X-/EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and
Development
Washington, DC 20460
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Technology Transfer
EPA/625/6-86/012
Handbook
Permit Writer's Guide to
Test Burn Data
Hazardous Waste
Incineration
-------
EPA/625/6-86/012
September 1986
Handbook
Permit Writer's Guide to
Test Burn Data
Hazardous Waste Incineration
by
PEI Associates, Inc.
11499 Chester Road
Cincinnati, Ohio45246
and
JACA Corporation
550 Pinetown Road
Fort Washington, Pennsylvania 19034
Center for Environmental Research Information
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
-------
ABSTRACT
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Center for Environmental Research Information has prepared this test
burn data book for use in the permitting and testing of hazardous waste incinerators regulated under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The test results summarized represent hazardous waste test burns conducted at 23
full-scale stationary incinerators in the United States. Nine of these tests were designed and conducted by EPA and its
contractors as part of EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis of the RCRA incinerator regulations. The others were conducted
separately and individually by private industrial concerns and their contractors as part of their Part B application requirements
for obtaining full operating permits under RCRA.
In addition to the incinerator data, this book also presents results of tests at 11 lime, cement, and aggregate kilns and 11
industrial boilers. The EPA Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory conducted most of these tests as part of an
overall research program aimed at determining the efficiency of these thermal units for cofiring (and thereby destroying)
hazardous wastes as fuel supplements or replacements.
This is the first time a data book containing results from a wide variety of combustion tests has been assembled. The book is
intended to be used as a data source for reference purposes in developing and reviewing trial burn plans. It should be used in
conjunction with other EPA guidance documents on hazardous waste incineration, such as the EPA Engineering Handbook
for Hazardous Waste Incineration (EPA-SW-889) and the EPA Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Incinerator Permits
(EPA-SW-966). The user is cautioned to exercise professional judgment when using the data in this document. Some of the
data are of questionable value, and accordingly, every effort has been made to identify or flag such information. The user is
also cautioned to critically evaluate the procedures and methodologies used to generate the data in this document, and to
design future trial test burns in accordance with current guidance.
Finally, since the data for this document was assembled in 1985, the results of several additional incinerator trial burns
have been reported to various EPA Regions and authorized States. Thus, additional data are available for expansion of this
data base, if desired. EPA Regional and State RCRA permit writers should be contacted for details of these more recent test
burns.
-------
CONTENTS
Section Page
Abstract ii
Figures v
Tables v
1. Purpose and Use of This Document 1-1
1.1 Introduction 1-1
1.2 Hazardous Waste Incineration Standards Under RCRA 1-1
1.3 Use of This Document 1-2
1.4 Contents and Organization 1-3
1.5 Terms 1-3
2. Overview of Thermal Treatment Technology in the U.S 2-1
2.1 Incinerators 2-1
2.2 Boilers 2-9
2.3 Process Rotary Kilns (Cement, Lime, and Aggregate) 2-10
3. Summary and Analysis of Incinerator Performance data 3-1
3.1 Overview 3-1
3.2 Test Objectives and Procedures 3-1
3.3 Test Results and Discussion 3-3
4. Summary and Analysis of Boiler Performance Data 4-1
4.1 Overview 4-1
4.2 Test Objectives and Procedures 4-1
4.3 Test Results and Discussion 4-7
5. Summary and Analysis of Kiln Performance Data 5-1
5.1 Overview 5-1
5.2 Test Objectives and Procedures 5-1
5.3 Test Results and Discussion 5-4
Appendix A: List of Incinerator Manufacturers A-1
Appendix B: Incinerator Test Summaries B-1
Akzo Chemie America, Morris, IL B-1
American Cyanamid Co., Willow Island, WV B-6
Ciba-Geigy Corporation, Mclntosh, AL B-11
Cincinnati MSD, Cincinnati, OH B-18
Confidential Site B B-29
Dow Chemical USA, Midland, Ml B-35
E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., LaPlace, LA B-40
E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Parkersburg, WV B-47
E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Wilmington, DE B-53
Gulf Oil Corporation, Philadelphia, PA B-58
McDonnell Douglas Corporation, St. Charles, MO B-61
Mitchell Systems, Inc., Spruce Pine, NC B-63
Olin Corporation, Brandenburg, KY B-72
Pennwalt Corporation, Calvert City, KY B-75
Ross Incineration Services, Inc., Grafton, OH B-83
SCA Chemical Services, Chicago, IL B-90
Smith Kline Chemicals, Conshohocken, PA B-93
3M, Cottage Grove, MN B-102
Trade Waste Incineration, Inc., Sauget, IL B-113
Union Carbide, South Charleston, WV B-128
Zapata Industries, Inc., Butner, NC B-147
-------
Appendix C: Boiler Test Summaries C-l
Site A C-l
Site B C-3
Site C C-5
Site D C-7
Site E C-10
Site F C-12
Site G C-14
Site H C-16
Site I C-18
Site J C-20
Site K C-22
Appendix D: Kiln Test Summaries D-1
Florida Solite Corp., Green Cove Springs, FL D-1
General Portland, Inc., Los Robles, CA D-4
General Portland, Inc., Paulding, OH D-5
Lone Star Industries, Oglesby, IL D-8
Marquette Cement, Oglesby, IL D-10
Rockwell Lime, Rockwood, Wl D-12
San Juan Cement Co., Doradado, PR D-15
St. Lawrence Cement Co., Mississauga, Ontario D-22
Site I, EPA Region IV D-24
Site II, EPA Region IV D-26
Stora Vika Cement, Stora Vika, Sweden D-28
IV
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Example Data Summary Format 1-4
2 Distribution of Hazardous Waste Incinerators Responding to 1981 EPA Survey 2-2
3 Schematic of Rotary Kiln Incineration System 2-6
4 Horizontal Liquid-Injection Incinerator 2-8
5 Fluidized-Bed Incineration System 2-9
6 Lightweight Aggregate Rotary Kiln and Cooler 2-12
7 Distribution of Portland Cement Plants, by State 2-13
8 Schematic Diagram of Portland Cement Process Flow 2-13
9 Four-Stage Preheater Kiln 2-14
10 Distribution of Domestic Lime Plants, by State 2-14
11 Schematic Diagram of Lime Kiln Processes 2-15
12 Typical Boiler Sampling Schematic 4-7
13 Simplified Schematic Diagram of a Kiln and Sampling Locations 5-3
TABLES
Number Page
1 Estimated Number of HW Incinerators in Each EPA Region 2-2
2 Manufacturers of Major Incinerator Types 2-3
3 Thermal Capacities of Hazardous Waste Incinerator Types as Reported by Manufacturers 2-3
4 Typical Incinerator Operating Conditions as Reported by Manufacturers 2-4
5 Estimated Number of Industrial Boilers in 1980 2-11
6 Distribution of Incinerator Types and Control Devices in EPA's Eight-Site Study 3-1
7 Distribution of Incinerator Types and Control Devices for 14 Sites Submitting Trial Burn Reports 3-3
8 Average DRE's by Compound and Incinerator Test Site 3-4
9 Listing of Incinerator Test Runs that Failed to Achieve a 99.99 Percent ORE 3-7
10 Overview of HCI and Paniculate Emission Control Results by Incinerator Test Site 3-11
11 Boiler Summary for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Hazardous Waste Cofiring Test Program . 4-2
12 Summary of Boiler Operation and Fuel Parameters 4-4
13 Sampling and Analysis Protocols for Boiler Test Burns 4-5
14 Summary of Average DRE's for Volatile Compounds from Boiler Tests 4-8
15 DRE's for Semivolatile Compounds 4-9
16 Particulate and HCI Gas Emissions from Boilers 4-10
17 Summary of Kiln Test Burns 5-2
18 Summary of Typical Kiln Sampling and Analytical Program 5-3
19 Summary of Kiln DRE's for Selected Compounds 5-5
20 Particulate and Hydrogen Chloride Emissions from Process Kilns 5-7
B-1 Summary Tabulation of Incinerator Test Results by Compound B-152
B-2 Summary of Tabulation of Incinerator Test Results by Site B-166
-------
SECTION 1
PURPOSE AND USE OF THIS DOCUMENT
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA)* requires that hazardous waste incinerators
adequately destroy hazardous organic materials
while maintaining acceptable levels of particulate
and chloride (HCI) emissions. In response to this
mandate, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has developed performance standards for the
operation of these incinerators, and owners/opera-
tors of the units must demonstrate that they can meet
the standards to obtain a full RCRA operating permit.
Consequently, industry and control agency person-
nel have become involved in planning for, con-
ducting, and interpreting the results from incinerator
performance tests as an integral part of the RCRA
regulatory and permitting process.
This data book has been prepared as a reference doc-
ument for State and Federal perm it writers and others
concerned with the permitting and testing of haz-
ardous waste incinerators and other thermal treat-
ment devices that are now or soon may be regulated
under RCRA. The document summarizes the test
results from hazardous waste burns conducted at 23
full-scale stationary incinerators in the United States.
Tests at nine of these sites were designed and con-
ducted by EPA's Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory (HWERL) and its contractors as
part of the Agency's program supporting the RCRA
incinerator regulations. Tests at the other 14 sites
were conducted separately and individually as trial
burns by private industrial concerns and their con-
tractors as part of the Part B application requirements
for obtaining full operating permits under RCRA.
In addition to the incinerator data, this document also
presents the results of hazardous waste test burns at
11 lime, cement, and aggregate kilns and 11 industrial
boilers. Although the burning of hazardous wastes in
boilers, kilns, and industrial furnaces is not currently
regulated, proposed standards are under develop-
ment and expected to be published in 1987. In antic-
ipation and support of this regulatory activity, EPA-
HWERL conducted these tests as part of an overall
research program aimed at determining the effi-
ciency of these units for thermally destroying haz-
ardous wastes.
'Public Law 94-680, as amended
1.2 HAZARDOUS WASTE
INCINERATION STANDARDS
UNDER RCRA
The hazardous waste incineration standards set forth
in 40 CFR Parts 264 and 270 specify three major
requirements regarding incinerator performance:
1. Principal organic hazardous constituents
(POHC's) designated in each waste feed must be
destroyed and/or removed to an efficiency
(ORE) of 99.99% or better; dioxins and PCBs
must achieve a ORE of 99.9999%. POHC's are
hazardous organic substances in the waste feed
that are representative of those constituents
most difficult to burn and most abundant in the
waste.
2. Particulate emissions must not exceed 180 mg
per dry standard cubic meter (dscm), corrected
to 7% oxygen in the stack gas.
3. Gaseous hydrogen chloride (HCI) emissions
must either be controlled to 4 Ib/h or less, or be
removed at 99% efficiency.
The standards also specify a number of requirements
for waste analysis and for incinerator operation,
monitoring, and inspection. Finally, they establish
the procedures by which permits will be granted. In
addition to the specific standards for incineration,
owners and operators of hazardous waste incinera-
tors must comply with the general facility standards
and administrative requirements for all hazardous
waste management facilities (also contained in 40
CFR Part 264).
Compliance with the EPA standards for incineration
of hazardous wastes may be established through the
submission of performance data gathered from an
existing incinerator operating under interim status
or, in the case of new incinerators, from the perfor-
mance of a trial burn. A trial burn may possibly be
waived if the new facility can demonstrate that a sim-
iliar incinerator burning a similar waste has proved
compliance. During the designated test period, the
applicant determines the incinerator's ability to
destroy hazardous wastes that are representative of
those intended to be treated at the facility. Generally,
the goal in conducting a test burn is to identify the
most efficient conditions or range of conditions
7-7
-------
under which the incinerator can be operated in com-
pliance with the performance standards.
The Part B application submitted to EPA by owners/
operators seeking permits must contain either data
demonstrating compliance with the standards or a
plan for testing the incinerator to obtain such data.
Such a plan is referred to as a trial burn plan.
After the trial burn is completed and/or the perfor-
mance data and other information submitted in the
Part B application have been reviewed and evaluated
by the EPA or State permit writer, a RCRA permit will
be developed. This permit will specify, among many
other things, a set of operating requirements for the
incinerator for the following four parameters:
• Carbon monoxide in the stack exhaust gas
• Waste feed rate
• Combustion temperature
• Combustion gas flow rate
The numerical values of these parameters will vary
among incinerators and will be governed by the per-
formance data submitted by the applicant. Thus, as a
minimum for each test run, values should be
reported for carbon monoxide in the stack gas, waste
feed or thermal input rate, combustion temperature,
and combustion gas flow rate, in addition to the ORE,
HCI, and particulate results. Normal fluctuations
encountered in the monitoring of each of these
parameters should also be reported. The permit con-
ditions ultimately developed for each parameter at a
given site usually reflect the ranges tested suc-
cessfully during the trial burn.
1.3 USE OF THIS DOCUMENT
This document can be used to locate and study the
following types of information relative to hazardous
waste incineration:
• POHC's that have been tested previously (by site)
• POHC's that have been tested previously (by
POHC)
• Types of incinerators, boilers, and kilns that have
been tested previously
• Problems encountered during trial and test burns
• The relationship between POHC, waste feed con-
centration, and ORE
• The relationship between POHC, ORE, and tem-
perature
• Chlorine emission results by site (controlled and
uncontrolled)
• Particulate emission results by site (controlled
and uncontrolled)
• Dioxin and furanemissionsfrom hazardous waste
incineration
• Metal emissions from hazardous waste incinera-
tors, boilers, and kilns
• Product of incomplete combustion (PIC) emis-
sions from incinerators, boilers, and kilns
• 02, CO, CO2, and total unburned hydrocarbon
(THC) emissions from incinerators, boilers, and
kilns
The various tables presented in Section 3 and at the
end of Appendix B should be especially useful to
those interested in locating incinerator performance
data for a particular POHC or for a specific type of
incineration system.
This data book is intended to be used in conjunction
with other EPA guidance documents on hazardous
waste incineration. The following publications
should be consulted for guidance during the Part B
review and trial burn planning, testing, reporting,
and evaluation phases of the RCRA permitting pro-
cess:
• Monsanto Research Corporation, Engineering
Handbookfor Hazardous Waste Incineration. EPA-
SW-889, PB81-248163, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1981, 487 pp.
• Mitre Corporation. Guidance Manual for Haz-
ardous Waste Incinerator Permits. EPA-SW-966,
PB84-100577, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1983,126 pp.
• Midwest Research Institute. Practical Guide—
Trial Burns for Hazardous Waste Incinerators.
EPA/600/2-86/050, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1986, 63 pp.
• A.D. Little, Inc. Sampling and Analysis Methods
for Hazardous Waste Combustion. First Edition.
EPA/600/8-84/002, PB84-155845/REB, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1983,113 pp.
• Mitre Corporation. Profile of Existing Hazardous
Waste Incineration Facilities and Manufacturers in
the United States. EPA/600/2-84/052,
PB84-157072/REB, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1984,166 pp.
• Protocol for the Collection and Analysis of Volatile
Principal Organic Hazardous Constituents
(POHC's) Using Volatile Organic Sampling Train
(VOST). EPA/600/8-84/007, PB84-170042, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1984.
• Modified Method 5 Train and Source Assessment
Sampling System: Operator's Manual.
EPA/600/8-85/003, PB85-169878/REB, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1985.
The user is cautioned to exercise professional judg-
ment when using the data in this document. Some of
the data are of questionable value because of sam-
pling and analysis difficulties encountered during the
tests or because of operational factors (malfunctions,
excursions from the norm, etc.). Accordingly, consid-
erable effort has been made to identify and flag such
7-2
-------
problem data and to explain the circumstances
believed responsible for the problem. The user is also
cautioned to critically evaluate the procedures and
methods used to generate the data presented in this
document, and to design future trial and test burns in
accordance with current guidance.
1.4 CONTENTS AND ORGANIZATION
Section 2 of this document presents a brief discus-
sion of the major types of incinerators, boilers, and
process kilns now in use in the United States. Sche-
matic diagrams are included to help the reader visu-
alize each type of unit. The design information
presented gives only a technical overview of these
processes. Additional details can be found in the EPA
Engineering Handbook for Hazardous Waste Incin-
eration.
Sections 3,4, and 5 present discussions on the results
of test burns conducted at incinerators, boilers, and
kilns, respectively. These sections describe the types
of units tested, goals or objectives of the tests, oper-
ating conditions during the tests, emission test
results, problems encountered, and notable trends in
the data.
The names and addresses of incinerator manufac-
turers and vendors are listed in Appendix A. Appen-
dices B (incinerators), C (boilers), and D (kilns)
present detailed data summary sheets describing
each test burn, and providing references for obtain-
ing additional information on each test.
The performance data presented in Appendices B, C,
and D for each incinerator, boiler, or kiln tested have
been extracted from the original detailed test reports
submitted to EPA. The data from each test have been
organized into a summary format similar to that
shown in Figure 1. These summaries contain, where
available, basic information on the type of unit tested
(including a process flow diagram), the type of waste
tested, the operating conditions during the test,
parameters monitored and methods used, emission
results, comments on the study, and the original
source (reference) of the data. Readers are urged to
review the test report referenced on the data forms to
gain full appreciation of the designs, objectives,
methods, problems, and results of each test. This
step is especially important for proper understanding
of trial burn test results. Regional and State RCRA
permitting offices where incinerator trial burn
reports are housed should be contacted directly to
obtain information on specific trial burn reports and
procedures for viewing them. These documents are
in the public domain and are available for viewing,
but copies are limited, and access must be scheduled.
Copies may not be removed from regional or State
offices.
The following reports containing the results of EPA-
sponsored tests at hazardous waste incinerators are
available in limited quantities through EPA's Center
for Environmental Research Information in Cincin-
nati, Ohio, orthrough the National Technical Informa-
tion Center, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Vir-
ginia 22161:
• Trenholm, A., R Gorman, and G. Jungclaus. Per-
formance Evaluation of Full-Scale Hazardous
Waste Incinerators, Vols. 1-5.
EPA/600/2-84/181 a-181 e, PB85-129500/REB,
PB85-129518/REB, PB85-129526/REB,
PB85-129534/REB, PB85-129542/REB, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1985.
• Gorman, R G., and K. R Ananth. Trial Burn Protocol
Verification at a Hazardous Waste Incinerator.
EPA/600/2-84/048, PB84-159193/REB, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1984.
1.5 TERMS
Several terms used throughout this report are listed
and defined here.
Boiler - (Taken from 40 CFR 260.10). An enclosed
device using controlled flame combustion to
generate thermal energy for recovery and use
and generally having the following characteris-
tics:
(1) Unit must physically provide for recovering
at least 60% of the thermal value of the fuel,
and exporting or utilizing at least 75% of the
recovered thermal energy in the form of
steam, heated fluids, or heated gases.
(2) The unit's combustion chamber and primary
energy recovery section(s) must be of inte-
gral design.
DRE - Destruction and removal efficiency. A calcu-
lated measure of the efficiency of an incinerator
or other device to destroy and remove hazardous
constituents of the waste. Expressed as a percen-
tage of the hazardous constituents in the waste
feed that are either destroyed in the combustion
chamber or removed by air pollution control
equipment.
Eutectic - An alloy or mixture whose composition
yields the lowest possible melting point for that
particular combination of metals or substances.
Incinerator - Any enclosed device using controlled-
flame combustion that neither meets the criteria
for classification as a boiler nor is listed as an
industrial furnace (40 CFR Part 260.10).
Industrial furnace - (Taken from 40 CFR Part 260.10.)
Any of the following devices that are integral
components of manufacturing processes and
that use controlled-flame devices to accomplish
recovery of materials and energy:
(1) Cement kilns
(2) Lime kilns
(3) Aggregate kilns
(4) Phosphate kilns
(5) Coke ovens
(6) Blast furnaces
1-3
-------
INCINERATOR TRIAL BURN SUMMARY
Date of Trial Burn:
Run No.:
Incinerator Information
Type of unit:
Capacity:
Pollution control system: _
Waste feed system:.
Residence time:.
Commercial D Private/Industrial D
Trial Burn Conditions
Waste Feed data
Type of waste(s) burned:.
Length of burn:
Total amount of waste burned:.
Waste feed rate:
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
Btu content Chlorine content:.
Ash content: Moisture content:
Operating Conditions
Temperature: Range Average _
Auxiliary fuel used:
Excess air:.
Other:
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's:
Cl:
Paniculate:.
Other:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
Cl:
Paniculate: _
THC:
CO:
Other:
PICs:
Comments: -
Figure 1. Example Data Summary Format.
1-4
-------
(7) Smelting, melting, and refining
furnaces
(8) Ti02 chloride process oxidation
reactors
(9) Methane reforming furnaces
(10) Pulping liquor recovery furnaces
(11) Combustion devices for sulfur
recovery from spent sulfuric acid
(12) Other devices added by the
Administration
MEK - Methyl ethyl ketone.
MIBK - Methyl isobutyl ketone.
PIC - Product of incomplete combustion. In the EPA
test burns, PIC's were defined as any Appendix
VIII compound that was found in the stack but
was notfound in the waste feed in concentrations
above 100 ppm.
POHC - Principal organic hazardous constituent.
POHC's are Appendix VIII constituents that are
present in the waste feed and selected by the per-
mit writer as representative of those constituents
believed to be most difficult to burn, most abun-
dant in the waste, or of particular interest
because of acute toxicity, etc. During the trial
burn, the destruction and removal efficiency
(ORE) is measured for the POHC's, and the incin-
erator's performance in treating these sub-
stances is considered indicative of the unit's
overall performance in combusting organic
waste. Typically, two to three POHC's at con-
centrations of 1000 ppm or more in the waste feed
are selected for monitoring during each trial
burn. EPA's Practical Guide - Trial Burns for Haz-
ardous Waste Incinerators (EPA/600/2-86/050,
1986) should be consulted for further guidance
on the definition and criteria for selecting POHC's
for trial burn testing.
PM - Particulate matter.
TCE - Trichloroethylene.
Trial burn - As defined by RCRA, a test of a hazardous
waste incinerator to demonstrate its ability to
destroy and remove POHC's, chlorine, and par-
ticulates from the emissions. A trial burn usually
consists of several runs with varying conditions
(e.g., feed rate, type of waste burned, tempera-
ture, etc.)
TUHC - Total unburned hydrocarbon, as measured in
the stack gases during a test or trial burn. Also
commonly referred to as THC.
Turndown ratio - Maximum to minimum operating
range of an incinerator or other thermal treat-
ment unit.
7-5
-------
SECTION 2
OVERVIEW OF THERMAL TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY IN THE UNITED STATES
Hazardous waste can be thermally destroyed through
burning under oxidative or pyrolytic conditions in
incineration systems designed specifically for this
purpose and in various types of industrial kilns,
boilers, and furnaces. An incineration system typ-
ically includes primary and secondary combustion
chambers. Pollution controls for reducing particulate
and chloride emissions may be added, depending on
the chloride and ash content of the waste. Some sys-
tems also include energy recovery devices. The incin-
erator portion of the system (i.e., the primary and
secondary combustion chambers) is an enclosed
device that used controlled flame combustion to treat
(i.e., destroy) waste material. By definition, the pri-
mary purpose of the incinerator is the destruction of
the waste. In such a unit, wastes are subjected to high
temperatures [generally in excess of 980°C (1800°F)]
for a period of time long enough to destroy either the
hazardous constituents of the waste, or the bulk of
the waste, or both.
In contrast to incinerators, the primary purpose of
industrial kilns, boilers, or furnaces is to produce a
commercially viable product such as cement, lime, or
steam. These units require large inputs of energy
(i.e., fuel) to produce the desired product. Owners
and operators of such units often view hazardous
waste material as an economical alternative to fossil
fuels for energy and heat supply. In the process of
producing energy and heat, the wastes themselves
are subjected to high temperatures for sufficient time
to destroy the hazardous content or the bulk of the
waste.
Hazardous waste incinerators, boilers, and cement
and lime kilns have been shown to achieve 99.99%
ORE for hazardous wastes with a wide range of prop-
erties. However, hazardous waste incinerators are
the only thermal treatment units widely used to
destroy hazardous wastes. The present deterrents to
the use of boilers and process kilns for hazardous
waste destruction include:
• Uncertainty about RCRA regulations and their
requirements for hazardous-waste-as-fuel
applications.
• Uncertainty about the effects of hazardous waste
burning on boiler and kiln equipment and product
quality (cement and lime) over the long term.
• Special requirements for personnel training and
waste-handling facilities when hazardous wastes
are burned.
• Public concern regarding the local presence and
management of hazardous wastes at these facili-
ties.
These concerns are at least partly offset by fuel sav-
ings, and in many cases, by the ability to destroy haz-
ardous wastes onsite rather than having to transport
them elsewhere.
This section further describes and differentiates
incinerators, boilers, and kilns, which are the major
alternative thermal treatment technologies now
available for destroying hazardous wastes. Basic
design and operational data are presented for each
type of unit, and a population profile is given for avail-
able units in the United States that are either cur-
rently burning hazardous wastes or have the poten-
tial to do so.
2.1 INCINERATORS*
Five types of incinerators are available and operating
today:
Liquid injection
Hearth
Fluidized bed
Rotary kiln
Fume
Estimates of the total number and distribution of haz-
ardous waste incinerators by type and EPA Region
that were believed to be operating in 1984 are listed in
Table 1.
Figure 2 shows the national distribution of hazardous
waste incineration facilities by State that responded
to an EPA survey conducted in 1981. According to the
results of this survey, liquid injection incinerators are
by farthe most prevalent, with 136 units in operation.
More than 70 incinerator units of other types also
have liquid incineration capabilities. As Figure 2 and
Table 1 show, most hazardous waste incineration
facilities are located in known chemical industry cen-
ters (i.e.. Regions II through VI). Almost 24% of the
facilities responding to EPA's survey are located in
two southern states - Texas and Louisiana. Approx-
imately 80% of all units in use today are less than 10
years old, and 50% are 6 to 10 years old.2
*More complete descriptions of incinerator designs can be found in Refer-
ence 1.
2-7
-------
Table 1. Estimated Number of Hazardous Waste Incinerators in Each EPA Region*
EPA Region
Type
Liquid injection
Hearth with liquid capability
Fume with liquid capability
Rotary kiln with liquid capability
Combination system f
Rotary kiln (solids only)
Hearth (solids only)
Ammunition and explosives (military)
Ammunition and explosives (nonmilitary)
Drum burner
OtherJ
Type not specified
Total
1
7
—
—
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
4
—
12
II
15
1
—
2
1
—
3
—
—
1
2
3
28
III
12
4
2
—
—
—
8
1
—
—
1
2
30
IV
23
8
10
4
—
1
1
2
1
4
2
3
59
V
16
4
—
1
2
—
2
—
—
1
1
4
31
VI
57
10
6
3
2
—
6
4
—
1
1
5
95
VII
2
2
1
—
—
—
1
—
—
—
1
1
8
VIII
—
3
—
—
—
—
—
2
—
—
—
—
5
IX
4
1
5
—
—
—
1
2
—
—
1
2
16
X
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
0
Total
136
33
24
10
5
1
23
11
1
7
13
20
284
*Source: Reference 2
•(-Includes interconnected multiple units (e.g., hearth or rotary kiln connected in series with liquid injection unit).
J Includes at least four f luidized bed units.
Figure 2
Distribution of hazardous waste incinerators, by state.
Hawaii - 2
Puerto Rico - 4
Source: Reference 2
2-2
-------
Table 2. Manufacturers of Major Incinerator Types*
Hearth
Incinerators
Basic Environmental
Engineering
Bayco
Burn-Zol
Econo-Therm Energy
Systems
Ecolaire ECP
Epcon Industrial
Systems, Inc.
Midland-Ross
Therm-Tech
Washburn and Granger
Liquid Injection
Incinerators
Brule'
C&H Combustion
CE Raymond
CJS Energy Resources,
Inc.
Coen
Entech Industrial
Systems
Hirt Combustion
McGill
Peabody International
Prenco
Shirco
Sur-Lite
Trane Thermal
John Zink
Rotary Kiln
Incinerators
CE Raymond
C&H Combustion
Fuller Company
Industronics
International
Incinerators
Thermall, Inc.
Trofe Incineration
Vulcan Iron Works
U.S. Smelting Furnace
Fluidized Bed
Incinerators
CE Raymond
Copetech
Dorr Oliver
Fuller Company
Sur-Lite
Other Types of
Incinerators
Midland-Ross-Rotary
Hearth
Pyro-Magnetics-lnduction
Heating
Rockwell-Molten Salt
Shirco-lnfrared
•Appendix A contains a complete listing of manufacturers with addresses and phone numbers.
Source: Reference 18.
Each incinerator type is distinguished from the oth-
ers primarily by combustion chamberdesign. Some-
times two types are designed to be used together
(e.g., a rotary kiln with liquid injection). Several
incinerator types are described in Sections 2.2.1
through 2.2.5. Table 2 lists current manufacturers of
various types of incinerators (see also Appendix A).
Table 3 shows typical incinerator capacities
expressed in terms of thermal input.
Table 3. Thermal Capacities of Hazardous Waste Incinerator
Types As Reported by Manufacturers*
Incinerator
Type
Liquid injection
Hearth
Rotary kiln
Fluidized bed
Range,
10s Btu/h
0.125—130
0.17—17.5
1 — 150
8.5 — 67
Typical Value,
106 Btu/h
8
4.9
10.3
45.5
•Source: Reference 2.
Each incinerator is usually designed to achieve max-
imum incineration efficiency for the amount and spe-
cific type(s) of wastes it will handle. Some manufac-
turers have been requested to bid on facilities with
thermal capacities as large as 300 million Btu/h. Such
large incinerators may have several primary combus-
tion chambers ducted to a common secondary cham-
ber.
Incinerator manufacturers design hazardous waste
units to operate at specific conditions, depending on
the type and size of the incinerator, characteristics of
the wastes to be burned, and current or expected reg-
ulatory limitations on emissions. The most important
operating conditions directly controlled by design
are the combustion zone temperature, combustion
gas residence time, and excess air usage. Table 4
summarizes typical operating conditions for units in
operation today.
During incineration, combustion zone temperatures
may reach 1600°C (2900°F). The flue gas from such
processes has substantial heating value, which can
be recovered and used if the volumetric gas flow rate
is adequate. The installation of energy-recovery
equipment on hazardous waste incinerators is pri-
marily governed by economic considerations. Three
factors that may preclude installation of energy-
recovery equipment are the economy of installation
on small incinerators, the presence of corrosive con-
stituents such as hydrogen chloride in the flue gases
(which can quickly deteriorate energy-recovery
equipment), and the presence of adhesive particu-
lates in the flue gas (which can cause buildup on the
heat exchanger tubes). Generally, energy recovery on
incinerators smaller than 7 million Btu/h has proved
to be uneconomical.
2-3
-------
Table 4. Typical Incinerator Operating Conditions, As Reported by Manufacturers*
Incinerator Type
Liquid injection
Fume
Rotary kiln
Afterburner
Combustion Zone
Temperature, °C (°F)
980-1650
(1800-3000)
700-820
(1300-1500)
650-1260
(1200-2300)
1100-1370
(2000-2500)
Combustion Gas
Residence Time, S
0.3-2.0
0.3-0.5
2 h (solids)
1.0-3.0
Excess Air,
% Stoichiometric
120-250
50-200
50-250
120-200
Hearth
Primary chamber
Secondary chamber
Fluidized bed
650-980
(1200-1800)
760-1200
(1400-2200)
760-1100
(1400-2000)
1.5-2.5
1.0-5.0
30-200
200-400
100-150
*Source: Reference 2.
These conditions are typical of most units in operation in the United States between 1980 and 1985. Note that some individual units may be
designed to operate outside these typical ranges.
To meet Federal and State emission standards under
RCRA and the Clean Air Act, hazardous waste incin-
erators are usually equipped with mechanical
devices to control particulate, hydrogen chloride,
chlorine, sulfur oxides, and other emissions to the
atmosphere. The following factors can affect the ulti-
mate selection of the control device for these units:
Federal, State, and local emission regulations
Properties of the waste being incinerated
Type of incinerator used
Customer preference
Equipment cost
Most hazardous waste incinerators are currently
equipped with devices to control both gaseous and
particulate emissions. However, units burning non-
chlorinated wastes with little or no ash content (e.g.,
less than 0.5%) may not need this equipment.
Air pollution control equipment, which is located
downstream of the final combustion chamber and
any energy-recovery equipment, can consist of one
or more of the following devices or components:
• A quench chamber for (1) lowering exhaust gas
temperatures to protect the exhaust system of the
downstream air pollution control equipment (e.g.,
fan, ducts, and stack); (2) saturating the gas
stream with water to improve scrubber perfor-
mance; and (3) lowering exhaust gas volume to
reduce the size of the air pollution control device.
• A particulate collection device (e.g., cyclone, ven-
turi scrubber, fabric filter, electrostatic precipita-
tor).
• A gas-absorbing device for removing gaseous
pollutants such as S02, NOX, HCI, etc. (e.g., packed
bed scrubber, plate scrubber, free-jet scrubber,
spray tower scrubber).
• A mist eliminator for dewatering the gases before
discharge.
Most hazardous waste incinerator manufacturers
buy air pollution control equipment from vendors
rather than manufacture the equipment themselves.
2.1.1 Fixed- Hearth (Controlled or Starved Air)
The combustion chamber of the hearth incinerator is
a stationary unit into which solids and sludges are
introduced and burned. Although many units of this
type have only a single (or primary) combustion
chamber, others have both a primary and secondary
chamber. Liquid waste may be introduced into either
the primary or secondary chamber. The addition of a
grate system allows combustion air to flow above
and below the waste (termed "overfire" and
"underfire air," respectively) to enhance combustion.
The combustion chamber of the fixed-hearth incin-
cerator may be cylindrical or rectangular. Small units
are usually built vertically to occupy less space. Rec-
tangular units often have primary and secondary
chambers divided by a refractory wall within the
same steel shell. Cylindrical units often have separate
primary and secondary combustion chambers; the
secondary unit is installed on top of the primary unit.
Oil or gas burners are usually installed in both the
primary and secondary chambers for startup and for
providing auxiliary fuel as needed.
Typical waste-loading system capacities range from
400 to 2400 Ib/h (3.0 to 18 million Btu/h). Systems for
loading wastes into fixed-hearth combustion cham-
bers are usually hydraulic-ram/hopper systems or
cart-dumping systems. Generally, it is not econom-
ical to install loaders on incinerators with capacities
of less than 200 Ib/h (1.5 million Btu/h). Such units are
usually loaded manually.
2-4
-------
Ash-removal systems are usually equipped with a
hydraulic ram or series of hydraulic rams to push the
ash toward the opposite end of the combustion
chamberfrom the charging door. The ash is conveyed
to or dumped directly into a quench tank filled with
water. Ash-removal systems are economical to install
on continuously operating incinerators with capaci-
ties greater than 500 Ib/h (3.75 million Btu/h).
Fixed-hearth incinerators have the following advan-
tages and disadvantages:
Advantages:
1. A wide variety of wastes with different
chemical properties can be handled.
2. Maintenance costs are typically low
because there are no moving parts inside
the incineration chamber.
3. The small size of these units makes them
favorable for onsite treatment of small
quantities of hazardous waste.
4. Generally, the low combustion air input
volume (starved air) in the primary cham-
ber maintains a quiescent environment
resulting in lowered entrained ash or par-
ticulate matter in the combustion gases
entering the secondary combustion cham-
ber.
Disadvantages:
1. Supplemental fuel must be provided for
many of the solid hazardous wastes that
are typically incinerated in these units.
2. Because of their small size, these units are
not applicable to incineration of large vol-
umes of hazardous waste.
3. A secondary hearth is generally necessary
for the required destruction of hazardous
waste.
2.1.2 Rotary Kiln Incinerators
Rotary kiln incinerators are refractory-lined, rotating
cylindrical steel shells mounted slightly inclined from
the horizontal, as shown in Figure 3. The incline facili-
tates ash and slag removal. Rotation of the shell
provides transportation of the waste through the kiln
and enhances mixing of the waste with combustion
air. The rotational speed is used to control waste
residence time and mixing.
Rotary kiln incineration systems generally have at
least two combustion chambers: a rotating or rock-
ing kiln and an afterburner. Afterburners are used to
ensure complete combustion of flue gases before
their treatment for air pollutants. A tertiary combus-
tion chamber can be added if needed.
Both castable and brick refractories are used in rotary
kilns and afterburners. Castable refractories are gen-
erally used in small rotary kilns (those rated less than
Figure 3.
Schematic of rotary kiln incinerator.
Fuel
To APCD
' and Stack
Combustion
Gases
Ash
Source: Reference 1.
6 million Btu/h). Larger kilns, which comprise the
majority, are typically lined with 5 to 10 cm (2 to 4 in.)
of insulating refractory covered by 15.2 to 25.4 cm (6
to 10 in.) of temperature and erosion-resistant refrac-
tory. Afterburners are usually lined with high-tem-
perature refractory.
Two types of rotary kilns are currently being man-
ufactured: cocurrent and countercurrent. In cocur-
rent rotary kilns, the burner is located at the front end
where the waste is fed; in countercurrent rotary kilns,
the burner is located at the end opposite the feed.
Length-to-diameter ratios of the kiln range from 1 to
5. Outside diameters are usually less than 4.6 m (15
ft.), so they can be shipped by rail or truck. The kilns
rotate from 1 to 7 revolutions per hour, depending on
the nature of the waste. Design heat-release rates
normally range from 15,000 to 40,000 Btu/h-ft3. A typi-
cal capacity range is 1323 to 4403 Ib/h for solids and
630 to 2250 l/h for liquids at temperatures of 800° to
1600°C (1470° to 2900°F). Because rotary kilns often
are used to incinerate wastes with high solids con-
tent, most are equipped with ash-collection systems.
The ash system includes wet or dry bins, hoppers,
and conveying systems.
The waste-loading systems on rotary kilns are often
the most complex among the different types of haz-
ardous waste incinerators. Solid, liquid, and con-
tainerized wastes are ususally fed simultaneously to
the kiln, but liquid wastes also may be injected into
the afterburner. Sand or boiler ash can be fed to the
kiln to form a slag to protect the refractory from abra-
sion as long as the slag remains molten. Containers
as large as 210-L (55-gal) drums can be fed through
loaders equipped with air locks and hydraulic drum
dumpers. Other kinds of loading systems include
hoppers, screw feeders, hydraulic rams, lances or
pipes for introducing sludges, and liquid-injection
nozzles and burners.
The rotary kiln incinerator can generally be used for
the destruction and ultimate disposal of any form of
hazardous waste material that is combustible. It has
also been shown to be useful for decontaminating
noncombustible materials such as soils, capacitors,
and the like. Poor candidates for incineration in a
rotary kiln are wastes with a high moisture content or
2-5
-------
containing significant amounts of toxic metals.
Rotary kiln incinerators have the following advan-
tages and disadvantages:
Advantages:
1. The most unique advantage of a rotary kiln
incineration system is its ability to retain
and tumble the wastes for achieving com-
plete combustion. This ability is especially
important when high ash waste is involved.
2. The rotary kiln incinerator will incinerate a
wide variety of liquid and solid wastes.
3. This incinerator will incinerate materials
passing through a melt phase.
4. Liquids and solids can be received indepen-
dently or in combination.
5. Drums and bulk containers can be accepted
in the feed.
6. The rotary kiln incinerator is adaptable to a
wide variety of feed mechanism designs.
7. The continuous ash removal does not inter-
fere with the waste oxidation.
8. There are no moving parts inside the kiln
(except when chains are added to facilitate
heat transfer or to enhance mixing).
Disadvantages:
1. Capital cost for installation is high.
2. Operating care is necessary to prevent
refractory damage; thermal shock is a par-
ticularly damaging event.
3. Airborne particles may be carried out of the
kiln before combustion is complete.
4. Spherical or cylindrical items may roll
through the kiln before combustion is com-
plete.
5. Problems in maintaining seals at either end
of the kiln can result in operating difficulties.
Also, the induced draft fan and air pollution
control equipment must be oversized to
handle extra flue gas flow resulting from
infiltration of gas through leaking seals.
6. Under certain conditions (e.g. temperature,
rotation speed, waste feed rate and com-
position), molten solids can form and
accumulate on the walls of the kiln, forming
layers or rings which can restrict the flow of
wastes or interfere with the overall opera-
tion of the unit.
2.1.3 Liquid-Injection Incinerators
Liquid-injection incinerators are usually single-
chamber units, either vertical or horizontal. Vertical
units may be upfired (i.e., the burner is on the lower
end and fires upward), and combustion gases exit at
the top of the combustion chamber. Downfired units
are equipped with a wet quench at the combustion
chamber exist atthe bottom of the unit; this feature is
especially important when wastes have a high salt
content. Liquid injection can be used to incinerate
virtually any combustible liquid waste, including
slurries and sludges with a viscosity of up to 10,000
Saybolt second units. This viscosity represents the
upper limit at which atomization can be used to expe-
dite the conversion of liquid waste to a gas before
combustion. Atomization is accomplished by the use
of gas-fluid nozzles with high-pressure air or steam.
Efficient destruction of liquid hazardous waste
results from minimizing unevaporated droplets and
unreacted vapors.
Castable and brick refractories are used for the com-
bustion chamber in a liquid injection incinerator.
Selection of the refractory is based on the waste
characteristics. Length-to-diameter ratios of liquid-
injection units are typically 2 or 3 to 1, and the diame-
ter is usually less than 3.7 m (12 ft). Burners are nor-
mally situated in the chamber so their output will not
impinge on the refractory walls. The refractory
should be rated for at least 1370°C(2500°F). As the pro-
cess air comes in contact with the combustion cham-
ber wall, it is preheated to between 150° and 370°C
(300° and 700°F) before it enters the combustion zone.
Typical heat release rates in the combustion chamber
are approximately 25,000 Btu/h-ft3. Ash-removal sys-
tems are generally unnecessary for liquid-injection
incinerators because of the low ash content of most
liquid wastes. A schematic of a horizontal liquid-
injection incinerator is presented in Figure 4.
Liquid wastes are transferred from drums or tank
trucks into a feed tank, where recirculation systems
or mixers are used to mix the tank contents. Before
introduction of the waste liquid, a gaseous auxiliary
fuel (such as propane) is normally used to preheat the
incinerator system to an equilibrium temperature of
about 815°C (1500°F). The waste is then pumped from
the tank and sent either directly to the incinerator or
to a blending tank to be combined with other wastes
before incineration.
Poor candidates for liquid-injection incinerators are
noncombustibles (such as heavy metals), wastes
with a high moisture content, inert materials,
inorganic salts, and materials with a high inorganic
content. Viscous wastes are also unsuitable.
Liquid-injection incinerators have the following
advantages and disadvantages:
Advantages:
1. Liquid-injection incinerators can incinerate a
wide range of liquid wastes.
2. These systems are capable of a fairly high turn-
down ratio.
3. These incinerators have virtually no moving
parts.
2-6
-------
Figure 4.
Horizontal liquid-injection incinerator.
Liquid Waste from Plant
Waste-Tar
Feed
Separate Tanks for High and Low
Melting-Point Liquids
Venturi Scrubber Lined
with Acid-Resisting Plastic
Strainer
Recycled Waste
Water
Burning
Tank
Relief
Stack
(Closed
During
Operation
Natural
Gas
Atomizing
Blower
Combustion Air Blower
Stack
Mi
/B rj—h
Induced-Draft Fan
Water
Water
Disadvantages:
1. Generally limited to wastes that can be atom-
ized through a burner.
2. Burners are susceptible to plugging. (Burners
are designed to accept a certain particle size;
thus the particle size of any solids contained in
the liquid waste feed is a critical parameter for
successful operation.)
3. Burners may not be able to accept a material
that dries and cakes as it passes through the
nozzles.
2.1.4 Fume Incinerators
Fume incinerators are used to destroy gaseous or
fume wastes. The combustion chambers are com-
parable with those of liquid-injection incinerators in
that they are usually single-chamber units, are verti-
cal or horizontal in configuration, and use nozzles to
inject the wastes into the unit for combustion. Wastes
are injected by pressure or atomization through the
burner nozzles. Using the waste in this manner to
maintain combustion requirements reduces second-
ary fuel requirements. Wastes may be combusted
solely by thermal or catalytic oxidation.
Castable and brick refractories are used in the com-
bustion chamber of a fume incinerator. The type used
depends on the temperature required to incinerate
the waste. For some units, combustion chamber tem-
perature is maintained at 650° to 980°C (1200° to
1800°F) with a fume retention time of 0.3 to 1.0 s to
achieve maximum conversion to carbon dioxide and
water. Use of a catalyst such as alumina coated with
noble metals (e.g., platinum, palladium, and rho-
dium) and other materials (e.g., copper chromate and
oxides of copper, chromium, and manganese) can
lower the required temperature to 260° to 480°C (500°
to 900°F) and can also decrease retention time.
Exhaust gas from the incinerator can be passed
through a heat exchanger before discharge to
recover heat energy for a variety of uses. Fume incin-
erators may be equipped with air pollution control
devices for removing SOX or Cl gases, depending on
the composition of the waste gases. Particulate con-
trols and ash collection equipment are seldom
needed because gaseous wastes yield very little ash
when completely incinerated.
Fume incinerators have the following advantages
and disadvantages:
Advantages:
1. Fume incinerators can incinerate a wide range
of gaseous wastes.
2. Continuous ash removal and particulate con-
trol systems are usually not required.
3. These incinerators have virtually no moving
parts.
2-7
-------
Disadvantages:
1. If heat content of the burned waste is not ade-
quate to maintain ignition and incineration
temperatures, a supplemental fuel must be
provided.
2. The catalyst is deactivated and must be
replaced periodically.
Figure 5.
Fluidized-bed incinerator.
APCD
-Waste Feed Sample
Source: Reference 1.
•Air Heater
2.1.5 Fluidized-Bed Incinerators
The combustion chamber of a fluidized-bed incinera-
tor is a vertical vessel containing a bed of inert granu-
lar material into which the waste is injected (Figure 5).
The inert material consists of alumina, sand, etc., that
is kept at a temperature ranging from 450° to 850°C
(840° to 1560°F). Gases are blown through the bed
material from below at a rate sufficiently high to
cause the bed materials to fluidize. The bed is pre-
heated to startup temperatures by a burner whose
output impinges on the bed. Wastes are injected into
the combustion chamber pneumatically, mechan-
ically, or by gravity. As the waste is fed to the combus-
tion chamber, sufficient heat is transferred from the
bed material to the waste to achieve combustion.
Conversely, upon combustion, the waste returns heat
to the bed. The high temperature of the bed also
allows for the combustion of waste gases above the
bed.
Some designs include dual recirculating beds and/or
afterburners to enhance the overall combustion effi-
ciency. The fluidized-bed incinerator also may be
equipped with an ash-drop chamber or cyclone to
reduce particulate loading to the air pollution control
or heat recovery equipment. In the case of a circulat-
ing bed, a cyclone is required to separate the bed
material from the ash before it is recirculated to the
combustion chamber. Ash removal is needed to
maintain a constant bed height and to avoid defluid-
ization or agglomeration of the bed material.
Both brick and castable refractories can be used for
the fluidized-bed chamber. The vertical chamber typ-
ically ranges from 2.7 to 7.6 m (9 to 25 ft) in diameter.
In the fluidized state the bed material is 1.5 to 2.4m (5
to 8 ft) deep. Variations in the bed depth affect both
residence time and air pressure drop, which are
important variables for ensuring complete combus-
tion. Bed temperatures are restricted by the fusion
temperature of the waste ash or by the softening
point of the bed medium, which is about 900°C
(1652°F) for sand. Waste and auxiliary fuel are
injected radially into the bed, and reaction occurs at
temperatures from 450° to 820°C (840° to 1500°F). Fur-
ther reaction occurs above the bed at temperatures
up to 980°C (1800°F). Gas velocities in the bed range
from 0.76 to 2.4 m/s (2.5 to 8.0 ft/s); the lower value
applies to wet wastes when the water must volatilize.
The gas velocity is constrained by the terminal
velocity and particle size. Too high a velocity results
in bed attrition and heavy particulate loading in the
flue gas.
The residence time for liquid hazardous wastes in a
fluidized-bed incinerator can be as much as 12 to 14 s.
Reactor heat-release rates range up to as much as 15
million kcal/h. Waste input feed rates of up to 1360 L/h
are reported for liquids with a heat content of more
than 10,000 Btu/lb. and feed rates of up to 7570 L/h are
reported for liquids with a heat content of 3000 Btu/lb.
A fluidized-bed incinerator is most effective for the
processing of heavy sludges and slurries. Some com-
binations of organic and inorganic wastes, as well as
liquid and gaseous combustible wastes, are also
suited for fluidized-bed incinerators. A large amount
of solid matter may require sorting, drying, shred-
ding, and special feed considerations before it is fed
to the reactor.
Fluidized-bed incinerators have the following advan-
tages and disadvantages:
Advantages:
1. Fluidized-bed incinerators are generally appli-
cable forthe disposal of combustible solids, liq-
uids, and gaseous wastes.
2. The design concept is simple, and no moving
parts are required in the combustion zone.
3. Because of the compact design resulting from
the high heating rate perunitvolume(100,000to
200,000 Btu/h-ft3), capital costs are relatively
low.
4. Relatively low gas temperatures and excess air
requirements tend to minimize nitrogen oxide
formation and contribute to smaller, lower-cost
emission control systems.
5. These incinerators have long lives and low
maintenance costs.
6. The large active-surface area resulting from the
fluidizing action increases the combustion effi-
ciency.
7. Fluctuations in the feed rate and composition
are easily tolerated because of the large quan-
tities of heat stored in the bed.
2-8
-------
Table 5. Estimated Number of Industrial Boilers in 1980*
Size Range, 1 0 Btu
SIC
20
22
26
28
29
30
33
36
Industry
Food and kindred
Textiles
Paper
Chemicals
Petroleum
Rubber
Primary metals
Electronics
Other
Total
<50
2,140
580
720
2,510
680
420
1,200
740
4,650
13,640
50-99
800
400
450
840
330
210
290
160
830
4,310
100-249
590
100
660
1,070
370
70
360
50
650
3,920
250-499
59
3
340
370
130
7
160
4
60
1,130
500+
9
—
180
79
34
3
63
—
12
380
Total
Boilers
3,600
1,080
2,350
4,870
1,540
710
2,070
950
6,210
23,380
'Sources: References 6 and 7.
8. These incinerators provide for rapid drying of
moisture in the waste feed.
9. Selection of proper bed material suppresses
acid gas formation, thereby reducing emission
control requirements.
10. There is the potential for metals capture in the
bed, thereby preventing emissions to the
environment.
Disadvantages:
1. Residual materials are difficult to remove from
the bed.
2. Preparation of the fluid bed is required.
3. Feed must be selected to avoid bed degradation
caused by corrosion or reaction.
4. Special operating procedures may be required
to avoid bed damage.
5. Operating costs may be relatively high, par-
ticularly power costs.
6. Formation of eutectics can be a serious prob-
lem.
7. Because only a few fluidized-bed units are in
operation, hazardous waste incineration prac-
tices have not yet been fully developed.
8. These incinerators are not well suited for irregu-
lar, bulky wastes, tarry solids, or wastes whose
ash has a low fusion temperature.
2.2 BOILERS
In contrast to incinerators, whose main objective is to
destroy hazardous wastes, boilers are constructed to
produce steam for electrical generation (utility
boilers) or for onsite process needs (industrial
boilers). Also, hazardous wastes compose the pri-
mary feed to incinerators, whereas they are usually a
supplementary fuel for boilers. Fuel inputs to indus-
trial boilers vary with process requirements, which
may fluctuate considerably more than waste feed to a
hazardous waste incinerator. Before chlorinated
wastes can be fired to boilers, their compatibility with
materials of construction and air pollution control
equipment must be considered so as to minimize cor-
rosion problems and hydrogen chloride emissions.
Reportedly there are approximately 2600 fossil-fuel-
fired utility boilers and more than 23,000 fossil-fuel-
fired industrial boilers (9800 with capacities greater
than 50 x 10s Btu/hr) in the United States.5-6 Coal is the
primary fuel in both boiler sectors, but oil and gas are
also used. The concept of disposing of hazardous
wastes in boilers has centered around industrial
boilers because (1) their operation is more flexible
than utility boilers, (2) they offer the potential of
destroying hazardous wastes generated on site, and
(3) the storage and handling facilities for hazardous
wastes generated on site generally already exist.
Industrial boilers are prevalent throughout the
United States. Table 5 estimates the number of indus-
trial boilers, by size range, used in various industries.
all of these industries are potentially major sources of
hazardous wastes.7
No boilers are presently known to be burning haz-
ardous wastes other than waste oils. EPA conducted a
series of test burns on firetube and watertube indus-
trial boilers with capacities ranging from 10 to 250
million Btu/h (approximately 10,000 to 250,000 Ib of
steam/h). The primary fuels used in these boilers
were gas, oil, coal, and wood. The results of these
tests are discussed in Section 4.
2.2.1 Boiler Design
Two types of industrial boilers are typically used:
watertube and firetube. In watertube boilers, hot gas
passes over water- or steam-filled tubes that line the
combustion chamber walls. In firetube boilers, hot
gas flows directly through tubes that are submerged
in water. Other designs (e.g., cast iron or shell units'
are occasionally used in applications where low-
pressure steam is all that is needed. Most boilers hav-
ing capacities greater than 30 x 106 Btu/h are water-
tube boilers.
Watertube boilers can either be field-erected or pack-
aged units (pre-assembled by the manufacturer
complete with fuel burning equipment before deliv-
ery to a site). Field-erected units usually have capaci-
ties greater than 100 x 106 Btu/h, whereas smaller
watertube boilers are often packaged units.
2-9
-------
Firetube boilers are generally packaged units with
capacities less than 30 x 106 Btu/h. The upper pressure
limits on firetube boilers range from 150 to 250 psig,
whereas small watertube boilers have been built for
operation at up to 600 psig.
Industrial boilers may be fueled with coal, oil, gas, or
process wastes such as bagasse (dry sugar cane
pulp), saw dust, or black liquor (paper pulping). The
principal distinction among these boilers is the type
of fuel-firing mode; however, such factors as furnace
volume, operating pressure, and the configuration of
internal heat transfer surface also differ. Firing mode
is governed bythe type of firing equipment, the fuel-
handling equipment, and the placement of the
burners on the furnace walls. The following are the
major types of firing modes:
• Single- or opposed-wall
• Tangential
• Cyclone
• Stoker
Except for stoker firing, each of the major firing
modes can be used in boilers burning gas, oil, or pul-
verized coal. (Cyclone-fired boilers are usually
designed to fire coal as the principal fuel, however.)
For stoker-fired units to fire other fuels (including haz-
ardous wastes), they would have to be retrofitted with
burners. Otherwise, these boilers can burn only solid
fuels (e.g., coal) that will remain on the stoker grate
until burned.
In single- and opposed-wall-fired furnaces, the
burners are mounted horizontally on the walls of the
combustion chamber. These units have the capacity
to burn gas, oil, pulverized coal, or a combination of
these fuels. Opposed-wall firing is used in larger
units, and heat input capacities generally exceed 4
billion Btu/h. Turbo-fired units are similar to horizon-
tally opposed-wall-fired units, but the burners are set
at an angle in the vertical plane. The intermixing of
the opposing streams produces highly turbulent con-
ditions, and combustion takes place below the fur-
nace throat.
In tangentially fired units, the furnace is characterized
by a square cross-sectional shape, and burners are
mounted in two or more corners. The burners are
fired tangential to a small imaginary circle in the cen-
ter of the square, and the flames exhibit a rotating or
spinning motion.
In cyclone-fired units, fuel and air are introduced cir-
cumferentially into a water-cooled, cylindrical com-
bustion chamber. Cyclone burners were originally
designed to burn crushed, low-ash-fusion-tempera-
ture coals. Construction of these units was discon-
tinued because of difficulties in obtaining suitable
coals and the inability of this design to adapt to low-
NO« operation.
Stoker-fired boilers are designed to burn solid fuels
on a bed. The bed is either a stationary grate through
which ash falls or a moving grate that dumps the ash
into a hopper. The two most common types of stoker
designs are underfeed (single- and multiple-retort)
and overfeed (spreader) stokers. In the underfeed
designs, both fuel and air move in the same relative
direction. Rams force the new fuel into the furnace
from beneath the fuel bed as ash is pushed aside and
collected. Spreader stokers are of the overfeed
design, which distributes the fuel by projecting it
evenly over the fuel bed. A portion of the coal burns in
suspension, however. The upper limit of spreader
stoker size is a heat input of about 600 x 106 Btu/h.
Additional information on boiler design and opera-
tion can be found in Steam - It's Generation and Use,
published by the Babcock and Wilcox Company in
1978.
2.3 PROCESS ROTARY KILNS
(CEMENT, LIME, AND AGGREGATE)
Industrial process rotary kilns are used to produce
cement, lime, and aggregate in the United States.
Some 200 process kilns are currently in operation
across the country. Typical kilns range in size from 18
m (60 ft) long and 1.8 m (6 ft) in diameter to 230 m (760
ft) long and 7.6 m (25 ft) in diameter. These kilns are
often larger than those used to incinerate hazardous
wastes.
Like rotary kiln incinerators, process kilns are placed
in a near-horizontal position and continuously
rotated so that raw materials fed into the upper end
travel slowly by gravity until they are discharged
from the lower end. These kilns can be fired from
either end, depending on whether cocurrent or coun-
tercurrent flow of the charge and combustion gases is
desired. The configuration of the aggregate kiln (Fig-
ure 6) is also typical of other process kiln systems,
such as those used for cement and lime manufactur-
ing.
2.3.1 Cement Kilns and the Manufacture of
Cement
In 1984, more than 70.8 metric tons (78million tons of
cement were produced by 143 cement plants in 40
States. These plants were operated by 47 different
companies and one State agency. Portland cement
accounted for 96% of the total production. Capacities
of these plants range from 0.18 to 9.80 metric tons (0.2
to 10.8 million tons/year. Figure 7 presents the dis-
tribution of U.S. cement kilns by State as of 1980.
The production of cement involves four steps: (1)
quarrying and crushing the raw materials, (2) grind-
ing and blending these materials into feed at proper
proportions, (3) calcining the raw materials at
extremely high temperatures to form clinker (an inte-
rim product), and (4) finish-grinding of the clinker,
blending the clinker with gypsum, and packaging the
finished product. About 2.9 metric tons (3.2 tons) of
raw material (limestone, alumina, silica, and iron)
and 6.1 million Btu are required to produce 1 ton of
cement. About 90% of the energy is supplied by coal.
2-10
-------
Figure 6- Lightweight aggregate rotary kiln cooler.
Feed
To Air Pollution ^ -»
Control System 4
Feed
House
Control
Panel
Fuel
Source: Reference 8.
Product
Discharge
Figure 7. Distribution of Portland cement plants, by state.
Hawaii - 1
Source: Reference 9.
2-77
-------
Figure 8. Schematic diagram of Portland cement process flow.
Separate
Raw Material
Storgae
Ground
Raw
Material
Storage
( ^
T
Fuel
Air
Source: Reference 11.
The cement industry uses four basic processes in
cement making — the wet process, the dry process,
the semiwet process, and the preheater precalcining
process. In the wet process (Figure 8), the raw mate-
rials are formed into a slurry containing 30% to 35%
water. The wet slurry facilitates blending and mixing,
which can compensate for variations in the chemical
composition of the raw materials. This step Is impor-
tant in maintaining uniform clinker quality. Approx-
imately 44% of the cement plants now use the wet
process. This process is highly energy-intensive,
however, and great improvements have been made
in dry blending and material handling; thus almost
all new cement plants use the dry process, and many
old wet process plants are including conversion to
the dry process in their modernization plans. In the
dry process (Figure 8), the moisture content is
reduced to less than 1% before or during grinding,
and the dry powder is fed directly into the kiln. The
dry process can be as much as twice as energy-effi-
cient as the wet process because there is no water to
evaporate from the feed.11 The semiwet process is
similar to both the wet and dry processes in that the
raw feed is slurried to approximately 20% water to
obtain a homogeneous mixture and then preheated
by kiln exhaust gas to drive off the water before the
feed enters the kiln.12
Most new dry-process kilns use preheaters, which
increase energy efficiency and permit shorter kilns
Figure 9.
Four-stage preheater kiln.
Planetary Cooler
Fuel
Dry Feed
and Dust
I000°/r
1500°F
1900°F
Kiln
Clinker
Source: Reference 13
2-72
-------
Figure 10. Distribution of domestic lime plants, by state.
Hawaii -1
Puerto Rico -1
Source: Reference 9.
because heating, drying, and even partial calcining of
the feed material take place before the feed enters the
kiln. The suspension preheater, used only in the dry
process, uses a multistage cyclone/suspension sys-
tem to ensure direct contact of the kiln exhaust and
the dry raw feed. The kiln exhaust gases flow counter-
currently to the raw feed through a series of staged
cyclones11 (Figure 9).
Cement kilns range from 18.2 m (60 ft) long and 1.8 m
(6ft) in diameterto232 m (760ft) long and7.6 m (25ft)
in diameter. They are constructed of steel casings
lined with refractory brick. The kiln, which is placed in
a near-horizontal position (with a slope of 3 to 6
degrees), rotates at about 1 rpm on its longitudinal
axis. The blended feed material is fed into the upper
(higher) end of the kiln. The kiln is fired at the lower
end (with coal, gas, oil, or some other liquid fuel) so
that the flow of the exhaust gases is countercurrent to
that of the feed material. As the kiln rotates, the feed
first passes through the chain section, which is the
first 18.3 to 21.3 m (60 to 70 ft) of the kiln. Chains are
used to aid heat transfer, mixing, and drying (if the
kiln is wet-process). As the feed slowly moves down
the kiln, it is exposed to increasing temperatures,
which initiate heating, drying, calcining, and sinter-
ing.
2.3.2 Lime Kilns'"*'6
The United States is the second largest producer of
lime in the world. In 1984, lime producers at 137
plants in 38 states sold or used 14.6 metric tons (16.1
million tons) of lime. The term "lime" is a general
term that includes the various chemical and physical
forms of quicklime and hydrated lime, the two types
generally produced. Figure 10 presents the distribu-
tion of lime kilns by state.
About 6.7 million Btu of energy is required for each
0.91 metric ton (1 ton) of quicklime produced. The
cost of this high energy requirement has led to
increased energy efficiency in the industry and to the
use of more readily available and lower-cost fuels,
especially coal. Recent new plant installations and
modernization projects have incorporated pul-
verized-coal-burning systems and energy-saving
preheater systems.
The lime manufacturing process is similar to that of
cement in that the raw material (usually limestone or
dolomite) is quarried, crushed and sized, and cal-
cined in a kiln at 1093°C (2000°F) (Figure 11). Although
a variety of kiln types can be used, about 85% of the
U.S. producers use the rotary kiln. Kiln sizes vary. The
largest is 152m (500 ft) long and 5.2m (17 ft) in diame-
ter and is capable of producing more than 1090 metric
tons (1200 tons) of quicklime per day.
The calcining drives off nearly half the limestone's
weight as carbon dioxide (C02) and leaves a soft, por-
ous, highly reactive lime known as quicklime (CaO).
Heating beyond this stage can result in lumps of
inert, semi-vitrified material (known as overburned
2-73
-------
Figure 11.
Schematic diagram of lime kiln process.
Natural Gas
Supply
Petroleum Coke
Supply
T
Radiators
Limestone
Feed Exhaust
Gases
Primary Air
Secondary Air
Cooler
r1
-T-T^l y YJ^^J x / 11 •
Screw Conveyor
Lime Product
Exhaust
Li u Stack
/
—
\r
-*•
~1
— ir
J
~IT~
.U. f
-ll
Baghouse
Dust
\xxxxxxx
i
Dust
to Storage
Silo
Source: Reference 17.
or dead-burned lime) that is often used in the man-
ufacture of refractory materials. The quicklime is dis-
charged at the lower end of the kiln into the cooling
system, where it is air-cooled, and then stored in
silos. A portion of the quicklime is hydrated before
storage. Hydrated lime is produced by combining
quicklime with sufficient water to cause formation of
a dry, white powder.
2.5 REFERENCES
1. Bonner, T.A. Engineering Handbook for Haz-
ardous Waste Incineration. EPA-SW-889,
PB81-248163, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1981.
2. Keitz, E. Profile of Existing Hazardous Waste
Incineration Facilities and Manufacturers in
the United States. EPA-600/2-84-052,
PB84-157072/REB, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1984.
3. Novak, R.G. Eliminating or Disposing of Indus-
trial Solid Wastes. Chemical Engineering,
77(21 ):79-82, Oct. 5,1970.
4. Ackerman, D. Destroying Chemical Wastes in
Commercial Scale Incinerators. EPA-530/
SW155C, PB-265 540/5, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1977.
5. Energy Information Administration. U.S. Depart-
ment of Energy Inventory of Power Plants in
the United States: 1982 Annual. DOE/EIA-
0095(82), U.S. Department of Energy, Wash-
ington, D.C., 1982.
6. Energy Information Administration. Report on
the 1980 Manufacturing Industries Energy
Consumption Study and Survey of Large Com-
bustors. U.S Department of Energy, Wash-
ington, D.C., 1981.
7. PEI Associates, Inc., and Paul W. Spaite Co.
Development of a Technology Assessment
Data Base. U.S. Department of Energy, Mor-
gantown. West Virginia, 1984.
8. Reedy, R.W. Lightweight Aggregates Part IV:
Rotary Kiln Operation. Pit and Quarry, 64(5),
Nov. 1971.
9. Lime, In: Mineral Facts and Problems. Preprint
from Bulletin 671 of the U.S. Bureau of Mines,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington,
D.C., 1980.
10. Midwest Research Institute. Paniculate
Pollutant System Study. Vol. Ill, Handbook of
Emission Properties. Cement Manufacture.
APTD-0745, PB-203 522/BE, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,
1971.
11. Barrett, K.W. A Review of Standards of
Performance for New Stationary Sources -
Portland Cement Industry. EPA-450/3-79-
012, PB80-112089, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978.
12. Ames, D. A Proposed Air Resources Board Policy
Regarding Incineration as an Acceptable
Technology for PCB Disposal. Strategy
Development Section Staff, California Air
Resources Board, Sacramento, California,
1981.
13. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The
Hydraulic Cement Industry in the United
2-74
-------
States: A State-of-the-Art Review. MIT Report
R76-41, No. 561, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
1976.
14. PEI Associates, Inc. Guidance Manual for
Cofiring Hazardous Waste in Cement and Lime
Kilns. (Draft report.) U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
15. U.S. Bureau of Mines. Lime, Calcium, and
Calcium Compounds. In: Mineral Facts and
Problems. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C., 1985.
16. A.T. Kearney, Inc. Feasibility of Using Lime Kilns
to Burn Hazardous Wastes. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1981.
17. Day, D.R., and L.A. Cox. Evaluation of Hazardous
Waste Incineration in a Lime Kiln: Rockwell
Lime Company. EPA-600/2-84-132, PB84-
230044/REB, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1984.
18. Vogel, G.A., et al. Incinerator and Cement Kiln
Capacity for Hazardous Waste Treatment.
EPA-600/2-86/093, PB87-11089C/AS, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1987.
2-15
-------
SECT/ON 3
SUMMARY AND ANAL YSIS OF INCINERA TOR PERFORMANCE DA TA
3.1 OVERVIEW
This section discusses and analyzes available test
burn data gathered from 23 incinerators located
throughout the United States. These test data were
taken from trial burn reports submitted to EPA by
RCRA permit applicants covering 14 different incin-
erators, and from the test reports of EPA HWERL-
sponsored studies at nine other operating units. The
tests were conducted between September 1981 and
November 1984. All of the tests consisted of multiple
runs in which one or more hazardous organic constit-
uents in the waste were monitored at varying feed
concentrations or rates, temperatures, or residence
times. Detailed summaries of the data generated dur-
ing each test can be found in Appendix B.
3.2 TEST OBJECTIVES AND
PROCEDURES
3.2.1 EPA Tests'2
The EPA tests were conducted by ORD's HWERL in
Cincinnati and its contractor. Midwest Research
Institute of Kansas City, Missouri, between 1981 and
1984. The first test, conducted in September 1981 at
Cincinnati's Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) incin-
erator, was aimed at verifying the trial burn protocol
presented in a 1981 draft EPA report (Guidance Man-
ual for Evaluating Permit Applications for the Opera-
tion of Hazardous Waste Incinerator Units. Mitre
Corp. EPA Contract No. 68-01-6092, Draft Report
dated April 17,1981).
The second round of tests was conducted between
1982 and 1984 at eight sites across the country in
response to a Congressional mandate to EPA calling
for a regulatory impact analysis of the costs and ben-
efits associated with the regulation of hazardous
waste incinerators. The goal of this latter study was
therefore to develop an extensive data base for use in
characterizing incinerator performance. To do this,
EPA chose the following eight sites for study:
• Ross Incineration Services, Grafton, Ohio
• American Cyanamid Co., Willow Island, West
Virginia
• E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., LaPlace, Loui-
siana
• The Upjohn Company, LaPorte, Texas
• Mitchell Systems, Inc., Spruce Pine, North Car-
olina
• Trade Waste Incineration, Inc., Sauget, Illinois
(TWI)
• Zapata Industries, Inc., Butner, North Carolina
• Confidential Site B - Name and location unre-
ported
These incinerators utilized a variety of combustion
chamber designs and control equipment, as shown
below in Table 6. Waste feeds and operating condi-
tions also varied from one site to another. Typically,
operating conditions during the tests were those
selected by the plants as their normal conditions.
However, at two sites (Site B and TWI), conditions
during some test runs were purposely altered from
normal to study the effect on performance. Any exist-
ing operating problems were usually corrected prior
to the tests.1
Table 6.
Distribution of Incinerator Types and Control
Devices in EPA's Eight-Site Study
Item
No. of Facilities!
Incinerator type:
Liquid injection
Rotary kiln
Hearth
Gas injection
Control device:
None
HCI scrubber
Various particulate controls
8
2
2
1
3
5
4
*Source: Reference No. 1.
fDoes not total 8 because some units have multiple incineration
capabilities and either particulate or HCI controls or both.
Three of the sites tested by EPA were commercial
operations burning a variety of wastes generated off-
site by others. The other five incinerators destroyed
waste feeds generated onsite.
The primary peformance measures examined during
the EPA tests were the DRE's for the organics that
were monitored, and removal rates for HCI and par-
ticulates from the stack gases. Additional parameters
measured at one or more sites included organics in
liquid and solid effluents (e.g., ash and scrubber
waters), PIC's in the stack gas, metal content in ash
and particulates, and dioxin and furan content in par-
3-1
-------
ticulates. Emissions of C02, CO, O2and total hydrocar-
bons (THC) were also monitored. Standard EPA
sampling and analysis methods were used where
applicable, but other state-of-the-art techniques
(e.g., volatile organic sampling train, or VOST which
was under development at the time) were evaluated
and used as necessary. Experience with the sampling
and analysis methods was reviewed, and the entire
body of data was scrutinized for information that
might be useful in a regulatory impact assessment or
in incineration studies. Analyses of the data collected
were directed toward documenting specific observa-
tions for sampling and analysis methods, identifying
impacts of particular incineration conditions, and
developing general conclusions on incinerator per-
formance from data gathered throughout the pro-
gram. As a result, the EPA tests add a substantial
amount of data to existing information on full-scale
incinerators.
To properly interpret the results of the EPA test
results, several qualifying statements must be made.
First, the tests were not intended to thoroughly docu-
ment the relationships between incinerator designs
and destruction of hazardous constituents. A
rigorous experimental matrix of incineration param-
eters was not used, nor were detailed facility charac-
terizations prepared. Instead, as a rule, the facilities
were tested u nder normal operations, with the fewest
possible changes in typical operating conditions. As
a result, the EPA tests do not provide a complete
characterization of incinerator performance for spe-
cific POHC's under varied operating conditions. Also,
it must be recognized that the EPA tests were not offi-
cial trial burns, although they did include most of the
sampling and analysis normally required for trial
burns. Finally, new sampling and analysis pro-
cedures for volatile organics were evaluated during
the study, even though the purpose of the study was
not to investigate methods development. The new
sampling method that was tested is now known as
the Volatile Organic Sampling Train or VOST, and it
was designed to allow the measurement of lower
concentrations of volatile organics than was possible
with current methods at that time. Since the comple-
tion of the test program, EPA has conducted valida-
tion studies of the method and found it to be both
effective and reliable.
The EPA testing consisted of three or more test burns
or runs at each site. The waste feed at each site was
analyzed for RCRA Appendix VIII (40 CFR 261) organic
compounds, and any such compound found in con-
centrations of approximately 100 ppm or more was
monitored. The compounds most frequently
monitored were toluene, tetrachloroethylene, carbon
tetrachloride, and trichloroethylene. If they were not
already present, carbon tetrachloride and tri-
chloroethylene were spiked into the wastes, to
provide a set of data for these two compounds across
all sites (except American Cyanamid). PIC's were
defined as Appendix VIII compounds that were
detected in the stack gas but were not found in the
waste feed at concentrations exceeding 100 ppm.
Volatile emissions (including PIC's) were monitored
by the following three methods:
EPA Method 25 (Tedlar gas bags into which 15 L of
gas were drawn over a 1-h sampling period)
Fast VOST (1 L/min for 20 min per pair of samples;
six pairs of samples for a total sampling time of 120
min)
Slow VOST (0.25 L/min for 20 or 40 min; usually
three pairs of samples for a total sampling time of
120 min)
Semivolatiles were monitored by Modified Method 5
(MM5). Gas bags, fast VOST, and MM5 were used at
all sites to monitor organic emissions; slow VOST
was only tested at three sites (TWI, DuPont, and
Mitchell).
3.2.2 Trial Burn Reports*1*
In addition to the test burn results generated by EPA
at nine sites, this document contains data generated
during trial burn tests of 14 other full-scale incinera-
tors seeking operating permits under RCRA, as listed
below:
• Akzo Chemie America, Morris, Illinois
• Ciba-Geigy Corp., Mclntosh, Alabama
• Dow Chemical U.S.A., Midland, Michigan
• E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Inc., Par-
kersburg, West Virginia
• E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Inc.,
Wilmington, Delaware
• Gulf Oil Corp., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
• McDonnell Douglas Corp., St. Charles, Mis-
souri
• Olin Corp., Brandenberg, Kentucky
• Pennwalt Corp., Calvert City, Kentucky
• SCA Chemical Services, Chicago, Illinois
• Smithkline Chemicals, Conshohocken, Penn-
sylvania
• Stauffer Chemical, Baytown, Texas
• 3M, Cottage Grove, Minnesota
• Union Carbide, South Charleston, West Vir-
ginia
Incinerator types and control devices represented by
this trial burn group of sites are summarized in Table
7.
All of the trial burn studies consisted of multiple tests
or runs that monitored one or more POHC's. The sam-
pling and analysis protocols for each test were dif-
ferent and unique, designed to meet the permit
objectives for each particular incinerator. Similarly,
the results of each trial burn were organized and pre-
sented differently in each report. Typically, baseline
tests were conducted (though not reported herein) to
3-2
-------
determine emission levels attributable to the burning
of auxiliary fuel only or POHC-free wastes. Also, test
runs in which problems were encountered were often
aborted and/or not reported in the RCRA Part B sub-
mittals. As a rule, PIC's, metals, dioxins, and other
nonregulated emissions were not monitored and/or
reported.
Table 7. Distribution of Incinerator Types and Control
Devices for 14 Sites Submitting Trial Burn Reports
Item
Incinerator type:
Liquid injection
Rotary kiln
Hearth
Gas injection
Fluidized-bed
No. of Facilities*
7
5
4
4
1
Control device:
None 2
HCI scrubber 11
Various particulate controls 9
*Does not total 14 because some units have multiple incineration
capabilities and either chlorine or particulate controls or both.
3.3 TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The entire data base contained within this report has
not been statistically evaluated for correlations
between parameter pairs such as POHC con-
centrations in the waste feed and ORE, temperature
and ORE, CO emissions and DRE, etc. Though such an
evaluation would be beneficial to understanding the
thermodynamic processes and interrelationships
involved with the thermal destruction of wastes, it is
beyond the scope of this data collection project.
Nevertheless, portions of the data base developed
through EPA-sponsored testing have been
regorously studied for insights into typical incinera-
tor performance.1 The following subsections present
the results and conclusions generated by analysis of
the EPA test data, as well as general observations
relative to the entire data base contained within this
document.
3.3.1 POHC's, PIC's and DRE
This document contains test results for 57 different
compounds tested at 23 sites during 126 different
runs for a total of 534 compound/test run combina-
tions. Table 8 gives basic overview information on the
23 test sites, the type of incinerator tested, and the
organic compounds that were monitored.
A complete tabulation of key data from these tests
can be found in summary Tables B-1 and B-2 of
Appendix B; the data are grouped either by com-
pound tested (Table B-1) or by facility (Table B-2).
These tables can be used to quickly identify com-
pound-specific DRE results, concentrations tested,
temperatures tested, and questionable test data.
When used in combination with other tables pre-
sented in this section, the appendix listings can be
useful in studying performance relative to various
types of incinerators and wastes or controlled and
uncontrolled conditions.
Table 9 presents a detailed listing of the DRE failures,
listing for each entry the test site, compound tested,
concentration in the waste feed, test run number, test
sponsor, temperature, and where available, the par-
ticulate and HCI emission results. Overall, the data
show that about 80% of the DRE failures occurred
when the concentration of the test compound in the
waste feed was less than 0.1% (1000 ppm) or when the
temperature was less than 1093C (2000F). The test
summaries presented in Appendix B give specific
reasons believed responsible for many of the DRE
failures occurring in this data base.
Another factor identified by EPA as having negative
impact on DRE involves choosing as POHC's those
compounds that are also likely to be present as PIC's
in the stack gases. Several compounds have been
previously identified as PIC's at other facilities (espe-
cially chloroform, methylene chloride, benzene, and
naphthalene). The formation of these compounds
during the incineration of chlorinated organics would
increase their concentration in the stack gas, result-
ing in lower DRE's.
Data compiled from the eight EPA tests were not suffi-
cient to define parametic relationships between
residence time, temperature, heat input, or 02 con-
centration and DRE. In a multivariate analysis of
these four operating conditions, only temperature
showed a marginal correlation with DRE.
The eight EPA tests and at least one of the trial burn
tests investigated test compound levels in scrubber
water and ash; the results show that levels in these
media are generally very low or nondetectable.
These data suggest that the majority of organics are
destroyed rather than merely transferred to another
medium in the incineration process.
Some Appendix VIII compounds detected in the stack
(primarily trihalomethanes) appear to be stripped
from the scrubber water by the hot stack gas. Com-
pounds of this type are often used in scrubber waters
to control microbial growth. In the EPA tests, tri-
halomethanes detected in the scrubber inlet waters
frequently were not detected in the effluent waters.
When such compounds are chosen as POHC's, the
effect can be lower measured or calculated DRE's
even though the destruction mechanisms may have
been unaffected. Recent guidance from EPA states
that all POHC's in the exhaust gases, including any
stripped from the scrubber, should be included in
DRE calculations. (EPA memorandum dated June 26,
1985, from J.H. Skinner, Director, Office of Solid
Waste, to R.W. Schrecongost, Acting Director, Haz-
ardous Waste Management Division of Region III.
Subject: Effect of Water-Stripped POHC's on Incinera-
tor DRE.)
In the EPA tests, stack gas concentrations of PIC's
(defined as Appendix VIII compounds detected in the
3-3
-------
CO
Table 8. Average DRE's by Compound and Incinerator Test Site
Approximate
Test Type of Controlled (c) Types of Source of Temperature
Facility Sponsor Incinerator Uncontrolled (u) Wastes Tested Wastes Range Tested, °F
3M Private
Akzo Private
American EPA
Cyanamid
Ciba Geigy Private
Cincinnati EPA
MSD
Confidential EPA
Site B
Dow Private
DuPont — Private
DE
DuPont — EPA
LA
Rotary kiln with c
secondary
chamber
Vertical cylinder u
Single-chamber u
Rotary kiln with c
secondary
chamber
Rotary kiln and c
cyclonic
furnace
Unknown c
Rotary kiln with c
secondary
chamber
Vertical-cylinder c
Rotary kiln with c
secondary
chamber
Misc. aqueous, 1880-2030
pumpable organic,
and containerized
wastes
Fatty liquids In-house 1620-1830
Liquid chemical In-house 1160-1240
wastes
Synthetic liquid In-house 1800
Liquids — variable Commercial 1660-2410
Liquid organic and Unknown 1780-1950
aqueous wastes
Chemical process In-house 1060-1890
wastes, rubbish,
and sludge
Assorted liquid In-house 1730-2100
chemicals and solid
wastes
Liquid organic In-house 1380-2640
wastes and
drummed solids
Compound Tested
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Formaldehyde
Aniline
Diphenylamine
m-Dinitrobenzene
Mononitrobenzene
Phenylene diamine
Chlorobenzene
Hexachloroethane
Methylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
Bromodichloromethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Dichlorobenzene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachloroethane
Hexachloroethene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Pentachloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethene
Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Carbon tetrachloride
Chloroform
Diethyl phthalate
Naphthalene
Phenol
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichlorobenzenes
Carbon tetrachloride
Dichloromethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Benzyl chloride
Carbon tetrachloride
No. of ORE
Average ORE, % Values Less
(No. of Values) than 99.99%
99.9973(10)
99.9988(10)
99.993777 (9)
99.999918(4)
99.999133(3)
99.99(1)
99.99991 (1)
99.9984 (3)
99.99916(5)
99.9958(5)
99.99856 (5)
99.992 (5)
99.98 (2)
99.966 (5)
99.99 (5)
99.99 (3)
99.99 (6)
99.99 (3)
99.99 (6)
99.981666(6)
99.99 (3)
99.99 (2)
99.986 (5)
99.99(1)
99.99(1)
99.9687 (3)
99.90636 (5)
99.362(5)
99.959666(3)
99.862333 (3)
99.981333(3)
99.975516(5)
99.991306(5)
99.9026 (5)
99.997(2)
99.9975 (2)
99.9935 (2)
99.999851 (7)
99.999642 (7)
99.932(1)
99.999533 (3)
99.99985 (3)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
4
5
3
3
3
2
2
5
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
(Continued)
-------
Table 8. (Continued).
Test Type of
Facility Sponsor Incinerator
DuPont — Private Single-chamber
Controlled (c) Types of
Uncontrolled (u) Wastes Tested
(Paint, filter cake,
and coke wastes)
u Liquid and gas
Approximate
Source of Temperature
Wastes Range Tested, °F Compound Tested
Chloroform
Cis-dichlorobutene
Dichloromethane
Hexachloroethane
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trans-dichlorobutene
Trichloroethylene
In-house 1660-1770 Formaldehyde
Average ORE, %
(No. of Values)
99.990733 (3)
99.999953 (3)
99.999103(3)
99.99 (3)
98.166666(3)
99.999486 (3)
99.999883 (3)
99.999906 (3)
99.99798 (3)
99.996666 (3)
No. of ORE
Values Less
than 99.99%
1
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
wv
Gulf Oil
Private Fluidized-bed
McDonnell Private Double-chamber
Douglas
OJ
61
Mitchell
Systems
EPA
Double-chamber
Olin Corp. Private Single-chamber
Pennwalt Private Single-chamber
Ross EPA Rotary kiln
Incin-
eration
wastes from
plastics manu-
facture
Slop oil emulsion
and other sludge
Assorted solid and
liquid chemicals,
solvents, and
pesticides
Liquid organic and
aqueous wastes
Synthetic organic
liquid and halo-
carbon gas
Halocarbon liquid
and gas
Aqueous, liquid
organic and misc.
drummed wastes
In-house 1275-1340
In-house 1800
Commercial 1850-2050
In-house 2040-2120
In-house 2220
Commercial 2040-2110
Naphthalene
Phenol
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Bis(ethylhexyl)phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Carbon tetrachloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Naphthalene
Phenol
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Dichlorodifluoromethane
Trichlorofluoromethane
Dichlorofluoroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Aniline
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Carbon tetrachloride
Cresol(s)
Dichloromethane
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl pyridine
N,N-dimethylacetamide
Naphthalene
Phenol
Phthalic anhydride
99.998(3)
99.993333 (3)
99.999992 (4)
99.999957 (4)
99.997555 (4)
99.999855 (4)
99.903 (2)
99.995833 (2)
99.986666 (3)
99.994375 (4)
99.991675(4)
99.975333 (3)
99.998153(3)
99.9929(1)
99.96075 (4)
99.988975 (4)
99.99 (2)
99.99985 (2)
99.998142 (7)
99.999173(3)
99.999994(3)
99.9992(3)
99.998(3)
99.998866 (3)
99.996133(3)
99.999133(3)
99.978333 (3)
99.99943 (3)
99.998(3)
99.999866(3)
99.993 (3)
99.994 (3)
99.99 (3)
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
1
1
2
3
0
0
4
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
(Continued).
-------
Table 8. (Continued).
Approximate
Test Type of Controlled (c) Types of Source of Temperature
Facility Sponsor Incinerator Uncontrolled (u) Wastes Tested Wastes Range Tested, °F
SCA Private
Smith Kline Private
Stauffer Private
Chemical
TWI EPA
Union Private
Carbide
Upjohn EPA
Zapata EPA
Rotary kiln with
secondary
chamber
Single-chamber
Acid regeneration
furnace
Double-chamber
Three-chamber
Horizontal
cylinder
Double-chamber
c PCB-containing Commercial 1790-2250
solids and liquids
c Solvent and aqueous In-house 1620-1760
liquid wastes
c Spent acid and In-house 1830
other liquids
c Aqueous, liquid Commercial 1810-2080
organic and solid
ink sludge wastes
c Spent solvents and In-house 1600-1800
other containerized
chemical wastes
c Liquid and gas In-house 2040
(HCI only) production wastes
u Varnish and In-house 1240-1660
liquor wastes
Compound Tested
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
PCB
Chloroform
Methylbenzene
Tetrachloroethene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
1,1,1-Tricholorethane
Benzene
Bis(ethylhexyl)phthalate
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlordane
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform
Dibromomethane
Dichloromethane
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Naphthalene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
1 ,2-Oichlorobenzene
Chlorobenzene
Hexachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Aniline
Bis(ethylhexyl)phthalate
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloromethane
Chlorophenyl isocyanate
m-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
Phenyl isocyanate
Phosgene
Trichloroethylene
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Dichloromethane
Toluene
Trichloroethvlene
No. of ORE
Average ORE, % Values Less
(No. of Values) than 99.99%
99.998473 (3)
99.998513(3)
99.997676 (3)
99.999762 (4)
99.99999 (3)
99.998243 (3)
99.999983 (3)
99.999979 (4)
99.999995 (4)
99.999979 (4)
99.8145(8)
99.992951 (8)
99.93275 (4)
99.997178(8)
99.999866 (3)
99.861237(8)
99.4555 (8)
99.983503 (8)
99.7385 (8)
99.98(1)
99.9924 (4)
99.996(1)
99.860428 (7)
99.996716(8)
99.995168(8)
99.999705(12)
99.999366(12)
99.999906(12)
99.99979(12)
99.333333(3)
99.992866 (3)
99.97 (3)
99.994166(3)
99.9025 (2)
99.9971 (3)
99.9991 (1)
99.919666(3)
99.997 (3)
99.997666 (3)
99.999913(3)
99.99575 (2)
99.99892 (3)
99.993327 (4)
99.99665 (4)
99.906(1)
99.98305 (4)
99.9925 (4)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
3
4
0
0
7
8
4
8
1
0
0
7
0
1
0
0
0
0
3
1
3
0
2
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
-------
Table 9. Listing of Incinerator Test Runs that Failed to Achieve a 99.99% DRE
SITE
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
DUPONT-LA
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
TWI
TWI
TWI
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
CINCINNATI MSD
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
CINCINNATI MSD
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CINCINNATI MSD
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
COMPOUND
1,1,1 trichloroethana
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,2,4 trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4 trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4 Trichlorobenzene
aniline
benzene
benzene
benzene
benzene
benzene
bis(ethylhexyl) phthalate
bis(ethylhexyl) phthalate
bis(ethylhexyl) phthalate
bis(ethylhexyl) phthalate
bis(ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(ethylhexyl)phthalate
bis(ethylhexyl)phthalate
bromodichloromethane
butyl benzyl phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
CONC,%
0.0162
0.016
0.0123
0.011
0.0105
0.0087
0.00792
0.0051
0.001
0.027
0.039
0.029
c
1.43
1.18
0.889
0.0116
0.0067
0.00574
0.00511
0.00429
0.00261
0.05
0.13
0.05
0.28
0.0064
0.00416
1.2
0.23
0.223
0.163
0.142
0.12
0.118
0.11
0.68
0.41
0.0184
0.0174
0.0152
0.0102
DRE,%
99.47
99.88
99.87
99.81
99.86
99.84
99.966
99.82
99.932
99.65
99.75
98.6
99.981
99.984
99.989
99.988
99.986
99.82
99.94
99.96
99.951
99.88
99.98
99.98
99.95
99.97
99.973
99.92
99.978
99.9
99.984
99.984
99.976
99.949
99.63
99.96
99.945
99.86
99.978
99.6
99.73
99.7
TEMP,
°F
2120
2230
2140
2030
2070
2050
2080
1810
2640
2040
2040
2040
2040
2070
2030
1810
2000
2050
2070
2030
2080
1810
2040
2040
2040
1650
1975
1952
1570
2400
2050
1952
1952
1776
2000
2040
2040
2120
2230
2050
2030
HCL,
Ib/h
h
h
h
0.4
0.6
h
0.3
0.2
0.5
0.9
1.7
1.2
1.7
0.6
0.4
0.2
4.9
f
0.6
0.4 -
0.3
0.2
0.9
1.7
1.2
5
3.8
1.83
2.2
89.7
f
0.64
4.47
h
h
7.8
1.7
1.2
h
h
h
0.4
TSP,
gr/dscf
h
h
h
0.127
0.048
h
0.075
0.044
0.015
0.094
0.013
0.08
0.013
0.048
0.127
0.044
0.313
f
0.048
0.127
0.075
0.044
0.094
0.013
0.08
0.107
0.378
0.187
0.03
f
f
f
0.161
h
h
0.056
0.013
0.08
h
h
h
0.127
TEST
No.
8A
6
8B
2
3
7
1
4
1
2
4
3
4
3
2
4
2
3
3
2
1
4
2
4
3
7
4
2
1
6
3
1
3
4
5
5
4
3
8A
6
7
2
SPONSOR
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
CO
SI
(Continued)
-------
Table 9. (Continued.)
SITE
TWI
TWI
TWI
DUPONT-LA
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
TWI
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
TWI
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
TWI
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
COMPOUND
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chloroform
chloroform
chloroform
chloroform
chloroform
chloroform
chloroform
chloroform
chloroform
chloroform
chloroform
chloroform
chloroform
chloroform
dibromomethane
dibromomethane
dibromomethane
dibromomethane
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
diethyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
hexachlorobutadiene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
m-dichlorobenzene
m-dichlorobenzene
m-dichlorobenzene
CONC,%
0.00956
0.00858
0.0047
0.229
0.0154
0.0102
0.0082
0.0074
0.00725
0.00654
0.00478
0.00476
0.00443
0.00428
0.00283
0.00224
0.00201
0.322
0.172
0.159
0.126
0.67
0.36
0.23
0.021
0.017
0.013
0.0116
0.0109
0.00881
0.00832
0.00762
0.00627
0.0572
0.0524
0.037
0.0144
0.01-1.2
0.009-0.31
2.1
3.1
2.3
DRE,%
99.956
99.965
99.966
99.987
99.7
99.66
99.1
99.86
97.9
99.78
99.02
99.92
99.88
99.69
98.2
99.944
99.8
99.974
99.964
99.982
99.956
99.989
99.978
99.968
99.88
99.906
99.51
99.63
99.53
99.9
99.83
99.71
99.918
99.974
99.962
99.943
99.98
99.97
99.96
99.922
99.932
99.905
TEMP,
°F
2070
2080
1810
2640
1952
1952
2230
1952
1810
2050
2140
2120
1776
2030
2080
2070
2230
2070
1810
2030
2090
2040
2110
2070
1600
2230
1810
2050
2140
2120
2030
2080
1952
1952
1952
1810
2400
1650
2040
2040
2040
HCL,
Ib/h
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.6
0.64
4.47
h
1.83
h
0.2
h
h
h
h
0.4
0.3
0.6
h
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.6
1.4
h
0.2
h
h
h
0.4
0.3
4.47
0.64
1.83
0.2
89.7
3.7
0.9
1.7
1.2
TSP,
gr/dscf
0.048
0.075
0.044
0.004
f
0.161
h
0.187
h
0.044
h
h
h
h
0.127
0.075
0.048
h
0.048
0.044
0.127
0.077
0.061
0.061
0.048
0.022
h
0.044
h
h
h
0.127
0.075
0.161
f
0.187
0.044
f
f
0.094
0.013
0.08
TEST
No.
3
1
4
2
1
3
6
2
5
4
7
8B
8A
4
2
1
3
6
3
4
2
2
3
1
3
2
6
4
7
8B
8A
2
1
3
1
2
4
6
4
2
4
3
SPONSOR
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
£PA
CO
CD
(Continued)
-------
Table 9. (Continued).
SITE
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
UPJOHN
CIBA-GEIGY
CINCINNATI MSD
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
2APATA INDUSTRIES
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
CINCINNATI MSD
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
TWI
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
COMPOUND
MEK
MEK
naphthalene
naphthalene
naphthalene
naphthalene
naphthalene
naphthalene
napthalene
napthalene
napthalene
phenol
phenol
phenol
phosgene
tetrachloroethene
tetrachloroethene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrach loroethy lene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrach loroethy lene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
toluene
toluene
toluene
toluene
toluene
toluene
trichloroethane
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
CONC,%
0.284
0.0395
0.0192
0.0148
0.011
0.009
0.006
0.0177
0.0174
0.0118
0.249
0.169
0.148
20.2
5.03
0.34
0.29
0.235
0.0183
0.0124
0.00636
0.00567
0.0044
0.0041
0.00377
1.317
1.3
0.11
0.105
0.0957
0.0738
0.0618
0.96
1.1
0.956
0.223
0.222
0.166
0.147
0.136
0.124
0.123
DRE,%
99.987
99.988
99.986
99.96
99.98
98
99.1
97.4
99.927
99.85
99.81
99.976
99.989
99.979
99.981
99.982
99.97
99.937
99.948
99.982
99.88
99.78
99.965
99.966
99.64
99.81
99.989
99.982
99.952
99.941
99.957
99.966
99.979
99.985
99.979
99.989
99.984
99.985
99.981
99.8
99.983
99.949
99.8
TEMP,
°F
1975
2050
1975
1930
2000
2640
2640
2640
1952
1952
1952
1952
1952
1952
2040
1800
2400
1776
1810
2070
2030
2080
2140
2230
2050
1952
1570
2000
2050
1930
1975
1650
1570
2230
1975
1930
1952
1952
1952
1776
HCL,
Ib/h
3.8
f
3.8
4.1
4.9
0.5
0.6
0.9
4.47
0.64
1.83
4.47
1.83
0.64
1.7
99.9
89.7
h
h
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.3
h
h
h
1.83
h
2.2
4.9
f
4.1
3.8
5
2.2
h
3,8
4.1
0.64
4.47
1.83
h
h
ISP,
gr/dscf
0.378
f
0.378
0.491
0.313
0.015
0.004
0.011
0.161
f
0.187
0.161
0.187
f
0.013
0.14
f
h
h
0.044
0.048
0.127
0.075
h
h
h
0.187
h
0.03
0.313
f
0.491
0.378
0.107
0.03
h
0.378
0.491
f
0.161
0.187
h
h
TEST
No.
4
3
4
1
2
1
2
3
3
1
2
3
2
1
4
5
6
5
4
4
3
2
1
8B
6
7
2
5
1
2
3
1
4
7
1
6
4
1
1
3
2
4
5
SPONSOR
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Co
to
*Many of the ORE failures are believed to be due to low concentrations in the waste feeds tested and/or to sampling and analytical problems
associated with measuring the compound input and output. Operational excursions from normal conditions such as low temperatures or high
waste feed rates may also account for some of the failures. See Appendix B for more specific information on individual ORE failures.
-------
stack that were not found in waste feed in con-
centrations exceeding 100 ppm) were typically as
high as or higher than those for the total of all Appen-
dix VIII compounds detected in the stack. The PIC out-
put rate infrequently exceeded 0.01% of the POHC
input rate. (The 0.01% criterion was proposed in FR
Vol. 45, No. 197, October 8, 1980.) The three likely
mechanisms that explain the presence of most PIC's
are:1
• Appendix VIII compounds present at low con-
centrations (<100 ppm) in the waste feed were
destroyed at a relatively low ORE;
• Appendix VIII compounds were added to the
system from sources other than the waste feed
(e.g., auxiliary fuel, scrubber water);
• Appendix VIII compounds were formed in the
system as products of incomplete combustion
or of complex side reactions including recom-
bination.
Another possible explanation may be solvent con-
tamination from analytical sources.
Data from the tests suggest that benzene, toluene,
chloroform, tetrachloroethylene, and naphthalene
have a high potential for appearing in the stack gases
as combustion byproducts.
3.3.2 Paniculate and Hydrogen Chloride Emissions
Emissions of particulate matter and HCI are limited
by 40 CFR 264.343 as follows:
Particulate matter 0.08 gr/dscf corrected to
7% 02
HCI 4 Ib/h, or an HCI removal
efficiency of at least 99%.
Although these emissions are generally a function of
the ash and chloride contents of the waste burned,
the outlet concentration also depends on the exhaust
gas control system. Because control systems varied
from site to site, correlating the particulate and HCI
emissions with input concentrations is impossible.
Although the available data do not permit the
development of such a relationship, they do indicate
that, in general, the HCI and particulate emission lim-
its are achievable.
Table 10 presents an overview of the tests relative to
HCI and particulate emission control. Unfortunately,
data presentations in many of the trial and test burn
reports were either incomplete, difficult to locate, or
difficult to interpret, thereby making it very difficult to
determine with certainty the overall HCI and particu-
late compliance frequency. For HCI emissions, only
enough information was readily available to con-
clude that 17 of the 23 sites clearly met at least one of
the standards in all runs tested. For the remaining six
sites, the conclusions that can be drawn regarding
compliance are less readily apparent. For example,
both HCI emission limits were exceeded in three of
nine runs at Cincinnati MSD; however, in the other six
runs, at least one of the standards was achieved. At
Mitchell, two of four runs failed the 4-lb/h limit, but
the data reported do not clearly indicate whether the
HCI removal efficiency met or failed the 99% level.
Union Carbide reported HCI removal efficiencies of
less than 99%, but the information in the report was
insufficient to determine whether emissions from
this site were within the 4-lb/h limit.
Eleven of the 23 sites reported periodic problems in
limiting particulate emissions to the 0.08 gr/dscf reg-
ulatory limit. Seven of the nine sites studied by EPA
exceeded the 0.08 gr/dscf (corrected to 7% 02) during
one or more of the test runs. Four sites (Ciba Geigy,
Cincinnati MSD, Mitchell, and Confidential Site B)
were particularly deficient in control of particulate
matter. Data from the EPA tests suggest that any facil-
ity firing wastes with ash content greater than 0.5%
will need a particulate control device to meet the
standard. See the individual test summary data
sheets in Appendix B for more detailed data from
each test site.
3.3.3 Other Results
Other important findings from the incineration tests
conducted by EPA relative to (1) heat of combustion,
(2) CO, THC, and dioxin emissions, and (3) the sam-
pling and analysis of waste feed and stack gases are
presented as follows.
Heat of Combustion -
• Analysis of the data collected in the EPA pro-
gram showed no clear correlation between
DRE and heat of combustion for the POHC's
tested.
CO, THC, and Dioxin Emissions -
• CO and THC were monitored on a continuous
basis to assess their utility as indicators of
incinerator performance. The analysis indi-
cates that CO and THC may provide some
indication of changes in incinerator perfor-
mance and gross malfunctions in the combus-
tion process. Under the conditions of these
tests, however, CO and THC levels did not
appear to be good predictors of POHC emis-
sions or DRE, either across the plants tested or
at a specific site, for DRE's in the vicinity of
99.99%. Also note that these tests were not
conducted in a parametric fashion specifically
designed to determine whether such a cor-
relation could be found.
• Of six sites that were tested by EPA for tetra-
and penta-chlorinated dioxins and furans,
dioxins were found at one site, and furans
were found at three sites. No 2,3,7,8-TCDD
was detected. The maximum concentrations
detected were 0.06 ng/L of chlorinated furans
and 0.02 ng/L of chlorinated dioxins.
Sampling and Analysis -
• The VOST method used in the EPA tests
provided a consistent and reliable data base
3-70
-------
Table 10. Overview of HCI and Particulate Emission Control Results by Incinerator Test Site
Passed HCI
Standard Passed
(Less than PM Standard
Test Normal 4 Ib/h or (Less than 0.08
Test Site Sponsor Controlled Operations 99% Removal) gr/scf at 7% 02)
Akzo Chemie America
American Cyanamid Co.
Ciba-Geigy Corp.
Cincinnati Metropolitan Sewer
District
Confidential Site B
Dow Chemical U.S.A.
E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Inc.,
LaPlace, Louisiana
E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Inc.,
Parkersburg, West Virginia
E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Inc.,
Wilmington, Delaware
Gulf Oil Corp.
McDonnell Douglas Corp.
Mitchell Systems, Inc.
Olin Corp.
Pennwalt Corp.
Ross Incineration Services, Inc.
SCA Chemical Services
Smith Kline Chemicals
Stauffer Chemical Co.
3M
Trade Waste Incineration, Inc.
Union Carbide
The Upjohn Co.
Zapata Industries, Inc.
Private
EPA
Private
EPA
EPA
Private
EPA
Private
Private
Private
Private
EPA
Private
Private
EPA
Private
Private
Private
Private
EPA
Private
EPA
EPA
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
See comments
See comments
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
See comments
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
See comments
See comments
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
See comments
Yes
See comments
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
See comments
Yes
Yes
Yes
See comments
See comments
See comments
See comments
See comments
Yes
Yes
Yes
See comments
Yes
See comments
Yes
Yes
See comments
Yes
Yes
Yes
See comments
See comments
See comments
See comments
Yes
Comments
Three of four runs passed.
Failed all six runs.
Incinerator experienced problems with demister and pH
controls during tests. HCI monitoring may also have
been faulty. Three of nine runs failed both HCI stand-
ards. Four of five runs in which PM was tested failed.
Runs 1 through 3 normal; 4 through 5 not normal.
Runs 1 and 2 passed HCI standard, but Run 3 failed.
Runs 4 and 5 not tested for HCI or PM.
Data unclear.
No chlorine in waste feed (Cl less than or equal to 0.1 2%).
Two of three runs passed the particulate standard. Report
is unclear about whether HCI standard was achieved.
Two of four runs failed 4-lb/h HCI standard. Three of four
runs failed particulate.
Run 2 passed particulate, but Run 3 failed; other runs not
tested.
Four of ten runs failed particulate.
Runs 1 -4 conducted under normal operative conditions;
conditions altered for Runs 6-8. Three of four normal
runs passed particulate; PM and HCI not tested in
Runs 6-8.
Eleven of twelve runs passed particulate. Data unclear
about HCI.
Two of three runs passed.
-------
when operated by personnel familiar with the
apparatus and procedures. Proper use of
these procedures was critical to obtaining
reliable data.
• Of the two methods used in the EPA program
for sampling volatile organics in the stack—
VOST and gas bags-the VOST method
provided lower blank values than gas bags,
resulting in a higher percentage of quantifia-
ble data points. Also, the VOST method was
less cumbersome and less prone to con-
tamination than gas bags.
• Hazardous waste samples contain a complex
matrix of compounds that present a variety of
analytical difficulties. Analysis by a gas chro-
motograph/mass spectrometer (GC/MS) was
highly successful for identifying Appendix VIII
compounds in the waste streams and
effluents. Prescreening by a gas chromoto-
graph/flame ionization detector (GC/FID) was
useful when analyzing waste streams.
• Because small concentrations of organics
must be measured in stack gases, sample con-
tamination can present significant problems.
Careful cleaning and handling of run samples
and control blanks and well defined blank cor-
rection procedures are required.
• The results of the external and internal quality
assurance program used in the EPA study
indicate that established quality assurance
procedures were followed and that the overall
quality of laboratory and field work was ade-
quate to meet the objectives of the study.
• Evaluation of the quality assurance data for
the eight incinerator tests indicated low or
erratic recoveries in the analyses of phenol,
cis- and trans- 1,2, -dichlorobutene,
naphthalene, aniline, and bis(2-ethyl-
hexyDphthalate for the complex waste feed
matrices encountered during this program.
Caution should be used when evaluating
these compounds as POHC's during actual
trial burns.
• The results from waste sampling and analysis
at plants where Appendix VIII compounds
were spiked into the liquid waste feed line
indicate that inadequate mixing and, as a
result, nonrepresentative waste feed samples
may have been a problem at some facilities.
One approach used to alleviate the problem
was the use of in-line mixers. This approach
was successful at the one facility where it was
used during the program.
3.4 REFERENCES
1. Trenholm, A., P. Gorman, and G. Jungclaus.
Performance Evaluation of Full-Scale Hazard-
ous Waste Incinerators. Volumes 1-5. EPA-
600/2-84-181 a-e, PB85-129500/REB, PB85-
129518/REB, PB85-129526/REB, PB85-
129534/REB, PB85-129542/REB, U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio,
1985.
2. Gorman, P.G., and K.P. Ananth. Trial Burn
Protocol Verification at a Hazardous Waste
Incinerator. EPA-600/2-84-048, PB84-
159193/REB, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1984.
3. Akzo Chemical Company, Morris, Illinois. Trial
Burn Test Report by ARI Environmental,
Paletine, Illinois, 1985.
4. Ciba-Geigy Corp., Mclntosh, Alabama. RCRA
Part B Application. Incinerator Test Burn
Report, Parts 1 and 2. February 1985.
5. Dow Chemical, Midland, Michigan. RCRA Trial
Burn Report, 1982.
6. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. Inc., Parkersburg,
West Virginia. RCRA Trial Burn Report for the
duPont Washington Works Delrin Incinerator.
Report by PEI Associates, Inc., Cincinnati,
Ohio (Project No. 5300), December 1984.
7. E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co. Inc., Wilmington,
Delaware. RCRA Part B Trial Burn Report by
Midwest Reseach Institute, Kansas City,
Missouri (Project No. 8046-L), June 1984.
8. Gulf Oil Corp., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. RCRA
Trial Burn Report by Scott Environmental
Services, 1984.
9. McDonnell Douglas Corp., St. Charles, Missouri.
RCRA Trial Burn Report by Environmental
Science and Engineering, Inc., 1984.
10. Olin Corp., Brandenburg, Kentucky. Part B
Application (Section D), November 1984; and
Hazardous Waste Incineration Trial Burn Test
Report, February 1985.
11. Pennwalt Corporation, Calvert City, Kentucky.
RCRA Trial Burn Test Report by PEI
Associates, Inc., Cincinnati, Ohio (Project No.
5269), February 1984.
12. SCA Chemical Services, Chicago, Illinois. RCRA
Trial Burn Report by Midwest Research
Institute, Kansas City, Missouri (Project No.
8137-2), October 1984.
13. Smith Kline Chemicals, Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania. RCRA Trial Burn Report by
Battelle Columbus Laboratories, Columbus,
Ohio, 1984.
14. Stauffer Chemical Co., Baytown, Texas. Trial
Burn Test Results, February 1984. Submitted
in Lieu of Trial Burn for Dominquez, California
Plant, August 1984, to EPA Region IX.
3-72
-------
15. 3M Company Chemolite Facility, Cottage Grove,
Minnesota. RCRA Trial Burn Test Report,
Volumes Mil, by PEI Associates, Inc.,
Cincinnati, Ohio (Project No. 5341), February
1985.
16. Union Carbide, South Charleston, West Virginia.
RCRA Trial Burn Test Report, July 1984.
3-13
-------
SECTION 4
SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF BOILER PERFORMANCE DATA
4.1 OVERVIEW
The heat of combustion of many hazardous wastes is
high enough to make them candidates for cofiring
with conventional fuels in boilers. Also, many indus-
trial boilers have been designed to fire multiple fuels
either concurrently or sequentially, usually from sep-
arate burners. Hazardous waste can be similarly fired
into the boiler through a separate burner or, in some
cases, blended with the primary fuel. For example,
the waste could be mixed with solid fuel for stoker
boilers, or it could be blended with fuel oil for oil-fired
boilers.
Field emission tests were performed on 11 industrial
boilers cofired with conventional fuels and haz-
ardous wastes. Screening of candidate sites was
based on the representativeness of the boiler design,
the wastes being fired, and the availability and
accessibility for cofiring tests.
4.2 TEST OBJECTIVES AND
PROCEDURES
4.2.1 EPA Test Program
The selected test sites spanned a broad range of
design and operating conditions: firetube and water-
tube designs, steam capacities ranging from 8500 to
250,000 Ib/h, loads from 25% to 100% of rated capac-
ity, wastes ranging more than an order of magnitude
in heat of combustion, residence time and heat
release variations of more than an order of magni-
tude, and gas, oil, coal, and wood firing. Table 11 sum-
marizes the boiler design and general operating
characteristics of each of the test sites.
Sites A and H were both fired by solid fuels. Site A was
equipped with a cyclone, and Site H with an elec-
trostatic precipitator. Sites G and J were fired with
chlorinated hydrocarbons without auxiliary con-
ventional fuel. Site G was equipped with two scrub-
ber columns for HCI recovery and cleanup. Site J had
no air pollution controls. At all the other sites, either
natural gas or No. 6 fuel oil was fired, and none of
them had air pollution control equipment. As a
means of extending the range of waste destruction
characteristics tested, the wastes at Sites E through K
were spiked with carbon tetrachloride and (in most
cases) monochlorobenzene and trichloroethylene.
A typical test series involved an initial conventional
fuel baseline test (to characterize unit operation and
emissions in the absence of waste firing) followed by
two or more cofiring tests. The unit load was held
constant during each test to allow comparisons of
results. In most other respects, however, routine
operational variations (such as excess air levels and
waste flow rates) were tolerated to obtain results rep-
resentative of normal operation. Table 12 summar-
izes boiler operation and fuel parameters during the
test series.
4.2.2 Test Procedures
The major inlet and outlet streams were sampled and
analyzed (as shown in Figure 12 for a coal-fired unit),
and boiler operational data were taken to character-
ize performance with and without waste firing.
Details on the protocol are summarized in Table 13.
Waste and fuel grab samples were taken approx-
imately every hour, composited, and analyzed in the
laboratory for ultimate and proximate analyses, chlo-
ride content, and POHC concentration. Bottom and
hopper ash composite samples were analyzed for
chlorides, POHC's, and carbon content. The major
sampling effort took place at the stack, where the fol-
lowing samples were taken:2
• Continuous-monitor analyses of 02, CO, C02,
NOX, and TUHC.
• Volatile organics extractive samples by the
VOST.
• Semivolatile organics and particulates by the
MM5 extractive sampling train.
• Chlorides by a Method 6 extractive sampling
train.
• C, - C6 hydrocarbons by a gas bomb grab sam-
ple and gas chromatograph analyses.
Each test required approximately 6 h of run time.
Post-test analyses of the volatile and semivolatile
samples collected on resin traps were done by gas
chromatography/mass spectroscopy (GC/MS).
For the most part, test boilers were operated under
normal conditions of excess combustion air, heat
input rates, ratio of waste to primary fuel, total chlo-
rine input, etc., as dictated by test site operating prac-
tices. Tests generally were performed during rela-
tively steady boiler operations to minimize possible
impacts of sudden transients on emissions. At two
plants (plants E and J), operating conditons were
modified for some tests to investigate the effects of
minor operational changes on POHC destruction and
overall organic emission rate. The boiler was oper-
4-1
-------
Table 11. Boiler Summary for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Hazardous Waste Cofiring Test Program*
Site Boiler Type
A Keeler CP, 308-hp ( 10,000 Ib/h
of steam) watertube boiler
B Cleaver-Brooks, 250-hp
(8,400 Ib/h of steam)
firetube boiler
C Babcock & Wilcox, 29-kg/s
(230,000 Ib/h of steam)
multiburner watertube
0 Babcock & Wilcox, 1 1 .4-kg/s
•h, (90,000 Ib/h of steam)
^o multiburner watertubet
E Combustion Engineering,
1 3.9 kg/s (11 0,000 Ib/h) of
steam, single-burner,
packaged watertube
F Babcock & Wilcox, 7.6-kg/s
(60,000 Ib/h of steam)
multiburner watertube
Number of
Baseline Tests
and Primary
Fuel(s) used
No baseline test;
wood waste
(chips, bark,
and sawdust)
One baseline
test;
natural gas
One baseline
test;
natural gas
One baseline
test;
No. 6 oil
One baseline
test;
No. 6 oil and
natural gas
One baseline
test-
No. 6 oil
Number and Type of Test
and Waste Description
Four cofire tests using creosote sludge contain-
ing chlorinated aromatics including penta-
chlorophenol, phenol, naphthalene, and
fluorene.
Three cofire tests using alkyd wastewater with
paint resin containing toluene, xylenes, and
several acids.
Three cofire tests using phenolic waste contain-
ing phenol, alkyl-ben/enes, and long-chain
aromatic and aliphatic hydrocarbons.
Three cofire tests using waste stream No. 1
(mixture of methanol xylenes and tetrachloro-
ethylene), and
Three cofire tests using waste stream No. 2
(mixture of toluene and bis
(2-chloroethyl)ether).
One cofire test using waste stream No. 1
(mixture of methyl methacrylate, and fluxing
oils),
Six cofire tests using waste stream No. 2
(waste stream No. 1 spiked with carbon tetra-
chloride, chlorobenzene, and trichloro-
ethylene), and
One cofire test using waste stream No. 3
(mixture of toluene and methyl methacrylate).
Three cofire tests using purge thinnner
containing mixed methyl esters, butyl
cellosolve acetate, aromatic hydrocarbons.
and aliphatic hydrocarbons. Spiked with
chlorobenzene, trichloroethylene, and carbon
tetrachloride.
Emission
Control
Device
Multicyclone
for par-
ticulate
collection
None
None
None
None
None
Operational Conditions
Typical wood boiler operation with high excess air and
high combustible emissions. Baseline fuel contami-
nated with creosote. Boiler poorly instrumented.
Low load tests. Several waste feed problems caused by
inefficient mixing of waste and plugging of screens.
Fluctuations in waste feed flow.
Low boiler load and high excess air. No operational
transients.
Burner problems experienced with waste stream No. 1 .
Waste feed interruption was due to filter plugging.
No transients with waste stream No. 2.
Smoke emissions and transients experienced with
spiked waste stream No. 1. Generally higher excess
air required during cofiring. Smoke generation
sensitive to orientation of waste fuel guns and
surges in waste flow rates.
Improper setting of burners caused several flame-outs
independent of waste feed.
(Continued)
-------
Table 11. (Continued).
to
Site
G
H
I
J
Boiler Type
Johnston modified firetube
boiler, 5.0 kg/s (40,000 Ib/h
of steam or 1,200 hp),
thermal heat recovery
oxidizer(THROX)t
Combustion Engineering
tangential NSPS coal-fired
boiler, 3. 2 kg/s (250,000
Ib/h) of superheated steam
Foster Wheeler AG252
forced-draft, bent-tube
boiler, 7.8 kg/s (62,000
Ib/h of steam)
North American 3200X
Number of
Baseline Tests
and Primary
Fuel(s) used
None; natural
gas used only
for startup
One baseline
test; pulverized
bituminous
coal
One baseline
test staged,
one baseline
test unstaged;
natural gas
None
Number and Type of Test
and Waste Description
Three primary firings using mixture of chlori-
nated hydrocarbons containing up to 55%
by weight chlorine. Major components were
bis(2-chloroisopropyl)ether and epichloro-
hydrin spiked with carbon tetrachloride.
Three cofire tests using crude methyl acetate
spiked with trichloroethane, carbon tetra-
chloride, and chlorobenzene.
One cofire staged test and 1 cofire unstaged
test using liquid waste containing nitro-
benzene and aniline benzene. Spiked with
carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethylene,
chlorobenzene, and toluene.
Six tests with carbon tetrachloride, mono-
Emission
Control
Device
Two chloride
recovery/
removal
water
scrubber
columns in
series
Cold-side
electrostatic
precipitator
None
None
Operational Conditions
Steady-state operation. No primary fuel
burned.
High boiler load with steady-state operation. Low
waste/coal heat input.
- - - - .
Nominal load. No significant boiler transients. Damage
to waste feed pumps caused several
replacements.
Half and full loads high and normal EA.
pump
No significant
(200-hp) packaged firetube
boiler
Combustion Engineering
VU-10 balanced-draft,
watertube boiler, 7.6 kg/s
(60,000 Ib/h) of steam
chlorobenzene, and two different levels of
trichloroethylene.
One baseline One cofire test using light and heavy oil mix-
test; tures. Spiked with carbon tetrachloride,
No. 6 oil trichloroethylene, and chlorobenzene.
None
boiler transients or impacts.
Nominal test load with no significant boiler operational
transients.
•Source: Reference 1.
tBoiler originally stoker-coal-fired; converted to oil burning.
i.Patented process for heat generation and chemical recovery of highly halogenated hydrocarbons.
-------
Table
Site
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
12. Summary
Volumetric Heat
Release Rate,
kW/m3
(103BtU/h-ft3)
300
(29)
745
(72)
78
(7.5)
230-400
(22-39)
380-480
(37-47)
380-770
(37-74)
114
(11)
820
(79)
180
(17)
340
(33)
690-1,750
(65-170)
270
(26)
of Boiler Operation and
Waterwall Surface
Heat Release Rate,
kW/m2
(103Btu/h-ft2)
48
(16)
106
(34)
150
(48)
100-180
(33-57)
24-32
(7.6-10)
24-49
(7.6-15)
104
(34)
262
(81)
183
(58)
181
(57)
118-300
(37-95)
370
(117)
Fuel Parameters*
Bulk
Furnace
Temperature.t
°C (°F)
1,370
(2,500)
1,320
(2,400)
1,320
(2,400)
1,370-1,430
(2,500-2,600)
1,480-1,590
(2,700-2,900)
1,480-1,590
(2,700-2,900)
1,370
(2,500)
1,300-1,400
(2,400-2,500)
1,370
(2,500)
1,430
(2,600)
1,310-1,370
(2,400-2,500)
1,370
(2,500)
Bulk
Furnace
Residence
time.f s
1.2
0.8
2.0
1.1-1.3
0.8-1.1
0.5-1.0
2.0
0.3-0.5
2.0
1.8
0.3-0.7
1.8
Primary Fuel
Flow Rate
0.24 kg/s
(1,950lb/h)
20.4 l/s
(2,590 ftVh)
420 L/s
(53,000 ftVh)
0.18-0.51 kg/min
(24-67 Ib/h)
204-354 L/s gas
(430-750 ftVh)
0.21-0.62 kg/min oil
(27-79 Ib/h)
0.1 9 kg/s
(26 Ib/h)
0
2.8 kg/s
(22,000 Ib/h)
330 L/s
(12ftVh)
0
13 kg/min
(1700 Ib/h)
Waste Fuel
Flow Rate,
mL/s
(gal/h)
50
(48)
34.3
(33.2)
257
(245)
1 90-270
(180-260)
240-260
(220-240)
195-260
(190-250)
30
(29)
215
(208)
160-270
(140-250)
38
(36)
26-68
(25-64)
250
(240)
Waste Fuel
Heating Value,
kJ/kg
(Btu/lb)
38,700
(16,700)
30-108
(12-77)
38,500
(16,600)
20,600-42,000
(8,800-18,000)
26,700-37,000
(11,500-16,000)
24,500-27,300
(10,500-11,741)
32,500
(14,000)
21,000
(9,000)
16,500
(7,000)
24,700
(10,600)
41,500
(17,900)
40,400
(17,400)
Waste Heat
Input, %
of Total
40
<1
38
18-48
33-56
19-43
9.0
100
2.4-4.3
8.2
100
65
*Source: Reference 1.
tNot measured values.
-------
1
Table 13. Sampling and Analysis Protocols for Boiler Test Burns*
No. of No. of
Baseline Cofired Fuel Sampling and Sample
Site Tests Tests Analysis Protocols Location
A
B
C
D
E
F
— 4 Creosote sludge: Multicyclone
POHC's, other outlet (stack)
semivolatile
organics, and ulti-
mate analysis
Wood and creosote
mixture: ultimate
analysis
1 3 Alkyd resin waste- Stack
water: POHC's,
other priority
organics, and
ultimate analysis
1 3 Phenolic cumene Stack
waste: POHC's,
other priority
organics, and
ultimate analysis
1 6 Two separate Stack
chlorinated
waste fuels:
POHC's, other
priority organics,
and ultimate
analysis
1 8 Three separate Stack
chlorinated and
nonchlorinated
waste fuels:
POHC's, other
semivolatile
organics, and
ultimate analysis
Oil: ultimate
analysis
1 3 Chlorinated purge Stack
paint thinner:
volatile POHC's
and ultimate
analysis
Flue Gas Sampling and Analysis Protocols
Continuous
Monitors
02, C02,
CO, NOX,
and TUHC
O,, C02,
CO, NOX,
and TUHC
02, C02,
CO, NOX,
and TUHC
02, CO2,
CO, NOX,
and TUHC
O2, CO2,
CO, NOX,
and SO2
O2, CO2,
CO, NOX,
and TUHC
VOSTf
NAt
NA
NA
Volatile organics:
primary POHC's
Volatile organics:
POHC's and
other EPA
priority and
nonpriority
pollutants
Volatile organics:
POHC's and
other volatile
priority
pollutants
Modified EPA
Method 5 (MM5)
Semivolatile POHC's
and EPA priority
pollutants
Particulate
Semivolatile POHC's
and EPA priority
pollutants
Particulate
Semivolatile POHC's
and EPA priority
pollutants
Particulate
Semivolatile POHC's
and EPA priority
pollutants
Particulate
Semivolatile POHC's
and EPA priority
pollutants
Particulate
Semivolatile POHC's
and EPA priority
pollutants
Particulate
Other Wet
Sampling
Systems
Modified EPA
Method 6:
total chloride
CrC6by
FID
Modified EPA
Method 6:
total chloride
C^Cgby
FID
Modified EPA
Method 6:
total chloride
C,-C6by
FID
Sampling and
Analysis Protocols
for Solid and Liquid
Discharge Streams
Multicyclone fly ash:
semivolatile and
nonvolatile
priority
pollutants
(Continued)
-------
•u
65
Table 13. (Continued).
No. of No. of
Baseline Cofired Fuel Sampling and Sample
Site Tests Tests Analysis Protocols Location
G
H
I
J
K
3 Highly chlorinated Recovery scrub-
fuel: volatile and ber and HCI
semivolatile scrubber out-
POHC's, other let (stack)
major semivola-
tile organics, and
ultimate analysis
1 3 Chlorinated methyl ESP outlet
acetate: volatile (stack)
POHC's
Coal: ultimate
analysis and
metals
2 2 Chlorinated nitro- Stack
benzene, aniline,
and benzene
mixture: volatile
and semivolatile
POHC's, metals,
and ultimate
analysis
— 6 Chlorinated toluene Stack
mixture: volatile
POHC's
— 2 Heavy and light oil: Stack
ultimate analysis,
metals
Chlorinated oil:
volatile POHC's
and semivolatile
organics
Flue Gas Sampling and Analysis Protocols
Continuous
Monitors
02, CO2,
CO, NOX,
andTUHC
O2, CO2,
CO, NOX,
S02, and
TUHC
O2, SO2.
CO, NOX,
andTUHC
O2, C02,
CO, NOX,
and TUHC
02, C02,
CO, NOX,
SO2, and
TUHC
VOSTf
Volatile organics:
POHC's and other
volatile priority
pollutants
Volatile organics:
POHC's and
other volatile
priority pollutants
Volatile organics:
POHC's and
other volatile
priority
pollutants
Volatile POHC's^
Volatile POHC's^
Modified EPA
Method 5 (MM5)
Semivolatile POHC's
and EPA priority
pollutants
Paniculate
Semivolatile POHC's
and EPA priority
pollutants
Paniculate
Metals
Semivolatile POHC's,
EPA priority pollu-
tants, total chloride,
and selected
metals
Semivolatile POHC's
Semivolatile POHC's,
other semivolatile
organics, and
metals
Other Wet
Sampling
Systems
Modified EPA
Method 6:
total chloride
C,-C6by
FID
Modified EPA
Method 6:
total chloride
C,-C6by
FID
Semivolatile
POHC's by
FID
Modified EPA
Method 6:
total chloride
EPA Method
6: total
chloride
Sampling and
Analysis Protocols
for Solid and Liquid
Discharge Streams
Inlet and outlet of
scrubbers: volatile
priority pollutants
and total chloride
ESP fly ash: semi-
volatile priority
pollutants
Bottom ash: semi-
volatile priority
pollutants, metals
'Source: Reference 1.
tTenax sorbent sampling at sites A, B, and C was performed with a rudimentary sampling system and before the development of the VOST protocol.
For sites D and E, a developmental VOST was used. All other test sites used the EPA-approved VOST.
|NA= not available.
§EPA Method 23 (bag samples) was also used at this site to compare results obtained with VOST. EPA Method 23 results are not discussed in this report.
-------
Figure 12. Typical boiler sampling schematic.
Hazardous
Waste
Primary
Fuel
Boiler
Preheat
•
_x
:n
I
Air
Pollution
Controls
(Where
Applicable)
Fan
\ /
A - Liquid Waste Grab Samples (composite)
B - Fuel Grab Samples (composite)
C - Boiler Bottom Ash Grab Samples (composite)
Source: Reference 2.
D,F - Stack Emissions
E - Paniculate Collector
Hopper Ash or Scrubber
Liquid
ated at a specific combination of high or low excess
air and high or low boiler loads for each test. During
some tests at other plants (i.e., Plants A, B, D, E, and
F), combustion instability resulted in periods of high
CO and smoke emissions. Although emission testing
was normally halted during these periods, some
impact of these unsteady operating conditions is evi-
dent in the emission results.
4.3 TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.3.1 Organic Emissions and ORE1
Emission measurements of specific organic com-
pounds, which were identified in the waste feed, were
used as the basis for determining DRE's at each test
site during cofiring periods. The primary test com-
pounds for which DRE's were determined were car-
bon tetrachloride, trichloroethylene, chlorobenzene,
and toluene. These volatile compounds were
monitored at several sites. Additional volatile com-
pounds whose emissions were measured at only one
or two sites were 1,1,1-trichloroethane, benzene,
tetrachloroethylene, and methylmethacrylate. Semi-
volatile emissions of phenol, pentachlorophenol, 2,4-
dimethylphenol, naphthalene, aniline, nitrobenzene,
and fluorene were determined at three sites.
Tables 14 and 15 summarize the calculated DRE's for
these volatile and semivolatile compounds, respec-
tively. The emission rates and DRE's for each test are
listed in Appendix C. Calculated DRE's are based on
blank-corrected emission rates measured during Co-
firing, but they are not corrected for any measured
test compound emissions that occurred during base-
line tests.
Results indicate a wide range in DRE's, from 99.5% to
greater than 99.999%. Although the average ORE for
each compound tested was generally greater than
99.99% (the current RCRA incinerator standard),
some were below this level. These low DRE's often
coincided with seemingly unsteady boiler operation
and burner combustion instability. For example, the
low DRE's for carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene,
and trichloroethylene that occurred at Site F (mass
weighted average) are generally attributable to
improper burner settings, which resulted in coking at
the burner nozzle, fuel impingement on the burner
throat, and occasionally high levels of combustible
CO and soot emissions during burner flameouts.
The low ORE for methylmethacrylate at Site E was the
result of measurements taken during a cofired test in
4-7
-------
CO
Table 14. Summary of Average DRE's for Volatile Compounds from Boiler Tests*
Compound site B Site D Site E Site F Site G Site H
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene
Benzene
Toluene
Tetrachloroethylene
Methylmethacrylate
Mass-weighted average
— — 99.9990 to
99.9998
(99.9996)f
— — 99.994 to
99.9995
(99.998)
___ __— _— —
— — 99.995 to
99.99990
(99.998)
— — —
99.991 99.9992 to 99.997
99.99990
(99.9996)
99.994 to —
99.9992
(99.998)
99.95 to
99.997
(99.991)
99.991 99.994to 99.95 to
99.99990 99.9990
(99.998) (99.995)
99.98 to
99.9990
(99.995)
99.98 to
99.998
(99.996)
— _
99.96 to
99.992
(99.98)
—
99.90 to
99.97
(99.95)
99.90to
99.9990
(99.98)
99.990 to 99.97 to
99.9990 99.9994
(99.998) (99.98)
— 99.97 to
99.9996
(99.994)
99.990 to
99.997
(99.992)
— -—
•
99.995 to 99.97 to
99.9990 99.9996
(99.998) (99.991)
Site I
99.9990 to
99.9993
(99.9993)
99.99990 to
99.99992
(99.99991)
—
99.997 to
99.9990
(99.998)
99.97 to
99.98
(99.97)
99.998
— _
___
99.97 to
99.99992
(99.998)
Site J Site K
99.997 to 99.9998
99.9998
(99.9990)
99.998 to 99.99990
99.99993
(99.9996)
— — ___
99.8 to 99.99992
99.97
(99.95)
99.996
99.9990 to 99.99996
99.9997
(99.9990)
— — — -
— __— .
99.8 to 99.996 to
99.99993 99.99996
(99.9990) (99.9997)
Range
99.97 to
99.99998
99.98 to
99.99993
99.97 to
99.9996
99.8 to
99.99992
99.97 to
99.996
99. 90 to
99.99996
99.994 to
99.9992
99.95 to
99.995
99.8 to
99.99996
Weighted
Average
99.9992
99.9994
99.994
99.992
99.990
99.998
99.998
99.991
99.998
•Source: Reference No. 1
tNumbers in parentheses represent the site-average ORE for the compound.
-------
Table 15. DRE's for Semivolatile Compounds. %*t
Site
A
C
Phenol
93.5 to
99.993
(99.96)
99.998 to
99.99990
(99.9996)
Penta-
chlorophenol
99.97 to
99.993
(99.98)
—
Fluorene
99.98 to
99.9998
(99.998)
—
Naphthalene
99.94 to
99.995
(99.98)
—
2-4-Dimethyl-
phenol
99.96 to
99.995
(99.98)
—
Nitrobenzene Aniline
— —
— —
I —
99.9990 to
99.99998
(99.99996)
99.9994 to
99.9996
(99.9995)
*Source: Reference 1.
tNumbers in parentheses represent the test average DRE.
which waste feed rates were unstable and combus-
tion air was insufficient. These operating conditions
led to several high CO and smoke emission episodes
during the test.
Wood-fired stokers such as the Site A boiler typically
operate with high excess air and are high CO emit-
ters. These conditions result from the physical prop-
erties of wood waste (e.g., wood chip size and high
moisture content), combustion cooling by very high
excess air levels, and inefficient fuel-air mixing dur-
ing combustion on the fuel bed. Half of the DRE's cal-
culated at Site A were below 99.99%.
Baseline (fossil fuel only) tests at Plants D, E, F, G, and
H indicate that both chlorinated and nonchlorinated
volatile organics are formed as PIC's and emitted as
the result of fossil fuel combustion. These PIC emis-
sions included most of the test compounds under
investigation; they may have had a measurable
impact on the total emissions measured (and there-
fore on the DRE's calculated) under cofiring condi-
tions. Volatile PIC emissions measured during base-
line tests included several chlorinated organics (e.g.,
chloromethane, chloroform, methylene chloride,
tetrachloroethylene, trichloroethane, dichloro-
ethane, and dichloropropylene) as well as nonchlori-
nated organics (e.g., toluene and benzene). Chlo-
romethane, methylene chloride, and chloroform
accounted for more than 75% of the total chlorinated
PIC's. Toluene contributed the bulk of total nonchlori-
nated PIC's.
Test results indicate that industrial boilers can
achieve DRE's in excess of 99.99% destruction under
typical industrial operating conditions for heat input,
waste/fuel ratio, and excess air. Measured DRE's
ranged from about 99.90% to 99.99996%. Examina-
tion of site-specific test data and corresponding
boiler operating conditions during the tests has
revealed several possible mitigating factors that can
either affect the ORE or indicate its success rate.
These factors include combustion efficiency, test
compound in the waste feed, the formation of PIC's
NOX formation, and the surface heat release rate of
the water wall.
Test results at three sites (A, E, and F) suggest that
DRE's may be reduced greatly during boiler operating
conditions that are conducive to soot formation and
high CO and smoke emission (i.e., poor combustion
efficiency). Soot formation with high CO and smoke
emissions can result from several transient boiler
operations or from improper burner settings. Ineffec-
tive fuel/air mixing at the Site A wood stoker accom-
panied by combustion cooling through high excess
air levels resulted in high CO and DRE's generally
below 99.99%. Surges in waste fuel flow, plugging of
fuel jets, and insufficient excess air resulted in less
than 99.99% DRE for some compounds at Site E.
Improper fuel gun position in the burnerthroat, prob-
able jet impingement on walls, and ineffective atom-
ization through burner tip coking resulted in a
consistently low DRE for all test compounds at Site F.
The data do not clearly support the concept of CO or
hydrocarbon emissions as a surrogate for DRE deter-
mination. One possible explanation is that CO emis-
sions can be manifested through several mecha-
nisms, depending on boiler type and fuel. Operating
conditions that can lead to higher CO emissions may
result in no measurable change in DRE if the operat-
ing condition's effect on the destruction of individual
test compounds is not similar to its effect on the for-
mation of CO. For example, sufficiently low excess air
will result in elevated CO emissions. In oil-fired
burners, these emisions will be followed by smoke.
Neither temperature nor residence time is reduced
significantly, however; thus the DRE can remain high.
Kinetics data based on pyrolytic destruction of sev-
eral compounds suggest that both temperature and
time in industrial boiler furnaces are sufficiently high
to permit nearly complete destruction by pyrolysis
alone.
The data suggest a trend toward higher DRE's with
increasing test compound concentration in the waste
feed, but the data are not sufficient to determine a
reasonable correlation. Site average DRE's of greater
than 99.990% appear to be more likely for a waste fuel
with a hazardous organic constituent concentration
of greater than 3000 ppm corrected for the waste-to-
4-9
-------
Table 16. Paniculate and HCI
No. of
Site Tests Primary Fuel
A 4
D 1
3
3
E 1
1
5
1
1
A
5 F 1
3
G 3
1 2
2
J 6
K 1
1
Wood
No. 6 oil
No. 6 oil
No. 6 oil
No. 6 oil
No. 6 oil
No. 6 oil
Natural gas
Natural gas
No. 6 oil
No. 6 oil
None
Natural gas
Natural gas
None
No. 6 oil
No. 6 oil
Gas Emissions from Boilers*
Waste Fuel
Creosote waste
None
Tetrachloroethylene in methanol waste
Bis(2-chloroethyl) ether in toluene waste
None
TSB with MMA polymers
TSB spiked with carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, and
trichloroethylene
TSB spiked with carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, and
trichloroethylene
Toluene/ MMA mixture
None
Waste paint solvents spiked with carbon tetrachloride,
chlorobenzene, and trichloroethylene
Chlorinated organics spiked with carbon tetrachloride
None
Aniline and nitrobenzene waste spiked with carbon tetra-
chloride, chlorobenzene, and trichloroethylene
Toluene, carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene, and
trichloroethylene
None
Light oil mixture spiked with carbon tetrachloride, chloro-
benzene, and trichloroethylene
Total
Particulate
Emissions,
gr/dscff
0.16
0.29
0.051 to 0.084
(0.061 )ft
0.01 7 to 0.01 9
(0.018)
0.018
0.017
0.1 2 to 0.049
(0.023)
0.005
0.012
0.008
0.033 to 0.041
(0.038)
0.045 to 0,39
(0.086)M
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Chlorine
Emissions as
HCI, Ib/hJ
NA§
1.7
69 to 320
(192)
32 to 45
(39)
0.4 to 2.1
(1.3)
0 to 1.5
(0.6)
52 to 98
(68)
63 to 74
(68)
0.2 to 0.5
(0.4)
<0.1 to 6.1
(3.1)
7.2 to 40
(23)
3.2 to 4.0
(3.7)tt
0.03 to 0.26
(0.11)
18 to 23
(20)
1.0 to 7.1
(4.0)
0.26 to 0.28
(0.27)
21 to 22
(21)
Waste Feed
Ash, %
0.82 avg.
0.05"
0.10to0.17
<0.01 to 0.02
0.05**
0.01
0.02 to 0.05
0.02
<0.01
0.03**
0.83 to 1.44
<0.01
NA
NA
NA
0.05**
0.05 to 0.07
Waste Feed
Chlorine, %
0.1 5 to 0.21
0.03**
3.9 to 22.0
1.6 to 2.4
0.40**
0.10
1.8 to 3.35
2.36
0.16
0.12**
1.68 to 6.95
36.5 to 47.9
NA
NA
1.45 to 2.60
0.10**
1.21 to 2.88
'Source: Reference 1.
t Neither paniculate nor chlorine data are available for Sites B, C, and H.
| Numbers in parentheses indicate average of values obtained for each test.
§NA= not available.
**Ash or chlorine content of baseline fuel.
ttMulticyclone system was used to trap ash.
tjHalogen recovery and HCI scrubbers used to control Cl emissions.
-------
total-fuel heat input ratio. This trend may be attrib-
uted to two major sources of error. The first is the
relative amount of background contamination and
sampling and analytical error associated with low-
level detection of volatile organics. The effect of
these sources of error on the ORE calculation grows
as the concentration in the waste feed decreases. A
second source of error associated with low con-
centrations in the waste feed and low DRE's is the
relative level of PIC's generated by the combustion of
fossil fuels alone. Evidence of PIC organic emissions
during baseline testing suggests that their contribu-
tion to the total emissions during cofiring can be sig-
nificant. This implies that test compound con-
centrations in the waste feed should be high enough
to insure demonstration of 99.99% ORE over and
above the background PIC level. Alternatively, only
organic compounds that are not also PIC's should be
chosen for ORE testing.
4.3.2 Paniculate and Hydrogen Chloride
Emissions
Particulate and HCI emissions (Table 16) were mea-
sured in the stack downstream of any pollution
control device. Particulate emissions during cofiring
at Site D were lower than those during baseline con-
ditions because of the reduced contribution of
inorganic ash in residual fuel oil when it was cofired
with methanol and toluene waste streams. The
increase in total chlorine input during cofiring at Site
D probably caused the increase in HCI emissions.
Similar results were obtained at Site E. No change or
general reductions in particulate emissions were
measured during most cofired tests with the excep-
tion of a high load test and other tests characterized
by high smoke emissions. HCI emissions followed
the chlorine input rate of waste fuels. Measurement
showed increases in both particulate and HCI emis-
sions at Site F; these were due to increases in both
ash and chlorine input with cofired fuels.
At Site G, flue gas HCI emissions were controlled by a
halogen recovery scrubber and an HCI scrubber posi-
tioned in series. Measurements of stack HCI emis-
sions indicated greater than 99% scrubbing effi-
ciency. The HCI results provided by test Sites I
through K showed emission increases resulting from
cofiring with carbon tetrachloride, chlorobenzene,
and trichloroethylene. Overall, the measured chlo-
rine in the output streams accounted for 80% to 130%
of the total chlorine input from waste fuel combus-
tion.
4.3.3 Other Results
The flue gas at the stack was sampled continuously
for 02, C02/ CO, NOX, and TUHC at Sites A through K.
The TUHC measurement devices were not always
operational, so these data are missing at some sites.
The CO, NOX, and TUHC values were corrected to a 3%
O2 basis. In addition, sampling trains were used to
measure total solid particulate matter and hydro-
chloric acid emissions at all sites, and gaseous hydro-
carbons at Sites D, E, and G.
The data show a wide range in the gaseous emissions
among sites. The average CO value corrected to 3%
02 ranged from 18 ppm at Site C to more than 4000
ppm at Site A; NOX emissions ranged from about 40
ppm at Site B to 1100 ppm at Site I; and TUHC emis-
sions, when available, ranged from less than 0.5 to
160 ppm.
Measurements generally showed an increase in gas-
eous C, to C6 hydrocarbons when the boiler operation
was converted to hazardous waste cofiring. This is
evidenced by results at Sites D and E. Also, the level
of hydrocarbon emissions does not indicate a
dependence on the type of primary waste fuel used.
Generally higher C, to C6 hydrocarbon emissions,
however, were measured during tests characterized
by boiler transients, increases in stack opacity, and
higher soot emission levels.
Two parameters that appeared to vary with the ORE
are NOX emissions and surface heat release rates of
furnace waterwalls. Both Nox formation (through
thermal NO) and surface heat release rates can be
indicators of the thermal environment in the flame
and throughout the furnace. Both parameters
showed similar trends — that is, higher NOX and sur-
face heat release rates generally resulted in higher
measured DRE's. DRE's of less than 99.990% were
generally found to correspond with NOX gas con-
centration of less than 250 ppm and surface heat
release rates of less than 60,000 Btu/h-ft2. The higher
the NOX and surface heat release rates were, the
higher the range was in measured POHC ORE. These
trends indicate that lower boiler loads may be more
likely to result in lower DRE's and that the tempera-
ture dependence of POHC destruction is more signifi-
cant than furnace residence time.
4.4 REFERENCES
1. Castaldini, C., S. Unnash, and H.B. Mason. Engi-
neering Assessment Report - Hazardous
Waste Cofiring in Industrial Boilers. Volumes 1
and 2. EPA-600/2-84- 177A and B, PB85-197838/
REB, PB85-197846/REB, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1985.
2. Castaldini, C., H.B. Mason, and R.J. DeRosier.
Field Tests of Industrial Boilers Cofiring Haz-
ardous Wastes. In: Proceedings from the Tenth
Annual Research Symposium. EPA-600/9-84-
022, PB85-116291/REB.
4-11
-------
SECTION 5
SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS OF KILN PERFORMANCE DATA
5.1 OVERVIEW
Since 1975, the burning of hazardous wastes in kilns
has been investigated in a variety of tests on
industrial kilns. These have included EPA tests of
seven kilns. State agency tests of three kilns, some
Canadian tests, and one Swedish test. The types of
wastes tested included chlorinated hydrocarbons,
aromatic compounds, and waste oils. In some cases,
hazardous waste was used as a supplemental fuel to
coal or fuel oil, and in others, the waste served as the
primary fuel source. Lime kilns, cement kilns
(including the dry and wet processes), aggregate
kilns, and a clay drying kiln have been used in these
tests. Test data from each individual kiln tested are
presented in Appendix D. Specifically, the appendix
includes basic design information about each kiln;
descriptions of the pollution control system, the
waste, and its constituents; operating information;
sampling and emission results; and references to
sources of additional information about the test
methodology and results.
5.2 TEST OBJECTIVES AND
PROCEDURES
5.2.1 Kiln Test Burns
Table 19 summarizes the types of kilns tested and
general information about the test burns. Kiln
temperatures, both during testing and during normal
operation, were typically above 1093°C (2000°F),
with the exception of those for the clay dryer, which
normally ran 593° to 649°C (1100° to 1200°F). To the
extent possible, normal operating conditions with
respect to temperatures, total fuel input (Btu/h), feed
and production rates, and combustion air were
maintained during each test. In many cases,
however, adjustments were made to the air pollution
control equipment or to certain process operating
parameters to compensate for the effects of burning
hazardous wastes. For example, the Paulding, Ohio,
facility had already adjusted the electrostatic
precipitator (ESP) for chlorinated waste combustion,
as this plant cofires waste solvents as part of normal
operation. Other plants (e.g., Marquette Cement) did
not observe a significant difference in ESP
performance when burning hazardous waste, even
though they made no special adjustments.
Problems at Rockwell Lime during the kiln tests
included fluctuations in CO, poor fuel mixing during
combustion, and poor product quality at times.4 The
CO fluctuations may have been partly due to the
inability to fine tune the kiln to minimize operational
fluctuations when cofiring waste fuel.5 The waste
fuel was burned only 8 h/day, whereas at least 24 h
of operation is generally required to make
appropriate adjustments,4 Wide CO fluctuations
were not only attributed to firing waste fuel but also
to normal variations in the fuel feed rate and to a wet
supply of primary fuel (petroleum coke), which
resulted in clumps of coke being fed into the kiln (and
therefore excess fuel conditions). The waste-fuel
feed and burner system (a fuel pipe laid on top of the
main burner) did not allow mixing of the fuels.4 At low
waste-fuel feed rates, this design caused puffing of
the flame. Rockwell Lime also experienced poor
product quality because of increased sulfur in the
lime. This condition was attributed to the combustion
of the highly volatile waste fuel, which in turn
produced combustion conditions that favored
increasing the sulfur content in the product instead
of having high SO2 emissions from the stack.4
5.2.2 Test Procedures
Because of the various test sponsors, their differing
objectives, and available testing and analytical
methods at the time the tests were performed,
testing and analytical procedures and the pollutants
that were investigated varied among the test sites.
Table 17 shows the pollutants measured at each kiln,
and Table 18 presents an example sampling and ana-
lytical program for the kilns tested most recently. Fig-
ure 13 is a simplified schematic of a kiln and the typi-
cal sampling sites.
The sampling programs were generally designed to
identify the major pollutants generated by burning
waste fuel in kilns, to quantify their respective emis-
sion rates, and to determine their DRE's. In several
tests, the distribution of metals and chlorine was
measured in all of the process input and output
streams — that is, the conventional or primary fuel
feed, waste feed, raw material feed, product, and air
pollution control discharge. The conventional and
waste fuels were also analyzed for sulfur, ash, and
heat content. In most cases, the waste fuel was
artificially spiked with various organic compounds so
that outlet concentrations would be above detectable
limits and thus allow DRE's to be calculated.
5-7
-------
Table 17. Summary of Kiln Test Burns*
Site Date
St. Lawrence Cement,
Mississauga, Ontario
Stora Vika, Sweden
Marquette Cement,
Oglesby, Illinois
San Juan Cement, Puerto Rico
Ul
ho General Portland,
Los Robles, California
General Portland,
Paulding, Ohio
Lone Star Industries,
Oglesby, Illinois
Rockwell Lime,
Rockwood, Wisconsin
MID-Florida Mining
Region IV — Site I
Carolina Solite Corp.
Region IV — Site II
Florida Solite Corp.
1975-76
1978
1981
1981-82
1982
1983
1983
1983
1984
1984
1983
Pollutants Measured
Process
Wet cement
Wet cement
Dry cement
Wet cement
Dry cement
Wet cement
Dry cement
Lime
Clay
Aggregate
Aggregate
Air
Pollution
Control
ESP
ESP
ESP
Baghouse
Baghouse
ESP
ESP
Baghouse
Baghouse
Scrubber
Scrubber
Hazardous
Organic
Primary Waste
Fuel PMt Constituents PIC's Cl
Fuel oil X
Coal X
Coal X
Fuel oil X
Coal
Coal X
Coal/coke X
Coke X
Fuel oil X
Coal X
Coal X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
X X
X X
X
Metals Type Qf Hazardous Waste Tested
X Chlorinated aliphatics (ethylene dichloride),
chlorinated aromatics (chlorotoluene), PCB's
Chlorinated aliphatics (methylene chloride),
chlorinated aromatics (PCB 1242), chloro-
phenols and phenoxy acids, freon (trichloro-
trifluoroethane)
X Chlorinated aliphatics, methyl ethyl ketone
(MEK), toluene
X Chlorinated aliphatics
X Aromatics and chlorinated aliphatics
X Chlorinated aliphatics, MEK, toluene
X Chlorinated aliphatics, MEK, toluene
X Chlorinated aliphatics, MEK, toluene
X Waste solvents and waste oil
X Waste solvents
X MEK, methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), tetra-
chloroethylene (perc), toluene
•Sources: Reference Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
tPM = paniculate matter.
-------
Figure 13. Simplified schematic diagram of a kiln and
sampling locations.
1 Waste Fuel
; Primary Fuel
Proce
2) — '
L
r
ss Feed
Exhaust
| Gases
Air
Pollution
Controls
~ 1
©
£-
— «
Residues
Stack
Product
A - Liquid Waste Grab Samples (composite)
B - Primary Fuel Grab Samples (composite)
C - Product Grab Samples (composite)
D - Process Feed Samples (composite)
E - Air Pollution Control Residue Samples
(composite)
F - Stack Emissions
Table 18. Summary of Typical Kiln Sampling and Analytical Program
Parameter Sampling Method
Analytical Method
Stack gas:
POHC's (e.g.. tetrachloroethylene,
toluene, MEK, MIBK)
Particulate matter, metals on
paniculate
Hydrogen chloride
C02 and O2
Nitrogen oxides
Sulfur dioxide
VOST
EPA 5
EPA 5
Impinger absorption in 0.5 M sodium
acetate (back half of EPA 5)
EPA 3 or continuous
EPA 7 or continuous
EPA 6 or continuous
GC/MS, thermal desorption and GC/single ion
monitoring
EPA 5
Inductively coupled plasma
Specific ion electrode
Fyrite
EPA 7
Chemiluminescence photometric analyzer
EPA 6
Pulsed fluorescence TECO analyzer
Carbon monoxide
Total hydrocarbons
Waste fuel:
Principal organics
Metals
Chlorine, sulfur
Btu content
Ash content
Coal:
Metals
Chlorine, sulfur
Btu and ash content
Continuous
Continuous
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
Grab
— composite
— composite
— composite
— composite
— composite
— composite
— composite
— composite
Infrared — EPA Method 10
Flame ionization detector
GC/MS
ICP
X-ray fluorescence
ASTM D240-64
ASTM D482-IP4
ICP
X-ray fluorescence
ASTM D240-64
* Sources: Reference Nos. 2 and 4.
5-3
-------
Table 19. Summary of Kiln DRE's for Selected Compounds*!
Site Waste Component
St. Lawrence Cement
Stora Vika
San Juan Cement
General Portland (Los Robles)
General Portland (Paulding)
Lone Star Industries (Oglesby)
Marquette Cement (Oglesby)
Rockwell Lime
Chlorinated aliphatics
Chlorinated aromatics
PCB's
Methylene chloride
Trichloroethylene
All chlorinated hydrocarbons
PCB
Chlorinated phenols
Phenoxy acids
Freon 113
Methylene chloride
Trichloromethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Methylene chloride
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
Xylene
Methylene chloride
Freon 113
Methyl ethyl ketone
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Toluene
Methylene chloride
Freon 113
Methyl ethyl ketone
1 , 1 , 1 -Trich loroethane
Toluene
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
1 , 1 , 1 -Trich loroethane
Toluene
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
ORE
>99.990
> 99.989
>99.986
> 99. 995
>99.9998
>99.988
>99.99998
>99.99999
>99.99998
>99.99986
93.292-99.997
92.171-99.96
91.043-99.996
>99.99
99.99
>99.95
>99.99
99.956-99.998
>99.999
99.978-99.997
99.991-99.999
99.940-99.988
99.90-99.99
99.999
99.997-99.999
>99.999
99.986-99.998
99.85-99.92*
99.96J
99.60-99.72$
99.95-99.97^
99.9947-99.9995
99.9992-99.9997
99.9955-99.9982
99.997-99.9999
99.997-99.9999
99.995-99.998
"(Continued)
5.3 TEST RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.3.1 Organic Emissions and ORE
The following specific compounds were monitored
at the kilns burning hazardous wastes:
trichloromethane (chloroform)
dichloromethane (methylene chloride)
carbon tetrachloride
1r2-dichloroethane
1,1,1-trichloroethane
trichloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluorethane (Freon 113)
chlorobenzene
benzene
xylene
toluene
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
methyl ethyl ketone
methyl isobutyl ketone
In addition, the following groups of related
organics were monitored at one or more plants:
PCB's
phenoxy acids
chlorinated hydrocarbons
chlorinated aliphatics
chlorinated aromatics
The calculated ORE results for the emission measure-
ments of these compounds are summarized in Table
19. Overall, the data suggest that DRE's exceeding
99.99% can be achieved when cofiring hazardous
waste in kilns during normal operations.
One of the first tests to examine the ORE of hazardous
waste in cement kilns was conducted at the St. Law-
rence Cement plant in Canada. The reported DRE's
were >99.99% for wastes with mostly chlorinated
aliphatics, >99.989% for chlorinated aromatics, and
>99.986% for the PCB mixture. DRE's were calculated
5-4
-------
Table 19. (Continued).
Site
POHC or Waste Component
ORE
Site!
Site II
Florida Solite Corp.
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Freon 113
Methylene chloride
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Freon 113
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methyl isobutyl ketone
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
99.88-99.98§
99.8 -99.994§
82.5 -98.5§
99.87-99.989§
99.7 -99.90§
99.3 -99.4§
99.93-99.98§
99.988-99.998
>99.99996->99.99998
99.91->99.9993§
99.9998-99.9999§
99.8 -99.995§
99.996-99.9993§
99.75-99.93§
99.998-99.9998
99.997-99.9998
99.92-99.97§
99.996-> 99.999992
99.99991-99.99998
99.992-99.999
99.995-99.999
99.995-99.999
99.998-99.999
* Sources: Reference Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 6.
tCorrections were not made for baseline levels of waste component emissions. Higher DRE's may be calculated if this factor is included.
tTest compounds were not detectable in stack exhaust. The ORE calculations were based on minimum detectable limits of the analysis.
§ Waste component concentration < 1000 ppm. Testing and analytical error as well as component contribution from PIC's caused by either
primary fuel and/or waste combustion may have resulted in lower-than-actual ORE.
conservatively by not subtracting or correcting for(1) detectable in the stack exhaust, and DRE's had to be
the background levels in the baseline test or (2) inter- calculated based on the minimum detectable limits of
ferences (contamination) on the control blanks. The
DRE's were based on total chlorinated organics in and
out instead of analysis of specific compounds in and
out.
A test similar to the one at St. Lawrence was con-
ducted in Sweden at a wet process kiln in Stora Vika.
None of the waste fuel's major components was
detected in the stack gas. Based on the detection
limit, the ORE of methylene chloride exceeded
99.995%, and the ORE of trichloroethylene exceeded
99.9998%.
Site I kiln (clay dryer) tests had the lowest DRE's of all
the kilns tested (from 82.5% to 98.5% for benzene
through 99.988% to 99.998% for Freon 113). These low
ORE values may have been caused by the low con-
centrations of the chemical components in the waste
feed (many less than 1000 ppm), PIC formation, and
the relatively low gas temperature 593° to 649°C
(1100° to 1200°F).3 In addition, the kiln was operating
under unsteady combustion conditions during the
first test. Lower DRE's were measured during this test
for several volatile compounds, which could indicate
a direct effect of kiln operation on the destruction of
organics at test operating temperatures.3
Low DRE's were also calculated at Marquette Cement
in Oglesby, Illinois, (from 99.60% to 99.72% for 1,1,1 -
trichloroethane to 99.95% to 99.97% for toluene). In
this case, however, the test compounds were not
the analysis. If the detection limit had been lower, the
calculated DRE's might have been much higher.
The DRE calculations did not include corrections for
test compounds measured during baseline tests. At
Paulding, for example, methylene chloride con-
tamination was a problem, and the DRE's for this
compound should be viewed as unreliably low
because of the contamination. Similarly, the methyl
ethyl ketone results reflect a contamination problem,
although on a scale much smaller than the methylene
chloride. However, no problems with contaminants
were noted with the 1,1,1-trichloroethane and Freon
113 results, which demonstrated DRE's of 99.999% or
greater.
The toluene emissions at General Portland (Pauld-
ing) were found to originate from coal combustion.
Baseline and waste burn emissions of toluene were
the same, and the highest toluene rates occurred dur-
ing a kiln upset at baseline conditions. No blank con-
tamination problems were experienced with this
compound. Benzene emission rates during baseline
(coal only) and waste plus coal burns were also about
the same. Similar results were also observed during a
baseline test at General Portland (Los Robles) with
coal fuel. Here both benzene and toluene were found
at concentrations similar to those at Paulding.
The tests at San Juan Cement also showed measura-
ble rates of the test compounds during the baseline
5-5
-------
Table 20. Participate and Hydrogen Chloride Emissions from Process Kilns
Paniculate HCI
Emissions, Emissions,
Site Test Condition gr/scf 1 b/h
St. Lawrence Cement
Stora Vika
San Juan Cement
General Portland
(Los Robles)
General Portland
(Paulding)
Lone Star
Marquette Cement
Rockwell Lime
Site I
Site II
Florida Solite Corp.
Chlorinated aliphatics
Chlorinated aromatics
PCBs
Baseline
Aliphatics
PCB's
Chlorophenols and phenoxy-acids
Freon 1 1 3
Baseline
Wastes
Baseline
Wastes
Baseline
Wastes
Baseline
Wastes
Baseline
Waste solvents
Baseline
Wastes
Baseline
Wastes
Wastes
Wastes
Baseline
0.21f
0.086
0.078
0.038
0.039
0.024
0.058
0.062
0.014
0.043
0.041
0.030
0.030
**•
0.17
0.104
0.093
0.016
0.013
0.0006
0.112
0.101
0.071
<1
<1
<1
<1
—
0.8
<0.2
1.0
0.6
4.6
1.2
25
2.9
120
190
0.4
0.2
1.8
6.3
0.05
0.05
Waste
Feed Ash, %
NAt
—
NA
0.05 to 0.38
NA
NA
NA
3.4 to 5.3
13.1 to 20.5
3.94 to 4.81
11.1 to 11. 6§
6.8 to 12.1
NA
NA
0.3 to 2.42§
0.66 to 0.70
2.53 to 3.09
6.18to 15.5
6.23 to 9.06§
Waste Feed
Chlorine, %*
37.9
42.6
35.0
0.028 to 0.064§
NA
6.5 to 35.1
NA
NA
NA
0.59 to 4.01
0.08 to 0.09§
1.64 to 2.1 5
0.11 to0.13§
1.75 to 2.10
NA
2.66 to 3.51
0.026 to 0.0234§
0.60 to 0.74
0.55 to 1.08
0.55 to 1.08
Not detected
'Other chlorine added to kiln by primary fuel and raw feed materials.
fRing formation and ESP difficulties.
JNA= Not available.
§Ash or chlorine content of primary fuel during all tests.
"ESP malfunctioned.
test. Blank samples showed no contamination prob-
lems; however, the above-normal free lime content of
the clinker and removal of chloride in the clinker
instead of in the waste dust suggest that operating
difficulties were experienced. The detection of test
compounds during the baseline make the ORE results
difficult to interpret. If the measured test compounds
originated from sources other than the burning of
waste fuel, the actual DRE's may have been higher
than those measured.7
The burning of complex mixtures of organic com-
pounds can yield PIC's. Several tests at kilns have
attempted to identify and quantify both volatile (boil-
ing point <100°C or <212°F) and semivolatile organic
compounds that are emitted under baseline and
waste-fuel test conditions.1 The baseline results are
particularly interesting because of the byproducts
formed from coal combustion. As with the tested
compounds, the interpretation of the results of waste
combustion on PIC's is confounded somewhat by the
presence of many of the same compounds during
baseline tests and the potential for high bias from
low-level contamination or background levels.'
During some tests, the results for PIC's showed some
minor increases resulting from waste combustion
(several compounds at San Juan and chloroform at
Stora Vika). The test results for coal combustion only
indicate that many of the compounds are byproducts
of coal combustion. Polychlorinated dibenzodioxins
and dibenzofurans have not been confirmed as PIC's
from waste combustion.1 Trace quantities (<23 parts
per trillion) were found at San Juan during a kiln
upset, and trace quantities may have been present
when chlorophenols and phenoxy-acids were burned
at Stora Vika.1 Tests at two other kilns (Lone Star and
General Portland, Paulding) and most of the analyses
at San Juan and Stora Vika revealed no detectable
quantities of these compounds.1
5.5.2 Particulate and Hydrogen Chloride Emissions
Table 20 summarizes particulate and hydrogen chlo-
ride emission data from kiln tests. Although it has
been suggested that particulate emissions increase
with increasing chlorine input,8 a review of the rela-
tionship between chlorine content in the feed and
particulate emissions reveals this is not always the
case. San Juan Cement, which has a baghouse,
showed no increase in particulate emissions with
increased chlorine content. Extensive tests at St. Law-
rence Cement and Stora Vika, which are equipped
with ESP's, indicated that controlled particulate emis-
5-6
-------
sions increased as the chloride loading increased.
However, the study also showed that this increase in
emissions could be offset by adjusting the ESP to
compensate for changes in the dust resistivity, by
controlling chloride input, and by altering the chlo-
ride cycle in the kiln. In normal ranges of chlorine
input, upset conditions should not occur, and particu-
late emissions should not increase.
In most cases, HCI emissions (Table 22) appeared to
increase with increases in the chloride loading;
however, generally more than 90% (and in some
cases more than 99%) of the additional chlorine
entering the kiln was retained in the process solids
(waste dust and clinker). Most of the additional chlo-
ride is believed to be removed with the waste dust,
and several plants increased the rate of waste dust
removal to help control the chloride cycle. Although
chloride accumulation probably varies from kiln to
kiln, it appears to start in the range of 6 to 9 kg CI/Mg
(12 to 18 Ib/ton) clinker and has a tendency toward
ring formation (i.e., accumulation of condensed sol-
ids around the inside perimeter of the kiln) at the
upper end of the range.1 In another evaluation of data
from five of the kilns5, however, the data indicate the
following: (1) An increase in HCI emissions with an
increase in chlorine input at three kilns (General Port-
land in Paulding, Ohio; Lone Star in Oglesby, Illinois;
and San Juan Cement in Puerto Rico), (2) a decrease
in HCI emissions at one kiln (Rockwell Lime), and (3)
inconclusive results at one kiln (St. Lawrence
Cement) because the HCI content of the exhaust
gases was below detectable limits for the test equip-
ment used. It is interesting to compare these data
with the 1.8 kg/h (3.96 Ib/h) limitation in 40 CFR
264.343(b). The HCI emissions at two of five kilns
(General Portland and Lone Star) averaged greater
than 1.8 kg/h (3.96 Ib/h) (the HCI regulation for haz-
ardous waste incinerators), and emissions from one
kiln (General Portland) reached 1.8 kg/h (3.96 Ib/h) dur-
ing baseline conditions.
5.3.3 Other Results
In general, sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions tend to
decrease when sulfur-containing fossil fuels are
replaced by waste fuels. In addition, the S02
emission levels normally exhausted from kiln stacks
can be affected by several other operating variables
such as oxygen input and temperature. Although
cement kilns can be effectively operatedto obtain low
stack gas emissions of S02 \ lime kilns are
deliberately operated at conditions favoring higher
S02 emission levels to minimize sulfur
contamination in the lime product.
Test results show that substitution of the sulfur-
containing primary fuel with a low-sulfur waste fuel
decreased S02 emissions at Marquette Cement and
General Portland (Paulding). The test at San Juan
Cement, however, showed an increase in S02
emissions when waste fuel was burned. This
increase was attributed to a lower 02 input (as
evidenced by lower NOX emissions) and to the need
to also remove HCI emissions in a relatively low-
alkaline kiln during the burning of the highly
chlorinated wastes (average of 5.5 kg CI/Mg [11
Ib/ton] clinker).
The SO2 emission results for Rockwell Lime
represent an exceptional case and are not at all
similar to results at other kilns. At this plant,
operating conditions are controlled to prevent S02
absorption into the product because the presence of
sulfur in the lime is undesirable. As a result, stack gas
S02 levels are unusually high compared with other
process kilns. No significant difference in SO2
emissions was observed between the baseline and
waste fuel burns; concentrations in the stack gases
averaged 500 to 600 ppm during each.
Emissions of NOX are not significantly affected by
hazardous waste combustion. Rather,
concentrations of NO* are primarily affected by
oxygen input, primary to secondary air ratio, and
temperatures, which vary over time at any given kiln.
Thus, NOX concentrations depend greatly on the
specific operating conditions of a given kiln and are
not likely to be affected by waste burning. Continuous
IMOX monitors respond rapidly to process changes.
Data from these monitors show that NOX emissions
are quite variable, ranging from less than 100 to
1500 ppm within hours. The Site I kiln, a clay dryer,
was operated at the lowest temperatures 593° to
649°C (1100° to 1200°F) and the highest excess air
(280%) of the kilns tested.3 NOX emissions from this
kiln ranged from 59 to 81 ppm (corrected to 15% 02).
At General Portland's Los Robles cement plant, a
steady decrease in NOX emissions on one test day
(from 1054 to 526 ppm) was attributed to a decrease
in kiln excess air (from 1.3% to 0.5% 02). The
somewhat lower NOX emissions during the waste
burn and one baseline test were attributed to
additional chains that were installed to improve heat
transfer from the gas to the incoming feed. The more
efficient use of heat permitted the firing end of the
kiln to be operated at lower temperatures with a
resulting reduction in NOX." At Lone Star Industries
(Oglesby, Illinois), the variation of NOX with
secondary air flow was demonstrated by oscillations
in undergrate pressure. Increases in undergrate
pressure yielded increased NOX concentrations, and
periodic fluctuations of 100 ppm or more were
observed.12
The test at Rockwell Lime showed the NOX and S02
concentrations changing simultaneously in opposite
directions.4 Emissions of NOX increased with
increasing 02 input and degree of preheating,
whereas emissions of S02 decreased under the
same conditions. The same trends were observed in
the Paulding test during the waste fuel burn.
Concentrations of NOX and SOX tracked together
showed swings in the opposite direction. At times,
the swings were several hundred parts per million in
5-7
-------
over 1- to 2-h 4
amplitude for both NOX and J
periods.9
Overall, the kiln test results suggest the existence of
an interrelationship between NOX, SO2, and O2
input. Continuous monitoring results indicate that
shifts in the NOX concentrations are often
accompanied by SO2 swings in the opposite
direction. An increase of 02 input increases NOX
emissions and decreases S02 emissions.
Emissions of carbon monoxide, especially during coal
combustion, can exhibit short-lived spikes, which are
generally indicative of combustion instability. During
the Paulding test, several process parameters were
changed, and large swings in CO (as well as other
monitored gas concentrations) were observed. The
CO results at Stora Vika showed a range of 50 to
1500 ppm for both the baseline and waste fuel burns.
The CO results at Lone Star Industries were the most
consistently low. This kiln was operated with higher
02 input (to aid in drying wet coal), which apparently
resulted in consistently low levels of THC, CO, and
SOz and increased NOX concentrations. The operation
of the Los Robles kiln was also very stable during
three waste firing tests; the maximum CO was 100
ppm.
Analysis of the test data from the five major kiln
studies4'6'7'9'12 revealed no correlation between POHC
emissions and concentrations of NOX, SOz, CO, and
Oz in the exhaust gases.5 Also, no correlation was
shown between POHC emissions and the quantity of
POHC fed into the kiln.5
5.4 REFERENCES
1. Branscome, M. Summary Report on Hazardous
Waste Combustion in Calcining Kilns. (Draft
report.) U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
2. Day, D.R., and L.A. Cox. Evaluation of Hazardous
Waste Incineration in an Aggregate Kiln:
Florida Solite Corporation. EPA-600/2-
85/030, PB85-189066/REB, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio, 1985.
3. Wyss, A.W., C. Castaldini, and M.M. Murray.
Field Evaluation of Resource Recovery of
Hazardous Wastes. (Draft report.) U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
Day, D.R., and L.A. Cox. Evaluation of Hazardous
Waste Incineration in a Lime Kiln: Rockwell
Lime Company. EPA-600/2-84/132, PB84-
230044/REB, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1984.
5. PEI Associates, Inc. Guidance Manual for Co-
firing Hazardous Wastes in Cement and Lime
Kilns. (Draft report.) U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
6. Higgins, G.M., and A.J. Helmstetter. Evaluation
of Hazardous Waste Incineration in a Dry
Process Cement Kiln. In: Incineration and
Treatment of Hazardous Waste: Proceedings
of the Eighth Annual Research Symposium,
March 1982. EPA-600/9-83-003, PB83-
210450, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1983.
7. Peters, J.A. Evaluation of Hazardous Waste
Incineration in Cement Kilns at San Juan
Cement Company. EPA-600/2-84-129,
PB84-226935, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1983.
8. Weitzman, L. Cement Kilns as Hazardous Waste
Incinerators. Environmental Progress,
2(1): 10-14, February 1983.
9. Research Triangle Institute and Engineering
Science (RTI and ES). Evaluation of Waste
Combustion in Cement Kilns at General
Portland, Inc., Paulding, Ohio. (Draft report.)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
10. MacDonald, L.P. Burning Waste Chlorinated
Hydrocarbons in a Cement Kiln. Report No.
EPS 4-WP-77-2, Water Pollution Control
Directorate, Environmental Protection
Service, Fisheries and Environment Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 1977.
11. Jenkins, A.C. Supplemental Fuels Project,
General Portland, Inc., Los Robles Cement
Plant. Report C-82-080, State of California Air
Resources Board, Sacramento, California,
1982.
12. Branscome, M. Evaluation of Waste Combustion
in Dry-Process Cement Kiln at Lone Star
Industries, Oglesby, Illinois. (Draft report.) U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
5-8
-------
APPENDIX A
LIST OF INCINERATOR MANUFACTURERS
Basic Environmental Engineering, Inc.
21 W. 161 Hill Avenue
Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
(312) 469-5340: John Basic, President
Copetech
125 Windsor Drive
Oak Brook, IL 60521
(312) 986-8564: Brian Copeland
Bayco Industries of California
2108 Davis Street
San Leandro, CA 94577
(415) 562-6700: C.H. Beckett, President
Dorr Oliver, Inc.
77 Havemeyer Lane
Stamford, CT 06904
(203) 358-3741: John Mullen
Brule C.E. & E., Inc.
13920 Southwestern Avenue
Blue Island, IL 60406
(312) 388-7900: Al Schmid
Econo-Therm Energy Systems Corp.
RO. Box 1229
Tulsa, OK 74101
1-800-322-7867: Bob Malekowski
Burn-Zol Corporation
RO. Box 109
Dover, NJ 07801
(209) 931-1297: Ed Avencheck
C&H Combustion
1104 East Big Beaver Road
Troy, Ml 48083
(313) 524-2007: Douglas Frame
CJS Energy Resources, Inc.
RO. Box 85
Albertson, NY 11507
(215) 362-2242: Michael Budin
C.E. Raymond Co.
Bartlett Snow Division
Combustion Engineering, Inc.
200 W. Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 236-4044: Tom Valenti
Coen Company
1510 Rollins Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
(415) 697-0440: Dick Brown
EPCON Industrial Systems, Inc.
The Woodlands, TX 77380
(713) 353-2319: Aziz Jamaluddin
Ecolaire ECP
11100 Nations Ford Road
RO. Box 15753
Charlotte, NC 28210
(704) 588-1620: Bud Strope
Environmental Elements Corp.
(Sub. of Koppers Co., Inc.)
RO. Box 1318
Baltimore, MD 21203
(301) 368-7166: Jim Nicotri
Fuller Company
2040 Avenue C
LeHigh Valley Industrial Park
Bethlehem, PA 18001
(215)264-6011: R.J. Aldrich
HPD, Inc.
1717 N. Naper Boulevard
Naperville, IL 60540
(312) 357-7330: John Karoly
A-1
-------
Hirt Combustion Engineers
931 South Maple Avenue
Montebello, CA 90640
(213) 728-9164: Ms. Corinne Gordon
Peabody International Corporation
4 Landmark Square
Stamford, CT 06901
(203) 327-7000: Donald Hubickey
Industronics, Inc.
489 Sullivan Avenue
RO. Drawer G
S. Windsor, CT 06074
(203) 289-1551: Brian E. Caffyn (x307)
International Incinerators, Inc.
RO. Box 19
Columbus, GA 31902
(404) 327-5475: Ronald Hale
John Zink Company
4401 Peoria Avenue
Tulsa, OK 74105
(918) 747-1371: Duane Schaub (x454)
Lurgi Corporation
One Davis Drive
Belmont, CA 94002
(201) 967-4916: Dieter Schroer
McGill, Inc.
RO. Box 9667
Tulsa, OK 74107
(918) 445-2431: Jim New/burn
Midland-Ross Corporation
2275 Dorr Street
Toledo, OH 43691
(419) 537-6145: Val Daiga
Niro Atomizer, Inc.
9165 Rumsey Road
Columbia, MD 21045
(301) 997-8700: Steve Lancos
Prenco, Inc.
29800 Stephenson Hwy.
Madison Heights, Ml 48071
(313) 399-6262: John Brophy
Rockwell International
8900 DeSoto Avenue
Canoga Park, CA 91304
(818)700-5468: Al Stewart
Shirco Infrared Systems, Inc.
1195 Empire Central
Dallas, TX 75247
(214) 630-7511: Mike Hill
Sur-Lite Corporation
8130 Allport Avenue
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
(213) 693-0796: John Sachs
ThermAII, Inc.
RO. Box 1776
Peapack, NJ 07977
(201) 234-1776: George Fraunfelder
Therm Tech
Box 1105
Tualatin, OR 97062
(503) 692-1490: Dean Robbins
Trane Thermal Company
Brook Road
Conshohocken, PA 19428
(215) 828-5400: Gene Irrgang
A-2
-------
AKZO
Appendix B
INCINERATOR TEST SUMMARIES
Summary of Test Data for Akzo Chemie America
Morris, Illinois
Date of Test: September 18-20, 1984
Run No.: 1-18 Test Sponsor: Akzo
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Vertical cylinder
Commercial Private 2L
Capacity: 6 tons/day
Pollution control system: None; exhaust gases
vented to a waste heat boiler
Waste feed system:
Residence time:
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Formaldehyde and ani-
mal fats
Length of burn:
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 252.25 Ib/h (Formaldehyde);
2268 Ib/h (fats)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
Formaldehyde
Btu content: 731 Btu/lb
Ash content:
Chlorine content:
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1616°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 11% 02
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: Modified Method 5
HCI: Method 5
Paniculate: Method 5
Other: CO - NDIR, continuous
02 - continuous
10.01%
Emission and DUE Results:
POHC's: Formaldehyde - 99.996% ORE
HCI: None detected
Particulate: 0.0372 gr/dscf @ 7% 02
THC: 2.2 ppm
CO: >300 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Reference(s): Akzo Chemie America, Morris, Illinois.
Trial burn test report by ARI Environ-
mental, Paletine, Illinois, 1985.
Process Flow Diagram: Not Available
8-J
-------
AKZO
Date of Test: September 18-20, 1984
Run No.: 2-18
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Vertical cylinder
Commercial Private 1L
Capacity: 6 tons/day
Pollution control system: None; exhaust gases
vented to a waste heat boiler
Waste feed system:
Residence time:
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Formaldehyde and ani-
mal fats
Length of burn:
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 255.27 Ib/h (Formaldehyde);
2285 Ib/h (fats)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
Formaldehyde 10.05%
Btu content:
Ash content:
Chlorine content:
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1631°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 11.5% 02
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1-18
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: Formaldehyde - 99.992% ORE
HCI: None detected
Paniculate: 0.0298 gr/dscf @ 7% 02
THC: 3.8 ppm
CO: 121.8 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Reference(s): See Run 1-18
Date of Test: September 18-20, 1984
Run No.: 3-18
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Vertical cylinder
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 6 tons/day
Pollution control system: None; exhaust gases
vented to a waste heat boiler
Waste feed system:
Residence time:
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Formaldehyde and ani-
mal fats
Length of burn:
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 251.75 Ib/h (Formaldehyde);
2258 Ib/h (fats)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
Formaldehyde 10.03%
Btu content:
Ash content:
Chlorine content:
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1652°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 11.5% 02
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1-18
Emission and DUE Results:
POHC's: Formaldehyde - 99.998% ORE
HCI: None detected
Particulate: 0.0522 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: 3.1 ppm
CO: 152.7 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Reference(s): See Run 1-18
B-2
-------
AKZO
Date of Test: September 18-20, 1984
Run No.: 1-19
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Vertical cylinder
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 6 tons/day
Pollution control system: None; exhaust gases
vented to a waste heat boiler
Waste feed system:
Residence time:
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Formaldehyde and ani-
mal fats
Length of burn:
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 302.7 Ib/h (Formaldehyde); 2697
Ib/h (fats)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
Formaldehyde 10.09%
Btu content:
Ash content:
Chlorine content:
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1778°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 10.6% O2
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1-18
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: Formaldehyde - 99.992% ORE
HCI: None detected
Particulate: 0.0481 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: 6 ppm
CO: 0.8 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Reference(s): See Run 1-18
Date of Test: September 18-20, 1984
Run No.: 2-19
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Vertical cylinder
Commercial Private ^L
Capacity: 6 tons/day
Pollution control system: None; exhaust gases
vented to a waste heat boiler
Waste feed system:
Residence time:
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Formaldehyde and ani-
mal fats
Length of burn:
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 304.2 Ib/h (Formaldehyde); 2696
Ib/h (fats)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
10.14%
Formaldehyde
Btu content:
Ash content:
Chlorine content:
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1778°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 10.6% O2
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1-18
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: Formaldehyde - 99.993% ORE
HCI: None detected
Particulate: 0.0404 gr/dscf @ 7% 02
THC: 8.5 ppm
CO: 0.3 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Reference(s): See Run 1-18
B-3
-------
AKZO
Date of Test: September 18-20, 1984
Run No.: 3-19
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Vertical cylinder
Commercial Private 2L
Capacity: 6 tons/day
Pollution control system: None; exhaust gases
vented to a waste heat boiler
Waste feed system:
Residence time:
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Formaldehyde and ani-
mal fats
Length of burn:
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 302.7 Ib/h (Formaldehyde); 2697
Ib/h (fats)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
Formaldehyde 10.09%
Btu content:
Ash content:
Chlorine content:
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1778°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air:
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1-18
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: Formaldehyde - 99.992% ORE
HCI: None detected
Paniculate: 0.0396 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: 7.4 ppm
CO: 1.2 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Reference(s): See Run 1-18
Date of Test: September 18-20, 1984
Run No.: 1-20
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Vertical cylinder
Commercial Private A.
Capacity: 6 tons/day
Pollution control system: None; exhaust gases
vented to a waste heat boiler
Waste feed system:
Residence time:
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Formaldehyde and ani-
mal fats
Length of burn:
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 481.89 Ib/h (Formaldehyde);
4224 Ib/h (fats)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
Formaldehyde 10.24%
Btu content:
Ash content:
Chlorine content:
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1832°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 7.5% 02
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1-18
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: Formaldehyde - 99.995% ORE
HCI: None detected
Particulate: 0.0413 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: 10.5 ppm
CO: 2.1 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Reference(s): See Run 1-18
B-4
-------
AKZO
Date of Test: September 18-20, 1984
Run No.: 2-20
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Vertical cylinder
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 6 tons/day
Pollution control system: None; exhaust gases
vented to a waste heat boiler
Waste feed system:
Residence time:
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Formaldehyde and ani-
mal fats
Length of burn:
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 469.67 Ib/h (Formaldehyde);
4222 Ib/h (fats)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
Formaldehyde 10.01%
Btu content:
Ash content:
Chlorine content:
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1832°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 7.5% O2
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1-18
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: Formaldehyde - 99.993% ORE
HCI: None detected
Particulate: 0.0401 gr/dscf @ 7% 02
THC: 14.8 ppm
CO: 7.9 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Referencefs): See Run 1-18
Date of Test: September 18-20, 1984
Run No.: 3-20
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Vertical cylinder
Commercial Private 2L
Capacity: 6 tons/day
Pollution control system: None; exhaust gases
vented to a waste heat boiler
Waste feed system:
Residence time:
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Formaldehyde and ani-
mal fats
Length of burn:
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 480.22 Ib/h (Formaldehyde);
4228 Ib/h (fats)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
Formaldehyde 10.20%
Btu content:
Ash content:
Chlorine content:
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1832°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 7.4% O2
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1-18
Emission and DRE Results:
POHC's: Formaldehyde - 99.993% DRE
HCI: None detected
Particulate: 0.0432 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: 13.9 ppm
CO: 10.3 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Referencefs): See Run 1-18
0-5
-------
AMERICAN CYANAMID
Summary of Test Data for American Cyanamid Company
Willow Island, West Virginia
Date of Test: October 26-30, 1982
Run No.: 2 Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Single-chamber liquid injection
incinerator
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: Heat input during test run was 4.8 x 106
Btuh
Pollution control system: None
Waste feed system: Aniline - pressurized tank, fed
once/day - burned 11/2 to 2 h/day
Mononitrobenzene - burned similarly but only
1 hour every 7 to 10 days
Residence time: 0.21 s
Trial Burn Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Aniline waste
Length of burn: 1 hour (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 5.54 Ib/min
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Monitoring Methods:
Waste Feed: One composite per run made up of
grab samples taken every 15 minutes during
the run
Combustion Emissions:
Volatile POHC's and PIC's: gas bags and VOST
(fast)
Semivolatile POHC's and PIC's: Modified
Method 5
HCI: Modified Methods
Particulate: Modified Method 5
Metals: Modified Method 5 (Run 3 only)
C02 and O2: gas bag for Orsat analysis
Continuous monitors:
02 - Beckman Model 742 (polarographic
sensor)
CO - Beckman Model 215A (NDIR)
C02 - Horiba Model PIR-2000S (NDIR)
THC - Beckman Model 402 (FID)
Dioxins and furans (tetra- and penta-chlorinated
only) - Modified Method 5
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
Name
Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Aniline
Phenyl diamine
Diphenylamine
Mononitrobenzene
m-Dinitrobenzene
Concentration, wt. %
all <0.01
55
0.23
0.62
<0.01
<0.01
Semivolatiles
Aniline
Phenylene diamine
Diphenyl amine
Mononitrobenzene
m-Dinitrobenzene
ORE, %
99.999989
99.997
99.999
Not calculable because of low
concentration in waste
Not calculable because of low
concentration in waste
Btu content: 14,522 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.19%
Chlorine content: 0.015%
Moisture content: 5.2%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average 1240°F measured at ther-
mocouple in lower part of stack (see com-
ments and diagram)
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas for startup only
Excess air: 12.4% 02
HCI: 0.004 Ib/h
Particulate: 0.0746 gr/dscf @ 7% 02
THC: <1 ppm
CO: 30.6 ppm
Other: Dioxins and furans - none detected
PIC's:
PIC's-
Volatiles
Chloroform
Benzene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Semivolatiles
Naphthalene
o-Nitrophenol
"Not blank corrected
Fast
VOST.
avg.,
g/min
Gas
bag, MM5,
g/min g/min
0.0017
0.00135
0.00019
0.000028
0.00005
0.00053
0.000026
0.00020
0.0017
0.00032
0.0014
0.00012
0.000030
0.00045
0.000077
0.00044
0.013
0.0086
8-6
-------
AMERICAN CYANAMID
Reference: A. Trenholm, P. Gorman, and G.
Jungclaus . Performance Evaluation
of Full-Scale Hazardous Waste Incin-
erators, Final Report, Volumes II and IV
(Appendix G). EPA Contract 68-02-3177
to Midwest Research Institute, Kansas
City, MO. EPA Project Officer - Mr. Don
Oberacker, Hazardous Waste Engineer-
ing Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
Ohio 45268.
Comments: Unlike other tests in this EPA series,
chemicals were not spiked into the
waste feed. Aniline wastes were used
in Runs 1, 2, 3, and 5 and mono-
nitrobenzene wastes in Run 4. Data
from Run 1 are believed invalid
because stack gas flow was cyclonic.
To correct this, flow straighteners were
installed in the stack after Run 1, but no
other operational changes were made.
However, the temperature readings in
Runs 2-5 were 300°F lower than those
of Run 1. There is reason to believe that
the actual temperature of Runs 2-5 may
have been 300°F higher than the ther-
mocouple reading indicated. Because
of a limited supply of waste, each run
was held to about 1 hour. ORE values
for aniline may be biased high because
of poor recoveries (—7%) of aniline
spiked to the XAD samples. See Refer-
ence, Volume II, Page 102.
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Diagram of process and sampling locations.
Secondary
Air f~*
fca
Steam
£;
Primary •£/'-
-^
Air
~^) Aniline
-J Tank
o
Natural
Gas
— Steam
s
Mononitrobenzene
Tank
Note: Natural Gas is burned only during startup. Aniline and
mononitrobenzene waste feeds are always burned
separately.
B-7
-------
AMERICAN CYAIMAMID
Date of Test: October 26-30, 1982
Run No.: 3
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Single-chamber liquid injection
incinerator
Commercial Private 2L
Capacity: Heat input during test run was 4.2 x 106
Btuh
Pollution control system: None
Waste feed system: Pressurized tanks
Residence time: 0.24 s
Trial Burn Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Aniline waste
Length of burn: ~1 hour (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 4.88 Ib/min
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
HCI: 0.007 Ib/h
Particulate: 0.0686 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: <1 ppm
CO:
Other: Dioxins and furans - none detected
Metals - Chromium and nickel >5 |xg/g in
waste feed and >20,000 p,g/g in particulate
emissions
PIC's:
Name
Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Aniline
Phenyl diamine
Diphenylamine
Mononitrobenzene
m-Dinitrobenzene
Concentration, wt. %
all <0.01
60
0.53
0.58
<0.01
<0.01
PIC'S-
Volatiles
Chloroform
Benzene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Semivolatiles
Naphthalene
o-Nitrophenol
•Not blank corrected
Fast
VOST,
avg.,
g/min
0.000217
0.00035
0.000246
0.000004
0.000050
0.000227
0.000006
0.000031
-
-
Gas
bag,
g/min
0.00016
0.0012
0.00072
<0.00001 1
0.00055
0.0031
0.000072
0.00040
-
-
MM5,
g/min
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.0014
<0.0003
Btu content: 14,490 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.19%
Chlorine content: 0.020%
Moisture content: 5.5%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average 1164°F (see comments.
Run 2)
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas for startup only
Excess air: 14.6% 02 (taken from Method 5 test
data)
Monitoring Methods: See Run 2
Reference(s): See Run 2
Comments: See Run 2
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 2
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
Semivolatiles
Aniline
Phenylene diamine
Diphenyl amine
Mononitrobenzene
m-Dinitrobenzene
ORE, %
>99.999992
>99.9992
>99.9992
Not calculable because of low
concentration in waste
Not calculable because of low
concentration in waste
B-8
-------
AMERICAN CYANAMID
Date of Test: October 26-30, 1982
Run No.: 4
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Single-chamber liquid injection
incinerator
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: Heat input during test run was 4.5 x 10s
Btuh
Pollution control system: None
Waste feed system: Pressurized tanks
Residence time: 0.23 s
Trial Burn Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Mononitrobenzene
waste
Length of burn: ~1 hour (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 6.97 Ib/min
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Aniline
Phenyl diamine
Diphenylamine
Mononitrobenzene
m-Dinitrobenzene
Concentration, wt. %
all <0.01
0.8
<0.01
<0.01
64
<0.31
Btu content: 10,780 Btu/lb
Ash content: Less than 0.05%
Chlorine content: 0.013%
Moisture content: 0.57%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average 1254°F (see comments.
Run 2)
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas for startup only
Excess air: 12.7% O2
Monitoring Methods: See Run 2
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
Semivolatiles
Aniline
Phenylene diamine
Diphenyl amine
Mononitrobenzene
m-Dinitrobenzene
ORE,
>99.9997
Not calculable because of low
concentration in waste
Not calculable because of low
concentration in waste
99.99991
>99.99
HCI: 0.007 Ib/h
Paniculate: 0.0066 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: <1 ppm
CO: 10.8 ppm
Other: Dioxins and furans - none detected
PIC's:
PIC'S"
Volatiles
Chloroform
Benzene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Semivolatiles
Naphthalene
o-Nitrophenol
Fast
VOST,
avg.,
g/min
0.000164
0.00032
0.00012
0.000012
0.000025
0.000182
0.0000062
0.000046
-
-
Gas
bag,
g/min
0.000069
<0.00003
0.00086
0.00014
<0.000012
0.00025
0.00014
0.000029
-
-
MM5,
g/min
.
.
-
-
.
-
-
-
0.0091
<0.0006
"Not blank corrected
Reference(s): See Run 2
Comments: See Run 2
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 2
B-9
-------
AMERICAN CYANAMID
Date of Test: October 26-30, 1982
Run No.: 5 - Aniline waste
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Single-chamber liquid injection
incinerator
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: Heat input during test run was 4.3 x 106
Btuh
Pollution control system: None
Waste feed system: Aniline-pressurized tank, fed
once/day - burned Vh to 2 h/day
Mononitrobenzene - burned similarly but only
1 hour every 7 to 10 days
Residence time: 0.21 s
Trial Burn Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Aniline waste
Length of burn: ~1 hour (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 4.95 Ib/min
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Volatiles
Semivolatiles
Aniline
Phenyl diamine
Diphenylamine
Mononitrobenzene
m-Dinitrobenzene
Concentration, wt. %
all <0.01
53
0.46
0.54
<0.01
<0.01
Btu content: 14,460 Btu/lb
Ash content: Less than 0.5%
Chlorine content: 0.019%
Moisture content: 7.3%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average 1198°F (see comments,
Run 2)
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas for startup only
Excess air: 13.0% 02
Monitoring Methods: Same as Run 2 except
VOST not used in this run.
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
Semivolatiles
ORE, %
Aniline
Phenylene diamine
Diphenyl amine
Mononitrobenzene
m-Dinitrobenzene
>99.999992
>99.999
>99.9992
Not calculable because of low
concentration in waste
Not calculable because of low
concentration in waste
HCI: 0.007 Ib/h
Particulate: 0.1750 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: <1 ppm
CO: 6.1 ppm
Other: Dioxins and furans - none detected
PIC's:
PIC's"
Volatiles
Chloroform
Benzene
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Semivolatiles
Naphthalene
o-Nitrophenol
Gasbag,*
g/min
0.00002
0.00057
0.0012
0.000034
0.000051
0.00042
0.000062
0.000090
MMS,
g/min
0.0040
0.00036
•Not blank correaed
"Measured from gas bag; VOST not used for this test run
Reference(s): See Run 2
Comments: See Run 2
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 2
B-10
-------
CIBA-GEIGY
Summary of Test Data for Ciba-Geigy Corporation
Mclntosh, Alabama
Date of Test: November 12-17, 1984
Run No.: 1 Test Sponsor: Ciba-Geigy
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator- Rotary kiln with second-
ary chamber, Vulcan Iron
Commercial Private A.
Capacity: 50 tpd with 10% excess capacity (30 x
106 Btuh for each burner)
Pollution control system: Quench tower, Polycon
venturi scrubber (25-in. Ap), and packed tower
scrubber
Waste feed system:
Liquid: Hauck Model 780 wide range burners
(kiln and secondary burners)
Solid: Ram feed
Residence time: 5.05 s (kiln); 3.09 s (secondary
chamber)
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Hazardous liquid and
nonhazardous solid wastes usually burned; for
this run, only synthetic hazardous liquid waste
was tested
Length of burn: 6 to 9 h (2-h sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: 480 gal (liquid)
and 0 Ib (solid)
Waste feed rate: 4 gpm (liquid); 0 Ib/h (solid)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Hexachloroethane
Tetrachlorethene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Concentration, %
4.87
5.03
29.52
60.58
Btu content: 15,200 Btu/Ib
Ash content: Not measured
Chlorine content: 20.8% (calculated)
Moisture content: Not measured
Operating Conditions:
Temperature:
Range 1750° - 1850°F (kiln)
1950° - 2050°F (Secondary chamber)
Average 1800°F (kiln); 2000°F (Secondary
chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used:
Natural gas
Primary kiln 1200 scfh natural gas
Secondary chamber 900-1300 scfh
Airflow:
Primary air to kiln: 2200 cfm
Secondary air to kiln: 1400 cfm
Primary air to secondary: 1260 cfm (avg.)
Secondary air to secondary: 0
Excess air: 10.3% Oxygen
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: XAD 2 sorbent module attached to
Method 5 particulate train
HCI: Ion electrode on first impinger in Method 5
train
Particulate: Modified Method 5
Other: C02: Method 3
O2: Method 3
CO: Long-cell type MSA Model 202 "Lira"
NDIR (for verification); Ciba-Geigy has
NDIR on stack; mfgr. not reported.
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC DRE,%
Hexacloroethane
Tetrachlorethene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
99.998
99.997 Calculated using
99.9997 method detection
99.9994 limit
HCI: 99.998% collection efficiency
Particulate: 0^21 gr/dscf @ 7% 02
THC: Not measured
CO: 10 ppm
Other: No POHC's detected in scrubber water
PIC's: Not measured
Reference(s): Ciba-Geigy Mclntosh Facility, RCRA
Part B Application, Incinerator Test
Burn Parts 1 and 3. February 1985
B-Ti
-------
CIBA-GEIGY
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Solid Ram Feed «^_^-
Ljquids
Propane—*.
Rotary
Kiln
»
Secondary
Combustion
Chamber
^T
Ash
Liquids
Quench
Tower
~T
Natural
Gas
Venturi
Scrubber
>
Packed
Tower
Scrubber
T
Sta
J
B-12
-------
C1BA-GEIGY
Date of Test: November 1984
Run No.: 2
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator- Rotary kiln with second-
ary chamber, Vulcan Iron
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 50 tpd with 10% excess capacity (30 x
106 Btuh for each burner)
Pollution control system: Quench tower, Polycon
venturi scrubber (25-in. Ap), and packed tower
scrubber
Waste feed system:
Liquid: Hauck Model 780 wide range burners
(kiln and secondary burners)
Solid: Ram feed
Residence time: 5.05 s (kiln); 3.09 s (secondary
chamber)
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Hazardous liquid and
nonhazardous solid wastes usually burned; for
this run, only synthetic hazardous liquid waste
was tested
Length of burn: 6 to 9 h (2-h sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: 458 gal (liquid)
and 0 Ib (solid)
Waste feed rate: 3.8 gpm (liquid); 0 Ib/h (solid)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature:
Range 1700°-1850°F (kiln)
1950° - 2050°F (Secondary chamber)
Average 1800°F (kiln); 2000°F (Secondary
chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used:
Natural gas
Primary kiln 1200 scfh natural gas
Secondary chamber 900-1300 scfh
Airflow:
Primary air to kiln: 2200 cfm
Secondary air to kiln: 1400 cfm
Primary air to secondary: 1260 cfm (avg.)
Secondary air to secondary: 0
Excess air: 10.8% Oxygen
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC DRE,%
Hexacloroethane
Tetrachlorethene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
99.997
99.995
99.9994
99.9992
Calculated using
method detection
limit
Name
Hexachloroethane
Tetrachlorethene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Concentration, %
4.87
5.03
29.52
60.58
Btu content: 15,100 Btu/lb
Ash content: Not measured
Chlorine content: 12.8% (calculated)
Moisture content: Not measured
HCI: 99.995% collection efficiency
Particulate: 0.20 gr/dscf @ 7% 02
THC: Not measured
CO: <5 ppm
Other: No POHC's detected in scrubber water
PIC's: Not measured
Reference(s): See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
B-73
-------
CIBA-GEIGY
Date of Test: November 12-17, 1984
Run No.: 3
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator- Rotary kiln with second-
ary chamber, Vulcan Iron
Commercial Private J<_
Capacity: 50 tpd with 10% excess capacity (30 x
10s Btuh for each burner)
Pollution control system: Quench tower, Polycon
venturi scrubber (25-in. Ap), and packed tower
scrubber
Waste feed system:
Liquid: Hauck Model 780 wide range burners
(kiln and secondary burners)
Solid: Ram feed
Residence time: 5.05 s (kiln); 3.09 s (secondary
chamber)
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Hazardous liquid and
nonhazardous solid wastes usually burned; for
this run, only synthetic hazardous liquid waste
was tested
Length of burn: 6 to 9 h (2-h sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: 427 gal (liquid)
and 0 Ib (solid)
Waste feed rate: 3.55 gpm (liquid); 0 Ib/h (solid)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC DRE,%
Hexacloroethane 99.997
Tetrachlorethene 99.995
Chlorobenzene 99.9995
Toluene 99.9992
HCI: 99.998% collection efficiency
Paniculate: 0.14 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: Not measured
CO: <5 ppm
Other: No POHC's detected in scrubber water
PIC's: Not measured
Heferencefs): See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
Name
Concentration,
Hexachloroethane
Tetrachlorethene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
4.87
5.03
29.52
60.58
Btu content: 15,300 Btu/lb
Ash content: Not measured
Chlorine content: 14.9% (calculated)
Moisture content: Not measured
Operating Conditions:
Temperature:
Range 1650° - 1750°F (kiln)
1950° - 2050°F (Secondary chamber)
Average 1700'F (kiln); 2000°F (Secondary
chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used:
Natural gas
Primary kiln 1200 scfh natural gas
Secondary chamber 900-1300 scfh
Airflow:
Primary air to kiln: 2200 cfm
Secondary air to kiln: 1400 cfm
Primary air to secondary: 1260 cfm (avg.)
Secondary air to secondary: 0
Excess air: 11.0% Oxygen
B-14
-------
CIBA-GEIGY
Date of Test: November 12-17, 1984
Run No.: 4
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Rotary kiln with second-
ary chamber, Vulcan Iron
Commercial Private J*_
Capacity: 50 tpd with 10% excess capacity (30 x
106 Btuh for each burner)
Pollution control system: Quench tower, Polycon
venturi scrubber (25-in. Ap), and packed tower
scrubber
Waste feed system:
Liquid: Hauck Model 780 wide range burners
(kiln and secondary burners)
Solid: Ram feed
Residence time: 4.93 s (kiln); 3.04 s (secondary
chamber)
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Hazardous liquid and
nonhazardous solid wastes usually burned; for
this run, both synthetic hazardous liquid waste
and nonhazardous solid waste were tested
Length of burn: 6 to 9 h (2-h sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: 252 gal (liquid)
and 3865 Ib (solid)
Waste feed rate: 2.1 gpm (liquid); 1932 Ib/h (solid)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Hexachloroethane
Tetrachlorethene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Concentration, %
4.87
5.03
29.52
60.58
Btu content: 15,100 Btu/lb
Ash content: Not measured
Chlorine content: 14.2% (calculated)
Moisture content: Not measured
Operating Conditions:
Temperature:
Range 1650°-1850T (kiln)
1975° - 2050°F (Secondary chamber)
Average 1750°F (kiln); 2000°F (Secondary
chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used:
Natural gas
Primary kiln 1200 scfh natural gas
Secondary chamber 900-1300 scfh
Airflow:
Primary air to kiln: 2200 cfm
Secondary air to kiln: 1400 cfm
Primary air to secondary: 1260 cfm (avg.)
Secondary air to secondary: 0
Excess air: 11.0% Oxygen
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC DRE,%
Hexacloroethane 99.995
Tetrachlorethene 99.991
Chlorobenzene 99.9992
Toluene 99.998
HCI: 99.998% collection efficiency
Paniculate: 0.19 gr/dscf @ 7% 02
THC: Not measured
CO: <5 ppm
Other: No POHC's detected in scrubber water
PIC's: Not measured
Reference(s): See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
B-15
-------
CIBA-GEIGY
Date of Test: November 12-17, 1984
Run No.: 5
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator- Rotary kiln with second-
ary chamber, Vulcan Iron
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 50 tpd with 10% excess capacity (30 x
106 Btuh for each burner)
Pollution control system: Quench tower, Polycon
venturi scrubber (25-in. Ap), and packed tower
scrubber
Waste feed system:
Liquid: Hauck Model 780 wide range burners
(kiln and secondary burners)
Solid: Ram feed
Residence time: 4.93 s (kiln); 3.04 s (secondary
chamber)
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Hazardous liquid and
nonhazardous solid wastes usually burned; for
this run, both synthetic hazardous liquid waste
and nonhazardous solid waste were tested
Length of burn: 6 to 9 h (2-h sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: 124 gal (liquid)
and 5228 Ib (solid)
Waste feed rate: 1.03 gpm (liquid); 2614 Ib/h
(solid)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Hexachloroethane
Tetrachlorethene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Concentration, %
4.87
5.03
29.52
60.58
Btu content: 15,100 Btu/lb
Ash content: Not measured
Chlorine content: 14.9% (calculated)
Moisture content: Not measured
Operating Conditions:
Temperature:
Range 1000° - 1950°F (kiln)
1950° - 2050°F (Secondary chamber)
Average 1750°F (kiln); 2000°F (Secondary
chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used:
Natural gas
Primary kiln 1200 scfh natural gas
Secondary chamber 900-1300 scfh
Airflow:
Primary air to kiln: 2200 cfm
Secondary air to kiln: 1400 cfm
Primary air to secondary: 1260 cfm (avg.)
Secondary air to secondary: 0
Excess air: 10.6% Oxygen
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Hexacloroethane
Tetrachlorethene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
DRE,%
99.992
99.982
99.998
99.997
HCI: 99.996% collection efficiency
Particulate: 0.14 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: Not measured
CO: <5 ppm
Other: No POHC's detected in scrubber water
PIC's: Not measured
Reference(s): See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
B-16
-------
CIBA-GEIGY
Date of Test: November 12-17, 1984
Run No.: 6
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Rotary kiln with second-
ary chamber, Vulcan Iron
Commercial Private 2L.
Capacity: 50 tpd with 10% excess capacity (30 x
10s Btuh for each burner)
Pollution control system: Quench tower, Polycon
venturi scrubber (25-in. Ap), and packed tower
scrubber
Waste feed system:
Liquid: Hauck Model 780 wide range burners
(kiln and secondary burners)
Solid: Ram feed
Residence time: 4.93 s (kiln); 3.04 s (secondary
chamber)
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Hazardous liquid and
nonhazardous solid wastes usually burned; for
this run, both synthetic hazardous liquid waste
and nonhazardous solid waste were tested
Length of burn: 6 to 9 h (2-h sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: 215 gal (liquid)
and 6154 Ib (solid)
Waste feed rate: 1.8 gpm (liquid); 3077 Ib/h (solid)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Hexacloroethane
Tetrachlorethene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
DR£,%
99.995
99.992
99.9993
99.998
HCI: 99.998% collection efficiency
Paniculate: 0.18 gr/dscf @ 7% 02
THC: Not measured
CO: <5 ppm
Other: No POHC detected in scrubber water
PIC's: Not measured
Referencefs): See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
Name
Concentration,
Hexachloroethane
Tetrachlorethene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
4.87
5.03
29.52
60.58
Btu content: 15,100 Btu/lb
Ash content: Not measured
Chlorine content: 16.2% (calculated)
Moisture content: Not measured
Operating Conditions:
Temperature:
Range 1600° - 1850°F (kiln)
1950° - 2050°F (Secondary chamber)
Average 1750°F (kiln); 2000°F (Secondary
chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used:
Natural gas
Primary kiln 1200 scfh natural gas
Secondary chamber 900-1300 scfh
Airflow:
Primary air to kiln: 2200 cfm
Secondary air to kiln: 1400 cfm
Primary air to secondary: 1260 cfm (avg.)
Secondary air to secondary: 0
Excess air: 10.7% Oxygen
B-17
-------
CINCINNATI MSD
Summary of Test Data for Cincinnati Metropolitan Sewer District
Cincinnati, Ohio
Date of Test: Week of July 19, 1981
Hun No.: 1 Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Rotary kiln/cylonic fur-
nace
Commercial A. Private
Capacity: 52 x 106 Btuh (kiln); 62 x 106 Btuh (fur-
nace)
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber and
sieve tray caustic scrubber
Waste feed system: Liquids pumped from tanks;
solids conveyed into kiln (see comments)
Residence time: 3.3-3.7 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Multiphasic, pesticide-
containing liquid waste (see comments)
Length of burn: 10.5 h
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 4,288 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Monitoring Methods:
Grab samples of fuel oil, ash, scrubber effluent,
and quench water for POHC's
Stack:
• POHC's: Volatiles by integrated gas bag and
semivolatiles by Modified Method 5
• HCI: midget impinger trains (Runs 1-6) and
Modified Method 5 without alkaline
impinger (Runs 7-9)
• Particulate: Modified Method 5
• Continuous monitors for CO, 02, NOX, and
total HC
• Orsat for 02 and C02
• Metals - Modified Method 5
• PICS - gas bag
Waste:
Two 2-hour integrated samples and one 6-hour
integrated sample (composited every 15 min-
utes) plus one daily grab sample analyzed for
POHC's, metals, Cl, HHV, viscosity, flash point,
and proximate/ultimate analyses
Name
Concentration
v-glg tppm)
Volatiles
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Semivolatiles
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadieneb
12,000
2,200
2,400
100M50
100"
3700-5600
'Value reported as "at or near detection limit." See Reference, pp.
145-146.
"A pesticide.
Btu content: 4,949 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.93%
Chlorine content: 2.91%
Moisture content: 65.3%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1677°F in combustion
chamber
Auxiliary fuel used: Oil (1.36 gpm)
Excess air: 12.6% O,
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
ORE, %
Volatiles
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Semivolatiles
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
99.998
>99.995
99.999
>99.99 to>99.998
>99.99 to>99.997
>99.999to 99.9999
HCI: 1.87 Ib/h; 98.5% removal (avg.)a
Particulate: Not reported
THC: 0.5 -10.4 ppm (2.1 ppm avg.)
CO: 0 -1.8 ppm (0.6 ppm avg.)
Other: NOX: 84 -140 ppm (122 ppm avg.)
02: 10.9 -13.7 ppm (12.2 ppm avg.)
PIC's: bromoform - 30 |j.g/m3
dibromochloromethane -10 jig/m3
'Excludes Cl' found on glass wool plug preceding HCI probe on chlo-
ride train.
8-78
-------
CINCINNATI MSD
Reference(s): Gorman, R G. and K. R Ananth. Trial
Burn Protocol Verification at a Haz-
ardous Waste Incinerator. EPA-600/
2-84-048. February 1984.
Comments: Although the incineration system is
designed to handle solids, none were
used in the nine MSD tests. The waste
burned consisted of two liquid phases
plus one semi-solid phase. Although
every effort was made to blend the
waste prior to feeding it to the incin-
erator, analyses showed hour-by-hour
variations in composition (water con-
tent, Btu content, chlorine content,
etc.). The wastes burned in Runs 1-6
were multiphased, higher in water
content (29-65%), and lower in chlo-
rine content (3-7%) than wastes
burned in Runs 7-9 (single-phased,
chlorine 15-16% and about 15%
water). Waste feed analyses were con-
ducted on time-integrated samples
taken every 15 minutes throughout
each run. Wastes burned in Runs 1-6
contained 100-16,000 ppm of the
pesticide hexachlorocyclopentadiene.
Sampling difficulties and malfunc-
tions of demister and scrubber pH con-
trol were believed responsible for
<99% HCI control. Demister and
sound dampener malfunctions also
were believed responsible for high
particulate emissions in Runs 2,7,8,
and 9.
B-19
-------
CINCINNATI MSD
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Schematic diagram of the Cincinnati MSD incinerator.
Auxiliary
Fuel Oil
Liquid Waste
Feed
Quench
Water
I
1^4$
i
I
> \
Venturi
Scrubber
To Stack
Recycle
Recirculating
Tank
Slowdown
Sampling Points
SiA, S,B - Liquid Waste Feed
S2A, S2B - Auxiliary Fuel Oil
83 - Ash Sluicing
84 - Scrubber Slowdown
Ss - Quench Water
Se - Stack
Ash Tank
Sluice Gate
£•7
B-20
-------
CINCINNATI MSD
Date of Test: Week of July 19, 1981
Run No.: 2
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Rotary kiln/cyclonic fur-
nace
Commercial -X. Private
Capacity: 52 x 106 Btuh (kiln); 62 x 106 Btuh (fur-
nace)
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber and
sieve tray caustic scrubber
Waste feed system: Liquids pumped from tanks;
solids conveyed into kiln (see comments)
Residence time: 3.3-3.7 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Multiphasic liquid
waste (see Run 1)
Length of burn: 7.0 h
Total amount of waste burned: 31,241 Ib
Waste feed rate: 4,463 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Volatiles
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Semivolatiles
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Concentration
v-gfg (ppm)
7,600
1,500
3,300
100M90
<100-160
690 -7600
"Value reported as "at or near detection limit."
Btu content: 6,039 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.22%
Chlorine content: 3.13%
Moisture content: 57.2%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1976°F in combustion
chamber
Auxiliary fuel used: Oil (1.11 to 1.40 gpm)
Excess air: 9.1% 02
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Volatiles
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Semivolatiles
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadieneb
ORE, %
a
a
a
>99.993 to >99.998
>99.99
>99.996 to 99.99992
"Not reported; gas bag leaked and sample was lost. No analysis
could be performed
'Three of four calculated values were >99.99. A fourth calculated
value could not be determined because of low POHC con-
centrations in the waste feed (<100 ppm) and in the Modified
Method 5 sample (<1 ppm)
HCI: 0.84 Ib/h; 99.4% removal (avg.)a
Particulate: 0.1210 gr/scf @ 7% 02 (327 mg/dscm
@ 12% C02)b
THC: 0 - 9.6 ppm (3.3 ppm avg.)
CO: 0 - 56 ppm (3.6 ppm avg.)
Other: NOX: 131 -163 ppm (146 ppm avg.)
02: 7.5 -12 ppm (10.3 ppm avg.)
PIC's: bromoform - sample lost
dibromochloromethane - sample lost
'Excludes HCI found on glass wool plug preceding HCI probe on chlo-
ride train.
bSee comments for Run 1.
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See comments for Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
B-21
-------
CINCINNATI MSD
Date of Test: Week of July 19, 1981
Run No.: 3
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator-Rotary kiln/cyclonic fur-
nace
Commercial A. Private
Capacity: 52 x 106 Btuh (kiln); 62 x 106 Btuh (fur-
nace)
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber and
sieve tray caustic scrubber
Waste feed system: Liquids pumped from tanks;
solids conveyed into kiln (see comments)
Residence time: 3.3-3.7 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Multiphasic liquid
waste (see Run 1)
Length of burn: 6.3 h
Total amount of waste burned: 31,660 Ib
Waste feed rate: 5,025 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Volatiles
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Semivolatites
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
ORE, %
99.9995
>99.99993
99.999
>99.99 to>99.999
>99.99 to>99.999
>99.998 to >99.99998
HCI: 1.07 Ib/h (99.7% removal, avg.)a
Paniculate: Not reported
THC: 0 - 9.4 ppm (1.8 ppm avg.)
CO: 0 - 17.5 ppm (8.2 ppm avg.)
Other: NOX: 64 - 182 ppm (118 ppm avg.)
02: 6.3 - 14.7 ppm (7.8 ppm avg.)
PIC's: bromoform - 50 n-g/m3
dibromochloromethane - 30
Name
Concentration
(ppm)
Volatiles
Chloroform 17,200
Carbon tetrachloride 2,600
Tetrachloroethylene 3,800
Semivolatiles
Hexachloroethane 110 - 200
Hexachlorobenzene 100 - 260
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 2,400-16,000
Btu content: 9,848 Btu/lb
Ash content: 1.29%
Chlorine content: 7.08%
Moisture content: 33.54%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 2325°F in combustion
chamber
Auxiliary fuel used: Oil (1.23 gpm)
Excess air: 6.8% O2
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
"Excludes HCI found on glass wool plug preceding HCI probe on chlo-
ride train.
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See comments for Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
B-22
-------
CINCINNATI MSD
Date of Test: Week of July 19, 1981
Run No.: 4
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator-Rotary kiln/cyclonic fur-
nace
Commercial .X. Private
Capacity: 52 x 106 Btuh (kiln); 62 x 106 Btuh (fur-
nace)
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber and
sieve tray caustic scrubber
Waste feed system: Liquids pumped from tanks;
solids conveyed into kiln (see comments)
Residence time: 1.5-2.2 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Multiphasic liquid
waste (See Run 1)
Length of burn: 6.65 h
Total amount of waste burned: 47,480 Ib
Waste feed rate: 7,140 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Volatiles
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Semivolatiles
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadieneb
ORE, %
99.9997
>99.999
99.997
>99.992 to >99.997
99.9938
99.96 to 99.9994"
Name
Concentration,
v-g/g (ppm)
13,200
1,600
2,600
100 - 140
<100-100
90 - 3100
Volatiles
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Semivolatiles
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Btu content: 5,968 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.47%
Chlorine content: 3.46%
Moisture content: 57.47%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1665°F in combustion
chamber
Auxiliary fuel used: Oil (0.687 to 1.40 gpm)
Excess air: 13.0% 02
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
•Three of four possible ORE calculations could not be made because
both input and output POHC values were below detection limits.
bThe 99.96 value is low due to calculation limitations. The input
value of the POHC was only 90 ppm, and the output detection limit
was 5 (ig.
HCI: 3.70 Ib/h (98.5% removal avg.)a
Paniculate: Not reported
THC: 0.7 - 3.0 ppm (1.1 ppm avg.)
CO: 0 - 42.2 ppm (16.8 ppm avg.)
Other: NO*: 98 -160 ppm (137 ppm avg.)
O2: 11.7 -14.2 ppm (13.0 ppm avg.)
PIC's: bromoform -1 jig/m3
dibromochloromethane -1 |xg/m3
•Excludes HCI found on glass wool plug preceding HCI probe on chlo-
ride train.
Referencefs): See Run 1
Comments: See comments for Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
B-23
-------
CINCINNATI MSD
Date of Test: Week of July 19, 1981
Run No.: 5
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Rotary kiln/cyclonic
furnace
Commercial _X_ Private
Capacity: 52 x 106 Btuh (kiln); 62 x 106 Btuh (fur-
nace)
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber and
sieve tray caustic scrubber
Waste feed system: Liquids pumped from tanks;
solids conveyed into kiln (see comments)
Residence time: 1.5-2.2 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Multiphasic liquid
waste (see Run 1)
Length of burn: 8.8 h
Total amount of waste burned: 61,640 Ib
Waste feed rate: 7,004 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration,
Hff/g (ppm) _
Volatiles
Chloroform 10,900
Carbon tetrachloride 1,100
Tetrachloroethylene 2,600
Semivolatiles
Hexachloroethane 100-180
Hexachlorobenzene 100
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene 2500 - 7100
Btu content: 9,948 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.25%
Chlorine content: 5.88%
Moisture content: 31.66%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 2044°F in combustion
chamber
Auxiliary fuel used: Oil (1.40 to 2.64 gpm)
Excess air: 11.0% 02
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Volatiles
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Semivolatiles
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
ORE, %
>99.9989
>99.96"
>99.99
>99.99 to >99.996
>99.99 to >99.996
>99.999 to >99.996
"Inadequate amount of sample in gas bag limited the ORE calcula-
tion to this value as a minimum.
HCI: 7.82 Ib/h (98.1% removal avg.)a
Paniculate: 0.0563 gr/scf @ 7% O2 (146 mg/dscm
@ 12% C02)
THC: 0 - 2.8 ppm (0.7 ppm avg.)
CO: 1.9 -11.6 ppm (7.0 ppm avg.)
Other: NOX: 82 - 239 ppm (136 ppm avg.)
O2: 8.6 -11.6 ppm (10.5 ppm avg.)
PIC's: bromoform - <60 n-g/m3
dibromochloroform - <60 ng/m3
"Excludes HCI found on glass wool plug preceding HCI probe on chlo-
ride train.
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See comments for Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
B-24
-------
CINCINNATI MSD
Date of Test: Week of July 19, 1981
Run No.: 6
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Rotary kiln/cyclonic fur-
nace
Commercial _X_ Private
Capacity: 52 x 106 Btuh (kiln); 62 x 106 Btuh (fur-
nace)
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber and
sieve tray caustic scrubber
Waste feed system: Liquids pumped from tanks;
solids conveyed into kiln (see comments)
Residence time: 1.5-2.2 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Multiphasic liquid
waste (see Run 1)
Length of burn: 6.0 h
Total amount of waste burned: 47,660 Ib
Waste feed rate: 7,943 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration,
v-g/g (ppm)
18,000
2,300
3,400
100-230
<100-160
100-12,000
Volatiles
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Semivolatiles
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Btu content: 9,864 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.47%
Chlorine content: 6.97%
Moisture content: 28.61%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 2410°F in combustion
chamber (1321°C)
Auxiliary fuel used: Oil (1.35 to 3.25 gpm)
Excess air: 8.75% 02
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1. Stainless steel
tanks were also tested as a means of collecting
stack gas for volatiles analyses.
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Volatiles
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Semivolatiles
Hexachloroethane
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadieneb
ORE, %
>99.998
>99.9"
>99.97a
>99.994to>99.998
>99.993 to >99.998
>99.97 to>99.9998b
'Small sample size limited ORE calculation to this minimum value.
bLow concentration in waste fuel limited one ORE value to > 99.97.
HCI: 89.7 Ib/h (83.8% removal)3
Particulate: Not reported
THC: 0.3 - 2.3 ppm (1.3 ppm avg.)
CO: 0 - 5.6 ppm (3.0 ppm avg.)
Other: NOX: 95 -172 ppm (135 ppm avg.)
02: 6.2 -10.4 ppm (8.4 ppm avg.)
PIC's: bromoform - <60 ng/m3
dibromochloroform - <60 p.g/m3
'Excludes HCI found on glass wool plug preceding HCI probe on chlo-
ride train.
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See comments for Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
B-25
-------
CINCINNATI MSD
Date of Test: Week of September 27, 1981
Run No.: 1
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Rotary kiln/cyclonic
furnace
Commercial .X. Private
Capacity: 52 x 106 Btuh (kiln); 62 x 106 Btuh (fur-
nace)
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber and
sieve tray caustic scrubber
Waste feed system: Liquids pumped from tanks;
solids conveyed into kiln (see comments)
Residence time: 1.5-2.2 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: High-chlorine content,
single-phase liquid waste (see comments)
Length of burn: 9.5 h
Total amount of waste burned: 61,900 Ib
Waste feed rate: 6,515 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Votatiles
Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
Bromodichloromethane
Semivolatiles
Pentachloroethane
Hexachloroethane
Dichlorobenzene
ORE, %
99.998 (gas bag), 99.985
(stainless steel tank)
>99.9997 (gas bag), 99.9997
(stainless steel tank)
99.97 (gas bag), 99.976
(stainless steel tank)
>99.9998
>99.9996
>99.996
Name
Volatiles
Trichloroethane3
Tetrachloroethane3
Bromodichloromethane
Semivolatiles
Pentachloroethane
Hexachloroethane
Dichlorobenzene"
Concentration,
V-9/9 (ppm)
9,600
1,280
2,800
4,200 - 8,400
2,200 - 7,700
900 -1,500
HCI: 5.05 Ib/h (99.5% removal)3
Paniculate: 0.8908 gr/scf @ 7% O2 (2230 mg/dscm
@ 12% CO2)b
THC: 0 - 2.0 ppm (0.5 ppm avg.)
CO: 0 - 20.4 ppm (3.3 ppm avg.)
Other: NOX: 113 -151 ppm (132 ppm avg.)
02: 11.0 -13.0 ppm (12.3 ppm avg.)
PIC's: bromoform -12.5 (xg/m3
dibromochloroform -17.5 |xg/m3
"Estimated from HCI analysis of condensate and H202 impinger on
Modified Method 5 train. Train did not include an alkaline impinger.
"See comments for Run 1
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See comments for Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
'Combined isomers
Btu content: 11,269 Btu/lb
Ash content: 1.56%
Chlorine content: 15.50%
Moisture content: 13.52%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1657°F in combustion
chamber (903°C)
Auxiliary fuel used: Oil (1.00 gpm)
Excess air: 12.5% O2
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
B-26
-------
CINCINNATI MSD
Date of Test: Week of September 27, 1981
Run No.: 8
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Rotary kiln/cyclonic
furnace
Commercial -*L Private
Capacity: 52 x 106 Btuh (kiln); 62 x 106 Btuh (fur-
nace)
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber and
sieve tray caustic scrubber
Waste feed system: Liquids pumped from tanks;
solids conveyed into kiln (see comments)
Residence time: 1.5-2.2 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: High-chlorine content,
single-phase liquid waste (see comments)
Length of burn: 8.3 h
Total amount of waste burned: 67,680 Ib
Waste feed rate: 8,154 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Volatiles
Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
Bromodichloromethane
Semivolatiles
Pentachloroethane
Hexachloroethane
Dichlorobenzene
ORE, %
a
a
a
>99.9994 to >99.9999
>99.999 to>99.9999
>99.99 to >99.998
"Samples lost
Concentration,
Name
Volatiles
Trichloroethane3
Tetrachloroethane3
Bromodichloromethane
Semivolatiles
Pentachloroethane
Hexachloroethane
Dichlorobenzene8
•Combined isomers
31,000
4,500
4,200
2,700 - 8,300
1,400-7,500
500-1,500
HCI: 16.0 Ib/h (98.7% removal)3
Particulate: 0.6681 gr/scf @ 7% O2 (1710 mg/dscm
@ 12% C02)
THC: 0.5 - 3.0 ppm (1.7 ppm avg.)
CO: 5.4 -13.6 ppm (8.9 ppm avg.)
Other: NOX: 140 -152 ppm (145 ppm avg.)
02: 10.0 -11.5 ppm (10.6 ppm avg.)
PIC's: bromoform - sample lost
dibromochloromethane - sample lost
"Estimated from HCI analysis of condensate and H2O2 impinger on
Modified Method 5 train. Train did not include an alkaline impinger.
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See comments for Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
Btu content: 10,819 Btu/lb
Ash content: 1.37%
Chlorine content: 15.08%
Moisture content: 14.86%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1998°F in combustion
chamber (1092°C)
Auxiliary fuel used: Oil (1.00 gpm)
Excess air: 10.6% 02
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
B-27
-------
CINCINNATI MSD
Date of Test: Week of September 27, 1981
Run No.: 9
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Rotary kiln/cyclonic
furnace
Commercial A. Private
Capacity: 52 x 106 Btuh (kiln); 62 x 10e Btuh (fur-
nace)
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber and
sieve tray caustic scrubber
Waste feed system: Liquids pumped from tanks;
solids conveyed into kiln (see comments)
Residence time: 1.5-2.2 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: High-chlorine content,
single-phase liquid waste (see comments)
Length of burn: 8.0 h
Total amount of waste burned: 65,310 Ib
Waste feed rate: 8,164 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
ORE, %
Volatiles
Trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
Bromodichloromethane
Semivolatiles
Pentachloroethane
Hexachloroethane
Dichlorobenzene
>99.99996 (gas bag), 99.999
(steel tank)
>99.9998 (gas bag), >99.9998
(steel tank)
99.995 (gas bag), 99.996
(steel tank)
>99.9998
>99.9997
>99.998
Name
Concentration,
v-g/g (ppm)
Volatiles
Trichloroethane3
Tetrachloroethane*1
Bromodichloromethane
Semivolatiles
Pentachloroethane
Hexachloroethane
Dichlorobenzene3
31,000
2,700
4,000
4,200-8,100
2,100-4,700
1,100-1,700
HCI: 60.9 Ib/h (95.3% removal)3
Particulate: 0.4367 gr/scf @ 7% 02 (1130 mg/dscm
@ 12% C02)
THC: 0.2 -1.5 ppm (0.6 ppm avg.)
CO: 6.6 -15.8 ppm (10.6 ppm avg.)
Other: NOX: 123 -134 ppm (130 ppm avg.)
02: 8.3 - 9.8 ppm (9.1 ppm avg.)
PIC's: bromoform - 2.5 fig/m3
dibromochloromethane - 9.5 jig/m3
'Estimated from Cl analysis of condensate and H202 impinger on Modi-
fied Method 5 train. Train did not include an alkaline impinger.
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See comments for Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
'Combined isomers
Btu content: 12,761 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.21%
Chlorine content: 15.87%
Moisture content: 4.65%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 2400°F in combustion
chamber (1316°C)
Auxiliary fuel used: Oil (1.69 gpm)
Excess air: 8.9% 02
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
B-28
-------
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
Summary of Test Data for Confidential Site B
Date of Test: July 21-26, 1984
Run No.: 1 Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - unspecified (see com-
ments)
Commercial Private Not specified _X_
Capacity: Not reported
Pollution control system: Wet scrubber for HCI;
unit was also equipped with a particulate con-
trol device, but it was not described in refer-
ence.
Waste feed system: Not reported
Residence time: Not reported
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Two liquid wastes: one
characterized only as organic and the other as
aqueous. The organic waste was continuously
spiked with a 50/50 mixture (by volume) of car-
bon tetrachloride and trichloroethylene.
Length of burn: 2 hours (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported;
waste heat content input during burn 21.4 x 106
Btuh
Waste feed rate: 42.5 Ib/min aqueous; 33.2 Ib/min
organic; 75.7 Ib/min total
POHC's selected and concentration in total waste
feed:
Monitoring Methods:
Waste feed: One composite per run made up of
grab samples taken every 15 minutes during
run.
Combustion emissions:
Volatile POHC's and PIC's: gas bags (all runs)
and fast VOST (Runs 2 and 4 only)
Semivolatile POHC's and PIC's: Modified
Method 5 (Runs 1-3 only)
HCI: Modified Method 5 (Runs 1-3 only)
Particulate: Modified Method 5 (Runs 1-3 only)
Metals: Modified Method 5 (Run 2 only)
C02 and 02: gas bag for Orsat analysis
Continuous monitors:
C02- Horiba Model PIR-2000S (NDIR)
CO - Beckman Model 215A (NDIR)
02 - Beckman Model 742 (polarographic
sensor)
HC - Beckman Model 402 (FID)
Dioxins and furans (tetra- and penta-chlori-
nated only) - Modified Method 5
Name
Concentration
SEE EMISSIONS AND ORE RESULTS
Btu content: 4,720 Btu/lb total
Ash content: 2.82% total
Chlorine content: 2.64% total
Moisture content: 68.1% total
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range not reported
Average 1952°F (average of Runs 1, 2, and 3;
temperature of this specific run not
reported)
Auxiliary fuel used: Not reported
Excess air: 11.8% O,
B-29
-------
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Volatiles
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Semivolatiles
Phenol
Naphthalene
Diethyl phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Concentration in
waste feed, wt. %
0.0154
0,163
0.166
0.582
2.47
0.148"
0.0174"
0.0524
0.0227
ORE, %
99.70s
99.984'
99.981"
99.9968'
99.99923'
99.979"-c
99.85bc
99.962C
99.9938°
"Data from gas bags (see comments).
"Results are suspect, based on QA analysis of data.
'Data from Modified Method 5.
HCI: 0.64 Ib/h (0.29 kg/h) or 99.5% removal
Paniculate: Not reported - sample lost
THC: <1 ppm avg.
CO: 12.9 ppm avg.
Other: O211.8 ppm avg. CO2 6.7 ppm avg.
Dioxins and furans: See comments
Metals: See comments
PIC's:
PIC
Volatiles
Benzene
Semivolatiles
m-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Dimethyl phthalate
Hexachlorobenzene
Emissions, g/m/n
0.011"
0.00065"
0.00035"
0.00075"
0.0014"
<0.00015"
0.0018"
"Data from gas bags; not blank corrected (see comments).
"Data from Modified Method 5; not blank corrected.
Comments: This test report contained no process
information or description of the
incinerator at this site (Plant B). It also
did not describe the test conditions
for any of the runs. Conditions during
Runs 1-3 were reported as normal,
but conditions during Runs 4-5 were
purposely altered from normal to
study the effect on performance. The
nature of the alternations is not
described, although the tempera-
tures in Runs 4 and 5 were reported
to be about 200° f lower than the aver-
age temperature reported for Runs 1,
2, and 3.
Blank values for many of the VOST
traps and gas bags used in this test
were sufficiently high to significantly
complicate the calculation of volatile
POHC emission rates. Thus, the vol-
atile POHC emission results should
be viewed cautiously.
Tetra- and penta-chlorinated dioxins
and furans were detected in the stack
emissions at this site. Although three
tetra-chlorinated dioxins were identi-
fied, 2,3,7,8-TCDD was not found.
See Reference, Volume II, Pages
61-62.
Ash from the control device failed
the EP toxicity test for cadmium. Run
2 stack emissions were tested for
metals; of the 12 metals tested, lead,
selenium, and chromium were emit-
ted in the largest quantities.
Reference(s): Trenholm, A., P. Gorman, and G.
Jungclaus. Performance Evaluation
of Full Scale Hazardous Waste Incin-
erators, Final Report Volumes II and
IV (Appendix D). EPA Contract No.
68-02-3177 to Midwest Research
Institute, Kansas City, MO.
B-30
-------
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
Date of Test: July 21-26, 1982
Run No.: 2
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - unspecified (see com-
ments)
Commercial Private Not specified _X_
Capacity: Not reported
Pollution control system: Wet scrubber for HCI;
particulate control device not discussed in Ref-
erence - see comments
Waste feed system: Not reported
Residence time: Not reported
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Two liquid wastes: one
characterized only as organic and the other as
aqueous. The organic waste was continuously
spiked with a 50/50 mixture (by volume) of car-
bon tetrachloride and trichloroethylene.
Length of burn: 2 hours (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported;
waste heat content input during burn 24.9 x 106
Btuh during run
Waste feed rate: 61.6 Ib/min aqueous; 33.7 Ib/min
organic; 95.3 Ib/min total
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
Name
Concentration
SEE EMISSION AND ORE RESULTS
Btu content: 4,350 Btu/lb total
Ash content: 2.40% total
Chlorine content: 2.69% total
Moisture content: 74.8% total
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range not reported
Average 1952°F (average of Runs 1, 2, and 3;
temperature of this specific run not
reported)
Auxiliary fuel used: Not reported
Excess air: 10.3% 02
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
POHC
Volatiles
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Semivolatiles
Phenol
Naphthalene
Diethyl phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Concentration in
waste feed, wt. %
0.00740
0.132
0.136
0.347
1.317
0.169C
0.0118C
0.0370
0.00416
ORE, %
>99.86a
99.9928"
>99.983a
>99.9966"
99.989a
99.989cd
99.81cd
99.943d
99.92"
"Data from VOST (see comments).
"Data from gas bags.
cResults are suspect, based on QA analysis of data.
dData from Modified Method 5.
HCI: 1.83 Ib/h (0.83 kg/h) or 98.8% removal
Particulate: 0.187 gr/dscf @ 7% 02
THC: <1 ppm avg.
CO: <1 ppm avg.
Other: O210.3 ppm avg. C02 8.2 ppm avg.
Dioxins and furans: See comments. Run 1
Metals: See comments, Run 1
PIC's:
WC Emissions, g/min
Volatiles
Benzene
Semivolatiles
m-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Dimethyl phthalate
Hexachlorobenzene
0.0017a
0.0013"
0.001 Ob
0.0018"
0.0020"
<0.00012b
0.0023"
"Data from VOST; not blank corrected (see comments).
bData from Modified Method 5; not blank corrected.
Referencefs): See Run 1.
Comments: See comments for Run 1
B-37
-------
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
Date of Test: July 21-26, 1982
Run No.: 3
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - unspecified (see com-
ments)
Commercial Private Not specified _X_
Capacity: Not reported
Pollution control system: Wet scrubber for HCI;
particulate control device not specified (see
comments)
Waste feed system: Not reported
Residence time: Not reported
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Two liquid wastes: one
characterized only as organic, the other as
aqueous. The organic waste was continuously
spiked with a 50/50 mixture of carbon
tetrachloride and trichloroethylene.
Length of burn: 2 hours (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported;
waste heat content input 21.5 x 10s Btuh
Waste feed rate: 88.5 Ib/min
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
Name
Concentration
SEE EMISSION AND ORE RESULTS
Btu content: 4,050 Btu/lb total
Ash content: 2.21% total
Chlorine content: 2.11% total
Moisture content: 81.0% total
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range not reported
Average 1952°F (average of Runs 1,2, and 3;
temperature of this specific run not
reported)
Auxiliary fuel used: Not reported
Excess air: 10.7% O2
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
POHC
Concentration in
waste feed, wt. % ORE, %
Volatiles
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Semivolatiles
Phenol
Naphthalene
Diethyl phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
0.0102
0.142
0.147
0.398
1.62
0.249"
0.0177"
0.0572
0.0149
99.66"
99.976"
<99.80"
99.99918"
99.9923"
99.976"-°
99.927"-°
99.974°
99.9923°
•Data from gas bags (see comments).
"Results are suspect, based on QA analysis of the data.
'Data from Modified Method 5.
HCI: 4.47 Ib/h (2.03 kg/h) or 96% removal
Particulate: 0.161 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: <1 ppm avg.
CO: 6.8 ppm avg.
Other: O210.7 ppm avg.; C02 8.0 ppm avg.
Dioxins and furans: See comments Run 1
Metals: See comments Run 1
PIC's:
PIC
Volatiles
Benzene
Semivolatiles
m-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Dimethyl phthalate
Hexachlorobenzene
Emissions, g/min
0.0031"
0.00058"
0.00046"
0.00067"
0.0011"
0.00024"
0.00035"
•Data from gas bags; not blank corrected (see comments).
"Data from Modified Method 5; not blank corrected.
Reference(s): Same as Run 1
Comments: See Comments for Run 1
B-32
-------
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
Date of Test: July 21-26, 1982
Run No.: 4
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - unspecified (see com-
ments)
Commercial Private Not specified _X_
Capacity:
Pollution control system: Wet scrubber for HCI;
particulate control device not specified (see
comments)
Waste feed system: Not reported
Residence time: Not reported
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Two liquid wastes: one
characterized as aqueous and the other as
organic. The organic waste was continuously
spiked with a 50/50 mixture (by volume) of car-
bon tetrachloride and trichloroethylene.
Length of burn: 2 hours (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 103.0 Ib/min
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
Name
Concentration
SEE EMISSION AND ORE RESULTS
Btu content: Not reported
Ash content: Not reported
Chlorine content: Not reported
Moisture content: Not reported
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range not reported
Average 1776°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Not reported
Excess air: 14.3% 02
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
POHC
Concentration in
waste feed, wt. % ORE, %
0.00428
0.120
0.124
0.235
0.748
c
c
c
c
99.69'
99.949"
99.949a
99.948"
99.9940'
c
c
c
c
Volatiles
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Semivolatiles
Phenol
Naphthalene
Diethyl phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
•Data from VOST (sample taken at inlet to control device; outlet
data not collected). See comments.
bData from gas bag; VOSTsample had interference when analyzed.
'Semivolatiles not monitored during this run.
HCI: Not monitored
Particulate: Not monitored
THC: <1 ppm avg.
CO: 6.5 ppm avg.
Other: 0214.3 ppm avg.; CO2 4.8 ppm avg.
Dioxins and furans: See comments Run 1
Metals: See comments Run 1
PIC's:
PIC
Volatiles
Benzene
Semivolatiles
m-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Diemethyl phthalate
Hexachlorobenzene
Emissions, g/min
0.0057"
b
b
b
b
b
b
•Data from VOST; not blank corrected (see comments).
bSemivolatiles not monitored during this run.
Referencefs): Same as Run 1.
Comments: See comments for Run 1
B-33
-------
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
Date of Test: July 21-26, 1982
Run No.: 5
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - unspecified (see com-
ments)
Commercial Private Not specified _X_
Capacity: Not reported
Pollution control system: Wet scrubber for HCI;
particulate control device not specified
Waste feed system: Not reported
Residence time: Not reported
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Two liquid wastes: one
characterized as organic and the other as aque-
ous. The organic waste was spiked continu-
ously with a 50/50 mixture (by volume) of
carbon tetrachloride and trichloroethylene
Length of burn: 2 hours (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 91.1 Ib/min
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
Name
Concentration
SEE EMISSIONS AND ORE RESULTS
Btu content: Not reported
Ash content: Not reported
Chlorine content: Not reported
Moisture content: Not reported
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range not reported
Average 1753°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Not reported
Excess air: 10.1% O2
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
POHC
Concentration in
waste feed, wf. %
0.00725
0.118
0.123
0.290
1.30
b
b
b
b
ORE, %
Volatiles
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Semivolatiles
Phenol
Naphthalene
Diethyl phthalate
Butyl benzyl phthalate
"Data from gas bags (see comments).
bNot reported. Semivolatiles not monitored during this run.
97.9"
99.63"
<99.80'
99.937"
99.982"
b
b
b
b
HCI: Not monitored
Particulate: Not monitored
THC: 277 ppm
CO: 3347 ppm
Other: O210.1 ppm avg.; C02 8.0 ppm avg.
Dioxins and furans: See comments Run 1
Metals: See comments Run 1
PIC's:
PIC
Benzene
m-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Dimethyl phthalate
Hexachlorobenzene
Emissions, glmin
>0.027"
b
b
b
b
b
b
'Data from gas bags; not blank corrected (see comments).
bSemivolatiles not monitored during this run.
Reference(s): Same as Run 1.
Comments: See comments for Run 1
B-34
-------
DOW CHEMICAL
Summary of Test Data for Dow Chemical U.S.A.
Midland, Michigan
Date of Test: October 21, 1982
Run No.: 10212-1 Test Sponsor: Dow
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - rotary kiln with second-
ary chamber
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity:
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber, demi-
ster, and wet ESP
Waste feed system: Liquid pumped from storage
tank
Residence time: 1.42 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Process waste, rubbish,
and sludge
Length of burn:
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 5,627 Ib/h (process waste); 22
yd3/h (rubbish); 8 yd3/h (sludge); 9.4 gpm
(liquid)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
1,1,1 trichloroethane
Trichlorobenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Btu content: 6,550 Btu/lb (process waste); 1,657
Btu/lb (sludge)
Ash content:
Chlorine content:
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1,297 to 1,526°F (kiln); 1,801
to 1,830°F (Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 14.2% 02
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's:
HCI: Method 13
Particulate: Method 5 and MAPCC Method 5C
Other: CO - Ecolyzer
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: 1,1,1 trichloroethane - 99.996% ORE
HCI: 3 mg/m3 (99.98% removal efficiency)
Particulate: 0.021 lb/1000 Ib exhaust gas @ 50%
excess air
THC:
CO: 480 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Reference(s): Dow RCRA Part B Application - Trial
Burn Report, submitted to EPA
Region V
Process Flow Diagram: Not Available
B-35
-------
DOW CHEMICAL
Date of Test: October 21, 1982
Run No.: 10212-2
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator- rotary kiln with second-
ary chamber
Commercial Private
Capacity:
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber, demi-
ster, and wet ESP
Waste feed system: Liquid pumped from storage
tank
Residence time: 1.40 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Process waste, rubbish,
and sludge
Length of burn:
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 4,882 Ib/h (process waste); 22
yd3/h (rubbish); 8 yd3/h (sludge); 9.3 gpm
(liquid)
POHCs selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
1,1,1 trichloroethane
Trichlorobenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Btu content: 6,982 Btu/lb (process waste); 1,290
Btu/lb (sludge)
Ash content:
Chlorine content:
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1,179°to 1,285°F (kiln); 1,798°
to 1,821°F (Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 14.5% O2
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's:
HCI: Method 13
Particulate: Method 5 and MAPCC Method 5C
Other: CO - Ecolyzer
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: 1,1,1 trichloroethane - 99.998% ORE
HCI: 5 mg/m3 (99.97% removal efficiency)
Particulate: 0.038 lb/1000 Ib exhaust gas @ 50%
excess air
THC:
CO: 610 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Reference(s): Same as Run 10212-1
Date of Test: October 27, 1982
Run No.: 10272-1
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - rotary kiln with second-
ary chamber
Commercial Private —
Capacity:
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber, demi-
ster, and wet ESP
Waste feed system: Liquid pumped from storage
tank
Residence time: 1.52 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Process waste, rubbish,
and sludge
Length of burn:
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 4,313 Ib/h (process waste);
9 yd3/h (rubbish); 4.5 yd3/h (sludge); 10 gpm
(liquid)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
1,1,1 trichloroethane
Trichlorobenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Btu content: 9,063 Btu/lb (process waste); 740
Btu/lb (sludge)
Ash content:
Chlorine content:
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1,063°to 1,454°F (kiln); 1,782°
to 1,823°F (Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 13.7% 02
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's:
HCI: Method 13
Particulate: Method 5 and MAPCC Method 5C
Other: CO - Ecolyzer
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: Trichlorobenzene - 99.995% ORE
HCI: 42 mg/m3 (99.69% removal efficiency)
Particulate: 0.029 lb/1000 Ib exhaust gas @ 50%
excess air
THC:
CO: 100 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Reference(s): See Run 10212-1
B-36
-------
DOW CHEMICAL
Date of Test: October 27, 1982
Run No.: 10272-2
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - rotary kiln with second-
ary chamber
Commercial Private
Capacity:
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber, demi-
ster, and wet ESP
Waste feed system: Liquid pumped from storage
tank
Residence time: 1.45 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Process waste, rubbish,
and sludge
Length of burn:
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 5,275 Ib/h (process waste);
9 yd3/h (rubbish); 4.5 yd3/h (sludge); 10 gpm
(liquid)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
1,1,1 trichloroethane
Trichlorobenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Btu content: 9,064 Btu/lb (process waste); 1,842
Btu/lb (sludge)
Ash content:
Chlorine content:
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1,189°to 1,312°F (kiln); 1,812°
to 1,828°F (Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 14.4% O2
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's:
HCI: Method 13
Particulate: Method 5 and MAPCC Method 5C
Other: CO - Ecolyzer
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: Trichlorobenzene - 99.992% ORE
HCI: 32 mg/m3 (99.8% removal efficiency)
Particulate: 0.029 lb/1000 Ib exhaust gas @ 50%
excess air
THC:
CO: 150 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Referencefs): See Run 10212-1
Date of Test: October 25, 1982
Run No.: 10252-2
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - rotary kiln with second-
ary chamber
Commercial Private
Capacity:
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber, demi-
ster, and wet ESP
Waste feed system: Liquid pumped from storage
tank
Residence time: 1.34 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Typeofwaste(s) burned: Process waste, rubbish,
and sludge
Length of burn:
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 1,718 Ib/h (process waste); 15
yd3/h (rubbish); 4.5 yd3/h (sludge); 19.7 gpm
(liquid)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
1,1,1 trichloroethane
Trichlorobenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Btu content: 3,444 Btu/lb (process waste)
Ash content:
Chlorine content:
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1,081°to1,299°F (kiln); 1,805°
to 1,852°F (Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 14.5% 02
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's:
HCI: Method 13
Particulate: Method 5 and MAPCC Method 5C
Other: CO - Ecolyzer
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
HCI: 5 mg/m3 (99.92% removal efficiency)
Particulate: 0.080 lb/1000 Ib exhaust gas @ 50%
excess air
THC:
CO: 480 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Referencefs): See Run 10212-1
B-37
-------
DOW CHEMICAL
Date of Test: October 25, 1982
Run No.: 10252-3
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator- rotary kiln with second-
ary chamber
Commercial Private
Capacity:
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber, demi-
ster, and wet ESP
Waste feed system: Liquid pumped from storage
tank
Residence time: 1.35 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Process waste, rubbish,
and sludge
Length of burn:
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 1,718 Ib/h (process waste); 8.52
yd3/h (rubbish); 15 yd3/h (sludge); 20.4 gpm
(liquid)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
1,1,1 trichloroethane
Trichlorobenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Btu content: 4,486 Btu/lb (process waste)
Ash content:
Chlorine content:
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1,081° to 1,413°F (kiln); 1,816°
to 1,837°F (Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 14.7% O2
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's:
HCI: Method 13
Paniculate: Method 5 and MAPCC Method 5C
Other: CO - Ecolyzer
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
HCI: 5 mg/m3 (99.91% removal efficiency)
Particulate: 0.087 lb/1000 Ib exhaust gas @ 50%
excess air
THC:
CO: 610 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Reference(s): See Run 10212-1
Date of Test: November 30, 1982
Run No.: 11302-2
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - rotary kiln with second-
ary chamber
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity:
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber, demi-
ster, and wet ESP
Waste feed system: Liquid pumped from storage
tank
Residence time: 1.50 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Process waste, rubbish,
and sludge
Length of burn:
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 4,512 Ib/h (process waste);
9 yd3/h (rubbish); 4.5 yd3/h (sludge); 5.8 gpm
(liquid)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
1,1,1 trichloroethane
Trichlorobenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Btu content: 9,222 Btu/lb (process waste); 1,032
Btu/lb (sludge)
Ash content:
Chlorine content:
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1,420°to 1,621°F (kiln); 1,825°
to 1,891°F (Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 13.6% 02
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's:
HCI: Method 13
Particulate: Method 5 and MAPCC Method 5C
Other: CO - Ecolyzer
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: Carbon Tetrachloride - 99.999% ORE
HCI: 22 mg/m3 (99.35% removal efficiency)
Particulate: 0.024 lb/1000 Ib exhaust gas @ 50%
excess air
THC:
CO: 30 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Reference(s): See Run 10212-1
0-38
-------
DOW CHEMICAL
Date of Test: November 30, 1982
Run No.: 11302-3
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - rotary kiln with second-
ary chamber
Commercial Private
Capacity:
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber, demi-
ster, and wet ESP
Waste feed system: Liquid pumped from storage
tank
Residence time: 1.49 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Process waste, rubbish,
and sludge
Length of burn:
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 4,862 Ib/h (process waste); 9 yd3/h
(rubbish); 4.5yd3/h (sludge); 8.3 gpm (liquid)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
1,1,1 trichloroethane
Trichlorobenzene
Carbon tetrachloride
Btu content: 10,553 Btu/lb (process waste); 1,128
Btu/lb (sludge)
Ash content:
Chlorine content:
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1,449°to 1,537°F (kiln); 1,827°
to 1,834°F (Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 13.5% O2
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's:
HCI: Method 13
Paniculate: Method 5 and MAPCC Method 5C
Other: CO - Ecolyzer
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: Carbon tetrachloride - 99.996% ORE
HCI: 16 mg/m3 (99.67% removal efficiency)
Paniculate: 0.022 lb/1000 Ib exhaust gas @ 50%
excess air
THC:
CO: 125 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Reference(s): Same as Run 10212-1
B-39
-------
DUPONT (LOUISIANA)
Summary of Test Data for E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Inc.
La Place, Louisiana
Date of Test: November 17-18, 1982
Run No.: 1
Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - two units (kiln and
liquid incinerator) in parallel (See Attached
Figures)
Commercial Private A.
Capacity: Not reported
Pollution control system: Kiln has an afterburner
(secondary chamber); exhausts from both
units are quenched and passed through a
cyclone, then combined streams pass through
an absorber.
Waste feed system: Liquid waste continually fed
to both units; drummed waste fed to kiln inter-
mittently
Residence time:
Gases - 6.5 s (kiln); 0.26 s (liquid waste incin-
erator, calculated)
Solids —1 to 4 h (kiln)
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Liquid organic wastes;
drummed solid wastes consisting of paint, fil-
ter cake, and coke wastes.
Length of burn: 2 hours (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported;
heat input 18.0 x 106 Btuh (kiln) 16.4 x 106 Btuh
(liquid incinerator), 34.4 x 106 Btuh (total)
Waste feed rate: 50.1 Ib/min
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
SEE EMISSION AND ORE RESULTS
Btu content: 11,440 Btu/lb
Ash content: 2.44%
Chlorine content: 21.06%
Moisture content: 9.53%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1485°F (Kiln); 1832°F
(Afterburner); 2642°F (Liquid incinerator)
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas (for startup only)
Excess air: 9.2% O2
Monitoring Methods:
Waste Feed:
One composite per run made up of grab sam-
ples taken every 15 minutes during run
Combustion Emissions:
Volatile POHC's and PIC's: gas bags and VOST
Semivolatile POHC's and PIC's: Modified
Method 5
HCI: Modified Method 5
Particulate: Modified Method 5
Metals: Modified Method 5
CO2 and O2: gas bag for Orsat analysis
Continuous monitors:
CO2 - Horiba Model PIR-2000S (NDIR)
CO - Beckman Model 215A (NDIR)
O2 - Beckman Model 742 (polarographic
sensor)
HC - Beckman Model 402 (FID)
Dioxins and furans (tetra- and penta-chlori-
nated only) - Modified Method 5
B-40
-------
DUPONT (LOUISIANA)
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Volatiles
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
cis-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Semivolatiles
trans-1 ,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Benzyl Chloride
Hexachloroethane
Naphthalene
HCI: 0.518 Ib/h
Paniculate: 0.0147 gr/dscf
THC: 74.6 ppm
CO: 505 ppm
Other: Dioxins and furans
Metals: See comments
PIC's:
PIC
Volatiles
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Bromodichloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
Bromoform
Semivolatiles
Phenol
Concentration in
waste feed, wt. %
1.71
0.330
0.000967
6.16
0.277
1.06
21.54
1.63
4.40
0.211
0.0440
0.0110
@ 7% O2
: none detected
Gas bag
0.12
0.0041
0.0021
0.00052
>0.000074
"
SlowVOST
>99.99941
>99.9938
>99.932
99.99986
99.9984
>99.99948
99.99986
>99.99990
-
-
-
-
S/ow VOST, avg.
0.41
0.0017
0.0010
0.00016
>0.00015
ORE, %
Fast VOST Gas bag
99.99919 >99.99939
99.9929 99.989
99.928 >99.966
99.99990 99.99979
99.99971 >99.9917
99.99937 >99.99911
99.99975 99.99980
99.99971 >99.999994
-
-
-
-
Emissions, glmlif
Fast POST, avg.
0.59
0.0036
0.0016
0.00025
0.000044
"
Modified
Method 5
_
_
_
_
.
_
_
-
>99.99990
>99.9996
>99.99
98.0
Modified
Method 5
-
-
-
-
-
0.0081
'Not blank corrected
Reference(s): Trenholm, A., P. Gorman, and G.
Jungclaus. Performance Evaluation
of Full-Scale Hazardous Waste Incin-
erators, Final Report, Volumes II and
IV. EPA Contract No. 68-02-3177 to
Midwest Research Institute, Kansas
City, MO. EPA Project Officer - Mr.
Don Oberacker, Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH.
Comments: All runs were conducted under nor-
mal operating conditions. Chlorine
and particulate emissions for all runs
met EPA RCRA standards. Of the
metals detected in the particulate
emission, Ba, Cr, Ni, and Pb were
detected most frequently; Ni and Pb
appeared in the largest con-
centrations.
B-41
-------
DUPONT (LOUISIANA)
Sampling points— Du Pont.
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
From Clarifier
( 1 j Liqui<
Liquid Feed
J©
Drum Feed
•—i«- Ash Slurry » To Clarifier
Stack Testing
Combustion chamber configurations.
Combustion
Air
Waste
Feed
Vortex •
Burner
Combustion Air 10" T/C
fr- Afterburner
^ "«L1 Avg. Meas. Temp.
1800°F
Kiln
Avg. Measured Temp. 1420°F
T/C is 9'
from Flange
To Quench
Liquid Injection
Combustion
Air
Flush
with
Refractory
Rotary Kiln
I Quench I
! Section t
Liquid Injection
Note: T/C in kiln and afterburner extend inside, 3" post refractory T/C in liquid injector is flush with edge of brickwork. Chamber
dimensions not available.
8-42
-------
DUPONT (LOUISIANA)
Date of Test: November 17-18, 1982
Run No.: 2
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - two units in parallel
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity:
Pollution control system: Kiln has an afterburner
(secondary chamber); exhausts from both
units are quenched and passed through a
cyclone, then combined streams pass through
an absorber.
Waste feed system: Liquid waste continually fed
to both units; drummed waste fed to kiln inter-
mittently
Residence time: 6.3 s (kiln); 0.25 s (liquid waste
incinerator)
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Liquid organic wastes;
drummed solid wastes consisting of paint, fil-
ter cake, and coke wastes.
Length of burn: 2 hours (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported;
heat input 16.4 x 10s Btuh (kiln), 16.3 x 106 Btuh
(liquid incinerator), 32.7 x 106 Btuh (total)
Waste feed rate: 49.11 Ib/min
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
SEE ATTACHED LIST
Btu content: 12,000 Btu/lb
Ash content: 1.99%
Chlorine content: 21.68%
Moisture content: 8.30%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1382°F (Kiln); 1787°F
(Afterburner); 2642°F (Liquid incinerator)
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas (for startup only)
Excess air: 9.6% 02
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
B-43
-------
DUPONT (LOUISIANA)
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Volati/es
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
cis-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Semivolatiles
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Benzyl Chloride
Hexachloroethane
Naphthalene
ORE, %
Concentration In
waste feed, wt. %
1.61
0.229
<0.01
5.38
0.309
0.852
20.2
1.39
4.48
0.233
0.0448
0.00897
S/ow VOST
>99.9991
>99.987
a
99.99988
99.9990
>99.99972
>99.999926
>99.99998
Fast VOST
99.99954
99.989
a
99.999928
99.99975
99.99960
99.999926
>99.999991
Gas bag
99.99965
99.986
a
b
99.9907
>99.99922
>99.999921
>99.999994
Modified
Method 5
>99.99990
>99.9996
>99.99
99.10
a<100 (ig/g in waste
bQuantitation prohibited due to interference in GC/MS analysis
HCI: 0.651 Ib/h
Particulate: 0.0045 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: 45 ppm
CO: 250 ppm
Other: Dioxins and furans: none detected
Metals: see comments for Run 1
PIC's:
Emissions, g/min*
PIC
Volatiles
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Bromodichloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
Bromoform
Semivolatiles
Phenol
"Not blank corrected
Slow VOST, avg.
0.033
0.0011
0.00034
<0.00034
<0.00015
Fast VOST, avg.
0.10
0.00071
0.00079
0.00037
0.000037
Gas bag
0.037
0.00075
0.00097
0.00030
0.000075
Modified
Method 5
0.0067
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
B-44
-------
DUPONT (LOUISIANA)
Date of Test: November 17-18, 1982
Run No.: 3
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - two units in parallel
Commercial Private A.
Capacity: 34.7 x 106 Btuh during test run
Pollution control system: Kiln has an afterburner
(secondary chamber); exhausts from both
units are quenched and passed through a
cyclone, then combined streams pass through
an absorber.
Waste feed system: Liquid waste continually fed
to both units; drummed waste fed to kiln inter-
mittently
Residence time: 6.9 s (kiln); 0.28 s (liquid waste
incinerator)
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Liquid organic wastes;
drummed solid wastes consisting of paint, fil-
ter cake, and coke wastes.
Length of burn: 2 hours (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported;
heat input 18.2 x 106 Btuh (kiln), 16.5 x 106 Btuh
(liquid incinerator), 34.7 x 106 Btuh (total)
Waste feed rate: 50.18 Ib/min
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
SEE ATTACHED LIST
Btu content: 11,520 Btu/lb
Ash content: 2.06%
Chlorine content: 22.35%
Moisture content: 8.38%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1382°F (Kiln); 1773°F
(Afterburner); 3642°F (Liquid incinerator)
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas (for startup only)
Excess air: 10.3% 02
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
B-45
-------
DUPONT (LOUISIANA)
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Volatiles
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
cis-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Semivolatiles
trans-1,4-Dichloro-2-butene
Benzyl Chloride
Hexachloroethane
Naphthalene
ORE, %
Concentration in
waste feed, wt. %
1.89
0.404
<0.01
5.27
0.198
0.834
21.9
1.76
5.27
0.219
0.0395
0.00571
Slow VOST, avg. Fast VOST, avg.
>99.9988
99.9914
a
99.99981
99.9951
99.99926
99.99986
>99.99998
99.9989
99.9917
a
99.99976
99.9985
99.99921
99.999902
>99.999991
Gas bag
>99.9987
99.9915
a
99.99956
>99.988
99.9951
>99.99980
>99.999994
Modified
Method 5
>99.99992
>99.9994
>99.99
97.4
•<100 (ig/g in waste
HCI: 0.896 Ib/h
Paniculate: 0.0108 gr/dscf @ 7% 02
THC: 61 ppm
CO: 529 ppm
Other: Dioxins and furans: none detected
Metals: see comments for Run 1
PIC's:
Emissions, g/min"
PIC
Volatiles
Benzene
Chlorobenzene
Bromodichloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
Bromoform
Semivolatiles
Phenol
"Not blank corrected
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
Gas bag
0.14
0.0021
0.0011
0.00093
0.00014
Slow VOST, avg.
0.56
0.0012
0.00096
0.00032
<0.00014
Fast POST, avg.
0.046
0.0014
0.0010
0.00050
0.00015
Modified
Method 5
0.0096
B-46
-------
DUPONT (WEST VIRGINIA)
Summary of Test Data for E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Inc.
Parkersburg, West Virginia
Date of Trial Burn: December 11-14, 1984
Run No.: DIES-2 (see comment)
Test Sponsor: DuPont
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Single-chamber liquid/gas incinera-
tor - two vortex burners and a combustion
chamber
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: Each burner is 30 x 10s Btuh
Pollution control system: None
Waste feed system: Liquid - pumped from stor-
age tank; waste gas - direct from process vent
Residence time: Not measured
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Liquid and gas waste
from plastic (Delrin®) manufacturing
Length of burn: 3.5 h
Total amount of waste burned: 26,533 Ib.
Waste feed rate: Liquid = 1,768 Ib/h, Gas = 5,813
Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: Modified Method 5 with DNPH solution
HCI: Not measured at outlet due to low feed con-
tent
Particulate: Modified Method 5
Other: CO - continuous monitor
Waste - gas by impinger train with 15%
methanol in water followed by
DNPH solution to indicate break-
through
- liquid by tap samples recovered
in 15% methanol-water solution
Emission and DRE Results:
POHC
DRE, %
Name
Concentration
Formaldehyde (liquid)
Formaldehyde (waste gas)
13.2% (wt.)
5.8% (wt.)
Btu content: 7,308 Btu/lb (liquid); 1,035 Btu/lb
(gas)
Ash content: Less than 0.01%
Chlorine content: 0.10% (liquid)
Moisture content: 24.5% in stack; 63.4% in waste
gas
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1722°-1744°F
Average - 1735°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: O2 = 8.8% in incinerator chamber, wet
basis
Other: 0.18% solids (in liquid)
Formaldehyde 99.995
HCI: Not measured
Particulate: 0.018 gr/dscf at 7% 02
THC: Not measured
CO: Less than 1 ppm
Other: O2 -13% (vol.)
PIC's:
Referencefs): RCRA Trial Burn Report, DuPont
Washington Works Delrin® Inciner-
ator, December 1984. Trial burn test
by PEI Associates, Inc., Cincinnati,
Ohio, Project No. 5300
Comments: DIES-1 not representative of normal
operation; therefore, results for this
run were not included in trial burn
report
B-47
-------
DUPONT (WEST VIRGINIA)
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
To Organic Waste
Storage Tank
From Knock Pot
Choke Wall
Combustion
Liquid Waste Chamber
Sample Tap
02 Monitor
- Gaseous Waste
Sample Tap
Liquid Waste
Sample Tap
To Organic Waste
Storage Tank
B-48
-------
DUPONT (WEST VIRGINIA)
Date of Trial Burn: December 11-14, 1985 Process Flow Diagram: See Run DIES-2
M>.;DIES-3
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Single-chamber liquid/gas incinera-
tor - two vortex burners and combustion
chamber
Commercial _ Private _X_
Capacity: Each burner is 30 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: None
Waste feed system: Liquid - pumped from stor-
age tank; waste gas - direct from process vent
Residence time: Not measured
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Liquid and gas waste
from plastic (Delrin®) manufacturing
Length of burn: 3.25 h
Total amount of waste burned: 26,442 Ib.
Waste feed rate: Liquid = 1,795 Ib/h, Gas = 5,760
Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
Formaldehyde (liquid) 13.7% (wt.)
Formaldehyde (waste gas) 8.9% (wt.)
Btu content: 6,899 Btu/lb (liquid); 1,639 Btu/lb
(gas)
Ash content: Less than 0.01%
Chlorine content: 0.04% (liquid)
Moisture content: 25.1% in stack; 59.7% in waste
gas
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 16840-1771°F
Average - 1729°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 02 = 9.3% in incinerator chamber, wet
basis
Other: 0.06% solids (in liquid)
Monitoring Methods: See Run DIES-2
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC ORE, %
Formaldehyde 99.997
HCI: Not measured
Particulate: 0.017 gr/dscf at 7% O2
THC: Not measured
CO: Approximately 1 ppm
Other: O2 -12.3% (vol.)
PIC's: not measured
Reference(s): See Run DIES-2
Comments: See Run DIES-2
B-49
-------
DUPONT (WEST VIRGINIA)
Date of Trial Burn: December 11-14, 1985 Process Flow Diagram: See Run DIES-2
Run No.: DIES-4
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Single-chamber liquid/gas incinera-
tor - two vortex burners and a combustion
chamber
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: Each burner is 30 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: None
Waste feed system: Liquid - pumped from stor-
age tank; waste gas - direct from process vent
Residence time: Not measured
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Liquid and gas waste
from plastic (Delrin®) manufacturing
Length of burn: 3.75 h
Total amount of waste burned: 28,500 Ib.
Waste feed rate: Liquid = 1,755 Ib/h, Gas = 5,845
Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
Formaldehyde (liquid) 11.4% (in liquid feed)
9.2% (in gas waste)
Btu content: 7,933 Btu/lb (liquid); 1,020 Btu/lb
(gas)
Ash content: Less than 0.01%
Chlorine content: 0.12% (liquid)
Moisture content: 26.4% in stack; 61.3% in waste
gas
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1666°-1728°F
Average - 1701°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: O2 = 9.5% in incinerator chamber, wet
basis
Other: 0.19% solids (in liquid)
Monitoring Methods: See Run DIES-2
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC ORE, %
Formaldehyde 99.998
HCI: Not measured
Particulate: 0.017 gr/dscf at 7% O2
THC: Not measured
CO: Less than 1 ppm
Other: O2 -13.0% (vol.)
PIC's: Not measured
Reference(s): See Run DIES-2
Comments: See Run DIES-2
B-50
-------
DUPONT (WEST VIRGINIA)
Date of Trial Burn: December 11-14, 1985
Run No.: DPIC-1
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Single-chamber liquid/gas incinera-
tor - two vortex burners and a combustion
chamber
Commercial Private -X_
Capacity: Each burner is 30 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: None
Waste feed system: Liquid - pumped from stor-
age tank; waste gas - direct from process vent
Residence time: Not measured
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Liquid and gas waste
from plastic (Delrin®) manufacturing
Length of burn: 3 h
Total amount of waste burned: 22,365 Ib.
Waste feed rate: Liquid = 1,692 Ib/h, Gas = 5,760
Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: Not measured
HCI: Not measured
Particulate: Not measured
THC: Not measured
CO: Less than 1 ppm
Other: O2 -12.3% (vol.)
PIC's: Phthalates - 0.024 |j.g/dNm3
Polyaromatic hydrocarbons - 0.081 |xg/dNm3
Alkylbenzenes - 0.236 (xg/dNm3
Alkylaromatics - 0.528 (xg/dNm3
Alkanes and alkenes - 0.497 ^g/dNm3
Unknown - 0.009
Reference(s): See Run DIES-2
Comments: This run only tested for products of
incomplete combustion (PIC's). The
same waste as that used in Runs
DIES-2, 3, and 4 was used for Runs
DPIC-1 and 2. The waste was not ana-
lyzed during the PIC tests.
Process Flow Diagram: See Run DIES-2
Name
Concentration
See Comments
Btu content: Not measured
Ash content: Not measured
Chlorine content: Not measured
Moisture content: 25.1%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1661°-1742°F
Average - 1710T
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 02 = 9.6% in incinerator chamber, wet
basis
Other:
Monitoring Methods:
PIC's Modified Method 5 with XAD-2 resin
0-51
-------
DUPONT (WEST VIRGINIA)
Date of Trial Burn: December 11-14, 1985
Run No.: DPIC-2
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Single-chamber liquid/gas incinera-
tor - two vortex burners and chamber combus-
tion
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: Each burner is 30 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: None
Waste feed system: Liquid - pumped from stor-
age tank; waste gas - direct from process vent
Residence time:
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Liquid and gas waste
from plastic (Delrin®) manufacturing
Length of burn: 3 h
Total amount of waste burned: 23,022 Ib
Waste feed rate: Liquid = 1,829 Ib/h, Gas = 5,845 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
Reference(s): See Run DIES-2
Comments: See Runs DIES-2 and DPIC-1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run DIES-2
See comments for Run DPIC-1
Btu content: Not measured
Ash content: Not measured
Chlorine content: Not measured
Moisture content: 25.0%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1719°-1760°F
Average - 1740°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: O2 = 9.4% in incinerator chamber, wet
basis
Other:
Monitoring Methods:
PIC's - Modified Method 5 with XAD-2 resin
€m/ssion and ORE Results:
POHC's: Not measured
HCI: Not measured
Particulate: Not measured
THC: Not measured
CO: Less than 1 ppm
Other: O2 -11.7% (vol.)
PIC's: Phthalates
Polyaromatic hydrocarbons
Alkylbenzenes
Alkylaromatics
Alkanes and alkenes
Unknown
0.020 fig/dNm3
- 0.004 ng/dNm3
N. D. jig/dNm3
0.001 jxg/dNm3
0.047 (jtg/dNm3
0.029 p.g/dNm3
B-52
-------
DUPONT (DELAWARE)
Summary of Test Data for E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Company, Inc.
Wilmington, Delaware
Date of Test: April 2-6, 1984
Run No.: 1 Test Sponsor: DuPont
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Nichols Monohearth,
vertical cylinder
Commercial Private ^L
Capacity: 20 x 10s Btuh
Pollution control system: Spray quench, flooded
disc scrubber and mist eliminator
Waste feed system: Liquid pumped from storage
tanks; solids ram fed; bottled wastes are drop
fed
Residence time:
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: liquid wastes, trash, slur-
ries and solids in bottles; liquids contain CCI4,
methylene chloride, methanol, and hexane
Length of burn: 2.5 h
Total amount of waste burned: 6,000 Ib
Waste feed rate: 2400 Ib/h (includes 1,620 Ib/h
trash)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
Carbon tetrachloride (CCI4) 7.7%
Methylene chloride 7.7%
Btu content: 11,721 Btu/lb
Ash content:
Chlorine content: 13.05%
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1730° to 2014°F; Average
1857°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Types 0 and 1 trash (approx-
imately 6,000 Btu/lb) and No. 2 fuel oil
Excess air: 13.7% O2
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: VOST
HCI: Modified Method 5
Particulate: Modified Method 5
Other:
CO - Beckman Model 215A
O2 - Beckman Model 742
THC - Beckman Model 402
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: Carbon tetrachloride - 99.9994% ORE
Methylene chloride - >99.9990% ORE
HCI: 1.086 Ib/h (98.9% removal efficiency)
Particulate: 0.0705 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: 2.5 ppm
CO: 100 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Reference(s): E. I. duPont de Nemours & Co. Inc.,
Wilmington, Delaware. Trial Burn
Test Report, prepared by Midwest
Research Institute, Kansas City, MO.
(Project No. 8046-L), June 18, 1984.
Comments: Additional information available from
Delaware DNR, Dover, Delaware.
B-53
-------
DUPONT (DELAWARE)
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Bottle Feed
O Liquid Waste from
Storage Tanks
Trash •
Ram Feeder
V V V
Incinerator
Fuel Oil
Quench
Mist Eliminator
Scrubber
B-54
-------
DUPONT (DELAWARE)
Date of Test: April 2-6, 1984
Run No.: 2
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Nichols Monohearth,
vertical cylinder
Commercial Private 2L
Capacity: 20 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: Spray quench, flooded
disc scrubber and mist eliminator
Waste feed system: Liquid pumped from storage
tanks; solids ram fed; bottled wastes are drop
fed
Residence time:
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: liquid wastes, trash, slur-
ries and solids in bottles; liquids contain CCI4,
methylene chloride, methanol, and hexane
Length of burn: 3.16 h
Total amount of waste burned: 9,150 Ib
Waste feed rate: 2,895 Ib/h (includes 2,175 Ib/h
trash)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
Carbon tetrachloride (CCIJ 7.5%
Methylene chloride 5.6%
Btu content: 17,229 Btu/lb
Ash content:
Chlorine content: 10.35%
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1816° to 2096°F; Average
1906°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Types 0 and 1 trash (approx-
imately 6,000 Btu/lb) and No. 2 fuel oil
Excess air: 13% O2
Monitoring Methods: Same as Run 1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: Carbon tetrachloride - 99.99992% ORE
Methylene chloride - 99.9997% ORE
HCI: 0.0939 Ib/h (98.7% removal efficiency)
Particulate: 0.0547 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: 1.7 ppm
CO: 35.3 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Referencefs): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
Date of Test: April 2-6, 1984
Run No.: 3
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Nichols Monohearth,
vertical cylinder
Commercial Private .*-
Capacity: 20 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: Spray quench, flooded
disc scrubber and mist eliminator
Waste feed system: Liquid pumped from storage
tanks; solids ram fed; bottled wastes are drop
fed
Residence time:
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: liquid wastes, trash, slur-
ries and solids in bottles; liquids contain CCI4,
methylene chloride, methanol, and hexane
Length of burn: 2.08 h
Total amount of waste burned: 4,730 Ib
Waste feed rate: 2,273 Ib/h (includes 1,220 Ib/h
trash)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
Carbon tetrachloride (CCI4) 9.4%
Methylene chloride 7.1%
Btu content: 12,067 Btu/lb
Ash content:
Chlorine content: 13.05%
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1781° to 1892°F; Average
1831°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Types 0 and 1 trash (approx-
imately 6,000 Btu/lb) and No. 2 fuel oil
Excess air: 14.3% O2
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: Carbon tetrachloride - 99.99944% ORE
Methylene chloride - 99.9997% ORE
HCI: 2.634 Ib/h (98.1% removal efficiency)
Particulate: Not reported
THC: 3.1 ppm
CO: 27.5 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Referencefs): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
0-55
-------
DUPONT (DELAWARE)
Date of Test: April 2-6, 1984
Run No.: 4
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Nichols Monohearth,
vertical cylinder
Commercial Private 2L
Capacity: 20 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: Spray quench, flooded
disc scrubber and mist eliminator
Waste feed system: Liquid pumped from storage
tanks; solids ram fed; bottled wastes are drop
fed
Residence time:
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: liquid wastes, trash, slur-
ries and solids in bottles; liquids contain CCI4,
methylene chloride, methanol, and hexane
Length of burn: 3.33 h
Total amount of waste burned: 9,140 Ib
Waste feed rate: 2,745 Ib/h (includes 1,940 Ib/h
trash)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
Carbon tetrachloride (CCI4) 8.7%
Methylene chloride 8.0%
Btu content: 12,277 Btu/lb
Ash content:
Chlorine content: 13.0%
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1764° to 1914°F; Average
1833°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Types 0 and 1 trash (approx-
imately 6,000 Btu/lb) and No. 2 fuel oil
Excess air: 12.3% O2
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: Carbon tetrachloride - 99.99992% ORE
Methylene chloride - 99.9997% ORE
HCI: 0.637 Ib/h (98.4% removal efficiency)
Particulate: 0.0802 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: 2.2 ppm
CO: 16.5 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
Date of Test: April 2-6, 1984
Run No.: 5
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Nichols Monohearth,
vertical cylinder
Commercial Private A.
Capacity: 20 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: Spray quench, flooded
disc scrubber and mist eliminator
Waste feed system: Liquid pumped from storage
tanks; solids ram fed; bottled wastes are drop
fed
Residence time:
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: liquid wastes, trash, slur-
ries and solids in bottles; liquids contain CCI<,
methylene chloride, methanol, and hexane
Length of burn: 2.05 h
Total amount of waste burned: 6,380 Ib
Waste feed rate: 3,113 Ib/h (includes 2,020 Ib/h
trash)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
Carbon tetrachloride (CCIJ 8.8%
Methylene chloride 6.1%
Btu content: 12,880 Btu/lb
Ash content:
Chlorine content: 12.27%
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1734° to 1906°F; Average
1826°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Types 0 and 1 trash (approx-
imately 6,000 Btu/lb) and No. 2 fuel oil
Excess air: 13.0% O2
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
Emission and DRE Results:
POHC's: Carbon tetrachloride - 99.99991% DRE
Methylene chloride - 99.9998% DRE
HCI: 1.736 Ib/h (98.7% removal efficiency)
Particulate: Not reported
THC: 1.9 ppm
CO: 13.5 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
B-56
-------
DUPONT (DELAWARE)
Date of Test: April 2-6, 1984
Run No.: 6
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Nichols Monohearth,
vertical cylinder
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 20 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: Spray quench, flooded
disc scrubber and mist eliminator
Waste feed system: Liquid pumped from storage
tanks; solids ram fed; bottled wastes are drop
fed
Residence time:
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: liquid wastes, trash, slur-
ries and solids in bottles; liquids contain CCI4,
methylene chloride, methanol, and hexane
Length of burn: 2.5 h
Total amount of waste burned: 7,250 Ib
Waste feed rate: 2,900 Ib/h (includes 2,250 Ib/h
trash)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
9.3%
6.7%
Carbon tetrachloride (CCI4)
Methylene chloride
Btu content: 12,783 Btu/lb
Ash content:
Chlorine content: 12.97%
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1756° to 2091°F; Average
1864°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Types 0 and 1 trash (approx-
imately 6,000 Btu/lb) and No. 2 fuel oil
Excess air: 9.6% 02
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: Carbon tetrachloride - 99.99993% ORE
Methylene chloride - 99.99990% ORE
HCI: 1.238 Ib/h (98.7% removal efficiency)
Particulate: 0.0787 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: 0.4 ppm
CO: 17.9 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
Date of Test: April 2-6, 1984
Run No.: 7
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Nichols Monohearth,
vertical cylinder
Commercial Private 2L
Capacity: 20 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: Spray quench, flooded
disc scrubber and mist eliminator
Waste feed system: Liquid pumped from storage
tanks; solids ram fed; bottled wastes are drop
fed
Residence time:
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: liquid wastes, trash, slur-
ries and solids in bottles; liquids contain CCI4,
methylene chloride, methanol, and hexane
Length of burn: 2.25 h
Total amount of waste burned: 6,010 Ib
Waste feed rate: 2,673 Ib/h (includes 1,620 Ib/h
trash)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
9.2%
4.6%
Carbon tetrachloride (CCI4)
Methylene chloride
Btu content: 17,450 Btu/lb
Ash content:
Chlorine content: 10.82%
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1815° to 1897°F; Average
1842°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Types 0 and 1 trash (approx-
imately 6,000 Btu/lb) and No. 2 fuel oil
Excess air: 11.1% 02
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: Carbon tetrachloride - 99.99994% ORE
Methylene chloride - 99.9997% ORE
HCI: 1.288 Ib/h (98.9% removal efficiency)
Particulate: Not reported
THC: 1.2 ppm
CO: 12.7 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
B-57
-------
GULF OIL
Summary of Test Data for Gulf Oil Corporation
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Date of Test: June 25, 1984
Run No.: 1
Test Sponsor: Gulf
99.991% ORE
99.998% ORE
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - fluidized bed
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 2279 gal/h
Pollution control system: Multicyclone and ven-
turi scrubber
Waste feed system: Liquids pumped from stor-
age tanks
Residence time:
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Slop oil emulsion
spiked with phenol, and sludge from oil/water
separator
Length of burn: 6 h
Total amount of waste burned: 1692 gal (slop oil
emulsion); 6540 gal (API sludge)
Waste feed rate: 4.2 to 5.1 gpm (slop oil emul-
sion); 17 to 21 gpm (API sludge)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
1 7% O,
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: Phenol
Naphthalene
HCI: 0.12 Ib/h (1.62 ppm)
Particulate: 0.027 gr/dscf i
THC:
CO: 118.1 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Reference(s): Gulf Oil Company, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, Trial Burn Report,
prepared by Scott Environmental
Services, January 1985
Comments: Trial burn conducted under normal
operating conditions. Waste feed
rates tested were at upper end of
normal feed rate range.
Process Flow Diagram: Not Available
Name
Concentration
Phenol 0.0707%*
Naphthalene 0.0793%*
Btu content: 8,542 Btu/lb*
Ash content: 46.1%*
Chlorine content: 0.092%*
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1275° to 1340°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Fuel oil and refinery gas
Excess air: 3.1 to 4.5%
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: Modified Method 5
HCI: Modified Method 5
Particulate: Modified Method 5
Other: CO - Method 10
02 - Continuous
'Assumes both wastes have a density of 8 Ib/gal
B-58
-------
GULF OIL
Date of Test: June 25, 1984 Reference(s): See Run 1
Run No.: 2 Comments: See Run 1
Equipment information: PmcessF/QWDi m. Not Availab|e
Type of unit: Incinerator - fluidized bed
Commercial Private .2L
Capacity: 2279 gal/h
Pollution control system: Multicyclone and ven-
turi scrubber
Waste feed system: Liquids pumped from stor-
age tanks
Residence time:
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Slop oil emulsion
spiked with phenol, and sludge from oil/water
separator
Length of burn: 5 h
Total amount of waste burned: 1,542 gal (slop oil
emulsion); 6,270 gal (API sludge)
Waste feed rate: 4.8 to 5.7 gpm (slop oil emul-
sion); 18.5 to 23 gpm (API sludge)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
Phenol 0.115%*
Naphthalene 0.0873%*
Btu content: 9,105 Btu/lb*
Ash content: 43.0%*
Chlorine content: 0.43%*
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1285° to 1340°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Fuel oil and refinery gas
Excess air: 2.5 to 3.5%
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: Modified Method 5
HCI: Modified Method 5
Particulate: Modified Method 5
Other: CO - Method 10
O2 - Continuous
•Assumes both wastes have a density of 8 Ib/gal
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: Phenol - 99.996% ORE
Naphthalene - 99.998% ORE
HCI: 0.12 Ib/h (1.43 ppm)
Particulate: 0.053 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC:
CO: 62.6 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
B-59
-------
GULF OIL
Date of Test: June 25, 1984 Reference(s): See Run 1
Run No.: 3 Comments: See Run 1
Equipment information: Process Flow Diagram: Hot Callable
Type of unit: Incinerator - fluidized bed
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 2279 gal/h
Pollution control system: Multicyclone and ven-
turi scrubber
Waste feed system: Liquids pumped from stor-
age tanks
Residence time:
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Slop oil emulsion
spiked with phenol, and sludge from oil/water
separator
Length of burn: 5 h
Total amount of waste burned: 1,368 gal (slop oil
emulsion); 5,520 gal (API sludge)
Waste feed rate: 3.9 to 5.4 gpm (slop oil emul-
sion); 17 to 20 gpm (API sludge)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
Phenol 0.0745%*
Naphthalene 0.0719%*
Btu content: 8,921 Btu/lb*
Ash content: 43.6%*
Chlorine content: 0.34%*
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1285" to 1340°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Fuel oil and refinery gas
Excess air: 3.0 to 5.2%
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: Modified Method 5
HCI: Modified Method 5
Paniculate: Modified Method 5
Other: CO - Method 10
02 - Continuous
'Assumes both wastes have a density of 8 Ib/gal
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: Phenol - 99.993% ORE
Naphthalene - 99.998% ORE
HCI: 0.19 Ib/h (2.36 ppm)
Particulate: 0.26 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC:
CO: 21.4 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
B-60
-------
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS
Summary of Test Data for McDonnell Douglas Corporation
St. Charles, Missouri
Date of Test: May 17, 18, 21, 22, 1984
RunNo.:1 - May 17
Test Sponsor: McDonnell Douglas
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - 2-chamber pyrolytic
Commercial Private 2L
Capacity: 330 Ib/h
Pollution control system: Caustic wet gas scrub-
ber
Waste feed system:
Residence time:
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Kester 5235, Dow Chlo-
rothane, J&S Super Strip, TCE, CCU,
Diatomaceous Earth
Length of burn: 8.0 h
Total amount of waste burned: 1981.5 Ib
Waste feed rate: 330 Ib/h (design)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: CCI4
1,1,1-TCE
TCE
Tetrachloroethylene
99.99996% ORE
99.99999% ORE
99.99998% ORE
99.99779% ORE
HCI: 1.67 Ib/h
Particulate: 0.0468 gr/dscf @ 7% 02
THC:
CO: 0%
Other:
PIC's:
Referencefs): McDonnell Douglas Corp., St.
Charles, MO. Trial Burn Test Report
by Environmental Science and Engi-
neering, Inc., 1984.
Comments: Batch operation; starved air com-
bustion in first chamber. Second
chamber maintains combustion tem-
peratures of up to 1800°F.
Process Flow Diagram: Not Available
Name
Concentration
8.1%
59%
21%
<0.6%
Carbon Tetrachloride (CCI4)
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
(1,1,1-TCE)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Tetrachloroethylene
Btu content:
Ash content:
Chlorine content:
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1775° - 2200°F (design)
Average Approximately 1800°F
Auxiliary fuel used:
Excess air: 12.9% O2
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: VOST
HCI:
Particulate:
Other:
B-61
-------
MCDONNELL DOUGLAS
Date of Test: May 17, 18, 21, 22, 1984
Run No.: 3- May 21
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - 2-chamber pyrolytic
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 330 Ib/h
Pollution control system: Caustic wet gas scrub-
ber
Waste feed system:
Residence time:
Tesf Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Kester 5235, Dow Chlo-
rothane, J&S Super Strip, TCE, CCI4,
Diatomaceous Earth
Length of burn: 8.75 h
Total amount of waste burned: 1981.5 Ib
Waste feed rate: 330 Ib/h (design)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
Carbon Tetrachloride (CCI4) 8.9%
1,1,1-trichloroethane
(1,1,1-TCE) 62%
Trichloroethylene (TCE) 18%
Tetrachloroethylene <0.64%
Btu content:
Ash content:
Chlorine content:
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1775° - 2200°F (design)
Average Approximately 1800°F
Auxiliary fuel used:
Excess air:
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: CCI4 - 99.99998% ORE
1,1,1-TCE - 99.99999% ORE
TCE - 99.99999% ORE
Tetrachloroethylene - 99.99763% ORE
HCI: 1.64 Ib/h
Particulate: 0.0438 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC:
CO: 0%
Other: 02 -12.3%
PIC's:
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Date of Test: May 17, 18, 21, 22, 1984
Run No.: 4 -May 22
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - 2-chamber pyrolytic
Commercial Private X
Capacity: 330 Ib/h
Pollution control system: Caustic wet gas scrub-
ber
Waste feed system:
Residence time:
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Kester 5235, Dow Chlo-
rothane, J&S Super Strip, TCE, CCI4,
Diatomaceous Earth
Length of burn: 10.3 h
Total amount of waste burned: 1927.5 Ib
Waste feed rate: 330 Ib/h (design)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
8.9%
70%
<0.5%
<0.64%
Carbon Tetrachloride (CCI4)
1,1,1-trichloroethane
(1,1,1-TCE)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Tetrachloroethylene
Btu content:
Ash content:
Chlorine content:
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1775° - 2200°F (design)
Average: Approximately 1800°F
Auxiliary fuel used:
Excess air: 12.9% 02
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: CCI4 - 99.99992% ORE
1,1,1 -TCE - 99.999999% ORE
TCE - 99.99950% ORE
Tetrachloroethylene - 99.99710% ORE
HCI: 0.74 Ib/h
Particulate: 0.0315 gr/dscf @ 7% 02
THC:
CO: 0%
Other: O2 -13.0%
PIC's:
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
B-62
-------
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
Summary of Test Data for Mitchell Systems Inc.
Spruce Pine, North Carolina
Date of Test: November 2-5, 1982
RunNo.:1
Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Liquid incinerator - (two chambers)
with solids capability
Commercial A. Private
Capacity: 7.93 x 106 Btuh during test run; unit
rated at 9.5 x 10s Btuh
Pollution control system: None
Waste feed system: All wastes are pumped from
holding or blending tanks. Liquid wastes are
fed to the primary chamber by two air-atom-
ized injectors.
Residence time: 2.5 s during run (2-3 s, typically)
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: A liquid organic waste
and an aqueous waste
Length of burn: 2 h (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 1,308 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Monitoring Methods:
Waste Feed:
One composite sample per waste per run
made up of grab samples taken every 15
minutes during run.
Combustion Emissions:
Volatile POHC's and PIC's: gas bags (all runs)
and VOST (Runs 1, 2, and 3 only)
Semivolatile POHC's and PIC's: Modified
Method 5
HCI: Modified Method 5
Particulate: Modified Method 5
Metals: Not monitored
C02 and O2: gas bag for Orsat analysis
Continuous monitors:
CO2 - Horiba Model PIR-2000S (NDIR)
CO -Beckman Model 215A (NDIR)
02 - Beckman Model 742 (polarographic
sensor)
HC - Beckman Model 402 (FID)
Dioxins and furans (tetra- and penta-chlori-
nated only) - Modified Method 5
Name
Concentration
SEE EMISSION AND ORE RESULTS
Btu content: 6,060 Btu/lb
Ash content: 1.02%
Chlorine content: 0.633%
Moisture content: 55.7%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1850°F (Primary cham-
ber); 1925°F (Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: None
Excess air: 9.4% 0,
B-63
-------
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Volatiles
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Semivolatifes
Phenol
Naphthalene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Bis (2-ethyI hexyf) phthalate
ORE. %
Concentration in
waste feed, wt. %
0.242
0.222
0.000101
0.000647
0.0738
0.273
2.73
0.0192
0.00758
0.192
SlowVOST
99.9970
99.985
a
a
>99.966
99.9965
Fast VOST
99.99966
99.9975
a
a
>99.9973
>99.99957
Gas bag
99.9975
99.975
a
a
99.947
99.9948
Modified
Method 5
99.9985
99.96
>99.992
99.9985
•<100 M-g/g in waste feed
HCI: 4.1 Ib/h
Particulate: 0.491 g/scf @ 7% O2
THC: <1 ppm
CO: 1.4 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Emissions, glmirf
PIC
Volatiles
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene
Semivolatiles
2,4-Dimenthylphenol
•Not blank corrected
Slow VOST, avg.
<0.0016
0.00020
<0.00006
0.000061
Fast VOST, avg.
0.000046
0.000095
<0.000005
0.000071
Gas bag
0.00067
0.000051
0.00013
0.00092
Modified
Method 5
<0.00010
Reference(s): Trenholm, A., P. Gorman, and G.
Jungclaus. Performance Evaluation
of Full-Scale Hazardous Waste Incin-
erators, Final Report, Volumes II and
IV. EPA Contract No. 68-02-3177 to
Midwest Research Institute, Kansas
City, Missouri. Don Oberacker, EPA
Project Officer, Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
Comments: The Mitchell Systems unit was oper-
ated near its rated capacity through-
out the test. Process monitoring
instruments indicated a relatively
constant incinerator operation dur-
ing the four test runs. Metals were
not analyzed during this test. The
unit has no pollution control system,
and particulate and chloride emis-
sions both exceeded RCRA stan-
dards. It should be noted that vir-
tually all of the chlorinated materials
in the waste feed were added for this
test; carbon tetrachloride and tri-
chloroethylene were spiked into the
waste feed line during each run.
Furans were detected in the particu-
late emissions but dioxins were not.
B-64
-------
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Schematic diagram of incinerator with sampling locations.
o
Aqueous Waste
Organic Waste
Primary
Combustion
Chamber
Secondary
Combustion
Chamber
©
Ash
— Carbon Tetrachloride and
Trichlorethylene Injection
(4J Stack Sampling
B-65
-------
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
Date of Test: November 2-5, 1982
Run No.: 2
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Liquid incinerator - (two chambers)
with solids capability
Commercial JL Private
Capacity: 8.54 x 106 Btuh during test run
Pollution control system: None
Waste feed system: All wastes are pumped from
holding or blending tanks; liquid waste fed to
primary chamber by two air-atomized injectors
Residence time: 2.4 s during test (2-3 s, typically)
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: A liquid organic waste
and an aqueous waste
Length of burn: ~2 h (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 1,254 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
SEE EMISSION AND ORE RESULTS
Btu content: 6,810 Btu/lb
Ash content: 1.36%
Chlorine content: 0.749%
Moisture content: 54.7%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 2000°F (Primary cham-
ber); 1950°F (Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: None
Excess air: 10.5% O2
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
B-66
-------
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Votatiles
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Semivolatiles
Phenol
Naphthalene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Bis (2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate
ORE, %
Concentration in
waste feed, wt. %
0.263
0.232
0.0116
0.000126
0.105
0.422
1.90
0.0148
0.0137
0.169
SlowVOST
99.9981
99.991
99.86
a
99.941
99.9952
fast VOST
99.99942
99.9977
99.972
a
99.9926
99.99913
Gas bag
99.9984
>99.971
>99.976
a
>99.980
99.998
Modified
Method 5
>99.99996
99.98
>99.995
99.993
"Waste feed concentration <100 jig/g
HCI: 4.9 Ib/h
Particulate: 0.313 g/scf
THC: 1.8 ppm
CO: <1 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
PIC
Volatiles
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene
Semivolatiles
2,4-Dimenthylphenol
7% 02
Emissions, glmin"
Slow VOST, avg.
0.0016
0.00099
0.000084
0.00061
Fast VOST, avg.
0.00028
0.00015
0.000015
0.000099
Gas bag
0.00081
0.000021
0.00010
0.00079
Modified
Method 5
<0.00165
"Not blank corrected
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
8-67
-------
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
Date of Test: November 2-5, 1982
Run No.: 3
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Liquid incinerator - two chambers
with solids capability
Commercial -X_ Private
Capacity: 9.96 x 106 Btuh during test run; unit
rated at 9.5 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: None
Waste feed system: All wastes are pumped from
holding or blending tanks. Liquid wastes are
fed to the primary chamber by two air-atom-
ized injectors
Residence time: 2.2 s during run (2-3 s, typically)
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: A liquid organic waste
and an aqueous waste
Length of burn: 2 h (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 1,243 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
SEE EMISSION AND ORE RESULTS
Btu content: 8,010 Btu/lb
Ash content: 1.52%
Chlorine content: 0.480%
Moisture content: 49.5%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 2050°F (Primary cham-
ber); 2000°F (Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: None
Excess air:
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
8-68
-------
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Volatile*
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Semivolatiles
Phenol
Naphthalene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Bis (2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate
ORE, %
Concentration in
waste feed, wt. %
0.223
0.202
0.00670
0.00861
0.0957
0.351
Stow VOST
99.984
99.9959
99.82
>99.9929
99.957
99.988
Fast VOST
99.99946
99.99906
99.914
>99.9985
99.9916
99.9979
Gas bag
99.9964
>99.975
>99.88
>99.984
>99.983
99.9952
Modified
Method 5
"<100 ng/g in waste feed
HCI: Not reported
Particulate: Not reported
THC:
CO:
Other:
PIC's:
p/c
Volatiles
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene
Semivolatiles
2,4-Dimenthylphenol
Emissions, glmirf
Slow VOST, avg.
0.0014
0.0030
0.00010
0.00018
Fast VOST, avg.
0.00012
0.000092
<0.000005
0.000071
Gas bag
0.00020
0.000019
0.000037
0.00047
Modified
Method 5
'Not blank corrected
"Not reported
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
8-69
-------
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
Date of Test: November 2-5, 1982
Run No.: 4
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Liquid incinerator - (two chambers)
with solids capability
Commercial _X. Private
Capacity: 8.89 x 106 Btuh during test run (rated at
9.5 x 106 Btuh)
Pollution control system: None
Waste feed system: All wastes are pumped from
holding or blending tanks. Liquids are fed to
primary chamber by two air-atomized injectors
Residence time: 2.2 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: A liquid organic waste
and an aqueous waste
Length of burn: 2 h (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 1,304 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
SEE EMISSIONS AND ORE RESULTS
Btu content: 6,820 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.79%
Chlorine content: 0.725%
Moisture content: 52.1%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1975°F (Primary cham-
ber); 1975°F (Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: None
Excess air: 10.8% 02
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
B-70
-------
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Volatiles
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Methyl ethyl ketone
Semivolatiles
Phenol
Naphthalene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Bis (2-ethyl hexyl) phthalate
ORE,
Concentration in
waste feed, wt. %
0.243
0.223
0.00365
0.00213
0.0618
0.284
1.72
0.0395
0.00649
0.416
Gas bag
99.9984
>99.984
a
a
>99.970
99.987
Modified
Method 5
>99.9996
99.986
>99.973
99.996
"Waste feed concentration <100
HCI: 3.8 Ib/h
Paniculate: 0.378 g/scf @ 7% 02
THC: <1 ppm
CO: <1 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
PIC
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
1,1.1-Trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene
2,4-Dimenthylphenol
•Not blank corrected
Emissions, g/min"
Modified
Method S
Gas bag
0.0016
0.000024
0.000035
0.00079
<0.00014
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
B-71
-------
OLIN
Summary of Test Data for Olin Corporation
Brandenburg, Kentucky
Date of Test: November 28, 1984
Run No.: 2a,b,c
Test Sponsor: Olin
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator, liquid injection - Trane
Thermal Company
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: (40 x 106 Btuh)
Pollution control system: Packed tower scrubber
Waste feed system: Single nozzle, atomized with
15 psi air, 150 gph max fuel flow, RipCo "R"
Series, Tip No. LSA 100-22R
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned:
Synthetic liquid -10.97% CCI3F, 1.8% methylene
chloride, 87.23% waste polyolefins
Gas - CCI2F2
Length of burn: 24 minutes total sampling time
Total amount of waste burned: 39 gal. (liquid);
41.5 scf (gas) during actual sampling
Waste feed rate: Liquid - 1.63 gpm; Gas -1,726
scfm; Equivalent (liquid and gas) - 1.72 gpm
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
Trichlorofluoromethane (CCI3F) 10.32% (liquid and gas)
Dichlorodifluoromethane (CCIjF?) 5.79% (liquid and gas)
Btu content: 395.8 Btu/lb (gas only)
10,491 Btu/lb (liquid only)
Ash content: Not measured
Chlorine content: *9.99% calc.; 6.49 to 8.39%
measured
Moisture content: Not measured
•Organic chlorine content of combined liquid and gas (CCI2F2) feed
calculated to be 12.83%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 2040° to 2124°F
Average 2088°F
Primary fuel used: None used
Residence time: 0.54 s based on stack flow
Excess air: 4.4 - 7.9% O2
Other: Combustion air flow rate - 98,000 scfh
(avg.) (to be used as indicator of combustion
gas velocity)
Scrubber water flow - 296 gpm
Total heat input - 9.678 x 106 Btuh
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: EPA Publication No. 600/18-84-002,
Method S010 (glass bulb method)
HCI: Modified Method 5
Paniculate: Modified Method 5
Other: CO2 - Method 3
02 - Method 3
CO - NDIR Rosemont Model 5100 con-
tinuous monitor
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: CCI3F >99.9998%
CCI2F2 >99.9998
HCI: 0.71 Ib/h (avg.) measured as HCI
Paniculate: 0.052 gr/dscf corrected to 7% O2
THC: Not measured
CO: 16 ppm (avg.)
Other: N/A (scrubber waters were not analyzed)
PIC's: Not measured
Reference(s): Olin Part B Information, Section D,
November, 1984. Hazardous Waste
Incinerator Trial Burn Test Report,
February 1985. Miscellaneous corre-
spondence.
Comments: Liquid waste viscosity - 37.4 cen-
tistokes. Failure to sample waste
feed for ash required another par-
ticulate burn to set permit condi-
tions. See 8/13/85 test sheets.
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Tank
1
Tank
2
Positive Displacement
Pump
B-72
-------
Date of Test: November 29, 1984
Run No.: 3a,b,c
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator, liquid injection - Trane
Thermal Company
Commercial Private ^L
Capacity: 40 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: Packed tower scrubber
Waste feed system: Single nozzle, atomized with
15 psi air, 150 gph max fuel flow, RipCo "R"
Series, Tip No. ISA 100-22R
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned:
Synthetic liquid - 14.85% CCI3F, 2.54% meth-
ylene chloride, 82.61% waste polyolefins
Gas - CCI2F2
Length of burn: 24 minutes sampling time
Total amount of waste burned: 47 gal. (liquid); 49
scf (gas) during sampling
Waste feed rate: Liquid - 1.95 gpm; Gas - 2.05
scfm; Equivalent (liquid and gas) - 2.07 gpm
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
Trichlorofluoromethane (CCI3F) 14.02% (liquid and gas)
Dichlorodifluoromethane (CCI2F2) 5.61% (liquid and gas)
Btu content: 395.8 Btu/lb (gas only)
9,862 Btu/lb (liquid only)
Ash content: Not measured
Chlorine content: *13.62% calc.; 7.79 to 10.69%
measured
Moisture content: Not measured
'Organic chlorine content of combined liquid and gas (CCI2F2) feed
calculated to be 16.14%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 2071° - 2121°F
Average 2095°F
Primary fuel used: None used
Residence time: 0.46 s based on stack flow
Excess air: 3.3 - 5.1% O2
Other: Combustion air flow rate - 103,000 scfh
(avg.) (to be used as indicator of combustion
gas velocity)
Scrubber water flow - 304 gpm
Total heat input -11.186 x 106 Btuh
OL1N
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: EPA Publication No. 600/18-84-002,
Method S010 (glass bulb method)
HCI: Modified Method 5
Particulate: Modified Method 5
Other: CO2 - Method 3
02 - Method 3
CO - NDIR Rosemont Model 5100 con-
tinuous monitor
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: CCI3F >99.9999%
CCI2F2 >99.9998
HCI: 1.16 Ib/h (avg.) measured as HCI
Particulate: 0.031 gr/dscf corrected to 7% 02
THC: Not measured
CO: 58 ppm (avg.)
Other: N/A (scrubber water was not analyzed)
PIC's: Not measured
Reference(s): See data sheet for Runs 2a,b,c
Comments: Liquid waste viscosity - 33.0 cen-
tistokes. Failure to sample waste
feed for ash required another par-
ticulate burner to set permit condi-
tions.
Process Flow Diagram: See Data Sheet for Runs
2a,b,c
B-73
-------
OLJN
Date of Test: August 13, 1985
Run No.: 2,3,4 Paniculate
Equipment information: See data for Runs 2a,b,c
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Waste polyolefins
spiked with diatomaceous earth
Length of burn: 4.5 hours
Total amount of waste burned: 540 gallons
Waste feed rate: 2 gpm
POHC's: None tested
Btu content: None
Ash content: 0.83%
Chlorine content: None
Moisture content: Not measured
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: None
Auxiliary fuel used: None
Excess air: 1.8 - 4.7% 02
Other: Scrubber water flow - 264 gpm
Monitoring Methods:
Particulate: Modified Method 5
Other: C02 - Method 3
CO - Method 3 and NDIR continuous
monitor
02 - Method 3
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: Not measured
Particulate: 0.047 gr/dscf corrected to 7% O2
THC: Not measured
CO: 1000 ppm
PIC's: Not measured
Reference(s): Kenvirons Report, Particulate Emis-
sions From the Hazardous Waste
Incinerator at the Olin Chemicals
Group DOE Run Facility, August,
1985.
Comments: None
Process Flow Diagram: See Data for Runs 2a,b,c
B-74
-------
PENNWALT
Summary of Test Data for Pennwalt Corporation
Calvert City, Kentucky
Date of Test: December 3, 1983
Run No.: 22-1 Test Sponsor: Pennwalt
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator Trane Model LV-5, liquid
injection
Commercial Private A.
Capacity: 5 x 106 Btuh, 6.78 ft2 cross section, (11.25
ft long inner chamber)
Pollution control system: Quench chamber, ven-
turi scrubber, and packed column
Waste feed system: Liquid waste pumped from
storage, separated into liquid/gas phases. Gas
waste consists of gas directly from process
and gaseous portion of liquid waste. Liquid
waste is steam-atomized (with a Trane External
Atomizing Tip)
Residence time: Design - 0.75 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Proprietary liquids (Iso-
tron® 142b reactor bottoms and Isotron® 141 fa-
rich liquid) and gas (Isotron® 143a-rich gas)
Length of burn: ~6 hours to collect all samples
Total amount of waste burned: —4038 Ib.
Waste feed rate: Total waste - 673 Ib/h (liquid =
648 Ib/h; gas = 25 Ib/h)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane Gas = 0.2%, liquid = 9.2%
Btu content: Not measured, 2730 Btu/lb typical
liquid
Ash content: Ash not measured; liquid <5%
solids
HCI content: Gas = 5.7%, liquid = 1.3%
(inorganic)
Chlorine content* :Liquid 19.4% w/w; gas23%c/o
w/w measured as total equivalent HCI
Moisture content: Not measured
HF content: Gas 9%, liquid 30.5% (inorganic)
Total equivalent HF*: 28.4% gas, 50% liquid
Total equivalent HF and HCI determined by total oxidation of the
waste; includes organically bound F and Cl as well as inorganic acids.
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: 2220°F steady upper zone
Primary fuel used: Natural gas (3,270 scfh)
Combustion air feed rate: 1070 scfm (to be used
as indicator of combustion gas velocity)
Excess air: Not determined; in stack - 2.6%O2
Combustion gas velocity: 19 FPS average for all
tests; calculated not measured
Monitoring Methods:
Waste liquid - Three grab samples, composited.
Unique sampling and analysis procedures
were designed to overcome extreme volatility
of liquid and high level of anhydrous HF.
Waste gas - Two integrated samples. Unique
sampling and analysis procedures were
designed to handle high acid content. One
sampling train for POHC and acid gases; one
for metals.
POHC's: Modified Method 23 (VOST was inap-
propriate); 5 bag samples per run analyzed on
site by GC/ECD
HCI: Modified Method 5, modified; 1C analysis
Particulate: Modified Method 5, modified for
metals and acid gases
Other: Continuous monitor for CO - Anarad
Model 500 NDIR
CO2 - Method 3
02 - Method 3
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: 1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane - 99.997%
ORE
HCI: 99.1% removal at 1.14 Ib/h discharged
Particulate: 42.8 mg/dNm3 at 7% O2
THC: Not measured
CO: 23 ppm
PIC's: Not measured
Metals were measured in wastes, waters, and
stack gases. See reference.
Other: HF = >99.9% removal at 331 Ib/h input
POHC was either nondetectable or less than 1
in water streams for all runs.
Reference(s): "Trial Burn Test Report - Pennwalt
Corporation Isotron® 142b Incinera-
tor - Calvert City, Kentucky, Decem-
ber 1983" by PEI Associates, Inc., PN
5269, February 1984.
Part B Permit Application; Drawing
Number 6-02-2923-0; and Appendix
I.
B-75
-------
PENNWALT
Comments: Particulate tests were conducted at
three different venturi pressure drop
settings during the course of the
entire trial burn with no apparent cor-
relation.
CO levels in stack gas may be biased
high due to CO2 inteference.
Report suggested that the F and Cl
content of the composite waste feed
based on direct waste analyses may
not be as reliable as values deter-
mined based on scrubber effluent
data.
Waste gas feed rate data highly vari-
able for all tests except Run 23-2.
During this run, the CO level was
highly variable and tripped the auto-
matic liquid waste feed cutoff. The
test was delayed approximately 1
hour.
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Steam for Atomization
Natural Gas
Waste Gas
3 in. Ports |
(Two @ 90°)
8 in. Diameter
To CO Analyzer
and Recorder
•f J
40 in.
•CO Monitor
Sample Tap
Filtered
River Water
Deionized
River
Water
Packed 18ft_
Tower in.
Scrubber 10m'
33ft-
3 in.
1
-To Venturi and
Packed Tower
1 » To MF Plant
_ , Wastewater
Sample Treatment
(Nofused, SyStem
B-76
-------
PENNWALT
Date of Test: December 4, 1983
Run No.: 22-2
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator Trane Model LV-5, liquid
injection
Commercial Private 2L
Capacity: 5 x 106 Btuh, 6.78 ft2 cross section, 11.25
ft long inner chamber
Pollution control system: Quench chamber, ven-
turi scrubber, and packed column
Waste feed system: Pumped from storage (liquid
and gas). See Run 22-1
Residence time: Design - 0.75 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Proprietary liquids (Iso-
tron® 142b reactor bottoms and Isotron® 141b)
and gas (Isotron® 143a)
Length of burn: ~6V2 hours to collect all samples
Total amount of waste burned: —4472 Ib
Waste feed rate: Total waste - 688 Ib/h (liquid =
659 Ib/h; gas = 29 Ib/h)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane Gas = <0.01%, liquid = 10.7%
Btu content: See Run 22-1
Ash content: See Run 22-1
HCI content: Gas = 22.1%, liquid = 1.2%
(inorganics)
Total equivalent HCI: Liquid 25.9%, gas 33%
(See Run 22-1)
Moisture content: Not measured
HF content: Gas 6.1%, liquid 29.5% (inorganic)
Total equivalent HF: 21.3% gas, 53.8% liquid
(See Run 22-1)
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: 2220°F steady upper zone
Primary fuel used: Natural gas (3,220 scfh)
Excess air: Not measured; in stack - 2.7%02
Other: Combustion air feed rate: 1080 scfm
Monitoring Methods: See Run 22-1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: 1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane - 99.995%
ORE
HCI: 99.5% removal at 0.99 Ib/h discharged
Particulate: 16.9 mg/dNm3 corrected to 7% 02
THC: Not measured
CO: 25 ppm
Other: HF = >99.9% removal at 361 Ib/h input
PIC's: Not measured
Metals: See Run 22-1
Reference(s): See Run 22-1
Comments: See Run 22-1
- During this run, the automatic liq-
uid waste cutoff was tripped by a
high CO level spike. The test was
delayed ~1/z hour.
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 22-1
B-77
-------
PENNWALT
Date of Test: December 5, 1983
Run No.: 22-3
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator Trane Model LV-5, liquid
injection
Commercial Private 21.
Capacity: 5 x 106 Btuh, 6.78 ft2 cross section, 11.25
ft long inner chamber
Pollution control system: Quench chamber, ven-
turi scrubber, and packed column
Waste feed system: Pumped from storage (liquid
and gas). See Run 22-1
Residence time: Design - 0.75 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Proprietary liquids (Iso-
tron® 142b reactor bottoms and Isotron® 141b)
and gas (Isotron® 143a)
Length of burn: ~6 hours to collect all samples
Total amount of waste burned: ~4290 Ib
Waste feed rate: Total waste - 715 Ib/h (liquid
waste = 653 Ib/h; gas waste = 62 Ib/h)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane Gas = <0.01%, liquid = 19.3%
Btu content: See Run 22-1
Ash content: See Run 22-1
HCI content: Gas = 11.2%, liquid = 0.9%
(inorganic)
Total equivalent HCI: Liquid 15.9% w/w, gas 23.8%
(See Run 22-1)
Moisture content: Not measured
HF content: Gas 6.4%, liquid 22.7% (inorganic)
Total equivalent HF: 21.9% gas, 35.6% liquid
(See Run 22-1)
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: 2220°F steady upper zone
Primary fuel used: Natural gas (2,700 scfh)
Excess air: Not determined; stack = 4.1%O2
Other: Combustion air feed rate: 1070 scfm
Monitoring Methods: See Run 22-1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: 1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane - >99.999%
ORE
HCI: 98.9% removal at 1.34 Ib/h discharged
Particulate: 8.6 mg/dNm3 @ 7% O2
THC: Not measured
CO: 32 ppm
Other: HF = >99.9% removal at 246 Ib/h input
PIC's: Not measured
Metals: See Run 22-1
Reference(s): See Run 22-1
Comments: See Run 22-1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 22-1
B-78
-------
PENNWALT
Date of Test: December 9, 1983
Run No.: 22-4
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator Trane Model LV-5, liquid
injection
Commercial Private _2L
Capacity: 5x 106 Btuh, 6.78ft2 cross section, 11.25
ft long inner chamber
Pollution control system: Quench chamber, ven-
turi scrubber, and packed column
Waste feed system: Pumped from storage (liquid
and gas). See Run 22-1
Residence time: Design - 0.75 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Proprietary liquids (Iso-
tron® 142b reactor bottoms and Isotron® 141 b)
and gas (Isotron® 143a)
Length of burn: ~7 hours to collect all samples
Total amount of waste burned: —5621 Ib
Waste feed rate: Total waste - 803 Ib/h (liquid
waste = 649 Ib/h; gas waste = 154 Ib/h)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: 1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane - >99.999%
ORE
HCI: 99.7% removal at 0.86 and 0.58 Ib/h (0.72 Ib/h
average) discharged
Particulate: 9.7 and 11.5 mg/dNm3 (10.6 average)
at 7% 02 (two samples collected)
THC: Not measured
CO: 27 ppm
Other: HF = >99.9% removal at 349 Ib/h input
PIC's: Not measured
Metals: See Run 22-1
Reference(s): See Run 22-1
Comments: See Run 22-1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 22-1
Name
Concentration
1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane Gas = 3.68%, liquid = 17.7%
Btu content: See Run 22-1
Ash content: See Run 22-1
HCI content: Gas = 12.8%, liquid = 0.4%
(inorganic)
Total equivalent HCI: Liquid 37.8%, gas 18.6%
(See Run 22-1)
Moisture content: Not measured
HF content: Gas 8.6%, liquid 19.1% (inorganic)
Total equivalent HF: 23.9% gas, 48.1% liquid (See
Run 22-1)
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: 2220°F steady upper zone
Primary fuel used: Natural gas (2,930 scfh)
Excess air: Not determined, stack = 3.9%02
Other: Combustion air feed rate: 1070 scfm
Monitoring Methods: See Run 22-1
B-79
-------
PENNWALT
Date of Test: December 6, 1983
Run No.: 23-1
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator Trane Model LV-5, liquid
injection
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 5 x 106 Btuh, 6.78 ft2 cross section, 11.25
ft long inner chamber
Pollution control system: Quench chamber, ven-
turi scrubber, and packed column
Waste feed system: Pumped from storage (liquid
and gas). See Run 22-1
Residence time: Design - 0.75 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Proprietary liquids (Iso-
tron® 142b reactor bottoms and Isotron® 141b)
and gas (Isotron® 143a)
Length of burn: ~6 hours to collect all samples
Total amount of waste burned: ~4344 Ib
Waste feed rate: Total waste - 724 Ib/h (liquid
waste = 650 Ib/h; gas waste = 74 Ib/h)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane Gas = 0.26%, liquid = 10.2%
Btu content: See Run 22-1
Ash content: See Run 22-1
HCI content: Gas = 9.7%, liquid = 1.4%
Total equivalent HCI: Liquid 10.2%, gas 16.9%
(See Run 22-1)
Moisture content: Not measured
HF content: Gas 5.0%, liquid 27.9% (inorganic)
Total equivalent HF: 18.7% gas, 37.5% liquid (See
Run 22-1)
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: 2300°F steady upper zone
Primary fuel used: Natural gas (3,250 scfh)
Excess air: Not determined; stack = 2.4%O2
Other: Combustion air feed rate: 1080 scfm
Monitoring Methods: See Run 22-1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: 1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane - >99.999%
ORE
HCI: 98.9% removal at 0.90 Ib/h discharged
Particulate: 6.5 mg/dNm3 at 7% O2
THC: Not measured
CO: 46 ppm
Other: HF = >99.9% removal at 257 Ib/h input
PIC's: Not measured
Metals: See Run 22-1
Reference(s): See Run 22-1
Comments: See Run 22-1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 22-1
B-80
-------
PENNWALT
Date of Test: December 7, 1983
Run No.: 23-2
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator Trane Model LV-5, liquid
injection
Commercial Private ^L
Capacity: 5 x 106 Btuh, 6.78 ft2 cross section, 11.25
ft long inner chamber
Pollution control system: Quench chamber, ven-
turi scrubber, and packed column
Waste feed system: Pumped from storage (liquid
and gas). See Run 22-1
Residence time: Design - 0.75 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Proprietary liquids (Iso-
tron® 142b reactor bottoms and Isotron® 141 b)
and gas (Isotron® 143a)
Length of burn: ~8 hours to collect all samples
Total amount of waste burned: —5320 Ib
Waste feed rate: Total waste - 665 Ib/h (liquid
waste = 660 Ib/h; gas waste = 5 Ib/h)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane Gas = 0.80%, liquid = 15.2%
Btu content: See Run 22-1
Ash content: See Run 22-1
Total equivalent HCI: Liquid 36.5%, gas 34.3%
(See Run 22-1)
HCI content: Gas = 25.9%, liquid = 0.9%
Moisture content: Not measured
HF content: Gas 5.5%, liquid 14.4% (inorganic)
Total equivalent HF: 16.1% gas, 35.9% liquid (See
Run 22-1)
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: 2300°F steady upper zone
Primary fuel used: Natural gas (2,800 scfh)
Excess air: Not determined; stack = 3.6%02
Other: Combustion air feed rate: 1080 scfm
Monitoring Methods: See Run 22-1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: 1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane - >99.999%
ORE
HCI: 99.4% removal at 1.44 and 1.26 Ib/h (1.35 Ib/h
average) discharged
Particulate: 9.9 and 7.7 mg/dNm3 (8.8 averages
two samples) at 7% 02
THC: Not measured
CO: 27 ppm
Other: HF = >99.9% removal at 238 Ib/h input
PIC's: Not measured
Metals: See Run 22-1
Reference(s): See Run 22-1
Comments: See Run 22-1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 22-1
B-81
-------
PENNWALT
Date of Test: December 8, 1983
Run No,: 23-3
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator Trane Model LV-5, liquid
injection
Commercial Private 2L
Capacity: 5 x 106 Btuh, 6.78 ft2 cross section, 11.25
ft long inner chamber
Pollution control system: Quench chamber, ven-
turi scrubber, and packed column
Waste feed system: Pumped from storage (liquid
and gas). See Run 22-1
Residence time: Design - 0.75 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Proprietary liquids (Iso-
tron® 142b reactor bottoms and Isotron® 141b)
and gas (Isotron® 143a)
Length of burn: ~7 hours to collect all samples
Total amount of waste burned: —5131 Ib
Waste feed rate: Total waste - 733 Ib/h (liquid
waste = 650 Ib/h; gas waste = 83 Ib/h)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane Gas = 1.55%, liquid = 16.1%
Btu content: See Run 22-1
Ash content: See Run 22-1
HCI content: Gas = 18.7%, liquid = 0.6%
(inorganic)
Total equivalent HCI: Liquid 35.4%, gas 24.6%
(See Run 22-1)
Moisture content: Not measured
HF content: Gas 6.4%, liquid 13.3% (inorganic)
Total equivalent HF: 23.9% gas, 37.6% liquid (See
Run 22-1)
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: 2300°F steady upper zone
Primary fuel used: Natural gas (2,880 scfh)
Excess air: Not determined; stack = 3.2%O2
Other: Combustion air feed rate : 1070 scfm
Monitoring Methods: See Run 22-1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: 1,1-dichloro-1-fluoroethane - >99.999%
ORE
HCI: 99.6% removal at 1.16 and 0.82 Ib/h (0.99 Ib/h
average) discharged
Paniculate: 9.4 and 8.9 mg/dNm3 (9.2 average of
two samples) at 7% 02
THC: Not measured
CO: 19 ppm
Other: HF = >99.9% removal at 264 Ib/h input
PIC's: Not measured
Metals: See Run 22-1
Reference(s): See Run 22-1
Comments: See Run 22-1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 22-1
B-82
-------
ROSS
Summary of Test Data for Ross Incineration Services, Inc.
Grafton, Ohio
Date of Test: June 10, 1984
Run No..-1
Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator-Rotary kiln with second-
ary chamber
Commercial Private A.
Capacity: Not reported
Pollution control system: Two packed bed caustic
scrubbers (in series) and an ionizing wet scrub-
ber
Waste feed system: Liquid wastes are pumped
into secondary chamber (the main incinera-
tion chamber) and drummed waste is con-
veyed into both the kiln and the secondary
chamber
Residence time: 6.2 s calculated
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Aqueous, liquid
organic, and miscellaneous drummed wastes
Length of burn: ~2 hours sampling time
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported;
waste heat input 83 x 106 Btuh during test run
Waste feed rate: 13,210 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
SEE EMISSION AND ORE RESULTS
Btu content: 6,280 Btu/lb
Ash content: 5.2%
Chlorine content: 3.6%
Moisture content: 47.4%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 2110°F in secondary
chamber
Primary fuel used: None
Excess air: 10.4% O2
Monitoring Methods:
Waste Feed: One composite per run made up of
grab samples taken every 15 minutes during
run
Combustion Emissions:
Volatiles POHC's and PIC's: gas bags and VOST
(Fast)
Semivolatiles POHC's and PIC's: Modified
Method 5.
HCI: Modified Method 5
Particulate: Modified Method 5
Metals: Modified Method 5
CO2 and O2: Gas bag for Orsat analysis
Continuous monitors:
CO2 - Horiba Model PIR-2000S (NDIR)
CO - Beckman Model 215A (NDIR)
O2 - Beckman Model 742 (polarographic
sensor)
HC - Beckman Model 402 (FID)
Dioxins and furans (tetra- and penta-chlori-
nated only) - Modified Method 5
B-83
-------
ROSS
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
Name
Volatiles
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Semivolatiles
N,N-Dimethylacetamide
Phenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Phthalic anhydride
Aniline
Methyl pyridine
Cresol(s)
ORE, %
Concentration, wt. %
0.16
1.04
0.78
4.04
0.23
0.86
2.55
0.035
0.83
0.012"
0.020
0.032"
0.10
<0.01
0.026
0.025
0.12
Fast VOST
>99.9964
>99.99963
>99.9986
>99.99904
>99.968*
99.99967
99.99952
>99.999994
Gas bag
99.9930
99.989
99.99925
99.99946
99.9974'
99.999943
>99.99971
>99.9999
Modified
Method 5
>99.998
>99.997
99.9992
>99.994b
>99.9996
c
>99.998a
>99.998
>99.9993
aMethylene chloride values should be viewed with caution due to high blank values and large difference in results between runs.
"Results suspect based on QA analysis of the data. Note that ORE for phenol is not suspect. See Reference Volume II, p. 101.
'Not calculable because of small amount in the waste.
"Aniline ORE may be biased high due to potential recovery problems from the XAD resin. See Reference Volume II, p. 102.
HCI: 0.149 Ib/h
Particulate: 0.0609 gr/dscf @ 7% 02
THC: <1 ppm
CO: 4.8 ppm
CO2: 7.9% avg. THC: <1 ppm avg. O2:10.4% avg.
Dioxins and furans: See comments
Metals: See comments
PIC's:
PIC
Volatiles
Chloroform
Benzene
Bromomethane
Chloromethane
Carbon disulfide
Bromochloromethane
Methylene bromide
Bromodichloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
Bromoform
Semivolatiles
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
"Not blank corrected
Fast
VOST, Gas Modified
avg. bag Method 5
g/min g/min g/min
0.008
0.0062
0.00024
0.0033
0.036
0.016
0.0090
0.0043
0.0023
0.00366
0.0064
0.0090
0.0060
0.18
0.021
0.0090
0.0075
0.0039
0.0021
0.0050
0.0012
0.0011
B-84
-------
ROSS
Reference(s): Trenholm, A., P. Gorman, and G.
Jungclaus. Performance Evaluation
of Full-Scale Hazardous Waste Incin-
eration, Final Report, Volumes II and
IV (Appendix C). EPA Contract No. 68-
02-3177 to Midwest Research
Institute, Kansas City, MO. EPA Pro-
ject Officer Mr. Don Oberacker, Haz-
ardous Waste Engineering Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.
November 1984.
Comments: The Ross incinerator and associated
scrubbers operated normally during
all three tests. QA audits of the sam-
pling and analysis activities indi-
cated adequate and acceptable per-
formance in all areas with no signifi-
cant problems. Dioxins and furans
were not detected in stack particulate
emissions. The most prominent met-
als found in the waste feed were Ba,
Cd, Cr, Sb, an Pb, with Pb having the
highest concentration in the organic
waste feed (1800-2090 fig/g). These
same metals were found in the stack
emissions. Lead levels in particu-
lates were especially high (68,900 -
96,100 n-g/g). It was estimated that
10% of the lead fed to the incinerator
was emitted as part of the particulate
emissions. Aniline ORE may be
biased high. See Reference Volume
II, p. 102.
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Aqueous
Waste
Drums
I
Drums.
Rotary
Kiln
ich
Incineration
Chamber
1
Ash in
Drums
8-85
-------
ROSS
Date of Test: June 11, 1984
Run No.: 2
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Rotary kiln with second-
ary chamber
Commercial A. Private
Capacity: Not reported
Pollution control system: Two packed bed caustic
scrubbers (in series) and an ionizing wet scrub-
ber
Waste feed system: Liquid wastes are pumped
into secondary chamber (the main incinera-
tion chamber) and drummed waste is con-
veyed into both the kiln and the secondary
chamber
Residence time: 6.5 s calculated
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Aqueous, liquid
organic, and miscellaneous drummed wastes
Length of burn: ~2 hours sampling time
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported;
heat input 57 x 106 Btuh during test run
Waste feed rate: 12,940 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
SEE EMISSION AND ORE RESULTS
Btu content: 4,400 Btu/lb
Ash content: 6.5%
Chlorine content: 3.2%
Moisture content: 46.6%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 2094°F in secondary
chamber
Primary fuel used: None
Excess air: 10.5% 02
Monitoring Methods: Same as Run 1
B-86
-------
ROSS
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
Name
Volatiles
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Semivolatiles
N,N-Dimethylacetamide
Phenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Phthalic anhydride
Aniline
Methyl pyridine
Cresol(s)
ORE, %
Concentration, wt. %
0.21
0.47
0.69
2.87
0.67
0.79
0.91
0.028
1.82
0.006"
0.020
0.036"
0.017
0.008
0.021
0.042
0.074
Fast VOST
>99.9961
99.9965
>99.9977
>99.9987
>99.989a
99.99930
>99.9990
>99.999994
Gas bag
99.970
99.935
99.99910
99.9987
99.82a
99.999918
99.9979
>99.9999
Modified
Method 5
>99.9999
>99.993
99.9990
>99.994
>99.998
>99.99
>99.998
>99.998
>99.999
"Methylene chloride results should be viewed with caution due to high blank values and large difference in results between runs.
"Results suspect based on QA analysis of data. Note DRE for phenol is not suspect. See Reference Volume I, p. 101.
HCI: 0.296 Ib/h
Particulate: 0.0770 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: 0.9 ppm
CO: 9.1 ppm
CO2: 7.9% avg. THC: <1 ppm avg. O2:10.5% avg.
Dioxins and furans: See comments for Run 1
Metals: See comments for Run 1
PIC's:
PIC
Volatiles
Chloroform
Benzene
Bromomethane
Chloromethane
Carbon disulfide
Bromochloromethane
Methylene bromide
Bromodichloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
Bromoform
Semivolatiles
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
"Not blank corrected
Fast
VOST,
avg.
g/mln
Gas Modified
bag Method 5
g/min g/min
0.0079
0.0122
0.0017
0.0046
0.033
0.016
0.016
0.0043
0.0039
0.0097
0.0076
0.016
0.00094
0.038
0.0028
0.030
0.0095
0.0055
0.0012
0.0036
0.001
<0.004
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
B-87
-------
ROSS
Date of Test: June 11, 1984
Run No.: 3
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Rotary kiln with sec-
ondary chamber
Commercial _X_ Private
Capacity: Not reported
Pollution control system: Two packed bed caustic
scrubbers (in series) and an ionizing wet
scrubber
Waste feed system: Liquid wastes are pumped
into secondary chamber (the main incinera-
tion chamber) and drummed waste is con-
veyed into both the kiln and the secondary
chamber
Residence time: 6.7 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Aqueous, liquid
organic, and miscellaneous drummed wastes
Length of burn: ~2 hours sampling time
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported;
heat input 83 x 106 Btuh during test run
Waste feed rate: 13,040 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
SEE EMISSION AND ORE RESULTS
Btu content: 6,360 Btu/lb
Ash content: 5.5%
Chlorine content: 3.0%
Moisture content: 45.6%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 2043°F in secondary
chamber
Primary fuel used: None
Excess air: 10.7% 02
Monitoring Methods: Same as Run 1
B-88
-------
ROSS
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
Name
Volatiles
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
Semivolatiles
N,N-Dimethylacetamide
Phenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
Butyl benzyl phthalate
Phthalic anhydride
Aniline
Methyl pyridine
Cresol(s)
ORE. %
Concentration, wt. %
0.20
0.83
1.67
2.74
0.36
1.64
0.58
0.038
1.90
0.005"
0.071
0.024"
0.027
0.007
0.026
0.041
0.091
Fast VOST
>99.9959
99.9969
99.99912
>99.9978
>99.978a
99.99932
>99.999
>99.999994
Gas bag
99.963
99.947
99.99951
99.9969
99.72"
99.999952
99.9951
>99.9999
Modified
Method 5
>99.9999
>99.992
99.9994
>99.991b
>99.999
>99.99
>99.998
>99.998
>99.9991
"Methylene chloride results should be viewed with caution because of high blank values and large differences in results between runs.
'Results suspect based on QA analysis of data. Note ORE for phenol is not suspect. See Reference Volume I, p. 101.
HCI: 0.290 Ib/h
Paniculate: 0.0608 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: 1.0 ppm
CO: 4.7 ppm
C02:8.1%avg. O2:10.7%avg. THC: 1 ppm avg.
Dioxins and furans: See comments for Run 1
Metals: See comments for Run 1
Reference(s): See Run No. 1
Comments: See Run No. 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
PIC's:
Fast
VOST, Gas Modified
avg. bag Method 5
PIC
Volatiles
Chloroform
Benzene
Bromomethane
Chloromethane
Carbon disulfide
Bromochloromethane
Methylene bromide
Bromodichloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
Bromoform
Semivolatiles
Fluoranthene
Pyrene
•Not blank corrected
g/min
0.0056
0.0070
0.00106
0.0036
0.013
0.016
0.021
0.0051
0.0059
0.0102
-
-
g/min
0.0074
0.019
0.00062
0.059
0.0034
0.039
0.014
0.0028
0.0023
0.0051
.
-
g/min
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0.001
0.001
8-89
-------
SCA
Summary of Test Data for SCA Chemical Services
Chicago, Illinois
Date of Test: July 24-30, 1984
Run No.: 17
Test Sponsor: SCA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Rotary kiln with a sec-
ondary chamber
Commercial _X_ Private
Capacity: 120 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: 2 packed tower scrubbers
followed by 4 parallel ionizing wet scrubbers
Waste feed system: Stored, blended, and con-
veyed to kiln by ram
Residence time: 2.4 s
Trial Burn Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: PCB in liquid and solid
streams
Length of burn: 4 h
Total amount of waste burned: 25,200 Ib
Waste feed rate: Liquid - 97 Ib/min; sludge - 8 Ib/
min
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
PCB
- Liquid - 27%; sludge - 23%
Btu content: Liquid -14,944 Btu/lb; sludge -12,727
Btu/lb
Ash content:
Chlorine content: Liquid - 21.13%; sludge -
29.97%
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average 1787°F (Kiln); 2231°F (Sec-
ondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: Fuel oil; secondary chamber
is gas-fired
Excess air: 9.2% 02
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's:
HCI: Modified Method 5
Particulate: Modified Method 5
Other: CO - Beckman Model 215A
O2 - Beckman Model 742A
Liquid waste collected every 15 min;
sludge waste every hour
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: PCB - 99.99982% ORE
HCI: 1.42 Ib/h @ 99.92% removal
Particulate: 0.075 gr/dscf at 7% 02
THC: 0.4 ppm
CO: 16 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Referencefs): SCA Chemical Industries, Trial Burn
Report by Midwest Research
Institute, Kansas City, MO. (Project
No. 8137-L), October 12, 1984.
Process Flow Diagram: Not Available
B-90
-------
SCA
Date of Test: July 24-30, 1984
Run No.: 19
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Rotary kiln with a sec-
ondary chamber
Commercial _X_ Private
Capacity: 120 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: 2 packed tower scrubbers
followed by 4 parallel ionizing wet scrubbers
Waste feed system: Stored, blended, and con-
veyed to kiln by ram
Residence time: 2.4 s
Trial Burn Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: PCB in liquid and solid
streams
Length of burn: 4 h
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: Liquid-143 Ib/min; sludge-10 Ib/
min
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
PCB
Liquid - 28%; sludge - 21%
Btu content: Liquid -10,219 Btu/lb; sludge -12,215
Btu/lb
Ash content:
Chlorine content: Liquid - 28%; sludge - 31.68%
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average 1845°F (Kiln); 2212°F (Sec-
ondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: Fuel oil; secondary chamber
is gas-fired
Excess air: 9.3% O2
Monitoring Methods: See Run 17
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: PCB - 99.99994% ORE
HCI: 2.47 Ib/h @ 99.92% removal
Particulate: Not calculated
THC: 0.8 ppm
CO: 3 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Reference(s): See Run 17
Date of Test: July 24-30, 1984
Run No.: 20
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Rotary kiln with a sec-
ondary chamber
Commercial _X_ Private
Capacity: 120 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: 2 packed tower scrubbers
followed by 4 parallel ionizing wet scrubbers
Waste feed system: Stored, blended, and con-
veyed to kiln by ram
Residence time: 2.0 s
Trial Burn Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: PCB in liquid and solid
streams
Length of burn: 6 h
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: Liquid -135 Ib/min; sludge - 8 Ib/
min
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
PCB
Liquid - 22%; sludge - 24%
Btu content: Liquid -13,648; sludge -11,383
Ash content:
Chlorine content: Liquid - 26.27%; sludge -
26.67%
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average 1787°F (Kiln); 2247°F (Sec-
ondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: Fuel oil; secondary chamber
is gas-fired
Excess air: 9.0% O2
Monitoring Methods: See Run 17
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: PCB - 99.99949% ORE
HCI: 2.19 Ib/h @ 99.91% removal
Particulate: Not calculated
THC: 0.7 ppm
CO: 4 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Reference(s): See Run 17
B-91
-------
SCA
Date of Test: July 24-30, 1984
Run No.: 21
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Rotary kiln with a sec-
ondary chamber
Commercial JL Private
Capacity: 120 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: 2 packed tower scrubbers
followed by 4 parallel ionizing wet scrubbers
Waste feed system: Liquid-fired into combustion
chamber by 2 air atomized nozzles
Residence time: 2.9 s
Trial Burn Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: PCBin liquid waste only
Length of burn: 6 h
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: Liquid -150 Ib/min, no solid feed
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
PCB - 19%
Btu content: 10,809 Btu/lb
Ash content:
Chlorine content: 36.03%
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - Not reported (Kiln);
2225°F (Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: Fuel oil; secondary chamber
is gas-fired
Excess air: 10.0% 02
Monitoring Methods: See Run 17
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: PCB - 99.99980% ORE
HCI: 3.44 Ib/h @ 99.89% removal
Paniculate: (Invalid)
THC: 0 ppm
CO: 9 ppm
Other:
PIC's:
Reference(s): See Run 17
B-92
-------
SMITH KLINE
Summary of Test Data for Smith Kline Chemicals
Conshohocken, Pennsylvania
Date of Test: Week of August 27, 1984
Run No.: 6
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator, John Zink liquid
Commercial Private
Capacity:
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber and
mist eliminator
Waste feed system: Liquid pumped from storage
tanks
Residence time:
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Synthetic solvent and
aqueous wastes
Length of burn:
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 981.3 Ib/h (solvent); 2247 Ib/h
(aqueous)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: Tetrachloroethene - 99.9997%
Chloroform - 99.99999%
Methylbenzene - 99.9997%
HCI: 0.55 Ib/h (99.20% removal efficiency)
Particulate: 0.05738 gr/dscf @ 7% 02
THC:
CO: 317 ppm
Other: Formic acid - 99.947% removal efficiency
PIC's:
Reference(s): Trial burn by Battelle Columbus, tele-
phone (614) 424-6424
Name
Concentration
Tetrachloroethene 1.36%
Chloroform 1.21%
Methylbenzene 4.53%
Btu content: 3,590 Btu/lb
Ash content:
Chlorine content: 2.99%
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1638° to 1700°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 3% O2
Other:
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: VOST
HCI:
Particulate:
Other: CO - Beckman Model 864 NDIR
02 - Taylor Servomax
B-93
-------
SMITH KLINE
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Waste Solvent Natural Gas
0-94
-------
SMITH KLINE
Date of Test: Week of August 27, 1984
Run No.: 7
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator, John Zink liquid
Commercial Private
Capacity:
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber and
mist eliminator
Waste feed system: Liquid pumped from storage
tanks
Residence time:
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Synthetic solvent and
aqueous wastes
Length of burn:
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 1,277 Ib/h (solvent); 3,689 Ib/h
(aqueous)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: Tetrachloroethene - 99.99999%
Chloroform - 99.99999%
Methylbenzene - 99.99953%
HCI: 0.180 Ib/h (99.7% removal efficiency)
Particulate: 0.02733 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC:
CO: 888 ppm
Other: Formic acid - 99.9986% removal efficiency
PIC's:
Reference(s): Trial burn by Battelle Columbus, tele-
phone (614) 424-6424
Process Flow Diagram: See Test Run No. 6
Name
Concentration
Tetrachloroethene 1.32%
Chloroform 1.10%
Methylbenzene 3.86%
Btu content: 3,096 Btu/lb
Ash content:
Chlorine content: 2.38%
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1660° to 1720°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 3.525% O2
Other:
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: VOST
HCI:
Particulate:
Other: CO - Beckman Model 864 NDIR
O2 - Taylor Servomax
8-95
-------
SMITH KLINE
Date of Test: Week of August 27, 1984 Process Flow Diagram: See Test Run No. 6
Run No.: 8
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator, John Zink liquid
Commercial Private
Capacity:
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber and
mist eliminator
Waste feed system: Liquid pumped from storage
tanks
Residence time:
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Synthetic solvent and
aqueous wastes
Length of burn:
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 1,018 Ib/h (solvent); 3,709 Ib/h
(aqueous)
POHCs selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
Tetrachloroethene 0.98%
Chloroform 0.93%
Methylbenzene 3.20%
Btu content: 2,657 Btu/lb
Ash content:
Chlorine content: 2.58%
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1650° to 1760°F
Average 1709°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 2.85% O2
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: VOST
HCI:
Paniculate:
Other: CO - Beckman Model 864 NDIR
O2 - Taylor Servomax
Emission and DRE Results:
POHC's: Tetrachloroethene - 99.99999%
Chloroform - 99.99999%
Methylbenzene - 99.9982%
HCI: 0.650 Ib/h (99.92% removal efficiency)
Particulate: 0.03002 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC:
CO: 1133 ppm
Other: Formic acid - 99.9985% removal efficiency
PIC's:
Reference(s): Trial burn by Battelle Columbus, tele-
phone (614) 424-6424
B-96
-------
STAUFFER
Summary of Test Data for Stauffer Chemical Company
Baytown, Texas
Date of Trial Burn: February 16-19, 1984
Run No.: 4 Test Sponsor: Stauffer
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Acid regeneration fur-
nace
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: Not reported
Pollution control system: Spray scrubber, wet
ESP, and tail end acid plant with mist eliminator
Waste feed system: Air atomizers
Residence time: Approximately 3.4 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Synthetic formulation
of liquid wastes containing POHC's and vol-
canic ash, and spent sulfuric acid waste
Length of burn: 8-12 h
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 3040 Ib/h (synthetic waste);
77,850 Ib/h (spent acid)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Benzene
ORE, %
>99.999980
>90.999980
99.999992
Name
Concentration
1,1,1 Trichloroethane 0.466%
Carbon tetrachloride 0.470%
Benzene 2.56%
Btu content: 1,256 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.197%
Chlorine content: 0.816%
Moisture content: Not reported
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - Approximately 1830°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 6.6% O2
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: VOST for TCE and CCI4 and Modified
Method 5 for benzene
HCI: Modified Method 6
Particulate: Method 5
Other: CO - Horiba Model 2000 NDIR
Phosgene - Modified Method 6
Waste Feed - composite of grab samples
taken throughout each run
HCI: 3.8 ppm (99.857% avg. removal efficiency for
all four runs)
Particulate: 0.000868 gr/dscf @ 7% 02
THC: Not measured
CO: 81.9 ppm
Other: Phosgene - 4.5 ppb avg. for all four runs;
NOX - 22 ppm avg. for all four runs
PIC's: Not measured
Reference(s): Stauffer Chemical Company, Bay-
town, Texas; trial burn test results
(February 1984); submitted in lieu of
trial burn for Dominquez, Cal. plant;
submitted August 1984 to EPA
Region IX
Comments: These tests were conducted at what
were considered high waste feed
rates for this furnace (~50 Ib/min
synthetic and 1000-1200 Ib/min.
spent acid feed). Process conditions
were considered to be worst case in
terms of residence time and heat
input required to adequately decom-
pose the wastes. Runs 1-3were base-
line tests, and results are not
included here.
B-97
-------
STAUFFER
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Furnace
Waste
Mpat
Boiler
Spray
Scrubber
Gas
Cooler
Wet
ESP's
Gas
Drying
Tower
Stack
i '
Mist
Eliminator
S03
Absorption
SOZ to SO3
Conversion
Compressor
B-98
-------
STAUFFER
Date of Trial Burn: February 16-19, 1984 Process Flow Diagram: See Run 4
Run No.: 5
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Acid regeneration fur-
nace
Commercial Private -X
Capacity: Not reported
Pollution control system: Spray scrubber, wet
ESR and tail end acid plant with mist eliminator
Waste feed system: Air atomizers
Residence time: Approximately 3.4 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Synthetic formulation
of liquid wastes containing POHC's and vol-
canic ash, and spent sulfuric acid waste
Length of burn: 8-12 h
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 3040 Ib/h (synthetic waste);
76,860 Ib/h (spent acid)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
1,1,1 Trichloroethane 0.472%
Carbon tetrachloride 0.479%
Benzene 2.67%
Btu content: 1,508 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.222%
Chlorine content: 0.827%
Moisture content: Not reported
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - Approximately 1830°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 6.4% 02
Monitoring Methods: See Run 4
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC ORE. %
1,1,1 Trichloroethane - >99.999979
Carbon tetrachloride - >99.999979
Benzene - >99.999996
HCI: 4.0 ppm (99.857% avg. removal efficiency for
all four runs)
Paniculate: 0.00271 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: Not measured
CO: 52.2 ppm
Other: Phosgene - 4.5 ppb avg. for all four runs;
NO, - 22 ppm avg. for all four runs
PIC's: Not measured
Reference(s): See Run 4
Comments: See Run 4
B-99
-------
STAUFFER
Date of Trial Burn: February 16-19, 1984 Process Flow Diagram: See Run 4
Run No.: 6
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Acid regeneration fur-
nace
Commercial Private _*L
Capacity: Not reported
Pollution control system: Spray scrubber, wet
ESP, and tail end acid plant with mist eliminator
Waste feed system: Air atomizers
Residence time: Approximately 3.4 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Synthetic formulation
of liquid wastes containing POHC's and vol-
canic ash, and spent sulfuric acid waste
Length of burn: 8-12 h
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 3010 Ib/h (synthetic waste);
76,230 Ib/h (spent acid)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
1,1,1 Trichloroethane 0.498%
Carbon tetrachloride 0.505%
Benzene 2.58%
Btu content: 1,236 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.207%
Chlorine content: 0.874%
Moisture content: Not reported
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - Approximately 1830°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 6.1% 02
Monitoring Methods: See Run 4
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC ORE, %
1,1,1 Trichloroethane - >99.99998
Carbon tetrachloride - >99.999981
Benzene - 99.999996
HCI: 3.8 ppm (99.857% avg. removal efficiency for
all four runs)
Particulate: 0.00239 gr/dscf @ 7% 02
THC: Not measured
CO: 52.2 ppm
Other: Phosgene - 4.5 ppb avg. for all four runs;
NOX 22 ppm avg. for all four runs
PIC's: Not measured
Reference(s): See Run 4
Comments: See Run 4
B-100
-------
STAUFFER
Date of Trial Burn: February 16-19, 1984 Process Flow Diagram: See Run 4
Run No.: 1
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Acid regeneration fur-
nace
Commercial Private JK_
Capacity: Not reported
Pollution control system: Spray scrubber, wet
ESP, and tail end acid plant with mist eliminator
Waste feed system: Air atomizers
Residence time: Approximately 3.4 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Synthetic formulation
of liquid wastes containing POHC's and vol-
canic ash, and spent sulfuric acid waste
Length of burn: 8-12 h
Total amount of waste burned: 3010 Ib/h (syn-
thetic waste); 78,030 Ib/h (spent acid)
Waste feed rate:
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
1,1,1 Trichloroethane 0.501%
Carbon tetrachloride 0.483%
Benzene 2.55%
Btu content: 1,163 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.216%
Chlorine content: 0.843%
Moisture content: Not reported
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - Approximately 1830°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 6.4% 02
Monitoring Methods: See Run 4
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC ORE. %
1,1,1 Trichloroethane - >99.999980
Carbon tetrachloride - >99.999979
Benzene - 99.999996
HCI: 4.3 ppm (99.857% avg. removal efficiency for
all four runs)
Paniculate: 0.000704 gr/dscf @ 7% 02
THC: Not measured
CO: 38.8 ppm
Other: Phosgene - 4.5 ppb avg. for all four runs;
NO, 22 ppm avg. for all four runs
PIC's: Not measured
Referencefs): See Run 4
Comments: See Run 4
B-70J
-------
3M
Summary of Test Data for 3M
Cottage Grove, Minnesota
Date of Trial Burn: October 10-17, 1984
Run No.: 1 Test Sponsor: 3M
Equipment Information
Type of unit: Incinerator - rotary kiln with a sec-
ondary chamber
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 90 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: Wet ESP, venturi scrub-
ber, and packed tower mist eliminator
Waste feed system:
Containerized and bulk wastes-feed chute into
kiln
Pumpable organic wastes - burner nozzles at
kiln and secondary chamber
Pumpable aqueous wastes - lance at front end
of kiln
Residence time: Not reported
Trial Burn Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Miscellaneous (aque-
ous, pumpable organic, and containerized
wastes)
Length of burn: 2 h (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 10,710 Ib/h (Total of all waste,
including the spike solution)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
Carbon tetrachloride
(CCIJ
1,1,2-trichloroethane
(1,1,2 TCE)
0.524 wt. % Includes the
POHC's in the
spike solution;
see Comments
b and e
0.548 wt. % Includes the
POHC's in the
spike solution;
see Comments
b and e
Btu content: See Comment b
Ash content: See Comment b
Chlorine content: See Comment b
Moisture content: See Comment b
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1985°F (Kiln), 1425°F (Sec-
ondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: None
Excess air: Not reported
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: VOST (three pair, 40 minutes each)
HCI: Modified Method 5
Paniculate: Modified Method 5
Other: Temperature - ICON pyrometers, Modline
infrared thermometers
CO - Horiba, NDIR (0-5000 ppm
range used for tests)
O2 - Teledyne Model 326B
(plant monitor)
CO and CO2 - Teledyne 9300-0-20x (plant
monitor)
PIC's: Not monitored
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: CCI4
1,1,2-TCE
- 99.998% ORE
- 99.994% ORE
HCI: 0.86 Ib/h; 99.1% removal (see Comment d)
Paniculate: 0.0623 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: Not evaluated
CO: 30 to 2000 ppm
Other: 02: 3.1 -15.2% CO2: 2.2 -17.0%
PIC's: Not evaluated
References): Trial Burn Test Report, 3M Company
Chemolite Facility, Cottage Grove,
Minnesota. Volumes I, II, and III. Feb-
ruary 1985. Report prepared by PEI
Associates, Inc. Cincinnati, Ohio;
Project No. 5341
8-102
-------
3M
Comments: a) This incinerator can accept con-
tainerized waste. The container is
often fed into the unit with the
waste. Also, uncontainerized bulk
waste can be fed into the kiln via
the "drum chute." Other wastes
include aqueous wastes, which
are fed through a lance and
organic liquid wastes, which are
fed through any of three burners.
Two burners fire the kiln; the third
(Burner C) fires the secondary
chamber.
b) Since the characteristics of the
containerized wastes were not
determined, it was not possible to
ascertain the overall Btu, ash,
chlorine, and moisture content of
the total waste feed. Values are
available in Reference for some
waste streams. The POHC con-
centration of the total waste feed
assumes that POHC's exist only in
the burner waste and the so-called
"spike" solution. The latter was a
POHC-rich solution added to
increase the total POHC con-
centration.
c) Wet ESP water flow rate was lower
for Runs 4 through 8 than for runs
1, 2, 3, 9, and 10 because of pump
problems.
d) HCI removal was probably biased
low because chloride analysis
was not performed on ail wastes
fed to the incinerator (see Com-
ment b above).
e) CCI4 and 1,1,2-TCE were both
spiked into the waste feed.
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Process Flow Diagram 3M Cottage Grove, Minnesota
Incinerator Schematic
Material Handling Building
Waste Heat Recovery Boiler
A. Superheater
B. Boiler
C. Economizer
Mixing
Chamber
Transfer Pumps
V 600 PSIA Steam
Waste Solvent
& Fuel Oil
Tank Farm
290 PSIA<^ 325 kw
Turbine—Generator
Solid Residue
Air Pollution Fan
Control Equipment
1. Quench Chamber
2. Wet Electrostatic
Precipitator
3. Venture
4. Packed Tower
B-W3
-------
3M
Date of Trial Burn: October 10-17, 1984
Run No.: 2
Equipment Information
Type of unit: Incinerator - rotary kiln with a sec-
ondary chamber
Commercial Private .X.
Capacity: 90 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: Wet ESP, venturi scrub-
ber, and packed tower mist eliminator
Waste feed system:
Containerized and bulk wastes - feed chute into
kiln
Pumpable organic wastes - burner nozzles at
kiln and secondary chamber
Pumpable aqueous wastes - lance at front end
of kiln
Residence time: Not reported
Trial Burn Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Miscellaneous (aque-
ous, pumpable organic, and containerized
wastes)
Length of burn: ~2 h (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 9,160 Ib/h (Total of all waste,
including the spike solution)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
Carbon tetrachloride
(CCU)
1,1,2-trichloroethane
(1,1,2 TCE)
1.031 wt. % Includes the
POHC's in the
spike solution;
see Comments
b and e
1.239 wt. % Includes the
POHC's in the
spike solution;
see Comments
b and e
Btu content: See Comment b
Ash content: See Comment b
Chlorine content: See Comment b
Moisture content: See Comment b
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1950°F (Kiln), 1330°F (Sec-
ondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: None
Excess air: Not reported
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: CCI4 ->99.999%DRE
1,1,2-TCE - >99.990% ORE
HCI: 0.48 Ib/h; 99.7% removal (see Comment d.
Run!)
Paniculate: 0.1117 gr/dscf @ 7% Oz
THC: Not evaluated
CO: 40 to 2000 ppm
Other: O2: 4.0 - 15.0% CO2:1.7 -15.3%
PIC's: Not evaluated
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
8-104
-------
Date of Trial Burn: October 10-17, 1984
Run No.: 3
Equipment Information
Type of unit: Incinerator - rotary kiln with a sec-
ondary chamber
Commercial Private X.
Capacity: 90 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: Wet ESP, venturi scrub-
ber, and packed tower mist eliminator
Waste feed system:
Containerized and bulk wastes - feed chute into
kiln
Pumpable organic wastes - burner nozzles at
kiln and secondary chamber
Pumpable aqueous wastes - lance at front end
of kiln
Residence time: Not reported
Trial Burn Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Miscellaneous (aque-
ous, pumpable organic, and containerized
wastes)
Length of burn: ~2 h (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 11,130 Ib/h (Total of all waste,
including the spike solution)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
Carbon tetrachloride
(CCI4)
1,1,2-trichloroethane
(1.1.2TCE)
0.868 wt. % Includes the
POHC's in the
spike solution;
see Comments
b and e
1.225 wt. % Includes the
POHC's in the
spike solution;
see Comments
b ande
Btu content: See Comment b
Ash content: See Comment b
Chlorine content: See Comment b
Moisture content: See Comment b
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 2030°F (Kiln), 13508F
(Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: None
Excess air: Not reported
Monitoring Methods: Same as Run 1
Emission and DRE Results:
POHC's: CCI4 - >99.999% ORE
1,1,2-TCE - >99.998% ORE
3M
HCI: 0.44 Ib/h; 99.8% removal (see Comment d.
Run 1)
Particulate: 0.0848 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: Not evaluated
CO: 50 to 2000 ppm
Other: O2: 4.1 -13.3% C02: 4.5 -15.0%
PIC's: Not evaluated
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
B-105
-------
3M
Date of Trial Burn: October 12, 1984
Run No.: 4
Equipment Information
Type of unit: Incinerator - rotary kiln with a sec-
ondary chamber
Commercial Private 2L
Capacity: 90 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: Wet ESP, venturi scrub-
ber, and packed tower mist eliminator
Waste feed system:
Containerized and bulk wastes - feed chute into
kiln
Pumpable organic wastes - burner nozzles at
kiln and secondary chamber
Pumpable aqueous wastes - lance at front end
of kiln
Residence time: Not reported
Trial Burn Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Miscellaneous (aque-
ous, pumpable organic, and containerized
wastes)
Length of burn: ~2 h (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 11,870 Ib/h (Total of all waste,
including the spike solution)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
Carbon tetrachloride
(CCW
1,1,2-trichloroethane
(1,1,2 TCE)
1.068 wt. % Includes the
POHC's in the
spike solution;
see Comments
b and e
1.566wt. % Includes the
POHC's in the
spike solution;
see Comments
b and e
Btu content: See Comment b
Ash content: See Comment b
Chlorine content: See Comment b
Moisture content: See Comment b
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1985°F (Kiln), 1825°F
(Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: None
Excess air: Not reported
Monitoring Methods: Same as Run 1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: CCI4 -99.999% ORE
1,1,2-TCE - 99.999% ORE
HCI: 0.20 Ib/h; 99.9% removal (see Comment d.
Run 1)
Paniculate: 0.0910 gr/dscf @ 7% 02
THC: Not evaluated
CO: 40 to 2000 ppm
Other: O2: 3.2 -15.0% CO2: 3.0 - 15.5%
PIC's: Not evaluated
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
B-106
-------
Date of Trial Burn: October 10-17, 1984
Run No.: 5
Equipment Information
Type of unit: Incinerator - rotary kiln with a sec-
ondary chamber
Commercial Private 2L
Capacity: 90 x 10B Btuh
Pollution control system: Wet ESP, venturi scrub-
ber, and packed tower mist eliminator
Waste feed system:
Containerized and bulk wastes -feed chute into
kiln
Pumpable organic wastes - burner nozzles at
kiln and secondary chamber
Pumpable aqueous wastes - lance at front end
of kiln
Residence time: Not reported
Trial Burn Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Miscellaneous (aque-
ous, pumpable organic, and bulk and con-
tainerized wastes)
Length of burn: ~2 h (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 23,370 Ib/h (Total of all waste,
including the spike solution)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
Carbon tetrachloride
(CCI4)
1,1,2-trichloroethane
(1,1,2TCE)
0.482 wt. % Includes the
POHC's in the
spike solution;
see Comments
b and e
0.937 wt. % Includes the
POHC's in the
spike solution;
see Comments
band e
Btu content: See Comment b
Ash content: See Comment b
Chlorine content: See Comment b
Moisture content: See Comment b
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1915°F (Kiln), 1530°F (Sec-
ondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: None
Excess air: Not reported
Monitoring Methods: Same as Run 1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: CCI4 -99.999% ORE
1,1,2-TCE - 99.999% ORE
3M
HCI: 0.50 Ib/h; 99.9% removal (see Comment d)
Paniculate: 0.0470 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: Not evaluated
CO: 50 to 270 ppm
Other: 02: 8.5 -10.8% CO2: 6.7 -10.6%
PIC's: Not evaluated
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
B-107
-------
3M
Date of Trial Burn: October 10-17, 1984
Run No.: 6
Equipment Information
Type of unit: Incinerator - rotary kiln with a sec-
ondary chamber
Commercial Private 2L
Capacity: 90 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: Wet ESP, venturi scrub-
ber, and packed tower mist eliminator
Waste feed system:
Containerized and bulk wastes -feed chute into
kiln
Pumpable organic wastes - burner nozzles at
kiln and secondary chamber
Pumpable aqueous wastes - lance at front end
of kiln
Residence time: Not reported
Trial Burn Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Miscellaneous (aque-
ous, pumpable organic, and bulk and con-
tainerized wastes)
Length of burn: ~2 h (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 17,550 Ib/h (Total of all waste,
including the spike solution)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
Carbon tetrachloride
(CCI4)
1,1,2-trichloroethane
(1,1,2 TCE)
0.623 wt. % Includes the
POHC's in the
spike solution;
see Comments
band e
1.304 wt. % Includes the
POHC's in the
spike solution;
see Comments
band e
Btu content: See Comment b
Ash content: See Comment b
Chlorine content: See Comment b
Moisture content: See Comment b
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1905°F (Kiln), 1525°F (Sec-
ondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: None
Excess air: Not reported
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
Emission and DRE Results:
POHC's: CCI4 - 99.999% DRE
1,1,2-TCE - 99.999% DRE
HCI: 0.31 Ib/h; 99.9% removal (see Comment d.
Run 1)
Particulate: 0.0472 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: Not evaluated
CO: 0 to 1790 ppm
Other: O2: 7.5 -16.7% CO2: 6.8 -16.0%
PIC's: Not evaluated
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
B-108
-------
3M
Date of Trial Burn: October 10-17, 1984 HCI: 0.35 Ib/h; 99.9% removal (see Comment d)
_ .. .. Particulate: 0.0479 gr/dscf @ 7% 02
Run No': 1 THC: Not evaluated
Equipment Information CO: 250 to 500 ppm
Type of unit: Incinerator - rotary kiln with a sec- Other: 02: 8.7 -12.5% C02: 4.5 -10.0%
ondary chamber PIC's: Not evaluated
Commercial Private 2L Reference(s): See Run 1
Capacity: 90 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: Wet ESP, venturi scrub- Comments: See Run 1
ber, and packed tower mist eliminator
Waste feed system: ^ F,ow Diagram: See Run 1
Containerized and bulk wastes - feed chute into
kiln
Pumpable organic wastes - burner nozzles at
kiln and secondary chamber
Pumpable aqueous wastes - lance at front end
of kiln
Residence time: Not reported
Trial Burn Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Miscellaneous (aque-
ous, pumpable organic, and bulk and con-
tainerized wastes)
Length of burn: ~2 h (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 17,570 Ib/h (Total of all waste,
including the spike solution)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
Carbon tetrachloride 0.596 wt. % Includes the
(CCI4) POHC's in the
spike solution;
see Comments
b ande
1,1,2-trichloroethane 1.066 wt. % Includes the
(1,1,2TCE) POHC's in the
spike solution;
see Comments
b and e
Btu content: See Comment b
Ash content: See Comment b
Chlorine content: See Comment b
Moisture content: See Comment b
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1885°F (Kiln), 1480°F (Sec-
ondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: None
Excess air: Not reported
Monitoring Methods: Same as Run 1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: CCI4 -99.999% ORE
1,1,2-TCE - 99.999% ORE
B-709
-------
3M
Date of Trial Burn: October 10-17, 1984
Run No.: 8
Equipment Information
Type of unit: Incinerator - rotary kiln with a sec-
ondary chamber
Commercial Private 2L
Capacity: 90 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: Wet ESP, venturi scrub-
ber, and packed tower mist eliminator
Waste feed system:
Containerized and bulk wastes -feed chute into
kiln
Pumpable organic wastes - burner nozzles at
kiln and secondary chamber
Pumpable aqueous wastes - lance at front end
of kiln
Residence time: Not reported
Trial Burn Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Miscellaneous (aque-
ous, pumpable organic, and containerized
wastes)
Length of burn: ~2 h (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 14,360 Ib/h (Total of all waste,
including the spike solution)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
Carbon tetrachloride
(CCI4)
1,1,2-trichloroethane
(1,1,2 TCE)
0.990 wt. % Includes the
POHC's in the
spike solution;
see Comments
b and e
1.771 wt. % Includes the
POHC's in the
spike solution;
see Comments
b and e
Btu content: See Comment b
Ash content: See Comment b
Chlorine content: See Comment b
Moisture content: See Comment b
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1930°F (Kiln), 1610°F
(Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: None
Excess air: Not reported
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: CCI4 -99.999% ORE
1,1,2-TCE - 99.998% ORE
HCI: 1.21 Ib/h; 99.7% removal (see Comment d)
Particulate: 0.1541 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: Not evaluated
CO: 10 to 800 ppm
Other: O2: 4.0 -11.5% CO2: 5.5 -15.3%
PIC's: Not evaluated
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
8-770
-------
Date of Trial Burn: October 10-17, 1984
Run No.: 9
Equipment Information
Type of unit: Incinerator - rotary kiln with a sec-
ondary chamber
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 90 x 10s Btuh
Pollution control system: Wet ESP, venturi scrub-
ber, and packed tower mist eliminator
Waste feed system:
Containerized and bulk wastes -feed chute into
kiln
Pumpable organic wastes - burner nozzles at
kiln and secondary chamber
Pumpable aqueous wastes - lance at front end
of kiln
Residence time: Not reported
Trial Burn Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Miscellaneous (aque-
ous, pumpable organic, and containerized
wastes)
Length of burn: ~2 h (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 13,120 Ib/h (Total of all waste,
including the spike solution)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
Carbon tetrachloride
(CCI4)
1,1,2-trichloroethane
(1,1,2TCE)
0.881 wt. % Includes the
POHC's in the
spike solution;
see Comments
b and e
1.300 wt. % Includes the
POHC's in the
spike solution;
see Comments
b and e
Btu content: See Comment b
Ash content: See Comment b
Chlorine content: See Comment b
Moisture content: See Comment b
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1925°F (Kiln), 1500°F
(Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: None
Excess air: Not reported
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: CCI4 -99.998% ORE
1,1,2-TCE - 99.998% ORE
3M
HCI: 0.69 Ib/h; 99.8% removal (see Comment d)
Particulate: 0.0777 gr/dscf @ 7% 02
THC: Not evaluated
CO: 30 to 2000 ppm
Other: 02: 4.3 -13.7% C02: 3.8 -16.0%
PIC's: Not evaluated
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
8-777
-------
3M
Date of Trial Bum: October 70-77, 7984
Run No.: 10
Equipment Information
Type of unit: Incinerator - rotary kiln with a sec-
ondary chamber
Commercial Private 2L
Capacity: 90 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: Wet ESR venturi scrub-
ber, and packed tower mist eliminator
Waste feed system:
Containerized and bulkwastes-feed chute into
kiln
Pumpable organic wastes - burner nozzles at
kiln and secondary chamber
Pumpable aqueous wastes - lance at front end
of kiln
Residence time: Not reported
Trial Burn Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Miscellaneous (aque-
ous, pumpable organic, and containerized
wastes)
Length of burn: ~2 h (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 14,030 Ib/h (Total of all waste,
including the spike solution)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
Carbon tetrachloride
(ecu
1,1,2-trichloroethane
(1,1,2TCE)
1.021 wt. % Includes the
POHC's in the
spike solution;
see Comments
b and e
1.631 wt. % Includes the
POHC's in the
spike solution;
see Comments
b and e
Btu content: See Comment b
Ash content: See Comment b
Chlorine content: See Comment b
Moisture content: See Comment b
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1890°F (Kiln), 1400°F (Sec-
ondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: None
Excess air: Not reported
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: CCI4
1,1,2-TCE
HCI: 0.77 Ib/h; 99.7% removal (see Comment d)
Particulate: 0.0798 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: Not evaluated
CO: 30 to 2000 ppm
Other: O2: 6.5 -12.6% CO2: 4.5 -16.2%
PIC's: Not evaluated
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
- 99.999% ORE
- 99.999% ORE
8-772
-------
TRADE WASTE
Summary of Test Data for Trade Waste Incineration, Inc.
Saugett, Illinois
Date of Test: February 2-5, 1983
Run No.: 1 Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Primary and secondary
chambers
Commercial _X_ Private
Capacity: 9.9 x 10s Btuh during test run
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber and
mist eliminator (packed bed scrubber)
Waste feed system: Liquids pumped from stor-
age tanks; solids are fed with a ram
Residence time: 4.7 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Aqueous, liquid
organic, and solid (ink sludge) wastes
Length of burn: 2 h (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 33.4 Ib/min
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
SEE EMISSION AND ORE RESULTS
Btu content: 3,640 Btu/lb
Ash content: 23.7%
Chlorine content: 0.858%
Moisture content: 51.3%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 2078°F (Primary cham-
ber); 2030°F (Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: Fuel Oil (2.2 Ib/min)
Excess air: 12.4% O2
Monitoring Methods:
Waste feed (1, 2, and 3)a: One composite per liq-
uid waste per run made up of grab samples
taken every 15 minutes during run; for solid
feed, a composite of grab samples taken from
every batch
Fuel oil (4): One grab sample per run
Combustion Emissions (11):
Volatile POHC's and PIC's: Gas bags (Runs 1, 2,
3, 4, 6, and 7) and VOST (all runs) (Fast and
Slow)
Semivolatile POHC's and PIC's: Modified
Method 5 (Runs 1-4 only)
HCI: Modified Method 5 (Runs 1-4 only)
Particulate: Modified Method 5 (Runs 1-4 only)
Metals: Modified Method 5 (Runs 1-4 only)
C02 and 02: Gas bag for Orsat analysis
Continuous monitors:
CO2 - Horiba Model PIR-2000S (NDIR)
CO - Beckman Model 215A (NDIR)
02 - Beckman Model 742 (polarographic
sensor)
THC - Beckman Model 402 (FID)
Dioxins: Not monitored
Water Samples: Grab and composite samples of
well water (6), city water (7), recirculating water
(8), return water (9), and solids (10) in recir-
culating water tank. Analyzed for POHC's, pH,
and/or metals.
•Numbers in parentheses referto sampling locations shown in Process
Flow Diagram.
B-1T3
-------
TRADE WASTE
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Volatiles
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
Methylene bromide
1,1,1-lrichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Semivolatiles
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate
Chlordane
Naphthalene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Concentration in
waste feed, wt. %'
0.00627b
0.00224"
0.0244
0.00792"
0.198
0.178
1.52
0.00567"
7.92
0.00858"
0.00660"
0.00429"
0.462
<0.000660"
<0.000660"
"Includes POHC input from the fuel oil.
"<100 M.g/g
cNot reported.
HCI: 0.298 Ib/h
Paniculate: 0.0751 gr/dscf @ 7% 02
THC: 2.5 ppm avg.
CO: 4.3 ppm avg.
Other: O2: 12.4% avg. CO2: 6.6% avg.
Metals: See comments
PIC's:
Fast VOST
>99.918
>99.944
>99.9987
99.966
>99.9984
>99.9962
99.9983
99.965
99.99946
99.965
ORE, %
Slow VOST
>99.30
98.0
99.9941
99.80
99.9963
99.9930
99.9963
99.79
99.9986
99.65
Gas bag
99.48
97.8
99.9954
>99.75
99.99946
>99.992
99.9963
99.74
99.9977
99.46
Modified
Method S
99.99
99.951
>99.9998
c
c
Emissions, g/min
PIC
Volatiles
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
Bromoform
Semivolatiles
Naphthalene
'Grab sample.
"Not reported.
Fast VOST, avg.
0.000065
0.000026
b
b
Slow VOST, avg.
b
b
b
b
Gas bag"
0.00097
0.000073
0.000037
0.00014
Modified
Method 5
0.0035
Referencefs): Trenholm, A., P. Gorman, and G.
Jungclaus. Performance Evaluation
of Full-Scale Hazardous Waste Incin-
erator. Final Report, Volumes II and
IV. EPA Contract No. 68-02-3177 to
Midwest Research Institute, Kansas
City, MO. EPA Project Officer - Mr.
Don Oberacker, Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH 45268. November
1984.
B-114
-------
TRADE WASTE
Comments: The TWI incinerator was more thor-
oughly tested than any of the other
seven incinerators in this EPA test
series. The fuel oil used at TWI was
analyzed and found to contain 8 of
the 10 POHC's tested. For 4 of the 8
POHC's, the fuel oil accounted for a
significant percentage of the total
POHC input; in one run, fuel oil
accounted for 73% of the total POHC
input.
Naphthalene is treated as a POHC in
Run 4 because of its presence in the
waste feed in concentrations >100
(ig/g; in Runs 1-3, it was treated as a
PIC because its waste concentration
was <100 ng/g.
Runs 1-4 were apparently conducted
under normal operating conditions.
Paniculate and chlorine emissions
from Runs 1-4 were within RCRA
standards. The average temperature
of Run 4 was lower than that of Runs
1-3. The waste feed rates of Runs 6-8
were increased and combustion air
altered in a deliberate attempt to
increase the CO and THC emissions.
Runs 6, 7, 8A, and 8B were only 20
minutes long, and no MM5 sampling
was done. Run 5 was not reported.
B-115
-------
TRADE WASTE
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Combustion chamber diagram.
ID = 7.7',
_ 13.2' T/C_
* 1 Combustion Chamb
1 Avg. Measured Terr
LM^-e-
er 1
p. 1960°F
_ I
\Cyclone /
Separator
\ /
Ignition Chamber
Avg. Measured Temp.
2000°F
17-7' Fuel Oil
Note:
T/Cs extend inside,
2" post refractory
V
Quench
Organic
Waste
Solids
Aqueous Waste
(on opposite side
from organic waste)
Summary of sampling locations and schematic of entire system.
j Liquid i
Organic
Waste
IstorageJ
, *fT~
Feed
Tank
Liquid
Aqueous'
Waste
Storage
-T j ->
Kn .ire-
\£j Quench
Fuel Oil Section
Solids Feed Room
I
ihj Makeup
|Bin| Well
Water
(20 gpm)*
*Well water was used as makeup for demisters in Runs 1 and 2. City water w'as used as makeup
for the quench and scrubber in Runs 1 and 2 and for all makeup purposes in the remaining runs.
.Caustic Added
as Needed
B-116
-------
TRADE WASTE
Date of Test: February 2-5, 1983
Run No.: 2
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Primary and secondary
chambers
Commercial _X_ Private
Capacity: 11.08 x 10s Btuh during test run
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber and
mist eliminator (packed bed scrubber)
Waste feed system: Liquids pumped from stor-
age tanks; solids are fed with a ram
Residence time: 3.5 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Aqueous, liquid
organic, and solid (ink sludge) wastes
Length of burn: 2 h (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 28.0 Ib/min
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
SEE EMISSION AND ORE RESULTS
Btu content: 4,450 Btu/lb
Ash content: 32.3%
Chlorine content: 1.34%
Moisture content: 38.9%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 2030°F (Primary cham-
ber); 2000°F (Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: Fuel Oil (3.1 Ib/min)
Excess air: 13.0% O2
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
B-117
-------
TRADE WASTE
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Volatiles
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
Methylene bromide
1,1,1-trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Semivotatiles
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate
Chlordane
Naphthalene
Hexachlorobutadiene
ORE, %
Concentration in
waste feed, wt. %'
%
0.00762"
0.00283"
0.126
0.0110
0.228
0.212
1.18
0.00636 b
4.08
0.0102
0.00786"
0.00511 "
0.660
<0.000786"
<0.000786"
Fast VOST
99.71
98.2
99.9956
99.81
>99.9983
99.9945
99.989
99.78
99.9908
99.70
S/owVOST
99.930
97.4
99.9948
99.72
99.9984
99.9938
99.9938
99.74
99.9964
99.74
Gas bag
99.48
97.8
>99.9995
>99.951
>99.9995
>99.985
>99.99924
>99.963
>99.99975
>99.9928
Modified
Method S
>99.99
99.960
>99.9999
c
c
"Includes POHC input from the fuel oil.
>><100>g/g
°Not reported.
HCI: 0.355 Ib/h
Particulate: 0.1270 gr/dscf @ 7% 02
THC: 1.9 ppm, avg.
CO: 0.9 ppm, avg.
Other: O2: 13.0% avg. CO2: 6.2% avg.
Metals: See comments
PIC's:
Emissions, g/min
PIC
Volatiles
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
Bromoform
Semivolatiles
Naphthalene
•Grab sample.
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
Fast VOST, avg.
0.00084
0.00058
0.00029
0.0020
Slow VOST, avg.
0.0007
0.0016
0.0011
0.0044
Gas bag"
0.00030
0.00039
0.000093
0.00054
Modified
Methods
0.0017
8-778
-------
TRADE WASTE
Date of Test: February 2-5, 1983
Run No.: 3
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Primary and secondary
chambers
Commercial A. Private
Capacity: 12.08 x 106 Btuh during test run
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber and
mist eliminator (packed bed scrubber)
Waste feed system: Liquids pumped from stor-
age tanks; solids are fed with a ram
Residence time: 3.5 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Aqueous, liquid
organic, and solid (ink sludge) wastes
Length of burn: 2 h (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 23.0 Ib/min
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
SEE EMISSION AND ORE RESULTS
Btu content: 4,380 Btu/lb
Ash content: 35.7%
Chlorine content: 1.25%
Moisture content: 37.0%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 2070°F (Primary cham-
ber); 2030°F (Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: Fuel Oil (5.2 Ib/min)
Excess air: 13.2% O2
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
0-779
-------
TRADE WASTE
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Volatiles
Methylene chloride
Chloroform
Methylene bromide
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Semivolatiles
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate
Chlordane
Naphthalene
Hexachlorobutadiene
DR£, %
Concentration in
waste feed, wt. %'
0.0210
0.00201"
0.172
0.0105
0.277
0.277
1.43
0.0124
9.56
0.00956"
0.00956 "
0.00574b
0.736
<0.000956b
<0.000956"
Fast VOST
99.88
97.8
99.964
99.86
>99.9987
99.9917
99.984
99.88
99.9963
99.956
S/owVOST
99.87
97.4
99.975
99.82
99.9988
99.9978
99.9911
99.88
O9.998
99.940
Gas bag
>99.88
>99.68
99.9949
>99.943
>99.99930
>99.9932
99.9966
>99.930
99.99912
>99.986
Modified
Method 5
>99.99
99.940
> 99.9999
c
c
Includes POHC input from the fuel oil.
»<100 ng/g in the waste.
°Not reported.
HCI: 0.553 Ib/h
Paniculate: 0.0479 gr/dscf @ 7% 02
THC: 1.7 ppm, avg.
CO: 1.2 ppm, avg.
Other: 02: 13.2% avg. C02: 6.1% avg.
Metals: See comments
PIC's:
Emissions, g/min
PIC
Volatiles
Bromochlorometnane
Bromodichloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
Bromoform
Semivolatiles
Naphthalene
Fast VOST, avg.
0.0010
0.0012
0.0011
0.010
Slow VOST, avg.
0.00085
0.0012
0.001
0.008
Gas bag"
<0.00005
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.00022
Modified
Methods
0.00058
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
B-120
-------
TRADE WASTE
Date of Test: February 2-5, 1983
Run No.: 4
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Primary and secondary
chambers
Commercial JL Private
Capacity: 9.98 x 106 Btuh during test run
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber and
mist eliminator (packed bed scrubber)
Waste feed system: Liquids pumped from stor-
age tanks; solids are fed with a ram
Residence time: 3.0 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Aqueous, liquid
organic, and solid (ink sludge) wastes
Length of burn: 2 h (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 16.8 Ib/min
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
SEE EMISSION AND ORE RESULTS
Btu content: 6,920 Btu/lb
Ash content: 15.9%
Chlorine content: 3.41%
Moisture content: 38.4%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1810°F (Primary cham-
ber); 1770°F (Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: Fuel Oil (2.6 Ib/min)
Excess air: 15.6% O2
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
B-121
-------
TRADE WASTE
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Volatiles
Methylene Chloride
Chloroform
Methylene Bromide
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Semivolatiles
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Bis-(2-ethylhexyl)-phthalate
Chlordane
Naphthalene
Hexachlorobutadiene
ORE,
•Includes POHC input from the fuel oil.
"<100 (ig/g
cNot reported.
dSIow VOST not used in this run.
Concentration in
waste feed, wt. %'
0.0116
0.00654"
0.159
0.06510
0.379
0.353
0.889
0.0183
6.01
0.00470"
0.693
0.00261b
<0.00131"
0.379
0.0144
Fast VOST
99.63
99.78
99.982
99.82
>99.99903
>99.9989
99.988
99.982
99.9922
99.966
Slow VOST
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
Gas bag
>99.05
99.49
99.968
>99.51
>99.9988
>99.9937
99.982
>99.936
99.985
>99.90
Modified
Method 5
>99.9996
99.88
c
99.996
>99.98
HCI: 0.216 Ib/h
Paniculate: 0.0443 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: <1 ppm avg.
CO: <1 ppm avg.
Other: O2: 15.6% avg. CO2: 3.9% avg.
PIC's:
Emissions, g/min
PIC
Volatiles
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
Bromoform
Semivolatiles
Naphthalene
"Slow VOST not used in this run.
"Not reported.
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
Fast VOST, avg.
0.0011
0.00059
0.00037
0.0016
Slow VOST, avg.
Gas bag"
0.0020
0.0011
0.0012
0.0090
Modified
Method 5
B-122
-------
TRADE WASTE
Date of Test: February 2-5, 1983
Run No.: 6
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Primary and secondary
chambers
Commercial -X. Private
Capacity: Not reported
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber and
mist eliminator (packed bed scrubber)
Waste feed system: Liquids pumped from stor-
age tanks; solids are fed with a ram
Residence time: 3.0 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Aqueous and liquid
organic wastes. No solids were fed during this
run.
Length of burn: 20 min
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported;
total heat input from waste feed was 9.0 x 108
Btuh
Waste feed rate: 25.3 Ib/min
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
SEE EMISSION AND ORE RESULTS
Btu content: 5,930 Btu/lb
Ash content:
Chlorine content:
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 2230°F (Primary cham-
ber); 2110°F (Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: Fuel Oil
Excess air: 13.1% O2
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
B-123
-------
TRADE WASTE
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Methylene Chloride
Chloroform
Methylene Bromide
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
alncludes POHC input from the fuel oil.
b <100 (ig/g
ORE. %
Concentration in
waste feed, wt. %'
0.013
0.0082"
0.322
0.016
0.209
0.956
2.52
0.0041"
8.52
0.0174
S/owVOST
99.51
99.10
99.974
99.88
99.9926
99.989
99.990
99.64
O9.9979
99.60
Gas bag
>99.50
99.69
99.9942
>99.935
99.9973
>99.9924
>99.9910
>99.77
99.9970
99.79
HCI: Not tested
Paniculate: Not tested
THC: 2 ppm, avg.
CO: 2 ppm, avg.
Other: O2: 13.1% avg. CO2: 5.9% avg.
PIC's:
PIC
Emissions, g/min
SlowVOST Gasbag-
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane"
Dibromochloromethane3
Bromoform
'These compountds may have been stripped from the scrubber
water.
0.00029
0.00098
0.0012
0.039
0.00024
0.0019
0.0016
0.0079
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
B-124
-------
TRADE WASTE
Date of Test: February 2-5, 1983
Run No.: 7
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Primary and secondary
chambers
Commercial 1L Private
Capacity:
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber and
mist eliminator (packed bed scrubber)
Waste feed system: Liquids pumped from stor-
age tanks; solids are fed with a ram
Residence time: 3.0 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Aqueous and liquid
organic wastes. No solids were fed during this
run.
Length of burn: 20 min
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported.
Total heat input from waste feed was 10.9 x 106
Btuh
Waste feed rate: 30.3 Ib/min
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
HCI: Not tested
Particulate: Not tested
THC: 2 ppm, avg.
CO: 23 ppm, avg.
Other: O2: 12.4% avg. CO2: 6.4% avg.
PIC's:
Emissions, g/min
PIC
SlowVOST
Gas bag
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethane"
Dibromochloromethane"
Bromoform
0.00053 0.000058
0.00056 <0.0002
0.00053 0.000083
0.040 0.0046
•These compounds may have been stripped from the scrubber
water.
Reference(s): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
SEE EMISSION AND ORE RESULTS
Btu content: 6,000 Btu/lb
Ash content:
Chlorine content:
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 2020°F (Primary cham-
ber); 2050°F (Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: Fuel Oil
Excess air: 12.4% O2
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Methylene Chloride
Chloroform
Methylene Bromide
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Concentration in
waste feed, wt. %•
0.0109
0.00478"
0.319
0.00870"
0.377
0.290
2.54
0.00377
8.55
0.0152
ORE,
S/owVOST*
99.53
99.02
99.9936
99.84
> 99.9987
99.9926
99.9950
99.81
09.9976
99.73
Gas bag c
>99.66
>99.986
99.9989
>99.72
>99.99958
99.9938
99.9932
>99.84
99.9990
99.64
Includes POHC input from the fuel oil.
XlOOng/g
"Slow VOST data only; other sampling
methods not used in this run.
B-125
-------
TRADE WASTE
Date of Test: February 2-5, 1983
Run No.: 8A
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Primary and secondary
chambers
Commercial A. Private
Capacity:
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber and
mist eliminator (packed bed scrubber)
Waste feed system: Liquids pumped from stor-
age tanks; solids are fed with a ram
Residence time: 2.8 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Aqueous, liquid
organic, and solid high-Btu ink sludge wastes
Length of burn: 20 min
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported.
Total heat input from waste feed was 8.8 x 106
Btuh.
Waste feed rate: 20.3 Ib/min
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
SEE EMISSION AND ORE RESULTS
Btu content: 7,220 Btu/lb
Ash content:
Chlorine content:
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 2050°F (Primary cham-
ber); 2120°F (Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: Fuel Oil
Excess air: 14.2% 02
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Methylene Chloride
Chloroform
Methylene Bromide
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Concentration in
waste feed, wt. %*
0.00832"
0.00443"
0.292
0.0162
0.530
0.670
3.24
b
11.03
0.0184
Includes POHC input from the fuel oil.
bWaste feed concentration was <100 ng/g.
"Slow VOST data only; other sampling methods not used in this run.
HCI: Not tested
Particulate: Not tested
THC: 2 ppm, avg.
CO: 63 ppm, avg.
Other: 02: 14.2% avg. C02: 5.7% avg.
PIC's:
Pic
Bromochlorometnane
Bromodichloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
Bromoform
Emissions, g/min*
<0.00006
<0.0001
<0.0001
0.0028
aData from Slow VOST only; gas bags not used.
"These compounds may have been stripped from scrubber water.
Referencefs): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
ORE, %
Slow VOST
>99.83
>99.88
99.99981
99.47
99.9966
>99.99921
99.99952
b
99.99959
99.978
B-126
-------
TRADE WASTE
Date of Test: February 2-5, 1983
Run No.: 8B
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - Primary and secondary
chambers
Commercial -X- Private
Capacity:
Pollution control system: Venturi scrubber and
mist eliminator (packed bed scrubber)
Waste feed system: Liquids pumped from stor-
age tanks; solids are fed with a ram
Residence time: 2.8 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Aqueous, liquid
organic, and solid high-Btu ink sludge wastes
Length of burn: 20 min
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported.
Total heat input from waste feed was 9.9 x 106
Btuh
Waste feed rate: 25.1 Ib/min
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
SEE EMISSION AND ORE RESULTS
Btu content: 6,570 Btu/lb
Ash content:
Chlorine content:
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 2040°F (Primary cham-
ber); 2140°F (Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: Fuel Oil
Excess air: 13.5% O2
Monitoring Methods: See Run 1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
"Includes POHC input from the fuel oil.
"Waste feed concentration was <100 |ig/g.
•Slow VOST data only; other sampling methods not used in this run.
HCI: Not tested
Particulate: Not tested
THC: 2 ppm, avg.
CO: 120 ppm, avg.
Other: 02: 13.5% avg. C02: 6.7% avg.
PIC's:
PIC
Bromochloromethane
Bromodichloromethaneb
Dibromochloromethaneb
Bromoform
Emissions, g/min"
0.00077
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
'Data from Slow VOST only; gas bags not used.
These compounds may have been stripped from scrubber water.
Referencefs): See Run 1
Comments: See Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
POHC
Methylene Chloride
Chloroform
Methylene Bromide
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Concentration in
waste feed, wt. %*
0.00881"
0.00476"
0.326
0.0123
0.440
0.555
2.91
0.00440"
9.87
0.0167
S/owVOST
>99.90
>99.92
>99.99992
99.87
99.9951
>99.99924
>99.99979
99.966
99.99988
> 99.9949
ORE, %
B-127
-------
UNION CARBIDE
Summary of Test Data for Union Carbide
South Charleston, West Virginia
Date of Trial Burn: April 3-18, 1984 Emission and ORE Results:
Run Nn • 1 POHC's: ORE:
nun no.. Monochlorobenzene (MCB) - 99.99961%
Test Sponsor: Union Carbide Tetrachloroethylene (TCE) - >99.99972%
Equipment information: 1,2DCB (DCB) - 99.99923%
Type of unit: Incinerator - special design - 1°, 2° & Hexachloroethane (HCE) - 99.999973%
3° chambers - Brule Model FG4-T20 HC,: HC) = 13-7 mg/dscm @ 98.15o/0 removal
Commercial _ Private 2L Paniculate: 0.0943 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
Capacity: 6 x106Btu/h but operated at 8 to 11 x106 THC:
2
_ „ . , CO: Approximately 5 ppm
Pollution control system: Quenching and packed- Other- 0 -16 95%
bed scrubber (counterflow) PIC's: Benzene
Waste feed system: 3 mechanisms: smaller bot- Referenced): Union Carbide trial burn dated July
ties of waste fed by ram; larger containers are 17 1934
aspirated by nozzles; drum-sized material is Contact J.K. Petros in South Charles-
pumped by nozzles tori( West Virginia, (304) 747-5209 (in-
Residence time: 1.84 seconds house test)
Test Conditions: Comments: 70 to 80% of heat load from drums
Waste feed data: pumped via spray nozzles, 10 to 15%
Type of waste(s) burned: Wide variety, but from air aspiration of bottles, the
classed D001 and P&U wastes. Spent solvents remainder from smaller bottles
constitute a large portion of waste
Length of burn: 3 hours
Total amount of waste burned: Ignitable - 273 Ib,
Bottle -173 Ib, Air aspir. -120 Ib, Drum - 598 Ib
Waste feed rate: Ignitable - 91 Ib/h, Bottle - 57.6 Ib/
h. Air aspir. - 40 Ib/h, Drum -191 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
Hexachloroethane (HCE) 74.6 Ib
Tetrachloroethylene (TCE) 16.7 Ib
1,2 DCB (DCB) 58.2 Ib
Monochlorobenzene (MCB) 16.3 Ib
Btu content: 9172 Btu/lb
Ash content:
Chlorine content: 0.56%
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions: 3rd chamber
Temperature: Range 1590° to 1630°F
Average 1600°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 13.8% 02
Other:
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: Modified Method 5
HCI: Modified Method 5
Particulate: Modified Method 5
Other: CO - Ecolyzer (electro-chemical cell) and
Beckman NDIR
8-728
-------
UNION CARBIDE
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Secondary Chamber (afterburner)
Burner (at back)
Stack
Barometric Damper
Overfire
Air Blower
Alternate ^|~
Fuel Burner ^
Primary
Burner
Charging
Ram
Demister
Primary Chamber
Air
Secondary
and
Tertiary
Chambers
Thermocouples
Packed Bed
Scrubber
Quench Scrubber
l_
Charge Door
Waste Feed Line
B-129
-------
UNION CARBIDE
Date of Trial Burn: April 3-18, 1984
Run No.: 2
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Special design -1°, 2° &3° chambers
- Brule Model FG4-T20
Commercial Private X
Capacity: 6 x 106 Btu/h but operated at 8 to 11 x 106
Btu/h
Pollution control system: Quenching and packed-
bed scrubber (counter-flow)
Waste feed system: 3 mechanisms: smaller bot-
tles of waste fed by ram; larger containers are
aspirated by nozzles; drum-sized material is
pumped by nozzles
Residence time: 1.70 seconds
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Wide variety, but
classed D001 and P&U wastes. Spent solvents
constitute a large portion of waste
Length of burn: 2.16 hours
Total amount of waste burned: Ignitable - 373 Ib,
Bottle -122 Ib, Air aspir. - 83.3 Ib, Drum - 415 Ib
Waste feed rate: Ignitable -173 Ib/h, Bottle - 57.6
Ib/h, Air aspir. - 40 Ib/h, Drum -192 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: ORE:
Monochlorobenzene (MCB) - 99.99962%
Tetrachloroethylene (TCE) - >99.99975%
1,2DCB (DCB) - >99.9999%
Hexachloroethane (HCE) - >99.9999%
HCI: HCI = 13.5 mg/dscm @ 98.10% removal
Particulate: 0.0729 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC:
CO: Approximately 5 ppm
Other: 02 -16.7%
PIC's: Benzene
Referencefs): Union Carbide trial burn dated July
17,1984
Contact J.K. Petros in South Charles-
ton, West Virginia, (304) 747-5209 (in-
house test)
Comments: 70 to 80% of heat load from drums
pumped via spray nozzles, 10 to 15%
from air aspiration of bottles, the
remainder from smaller bottles
Process Flow Diagram: See Data Sheet for Run No. 1
Name
Concentration
Hexachloroethane (HCE) 19.5 Ib
Tetrachloroethylene (TCE) 19.6 Ib
1,2 DCB (DCB) 15.3 Ib
Monochlorobenzene (MCB) 19.1 Ib
Btu content: 9,165 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.055%
Chlorine content: 0.22%
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1584° to 1616°F
Average 1600°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 13.6% 02
Other:
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: Modified Method 5
HCI: Modified Method 5
Particulate: Modified Method 5
Other: CO - Ecolyzer (electro-chemical cell) and
Beckman NDIR
B-130
-------
UNION CARBIDE
Date of Trial Burn: April 3-18, 1984
Run No.: 3
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Special design -1°, 2° & 3° chambers
- Brule Model FG4-T20
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 6 x 106 Btu/h but operated at 8 to 11 x 106
Btu/h
Pollution control system: Quenching and packed-
bed scrubber (counterflow)
Waste feed system: 3 mechanisms: smaller bot-
tles of waste fed by ram; larger containers are
aspirated by nozzles; drum-sized material is
pumped by nozzles
Residence time: 1.57 seconds
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Wide variety, but
classed D001 and P&U wastes. Spent solvents
constitute a large portion of waste
Length of burn: 3 hours
Total amount of waste burned: Ignitable - 666 Ib,
Bottle -173 Ib, Air aspir. -120 Ib, Drum - 613 Ib
Waste feed rate: Ignitable - 222 Ib/h, Bottle - 57.6
Ib/h, Air aspir. - 40 Ib/h, Drum - 204 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: ORE:
Monochlorobenzene (MCB) - 99.99979%
Tetrachloroethylene (TCE) - >99.99984%
1,2DCB (DCB) - 99.99986%
Hexachloroethane (HCE) - >99.9999%
1 97.91% removal
) 7% O2
HCI: HCI = 16.9 mg/dscm (
Particulate: 0.0698 gr/dscf i
THC:
CO: Approximately 5 ppm
Other: O2 -16.4%
PIC's: Benzene
Reference(s): Union Carbide trial burn dated July
17, 1984
Contact J.K. Petros in South Charles-
ton, West Virginia, (304) 747-5209 (in-
house test)
Comments: 70 to 80% of heat load from drums
pumped via spray nozzles, 10 to 15%
from air aspiration of bottles, the
remainder from smaller bottles
Process Flow Diagram: See Data Sheet for Run No. 1
Name
Concentration
Hexachloroethane (HCE) 27.7 Ib
Tetrachloroethylene (TCE) 28.8 Ib
1,2 DCB (DCB) 21.6lb
Monochlorobenzene (MCB) 28.1 Ib
Btu content: 9,129 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.055%
Chlorine content: 0.41%
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1774° to 1835°F
Average 1800°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 12.7% O2
Other:
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: Modified Method 5
HCI: Modified Method 5
Particulate: Modified Method 5
Other: CO - Ecolyzer (electro-chemical cell) and
Beckman NDIR
B-131
-------
UNION CARBIDE
Date of Trial Burn: April 3-18, 1984
Run No.: 4
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Special design -1°, 2° & 3° chambers
- Brule Model FG4-T20
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 6 x 106 Btu/h but operated at 8 to 11 x 106
Btu/h
Pollution control system: Quenching and packed-
bed scrubber (counterflow)
Waste feed system: 3 mechanisms: smaller bot-
tles of waste fed by ram; larger containers are
aspirated by nozzles; drum-sized material is
pumped by nozzles
Residence time: 1.77 seconds
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Wide variety, but
classed D001 and P&U wastes. Spent solvents
constitute a large portion of waste
Length of burn: 3 hours
Total amount of waste burned: Ignitable - 669 Ib,
Bottle -173 Ib, Air aspir. -120 Ib, Drum - 608 Ib
Waste feed rate: Ignitable - 223 Ib/h, Bottle - 57.6
Ib/h, Air aspir. - 40 Ib/h, Drum - 203 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: ORE:
Monochlorobenzene (MCB) - 99.99952%
Tetrachloroethylene (TCE) - >99.99977%
1,2DCB (DCB) - 99.99933%
Hexachloroethane (HCE) - >99.9999%
HCI: HCI = 13.9 mg/dscm @ 98.16% removal
Paniculate: 0.0707 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC:
CO: Approximately 5 ppm
Other: 02 -16.8%
PIC's: Benzene
Reference(s): Union Carbide trial burn dated July
17,1984
Contact J.K. Petros in South Charles-
ton, West Virginia, (304) 747-5209 (in-
house test)
Comments: 70 to 80% of heat load from drums
pumped via spray nozzles, 10 to 15%
from air aspiration of bottles, the
remainder from smaller bottles
Process Flow Diagram: See Data Sheet for Run No. 1
Name
Concentration
Hexachloroethane (HCE) 27.7 Ib
Tetrachloroethylene (TCE) 28.6 Ib
1,2 DCB (DCB) 21.6 Ib
Monochlorobenzene (MCB) 27.9 Ib
Btu content: 9,365 Btu/lb
Ash content:
Chlorine content: 0.12%
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1780° to 1823°F
Average 1800°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 13.2% O2
Other:
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: Modified Method 5
HCI: Modified Method 5
Particulate: Modified Method 5
Other: CO - Ecolyzer (electro-chemical cell) and
Beckman NDIR
B-132
-------
UNION CARBIDE
Date of Trial Burn: April 3-18, 1984
Run No.: 5
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Special design -1°, 2° & 3° chambers
- Brule Model FG4-T20
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 6 x 106 Btu/h but operated at 8 to 11 x 106
Btu/h
Pollution control system: Quenching and packed-
bed scrubber (counterflow)
Waste feed system: 3 mechanisms: smaller bot-
tles of waste fed by ram; larger containers are
aspirated by nozzles; drum-sized material is
pumped by nozzles
Residence time: 1.88 seconds
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Wide variety, but
classed D001 and P&U wastes. Spent solvents
constitute a large portion of waste
Length of burn: 3 hours
Total amount of waste burned: Ignitable - 819 Ib,
Bottle -173 Ib, Air aspir. -120 Ib, Drum - 595 Ib
Waste feed rate: Ignitable - 273 Ib/h, Bottle - 57.6
Ib/h, Air aspir. - 40 Ib/h, Drum -198 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: ORE:
Monochlorobenzene (MCB) - 99.99935%
Tetrachloroethylene (TCE) - >99.99977%
1,2DCB (DCB) - 99.99957%
Hexachloroethane (HCE) - >99.9999%
HCI: HCI = 13.4 mg/dscm @ 98.26% removal
Paniculate: 0.0611 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC:
CO: Approximately 5 ppm
Other: O2 -16.7%
PIC's: Benzene
Referencefs): Union Carbide trial burn dated July
17,1984
Contact J.K. Petros in South Charles-
ton, West Virginia, (304) 747-5209 (in-
house test)
Comments: 70 to 80% of heat load from drums
pumped via spray nozzles, 10 to 15%
from air aspiration of bottles, the
remainder from smaller bottles
Process Flow Diagram: See Data Sheet for Run No. 1
Name
Concentration
Hexachloroethane (HCE) 27.7 Ib
Tetrachloroethylene (TCE) 28.1 Ib
1,2 DCB (DCB) 21.6 Ib
Monochlorobenzene (MCB) 27.4 Ib
Btu content: 9,300 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.003%
Chlorine content: 0.15%
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1763° to 1815°F
Average 1800°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 12.6% O2
Other:
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: Modified Method 5
HCI: Modified Method 5
Particulate: Modified Method 5
Other: CO - Ecolyzer (electro-chemical cell) and
Beckman NDIR
B-133
-------
UNION CARBIDE
Date of Trial Burn: April 3-18, 1984
Run No.: 6
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Special design -1°, 2° & 3° chambers
- Brule Model FG4-T20
Commercial Private .*_
Capacity: 6 x 106 Btu/h but operated at 8 to 11 x 106
Btu/h
Pollution control system: Quenching and packed-
bed scrubber (counterflow)
Waste feed system: 3 mechanisms: smaller bot-
tles of waste fed by ram; larger containers are
aspirated by nozzles; drum-sized material is
pumped by nozzles
Residence time: 1.81 seconds
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Wide variety, but
classed D001 and P&U wastes. Spent solvents
constitute a large portion of waste
Length of burn: 3 hours
Total amount of waste burned: Ignitable - 537 Ib,
Bottle -173 Ib, Air aspir. -120 Ib, Drum - 535.9 Ib
Waste feed rate: Ignitable -179 Ib/h, Bottle - 57.6
Ib/h, Air aspir. - 40 Ib/h, Drum -194 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
Monochlorobenzene (MCB)
Tetrachloroethylene (TCE)
1,2DCB (DCB)
Hexachloroethane (HCE)
ORE:
- 99.99949%
- >99.99986%
99.999923%
- >99.9999%
98.19% removal
) 7% O2
HCI: HCI = 13.8 mg/dscm (
Paniculate: 0.0746 gr/dscf i
THC:
CO: Approximately 5 ppm
Other: 02 -16.5%
PIC's: Benzene
Reference(s): Union Carbide trial burn dated July
17,1984
Contact J.K. Petros in South Charles-
ton, West Virginia, (304) 747-5209 (in-
house test)
Comments: 70 to 80% of heat load from drums
pumped via spray nozzles, 10to 15%
from air aspiration of bottles, the
remainder from smaller bottles
Process Flow Diagram: See Data Sheet for Run No. 1
Name
Concentration
Hexachloroethane (HCE) 27.7 Ib
Tetrachloroethylene (TCE) 27.5 Ib
1,2 DCB (DCB) 21.6 Ib
Monochlorobenzene (MCB) 26.9 Ib
Btu content: 9,300 Btu/lb
Ash content:
Chlorine content: 0.31%
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1792° to 1815°F
Average 1800°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 12.8% O2
Other:
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: Modified Method 5
HCI: Modified Method 5
Particulate: Modified Method 5
Other: CO - Ecolyzer (electro-chemical cell) and
Beckman NDIR
B-134
-------
UNION CARBIDE
Date of Trial Burn: April 3-18, 1984
Run No.: 7
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Special design -1°, 2° & 3° chambers
- Brule Model FG4-T20
Commercial Private .*_
Capacity: 6 x 106 Btu/h but operated at 8 to 11 x 106
Btu/h
Pollution control system: Quenching and packed-
bed scrubber (counterflow)
Waste feed system: 3 mechanisms: smaller bot-
tles of waste fed by ram; larger containers are
aspirated by nozzles; drum-sized material is
pumped by nozzles
Residence time: 1.89 seconds
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Wide variety, but
classed D001 and P&U wastes. Spent solvents
constitute a large portion of waste
Length of burn: 3 hours
Total amount of waste burned: Ignitable -189 Ib,
Bottle -173 Ib, Air aspir. -120 Ib, Drum - 543.3 Ib
Waste feed rate: Ignitable - 63 Ib/h, Bottle - 57.6
Ib/h, Air aspir. - 40 Ib/h, Drum -196 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
Monochlorobenzene (MCB)
Tetrachloroethylene (TCE)
1,2DCB (DCB)
Hexachloroethane (HCE)
ORE:
99.99907%
>99.99966%
99.999944%
>99.9999%
HCI: 8.0 mg/dscm (98.92% removal efficiency)
Paniculate: 0.0659 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC:
CO: Approximately 5 ppm
Other: 02 -17.5%
PIC's: Benzene
Reference(s): Union Carbide trial burn dated July
17,1984
Contact J.K. Petros in South Charles-
ton, West Virginia, (304) 747-5209 (in-
house test)
Comments: 70 to 80% of heat load from drums
pumped via spray nozzles, 10 to 15%
from air aspiration of bottles, the
remainder from smaller bottles
Process Flow Diagram: See Data Sheet for Run No. 1
Name
Concentration
Hexachloroethane (HCE) 27.7 Ib
Tetrachloroethylene (TCE) 27.8 Ib
1,2 DCB (DCB) 21.6 Ib
Monochlorobenzene (MCB) 27.2 Ib
Btu content: 9,301 Btu/lb
Ash content:
Chlorine content: 0.39%
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1591° to 1607°F
Average 1600°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 14.5% O2
Other:
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: Modified Method 5
HCI: Modified Method 5
Particulate: Modified Method 5
Other: CO - Ecolyzer (electro-chemical cell) and
Beckman NDIR
B-135
-------
UNION CARBIDE
Date of Trial Bum: April 3-18, 1984
Run No.: 8
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Special design -1°, 2° & 3° chambers
- Brule Model FG4-T20
Commercial Private X_
Capacity: 6 x 106 Btu/h but operated at 8 to 11 x 106
Btu/h
Pollution control system: Quenching and packed-
bed scrubber (counterflow)
Waste feed system: 3 mechanisms: smaller bot-
tles of waste fed by ram; larger containers are
aspirated by nozzles; drum-sized material is
pumped by nozzles
Residence time: 1.82 seconds
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Wide variety, but
classed D001 and P&U wastes. Spent solvents
constitute a large portion of waste
Length of burn: 3 hours
Total amount of waste burned: Ignitable -159 Ib,
Bottle -173 Ib, Air aspir. -120 Ib, Drum - 542.2 Ib
Waste feed rate: Ignitable - 53 Ib/h, Bottle - 57.6
Ib/h, Air aspir. - 40 Ib/h, Drum -196 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: ORE:
Monochlorobenzene (MCB) - 99.99907%
Tetrachloroethylene (TCE) - >99.99984%
1,2DCB (DCB) - 99.99985%
Hexachloroethane (HCE) - >99.9999%
HCI: 8.5 mg/dscm (98.87% removal efficiency)
Particulate: 0.0475 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC:
CO: Approximately 5 ppm
Other: 02 -17.1%
PIC's: Benzene
Reference(s): Union Carbide trial burn dated July
17, 1984
Contact J.K. Petros in South Charles-
ton, West Virginia, (304) 747-5209 (in-
house test)
Comments: 70 to 80% of heat load from drums
pumped via spray nozzles, 10 to 15%
from air aspiration of bottles, the
remainder from smaller bottles
Process Flow Diagram: See Data Sheet for Run No. 1
Name
Concentration
Hexachloroethane (HCE) 27.7 Ib
Tetrachloroethylene (TCE) 27.8 Ib
1,2 DCB (DCB) 21.6 Ib
Monochlorobenzene (MCB) 27.1 Ib
Btu content: 10,143 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.046%
Chlorine content: 0.62%
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1592° to 1615°F
Average 1600°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 14.1% O2
Other:
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: Modified Method 5
HCI: Modified Method 5
Particulate: Modified Method 5
Other: CO - Ecolyzer (electro-chemical cell) and
Beckman NDIR
B-136
-------
UNION CARBIDE
Date of Trial Burn: April 3-18, 1984
Run No.: 9
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Special design -1°, 2° & 3° chambers
- Brule Model FG4-T20
Commercial Private 2L
Capacity: 6 x 106 Btu/h but operated at 8 to 11 x 106
Btu/h
Pollution control system: Quenching and packed-
bed scrubber (counterflow)
Waste feed system: 3 mechanisms: smaller bot-
tles of waste fed by ram; larger containers are
aspirated by nozzles; drum-sized material is
pumped by nozzles
Residence time: 1.66 seconds
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Wide variety, but
classed D001 and P&U wastes. Spent solvents
constitute a large portion of waste
Length of burn: 3 hours
Total amount of waste burned: Ignitable -198 Ib,
Bottle -173 Ib, Air aspir. -120 Ib, Drum - 544.2 Ib
Waste feed rate: Ignitable - 66 Ib/h, Bottle - 57.6
Ib/h, Air aspir. - 40 Ib/h, Drum -197 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: ORE:
Monochlorobenzene (MCB) - 99.9988%
Tetrachloroethylene (TCE) - >99.99979%
1,2DCB (DCB) - 99.99985%
Hexachloroethane (HCE) - >99.9999%
HCI: 11.2 mg/dscm (98.54% removal efficiency)
Particulate: 0.0567 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC:
CO: Approximately 5 ppm
Other: O2 -16.9%
PIC's: Benzene
Reference(s): Union Carbide trial burn dated July
17,1984
Contact J.K. Petros in South Charles-
ton, West Virginia, (304) 747-5209 (in-
house test)
Comments: 70 to 80% of heat load from drums
pumped via spray nozzles, 10 to 15%
from air aspiration of bottles, the
remainder from smaller bottles
Process Flow Diagram: See Data Sheet for Run No. 1
Name
Concentration
Hexachloroethane (HCE) 27.7 Ib
Tetrachloroethylene (TCE) 27.9 Ib
1,2 DCB (DCB) 21.6 Ib
Monochlorobenzene (MCB) 27.2 Ib
Btu content: 10,171 Btu/lb
Ash content:
Chlorine content: 0.22%
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1596° to 1618°F
Average 1600°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 14.3% 02
Other:
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: Modified Method 5
HCI: Modified Method 5
Particulate: Modified Method 5
Other: CO - Ecolyzer (electro-chemical cell) and
Beckman NDIR
B-137
-------
UNION CARBIDE
Date of Trial Burn: April 3-18, 1984
Run No.: 10
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Special design-1°, 2° & 3° chambers
- Brule Model FG4-T20
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 6 x 106 Btu/h but operated at 8 to 11 x 106
Btu/h
Pollution control system: Quenching and packed-
bed scrubber (counterflow)
Waste feed system: 3 mechanisms: smaller bot-
tles of waste fed by ram; larger containers are
aspirated by nozzles; drum-sized material is
pumped by nozzles
Residence time: 1.73 seconds
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Wide variety, but
classed D001 and P&U wastes. Spent solvents
constitute a large portion of waste
Length of burn: 3 hours
Total amount of waste burned: Ignitable - 966 Ib,
Bottle -173 Ib, Air aspir. -120 Ib, Drum - 528.6 Ib
Waste feed rate: Ignitable - 322 Ib/h, Bottle - 57.6
Ib/h, Air aspir. - 40 Ib/h, Drum -191 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: ORE:
Monochlorobenzene (MCB) - 99.9987%
Tetrachloroethylene (TCE) - >99.99977%
1,2DCB (DCB) - 99.99921%
Hexachloroethane (HCE) - >99.9999%
HCI: 13.2 mg/dscm (98.48% removal efficiency)
Particulate: 0.0559 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC:
CO: Approximately 5 ppm
Other: O2 -16.4%
PIC's: Benzene
Reference(s): Union Carbide trial burn dated July
17, 1984
Contact J.K. Petros in South Charles-
ton, West Virginia, (304) 747-5209 (in-
house test)
Comments: 70 to 80% of heat load from drums
pumped via spray nozzles, 10 to 15%
from air aspiration of bottles, the
remainder from smaller bottles
Process Flow Diagram: See Data Sheet for Run No. 1
Name
Concentration
Hexachloroethane (HCE) 27.7 Ib
Tetrachloroethylene (TCE) 27.2 Ib
1,2 DCB (DCB) 21.6 Ib
Monochlorobenzene (MCB) 26.5 Ib
Btu content: 10,905 Btu/lb
Ash content:
Chlorine content: 1.00%
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1774° to 1820°F
Average 1800°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 12.8% O2
Other:
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: Modified Method 5
HCI: Modified Method 5
Particulate: Modified Method 5
Other: CO - Ecolyzer (electro-chemical cell) and
Beckman NDIR
B-138
-------
UNION CARBIDE
Date of Trial Bum: April 3-18, 1984
Run No. ;11
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Special design -1°, 2° & 3° chambers
- Brule Model FG4-T20
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 6 x 106 Btu/h but operated at 8 to 11 x 106
Btu/h
Pollution control system: Quenching and packed-
bed scrubber (counterflow)
Waste feed system: 3 mechanisms: smaller bot-
tles of waste fed by ram; larger containers are
aspirated by nozzles; drum-sized material is
pumped by nozzles
Residence time: 1.76 seconds
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Wide variety, but
classed D001 and P&U wastes. Spent solvents
constitute a large portion of waste
Length of burn: 3 hours
Total amount of waste burned: Ignitable - 495 Ib,
Bottle -173 Ib, Air aspir. -120 Ib, Drum - 519.3 Ib
Waste feed rate: Ignitable -165 Ib/h, Bottle - 57.6
Ib/h, Air aspir. - 40 Ib/h, Drum -188 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: ORE:
Monochlorobenzene (MCB) - 99.99959%
Tetrachloroethylene (TCE) - >99.99983%
1,2DCB (DCB) - >99.9999%
Hexachloroethane (HCE) - >99.9999%
HCI: 10.8 mg/dscm (98.64% removal efficiency)
Particulate: 0.0546 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC:
CO: Approximately 5 ppm
Other: 02 -17%
PIC's: Benzene
Reference(s): Union Carbide trial burn dated July
17, 1984
Contact J.K. Petros in South Charles-
ton, West Virginia, (304) 747-5209 (in-
house test)
Comments: 70 to 80% of heat load from drums
pumped via spray nozzles, 10 to 15%
from air aspiration of bottles, the
remainder from smaller bottles
Process Flow Diagram: See Data Sheet for Run No. 1
Name
Concentration
Hexachloroethane (HCE) 27.7 Ib
Tetrachloroethylene (TCE) 26.8 Ib
1,2 DCB (DCB) 21.6 Ib
Monochlorobenzene (MCB) 26.2 Ib
Btu content: 10,870 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.0304%
Chlorine content: 0.85%
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1588° to 1603°F
Average 1600°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 14.4% 02
Other:
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: Modified Method 5
HCI: Modified Method 5
Particulate: Modified Method 5
Other: CO - Ecolyzer (electro-chemical cell) and
Beckman NDIR
B-739
-------
UNION CARBIDE
Date of Trial Bum: April 3-18, 1984
Run No.: 12
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Special design -1°, 2° & 3° chambers
- Brule Model FG4-T20
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 6 x 106 Btu/h but operated at 8 to 11 x 106
Btu/h
Pollution control system: Quenching and packed-
bed scrubber (counterflow)
Waste feed system: 3 mechanisms: smaller bot-
tles of waste fed by ram; larger containers are
aspirated by nozzles; drum-sized material is
pumped by nozzles
Residence time: 1.74 seconds
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Wide variety, but
classed D001 and P&U wastes. Spent solvents
constitute a large portion of waste
Length of burn: 3 hours
Total amount of waste burned: Ignitable - 762 Ib,
Bottle -173 Ib, Air aspir. -120 Ib, Drum - 536.8 Ib
Waste feed rate: Ignitable - 254 Ib/h, Bottle - 57.6
Ib/h, Air aspir. - 40 Ib/h, Drum -194 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's: ORE:
Monochlorobenzene (MCB) - 99.99979%
Tetrachloroethylene (TCE) - >99.99985%
1,2DCB (DCB) - >99.9999%
Hexachloroethane (HCE) - >99.9999%
HCI: 13.6 mg/dscm (98.39% removal efficiency)
Particulate: 0.0642 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC:
CO: Approximately 5 ppm
Other: O2 -16.6%
PIC's: Benzene
Reference(s): Union Carbide trial burn dated July
17,1984
Contact J.K. Petros in South Charles-
ton, West Virginia, (304) 747-5209 (in-
house test)
Comments: 70 to 80% of heat load from drums
pumped via spray nozzles, 10 to 15%
from air aspiration of bottles, the
remainder from smaller bottles
Process Flow Diagram: See Data Sheet for Run No. 1
Name
Concentration
Hexachloroethane (HCE) 27.7 Ib
Tetrachloroethylene (TCE) 27.6 Ib
1,2 DCB (DCB) 21.6 Ib
Monochlorobenzene (MCB) 26.9 Ib
Btu content: 11,874 Btu/lb
Ash content:
Chlorine content: 0.68%
Moisture content:
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1783° to 1813°F
Average 1800°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 13.3% O2
Other:
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: Modified Method 5
HCI: Modified Method 5
Particulate: Modified Method 5
Other: CO - Ecolyzer (electro-chemical cell) and
Beckman NDIR
8-J40
-------
UPJOHN
Summary of Test Data for the Upjohn Company
Laporte, Texas
Date of Test: August 12-13, 1982
Run No.: 2 Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: incinerator- liquid/gaseous
Commercial Private 2L
Capacity: 15 x 10s Btuh (design)
Pollution control system: Water quench followed
by packed bed scrubber
Waste feed system: Liquid is fed from pres-
surized tanks; gas is vented directly from the
process
Residence time: 5.2 s calculated
3-4 s design
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Liquid and gaseous pro-
duction wastes
Length of burn: 2 h (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 293 Ib/h (liquid); 262 scfm (gas)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
SEE EMISSION AND ORE RESULTS
Btu content:
Ash content:
Chlorine content:
Moisture content:
Phosgene content:
Liquid
10,230 Btu/lb
0.17%
21.4%
Not reported
0
Isocyanate content: 190,000
Gas
Not reported
Not reported
376 mg/l
Not reported
534 mg/l
0
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 2040°F (2000°F is consid-
ered typical)
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas (22.2 scfm)
Excess air: 8.4% O2
Monitoring Methods:
Waste Feed: One composite per run made up of
grab samples taken every 15 minutes during
run.
Combustion Emissions:
Volatile POHC's and PIC's: Gas bags and VOST
(Fast)
Semivolatile POHC's and PIC's: Modified
Method 5
HCI: Modified Method 5
Particulate: Modified Method 5
CO2 and O2: Gas bag for Orsat analysis
Continuous monitors:
CO2 - Horiba Model PIR-2000S (NDIR)
CO - Beckman Model 215A (NDIR)
O2 - Beckman Model 742 (polarographic sen-
sor)
HC - Beckman Model 402 (FID)
Dioxins and furans (tetra- and penta-chlorinated
only): Modified Method 5
Phosgene: Midget impinger trains (2)
Isocyanates: Midget impinger trains (2)
e-747
-------
UPJOHN
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
Name
Volatiles
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Chloro benzene
Chloromethane
Semivolatiles
m-Dichlorobenzene
o-Dichlorobenzene
p-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Bis(ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chlorophenyl isocyanate
Phenyl isocyanate
Aniline
Phosgene
Waste feed concentration
Liquid, \i.g/g
36,000
33,000
7,200
>2,000
2,100
40,000
56,000
270
500'
23,000
170,100
a
b
Gas, \ig/l
2.0
0.10
<0.005
<0.005
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
534,000"
Gas bag
99.9940
99.9983
e
>99.9986
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ORE, %
Fast VOST
99.25
>99.22
99.937
99.990
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Modified
Method 5
-
-
-
-
99.922
99.9990
99.9990
99.65
99.98
g
>99.99992
a
99.9985
•Result not determinable due to interferences; concentration <10Q ptg/g.
""Highly unlikely as a waste constituent; therefore, not analyzed in sample.
cVent gas samples not analyzed for Semivolatiles.
dSeparate sampling and analysis conducted for phosgene.
"Not measured.
'Poor recovery of spike from waste feed; ORE may be biased low. .
"Not reported. Heference(sJ:
HCi: 0.93 Ib/h
Paniculate: 0.0948 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: 8.8 ppm
CO: 9.5 ppm
Other: Phosgene - 0.058 g/min; isocyanate -
<0.005 g/min
PIC's:
PIC"
Volatiles
Chloroform
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Methylene chloride
Methyl ethyl ketone
Bromodichloromethane
Dibromochloromethane
Semivolatiles
Phenol
Naphthalene
2,6-Toluene diisocyanate
Diethyl phthalate
Hexachlorobenzene
o-Chlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
o-Nitrophenol
"Not blank corrected
Gas bag,
g/min
0.15
0.0028
0.00029
0.0020
0.0013
0.00031
0.014
0.0017
Fast VOST
(avg.) g/min
0.19
0.0022
0.00013
0.0047
0.00093
0.000064
0.0039
0.0021
Modified
Method 5, g/min
0.00048
0.000069
<0.0002
0.00050
0.000032
0.00016
0.0050
0.00045
0.00053
Comments:
Trenholm, A., P. Gorman, and G.
Jungclaus. Performance Evaluation
of Full-Scale Hazardous Waste Incin-
erators. Final Report, Volumes II and
IV. EPA Contract No. 68-02-3177 to
Midwest Research Institute, Kansas
City, Missouri. Mr. Don Oberacker,
Project Officer. EPA Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH 45268. November
1984.
Upjohn Run 1 was aborted due to
sampling problems. Unit was oper-
ated during Runs 2-4 at less than half
its rated capacity (6 MM Btuh versus
15 MM Btuh), but within the normal
operating range. All parameters
appeared normal and steady. Volatile
results are questionable due to
abnormally high recovery rates of
spikes; as a result, DRE's may be
biased high (See Reference Volume
II, p. 101). Also due to sampling and
analysis difficulties (i.e. poor recov-
eries of spikes), DRE's for bis(eth-
ylhexyl)-phthalate and aniline may
be biased (See Reference Volume II,
p. 102). Tests for furans in stack emis-
sions were positive (0.005 to 0.0068
ng/L) but tests for dioxin were nega-
tive (<0.0001 ng/L). Metals were not
analyzed during any of the runs at
Upjohn. Up to 1 ppm of phosgene
was found in the stack gas.
B-142
-------
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Combustion chamber diagram.
Vent Gas T
20'
Burner
Liquid Waste
Injection
Combustion Air
Ignition
Chamber
Combustion Chamber
Avg. Measured
Temperature 2040°F
T/C extends inside,
3" past refractory
To Quench
UPJOHN
Date of Test: August 12-13, 1982
Run No.: 3
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - liquid/gaseous injec-
tion
Commercial Private .*_
Capacity: 15 x 106 Btuh (design)
Pollution control system: Water quench followed
by packed bed scrubber
Waste feed system: Liquid is fed from pres-
surized tanks; gas is vented directly from the
process
Residence time: 5.2 s calculated
3-4 s design
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Liquid and gaseous pro-
duction wastes
Length of burn: 2 h (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 243 Ib/h (liquid); 278 scfm (gas)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
SEE EMISSION AND ORE RESULTS
Btu content:
Ash content:
Chlorine content:
Moisture content:
Phosgene content:
Isocyanate content:
Liquid
10,110Btu/lb
0.19%
22.1%
Not reported
0
1 80,000 u,g/g
Gas
Not reported
Not reported
Not reported
508 mg/l
0
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 2040°F (2000°F is consid-
ered typical)
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas (30.5 scfm)
Excess air: 7.9% O2
Monitoring Methods: See Run 2
B-143
-------
UPJOHN
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
Waste feed concentration ORE, %
Modified
Name Liquid, y.g/g Gas, y.g/1 Gas bag Fast VOST Method 5
Volatiles
Carbon tetrachloride 44,000 5.7 99.9931 99.971
Trichloroethylene 40,000 0.045 99.9989 99.9914
Chlorobenzene 4,100 <0.005 99.86 99.910
Chloromethane >1,200 <0.005 >99.9952 >99.9916
Semivolatiles
m-Dichlorobenzene 2,300 b - - 99.905
o-Dichlorobenzene 46,000 b - - 99.993
p-Oichlorobenzene 59,000 b - - 99.995
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 290 b - - 98.6
Bis(ethylhexyl)phthalated 500 b - - 99.95
Phenyl isocyanate 160,000 b - - >99.99990
Chlorophenyl isocyanate 21,000 b - - e
Aniline 14,000 b - - 99.9988
Phosgene a 508,000C - - 99.9930
'Highly unlikely as a waste constituent; therefore, not analyzed in sample.
bVent gas samples not analyzed for semivolatiles.
'Separate sampling and analysis conducted for phosgene.
"Poor recovery of spike from waste; ORE may be biased low.
"Not reported.
HCI:1.2lb/h M ,,000
Paniculate: 0.0796 gr/dscf @ 7% O2 Reference^): See Run 2
THC: 5.8 ppm Comments: See Run 2
CO: 10.1 ppm
Other: Phosgene - 0.28 g/min; isocyanate - 0.033 Process Flow Diagram: See Run 2
g/min
PIC's:
Gas bag, Fast VOST
PIC" g/min (avg.) g/min
Volatiles
Chloroform 0.034 0.022
Benzene 0.0012 0.0058
Tetrachloroethylene 0.00015 0.00013
Toluene 0.00069 0.0016
Methylene chloride 0.0012 0.00041
Methyl ethyl ketone 0.000095 0.00026
Bromodichloromethane 0.0023 0.0015
Dibromochloromethane 0.00016 0.0060
Modified
Semivolatiles Method 5, g/min
Phenol 0.00016
Naphthalene 0.00038
2,6-Toluene diisocyanate 0.00020
Diethyl phthalate 0.00036
Hexachlorobenzene <0.00002
o-Chlorophenol 0.0012
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 0.0067
Pentachlorophenol 0.00029
o-Nitrophenol 0.0023
"Not blank corrected
B-144
-------
UPJOHN
Date of Test: August 12-13, 1982
Run No.: 4
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - liquid/gaseous
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 15 x 106 Btuh (design)
Pollution control system: Water quench followed
by packed bed scrubber
Waste feed system: Liquid is fed from pres-
surized tanks; gas is vented directly from the
process
Residence time: 5.2 s calculated
3-4 s design
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Liquid and gaseous pro-
duction wastes
Length of burn: 2 h (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 243 Ib/h (liquid); 272 scfm (gas)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name Concentration
SEE EMISSION AND ORE RESULTS
Liquid Gas
Btu content: 10,320 Btu/lb Not reported
Ash content: 0.21% Not reported
Chlorine content: 21.1%
Moisture content: Not reported Not reported
Phosgene content: 0 202 mg/l
Isocyanate content: 240,000 ng/g 0
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average 2040°F (2000°F is consid-
ered typical)
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas (28.2 scfm)
Excess air: 8.0% 02
Monitoring Methods: See Run 2
B-145
-------
UPJOHN
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
Waste feed concentration ORE, %
Modified
Name Liquid, y.g/g Gas, yg/l Gas bag Fast VOST Method 5
Volatifes
Carbon tetrachloride 44,000 4.3 99.9954 99.988
Trichloroethylene 40,000 0.11 >99.99956 99.9914
Chlorobenzene 6,800 <0.005 99.945 99.956
Chloromethane > 1,900 <0.005 >99.9975 >99.9903
Semivolatiles
m-Dichlorobenzene 3,100 b - 99.932
o-Dichlorobenzene 64,000 b - 99.9990
p-Dichlorobenzene 80,000 b - - 99.9990
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene 390 b - - 99.75
Bis(ethylhexyl)phthalated 1,300 b - - 99.98
Phenyl isocyanate 210,000 b - - >99.99992
Chlorophenyl isocyanate 28,000 b - - e
Aniline 19,000 b - - 99.9991
Phosgene a 202,000° - - 99.981
"Highly unlikely as a waste constituent; therefore, not analyzed in sample.
bVent gas samples not analyzed for semivolatiles.
'Separate sampling and analysis conducted for phosgene.
dPoor recovery of spike from waste; ORE may be biased low.
"Not reported.
HCI: 1.7 Ib/h Reference(s): See Run 2
Paniculate: 0.0126 gr/dscf @ 7% O2 Comments: See Run 2
THC: 3.5 ppm
CO: 8.5 ppm Process Flow Diagram: See Run 2
Other: Phosgene - 0.30 g/min; isocyanate - 0.27
g/min
PIC's:
Gas bag. Fast VOST
PIC* g/min (avg.) g/min
Volatiles
Chloroform 0.017 0.016
Benzene 0.0019 0.0036
Tetrachloroethylene 0.000097 0.00019
Toluene 0.00037 0.0020
Methylene chloride 0.0023 0.00097
Methyl ethyl ketone 0.00021 0.00022
Bromodichloromethane 0.00077 0.0011
Dibromochloromethane 0.000065 0.00048
Modified
Semivolatiles Method 5, g/min
Phenol <0.00004
Naphthalene 0.00035
2,6-Toluene diisocyanate <0.0002
Diethyl phthalate 0.00028
Hexachlorobenzene 0.000016
o-Chlorophenol 0.000076
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol 0.0059
Pentachlorophenol 0.00028
o-Nitrophenol 0.0012
"Not blank corrected
8-746
-------
ZAPATA
Summary of Test Data for Zapata Industries Inc.
Butner, North Carolina
Date of Test: September 28-30, 1982
Run No. :1
Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - primary (pyrolytic)
chamber followed by a secondary chamber
(thermal reactor)
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: Approximately 1.5 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: None
Waste feed system: Liquid wastes are fed from a
feed tank (presumably pumped)
Residence time: 0.069 s (calculated, secondary
chamber); design residence time is 0.22 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Varnish and lacquer
wastes
Length of burn: 2 h (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported; cal-
culated heat input 1.4 x 10s Btuh (waste only)
Waste feed rate: 87 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
Methylene chloride (CH2CI2) 0.0064%
Carbon tetrachloride (CCI4) 1.2%
Trichloroethylene (TCE) 1.1%
Toluene 0.11%
Chlorobenzene 0.78%
Btu content: 16,150 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.018%
Chlorine content: 2.7%
Moisture content: 0.68%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1240°F (Primary cham-
ber); 1570°F (Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas (385 scf/h)
Excess air: 8.2% 02
Monitoring Methods:
Waste Feed: One composite per run made up of
grab samples taken every 15 minutes during
run «
Combustion emissions:
Volatile POHC's and PIC's: Gas bags (all runs)
and VOST (fast) (Runs 1, 2, and 3 only)
Semivolatile POHC's and PIC's: Not monitored
HCI: Modified Method 5
Particulate: Modified Method 5
Metals: Not monitored
C02 and 02: Gas bag for Orsat analysis
Continuous monitors:
CO2 - Horiba Model PIR-2000S (NDIR)
CO - Beckman Model 215A (NDIR)
O2 - Beckman Model 742 (polarographic sen-
sor)
HC - Beckman Model 402 (FID)
Dioxins and furans: Not monitored
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
CH2CI2
CCI4
TCE
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Gas bag*
b
99.978%
>99.979%
>99.952%
>99.9956%
"VOST sample not analyzed for this run.
"<0.01% in waste feed.
HCI: 2.23 Ib/h
Particulate: 0.0301 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: 71 ppm
CO: 1275 ppm
Other:
PIC's:3
Chloroform
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
0.000036 g/min
0.000038 g/min
0.00072 g/min
0.000042 g/min
"Not blank corrected; values from gas bag sample.
B-147
-------
ZAPATA
Reference(s): Trenholm, A., P. Gorman, and G.
Jungclaus. Performance Evaluation
of Full-Scale Hazardous Waste Incin-
erators. Final Report, Volumes II and
IV (Appendix F). EPA Contract No. 68-
02-3177 to Midwest Research
Institute, Kansas City, MO. Mr. Don
Oberacker, EPA Project Officer, Haz-
ardous Waste Engineering Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Comments: Only volatile POHC's were analyzed
in this test since no semivolatiles
were expected in the waste feed. Car-
bon tetrachloride, trichloroethylene,
and chlorobenzene were spiked into
the waste. Both particulate and chlo-
rine emissions were within regula-
tory limits. Total calculated heat
input from waste during Runs3and4
may be low due to problems in waste
feed sampling. The water content of
the waste feed samples taken in
Runs 3 and 4 was believed to be dis-
proportionately high and not repre-
sentative of the true waste feed
composition. The sampling port
used in Runs 2 through 4 was further
away from the secondary chamber
outlet than that used in Run 1. VOST
sample from Run 1 was not ana-
lyzed; VOST was not collected in Run
4. Correction factors were used to
adjust the POHC input rates to com-
pensate for the apparent non-repre-
sentativeness of the feed samples.
These adjustments apparently carry
forward into the ORE values calcu-
lated and reported. Metals were not
monitored during this test program.
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Combustion chamber diagram.
= 1.25ft
>
1
1
Comb. Chamber ^.r
Combustion Air1""^-. .
Liquid 1
lnjection==^ -^V.
Water ^ T/
Injection
for Temp
Control
eratureT
6'
\\— v •
,
51
r
^«-
^
S«^l
^
, Avg. Measured
'Temperature 1590°F
— r T/C
ZJ-~iti
=5 '
: : :
: :
•J-Jx- NG Burner
$=%• A'r
I*T~ 2 — *l \*' Charging
I Pyrolysis Chamber Pellets
Avg. Measured Temperature
I 1300°F
* ./_ /
"I . \
A!r
P 8.6 »i
Note:
T/C in stack extends inside 6"
T/C in chamber extends 3" post refractory
B-148
-------
ZAPATA
Date of Test: September 28-30, 1982
Run No.: 2
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - primary pyrolytic
chamber followed by reactor (secondary
chamber)
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: Approximately 1.5 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: None
Waste feed system: Liquid wastes are fed from a
feed tank (presumably pumped)
Residence time: 0.067 s (calculated, secondary
chamber); design residence time is 0.22 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Varnish and lacquer
wastes
Length of burn: 2 h (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported; cal-
culated heat input (waste only) 1.6 x 106 Btuh
Waste feed rate: 101 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
0.017%
0.73%
0.71%
0.33%
0.76%
Methylene chloride (CH2CI2)
Carbon tetrachloride (CCI4)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Btu content: 16,300 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.013%
Chlorine content: 1.6%
Moisture content: 0.63%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1330°F (Primary cham-
ber); 1594°F (Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas (350 scf/h)
Excess air: 12.0% O2
Monitoring Methods: Same as Run 1
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC Gas bag
Fast VOST
CH2CI2
ecu
TCE
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
99.84%
>99.9957%
>99.987%
>99.985%
>99.9963%
>99.906
99.99911
99.9979
>99.9914
>99.9953
HCI: 1.39 Ib/h
Particulate: 0.0219 gr/dscf i
THC: 1.9 ppm
CO: 22.2 ppm
Other:
PIC's."
' 7% O,
Chloroform
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
"Not blank corrected.
Gas bag,
g/min
0.000035
0.000052
0.0013
0.000022
Fast VOST,
g/min
0.000056 avg.
0.0000120 avg.
0.000860 avg.
0.000014
Reference(s): Same as Run 1
Comments: Same as Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
B-149
-------
ZAPATA
Date of Test: September 28-30, 1982
Run No.: 3
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - primary pyrolytic
chamber; thermal reactor (secondary)
Commercial Private _^_
Capacity: Approximately 1.5 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: None
Waste feed system: Liquid wastes are fed from a
feed tank (presumably pumped)
Residence time: 0.066 s calculated (secondary
chamber); design residence time 0.22 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Varnish and lacquer
wastes
Length of burn: 2 h (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported; cal-
culated heat input 1.0 x 106 Btuh (waste only -
see comments)
Waste feed rate: 103 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC Gas bag
Fast VOST
CH2CI2
CCI4
TCE
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
a
99.943%
>99.976%
>99.965%
99.9927%
a
99.9990
99.9985
>99.9932
>99.9974
a<0.01% in waste feed.
HCI: 2.75 Ib/h
Paniculate: 0.0357 gr/dscf @ 7% O2
THC: <1 ppm
CO: 4.7 ppm
Other:
PIC's:3
Gas bag. Fast VOST,
g/mln g/min
Name
Concentration
<0.0005%
0.61%
0.52%
0.073%
0.79%
Methylene chloride (CH2CI2)
Carbon tetrachloride (CCI4)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Btu content: 9,800 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.0098%
Chlorine content: 1.3%
Moisture content: 37%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1360°F (Primary cham-
ber); 1553°F (Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas (375 scf/h)
Excess air: 11.8% O2
Monitoring Methods: Same as Run 1
Chloroform 0.000035 0.000062 avg.
1,1,1-trichloroethane 0.000027 0.000020 avg.
Benzene 0.00016 0.00002 avg.
Tetrachloroethylene 0.000022
'Not blank corrected.
Reference(s): Same as Run 1
Comments: Same as Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
B-150
-------
ZAPATA
Date of Test: September 28-30, 1982
Run No.: 4
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Incinerator - primary pyrolytic
chamber, secondary thermal reactor
Commercial Private A_
Capacity: Approximately 1.5 x 106 Btuh
Pollution control system: None
Waste feed system: Liquid wastes are fed from a
feed tank (presumably pumped)
Residence time: 0.063 s (secondary chamber);
0.22 s design
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Varnish and lacquer
wastes
Length of burn: 2 h (sampling time)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported; cal-
culated heat input 0.67 x 10s Btuh (waste only -
see comments)
Waste feed rate: 102 Ib/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
<0.0005%
0.28%
0.29%
0.42%
0.40%
Methylene chloride (CH2CI2)
Carbon tetrachloride (CCI4)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
Btu content: 6,550 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.14%
Chlorine content: 0.74%
Moisture content: 54%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Average - 1274°F (Primary cham-
ber); 1661°F (Secondary chamber)
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas (360 scf/h)
Excess air: 11.9% O2
Monitoring Methods: SameasRun!
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
CH2CI2
CCI4
TCE
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
"VOST sample not collected in this run.
"<0.01% in waste feed.
HCI: 3.30 Ib/h
Particulate: 0.0168 gr/dscf i
THC: <1 ppm
CO: 8.8 ppm
Other:
PIC's :a
Chloroform
1,1,1-trichloroethane
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Gas bag"
b
>99.9972%
>99.9946%
>99.9956%
>99.9983%
' 7% O2
0.000031 g/min
0.000026 g/min
0.00066 g/min
0.000022 g/min
'Not blank corrected. Values from gas bag sample; VOST sample not
collected.
Reference(s): Same as Run 1
Comments: Same as Run 1
Process Flow Diagram: See Run 1
B-151
-------
Table B-1. Summary Tabulation of Incinerator Test Results by Compound
SITE
MCDONNELL DGLS
MCDONNELL DGLS
MCDONNELL DGLS
MCDONNELL DGLS
STAUFFER CHEMICAL
STAUFFER CHEMICAL
STAUFFER CHEMICAL
STAUFFER CHEMICAL
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
DOW CHEMICAL
DOW CHEMICAL
TWI
DUPONT-LA
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
3M
3M
3M
3M
3M
3M
3M
3M
3M
3M
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
COMPOUND
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane9
1,1,1 trichloroethane9
1,1,1 trichloroethanea'k
1,1,1 trichloroethaneg'k
1,1,1 trichloroethane8
1,1,1 trichloroethanefllk
1,1,1 trichloroethane9
1,1,1 trichloroethane9
1,1,1 trichloroethane°'k
1,1,2 trichloroethane
1,1,2 trichloroethane
1,1,2 trichloroethane
1,1,2 trichloroethane
1,1,2 trichloroethane
1,1,2 trichloroethane
1,1,2 trichloroethane
1,1,2 trichloroethane
1,1,2 trichloroethane
1,1,2 trichloroethane
1,1,2 trichloroethane
1,1,2 trichloroethane
1,1,2 trichloroethane
1,2 dichlorobenzene
1,2 dichlorobenzene
1,2 dichlorobenzene
1,2 dichlorobenzene
1,2 dichlorobenzene
CONC,%"
71
70
62
59
0.88
0.87
0.82
0.83
2.55
0.91
0.58
0.00792
0.001
0.016
0.0123
0.0105
0.0087
0.0051
0.011
0.0162
0.038
0.035
0.028
1.631
1.566
1.304
1.066
0.937
1.771
1.3
1.225
0.548
1.239
2.1
1.6
1.7
1.5
1.4
DRE,%a
99.99999
99.99999
99.99999
99.99999
99.99998
99.99998
99.99998
99.99998
99.99952
99.999
99.999
99.998
99.996
99.966
99.932
99.88
99.87
99.86
99.84
99.82
99.81
99.47
99.99999
99.99999
99.99999
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.998
99.998
99.998
99.994
99.99
99.99994
99.99992
99.9999
99.9999
99.9999
TEMP,
°F
1800
1800
1800
1800
1830
1830
1830
1830
2110
2090
2040
1810
1820
2080
2640
2230
2140
2070
2050
1810
2030
2120
2040
2110
2090
1890
1985
1905
1885
1915
1930
1925
2030
1985
1950
1600
1800
1600
1600
1800
HCL,
Ib/h
0.8
0.74
1.64
1.67
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
0.1
0.3
0.3
99.9
99.9
0.3
0.5
h
h
0.6
h
0.2
0.4
h
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.8
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
1.2
0.7
0.44
0.9
0.48
98.9
98.2
98.6
98.1
98.4
ISP,
gr/dscf b
0.032
0.032
0.044
0.047
0.001
0.002
0.0009
0.003
0.061
0.077
0.061
0.075
0.015
h
h
0.048
h
0.044
0.127
h
0.061
0.061
0.077
0.08
0.091
0.047
0.048
0.047
0.154
0.078
0.0848
0.0623
0.112
0.066
0.075
0.055
0.073
0.064
TEST
No.
2
4
3
1
7
6
4
5
1
2
3
0212-2
0212-1
1
1
6
SB
3
7
4
2
8A
3
1
2
10
4
6
7
5
8
9
3
1
2
7
6
11
2
12
SPONSOR
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
-------
Table B-1. (continued)
01
CO
SITE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
AMERICAN CYANAMID
AMERICAN CYANAMID
AMERICAN CYANAMID
AMERICAN CYANAMID
UPJOHN
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
STAUFFER CHEMICAL
STAUFFER CHEMICAL
STAUFFER CHEMICAL
STAUFFER CHEMICAL
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
TWI
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
COMPOUND
1,2 dichlorobenzene
1,2 dichlorobenzene
1,2 dichlorobenzene
1,2 dichlorobenzene
1,2 dichlorobenzene
1,2 dichlorobenzene
1,2 dichlorobenzene
1,2,4 trichlorobenzene
1,2,4 trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4 Trichlorobenzene
2,4 dimethylphenol
2,4 dimethylphenol
2,4 dimethylphenol
aniline0'8
aniline0'6
aniline0'6
aniline0'6
aniline0
aniline
aniline
aniline
aniline0
aniline0
benzene
benzene
benzene
benzene
benzene"
benzenek
benzene
benzene"
benzene"
benzene
benzene
benzene"
benzene
benzene8
benzyl chloride
benzyl chloride
benzyl chloride
CONC,%a
1.4
2.2
2.1
1.3
1.4
5
1.2
0.027
0.039
0.029
0.071
0.02
0.02
60
53
55
0.8
c
0.026
0.026
0.021
c
c
4.68
4.53
4.47
4.65
2.91
3.24
1.52
2.54
2.52
1.18
0.889
0.0116
1.43
0.0067
0.233
0.211
0.219
DRE,%a
99.99986
99.99985
99.99985
99.99957
99.99933
99.99923
99.99921
99.65
99.75
98.6
99.9994
99.9992
99.999
99.99999
99.99999
99.99999
99.9997
99.9988
99.998
99.998
99.998
99.9988
99.981
100
100
100
99.99999
99.99979
99.99952
99.9983
99.995
99.99
99.989
99.988
99.986
99.984
99.82
99.9996
99.9996
99.9994
TEMP,
°F
1800
1600
1600
1800
1800
1600
1800
2040
2040
2040
2040
2110
2090
1198
1198
1240
1254
2040
2110
2040
2090
2040
2040
1830
1830
1830
1830
2140
2120
2080
2050
2230
2030
1810
2000
2070
2050
2640
2640
2640
HCL,
lb/hb
97.9
98.9
98.5
98.3
98.2
98.2
98.5
0.9
1.7
1.2
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.007
0.007
0.004
0.007
1.2
0.1
0.3
0.3
1.2
1.7
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
h
h
0.3
h
h
0.4
0.2
4.9
0.6
f
0.6
0.5
0.9
TSP,
gr/dscf
0.07
0.048
0.057
0.061
0.071
0.094
0.056
0.094
0.013
0.08
0.061
0.061
0.077
0.069
0.175
0.075
0.007
0.08
0.061
0.061
0.077
0.08
0.013
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.0009
h
h
0.075
h
h
0.127
0.044
0.313
0.048
f
0.004
0.015
0.011
TEST
No.
3
8
9
5
4
1
10
2
4
3
3
1
2
3
5
2
4
3
1
3
2
3
4
5
6
7
4
8B
8A
1
7
6
2
4
2
3
3
2
1
3
SPONSOR
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
Private
Private
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
-------
Table B-1. (continued)
CD
O1
-u
SITE
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
STAUFFER CHEMICAL
MCDONNELL DGLS
STAUFFER CHEMICAL
STAUFFER CHEMICAL
STAUFFER CHEMICAL
MCDONNELL DGLS
MCDONNELL DGLS
DUPONT-DE
DUPONT-DE
DUPONT-DE
MCDONNELL DGLS
DUPONT-DE
DUPONT-DE
DUPONT-DE
CINCINNATI MSD
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-DE
COMPOUND
)is(ethyl hexy)phthalatec
jisjethyl hexyjphthalate0
Dis(ethyl hexy)phthalatec
bisjethyl hexy)phthalateC|fl
jis(ethyl hexy)phthalate°'fl
bisjethyl hexyjphthalate0'9
bis(ethyl hexyjphthalate0'"
bisjethyl hexy)phthalatec
bisfethyl hexyjphthalate0
bisjethyl hexy)phthalate°
bromodichloromethane
bromodichloromethane
butyl benzyl phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate0
butyl benzyl phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate0
butyl benzyl phthalate0
butyl benzyl phthalate0
butyl benzyl phthalate0
butyl benzyl phthalate0
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
CONC,%a
0.192
0.416
0.169
0.0051 1
0.00429
0.00574
0.00261
0.05
0.13
0.05
0.4
0.28
0.1
0.027
0.017
0.169
0.0227
0.0149
0.00758
0.0064
0.00416
0.89
8.9
0.82
0.85
0.84
7.5
8.1
9.4
9.2
9.3
8.9
8.7
7.5
8.8
0.26
5.38
6.16
5.27
7.7
DRE,%a
99.9985
99.996
99.993
99.96
99.951
99.94
99.88
99.98
99.98
99.95
99.995
99.97
99.9996
99.999
99.998
99.995
99.9938
99.9923
99.992
99.973
99.92
99.99998
99.99998
99.99998
99.99998
99.99998
99.99997
99.99996
99.99994
99.99994
99.99993
99.99992
99.99992
99.99992
99.99991
99.9999
99.99988
99.99986
99.99981
99.9994
TEMP,
°F
1930
1975
2000
2030
2080
2070
1810
2040
2040
2040
2400
1650
2110
2040
2090
2000
1952
1952
1930
1975
1952
1830
1800
1830
1830
1830
1800
1800
1831
1842
1864
1800
1833
1906
1826
2400
2640
2640
2640
1857
HCL,
lb/hb
4.1
3.8
4.9
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.2
0.9
1.7
1.2
60.9
5
0.1
0.3
0.3
4.9
0.64
4.47
4.1
3.8
1.83
99.9
1.64
99.9
99.9
99.9
0.8
1.67
2.6
1.3
1.2
0.74
0.6
0.1
1.7
6.1
0.6
0.5
0.9
1.1
TSP,
gr/dscf
0.491
0.378
0.313
0.127
0.075
0.048
0.044
0.094
0.013
0.08
0.444
0.107
0.061
0.061
0.077
0.313
f
0.161
0.491
0.378
0.187
0.002
0.044
0.0009
0.001
0.003
0.032
0.047
f
f
0.079
0.032
0.08
0.055
f
f
0.004
0.015
0.011
0.071
TEST
No.
1
4
2
2
1
3
4
2
4
3
9
7
1
3
2
2
1
3
1
4
2
6
3
4
7
5
2
1
3
7
6
4
4
2
5
3
2
1
3
1
SPONSOR
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
-------
Table B-1. (continued)
en
01
SITE
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
TWI
3M
3M
3M
3M
3M
3M
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
3M
3M
CINCINNATI MSD
DOW CHEMICAL
TWI
TWI
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
TWI
TWI
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
3M
3M
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
TWI
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
DOW CHEMICAL
ROSS INCINERATION
UPJOHN
TWI
CINCINNATI MSD
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
TWI
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CINCINNATI MSD
COMPOUND
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride0
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride0' k
carbon tetrachloridec
carbon tetrachloride0
carbon tetrachloride0
carbon tetrachloride0
carbon tetrachloride0
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride0
carbon tetrachloride0' k
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride01 k
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride0
carbon tetrachloride°lk
carbon tetrachloride0
carbon tetrachloride0
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride0
carbon tetrachloride
CONC,%a
0.73
0.379
1.068
1.031
1.021
0.99
0.868
0.623
0.61
0.596
0.482
0.16
0.377
0.277
0.243
0.198
0.228
0.263
0.881
0.524
0.28
0.242
0.53
0.16
0.21
0.2
4.4
0.44
0.22
3.6
4.4
0.132
0.209
0.223
0.163
1.2
0.142
0.11
DRE,%a
99.99911
99.99903
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.9987
99.9987
99.9984
99.9984
99.9983
99.9981
99.998
99.998
99.9972
99.997
99.9966
99.9964
99.9961
99.996
99.9959
99.9954
99.9951
99.995
99.994
99.9931
99.9928
99.9926
99.984
99.984
99.978
99.976
99.96
TEMP,
°F
1600
1810
1985
1950
1890
1930
2030
1905
1550
1885
1915
1650
1860
2050
2070
1975
2080
2030
2000
1925
1985
1660
1930
2120
2110
2090
1830
2040
2040
2140
1650
2040
2040
1952
2230
2050
1952
1570
1952
2000
HCL,
lb/hb
1.4
0.2
0.2
0.48
0.8
1.2
0.44
0.3
2.8
0.4
0.5
3.7
99.4
h
0.6
3.8
0.3
0.4
4.9
0.7
0.86
3.3
4.1
h
0.1
0.3
99.7
0.3
1.7
h
1.9
0.9
1.2
1.83
h
f
0.64
2.2
4.47
7.8
TSP,
gr/dscf
0.022
0.044
0.091
0.112
0.08
0.154
0.0848
0.047
0.036
0.048
0.047
f
h
0.048
0.378
0.075
0.127
0.313
0.078
0.0623
0.017
0.491
h
0.061
0.077
0.061
0.013
h
f
0.094
0.08
0.187
h
f
f
0.03
0.161
0.056
TEST
No.
2
4
4
2
10
8
3
6
3
7
5
4
11302-2
7
3
4
1
2
2
9
1
4
1
8A
1
2
11302-3
3
4
8B
1
2
3
2
6
3
1
1
3
5
SPONSOR
EPA
EPA
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
EPA
Private
Private
EPA
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
-------
Table B-1. (continued)
01
O)
SITE
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CINCINNATI MSD
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
TWI
TWI
TWI
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
CIBA-GEIGY
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
CIBA-GEIGY
UNION CARBIDE
CIBA-GEIGY
UNION CARBIDE
CIBA-GEIGY
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
CIBA-GEIGY
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
TWI
TWI
TWI
SMITH KLINE CHEM
SMITH KLINE CHEM
SMITH KLINE CHEM
COMPOUND
carbon tetrachloride0''
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride0''
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene0' k
chlorobenzene°'k
chlorobenzene0
chlorobenzene0
chlorobenzene0
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene0' k
chlorobenzene0
chlorobenzene°'k
chloroform
chloroform
chloroform
CONC,%a
0.12
0.23
0.118
0.736
0.66
0.462
1.8
1.7
29.52
1.9
1.4
2
1.8
29.52
1.6
29.52
1.6
29.52
2.7
2.7
2.6
1.5
0.4
29.52
0.79
0.78
0.76
0.0167
0.0184
0.0047
0.00858
0.00956
0.68
0.41
0.0152
0.0102
0.0174
1.21
1.1
0.93
DRE,%"
99.949
99.9
99.63
99.9999
99.9999
99.9998
99.99979
99.99979
99.9997
99.99962
99.99961
99.99959
99.99952
99.9995
99.99949
99.9994
99.99935
99.9992
99.99907
99.99907
99.9988
99.9987
99.9983
99.998
99.9974
99.9956
99.9953
99.9949
99.978
99.966
99.965
99.956
99.945
99.86
99.73
99.7
99.6
99.99999
99.99999
99.99999
TEMP,
°F
1776
2400
2070
2030
2080
1800
1800
1800
1600
1600
1600
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1600
1600
1600
1800
1660
1800
1550
1570
1600
2140
2120
1810
2080
2070
2040
2040
2050
2030
2230
1640
1620
1710
HCL,
lb/hb
h
89.7
h
0.6
0.4
0.3
97.9
98.4
99.9
98.1
98.2
98.6
98.2
99.9
98.2
99.9
98.3
99.9
98.9
98.9
98.5
98.5
3.3
99.9
2.8
2.2
1.4
h
h
0.2
0.3
0.6
1.7
1.2
h
0.4
h
0.6
0.2
0.6
ISP,
gr/dscf
h
f
h
0.048
0.127
0.075
0.07
0.064
0.21
0.073
0.094
0.055
0.071
0.14
0.075
0.2
0.061
0.19
0.066
0.048
0.057
0.056
0.017
0.14
0.036
0.03
0.022
h
h
0.044
0.075
0.048
0.013
0.08
h
0.127
h
0.057
0.027
0.03
TEST
No.
4
6
5
3
2
1
3
12
1
2
1
11
4
3
6
2
5
4
7
8
9
10
4
5
3
1
2
8B
8A
4
1
3
4
3
7
2
6
6
7
8
SPONSOR
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
EPA
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
Private
Private
-------
Table 6*1. (continued)
SITE
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
TWI
TWl
TWI
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
TWI
TWI
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
TWI
TWI
TWI
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
OLIN
COMPOUND
chloroform
chloroform
chloroform
chloroform
chloroform
chloroform
chloroform
chloroform
chloroform0'8
chloroform0'0'11
chloroform0' B'k
chloroform0'0
chloroform0'0
chloroform0'8
chloroform0'8
chloroform0'0'1
chloroform0'8
chloroform0' fl'k
chloroform0'8'"
chloroform0'8
chloroform0'8'1
chloromethane0
chloromethane0
chloromethane0
chlorophenyl isocyanate
cis-dichlorobutene
cis-dichlorobutene
cis-dichlorobutene
cresol(s)
cresol(s)
cresol(s)
dibromomethane"
dibromomethane"
dibromomethane
dibromomethane"
dibromomethane
dibromomethane"
dibromomethane
dibromomethane
dichlordifluormethane
CONC,%a
1.32
1.72
1.09
1.8
1.2
0.33
0.404
0.229
0.00224
0.00476
0.00443
0.0074
0.00201
0.00654
0.0154
0.00428
0.0102
0.0082
0.00478
0.00283
0.00725
>0.2
>0.19
>0.12
2.8
1.76
1.39
1.63
0.12
0.091
0.074
0.326
0.292
0.0244
0.319
0.159
0.322
0.172
0.126
5
DRE,%a
99.9997
99.9995
99.9989
99.998
99.998
99.9938
99.9914
99.987
99.944
99.92
99.88
99.86
99.8
99.78
99.7
99.69
99.66
99.1
99.02
98.2
97.9
99.9986
99.9975
99.9952
99.9991
99.99998
99.99998
99.9999
99.9993
99.9991
99.999
99.99992
99.99981
99.9987
99.9936
99.982
99.974
99.964
99.956
99.99
TEMP,
°F
1650
2400
2000
2400
1650
2640
2640
2640
2080
2140
2120
1952
2070
1810
1952
1776
1952
2230
2050
2030
2040
2040
2040
2040
2640
2640
2640
2110
2040
2090
2140
2120
2080
2050
1810
2230
2070
2030
2088
HCL,
lb/hb
3.7
6.1
7.8
89.7
1.9
0.5
0.9
0.6
0.3
h
h
1.83
0.6
0.2
0.64
h
4.47
h
h
0.4
h
0.9
1.7
1.2
1.7
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.3
h
h
0.3
h
0.2
h
0.6
0.4
0.7
TSP,
gr/dscf
f
0.123
0.056
f
f
0.015
0.011
0.004
0.075
h
h
0.187
0.048
0.044
f
h
0.161
h
h
0.127
h
0.094
0.013
0.08
0.013
0.011
0.004
0.015
0.061
0.061
0.077
h
h
0.075
h
0.044
h
0.048
0.127
0.052
TEST
No.
4
3
5
6
1
1
3
2
1
8B
8A
2
3
4
1
4
3
6
7
2
5
2
4
3
4
3
2
1
1
3
2
8B
8A
1
7
4
6
3
2
2a,b,c
SPONSOR
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
-------
Table B-1. (continued)
SITE
OLIN
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
PENNWALT
PENNWALT
PENNWALT
PENNWALT
PENNWALT
PENNWALT
PENNWALT
DUPONT-DE
DUPONT-DE
DUPONT-DE
DUPONT-DE
DUPONT-DE
DUPONT-DE
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-DE
DUPONT-LA
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
TWI
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
AMERICAN CYANAMID
AMERICAN CYANAMID
AMERICAN CYANAMID
AKZO CHEMICAL
COMPOUND
dichlordifluormethane
dichlorobenzene
dichlorobenzene
dichlorobenzene
dichlorofluoroethane
dichlorofluoroethane
dichlorofluoroethane
dichlorofluoroethane
dichlorofluoroethane
dichlorofluoroethane
dichlorofluoroethane
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
dichloromethane0
dichloromethane0
dichloromethane0
dichloromethane0
dichloromethane
dichloromethane01 k
dichloromethane
dichloromethane0' k
dichloromethane9
dichloromethane0
dichloromethane0'11
dichloromethane0' k
diethyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
diphenyl amine"
diphenyl amine8
diphenyl amine0
formaldehyde
CONC,%a
5
0.11-0.17
0.09-0.15
0.05-0.15
17.6
15.1
15
14.5
9.2
8.9
10.2
6.7
6.1
8
7.1
5.6
4.6
1.71
1.61
7.7
1.89
0.67
0.36
0.23
0.00627
0.017
0.00881
0.021
0.00832
0.00762
0.0116
0.0109
0.013
0.0572
0.0524
0.037
0.58
0.54
0.62
10.03
DRE,%a
99.99
99.998
99.996
99.99
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.997
99.995
99.9999
99.9998
99.9997
99.9997
99.9997
99.9997
99.99941
99.9991
99.999
99.9988
99.989
99.978
99.968
99.918
99.906
99.9
99.88
99.83
99.71
99.63
99.53
99.51
99.974
99.962
99.943
99.9992
99.9992
99.999
99.998
TEMP,
°F
2095
2400
1650
2000
2320
2370
2260
2340
2380
2340
2350
1864
1826
1833
1831
1906
1842
2640
2640
1857
2640
2090
2040
2110
2080
1600
2140
2070
2120
2030
1810
2050
2230
1952
1952
1952
1198
1198
1240
1650
HCL,
lb/hb
1.2
60.9
5
16
1.3
1.4
0.72
1
0.9
1.1
1
1.2
1.7
0.6
2.6
0.1
1.3
0.5
0.6
1.1
0.9
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
1.4
h
0.6
h
0.4
0.2
h
h
4.47
0.64
1.83
0.007
0.007
0.004
d
TSP,
gr/dscf
0.031
0.444
0.107
0.68
0.006
0.006
0.044
0.007
0.005
0.036
0.014
0.079
f
0.08
f
0.055
f
0.015
0.004
0.071
0.011
0.077
0.061
0.061
0.075
0.022
h
0.048
h
0.127
0.044
h
h
0.161
f
0.187
0.069
0.175
0.075
0.052
TEST
No.
Sa,b,c
9
7
8
22-3
23-2
22-4
23-3
23-1
22-1
22-2
6
5
4
3
2
7
1
2
1
3
2
3
1
1
2
8B
3
8A
2
4
7
6
3
1
2
3
5
2
3-18
SPONSOR
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
EPA
EPA
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
-------
Table B-1, (continued)
Ui
<0
SITE
DUPONT-WV
DUPONT-WV
AKZO CHEMICAL
AKZO CHEMICAL
DUPONT-WV
AKZO CHEMICAL
AKZO CHEMICAL
AKZO CHEMICAL
AKZO CHEMICAL
AKZO CHEMICAL
AKZO CHEMICAL
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
TWI
TWI
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
TWI
TWI
TWI
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
COMPOUND
formaldehyde
formaldehyde
formaldehyde
formaldehyde
formaldehyde
formaldehyde
formaldehyde
formaldehyde
formaldehyde
formaldehyde
formaldehyde
hexachlorobenzene0
hexachlorobenzene8
hexachlorobenzene0
hexachlorobenzene0
hexachlorobenzene0
hexachlorobenzene0
hexachlorobutadieneB
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene0
hexachlorocyclopentadiene0
hexachlorocyclopentadiene0
hexachlorocyclopentadiene0
hexachlorocYclopentadiene"
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
CONC,%a
9.7
10
10.01
10.24
7.5
10.2
10.14
10.01
10.09
10.09
10.05
<0.01-0.016
<0.01-0.01
<0.01-0.016
0.01-0.026
0.01
0.01
0.0144
0.693
0.37-0.56
0.24-1.6
0.25-0.71
0.069-0.76
0.00956
0.00786
0.0066
0.01-1.2
0.009-0.31
6.4
2.8
2.7
2.7
2.1
2
2
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.5
DRE,%a
99.998
99.997
99.996
99.995
99.995
99.993
99.993
99.993
99.992
99.992
99.992
99.993
99.993
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.98
99.9996
99.999
99.998
99.996
99.996
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.97
99.96
99.99997
99.9999
99.9999
99.9999
99.9999
99.9999
99.9999
99.9999
99.9999
99.9999
99.9999
99.9999
TEMP,
°F
1701
1729
1620
1830
1735
1830
1780
1830
1780
1780
1630
2400
1650
2000
2400
1650
2000
1810
1810
1650
2400
2000
2000
2070
2030
2080
2400
1650
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1600
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
HCL,
lb/h»
h
h
d
d
h
d
d
d
d
d
d
89.7
3.7
0.8
6.1
1.9
7.8
0.2
0.2
1.9
6.1
7.8
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.3
89.7
3.7
98.2
98.9
98.9
98.5
98.6
98.1
98.2
97.9
98.2
98.4
98.3
98.5
TSP,
gr/dscf
0.017
0.017
0.037
0.041
0.018
0.043
0.04
0.04
0.048
0.04
0.03
f
f
0.123
f
f
0.056
0.044
0.044
f
f
0.056
0.123
0.048
0.127
0.075
f
f
0.094
0.048
0.066
0.057
0.055
0.073
0.075
0.07
0.071
0.064
0.061
0.056
TEST
No.
DIES-4
DIES-3
1-18
1-20
DIES-2
3-20
2-19
2-20
1-19
3-19
2-18
6
4
2
3
1
5
4
4
1
3
5
2
3
2
1
6
4
1
8
7
9
11
2
6
3
4
12
5
10
SPONSOR
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
-------
Table B-1. (continued)
CD
5
o
SITE
CINCINNATI M5D
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CIBA-GEIGY
CIBA-GEIGY
CIBA-GEIGY
CIBA-GEIGY
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CIBA-GEIGY
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
AMERICAN CYANAMID
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
AMERICAN CYANAMID
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
TWI
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
DUPONT-LA
COMPOUND
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethaneo
hexachloroethane9
hexachloroethane11
hexachioroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane9
hexachloroethane0
hexachloroethane9
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
m-dichlorobenzene
m-dichlorobenzene
m-dichlorobenzene
m-dinitrobenzenee
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
MEK
methyl pyridine
methyl pyridine
methyl pyridine
mononitrobenzene"
N,N dimethylacetamide
N,N dimethylacetamide
N,N dimethylacetamide
naphthalene
naphthalene0'8
naphthalene0'"
naphthalene0'9
naphthalene"8
CONC,%a
0.21-0.47
0.22-0.77
0.14-0.75
4.87
4.87
4.87
4.87
0.01-0.023
0.01-0.019
0.01-0.014
4.87
0.011-0.020
0.01-0.018
0.01-0.015
0.045
0.044
0.0395
2.1
3.1
2.3
0.31
0.86
1.64
0.79
0.273
0.422
0.284
0.042
0.041
0.025
64
1.9
1.82
0.83
0.379
0.0395
0.0148
0.0192
0.009
DRE,%a
99.9997
99.9996
99.999
99.998
99.997
99.997
99.995
99.994
99.993
99.992
99.992
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.922
99.932
99.905
99.99
99.99967
99.99932
99.9993
99.9965
99.9952
99.988
99.987
99.998
99.998
99.998
99.99991
99.9999
99.9999
99.9998
99.996
99.986
99.98
99.96
99.1
TEMP,
°F
2400
1650
2000
1800
1800
1800
1800
2400
2000
1650
1800
2400
2000
1650
2640
2640
2640
2040
2040
2040
1254
2110
2040
2090
1930
2000
2050
1975
2090
2040
2110
1254
2040
2090
2110
1810
1975
2000
1930
2640
HCL.
lb/hb
60.9
5
16
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
89.7
0.8
3.7
99.9
6.1
7.8
1.9
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.9
1.7
1.2
0.007
0.1
0.3
0.3
4.1
4.9
f
3.8
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.007
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
3.8
4.9
4.1
0.6
'ISP,
gr/dscf
0.444
0.107
0.68
0.21
0.2
0.14
0.19
f
0.123
f
0.14
f
0.056
f
0.004
0.015
0.011
0.094
0.013
0.08
0.007
0.061
0.061
0.077
0.491
0.313
f
0.378
0.077
0.061
0.061
0.007
0.061
0.077
0.061
0.044
0.378
0.313
0.491
0.004
TEST
No.
9
7
8
1
2
3
4
6
2
4
5
3
5
1
2
1
3
2
4
3
4
1
3
2
1
2
3
4
2
3
1
4
3
2
1
4
4
2
1
2
SPONSOR
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
Private
Private
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
-------
Table B-1. (continued)
DO
O)
SITE
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
GULF OIL
GULF OIL
GULF OIL
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
SCA CHEMICAL SER
SCA CHEMICAL SER
SCA CHEMICAL SER
SCA CHEMICAL SER
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
ROSS INCINERATION
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
GULF OIL
ROSS INCINERATION
GULF OIL
ROSS INCINERATION
GULF OIL CORP.
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
AMERICAN CYANAMID
COMPOUND
naphthalene0'"
naphthalene0'0
naphthalene
naphthalene
naphthalene
naphthalene0
naphthalene0
naphthalene0
naphthalene0'9
naphthalene0'8
naphthalene0'9
o-dichlorobenzene
o-dichlorobenzene
o-dichlorobenzene
p-dichlorobenzene
p-dichlorobenzene
p-dichlorobenzene
PCB
PCB
PCB
PCB
pentachloroethane
pentachloroethane
pentachloroathane
phenol0
phenol0
phenol0'9
phenol0
phenol
phenol0'9
phenol
phenol0'9
phenol
phenol0
phenol0
phenol0
phenyl isocyanate
phenyl isocyanate
phenyl isocyanate
phenylene diamine
CONC,%a
0.011
0.006
0.036
0.032
0.024
0.0177
0.0174
0.0118
4
6.4
4.6
5.6
8
5.9
27.5
26.7
19
22.1
0.42-0.81
0.42-0.81
0.27-0.83
1.9
2.73
0.012
1.72
0.006
0.005
0.169
0.148
0.249
17
21
16
0.53
DRE,%a
98
97.4
99.998
99.998
99.998
99.994
99.994
99.991
99.927
99.85
99.81
99.999
99.999
99.993
99.999
99.999
99.995
99.99994
99.99982
99.9998
99.99949
99.9998
99.9998
99.9994
99.99996
99.9985
99.997
99.996
99.996
99.993
99.993
99.992
99.991
99.989
99.979
99.976
99.99992
99.99992
99.9999
99.9992
TEMP,
°F
2640
2640
1310
1320
1320
2090
2110
2040
1952
1952
1952
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2212
2231
2225
2247
1650
2400
2000
2000
1930
2110
1975
1320
2090
1320
2040
1310
1952
1952
1952
2040
2040
2040
1198
HCL,
lb/hb
0.5
0.9
0.12
0.12
0.19
0.3
0.1
0.3
4.47
0.64
1.83
0.9
1.7
1.2
0.9
1.7
1.2
2.5
1.4
3.4
2.2
5
60.9
16
4.9
4.1
0.1
3.8
0.12
0.3
0.19
0.3
0.12
1.83
0.64
4.47
0.9
1.7
1.2
0.007
TSP,
gr/dscf
0.015
0.011
0.027
0.053
0.026
0.077
0.061
0.061
0.161
f
0.187
0.094
0.013
0.08
0.094
0.013
0.08
f
0.075
f
f
0.107
0.444
0.68
0.313
0.491
0.061
0.378
0.053
0.077
0.026
0.061
0.027
0.187
f
0.161
0.094
0.013
0.08
0.069
TEST
No.
1
3
1
2
3
2
1
3
3
1
2
2
4
3
2
4
3
19
17
21
20
7
9
8
2
1
1
4
2
2
3
3
1
2
1
3
2
4
3
3
SPONSOR
EPA
EPA
Private
Private
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
Private
Private
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
EPA
Private
EPA
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
-------
Table B-1. (continued)
03
K>
SITE
AMERICAN CYANAMID
AMERICAN CYANAMID
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
SMITH KLINE CHEM
SMITH KLINE CHEM
SMITH KLINE CHEM
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CIBA-GEIGY
CINCINNATI MSD
CIBA-GEIGY
CIBA-GEIGY
CIBA-GEIGY
CINCINNATI MSD
CIBA-GEIGY
CINCINNATI MSD
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
DUPONT-LA
UNION CARBIDE
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
COMPOUND
Jhenylene diamine6
>henylene diamine8
shosgene
>hosgene
jhosgene
jhthalic anhydride9
ihthalic anhydride8
etrachloroethane
tetrachloroethane
:etrachloroethene
tetrachloroethene
tetrachloroethene
tetrachloroethene
tetrachloroethene
tetrachloroethene
tetrachloroethene
tetrachloroethene
tetrachloroethene
tetrachloroethene
tetrachloroethene
tetrachloroethene
tetrachloroethene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene0
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
CONC,%a
0.46
0.23
53.4
50.8
20.2
0.008
0.007
0.27
0.128
1.32
0.98
1.36
0.38
0.24
5.03
0.26
5.03
5.03
5.03
0.26
5.03
0.34
1.6
1.7
2.8
1.8
2.1
2.7
1.8
1.6
1.5
2
1.4
0.852
2.7
1.06
0.834
0.398
1.67
0.78
DRE,%a
99.999
99.997
99.9985
99.993
99.981
99.99
99.99
99.9998
99.9997
99.99999
99.99999
99.99997
99.999
99.999
99.997
99.997
99.995
99.995
99.991
99.99
99.982
99.97
93.99986
99.99985
99.99984
99.99984
99.99983
99.99979
99.99977
99.99977
99.99977
99.99975
99.99972
99.99972
99.99966
99.99948
99.99926
99.99918
99.99912
99.9986
TEMP,
°F
1198
1240
2040
2040
2040
2090
2040
2400
1650
1620
1710
1640
2400
1650
1800
1650
1800
1800
1800
2000
1800
2400
1800
1800
1600
1800
1600
1600
1800
1800
1800
1600
1600
2640
1600
2640
2640
1952
2040
2110
HCL,
lb/hb
0.007
0.004
0.9
1.2
1.7
0.3
0.3
60.9
5
0.2
0.6
0.6
6.1
1.9
99.9
3.7
99.9
99.9
99.9
7.8
99.9
89.7
98.2
98.4
98.9
97.9
98.6
98.5
98.2
98.3
98.5
98.1
98.2
0.6
98.9
0.5
0.9
4.47
0.3
0.1
TSP,
gr/dscf
0.175
0.075
0.094
0.08
0.013
0.077
0.061
0.444
0.107
0.027
0.03
0.057
f
f
0.21
f
0.2
0.14
0.19
0.056
0.14
f
0.075
0.064
0.048
0.07
0.055
0.057
0.071
0.061
0.056
0.073
0.094
0.004
0.066
0.015
0.011
0.161
0.061
0.061
TEST
No.
5
2
2
3
4
2
3
9
7
7
8
6
3
1
1
4
2
3
4
5
5
6
6
12
8
3
11
9
4
5
10
2
1
2
7
1
3
3
3
1
SPONSOR
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
Private
Private
EPA
EPA
Private
EPA
Private
Private
Private
EPA
Private
EPA
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
EPA
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
-------
Table B-1. (continued)
pi
to
SITE
MCDONNELL DGLS
ROSS INCINERATION
MCDONNELL DGLS
MCDONNELL DGLS
MCDONNELL DGLS
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
TWI
TWI
TWI
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
DUPONT-LA
TWI
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
TWI
SMITH KLINE CHEM
TWI
CIBA-GEIGY
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CIBA-GEIGY
CIBA-GEIGY
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
SMITH KLINE CHEM
CIBA-GEIGY
TWI
ROSS INCINERATION
TWI
CIBA-GEIGY
SMITH KLINE CHEM
TWI
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
COMPOUND
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene0
tetrachloroethylene0
tetrachloroethylene0
tetrachloroethylene0
tetrachloroethylenefl'k
tetrachloroethylene0
tetrachloroethylene0'1
tetrachloroethylene011
tetrachloroethylene0
tetrachloroethylene0'1*
tetrachloroethylene0
tetrachloroethylene0'"
toluene
toluene"
toluene
toluene
toluene"
toluene
toluene
toluene
toluene0
toluene
toluene
toluene
toluene
toluene
toluene
toluene1*
toluene
toluene"
toluene
toluene
toluene.
toluene
toluene0'1
CONC,%a
0.6
0.69
0.57
0.64
0.64
0.582
0.347
0.00861
0.0183
0.0044
0.00567
0.235
0.29
0.0124
0.00377
0.00636
0.0041
20.2
9.87
21.9
21.54
11.03
3.86
7.92
60.58
2.47
60.58
60.58
4.04
2.87
3.2
60.58
8.52
2.74
8.55
60.58
4.53
9.56
0.42
0.748
DRE,%a
99.99779
99.9977
99.9977
99.99763
99.9971
99.9968
99.9966
99.9929
99.982
99.966
99.965
99.948
99.937
99.88
99.81
99.78
99.64
99.99993
99.99988
99.99986
99.99986
99.99959
99.99953
99.99946
99.9994
99.99923
99.9992
99.9992
99.99904
99.9987
99.9982
99.998
99.9979
99.9978
99.9976
99.997
99.997
99.9963
99.9956
99.994
TEMP,
°F
1800
2090
1800
1800
1800
1952
1952
2050
1810
2140
2080
1776
2070
2050
2030
2230
2640
2140
2640
2640
2120
1620
2080
1800
1952
1800
1800
2110
2090
1710
1800
2230
2040
2050
1800
1640
2070
1660
1776
HCL,
lb/hb
1.67
0.3
0.8
1.64
0.74
0.64
1.83
f
0.2
h
0.3
h
h
0.6
h
0.4
h
0.6
h
0.9
0.5
h
0.2
0.3
99.9
0.64
99.9
99.9
0.1
0.3
0.6
99.9
h
0.3
h
99.9
0.6
0.6
3.3
h
TSH,
gr/dsd
0.047
0.077
0.032
0.044
0.032
f
0.187
f
0.044
h
0.075
h
h
0.048
h
0.127
h
0.004
h
0.011
0.015
h
0.027
0.075
0.21
f
0.2
0.14
0.061
0.077
0.03
0.19
h
0.061
h
0.14
0.057
0.048
0.017
h
TEST
No.
1
2
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
8B
1
4
5
3
7
2
6
2
8B
3
1
8A
7
1
1
1
2
3
1
2
8
4
6
3
7
5
6
3
4
4
SPONSOR
Private
EPA
Private
Private
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
EPA
Private
EPA
Private
Private
EPA
EPA
Private
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
-------
Table 8-1. (continued)
SITE
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
TWI
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
TWI
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
OLIN
OLIN
DOW CHEMICAL
DOW CHEMICAL
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
MCDONNELL DGLS
MCDONNELL DGLS
MCDONNELL DGLS
DUPONT-LA
ROSS INCINERATION
UPJOHN
MCDONNELL DGLS
TWI
TWI
DUPONT-LA
UPJOHN
TWI
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
UPJOHN
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
TWI
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
COMPOUND
toluene
toluene0
toluene
toluene
toluene
toluene0
toluene0''
toluene0
toluene0
toluene0
toluene
toluene0
trans-dichlorobutene
trans-dichlorobutene
trans-dichlorobutene
trichlorfluormethane
trichlorfluormethane
trichlorobenzenes
trichlorobenzenes
trichloroethane
trichloroethane
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene"
trichloroethylenek
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene0
CONC,%a
0.073
1.62
6.01
0.33
4.08
1.317
1.3
0.0618
0.0738
0.0957
0.11
0.105
5.27
4.48
4.4
14.85
10.97
3.1
0.96
18
21
9.5
0.277
1.04
4
0.5
0.555
0.67
0.309
4
0.353
0.52
3.3
0.71
0.83
0.47
0.178
0.202
DRE,%a
99.9932
99.9923
99.9922
99.9914
99.9908
99.989
99.982
99.979
99.966
99.957
99.952
99.941
99.99992
99.9999
99.9999
99.9999
99.9998
99.995
99.992
99.999
99.985
99.99999
99.99998
99.99995
99.99984
99.99963
99.99956
99.9995
99.99924
99.99921
99.999
99.9989
99.9989
99.9985
99.9983
99.9979
99.9969
99.9965
99.9962
99.9959
TEMP,
°F
1550
1952
1810
1600
2030
1952
1975
1930
2050
1570
2000
2640
2640
2640
2095
2088
1800
1820
2400
1650
1800
1800
1800
2640
2110
2040
1800
2140
2120
2640
2040
1810
1550
2040
1600
2040
2090
2080
2050
HCL,
lb/hb
2.8
4.47
0.2
1.4
0.4
1.83
h
3.8
4.1
f
2.2
4.9
0.9
0.6
0.5
1.2
0.7
99.7
99.8
60.9
5
1.64
1.67
0.8
0.5
0.1
1.7
0.74
h
h
0.6
1.2
0.2
2.8
0.9
1.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
f
Ti5P,
gr/dscf
0.036
0.161
0.044
0.022
0.127
0.187
h
0.378
0.491
f
0.03
0.313
0.011
0.004
0.015
0.031
0.052
0.444
0.107
0.044
0.047
0.032
0.015
0.061
0.013
0.032
h
h
0.004
0.08
0.044
0.036
0.094
0.022
0.061
0.077
0.075
f
TEST
No.
3
3
4
2
2
2
5
4
1
3
1
2
3
2
1
3a,b,c
2a,b,c
10272-1
10272-2
9
7
3
1
2
1
1
4
4
SB
8A
2
3
4
3
2
2
3
2
1
3
SPONSOR
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
Private
Private
Private
EPA
EPA
Private
Private
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
-------
Table B-1. (continued)
O>
Ul
SITE
DUPONT-LA
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
TWI
TWI
TWI
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
TWI
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
COMPOUND
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylenek
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene0
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene0
trichloroethylene0
trichloroethylene0
trichloroethylene0
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene0'1
trichloroethylene0
trichloroethylene0''
CONC,%
0.198
0.29
0.212
0.29
0.277
0.232
0.956
0.222
0.223
0.136
0.166
1.1
0.124
0.147
0.123
DRE.%
99.9951
99.9946
99.9945
99.9926
99.9917
99.991
99.989
99.985
99.984
99.983
99.981
99.979
99.949
99.8
99.8
TEMP,
°F
2640
1660
2030
2050
2070
2000
2230
1930
1975
1952
1952
1570
1776
1952
HCL,
Ib/h
0.9
3.3
0.4
h
0.6
4.9
h
4.1
3.8
1.83
0.64
2.2
h
4.47
h
TSP,
gr/dsd
0.011
0.017
0.127
h
0.048
0.313
h
0.491
0.378
0.187
f
0.03
h
0.161
h
TEST
No.
3
4
2
7
3
2
6
1
4
2
1
1
4
3
5
SPONSOR
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
"For those runs in which a range of waste feed concentrations were tested, only the lowest reported ORE is listed.
bHCI values for Dow, Stauffer Chemical, and Upjohn are listed as % removal, not Ib/h.
°Sampling and/or analytical problems; data suspect.
"None detected; limit of detection unknown.
Temperature reading suspect—may be low by 300°F.
'Not reported.
"Low concentration (200 ppm or less) in waste feed.
hNot measured.
'Abnormal operating conditions—low temperature.
'Abnormal operating conditions—unspecified.
"Abnormal operating conditions—waste feed rate increased and combustion air distribution changed in attempt to increase CO and THC emissions.
-------
Table B-2. Summary Tabulation of Incinerator Test Results by Site
CO
SITE
3M
3M
3M
3M
3M
3M
3M
3M
3M
3M
3M
3M
3M
3M
3M
3M
3M
3M
3M
3M
AKZO CHEMICAL
AKZO CHEMICAL
AKZO CHEMICAL
AKZO CHEMICAL
AKZO CHEMICAL
AKZO CHEMICAL
AKZO CHEMICAL
AKZO CHEMICAL
AKZO CHEMICAL
AMERICAN CYANAMID
AMERICAN CYANAMID
AMERICAN CYANAMID
AMERICAN CYANAMID
AMERICAN CYANAMID
AMERICAN CYANAMID
AMERICAN CYANAMID
AMERICAN CYANAMID
AMERICAN CYANAMID
AMERICAN CYANAMID
AMERICAN CYANAMID
COMPOUND
1,1,2 trichloroethane
1,1,2 trichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2 trichloroethane
1,1,2 trichloroethane
1,1,2 trichloroethane
1,1,2 trichloroethane
1,1,2 trichloroethane
1,1,2 trichloroethane
1,1,2 trichloroethane
1,1,2 trichloroethane
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
formaldehyde
formaldehyde
formaldehyde
formaldehyde
formaldehyde
formaldehyde
formaldehyde
formaldehyde
formaldehyde
aniline0'8
aniline6'8
aniline0'8
aniline0'8
diphenyl amine"
diphenyl amine8
diphenyl amine8
m-dinitrobenzenee
monoinitrobenzene"
phenylene diamine8
phenylene diamine8
CONC,%a
1.566
0.937
1.304
1.066
1.631
1.225
1.771
1.3
0.548
1.239
1.031
0.868
1.068
0.482
0.623
0.596
0.99
1.021
0.524
0.881
10.03
10.01
10.24
10.14
10.01
10.2
10.05
10.09
10.09
60
53
55
0.8
0.58
0.54
0.62
0.31
64
0.53
0.46
DRE.%a
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.998
99.998
99.998
99.994
99.99
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.998
99.998
99.998
99.996
99.995
99.993
99.993
99.993
99.992
99.992
99.992
99.99999
99.99999
99.99999
99.9997
99.9992
99.9992
99.999
99,99
99.99991
99.9992
99.999
TEMP,
°F
1985
1915
1905
1885
1890
2030
1930
1925
1985
1950
1950
2030
1985
1915
1905
1885
1930
1890
1985
1925
1650
1620
1830
1780
1830
1830
1630
1780
1780
1198
1198
1240
1254
1198
1198
1240
1254
1254
1198
1198
HCL,
Ib/h"
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.8
0.44
1.2
0.7
0.9
0.48
0.48
0.44
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.4
1.2
0.8
0.86
0.7
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
0.007
0.007
0.004
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.004
0.007
0.007
0.007
0.007
TSP,
qr/dscf
0.091
0.047
0.047
0.048
0.08
0.0848
0.154
0.078
0.0623
0.112
0.112
0.0848
0.091
0.047
0.047
0.048
0.154
0.08
0.0623
0.078
0.052
0.037
0.041
0.04
0.04
0.043
0.03
0.048
0.04
0.069
0.175
0.075
0.007
0.069
0.175
0.075
0.007
0.007
0.069
0.175
TEST
No.
4
5
6
7
10
3
8
9
1
2
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
1
9
3-18
1-18
1-20
2-19
2-20
3-20
2-18
1-19
3-19
3
5
2
4
3
5
2
4
4
3
5
SPONSOR
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
-------
Table B-2. (continued)
O)
SI
SITE
AMERICAN CYANAMID
CIBA-GEIGY
CIBA-GEIGY
CIBA-GEIGY
CIBA-GEIGY
CIBA-GEIGY
CIBA-GEIGY
CIBA-GEIGY
CIBA-GEIGY
CIBA-GEIGY
CIBA-GEIGY
CIBA-GEIGY
CIBA-GEIGY
CIBA-GEIGY
CIBA-GEIGY
CIBA-GEIGY
CIBA-GEIGY
CIBA-GEIGY
CIBA-GEIGY
CIBA-GEIGY
CIBA-GEIGY
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
COMPOUND
phenylene diamine0
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
tetrachloroethene
tetrachloroethene
tetrachloroethene
tetrachloroethene
tetrachloroethene
toluene
toluene
toluene
toluene
toluene
bromodichloromethane
bromodichloromethane
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
chloroform
chloroform
chloroform
chloroform
chloroform
dichlorobenzene
dichlorobenzene
dichlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene"
hexachlorobenzene"
hexachlorobenzene"
hexachlorobenzene"
CONC.%"
0.23
29.52
29.52
29.52
29.52
29.52
4.87
4.87
4.87
4.87
4.87
5.03
5.03
5.03
5.03
5.03
60.58
60.58
60.58
60.58
60.58
0.4
0.28
0.26
0.16
0.22
0.11
0.23
1.32
1.72
1.09
1.2
1.8
0.11-0.17
0.09-0.15
0.05-0.15
<0.01-0.01
<0.01-0.016
0.01
<0.01-0.016
DRE.%8
99.997
99.9997
99.9995
99.9994
99.9992
99.998
99.998
99.997
99.997
99.995
99.992
99.997
99.995
99.995
99.991
99.982
99.9994
99.9992
99.9992
99.998
99.997
99.995
99.97
99.9999
99.999
99.995
99.96
99.9
99.9997
99.9995
99.9989
99.998
99.998
99.998
99.996
99.99
99.993
99.993
99.99
99.99
TEMP,
°F
1240
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
2400
1650
2400
1650
1650
2000
2400
1650
2400
2000
1650
2400
2400
1650
2000
1650
2400
1650
2000
HCL,
lb/hb
0.004
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
60.9
5
6.1
3.7
1.9
7.8
89.7
3.7
6.1
7.8
1.9
89.7
60.9
5
16
3.7
89.7
1.9
0.8
TSP,
gr/dscf
0.075
0.21
0.14
0.2
0.19
0.14
0.21
0.2
0.14
0.19
0.14
0.21
0.2
0.14
0.19
0.14
0.21
0.2
0.14
0.19
0.14
0.444
0.107
f
f
f
0.056
f
f
0.123
0.056
f
f
0.444
0.107
0.68
f
f
f
0.123
TEST
No.
2
1
3
2
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
9
7
3
4
1
5
6
4
3
5
1
6
9
7
8
4
6
1
2
SPONSOR
EPA
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
-------
Table B-2. (continued)
CO
O)
00
SITE
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CINCINNATI MSD
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
COMPOUND
lexachlorobenzene"
lexachlorobenzene9
lexachlorocyclopentadiene
lexachlorocyclopentadiene
lexachlorocyclopentadiene
lexachlorocyclopentadiene
lexachlorocyclopentadiene9
lexachlorocyclopentadiene9
lexachloroethane
lexachloroethane
lexachloroethane
lexachloroethane9
nexachloroethane9
nexachloroethane9
hexachloroethane9
hexachloroethane8
hexachloroethane9
pentachloroethana
aentachloroethane
pentachloroethane
letrachloroethane
;etrachloroethane
tetrachloroethene
tetrachloroethene
tatrachloroethene
tetrachloroethene
tetrachloroethene
trichloroethane
trichloroethane
butyl benzyl phthalate9
butyl benzyl phthalate9
butyl benzyl phthalate9
carbon tetrachloride0
carbon tetrachloride0
carbon tetrachloridec
carbon tetrachloride0'1
carbon tetrachlorideCli
chloroform0'"
chloroform0'9
chloroform0'9'1
CONC,%a
0.01-0.026
0.01
0.37-0.56
0.24-1.6
0.069-0.76
0.25-0.71
0.01-1.2
0.009-0.31
0.21-0.47
0.22-0.77
0.14-0.75
0.01-0.023
0.01-0.019
0.01-0.014
0.01-0.015
0.011-0.020
0.01-0.018
0.42-0.81
0.42-0.81
0.27-0.83
0.27
0.128
0.24
0.38
0.26
0.26
0.34
3.1
0.96
0.0227
0.0149
0.00416
0.132
0.163
0.142
0.12
0.118
0.0074
0.0154
0.00428
DRE,%a
99.99
99.99
99.999
99.998
99.996
99.996
99.97
99.96
99.9997
99.9996
99.999
99.994
99.993
99.992
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.9998
99.9998
99.9994
99.9998
99.9997
99.999
99.999
99.997
99.99
99.97
99.999
99.985
99.9938
99.9923
99.92
99.9928
99.984
99.976
99.949
99.63
99.86
99.7
99.69
IEMP,
°F
2400
2000
1650
2400
2000
2000
2400
1650
2400
1650
2000
2400
2000
1650
1650
2400
2000
1650
2400
2000
2400
1650
1650
2400
1650
2000
2400
2400
1650
1952
1952
1952
1952
1952
1952
1776
1952
1952
1776
HCL,
Ib/hb
6.1
7.8
1.9
6.1
0.8
7.8
89.7
3.7
60.9
5
16
89.7
0.8
3.7
1.9
6.1
7.8
5
60.9
16
60.9
5
1.9
6.1
3.7
7.8
89.7
60.9
5
0.64
4.47
1.83
1.83
0.64
4.47
h
h
1.83
0.64
h
TSP,
gr/dscf
f
0.056
f
f
0.123
0.056
f
f
0.444
0.107
0.68
f
0.123
f
f
f
0.056
0.107
0.444
0.68
0.444
0.107
f
f
f
0.056
f
0.444
0.107
f
0.161
0.187
0.187
f
0.161
h
h
0.187
f
h
TEST
No.
3
5
1
3
2
5
6
4
9
7
8
6
2
4
1
3
5
7
9
8
9
7
1
3
4
5
6
9
7
1
3
2
2
1
3
4
5
2
1
4
SPONSOR
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
-------
Table B-2. (continued)
Ol
SITE
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
CONFIDENTIAL SITE B
DOW CHEMICAL
DOW CHEMICAL
DOW CHEMICAL
DOW CHEMICAL
DOW CHEMICAL
DOW CHEMICAL
DUPONT-DE
DUPONT-DE
DUPONT-DE
DUPONT-DE
DUPONT-DE
DUPONT-DE
DUPONT-DE
DUPONT-DE
COMPOUND
chloroform0'0
chloroform0'8-'
diethyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
diethyl phthalate
naprithalatec'B
naphthalate0'0
naphthalate0'8
phenol0
phenol0
phenol0
tetrachloroethylene0
tetrachloroethylene0
tetrach loroethylene0
tetrachloroethylene0'1
tetrachloroethylene0''
toluene0
toluene0'1
toluene6
toluene0
toluene0'1
trichloroethylene0
trichloroethylene0
trichloroethylene0'1
trichloroethylene0
trichloroethylene0''
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
trichlorobenzenes
trichlorobenzenes
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
dichloromethane
CONC,%a
0.0102
0.00725
0.0572
0.0524
0.037
0.0177
0.0174
0.0118
0.169
0.148
0.249
0.398
0.582
0.347
0.235
0.29
2.47
0.748
1.62
1.317
1.3
0.136
0.166
0.124
0.147
0.123
9.4
9.2
9.3
7.5
8.7
8.8
7.7
6.7
DRE,%"
99.66
97.9
99.974
99.962
99.943
99.927
99.85
99.81
99.989
99.979
99.976
99.99918
99.9968
99.9966
99.948
99.937
99.99923
99.994
99.9923
99.989
99.982
99.983
99.981
99.949
99.8
99.8
99.998
99.996
99.999
99.996
99.995
99.992
99.99994
99.99994
99.99993
99.99992
99.99992
99.99991
99.9994
99.9999
TEMP,
°F
1952
1952
1952
1952
1952
1952
1952
1952
1952
1952
1952
1952
1952
1776
1952
1776
1952
1952
1952
1952
1776
1952
1810
1820
1860
1830
1800
1820
1831
1842
1864
1906
1833
1826
1857
1864
HCL,
lb/hb
4.47
h
4.47
0.64
1.83
4.47
0.64
1.83
1.83
0.64
4.47
4.47
0.64
1.83
h
h
0.64
h
4.47
1.83
h
1.83
0.64
h
4.47
h
99.9
99.9
99.4
99.7
99.7
99.8
2.6
1.3
1.2
0.1
0.6
1.7
1.1
1.2
TSP,
gr/dscf
0.161
h
0.161
f
0.187
0.161
f
0.187
0.187
f
0.161
0.161
f
0.187
h
h
f
h
0.161
0.187
h
0.187
f
h
0.161
h
f
f
0.079
0.055
0.08
f
0.071
0.079
TEST
No.
3
5
3
1
2
3
1
2
2
1
3
3
1
2
4
5
1
4
3
2
5
2
1
4
3
5
10212-2
10212-1
11302-2
11302-3
10272-1
10272-2
3
7
6
2
4
5
1
6
SPONSOR
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
-------
Table B-2. (continued)
SITE
DUPONT-DE
DUPONT-DE
DUPONT-DE
DUPONT-DE
DUPONT-DE
DUPONT-DE
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
DUPONT-LA
COMPOUND
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane"
jenzyl chloride
jenzyl chloride
Denzyl chloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
chloroform
chloroform
chloroform
cis-dichlorobutene
cis-dichlorobutene
cis-dichlorobutene
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
dichloromethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
naphthalene0'9
naphthalene0'9
naphthalene0'9
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
toluene
toluene
trans-dichlorobutene
trans-dichlorobutene
trans-dichlorobutene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
CONC,%a
6,1
5.6
7.1
8
4.6
7.7
0.001
0.211
0.233
0.219
5.38
6.16
5.27
0.33
0.404
0.229
1.39
1.76
1.63
1.71
1.61
1.89
0.044
0.045
0.0395
0.009
0.011
0.006
0.852
1.06
0.834
20.2
21.9
21.54
5.27
4.4
4.48
0.277
0.309
0.198
DRE,%a
99.9998
99.9997
99.9997
99.9997
99.9997
99.999
99.932
99.9996
99.9996
99.9994
99.99988
99.99986
99.99981
99.9938
99.9914
99.987
99.99998
99.99998
99.9999
99.99941
99.9991
99.9988
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.1
98
97.4
99.99972
99.99948
99.99926
99.99993
99.99986
99.99986
99.99992
99.9999
99.9999
99.99984
99.999
99.9951
TEMP,
°F
1826
1906
1831
1833
1842
1857
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
2640
HCL,
lb/hb
1.7
0.1
2.6
0.6
1.3
1.1
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.5
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.9
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.6
0.9
0.5
0.9
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.9
TSP,
gr/dscf
f
0.055
f
0.08
f
0.071
0.015
0.015
0.004
0.011
0.004
0.015
0.011
0.015
0.011
0.004
0.004
0.011
0.015
0.015
0.004
0.011
0.015
0.004
0.011
0.004
0.015
0.011
0.004
0.015
0.011
0.004
0.011
0.015
0.011
0.015
0.004
0.015
0.004
0.011
TEST
No.
5
2
3
4
7
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
3
1
3
2
2
3
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
3
1
3
1
2
1
2
3
SPONSOR
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
-------
Table B-2. (continued)
CO
-4
VJ
SITE
DUPONT-WV
DUPONT-WV
DUPONT-WV
GULF OIL
GULF OIL
GULF OIL
GULF OIL
GULF OIL
GULF OIL CORP.
MCDONNELL DGLS
MCDONNELL DGLS
MCDONNELL DGLS
MCDONNELL DGLS
MCDONNELL DGLS
MCDONNELL DGLS
MCDONNELL DGLS
MCDONNELL DGLS
MCDONNELL DGLS
MCDONNELL DGLS
MCDONNELL DGLS
MCDONNELL DGLS
MCDONNELL DGLS
MCDONNELL DGLS
MCDONNELL DGLS
MCDONNELL DGLS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
COMPOUND
formaldehyde
formaldehyde
formaldehyde
naphthalene
naphthalene
naphthalene
phenol
phenol
phenol
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
benzene"
benzene"
bis(ethyl hexyl)phthalatee
bisjethyl hexyl)phthalatec
bisjethyl hexyl)phthalatec
butyl benzyl phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate0
butyl benzyl phthalate9
carbon tetrachloride0
carbon tetrachloride0
carbon tetrachloride0
carbon tetrachloride0
MEK
MEK
MEK
CONC,%a
9.7
10
7.5
70
71
62
59
8.9
7.5
8.1
8.9
0.6
0.57
0.64
0.64
18
21
9.5
0.5
0.0116
0.0067
0.192
0.416
0.169
0.169
0.00758
0.0064
0.243
0.263
0.242
0.223
0.273
0.422
DRE,%a
99.998
99.997
99.995
99.998
99.998
99.998
99.996
99.993
99.991
99.99999
99.99999
99.99999
99.99999
99.99998
99.99997
99.99996
99.99992
99.99779
99.9977
99.99763
99.9971
99.99999
99.99998
99.99995
99.9995
99.986
99.82
99.9985
99.996
99.993
99.995
99.992
99.973
99.9984
99.9981
99.997
99.984
99.9965
99.9952
99.988
TEMP,
°F
1701
1729
1735
1310
1320
1320
1320
1320
1310
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
1800
2000
2050
1930
1975
2000
2000
1930
1975
1975
2000
1930
2050
1930
2000
2050
HCL,
lb/hb
h
h
h
0.12
0.12
0.19
0.12
0.19
0.12
0.74
0.8
1.64
1.67
1.64
0.8
1.67
0.74
1.67
0.8
1.64
0.74
1.64
1.67
0.8
0.74
4.9
f
4.1
3.8
4.9
4.9
4.1
3.8
3.8
4.9
4.1
f
4.1
4.9
f
TSP,
gr/dscf
0.017
0.017
0.018
0.027
0.053
0.026
0.053
0.026
0.027
0.032
0.032
0.044
0.047
0.044
0.032
0.047
0.032
0.047
0.032
0.044
0.032
0.044
0.047
0.032
0.032
0.313
f
0.491
0.378
0.313
0.313
0.491
0.378
0.378
0.313
0.491
f
0.491
0.313
f
TEST
No.
DIES-4
DIES-3
DIES-2
1
2
3
2
3
1
4
2
3
1
3
2
1
4
1
2
3
4
3
1
2
4
2
3
1
4
2
2
1
4
4
2
1
3
1
2
3
SPONSOR
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
-------
Table B-2. (continued)
SITE
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
MITCHELL SYSTEMS
OLIN
OLIN
OLIN
OLIN
PENNWALT
PENNWALT
PENNWALT
PENNWALT
PENNWALT
PENNWALT
PENNWALT
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
COMPOUND
MbK
naphthalene*1'"
naphthalene0'0
naphthalene0'8
phenol0
ahenol0
ahenol0
tetrachloroethylene8
toluene0
toluene0
toluene0
toluene0
trichloroethylene0
trichloroethylene0
trichloroethylene0
trichloroethylene0
dichlordifluormethane
dichlordifluormethane
trichlorfluormethane
trichlorfluormethane
dichlorofluoroethane
dichlorofluoroethane
dichlorofluoroethane
dichlorofluoroethane
dichlorofluoroethane
dichlorofluoroethane
dichlorofluoroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,2 trichloroethane
1,1,2 trichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2 trichloroethane
2,4 dimethylphenol
2,4 dimethylphenol
2,4 dimethylphenol
aniline
aniline
aniline
butyl benzl phthalate
CONC,%a
0.284
0.0395
0.0148
0.0192
1.9
2.73
1.72
0.00861
0.0618
0.0738
0.0957
0.105
0.202
0.232
0.222
0.223
5
5
14.85
10.97
17.6
15
9.2
15.1
14.5
8.9
10.2
2.55
0.91
0.58
0.035
0.028
0.038
0.071
0.02
0.02
0.026
0.021
0.026
0.1
DRE,%a
99.987
99.986
99.98
99.96
99.99996
99.9985
99.996
99.9929
99.979
99.966
99.957
99.941
99.9959
99.991
99.985
99.984
99.99
99.99
99.9999
99.9998
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.997
99.995
99.99952
99.999
99.999
99.99999
99.99999
99.99999
99.9994
99.9992
99.999
99.998
99.998
99.998
99.9996
1EMP,
°F
1975
1975
2000
1930
2000
1930
1975
2050
1975
1930
2050
2000
2050
2000
1930
1975
2088
2095
2095
2088
2320
2260
2380
2370
2340
2340
2350
2110
2090
2040
2110
2090
2040
2040
2110
2090
2110
2090
2040
2110
HCL,
lb/hb
3.8
3.8
4.9
4.1
4.9
4.1
3.8
f
3.8
4.1
f
4.9
f
4.9
4.1
3.8
0.7
1.2
1.2
0.7
1.3
0.72
0.9
1.4
1
1.1
1
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
TSP,
gr/dscf
0.378
0.378
0.313
0.491
0.313
0.491
0.378
f
0.378
0.491
f
0.313
f
0.313
0.491
0.378
0.052
0.031
0.031
0.052
0.006
0.044
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.036
0.014
0.061
0.077
0.061
0.061
0.077
0.061
0.061
0.061
0.077
0.061
0.077
0.061
0.061
IEST
No.
4
4
2
1
2
1
4
3
4
1
3
2
3
2
1
4
2a,b,c
3a,b,c
3a,b,c
2a,b,c
22-3
22-4
23-1
23-2
23-3
22-1
22-2
1
2
3
1
2
3
3
1
2
1
2
3
1
SPONSOR
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
-------
Table B-2. (continued)
SITE
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
ROSS INCINERATION
SCA CHEMICAL SER
SCA CHEMICAL SER
SCA CHEMICAL SER
COMPOUND
butyl benzyl phthalate
butyl benzyl phthalate0
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
cresol(s)
cresol(s)
cresol(s)
dichloromethane0
dichloromethane0
dichloromethane0
MEK
MEK
MEK
methyl pyridine
methyl pyridine
methyl pyridine
N,N dimethylacetamide
N,N dimethylacetamide
N,N dimethylacetamide
naphthalene0
naphthalene0
naphthalene0
phenol0'8
phenol0'8
phenol0'8
phthalic anhydride8
phthalic anhydride8
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
toluene
toluene
toluene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
PCB
PCB
PCB
CONC,%a
0.027
0.017
0.16
0.21
0.2
0.12
0.091
0.074
0.67
0.36
0.23
0.86
1.64
0.79
0.025
0.042
0.041
1.82
1.9
0.83
0.032
0.036
0.024
0.012
0.006
0.005
0.008
0.007
1.67
0.78
0.69
4.04
2.87
2.74
1.04
0.83
0.47
27.5
26.7
19
DRE,%a
99.999
99.998
99.9964
99.9961
99.9959
99.9993
99.9991
99.999
99.989
99.978
99.968
99.99967
99.99932
99.9993
99.998
99.998
99.998
99.9999
99.9999
99.9998
99.994
99.994
99.991
99.997
99.993
99.992
99.99
99.99
99.99912
99.9986
99.9977
99.99904
99.9987
99.9978
99.99963
99.9969
99.9965
99.99994
99.99982
99.9998
TEMP,
°F
2040
2090
2110
2090
2040
2110
2040
2090
2090
2040
2110
2110
2040
2090
2110
2090
2040
2090
2040
2110
2110
2090
2040
2110
2090
2040
2090
2040
2040
2110
2090
2110
2090
2040
2110
2040
2090
2212
2231
2225
HCL,
lb/hb
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.3
2.5
1.4
3.4
TSP,
gr/dscf
0.061
0.077
0.061
0.077
0.061
0.061
0.061
0.077
0.077
0.061
0.061
0.061
0.061
0.077
0.061
0.077
0.061
0.077
0.061
0.061
0.061
0.077
0.061
0.061
0.077
0.061
0.077
0.061
0.061
0.061
0.077
0.061
0.077
0.061
0.061
0.061
0.077
f
0.075
f
TEST
No.
3
2
1
2
3
1
3
2
2
3
1
1
3
2
1
2
3
2
3
1
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
3
3
1
2
1
2
3
1
3
2
19
17
21
SPONSOR
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
Private
Private
-------
Table B-2. (continued)
oo
SITE
SCA CHEMICAL SER
SMITH KLINE CHEM
SMITH KLINE CHEM
SMITH KLINE CHEM
SMITH KLINE CHEM
SMITH KLINE CHEM
SMITH KLINE CHEM
SMITH KLINE CHEM
SMITH KLINE CHEM
SMITH KLINE CHEM
STAUFFER CHEMICAL
STAUFFER CHEMICAL
STAUFFER CHEMICAL
STAUFFER CHEMICAL
STAUFFER CHEMICAL
STAUFFER CHEMICAL
STAUFFER CHEMICAL
STAUFFER CHEMICAL
STAUFFER CHEMICAL
STAUFFER CHEMICAL
STAUFFER CHEMICAL
STAUFFER CHEMICAL
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
COMPOUND
PCB
chloroform
chloroform
chloroform
etrachloroethene
etrachloroethene
tetrachloroethene
toluene
toluene
toluene
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
1,1,1 trichloroethane
oenzene
benzene
benzene
benzene
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
1,1,1 trichloroethane9
1,1,1 trichloroethane9'"
1,1,1 trichloroethane8'"
1,1,1 trichloroethane8
1,1,1 trichloroethaneg'k
1,1,1 trichloroethane9
1,1,1 trichloroethane0
1,1,1 trichloroethane8' k
benzene1*
benzenek
benzene
benzene"
benzene"
benzene
benzene
benzene
bis(ethyl hexyl)phthalatec'B
bisfethyl hexyl)phthalatec'°
CONC,%a
22.1
1.21
1.1
0.93
1.32
0.98
1.36
3.86
3.2
4.53
0.88
0.87
0.82
0.83
4.47
4.53
4.68
4.65
0.89
0.82
0.85
0.84
0.00792
0.016
0.0123
0.0105
0.0087
0.0051
0.011
0.0162
2.91
3.24
1.52
2.54
2.52
1.18
0.889
1.43
0.00511
0.00429
DRE,%8
99.99949
99.99999
99.99999
99.99999
99.99999
99.99999
99.99997
99.99953
99.9982
99.997
99.99998
99.99998
99.99998
99.99998
100
100
100
99.99999
99.99998
99.99998
99.99998
99.99998
99.966
99.88
99.87
99.86
99.84
99.82
99.81
99.47
99.99979
99.99952
99.9983
99.995
99.99
99.989
99.988
99.984
99.96
99.951
TEMP,
°F
2247
1640
1620
1710
1620
1710
1640
1620
1710
1640
1830
1830
1830
1830
1830
1830
1830
1830
1830
1830
1830
1830
2080
2230
2140
2070
2050
1810
2030
2120
2140
2120
2080
2050
2230
2030
1810
2070
2030
2080
HCL,
lb/hb
2.2
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.6
0.2
0.6
0.6
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
99.9
0.3
h
h
0.6
h
0.2
0.4
h
h
h
0.3
h
h
0.4
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.3
TSP,
gr/dscf
f
0.057
0.027
0.03
0.027
0.03
0.057
0.027
0.03
0.057
0.001
0.002
0.0009
0.003
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.0009
0.002
0.0009
0.001
0.003
0.075
h
h
0.048
h
0.044
0.127
h
h
h
0.075
h
h
0.127
0.044
0.048
0.127
0.075
YEST
No.
20
6
7
8
7
8
6
7
8
6
7
6
4
5
7
6
5
4
6
4
7
5
1
6
SB
3
7
4
2
8A
8B
8A
1
7
6
2
4
3
2
1
SPONSOR
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
-------
Table B-2. (continued)
CD
vj
SITE
TWI
TWI
TW1
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
COMPOUND
bis(ethyl hexyl)phthalate°'9
bis(ethy) hexyl)phthalateCiB
carbon tetrachloride0
carbon tetrachloride0
carbon tetrachloride0' k
carbon tetrachloride0
carbon tetrachloride0
carbon tetrachloride°'k
carbon tetrachlorideClk
carbon tetrachloride°|k
chlordane
chlordane
chlordane
chlorobenzenes'K
chlorobenzene°'k
chlorobenzene9
chlorobenzenea
chlorobenzene9
chlorobenzenea'k
chlorobenzene0
chlorobenzene9lk
chloroform0'9
chloroform0'9'"
chloroform0' a'k
chloroform0'"
chloroform0'9
chloroform0'8'1*
chloroform0' °'k
chloroform0'9
dibromomethane"
dibromomethane"
dibromomethane
dibromomethane"
dibromomethane
dibromomethane1*
dibromomethane
dibromomethane
dibromomethane9
dibromomethane9'"
dibromomethane
CONC,%a
0.00574
0.00261
0.379
0.277
0.377
0.198
0.228
0.53
0.44
0.209
0.66
0.736
0.462
0.0167
0.0184
0.0047
0.00858
0.00956
0.0152
0.0102
0.0174
0.00224
0.00476
0.00443
0.00201
0.00654
0.0082
0.00478
0.00283
0.326
0.292
0.0244
0.319
0.159
0.322
0.172
0.126
0.00627
0.00881
0.021
DRE,%a
99.94
99.88
99.99903
99.9987
99.9987
99.9984
99.9983
99.9966
99.9951
99.9926
99.9999
99.9999
99.9998
99.9949
99.978
99.966
99.965
99.956
99.73
99.7
99.6
99.944
99.92
99.88
99.8
99.78
99.1
99.02
98.2
99.99992
99.99981
99.9987
99.9936
99.982
99.974
99.964
99.956
99.918
99.9
99.88
IEMP,
°F
2070
1810
1810
2070
2050
2080
2030
2120
2140
2230
2030
2070
2080
2140
2120
1810
2080
2070
2050
2030
2230
2080
2140
2120
2070
1810
2230
2050
2030
2140
2120
2080
2050
1810
2230
2070
2030
2080
2140
2070
HCL,
lb/hb
0.6
0.2
0.2
0.6
h
0.3
0.4
h
h
h
0.4
0.6
0.3
h
h
0.2
0.3
0.6
h
0.4
h
0.3
h
h
0.6
0.2
h
h
0.4
h
h
0.3
h
0.2
h
0.6
0.4
0.3
h
0.6
TSP,
gr/dscf
0.048
0.044
0.044
0.048
h
0.075
0.127
h
h
h
0.127
0.048
0.075
h
h
0.044
0.075
0.048
h
0.127
h
0.075
h
h
0.048
0.044
h
h
0.127
h
h
0.075
h
0.044
h
0.048
0.127
0.075
h
0.048
TEST
No.
3
4
4
3
7
1
2
8A
8B
6
2
3
1
8B
8A
4
1
3
7
2
6
1
8B
8A
3
4
6
7
2
8B
8A
1
7
4
6
3
2
1
8B
3
SPONSOR
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
-------
Table B-2. (continued)
SITE
^
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
TWI
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
COMPOUND
dichloromethaneo.*
dibromomethane9
dibromomethane8
dibromomethanefllk
dibromomethanea'k
hexachlorobutadiene"
hexachlorocyclopentadiene
hexachlorocyclopentadiene0
hexachlorocyclopentadiene8
hexachlorocyclopentadiene8
naphthalene
tetrachloroethylene"
tetrachloroethylenefl'k
tetrachloroethylene0
tetrachloroethylene8
tetrachloroethylene9' k
tetrachloroethylene8
tetrachloroethylene°'k
toluene"
toluene1*
toluene
toluene1*
toluene1*
toluene
toluene
toluene
trichloroethylene1*
trichloroethylene1*
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene1*
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
1,2 dichlorobenzene
1,2 dichlorobenzene
1,2 dichlorobenzene
1,2 dichlorobenzene
1,2 dichlorobenzene
1,2 dichlorobenzene
CONC,%a
0.00832
0.00762
0.0116
0.0109
0.013
0.0144
0.693
0.0066
0.00786
0.00956
0.379
0.0183
0.0044
0.00567
0.0124
0.00377
0.00636
0.0041
9.87
11.03
7.92
8.52
8.55
9.56
6.01
4.08
0.555
0.67
0.353
0.178
0.212
0.29
0.277
0.956
2.1
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.4
1.4
DRE,%a
§9!53
99.71
99.63
99.53
99.51
99.98
99.9996
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.996
99.982
99.966
99.965
99.88
99.81
99.78
99.64
99.99988
99.99959
99.99946
99.9979
99.9976
99.9963
99.9922
99.9908
99.99924
99.99921
99.9989
99.9962
99.9945
99.9926
99.9917
99.989
99.99994
99.99992
99.9999
99.9999
99.9999
99.99986
— FEMP,
°F
2120
2030
1810
2050
2230
1810
1810
2080
2030
2070
1810
1810
2140
2080
2070
2050
2030
2230
2140
2120
2080
2230
2050
2070
1810
2030
2140
2120
1810
2080
2030
2050
2070
2230
1600
1800
1600
1600
1800
1800
HCL, I
lb/hb
h
0.4
0.2
h
h
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.2
0.2
h
0.3
0.6
h
0.4
h
h
h
0.3
h
h
0.6
0.2
0.4
h
h
0.2
0.3
0.4
h
0.6
h
98.9
98.2
98.1
98.6
98.4
97.9
ISP,
gr/dscf
h
0.127
0.044
h
h
0.044
0.044
0.075
0.127
0.048
0.044
0.044
h
0.075
0.048
h
0.127
h
h
h
0.075
h
h
0.048
0.044
0.127
h
h
0.044
0.075
0.127
h
0.048
h
0.066
0.075
0.073
0.055
0.064
0.07
TEST
No.
8A
2
4
7
6
4
4
1
2
3
4
4
88
1
3
7
2
6
SB
8A
1
6
7
3
4
2
8B
8A
4
1
2
7
3
6
7
6
2
11
12
3
SPONSOR
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
-------
Table B-2. (continued)
N
N
SITE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
COMPOUND
1,2 dichlorobenzene
1,2 dichlorobenzene
1,2 dichlorobenzene
1,2 dichlorobenzene
1,2 dichlorobenzene
1,2 dichlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
hexachloroethane
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrach loroethy lene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
CONC,%a
2.2
2.1
1.3
1.4
5
1.2
1.8
1.7
1.9
1.4
2
1.8
1.6
1.6
2.7
2.7
2.6
1.5
6.4
2
1.8
1.8
1.6
2
2.7
2.8
2.7
1.5
2.1
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.8
2.8
2.1
2.7
1.8
1.6
1.5
2
DRE,%a
99.99985
99.99985
99.99957
99.99933
99.99923
99.99921
99.99979
99.99979
99.99962
99.99961
99.99959
99.99952
99.99949
99.99935
99.99907
99.99907
99.9988
99.9987
99.99997
99.9999
99.9999
99.9999
99.9999
99.9999
99.9999
99.9999
99.9999
99.9999
99.9999
99.9999
99.99986
99.99985
99.99984
99.99984
99.99983
99.99979
99.99977
99.99977
99.99977
99.99975
TEMP,
°F
1600
1600
1800
1800
1600
1800
1800
1800
1600
1600
1600
1800
1800
1800
1600
1600
1600
1800
1600
1600
1800
1800
1800
1800
1600
1600
1600
1800
1600
1800
1800
1800
1800
1600
1600
1600
1800
1800
1800
1600
HCL,
lb/hb
98.9
98.5
98.3
98.2
98.2
98.5
97.9
98.4
98.1
98.2
98.6
98.2
98.2
98.3
98.9
98.9
98.5
98.5
98.2
98.1
97.9
98.2
98.3
98.2
98.9
98.9
98.5
98.5
98.6
98.4
98.2
98.4
97.9
98.9
98.6
98.5
98.2
98.3
98.5
98.1
TSP,
gr/dscf
0.048
0.057
0.061
0.071
0.094
0.056
0.07
0.064
0.073
0.094
0.055
0.071
0.075
0.061
0.066
0.048
0.057
0.056
0.094
0.073
0.07
0.071
0.061
0.075
0.066
0.048
0.057
0.056
0.055
0.064
0.075
0.064
0.07
0.048
0.055
0.057
0.071
0.061
0.056
0.073
IEST
No.
8
9
5
4
1
10
3
12
2
1
11
4
6
5
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
6
12
3
8
11
9
4
5
10
2
SPONSOR
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
Private
-------
Table B-2. (continued)
SITE
UNION CARBIDE
UNION CARBIDE
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
UPJOHN
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
COMPOUND
etrachloroethylene
etrachloroethylene
,2,4 trichlorobanzena
,2,4 trichlorobenzene
1 ,2,4 Trichlorobenzene
aniline0
aniline0
aniline0
)is(ethyl hexyl)phthalate°
jisjethyl hexyl)phthalatec
bisjethyl hexyl)phthalatec
carbon tetrachloride0
carbon tetrachloride0
carbon tetrachloride0
chlorobenzene0
chlorobenzene0
chloromethane0
chloromethane0
chloromethane0
chlorophenyl isocyanate
m-dichlorobenzene
m-dichloro benzene
m-dichlorobenzene
o-dichlorobenzene
o-dichlorobenzene
o-dichlorobenzene
p-dichlorobenzene
p-dichlorobenzene
p-dichlorobenzene
phenyl isocyanate
phenyl isocyanate
phenyl isocyanate
phosgene
phosgene
phosgene
trichloroethylene0
trichloroethylene0
trichloroethylene0
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
CONC,%a
1.4
2.7
0.027
0.039
0.029
c
c
c
0.05
0.13
0.05
4.4
3.6
4.4
0.68
0.41
>0.2
>0.19
>0.12
2.8
2.1
3.1
2.3
4
6.4
4.6
5.6
8
5.9
17
21
16
53.4
50.8
20.2
4
4
3.3
0.73
0.61
DRE,%a
99.99972
99.99966
99.65
99.75
98.6
99.9988
99.9988
99.981
99.98
99.98
99.95
99.9954
99.994
99.9931
99.945
99.86
99.9986
99.9975
99.9952
99.9991
99.922
99.932
99.905
99.999
99.999
99.993
99.999
99.999
99.995
99.99992
99.99992
99.9999
99.9985
99.993
99.981
99.99956
99.9989
99.9983
99.99911
99.999
TEMP,
°F
1600
1600
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
2040
1600
1550
HCL,
lb/hb
98.2
98.9
0.9
1.7
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.7
0.9
1.7
1.2
1.7
0.9
1.2
1.7
1.2
0.9
1.7
1.2
1.7
0.9
1.7
1.2
0.9
1.7
1.2
0.9
1.7
1.2
0.9
1.7
1.2
0.9
1.2
1.7
1.7
1.2
0.9
1.4
2.8
TSP,
gr/dscf
0.094
0.066
0.094
0.013
0.08
0.08
0.08
0.013
0.094
0.013
0.08
0.013
0.094
0.08
0.013
0.08
0.094
0.013
0.08
0.013
0.094
0.013
0.08
0.094
0.013
0.08
0.094
0.013
0.08
0.094
0.013
0.08
0.094
0.08
0.013
0.013
0.08
0.094
0.022
0.036
TEST
No.
1
7
2
4
3
3
3
4
2
4
3
4
2
3
4
3
2
4
3
4
2
4
3
2
4
3
2
4
3
2
4
3
2
3
4
4
3
2
2
3
SPONSOR
Private
Private
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
-------
Table B-2. (continued)
CO
SITE
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
ZAPATA INDUSTRIES
COMPOUND
carbon tetrachloride
carbon tetrachloride
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
chlorobenzene
dichloromethane
toluene
toluene
toluene
toluene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
trichloroethylene
CONC,%a
0.28
1.2
0.4
0.79
0.78
0.76
0.017
0.42
0.073
0.33
0.11
0.52
0.71
0.29
1.1
DRE,%a
99.9972
99.978
99.9983
99.9974
99.9956
99.9953
99.906
99.9956
99.9932
99.9914
99.952
99.9985
99.9979
99.9946
99.979
TEMP,
°F
1660
1570
1660
1550
1570
1600
1600
1660
1550
1600
1570
1550
1600
1660
1570
HCL,
Ib/h"
3.3
2.2
3.3
2.8
2.2
1.4
1.4
3.3
2.8
1.4
2.2
2.8
1.4
3.3
2.2
TSP,
gr/dscf
0.017
0.03
0.017
0.036
0.03
0.022
0.022
0.017
0.036
0.022
0.03
0.036
0.022
0.017
0.03
TEST
No.
4
1
4
3
1
2
2
4
3
2
1
3
2
4
1
SPONSOR
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
EPA
"For those runs in which a range of waste feed concentrations were tested, only the lowest reported ORE is listed.
bHCI values for Dow, Stauffer Chemical, and Upjohn are listed as % removal, not Ib/h.
Sampling and/or analytical problems; data suspect.
"None detected; limit of detection unknown.
"Temperature reading suspect—may be low by 300°F.
'Not reported.
"Low concentration (200 ppm or less) in waste feed.
hNot measured.
'Abnormal operating conditions—low temperature.
'Abnormal operating conditions—unspecified.
"Abnormal operating conditions—waste feed rate increased and combustion air distribution changed in attempt to increase CO and THC emissions.
-------
BOILER SITE A
Appendix C
BOILER TEST SUMMARIES
Summary of Test Data for Site A
Date of Test: 1982
Run No.: 4 tests. Test 1 was baseline while tests 2,3,
and 4 included creosote sludge
Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Keeler type CP water tube steam
generator (Boiler)
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 10,000 Ib/h of saturated steam @ 250
psig (308 HP)
Pollution control system: Multiclone
Waste feed system: Creosote waste sludge fed
onto belt convey or carrying wood waste. The
mixture was fed into furnace through two
injectors equipped with variable speed augers.
Residence time: 1.2 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Creosote waste sludge
(about 40% of total heat input)
Length of burn: Approximately 8 h
Total amount of waste burned: Estimated 3,440
Ib/test
Waste feed rate: 430 Ib/h of creosote sludge and
1,770 to 1,970 Ib/h wood waste.
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Concentration, % by wt.
Name
Phenol
Pentachlorophenol
2,4-dimethyiphenol
Naphthalene
Fluorene
Btu content: 8518 Btu/lb avg.
Ash content: 0.82% avg.
Chlorine content: 0.15 to 0.21%
Moisture content: 40.4% avg.
Test 2
0.13
0.6
0.13
1.9
0.76
Test3
0.08
0.22
0.036
0.60
0.50
Test 4
0.058
0.22
0.03
0.54
0.044
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Not reported
Primary fuel used: Wood chips, bark and sawdust
Excess air: High excess air
Other:
Had ambient underfire, overfire and reinjec-
tion air. Boiler efficiency = 63%
Total heat input = 17.2 to 18.7 x 106 Btu/h
Volumetric heat release rate = 72 x 103 Btu/ft3-h
Monitoring Methods:
Waste Feed: One composite sample for each co-
fired test
POHC's: Tenax sorbent trap
HCI: Not sampled
Particulate: EPA Modified Method 5
Other:
CO-ANARAD NDIR
NOx-Thermo Electron Chemiluminescence
C-7
-------
BOILER SITE A
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Phenol
Pentachlorophenol
Fluorene
Naphthalene
2,4-dimethyl-phenol
ORE, %
Without background correction
Test 2 Tests Test 4
With background correction
>99.999
99.985
99.997
99.986
>99.995
99.994
99.975
99.986
99.988
>99.982
99.938
99.996
>99.999
99.946
>99.979
Test 2
>99.999
99.985
99.997
99.988
>99.995
Test 3
>99.999
99.975
99.986
99.997
>99.982
Test 4
>99.997
99.996
>99.999
99.955
>99.979
HCI: Not sampled
Particulate: 1.0 g/s (average)
THC: Not reported
CO: 1200, 977, 900 ppm
Other: NOX - 210,171,180 ppm
PIC's: Not reported
Reference(s): Castaldini, C., et. al. Engineering
Assessment Report - Hazardous
Waste Cofiring in Industrial Boilers -
Volumes I and II. Prepared by Acurex
Corporation, Mountain View, Califor-
nia under Contract No. 68-02-3188,
June 1985.
Comments: Operation appeared normal but
there were large fluctuations in CO2,
02, and CO. Although not measured,
boiler steam load probably varied
significantly.
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
>ite layout—site A.
Available
Sample
Platform
/- Stack :
From Plant
Bottom Ash
Removal
Doors
Flyash
Reinjection
Flyash
Bin
ID Fan
C-2
-------
BOILER SITE B
Summary of Test Data for Site B
Date of Test: 1982
Run No.: 4 tests. Test 1 was baseline while tests 2,3,
and 4 included alkyde wastewater from paint
manufacturing.
Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Cleaver-Brooks fire tube steam
boiler
Commercial Private A.
Capacity: 8400 Ib/h of saturated steam @ 150 psig
(250 HP)
Pollution control system: None
Waste feed system: Air atomized oil burner cen-
tered in the single ring burner used to find nat-
ural gas
Residence time: 0.8 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Alkyde resin wastewa-
ter from paint manufacturing containing
toluene, xylenes and acids
Length of burn: Approximately 8 h
Total amount of waste burned: Estimated 283,
259, and 254 gallons
Waste feed rate: 0.59, 0.54, 0.53 gal/min for 3
waste runs
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Concentration, % by wt.
Name
Naphthalene
Pentachlorophenol
Toluene
Test 2
0.0007
0.0002
13
Test3
0.00002
0.00002
0.0004
Test 4
0.00009
0.00002
0.02
Btu content: 90,900,113, 491 Btu/gal
Ash content: Not reported
Chlorine content: Not reported
Moisture content: 28, 99.9, 99.6%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Not reported
Primary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 5.3, 5.7, 5.0% oxygen in outlet
Other:
Boiler efficiency = 63%, heat input = 2.5 to
>2.9 x 106 Btu/h
Volumetric heat release rate = 72x103Btu/ft3-h
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: Tenax sorbent trap
HCI: Not reported
Particulate: Not reported
Other:
CO-ANARAD NDIR
NOx-Thermo Electron Chemiluminescence
c-3
-------
BOILER SITE B
Emission and ORE Results: (see comments)
POHC's:
ORE, %
Without background correction
POHC
Phenol
Pentachlorophenol
Toluene
Run 2
99.3%
>99.6%
>99.999%
Run 3
81%
NA
NA
Run 4'
13/96%
>70/>98.9%
84/99.99%
With background correction
Run 2
>99.9
>99.6
>99.999
Run 3
>99.7
NA
NA
Run 4"
>98.77 - >99.95
>70 - >98.9
>98 - >99.999
aHigh and low values are based upon analyses of three waste samples. Single value indicated only one value reported above detection limit.
"Two numbers indicate high and low values depending on which of three waste analyses was used. Single value indicates only one waste
concentration.
HCI: Not reported
Participate: Not reported
THC: 89, 85,47 ppm
CO: 47, 47, 88 ppm
Other: NOX - 44, 65, 40 ppm
PIC's: Not reported
Reference(s): Castaldini, C., et. al. Engineering
Assessment Report - Hazardous
Waste Cofiring in Industrial Boilers -
Volumes I and II. Prepared by Acurex
Corporation, Mountain View, Califor^
nia under Contract No. 68-02-3188,
June 1984.
Comments: During cofiring, several nonsteady-
state conditions and operational
upsets were recorded. These were
primarily caused by waste feed prob-
lems due to insufficient mixing of the
alkyd resin wastewater. There were
several waste feed cutoffs due to
pluggage of strainers.
Note, all POHC concentrations were
extremely low except for toluene in
Test 2
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Mkyd Resin Water
/Vaste ~~1 r
FT— Mix Tank
\/r\ Combustion Air
Fan
Burner
Filter
Boiler House Roof
Stack
\ ^
Viewport
Natural Gas
Pump
C-4
-------
BOILER SITE C
Summary of Test Data for Site C
Date of Test: 1982
Run No.: 4 tests. Test 1 was baseline while tests 2,3,
and 4 included phenolic wastes
Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Babcock & Wilcox wall-fired steam
generator
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity. 230,000 Ib/h (a 250 psig and 516°F
Pollution control system: None
Waste feed system: Fed into furnace through oil
guns and is steam atomized
Residence time: 2.0 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: o-methyl stryene
dimers and phenolic and benzene residues
including phenol, methylene-bisphenol and
cumene, phenolic wastes
Length of burn: Approximately 8 h
Total amount of waste burned: estimated 2048,
1904, 1928 gallons
Waste feed rate: 256, 238, 241 gal/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Concentration, % by wt.
Name Test 2 Test 3 Test 4
Phenol 5.6 4.7 5.3
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 0.006 0.004 0.003
Dibutylphthalate NA NA 0.012
Btu content: 16,498; 16,525; 16,799 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.08, 0.08, 0.07%
Chlorine content: 0.02, 0.03, 0.07%
Moisture content: 0.45, 0.50, 0.60%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Not reported
Primary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 9.7,10.5,10.7% oxygen in outlet
Other:
Boiler efficiency - 81%, heat input - 83.4 to 88.3
x 106 Btu/h
Volumetric heat release rate - 7.5 x 103 Btu/ft3-h
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: Tenax sorbent trap
HCI: Not reported
Paniculate: Not reported
Other:
CO-ANARAD NDIR
N0x-Thermo Electron Chemiluminescence
C-5
-------
BOILER SITE C
Emission and ORE Results: (see comments)
POHC's:
ORE. %
POHC
Test 2
Phenol 99.9998%
Bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate' 99.1%
Dibutylphthalate* NA
Test 3
>99.999%
98.3%
NA
Test 4
>99.999%
96%
99.3%
"The concentrations of bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and dibutylphthalate in the
waste were very low (<120 ppm)
HCI: Not reported
Participate: Not reported
THC: 0, 0, 0 ppm
CO: 21, 20,18 ppm
Other: Opacity-16,15,15% during tests; 10% dur-
ing baseline
NOX - 61, 74, 66 ppm
PIC's: Not reported
Reference(s): Castaldini, C., et. al. Engineering
Assessment Report - Hazardous
Waste Cofiring in Industrial Boilers -
Volumes I and II. Prepared by Acurex
Corporation, Mountain View, Califor-
nia under Contract No. 68-02-3188,
June 1984.
Comments: The boiler operated at very low loads
during the test which resulted in high
excess air levels in the range of 80 to
95 percent (10 to 11 percent oxygen)
to promote good air fuel mixing.
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Schematic of site C boiler.
Burner
Levels
*_ 6.1 m(20ft) —•
a. Side View
C-6
-------
BOILER SITE D
Summary of Test Data for Site D
Date of Test: Early 1983
Run No.: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 (Test 1 was baseline)
Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: B&W field erected watertube boiler -
multi-burner
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 90,000 Ib/h @ 260 psig
Pollution control system: Essentially no controls
for particulate. Multiclone has been removed
to leave a settling chamber.
Waste feed system: Waste solvent was injected
into boiler with steam atomization through
burners.
Residence time: 1.1 to 1.3 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned:
2 solvent waste streams (#3 and #6);
#3 = mixture of methanol, xylenes and TCE
#6 = mixture of toluene and bis (2-chlo-
roethyl) ether
Length of burn: Approximately 8 h
Total amount of waste burned: Estimated 2010,
2090,1960,1430,1430,1460 gallons
Waste feed rate: 4.19, 4.35, 4.08, 2.97, 2.97, 3.04
gal/min
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's and PIC's: Dual cold Tenax sorbent trap
HCI: EPA Modified Method 6
Particulate: EPA Modified Method 5
Other:
CO-ANARAD NDIR
N0x-Thermo Electron Chemiluminescence
Name
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
Dichloroethyl ether (BCEE)
Test 2
29.5
Test 3
16.3
Btu content: 12,645; 12,551; 8,866; 17,977; 16,669;
17,073 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.11, 0.17, 0.10, 0.02, <0.01, <0.01%
Chlorine content: 22.0, 22.0, 3.9,1.6, 2.4, 2.2%
Moisture content: 0.68, 7.8, 11.2, 0.2, 0.2, 0.09%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Not reported
Auxiliary fuel used: No. 6 fuel oil
Excess air: 3.5, 4.2, 4.0, 3.8, 4.4, 5.0% oxygen in
outlet
Other:
Heat input - 49 to 95 x 10s Btu/h
Volumetric heat release rate = 23 x 103 Btu/ft3-h
Concentration, % by wt.
Test 4
6.96
Tests
4.10
Test6
4.02
Test?
4.02
C-7
-------
BOILER SITE D
Emission and ORE Results: (see comments)
POHC's:
POHC
Tetrachloroethylene
Dichloroethylether
Test 2
99.999
ORE, %
Test 3
99.998
Test 4
99.995
Tests
>99.9999
Test 6
99.9999
Test 7
99.9999
HCI: #3 = 24.2 g/s, #6 = 4.9 g/s, or 320,186, 69,
45, 32, 39 Ib/h
Particulate: #3 = 1.3 g/s, #6 = 0.26 g/s, or 13.94,
8.84, 8.48,1.88, 2.03, 2.12 Ib/h
THC: Not reported
CO: 118, 88,107,107,100,127 ppm
Other: Opacity - 0 episodes during baseline but 4
during stream #3 and 3 during stream #6
(episode = over 20% opacity). NOX - 250,
242, 231, 203, 202,193 ppm
PIC's:
Emissions, y.g/s
PIC
Benzene
Carbon tetrachloride
1,1,2-trichloroethane
Dichloromethane
Chloroform
Trichloroethylene
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,1 -dichloroethylene
Test 2
680
200
110
2100
360
30
260
64
360
Test3
570
270
150
1600
290
12
160
50
92
Test 4
220
0
0
6000
120
25
140
0
350
Tests
0
0
0
1800
410
15
110
26
130
Test 6
50
94
47
860
160
28
200
0
110
Test?
150
0
0
0
210
0
46
0
0
Reference(s): Castaldini, C., et. al. Engineering
Assessment Report - Hazardous
Waste Cofiring in Industrial Boilers -
Volumes I and II. Prepared by Acurex
Corporation, Mountain View, Califor-
nia under Contract No. 68-02-3188,
June 1984.
Comments: Operational upsets in some tests,
particularly Test 2 (flame-outs).
Waste solvent flow fluctuations
noted throughout test program. Test-
ing was stopped during most flame-
out episodes but some testing took
place during Test 2 and occasionally
during Tests 3 and 6.
c-8
-------
BOILER SITE D
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Schematic of waste solvent feed system—site D.
Venturi
Rowmeter
Approximately
8,000 gal railcar
C-9
-------
BOILER SITE E
Summary of Test Data for Site E
Date of Test: Early 1983
Run No.: 8 runs total
Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Forced draft CE Type 30-A -12 pack-
aged water tube boiler
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 110,000 Ib/h @ 425 psig and 600°F
Pollution control system: No controls
Waste feed system: Waste steams filtered in mix-
ing tank before injection by steam atomization
through burners into furnace
Residence time: 0.5 to 1.0 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: 3 waste streams: #1
Methyl methacrylate -1%, o-Hydroxy methyl
isobutyrate -11%, o-Hydroxy isobutyrate
methyl ether-7%, Fluxing oils-81%, #2 Methyl
methacrylate -1%, o-Hydroxy methyl isobuty-
rate methyl ether -10%, o-hydroxy isobutyrate
methyl ether - 6%, CCI4 - 2%, Cl - 2%, tri-
chloroethylene - 2%, Fluxing oils - 77%, #3
Toluene - 80%, Methyl methacrylate - 20%
Length of burn: Approximately 8 h
Total amount of waste burned: Estimated 1490,
1800,1980,1910,1990,1900,1970,1800 gallons
Waste feed rate: 3.10, 3.75, 4.13, 3.97, 4.15, 3.96,
4.11, 3.74 gal/min
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Not reported
Primary fuel used: No. 6 oil and natural gas
Excess air: 15%
Other:
Boiler efficiency = 80.4, 89.1, 88, 89.4, 94.1,
85.5, 96.9, 88.9%
Heat input = 80.5,68.9,73.5,70,52.4,107,70.1,
58.6 x 106 Btu/h
Volumetric heat release rate = 50x103Btu/ft3-h
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's and PIC's: Dual cold Tenax sorbent trap
Cl: Modified Method 6
Particulate: Modified Method 5
Other:
CO-ANARAD NDIR
NOx-Thermo Electron Chemiluminescence
Concentration, % by wt.
Carbon tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Methyl methacrylate (MMA)
Methoxybutanone (MOB)
Methyl methoxybutanone
Btu content: 11,741,10,975,11,108,10,546,11,245,
11,076,11,491,15,941 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.01, 0.05, 0.03, 0.03,0.02, 0.02, 0.02,
<0.01%
Chlorine content: 0.10,1.80, 2.06,1.53, 3.00, 3.35,
2.36, 0.16%
Moisture content: 1.73, 3.98, 2.71, 2.57, 2.5, 2.41,
1.33, 0.20%
Test 2
NA
NA
NA
3.41
35.7
7.18
Test 3
2.77
1.65
2.87
3.75
44.6
8.42
Test 4
2.87
1.59
2.94
3.30
37.7
7.08
Tests
2.91
1.61
2.89
4.97
33.2
6.41
TestB
2.91
1.79
2.81
4.62
29.0
5.2
Test?
3.34
1.91
3.1
4.73
29.4
5.76
Test 8
2.69
1.45
2.39
3.74
34.3
8.44
Test 9
0.009
NA
0.009
11.9
2.05
0.67
C-10
-------
BOILER SITE E
Emission and ORE Results: (see comments)
POHC's:
POHC
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Methylmethacrylate
Methoxybutanone
Test 2
NA
NA
NA
99.997
ORE, %
Tests
99.9995
99.998
99.995
99.95
Test 4
99.9998
99.9995
99.99990
99.98
Test 5 Test 6
99.9997 99.9990
99.9994 99.9993
99.9993 99.998
99.997 99.994
Test 7 Tests Test 9
99.9996 99.9998 NA
99.994 99.9994 NA
99.998 99.9998 NA
99.993 99.992 99.9995
>99.9999 99.9999 >99.9999 >99.9999 >99.9999 >99.9999 >99.9999 >99.9999
Methyl methoxybutanone >99.9999 99.998
99.998
>99.9999 99.9996 >99.9999 99.9998 >99.9999
HCI: 0.08, 5 @ avg. of 8.6, 8.6, 0.05 g/s (1.5, 53,
51.6, 61.7, 81, 71.8, 68.3, 0.35 Ib/h)
Paniculate: 0.32, 5 @ avg. of 0.47, 0.09, 0.22 g/s
(2.56,3.23,2.66,2.55,1.94,7.94,0.718,1.77 Ib/h)
THC: Not reported
CO: 97, 135,129,138,115,134, 83,106 ppm
Other: Opacity - 0 episodes during baseline; #2
= 1, #3 = 8, #4 = 4, #5 = 3, #6 = 0, #7 =
3, #8 & 9 (but smoke present) = 0 (epi-
sode = 20% or greater)
NOX - 278,378,431,439,413,446,359,492,
164 ppm
PIC's:
Emissions, \i.g/s
PIC
1,1,1-trichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Toluene
Benzene
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Test 2
280
1100
130
3400
76
34
Tests
500
1300
180
Test 4
52
630
70
2000
200
45
Test 5
200
800
1780
480
73
Test 6
170
870
2000
410
200
Test 7
800
9500
180
12,000
3600
21,000
Test 8
77
2200
4500
910
5800
Test 9
320
2000
1000
4200
68
Reference(s): Castaldini, C., et. al. Engineering
Assessment Report - Hazardous
Waste Cofiring in Industrial Boilers -
Volumes I and II. Prepared by Acurex
Corporation, Mountain View, Califor-
nia under Contract No. 68-02-3188,
June 1984.
Comments: Some smoking occurred during all
cofired testing. In test 3, smoke emis-
sions prevalent due to surge in waste
fuel flow. Higher excess air levels
(15%) during tests 4 through 9.
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
2.800 gal
Mixing Tank _
/ 5,700 gallonsN
a V Trailer Tankery
Compressed
Air Pump
Pressure
Regulator
[.Plow ^Strainers
Measurement
(Electric Signal
to Hersey Meter)
Agitator
C-77
-------
BOILER SITE F
Summary of Test Data for Site F
Date of Test: Summer 1983
Run No.: 4 tests. Test 1 was baseline and Tests 2, 3,
and 4 were cofiring tests with spiked thinner.
Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Balanced draft Babcock & Wilcox
Integral Furnace Water Tube Boiler
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 60,000 Ib/h @ 200 psig
Pollution control system: None
Waste feed system: Pressure-atomized oil gun
Residence time: 2.0 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Purge thinner with
methyl esters, butyl cellosolve acetate, aroma-
tic hydrocarbons, and aliphatic hydrocarbons.
Spiked with chlorobenzene, TCE, and CCL4.
Length of burn: Approximately 8 h
Total amount of waste burned: Estimated 216,
264, 232 gallons
Waste feed rate: 27, 33, 29 gal/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration, % by wt.
Test 2 Test 3 Test 4
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
2.08
0.78
0.129
1.02
2.98
4.86
0.56
1.18
2.95
4.92
0.35
0.46
Btu content: 14,359,13,771,13,351 Btu/lb
Ash content: 1.23,1.07, 0.99%
Chlorine content: 1.75, 4.18, 6.40%
Moisture content: 0.44, 0.44, 0.45%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Not reported
Auxiliary fuel used: No. 2 and No. 6 oil, natural
gas, propane
Excess air: 59, 63, 65%
Other:
Operated at 32,000 Ib/h during testing; heat
input = 35.5, 35.7, 32.6 x 106 Btu/h; boiler
efficiency = 79, 78.7, 79.2%
Volumetric heat release rate = 11 x 103 Btu/ft3-h
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's and PIC's: VOST
HCI: EPA Modified Method 6
Particulate: EPA Modified Method 5
Other:
Heat input - 35.5, 35.7, 32.6 x 106 Btu/h
CO-ANARAD NDIR
N0x-Thermo Electron Chemiluminescence
Emission and ORE Results: (see comments)
POHC's:
ORE, %
POHC
Carbon tetrachloride
Trichloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
HCI: 3 @ avg. of 2.9 g/s (7.75, 21.5, 38.5 Ib/h)
Particulate: 3 @ avg. of 0.41 g/s (0.0328, 0.0380,
0.0422 gr/dscf)
THC: 4,1.48, 0.34, NA ppm
CO: 139, 109, NA ppm
Other: NOX - 275, 299, 243 ppm
PIC's:
Emissions \ig/s
Test 2
99.98
99.98
99.96
99.90
Test 3
99,998
99.994
99.992
99.97
Test 4
99.9990
99.998
99.98
99.97
PIC
Tetrachloroethylene
Dichloromethane
1,2-dichloroethane
1,2-dichloropropene
1,1,1-trichloroethane
Benzene
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
Trans-1,3-dichloroethylene
Chloromethane
Chloroform
Trans-1,3-dichloropropene
Chloroethane
Test 2
3.0
580
-
5.0
110
1300
22
21
700
650
-
3.8
Test 3
5.0
9900
-
-
1300
260
_
1.0
2000
9300
-
32
Test 4
1.4
420
5.9
2.5
-
180
_
-
270
.
31
0.8
Reference(s): Castaldini, C., et. al. Engineering
Assessment Report - Hazardous
Waste Cofiring in Industrial Boilers -
Volumes I and II. Prepared by Acurex
Corporation, Mountain View, Califor-
nia under Contract No. 68-02-3188,
June 1984.
Comments: The waste fuel burner was mis-
aligned during all tests. The boiler
was shutdown after second test and
the oil burnercleaned to prevent cok-
ing over of oil gun. The boiler oper-
ated at 50% of capacity during test-
ing.
C-12
-------
BOILER SITE F
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
3,000-gal tanks
Thinner.
Solids
Chlorinated
Organics —J
(Spike)
Boiler
C-13
-------
BOILER SITE G
Summary of Test Data for Site G
Date of Test: Summer 1983
Run No.: 3 runs total. Tests 1, 2, and 3
Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Johnson modified, 3-pass wet back
scotch marine packaged fire-tube boiler (Ther-
mal Heat Recovery Oxidizer or Throx)
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 50 x 10s Btu/h @ 250 psig (40,000 Ib/h)
Pollution control system: 2 scrubber columns in
series using caustic liquid
Waste feed system: Injected with a single-air
atomized nozzle
Residence time: 0.3 to 0.5 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Mixture of chlorinated
hydrocarbons containing mainly Bis (2-chlo-
roisopropyl) ether, epichlorohydrin. Spiked
with carbon tetrachloride
Length of burn: Approximately 8 h
Total amount of waste burned: Estimated 1650,
1650,1630 gallons
Waste feed rate: 3.43, 3.43, 3.40 gal/min
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Concentration, mg/ml
Name
Bis (2-Chloroisopropyl)
ether
1-Chloro-2 propanol &
t-1, 3-dichloropropylene
Epichlorohydrin
Carbon tetrachloride
Propionaldehyde
Cis-1 -3-dichloropropylene
Test 1
495
42.1
177
44
0.98
Test 2 Tests
505
43.8
188
45
0.88
509
496
207
47
0.97
Btu content: 9083, 8730, 9112 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.002, 0.003, 0.004%
Chlorine content: 42.9, 45.03, 41.83%
Moisture content: 0.19, 0.019, 0.22%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 2400° to 2600°F
Auxiliary fuel used: Natural gas for startup only
Excess air: 7.9, 7.8, 9.1% oxygen in outlet (about
65% excess air)
Other:
Heat input = 17.8,17.1,17.9 x 106 Btu/h
Thermal efficiency = 81.9, 83.2, 83.1%
Volumetric heat release rate = 79 x 103 Btu/ft3-h
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's and PIC's:
Volatile - VOST
Semivolatile - Modified Method 5
HCI: EPA Method 6
Paniculate: EPA Modified Method 5
Other:
CO-ANARAD NDIR
NOx-Thermo Electron Chemiluminescence
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Carbon tetrachloride
Propionaldehyde3
Epichlorohydrin
t-1,3-Dichloropropylene
1-Chloro-2-propanol
Bis (2-Chloroisopropyl)
ether
ORE. %
Test 1
99.990
99.963
>99.9999
>99.9999
>99.9999
Test 2
99.9951
>99.998
>99.9999
>99.9999
>99.9999
Test3
99.9989
99.75
>99.9999
>99.9999
>99.9999
>99.9999 >99.9999 >99.9999
"The concentration of propionaldehyde was less than 1000 ppm in the
waste feed which may be related to DRE's less for this compound.
HCI: 3 @ avg. of 0.47 g/s (3.60, 3.43, 3.88 Ib/h)
Particulate: 3 @ avg. of 0.4 g/s (6.91, 1.42, 1.70
Ib/h)
THC: 0.7, 0.6, 0.3 ppm
CO: 170,155,146 ppm
Other: NOX - 67, 67, 74 ppm
PIC's:
Emissions, \ig/s
PIC
Chloroform
Dichloromethane
Chloromethane
Chlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Dichlorobromomethane
Reference(s): Castaldini, C., et. al. Engineering
Assessment Report - Hazardous
Waste Cofiring in Industrial Boilers -
Volumes I and II. Prepared by Acurex
Corporation, Mountain View, Califor-
nia under Contract No. 68-02-3188,
June 1984.
Comments: The THROX unit operated normally
during the tests.
Test 1
6000
180
10
390
15
-
660
Test 2
2300
250
750
140
2400
750
170
Tests
280
-
-
12
100
270
160
C-14
-------
BOILER SITE G
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Sample
Platform
Recovery of
Halogen
Stack
ID Blower
Discharge
C-15
-------
BOILER SITE H
Summary of Test Data for Site H
Date of Test: October 1983
Run No.: 3 runs total (Run Nos. 2, 3, 4)
Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Combustion Engineering VU-40 pul-
verized coal-fired boiler
Commercial Private -X_
Capacity: 250,000 Ib/h @ 600 psig and 740°F
Pollution control system: ESP (cold side)
Waste feed system: Injected by oil-burners
Residence time: 2.0 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Methyl acetate spiked
with the POHC's listed below
Length of burn: Approximately 8 h
Total amount of waste burned: Estimated 1150,
2020,1200 gallons
Waste feed rate: 2.4, 4.2, 2.5 gal/min
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results: (see comments)
POHC's:
ORE, %
POHC
Test 2
Test3
Test 4
CCI4
1,1,1 trichloroethane
Chlorobenzene
99.9994 99.9990 99.97
99.9996 99.9990 99.97
99.992 99.997 99.990
Name
Concentration, % by wt.
Test 2 Test 3 Test 4
Carbon tetrachloride (CCI4)
Chlorobenzene
1,1,1 -trichloroethane
2.69
2.62
2.03
4.41
3.03
3.60
4.95
4.87
3.95
Btu content: 6630, 6565, 7171 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.0009, 0.0018, 0.0007%
Chlorine content: 5.67, 9.65, 9.75%
Moisture content: 13.3, 5.3, 9.35%
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Not reported
Auxiliary fuel used: Pulverized coal
Excess air: 3.5, 3.4, 3.4% oxygen in outlet
Other:
Heat input = 319, 319, 317 x 106 Btu/h
Boiler efficiency = 87.4, 87.4, 86.8%
Volumetric heat release rate = 17x103Btu/ft3-h
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's and PIC's: VOST
HCI: Not reported
Paniculate: Not reported
Other:
CO-ANARAD NDIR
NOx-Thermo Electron Chemiluminescence
HCI: Not reported
Particulate: Not reported
THC: 1.0, 0.5, <0.5 ppm
CO: 157,144,142 ppm
Other: NOX - 394, 393, 427 ppm
PIC's: PIC's were measured at Plant H but not
reported for each test. Total chlorinated PIC's
ranged from 4,000 to 12,000 ng/s and averaged
6,900 ng/s. Approximately 92% of these PIC's
was chloromethane.
Reference(s): Castaldini, C., et. at. Engineering
Assessment Report - Hazardous
Waste Cofiring in Industrial Boilers -
Volumes I and II. Prepared by Acurex
Corporation, Mountain View, Califor-
nia under Contract No. 68-02-3188,
June 1984.
Comments: The boiler operated normally during
the tests. Boiler operating conditions
during Test 4 included occasional
surges in excess air levels with
excess 02 as high as 12%. Chlo-
robenzene was detected during
baseline tests and its presence as a
PIC from coal combustion may have
decreased DRE's for this compound.
C-76
-------
BOILER SITE H
Waste
Day
—Tank
Air
Coal
veri
LJ
Pulverizer
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
<
E) ( E
[A) Sampling Point
C-17
-------
BOILER SITE I
Summary of Test Data for Site I
Date of Test: 1983
Run No.: 2 tests while burning wastes (2 and 4) and
two baseline tests
Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Foster Wheeler type AG252, forced
draft, bent water-tube boiler
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 62,000 Ib/h @ 175 psi
Pollution control system: No controls
Waste feed system: Waste fed through 2 parallel,
circular burner ports. Liquid waste mixed with
solvents in tank prior to firing
Residence time: 1.8 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Waste fuel gas (meth-
ane) and small amounts of organic liquid
aniline waste. Liquid waste containing nitro-
benzene, aniline, and benzene. Spiked with
CCI4, TCE, chlorobenzene, and toluene.
Length of burn: Approximately 8 h
Total amount of waste burned: Estimated 288,
288 gallons
Waste feed rate: 0.6, 0.6 gal/min
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration, % by wt.
Test 2 Test 4
ecu
TCE
Nitrobenzene
Aniline
Benzene
Toluene
1.7
1.7
82.9
2.6
1.7
3.4
1.8
1.8
83.9
2.1
1.8
3.5
Btu content: 10,620,10,630 Btu/lb
Ash content: Not reported
Chlorine content: Not reported
Moisture content: Not reported
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Not reported
Primary fuel used: Natural gas
Excess air: 2.6, 2.6% oxygen in outlet
Other:
Operated at: 40,000 Ib/h
Heat input = 47, 46.9 x 106 Btu/h
Volumetric heat release rate = 33 to 34 x 103
Btu/ft3-h
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: VOST
HCI: EPA Modified Method 5
Paniculate: Not reported
Other:
CO-ANARAD NDIR
N0x-Thermo Electron Chemiluminescence
Emission and ORE Results: (see comments)
POHC's:
ORE, %
POHC
CCI4
TCE
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Benzene
Run 2
99.9993
99.99990
99.997
99.998
99.97
Run 4
99.9990
99.99992
99.9990
99.998
99.98
Aniline = 99.9995 (99.9994 - 99.9996%)
Nitrobenzene = 99.99996% (99.99990 - 99.99998%)
HCI:2.5g/savg. (2.3 - 2.9 g/s)
Particulate:
THC: 6.3, 5.2 ppm
CO: 175, 63 ppm
Other: NOX - 410,1125 ppm
PIC's: Not reported
Referencefs): Castaldini, C., et. al. Engineering
Assessment Report - Hazardous
Waste Cofiring in Industrial Boilers -
Volumes I and II. Prepared by Acurex
Corporation, Mountain View, Califor-
nia under Contract No. 68-02-3188,
June 1984.
Comments: Test 4 used unstaged combustion
(equal amounts of combustion air
through top and bottom burners)
and Test 2 used staged combustion
[more combustion air (65%) through
upper burner than lower burners
(35%)]. Staged combustion reduced
NOX emissions but increased CO
emissions. The boiler operated nor-
mally during the tests.
C-18
-------
BOILER SITE I
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Recirculatkxi Line
C-79
-------
BOILER SITE J
Summary of Test Data for Site J
Date of Test: 1983
Run No.: 6 tests total (Test Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: North American Model 3200X,
three-pass firetube packaged boiler
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 8.4 x 106 Btu/h @ 150 psig (200 HP)
Pollution control system: None
Waste feed system: Waste fuels added to tank;
pump moves waste to air-atomized com-
pressor that forces waste through nozzles.
Storage tank is agitated
Residence time: 0.58, 0.32,0.55,0.32,0.67,0.32 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: 2 blends:
#1 - 0.5% carbon tetrachloride (CCIJ, 1.0% tri-
chloroethylene (TCE) and 0.5% chlo-
robenzene in toluene (98%)
#2 - the same except TCE was 2% and toluene
was reduced to 97%
Length of burn: Approximately 8 h
Total amount of waste burned: Estimated 254,
498, 274, 435, 202, 515 gallons
Waste feed rate:
#1 blend = 31.7, 62.2, 54.4 and 25.2 gal/h for
Runs 1, 2, 4, and 5 respectively
#2 blend = 34.2 and 64.4 gal/h for Runs 3 and 6
respectively
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 2400° to 2500°F
Primary fuel used: None
Excess air: 37.0, 21.8, 33.9, 40.2, 52.9,16.9%
Other:
Heat input = 4.3,8.3,4.6,7.3,3.4,8.7 x 106 Btu/h
Volumetric heat release rate = 66.5 to 170 x 103
Btu/ft3-h
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: VOST
HCI: Modified Method 6
Particulate: Not reported
Other:
CO-ANARAD NDIR
N0x-Thermo Electron Chemiluminescence
Toluene
Carbon tetrachloride (CCIJ
TCE
Chlorobenzene
Concentration, % by wt.
Test 1
97.88
0.53
1.07
0.52
Test 2
97.91
0.52
1.05
0.52
Test 3
97.01
0.48
2.00
0.51
Test 4
97.99
0.50
1.01
0.50
Tests
97.94
0.5
1.01
0.55
Test6
96.97
0.50
1.99
0.54
Btu content: 17,960; 17,970; 17,950; 17,940;
17,780; 17,770 Btu/lb
Ash content: Not reported
Chlorine content: 1.52,1.49,2.60,1.45,2.22,2.24%
Moisture content: Not reported
C-20
-------
BOILER SITE J
Emission and ORE Results: (see comments)
POHC's:
ORE, %
POHC Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4 Test 5 Test 6
CCI4 99.997 99.9990 99.9990 99.9998 99.9992 99.9991
TCE 99.9998 99.9998 99.998 99.99990 99.9990 99.99993
Chlorobenzene 99.95 99.94 99.97 99.8 99.97 99.97
Toluene 99.9997 99.9990 99.9992 99.9996 99.9993 99.9991
HCl: 0.51 g/s avg.
Particulate: Not reported
THC: 2 ppm, NA for the remaining runs
CO: 129,135,12,108,120,20 ppm (corrected to 3%
O2, dry basis)
Other: NOX - 203, 87,185, 92,175, 85 ppm
(corrected to 3% O2, dry basis)
PIC's: Not reported
Reference(s): Castaldini, C., et. al. Engineering
Assessment Report - Hazardous
Waste Cofiring in Industrial Boilers -
Volumes I and II. Prepared by Acurex
Corporation, Mountain View, Califor-
nia under Contract No. 68-02-3188,
June 1984.
Comments: Fuel Blend No. 1 was used for Runs 1,
2,4, and 5 while fuel Blend No. 2 was
used for Runs 3 and 6. The boiler was
run at half load during tests 1,3, and
5 and a full load for Tests 2,4, and 6.
High excess air was used during
tests 4 and 5.
Process Flow Diagram: No Diagram Available
C-21
-------
BOILER SITE K
Summary of Test Data for Site K
Date of Test: 1983
Run No.: 1 test on heavy oil and 1 test on light oil
Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Combustion Engineering VU-10 bal-
anced draft water tube boiler with a Peabody
AT burner
Commercial Private A
Capacity: 75 x 106 Btu/h @ 60,000 Ib/h @ 353°F
and 125 psi
Pollution control system: No controls
Waste feed system: 4 burners: 2 for heavy oil
which were steam atomized; 2 for light oil
which were air atomized
Residence time: 1.8 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Light and heavy oil mix-
tures spiked with carbon tetrachloride (CCI4),
trichloroethylene, and chlorobenzene
Length of burn: Approximately 8 h
Total amount of waste burned: Estimated 1710,
1920 gallons
Waste feed rate: 214 gal/h, 240 gal/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
CCI4
Trichloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Benzene
m&p-Xylene
O-Xylene
Phenol
Concentration, % by wt.
Heavy oil Light oil
0
0
0
2.8
0.2
4.6
0.7
0
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.2
0.1
4.0
0.6
23
Btu content: 18,360,17,100 Btu/ib
Ash content: 0.08, 0.06%
Chlorine content: 0.37,1.79%
Moisture content: Not reported
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Not reported
Primary fuel used: No. 6 fuel oil
Excess air: 3.8 and 4.0% oxygen in outlet
Other:
Heat input = 59.2 x 106 Btu/h
Volumetric heat release rate = 26x103Btu/ft3-h
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's:
Volatile - VOST
Semivolatile - Modified Method 5
HCI: Modified Method 6
Particulate: Not reported
Other:
CO-ANARAD NDIR
NOx-Thermo Electron Chemiluminescence
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
ORE, %
Heavy oil
NA
NA
NA
99.985
NA
99.768
99.643
NA
Light oil
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.977
99.947
99.958
99.999
Volatiles
CCL4
Trichloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
Benzene
Semivolatiles
m and p-xylene
o-xylene
Phenol
HCI:2.6g/savg.
Particulate:
THC:
CO: 114 ppm
Other: NOX -154 ppm
PIC's: Not reported
Reference(s): Castaldini, C., et. al. Engineering
Assessment Report - Hazardous
Waste Cofiring in Industrial Boilers -
Volumes I and II. Prepared by Acurex
Corporation, Mountain View, Califor-
nia under Contract No. 68-02-3188,
June 1984.
Comments: The boiler was operated normally
but 02 content was maintained as
close as possible to the minimum
value.
C-22
-------
BOILER SITE K
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
c
H
Unloading
3 Station
Light Fuel V..
Storage Tank 1 JT 1
Yard-
Accumulator (WP)
Pressure
Controller
Duplex '
Fabric
Filter Q
U jyj L
#T
o ra *
U jg
Gear
Pumps
- Steam Plant
JL
Light Fuel
Control
~\ Valves
"/FuelOil
f| FlowMeter
V S*
-I-O-W— 3
-J-O-S-»4
-J-O-S— 5
CO
_®
o
m
C-23
-------
FLORIDA SOLITE
Appendix D
KILN TEST SUMMARIES
Summary of Test Data for Florida Solite Corporation
Green Cove Springs, Florida
Date of Test: February 1983
Run No.: 1,2,3,4,5
Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Aggregate kiln
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 60,000 tons/yr for 3 kilns
Pollution control system: Cyclone and horizontal
cross-flow water scrubber
Waste feed system: Wastes blended from 10,000-
to 20,000-gallon storage tank and stored in
20,000-gallon tank for testing; (normally
stored in 300,000-gallon tank); fed to kiln
through a burner separate from coal fuel
Residence time: Greater than 1.5 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Solvents, alcohols, eth-
ers, still bottoms, chlorinated hydrocarbons
Length of burn: Five full test days
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported. The
feed rate, however, is based on tank depth
measurements at the beginning and end of
each test day.
Waste feed rate: 274, 350, 224,173, 218 gal/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
MEK
Methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK)
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Btu content: 12,550, 11,450,12,740, 9,530,12,670
Btu/lb
Ash content: 7.74, 7.28, 7.47,15.5, 6.18%
Chlorine content: 1.08,1.08,1.04, 0.55, 0.55%
Moisture content: Not reported
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range Solids temperature of
2000°- 2100°F
Primary fuel used: Coal
Excess air: Not reported
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: VOST
HCI: Impinger absorption in 0.5 m NaOAc (back
half of EPA Method 5) and specific ion elec-
trode analysis
Paniculate: EPA Method 5
Concentration, %
Test 7
1.99
1.53
0.187
8.38
Test 2
1.78
1.70
0.194
9.27
Test 3
1.83
1.41
0.173
8.21
Test 4
2.81
1.12
0.059
7.99
Test 5
4.25
3.90
0.031
7.54
D-7
-------
FLORIDA SOLITE
Emission and ORE Results: (see comments)
POHC's:
POHC
MEK
MIBK
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
HCI: 0.45, NA, 0.15, 0.68, 0.68 ppm
Paniculate: 0.071, NA, 0.102, 0.119, 0.0119, gr/scf
THC: Not reported
CO: Not reported
Other: SO2 - 269.6,1474, NA, 1192,1439 ppm
PIC's: Not reported
Reference(s): Day, D. R. and L A. Cox. Evaluation of
Hazardous Waste Incineration in an
Aggregate Kiln: Florida Solite Corpo-
ration. Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency by Mon-
santo Research Corporation under
Contract No. 68-03-3025. 1984.
Comments: The kiln apparently operated nor-
mally during the test. The POHC
results for Test 1 were voided in the
field or during analysis. The trace
metals of highest concentration on
the particulates were sodium, lead,
aluminum, iron, calcium, magne-
sium, and zinc.
ORE, %
Test 1
VOID
VOID
VOID
VOID
Test 2
99.999
99.999
99.999
99.999
Test 3
99.992
99.999
99.999
99.999
Test 4
99.999
99.995
99.997
99.998
Tests
99.999
99.999
99.995
99.999
D-2
-------
FLORIDA SOLITE
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Florida Solite Site layout and sample locations (shown by asterisks).
70,000 Gal. Storage
10,000 Gal. Storage
To Aggregate
Product
Handling and
Storage*
To Scrubber Discharge
Holding Pond
1 50,000
Gallon
Wasteuel Storage
>•».
Pump House J3
v v-'ay 1^1 uay
\Feed Hopper | I Hopper
To Entrance
D-3
-------
GENERAL PORTLAND (CALIFORNIA)
Summary of Test Data for General Portland Cement
Los Robles, California
Date of Test: 1982
Run No.: Complete test report not released by EPA
Region IX
Test Sponsor: Private
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Dry cement kiln
Commercial Private -X_
Capacity: 1,750 ton/day
Pollution control system: Fabric filter
Waste feed system: Concentric burner firing. The
hot coal and primary air are fed to the kiln
through a burner pipe which contains a
smaller waste fuel burner pipe down its center.
Residence time: Not reported
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Liquid waste containing
POHC's listed below
Length of burn: Not reported
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: Not reported
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Concentration
Dichloromethane Not reported
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
Xylene
Btu content: Not reported
Ash content: Not reported
Chlorine content: Not reported
Moisture content: Not reported
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range not reported
Average: Not reported
Primary fuel used: Coal is primary fuel
Excess air: 0.5 to 1.3% O2
Monitoring Methods: Not reported
POHC's:
HCI:
Particulate:
Emission and ORE Results: (see comments)
POHC's:
POHC ORE, %
Dichloromethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1,3,5-Trimethylbenzene
Xylene
>99.99
99.99
>99.95 (Not detectable in
>99.99 exhaust. ORE based
on detection limit)
HCI: 1.03 Ib/h (over 99 percent removal)
Particulate: Not reported
THC: Not reported
CO: 25 to 100 ppm
Other: SO2 - 27 ppm NOX - 486 ppm
PIC's: During baseline tests (coal only) there were
detectable quantities of benzene (120-530 ppb)
and toluene (20-70 ppb) and trace quantities of
trichloroethane and methylene chloride
Reference(s): Original test report not released by
U.S. EPA Region IX
Branscome, M. et. al. Summary
Report on Hazardous Waste Com-
bustion in Calcining Kilns. Prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by Research Triangle
Institute and Engineering Science
Under Contract No. 68-02-3149.
1984.
Comments: No corrections were made for base-
line levels or for the contribution
from ambient air. The kiln apparently
operated normally during the tests.
Process Flow Diagram: N ot Ava i I a b I e
D-4
-------
GENERAL PORTLAND (OHIO)
Summary of Test Data for General Portland, Inc.
Paulding, Ohio
Date of Test: October 1983
Run No.: Tests 5, 6,7,8, 9 (Tests 1-4 were baseline)
Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Wet process cement kiln
Commercial Private A.
Capacity: 230,000 tons/yr for each kiln
Pollution control system: ESP and multicyclones
Waste feed system: Concentric burner firing. The
hot coal and primary air are fed to the kiln
through a burner pipe which contains a
smaller waste fuel burner pipe down its center.
Residence time: Not reported
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Solvents, organic com-
ponents, resins, paint wastes
Length of burn: Nine days of testing. Concurrent
testing included POHCs (40 min/test), particu-
late (4to 6 h/test), and combustion gases (4 to 7
h/day)
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 929 gal/h (59% waste fuel), 824
gal/h (43% waste), 1050 gal/h (61% waste), 538
gal/h (39% waste), 883 gal/h (58% waste)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Dichloromethane (CH2CI2)
MEK
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Freon 113
Tests
1.06
0.86
0.06
1.3
0.013
Btu content: 12,500; 10,700; 13,700; 12,500;
12,500 Btu/lb
Ash content: 3.4, 5.3, 4.3, 3.0, 3.5, 3.5%
Chlorine content: 0.90, 0.59, 0.99, 3.58, 3.91%
Moisture content: Not reported
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 2500° - 2600°F
Average: Not reported
Primary fuel used: Coal
Excess air: Not reported
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: VOST
HCI: Impinger absorption with specific ion elec-
trode analysis
Paniculate: EPA Modified Method 5 (also used for
collection of metals and PIC's)
Other: CO2, NOX, S02, CO, 02, and total hydrocar-
bons were continuously monitored
Concentration, %
Test 6
0.056
0.31
0.1
0.64
0.002
Test?
0.34
0.68
0.99
1.87
0.12
Test 8
1.64
0.76
0.8
1.66
0.81
Test 9
2.4
1.57
1.17
3.6
1.32
D-5
-------
GENERAL PORTLAND (OHIO)
Emission andDRE Results: (see comments)
POHC's:
POHC
CH2CI2
MEK
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Toluene
Freon 113
HCI:<8.7,11.2,12.9,14.9, 43.6 ppm
Paniculate: 0.0233, 0.034, 0.0274, 0.0254, 0.041
gr/dscf
THC: 28.1,17.5, 24.5,18.8,15.9 ppm
CO: 130,153, 337,178,152 ppm
Other: S02 -105,189, 274, 370, 388 ppm
PIC's: POHC were found in baseline analysis (i.e.,
MEK, toluene, and CH2CI2). No difference in
detected PIC formation between waste fuel
and baseline
Reference(s): Research Triangle Institute and Engi-
neering Science (RTI and ES). Evalua-
tion of Waste Combustion in Cement
Kilns at General Portland, Inc., Pauld-
ing, Ohio. Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency under
Contract No. 68-02-3149, March
1984.
Branscome, M. Summary Report on
Hazardous Waste Combustion in Cal-
cining Kilns. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH, by Research Triangle
Institute. 1985.
Comments: No statistical difference in average
POHC emission rate for the baseline
(coal) and waste fuel burns. No dif-
ference in TSP emissions. Highest
NOX emissions occurred during
highest DRE. No adjustments were
made in the DRE calculations to
account for POHC emissions during
baseline tests. Note low waste con-
centration of Freon 113. DRE's are
based on detection limit for Freon
113. The kiln apparently operated
normally during the tests.
DRE, %
Test 5
99.998
99.991
99.991
99.952
>99.983
Test 6
99.995
99.978
99.991
99.940
>99.840
Test 7
99.956
99.990
99.996
99.974
>99.998
Tests
99.975
99.983
99.996
99.951
>99.999
Test 9
99.993
99.997
99.999
99.988
>99.999
D-6
-------
GENERAL PORTLAND (OHIO)
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Limestone
Sica
Clay
Iran Ore
AT
L
Cod
MI
RawGrnd
Mi
Slurry
Tanks
SturfyF
1 1
To F rid
FYoduct Storage
D-7
-------
LONE STAR
Summary of Test Data for Lone Star Industries
Oglesby, Illinois
Date of Test: December 1983
Run No.: 3, 4, 5 (Tests 1 and 2 were baseline with
coal/coke firing only)
Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Dry process cement kiln
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 1450 tons per day of clinker
Pollution control system: ESP (malfunctioning)
and cyclone
Waste feed system: Burner nozzle installed under
the main coal/coke burner. Low-pressure air
injected around waste fuel line in a concentric
pipe to provide protective cooling
Residence time: Not reported
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Solvents, organic com-
pounds, resins, paint waste solids
Length of burn: Each test was run over a 6-hour
period each day.
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 2.34, 3.28, 4.00 Mg/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Emission and ORE Results: (see comments)
POHC's:
DUE. %
POHC
Test 3 Test 4
Tests
Concentration,
Name
Test 3 Test 4 Test 5
0.86
2.25
0.926
0.998
0.385
0.654
4.25
2.19
1.45
0.393
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Freon 113
Toluene
MEK
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Dichloromethane (CH2CI2)
Btu content: 12,470,12,310,12,170 Btu/lb
Ash content: 3.94, 4.27, 4.81%
Chlorine content: 2.15,1.93,1.64%
Moisture content: Not reported
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 2500°-2600°Favg. kiln oper-
ating temperature
Average: Not reported
Primary fuel used: Coal/coke
Excess air: Not reported
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: VOST
HCI: Impinger absorption and ion chromatogra-
phy (1C) analysis
Particulate: Method 5
Other: CO - HORIBA, NDIR
Freon 99.999 99.999 Calculations
Toluene 99.992 99.998 not performed
MEK 99.998 99.999 -excessive
1,1,1 Trichloroethane 99.999 >99.999 sample
CH2CI2 99.94 99.99 storage time
HCI: 4.85,12.04, 58.86 ppm
Particulate: 768, 320, 502 Ib/h
THC: 9.2, 4.8,1.0 ppm
CO: 43, 49, 24 ppm
Other: SO2 - 38,13, 5 ppm
PIC's: Increases over baseline levels for several
organic compounds (i.e., biphenyl, benzal-
dehyde, naphthalenes, and methyl
naphthalenes)
Reference(s): Branscome, M., et. al. 1984. Evalua-
tion of Waste Combustion in Dry-
Process Cement Kiln at Lone Star
Industries, Oglesby, Illinois. Prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by Research Triangle
Institute and Engineering Science
under Contract No. 68-02-3149.
Comments: Dibenzodioxins and dibenzofurans
were not found in the stack gas at a
detection limit of less than 1 ppb (by
weight). Waste fuel replaced 25 per-
cent of the primary fuel in Test 3, 37
percent in Test 4, and 42 percent in
Test 5. Apparently the kiln operated
normally during the tests.
D-8
-------
LONE STAR
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Waste
Dust
Recovered Dust
D-9
-------
MARQUETTE CEMENT
Summary of Test Data for Marquette Cement
Oglesby, Illinois
Date of Test: October 1981
Run No.: 1,2,3
Test Sponsor: Private
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Dry process cement kiln
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 450,000 tons/yr
Pollution control system: Cyclone and ESP
Waste feed system: Liquid waste pumped from
storage tanker into the flame of the kiln
through a specially designed delivery nozzle
Residence time: Less than 10 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Waste solvents from ink
and paint manufacturing
Length of burn: 2 hours per test
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 12.8 percent of heat input
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Concentration, %
Test 1
99.869
99.960
99.718
99.968
Test 2
99.851
99.959
99.604
99.947
Test 3
99.917
99.961
99.710
99.968
Name
Dichloromethane
2-Butanone (MEK)
Trichloroethane
Toluene
Btu content: 12,210,
Test 1 Test 2
2.72 2.94
7.51 8.90
1.86 1.63
11.79 8.54
13,012, 11,823 Btu/lb
Test 3
6.27
8.18
1.97
11.84
Ash content: 12.1, 7.8, 6.8 wt. %
Chlorine content: 1.75, 2.10,1.78 wt. %
Moisture content: 10.7,10.3,11.8 wt. %
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 2700° - 3000°F
Average: Not reported
Primary fuel used: Coal
Excess air: Not reported
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: Integrated bag samples analyzed by FID
(EPA Method 23)
HCI: Midget impinger train containing sodium
hydroxide and analysis by mercuric nitrate
titration
Paniculate: EPA Method 5
Other: Total gaseous nonmethane organics
(TGNMO) by EPA Method 25
Emission and ORE Results: (see comments)
POHC's:
ORE, %
POHC
Dichloromethane
MEK
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Toluene
HCI: 405, 232, 289 ppm
Particulate: 0.125, 0.101, 0.086 gr/scf
THC: 220, 800, and 390 ppm (total gaseous non-
methane organics)
CO: Not reported
Other: SO2 - 41, 8, 5 ppm
PIC's: Not measured
Reference(s): Higgins, G. M., and A. J. Helmstetter.
Evaluation of Hazardous Waste Incin-
eration in a Dry Process Cement Kiln.
In: Incineration and Treatment of
Hazardous Waste: Proceedings of
the Eighth Annual Research Sym-
posium, March 1982. EPA-600-9-83-
003. 1983.
Branscome, M. Summary Report on
Hazardous Waste Combustion in Cal-
cining Kilns. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, OH, by Research Triangle
Institute. 1985.
Comments: None of the POHC's were detected in
either baseline or waste feed tests.
The DRE's are based on detection
limits, therefore, the ORE values pre-
sented are minimum DRE's. TSR HC,
S02, NOX, and HCI did not signifi-
cantly increase from baseline tests.
Slight increase in lead in the panicu-
late. There were several periods of
downtime during the tests.
D-1O
-------
MARQUETTE CEMENT
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Marquette-Oglesby cement kiln schematic.
Coal
Liquid Waste
T
Cement
Clinker
Feed
Materials
t
Stack
Gases
Kiln
#»
1
Cyclone
-^-
ESP
1111°
Dust
Disposal
D-11
-------
ROCKWELL LIME
Summary of Test Data for Rockwell Lime
Rockwood, Wisconsin
Date of Test: April-May 1983
Run No.: 4, 5 A, 6A, 7A, 8
Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Lime kiln
Commercial Private }L
Capacity: 8.5 tons/hour
Pollution control system: Baghouse
Waste feed system: Temporary 1-inch-diameter
stainless steel pipe placed on the burner pipe
and nozzle pointing into flame.
Residence time: Not reported
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Lacquer thinners, alco-
hols, still bottoms, paint wastes, chlorinated
hydrocarbons
Length of burn: Five test days, 10 hours/day
Total amount of waste burned: 734, 581, 984,
1877,1382 gal/day
Waste feed rate: Estimated 73.4, 58.1, 98.4,188,
138 gal/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: VOST
HCI: Impinger absorption in 0.5 m NaOAc (back
half of EPA Method 5) and specific ion elec-
trode analysis
Particulate: EPA Method 5
Other: CO - Beckman, NDIR, Spectra
Dichloromethane (CH2Cla)
MEK
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (CH3CCI3)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Btu content: 12,300; 12,084; 12,267; 13,612; 14,064
Btu/lb
Ash content: Not reported
Chlorine content: 3, 2.66, 3.04, 3.05, 3.51%
Moisture content: Not reported
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range not reported
Average: 2000°F process temperature
Primary fuel used: Petroleum coke and natural
gas mixture
Excess air: "As low as possible" 1.8 to 10% (5.6%
avg.) oxygen in outlet
Concentration, %
Test 4
0.20
5.0
0.47
3.46
4.34
21.94
TestSA
0.10
2.75
0.24
1.64
2.02
10.55
Test6A
0.11
2.48
0.23
1.78
2.05
10.95
Test 7 A
0.24
6.34
0.43
4.32
4.98
25.0
Testa
0.12
2.59
0.28
1.89
2.56
12.90
D-12
-------
ROCKWELL LIME
Emission andDRE Results: (see comments)
POHC's:
POHC
CH2CI2
MEK
CH3CCI3
TCE
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
HCI: 2.54,4.04, 4.79, 2.98, 4.73 ppm
Paniculate: 0.012, 0.011, 0.016, 0.016, 0.021 gr/scf
THC: 3.9, 3.0, 3.5, 3.8, 3.6 ppm
CO: 32, 224, 557,1060,1357 ppm
Other: S02 - 492, 540, 637, 650, 672 ppm
PIC's: The 4 runs had DRE's less than 99.99%,
which was suspected to have been caused by
PIC's; 3 were CH2CI2, the other was CH3CCI3.
CH2CI2 may have contaminated the lab.
CH3CCI3 was in extremely low concentration.
Reference(s): Day, D. R., and L A. Cox. Evaluation
of Hazardous Waste Incineration in a
Lime Kiln: Rockwell Lime Company.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency by Monsanto
Research Corporation under Con-
tract No. 68-03-3025. June 1984.
Comments: CO emission fluctuated widely each
day indicating incomplete combus-
tion or kiln upset conditions at CO
peaks. The temporary burner setup
did not allow optimum mixing of
coke and waste fuel. On a few occa-
sions, lime product quality problems
were encountered.
ORE, %
Run 4
99.9947
99.9994
99.9955
99.9998
99.9998
99.9998
flu/75/1
99.9947
99.9996
99.9982
99.9997
99.9999
99.9998
Run 6A
99.9994
99.9997
99.9975
99.9998
99.9999
99.9998
Run 7 A
99.9985
99.9992
99.9962
99.9999
99.9997
99.9995
Run8
99.9995
99.9997
99.9969
99.9998
99.9997
99.9997
D-13
-------
ROCKWELL LIME
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Plan view of Rockwell Lime site in Rockwood, Wisconsin (not to scale). Sample locations shown by asterisk.
To LimestoneQuarry
r
c
: Feed
(Upper Level)
Coke Rail System
Rockwood Rd.
D-14
-------
SAN JUAN CEMENT
Summary of Test Data for San Juan Cement Company
Doradado, Puerto Rico
Date of Test: November 1981 to February 1982
Run No.: W1-1, W1-2, W2-1, W3-1, W3-2, W3-3
(Data for the following runs are presented on sub-
sequent forms: W4-1, W4-2, W4-3, W4-4, W5-1,
W5-2, W6-1, W4/6-1, W4/6-2, W4/6-3, W4/6-4,
W4/6-5)
Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Wet process cement kiln
Commercial Private 2L
Capacity: 450,000 tons/yr for 3 kilns
Pollution control system: Fabric filter
Waste feed system: Concentric burner nozzle.
Waste fuel gun runs parallel to the fuel oil gun
but slightly off the centerline where the fuel oil
gun is located.
Residence time: Not reported
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Reclaimed solvents and
degreasers
Length of burn:
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 180, 312, 300,121, 219, 261 gal/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: Integrated bag samples and on-site GC/
EC and SASS train with off-site GC/MS analy-
sis
HCI: Impinger train collection and specific ion
electrode analysis
Paniculate: EPA Method 5
Other: CO - Beckman 864, NDIR
Concentration, %
Dichloromethane
Trichloromethane (chloroform)
Carbon tetrachloride
Btu content: 11,188; 11,188; 11,198; 11,022; 11,022;
11,022 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.30,0.30,0.20,0.38,0.38,0.38 wt. %
Chlorine content: 32, 32, 22.9, 21.4, 21.4, 21.4
wt. %
Moisture content: <1.0, <1.0,4.1,4.3,4.3,4.3 vol-
ume %
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1800° - 2509°F
Average: 1900°, 1800°, 2495°, 2315°, 2469°,
2509°F
Primary fuel used: Fuel oil
Excess air: 13.0,12.0,12.0,10.4,10.6,10.6% oxy-
gen in outlet
Test W1-1
35
1.6
1.4
Test W1-2
35.1
1.6
1.4
Test W2-1
24.8
1.3
1.1
Test W3-1
17.2
5.4
2.4
Test W3-2
17.2
5.4
2.4
Test W3-3
17.2
5.4
2.4
D-75
-------
SAN JUAN CEMENT
Emission and ORE Results: (see comments)
POHC's:
POHC
Dichloromethane
Trichloromethane
Carbon tetrachloride
RunWI-J
NA
NA
NA
ORE. %
RunW1-2
>99.997
>99.842
99.309
RunW2-1
99.995
>99.859
>99.996
RunW3-J
>99.991
99.887
91.043
Run W3-2
99.960
99.932
96.864
Run W3-3
99.659
>99.960
98.977
HCI: NA, 0.67, NA, 0.66,1.63,1.24 Ib/h
Paniculate: 0.0448, 0.0767,0.2558, NA, 0.0294,
0.0257 gr/dscf
THC: 16.0,11.8, 9.1,12.3,13.2,14.7 ppm
CO: 378, 308, 260, 289, 289, NA ppm
Other: SO2 - 874, 263, 350, NA, NA, 548 ppm
PIC's: Carbon tetrachloride may have been
formed as a PIC from methylene chloride and
chloroform. Also trichlorotrifluoroethane
(F113) was probably introduced from air con-
ditioners and trichloroethylene from chlo-
romethanes. PIC of carbon tetrachloride may
be responsible for lower ORE. Other com-
pounds during waste burning did not lower
ORE.
Reference(s): Peters, J. A., et. al. 1983. Evaluation
of Hazardous Waste Incineration in
Cement Kilns at San Juan Cement
Company. Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency by Mon-
santo Research Corporation under
Contract No. 68-03-3025, August
1983.
Comments: Problems with waste atomization
through burner during many tests.
The high chlorine content of the
waste also believed to be a factor for
low DRE's. TSP emissions - no dif-
ference in firing waste fuel. NOX
emissions - baseline is higher; HCI,
THC, SO2 emissions - higher during
waste firing. Low DRE's because of
lack of waste atomization and diffi-
cult incinerability of chlorinated
monocarbons. Low concentration of
POHC appeared to cause low ORE
also.
D-.76
-------
SAN JUAN CEMENT
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Schematic diagram of San Juan Cement kiln burning hazardous waste.
Fuel Oil
Hazardous Waste
Primary Air (Ambient)
Secondary
Air (Heated)
Cement
Clinker
Product
Stack Gases
(Particulates + Vapor)
Baghouse
Dust
D-17
-------
SAN JUAN CEMENT
Date of Test: November 1981 to February 1982
Run No.: W4-1, W4-2, W4-3, W4-4, W5-1, W5-2
Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Wet process cement kiln
Commercial Private _X_
Capacity: 450,000 tons/yr for 3 kilns
Pollution control system: Baghouse
Waste feed system: Concentric burner nozzle.
Waste fuel gun runs parallel to the fuel oil gun
but slightly off the centerline where the fuel oil
gun is located.
Residence time: Not reported
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Reclaimed solvents and
degreasers
Length of burn:
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 105, 104, NA, IMA, 87, 109 gal/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Concentration, %
Name
Dichloromethane
Trichloromethane (chloroform)
Carbon tetrachloride
Btu content: 10,099; 10,099; 10,099; 10,099; 4,546;
4,546; 4,546 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.23,0.23,0.23,0.23,0.31,0.31 wt. %
Chlorine content: 35.1, 35.1, 35.1, 35.1, 35.1, 35.1
wt. %
Moisture content: 8.9, 8.9,8.9, 8.9, 23.0, 23.0 vol-
ume %
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 2016°- 2561°F
Average: 2050°, 2016°, 2548°, 2561°, 2532°,
2495°F
Primary fuel used: Fuel oil
Excess air: NA, 11.3,14.5,12.3, NA, NA% oxygen
in outlet
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: Integrated bag samples and on-site GC/
EC and SASS train with off-site GC/MS analy-
sis
HCI: Impinger train collection and specific ion
electrode analysis
Paniculate: EPA Method 5
Other: CO - Beckman 864, NDIR
Test W4-1
15.8
7.9
16.1
TestW4-2
15.8
7.9
16.1
Test W4-3
15.8
7.9
16.1
TestW4-4
15.8
7.9
16.1
Test WS-1
1.9
6.1
12.7
TestWS-2
1.9
6.1
12.7
D-18
-------
SAN JUAN CEMENT
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC
Dichloromethane
Trichloromethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Run YJ4-1
98.237
98.592
97.732
ORE. %
Run W4-2
99.418
99.470
98.122
Run W4-3
99.461
99.283
98.142
Run W4-4
99.984
98.475
99.684
Run W5-1
93.292
98.388
99.553
Run W5-2
96.663
96.099
99.460
HCI: 1.18, 0.56, 0.99, <0.0272, NA, NA Ib/h
Paniculate: NA, 0.0326, 0.0631, NA, NA, NA
gr/dscf
THC: 11.9, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA ppm
CO: NA, NA, NA, 492,123, 305 ppm
Other: S02 - NA, 485,191, NA, NA, NA ppm
PIC's: Carbon tetrachloride may have been
formed as a PIC from dichloromethane and tri-
chloromethane. Also trichlorotrifluoroethane
(F113) was probably introduced from air con-
ditioners and trichloroethylene from chlo-
romethanes. PIC of carbon tetrachloride may
be responsible for lower ORE. Other com-
pounds during waste burning did not lower
ORE.
Referencefs): Peters, J. A., et. al., 1983. Evaluation
of Hazardous Waste Incineration in
Cement Kilns at San Juan Cement
Company. Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency by Mon-
santo Research Corporation under
Contract No. 68-03-3025, August
1983.
Comments: Same as Tests W1, W2, and W3
Process Flow Diagram: Same as tests W1, W2, and W3
D-19
-------
SAN JUAN CEMENT
Date of Test: November 1981 to February 1982
Run No.: W6-1, W4/6-1, W4/6-2, W4/6-3, W4/6-4,
W4-6/5
Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Wet process cement kiln
Commercial Private A.
Capacity: 450,000 tons/yr for 3 kilns
Pollution control system: Baghouse
Waste feed system: Concentric burner nozzle.
Waste fuel gun runs parallel to the fuel oil gun
but slightly off the centerline where the fuel oil
gun is located.
Residence time: Not reported
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Reclaimed solvents and
degreasers
Length of burn:
Total amount of waste burned:
Waste feed rate: 94, 217, 333, 80, 145, 355 gal/h
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Concentration, %
Name
Test W6-1
Dichloromethane
Trichloromethane (chloroform)
Carbon tetrachloride
Btu content: 13,098, NA, NA,
NA
7.6
0.17
0.02
NA, NA
Test W4/ 6-1
7.8
1.5
2.45
Test W4/ 6-2
7.8
1.5
2.45
TestW4/6-3
7.8
1.5
2.45
TestW4/6-4
7.8
1.5
2.45
TestW4/6-S
7.8
1.5
2.45
Ash content: 0.046, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA wt. %
Chlorine content: 6.5, 10.1, 10.1, 10.1, 10.1, 10.1
wt. %
Moisture content: 2.0, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA vol-
ume %
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1550°-2700°F
Average: 2526°, 2483°, 2310°, 2700°, 1550°,
2688°F
Primary fuel used: Fuel oil
Excess air: Not reported
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: Integrated bag samples and on-site
GC/EC and SASS train with off-site GC/MS
analysis
HCI: Impinger train collection and specific ion
electrode analysis
Particulate: EPA Method 5
Other: CO - Beckman 864, NDIR
D-20
-------
SAN JUAN CEMENT
Emission and ORE Results, %:
POHC's:
POHC
Dichloromethane
Trichloromethane
Carbon tetrachloride
DR£, %
Run W 6-1
99.223
Run W4/6-J
99.760
95.617
94.129
Run W4/6-2
99.668
92.171
99.325
Run W4/6-3
99.564
98.703
94.512
Run W4/6-4
99.133
>99.737
92.253
Run W4/6-S
99.474
99.515
95.873
HCI:0.14lb/h
Particulate: Not reported
THC: Not reported
CO: 87, 738, 559, NA, 460, 205 ppm
PIC's: Carbon tetrachloride may have been
formed as a PIC from dichloromethane and tri-
chloromethane. Also trichlorotrifluoroethane
(F113) was probably introduced from air con-
ditioners and trichloroethylene from chlo-
romethanes. PIC of carbon tetrachloride may
be responsible for lower ORE. Other com-
pounds during waste burning did not lower
ORE.
Reference(s): Peters, J. A., et. al. 1983. Evaluation
of Hazardous Waste Incineration in
Cement Kilns at San Juan Cement
Company. Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency by Mon-
santo Research Corporation under
Contract No. 68-03-3025, August
1983.
Comments: Same as Tests W1, W2, and W3
Process Flow Diagram: Same as tests W1, W2, and W3
D-21
-------
ST. LAWRENCE CEMENT
Summary of Test Data for St. Lawrence Cement Co.
Mississauga, Ontario
Date of Test: 1975/76
Run No.: 1-WBA, 2-WBA, 3-WBA, 1-WBB, 2-WBB,
3-WBB, 1-WBC, 2-WBC, 3-WBC
Test Sponsor: Environment Canada
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Rotary cement kilns with suspen-
sion preheaters
Commercial Private JL
Capacity: 2 wet, 1 dry kiln, each rated at 1050 tons/
day
Pollution control system: ESP for wet and dry
processes
Waste feed system: Concentric burners
Residence time: Not reported
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: chlorinated hydrocar-
bons; WBA = chlorinated aliphatics, WBB =
WBA plus chlorinated aromatics and alicyclics,
WBC = WBB plus PCB
Length of burn: 5550 min (all WBA), 4420 (all
WBB}, 3615 min (all WBC)
Total amount of waste burned: Aliphatic mixture
= 5550 gallons (WBA tests); aromatic mixture
= 5126 gallons (WBB tests); PCB mixture =
3262 gallons (WBC tests)
Waste feed rate: 1440,1440,2670,1745,1814,620,
1210, 2808 gal/day
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Name
Ethylene dichloride
Chlorotoluene
PCB
Concentration, %
Not reported
Btu content: WBA - 12,750 Btu/lb; WBB - 9,530,
9,500, 8,820 Btu/lb; WBC - 12,070, 12,050,
12,000 Btu/lb
Moisture content: Not reported
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range NA
Average Approx. 2000°F where gas exits kiln
into preheater
Primary fuel used: Coal
Excess air: Not reported
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: Gaseous sampling train using Chro-
mosorb 102 adsorbent and grab bag samples
HCI: Midget impingers containing 5% caustic
soda and water solution
Particulate: U.S. EPA Method 5
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
Waste ORE, %
All WBA runs
All WBB runs
All WBC runs
99.990%
99.989%
99.986%
Cl: 0.31%, 0.31%, 0.63%, 0.45 to 0.71%, 0.31 to
0.51%, 0.79%, 0.06 to 0.14%, 0.13 to 0.33%,
0.61%
Particulate: 0.1458,0.1524, 0.3415,0.0821, 0.0731,
0.1019, 0.0785, 0.0652, 0.0892 gr/ft2
THC: <10, <10, <10, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA
CO: 1500,500,300, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA, NA ppm
Other: SO2 - 492, 540, 637, 650, 672 ppm
PIC's: 4 runs had DRE's less than 99.99%; 3 were
CH2CI2, the other was CH3CCI3. CH2CI2 may have
contaminated the lab. CH3CCI3 was in
extremely low concentration.
Referencefs): MacDonald, L. R, et. al. 1977. Burning
Waste Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in
a Cement Kiln. Water Pollution Con-
trol Directorate, Environmental Pro-
tection Service, Fisheries and
Environment Canada, Report No.
EPS 4-WP-77-2.
Comments: No corrections were made for base-
line levels of chlorinated com-
pounds. DRE's based on total chlori-
nated organics instead of specific
compounds. Waste fuel was formu-
lated. Began test with dry process
kiln, then switched to wet process.
When chloride wastes were burned,
TSP increased. During waste fuel
burning, production dropped from
1038 to 1025 tons/day.
D-22
-------
ST. LAWRENCE CEMENT
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Schematic of St. Lawrence Cement process flow.
2x60,000 decfm
Raw Meal Feed
5,010Lp.d.*
9,500 decfm
Schematic of the Material Flow
8.P.
Precipitator
Silo
Pelletizer
Suspension
Preheater
Raw
Meal
*Waste Oil
11.7 g.p.m.
Clinker
•3,000 t-p.d
Discard
B.P. Dust
6 t.p.d.
'Indicates Sampling and
Metering Points for
Test Burn.
D-23
-------
SITE I
Summary of Test Data for Site I
EPA Region IV
Date of Test: February/March 1984
Run No.: 1, 2, 3
Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Rotary kiln clay dryer
Commercial Private A.
Capacity: 40 tons/h
Pollution control system: Fabric filter
Waste feed system: Liquid wastes blended with
virgin or reclaimed oil and fired through a sin-
gle burner
Residence time: 2.5 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Blend of waste solvents
and waste oil
Length of burn: 8- to 10-hour tests
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 200, 226, and 225 gal/h (25.4,
28.7, and 28.6 x 106 Btu/h)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Concentrations for most organics were
extremely low. Compounds with con-
centrations less than 1000 ppm (1 mg/ml) are
not usually considered POHC's
Concentration, mg/ml
Name Test 1 Test 2 Test 3
Emission and ORE Results: (see comments)
POHC's:
ORE, %
POHC
Testl
99.92
99.80
82.5
99.87
99.7
99.4
99.93
99.988
Test 2
99.95
>99.994
98.5
99.98
99.90
99.93
99.95
99.998
Tests
99.988
>99.993
98.8
99.989
99.89
99.3
99.98
99.998
0.364
0.038
0.037
0.147
0.925
0.014
0.390
5.94
0.346
0.036
0.057
0.149
0.912
0.011
0.305
5.92
0.355
0.032
0.046
0.121
0.825
0.011
0.398
6.10
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
2-Butanone (MEK)
Trichlorotrifluoroethane (F113)
Btu content: 17,100; 17,148; 17,126 Btu/lb
Ash content: 0.70, 0.69, 0.66 wt. %
Chlorine content: 0.60, 0.64,0.74 wt. %
Moisture content: 7.5, 7.05, 6.95 wt. %
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 1100° - 1200°F
Average
Primary fuel used: None during tests; fuel oil
when necessary
Excess air: 280%
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: VOST
HCI: EPA Modified Method 6
Paniculate: EPA Modified Method 5
Other: CO - ANARAD, NDIR
1,1,1 Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
MEK
F113
HCI: 1.78, 2.32,1.42 Ib/h
Paniculate: 0.0008, 0.0004, 9,9997, gr/dscf
THC: Not reported
CO: NA, 50, 57 ppm
Other: SO2 - 23, 44,13 ppm
PIC's: Some PIC's were POHC's and resulted in
lower DRE's; unstable kiln conditions led to
higher PIC levels
Reference(s): Wyss, A. W., C. Castaldini, and M. M.
Murray. Field Evaluation of Resource
Recovery of Hazardous Wastes. Pre-
pared for U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency by Acurex Corporation
under Contract No. 68-02-3176.1984.
Comments: Test 1 heat input was about 12%
lower than Tests 2 and 3. Extremely
low concentrations of organic com-
pounds believed to be primary cause
for DRE's less than 99.99%. F113 is also
a common laboratory contaminant.
D-24
-------
SITE I
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
©
Sample Cotection
Location
Pud Pump
D-25
-------
SITE II
Summary of Test Data for Site II
EPA Region IV
Date of Test: February/March 1984
Run No.: 1,2,3,4
Test Sponsor: EPA
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Aggregate kiln
Commercial Private -X.
Capacity: 9 to 10 ton/h
Pollution control system: Multiple cyclone and
wet scrubber
Waste feed system: Concentric burner nozzle
Residence time: 2.3 s
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Waste solvents
Length of burn: Not reported
Total amount of waste burned: Not reported
Waste feed rate: 230,187,300, and 302 gal/h (20.7,
17.1, 29.0, and 29.7 x 106 Btu/h)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Concentration, mgltnl
Name Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4
1,2-Dichloroethane
1 ,1 ,1 -Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Dichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Chlorobenzene
2-Butanone (MEK)
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
(F113)
Btu content: 11,696;
0.117
1.45
0.059
3.99
0.543
0.094
2.45
36.8
0.147
11.4
5.86
12,208;
0.117
1.63
0.065
4.28
0.636
0.111
2.94
37.8
0.148
15.8
7.63
13,102;
0.130
2.01
0.083
4.96
0.442
0.078
2.11
26.6
0.119
13.2
8.90
13,400
0.140
2.03
0.082
4.92
0.732
0.131
3.53
43.7
0.184
14.1
8.98
Btu/lb
Ash content: 3.09, 2.98, 2.54, and 2.53%
Chlorine content: 1.55, 2.04, 2.27, 2.35 wt. %
Moisture content: 20.3,18.3,13.4, and 12.3 wt. %
Operating Conditions:
Temperature: Range 2050° - 2150°F
Average: Not reported
Primary fuel used: Coal in Tests 1 and 2, none in
Tests 3 and 4
Excess air: 50-80%
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: VOST
HCI: EPA Modified Method 6
Particulate: EPA Method 5
Other: CO - ANARAD, NDIR
D-26
-------
SITE II
Emission and ORE Results: (see comments)
POHC's:
POHC
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Carbon tetrachloride
Oichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Benzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Chlorobenzene
Toluene
MEK
F113
Test 1
99.996
99.9998
99.90
>99.9997
99.998
99.82
99.998
99.95
99.9998
>99.9998
99.99994
ORE, %
Test 2
>99.9998
>99.9999
99.98
>99.99996
99.9992
99.88
99.9996
99.94
99.9997
>99.99999
99.99995
Test 3
>99.9993
>99.99995
99.993
>99.99998
99.9988
99.84
99.9997
99.94
99.998
99.998
99.99998
Test 4
>99.9993
>99.9997
99.989
>99.99998
99.9991
99.90
99.9998
99.96
99.9992
99.998
99.99994
HCI: 7.16, 8.63,3.94, 5.55 Ib/h
Participate: 13.4, 4.4, 5.5, and 5.7 Ib/h
THC: Not reported
CO: Not reported
Other: S02 - 922,1480 ppm
PIC's: Nearly all PIC attributed to chloromethane
Referencefs): Wyss, A. W., C. Castaldini, and M. M.
Murray. Field Evaluation of Resource
Recovery of Hazardous Wastes. Pre-
pared for U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency by Acurex Corporation
under Contract No. 68-02-3176.1984.
Comments: Extremely low concentrations in
waste feed of carbon tetrachloride
(<100 ppm), benzene (<200 ppm),
and chlorobenzene (<200 ppm)
believed to be cause for measured
DRE's less than 99.99%.
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Shale From Conveyor
Aggregate
Product
Bal Af J !•*
_;» y
D-27
-------
STORA VIKA CEMENT
Summary of Test Data for Stora Vika Cement Plant
Stora Vika, Sweden
Date of Test: February 7-17, 1978
Run No.: One test series for each type of waste (i.e.,
chlorinated aliphatics, chlorophenols and phe-
noxyacids, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) and,
trichlorotrifluoroethane (Freon 113)
Test Sponsor: Swedish Water and Air Pollution
Research Institute
Equipment information:
Type of unit: Cement kiln - wet
Commercial Private 2L
Capacity: 620 ton/day
Pollution control system: Electrostatic precipita-
tor
Waste feed system: Coal and waste fuel fed sepa-
rately to kiln burner
Residence time: Not reported
Test Conditions:
Waste feed data:
Type of waste(s) burned: Chlorinated aliphatics,
chlorophenols and phenoxyacids, PCB, and
F113
Length of burn: Chlorinated aliphatics (100 h),
chlorophenols and phenoxy acids (12 h), PCB
mixed with oil (24 h), and F113 (3 h)
Total amount of waste burned: In above order: 50
m3,10 m3,16 m3, 255 kg (given)
Waste feed rate: In above order: 0.5 m3/h, 0.8 m3/
h, 0.7 m3/h, 85 kg/h (calculated)
POHC's selected and concentration in waste feed:
Monitoring Methods:
POHC's: Water sampling train followed by ab-
sorption column containing APIEZON M® and
then through activated carbon column
HCI: None
Particulate: isokinetically on heated prefilters
Other: O2, CO2, CO grab samples
Total hydrocarbons analyzed continuously
with IPM instrument
Name
Concentration
Dichloromethane
Trichloroethylene
Freon 113
Chlorinated phenols
Phenoxy acids
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB)
22 to 37 wt. %
1.5 to 2.7 wt. %
100%
100%
42 wt. % chlorine content
Btu content: Not reported
Ash content: Not reported
Chlorine content: Not reported
Moisture content: Not reported
Operating Conditions:
Temperature:
Range 1600°-1630°F, 1500°-1650°F, 1540°-1600°F,
1580°F-1600°F
Average 1610°F, 1610°F, 1580°F, 1590°F
Primary fuel used: Coal used as primary fuel
Excess air: Not reported
D-28
-------
STORA VIKA CEMENT
Emission and ORE Results:
POHC's:
POHC ORE, %
Dichloromethane - >99.95
Trichloroethylene - >99.9998
Chlorinated phenols - >99.99999
Phenoxy acids - >99.99998
PCB - >99.99998
F113 - >99.99986
measured during chlorinated aliphatics burn
measured during chlorinated aliphatics burn
HCI: Not reported
Particulate:
72 mg/Nm3,
<10ppm,
0.11 vol.%, 0.03 vol.
THC: Not reported
CO: Not reported
Other: Not reported
PIC's: Not reported
, 110 mg/Nm3, 110 mg/Nm3
, 10 ppm, <10 ppm
%, 0.08 vol. %, 0.06 vol.%
Reference(s): Ahling, Bengt. 1979. Combustion Test
with Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in a
Cement Kiln at Stora Vika Test Center,
Swedish Water and Air Pollution
Research Institute.
Branscome, M. 1985. Summary
Report on Hazardous Waste Com-
bustion in Calcining Kilns. Prepared
for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Cincinnati, OH, by Research
Triangle Institute.
Comments:
PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM
Schematic of the Stora Vika cement process with waste fuel feed. (Ahling 1979)
No correction for baseline con-
centrations of organics when firing
coal only.
Liquid
Pyrolysis Waste
Gasifier I
D-29
•ftU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, 1987-748-121/406!
------- |