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
------- |