGE 28%
                                                        NONCOMBUSTIBLE
                                                        RUBBISH 9.2%
                                                MIXED, OTHER,
                                                AND UNKNOWN 12.8%
           Figure 72.   Composition of hospital wastes.159
                                207

-------
TABLE 48.  GENERAL HOSPITAL WASTE161
           (Present - 630 beds)


building



University
hospital
Institute of
rehabilitative
medicine
Research
wing




Medical
science
building


Residence
building


Facilities


Patient-
support labs
administration
Patients
rehabilitative
facility
Research for
rehabilitative
medicine
Teaching labs
animal labs
administration
Student
cafeteria

Animal labs
Animal waste

Radioactive
waste
Student
dormitory


area
sqft


569,330


93,380

60,800


307,000

-

_

-

79,000

Total
popu-
lation


2,530


657

610


2,673

-

_

-

473
Daily waste loads

No
ol
beds

630


140

13


-

-

_

-

-
Total entire complex
Pounds


avg

5,450


954

331


812

465

1,200

30

665
9,907

max

5,920


1,056

586


873

490

1,200

30

800
10,555
Ib/lOOsqft


avg

0.96


1.02

0.54


0.27

max

1.04


1.13

0.97


0.29
Ib/person


avg

2.13


1.45

0.54


0.31

max

2.30


1.61

0.97


0.33
Ib/bed


avg

8.60


6.40

-


-

max

9.50


7.15

-


-
This is the scrapping waste from the
cafeteria. See food -service table for
explanation; not incinerated.
This material is handled by lab. It
was not Incinerated at the time of
survey.
Special handling

0.84

1.0

1.40

1.69

-

-

               208

-------
                               TABLE 49.    DATA ON  THE GENERATION, STORAGE,  AND ON-SITE
                                              DISPOSAL OF HOSPITAL WASTE161
Hospital
A

B

C

D

£

F

G
Jsj
O H
VO
I

J

K

L

No. of
beds
152

250

406

367

236

85

1100

523

335

447

80

396

Average
patient
load
11?

250

330

312

156

69

1045

450

300

375

50

322

Disposal
of H.W*
Incin.

Incin.b

Incin.

Incin.

Incin.

Incin.

Incin ,b and
port. cont.
incin.

Incin.

Compac.

Compac.

Incin. and
port. cont.
Disposal
of
garbage
Ground to
sewer
Ground to
sewer
Ground to
sewer
Ground to
sewer
Fed to
hogs
Ground to
sewer
Ground to
sewer
Ground to
sewer
Ground to
sewer
Ground to
sewer
Ground to
sewer
Ground to
sewer
Disposal
of gen.
refuse
Portable
containers
Portable
containers
Port. cont.
and incin.
Port. cont.
and incin.
Incin. and
port. cont.
Port. cont.
and incin.
Port. cont.
and compactor
Incin. and
port. cont.
Incin. and
port. cont.
Port. cont.

Port. cont.

Incin. and
port. cont.
Freq. of
coll. (gen.
refuse/wkl
12

6

6

6

6

4

6

2

6

2

3

6

Incin.
residue
(Ib/day)




413

224

228

300



680

320





285

Gen. refuse
Ib/day
1,980

2.060

1,880

555

912

56

12,390

960

840

4,077

1,370

2,591

Total s/w
Ib/day/bed
13.02

8.25

7.17

3.95

3.87

10.23

11.25

8.81

6.44

9.12

15.62

10.13

Total s/w
Ib/day/
patient
16.9

8.25

8.82

4.65

5.85

12.6

11.85

10.42

7.20

10.87

25.00

12.47

"Hazardous waste.
 Pathological waste only.
Note: Pathological waste and garbage are not included in the total refuse (pounds per patient per day) due to their insignificant effect on overall generation of solid waste.

-------
3.6.3.4  Treatment of Wastes—




     Of the 80 hospitals surveyed in the Minnesota Study (1970), 70 use




incinerators to dispose of some wastes.  Usually the incinerators are operated




by nonskilled personnel.  Grinding of garbage and discharging to public




sewers is practiced at 84 percent of the hospitals, while 27 percent use




grinders to dispose of biological materials into the sewage system.  Another




major method of disposal is on the land - 21 percent of the wastes go to




dumps and 15 percent to sanitary landfills.  The result is summarized in




Figure 73.  A survey155 of Air Force hospital disposal practices (77 bases)




showed that 68 percent of the installations dispose of these wastes by incin-




eration, 13.4 percent by landfill, 16.5 percent use combination of both, and




the remaining 2.1 percent utilize incineration, landfill and sewage disposal.




Pathological wastes, including animal carcasses, autopsy and surgical wastes,




are usually incinerated; however, prior to incineration, microbiological wastes




may be autoclaved.  Radioactive wastes are given to service contracts or




returned to the contractors.  Unused drug products are flushed into the sewage




system, incinerated or returned to the manufacturer.  Disposables are broken




or crushed prior to incineration - or removal to landfill.




3.6.3.5  Hazardous Hospital Wastes—




     The various kinds of potentially hazardous wastes produced in hospitals




pose special problems.  Biological wastes such as human and animal remains,




blood, afterbirths, bacteriological cultures and bandages contaminated with




bacteria require special procedures, with a minimum of handling, to avoid




spreading disease.  Incineration is the most frequently used disposal technique




for such wastes among the hospitals studied by the University of Minnesota.




Some biological wastes are also ground, buried, hauled away with other wastes,






                                      210

-------
                                                       GRINDING 21.0%
INCINERATION —
AT THE HOSPITAL
35.0%
SANITARY
LANDFILL
15.0%
                                                                HOG FEEDING
                                                                3.7%

                                                                MUNICIPAL
                                                                INCINERATION
                                                                2.9%
                                                           MIXED, OTHER,
                                                           AND UNKNOWN 1.4%
                                                  DUMPING 21.0%
              Figure 73.  Estimates of hospital wastes disposed of,
                          incineration versus other  treatments.159
                                      211

-------
and in the case of placentas sent to drug firms.  More than half of  the




hospitals visited in the Minnesota study use radiosotopes for medical purposes.




At 76 percent of the hospitals, radioactive wastes are first allowed to decay




to a satisfactory level, then disposed of routinely with other wastes.




Chemical wastes are generally intimately mixed with other wastes or  present




as a contaminant.




3.6.3.6  Air Pollution Emissions—




     Many waste materials burned in incinerators produce very little potential




pollution whilst others are extremely dangerous.  In general, the prime




pollutants being fly ash, dust and smoke.  Both the sulphur and chlorine




contents of hospital waste are low and compounds of these elements which are




produced do not constitute any serious potential pollution problems.  However,




increasing use of plastic is leading to increased HC1 emissions, as  detailed




in the trip report to St. Agnes Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland which  is




found in the appendix to this report.  As mentioned earlier, emission data




from industrial and commercial incinerators are very difficult to get, this




is also true for hospital incinerators.




     Emission data from tests of pathological waste incinerators performed




by EPA during 1967 and 1968 are summarized by Battelle in Table 50.  The data




represents 24 tests conducted at 9 installations located in Cincinnati,




Philadelphia, Atlanta and Los Angeles.  The discrepancy of the results on




hydrocarbon analysis between the IR method and flame ionization method is




probably due to different sampling rates.  Estimates of nationwide emissions




are given in Table 51.  From Table 50 the particulate emission from  the patho-




logical incinerators tested by EPA range from 3.7 Ib/ton to 53.6 Ib/ton, which
                                      212

-------
   TABLE 50.  AIR CONTAMINANT EMISSIONS FROM

              PATHOLOGICAL WASTE INCINERATORS83



                             Emission factor,

                           Ib/ton wastes charged
      Con t aminan t s
                             Range     Average
Participates               3.7-53.6    12.8


Nitrogen Oxides            2.8-29.3    25


Hydrocarbons (as methane)  0.05-0.2*    0.12*


                           0.13-9.3f    2.8f


Carbon monoxide            1.5-8.7     4.1
*
 Measured by flame ionization analyzer.


 Measured by infrared analyzer.
                         213

-------
   TABLE 51.  ESTIMATES OF NATIONWIDE AIR CONTAMINANT
              EMISSIONS FROM PATHOLOGICAL WASTE
              INCINERATORS83

                            Emission rate, 1000 ton/yr
       Contaminant          	
                              1968     1973     1978

Particulates                   8.5      9.6     10.8

Nitrogen oxides               16.6     18.7     21.0

Hydrocarbons (as methane)      2.5      2.8      3.2

Carbon monoxide                2.7      3.1      3.4
                           214

-------
corresponds to 0.185 lb/100 Ib to 2.7 lb/100 Ib.  The most stringent regulation




is 0.03 Ib of particulates per 100 Ib waste charged for all incinerators in




Maryland while the most liberal regulation is 0.5 Ib particulates per 100 Ib




wastes charged in New York State.




3.6.3.7  Emission Control Techniques—




      Wet scrubbers are probably the best method for controlling particulate




emissions of some hospital wastes.  In most designs, incinerators are fitted




with an afterburner or post combustion chamber which, if correctly designed,




will allow the operator to control the emission of smoke.




      The Joint Commission on the Accreditation of Hospitals163 states that




any incinerator used by the hospital shall produce complete combustion




of all waste products arid shall be operated in accordance with all local,




state and federal regulations.  The hospitals shall have a current environ-




mental certificate for the incinerator, where such certificate is required




by the authority having jurisdiction.
                                     215

-------
3.6.4  Wood Industry Wastes16k>165
3.6.4.1  Introduction—
      Although much of its waste is left in the forest, the logging and lumber-
ing finishing industry is responsible for the generation of more waste than any
other two digit SIC code activity.  Forest wastes, estimated at from 0.75 to
1.00 tons per 1000 board feet of finished lumber are comprised of slash, cull
logs and brush.  These wastes, in past years, were often burned on-site.
Increasing pollution-control pressures are reducing the frequency of this
practice.  Saw mill and milling wastes, amounting to about 45 percent of the
harvested wood weight, are comprised of about 34.5 percent bark, 15.4 percent
sawdust, 8.5 percent planer shavings, 21.9 percent chippable coarse residue
and slabs, and 19.6 percent dry trim and other losses.  These wastes are often
burned locally in teepee incinerators.
3.6.4.2  Chemical Analysis of Wood—
3.6.4.2.1  Ultimate Analysis of Wood—Wood can be a widely varying fuel with
different physical and chemical properties, depending on the species, age,
location, etc.  A chemical analysis for dry Douglas-fir shows the following
composition:16Lf
                          Hydrogen       6.3 %
                          Carbon        52.3 %
                          Nitrogen       0.1 %
                          Oxygen        40.5 %
                          Ash (all       0.8 %
                          combustibles
3.6.4.2.2  Proximate Analysis of Wood—This analysis which indicated how the
fuel will be burned, shows:
                           Volatile matter  82.0 %
                           Fixed carbon     17.2 %

                                      216

-------
                           Ash            0.8 %

                           Heating value  9050 Btu/lb
                           (dry)

      The incineration of wood wastes and bark residues is largely confined to

those industries where it is available as a byproduct.  This includes pulp

mills, lumber,  furniture, plywood and paper industries.  Generally it has been

carried out by  burning the wastes in teepee burners or boilers to recover

heat energy and to alleviate a potential solid waste disposal problem.  Wood/

bark waste may  include large pieces such as slabs,  logs, and bark strips as

well as smaller pieces such as ends, shavings, and sawdust.  Heating values

for this waste  range from 8000 to 9000 Btu/lb, on a dry basis; however,

because of typical moisture contents of 40 to 75 percent, the as-fired heating

values for many wood/bark was the materials range as low as 4000 to 6000 Btu/lb.

Generally, bark is the major type of waste burned in pulp mills, whereas a

variable mixture of wood and bark waste, or wood waste along, is most frequently

burned in the lumber, furniture and plywood industries.  If heat recovery is

practiced, an auxiliary fuel is burned to maintain constant steam load when

the waste fuel  supply fluctuates and/or to provide more steam than is possible

from the waste  supply alone.  The economics of waste-wood utilization has been

shifted appreciably in recent years, and there is less and less wood for incin-

eration.  In many areas sawmills can feed sawdust and chips into available box-

cars conveniently and they can be moved economically to nearby papermills

where the waste wood can be used in papermaking.  This practice is most

pronounced in plants constructed since World War II.  These "integrated" plants

encompass both  wood cutting and paper making operations and essentially utilize

all wood scraps in either or both operations.
                                      217

-------
3.6.4.3  Air Pollution Emissions—




     The major pollutant of concern from wood/bark waste  incinerators  is par-




ticulate matter although other pollutants, particularly CO, may be  emitted




in significant amounts under poor operating conditions.   These emissions




depend on a number of variables, including:  the composition  of the waste




fuel burned, the degree of fly ash reinjected, and furnace or burner design




and operating conditions.




     The composition of wood/bark waste depends largely on the industry from




which it originates.  Pulping operations, for instance, produce a great quantity




of bark containing more than 70 percent moisture (by weight)  as well as high




levels of sand and other noncombustibles.  On the other hand, some  operations




such as furniture manufacture, produce a clean dry (5 to  50 percent mositure)




wood waste that results in relatively low particulate emissions.  Fly  ash




injection has a considerable effect on particulate emissions.  This is because




if the collected fly ash is reinjected into the boiler, the dust loading from




the furnace is increased per ton of wood waste burned.  The emission standards




for particulate matter in combustion of wood wastes and bark  residues  in many




of the states where teepee burners are used, specify that the burners  operate




with particulate emissions of 0.2 grains per cubic foot or less and a  plume




opacity of Ringelmann No. 2 or less.  One of the main problems in attaining




these standards, particularly the standard relating to plume  opacity,  has




been the fact that most burners have operated at low temperatures with resultant




low combustion efficiency and excessive smoke.  Extensive emission  tests were




made in the Oregon State University using a 40 foot diameter  teepee burner.




Test results showed a strong correlation between the particulate emission, CO




and hydrocarbons with exit gas temperature.  It has been determined that
                                     218

-------
operation of a teepee with exit gas temperatures in the range of 700 F to

900 F results in minimum emissions of particulates, smoke and air pollutants.

Emissions data at exit gas temperatures of 400°F and 800°F are shown in

Tables 52 and 53.

3.6.4.4  Atmospheric Emissions from Incineration of Wood Wastes Using
         Teepee Burners—

     Tests of 100 samples from 19 different teepee burners in Oregon (1968)

are summarized in Table 54.  The average emission temperature was 485 F which

is considerably below the 600 F to 900 F temperature range recommended for

smoke-free operation.  The average particulate emissions were 0.168 gr/scf

corrected to 12 percent C02 (384 mg/m3 corrected to 12 percent C02) or

10.7 Ib/ton of particulate per ton of fuel consumed.  The following obser-

vations are found.

     1.   The particulate emission correlates inversely with the emission
          temperature; i.e., the higher the temperature, the lower the
          emissions.

     2.   The draft ratio (actual/theoretical) correlates directly with
          temperature.  High temperatures and hence lower emissions are
          achieved with a high ratio burner.

     3.   The percent of ash in emission correlates directly with tempera-
          ture.  Higher emission temperatures indicate more complete com-
          bustion with less pollutants to be emitted.

     Table 55 shows the nationwide air pollution - emissions from teepee

incinerators studied by Battelle.  Figure 74 illustrates a typical teepee

incinerator with its associated waste feed system.

3.6.4.5  Advanced Technology for Wood Waste Incineration—

     Recently Combustion Power Company has designed and built a fluidized-bed

wood waste combustion system capable of operating on the waste wood and

providing hot gas to an existing boiler for Weyerhauser Company Pulp Mill.

A schematic of the installation170 is shown in Figure 75 with the system

                                     219

-------
specification given.  Stack tests are being conducted in 1978.  A second

industrial burner system for burning wood waste to provide hot gas to a rotary

dryer is also being installed by CPC for Weyerhauser.  A schematic of the

system is shown in Figure 76.  The emission control technique used for both

systems is reinjection of the multiclone catch into the boiler.  The wood

products industry is in an exceptional position in the degree of energy, re-

covery realized by utilizing its waste materials.
                  TABLE 52.  PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM
                             19 TEEPEE WASTE BURNERS IN
                             OREGON, 196883

Burner
number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Overall
average
Average
gas temp ,
OF
389
539
400
455
291
544
525
598
866
435
405
379
338
208
166
519
791
230
308

485
Particulate
emissions,
grain/ft3
0.171
0.105
0.080
0.120
0.312
0.155
0.129
0.224
0.130
0.284
0.191
0.163
0.252
0.194
0.132
0.021
0.128
0.160
0.252

0.168
                                     220

-------
 TABLE 53.  AVERAGE GASEOUS EMISSIONS FROM TEEPEE BURNERS83

Shell temperature
* 0
range , F
90
160
210
260
310
410
- 150
- 200
- 250
- 300
- 350
- 450
Average pounds of gaseous pollutant/ton
i of wood residue burned
CO
189
176
144
125
78
62
Total hydrocarbon
17.5
15.0
10.6
13.8
4.5
1.4
C2 + hydrocarbon
7.2
4.5
4.7
5.5
1.7
0.8

A
 Shell temperatures are approximately 1/2 of exit gas
 temperatures,  F.
    TABLE 54.   AIR CONTAMINANT EMISSIONS FROM TEEPEES83


    „ . ^          Emission factor. Ib/ton wastes charged
    Exit gas      _ '   _ 6
 temperature,   F  „   .   ,          „„     , ,
                  Particulates      CO     Hydrocarbons

       400           16  (7)f    60           4.5

       800            4  (l)f    20 (130) f    0.5 (11) +
  Based on wastes with a moisture content of 50 percent.

  Data in parantheses are those given in the. 1972 Compila
  tion of Air Pollutant Emission Factors.
                              221

-------
TABLE 55.  ESTIMATES OF NATIONWIDE AIR CONTAMINANT
           EMISSIONS FROM TEEPEE INCINERATORS83


Contaminant

Particulates
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Polynuclear Hydrocarbons
Emission

1968
374
1400
105
0. 116
rate, 1000
Year
1973
65
255
17
0.020
ton/yr

1978
14
69
1.7
0.0044
                        222

-------
                                                                       D
                                                   FUEL  FEED SYSTEM

                                                      PLAN VIEW
to
N3
OJ
                                                   FUEL  FEED  SYSTEM
                                                   ELEVATION  VIEW
                                            Figure 74.   Teepee Incinerator
                                                                                 83

-------
                                                                                    in I;AN
 i I I 'I. AND
S< KAI' MI.'I M.
                                        AIK TAN
                                 SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS
                        FUEL:

                        LOG YARD DEBRIS-
                        •  Moisture      35-65% (Wet Basis)
                        •  Size         4 ft and less
                        •  Inerts        40% (Dry Solids
                                      Basis); 8 in. max.
                        FLYASH (from other boilers)-
                        •  Size         %in. and less
                        •  Inerts        50% (Dry Solids Basis)

                        BURNER:
                        SIZE
                        OUTPUT

                        COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY
                        THERMAL EFFICIENCY
24 ft OD
125MMBtu/hr max.
(Natural gas equivalent)
99%
55-70%
                    Figure 75.   Combustion Power Company, Inc.
                                  Fluid-bed burner/boiler schematic.170
                                           224

-------
                                                        KI.( V( I.I.
                                                        AIR IAN
                                                               II) I AN
                                                       COAR.ST I Ul.l, /   TO
                                                       l-INi:  IUI.I.    \ >«"'->••<
                   SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS
FUEL:

CONSTITUENTS-
• Debris
• Boiler Flyash Char
• Oversize Hog Fuel

BURNER:

PHYSICAL SIZE  - 18 ft OD
MAXIMUM THERMAL OUTPUT
 66 MMBTU/HR  (Natural gas
 equivalent)
TURNDOWN  3 to 1

DRYER:

THROUGHPUT   15 BDTPH
TYPICAL FUEL FEED-
• Combustible       3 TPH
• Moisture          6 TPH
• Inert             4 TPH
COMBUSTION EFFICIENCY - 99%
THERMAL EFFICIENCY - 55 75%
                                    MOISTURE-
                                    • Input       68% Wet Basis
                                    • Output     20% Wet Basis
       Figure 76.   Combustion Power  Company,  Inc.
                    Fluid-bed burner/dryer schematic.170
                             225

-------
3.6.5  Agricultural Wastes
      Agricultural wastes are very localized and seasonal.  Those wastes with
significant fuel value are listed in Table 56 and will be discussed.
                TABLE 56.  HEATING VALUES OF AGRICULTURAL WASTE171
                                    Average heating valve
                         Waste           (as fired)
                                           Btu/lb
                    Bagasse              3600 - 6500
                    Coffee grounds       4900 - 6500
                    Nut hulls               7700
                    Rice hulls           5200 - 6500
                    Corn cobs            8000 - 8300

      Agriculture, as defined in most air pollution ordinances, refers to
those operations involved in the growing of crops or raising of animals.
Thermal destruction of agricultural solid wastes includes incineration of
those wastes listed in Table 56 and the open burning of a variety of materials
including natural ground cover, grasses, cereal crop stubble, weeds, orchard
and vine prunings, range brush and slash timber.  Table 57 shows the extent
of the solid waste problem for the typical crops.
3.6.5.1  Bagasse Incineration—
      The largest sources of emissions from sugar cane processing are the open
field burning in the harvesting of the crop and the burning of bagasse as
fuel.  The fibrous residue, consisting of:
                        30 %  Pith
                        10 %  Water solubles
                        60 %  Fiber (1.5 - 1.7 mm)
is bagasse,  with an average heat content of 4600 Btu/lb.  One-hundred pounds
of sugar can produces 25 Ib of bagasse (dry basis)  and 21 Ib of raw cane sugar.

                                     226

-------
TABLE 57-  CROP RESIDUES AS A WASTE-
           MANAGEMENT PROBLEM172
Crop
1 iclil i.n>ps like
...inniuf tomatoes.
SUJMI heelS, potatoes
I'icld oops
huivcslud iliy .
like soybeans, sif-
flower cotton
Truck iTops
(market vegetable1:)

Oichaid fruit


Kice, wheat.
other grains
I'ielU corn

Cotton

Sugar cane





Typir;il j ielil
IOMS/.UTO
20 (wet woinlit)


1 .5



5-30


5-15
(fn-sh weiulu)

3.ti

4.0

0.5

60 (wet cane)





Crop residue
to he managed
tons/acre
30 (wet weight)
to as little us
3 tons dry solids)
1.6



1.5:1 to 4: I
(crop residue)

2
(pruning* only)

3.5

5.3

1.5

40 (burned-off)





N;i(ure of tin., residue,
typical management
problem
Cull fruit and all plant ma-
len;il (stems, le.ives. roots)
disked hack into Sopsoi)
Dried plant parts; shredded
and disked into topsoil


Green parts not harvested,
disked back.nr removed
for composting
l*runings- burned; leaves
compost on surface: cull
fruit -also compost
Straw, disked or burnt ii

Dried stalks, usually
chopped and plowed in
Dried total plant, shredded,
plowed into topsoil.
Leaves burned before har-
vest, cane harvested and
squeezed, then the residual
(bagasse) burned at null,
field trash chopped and
disked
               227

-------
Much of the bagasse produced is disposed of by burning  it as  a  fuel  in  boilers

to raise process steam.  There are three common types of bagasse burners:  the

ward single-pass furnace, the Detrick-Dennis-cell and traveling-grate stokers

(Figures 76, 77 and 78, respectively).

     The major pollutant of concern in bagasse incineration is  particulate

emissions.  Emission tests conducted in Florida are summarized  below:83

     1.   Particulate emissions from boilers without controls range  from
          2.9 Ib/ton bagasse feed to 48.2 Ib/ton with an average value of
          13.2 Ib/ton.  Results were from 53 tests conducted on 26 boilers
          at 8 mills.

     2.   With multiclone collectors, the average particulate emissions
          were estimated at 7.9 Ib/ton bagasse feed based on a  40 percent
          collection efficiency.

     3.   Based on 17 tests conducted using a pilot-scale wet scrubber
          (Turbulaire), particulate emissions with combined use of a multi-
          clone and Turbulaire were observed at 0.66 Ib/ton bagasse  feed.

     Because of the low sulfur content of bagasse, S0£  emissions should be low,

NOX emissions are expected to be low also because of the low flame temperatures.

     Estimates of nationwide air pollution emission from bagasse burners by

Battelle is shown in Table 58.

3.6.5.2  Rice Hulls, Nut Hulls, and Corncobs Incineration—

     In the processing of rice, about 15 percent of the raw rice is  lost in

the hull waste.  The hull waste often presents difficult problems in disposal

by incineration as a consequence of the high ash content and the tendency to

form a slow-burning char.  Data on the composition of rice hull waste are

given in Table 59.

     Rice hull disposal and incineration is a particularly acute problem for

California rice industries.   On milling, for each 100 Ib of paddy rice produced,

20 Ib of hulls accumulate on an average.  Thus with an average annual 20 million
                                   228

-------
               ~=
Figure 77.  Ward single-pass furnace.
                                     83
                  229

-------
Figure 78.   Detrick-Dennls multicell
            bagasse furnace.83
                230

-------
Figure 79.  Traveling-grate stoker.173
                 231

-------
  TABLE 58.  ESTIMATES OF NATIONWIDE AIR CONTAMINANT
             EMISSIONS FROM BAGASSE BURNERS83

Contaminant
Particulates
Sulfur oxides (S02)
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen oxides (N02)
Carbonyls (HCHO)
Emission
1968
26
0.9
3.9
3.9
19.4
1.0
rate,
1973
26
1.0
4.2
4.2
21.1
1.1
1000 ton/yr
1978
8
1.0
4.6
4.6
23.0
1.2
Polynuclear hydrocarbons   0.0081   0.0081   0.0025
                          232

-------
    TABLE 59.  COMPOSITION OF RICE HULL
               WASTE172
(A)  Hull Analysis Range:
       Composition
Moisture
Ash
Crude protein
Ether-soluble extract
Crude fiber
(B)  Ash Analysis:
Component  Weight %
Si as Si02  94.50
Ca as CaO    9.25
Mg as MgO    0.23
K as K20     1.10
       Weight %
      8.47 - 11.00
     15.68 - 18.59
      2.94 -  3.62
      0.82 -  1.20
     39.05 - 42.90
Component   Weight %
Na as Na20    0.78
P as P205     0.53
S as SOit      1.13
Al, Fe, Mn     Tr
                     233

-------
bag  (cost)  crop,  the industry must somehow dispose of 200,000 tons of  hulls.

At 8 lb/ft3  of  hulls,  this amounts to  50 million ft3 of material.  Even  after

burning,  the hull ash amount to 5 million  ft  .   Although several California

firms have  developed a limited market  for  hulls and hull products, about 75

percent of  the  rice hulls are being burned near Sacramento just to get rid

of them.  The remaining 25 percent are used either as (1) ground livestock

feed, (2) poultry and livestock litter,  (3) boiler fuel, (4) dilute diluent

for  other products, (5) manufacture of plywood  glue, (6) insulating material,

(7)  abrasive material for household cleaners  and other special cleanup com-

pounds and  (8)  soil conditioner.     No emission data is available for burning

rice hull only; however, data for incineration  of rice straws has been collected

by EPA and  shown below.
                                  Emission factors
              Particuulate         CO             CHx        Fuel loadings factors
      Refuse  (lb/ton)  (Kg/MT)  (Ib/ton)  (Kg/MT)  (Ib/ton)  (Kg/MT)  (ton/acre)  (Ml/factor)

       Rice     9       4       83     41      10      5      3.0       6.7


       SOURCE:  AP-4211*9
Nut shells  and  corn cobs can be burned or undergo  destructive distillation to

produce  fuel  gas.   Usually they undergo size reduction by impaction and

attrition without  much difficulty.

3.6.6  SIC  26 Pulp and Paper Industry Wastes

3.6.6.1  Introduction—

     The pulp and  paper industry is deserving of special attention both in

the areas of  environmental concern and combustion.   As pointed out in a recent

report by Arthur D.  Little,  Inc.,176 it is the  third largest consumer of fresh

water and the fourth largest consumer of electricity and fuels.


                                      234

-------
     The paper and allied products is the largest industrial consumer of  fuel




oil and one of the largest consumers of waste materials for fuel as shown in




Table 60.  It is estimated that in 1972 over 40 percent of the industry's




consumption was derived from self-generated and waste fuels.  In 1975, this




source of energy was approximately 42 percent of the total and by 1980 is




projected to be about 45 percent of gross energy consumption (i.e., 1970  output




at 1972 energy consumption per ton).




     These data and estimates for the entire industry are constructed from




API (American Paper Institute) data for the primary pulp and paper sector




and from Census of Manufacturers data on all industry segments.   About 95 percent




of the industry's energy consumption is in the primary pulp and paper sector.




Self-generated energy sources include:




     1.   bark




     2.   hogged fuels




     3.   some hydroelectric power




These waste sources are byproducts of the basic pulping process.




3.6.6.2  Waste Characterization—




3.6.6.2.1  Bark—The process of manufacturing pulp from wood fiber makes




available,  as a waste material,  the bark which is removed  from the pulpwood.




The properties of the bark being such, that by current state of  art processes,




it is not a desirable raw material for the manufacture of  paper.   The pre-




dominant methods of bark disposal, in the past, have been  dumping and/or




burning.  Burning has been carried out both in steam generators,  where energy




is recovered from the combustion,  and by simple burning with no  heat recovery.




Bark has not been universally used for heat recovery because,  when compared




to the fossil fuels,  it is not a desirable fuel.178  Two of its  main dis-






                                     235

-------
      TABLE 60.   FUELS  AND ENERGY USED IN THE
                 PRIMARY PULP AND PAPER SECTOR
                 (1015  Btu)176

Fossil fuels and purchased energy
Fuel oils
Natural gas
Coal
Purchased electricity
Purchased steam
Liquid propane
Other
Subtotal
Self-generated and waste fuels
Total energy
1972
0.501
0.449
0.232
0.086
0.018
0.002
-
1.273*
0.923
2.196
1975
0.451
0.348
0.174
0.092
0.016
0.001
0.001
1.066*
0.830
1.896

Includes a deduction for energy sold not itemized
above.
                       236

-------
advantages are (1) low effective heating value - bark in its natural state




has an average moisture content of approximately 50 percent.   Dry bark




has an average heating value of approximately 9000 Btu/lb,  whereas bark,  at




50 percent moisture content, has a heating value of approximately 4500 Btu/lb,




(2) lack of homogeneity -the bark from a given species of tree is not a perfectly




homogeneous material.   One of the effects of there varying  physical charact-




eristics is that the flow of bark fuel to a boiler can not  be metered meaning-




fully, and large quantities of excess air are required for  complete combustion.




For best combustion control a fuel must be measured in units  which can be




converted to equivalent Btu.




3.6.6.2.2  Hogged Fuel— Hogged fuel is wood waste from lumber operations.   It




consists of a mixture of bark, sawdust, shavings,  scraps, and slabs of wood




not usable for lumber.  (The term "hogged" derives from the fact that bark,




slabs and scraps are broken down into small pieces by crushing machines com-




monly called "hogs.")   Sawdust may be supplied as rejected  material from the




pulp-wood chip screens and from lumber operation.   The moisture content of  the




hogged fuel varies.  The hogged fuel is assumed to have an  average heating




value of 3850 Btu/lb at 50 percent moisture.  Moisture in the fuel causes a




direct heat loss of 500 Btu/lb, yielding a usable heating value of 3350 Btu/lb.
                                    237

-------
            4.0  EMISSIONS EFFECTIVELY CONTROLLED BY A STANDARD







4.1  INTRODUCTION




     The following pollutants have been cited in Section 3 as potential emis-





sions from incinerators:




     •    Participates




     •    Sulfur oxides




     •    Carbon monoxide




     •    Hydrocarbons




     •    Nitrogen oxides




     •    Aldehydes




     •    Organic acids




     •    Hydrogen chloride




4.2  POLLUTANT CLASSIFICATION




     These pollutants can generally be classified into two groups:   (1) Those




regulated by control of the process including particulates,  carbon monoxide,




hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, aldehydes and organic acids;  (2) Those  regu-




lated by control of the waste type charged, including sulfur oxides  and hydrogen




chloride and to a lesser extent, nitrogen oxides.  As will be seen,  a  specific




emission standard need not be established for each process-related pollutant as




control of one (particulates) will effectively control the others.   The waste-




type related pollutants can be controlled by either of two ways:   (1)  banning




the incineration of wastes with high sulfur, chloride and/or nitrogen  contents,




such as rubber manufacturing wastes and polyvinyl chloride;  or  (2) requiring





                                     238

-------
a collection device which will scrub or adsorb the pollutants from the flue

gases.   Control of the type of waste incinerated is essentially unenforceable,

would not fall under the realm of an emission standard, and will not be

considered.

     Wet collection devices have varying degrees of efficiency for the control

of gaseous emissions.  A summary of these efficiencies is given in Table 61.

While the technology to control SOX and HC£ emissions is currently available,

the imposition of a mandatory requirement for their control is not recommended

for several reasons.  Among these are;   (1) Sulfur oxides and hydrogen chloride

emissions from commercial/industrial incinerators represent a relatively small

amount of the total annual emissions of these pollutants.  If SOX and ECU

control is required, this appears to be the wrong industry with which to start.

(2) scrubbing and adsorption systems require more attention due to their com-

plex nature, and the problems inherent  in handling an acidic liquid (refer to

the St. Agnes Hospital Trip Report, Appendix A).  Given the relatively large

number of incinerators that may evantually be installed under a new standard

and the difficulties faced by state and local officials in maintaining close

air quality surveillance of these sources, the potential that a unit will

break down and be operated out of compliance is great.

4.3  APPLICABILITY OF A STANDARD

     A review of each potential incinerator pollutant will serve to summarize

the applicability of an emission standard.

     1.   Particulates - Particulate emissions are the prime candidate for
          an emission limitation.   Tight control of incinerator operating
          parameters will control particulate emissions as discussed in
          Section 3.  This is true for  all incinerator process types and
          all waste composition.   Current applicable state emission standards
          have forced manufacturers107"109 to adopt strict combustion controls
          on their units.   As a result,  several commercially available units
          have demonstrated their ability to meet current state standards
          (see Appendix B - stack test  results).


                                    239

-------
                                         TABLE 61.   APC  SYSTEM AVERAGE  CONTROL  EFFICIENCY
                                                                                                      100
ho
-P-
O


APC Type
'v Kineral
particulate
None (flue settling only)
Dry expansion chamber
Wet bottom expansion chamber
Spray chamber
Wetted wall chamber
Wetted, close-spaced baffles
Mechanical cyclone (dry)
Medium energy wet scrubber
Electrostatic precipitator
Fabric filter
20
20
33
40
35
50
70
90
99
99.9

Combustible
particulate
2
2
4
5
7
10
30
80
90
99
APC Systei
Carbon
monoxide
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
i removal efficiency (weight
Nitrogen
oxides
0
0
7
25
25
30
0
65
0
0
Hydro-
carbons
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Sulfur
oxides
0
0
0
0.1
0.1
0.5
0
1.5
0
0
percent)
Hydrogen
chloride
0
0
10
40
40
50
0
95
0
0


Polynuclear Volatile
hydrocarbons"'' metalsl
10
10
22
40
40
85
35
95
60
67
2
0
4
5
7
10
0
80
90
99
                    Assumed primarily  < 5p


                    Assumed two-thirds condensed on particulate, one-third as vapor


                    tAssumed primarily  a fume < 5p

-------
     2.    Carbon monoxide - Carbon monoxide is generated in an oxygen deficient
          atmosphere, one that will also generate particulates.  Current in-
          cinerator designs which provide for sufficient temperature, time,
          turbulence and combustion air to minimize particulate generation
          will also provide sufficient oxygen to oxidize all carbon-to-carbon
          dioxide.   No specific standard is therefore required for carbon
          monoxide,

     3.    Hydrocarbons - The elimination of hydrocarbons also requires an
          oxygen rich atmosphere.  Once this atmosphere is provided for good
          particulate control, hydrocarbon generation will be minimized? if
          not eliminated.  No additional standard for hydrocarbons will
          therefore be required.

     4.    Nitrogen oxides - These compounds are formed in an atmosphere of
          elevated temperatures and excess air quantities.  As these para-
          meters are important for particulate emission reduction and are
          incorporated in current incinerator designs, nitrogen dioxide emis-
          sions have increased due to tighter particulate emission require-
          ments.  The imposition of an emission standard for nitrogen oxides
          would require the use of a wet scrubbing system, as the control of
          operating parameters to control emissions might serve to increase
          the other process-related pollutant emissions.  Since nitrogen
          dioxide scrubbing is unrefined? has low removal efficiencies and
          would cause operational problems similar to those occurring with
          sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride scrubbingt it is not recom-
          mended and a standard for nitrogen oxide emissions from commercial/
          industrial incinerators should not be imposed at this time,

     5.    Aldehydes and organic acids - These compounds are formed by the
          incomplete combustion of the fats and oils found in food wastes.
          They have been essentially eliminated by modern incinerator design
          and are not generated in sufficient quantities to warrant the im-
          position of a standard.

     As  previously stated, sulfur dioxide and hydrogen chloride emissions are

not recommended as candidates for control.  Their presence, however, should

influence the selection of incinerator materials of construction.   Stack

linings  and hardware (fans, ducts, etc.) that may potentially be exposed to

conditions below the acid dew point of these acid gases should be constructed

of fibrous reinforced plastic or some similar material.
                                     241

-------
4.4  SUMMARY




     In summary, particulate emissions are the sole candidate for an emission




standard for commercial and industrial incineration.  The combustion control




required to minimize particulate generation and emissions will also lessen




all other process-related pollutants, except nitrogen oxides.  The process




equipment required to meet a strict particulate standard has been sufficiently




developed and is currently in widespread use.
                                      242

-------
                             5.0  EMISSION DATA







5.1  INTRODUCTION




     Emission data for commercial/industrial incinerator sources will be re-




ported in this section by incinerator type.  All data have been reduced to




common units of pounds of pollutant per ton of waste charged and/or grains of




pollutant per standard cubic foot of flue gas corrected to 12 percent carbon




dioxide.  For particulates, only probe and filter catch is reported and not




total catch, including impinger washings.  Compliance with most state emission




limitations is based on EPA Reference Test Method 5 which requires that only




probe and filter catch be used in determining stack emission.  Care should be




exercised in interpreting the data presented, especially when comparing incin-




erator types, as test methodology, unit operating conditions, type and amount




of auxiliary fuel use, and type of waste charged during testing is often




unknown.  This lack of knowledge concerning the prime factors which affect




stack emissions and the relatively few test results which are available make




a statistical analysis of the data impossible.  As will be seen, there is often




a wide scatter of the reported emission data within each incinerator type.




While due in part to variations in test methodology, this scatter in large




measure is an indication of the great effect that unit operation has on incin-




erator emissions.
                                     243

-------
5.2  EMISSIONS




     Stack emissions represent virtually all air contaminant emissions  from




commercial/industrial incinerators.  Dust and odor  fugitive emissions due to




waste and ash handling can be an additional emission source; however, the




total quantity of these emissions is minimal.  They can be eliminated by good




housekeeping and are often contained inside the incinerator room.  For  these




reasons, fugitive emissions will not be quantified  in this section.




     Air pollutant emissions for the major incinerator types; single chamber,




multichamber and controlled air, are reported in Tables 62, 63 and 64,  re-




spectively.  In each case all presently available data source is cited.  The




applicable emission factor from EPA Publication AP-42149 is reported as both a




source and as a reference for comparison.  For these major incinerator  types,




a "best estimate" of pollutant rates has been made  to facilitate comparison




between the various types of units.  This estimate has been derived from an




evaluation of the existing data and does not represent a strict average of all




reported data, as often poor operation will result  in emissions that are an




order of magnitude greater than emissions that can be obtained with good




control.




5.2.1  Single Chamber




     Uncontrolled single chamber emissions are reported in Table 62.  Sources




of data in this section include:  (1) Emission factors from AP-421Lf9 which




were derived from several published articles and unpublished stack test data;




(2) AP-40,89 Air Pollution Engineering Manual, which was compiled from  Los




Angeles County, Air Pollution Control District (LAAPCD) emission tests;




(3) Air Pollution, Volume II by Stern94 which was compiled from various
                                     244

-------
                       TABLE 62.  UNCONTROLLED SINGLE-CHAMBER INCINERATOR EMISSION DATA
                                  EXPRESSED IN Ib/ton CHARGED (gr/scf at 12 percent C02)
Ul

Pollutant
Particulates
Sulfur oxides (as S02)
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons (as methane)
Nitrogen oxides (as N02)
Aldehydes (as formaldehyde)
Organic acids (as acetic acid)
Ammonia
Phenols

AP-421^9
15
2.5
20
15
2
-
-
-
_
Reference „
AP-4089 Stern Vol. II94 JAPCA 10(2)93 estimate
14 - 35 (0.9) 31 - 24
1.4 - 2.3 - - 2.5
197 - 991 - 197 - 990 20
0 23 - 150 25
< 0.1 3.9 - 4.6 < 0.1 3.0
5-64 0.03 - 2.7 5 - 64 5.0
< 3 2.0 - 3.9 > 4 3.5
0.9 - 4 0.33 - 0.5 0.9 - 4.2 2.0
> 8 8.0

-------
TABLE 63.  UNCONTROLLED MULTICHAMBER INCINERATOR EMISSION DATA EXPRESSED
           IN Ib/ton CHARGED (gr/scf at 12 percent C02)


AP-421"9 AP-4089 Corey92
Particulates 7 1.7 - 8.4 (0.027 - 0.185)
Sulfur oxides
(as S02) 2.5 - (0 - 0.028)
Carbon monoxide 10 2.90 (0 - 0.02)
Hydrocarbons
(as methane) 3 0.14 - 4.20
Nitrogen oxides
(as SO,) 3 0.8 - 3.1 (1.7 x io~5 - 0.107)
ho
j>
O\ Aldehydes
(as formal-
dehyde) - 0.14-0,85 (3 x ID"7 - 0.005)
Organic acids
(as acetic
acid) - 1.0 - 10.5 (5 x 1Q-1* - 0.071)
Reference „ ,
Stack Best
JAPCA8(4)io! JAPCA 11(8)102 ADL Report105 teStS estimate
0.96 - 8.6 (0.034 - 0.27) 2.6 - 84 (0.04 - 1.94) 0.5 - 10.5 (0.015 - 0.185) 5 (0.13)

0.48 - 1.54 (0.079) 2.50
0-28 0 - 143.5 0-233 - 10
0-2.5 0 - 13.4 0.09 - 6.3 - 3.2
1.6 - 2.9 1.8 - 5.7 0.05 - 0.65 (0.0595) 2.75 (0.06)
0.005 - 0.032 0.001 - 0.84 (0.0086) 0.30 (0.005)
0.06 - 0.16 (0.050) 1.0 (0.05)

-------
NO
                          TABLE 64.   CONTROLLED AIR INCINERATOR EMISSION DATA EXPRESSED
                                     IN Ib/ton (gr/scf at 12 percent C02)
                                                     Reference
                      Pollutant
                                            AP-42149  Published data117
                       Stack
                       tests
                                                                                  Best
                                                                                estimate
Particulates                       1.4

Sulfur oxides (as S02)             1.5

Carbon monoxide                Negligible

Hydrocarbons (as methane)      Negligible

Nitrogen oxides (as N02)          10

Aldehydes (as formaldehyde)        -
                                    *
Organic acids (as acetic acid)     -
(0.03 - 0.226)     (0,0412 - 0.163)   1.4 (0.08)

                                       1.5

                                    Negligible

                                    Negligible

                                        10

                                    Negligible

                                    Negligible
             No  published  data on these emissions
             Assumed to  be negligible

-------
published articles concerning performance of  single  chamber  units;  and




(4) Published article (JAPCA 10(2))93 concerning  flue-fed  incinerator emissions




     Aldehydes, organic acids, ammonia and phenols are  all produced by  incom-




plete combustion of garbage.  Data on these pollutants  therefore are as depen-




dent upon the waste charged as on the operation of the  unit, and should not




be interpreted as occurring in all cases,




5.2.2  Multichamber




     Uncontrolled multichamber incinerator emissions are reported in Table 63.




Insufficient data exist to quantify  the  type  of unit (in-line or retort),




the firing rates of the primary and  secondary burners during the emission




tests, or the type of auxiliary fuel used (natural gas, propane, distillate or




residual oil).  Data for this table  are  taken from (1)  AP~42,ltt9 (2) AP-40,89




(3) Corey, Chapter 592 which utilizes stack test  data obtained from the LAAPCD,




(4) Published article, JAPCA 8(4)101 on  a unit which was subjected  to various




firing rates and air distributions,  (5)  Published article, JAPCA 11(8)102 on




a unit charged with a high volatile  fuel, (6) A report  by  Arthur D.  Little




Company105 on municipal incineration, which includes data  on units  < 10 tons




per day, (7) Stack test results, which include 16 tests reported by LAAPCD




and 10 tests reported by various manufacturers.   A summary of the manufacturers'




test data is found in Appendix B.




     Data from the Los Angeles County Air Pollution  Control  District appear




several times in the references due  to the extensive testing program on multi-




chamber units carried out in this region.




5.2.3  Controlled Air




     Controlled air emissions are summarized  in Table 64.  As can be seen,




data on gaseous emissions from these units are essentially nonexistent. Data





                                     248

-------
supplied by the manufacturers to GCA and state agencies consisted entirely  of




particulate emission tests.  No data could be found in the literature on  gaseous




emissions, and studies in this area are obviously needed.  The data available




include (1) AP-42,149 which drew on unpublished incinerator data, (2) published




article    which summarized the results of 32 emission tests on controlled  air




designs, (3) stack test data supplied by the manufacturers on 10 units.   These




data are summarized in Appendix B.




5.3  SUMMARY




     Table 65 is presented as a summary of available incinerator emission




data.  Only general incinerator types are presented.  Units that burn ,a spe-




cific waste type such as pathological or bagasse incinerators are excluded  in




this summary.  Emission factors and "best estimate" emission values are pre-




sented for single chamber, multichamber and controlled air designs.   In




addition, available data on less common incinerator types are listed.   These




include:  (1) Multiple-hearth incinerators — These units are most commonly




used to incinerate municipal and industrial sludges and the emission data




presented are a summary of tests run on three municipal sludge incinerators148




which utilize scrubbers for particulate control.  The applicable AP-42 emis-




sion factor for sewage-sludge incinerators, after the scrubber is presented




as well,  (2) Fluidized-bed incinerators — These units are used for a variety




of industrial solid wastes and sludges.  The data presented are a summary of




two emission tests run on units with scrubbers148 and one unit burning wood




wastes.117  (3) Teepee (conical) burners — These units are used primarily in




the lumber industry for scrap wood disposal.  The emission factor from AP-42




for these units is included as a reference.  No complete emission data could




be obtained on the less commonly used incinerators, including rotary kiln,




slagging, and suspension firing units.





                                     249

-------
            TABLE  65.   UNCONTROLLED  INCINERATOR EMISSIONS IN Ib/ton  (gr/scf  at  12 percent  C02)
Reference
Pollutant Single
AP-42 !L-
Particulates 15
Sulfur oxides (as S02) 2.5
Carbon monoxide 20
Hydrocarbons 15
Ul Nitrogen oxides (as N02) 2
O
Aldehydes (as formaldehyde)
Organic acids (as acetic acid)
Ammonia -
Phenols
chamber Multichamber Controlled air Multiple hearth'1*6 Teepee (conical)
BeSt AP-421"- Best AP-4->:"? Best AP-4211*9 TeSt- - AP-4^? bed1;7'^ =
estimate estimate " estimate results' -
24 75 (0.13) 1.4 1.4 (0.08) 3 2.37 7 1.63 (0.08)
2.5 2.5 2.5 1.5 1.5 0.8 (0.0071) 0.1 (0.0157)
20 10 10 Negligible Negligible Negligible 0 130 0
25 3 3.2 Negligible Negligible 1 - 11
3.0 3 2,75 (0.6) 10 10 5 (0.0688) 1 (0.108)
5.0 - 0.3 (0.005) - Negligible - -
3.5 - 1.0 (0.5) - Negligible - -
2. 0 ------
8.0------
Note:  Conversion from Ib/ton to gr/scf at 12 percent C02 for participates requires knowledge of the waste heating value, but a general
      conversion factor of 18.8 Ib/ton = 1 gr/scf based on 4,450 Btu/lb can be used as a reference when only one emission rate is given.

-------
     Appendix B addresses the specific test methodology used in each of the




references cited for emission data in this section.  A review of this Appendix




will aid in understanding the differences between past and current test methods




(found in Section 8) and the reliability of historical data.




     In summary, emission data on commercially available incinerators are at




best incomplete.  While data has been published on uncontrolled single and




milltichamber units, there is a need for a thorough set of emission measurements,




including gaseous emissions, for the newer controlled air units, and the




special application incinerators.  Without these data, a complete assessment of




the total environmental effects of the various incinerator process types can-




not be made.
                                    251

-------
                        6.0  EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEMS






     The emissions from industrial and commercial incinerators will depend on




(a) the waste type (e.g., solids or sludges), quantities and characteristics,




and (b) the design and operation of the incinerator.  Although the primary air




pollution concern with incineration is with particulate emission, gaseous




pollutants may also be significant; when burning plastics, for example, acid




gases or acid precursor materials may have to be considered.  Different designs




of incinerators will create different kinds of emission and different industries




will have different wastes.  Multiple hearth, fluidized-bed incinerators, and




wet-air oxidation have been used successfully for disposal of sludges and




slurries.  Rotary kiln incinerators are quite appropriate for tars, sludges




and plastics.  Chlorinated materials will create a corrosive effluent gas and




will require scrubbing-techniques.




     The mechanisms mainly responsible for the particulate emissions are




(a) the mechanical entrainment of particles from the burning refuse, (b) the




cracking of pyrolysis gases, and (c) the volatilization of inorganic salts or




oxides.°®




     The first of these mechanisms is favored by a refuse in which there is a




large percentage of ash of fine particle size.  The second mechanism is favored




by refuse with a high volatile content producing pyrolysis gases having high




carbon content and by conditions above the fuel bed preventing complete burn-




out of the carbon formed by the cracking of the volatiles.  Plastics play a






                                     252

-------
particularly important role in this mechanism.  The third mechanism is favored




by the presence of high vapor pressure metal oxides coming from refuse constitu-




ents and by high temperatures in the incinerator.  Commonly used particulate




control systems for incinerators are:  (a) cyclone separators, (b) scrubbers




(wetted baffles, spray chambers and venturi scrubbers), and (c) electrostatic




precipitators.




     The mechanisms responsible for gaseous pollutants are (a) incomplete




combustion due to lack of oxygen, (b) insufficiently high temperature, and




(c) insufficient residence time of the pollutants at the high temperature




required for complete combustion and (d) low degree of mixing of pollutants




and oxygen.  To achieve high temperature and complete combustion, use of




afterburners is an alternative for air pollution control.  Scrubbers can also




be used for gas absorption as well as removal of particulate matter from gas




streams.




     Removal of particulates with diameter smaller than 50 ym is difficult




and requires sophisticated and efficient pollution control devices.  Basic




understanding of particle dynamics and the physical principles applied




in the various types of control devices is necessary in evaluating pollution




control equipment for pollutants emitted by specific incinerators.  Selection




of a particular type of air pollution control represents a compromise between




(a) the pollutant collection efficiency, (b) annual operating cost, and (c)




initial capital investment.  The process for the selection of a complete con-




trol system is shown in Figure 80.




     The following air pollution control systems commonly used in incinerators




will be discussed:
                                     253

-------
                             EMISSIONS AND (-.MISSIONS
                                  STANDARDS
                         DETERMINES COLLECTION EFFICIENCY
                         CONTROL EQUIPMENT ALTERNATIVES
I
FAOfllC
FILTER
L__
**v
U
^
UJ rr
Of w
-I:
2 <
•< a

u



•
'
ELECTROSTATIC
PRECIPITATOR
	
— _

	 _
VOLUME
TEMPERATURE
MOISTURE CONTENT
CORROllVfNESJ
FXPLOSIVFNESJ
VISCOSITY











T
WEI
COLLECTOR



	
PROCFSS

WASTE TREATMENT
»PACE HESTRICTION
PRODUCT RECOVERY



	 — ~—


|
MECHANICAL
COLLICTOR
_1—

^1
AFTCB- 1
SURNEB J
	
tn
IGNITION POINT -
SUE DISTRIBUTION iu ti
ABRASIVENESS ->£
HYGROSCOPIC NATURE - ^
ELECTRICAL PROPERTIES £ !',
ORAIN LOADING
DENSITY AND SHAPE
Ph
YSICAL PROPERTIES
EXPLOSIVCNESS
•< •<




PLANT
FACILITY
WATER AVAILABILITY
FORM OF HEAT HtCOVERY
(GAS OR LIQUID)




ENGINEERING STUDIES
HARDWAHF
AUXILIARY EQUIPMENT
LAND
STRUCTURES
INJTAI 1 ATIMN
START-UP
._



COST OF
CONTROL



POWER
WASTE DISPOSAL
WATER
MATERIALS
GAS CONDITIONING
LABOR
TAXES
INSURANCE
RETURN ON INVESTMENT
                                   SELCCTED
                               GAS-CLFANWG SYSTCM
                              DFSIKI D EMISSION HATt
Figure 80.   Process  for  selection of gas-cleaning equipment
                                                                        122
                                   254

-------
     •    Cyclone separators




     •    Scrubbers




          -    wetted baffles




               spray chambers




               venturi scrubbers




     •    Electrostatic precipitators




     •    Fabric filters (or baghouses)




     •    Afterburners




     The basic principles underlying each of these control techniques and its




application to incineration will be emphasized.  After discussion of the dif-




ferent types of air pollution abatement equipment, a comparison of these




control devices will be made, followed by an introduction of some of the




advanced or new air pollution control technologies that are applicable to




the incinerators.




6.1  CYCLONE SEPARATORS




     Cyclones are normally used for controlling particulate emissions from




industrial and commercial incinerators.  Cyclone collectors are generally of




two types:  the large-diameter, low-efficiency cyclones and the small-diameter,




high—efficiency multitube units.  The larger cyclones have lower collection




efficiencies, especially for particle sizes less than about 30y.  However,




they have low initial cost and usually operate at a pressure drop of 1 to 3




inches of water.   The multitube cyclones are capable of efficiencies exceeding




90 percent on particles greater than lOy, but the cost is higher and pressure




drop is usually 3 to 5 inches of water.  They are also more susceptible to




plugging and erosion.  A conventional or reverse-flow cyclone is shown in




Figure 81.






                                     255

-------

Enlarged cutaway shows
Inlet vanes, collecting
cell and discharge tube.
                                                                                              .DIRTY
                                                                                              ' GAS IN
                    Figure 81.   Typical cyclonic dust collector.205

-------
     In general, the collection efficiency of cyclone systems will increase




with increases in particle size, particle density, gas inlet velocity and




cone length.  Since the inertial force which separates solids from gas is




proportional to the mass of the solids, an increase in either particle density




or size will result in an increase in the magnitude of this force.  Increases




in gas inlet velocity will increase the angular acceleration and consequently,




the inertial force.  Increases in cone length increase the residence time of




the stream and enhance separation.




     Conversely, collection efficiency will decrease with increases in gas




viscosity, gas density, and inlet area.  Increases in gas viscosity and/or




gas density will increase the drag forces acting on the particle which retard




separation.  An increase in inlet area will decrease the number of turns of the




gas stream in the cyclone.  This results in reduced residence time and less



separation.




     The cyclone provides an effective way of removing particulates of medium




size from effluent gas.  It requires only a reasonable capital investment as




compared to other more sophisticated devices.  Historically,  the operational




problems associated with cyclones are plugging,  air leakage and erosion.




     It is customary to operate a number of cyclones in parallel in order to




achieve practical gas volume.   The degree of emission control by cyclones




depends on the ash content of  wastes and incinerator capacity.  Cyclones  have




a low efficiency for reduction of visible and odor emissions, since they have




a limited capability for removing fumes and gaseous contaminants which are




normally associated with visible smoke and odors.
                                     257

-------
6.2  WET SCRUBBERS




     There are many different kinds of scrubbers available  and  widely used for




collection of both the particulates and gaseous pollutants  from incinerators.




Three types of scrubbers commonly used in connection with incinerators are:




     •    wetted baffles




     •    spray chambers




     •    venturi scrubbers




     Particulate collection is by inertial interception, impingement,  diffusion




thermal gradients and electrostatic attraction.  Particle wetting  character-




istics, condensation of moisture, and drop evaporation  also affect collection.




Generally, interception and impingement are the predominant mechanisms in wet




scrubbing.  However, scrubbers are seldom applied  to uniform nonreactive par-




ticles dispersed in a simple carrier gas.




     The impaction efficiency is primarily a function of the relative  velocity




between the particulate, the number of water droplets,  and  the  fineness of the




water spray.  Most of these factors are a function of the pressure drop in the




scrubber and the energy input to the scrubber system.




6.2.1  Wetted Baffles




     The simplest kind of wet scrubbers is wetted  baffles placed in the ef-




fluent gas duct.  When the dust-laden effluent gas impinges  on  a baffle, the




gas will be deflected around the baffle, whereas the particulates,  because of




their greater inertia, will tend to be collected on the surface of the baffle.




One way of estimating the performance of baffles is to  find  their  target effi-




ciency.  Target efficiency is the fraction of particulates  in the  gas  volume




swept by the baffle which will impinge on the baffle.
                                     258

-------
     The wetted baffles are usually installed separately from settling chambers




in the incinerators.  They are often made of brick or metal.  Removal effi-




ciencies are quite low and only large particulate, mostly 50 ym or larger,




can be removed.




6.2.2  Spray Scrubber (or Spray Tower)




     The spray scrubber is a round or rectangular spray chamber into which water




is introduced by means of spray nozzles.  There are three different configu-




rations in a spray chamber:  concurrent flow, countercurrent flow and cross




flow.  Both the collection of particulates and gaseous pollutants can be car-




ried out by spray scrubbers.  Figure 82 shows a schematic of a simple spray




tower.





     The spray fluid is sprayed into the enclosure from a series of nozzles




located at the top of the chamber while the gas-particulate mixture enters the




bottom of the chamber and flows upward, encountering the falling drops.   The




drops remove the particles by scrubbing action.




6.2.3  Venturi Scrubber




     Obtaining high collection efficiency of fine particulates by impingement




requires a small obstacle diameter and high relative velocity of the particle




as it impinges on the obstacle.  This can be achieved by the use of venturi




scrubbers.   Both particulates and gaseous pollutants are removed in a venturi




scrubber in which water is supplied peripherally at the top of the venturi.




Effluent gases flowing through the scrubber are accelerated at the throat to a




velocity that ruptures the water into a mass of fine droplets.  Downstream




from the throat,  the cleaned gases decelerate and the water droplets agglom-




erate to a  size easily removable from the gas stream.  Water is recycled and




the particulates  are removed.





                                     259

-------
GAS IN
               ^y=~=^—• —     _r "_—=^r
                  V\
                  /\ \
                                              -MIST ELIMINATOR
                                              GAS DISTRIBUTOR PLATE
         Figure 82.  Typical layout for spray tower.123
                              260

-------
     Venturi scrubbers are applied to air pollution control problems where




very high collection efficiencies of 90 percent or greater are required and




where most of the particulate matter being removed is smaller than 2 ym in




diameter.  Because of their physical design, venturi scrubbers utilize fan




horsepower more efficiently than any other type of wet scrubber.  They are




often considered for applications where electrostatic precipitators and fabric




filters (baghouses) are also considered.  They are always lower in capital cost




but higher in energy consumption than these other two devices.




     Venturi scrubbers are distinguished from other wet scrubbers by two phys-




ical characteristics.  The first, and most important, is a gas-liquid contacting




throat with a constant cross-sectional area over a finite length.  In general,




the longer the throat, the higher the collection efficiency at a given pressure




drop, provided the throat is not so long that fractional losses become signif-




icant.  For a cylindrical throat, a 3:1 ratio of throat length to diameter is




the minimum required to achieve optimum use of fan horsepower.  The second




feature is the energy recovery section (expander) at the throat discharge




which recovers kinetic energy from the mixture of gas and scrubbing liquid




drops.  The energy recovery section is a constantly expanding duct section




starting with minimum cross sections at the throat discharge and increasing




in area to a point where the scrubbed gas can be discharged at a velocity of




less than 100 feet per second.  At less than 100 feet per second, turbulent




losses are minimal and little additional energy recovery is accomplished by




slowing the gas down more.




     The mechanisms affecting collection efficiency of particulates in venturi




scrubbers are numerous.   The physical phenomena involved are inertia, diffusion,




electrostatics,  Brownian motion,  nucleation and growth,  and condensation.







                                     261

-------
All of these affect particulate collection in a venturi scrubber, but  it is

generally agreed that the predominant phenomenon is inertia.

     A detailed and involved analysis of calculating  the collection efficiency,

pressure drop and power consumption for venturi scrubbers can be found in

standard textbooks.12t+

     There are a number of applications where venturi scrubbers are the only

technically feasible solution to an air pollution problem.  If particulate

matter is sticky, flammable, or highly corrosive, for example, precipitators

and fabric filters cannot be used and venturi scrubbers become a reasonable

choice.  Venturi scrubbers are also the only ultrahigh efficiency collectors

which can simultaneously remove gaseous and particulate matter from a gas

stream without any physical modifications.

     The two other types of scrubbers described previously are considered

moderate-to-low pressure drop scrubbers.  To meet current restrictions on

incinerator emissions, scrubbers with high-pressure drops exceeding 15 in.

water gauge and collection efficiencies above 95 percent are required.  Re-

gardless of the collection efficiency, all scrubbers  have the wastewater

disposal problem.

     The advantages of wet scrubbers are:

     •    moderately high efficiency in removing particles of 5 ym
          size and larger

     •    applicable to cleaning hot gases

     •    moderate capital cost

     The disadvantages are:

     •    corrosion

     •    plume formation
                                     262

-------
     •    ash slurry handling and disposal

     •    the most important of all is high-power consumption
          necessary for high-collection efficiency.

6.3  ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATORS

     Electrostatic precipitation is one of the leading and most versatile

methods of achieving high-efficiency collection of particulate matter  from

incinerators.  Precipitator's low resistance to gas flow, low-power require-

ments, and ability to collect both large and small particles are substantial

reasons for their broad application.  The utilization of electrostatic equip-

ment to remove fly ash has been standard practice in the power industry for

many years.

     The collection efficiency of an electrostatic precipitator can be calculated

from an equation derived by Deutsch125 and modified by White126 as follows:

                                 n       /  AW
                             y . l - exp ^- —

where  A = collecting surface area

       W = drift-velocity constant (.velocity component of the particle
           in the direction of the collecting electrode)

       q = the volumetric gas flow

The drift-velocity constant, W,  is related to the particle size,  field strength,

and properties of the gas, as defined by

                                                 2
                          W =
1 +
                                   2(Ke -
     K,
                                     e
                                              6iryf
where  Ke = the dielectric constant of the particle

       EO = the electric field strength

       Uf ~ gas viscosity

        r = particle radius
                                     263

-------
For a plate precipitator of length (L), height  (H), and spacing  (s)  and  for a

given volumetric flow of gas (q), linear velocity  (u) and  time  (t) for the gas

within the active plate surface, the following  applies:127

                       A = 2LH  (two surface per space)

                                 HsL
                       q = Hsu = 	


The efficiency equation of Deutsch becomes

                                         _ 2tw
                                   n        S
                               y = 1 - e

6.3.1  Advantages and Disadvantages

     The primary advantages of electrostatic precipitators are as follows;

     •    Flexibility:  variations in gas flow  and grain loadings have
          only a minor effect on performance efficiency.

     •    Low-power requirements:  the low resistance to gas reduces
          fan horsepower requirements.  This also means lower noise
          levels.

     •    Efficiency:  any efficiency from low  to high can be achieved
          with any gas flow regardless of particle size.

     •    High temperature:  temperatures to 650°F can normally be
          treated without fear of material deterioration,

     •    Corrosive atmosphere:  ESP's can successfully operate in high
          moisture and high S02 environments without deterioration.

     •    Dry collection:  reclaimation is in the dry state, which
          prevents water pollution and reduces  corrosion to a minimum.
          The collected materials can be easily returned to the in-
          dustrial process, virtually eliminating the emission of
          valuable solids to the atmosphere.

     •    Low maintainance costs:   annual maintenance requirements are
          generally lower than in alternative systems.

     •    Low operating costs:   electrostatic precipitators have lower
          operating costs compared to other high efficiency cleaning
          systems.
                                     264

-------
     The disadvantages are:

     •    High purchase and  installation costs

     •    Necessity of uniform gas distribution across the inlet of
          the collector to obtain design efficiency

     •    Critical electrode voltage (too little reduces efficiency
          and too much causes electric arcing)

     •    Two limiting factors related to velocity and therefore
          capacity - particles must have time to build up charges
          and gas velocity must be low enough so as not to reentrain
          particles

     •    The tendency of carbon to lose its charge before it is col-
          lected and the difficulty in charging highly resistant
          inorganics.  (This can be corrected by the insertion of a
          cyclone before the precipitator which will remove particles
          greater than 10 microns and the addition of moisture to
          reduce the resistance of the inorganics.)

     •    Critical temperature (optimum temperature range is 500  to
          600°F because of resistance of particles to being charged
          at higher or lower temperatures)

     In the application of electrostatic precipitators to industrial and com-

mercial municipal incinerators, special consideration must be given to potential

problems such as erosion, corrosion and fouling, and large particulate matter

passing.

     Table 66 shows a partial listing of electrostatic precipitator instal-

lations on incinerators in the United States.

6.4  FABRIC FILTRATION

     Fabric filters are used extensively in industrial operations to recover

valuable material, as well as to control air pollution emissions.  They are

often made in the form of tubular bags or as an envelope supported by a wire

frame, as in Figure 83 and Figure 84.  The structure in which the bags hang

is known as a baghouse.  Small manually-cleaned collectors handle gas flows

of a few hundred cfm while large automatically-cleaned units have been built

to handle up to 220,000 cfm.129

                                     265

-------
        TABLE  66.  PARTIAL  LISTING OF ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR  INSTALLATIONS
                                                                                         128

Plant
Stamford
Stamford
Stamford
SW Brooklyn
So. Shore, NY
Dade City, FL
Chicago, NW
Braintree, MA
Washington, D.C.
Eastman Kodak
Harrisburg, PA
Capacity
(ton/day)
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
2
6
1
2
Furnace
type*
Gas flow
(acfm)
220 Special R 160,000
360
150
250
250
300
400
120
250
300
360
R
R
R
R
R
WW
WW
R
WW
WW
225,000
75,000
131,000
136,000
286,000
110,000
32,000
130,800
101,500
100,000
Gas
flow
(°F)
600
'600
600
550
600
570
450
600
550
625
410
Gas
velocity
(ft/sec)
6.0
3.6
3.7
4.4
5.5
3.9
2.9
3.1
4.1
3.4
3.5
Residence
time
(sec)
3.3
5.0
4.9
3.2
3.3
4.0
4.6
4.5
3.9
5.5
5.1
Plate area
(scfm/ft2)
6.6
4.5
4.6
6.7
6.8
5.7
5.5
5.5
4.9
3.8
5.0
Input
(kVA)
57
225
75
47
33
48
40
19
77
106
40
Pressure
drop in
H20 gauge
0.5
0.5
0.5
2.5
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.4
-
0.2
Efficiency
wt (Z)
95.0
95.0
95.0
94.3
95.0
95.6
96.9
93.0
95.0
97.5
96.8
 R = refractory-lined; WW = waterwall.
Note:  Except for capacity, data refer to design parameters for one precipitator, several may exist.

-------
DIRTY AIR
           Figure 83.  Shaker-type fabric filter.
                                                 138
                            267

-------
                    Air-shake
                    cleaning
Filtering
Dust
inlet
                          ,    /—Discharge-
                          \*       valve
              Figure 84.   Flow diagram of a  fabric filter.138

                                    268

-------
     Filters may be classified according to their filtering media:  woven




fabric or felt cloth, paper, fibrous mats, and aggregate beds.  Generally,




because of their higher aerodynamic inception and larger surface area  for




diffusion and impaction, fine fibers are more efficient collectors than coarse




filters.  However, the final choice of media depends strongly on the charac-




teristics of the gas and particulate matter to be collected.




     A significant development which has led to increased use of fabric filters




is operation at higher temperatures.  Fabric filters are made from cotton, wool,




polypropylene, and various synthetic fibers.




     Fibrous filters do not build up a filter cake.  Particle collection is




by momentum impaction, interception due to van der Waals forces, Brownian




diffusions, and in some cases electrostatic force.  The rate and efficiency




of collection passes through a minimum for particles in the range 0.1  to ly.




     Since the open spaces in filter fabrics, usually woven fabrics, are many




times the size of the particles, collection is low for new clean cloths.




After a short period of operation, the captured particles bridge across the




cloth openings forming a particle filter layer which provides the very high




collection efficiencies.  Periodic mechanical cleaning usually does not remove




all of the layer so that collection efficiency remains high throughout the




bag life.




     Synthetic fiber use is limited to about 500°F.  Metal, carbon and ceramic




fibers offer the potential for operation at higher temperatures.




     Fabric filters usually provide average collection efficiencies exceeding




99 percent,  and frequently above 99.9 percent for large particles at pressure




drops  ranging from 4 to 6 in.  of water gauge.   The filtering velocity
                                     269

-------
required, air-to-cloth ratio, ranges from  1.5  to  3.0  ft3/min of  gas per square




foot of cloth for units that are cleaned by  shaking and  10  to 20 ft3/min for




reverse jet cleaning.




6.4.1  Advantages and Disadvantages




     Extensive gas conditioning and control  is required  for proper performance




of the filter fabric.  Basic to fabric filters is their  necessity  for periodic




maintenance and repair.  When this requires  work  stoppage,  it can  be quite




costly.  The filter bags themselves necessitate constant protection against




the stiffening breakage caused by condensation.   Conversely,  excessive  temper-




ature may require a preliminary cooling spray.  Short bag life can also  result




from flex wear during shaking or inadequate  attention in the  collapse method




to balance off-tension, damper action and  cleaning cycle.




6.4.2  Application




     Baghouses have not been widely applied  to incinerators,  particularly




existing installations since their performance is extremely sensitive to tem-




perature extremes.  The operational temperature range is very narrow, generally




between 250  to 550 F.  High temperature excursions will deteriorate the fiber




bags while low temperatures coupled with high  moisture content will plug the




bags.




6.5  AFTERBURNERS




     The discussions presented so far in the preceding sections  are mainly




pollution control for particulates.  Unburned  hydrocarbons  and carbon monoxide




from the main combustion chamber of the incinerator as well  as the inorganic




acidic gases such as hydrogen chloride, sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides,




which arise from the incineration process, should be minimal  in  any properly




designed and operated equipment, as should other  organic vapors; but it  must






                                     270

-------
be admitted in practice that such materials are often to be found  in  the  flue




gases.  One technique commonly used in a large variety of industrial  and  com-




mercial incinerators for controlling gaseous emission is the afterburner.




     Afterburners, also called vapor incinerators, are devices in  which com-




bustion is carried out to convert the combustible materials in effluent gases




to water and carbon dioxide; i.e., to achieve complete combustion.  The




greatest variation among different afterburner designs is in how well they




achieve the goal of raising all of the vapor to the required temperature  for




the required residence time.  Figure 85 schematically indicates the general




effects of temperature and residence time on oxidation rates in a  flow through




reactor.  Over a narrow temperature range the rate increases from  essentially




zero to rates measured in milliseconds or less.  At high temperatures complete




conversion is controlled more by concentrations of pollutant and oxidant  than




by the temperature dependent rate.




     There are two types of afterburners:  (1) direct flame and (2) catalytic.




Direct-flame afterburners, or direct-fired afterburners depend on  flame contact




and relatively high temperature to achieve complete combustion.  Catalytic




afterburners are devices used to dispose of low concentration combustion




materials in the gaseous state.  Catalytic incineration, as it is more com-




monly called, has been successfully used in the chemical process industries




for incineration of paint solvents and many other functions that help offset




the cost of air pollution control equipment.




     The major drawbacks of a thermal vapor incinerator are the relatively high




operating expense caused by the need to burn supplementary fuel to heat cold




vapor to the required high temperatures of 1400° to 1600°F and the significant
                                    271

-------
       too
to
                                 Increasing
                                 Residence
                                    Time
                                                  I2OO         I4OO
                                              INCREASING  TEMPERATURE
1600
1800
2OOO
             Figure 85.  Coupled effects of temperature and  time  on rate of pollutant oxidation.130

-------
initial cost for a reliable unit.  Heat recovery can be employed with an in-



crease in first cost, but often with fuel savings large enough to rapidly



return this added capital.  Figure 86 and Figure 87 show two configurations



of a direct-flame afterburner, with the first one having no energy recovery,



and the second one with single-pan recuperative (tube type) energy recovery.



Table 67 shows typical ranges of residence times and operating temperatures



for each of the major pollution abatement categories for which thermal after-



burners are applicable.  The range of conditions shown for each category is



relatively wide.  To some extent this range results from differences in oxi-



dation rates of specific pollutants, due to their physical and chemical char-



acteristics.  Table 68 also shows an estimated NOV emissions for thermal
                                                 A


afterburners.



     Catalytic afterburners are another way to reduce fuel requirements since,



in most cases, pollutant oxidation will occur at a significantly lower temper-



ature in the presence of catalyst.  Successful operation requires vapor streams



which will not foul the catalyst and careful monitoring of the unit to insure



that the catalyst has not lost its activities.  As a result, in the majority



of applications thermal vapor incinerators are chosen for their promise of



more trouble-free operation, and heat recovery is employed to obtain comparable



fuel savings.



     Afterburner efficiency is defined as



    ,.,.. .      /
-------
                Process
                Fumes
                (?00°F)
                                       Temperature
                                       Stabilisation
                                       Zone
                 Clean Gases
                 (1500°F)
                                  Purification Chamber
                     Figure 86.   Common afterburner.
                                                         131
                 Clean    Process
                 Gases   Fumes
                (980° F)   (200° F)
Temperatuies Typical
                                       Purification Chamber
                                    Temperature Stabilization
                                                     Zone
Figure 87.   Common afterburner with recuperative tube-type  recovery.131
                                      274

-------
 TABLE 67-  THERMAL AFTERBURNERS:130  CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR
            SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE IN VARIOUS ABATEMENT
            APPLICATIONS
       Abatement category
  Afterburner
   .,      .
residence time
     (sec)
            m
            Temperature
               /°^\
               ( F)
Hydrocarbon emissions
(90% + destruction of HC)

Hydrocarbons + CO
(90% + destruction of HC + CO,
as in LAAPCD Rule 66)

Odor
  (50-90% destruction)
  (90-99% destruction)
  (99% + destruction)

Smokes and plumes
White smoke (liquid mist)
  (plume abatement)
  (90% + destruction of HC + CO)

Black smoke (soot and combustible
particles)
0.3-0.5     1100-1250
0.3-0.5     1250-1500
0.3-0.5
0.3-0.5
0.3-0.5
0.3-0.5
0.3-0.5

0.7-1.0
                1000-1200
                1100-1300
                1200-1500
                 800-1000
                1250-1500

                1400-2000
                     t
 Temperatures of 1400  to 1500 F may be required if the hydro-
 carbon has a significant content of any of the following:
 methane, cellosolve, substituted aromatics (e.g., toluene,
 xylenes).
t
 Operation for plume abatement only is not recommended, since
 this merely converts a visible hydrocarbon emission to an
 invisible one, and frequently creates a new odor problem due
 to partial oxidation in the afterburner.
                              275

-------
       TABLE 68.   ESTIMATED NOV EMISSIONS FOR THERMAL AFTERBURNERS130
                              A.
                          Operating
                         temperature
                                        x
 emission rate

Ib NO /hr
     X
mscfm fume
                             NOX concentration
                                in effluent
                                   (ppm)
Gas-fired afterburners
  fume used as              1200
  air supply for burner     1500
                0.13
                0.16
                       18
                       22
  external combustion
  air for burner
1200
1500
   0.18
   0.22
18
22
Oil-fired afterburners
  external combustion       1200
  air for burner            1500
                0.40
                0.50
                       40
                       50
                                    276

-------
     The efficiency of catalytic afterburners is also a function of many

variables:   surface area of the catalyst, catalyst type, flow pattern of the

gases through the catalytic bed, nature of the material being burnt, oxygen

concentration, volume of gases per unit catalyst and the temperature of the

unit.

6.5.1  Advantages and Disadvantages

     Direct-flame afterburners:  the advantages of the direct-flame inciner-

ation afterburner include

     •    high removal efficiency of submicron odor causing particulate
          matter

     •    simultaneous disposal of combustible gaseous and particulate
          matter

     •    compatibility with existing combustion equipment

     •    relatively small space requirements

     •    simple construction

     •    low maintenance

     The disadvantages include

     •    high operational costs including fuel and instrumentation

     •    fire hazards

     •    excessive weight

     Catalytic afterburners:  the advantages of the catalytic afterburner

include

     •    reduced fuel requirements

     •    reduced temperature, insulation requirements and fire hazards

     The disadvantages include

     •    high initial cost

     •    sensitivity to catalytic poisoning


                                     277

-------
     •    inorganic particles must be removed and organic droplets
          must be vaporized before combustion to prevent damage and
          plugging of the catalyst

     •    catalysts may require frequent reactivation

     •    lower efficiency at the usual catalytic afterburner
          operation temperature

6.6  COMPARISON OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EQUIPMENT FOR INDUSTRIAL AND
     COMMERCIAL INCINERATORS

6.6.1  Performance

     A comparison of the performance of the various pollution control devices

described in preceding sections will be discussed, followed by a comparative

cost analysis of each type of equipment.  All of the following estimates and

comparisons are first order approximations only.

     The performance of various pollution control devices may differ widely

depending on the particular application.  The most widely accepted criterion

to classify particulate collection equipment performance is fractional effi-

ciency curve or sometimes called the grade efficiency curve.  It represents

the performance of the particular collector on each size of dust particle for

a given collector power consumption, gas temperature and dust resistivity

(if a precipitator).  Figure 88 shows the collection equipment performance

for one application.  However, there is no comprehensive body of empirical

data upon which to predict equipment capabilities, but estimates of performance

to be expected from various types of equipment have been made in terms of

penetration (Figure 89).

     Table 69 summarizes the approximate characteristics of air pollution

control equipment and Table 70 summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of

different air pollution control devices.
                                    278

-------
100
                                     / BAG FILTERHOUSE
                                     } VENTURI SCRUBBER (6-INCH THROAT, 30-INCH WATER GAU(JE)
                                     ' SPRAY TOWER  (22-FOOT DIAMETER)
                                      DRY ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR  (3-SECOND CONTACT TIME)
                                     ( MULTIPLE CYCLONES (12-INCH DIAMETER TUBES)
                                     < SIMPLE CYCLONE (4-FOOT DIAMETER)
                                     ( INERTIAL COLLECTOR
                          20
30         40         50
PARTICLE SIZE,microns
                                                                       60
70
                                                                                             80
     Figure 88.    Composite grade (fractional)  efficiency  curves  based
                     on  test  silica  dust.123
                                            279

-------
9?.99
                                                                             0.01
                             PAHTICLI OIAM(TE« - MICRONS
  Figure 89.  Extrapolated  fractional  efficiency of control devices.135
                                      280

-------
                         TABLE 69.   APPROXIMATE CHARACTERISTICS  OF  DUST AND MIST COLLECTION  EQUIPMENT138
N3
00
Smallest
Particle
Equipment Type
A.




B.






C.



D.





E.




F.








Settling Chamber
1. Simple

2. Multiple Tray

Inertial Separators
1. Baffle Chamber

2. Orifice Impaction
3. Louver Type
4. Gas Reversal
5. Rotating Impeller
Cyclones
1. Single

2. Multiple
Filters
1. Tubular

2. Reverse Jet
3. Envelope

Electrical Precipitators
1. One-Stage

2. Two-Stage

Scrubbers
1 . Sprav Tower
2. Jet

3. Venturi
-I. Cyclonic
5. Inertial
6. Packed
Rotating Impeller
Notes: (a) Including necessary

(c) Includes pressure lo
Relative
Costa

1

2-6


i

1-3
1-3
1
2-b

1-2

3-6

5-20

--12
3-20


6-30

2-b


1-1
4-10

4-12
?-10
4-10
3-6
4-12
Collected
(u)b. Space

40

10


20

2
10
40
s

13

5

0.

0.
0.


0.

0.


10
•)

1
s
2
5
;
auxiliaries. Cb)
ss, water
pumping
Moderate




Moderate







Sma 1 1

Large
Large
1

1 Moderate
1

Large
1

1


Moderate
.-_

Moderate
Moderate
Small
Large
Small .
Power Usedc
Pressure kW
Drop
(Inches H20) 1000 ftVmin

0. 1-0

0. 1-0


0.5-1.

1.
0.3-1
0. 1-0.
---

0.5-3

2-10

2-6

2-6
2-b


0.1-0.

0. 1-0.


0. 1-0.
-._

10-15
2-8
2-15

.5 0.1

.5 0.1


.5 0.1-0.5

.3 0.2-0.6
0.1-0.2
.4 0. 1
0.5-2

0. 1-0.6

0.3-2

0.5-l.S

0.--1.5
0.3-1.5


5 0.2-0.6

3 0.2-0.4


5 0.1-0.2
2-10

2-10
O.h-2
0.8-8
0.5-10 0.6-2

With 90 to 95% efficiency
, electrical energy
'. (d)
2-10
by weight .
Glass 400°C,
Max . Temp . ,
°C, Standard
Construction Remarks
400*
Large, low pressure drop,
precleaner
Difficult to clean, warpage
problem
400°
Power plants, rotary kilns,
acid mists
Acid mists
Fly ash, abrasion problem
Precleaner
Compact
400°
Simple, inexpensive, mos:
widely used
Abrasion and plugging problems
400°d
High efficiency, temperature and
humidity limits
More compact , constant flow
Limited capacity, constant flow
possible
650"
High efficiency, heavy duty.
expensive
Compact, airconditioning
service
Unlimited"
Common , 1 ow water use
Pressure gain, high velocity
liquid jet
High velocity gas stream
Modified dry collector
Abrasion problem
Channeling problem
Abrasion problem


                     cotton fabric 85 C, synthetic fab-rics up to 135 C, Nomex 220 C.  (e) Precooling
                     of high temperature gases will be necessary to prevent rapid evaporation of fine
                     droplets.

-------
                          TABLE 70.   ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF COLLECTION DEVICES.
                                                                                       133
           Collector
            Advantages
          Disadvantages
    Gravitational

    Cyclone
    Wet  collectors
oo
   Electrostatic precipitator
Low pressure loss, simplicity of
  design and maintenance
Simplicity of design and maintenance.
Little floor space required.

Dry continuous disposal of collected
  dusts.
Low to moderate pressure loss.
Handles large particles.
Handles high dust loadings.
Temperature independent.
Simultaneous gas absorption and
  particle removal.

Ability to cool and clean high-
  temperature, moisture-laden gases.
Corrosive gases and mists can be
  recovered and neutralized.
Reduced dust explosion risk.
Efficiency can be varied.
99+ percent efficiency obtainable.
Very small particles can be collected.

Particles may be collected wet or dry.

Pressure drops and power requirements
  are small compared to other high-
  efficiency collectors.
Maintenance is nominal unless corro-
  sive or adhesive materials are
  handled.
Much space required.  Low collection
  efficiency.
Much head room required.
Low collection efficiency of small
particles.
Sensitive to variable dust loadings
  and flow rates.
Corrosion, erosion problems.
Added cost of wastewater treatment and
  reclamation.
Low efficiency on submicron particles.

Contamination of effluent stream by
  liquid entrainment.
Freezing problems in cold weather.
Reduction in buoyancy and plume rise.
Water vapor contributes to visible
  plume under some atmospheric
  conditions.
Relatively high initial cost.
Precipitators are sensitive to vari-
  able dust loadings or flow rates.
Resistivity causes some material to
be economically uncollectable.
Precautions are required to safeguard
  personnel from high voltage.

Collection efficiencies can deteri-
  orate gradually and imperceptibly.

-------
                                               TABLE 70 (continued)
            Collector
            Advantages
           Disadvantages
     Electrostatic precipitator
       (Continued)

     Fabric filtration
     Afterburner, direct flame.
N3
00
OJ
     Afterburner,  catalytic.
Few moving parts.
Can be operated at high temperatures
   (550^ to 850°F.)
Dry collection possible.
Decrease of performance is
  noticeable.
Collection of small particles
  possible.
High efficiencies possible.

High removal efficiency of submicron
  odor-causing particulate matter.
Simultaneous disposal of combustible
  gaseous and particulate matter.
Direct disposal of nontoxic gases and
  wastes to the atmosphere after
  combustion.
Possible heat recovery.
Relatively small space requirement.
Simple construction.
Low maintenance.
Same as direct flame afterburner.
Compared to direct flame:  reduced
  fuel requirements,  reduced
  temperature, insulation require-
  ments, and fire hazard.
Sensitivity to filtering velocity.
High-temperature gases must be cooled
  to 200° to 550°F.
Affected by relative humidity
  (condensation).
Susceptibility of fabric to chemical
  attack.
High operational cost.  Fire hazard.

Removes only combustibles.
High initial cost.
Catalysts subject to poisoning.
                                                                        Catalysts require reactivation.

-------
6.6.2  Cost




     The performance of various pollution abatement devices and  the  resulting




emission to the atmosphere are summarized in Figure 90.  This  figure presents




the stack emissions for a given dust loading and collector efficiency.  The




efficiency required is read on the left ordinate while the right ordinate




presents the class of air pollution control equipment that could be  designed




to meet this requirement.  As an example, if the ASME 1966 maximum emission




level is used, one can start with the 0.8 Ib of dust per million Btu and read




77 percent efficiency on the left ordinate and on the right ordinate note




that a mechanical collector could be designed for this service.  It  should be




cautioned that these data assume a properly designed and maintained  collector




and an incinerator with good combustion conditions.  The basis used  for dust




loading is 35 Ib of dust per ton of refuse leaving the furnace.  If  the furnace




emission is greater or less than the assumed 35 Ib per ton, a  second line can




be drawn (from the 100 percent efficiency and zero emissions point to the




expected furnace emission on the zero efficiency line).




     A summary of the comparative air pollution control data for typical




incinerators is shown in Table 71.   In this table, the second  column gives




the space needed for each class of system.  Column six gives the very important




comparison of the relative operating cost among the various systems.
                                     284

-------
o
00
6
100

 90

 80

 70

 60

 50
y  40
a:
o
   30
   20
8
10
                           INCINERATOR AIR POLLUTION
                         CONTROL EQUIPMENT PERFORMANCE
                     ASSUMED CONDITIONS:
                       	  150% EXCESS AIR
                                 WATER QUENCH FROM FURNACE
                                 TEMPERATURE
                                                       — 60
                              6OO F ENTERING COLLECTOR
                              HIGHER HEATING VALUE-
                                   SOOO BTU/LB
          35 LB OUST ENTERING COLLECTOR
              PER TON OF REFUSE	
             0.50
                   I.OO
1.50
                                      2.00
2.50
      LB DUST/IOOOLB OF GAS CORRECTED TO 50% EXCESS AIR
            0.50     1.00     1.50    2.00    2.50
                      LB OUST/MILLION BTU
                                                300    3.50
                                                                       CLASS OF
                                                                       EQUIPMENT
                                     • FABRIC FILTER

                                      ELECTROSTATIC
                                      PRECIPITATOR

                                     • SCRUBBER
                                     - MECHANICAL
                                      COLLECTOR
                                                                  -SETTLING
                                                                   CHAMBER
                                                                   WET OR DRY
      0      0.25     0.50     0.75       1.00      1.25      1.501.58
        GRAINS DUST/S.C.F. CORRECTED TO 50% EXCESS AIR
                     -STACK DUST EMISSION-
       Figure 90.  Collector efficiency versus stack dust emissions.139
                                      285

-------
                    TABLE 71.   COMPARATIVE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DATA FOR TYPICAL INCINERATOR139
00




Collector
Settling
Chamber
Multlcyclone
Cyclones to 60"
Dia. Tangential
Inlet
Scrubber
Electrostatic
Precipitator
Fabric Filter
1
Relative
Caoital
Co s^ Factor
(F,O.B.)
Not
Applicable
1

1.5

3
6
6
2

Relative
Sua.ce
Vx;
60
20

30

30
100
100
3

Collection
Efficiency
0.30
30.80

30.70

80.96
90.97
97-99.9
4

Water to
Collector
(per 2000 cfm)
2.3 gpm
None

None

4 . 8 gpm
None
None
5

Water Column
Pressure
Drop (In. )
0.5.1
3.4

1.2

6-8
0.5,1
5-7
6

Relative
Operating
Cost Factor
0.25
1.0

0.5

2.5
0.75
2.5
              Includes necessary water  treatment equipment.

-------
                         7.0  BEST SYSTEM OF CONTROL

7.1  INTRODUCTION/RATIONALE

     The selection of a best system of control for commercial/industrial inciner-

ators must address several independent criteria imposed by the wide variety of

waste quality produced in the commercial/industrial sector.  These criteria

include:  (a) the system must be capable of demonstrating compliance with

applicable federal, state and local particulate emission when burning any

solid waste, (b) the system should be relatively simple to operate as unskilled

personnel are normally in charge of in-house incineration, in addition to their

other duties, (c) as these incinerators are subjected to varying hours and

duration of burn time, they must demonstrate consistent performance over a

wide range of operating temperatures and charge rates, (d) the system should

minimize both installed capital costs and yearly operating and maintenance

costs,  (e) the system should minimize energy consumption in terms of auxiliary

fuel use and electricity, (f) the system should be sufficiently small to

fit into existing physical plants, or be amenable to outdoor installation.

     If these criteria are met, the system will be adaptable to the wide range

of was.te types, operating schedules and physical locations to which a small in-

house incinerator may be subject.  While there will always be cases when a

specific unit is needed for special wastes; i.e., multiple hearth units for

industrial sludge, rotary kiln units for combined liquid and solid waste, etc.,

any standard should be based on a typical supermarket, retail store,

hospital installation as these are the most common sites for incinerators in

this classification.
                                     287

-------
7.2  CONTROL DEVICE APPLICABILITY

     Table 72 is provided to indicate  typical  efficiencies of those control

devices normally associated with incinerator emission control.   Due to the

criteria proposed for a best system, several of  the devices listed on this

table and discussed in Section 6 will  not be suitable for consideration.  While

the comparitive advantages and disadvantages of  each control device is listed

in Section 6, a review of the applicability of each control device to small

scale incineration will serve to delineate which devices  warrant further

attention:

     1.   Mechanical collectors (cyclones) have  been utilized for commercial/
          industrial and municipal operations due to their simplicity,  low
          capital and operating costs, small space requirement  and minimal
          energy requirement (low pressure drop).   Overall efficiencies of
          these units can approach 80  percent, however performance drops
          off rapidly for dust sizes smaller than 20 microns and they are
          ineffective  on dust sizes less than 10 microns where about 35 per-
          cent by weight of incinerator fly ash  falls.139  In addition, the
          units are sensitive to variable particulate loading and plugging
          and acid gas corrosion may be a problem.   These factors hamper
          continued, long-term collection efficiency and  have limited wide-
          spread use of these collectors.  While mechanical collectors alone
          cannot normally provide sufficient collection efficiency to meet
          the most stringent state standards, they will remain  a viable
          control option in those states with less restrictive  regulations
          (> 0.20 gr/scf), provided they can be  lined with an acid-resistant
          material.

     2.   Electrostatic precipitators:  commonly found on municipal incinerators
          these units offer excellent collection  efficiencies,  require  little
          maintenance and energy use (0.1 to 0.5  in.  w.g.  pressure drop).
          However,  costs are relatively high, especially  for small incineration
          systems (100 to 20,000 scfm), the units  are sensitive to variable
          dust loadings and temperatures and they  have a  large  space  require-
          ment.   For these reasons precipitators are  seldom used for  commercial/
          industrial units in the size range of  50 to 4,000 pounds per  hour,
          but will find continued applicability  in the larger industrial incin-
          erators,  such as that found in Kodak Park,  Rochester,  New York (refer
          to Kodak Trip Report,  Appendix A).

     3.    Fabric filters:   There are currently few installed fabric filters on
          municipal incinerators due to the detrimental affect  of acid  gases
          on bag life.   While these units do exhibit  high collection  efficiencies
          they have high initial,  operating and maintenance costs,  have an upper
          operating limit of 500°F which requires  flue gas  cooling prior to the

                                     288

-------
baghouse, and have a large  space requirement.   While these factors
negate the general applicability of fabric filters for commercial/
industrial incinerators,  they have been used in special cases, such
as the precious metals  industry, where recovery of fly ash is prac-
ticed for economic reasons.218

Scrubbers:  These devices are widely used for  all incinerator types
due to their adaptability to  varying process temperatures and grain
loadings.  They are available in a wide range  of sizes and collection
efficiencies, and require little space.  Capital costs are moderate
but operating and maintenance costs can be high due to the water
pumps and induced draft fan required.  Equipment deterioration can
be a significant problem due  to the acidic water created by absorption
of acid gases and this  waste  must be neutralized prior to discharge
to the local sanitary sewer (see St. Agnes Hospital Trip Report -
Appendix A).  In spite  of these operational problems scrubbers remain
a viable control technique  provided all tanks  and ductwork are lined
with PVC  (as in St. Agnes Hospital) or some similar material not
affected by acid gases.

Afterburner:  This  is the only control device that is directly
incorporated into most  incinerator designs due to its ability to
simultaneously remove particulate, combustible gases and odors from
the flue  gases.  Afterburners require little space, can be controlled
to modulate with waste  feed rates and air flows and require little
maintenance.  Energy consumption in the form of auxiliary fuel use
is high,  although heat  recovery is a viable option.  Afterburners
have been widely used on incinerators for many years and provide
excellent emission  control.
      TABLE  72.   COLLECTION EFFICIENCIES FOR VARIOUS
                  TYPES OF MUNICIPAL INCINERATION
                  PARTICULATE CONTROL SYSTEMS149
            Type of system
      Settling chamber
      Settling chamber and water spray
      Wetted baffles
      Mechanical collector
      Scrubber
      Electrostatic precipitator
      Fabric filter
Efficiency, %
  Oto30
 30 to 60
   60
 30 to 80
 80 to 95
 90 to 96
 97 to 99
                            289

-------
7.3  BEST SYSTEM DETERMINATION

     A best system of control for commercial/industrial incinerators will

consist of an incinerator type and/or one of the previously discussed control

devices.  The incinerator types considered as candidate best systems are limited

to those which are currently widely used in this area; single chamber, multi-

chamber and controlled air.  Special incinerator types such as rotary kiln,

multiple hearth, and fluidized bed do not have widespread applicability to

typical commerical or industrial situations.  These units are discussed below,

but are not considered for inclusion in a best method determination.  Similarly,

novel methods including slagging and suspension burning are discussed in

Section 3, but are not considered to be candidate best systems due to their

specialization.

     The lack of substantial data on capital and operating and maintenance

costs, auxiliary fuel use, electric consumption, and water and caustic use

(when scrubbers are utilized) for the major incinerator types limits quanti-

tative comparisons.  In spite of these drawbacks, qualitative conclusions can

be drawn, based on the data that is available and general knowledge of unit

operations.  A review of the various incinerator/control device systems will

point out the advantages and disadvantages of each:

     1.   Single chambers:  Based on uncontrolled emission data presented in
          Section 5, control device efficiency of 90 percent is required to
          meet most state regulations.  Collection efficiencies this high are
          provided by fabric filters, electrostatic precipitators and scrubbers
          (Table 72).  Fabric filters and precipitators are not viable options
          for the reasons previously mentioned in this section.  A scrubber
          with a pressure drop of 20 to 30 in. w.g. will be needed to insure
          collection efficiencies in excess of 90 percent.  The use of a high
          efficiency scrubber however will increase energy consumption (see
          St. Agnes Hospital trip report - Appendix A), create maintenance
          problems and is more complex in light of the tanks, pumps, pH indi-
          cator, neutralization equipment and induced draft fan required.
                                     290

-------
     In addition, uncontrolled single chamber units are capable of pro-
     ducing wide variations in gaseous as well as particulate emissions
     if not properly attended, and this may lead to excessive emission
     rates in spite of scrubber performance.  From initial examination
     therefore one must conclude that a single chamber/high efficiency
     wet scrubber is not the best system of control currently available.

2.   Multichamber:  Uncontrolled particulate emission rates from Table 65
     are 5 pounds per ton of waste or 0.13 gr/scf at 12 percent C02-
     This emission rate increases the control device options as only a
     24 percent reduction in emissions will be needed to meet a 0.10 gr/scf
     at 12 percent CC>2 standard.  Control devices capable of this effi-
     ciency include all those listed in Table 72.  Settling chambers with
     water sprays and wetted baffles may give performance, but the problems
     of acidic water handling and potential corrosion must then be faced.
     Mechanical collectors in the form of cyclones avoid these maintenance
     problems and do provide the range of collection efficiencies required.
     In addition, they exhibit low capital and operating cost (Table 71),
     require relatively little space and can be installed in multiple
     units.  Connecticut stack test data217 indicate that centrifugal
     separators installed on multichamber units were capable of emissions
     of 0.017 to 0.058 gr/scf at 12 percent C02 when burning waste types
     0 to 4 (Table 1).  Electrostatic precipitators and fabric filters
     were again not serious candidates for consideration for the cost,
     size and operational reasons previously cited.  A scrubber is another
     viable alternative for multichamber incinerator emission control and
     is widely used, but is less attractive than mechanical collectors
     due to the previously cited complexity and liquid handling problems.
     As both cyclones and scrubbers provide the required collection effi-
     ciency, the choice of a best combination for this class of incin-
     erators therefore involves how best to handle and minimize the effects
     of acid gases.  Based upon the limited test data available, it appears
     that a multichamber incinerator/mechanical collector would combine
     the required performance with minimal maintenance provided the
     collector is constructed of acid-resistant materials.  States with
     strict (< 0.05 gr) scf/regulations will still require a scrubber,
     however, to guarantee low emission levels.

3.   Controlled air:  Uncontrolled particulate emissions from Table 65
     are 1.4 pounds per ton or 0.08 gr/scf at 12 percent C02-  While
     these rates are based on a limited number of emission tests, they
     do indicate that, for a standard controlled air unit, no additional
     control equipment is needed.  Controlled air units minimize partic-
     ulate emissions by the design and control of the primary and secondary
     chambers, as discussed in Section 3.  Since the key to low emissions
     from these units is tight control of combustion air rates, a control
     panel with push button operation and indicator lights for the various
     operating modes is an integral part of the unit.  This panel enables
     the unit to be operated by someone with little training or experience
     and satisfies the second criteria of a best system.  This same control
     panel can be programmed to automatically warm up the unit and tie


                                291

-------
     auxiliary fuel burning rates with charging sequence, thereby mini-
     mizing the varying emissions which result from random charging.  Only
     one published report was found concerning operating and energy costs
     from controlled air units.  This study, on three small scale muni-
     cipal waste systems, indicated operating costs of $6.26 to $15.69
     per ton of waste and energy usage of 0.46 to 2.61 million Btu per
     ton of waste.  The partlculate emission rates for these units varied
     from 0.03 to 0.08 gr/scf at 12 percent C02.  By comparison, St. Agnes
     Hospital (Appendix A) reported an energy use of 5.72 to 6.24 million
     Btu per ton of waste with an estimated emission of 0.013 gr/scf at
     12 percent C02>  Clearly the need exists for an indepth cost study
     in this area.  No comparitive energy/operating data could be found
     for multichamber units but since they require more combustion air
     than controlled air designs (Table 33) it is assumed that proportion-
     ally more auxiliary fuel would be required to raise the air quantity
     to the 1400°F required for odor and particulate control.  Controlled
     air units come in standard sizes of 100 to 3,000 pounds per hour,
     and utilize automatic charging.  The larger units can be equipped
     with heat recovery.

4.   Rotary kilns:  These incinerators are currently used in municipal
     systems and the chemical industry where a continuous feed operation
     is required.  Their adaptability to varying quantities and qualities
     of waste outweighs the increased capital and maintenance costs inher-
     ent in the design in these cases (see Dow Chemical Company trip
     report, Appendix A).  While no uncontrolled emission factor has beeii
     published for these units, the relatively high velocities of the flue
     gases through the kiln along with the agitation and attrition caused
     by the kiln rotation increase particulate loadings relative to con-
     ventional systems, thereby requiring a higher degree of emission
     control.  The lack of published emission data on these units combined
     with the high energy use and system complexity preclude their con-
     sideration in the determination of a best system.

5.   Multiple hearth:  As discussed in Section 3.6, these incinerators are
     currently used for the disposal of combustible sludges, especially
     biological treatment facility sludges.  The units are complex and
     therefore more capital intensive, both in initial cost and operating
     and maintenance costs.  The smallest commercially available unit is
     rated at 5 tons per day.  Uncontrolled emissions are extremely high
     when incinerating sludges (100 Ib/ton) thereby requiring a high degree
     of control.  (See Appendix B for controlled emission data.)   No
     published data is available on emission rates from these units while
     burning conventional solid wastes.  As these units are essentially
     designed for sludge incineration, are unproven with regards to solid
     waste incineration and are unavailable in sizes less than 400 pounds
     per hour, they are not candidates for a best system determination.

6.   Fluidized bed:  These units have also been discussed in Section 3.6
     with respect to sludge incineration.  The adaptability of fluidized-
     bed incinerators to solid, liquid and gaseous wastes makes them
                                292

-------
          suitable to sites with multiwaste problems.   To take full advantage
          of  the enhanced heat transfer capabilities of the fluidized bed,
          and to minimize energy costs, the units should be run on a continuous
          basis.   Fluidized-bed units are complex and require higher capital,
          operating and maintenance costs than conventional incineration units.
          As  fluidized-bed units are a relatively new technology,  as applied
          to  incineration, they have only been tested using sewage sludge
          as  the waste feed (see Appendix B for published emission data).
          Given the lack of emission data for these units while incinerating
          conventional solid wastes and the lack of experience with their
          operation, they will not be considered a candidate for a best system
          determination.

7.4  CONCLUSION

     From the data available it appears that a number of incinerator/control

system combinations could meet a proposed standard.  Selection of  a single

best system must therefore focus on which combination can be simply run and

maintained and provide continued long term emission control with a minimum of

maintenance.   The system that best meets this criteria is the controlled air

incinerator.   It has consistently demonstrated low particulate emissions,

requires little supervision and is adaptable to the variable quantity and

quality of waste disposed of by the commercial/industrial sector.   A more

rigorous examination of all factors affecting operation including  a test plan

which investigates cost and fuel use data in addition to stack emissions will

serve to validate this selection.
                                     293

-------
                    8.0  COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS METHODS






     Collection and analysis methods for those pollutants identified in




Section 4 as potential emissions from commercial/industrial incinerators are




identified in Table 73.  Until the adoption of EPA Standard Methods in 1971,19°




acceptable test procedures varied from state to state.  While ASTM191 and




ASME192 Methods were generally followed for particulates, gaseous emissions




were measured in a variety of ways, with infrared absorption spectroscopy




being favored.  Historical emission data often do not cite the reference measure-




ment method and any comparison of these data must be used for qualitative




and not quantitative comparisons.  As Table 73 indicates, the major pollutants




are currently covered by specific EPA procedures.  Less commonly measured




gaseous pollutants such as aldehydes and organic acids are covered by Los




Angeles test procedures.  While these methods are not a nationwide policy,




they are generally used by State Air Quality officials throughout the country




when a measurement is required.
                                     294

-------
                                               TABLE  73.    SAMPLE  COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS  METHODS
                   Pollutant
                                        Procedure designation
                                                                Sampling methodology
                                                      Analytical methodology
                                                                                                                                                       Reference
          Particulate
          Particulate and condensable
          organics, condensable inor-
          ganic and inorganic gaseous
          species.
                                       EPA - Method 5
                            ASTM D2928

                            ASME PTC  27

                            EPA - IERL -  RTF
                            Level I Environment
                            assessment screening
                            procedures
S3
Sulfur oxides:

  S02


  303 and S02


  SO3 and S02
             S03 and S02
          Nitrogen oxides
                                       EPA - Method 6


                                       EPA - Method 8



                                       Los Angeles
                             EPA - IERL
                             Controlled
                             condensation
                             (Goksoyr-Ross)
                             EPA - Method  7
                             ASTM  D-1608
                             Los Angeles
Sample collected isokinetically on a glass
fiber filter out of stack, maintained at
250°F.  Probe rinsed with acetone.   For
gas temperature over 900°F, use water-
cooled probe.

Same

Same

Sample obtained isokinetically in SASS
train.  Particulate segregated by
cyclones into 4 fractions:  > 10 nm,
> 3 nn, >  1 nm, ' 1 nm.   Condensable or-
ganics collected both on an adsorbent
resin, MAD-2, and in the condensate.
Condensable inorganic species and inor-
ganic gases collected in impingers  con-
taining either ammonia persulfate
((NHi,)2S208) or hydrogen peroxide (H202).
S02 collected in 3% hydrogen peroxide
(H202) in midget impingers.
503 collected in 80% isopropyl alcohol and
on glass fiber filter.   S02  collected in
3% H202.

(1) Total SOX - no discrimination.
Collect sample in 5% sodium  hydroxide
(NaOH) in Greenberg-Smith impingers.

(2) S03 - glass fiber thimble held  at
200°F followed by impinger with 5%  NaOH
for S02.

SOs collected in coil maintained at 140°F,
coil rinsed with distilled,  deionized
water.  S02 collected in 3%  H202.   Partic-
ulate S0i_ collected on quartz filter
maintained at 550°F.
Collect saaple in a grab flask containing
0.1 N sulfuric acid CH2SOk)  and 3%  H202.
Total particulate weight determined gravi-     190
metrically.  Filter dessicated to constant
weight.  Probe acetone rinse evaporated
and residue dessicated to constant weight.


Same                                           191

Same                                           192

Total particulate collected in probe, cy-      193
clones and on filter determined gravi-
netrically.  Organic material extracted
from condensate and off XAD-2 resin and
fractioned by liquid chromatography into
functional group class fractions.  Class
groups determined by infrared (1R) and gas
chromatography/mass spectroscopy (GC/MS).
Inorganic species collected in impingers
determined by specific analytical tech-
niques.  Inorganic elements present in
particulate matter determined by spark
source spectroscopy.
Sample titrated with barium perchlorate         190
(Ba(CiOi,)2'3H20]/Thorin indicator.

Sample titrated with barium perchlorate/        190
Thorin indicator.
Oxidize SOX and SOi, with bromine,  deter-       194
mine gravimetrically with barium chloride
(BaCi2).

Extract thimble with hot water.   Determine
SO,, gravimetrically with BaCl2;  S02 as
above.

Titrate with barium perchlorate/               195
Sulphonazo III indicator.                      196

S02 as above.  Extracted with hot dis-
tilled deionized water and SO^ deter-
mined as above.

Nitrate formed in flask is reacted with        190
phenol disulphonic acid and concentration       191
is determined colorimetrically.                 194
                                                                                (continued)

-------
                                                                  TABLE  73  (continued)
                     Pollutant
                                         Procedure designation
                                                                 Sampling methodology
                                                                                                                       Analytical methodology
                                                                                                                                                         Reference
to

£
            Carbon monoxide





            Carbon dioxide

            Aldehydes  (total)



            Formaldehyde



            Organic acids
Ammonia and ammonium
compounds

Hydrocarbons (total)
           Chlorides - particulate
           hydrogen chloride
           C12
EPA - Method 10





EPA - Method 3

Los Angeles



Los Angeles



Los Angeles






Los Angeles
                                         (1) Los Angeles
                                         Total combustible
                                         analyzer  (to be adopted
                                         by EPA in the future)
                             (2) EP.A - to be adopted
                             in the near future

                             Los Angeles
                                                      An integrated Tedlar bag sample is
                                                      obtained over the run or alternately
                                                      continuous sampling system is used.
                                                      Integrated Tedlar bag sample
                                                                                 *•
                                                      Collect with 17. sodium bisulfite (NaHS03)
                                                      in impingers.
                                                      Collect with 1% NaHS03 in impingers.
                                                      Collect with 5% sodium hydroxide in
                                                      impingers.
Collect particulate in glass fiber thimble
Gas collected in 5% HC1

Collect organics in freeze out trap and
evacuated Tedlar bag or stainless steel
tank.  Continuous automatic unit also can
be fabricated.
                                                                 Use either continuous or integrated bag.
                         Particulate chlorides collected in a glass
                         fiber thimble,-
                                                                 HC£ collected in distilled deionized water

                                                                 C12 collectedin52 SaOH
 The analysis is performed with a non-          190
 dispersive infrared analyzer when the con-
 centration range is between 0 and
 3,000 ppm (0.3%).  An Orsat analyzer is
 used when the concentration is over 0.3Z.

 Orsat analysis                                 190

 Excess bisulfite is destroyed with I2, pH      194
 adjusted with buffer and liberated bisul-
 fite titrated with standard I2 solution.

 React the solution with l^SOi, and chfomo-      194
 tropic acid.  Determine the concentration
 colorimetrically.

 Acidify and extract solution with ether,       194
 then
 (1) Titrate with'NaOH for total organic
     acids
 (2) Determine individual organic acids
     with gas chromatography

 NHs and NHi, compounds determined by            194
 Kjeldahl procedure.

 (a) Organics in trap oxidized to CC>2, then     197
     reduced to CH4 and determined on Flame     198
     lonization Detector (FID) analyzer.
 (b) Organic and inorganic gases in tank or
     bag separated on gas chromatograph.
     Nonmethane organics combusted and re-
     duced to CHi, and determined on FID
     analyzer.
     *-?:
 Sample analyzed as total organics by pass-
 ing directly into a FID analyzer.

 Particulate chloride - extract with hot        194
 distilled deionized water and determine
 Ci~ with either ion selected electrode
 (ISE) or Volhard titration.

 HC£ -determined by alkalimetric and Volhard
 titration and ISE.
 C&2 - todometric titration, or use Ortho-
 tolidin colorimetfic procedure.
 - Other titfations; i.e., rnercurimetrie
- can also be used in place of Volhard;

-------
                      9.0  STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS






     Tables 74 through 76 list particulate and opacity regulations as taken




from the "Environmental Reporter,201 for commercial and industrial incinerators




by state (Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico regulations are also included)-




Many municipalities have separate regulations, usually more stringent than the




state standards.   The interested reader is referred to The World's Air Quality




Management Standards,202 Volume II for such a listing.




     Since the following regulations, tabulated for ease of comparison, omit




qualifying phrases and sentences for clarity's sake, it is recommended that the




promulgating documents be consulted if one desires the precise intent of the




various laws.




     Note that in order to permit comparison of regulations on a nationwide




basis, the actual value of each regulation has been converted to a common set




of units, grains  per standard cubic foot of flue gas corrected to 12 percent




C02 for particulates, and percent opacity for visible emissions.  These units




were chosen since they seem to have the most widespread acceptance among the




states.




     Note, too, that the chart of tepee burner particulate regulations lists




only those states with specific tepee burner regulations for particulates.   If




a state has no specific regulations, then general incinerator regulations are




usually applicable.
                                    297

-------
     The conversion calculations for participates were accomplished, assuming
refuse of 4,450 Btu/lb heating value, using:
     1 gr/scf at 12% C02 =1.68 lb/1000 Ib flue gas at 50% excess air
                         =1.89 lb/1000 Ib flue gas at 12% C02
                         = 0.94 lb/100 Ib refuse
                         = 0.89 gr/scf at 50% excess air
     The conversion calculations for opacity were accomplished using the chart
                            % opacity    Ringelmann No.
                                20             1
                                40             2
                                60             3
                                     298

-------
  TABLE 74.  PARTICULATE EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR NEW AND EXISTING COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL INCINERATORS
VO
State

1 Alabama

2 Alaska


3 Arizona
4 Arkansas

5 California
6 Colorado

7 Connecticut

8 Delaware



9 D.C.


10 Florida

11 Georgia



Value
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.08
0.15
U.08
0.4
0.2
1.0
2.0
5.0
0.08
prohibited
prohibited
0.08
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.08

Units
lbs/100 Ibs charged
lbs/100 Ibs charged
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
Ibs /I 000 Ibs
Ibs/hr
Ibs/hr
Ibs/hr
Ibs/hr
gr/scf


gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf

Corrected
to


12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
50% excess air




12% C02


50% excess air
50% excess air
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
Regulation
Process
Conditions
>50 TPD
<50 TPD
£200 Ibs/hr
200-1000 Ibs/hr
>1000 Ibs/hr

>200 Ibs/hr
<200 Ibs/hr
typical of the 43 APCD's




100 Ibs/hr
500 Ibs/hr
1000 Ibs/hr
3000 Ibs/hr



>_50 TPD
>50'TPD
£50 tons/day - type 0,1,2 waste
<50 tons/day - type 3,4,5,6 waste
type 0,1,2 waste
>50 tons/day

Validity R









built after 4/5/75
built before 4/5/75
built after 6/1/72
built before 6/1/72




built before 2/7/69
built between 2/7/69 and
7/4/75
built after 7/4/75
built after 2/11/72
built before 2/11/72 .
new (built after 1/1/72)
new (built after 1/1/72)
existing before 1/1/72
new (built after 1/1/72)
Equivalent
Common
egulation (gr/scf l! 12? COj)
0.11
0.21
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.08
0.15
0.08
0.24
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.18
0.08
0.03
prohibited
0.09
0.11
0.1
0.2
0.2
0-3
0.08
                                                              (continued)

-------
TABLE 74 (continued)
State
Value
12 Hawaii 0.2
13 Idaho 0.2
14 Illinois 0.08
0.2
0.1
15 Indiana 0.3
0.5
16 Iowa 0.2
0.35
17 Kansas 0.3
0.2
W 0.1
O
O 18 Kentucky 0.2
0.08
19 Louisiana 0.2
20 Maine 0.2
21 Maryland 0.03
22 Massachusetts 0.1
23 Michigan 0.65
0.3
24 Minnesota 0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.15
0.1

Units
lbs/100 Ibs charged
lbs/100 Ibs charged
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
lbs/1000 Ibs gas
lbs/1000 Ibs gas
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
lbs/1000 Ibs gas
lbs/1000 Ibs gas
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf

Corrected
to


12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
50% excess air
50% excess air
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
50% excess air
50% excess air
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
Regulation
Process
Conditions


2000-60,000 Ibs/hr
<2000 Ibs/hr
<2000 Ibs/hr
>200 Ibs/hr
<200 Ibs/hr
>1000 Ibs/hr
<1000 Ibs/hr
<200 Ibs/hr
200-20,000 Ibs/hr
>20,000 Ibs/hr
<50 tons/day
>50 tons/day




0-100 Ibs/hr
>100 Ibs/hr
<200 Ibs/hr
200-2000 Ibs/hr
>2000 Ibs/hr
<200 Ibs/hr
200-2000 Ibs/hr
>2000 Ibs/hr
Equivalent
... Conmon
validity Regulation (gr/scf @ 12% C02)
0.21
0.21
0.08
built before 4/15/72 0.2
built after 4/15/72 0.1
0.18
0.30
0.2
0.35
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.08
0.2
0.2
0.03
0.1
0.39
0.18
existing before 8/17/71 0.3
existing before 8/17/71 0.2
existing before 8/17/71 0.1
new (built after 8/17/71) 0.2
new (built after 8/17/71) 0.15
new (built after 8/17/71) 0.1
            (continued)

-------
                                                  TABLE  74 (continued)
U)


25

26

27


28

29
30

31

32

33




State
Value
Mississippi 0.2
0.1
Missouri 0.2
0.3
Montana 0.1
0.2
0.3
Nebraska 0.2
0.1
Nevada 0.3
calculate
New 0 . 3
Hampshire
0.08
New Jersey 0.2
0.2

Units
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
Ib/ton charged
E = 40.7 x 10 C
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf

Corrected
to
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
C,E = Ibs/hr
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
New Mexico only opacity regulations
0.08
New York 0.5
0.5
calculate
(e.g., 0.3)
calculate
(e.g., 0.3)
calculate
(e.g., 7.5)
gr/scf
lbs/100 Ibs charged
lbs/100 Ibs charged
Ibs/hr
Ibs/hr
Ibs/hr
12% C02





Regulation
Process
Conditions
Design Capacity
New Sources Near
Residential Areas
>200 Ibs/hr
<200 Ibs/hr
£200 Ibs/hr
>200 Ibs/hr

<2000 Ibs/hr
>2000 Ibs/hr
<2000 Ibs/hr
>2000 Ibs/hr
£200 Ibs/hr
>200 Ibs/hr
>50 tons/day
<2000 Ibs/hr
all others
£50 tons/day
>50 tons/day
>2000 Ibs/hr
£2000 Ibs/hr
£100 Ibs/hr
01000 Ibs/hr
(33000 Ibs/hr
Equivalent
Validity
Regulation




existing after 9/5/75
existing before 9/5/75
all others




built after 4/20/74
Type 0,1,2,3 waste only


new (built after 8/17/71)
built between 4/1/62 and
1/1/70
built between 4/1/62 and
1/1/68
built after 1/1/68
built after 1/1/68
built after 1/1/70
Common
(gr/scf 3 12% C02)
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.16
0.04
0.3
0.2
0.08
0.2
0.1
-
0.08
0.53
0.53

0.32
0.27
                                                            (continued)

-------
TABLE  74 (continued)


34



35

36

37
bO
O
N) 38


39 -
40
41
42
43
44

State

North
Carolina



North
Dakota (e
(e
Ohio

Oklahoma
(e
Oregon


Pennsylvania
Puerto
Rico
Rhode
Island
South
Carolina
South
Dakota
Tennessee

Regulation
Value
0.2
0.4
1.0
2.0
4.0
calculate
.g., 2.58)
calculate
.£., 6.53)
0.1
0.2
calculate
.g., 2.3)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.4
0.16
0.08
0.75
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.1
Units Corrected
to
Ibs/hr
Ibs/hr
Ibs/hr
Ibs/hr
Ibs/hr
Ibs/hr E,R = Ibs/hr
E = .00515R'9
E = .0252R'69 E,R = Ibs/hr
lbs/100 Ibs charged
lbs/100 Ibs charged
Ibs/hr (R = Ibs/hr)
E = .01221R'7577
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf 12% C02
lbs/100 Ibs charged
gr/scf 12% C02
gr/scf 12% C02
lbs/106 Btu
lbs/106 Btu
lbs/100 Ibs charged
% of charge
Z of charge
Equivalent
Process 1'H'r Common
Conditions validity Regulation (gr/scf @ 12% COZ)
0-100 Ibs/hr
(3200 Ibs/hr
@500 Ibs/hr
@1000 Ibs/hr
>2000 Ibs/hr
<1000 Ibs/hr
>1000 Ibs/hr
>_100 Ibs/hr
<100 Ibs/hr
>_100 Ibs/hr
>_100 Ibs/hr
>200 Ibs/hr built before 6/1/70
>200 Ibs/hr built after 6/1/70

<50 tons/day
<2000 Ibs/hr
>2000 Ibs/hr
built before 2/11/71
built after 2/11/71

<2000 Ibs/hr
>2000 Ibs/hr
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.27
0.17
0.11
0.21
0.24
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.43
0.16
0.08
0.33
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.11
         (continued)

-------
TABLE 74 (continued)
State
Value
Regulation
Units
Corrected
to
Process
Conditions
Equivalent
„ . . . . Comnon
validity Regulation (gr/scf g 12% C02)
45 Texas calculate 62 Ibs/hr
E = .048R'
(e.g., 3.5)
(e.g., 10)
46 Utah 0.08
47 Vermont 0.1
48 Virginia 0.14
49 Washington 0.1
50 West 8.25
Virginia ^ ^
w 51 Wisconsin 0.2
8 °-3
0.5
0.6
0.15
52 Wyoming 0 . 2
E = Ibs/hr,
R = acfm

gr/scf
lbs/100 Ibs charged
gr/scf
gr/scf
Ibs/ton
Ibs/ton
lbs/1000 Ibs exhaust
lbs/1000 Ibs exhaust
lbs/1000 Ibs exhaust
lbs/1000 Ibs exhaust
lbs/1000 Ibs exhaust
lbs/100 Ibs charged
50% excess air


12% C02

12% C02
7% 02


gas 12% C02
gas 12% C02
gas 12% C02
gas 12% C02
gas 12% C02

>1000 acfm


>50 TPD



<200 Ibs/hr
200-15,000 Ibs/hr
500-4000 Ibs/hr
£500 Ibs/hr
>500 Ibs/hr
<500 Ibs/hr
>4000 Ibs/hr


0.46
0.24
0.08
0.11
0.14
0.3
0.44
0.29
built after 4/1/72 0.11
built after 4/1/72 0.16
built before 4/1/72 0.26
built before 4/1/72 o.32
built after 4/1/72 0.09
0.21

-------
TABLE 75.  OPACITY  REGULATIONS FOR NEW AND EXISTING COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL INCINERATORS
State
Value
1 Alabama 60
20
2 Alaska 40
20
3 Arizona exempt
20
4 Arkansas No. 3
No. 1
No. 2
5 California
6 Colorado 20
7 Connecticut 40
20
8 Delaware 20
9 D.C. 20
prohibited
10 Florida 20
prohibited
11 Georgia 20
40
40
60

Units
% opacity
% opacity
% opacity
% opacity

% opacity
Ringelmann
Ringelmann
Ringelmann

% opacity
% opacity
% opacity
% opacity
% opacity

% opacity <5C

% opacity
% opacity
% opacity
% opacity
Regulation
Process „ , - , ._
_, ... Validity
Conditions
3 min discharge/60 min
all other times
installed before 7/1/72
installed after 7/1/72
.5 min discharge/60 min
all other times
5 min discharge/60 min
all other times built after 7/30/73
built before 7/30/73


5 min discharge/60 min
all other times
3 min discharge/60 min
2 min discharge/60 min existing
all other times existing
) TPD, 3 min discharge/60 min
all other times
all other times installed after 1/1/72
6 min discharge/60 min installed after 1/1/72
all other times installed before 1/1/72
6 min discharge/60 min installed before 1/1/72
Equivalent
Common
Regulation (% opacity)
60
20
40
20
exempt
20
60
20
40

20
40
20
20
20
prohibited
20
prohibited
20
40
40
60
                                          (continued)

-------
o
Ui
TABLE 75 (continued)


12
13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20
21
22
23

24
25
26

27
28
29
30
State

Hawaii
Idaho

Illinois

Indiana
Iowa

Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana

Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan

Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri

Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire

Value
40
No. 2
No. 1
30
30-60
40
40
60
20
20
No. 1
>No. 1
No. 1

No. 1
40
20
20
40
No. 1
No. 2
10
20
20
No. 1

Units
% opacity
Ringelmann
Ringelmann
% opacity
% opacity
% opacity
% opacity
% opacity
% opacity
% opacity
Ringelmann
Ringelmann
Ringelmann

Ringelmann
% opacity
% opacity
% opacity
% opacity
Ringelmann
Ringelmann
% opacity
X opacity
7. opacity
Ringelmann
Regulation
Process Validity
Conditions '

3 min discharge/60 min built before 4/1/72
3 min discharge/60 min built after 4/1/72
all other times
8 min discharge/60 min
15 min discharge/60 min

3 min discharge/60 min
dur ing breakdowns , etc .


all other times
4 min discharge/60 min



3 min discharge/60 min
all other times


built after 2/10/72
built before 2/10/72


1 min discharge/60 min
3 min discharge/60 min
Equivalent
Common
Regulation (% opacity)
40
40
20
30
30-60
40
40
60
20
20
20
>20
20

20
40
20
20
40
20
40
10
20
20
20
                                                                       (continued)

-------
                                                 TABLE 75  (continued)
00
O
State

31 New Jersey

32 New Mexico
33 New York (state)
(state)
(city)
34 North Carolina
35 North Dakota

36 Ohio

37 .Oklahoma

38 Oregon

39 Pennsylvania
40 Puerto Rico

41 Rhode Island
42 South Carolina
43 South Dakota

44 Tennessee
45 Texas

46 Utah

Value
No. 2
No. 1
No. 1
40
20
No. 1

No. 3
No. 1
60
20
No. 1
No. 3
40
20
20
20
60
20
No. 1
20
60
20
30
20
No. 1

Units
Ringelmann
Ringelmann
Ringelmann
% opacity
% opacity
Ringelmann

Ringelmann
Ringelmann
% opacity
% opacity
Ringelmann
Ringelmann
% opacity
% opacity
% opacity
/0 opacity
7, opacity
% opacity
Ringelmann
% opacity
% opacity
% opacity
% opacity
% opacity
Ringelmann
Regulation
Equivalent
Process 1'd't Common
Conditions 1 y Regulation (% opacity)
3 consecutive minutes
all other times
2 min discharge/60 min
built before 1/26/67
built after 1/26/67
3 min discharge/60 min

4 min discharge/60 min
all other times
3 min discharge/60 min
all other times
all other times
5 min discharge/60 min
3 min discharge/60 min built before 6/1/70
3 min discharge/60 min built after 6/1/70
3 min discharge/60 min
all other times
8 min discharge/60 min
3 min discharge/60 min
3 min discharge/60 min
all other times
3 min discharge/60 min
5 min discharge/60 rain
5 min average built before 1/31/72
5 min average built after 1/31/72

40
20
20
40
20
20

60
20
60
20
20
60
40
20
20
20
60
20
20
20
60
20
30
20
20
                                                         (continued)

-------
TABLE 75 (continued)



47

48
49

50
51"
52
State

Vermont

Virginia
Washington

West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Value
40
20
20
20
>20
No. 1
20
20

Units
? opacity
% opacity
% opacity
% opacity
% opacity
Ringelmann
% opacity
% opacity
Regulation
Process „ ......
... Validity
Conditions
6 min discharge/60 min built before 4/30/70
6 min discharge/60 min built after 4/30/70

3 min discharge/60 min
15 min/8 hr

built after 4/1/72

Equivalent
Common
Regulation (% opacity)
40
20
20
20
>20
20
20
20

-------
TABLE 76.  PARTICULATE EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR .NEW AND EXISTING WASTE WOOD BURNERS  (TEPEE)
State

1 Alabama
2 Alaska

3 Arizona
4 Georgia
5 Illinois
GO
§ 6 Maine

7 Rhode Island
8 South
Dakota
9 Washington

Value

Units
Regulation
Equivalent
Corrected Process 1'rf'r Common
to Conditions y Regulation (gr/scf @ 12% C02)
0.4 lbs/100 Ibs charged
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2

0.2
0.08
0.08
0.2

0.2
gr/scf

gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf

gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf
gr/scf

gr/scf
12% C02 installed after 7/1/72
installed before 7/1/72
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02

12% C02 <_50 TPD effective 6/1/80
12% C02 >50 TPD effective 6/1/80
12% C02
12% C02

12% C02
0.1
•0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2

0.2
0.08
0.08
0.2

0.2

-------
                     10.0  ESTIMATED EMISSION REDUCTION






10.1   INTRODUCTION




     In this  section the impact of NSPS for particulates will be calculated




for the commercial industrial incineration industry.   Model IV, developed




by the Research Corporation of New England, will be used.219  Gaseous emis-




sions have been neglected and no Model IV calculations have been done for




teepee burners, since Section 2 results concurred with TRC's conclusion221




that  they are not a candidate for NSPS.




10.2   MODEL IV




     Model IV is treated extensively in Reference 207.  Section 2 of this




report has discussed and developed several of the parameters required for a




Model IV Analysis.   Those parameters are defined in Table 18 and summarized




in Tables 16  and 17 for 1978 to 1983.   These data have been further projected




through 1988  and this update is given in Table 77.  Additional Model IV




parameters that are required are defined in Table 78,  and will be discussed.




10.2.1  ES:   Estimated Allowable Emissions Under 1978  Regulations




     As can be seen from Table 74, most states have several particulate




standards,  usually based upon incinerator age and size restrictions.  From




data  on the New York,  California,  and  Maryland lists,  a size distribution was




developed.  Data on ages of existing incinerators were available only from




the Maryland  list,  which contained quite a few older incinerators.   Since an
                                      309

-------
                                TABLE 77.   PROJECTIONS UPDATED TO 1988 (IN TONS PER YEAR)
OJ
i—>
o



Pathological
Commercial and
institutional:
a. Hospital and
nursing homes
b. School, store,
etc.
Apartment
Industrial
Teepee
A
(1988)
(Incineration
capacity)
1.12 x io6


4.21 x io6

0

2.58 x IO6
8.34 x 10s
1.87 x IO6

C
A(1988)-A(1978)
(New capacity)
0.253 x IO6


0.954 x IO6

-6.94 x io6

-3.55 x io5
1.27 x io6
-8.80 x io6
B W
(1988) (1988)
(Modification and (Waste quantity
replacement) incinerated)
0.865 x io6 0.224 x IO5


3.26 x io6 0.674 x io6

0 0

0 0.412 x io6
2.76 x io6 2.42 x IO6
0 0.842 x IO5

-------
              TABLE 78.  PARAMETERS USED IN MODEL IV219
ES = Allowable emissions under existing regulations (mass/unit
     capacity) .

E^[ = Allowable emissions under standards of performance (mass/
     unit capacity) .

EU = Emissions with no control (mass /unit capacity) .
Tg = Total emissions in l1 year under baseline year regula-
     tions (ton/yr) .

TN = Total emissions in 1*"  year under new or revised NSPS which
     have been promulgated in the jth year (ton/yr) .
   = Total emissions in l^n year assuming no control (ton/yr).

   = Total emissions in baseline year under baseline year regu-
     lations (ton/yr) .
                                 311

-------
approximate ten year incinerator lifespan was given,2Q1+ »205  it was  assumed




that all incinerators constructed in 1965 or before have  closed  down.  An




age distribution was then developed from the remaining  data.




     Extrapolating the age and size distribution,  calculations were made of




the number of incinerators in each state to be affected by a given  particulate




standard (standards taken  from  Table  74.) .  The results were then averaged




nationwide to give the average allowable particulate  emission of 0.247 gr/scf,




corrected to 12 percent C02-




     From the conversion factors in Section 9, this is approximately




0.232 lb/100 Ib refuse, or 4.64 Ib/ton refuse.  Comparison with  the TRC




result220 of 8.09 Ib/ton shows that state regulations have become much stricter




over the past several years.




     It should be noted that teepee burners were not  included in this emission




factor, since many states have separate teepee regulations.   Also,  this factor




will decrease somewhat as time goes on, since a larger  fraction  of  the incinera-




tors will fall under the newer, more restrictive,  state regulations.




10.2.2  ETJ:  Uncontrolled Emission Factor




     The calculation of an uncontrolled emission factor,  Ey,  for the diverse




commercial/industrial incineration industry requires  that (1) the uncontrolled




emissions of the various incinerator types is known and (2)  the  distribution




of these incinerator types is known.  Uncontrolled emissions  for the various




types has been discussed in Section 5 and summarized  on Table 65.   For the




calculation of E.., the "worst case" of either the  emission factor from AP-42




or the best estimate developed from all available  emission data  will be used.




     Data for incinerator distribution by type have been  presented  in Table 13.




As explained in Section 1, the type distribution developed from  state lists






                                      312

-------
differs markedly from the comprehensive Brinkerhoff study75 done in 1972.



Inasmuch as the state list data exhibit a much higher proportion of the older



single chamber units (25 percent versus 2 percent) and a lower proportion of



the newer controlled air models (2 percent versus 12 percent) than the



Brinkerhoff study, it will not be used in this evaluation.  While the Brinkerhoff



study is not an accurate assessment of current (1978) type distribution, it is



the only reliable reference for these data available at this time.  Since the



cleaner, controlled air units probably occupy a higher percentage of the



incinerator market today (1978) than is indicated by the Brinkerhoff study,



the use of these earlier data will tend to overpredict total uncontrolled



emissions.  With this background in mind we have developed Table 79.




                     TABLE 79.  UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTOR
                      T  .     ^     Percent  Particulate
                      Incinerator    ..          .
                                    of all    emissions

                          ype        units     Ib/ton



                    Single chamber     2        24


                    Multichamber      83         7


                    Controlled air    12         1.4


                    Other              3        EUpt





             E    = (0.02)(24)  + (0.83) (7) + 0.12(1.4)  + 0.03 (ETI)pt

              Upt   ETT   =6.66 Ib/ton                          U
                     Upt


10.2.3  EXT:  Controlled Emission Factor
        _N	



     The variable, E , is defined207 as the emission factor representing the



condition of best control applied to new sources.   In Section 7, we have



defined this best system of control as the controlled air incinerator with a



particulate emission factor of 1.4 Ib/ton of waste.  This differs from the



controlled emission factor  of 0.065 Ib/ton established in the TRC report,




                                      313

-------
Reference 207, for commercial/industrial incineration.  The difference  lies

in the assumption by TRC, that a 99 percent removal  efficiency  for  participates
                  *
can be gained by the use of fabric filters.  While fabric  filters can achieve

this reduction, their applicability for commercial/industrial incineration is

limited, as discussed in Section 7.  The controlled  emission factor is

therefore:

                               EN = 1.4 Ib/ton

10.3  TOTAL EMISSIONS

     Total emissions are defined by the following equations:

                         Ts = ESK (A-B) + ESK (B + C)

                         TN = ESK (A-B) +. ENK (B + C)

                         TS - TN = K (B + C) (ES - EN)

10.4  RESULTS OF MODEL IV

     Table 80 presents the values of all the parameters  and  the results of

all the calculations for Model IV.

10.5  DISCUSSION

     There is a large disagreement between the current values for the impact

of NSPS, and TRC's results.  TRC219 found an impact  of 88,450 tons  per  year

for commercial and industrial incinerators.  The equivalent current impact

(including commercial and institutional, apartment,  and  industrial  incinerators)

is only 2,980 tons per year.  While TRC found an impact of only 29  ton/year

for pathological incinerators, the current value is  360  ton/year.

     The difference in the pathological result can be seen as the result of

an underestimation of the use of pathological incinerators.  TRC based  their
                                      314

-------
TABLE  80.   PARAMETERS USED IN  MODEL  IV  AND  RESULTS  OF  MODEL  IV
Subcategory
       6
                            Units
                                            Particulate
                                          emission rates
                                                          Growth rates
                                                           deciroal/yr
                                                                               Industrial  capacity
                                                                                        lOOtTton/yr
               U
                                                              ABC
                                                           (1978)  (1988)   (1988)
Impact
ton/yr

TS - TN
1.  Commercial    a.  0.16  Ib/ton        6.66  4.64  1.4  0.026C  0.10S   106  tons waste  3.26    3.26    0.954
and institutional  b.  0.16  waste burned  6.66  4.64  1.4  -O.lOg  0                     6.94    0      0

                      0.16  Ib/ton        6.66  4.64  1.4  -0.083C 0      106  tons waste  6.13
                            waste burned

                      0.20  Ib/ton        6.66  4.64  1.4  0.026C  O.lOg   106  tons waste  0.865
                            waste burned
2.  Flue-fed and
modified flue-fed

3.  Pathological
4.  Industrial
                      0.29  Ib/ton        6.66   4.64  1.4  0.018s  0.039S  106  tons waste  7.07
                            waste burned
                                                                                            0       -3.55

                                                                                            0.865   0.253

                                                                                            2.76    1.27
                                                                                    1.21    0.47    1.56    1,090
                                                                                    2.58    0         0        0
                                                                                    2.27    0.95    0.95

                                                                                    0.40    0.16    0.52      360

                                                                                    4.76    3.72    5.61    1,890

-------
calculations207 on Battelle's estimate of pathological incineration.  Battelle,




as discussed in Section 1, included only crematories and animal shelters,




neglecting hospitals, research facilities, and other users.




     Of greater concern is the commercial and industrial disagreement.  The




reason for the disagreement is twofold.  First, TRC made use of a controlled




emission factor of 0.065 Ib/ton, assuming the use of a fabric filter.  The




more realistic factor of 1.4 Ib/ton is 21 times higher, causing a substantial




reduction in the apparent impact of NSPS.




     Second, the TRC impact calculations were based upon the 1972 Brinkerhoff




study, which showed an upward trend in all types of commercial and industrial




incinerators.  Referring to Figure 2, the downswing, which the current




calculations take into account, was not apparent in 1972.




     While the qualitative nature of the data, as discussed in Sections 1 and




2, may have introduced substantial errors in the quantitative calculations, .




it is clear that a decline is taking place among some of the incinerator sub-




classes.  More study is needed in order to make a more reliable quantitative




calculation of impact.
                                      316

-------
                              11.0  REFERENCES
 1.    Incinerator Institute of  America,  I.I.A.  Incinerator  Standards,  New
      York,  1970.   p.  5A.

 2.    Ibid.   p.  3A.

 3.    U.S.  EPA,  National Air Data Branch,  "AEROS  Manual  Series  Volume  V:
      AEROS  Manual of  Codes,"  Research  Triangle  Park, North  Carolina,  1976.
      pp.  3.7.0-24 and 3.7.0-25.

 4.    Douglas, E.T.  Jr.   Personal Communication,  President, Industrial Furnace
      Construction Co.,  Birmingham,  Alabama.  September,  1978.

 5.    Emissions  Inventory System, Listing  of  California  Incinerators,  Air
      Resources  Board, Sacramento,  California.  August,  1978.

 6.    Emissions  Inventory,  Listing of Connecticut Incinerators, Air  Compliance
      Unit,  Department of Environmental  Protection, Hartford, Connecticut.
      August,  1978.

 7.    Letter from Robert J.  Taggert,  Resources  Engineer,  Delaware  Department
      of Natural Resources  and  Environmental  Control, Division  of  Environ-
      mental Control.   July,  1978.

 8.    Illinois EPA,  Division of Air Pollution Control, Listing  of  Incinerators,
      Springfield,  Illinois.  August,  1978.

 9.    Department of  Health  and  Mental Hygiene,  Environmental Health  Adminis-
      tration, "Listing of  Operational Incinerators Registered  in  Maryland,"
      Baltimore,  Maryland.   July, 1978.

10.    Listing of New York State Incinerators, 1978.

11.    Letter from Derr Leonhart,  Plans Review Coordinator,  Air  Quality Section,
      Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh, North  Carolina.
      August,  1978.

12.    "Computer  Prirtout of  Air Permit Data for Incinerators,"  State of Ohio
      Environmental  Protection  Agency, Columbus,  Ohio.   August, 1978.
                                     317

-------
13.    Listing of South Dakota Incinerators, South Dakota Department of Environ-
      mental Protection, Pierre, South Dakota.  July, 1978.

14.    "Point Source Emission Inventory," State of Washington Department of
      Ecology, Olympia, Washington.  July, 1978.

15.    Thomas, Fred.  Personal Communication, Alabama Air Pollution Control
      Commission, Montgomery, Alabama.  July, 1978.

16.    Hungermord, Stan.  Personal Communication, Alaska Air Quality Control,
      Juneau, Alaska.  July, 1978.

17.    Mr. McCabe.  Personal Communication, Department of Air Pollution Control,
      Little Rock, Arkansas.  July, 1978.

18.    Grewal, Rangit.  Personal Communication, Air Resources Board, Sacramento,
      California.  July, 1978.

19.    Bradley, Rich.  Personal Communication, Air Resources Board, Sacramento,
      California.  July, 1978.

20.    Kenzie, Scott.  Personal Communication, Colorado Air Pollution Control
      Agency, Denver, Colorado.  July, 1978.

21.    Pollack, Andrew.  Personal Communication,  Air Compliance Unit, Department
      of Environmental Protection, Hartford, Connecticut.  July, 1978.

22.    Wambangans, Don.  Personal Communication,  Bureau of Air and Water
      Quality, Washington,  D.C.  July, 1978.

23.    Taggert, Bob.  Personal Communication, Division of Environmental Control,
      Wilmington, Delaware.  July, 1978.

24.    Menghi, Hugh.  Personal Communication, Department of Air Resources and
      Environmental Control, Dover, Delaware.  July, 1978.

25.    Harley, Mike.  Personal Communication, Air Quality Management Bureau,
      Tallahassee, Florida.  July, 1978.

26.    Cutrere, Tony.  Personal Communication, Department of Natural Resources,
      Atlanta, Georgia.  July,  1978.

27.    Tobin, Harold.  Personal Communication, Environmental Program, State
      Department of Health, Honolulu,  Hawaii.  July, 1978.

28.    Johnson, Richard.  Personal Communication, Division of the Environment,
      Department of Health  and Welfare,  Boise, Idaho.  July, 1978.

29.    Romaine, Chris.  Personal Communication, Illinois EPA, Springfield,
      Illinois.   July, 1978.
                                     318

-------
30.    Mr.  Andusic.   Personal Communication,  Division of Air Pollution Control,
      State Board of Health, Indianapolis,  Indiana.   July,  1978.

31.    Hayward,  Michael.   Personal Communication,  Department of Environmental
      Quality,  Des  Moines,  Iowa.   September,  1978.

32.    Classen,  Leo.  Personal Communication,  Department of  Environmental
      Quality,  Des  Moines,  Iowa.   July,  1978.

33.    Schyler,  Don.  Personal Communication,  Division of Environment, Depart-
      ment of Health and Environment,  Topeka,  Kansas.  July,  1978.

34.    Metcalf,  Gary.  Personal Communication,  Division of Air Pollution,
      Frankfort,  Kentucky.   July  and September,  1978.

35.    Stone, Jim.  Personal Communication,  Louisiana Air Quality, Technical
      Assistance  Group,  New Orleans, Louisiana.   September,  1978.

36.    Dumas, David.  Personal Communication,  Bureau  of Air  Quality  Control,
      Department  of Environmental Protection,  Augusta,  Maine.  July,  1978.

37.    Donker, Charles W.  Personal Communication,  Department of Health and
      Mental Hygiene, Environmental Health  Administration,  Baltimore,
      Maryland.  July, 1978.

38.    Donaldson,  Bob.  Personal Communication, Massachusetts Air Pollution
      Control Agency, Boston, Massachusetts.   July,  1978.

39.    Oviat, Charles.  Personal Communication, Division of  Air Pollution
      Control,  Lansing,  Michigan.  July  and September,  1978.

40.    Wiik, Ed.  Personal Communication,  Air Quality Division,  Minnesota
      Pollution Control Agency, Roseville,  Minnesota.  September, 1978.

41.    Simmons,  Connie.  Personal  Communication, Mississippi Air Pollution
      Control Commission, Jackson, Mississippi.   July,  1978.

42.    Stafford, Mike.  Personal Communication, Air Quality  Program, Division
      of Environmental Quality, Jefferson City, Missouri.  September, 1978.

43.    Murdock,  Dale.  Personal Communication,  Nebraska Air  Pollution  Control
      Commission, Lincoln,  Nebraska.  July,  1978.

44.    Ricci, Hugh.   Personal Communication,  Nevada Division of Environmental
      Protection, Carson City, Nevada.   July,  1978.

45.    Davis, Don.  Personal Communication,  New Hampshire State Air  Pollution
      Agency, Concord,  New  Hampshire.  July,  1978.
                                     319

-------
46.   Mr.  Sable.   Personal Communication, New Jersey Air Pollution Control
      Commission, Trenton, New Jersey.  July, 1978.

47.   Micai,  Tom.  Personal Communication, New Jersey Air Pollution Control
      Commission, Trenton, New Jersey.  September, 1978.

48.   Ivey, Lee.   Personal Communication, Administrator, New Jersey Air
      Pollution Control Commission, Trenton, New Jersey.  September, 1978.

49.   Taittimm, Gary.  Personal Communication, New Mexico Air Quality,
      Santa Fe, New Mexico.  July, 1978.

50.   Kittaf, Gary.  Personal Communication, New Mexico Air Quality, Santa Fe,
      New Mexico.  July, 1978.

51.   Mr.  Haberman.  Personal Communication, New York City Air Pollution
      Control Commission, New York City, New York.  August, 1978.

52.   McGillick,  Tom.  Personal Communication, New York Region III Air
      Pollution Control Agency, New York.  August, 1978.

53.   Sandonato,  Henry.  Personal Communication, New York Environmental
      Conservation Agency, Region IX, Buffalo, New York.  August, 1978.

54.   Mr.  LaRuffa.  Personal Communication, New York Region I Air Pollution
      Control Agency, New York.  August, 1978.

55.   Laenhart, Derr.  Personal Communication, North Carolina Department of
      Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.  July, 1978.

56.   A State Agency Official.  Personal Communication, North Dakota
      Division of Environmental Engineering, Department of Health,
      Bismark, North Dakota.  July, 1978.

57.   Richardson, Scott.  Personal Communication, Ohio Environmental Protection
      Agency, Columbus, Ohio.  July,  1978.

58.   Degiacomo,  Angelo.  Personal Communication, Oklahoma Air Quality Service,
      Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.  September, 1978.

59.   Clinton, Charles.  Personal Communication, Oregon Department of Environ-
      mental Quality, Portland, Oregon.  July and September,  1978.

60.   Lesher, Douglas.  Personal Communication,  Pennsylvania Bureau of Air
      Quality, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.  July and August,  1978.

61.   McVay,  Doug.  Personal Communication, Rhode Island Division of Air
      Pollution Control, Department of Environmental Management,  Providence,
      Rhode Island.  July and September, 1978.
                                     320

-------
62.    Taylor,  Dan.   Personal Communication,  South Carolina Department of
      Health and Environmental Control,  Columbia, South Carolina.
      July,  1978.

63.    Campbell,  Preston.   Personal Communication, South Carolina Department
      of Health  and Environmental Control,  Columbia,  South Carolina.
      September, 1978.

64.    Huber, Ron.  Personal Communication,  Department of Environmental
      Protection, Pierre,  South Dakota.   July,  1978.

65.    Patton,  John.  Personal Communication,  Tennessee Division of Air
      Pollution  Control,  Nashville,  Tennessee.   July, 1978.

66.    Dalley,  Robert.  Personal Communication,  Utah Bureau of Air  Quality,
      Salt Lake  City, Utah.  September,  1978.

67.    Sanborn, Sedric.   Personal Communication, Vermont Agency of  Environ-
      mental Conservation, Montpelier,  Vermont.  July, 1978.

68.    Creasy,  Tom.   Personal Communication,  Virginia  Air Pollution Control
      Agency,  Richmond, Virginia.  July, 1978.

69.    Nelson,  Philip A.  Personal Communication,  Washington,  Office of
      Air Programs, Olympia, Washington.  July, 1978.

70.    Zemore,  Fred.  Personal Communication,  West Virginia Air Pollution
      Control Commission,  Charleston, West Virginia.   July and September,
      1978.

71.    Dodds, Roger.  Personal Communication,  Wisconsin Air Management Bureau,
      Madison, Wisconsin.   September,  1978.

72.    Schramm, Dan.  Personal Communication,  Wisconsin Air Management Bureau,
      Madison, Wisconsin.   July, 1978.

73.    Raffelson, Chuck.  Personal Communication,  Wyoming Department of
      Environmental Quality, Cheyenne,  Wyoming.  July, 1978.

74.    Mr. Linna.  Personal Communication,  Chicago Department  of Environmental
      Control, Chicago, Illinois.  August,  1978.

75.    Brinkerhoff,  Ronald J.  "Inventory of  Intermediate Size Incinerators
      in the United States - 1972,"  Pollution  Engineering.   November,  1973.
      p.  33.

76.    Brinkerhoff,  Ronald J.  Personal  Communication, Senco Products,
      Cincinnati, Ohio.   September,  1978.
                                     321

-------
77-    Geswein,  Allan.   Personal Communication, Land Protection Branch, Office
      of Solid  Waste Management Programs, Washington, B.C.  September, 1978.

78.    Krumm,  Eugene.  Personal Communication, Manager of Marketing Department
      C E Air Preheater, Wellsville, New York.  July, 1978.

79.    Accreditation Manual for Hospitals, JCAH.  April, 1976.  p. 47.

80.    Statistical Abstract of the United States:  1978, U.S. Bureau of the
      Census, Washington, B.C.  1977-  p. 55.

81.    Ibid.  p. 105.

82.    Johnson,  Oliver.  Personal Communication, JCAH, Chicago, Illinois.
      July, 1978.

83.    Kim, B. C., R. B. Engdahl, E.  J.  Mezey, and R. B. Landrigan, Screening
      Study for Background Information  and Significant Emissions from Major
      Incineration Sources, Battelle:  Columbus Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio.
      1974.  p. 74.

84.    Ibid.  p. 149.

85.    Monroe, E.  S., Jr.  Combustion Fundamentals:   An Engineering Approach
      to the  Design of Industrial Incinerators.  Incinerator and Solid Waste
      Technology, ASME, New York,  New York.  1975.

86.    DeMarco,  J., D.  J. Keller, J.  Leckman,  and J.  L. Newton.  Incinerator
      Guidelines - 1969, U. S. Department of  Health Education and Welfare.
      Public  Health Service Publication No. 2012, Washington.  1969.

87.    Niessen,  W. R.,  A. F. Sarofim, D. M. Mohr, and R. W. Moore, An  Approach
      to Incinerator Combustible Pollutant Control,  Proceedings of 1972
      National  Incinerator Conference,  ASME,  New York, New York.  1972.

88.    Institute for Solid Wastes of American  Public Works Association -
      Municipal Refuse Disposal, Chicago, Illinois.   1970.

89.    Air Pollution Engineering Manual, Second Edition.  U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.  Publication
      No. AP-40.   May, 1973.

90.    McRee,  R. E.  Waste Heat Recovery from  Packaged Incinerators.  Incin-
      erator  and Solid Waste Technology, ASME, New York, New York.  1975.

91.    Sarofim,  A. F.  Thermal Processing:  Incineration and Pyrolysis,
      Chapter 6.   Handbook of Solid Waste Management, New York, New York.
      1977-
                                    322

-------
 92.    George,  R. E.  and  J. E. Williamson.  On-Site Incineration of Commerical
       and  Industrial Wastes with Multiple-Chamber Incinerators, Chapter 5,
       Principles and Practices  of  Incineration, New York, New York.   1969.

 93.    Macnight, R.  J., J. E. Williamson, J. J. Sableski, Jr., and J.  0. Dealy.
       Controlling  the  Flue-Fed  Incinerator.  JAPCA 10(2).  April, 1960.

 94.    Air  Pollution, First Edition,  Volume II.  Stern, A. C. Editor.  New
       York,  New York.  1962.

 95.    Hein,  G. M.  and  R. B. Engdahl.   On-Site Incineration of Residential
       Waste, Chapter 4,  Principles and Practices of Incineration, New
       York,  New York.  1969.

 96.    Cross, F. L.,  Jr.  Handbook  on Incineration, Westport, Connecticut.
       1972.

 97-    Incinerator  Institute of  America,  I.I.A. Incinerator Operator's Manual,
       New  York, New York.  March,  1968.

 98.    Niessen, W.  R. and A. F.  Sarofim.  Incinerator Air Pollution Facts
       and  Speculation, Proceedings of 1970 National Incinerator Conference,
       ASME,  New York,  New York.   1970.

 99.    Smith, E. M.   Municipal Incinerator Emissions - Current Knowledge,
       Recent Advances  in Air Pollution Control AICHE Symposium Series
       70(137).  1974.

100.    Niessen, W.  R. and A. F.  Sarofim.  Air Pollution Control Technology for
       Incinerators.  Proceedings of  National Industrial Solid Wastes  Manage-
       ment Conference, Houston, Texas.   March 24 to 26, 1970.

101.    Rose,  A. H.,  Jr.,  R. L. Stenburg,  M. Corn, R. R. Horsley, D. R. Allen,
       and  P. W. Kolp.  Air Pollution Effects of Incinerator Firing Practices
       and  Combustion Air Distribution.   JAPCA 8(4).  February, 1959.

102.    Stenburg, R.  L., R. P. Hange Brauck, D. J. Von Lehmden, and A.  H.
       Rose,  Jr.  Effects of High Volatile Fuel on Incinerator Effluents.
       JAPCA  11(8).   August, 1961.

103.    Stenburg, R.  L., R. P. Hange Brauck, D. J. Von Lehmden, and A.  H.
       Rose,  Jr.  Field Evaluation  of Combustion Air Effects on Atmospheric
       Emissions from Municpal Incinerators.  JAPCA 12(2).  February,  1962.

104.    Walker, A. B.  and  F. W. Schmitz.   Characteristics of Furnace Emissions
       from Large, Mechanically-Stoked Municipal Incinerators, Proceedings
       of the 1966 National Incinerator Conference, ASME, New York, New York.
       1966.
                                    323

-------
105.    Neissen,  W.  R. ,  S. H.  Chansky, A. N.'Dimitriou, E. L. Field,
       C.  R.  LaMantia,  and R. E. Zinn.  Systems Study of Air Pollution from
       Municipal Incineration, Volume I, Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge,
       Massachusetts.  1970.

106.    American Society of Mechanical Engineers.  Combustion Fundamentals
       for Waste Incineration, New York, New York.  1974.

107.    Brule Portable Incinerators, Form 6173 Brule C.E. & E., Blue Island,
       Illinois  60406.  1973.

108.    Sunbeam Super Systems, Bulletin 412, Comtro Division, Sunbeam Equipment
       Corporation, Lansdale, Pennsylvania  19446.  1977.

109.    Kelley Pyrolytic Incinerator, Kelley Company, Inc., Milwaukee,
       Wisconsin.  1977-

110.    Haedike,  E.  W.,  S. Zavodny, and K. D.  Mowbray.  Auxiliary Gas Burners
       for Commercial and Industrila Incinerators, Proceedings of the 1966
       National Incinerator Conference, ASME, New York, New York.  1966.

111.    Air Pollution,  Third Edition, Volume IV, Stern, A. C., Editor, New York,
       New York.  1977.

112.    Sableski, J. J., Jr.,  and W. A. Cote.   Air Pollutant Emissions from
       Apartment House Incinerators.  JAPCA 22(4).  April, 1972.

113.    English,  J.  A.,  II.  Design Aspects of a Low Emission, Two^-Stage
       Incinerator, Proceedings of the 1974 National Incinerator Conference,
       ASME,  New York,  New York.  1974.

114.    Theo Clitus, G., H. Liu, and J. R. Dervay II.  Concepts and Behavior
       of the Controlled  Air Incinerator, Proceedings of the 1972 National
       Incinerator  Conference, ASME, New York, New York.  1972.

115.    Controlled Air Concept, Consumat Systems, Inc., P.O. Box 9379,
       Richmond, Virginia  23227.  1978.

116.    Liu, H. Theoclitus, and J. R. Dervay.   Incineration of High Btu Solid
       Waste and its Applications, Proceedings.of the 1972 National Incin-
       erator Conference, ASME, New York, New York.  1972.

117.    Smith, L. T., F. K. Tsou, and R. A.  Matula.  Emission Standards and
       Emissions from Small Scale Solid Waste Incinerators, Proceedings of
       1976 National Waste Processing Conference,  ASME, New York, New York.
       1976.

118.    Lewis, F. Michael.  Controlled Air Incineration of Industrial Solid
       Waste, Proceedings of  National Industrial Solid Wastes Management
       Conference,  University of Houston, Houston, Texas  77004.
                                     324

-------
119.    Lewis,  F.  Michael.   A Comparison  of  Conventional,  Starved  Air and Con-
       trolled Air  Incineration Techniques, Presented  at  the  Third  Annual
       Industrial Air Pollution Control  Seminar,  Rossnagel  &  Associates,
       Valley  Forge, New York.   May  8,  1973.

120.    Telephone  conversation between R.  Mclnnes/GCA and  Charles  Scolaro/Comptro
       Division,  Sunbeam Equipment Corporation.

121.    Evaluation of Small  Modular Incinerators in Municipal  Plants,  Report
       SW-113C, U.S. Environmental Protection  Agency.   1976.

122.    Vandergrift, A.  E.,  L. J.  Shannon, E. W. Lawless,  P. G.  Gorman,  E.  E.
       Sallee, and  M. Reichel.   Particulate Pollutant  Systems Study,  Volume  III,
       Handbook of  Emission Properties,  U.S. EPA, APTD-0745.  1971.   p.  548.
       (NTIS:   PB 203-522,  U. S.  Department of Commerce,  Springfield, Virginia)

123.    Control Techniques for Particulate Air  Pollutants, Publication No.  AP-51,
       U.  S. Department of  HEW.   1969.

124.    Crawford,  Martin.  Air Pollution  Control Theory, McGraw-Hill.  1976.

125.    Deutsch, W.  Motion  and  Charge of a  Charged Particle in  the  Cylindrical
       Condenser, Ann.  Physik,  68, 335.   1922.

126.    White,  H.  J. and W.  H. Cole.   Design and Performance Characteristics  of
       High-Velocity, High-Efficiency Air Cleaning Precipitators, JAPCA 10,
       No.  3,  239.  June, 1960.

127.    White,  H.  J.  Modern Electrical Precipitators,  Ind. Eng. Chem.,  47,
       No.  5,  932.  1955.

128.    Hopper, Thomas G.  Municipal  Incinerator Enforcement Manual  by TRC
       for EPA, Publication No.  EPA-340/1-76-013.  1977.

129.    Strauss, W.  Industrial Gas Cleaning, Pergamon Press, London.
       pp.  144-211, 244-390.  1966.

130.    Rolke,  R.  W., R.  D.  Hawthorne,  C.  R. Garbett, E. R. Slater,  T. T. Philips,
       and G.  D.  Towell.  Afterburner Systems  Report,  EPA-R2-72-062,  U.S.  EPA.
       1972.

131.    Cheremisinoff, P. N.  and R. A.  Young.   Air Pollution Control and Design
       Handbook,  Marcel Dekker,  Inc.   1977.

132.    Ottinger,  R. S.,  J.  L. Blumenthal, D. F. Dal Porto, G. I.  Gruber, M.  J.
       Santy and  C. C.  Slick.   Recommended  Methods of  Reduction,  Neutralization,
       Recovery or Disposal of  Hazardous Waste, Volume III, Report  PB 224-582,
       Springfield, Virginia, NTIS.   1973.
                                     325

-------
133.    Stairmand,  C.  J.   The Design and Performance of Modern Gas-Cleaning
       Equipment,  Inst.  of Fuel, Volume 29.  p. 58.  1956.

134.    Duprey,  R.  L.  Particulate Emission and Size Distribution Factors, U.  S.
       Department  of  Health, Education and Welfare, National Center for Air
       Pollution Control, Durham, North Carolina.  May, 1967.

135.    Shannon, L. J., P. G. Gorman, and M. Reichel.  Particulate Pollutant
       Systems Study, Volume 2 - Fine Particle Emissions, U.S. EPA APTD-0744,
       p.  59.   1971.   (NTIS:PB 203-522)

136.    Analysis of Pollution Control Costs, EPA-670/2-74-009, U.S. EPA.  1974.

137.    Industrial  Ventilation, American Conference of Governmental Industrial
       Hygienists, Edward Bros., Inc.  1974.

138.    Engineering and Economic Analysis of Waste to Energy Systems, Final
       Report,  Ralph  M.  Parsons Company, EPA Contract No. 68-02-2101.  1977.

139.    Fernandes,  J.  H.   Incineration Air Pollution Control paper prepared for
       National Incinerator Conference (ASME) at New York.  May, 1968.

140.    Edmisten, Norman G.  A Systematic Procedure for Determining the  Cost
       of  Controlling Particulate Emissions from Industrial Sources, Air
       Pollution Control Association Journal, Volume 20, No. 7.   July,  1970.

141.    Gouleke & McGauhey.  Comprehensive Studies of Solid Waste Management
       Public  Health  Service Publications, No. 2039, Environmental Health
       Service, Washington, D.C.

142.    Black,  Crow &  Zidsners.  Process Design Manual for Sludge Treatment
       and Disposal,  EPA 625/1-74-006, U.S. EPA, Technology Transfer.  1974.

143.    Owen, M. B. Sludge Incineration, J. Sanitation Engineering Division
       Proceedings of the ASCE.  February, 1957.  Paper 1172.

144.    Balakrishman,  S., D. E. Williamson, and R. W. Okey.  State of the Art
       Review  on Sludge  Incineration Practice.  Federal Water Quality Admin-
       istration Report  17070,    04/70.  1970.

145.    Harold  Bernard.  Everything You Want to Know About Sludge But Were
       Afraid  to Ask, paper presented to Proceedings of 1975 National Conference
       on  Municipal Sludge Management and Disposal, Anaheim, California.  1975.

146.    Forecasts of the  Effects of Air and Water Pollution Controls on  Solid
       Waste Generation  by Ralph Stone & Co., Inc., for National Environmental
       Research Center.   December, 1974.  EPA 670/2-74-0956.
                                     326

-------
147.    Rubel,  F.  N.   Incineration of Solid Wastes,  Noyes  Data Corp.   1974.

148.    Background Information for Proposed New Source  Performance Standards,
       (Volume 2, Appendix)  EPA Report APTD-1352a.   June,  1973.

J.49.    U.S.  EPA Compilation  of Air Pollutant Emission  Factors,  Second Edition,
       Publication No.  AP-42, Research Triangle Park,  North Carolina.  Office
       of Air  and Water Programs.  1974.

150.    U.S.  EPA Report  to Congress:   Disposal of Hazardous  Wastes, Publication
       No.  SW-115, prepared  by the Office  of Solid  Waste  Management  Programs.
       1974.

151.    Battelle Memorial Institute.   Program for the Management  of Hazardous
       Wastes, Prepared for  the Office of  Solid Wastes Management, EPA,
       Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington.   1973.

152.    U.S.  EPA Air  Pollution Aspects of Sludge Incineration,  Publication
       No.  EPA 625/4-75-009.

153.    U.S.  EPA Sewage  Sludge Incineration, Publication No.  EPA  R2-72-040
       (NTIS PB211-323).  1972.

154.    U.S.  EPA A Review of  Techniques for Incineration of  Sewage Sludge  with
       Solid Wastes, Publication No.  EPA 600/2-76-288. December,  1976.

155.    Booz-Allen Applied Research,  Inc.,  A Study of Hazardous Waste Materials,
       Hazardous Effects and Disposal Methods,  Volume  1-3,  Publication No.
       EPA 600/2-73-14  to EPA 600/2-73-16.   (NTIS PB211-465  to BP211-467) .
       July, 1973.

156.    Radian  Corporation, Final Report for Contract 68-02-1319,  Task No. 51.
       Organic Chemical Producer's Data Base Program,  Volume  II.   August, 1976.

157.    U.S.  EPA Incineration in Hazardous  Waste Management,  Office of Solid
       Waste Management, Publication No. EPA-SW-141.   1975.

158.    Kaufman, H. B.   U.S.  EPA's Industry Studies  on  Hazardous Waste Manage-
       ment  presented at the National Conference on Hazardous Waste  Management,
       San Francisco.   February,  1977.

159.    Kiefer,  I.  "Hospital Wastes," EPA  Publication  SW-129, Washington.
       1974.

160.    Burchinel,  J.C.  and L.R. Wallace.   A Study of Institutional Solid
       Wastes,  NTIS  Publication No.  PB223-345.   1973.
                                     327

-------
161.    Wilson,  D.G.,  Editor.  Handbook of Solid Waste Management, Von Nostrand
       Reinhold Company.   1977.

162.    District of Columbia Solid Wastes Management Plan, Status Report, 1970,
       EPA/OSWMP SW-4 tsg.  1971.

163.    Accreditation Manual for Hospitals by Joint Commission on Creditation
       of Hospitals,  JCAH.  April, 1976.

164.    U.S.  EPA Combustion of Wood Residue in Conical (Wigwam) Burners, Emission
       Control  and Alternatives, Contract No. 68-01-3150, Task No. 5, Publication
       No. EPA  340/1-76-002.  February, 1976.

165.    Tatom, J. W.,  A.  R. Colcord,  J. A. Knight, and L. W. Elston, Clean Fuels
       from Agricultural and Forestry Wastes, prepared for U.S. EPA IERL
       Publication No.  EPA 600/2-76-090.  April, 1976.

166.    Mingle,  J. G.  and R. W. Bonbel.  Proximate Analysis of Some Western
       Wood and Bark.  Wood Science  1=1.  pp. 29-36.  July, 1968.

167.    Bonbel,  R. W.   Particulate Emissions from Sawmill Waste Burners.  Bulletin
       No. 42.   Engineering Experiment Station, Oregon State University,
       Corvallis, Oregon.  August, 1968.

168.    Droege,  H. and G.  Lee.  The use of Gas Sampling and Analysis for the
       Evaluation of Teepee Burners.   Proceedings of the Seventh Conference
       on Methods in Air Pollution Studies.  Los Angeles, California.
       January, 1965.

169.    Hangebrauck, R.  P.  et al.  Sources of Polynuclear Hydrocarbons
       Department HEW,  PHS, NAPCA, Publication No.  997-AP-33.   1967.

170.    Combustion Power Company, Inc.  A Weyerhauser Company,  Menlo Park,
       California  94025.

171.    Power From Waste,  Power.  February, 1975.

172.    Hart, S. A. and G. N. Newhall.  Managing the Wastes of Farm and Forest,
       Part I,  in Handbook of Solid Waste Management, editor D. G. Wilson,
       Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.  1977-

173.    Stear, James R.   "Municipal Incineration, A Review of Literature,"
       Office of Air Programs Publication No. AP-79.  1971.

174.    Mantell, C. L.  Solid Wastes:   Origin, Collection, Processing, and
       Disposal.  Wiley  Interscience  Publication.   1975.

175.    Hough, J. H. and H. T.  Barr.   Possible Uses  for Waste Rice Hulls in
       Building Materials and Other Products.  USDA Bulletin 507.
       June, 1956.
                                     328

-------
176.    Arthur D.  Little,  Inc.,  Environmental  Considerations  of  Selected Energy
       Conserving Manufacturing Process  Options:   V.  Pulp  and Paper  Industry
       Report.   Report EPA-600/7-76-034e,  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  U.S.  EPA.
       December,  1976.

177.    Ford,  Bacon & Davis,  Inc.   Draft  Target  Support Document for  Energy
       Efficiency Improvement Target  in  the Paper and Allied Products  Industry
       (SIC26)  Washington,  D.C.,  Federal Energy Administration.   September,  1976,

178.    Federal Energy Administration,  Project Independence Blueprint - Final
       Task Force Report  -  Energy Conservation  in the Manufacturing  Sector:
       1954-1990.  Report PB-248-495,  Washington, D.C.  November,  1974.

179.    Ekono, Inc., Environmental Pollution Control:   Pulp and  Paper Industry,
       I,  Air,  Cincinnati,  Ohio,  EPA,  Office  of Technology Transfer.
       October, 1976.

180.    Yocum, J.  E., G. M.  Hein,  H. W. Nelson.  Study of Effluents from Back-
       yard Incinerators, JAPCA 6(2).   1956.

181.    Gould, Matt.  Personal Communication,  Georgia  Pacific Company,  Atlanta,
       Georgia.  September,  1978.

182.    Copeland,  G. C. The Design and Operation  of Fluidized-Bed Incinerators
       for Solid and Liquid Wastes, paper prepared for National Industrial
       Solid Waste Management Conference at Houston,  Texas.  March,  1970.

183.    McGill,  D. L. and  E.  M.  Smith.  Fluidized-Bed  Disposal of  Secondary
       Sludge High in Inorganic Salts, proceedings of 1970 National  Incinerator
       Conference,  ASME.   1970.

184.    Battelle Columbus  Laboratories, Ohio,  Fluidized-Bed Incineration of
       Selected Carbonaceous Industrial  Wastes, Report No. EPA  12120 FYF03/72
       (PB211-161)  U.S. EPA.   1972.

185.    Chapman, R.A. and  F.R. Wocasek.   CPU-400 Solid Waste  Fired Gas  Turbine
       Development, Proceedings of 1974  National  Incinerator Conference, ASME.
       1974.

186.    Kaiser,  E.  R.  Evaluation  of the  Melt-Zit  High Temperature Incinerator
       Report to  the City of Brockton, Massachusetts  on USPHS Grant  No.
       DOI-UI-00076.  1969.

187.    Baum,  B.  and C. H. Parker.  Solid Waste  Disposal, Volume  2, Ann Arbor
       Science  Publication,  Ann Arbor, Michigan.   1974.

188.    Schwartz,  C.  H.  et  al.  Development of  a  Vortex Incinerator  with
       Continuous Feed Proceedings of  1972 National Incinerator  Conference,
       ASME.   1972.
                                     329

-------
189.    Hollander,  H.  I.  and N.  F.  Cunningham.   Beneficiated Solid Waste
       Cubettes as Salvage Fuel for Steam Generation, Proceedings of 1972
       National Incinerator Conference, ASME.   1972.

190.    Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations,  Part 60, Appendix A, As
       Amended.

191.    American Society for Testing and Materials Annual Book of Standards,
       Part 26.  1977.

192.    American Society of Mechanical Engineers Performance Test Codes,
       PTC-27.  1957.

193.    Level I Environmental Assessment Procedures Manual, U.S.  Environmental
       Protection Agency, Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory,
       Research Triangle Park,  North Carolina.

194.    Source Testing Manual, Air Pollution Control District, County of Los
       Angeles (South Coast Air Quality Management District).  1972.

195.    Guidelines for Combustion Source:  Sulfuric Acid Emission Measure-
       ments, TRW Document 28055-6005-RV-OO, Redondo Beach, California.
       February, 1977.

196.    Process Measurement Procedures, Sulfuric Acid Emissions,  TRW Document
       28055-6004-RU-OO, Redondo Beach, California.  February, 1977.

197.    Total Combustion Analysis,  Los Angeles  Air Pollution Control District
       (South Coast Air Quality Management District).  August, 1974.

198.    Accuracy Check of Total Combustion Analyzer Los Angeles County Air
       Pollution Control District.  August, 1975.

199.    Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations,  Part 61, Appendix B, as
       Amended.

200.    Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40,  Part 60, Standards of Performance
       for New Stationary Sources, Volume 36,  No. 247.  Thursday, December 23,
       1971.

201.    Environmental Reporter,  September 30, 1977.  Bureau of National
       Affairs, Washington, D.C.

202.    Martin, Werner, Arthur Stern.  The World's Air Quality Management
       Standards,  Volume II.   The  Air Quality  Management Standards of the
       United States, EPA Report PB-241-871.  October, 1974.

203.    Lindberg, Scott.   Personal  Communication,  Brule Incinerators, Blue
       Island, Illinois.  July,  1978.
                                     330

-------
204.    Kramer,  Robert.   Personal Communication,  Director of Maintenance,
       St.  Agnes Hospital,  Baltimore,  Maryland.   September, 1978.

205.    Wilson,  E. M.,  J. M.  Leavens,  N.  W.  Snyder,  J.  J. Brehany,  and
       R.  F.  Whitman.   Engineering and Economic  Analysis of Waste  to Energy
       Systems, Ralph  M. Parsons, Co.   1977.   p. A-24.

206.    Ibid.  p.  A-25.

207.    TRC, Determining Input Variables for Calculation of Impact  of NSPS:
       Worksheet for Stationary Sources, U.S.  EPA-450/3-76-018a, Research
       Triangle Park,  North Carolina.   1977.   pp.  183-202.

208.    Daley, John.  Personal Communication, Philadephia Air Quality,
       Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  July, 1978.

209.    Dr.  Berry.  Personal Communication,  JCAH, Chicago, Illinois.
       October, 1978.

210.    Elledge, James  D.  Personal Communication,  Project Engineer,
       M.  D.  Anderson  Hospital, Houston, Texas.   September, 1978.

211.    Letter from Mitchel Saed, Director of Engineering, Division of Air
       Resources, Department of Environmental  Protection, New York City.
       August,  1978.

212.    U.S. EPA, Hazardous Waste Management Facilities  in the United States-
       1977.  SW-146.3, Cincinnati,  Ohio.  1977.

213.    Kiele, Frank.   Personal Communication,  Cannons Engineering  Corp.,
       Bridgewater, Massachusetts.  August, 1978.

214.    Dunay, Mike.  Personal Communication, Chemical  Control Corp., Elizabeth,
       New Jersey.  September,  1978.

215.    Jones, Robert L.  Personal Communication, Plant  Manager, Rollins
       Environemntal Services,  Baton Rouge, Louisiana.   September, 1978.

216.    Reiley,  Joe.  Personal Communication, LWD Inc.,  Calvert City, Kentucky.
       September, 1978.

217-    Commercial/Industrial Incinerator Emission Data  Summary, State  of
       Connecticut, Department  of Environmental  Protection.  1978.

218.    Gorski,  Mitchel.  Personal Communication, Sales  Administrator,  Progres-
       sive Equipment  Company,  Bloomfield,  Connecticut.   1978.

219.    Hopper,  T.  G., W. A.  Marrone.   Impact of  New Source  Performance Stan-
       dards  on 1985 National Emissions  from Stationary Sources, Volume I,
       Final  Report, The Research Corporation  of New England,  Wethersfield,
       Connecticut, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle  Park, North Carolina,  EPA
       Contract No. 68-02-1382,  Task No.  3. October 24, 1975.


                                     331

-------
220.   TRC, Determining Input Variables for Calculation of Impact of NSPS:
       Worksheet for Stationary Sources, U.S. EPA-450/3-76-018a, Research
       Triangle Park, North Carolina.  1977.  pp. 152-165.

221.   Ibid.  pp. 145-151.

222.   Wylie, William.  Personal Communication, Consumat Systems, Inc.
       Ellerson, Virginia.  October, 1978.

223.   Maxwell, Cal.  Personal Communication,  Kelley-Hoskinson Incinerators,
       Milwaukee, Wisconsin.  October,  1978.

224.   Bickings, Robert.  Personal Communication, Comtro Division, Sunbeam
       Equipment Corporation, Lansdale, Pennsylvania.  October, 1978.

225.   Kanter, C. V., R. G. Lunche, and A. P. Fudurich.  Techniques of Testing
       for Air Contaminants from Combustion Sources, JAPCA 6(4).
       February, 1957.

226.   Iglar, A. F.  and R. G. Bond.  Hospital Solid Waste Disposal in Community
       Facilities, National Technical Information Service, Publication No.
       PB222-018.  1973.
                                     332

-------
 APPENDIX A




TRIP REPORTS
    333

-------
GCA/TECHNOLOGY  DIVISION
       TRIP REPORT:

       FROM:

       TO:

       PURPOSE:
       PLACE AND DATE:
       ATTENDEES:
          St.  Agnes  Hospital,  Baltimore, Maryland

          Robert  G.  Mclnnes  and  Patricia Brown

          Gilbert H.  Wood

          To increase the  understanding of  the  installed incin-
          erating equipment  and  control system  for the screening
          study to determine the need  for standards of performance
          for  industrial and commercial incenerators.

          St.  Agnes  Hospital,  900 South Caton Avenue, Baltimore,
          Maryland,  21229  on 19  September 1978.

          Robert  Kramer, Director of Maintenance, St. Agnes
            Hospital , (301)  368-6000.
          Larry Anderson,  Environmental Engineer, U.S.
            Environmental  Protection Agnecy, (919) 541-5301.
          Robert  Rosensteel, Environmental  Engineer, U.S.
            Environmental  Protection Agency, (919) 541-5301.
          Robert  G.  Mclnnes, Environmental  Engineer, GCA/
            Technology Division,  (617) 275-9000.
          Patricia Brown,  Environmental Engineer, GCA/
            Technology Division,  (617) 275-9000.
       I.   DISCUSSION
            A.
BACKGROUND
                 St. Agnes Hospital is a 480 bed general  care  facility  located in
       suburban Baltimore.  The hospital operates at a 90 to 95  percent occupancy
       rate, contains no research units and generates solid waste,  typical of medical
       institutions.  Pafeking waste, cafeteria waste and  general refuse are compacted
       on site and land-filled at a municipal landfill.   The remaining  solid waste,
       including contaminated waste from patient':S rooms,  spent  needles and styringes,
       and pathological waste is incinerated on site.  Additional precautions are
       taken with pathological waste,  infectious materials, used bandages and dressing,
       and human tissue by placing them in identifiable plastic  bags  for storage,
       transport and disposal.  They are hand carried to  the incinerator charging
       hopper and mixed with patients  room waste prior to incineration.  During times
       of incinerator shutdown, this waste is transported to the nearest municipal
       incinerator for disposal.  The  St. Agnes Unit is required to meet the State of
       Maryland Incinerator Regulations which specify a maximum  particulate emission
       of 0.03 gr/SCF corrected to 12  percent C02.   In addition, to comply with the
       Certification Procedures at the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals,
       all pathological and infectious waste must be disposed  of onsite, with incinera-
       tion the recommended disposal method.
                                           334
BURLINGTON ROAD, BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS 01730 / PHONE: 617-275-9000

-------
     B.    PROCESS

          The incinerator at St. Agnes Hospital is a two stage controlled air
unit, Model 500-T, manufactured by Environmental Control Products (ECP),
Charlotte, North Carolina.  The unit is equipped with a high efficiency, wet
Venturi scrubber, Type VS, manufactured by Envirotech Corporation, Lebanon,
Pennsylvania.  The entire system, rated at 500 pounds per hour, was approved
by the State of Maryland and installed in June 1975.  Refer to the enclosed
Process Diagram (Figure I) for a description of the system hardware.  The unit
is charged by means of a motor driven charging ram.  A guillotine charging
door at the entrance to the primary chamber and a motor driven door on the
loading platform are sequentially operated to insure the operator is isolated
from the burning waste at all times.  The charging mechanism is equipped with
water spray heads to protect against fires in the charging hopper.  Refuse is
fed into the primary chamber where it contacts flame from a 1.15 million Btu
per hour gas-fired burner.  The unit contains no grate or hearth.  The refuse
burns on the refractory lining of the chamber with combustion air supplied by
one 600 SCFM blower.  A second blower rated at 400 SCFM provides combustion
air for the gas burners.  The primary and secondary chamber air distribution
can be adjusted, but it is normally left on the setting recommended by the
manufacturer.  This setting provides for 80 percent of Stoichiometric air in
the primary chamber and 150 to 200 percent Stoichiometric air in the secondary
chamber.  A thermocouple in the primary chamber provides for a temperature
indication on the main control panel.  Lower and upper set points on this
indicator control the temperature in the chamber by igniting the burner when
temperatures fall below 500°F and stopping additional charging when temper-
atures rise above 2000°F.  These set points are adjustable and have been set
by hospital personnel to give good burnout, minimize fuel consumption and
protect the refractory.  Nominal chamber static pressure is -1.6 in H20.
Volatile gases and unburnt particles pass from the primary chamber into a
refractory-lined secondary chamber where they are contacted by flame from an
additional 1.15 million Btu per hour, gas-fired burner.  For this chamber,
the controlled set point temperatures are 1600° to 2000°F.  Control is exer-
cised by turning the burner off or on, but in practice it is on most of the
time.  From the secondary chamber the gases enter a refractory-lined bypass
chamber.  From here they may be exhausted to a bypass stack during atypical
situations or fed into refractory-lined pre-cooler.  In the pre-cooler,
city water is injected at a rate of approximately 10 to 15 gallons per minute,
lowering the gas temperature from 2000° to 300°F.  The gases next enter the
PVC-lined Venturi scrubber rated at a pressure drop of 25 in. w.g.  Two spray
nozzles at the Venturi throat provide for gas/liquid contact with a liquid flow
rate of 15 gallons per minute.  Exiting the scrubber, the gases enter a PVC-
lined closed tank followed by a PVC-lined cyclone seperator.  These units remove
excess moisture and particulates by impaction.  A 15 horsepower PVC fan provides
the required induced draft and is located between the seperator and refractory
lined stack.  Stack exit temperatures average 150 to 200°F.  The scrubber water
recirculation system contains an open tank between the closed tank and Venturi
throat.   Here the pH is monitored, neutralizing sodium'ahydroxide is added, and
the excess water from the system is removed.  Sludge from closed tank and open
tank are transferred to the city sanitary sewer by means of a sump pump and
tank.  The unit is designed to bleed off approximately 5 gallons per minute at
full load conditions.

                                   335
                                                 GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION ••A

-------
     C.   OPERATING PRACTICES

          The incinerator operates  approximately 9  hours a day, 7 days per week,
for 52 weeks per year, with  the  following  schedule:

               7:30 am         to          9:30  am
               1:00 pm         to          3:00  pm
               6:00 pm         to          9:00  pm
              10:00 pm         to        11:30  pm

          The unit is governed by an  automatic  control panel which provides an
indication of the various operating modes  by  use of display lights.   This panel
provides for automatic, sequential  control over these modes, through timers and
set point activated burner switches.  Prior to  initial startup each day, ash is
removed from the primary chamber and  loaded into 3  to 20 gallon trash cans.
(Typical daily ash load is approximately 60 gallons or 8 cubic feet.)  The unit
is then activated and undergoes  an  air  purge  and warmup cycle.  When combustion
temperatures have been reached,  a green "charge" light comes on and the unit
is ready for charging.  Contaminated  waste from patients rooms is delivered to
the incineration room in plastic bags by a charging flue.   It is then manually
loaded into the charging hopper, and  the load button depressed.  Normal prac-
tice is to charge the hopper one half full to avoid overheating the refractory.
The charging mechanism is set to cycle  every  8  minutes.   This can be varied but
has been set by operator experience.  The  approximate daily incineration quantit
amounts tfa 1.125 tons per day.   Waste composition could only be estimated:
25 percent pathological, less than  10 percent plastics from Petri dishes,
styringes, plastic trash bags, 50 to  60 percent paper and other combustibles,
and the rest cans, bottles,  metal needles  and other noncombustibles.  The
incinerator requires little  supervision.   Problems  with the entire system
have centered on the scrubber.   While the  scrubber  water pH is checked daily
with Litmus paper (the pH monitor was malfunctioning) and the sodium hydroxide
quantity is varied accordingly,  the affects of  the  acid gases generated by the
burning of plastics requires the operator  to  constantly inspect the unit.  Since
initial installation, all metal  work  from  the Venturi section to the induced
draft fan has been replaced  or relined  with PVC due to acid gas corrosion.
Sodium hydroxide use amounts to  100 gallons per mohth of 50 percent solution or
3 gallons per ton of refuse.  Water quantities  discharged to the city sever
due to excess cooling water  and  scrubber overflow is unmetered.  Water use is
estimated to be approximately 20 to 30  gallons  per  minute or 9600 to 14400
gallons per ton of refuse.   Natural gas use was estimated by Environmental
Control Products to be 2000  to 3000 ft3/ton of  refuse.  Actual use at the
St. Agnes unit is not metered but estimated to  be 5500 to 6000 ft3/ton of
refuse (primary burner on 25 percent  of time, secondary burner on 100 percent
of time).  The increased use reflects the  several warmup cycles the unit under-
goes daily, the incomplete charging of  the system and perhaps a need to fine-
tune the combustion air flow rates  in the  secondary chamber.  Electric consump-
tion was estimated by ECP to be  31  kwh/8 hr or  28 kwh/ton of refuse charged.
Scrubber electric consumption was unavailable but estimated to be 100 kw-hr/ton
of refuse based on the 15 H.P.iinduced  draft  fan, the two transfer pumps and
the sump pump.  The initial  cost of the unit  was $85,000.   No figures are avail-
able for yearly operating and maintenance  costs.  In addition to the scrubber,
maintenance had been performed on the primary chamber and bypass chamber . '

                                   336
                                                 QCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION

-------
refractory,  the cooling water spray nozzles (burnt out),  the induced draft
fan (structural failure), and the scrubber thermocouple (burnt out).  None
of this was  considered excessive by plant personnel.

     D.   EMISSIONS

          An E.P.A. Method 5 Particulate Emission Test has not been run on the
unit.  Emission estimates were made by the manufacturer and the State of
Maryland.   ECP stated that similar units (Model 500-T) have been tested with
emissions  in the range of 0.07 to 0.13 gr/SCF at 12 percent CC>2.  Using the
higher value and an estimate of 90 percent particulate removal in the scrubber
(Maryland  Air Quality Control), the outlet loading from the scrubber is estimated
to be 0.013  gr/SCF at 12 percent CC>2.   There were no odor problems associated
with the operation of the incinerator.  Fugitive emissions were apparent only
at the point of ash removal and they were contained in the incinerator room.

II.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

     1.   A strict (0.03 gr/DSCF at 12 percent C02) emission limitation
          can be met with use of a secondary'chamber afterburner and a
          high (20 to 30 inch) pressure drop Venturi Scrubber.

     2.   The incineration of hospital wastes, which by their nature
          contain substantial amounts  of plastic, can cause hydrochloric
          acid corrosion problems if downstream temperatures fall below
          the acid dewpoint (250 to 275°F).

     3.   The specification of a wet scrubber must be accompanied by
          the requirement that all hardware exposed to the flue gases
          and scrubber liquid be lined and/or coated with high tempera-
          ture PVC, fiber reinforced plastic,  or some like material not
          affected by acids.

     4.   Automatic controls on a commercial/industrial incinerator are
          essential.  These controls should include:

          A.   Automatic charging sequence,

          B.   Temperature controls in the primary and secondary
               chambers that are factory set and cannot be easily
               altered,

          C.   Interlocks that maintain the control device in service
               at least 2 hours after  the last waste is charged,

          D.   Refractory capable of withstanding 2500 to 3000°F tem-
               peratures, and

          E.   A fuel meter on the unit so that auxiliary fuel consump-
               tion may be carefully monitored and controlled.
                                   337
                                                 GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION ••A

-------
u>
GJ
do
                                                                MAKE-UP*-=n
                                                                WATER     j»J
                                                                                                                   STACK
RECIRCULATION
   PUMP
                                                                                                                      .CITY
                                                                                                                       SEWER
                                                                           OPEN
                                                                       RECIRCULATION
                                                                           TANK
                                          St. Agnes  Hospital Incineration System

-------
            UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                       Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                      Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
                                11 SEP 1978
Mr. Robert Kramer
Director of Maintenance
St. Agnes Hospital
900 South Caton Avenue
Baltimore, Maryland 21229

Dear Mr. Kramer:

     This letter  is to request a visit by Mr. Robert Mclnness of GCA
Corporation to St. Agnes Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland, for a day
during the week of September 18, 1978.  Mr. Mclnness will contact you to
arrange the specific dates for the visit.  Messrs. Larry Anderson and
Robert Rosensteel of my office may accompany GCA during the visit.

     As you may know, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is currently considering developing emission standards for air
pollutants emitted from new or modified industrial and commercial
incinerators in accordance with Section 111 of the Clean Air Act.  EPA
contracted GCA Corporation (Contract Number 68-02-2607, Work Assignment
Number 18) to obtain information pertinent to this industry, such as
plant location, nature and quantity of emissions, and control techniques
currently in use  or planned.  During the visit, they are interested in
obtaining emission data, design data, and operating data for your
incinerator.  Enclosure 1 is an example of the type of questions GCA may
ask during the visit.

     The authority for EPA's information gathering and for conducting
source tests is included in Section 114 of the Clean Air Act (42 United
States Code, Paragraph 7414).  Enclosure 2 contains a summary of this
authority.  If you believe that disclosure of information gathered
during our visit  (including photographs or visual observation of
processes, equipment, etc.) would reveal a trade secret•, you should
clearly identify  such information as discussed in the enclosure.  Any
information subsequently determined to constitute a trade secret will be
protected under Title 18, United States Code, Section 1905.  All
emission data, however, will be available to the public.

     As noted in Enclosure 3, GCA Corporation has been designated by EPA
as an authorized representative of the Agency.  Therefore, GCA
Corporation has the rights discussed above and in Enclosure 2.  As a
                                   339

-------
designated representative of the Agency, GCA  is  subject to the  provisions
of 42 United States  Code, Paragraph 7414(c) ,  respecting confidentiality
of methods or processes entitled to protection as trade secrets.

     Enclosure 4 summarizes Agency and Emission  Standards and
Engineering Division policies and procedures  for handling privileged
information and describes EPA contractor commitments and procedures for
use of confidential materials.  It is EPA's policy that compliance by an
authorized representative with the requirements  detailed in Enclosure 4
provides sufficient  protection for the rights of submitters of
privileged information.

     The following policies concerning liability should also be of
interest to you:

     a.  If a Federal employee is injured in the course of his employ-
ment, he has compensation coverage from the Government under the Federal
Employees Compensation Act (Title 5, United States Code, Section 8108,
et. seq.); and

     b.  If, due to the employee's negligence, property damage or
personal injury to third parties occurs, the  Federal Tort Claim Act
(Title 28, United States Code, Section 1346) provides a means of fixing
any liability upon the Federal Government.

     The Office of General Counsel, EPA, has informed the Agency that a
firm may not condition the "right of entry" by EPA or GCA Corporation
upon consent to a waiver of liability and has instructed employees not to
sign such waivers.  If you have any questions regarding this refusal,
please contact Mr. Donnell L. Nantkes, Office of Enforcement and General
Counsel, at (202) 755-0774.

     If you have any questions, please call me at (919) 541-5295 or
contact Mr. Larry Anderson at (919) 541-5301.

                                      Sincerely yours,

                                                 W
                                      Stanley T. Cuffe, Chief
                                     Industrial  Studies Branch
                                      Emission Standards and
                                       Engineering Division
4 Enclosures

cc:  Mr. Robert Mclnness, GCA Corporation
                                  340

-------
GCA/TECHNOLOGY  DIVISION
                                                 9 October 1978
      Mr.  Robert  Kramer
      Director  of Maintenance
      St.  Agnes Hospital
      900  South Caton  Avenue
      Knltimore,  Maryland   21229

      Dear Mr.  Kramer:

               On 19  September 1978, Patricia Brown and Robert Mclnnes  of  GCA/
      Technology  Division  and Larry Anderson and Robert Rosensteel  of  the EPA
      visited  the incinerator plant at St. Agnes Hospital.   Enclosed is  a record
      of information gathered during that trip.

               Please review the trip report and identify  those items of information
      which are considered to be proprietory.

               Any information for which St. Agnes Hospital requests  confidential
      I r i'at men t must be so marked or designated by St. Agnes Hospital  and be accompanied
      by a statement as to why the information is confidential.  The points which
      should be addressed  in a claim of confidentiality are discussed  in Section 2.204(c)
      of 40 CFR Part 2, Subpart B and are enumerated below:

               1.  Which  portions of the material do you believe should be given
                   con fidcri t ial treatment?

               2.  Tlie period of time for which confidential treatment  is  desired.

               3.  Measures taken by St. Agnes Hospital to guard against undesired
                   disclosure of this material to others.

               4.  Whether St. Agnes Hospital asserts that disclosure of this material
                   would  be likely to result in substantial harmful effects on  its
                   competitive position, and if so, what those harmful, effects would
                   be, why they should be viewed as substantial, and  an explanation
                   of the casual relationship between disclosure and  such  harmful
                   effects.

               That information which is confidential will be extracted from  the  main
      body of  the trip report and placed  in  an enclosure thereto.  This  enclosure  will
      IH; handled  in accordance with the EPA  document "Procedures for Safeguarding
      I'rivileged  Information", a copy of  which was sent to you with the  visit  notification
      letter.
                                          341

       ROAD, BfDrORD, MASSACHUSETTS OiTSO / PHONE: 4l7-3?i-9000

-------
Mr. Robert Kramer                       -2-                   9 October 1978
          Your business confidentiality claim  is due  21 days after receipt of
this letter.  If no claim is received within this time span, the  trip report
will be declassified.
                                         Sincerely yours,
                                         Robert G. Mclnnes
                                         Environmental Engineer
KCM/jma
Kncl.

cc :  Gilbert H. Wood, EPA
                                    342

-------
OCA/TECHNOLOGY  DIVISION
     TRIP  REPORT:


     FROM:


     TO:

     PURPOSE:
     PLACE AND DATE:
     ATTENDEES:
            M.  D. Anderson Hospital, University of  Texas Medical
            Center,  6723 Bertner Drive, Houston,  Texas  77025

            Patricia M. Brown and Robert Mclnnes, GCA/Technology
            Division

            Gilbert  H. Wood, EPA, Industrial Studies  Branch

            The visit was made in order to obtain qualitative
            and quantitative information on the hospital's
            pathological incinerator, its operation,  and its
            APC devices.  This information will potentially be
            used in  the development of a new source perfor-
            mance standard (NSPS).

            M.  D. Anderson Hospital, University of  Texas Medical
            Center,  6723 Bertner Drive, Houston,  Texas  77025,
            on  September 18, 1978

            Mr.  James D. Elledge, Project Engineer, M.  D.
              Anderson Hospital
            Mr.  P. Willis, Chief Stationary Engineer, M.D.
              Anderson Hospital
            Mr.  Robert Mclnnes, GCA/Technology Division
            Ms.  Patricia Brown, GCA/Technology Division
     I.
DISCUSSION:
          A.   Background
              The  facility is made up of three buildings; a 600-bed hospital,  an
     old clinic, and a new clinic.  In addition to  treating patients, research  in-
     volving  animals is conducted.

              Both pathological and general wastes are generated.  General refuse
     is currently being compacted at the hospital and  sent to landfill.  The waste
     which is burned is approximately 90 percent animals  (dogs, monkeys) and bedding
     (sawdust) .  The remainder of the waste varies  in  composition, including human
     tissue,  needles, plastic wrappers, occasional  paint  wastes, and solvents
     (xylene, ethyl alcohol) .  Carcinogens are contained  in some of the waste,  and
     all pathological waste is wrapped in plastic.

              In burning this waste, the hospital  is  subject to State of Texas
     regulations, which in this case limit the emission of particulates to 0.08
     gr/dscf  at 12 percent
              The incinerator also complies with City of Houston regulations,
     which require a multiple chamber design with afterburner, and specify minimum
     temperatures of 1000°F in the primary chamber and 1400°F in the secondary
     chamb er .
                                         343
     ROAD, BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS 01730 / PHONE: 617-275-9000

-------
           Finally,  the disposal of pathological waste is regulated by the
 Joint  Commission for Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH), which suggest incinecg«*
 tion as the preferred method for disposal of pathological wastes (over auto-
 claving,  disposal by grinding and adding to sewage, and landfilling).

     B.   Description of Incinerator

           The incinerator is a N.E. Burn-zoll Model 184, and is about onet year
 old, having received an operating permit from the state on August 10, 1977.
 A diagram of the incinerator is shown in Enclosure 1.  Initial cost of the
 unit was $87,000.

           It is  a vertical  cylinder,  19  ft high,  and 8 ft in diameter,  divided
 into three chambers,  9 ft,  5 ft,  and  5 ft high,  respectively.   Above the  third
 chamber is a 25  ft  stack.   A hydraulic-powered feed mechanism accepts waste
 from a hopper located in the control  room,  and charges it to the primary  cham-
 ber, at about 2  ft  above floor level.  A separate charging mechanism exists
 for  waste liquid injection.

           Two natural gas^fired eclipse  burners  are located in the primary
 chamber and one  in  the secondary chamber or afterburner.   Each of the burners
 has  a  rated capacity of 2 MM Btu/hr,  and includes an air supply.

           Additional air is supplied  to  the primary chamber through a blower.
 Since  pathological  waste is to be burned,  the chamber has no grate and  all air
 is ove'rfire.  Before entering the furnace,  this  air flows through a casing
 between the inner and outer walls of  the primary chamber, whereas it is pre-
 heated it cools  the outside of the incinerator.

           The secondary chamber also  receives additional air.   This air cools
 the  casings of both the second and third chambers,  before entering the  com-
 bustion process  at  the hearth separating the primary chamber from the after-
 burner.

           The function of the third chamber is to increase retention time
 only (design value  3.1 sec  for the entire incinerator).   No additional  air
 or gas are supplied.

           Incinerator and stack are constructed  of  309 stainless steel, with
 a refractory lining.

           Maximum capacity  of the incerator is 1200 Ib/hr of pathological
 (type  4)  waste,* or about 24 Ib/ft2-hr in the primary chamber.   At this burning
 rate,  and at the maximum design temperature of 2400°F in the primary chamber,
 an estimated 266 Ib/hr of natural gas  would be consumed.

           At minimum design conditions,  of 400 Ib/hr pathological waste,  and
 1600°F in the primary chamber,  63 Ib/hr  of natural  gas would be burned.
*
 Burn-zoll Design Calculations, 5/13/77.
                                   344
                                                 GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION

-------
     C.   Operating Procedures

          The incinerator is charged in a batch method.  Readiness for charging
is indicated to the operator by a light on the control panel, which comes on
when the primary chamber is at or near the lower of the two preset temperatures.
Waste is manually loaded into the charging hopper, the hopper door is closed,
and the automatic loading sequence is activated.  The guillotine door between
the hopper and the primary chamber then automatically rises and the waste is
emptied into the furnace.  The hopper is sprayed with water, then retracted.

          The average operating schedule is about 3 hr/day on Wednesdays and
Fridays, the two days when it is most commonly used.  Mr. Elledge stated that
the hospital plans to use it more frequently in the future.

          The average waste charged is about 250 Ib/hr* or 5 Ib/ft2-hr.  The
actual burning rate is thus about 1500 Ib/week or 39 tons per year.  It should
be noted that these are estimates.

          In practice, successive charges are made during a burning session.
Animal bedding is charged first, followed by any animal or human tissue, or
other material.

          Initial startup procedure is first to "prepurge" the system with the
two blowers to remove any trapped natural gas, and to insure all air feed lines
are unrestricted.  The burners are then turned on, and the blower dampers are
opened manually  (about 25 percent for solids, 100 percent for liquids).  When
the control panel indicates that the minimum temperature has been reached, the
first charge is loaded.

          Shutdown is accomplished either manually, or when the end of a timed
cycle  (1-1/2 hr  ordinarily) is reached.  Gas burners shut off, followed by a
"postpurge" during which both blowers open to their full capacity.  When the
primary chamber temperature falls below 600°F, the blowers also shut off.
Ashes are removed manually to a 55-gallon drum either after shutdown or before
the next startup.

          Temperature ranges allowed in the primary and secondary chambers are
set by the user in accordance with the type of waste being burned.  Both an
upper and a lower limit are specified.  For pathological waste, the primary
chamber is generally operated at between 1500° and 1700°F, while the secondary
chamber is between 1600° and 1700°F an estimated 58  Ib/hrf of natural gas
is required to burn waste at these temperatures; actual gas usage is not
monitored, however.   For liquids,  somewhat lower temperatures are chosen.

          Thermocouples are located in primary and secondary chambers, and
the actual temperature is displayed on the control panel.

*
 From Stack Testing of July, 1978, by Turner Collie & Braden, Inc. and stated
 by Mr. Elledge to be representative of normal operation.


 From Burn-zoll Design Calculations, 5/13/77.


                                    345
                                                 GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION

-------
          As previously stated, the controls will modulate so as  to maintain
the lower of the two preset temperatures in each chamber to within 10° to lS°fi
If the temperature in the primary chamber falls below  this point, the two buriieis
will be at their "high-flame" setting and the blower will increase its air
supply enough to restore the temperature (modulates inversely with temperaturelt

          As the temperature rises above the preset point, the burners go to
"low flame" and the air flow decreases.  No further loading is allowed at this
point.

          If the temperature should reach the upper set point, the burners
would shut off entirely, a water spray would be introduced, and an alarm would
sound.  Mr. Willis stated, however, that this had never happened.

          The burner in the afterburner responds in the same way  as did the
primary burners.  The blower, however, modulates directly with secondary chambet
temperature; as temperature rises it increases the air supply so  as to continue
to destroy particulates completely.

     D.   Maint enanc e

          The only maintenance performed to date has been the replacement of
secondary air potentiometers which were incorrectly sized, and of an incorrect
water spray nozzle.  No problems with corrosion, leaks, plugging, or refractory
damage have been encountered.

     E.   Emissions

          A stack test was done on the unit in July of 1978, under normal
operating conditions.  The results of this test are summarized as follows
(Enclosure 2).

                                          Run 1           Run 2
     Particulate Emission Rate,            0.13            0.07
     gr/dscf at 12 percent C02

          The average emission rate was 0.10 gr/dscf corrected to 12 percent
co2.

          During the visit, a few large particles were observed to be emitted
immediately after charging.  During subsequent burning, however, no emissions
were visible except heat waves.

II.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

     1.   Although particulates and spores are controlled quite adequately
by this incinerator, the fate of carcinogens remains unclear.  Also, pro-
duction and control of ECU from plastics contained in the waste should be
investigated.
                                   346
                                                 OCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION

-------
                                                                                                                                                                                  BY  6URN-ZOL
(jO    O

~~J     O
                                                     FOR STACK SAMPLING FACILITIES
                                                     ABOVE PLATFORM SEE 0«.  277I.-SK-I
  FUTURE
       LIQUID
  I NJ tC T I ON
  fICLO PIPING
   r  
                                                                                                          AIR ASPIRATCO
                                                                                                          NOZZLE A»EML1
                                                                                                          FOR
                                                                                                          INJECTION-
                                                                                                PRIMARY fr SECONDARY
                                                                                                COOL ING-COMBUST I ON
                                                                                                AIR BLOWERS
  INCINERATOR
  COMPONENTS
  PRE-WIRED  TO
  JUNCTION BOX
                                                                                                            OSHA
                                                                                                            CAGED LABMk
                                                                                            SECONDARY & PRIMARY
                                                                                            SERVICE i, INSPECTION DOW*.
                                                                                            2I|" SO. CLEAR OPENING
                                                                                            MODEL  181*  INCINERATOR
                                                                                                                ROOF VENT !. WALL
                                                                                                                 IR llffAKE LOUVER
                                                                                                                              HYDRAULIC POWERED
                                                                                                                              CHARGING HOPPER-CHUTE
                                                                                                                              (9 CU FT CAPACITY)
                               SERVICE I ASH DOOR
                               2VW X 30"H
                               CLEAR OPENING
HATUSAL GAS SUPPLY (»et        "'"'   ,.-'.

      'plPINGT PRIMARY 545 REG--I.ATOK -

"°T£i BUHNERS Ut- 0"AL-^El- 'WITH PILOT I "lAI* IAS
        cWTWL Sk«%:o«.« «*£«*«  BLOCK
  BLEED VALVES, PRESSl=E S.ITC-tS * CDCKS) ONLY,
FOR  F'JTJRE CONVERSION FROM GiS T,' 5«S'OIL
     PROVISIONS  SHOOLD BE -WOE BY OxNEB FOR FVlTjRE
OIL  TANK, OIL i *roMi?ATio« AIR
AND  RELATED WIRING.
                                                                     	r
- ~~~~~~~
NG OOORS
. CLEAR
EN ING
JNTROL PANEL
£OL
JREAKER WITH
IT BY OWNER
.,..„..
MIN H
r~~






b
^

b

-- i
                                               LECTRICAL SERVICE
                                              (FIELD WIRING - NF)
                                              MOTORS --- <*80V, 38, 60H1
                                              CONTROL  -- 120V, IB, 60HZ
                                              SAMPLING  - Z08/2ZOV. I», 60HZ
  RECOMMENDED
  CLEAR  CHARGING  HEIGHT
  NOTE:
     DIMENSION SHOWN  IS  VARIABLE
  TO BUILDING  FLOOR ELEVATION ONLY.
  EX.-  LOWERIHG FLOOR CLEV.  BY 6"
  WILL INCREASE CLEAR CHG'G  HT.  TO M"
                           EXISTING GRADE—•"

                  =  LEVEL  CONCRETE PLATFORM (NF)
                     	  3000  PSI  MIX MIN. STEEL REINFORCED
                           WITH  6  X 6  - *10 IMBEDDED MESH  VIBRATED
                           LEVEL & CURED FOB H DAYS BEFORE LOADING.
                  UKMNCf MAWMGS  |-75H-FC. 2771 SHEET 1
ALC  WT.. 111. 500 LBS TOTAL
                                           NF MfANS NOT FUtNISHCO BY THf NORTHfAST MMN-ZOICOW.
                                                                                                                           ,40RTHEAST BURN-ZOL  CORPORATION
                                       PLAN (. ELEVATION ARRANGEMENT OF INCINERATOR
                                       AND COMPONENTS, PLATFORMS, CHARGING BUILDING
                                       AND FIELD SERVICE SUPPLIES
                                          FOR:   THE UNIVERSITY GF TEXAS
                                                 SYSTEM CANCER CENTER
                                                 HOUSTON, TEXAS
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    2771

-------
                          ENCLOSURE 2



                     PARTICULATE EMISSIONS

                    M. D. ANDERSON HOSPITAL




1.   Run 1-0.50 lb/hr x  7000gr/lb = 3570 gr/hr



     Qsd = 90,630 dsfh



      3570 gr/hr   = 0.039 8r/dsf
     90,630 dsfh



     From Orsat Analysis



     C02 = 3.6%



     Actual emissions corrected to  12% CC^





     0.039 x -—• =0.13 gr/dcfm
             j. o

2.   Run 2 - 0.20 lb/hr x 7000gr/lb = 1400  gr/hr



     Qsd = 59,580 dsfh





                 - °-°23 *»*f



     From Orsat Analysis



     C02 =4.0


     0.023 x !iig  - 0.070 gr/dsf
              4.0
                              348
                                            GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION

-------
g
      1     UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
     ~ ,x                Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
     *P                Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
                                 11 SEP  1978
Mr. Robert Grieser
Director of Physical Plant
M. D. Anderson Hospital
Houston, Texas 77025
Dear Mr. Grieser:
     This letter is to  request a visit by  Mr.  Robert  Mclnness  of  GCA
Corporation to M. D. Anderson Hospital in  Houston,  Texas,  for  a day
during the week of September 18, 1978.  Mr. Mclnness  will  contact you  to
arrange the specific dates  for the visit.  Messrs.  Larry Anderson and
Robert Rosensteel of my office may accompany GCA during the  visit.

     As you may know, the United States Environmental  Protection  Agency
(EPA) is currently considering developing  emission  standards for  air
pollutants emitted from new or modified industrial  and commercial
incinerators in accordance  with Section 111 of the  Clean Air Act.  EPA
contracted GCA Corporation  (Contract  Number 68-02-2607, Work Assignment
Number 18) to obtain information pertinent to  this  industry, such as
plant location, nature  and  quantity of emissions, and  control  techniques
currently in use or planned.  During  the visit, they  are interested in
obtaining emission data, design data, and  operating data for your
pathological incinerator.   Enclosure  1 is  an example  of the  type  of
questions GCA may ask during the visit.

     The authority for EPA's information gathering  and for conducting
source tests is included in Section 114 of the Clean  Air Act (42  United
States Code, Paragraph 7414).  Enclosure 2 contains a  summary  of  this
authority.  If you believe  that disclosure of  information  gathered
during our visit (including photographs or visual observation  of
processes, equipment, etc.) would reveal a trade secret, you should
clearly identify such information as  discussed in the  enclosure.  Any
information subsequently determined to constitute a trade  secret  will  be
protected under Title 18, United States Code,  Section  1905.  All
emission data, hov/ever, will be available to the public.

     As noted in Enclosure 3, GCA Corporation  has been designated by EPA
as an authorized representative of the Agency.  Therefore, GCA
Corporation has the rights discussed  above and in Enclosure 2.  As a
                                  349

-------
designated representative of the Agency, GCA  is  subject  to  the  provisions
of 42 United States Code, Paragraph 7414(c) ,  respecting  confidentiality
of methods or processes entitled to protection as trade  secrets.

     Enclosure 4 summarizes Agency and Emission  Standards and
Engineering Division  policies and procedures  for handling privileged
information and describes EPA contractor commitments and procedures for
use of confidential materials.  It is EPA's policy that  compliance by an
authorized representative with the requirements  detailed in Enclosure 4
provides sufficient protection for the rights of submitters of
privileged information.

     The following policies concerning liability should  also be of
interest to you:

     a.  If a Federal employee is injured in the course  of  his employ-
ment, he has compensation coverage from the Government under the  Federal
Employees Compensation Act (Title 5, United States Code, Section 8108,
et. seq.); and

     b.  If, due to the employee's negligence, property  damage or
personal injury to third parties occurs, the  Federal  Tort Claim Act
(Title 28, United States Code, Section 1346) provides a  means of fixing
any liability upon the Federal Government.

     The Office of General Counsel, EPA, has informed the Agency that a
firm may not condition the "right of entry" by EPA or GCA Corporation
upon consent to a waiver of liability and has instructed employees not to
sign such waivers.  If you have any questions regarding  this refusal,
please contact Mr. Donnell L. Nantkes, Office of Enforcement and General
Counsel, at (202) 755-0774.

     If you have any  questions, please call me at (919)  541-5295 or
contact Mr. Larry Anderson at (919) 541-5301.

                                      Sincerely yours,
                                      Stanley T. Cuffe, Chief
                                     Industrial  Studies Branch
                                      Emission Standards and
                                       Engineering Division
4 Enclosures

cc:  Mr. Robert Mclnness, GCA Corporation
                                  350

-------
SCA/TECHNOLOGY  DIVISION
                                                 9  October 1978
     Mr.  James P. Elledgf
     Project Engineer
     M.D.  Anderson Hospital.
     University  of Texas Medical Center
     6723 Bertner Drive
     Houston, Texas  77025

     Dpar Mr. Elledge:

              On September 18, 1978, Bob Mclnnes and I  visited the N.E. Burn-zoll
     incinerator installed at the M.D. Anderson Hospital.   Enclosed is a record of
     information gathered during that trip.

              Please  review the trip report and identify  any  items of information
     which are considered to be proprietary, and/or any  items  which are incorrect.

              Any information for which the M.D. Anderson hospital requests confidential
     treatment must  be so marked or designated and be accompanied by a statement as
     to why the  information is confidential.  The points which should be addressed in
     a claim of  confidentialVity are discussed in Section 2.204 (e) of 40 CFR Part 2,
     Subpart B and are enumerated below:

              1.  Which portions of the material do you believe should be given
                  confidential treatment?

              2.  The period of time for which confidential treatment is desired.

              3.  Measures taken by M.D. Anderson hospital to guard against undesired
                  disclosure of this material to others.

              4,  Whether M.D. Anderson Hospital asserts  that disclosure of this
                  material would be likely to result in substantial harmful effects
                  on  its position, and if so, what those  harmful effects would be,
                  why they should be viewed as substantial, and an explanation of the
                  causal relationship between disclosure  and  such harmful effects.

          That information which is confidential will be extracted from the main body
     of the trip report and placed in an enclosure thereto. This enclosure will be
     handled in  accordance with the EPA document, "Procedures  for Safeguarding Privileged
     Information", a copy of which was sent to you with  the visit notification letter.
                                          351

NCINQ.IQN KOMI.

-------
Mr.  James P. Elledge
                                       _ 0 —
9 October 1978
          Your business confidentiality claim is due 21 days after receipt of
this letter.  If no claim is received within this time span, the trip report will
be declassified.
                                        Sincerely,
PMB/jma
Encl.
                                         U~Tu<>^  i  /   li-O
                                        Patricia M. Brown
                                        Engineer
                                        352

-------
GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
       TRIP REPORT:     Dow Chemical Company,  Indianapolis, Indiana

       FROM:            Robert G. Mclnnes and  Patricia Brown
       TO:
       PURPOSE:
       PLACE AND DATE:
       ATTENDEES:
       Gilbert  H. Wood

       To increase  the understanding of the incineration
       process  and  control system at Dow Chemical Company
       for the  screening study to determine the need for
       standards  of performance for industrial and commercial
       incinerations.,

       Dow Chemical Company, Sales, Research and Development
       Facility,  9550 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, Indiana,
       46268 on 26  September 1978.

       James Mason, Manager of Waste Control, Dow Chemical
         Company,  (317) 873-7291.
       Larry Anderson, Environmental Engineer, U.S.  Environ-
         mental Protection Agency,(919) 541-5301.
       Robert Rosensteel, Environmental Engineer, U.S.  Environ-
         mental Protection Agency, (919) 541-5301.
       Patricia Brown, Environmental Engineer, GCA/Technology
         Division,  (617) 275-9000.
       Robert Mclnnes, Environmental Engineer, GCA/Technology
         Division,  (617) 275-9000.
       I.    DISCUSSION
            A.
BACKGROUND
                 The Dow chemical Company Sales, Research and  Development Facility
       is located in suburban Indianapolis and employs approximately 400 people.  An
       onsite  incinerator handles all solid waste generated at the  facility.  The
       facility waste consists of glass (20 percent),  animals  (1  percent), returned
       product spoilage (variable), small amounts of plastic and  garbage (<2 percent)
       and the remainder combustible paper, animal bedding and micellaneous trash.  In
       addition,  waste from a downtown Indianapolis Production Facility which employees
       200 workers  is disposed of at the suburban incinerator.

                 The installed incinerator is required to meet Marion County and
       State of Indiana Particulate Emission regulations of 0.3 pounds of particulate
       per thousand pounds of dry flue gas corrected to 50 percent  excess air (approxi-
       mately  0.18  gr/scf at 12 percent C02).
            B.
PROCESS
                The incinerator at Dow Chemical is a 448 pound  per hour rotary
       kiln unit manufactured by the Eimco-BSP Division of Envirotech, Independence
       Ohio.  An afterburner section is mounted at the kiln outlet.  Directly in
       line  with the kiln and afterburner is a high efficiency  (35 in. w.g. pressure
       drop) wet Venturi scrubber manufactured by Air Pollution  Industries, Englewood,
                                          353
        , BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS 01730 / PHONE: 617-275-9000

-------
New Jersey.  The entire incineration  system  resembles  a small municipal
operation with all components except  the  rotary  kiln and afterburner housed
in two lightweight structures.  Refer  to  the attached  diagram for a description
of the mechanical components of the system.

          Refuse is compacted, hauled  to  the unit  by truck and dumped into the
receiving hopper.  A motor driven  overhead clamshell bucket,  operated by a
control room operator picks up the waste  and charges it into  "Saturn" Shredder
which is powered by a 30 horsepower motor.   Here all waste, except animals and
chemical waste, is shredded into 2 inch sized pieces and fed  onto a conveyor.
The conveyor feeds the waste onto  a pneumatic ram  charging mechanism.  The ram
charger is programmed to cycle on  a 1-1/2 minute cycle (set by experience);
and charging is accomplished through  a guillotine  door which  isolates the fire
in the kiln from the refuse in the charging  hopper.  A water  spray in the
charging hopper protects against backfires in this area.  Animals, chemical
waste and product returns are manually loaded into the charging hopper.  Metal
caps on product returns are punctured  prior  to charging to avoid explosion and
possible flame extinction in the kiln.  Due  to the volume reduction that accom-
panies shredding, the unit at Dow  Chemical can be  charged in  excess of the
448 pounds per hour rating.  Typically, the  incinerator is charged with
600 to 900 pounds per hour of waste.   Selected for its versatility, the rotary
kiln is lined with 9 inches of kx99BF  Super  Duty Firebox Refractory,  is 15 feet
long and has an internal diameter  of  6 feet.   Combustion air  is supplied by a
forced draft fan rated at 840 standard cubic feet  per  minute.  The kiln is
fired by two primary burners each  rated at 2 million Btu's per hour and firing
No. 2 Fuel Oil.  The rotary kiln is also  designed  to incinerate liquids at a
maximum rate of one gallon per minute.  Liquids  normally disposed of in this
unit include returned pharmaceutical  products, Methylene Chloride, and various
Aqueous Solvents.  The normal liquid  disposal rate is  100 gallons per week.  The
rotary kiln is horizontally mounted (no incline) and revolves at a nominal
speed of 1/2 to 1 revolution per minute.  The speed  is variable and will be
run at 25 percent of capacity when burning combustibles and 100 percent of
capacity when the load is primarily bottles.

          Ash is continually removed  from the rotary kiln/afterburner inter-
face by the rotation of the kiln.  The waste residence time in the kiln will
vary with waste quality and range  from 1/2 hour  to 5 hours.   The ash is
removed directly into a 4 cubic yard  dumpster.   Ash  quantity  varies with material
charged, ranging from one dumpster per day when  burning incombustibles such as
glass, to one dumpster per 6 to 8  days when  burning  primarily paper-   After
cooling, the ash is landfilled onsite  at  the Dow Chemical Landfill.  During
incinerator downtimes, solids are  landfilled at  a  sanitary landfill offsite,
liquids are stockpiled and animals frozen for later  disposal.

          From the kiln, the flue  gases pass into  an afterburner section which
is 15 feet long, 5 feet in diameter and is lined with  9 inches of refractory.
The afterburner is fired by two burners,  each rated  at 1.565  million Btu's per
hour.  Combustion air in this section  is  provided  by a forced draft fan rated
at 720 standard cubic feet per minute, and modulated by pneumatically controlled
dampers.
                                     354
                                                  GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION

-------
O
9
n
z
2<
I
                                                 BUILDING
                                                                                                                      BUILDING
                  HOPPER
                                          RAM
                                          CHARGER
                                                                            r
                                                                      BYPASS I
                                                                       STACK
                                                      ROTARY
                                                        KILN
                                                                AFTERBURNER
                                                            ASH
                                                          REMOVAL
                                                         DUMPSTER
                                                                    OVERFLOW
                                                                           SLUDGE
                                                                            TO
                                                                        WASTEWATER
                                                                        TREATMENT
                                                                           PLANT
                                                               DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
                                                              INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA

-------
          A bypass stack is located at the discharge  end of  the afterburner
section and is used to protect the equipment when  the kiln temperatures  exceed
1800 F, or when the induced draft fan is  inoperable.   From the afterburner, the
gases enter a refractory lined precooler  section.   Here  the  gases are cooled
from the 1600 F afterburner exit temperature to  140  to  160  F.  Cooling  is
accomplished by water evaporation, utilizing four  spray  nozzles which inject
20 to 25 gallons per minute of potable well water  or  recycled  W.T.  plant
effluent water into the gas stream.  To avoid  acid-gas corrosion on exposed
surfaces, all hardware downstream of the  precooler is constructed of fiber
glass reinforced plastic (FRP), which has a maximum operating  temperature of
225 F.  Exiting the precooler, flue gases enter  the high efficiency Venturi
Scrubber with a pressure drop rated at 35 in.  w.g.  Flue Gas/water  interface at
the Venturi throat is provided by spray nozzles  supplied by  a  73 gallon  per
minute pump.  The gases next enter a packed bed  separator which utilizes ceramic
saddles to aid in excess moisture and particulate  collection.   The  pressure drop
of the separator was estimated to be 6 to 15 in. w.g.  Two induced  draft fans
operating in series with a combined rating of  6332 actual cubic feet per
minute provide the required draft for the system.   The flue  gases are exhausted
to the atmosphere via a rubber lined stack.  The scrubber water recirculation
system consists of a surge tank, a clarifier and an overflow tank.   All  excess
water from the precooler and Venturi, and the  packed  bed separator  drain into
the surge tank.  Here sodium hydroxide is added  when  needed  to neutralize the
scrubber water.  Overflow from this surge tank is  recirculated to the scrubber.
The underflow is pumped into the clarifier where an Anionic  Polymer is added
to aid in particulate coagulation.  The underflow  from the clarifier is  pumped
to Dow Chemical's Waste Water Treatment Plant  for  ultimate disposal.   The over-
flow water from the clarifier drains into an overflow tank where it is pumped
back to the Venturi to be recirculated.

     C,   OPERATING PRACTICES

          The incinerator is  in operation approximately  53 hours a week, with
the following burn time schedule:

               Monday:                  6 hours

               Tuesday through Friday:  10 to  12 hours

               Saturday:                2 to 4 hours

               Sunday:                  No burning, but  the  unit
                                        kept warm  with oil burners.

          All controls for the incinerator are located in a  master control
room which  overlooks the collection hopper,  shredder  and conveyor.   Controls
are extensive and include Stack Oxygen Analyzer, Temperature Control Regulators
on  the kiln and afterburner,  Draft Indicators, pH  Controllers, Venturi Differen-
tial Pressure and Separator Pressure.  A  visual  alarm light  panel which  includes
warning  lights for essential  operating parameter measurements  is mounted above
the control panel.  The entire control room  resembles that of  a boiler control
system, records on continuous  chart paper the  most important parameters  (kiln,
afterburner, precooler and separator outlet  temperatures, scrubber water pH),

                                     356
                                                  GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION

-------
and has functioned without major problems since installation,  ^/temper-
is not burning solid waste, it is kept on natural draft at a nominal temper
ature of 900°F to avoid excessive contraction and expansion of the refractory.
Initial startup each day therefore involves starting the shredder and conveyor,
turning on the induced draft fans and starting the feed cycle   ^Ing^t
begin shortly after the fans are activated to avoid cooling the unit.  ^^
no mixing is practiced in the receiving hopper, an attempt has been v***"^
production facility in downtown Indianapolis to segregate metal and glass bottles
from the paper waste in order to avoid the formation of glass clinkers in the
kiln.  Operating procedures for the unit call for firing any waste in glass
containers, such as returned products, with the initial charge each day   In
this way, kiln temperatures are kept under 1200°F, and the glass will not melt
prior  to discharge into the dumpster.  Once the available glass is charged
?he ram charge mechanism  charges the unit on a  1-1/2 minute  cycle ^en_solids
are available.  Firing at  an average rate of 750 pounds per  hour, the inciner-
ator will burn 3.3 tons per day.  Total  fuel use was estimated to be 9 to
 10,000 gallons per month  or 113  to  126 gallons  of No. 2 oil  per ton of waste.
Kiln  temperature  is  regulated and normally set  at  1600°F.  If  the temperature
 exceeds this  set  point, the feed mechanism is  shut down and  the forced draft
 fans  will cool the unit.   Kiln  temperatures greater  than  1800  F will put the
 unit  in an  emergency mode in which  the induced  draft  fan  is  shut down and  the
 bypass stack  is  used in order  to prevent excessive  temperatures on  the FKP-
 When  liquids  are  being pumped into  the kiln, a  cutoff temperature of  1400  F
 is used   Kiln temperatures in  excess of 1400°F will  stop  the  pumps  to protect
 the unit.   A  further protection for the  fiber  glass  reinforced plastic is  pro-
 vided by  a  Thermocouple  in the  precooler outlet which is  set at  100 C.   If this
 temperature is  exceeded,  the  induced draft  fan will shut  down and  the flue
 gases vented  via the bypass stack.   Since the initial startup, the  only  problem
 with the FEP  has been  some minor blistering due to momentary overheating.
 Water feed rates to the precooler and Venturi are constant.   Total  water usage
 is 30,000 gallons per  day or  9,090 gallons  per ton of waste.  Scrubber water
 PH is continually monitored and recorded and automatically adjusted.  Sodium
 hydroxide solution is  mixed onsite to a strength of 25 to 37 percent sodium
 hydroxide,  and fed into the scrubber water in the surge tank.  Sodium hydroxide
 use varies with waste type, but normally ranges from 250 to 500 pounds per
 week of 100 percent caustic,  or 12.5 to 25 pounds per ton of waste.  The
 scrubber system included the following pumps:  separator, 100 gal/man;  clarifier
 feed  83 gal/min; overflow to Venturi, 7.3 gal/min.  Total electric consumption
 for these pumps, the forced draft and induced draft fans, the shredder  conveyor,
 and fuel feed pumps amounted to 40 to 50,000 kWh/month or 500 to 630 kWh/ton
 of refuse.  Prior to discharge through the stack, flue gases pass through a
 packed bed separator.   The initial packing material consisted of plastic saddles.
 They  have a softening-flowing temperature of about 170 F and melted during one
 high-temperature excursion.  They were replaced with ceramic  saddles, which
 have  required no maintenance.  No cost data was available for either the  initial
 unit  cost or operating and maintenance  costs.  A preventive maintenance program
 is in effect at Dow Chemical and all fans, pumps and motor-driven  equipment are
 inspected and oiled daily.  The entire  incineration  system  undergoes a  thorough
 inspection annually.  Minor changes have been  made on the system since  initial
 installation including:   a larger  caustic pump, a new hydraulic shredder  motor,
                                      357
                                                   GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION

-------
an additional 8 feet added to the bypass stack and the fabrication of a
to enclose the scrubber system to avoid pipe freezeup in the winter.  No esti-
mate was available on life expectancy of the unit,

     D.   EMISSIONS

          An EPA Method 5 Particulate Emission Test was run on  the unit on
June 8, 1977.  While firing at about 1000 pounds per hour, the  measured emis-
sions were 0.1440, 0.1557 and 0.0884 pounds of particulate per  1000 pounds of
dry flue gas corrected to 50 percent excess air conditions.  The  three-run
average of 0.129 was approximately equal to 0.078 grains/dscf at  12 percent C02j
and was well below the state and county emission limitation of  0.3 lb/1000 Ibs
gas at 50 percent excess air.  There was a slight odor in the vicinity of the*
shredder and conveyor, but no odor due to the operation of the  kiln.  Fugitive
emissions were minimal, with the charging hopper and the ash removal system
being the only emission points.  The unit had not been cited for visible
emissions violations and a white steam plume was the only visible stack
emission.

II.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

     1.   A rotary kiln incinerator provides for versatility in industrial
          applications by its ability to accept various types of  solid and
          liquid wastes.

     2.   A rotary kiln incinerator can meet a strict emission  limitation
          (<0.10 gr/dscf at 12 percent C02) if equipped with an afterburner
          and a scrubber with a pressure drop of 35 in. w.g.

     3.   The 750 pound per hour incineration system at Dow Chemical is
          more complex and more capital intensive than would normally be
          required for most industrial/commercial applications  of this
          size.

     4.   The use of fiber glass reinforced plastic (FRP), will insure
          against acid-gas corrosion in an incineration system  provided
          temperatures are kept below 225°F to protect the FRP.

     5.   Incinerator refractory should be specified that is able to
          withstand daily heating and cooling cycles.  Without  such
          capability, the unit would require constant heating to maintain
          refractory temperatures when not burning waste or would sacrifice
          refractory life to avoid a fuel use penalty.
                                     358
                                                  GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION **A

-------
    


-------
designated representative of the Agency, GCA is subject to the  provisions
of 42 United States Code, Paragraph 7414(c), respecting confidentiality
of methods or processes entitled to protection as trade secrets.

     Enclosure 4 summarizes Agency and Emission Standards and
Engineering Division policies and procedures for handling privileged
information and describes EPA contractor commitments and procedures for
use of confidential materials.  It is EPA's policy that compliance by an
authorized representative with the requirements detailed in Enclosure 4
provides sufficient protection for the rights of submitters of
privileged information.

     The following policies concerning liability should also be of
interest to you:

     a.  If a Federal  employee is injured in the course of his employ-
ment, he has compensation coverage from the Government under the Federal
Employees Compensation Act (Title 5, United States Code, Section 8108,
et. seq.); and

     b.  If, due to the employee's negligence, property damage or
personal injury to third parties occurs, the Federal  Tort Claim Act
(Title 28, United States Code, Section 1346) provides a means of fixing
any liability upon the Federal Government.

     The Office of General Counsel, EPA, has informed the Agency that a
firm may not condition the "right of entry" by EPA or GCA Corporation
upon consent to a waiver of liability and has instructed employees not to
sign such waivers.  If you have any questions regarding this refusal,
please contact Mr. Donnell L. Nantkes, Office of Enforcement and General
Counsel, at (202) 755-0774.

     If you have any questions, please call me at (919) 541-5295 or
contact Mr. Larry Anderson at (919) 541-5301.

                                      Sincerely yours,
                                      Stanley T. Cuffe, Chief
                                     Industrial  Studies Branch
                                      Emission Standards and
                                       Engineering Division
4 Enclosures

cc:  Mr. Robert Mclnness, GCA Corporation
                                   360

-------
OCA/TECHNOLOGY  DIVISION
                                                9 October  1978
     Mr.  James Mason
     Manager of Waste  Control
     Dow Chemical
     Indianapolis,  Indiana  46248

     Dear Mr.  Mason:

               On 26 September  1978, Patricia Brown and Robert Mclnnes of GCA/
     Technology Division  and Larry Anderson and Robert Rosensteel  of the EPA visited
     the incinerator pla7it  at the Dow Chemical Company, Sales, Research and Develop-
     ment facility,  Indianapolis, Indiana.  Enclosed is a record of information
     gathered during that trip.

               Please  review the trip report and identify those  items of information
     which are considered to be proprietory.

               Any  information  for which Dow Chemical Company requests confidential
     treatment must  be so marked or designated by Dow Chemical Company and be
     accompanied by  a  statement as to why the information is confidential.  The points
     which should be addressed  in a claim of confidentiality are discussed in
     Section 2.204  (c) of 4(4 CFR Part 2, Subpart B and are enumerated below:

               1.  Which  portions of the material do you believe should be given
                   confidential treatment?

               2.  The period of time for which confidential treatment is desired.

               3.  Measures taken by Dow Chemical Company to guard against undesired
                  disclosure of this material to others.

               4.  Whether  Dow  Chemical Company asserts that disclosure of this
                  material would be likely to result in substantial harmful effects
                  on  its competitive position, and if so, what  those harmful effects
                  would  be, why they should be viewed as substantial, and an
                  explanation  of the casual relationship between  disclosure and such
                  harmful  effects.

               That  information which is confidential will be extracted from the main
     body of the trip  report and placed in an enclosure thereto.   This enclosure will
     be handled in accordance with the EPA document "Procedures  for Safeguarding
     1'r i vi li-ged Information", a copy of which was sent to you with the visit notification
     letter.
                                         361
   k IN .ROALV BEDFORD, MASSACHUSE' • ..• y  •.. ,' PHONE, 617-275-9000

-------
Mr.  James Mason                     --2-                    9  October  1978
          Your business confidentiality claim is due  21 days  after  receipt of
this letter.   If no claim is received within this time span,  the  trip  report
will be declassified.
                                     Sincerely yours,

                                    rTiU-J  A  '>'kj, ..*.,,

                                     Robert G.  Mclnnes
                                     Environmental  Engineer
•\< 'M/ jmn
Kncl

•. c :   Gi Ibert 11.  Wood,  EPA
                                     362

-------
 OCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
      TRIP REPORT:

      FROM:

      TO:

      PURPOSE:
      PLACE AND DATE:
      ATTENDEES:
      I.   DISCUSSION:
Eastman Kodak Company,  Rochester, New York

Robert G.  Mclnnes and Patricia Brown

Robert Rosensteel

To increase the understanding of  the incineration process and
control system at the Eastman Kodak Company for the screening
study to determine the  need  for standards of performance for
industrial and commercial  incinerators

Eastman Kodak Company,  Kodak Park Division, 1669 Lake Avenue,
Rochester, New York 14650 on 18  September 1978

Bruce Wing, Manager Utilities Division, Eastman Kodak Company,
   (716) 458-1000 ext.  75567
John Sherman, Assistant Superintendent Utilities Division,
Eastman Kodak Company
   (716) 458-1000
George Thomas, Environmental Engineer, Eastman Kodak Company,
   (716) 458-1000 ext.  722363
William Barr, Environmental  Engineer, Eastman Kodak Company,
   (716) 458-1000
Robert Rosensteel, Environmental  Engineer, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
   (919) 541-5301
Larry Anderson, Environmental Engineer, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
   (919) 541-5301
Patricia Brown, Environmental Engineer, GCA/Technology Division
   (617) 275-9000
Robert G.  Mclnnes, Environmental  Engineer GCA/Technology
Division
   (617) 275-9000
           A.  BACKGROUND

              The Eastman Kodak Company Kodak Park Division,  is  located in Rochester
      New York and employs approximately 33,000 employees.   An on-site  incineration
      system  installed in 1974 handles all paper,  packaging wastes and  general plant
      trash from four Kodak manufacturing plants,  a 19 story downtown office building
      and an  education facility in Rochester.  In addition, some  of  the industrial
      sludge  produced by Kodak Park's wastewater treatment  plant  is  handled by the
      centralized incineration system.  The system has a rated capacity of 7^ tons
      per hour (180 TPD) of trash and normally incinerates  80-90  TPD.   The maximum
      sludge  firing rate is 2240 pounds per hour of 15 percent moisture sludge.  The
      trash incinerated consists of approximately 50 percent paper and  50 percent
      plastics.  The plastics are generated in the manufacturing  plants and contain
                                          363
ARLINGTON ROAD, BEDFORD, MASSACHUSETTS 01730 / PHONE: 617-275-9000

-------
little or no polyvinyl chlorides (PVC).  All on-site food preparation waste is
ground and discharged into the city sanitary sewer.  Glass and metals are
separated from the trash by air classification prior to incineration and are
landfilled.

         Due to the chemical sludge (Type 5 waste) that is incinerated in the
unit, the incinerator is classified by the New York State, Department of
Environmental Conservation as a process source.  As such, the unit is required
to meet the N.Y. D.E.C. Part 212 emission limitation of 0.3 pounds of particulate
per 1000 pounds of undiluted exhaust gas.

     B.  PROCESS

         The incineration system at Kodak Park consists of several integrated
operations for the shredding and air classification of trash, the drying and
transfer of sludge and the actual burning of the refuse and sludge with
associated heat recovery and flue gas clean-up.  Refer to the enclosed diagram
for an overview of the disposal system.  The entire system is housed in a
separate building in Kodak Park (Building 145) and resembles a municipal
incinerator in both size and complexity.  Only solid waste and some sludge is
Handled in this operation.  Chemical wastes generated by Kodak are  incinerated
in a separate rotary kiln incinerator (Building 119) and most sludge generated
onsite by the King's Landing wastewater treatment plant is disposed of by a
multiple hearth incinerator located at the treatment plant.

         Refuse is brought to the trash incinerator by Kodak trucks on a
continual 24 hour basis and unloaded into a 380 ton capacity storage pit.  Prior
to pickup, most metals are segregated and hauled to the Kodak Park salvage yard.
An overhead crane mixes the refuse to get an even paper-plastic mix and feeds
Lt into a hydraulic ram which feeds a vertical refuse shredder rated at 35 tons
per hour.  The shredder is equipped with a water spray to guard against the
occasional fires that have started in this area.  Experience has shown Kodak
that refuse with a moisture content of about 10 percent will shred more uniformly
so the refuse is normally wetted at this point.  Refuse is then shredded into
2 inch sized pieces and fed into an air classifier where the glass, metals and
other heavier materials are segregated by gravity.  This fraction is landfilled
on site at Kodak Park.  The shredded paper and plastic then pass through a cyclon
which separates the refuse from the classifier carrier air.  This air is cleaned
in a wet scrubber prior to discharge to the atmosphere.  The refuse is fed from
the cyclone to a 40 foot high by 27 foot diameter silo where it is stored until
required by the boiler.  Shortly after start-up, problems were experienced with
shredded refuse compacting in the storage silo causing plugging of the transfer
screws.  This problem was overcome by the addition of vertical mixing screws
in the storage silo and by limiting the amount of refuse stored at one time.
Horizontal screws at the base of the storage silo feed a pneumatic system which
delivers the trash to the boiler.  This pneumatic system is powered by 4
parallel blowers rated at 850 CFM each.  These blowers convey the refuse to the
four corners of the 7000 cubic foot furnace where it is fired.  The refuse burns
in suspension.  Incineration of the solid waste takes place in a .Combustion
Engineering water walled boiler, Model VU-40 designed for refuse firing.  As
mentioned, the boiler has a maximum input rating of 15,000 pounds per hour of

                                     364
                                                  GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION

-------
   e  capacities, aided by auxiliary fuel, or
fired  with auxiliary  fuel only.  Auxiliary fuel  is number 6 oil with
content  of 1.7  percent.  Fuel usage can be categorized as follows.
                                                                         fur
                                                                      sulfur
    Percent of Time

          60


          10


          10
          15
                                   Service

                                  Refuse burning
                              (with or without  sludge)

                                  Grate cleaning
                              (no refuse, no sludge)

                                  Sludge burning
                                    (no refuse)
                                  Steam for plant
                                  distribution

                              Boiler out of service
No. 6 Oil Usage
  300-500 Ib/hr


 2200-2500 Ib/hr


 4500-6500 Ib/hr


 6500-9500 Ib/hr


      None
     Annual No.  6  oil  consumption amounts to 1,000,000 gallons.

         Combustion  air  for  the boiler  is supplied by one forced draft Jan rated
at 46,600 CFM at 80°F  and  21.9 inches H20 S.P.  Boiler air distribution is as
follows:

         80,000  Ib/hr  under grates
         28,000  Ib/hr  added with oil
         10,000  Ib/hr  refuse auxiliary air
         15,000  Ib/hr  added with refuse air blower

         18,000  Ib/hr  added with  sludge air blower

         Sludge with a 15-18 percent solids content  is brought to the incinerator
building from the treatment plant  and dumped into a  separate storage bin   From
here it  is conveyed to a mixer where it mixes with previously dried sludge
Sludge leaving  this mixer has a moisture content of  approximately 50 percent.
Tne 'sludge next passes to a cage mill where it contacts 1000°F flue gas from
the  boiler and  all but 15 percent of the moisture is flashed off.  The dried
sludge and cooled gas (200°F) next pass to a cyclone where the gas is separated
and  sent back to  the boiler where it is injected at a point above the flame.
Exiting  the  cyclone,  the  sludge is divided:  90 percent is recycled to the
sludge mixer and  the  remaining 10 percent  is fed into the boiler   Since the
boiler is utilized  only when the multiple  hearth incinerator at the wastewater
treatment plant is  firing at capacity,  the amount of sludge fed to the boiler
varies and sludge firing  is  intermittent.  Sludge and trash are fed to the
boiler at identical levels  to insure the complete combustion of both.
                                      365
                                                   GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION

-------
         The boiler is equipped with 4 grates to capture  refuse  ash.  Ash removal
from the boiler is accomplished by dumping one grate  every  two hours  into a
vacuum conveying system which also captures precipitator  ash and transfers it
to a separate ash silo.  Here it is wetted then loaded  into railroad  cars and
sent to a company in Canada where silver is recovered.  Plant personnel estimated
that 3 percent of the refuse is ash.  In addition  the ash contains  10 percent
combustibles and this has led to occasional problems  of smoldering  ash in the
ash storage silo.

         From the boiler, the products of combustion  pass through an  economizer
section and an air preheater before entering a Wheelabrator Frye electrostatic
precipitator.  Constructed of Corten steel, the precipitator is  rated at 101,500
ACFM at 625°F and a 0.4 inch H20 pressure drop.  The  unit is rated  at 99 percent
efficient and Eastman Kodak tests have indicated an efficiency of 97.6 percent.
The flue gases then pass through an induced draft  fan rated at 119,600 CFM at
625°F and 9.4 inches H20 S.P.  before exiting to the  atmosphere  through a radial
brick stack.  The precipitator was selected over a wet  scrubber  because of price
considerations and the familiarity of plant personnel with  this  type  of control
equipment.

         Due to the absence of PVC plastics in the refuse,  there have been no
corrosion problems with boiler tubes or ductwork in the boiler or precipitator.
Plugging of the boiler tubes with incompletely burnt  refuse has  been  an
occasional problem.  Clinker formation on the grates, requiring  manual removal
has also proved to be an infrequent problem area.

         The entire system is nominally run 21 hours  a day, 7 days  a  week.
When trash is not fired, the unit is kept at operating temperature  with
auxiliary fuel.  During annual overhaul and inspection, trash is landfilled.

         The incineration system is equipped with  a control room which monitors
essential combustion parameters including air flow, fuel  oil flow,  economizer
inlet temperature, stack opacity, etc.  The plant  operating log  is  maintained
for 6 months on-site.  Reliability of the monitoring  equipment is good.  Refuse
firing rate is not measured and if needed is usually  back calculated  from out-
put steam flow.  Boiler efficiency has been estimated to  be 70 percent.

         A routine maintenance procedure is in effect at  Kodak Park,  and there
have been few equipment problems other than grinders  in the shredding equipment
wearing out.  Since installation in 1974, the only plant  modifications have
been improvements in the waste handling system (new conveyors, vertical screws
in refuse silo).  No modifications are planned for the future.

         No data was available on capital or operating and  maintenance costs
for the unit.  In addition, total waste and sludge consumption and  total electric
usage was unavailable so no estimate could be made for auxiliary fuel/ton of
waste and/or sludge or kwh/ton of waste.
                                      366
                                                   QCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION

-------
     C.   EMISSIONS

         A 3 run E.P.A.  Method 5 particulate emission test  was  run by Kodak
personnel on the incinerator between October 8 and October  15,  1974.   Con-
current  with these tests,  10 sulfur dioxide tests and 10 hydrogen chloride
tests were conducted utilizing Method 6 for S02 and a bubbler/reagent technique
for HCl.  The unit was fired with maximum practicable refuse and  sludge rates,
augmented by auxiliary fuel during all test runs.  While the isokinetic measure-
ments for all 3 particulate runs was high, (> 110 percent)  the  test results give
a qualitative indication of system performance.  Particulate emissions were
0.077, 0.071, and 0.138 pounds per 1000 pounds of undiluted exhaust gas.  The
3 run average of 0.095 compared favorably with the N.Y.  D.E.C.  limit  of 0.3
lbs/1000 pounds undiluted exhaust gas.  Expressed as a mass emission  rate,  the
particulate emissions averaged 16.7 pounds/hour.  Sulfur dioxide  emissions for
the 10 tests averaged 359 PPM by volume or 144.7 pounds  per hour.  Hydrogen
chloride emissions averaged 127 PPM or 28.9 pounds per hour.

         Odors were discernable in the vicinity of the sludge handling equipment
although no odors were apparent from the operation of the incinerator itself.
As all charging and ash removal is accomplished with closed pneumatic systems,
the only fugitive emission point was the unloading dock, and here emissions
were minimal.  There were no discernable stack emissions at the time  of the
plant visit.

II.  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

     The trash incineration system at Kodak Park is an excellent  demonstration
of the advantages of large scale (> 50 TPD) industrial incineration.   Waste is
handled with a minimal amount of problems, particulate emission levels are
substantially, below applicable levels and heat is recovered as  a  byproduct of
combustion.  In addition,  the system uses the waste heat of combustion to pre-
treat industrial sludge prior to incineration, thereby minimizing overall
energy use.  While this system is not readily adaptable  to  other  industrial or
commercial sites due to its large size, the basic concepts  of waste handling
and disposal and energy recovery can be applied elsewhere.
                                     367
                                                  GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION

-------
                                           EASTMAN KODAK COMPANY

                                        COMBUSTIBLE \ftfeSTE DISPOSAL SYSTEM
u>
c^
00

-------
            UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                       Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                      Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
                              7   SEP  1978
Mr. Wayne Givens
Eastman Kodak Corporation
1669 Lake Avenue
Rochester, Mew York 14650

Dear Mr. Givens:

     This letter is to request a visit by Mr. Robert Mclnness of GCA
Corporation to the Eastman Kodak Corporation in Rochester, Now York,  for
a day during the week of September 18, 1978.  Mr. Mclnness will contact
you to arrange the specific dates for the visit.  Messrs. Larry Anderson
and Robert Rosensteel of my office may accompany GCA during the visit.

     As you may know, the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) is currently considering developing anission standards for air
pollutants emitted from new or modified industrial and commercial
incinerators in accordance with Section 111 of the Clean Air Act.  EPA
contracted GCA Corporation (Contract Number 68-02-2607, Work Assignment
Number 18) to obtain information pertinent to this industry, such as
plant location, nature and quantity of emissions, and control techniques
Currently in use or planned.  During the visit, they are interested in
obtaining emission data, design data, and operating data for your
general  refuse incinerator and silver recovery furnace.  If possible.,
thsy would also like to gather information on your chemical  incinerator.
Enclosure 1 is an example of the type of questions GCA may ask during
the visit.

     The authority for EPA's information gathering and for conducting
source tests is included in Section 114 of the Clean Air Act (42 United
Sidles Code, Paragraph 7414).  Enclosure 2 contains a summary of this
authority.  If you believe that disclosure of information gathered
during our visit (including photographs or visual observation of
processes, equipment, etc.) would reveal  a trade secret, you should
clearly identify such information as discussed in the enclosure.  Any
information subsequently determined to constitute a trade secret, will be
jiruU;c!:od undor Title 18, United States Code, Section 1905.   All
emission data, however, will  be available to trie public-

     As  noted in Enclosure 3, GCA Corporation has been designated by  EPA
as an authorized representative of the Agency.  Therefore, GCA
Corporation has the rights discussed above and in Enclosure 2 and., as a
                                369

-------
designated representative of the Agency, is subject to the provisions of
42 United States Code, Paragraph 7414(c), respecting confidentiality of
methods or processes entitled to protection as trade secrets.

     Enclosure 4 summarizes Agency and Emission Standards and
Engineering Division policies and procedures for handling privileged
information and describes EPA contractor commitments and procedures for
use of confidential materials.  It is EPA's policy that compliance by an
authorized representative with the requirements detailed in Enclosure 4
provides sufficient protection for the rights of submitters of
privileged information.

     The following policies concerning liability should also be of
interest to you:

     a.  If a Federal  employee is injured in the course of his employ-
ment, he has compensation coverage from the Government under the Federal
Employees Compensation Act (Title 5, United States Code, Section 8108,
et. seq.); and

     b.  If, due to the employee1^ negligence, property damage or
personal injury to third parties occurs, the Federal  Tort Claim Act
('Mt'le 28, United States Code, Section 1346) provides a means of fixing
any liability upon the Federal Government.

     The Office of General Counsel, EPA, has informed the Agency that a
firm may not condition the "right of entry" by EPA or GCA Corporation
upon consent to a waiver of liability and has instructed employees not to
sign such waivers.  If you have any questions regarding this refusal,
p'icdse contact Mr. Donnell L. Nantkes.  Office of Enforcement and General
Counsel, at (202) 755-0774.

     If you have any questions, please call me at (919) 541-5295 or
contact Mr. Larry Anderson at (919) 541-5301.

                                      Sincerely yours,
                                              *y  /,  C
                                      Stanley If Cuffe,  ttrtCf
                                     Industrial  Studies  Branch
                                      Emission Standards arid
                                       Engineering Division
4 Enclosures

cc:  Mr. Robert Mclnness, GCA Corporation
                                  370

-------
GCA/TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
                                                4 December 1978
     Mr. Wayne Glvens
     Eastman Kodak Corporation
     1669 Lake Avenue
     Rochester, New York  14650

     Dear Mr. Civens:

               On 20 September 1978,  Patricia  Brown and Robert Mclnnes of CCA/
     Technology Division and Larry Anderson  and Robert Rosensteel of the EPA
     visited the incinerator plant at Kodak  Park.  Enclosed is a record of information
     gathered during that trip.

               Please review the trip report, and  identify those items of information
     which are considered to be proprietory.

               Any information for which Eastman  Kodak Corporation requests
     confidential treatment must be so marked  or  designated by Eastman Kodak and  be
     accompanied by a statement as to why the  information is confidential.  The
     points which should be addressed in a claim  of confidentiality are discussed in
     Section 2.204(c) of 40 CFR Part  2, Subpart B and are enumerated below:

               1.  Which portions of  the material do you believe should be given
                   confidential treatment?

               2.  The period of time for which confidential treatment is desired.

               3.  Measures taken by  Eastman Kodak Corporation to guard against un-
                   desired disclosure of this  material to others.

               4.  Whether Eastman Kodak Corporation asserts that disclosure of this
                   material would be  likely  to result in substantial harmful effects
                   on its competitive position, and if so, what those harmful effects
                   would be, why they should be viewed as substantial, and an
                   explanation of the casual relationship between disclosure and  such
                   harmful effects.

               That information which is confidential will be extracted from the  main
     body of the trip report and placed in an  enclosure thereto.  This enclosure  will
     be handled in accordance with the EPA document "Procedures for Safeguarding
     Privileged Information", a copy  of which  was sent to you with the visit notification
     letter.
                                          371

     ROAD. BtDfORD, MASSACHUSETTS 01730 / PHONE 617-275-9000

-------
Mr. Wayne Givens
-2-
4 December \
          Your business confidentiality claim is due 21 days after receipt of
this letter.  If no claim is received within this time span, the trip report
will be declassified.
                                       Sincerely yours,
                                       Robert G. Mclnnes
                                       Environmental Engineer
ROM/jma
End.

cc:  Robert Rosensteel, EPA
                                     372

-------
                                                                  Enclosure 1
                  INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL INCINERATORS
I.     PROCESS EQUIPMENT
        A.   Incinerator
              1.   Age
              2.   Type, Manufacturer, Model No.
              3.   No. of furnaces, corresponding capacities
              4.   Design specifications
                    (a)  dimensions of chambers, ducts, passages, grates,
                         etc.
                    (b)  design flow rates, air breakdown of sources
                         (underfire, overfire, secondary), induced or
                         natural draft, pressure drop (in H20) where
                         applicable
                    (c)  design charge rate or loading (lb/hr-ft2)
                    (d)  design temperature(s)
                    (e)  materials of construction
        B.   Air Pollution Control (APC) Device(s)
              1.   Types and arrangement, manufacturer
              2.   Design specifications
                    (a)  dimensions
                    (b)  design flow rates, pressure drops, temperature
                    (c)  materials of construction
        C.   List and Description of Flow Equipment (blowers, pumps, etc.)
II.   PROCESS OPERATION
        A.   Incinerator
              1.   Charge method (continuous, batch), procedure
              2.   Grate speed
              3.   Auxiliary burners
                    (a)  fuel type
                    (b)  fuel rate, Btu/hr, Btu/lb refuse
                    (c)  operational procedures, frequency of use, manual
                         or automatic control
              4.   Operating schedule, hr/day, days/wk
              5.   Actual burning rate (TPD)
                                    373

-------
      6.   Actual air flow rates, pressure drops, temperatures
          (thermocouple location), loadings (lb/hr-ft2);
          variability of values, predicted accuracy of values;
          method used to obtain values (weigh-ins/weigh-outs, etc.)
      7.   Procedure for temperature control (air flow, use of
          water, etc.)
      8.   Mixing in pit practiced?  Procedure?
      9.   Nature and frequency of shutdown/start-up procedures
     10.   Ash removal procedure:  frequency, ultimate disposal
B.  APC Equipment
      1.   Actual flow rates, pressure drops, entrance temperature;
          variability of values, predicted accuracy of values
      2.   Specific information on the following APC apparatus
          if present
            (a)  electrostatic precipitator
                   •  primary current (amps) and voltage (volts)
                   •  secondary current (mA) and voltage (kV)
                   •  spark rate, spk/min
            (b)  scrubber
                   •  scrubber type
                   •  liquid type and flow, gal/min, once-through
                      or recirculated
                   •  pressure drop, in.  H20
            (c)  fabric filter
                   •  pressure drop across filter, at start and
                      finish of cycle, shake cycle
                   •  nominal and/or absolute pore size
                   •  high temperature or humidity problems
            (d)  after-burner
                   •  type (direct-flame, catalytic)
                   •  burner fuel (gas, oil)
                   •  burner design (nozzle-mixing, pre-mixing
                      multi-port, mixing-plate)
                   •  method of adding combustion air
                   •  discharge temperature frequency
                   •  activiation/deactivation procedure, frequency
                      and duration
      3.   APC unit abatement/removal efficiency
                            374

-------
III.   REFUSE CHARACTERISITCS
        A.   Composition and Nature of Refuse
        B.   Variability of Composition
        C.   Frequency of Various Types of Refuse
        D.   Preparation Practices
IV.   EMISSION DATA
        A.   Emission Test Conducted?
              1.   When?
              2.   Method?
              3.   Results:
                    -  Ib/hr
                       Ib/ton refuse
                    -  grains/dscf at 12 percent C02
                    -  lb/1000 Ib gas at 50 percent excess air
        B.   Estimated Values if no test was performed
              1.   Estimated uncontrolled emissions (Ib/hr)
              2.   Assumed overall control efficiency
              3.   Estimated controlled emissions (Ib/hr)
        C.   Emission Breakdown, Uncontrolled and Controlled
              1.   Particulates, Ib/hr, Ib/ton refuse, volume percent
                  in airstream for individual components
V.    INSTRUMENTATION
        A.   Types
        B.   Reliability
VI.   PHYSICAL OBSERVATIONS
        A.   Conditions of Interest:  Corrosion, Plugging, temperature
            Effects, Leaks in the Following:
              1.   Equipment for delivery/charging
              2.   Burning components (grates, refractory surfaces,
                  air supply)
              3.   Residue handling (quench, conveyor, etc.)
              4.   Gas cooling equipment (nozzles, water handling,
                  distribution)
              5.   APC equipment
        B.   Preventive'and Corrective Maintenance Employed

                                    375

-------
        C.  Plume Opacity Estimate
        D.  Odors
        E.  Fugitive Emissions - Charging Unit, Ash Removal
VII.  PLANT RECORDS
        A.  Inspections (See IV-A)
        B.  Modifications Since Installed
              1.  Nature of alterations, additions
              2.  Reason for Change
        C.  Future Modifications Planned
                                    376

-------
                  EPA's Information Gathering Authority
                  Under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act
     Congress has given the Environmental  Protection Agency broad

authority to secure information needed in the development of standards

of performance for new stationary sources under Section 111 of the Clean

Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7411).  Among other things, Section 114 of the Act

(42 U.S.C.  7414) authorizes EPA to make inspections, conduct tests,

examine records, and require owners or operators of emission sources to

submit information reasonably required for the purpose of developing such

standards.   In addition, the EPA Office of General  Counsel has interpreted

Section 114 to include authority to photograph or require submission of

photographs of pertinent equipment, emissions, or both.

     Under Section 114, EPA is empowered to obtain information described

by that section even if you consider it to be confidential .  You may,

however, request that EPA treat such information as confidential.  Infor-

mation obtained under Section 114 and covered by such a request will

ordinarily be released to the public only if EPA determines that the

information is not entitled to confidential  treatment.*  Procedures to be

used for making confidentiality determinations, substantive criteria to be

used in such determinations, and special  rules governing information
*  Section 114 requires public availability of all emission data and
authorizes disclosure of confidential  information in certain circum-
stances.   See 40 FR 36902,  36912 (September 1, 1976).
                                   377

-------
obtained under Section 114 are set forth in 40 CFR Part 2 published in the



Federal Register on September 1, 1976  (40 FR 36902).



     If you believe that disclosure of any information EPA requests would



reveal  trade secrets or other confidential information, you should clearly



identify such information [see Section 2.203(b)].  If you wish, you may



also set forth reasons for your claim and include supportive data or legal



authority at the time the claim is submitted (in most cases, there will be



an opportunity to do so later if a question concerning public availability



oT the information arises).
                                   378

-------
\ ,
             UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL. PROTECTION AGENCY
                       Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
                  DESIGNATION OF AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
    FOR  STANDARDS  OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES (SECTION 111)


      GCA/Technology Division is hereby designated an Authorized Representative
 of the  Administrator of the United States Environmental  Protection Agency for
 the purpose  of assisting in the development of standards of performance under
 42 U.S.C.  7411 for industrial  and commercial  incinerators, under Contract
 Number  68-02-2607, Assignment Number 18.

      This  designation is made pursuant to the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7414.
 The United States Code provides that, upon presentation of this credential , the
 Authorized Representative named herein:  (a)  shall have a right of entry to,
 upon, or through  any premises in which an emission source is located or in
 which records required to be maintained under 42 U.S.C.  7414(a)(l) are located,
 and (b)  nfay at reasonable times have access to and copy any records, inspect
 any monitoring equipment or method required under 42 U.S.C. 7414(a)(l) and
 sample  any emissions which the owner or operator of such source is required to
 sample.

      Authorized Representatives of the Administrator are subject to the
 provisions of 42  U.S.C. 7414(c) respecting confidentiality of methods or
 processes  entitled to protection as trade secrets, as implemented by 40 CFR
 2.301(h)  (41 F.R. 36912, September 1, 1976).


 Date:  June  29, 1978

 Designation  Expires:  October 1, 1978
                                           Walter C. Barber
                            Deputy Assistant Administrator for- Air Quality
                                        Planning and Standards
                                     379

-------
          Procedures_for Safcguarding Privilcged Information



     1.  Purpose:  This memorandum summarizes Agency policy and procedures

pertaining to the handling and safeguarding by the Emission Standards

and Engineering Division (ESED), Office of Air Quality Planning and

Standards, Office of Air and Waste Management, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, information that may be entitled to confidential treatment for

reasons of business confidentiality.

     2•  Other Applicable Documents:

          a.  Clean Air Act, as amended

          b.  40 CFR,  Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B - Confidentiality of

Business Information

          c.  EPA Security Manual, Part III, Chapters 8 and 9

     3.  Background:

     Section  114(c) of the Clean Air Act, as amended, reads as follows:

          "Any records, reports or information obtained under subsection (a)
     shall be available to the public, except that upon a showing satisfactory
     to the Administrator by any person that records, reports, or information,
     or particular pjrt thereof, (other than emission data) to which the
     Administrator has access under this section if made public, would
     divulge methods or processes entitled to protection as trade secrets
     of such  person, the Administrator shall consider such record,
     report,  or  information or particular portion thereof confidential
     in accordance with the purposes of Section 1905 of title 18 of the
     United States Code, except that such record, report, or information
     may be disclosed  to other officers, employees, or authorized represent-
     atives of the United States concerned with carrying out this Act or
     when relevant in  any proceeding under this Act."
                                   380

-------
     On September 1, 1976, EPA promulgated regulations (40 CFR Part 2)
which govern the treatment of business information, including that
obtained under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act.  These regulations
require EPA offices to include a notice with each request for information
which informs the business (a) that it may assert a claim o£ confidentiality
covering part or all of the information;  (b) of the method for asserting
a claim; and (c) of the effect of failure to assert a claim at time of
submission.  In addition, the regulations (.a) set forth procedures for
the safeguarding of confidential information; (b) contain provisions for
the release of confidential information to authorized representatives;
(c) contain provisions for the release of information to the Congress,
Comptroller General, other Federal agencies, State and local governments,
and courts; (d) restrict the disclosure of information within EPA"to
employees with an official need for the information; and (e) set forth
penalties for the wrongful disclosure of confidential information.
Further, the regulations contain the Agency's basic rules concerning the
treatment of requests for information under the Freedom of Information
Act (5 USC 552).
     4.  Procedures:
          a.  Request for Information
          Each request for information made under the provisions of
Section 114(a) will be signed by the Division Director.  The request
will include ESED's standards enclosure "EPA's  Information Gathering
Authority Under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act," which was designed to
meet the requirement of 40 CFR 2 discussed above.
                                 381

-------
                                   3


          b.  Receipt of Privileged Information


          Upon receipt of  information  for which  confidential  treatment


has been requested, the Office of  the  Director  (OD) will  direct the


logging in of the material and the establishment of a  permanent file.


If confidential  treatment  is  requested but  is not specifically marked,


the material will be stamped  "Confidential  Pending Determination."  In
1                                                                    i

compliance with  sections 2.204 and 2.208 of 40  CFR Part  2,  the Branch


Chief  responsible for the  information  requested  will review the information


to determine whether it is likely  to be confidential,  in  contrast to


being  available  in  open literature, and .whether  it likely provides its


holder with a competitive  advantage.   If the information  is clearly not


entitled  to confidential treatment, e.g., emission data,  the Branch


Chief  will prepare  a letter notifying  the business of  this  determination.


The  letter will  be  signed  by  the Division Director and copied to the


General Counsel.  If the information is possibly confidential, the


Branch Chief will,  by memorandum,  notify the 00  of this  finding, give a


brief  description of the material  (what it  is,  how many  pages, etc.),


identifying it with the correct ESED project number, and  list those


persons who will be authorized to  access the information.   The infor-


mation and memorandum will be hand carried  to the OD and  filed with


 the  material.  If privileged  information is received from an authorized


representative or a third  party the same procedure shall  be followed


with the  addition of clearly  identifying the information  and its source.


£PJ\  Form  1480-21, "Privileged Information Control  Record" shall be


enclosed with the folder containing the information.
                                382

-------
                                   4
     By law, information for which confidential treatment is requested
must be so marked or designated by the submitter and be accompanied by a
statement as to why the information is confidential.  EPA merely takes
additional measures to ensure that the proprietary designation is
uniformly indicated and immediately observable.  All unmarked or uncles ignated
information (except as noted below) will be freely releasable.
          c•  Storage of Privileged Information
          Privileged information folders, documents, or material shall
be secured, at a minimum, in a combination locked cabinet.  Normal ESED
procedure is to secure this information in. a cabinet equipped with a
security bar and locked using a four way, changeable combination padlock.
The locked file shall be under the control of the Office of the Director.

     Knowledge of the combination of the locking device will be limited
to the minimum number of persons required to effectively maintain normal
business operations.  Records of the locking device combination may be
made but shall be stored elsewhere in conformance with the requirements
of the EPA Security Manual.
     The combination of the lock will normally be changed whenever a
person with knowledge of the combination is transferred, terminates
employment;, or is no longer authorized access, or whenever the possibility
exists that the combination may have been subjected to compromise.
     Files may be checked out upon confirmation that the person is
authorized to receive the information.  All confidential files will be
                                 383

-------
                                   5

returned the same day they are removed, no later than 3:30 p.m.  The

intended user must sign the Privileged Information Control Record in the

presence of an Office of the Director staff member when the file is

checked out and when it is returned.

     The individual who signs out a confidential file is responsible for
                                                           *«•».
its safekeeping.  The file shall not be left unattended.  The information

shall not be disclosed to any non-authorized personnel.

     Storage procedures for privileged''information by an authorized

representative of EPA (see Section d. below) shall be, at a minimum, as

secure  as those established here for EPA.  Whenever privileged information

is removed from the EPA files to be transmitted to an authorized representativt

a memorandum shall be placed in the file  indicating what information was

transmitted, the date, and the recipient.

          d.  Access to Privileged  Information

          Only authorized EPA employees shall open and distribute

privileged  information.

     Only EPA employees who require and are authorized access to privileged

information in the performance of their official duties shall be permitted

to review documents and, after reviewing, shall sign and date EPA

Form 1480-21 to certify their access to the document.

     The privileged information file shall be controlled by the Office

CM- the  Director, ESEU.  Access to the information shall be strictly

enforced by that office.

     The ESED Branch through which the privileged information has been

requested or sent shall provide a memo for the record designating those
                                  384

-------
                                   6



personnel  who are authorized to use privileged information in performance



of their official duties in a program under which privileged information



can be requested.  No person is automatically entitled to access based



solely on  grade, position, or security clearance.  A need to know must



exist.  Where a person with a need to know is not designated on the memo



for the record, the applicable Branch Chief shall review that need and,



if appropriate, prepare an amendment to the memo of record.  In any



case, the memo designating authorized personnel should be reviewed and '



revised from time to time to ensure that it is current.



     Persons under contract to EPA to perform work for EPA may be



designated authorized representatives if such designation is necessary



in order for the contractor to carry out the work required by the



contract.   Under Sections 114, 208, and 307(a) of the Clean Air Act, as



amended, 42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq., EPA possesses authority to disclose to



authorized representatives information which might otherwise be entitled



to confidential treatment.  The following conditions shall apply when it



has determined that such disclosure is necessary in order that an authorized



representative may carry out the work required by EPA:



          (1)  The authorized representative and its employees shall



(a) use such confidential information only for the purposes of carrying



out the work required;  (b) refrain from disclosing the information to



anyone other than EPA without having received from FPA prior writton'



approval of each affected business or of an EPA legal office; and



(c) shall  return to EPA all copies of the information (and any abstracts



or excerpts therefrom) upon request or whenever the information is no



longer required for the performance of the work.





                                  385

-------
                                   7



          (2)  The authorized representative will obtain a written



agreement to honor the above-noted limitations from each of its employees



who will have access to the information, before such employee is allowed



such access.  A copy of each such agreement shall be furnished to EPA in



a format substantially complying with that shown  in Enclosure Bt



          (3)  The authorized representative acknowledges ancl agrees



that the conditions concerning the use and disclosure of business



information  are included for the benefit of, and  shall be enforceable



by, both EPA and any affected business having a proprietary interest in



the information.



     Although it is EPA's  policy that compliance  by an authorized



representative with the requirements here provides sufficient protection



for the rights of submitters of privileged information, EPA may permit



the authorized representatives to execute third party secrecy agreements



with submitters of privileged information.  However, the third party



agreement may not in any way abrogate or supersede any authority or



responsibility of EPA as provided by the Clean Air Act.



     Information may be released to or accessed by employees of other



EPA elements only upon receipt of a written justification signed by a



Division Director, or equivalent.  Release must be approved by the



Director, ESED.




     Piquesis from other Federal Agencies, Congress, Comptroller General,



Courts, etc. will be handled by the Office of the Director, ESED.
                                    386

-------
                                   8

     Requests under the Freedom of Information Act shall be handled in

accordance with 40 CFR Part 2 Subpart A.  The BED Freedom of Information

Coordinator shall be consulted prior to responding to any request for

information where a claim of confidentiality has been asserted or where

a claim might be made if the business knew release was  intended.  (The

latter could occur in the case of information received before we were

required to give the above discussed notice.)

          e.  Use and Disclosure of Privileged Information

          privileged Information may not be used in publications,

supporting documents, memorandas etc. that Become a part of the public

domain, except as provided for in 40 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B.

     Privileged  information may not be summarized, tabulated, photocopied,

or in any other way reproduced without the expressed written approval of
                                                                 •i—
the Branch Chief responsible for the information request.  Any authorized

reproduction shall be sparing and all procedures herein strictly followed.

Further, all authorized reproductions shall be introduced into the

privileged information control system and treated according to the same

procedures applicable to the original confidential material.

     EPA generated documents or material, or extracts of information

containing privileged information, shall be stamped "For Official Use

Only" and include on the first page and/or cover sheet  the following

statement:

          "This document contains data obtained under a pledge of
     confidence arid shall be handled and stored in accordance with
     Part III, Chapter 9 of the EPA Security Manual."
                                  387

-------
                                   9


          f.   HjmdVmq of Other Information


          Reports, memoranda, documents, etc. prepared by EPA or its


author!/.ed representatives are not normally circulated outside EPA for


comment or review prior to publication except in such cases as described


above where information claimed to be privileged is expressedly included.


However, because industry data gathering visits, plant inspections, and
                                                                     i

source testing can involve inadvertent receipt of privileged information,


it is the policy of ESED to protect all parties involved in the following


manner.


     Prior to a plant  inspection, data gathering visit, or source test,


EPA or its authorized  representatives will discuss with the responsible


industry official the  desired types of information to be obtained, how


it is  to be used, and  in general how  it is to be protected.  A copy of


this document may be  provided if so desired.


     Following an inspection, visit or test, a trip report will be


prepared to include.,  as best practicable, all information received by


EPA or its authorized  representative  during  the visit or test.  The


report may be prepared by either EPA  or its  authorized representative.


The draft  of that report will be prepared and clearly identified, for


example, on an enclosed, colored, cover sheet, as "Privileged Information -


Pending Company Review."  One copy of the draft trip report will be made


diid forwarded to the.-  responsible industry official for reivcw.  The


responsible industry  official will be requested by cover letter to


review the report, clearly mark any information considered to be confidential


and return the marked  report to the originator within two weeks of


receipt.



                                  388

-------
                                   10
     The reviewed report and the copy will  be simultaneously edited of
any privileged information, as marked by the responsible plant official.
Such information will be so designated and placed in the privileged
information files as described above.  The edited trip report will then
be completed and issued.
     At all times until the report is returned by the responsible
industry official and any information considered to be privileged is
removed, the draft report shall be treated as privileged information and
the procedures described here strictly adhered to.
     5.  Exceptions
     This document was prepared as a summary of data gathering and
handling procedures used by the Emission Standards and Engineering
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA.  Nothing in
this document shall be construed as superseding or being in conflict
with any applicable regulations, statutes, or policies to which EPA is
subject.
     6•  Definitions:
     Privileged Information - Information received under a request of
confidence which concerns or relates to trade secrets, processes,
operations, style of work or apparatus, or the identity, confidential
statistical data, amount, or source of any income, profits, losses, or
expenditures.  This information n;ay be identified by industry with such
titles as trade secret, secret, administrative secret, company secret,
secret proprietary, confidential, administrative confidential, company
confidential., confidential proprietary, proprietary, etc.  NOTE:  These
markings should not be confused with the classification markings of
National Secruity information identified in Executive Order 11652.
                                     389

-------
      PART  III    DOCUMENT SECURITY
      CHAPTER 9    PRIVILEGED  INFORMATION                                SECURITY
                                                                                           KI'A Order  ) IJQ
                                                                                           .Tune  12,  1974

                                              DO f.'OT DETACH
                                                                                         AI'Cl [L/V 1 ION t,(j~~



                                     rNvinouf.'r.NTAi. rnoif criorj AGI NCY                            *»


                               PRIVILEGED INFOStMATIOM CONTROL RECORD


     Th- .il I.i'hod infornvTimn V/.M rr.-r./rd unek-r o flL-d'r: u' con(,,!"ncc A^(!o from .Tny po-.-.ihlu v?curuy (la^ilic.itior^, it is conMikfi-il


l-i- -c.-rr-n A-) •.^ry ^fiiD.tls \/i!fi a u.ilul MI-, d Tor ,: A!i JM-.-^H- trvicv/mt; lln-v infurm.i t ion niu-.I ',ttjn b-jlo-.v.


U.TOCI.IATIOM ni rriuu'f) TO


                 NAMI.                                 SIGr.'ATUfiE                          DATE
tifjAi i rnoni ;'i t> nr;ci o",i irtr or THI' ATTACH! t> ^JI:OHMA i m^j irt> PUMIT-HAP.L E nv's i.ooo oo F;INC or; ir/.rr'jscjrjr.u NT
i .'or MOiii' THAN GMT vrAd. on r:oni. t,t:a HLMOV/M  FMOM orr ICL on CMHLOYMITJI . (ic use TJII'M
                                                 no COT DCTACH

 f PA f o-m 1 -(00-71 (7-71)
       TN 1
       8-0-70               Figure III-9-1.   Privileged  Information  Control  Record     CHAP 9

                                                      390

-------
                                  ENCLOSURE B
                 TREATMENT OF CONFIDENTIAL IlfFORM/VTION
It i« understood thtvfc performance tinder EPA Contract Ko. ^_	_	^	
vill reciuire the Contractor  ( _	}
and Itu employees to have acceos to confidential information obtained
"by EPA. under section	of the Clean Mr Act.  In fulfillment of
the conditions of disclosure contained in the Contract, !""_	
	_9 here"by affirm that I persont0.1y ^d.11 honor the
liialtutlons expreosed in the contract concerning my access to cuch.
information.

Specificelly, I shall:
                                         t
1.   use the information only for the purpose of carrying out the
     vork required hy the Contract;

2.   refrain from. Oducloclns the information to anyone other -than
     EPA vithout the prior written approval' of each affected 'bus i tie us
     or of en EPA legal office; and

3.   return to EPA, through  the Contractor, «11 copies of the in-
     formation (and any abstracts or excerpts therefrom) upon request
     "by the EPA Program Office or whenever the infonriation is no
     longer required by the  Contractor for the performance of vorlc
     required by the Contract.
      thio&i
-------
                                 APPENDIX B

                          EMISSION MEASUREMENT DATA


I.   SINGLE CHAMBER INCINERATORS

     The emission data cited in Table 62 are drawn from Los Angeles test

data;89-91* referenced to Los Angeles test procedures;1^9 or based on a

Battelle study of backyard incinerators180 which utilizes the Los Angeles

test methodology.  The Battelle study states its specific test procedures,

while the stack test techniques utilized in Los Angeles in the late 1950's -

early 1960's are discussed in a published article, JAPCA 6(4).225  These test

methods are summarized for each pollutant.

     A.   Farticulates:   Single point isokinetic sample utilizing three
          series connected impingers in an ice bath followed by an out
          of stack thimble filter.  Weight is determined gravimetrically.

     B.   S02/S03:  Paper thimble filter followed by impingers with
          5 percent sodium hydroxide solution.

          J3p_2:  Oxidize impinger catch with bromine, acidify and preci-
          pitate as barium sulfate.

          503:  Extract thimble with hot water and titrate solution with
          standard sodium hydroxide solution.

     C.   Carbon Monoxide:  Stack gas analyzed directly by infrared
          absorption spectroscopy.

     D.   Hydrocarbons:   Stack gas analyzed directly by infrared
          absorption spectroscopy.

     E.   Nitrogen Oxides:  Flue gas collected in evacuated bottles
          containing 1 percent potassium hydroxide and 1 percent
          hydrogen peroxide and analyzed chemically (Greiss colori-
          metric method  as modified by Saltzman).
                                      392

-------
     F.   Aldehydes:   Flue gas condensed in a liquid nitrogen trap and
          analyzed by infrared absorption spectroscopy.

     G.   Organics Acids:  Flue gas condensed in an ice bath, acidified
          with HC1, distilled, continuously extracted with ether, con-
          centrated and analyzed chemically for titrable acidity.  Infrared
          absorption spectroscopy of raw flue gas was also used on several
          sample runs.

     H.   Ammonia:  Flue gas collected in evacuated bottles containing
          2 percent HaSO^, followed by chemical analysis (method
          unstated).

     I.   Esters;  Flue gas condensed in a liquid nitrogen trap and analyzed
          by infrared absorption spectroscopy.

     J.   Phenols:  Same collection procedure as organic acid, analysis
          by ultraviolet spectroscopy.

II.  MULTICHAMBER

     Emission data for multichamber units again are primarily based on Los

Angeles county data.   References 149 (AP-42), 89 (AP-40) and 92 (Corey) all

report the results of 16 emission tests conducted by Los Angeles county,

utilizing the test methodology discussed in the previous section on single-

chambered units.   References 101 and 102 (JAPCA articles)  report the results

of testing done on experimental units while varying operating parameters (firing

practices,101 combustion air distribution101 and high volatile fuels102).  The

stated test procedures in these articles were the same as  those previously

described for particulates, carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons  and oxides of nitro-

gen.   Formaldehyde was measured by a colorimetric technique which involved

bubbling a sample of  the gas through chromatropic acid.  Reference 105 (A.D.L.

Report) has compiled  emission data on municipal multichamber units with capa-

cities of less than 10 ton/day.  No reference is made to test methodology.

Finally,  the data from 26 stack tests is reported.   Sixteen stack test report

summaries were received from the South Coast Air Quality Management District
                                     393

-------
(Los Angeles County).  These data are essentially the same test  results reported
by Reference 92 (Table 63) but converted to the common reporting format of dry
particulate catch only.  Here, too, Los Angeles test methodology was  employed.
In addition, the results of 10 particulate emission tests run  on uncontrolled
multichamber incinerators are reported to either GCA or  the  State of  Connecticut
are included.  These tests generally followed EPA Method 5 procedures, and are
summarized in Table 81.  The waste types listed are defined  in Table  1
of this report.
III.   CONTROLLED AIR
     Test methodology for controlled air incinerator emissions has not been
reported in all the references cited in Table 64.  Reference 140 (AP-42) gives
emission factors for particulates, sulfur oxides and nitrogen  oxides  but is
referenced to unpublished stack test data.  Acceptable EPA test  methodology
was assumed to be used.  The published particulate emission  data found in
Reference 117 was compiled from source test reports and  manufacturers data.
The test methodology (EPA Method 5), procedures and data accuracy were eval-
uated by the authors of this reference prior to publication.   Finally, the
results of 10 emission tests run on controlled air units and submitted by
equipment manufacturers to GCA is summarized in Table 82.  The PHS waste
listed is a standard composition waste prepared originally for the Public
Health Service for use in emission testing and incinerator evaluation.  It
consists of the following items.                          ,      .     ,
                                                          Approximately
     Corrugated Cardboard (1/2 in. strips)                 23  percent
     Newspaper (2 x 12 in. strips)                         22  percent
     Magazines (2 x 12 in. strips)                         17  percent
     Brown, wax-coated and plastic coated paper            15  percent
     Raw Potatoes (1/2x1/2x3 in.)                      23  percent

                                     394

-------
                          TABLE 81.   UNCONTROLLED MULTICHAMBER INCINERATOR EMISSION TESTS
•-O
Ul

Incinerator
manufacturer
Shenandoah
Shenandoah
Combustall
Smokatrol
Smokatrol
Smokatrol
Spronz
Federal
Federal
Federal
Incinerator
model
G-HW/ITC
I-71/ITC
200
200
600
200
RL-40
FPC-FMP-2BF
FPC-L-2BF
FE 10
Capacity Waste type Availability of
(Ib/hr) during test test report
120
45
200
150
600
200
300
60
650
520
4
80% - 4
20% - 0,1,2
0,1
0,1
0
0,1
0,1
4
0,1
0,1
Conn .
GCA
Conn.
Conn.
GCA
GCA
Conn.
GCA
GCA
GCA
3
3
3
3
2
1
3
1
Test Emissions
methodology (gr/dscf at 12% C02)
run
run
run
run
run
run
run
run
ASME
2
run
Method
Method
Method
Method
Method
Method
Method
Method
PTC-27
Method
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

5
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
033
048
058
067
015
067
042
126
166
161

-------
TABLE 82.  CONTROLLED AIR INCINERATOR EMISSION TESTS

Incinerator
manufacturer
Comtro

Comtro

Comtro

Comtro

Comtro
Kelley
Hoskinson
Kelley
Hoskinson
Kelley
Hoskinson
Kelley
Hoskinson
Northeast
Burn-Zol
Incinerator
model
A-35

A-24

A-35

A-22

A-22
1280
1280
780
380
184

Capacity
(lb/hr)
800

500

800

320

320
1280
1280
780
380
1200

Waste type
during test
P.H.S. 3

4 3

4 3

0 3

4 4
2 3
P.H.S. 2
P.H.S. 3
P.H.S. 3
4 2

Test Emissions
methodology (gr/dscf at 12% C02)
run Method
summary
run Method
summary
run Method
summary
run Method
summary
run Method
run Method
run Method
run Method
run Method
run Method

5

5

5

5

5
5
5
5
5
5

0.

0.

0.

0.

0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.

045

066

112

082

068
163
039
0412
078
080


-------
Novel Methods




     Test  data presented in Table 65 for multiple hearth and fluidized-bed




incinerators  were extracted from an EPA technology transfer seminar publication




on sludge  incinerators.152  All testing was conducted by the EPA using current




EPA test methods.   The test summaries for the multiple hearth units are given




in Tables  83  through 85 and for the fluidized-bed units in Tables 86




through 88.
                                     397

-------
          TABLE  83.   SLUDGE INCINERATOR  FACILITY B:   SUMMARY  OF  RESULTS

Item



Stack effluent:



CO? volume % dry 	
Oj volume % dry 	
CO volume % dry 	


HCI emissions ppm 	 	 	
Visible emissions % opacity 	
Paniculate emissions:
Probe and filter catch:
gr/dscf 	
gr/acf 	
Ib/h 	
Ib/ton of feed 	
Total catch:
gr/dscf 	
gr/acf 	 	
Ib/h 	
Ib/ton of feed 	

f
1
10-13-71
120
0.237
3,300
835,000
198
3.64
3.8
17.3
0
2.29 to 2.57


<10
0.0245
0.0187
0.690
291
00374
00289
1 06
447

^un numbe
2
10-14-71
120
0.236
2,950
750,000
196
4.02
4.7
1,40
0
2.75


<10
0.0196
00155
0495
2 10
00374
00287
0945
400

r
3
10-14-71
120
0.249
2,120
511,000
199
3.65
2.7
15.8
0
_
44.2 to 24.3
14.3
0.624 to 1.33
0.621
<10
0.0173
00132
0315
1 26
00457
00348
0832
"? 34




120
0.241
2,790
699,000
198
3.77
3.7
15.7
0
2.53
27.6
0.858
<10
0.0205
0.0158
0.500
209
00402
00308
0946
3 94

     Notc.-dscfm indicates dry standard cubic feet per minute; dscf indicates dry standard cubic feet; acf indicates actual cubic
feet.
     Source:  Background Information for Proposed New Source Performance Standards,  EPA Report APTD-13526, June 1973,
vol. 2, appendix.
    B.   Multiple-hearth (six hearths) incinerator, 750 Ib/h dry solids design capacity, operated at
         64 percent capacity during test, equipped with a 6-inch-water-pressure-drop single-
         crossflow perforated-plate impinjet scrubber (see table 3).
                                                398

-------
           TABLE 84.   SLUDGE  INCINERATOR FACILITY C:   SUMMARY  OF  RESULTS

Item
QatB 	
Test time minutes 	
Furnace feed rate tons/h dry solids . 	 	
Stack effluent:
Flow rate dscfm 	
Flow rate, dscf/ton feed 	
Temperature, F 	
Water vapor, volume % 	
COj, volume % dry 	
02 , volume % dry 	
CO, volume % dry 	
S02 emissions, ppm 	
NOX emissions, ppm 	
HCI emissions, ppm 	
Visible emissions, % opacity 	 .
Paniculate omissions:
Probe and filter catch:
gr/dscf 	
gr/acf 	 . 	
Ib/h 	
Ib/ton of feed 	
Total catch:
gr/dscf 	 	 	
gr/acf 	
!b/h 	
Ib/ton of feed 	


1
7-15-71
80
0.111
1,230
665,000
80
3.23
100
7 7
o
1 5.9 to 1 1 .9
402 to 140
3 50 to 2 62
<10
00127
0 00985
0 127
1 14
0 0195
00150
0 20B
1 86

Run number
2
7-15-71
80
0.149
1,490
600,000
80
3.00
10 1
7 3
o
14.5 to 14.6
90.8 to 74.3
2 33 to 2 62
<10
0 0620
0 0477
0 620
4 16
0 OfiQfi
0 0535
OROQ
c 07


3
7-16-71
80
0.146
1,400
575,000
77
2.95
10 2
74
0
14.6 to 13.3
14 5 to 142
50.6 to 61 .8
2 52 to 2 62
<10
OniQfi
0 01 *>?
0 196
1 "34
0 09fiO
00701
OT1O
21 A




80
0.135
1,373
613,000
79
3.06
10.1
7 5
o
14 2
163
2 72
<10
Omi4
0 0949
0 114
o 91
OniQA
OnoQc

.^oy
3OT
..CO
It'C'l.
     Note.- dsctm indicates dry standard cubic feet per minute; dscf indicates dry standard cubic feel; acf indicates actual cubic
     Source: Background Information for Proposed New Source Performance Standards, EPA Report APTD-13526 June 1973
vol. 2, appendix.
       C.    Multiple-hearth (six hearths) incinerator, 900 Ib/h dry solids design capacity, operated at
            35 percent capacity during test, equipped with a 6-inch-water-pressure-drop single-
            crossflow perforated-plate impinjet scrubber (see table 4).
                                                 399

-------
          TABLE  85.    SLUDGE  INCINERATOR  FACILITY E:   SUMMARY OF RESULTS
                        Item
                                                                    Run number
                                                            1
             Average
Date	        8-5-71

Test time, minutes

Furnace feed rate, tons/h dry solids	         0.689

Stack effluent:

     Flow rate, dscfm	         9,840
     Flow rate, dscf/ton feed
     Temperature, ° F  	           135
     Water vapor, volume %	          16.3
     CO2, volume % dry	           4.2
     02, volume %  dry	          14.9
     CO, volume % dry	             0
     S02 emissions, ppm	          2.01
     NOX emissions, ppm	   62.8 to 46.0
     HCI emissions, ppm 	          11.9

Visible emissions, % opacity  	          <10

Particulate emissions:

     Probe and filter catch:

          gr/dsf  	        0.0260
          gr/acf  	        0.0196
          Ib/h  	        2.19
          Ib/ton of feed	        3.18

     Total catch:

          gr/dscf 	        0.0335
          gr/acf  	        0.0252
          Ib/h	        2.83
          Ib/ton of feed	        4.11
                                                                         8-5-71

                                                                             96

                                                                          0.855



                                                                          8,510

                                                                            145
                                                                           18.6
                                                                            4.3
                                                                           14.9
                                                                              0
                                                                           2.07
                                                                    83.5 to 75.8
                                                                           6.83
                                                                         0.0136
                                                                         0.0099
                                                                         0.99
                                                                         1.16
                                                                         0.0221
                                                                         0.0159
                                                                         1.61
                                                                         1.88
     8-5-71
         »
         96

      0.290



     10,290

        145
       14.8
        2.2
       16.9
         0
       2.12
44.3 to 54.7
       10.9
     0.0134
     0.0101
     1.18
     4.07
     0.0170
     0.0128
     1.50
     5.17
    96

 0.611



 9,547

   142
  16.6
   3.6
  15.6
     0
  2.07
  61.2
  9.88
0.0177
0.0132
1.45
2.80
0.0242
0.180
1.98
3.72
     Note.-dscfm indicates dry standard cubic feet per minute; dscf indicates dry standard cubic feet; acf indicates actual cubic
fe.'t.
     Source: Background Information for Proposed New Source Performance Standards, EPA Report APTO-13526, June 1973,
vol. 2, appendix.


   E.   Multiple-hearth incinerator, 2,500 Ib/h dry solids design capacity, operated at about 50
        percent capacity during tests, equipped with a 2.5-inch-water-pressure
-------
            TABLE 86.   SLUDGE INCINERATOR FACILITY Al:   SUMMARY  OF  RESULTS

Item


Furnace feed rate ton/h dry solids 	
Stack effluent:
Flow rate dscfm 	
Flow rate dscf/ton feed . . 	
Temperature, " F 	 , 	
Water vapor volume % . . 	
CO2 volume % dry 	 	
Oj volume % dry 	
CO volume % dry 	
SOj emissions ppm ... . . 	
NOX emissions ppm 	
HCI emissions, ppm 	
Visible emissions, % opacity 	
Paniculate emissions:
Probe and filter catch:
gr/dscf 	
gr/acf 	 	
Ib/h 	
Ib/ton of feed 	
Total catch:
gr/dscf 	
gr/acf 	
Ib/h 	
Ib/ton of feed 	 	

F
1
1-11-72
108
0.550
2,880
314,000
59
1.93
12.8
4.8
0
<0.3
4.2
<3.8
<10
0.024
0023
0 583
1.06
0 032
0 031
0 779
1 42

un numbe
2
1-12-72
108
0.560
2,550
273,000
59
1.92
12.6
4.7
0
<0.3
5.7
<2.9
<10
0.005
0005
0 116
0 207
0 007
0 007
0 160
0 286


3
1-12-72
108
0.560
2,660
285,000
59
2.23
11.5
6.4
0
<0.3
6.4
<4.1
<10
0.004
0004
0099
0 177
0 010
0 010
0 227
0 405

Average


108
0.557
2,700
291,000
59
2.03
12.3
5.3
0
<0.3
5.4
<3.6
<10
0011
001 1
0 266
0 481
0 01RT
0 Olfi
0 "3RQ
0704

feet.
     Noli!.-- dscfm indicates dry standard cubic feet per minute; dscf indicates dry standard cubic feet; acf indicates actual cubic
     Source: Background Information for Proposed New Source Performance Standards, EPA Report APTD-13526, June 1973,
vol. 2, appendix.
                                                 401

-------
           TABLE  87.   SLUDGE INCINERATOR FACILITY A2:   SUMMARY OF RESULTS

Item
Pate 	


Stack effluent:
Flow rate dscfm 	



COj volume % dry (less auxiliary fuel) . 	
SOj emissions' 	
Visible emissions Ringelmann No 	
Particulate emissions, total catch:
gr/dscf (corresponds to 1 2% C02 ) . . . 	
gr/acf 	
Ib/h 	
Ib/ton of feed 	

1
1
5-3-71
60
0.325
3,480
642,500
80
3.4
4.0

<1
0.020
0.019
0.596
1.84

^un number
2
5-4-71
60
0.325
3,600
664,600
80
3.4
5.1

<1
0.031
0.029
0.956
2.94


3
5-4-71
60
0.325
3,320
612,900
78
3.4
4.0

<1
0.048
0.047
1.365
4.20


Average

60
0.325
3,470
640,600
79
3.4
4.4

<1
0.033
0.032
0.972
2.99

      No SO2 detected.
      Opacity was not recorded.
     Note.-Tested by local agency using code method 1. Probe and filter catch not analyzed separately, dscfm indicates dry
standard cubic feet per minute; dscf indicates dry standard cubic feet; acf indicates actual cubic feet.
     Source:  Background Information for Proposed New Source Performance Standards. EPA Report APTD-13526, June 1973,
vol. 2, appendix.


    A.   Fluidized-bcd reactor, 1,100 Ib/h dry solids design capacity, operated at 100 percent
         capacity during test, equipped with a 20-inch-water-pressure-drop venturi scrubber
         operated at 18 inches water pressure drop. Tested by EPA and by a State agency, the lat-
         ter using code method 8 (see tables 1 and 2).
                                                 402

-------
           TABLE 88.    SLUDGE  INCINERATOR FACILITY D:    SUMMARY  OF  RESULTS

Item


Furnarc food rate tons/h dry solids 	
Stack effluent:
Flow rate, dscfm 	
Flow rate dscf/ton feed 	 	
Temperature, F 	
Water vapor, volume % 	
C02 , volume % dry 	
Oj volume % dry 	
CO, volume % dry 	
S02 emissions ppm 	
NO,, emissions, ppm 	
HCI emissions, ppm 	
Visible emission, % opacity 	
Particulate emissions:
Probe and filter catch:
gr/dscf 	
gr/acf 	
Ib/h 	
Ib/ton of feed 	
Total catch:
gr/dscf 	
qr/acf 	
Ib/h 	 	
Ib/ton of feed 	


1
7-21-71
120
0.255
1,190
280 000
99
3.92
8.8
63
0
8 29 to 1 1 2
1 54 to 1 68
0.780 to 260
<10
00551
00468
0 562
2 20
00665
00565
0678
2 66

Run number
2
7-21-71
96
0.237
1,170
296,000
99
4.90
9.9
7.4
0
14 8 to 14.8
41 ? to 429
4.16 to 1 56
<10
0 0766
0 0650
0 768
3 24
00859
0 0729
0 861
3 63


3
7-22-71
96
0.202
1,240
368,000
95
3.48
9.1
8.2
0
1 4 2 to 1 5 4
17.8
187 to 170
161
2 35 to 2 09
<10
0 0545
00467
0 579
2 87
0 0653
nQKcq
0 BQ4
0 JO




104
0.731
1,200
315,000
98
3.83
9.3
7.3
0
13 8
132
2 26
<10
0 0671
0 OBPR
0 mfi
•) 77
0079R
Onfiifl
0~1AA
3OA

feet.
     Note.—dscfm indicates dry standard cubic feet per minute; dscf indicates dry standard cubic feet;
     Source: Background Information for Proposed New Source Performance Standards, EPA Report
vol. 2, appendix.
acf indicates actual cubic

APTD-13526. June 1973,
  D.   Fluidized-bed reactor, 500 Ib/h dry solids design capacity Asperated at 95 percent capac-
       ity during test, equipped with a 4-inch-water-pressure-drop single-crossflow perforated-
       plate impinjet scrubber (see table 5).
                                                 403

-------
                        APPENDIX C

                     LIST  OF CONTACTS


 STATE AND LOCAL AIR QUALITY OFFICES

 Mr.  Fred Thomas
 Alabama Air Pollution  Control  Commission
 Montgomery, AL  36104
 (205) 832-6770

 Mr.  Stan Hungermord
 Air  Quality Control
 Department of Environmental Conservation
 Juneau, AK  99811
 (907) 465-2631

 Mr.  MeCabe
 Division of Air Pollution Control
 Department of Pollution Control
 Little Rock, AR  72209
 (501) 371-1136

 Mr.  Rangit Grewal
 Air  Resources Board
 Sacramento, CA  95814
 (916) 322-6082

 Mr.  Scott Kenzie
 Air  Pollution Control Division
 Department of Health
 Denver, CO  80220
 (303) 320-4180

 Mr.  Andrew Pollack
 Air  Compliance Unit
 Department of Environmental Protection
Hartford, CT  06115
 (203) 566-3160

Mr.  Don Wambangans
Bureau of Air and Water Quality
Washington,  D.C.   20002
 (202) 767-7370
                           404

-------
 Mr.  Bob Taggert (Principal Delaware Contact)
 Division of Environmental Control
 Wilmington, DE  1980A
 (302)  571-3242

 Mr.  Hugh Menghi
 Division of Environmental Control
 Department  of  Natural  Resources  and Environmental  Control
 Dover,  DE  19901
 (302)  678-4791

 Mr.  Mike Harley
 Air  Quality Management Bureau
 Department  of  Environmental Regulation
 Tallahassee, FL  32301
 (904)  488-1344

 Mr.  Tony Cutrere
 Department  of  Natural  Resources
 Atlanta,  GA 30334
 (404)  656-4867

 Mr.  Harold  Tobin
 Environmental  Program
 State  Department  of Health
 Honolulu, HI   96801

 Mr.  Richard Johnson
 Department  of  Health and  Welfare
 Division  of Environment
 Boise,  ID  83720
 (208)  384-2903

 Mr.  Chris Romaine
 Division  of Air Pollution Control
 Illinois  EPA
 Springfield, IL  62701
 (217) 782-0089

Mr.  Linna
 Chicago Department of  Environmental Control
 Chicago, IL  60610
 (312) 744-7313

Mr. Andusic
Division of Air Pollution Control
State Board of Health
Indianapolis, IN  46206
 (317) 633-0600
                           405

-------
Mr. Michael Hayward
Air and Land Quality Division
Department of Environmental Quality
Des Moines, IA  50319
(515) 281-8396

Mr. Leo Classen (Principal Iowa Contact)
Air and Land Quality Division
Department of Environmental Quality
Des Moines, IA  50319
(515) 281-8690

Mr. Don Schyler
Division of Environment
Department of Health and Environment
Topeka, KS  66620
(913) 862-9360

Mr. Gary Metcalf
Division of Air Pollution
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
Frankfort, KY  40601
(502) 564-6844

Mr. Jim Stone
Louisiana Air Quality, Technical Assistance Group
Bureau of Environmental Services
New Orleans, LA  70160
(504) 568-5122

Mr. David Dumas
Bureau of Air Quality Control
Department of Environmental Protection
Augusta, ME  04333
(207) 289-2437

Mr. Bob Donaldson
Division of Air Quality Control
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
Boston, MA  02111
(617) 727-2658

Mr. Charles Oviat
Department of Natural Resources
Division of Air Pollution Control
Lansing, MI  48909
(517) 322-1330
                           406

-------
 Mr.  Gallagher
 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
 Roseville,  MN  55113
 (612)  296-7275

 Mr.  Ed Wiik (Principal Minnesota Contact)
 Director  of Air Quality  Division
 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
 Roseville,  MN  55113
 (612)  296-7332

 Ms.  Connie  Simmons
 Division  of Air Pollution  Control
 Air  and Water Pollution  Control  Commission
 Jackson,  MS  39205
 (601)  354-2550

 Mr.  Mike  Stafford
 Air  Quality Program
 Division  of Environmental  Quality
 Jefferson City,  MO   65101
 (314)  751-3241

 Mr.  Dale  Murdock
 Division  of Air Pollution  Control
 Department  of Environmental Control
 Lincoln,  NB  68509
 (402)  471-2186

 Mr.  Hugh  Ricci
 Division  of Environmental  Protection
 Carson City,  NV 89710
 (702)  885-4670

 Mr.  Don Davis
 Air  Pollution Control Agency
 Department  of Health and Welfare
 Concord,  NH  03301
 (603)  271-2281

 Mr.  Sable
 Bureau of Air Pollution Control
 Department  of Environmental  Protection
 Trenton,  NJ   08625
 (609)  292-6716

Mr. Lee Ivey  (Principal New  Jersey Contact)
Bureau of Air Pollution Control
Department of Environmental  Protection
Trenton, NJ   08625
 (609) 292-6716
                           407

-------
Mr. Gary Taittimm
Air Quality Division
Environmental Improvement Agency
Santa Fe, MM  87503
(505) 827-5271

Mr. Jerry Haberman
Department of Environmental Protection
New York City, NY
(212) 248-8668

Mr. Henry Sandonato
New York Environmental Conservation Agency, Region 9
Buffalo, NY
(716) 842-3810

Mr. Tom McGillick
New York Environmental Conservation Agency, Region 3
(914) 761-6660

Mr. LaRuffa
New York Air Pollution Agency, Region 1
(516) 751-7900

Mr. Michael McDermott
New York Air Pollution Agency
Albany Office (Main Office)
Albany, NY  12233
(518) 457-2044

Mr. Steve Russell
New York Air Pollution Agency, Region 8
Rochester, NY
(716) 226-2466

Mr. Derr Laenhart
Division of Environmental Management
Department of Natural Resources
Raleigh, NC  27611
(919) 733-4058

Mr. Howard Johnson (Principal Ohio Contact)
Air Quality Office
Ohio EPA
Columbus, OH  43216
(614) 466-7390
                           408

-------
 Mr.  Tom Crapot
 Air  Quality Office,  Ohio EPA
 Columbus,  OH  43216
 (614)  466-6040

 Mr.  Richard Barber,  Engineer
 Central District Office
 Ohio EPA
 (614)  466-6450

 Mr.  Angelo Degiacomo
 Oklahoma Air Quality Service
 Department of Health
 Oklahoma City,  OK 73105
 (405)  271-5220

 Mr.  Chuck  Clinton
 Oregon Department of Environmental  Quality
 Portland,  OR  97201
 (503)  229-5359

 Mr.  Douglas  Lesher
 Bureau of  Air Quality and Noise  Control
 Department of Environmental  Resources
 Harrisburg,  PA  17120
 (717)  787-4324

 Mr.  Cole
 Alleghney  County Health Department
 Allegheny  County,  PA
 (412)  355-4000

 Mr.  Doug McVay
 Division of  Air  Pollution Control
 Department of Environmental  Management
 Providence,  RI   02903
 (401)  277-2808

Mr.  Dan Taylor
Bureau of  Air Quality Control
Department of Health and Environmental Control
Columbia,  SC  29201
 (803)  758-5406

Mr. Preston  Campbell
Bureau of Air Quality Control
Department of Health and Environmental Control
Columbia,  SC  29201
(803) 758-5406
                           409

-------
Mr. Ron Huber
Air Quality Program
Department of  Environmental  Protection
Pierre, SD  57501
(605)  773-3351

Mr. John Patton
Division of Air Pollution  Control
Bureau of Environmental Health
Nashville, TN  37219
(615)  741-3931

Mr. Robert Dalley
Utah Bureau of Air Quality
Salt Lake City, UT  84110
(801)  533-6108

Mr. Cedric Sandborn
Agency of Environmental Conservation
Montpelier, VT 05602
(802)  828-3395

Mr. Tom Creasy
Air Pollution  Control Board
Richmond, VA   23219
(804)  786-2530

Mr. Fred Zemore
West Virginia  Pollution Control Commission
Charleston, WV 25311
(304)  348-2275

Mr. Roger Dodds
Bureau of Air  Management
Department of  Natural Resources
Madison, WI  53707
(608)  266-0113

Mr. Dan Schramm
Bureau of Air Management
Department of Natural Resources
Madison, Wl  53707
(608)  266-0113

Mr. Chuck Raffelson
Air Quality Division
Department of Environmental Quality
Cheyenne,  WY  82002
(307)  777-7391
                           410

-------
 INCINERATOR MANUFACTURERS

 Mr.  Charles Guischard
 AER Corporation
 Ramsey,  NJ  07446
 (201)  327-5700

 Mr.  Geoga
 Affiliated Incinerator Corporation
 Farmington,  MI  48024
 (313)  474-1420

 Mr.  Mike Adanski
 Basic  Engineering
 Glen Ellyn,  IL
 (312)  469-5340

 Mr.  Jim  Springer
 Bigelow-Liptak Corporation
 Southfield,  MI  48076
 (313)  353-5400

 Mr.  Scott Lindberg
 Brule  Incinerators
 Division of  Brule C.E.&E.,  Inc.
 Blue Island,  IL  60406
 (312)  388-7900

 Mr.  Al Schmidt,  Sales Manager
 Brule  Incinerators
 Division of  Brule C.E.&E.,  Inc.
 Blue Island,  IL  60406
 (312)  388-7900

 Mr.  Aiken
 W.N. Best, Combustion Engineering  Company
 Danbury,  CT
 (203)  743-6741

 Mr.  Ed Abendscheim, President
 Northeast Burn-Zol Corporation
 Division  of New Way Industries, Inc.
 Dover,  NJ  07801
 (201) 361-5900

Mr.  Larry Gamson, General Manager
 Certified Environmental Engineering Company, Inc.
 14006 Ventura Boulevard
Sherman Oaks, CA  91403
 (213) 872-3517
                           411

-------
Mr.  Dale Moody
Combustion Power  Company,  Inc.
1346 Willow  Road
Menlo Park,  CA 94025
(415) 324-4744

Mr.  Roddie Street,  President
Commercial Fabrication and Machine Company,  Inc.
Mt.  Airy, NC  27030
(919) 786-8374

Mr.  Charles  Scolaro
Comtro Division
Sunbeam Equipment Corporation
Lansdale, PA  19446
(215) 699-4421

Mr.  Gene White
Comtro Division
Sunbeam Equipment Corporation
Lansdale, PA  19446
(215) 699-4421

Ms.  Cecelia  England, Secretary
Consumat Systems, Inc.
Richmond, VA  23227
(804) 746-4120

Ms.  Norma Hayes
DriAll, Inc.
Attica, Indiana  47918
(317) 295-2255

Mr.  Robert Smith, Sales Administrator
Econotherm
Minneapolis, MN  55343
(612) 938-3100

Mr. Max Spurgin
Econotherm
(317) 881-5955

Mr. Dave Hitchcock,  Manager
Industrial Market Development
BSP Division
Envirotech Corporation
Belmont,  CA  94002
(415) 592-4060
                           412

-------
 Mr. J. A. Caplan, President
 Federal Incinerators, Inc.
 Springfield, MO  65806
 (417) 862-2552

 Mr. Joe Curro, Manager of Engineering
 Jarvis Incinerator Company
 Waltham,  MA  02154
 (617) 891-1200

 Mr. James Kidd,  Applications Engineer
 Kelley Company,  Inc.
 Milwaukee,  WI  53209
 (414) 352-1000

 Mr. Frank A. Ragone,  Product Manager
 Surface Division
 Midland-Ross Corporation
 Toledo, OH  43691
 (419) 537-6258

 Mr. Lee McNew
 Prenco Manufacturing  Company
 Madison Heights,  MI   48701
 (313) 399-6262

 Mitchel R.  Gorski, Jr.,  Technical  Sales  Representative
 Progressive Equipment Company,  Inc.
 Bloomfield,  CT  06002
 (203)  552-2000

 Mr.  Larry Lefholz
 Schmidt Manufacturing Corporation
 Denver, CO
 (303)  289-4621

 Mr.  Larry Parker
 Shenandoah  Manufacturing  Company,  Inc.
 Harrisonburg,  VA  22801
 (703)  434-3838

 Ms.  Janet Lager
 Sibley Engineering and Manufacturing, Inc.
 Rogers, AR   72756
 (501)  636-3540

Mr. Jim Holloway, Jr., General Sales Manager
George L.  Simonds Company
Winter Haven,  Florida  33880
 (813)  293-2171
                           413

-------
Mr. Harold Russel
U.S. Smelting Furnace  Company
Division of  C.E. Industries  Corporation
Belleville,  IL   62222
(618) 233-3910

Mr. Spronz
Spronz Incinerator  Corporation
Rochester, NY   14611
(716) 235-4877

Mr. Tailer
Tailer and Company
Davenport, IA
(319) 355-2621

Mr. John Stamat
Trane Thermal Company
Conshohocken, PA  19429
(215) 828-5400

Mr. Stelling
Washburn-Granger
Paterson, NJ
(201) 274-2522

Mr. Newburn
John Zink Company
Tulsa,  OK  74105
(918) 747-1371
POLLUTION CONTROL MANUFACTURERS

Mr. Jim Sadler
AFB Contractors
California
(415) 229-3400

Mr. Jack Brady
Pollution Control Division
Anderson 2000
(800) 241-5424

Mr. Tom Standard
B and P Industires
(Local Representatives for Industrial Clean Air)
Hudson, MA  01106
(617) 568-8336
                           414

-------
 Mr.  Betances
 Environmental Dynamics Corporation
 Marlton,  NJ  08053
 (609)  768-1100

 Mr.  Ron Panwoesik
 Fabric Filters
 (Local Representatives of Industrial Clean Air)
 Tempe,  AZ
 (415)  676-6315

 Mr.  Daryl Woodruff
 Industrial  Clean Air,  Inc.
 Berkeley, CA
 (415)  676-6315

 Mr.  Ken Schifftner
 Peabody International  Corporation
 Stamford, CT
 (203)  327-7000
HAZARDOUS WASTE  FACILITIES

Mr. Bob Kacz
Aztec Mercury  (mercury  reprocessors)
Alvin, Texas   77551
(713) 331-4141

Mr. Wagoner
American Chemical Service
Griffith, Indiana  46319
(219) 724-4370

Mr. Frank Kiele
Cannons Engineering Corporation
Bridgewater, MA
(617) 697-3344

Mr. Mike Dunay
Chemical Control Corporation
Elizabeth, NJ  07201
(201) 351-5460

Mr. Carl Hornby
Environmental Waste Control, Inc.
Inkster,  MI  48141
(Main Office)
(313)  561-1400
                           415

-------
Mr.  Chuck Kullerg
Interstate Pollution Control
Rockford,  IL  61101
(815)  964-2058

Mr.  Joe  Reiley
LWD,  Inc.
Calvert  City,  KY
(502)  395-7515

Mr.  Bob  Haggerty
Mercury  Refining  Company,  Inc.
Albany,  NY
(518)  489-7363

Mr.  Robert L.  Jones,  Plant Manager
Rollins  Environmental Services
Baton  Rouge, LA  70807
(504)  778-1234

Mr.  Phillip Bar
Rollins  Environmental Services
(Main  Office)
Wilmington,  Delaware   19803
(302)  658-8541
"INVENTORY OF INTERMEDIATE-SIZE INCINERATORS  IN  THE U.S.  -  1972"

Mr. Ronald J. Brinkerhoff
Senco Products  (formerly of OSWMP, Cincinnatti)
(513) 388-2000

Mr. Eugene Krumm, Manager of Marketing Division
CE Air Preheater
Wellesville, NY  14895
(716) 593-2700

Mr. Barry Stoll
Systems Management Division
Land Protection Branch
Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, U.S.  EPA
Washington, D.C.
(202) 755-9113

Mr. Bill Achinger
Wayne County Air Pollution Agency
Wayne County, MI
(313) 224-4674
                           416

-------
 Mr.  Allan Gesweln
 Land Protection Branch
 Office of Solid Waste Management Program
 U.S.  EPA
 Washington,  D.C.
 (202)  755-9113
 SPECIFIC  INCINERATOR INSTALLATIONS

 Mr.  F.  Rail
 Ford Motor Company
 Livonia,  MI
 (313)  525-6734

 Mr.  Norm  Wood
 Shell  Oil
 Oregon
 (503)  228-7321

 Mr.  Robert Cash
 St.  Vincent's Hospital
 Jacksonville, FL
 (904)  389-7751

 Mr.  Art Johnson, Building and Grounds Manager
 Indiana Public Schools
 Indianapolis,  IN
 (317)  266-4646

 Mr.  Harold Coi
 Rockwell  International
 Marysville, OH
 (513)  644-3015

 Mr.  Rex Olutola
 John Deere
 Horicon, WI
 (414) 485-4411

 Mr.  Swift
 DuPont Experimental Station
Wilmington, DE
 (302) 772-2737

Mr.  Dayfield
DuPont
Ponchartrain (New Orleans), LA
 (504) 525-4004
                           417

-------
Mr. Bruce Wing
Kodak Park Division
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY
(716) 458-1000 ext.  75567

Mr. George Thomas
Kodak-Park Division
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY
(716) 722-2363
MISCELLANEOUS

Mr. Oliver Johnson, Pathology
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals
Chicago, IL  60611
(312) 642-6061

Dr. Berry
Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals
Chicago, IL  60611
(312) 642-6061

Mr. Peter Kelley
Federal EPA, Region 5
Chicago, IL
(312) 353-2082

Mr. Tim Fields
EPA
(202) 755-9203

Ms. Anita Turpin
Federal EPA, Region 6
Dallas, TX  75270
(212) 767-2742

Ms. Debbie Mattuchio
Water Resources Division
Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Boston, MA
(617) 727-3855

Mr. Art Helmstetter
Systems Technology Inc.
Xenia,  Ohio
(513) 372-8077
                           418

-------
 Mr.  Mike Kosman
 Commercial Container Service
 Davenport, IL
 (319)  322-5388

 Mr.  O'Leary
 M&O  Waste Company
 South  Boston,  MA
 (617)  268-7585

 Ms.  Beth Brazin
 ASME
 (212)  644-8032

 Mr.  John Suffrins
 Copper Range Company
 White  Pine, MI
 (906)  855-5111

 Mr.  Richard Needham
 Illini Beef Packers, Inc.
 Geneseo,  IL
 (309)  658-2291

 Mr.  Ed Diffin, Mill  Manager
 Passamaquody Mill
 Dead River Company
 Maine
 (207)  796-2357

 Mr.  Sam Drinkard
 Linden Lumber  Company, Inc.
 Linden, AL
 (205)  295-8751

Mr. Jean Thompson
Piggly Wiggly  Corporation, Executive Offices
Jacksonville,  FL
 (904)  356-2451

Mr. Bogart, Sales
Potlatch Corporation, N.W. Paper Division
San Francisco, CA
 (415) 434-1700
                           419

-------
                                 APPENDIX D

                   POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL AND INSTITUTIONAL
                       100 TON/YR PARTICULATE SOURCES
     Examination of data from those states which gave incinerator size informa-

tion (California, New York, and Maryland) has revealed no commercial or insti-

tutional incinerators capable of emitting 100 TPY or more of particulates.

     To illustrate this conclusion, Table 89 shows a distribution by size

(charged weight) of incinerators in New York State, from which it can be seen

that there are few incinerators burning more than 1000 ton/yr of refuse.  The

largest source listed is a department store incinerator with an operating

rate (and capacity) of 3,280 ton/yr.

     A "worst case" emission factor of 24 Ib particulates per ton of refuse

burned is assumed, corresponding to single chamber uncontrolled emissions

(see Table 62).  Applying this factor, it is seen that this incinerator could

emit a maximum of 39.4 TPY of particulates.

     Similar situations exist in the remaining states.
                                     420

-------
TABLE 89.  SIZE DISTRIBUTION OF COMMERCIAL AND
           INSTITUTIONAL INCINERATORS IN NEW
           YORK STATE

Size range
(charged weight, TPY)
0 to 50
50 to 100
100 to 150
150 to 200
200 to 250
250 to 300
300 to 350
350 to 400
400 to 450
450 to 500
500 to 550
550 to 600
600 to 650
650 to 700
700 to 750
750 to 800
800 to 850
850 to 900
900 to 950
950 to 1000
1000 to 1050
1050 to 1100
1100 to 1150
1150 to 1200
1404
1500
1965.6
3825
Number
117
39
26
19
10
14
12
13
4
4
2
2
2
1
3
1

2
2
1


2

1
1
1
1
Percent
of total
41.78
13.93
9.29
6.79
3.57
5.00
4.29
4.64
1.43
1.43
0.71
0.71
0.71
0.36
1.07
0.36

0.71
0.71
0.36


0.71





Cumulative
percent
41.78
55.71
65.00
71.79
75.36
80.36
84.65
89.29
90.72
92.15
92.86
93.57
94.28
94.64
95.71
96.07

96.78
97.48
97.85


98.56

98.93
99.29
99.64
100.00
                   280
                   421

-------