&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450/3-80-01 3
May 1980
Air
Source Category
Survey: Industrial
Incinerators
-------
EPA-450/3-80-013
Source Category Survey:
Industrial Incinerators
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
Contract No. 68-02-3064
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
May 1980
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Emission Standards and Engineering
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Office of Air, Noise,
and Radiation, Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Mention of company or product names does not constitute endorsement
by EPA. Copies are available free of charge to Federal employees, current
contractors and grantees, and non-profit organizations as supplies permit
from the Library Services Office, MD-35, Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; or may be obtained, for a fee, from the
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield,
VA 22161.
Publication No. EPA-450/3-80-013
11
-------
CONTENTS
List of Figures vi
List of Tables viii
1. Introduction 1~1
2. Industrial Incinerator Source Category 2-1
2.1 Definition of Source Category 2-1
2.2 Principles of Incinerator Design and Description of
Conventional Designs 2-2
2.3 Description of Nonconventional Incineration Techniques. . 2-24
2.4 Alternatives to Incineration 2-32
2.5 Domestic Manufacturers of Industrial Incinerators .... 2-33
2.6 References 2-37
3. Existing Regulations 3-1
3.1 State Regulations 3-1
3.2 Typical SIP Standard 3-11
3.3 Federal Regulations 3-11
4. Population and Growth Trends 4-1
4.1 Present Population 4-1
4.2 Trends and Estimates of Future Population 4-47
4.3 Summary of Population and Growth Trends 4-74
4.4 References 4-76
5. Source Testing and Emission Estimates 5-1
5.1 Source Test Data 5-1
5.2 Summary of Emission Collection and Analysis Procedures. . 5-21
5.3 Local Ambient Impact 5-27
111
-------
CONTENTS (continued)
Page
5.4 Nationwide Emissions and Potential Benefit .... 5-30
5.5 References 5-37
6. Control Technologies 6-1
6.1 Current Control Technology 6-1
6.2 Technology Transfer and Emerging Technology. . . . 6-4
6.3 References 6-5
7. Recommendations 7-1
i v
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
2-1 Starved air incinerator 2-7
2-2 Natural draft, single-chamber incinerator 2-8
2-3 Package incinerator 2-12
2-4 Rotary kiln incinerator 2-13
2-5 Cyclonic rotary hearth incinerator 2-15
2-6 Multi-hearth incinerator 2-17
2-7 Conical incinerator 2-20
2-8 Fluidized bed incinerator 2-22
2-9 Cement kiln 2-25
2-10 Molten salt incinerator 2-28
2-11 Total incineration (Purox System®) 2-30
2-12 Total incineration (Torrax System®) 2-31
2-13 Pyrolysis system (Rotary Kiln) 2-34
3-1 SIP emission levels for particulates 3-12
4-1 Physical design distribution in sample 4-18
4-2 Design distribution 4-19
4-3 Capacity distribution by design 4-20
4-4 Combustion air design distribution in sample 4-21
4-5 Capacity distribution in sample 4-24
4-6 Use distribution in sample 4-29
4-7 Waste distribution in sample of the volume reduction
category 4-30
4-8 Waste distribution in sample of the toxicity reduction
category 4-31
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
4-9 Waste distribution in resource recovery category . . . 4-32
4-10 Schematic of Rollins Environmental Services
incinerator c 4-40
4-11 Modified jug incinerator 4-45
4-12 Use trends in sample 4-52
4-13 Flue gas to steam heat recovery 4-55
4-14 In stack gas to air heat exchanger 4-56
4-15 Age of the existing industrial incinerator population
in the City of Chicago 4-58
4-16 Applications for permits to operate an industrial
incinerator in the State of Illinois 4-59
4-17 Applications for permits to operate an industrial
incinerator in the State of Texas 4-60
-------
TABLES
Number
2-1
3-1
3-2
3-3
4-1
4-2
4-3
4-4
4-5
4-6
4-7
4-8
4-9
4-10
4-11
4-12
4-13
4-14
Domestic Manufacturers of Industrial Incinerators . . .
Opacity Regulation for New and Existing Commercial and
Industrial Incinerators
Particulate Emission Limitations for New and Existing
Incinerators
Conversion Factors
Data Availability Matrix
The Manufacturing Sample
Manufacturing Segment of the National Industrial
Incinerator Population
Use Distribution by Ownership for Sample
Capacity Distribution by Ownership in Sample
Twenty Largest Industrial Incinerators Found in
Manufacturing Industry Sample
Capacity Distribution by Use in Sample
Sources and Types of Industrial Wastes
Equipment Utilization Distribution by Incinerator Use
in Sample
Manufacturing Segment of the National Industrial
Incinerator Population by Use Category
Emission Factors for Refuse Incinerators Without
Controls
Major Sources
Estimates of Nationwide Population and Air Contaminant
Emissions from Conical Incinerators
Five-Year Projected Industrial Incinerator Population .
Page
2-36
3-2
3-4
3-10
4-6
4-9
4-12
4-14
4-16
4-23
4-25
4-27
4-35
4-37
4-42
4-44
4-73
4-75
Vll
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
5-5
5-6
5-7
5-8
5-9
5-10
5-11
5-12
5-13
5-14
5-15
5-16
5-17
5-18
6-1
Compiled Test Data from Incinerators
Summary of Emission Test Data from Municipal
Incinerators ...
Summary of Emission Test Data from Pathological
Incinerators
Summary of Emission Test Data from Sludge Inciner-
ators
Summary of Emission Test Data from Trash Incinerators .
Summary of Emission Test Data for Incinerators Burning
Agricultural Waste from Cotton Ginning Process . . .
Compiled Test Data from Industrial Incinerators ....
Summary of Emission Test Data from Incinerators
Burning Wire Insulation
Summary of Uncontrolled Emission Test Data from Electric
Motor Incinerators
Summary of Emission Test Data from Liquid Waste Inciner-
ators
Summary of Emission Test Data from Other Industrial
Incinerators
Summary of Particulate Emission Data Collected ....
Summary of Test Methods - Incinerators
Maximum 24-Hour Average Ground Level Concentrations of
Particulate Matter
Stack Parameters
Projected Waste Processed Annually in Industrial
Incinerators
Projected Nationwide Particulate Emissions
Nationwide Emissions from New Industrial Incinerators .
Demonstrated Control Techniques
Page
5-4
5-5
5-7
5-9
5-12
5-13
5-15
5-16
5-19
5-20
5-22
5-23
5-24
5-28
5-30
5-31
5-33
5-35
6-2
viil
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
The Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended in August 1977, requires the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to control the discharge of pollu-
tants into the atmosphere. The Act contains several regulatory and enforcement
options for control of emissions from stationary sources. Options include (1)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) implemented through State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) for these standards, (2) new source performance
standards (NSPS), and (3) national emission standards for hazardous air pollu-
tants (NESHAPS).
Section 111 of the CAA, as amended August 1977, requires EPA to issue
emission standards of performance for new and modified sources that may contri-
bute significantly to air pollution whose emissions could endanger public
health or welfare. The standards of performance shall reflect the degree of
emission limitation and the percentage reduction achievable through application
of the best technological system of continuous emission reduction (taking into
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction, any nonair quality
health and environmental impact, and energy requirements). No new plant can
be built if it will result in violation of an NAAQS, even if it meets the
NSPS.
Before initiating the development of NSPS, EPA generally prepares a
source category survey to decide whether standards are justified. If the
finding is positive, the survey also determines the availability of data
required to set standards. This report presents the results of the source
category survey for industrial incinerators.
1-1
-------
For the purposes of this study, an industrial incinerator has been defined
as any combustion unit used in the process of burning a nongaseous industrial
waste stream which does not recover any heat for a useful purpose. There are
other ongoing and proposed EPA studies that encompass liquid waste incinerators,
waste-fired boilers, and commercial incinerators. Sir^ce these categories are
being evaluated in other projects, they were excluded from this study.
The necessary information for the source category survey was gathered
through the following activities:
1. Collection of industrial incinerator population and growth data from
22 state and 16 local air pollution control agencies; various offices
of the EPA and Department of Energy (DQ€); trade associations of
industries that use incinerators such as Cotton Inc. and the Peanut
i
Growers Association; and manufacturers of incinerators.
f
2. Collection of emissions data from literature searches, EPA research
staffs, EPA regional enforcement staffs, State environmental
protection agencies' records, incinerator manufacturers, control
equipment manufacturers and users of incinerators.
3. Development of an understanding of incinerator operations and problems
through a literature review.
4. Collection of data on applicable pollution control devices from
literature, control device manufacturers and users, State air
pollution control agencies and EPA offices.
5. Compilation of present State and Federal regulations on airborne
emissions from industrial incinerators.
Based on the data collected during this study, it is concluded that the
overall number of industrial incinerators is rapidly declining. It is expected
1-2
-------
that the combustion of industrial waste in steam generators and landfill ing of
some wastes will replace the need for industrial incinerators. The only
exceptions to the general trend in reduced incinerator demand are two types of
resource recovery units—those used to recover copper from scrap wire and
those used to burn varnish from electric motor windings.
New installations of small-capacity copper wire incinerators are projected
to average five units per year between 1980 and 1985. No large-capacity
copper wire units are expected to be installed. New installations of the
small-capacity units are expected to cease by 1985. A typical small-capacity
copper wire unit has the potential to emit 45 tons of particulates per year;
however, they are generally controlled through SIPs and actually emit less
than 3.6 tons per year.
v
New installations of motor incinerators will probably average 100 units
per year between 1980 and 1985. A typical motor unit has the potential to
emit 3.5 tons of particulate per year; however, they are generally controlled
and actually emit less than 0.25 tons per year.
The benefit from an NSPS is estimated in terms of the total weight of
particulate matter prevented from entering the atmosphere annually. The maxi-
mum benefit for an industrial incinerator NSPS if promulgated in 1980 is
estimated to be 250 megagrams of particulate matter per year for sources
constructed between 1978 and 1985. Since the resource recovery segment of
industrial incineration accounts for 173 megagrams (Mg) (70 percent) of this
potential reduction, the ambient impact of typical copper wire and electric
motor incinerators was considered. These are the only two types of resource
recovery units for which noticeable new installation activity is expected.
The maximum local ambient air impact for particulate matter, assuming
1-3
-------
pessimistic parameters for pollutant dispersion, was estimated to be a 24-hour
average concentration of 26 micrograms per cubic meter.
The quantity of air pollutant emissions which each category will emit, or
will be designed to emit, must be considered in determining priorities for
promulgating standards for categories of major stationary sources. The
prioritization process must also consider the extent to which each such pollu-
tant may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, the
mobility and competitive nature of each such category of sources, and the
consequent need for nationally applicable new source standards of performance.
These requirements for prioritizing categories of major stationary sources are
mandated by Section 111 of the CAA, as amended in August 1977.
The reduction in the quantity of emissions or maximum benefit to be
gained from a standard for industrial incineration is small when compared to
the potential benefit from developing NSPS for other categories. The ambient
impact of units for which noticeable new installation activity is expected is
not anticipated to endanger the public health or welfare. In addition, the
sources in the category are not very mobile, and the competitive nature of the
associated industries does not currently necessitate a nationally applicable
NSPS. Therefore, it is recommended that EPA not develop a new source performance
standard for industrial incineration at this time.
1-4
-------
2. INDUSTRIAL INCINERATOR SOURCE CATEGORY
In this section, the industrial incinerator source category is defined,
the designs of the units are discussed, and a methodology for classifying
the units by design is explained. This explanation is followed by a dis-
cussion of emerging incinerator technologies as well as other emerging
technologies that will provide alternatives to incineration.
2.1 DEFINITION OF SOURCE CATEGORY
An industrial incinerator is any combustion unit used in the process
of burning a nongaseous industrial waste stream which does not recover any
heat for a useful purpose. An industrial waste stream is any waste stream
which is, by weight, composed of more than 50 percent of waste generated at
a manufacturing establishment or collected by a resource recovery establish-
ment. Restricting the definition of industrial incinerators to furnaces
which do not recover heat differentiates incinerators from waste-fired
steam generators, hot water generators, and process heaters. Other para-
meters such as design or type of waste have not proved to be useful in
defining these categories. Because municipal waste generally contains less
than 50 percent industrial wastes, the industrial incinerator definition
excludes units burning municipal waste from the category. Included in
this source category, however, are municipally owned incinerators that burn
primarily industrial wastes. Commercial and institutional waste-burning
units are also excluded from the source category by the industrial waste
stipulation of the definition. In addition, liquid organic waste incinerators
owned by the chemical industry, although included in the industrial incinerator
definition, are excluded from this study because they are part of another
EPA study.
2-1
-------
Waste-fired steam generators are being studied under EPA's
nonfossil-fueled boilers. The commercial and Institutional incinerator
source categories are also part of a separate Investigation (which has
currently been discontinued),
2.2 PRINCIPLES OF INCINERATOR DESIGN AND DESCRIPTION OF CONVENTIONAL
DESIGNS
Incineration 1s a combustion process used to change the chemical or
physical characteristics of waste by oxidation which, even under Ideal
combustion conditions, results 1n Inorganic solid residues (ash) and the
exhaust gases, carbon dioxide (C02) and water vapor. Further, because the
waste burned in Incinerators 1s often a heterogeneous mixture, Ideal condi-
tions are difficult to achieve, resulting 1n incomplete combustion. When
Incomplete combustion occurs, the exhaust gases also contain carbon
monoxide (CO), hydrocarbons (HC), and uncombusted particles of waste.
Incinerator designs, therefore, are the result of efforts to ensure complete
combustion within the economic constraints Imposed by the nature of
Incinerator fuel and the costs of Incinerator manufacture.
Actual combustion occurs In the combustion chamber of the Incinerator.
The combustion chamber 1s lined with fire brick, castable refractory, or
some other refractory which maintains high Incinerator temperatures and
safe operating conditions by preventing heat loss to the outside. The
refractory material also stores the heat produced by combustion and allows
self-sustaining Incineration of waste with high heating values without the
use of auxiliary burners. The combustion chamber should be designed with a
volume large enough to retain the gas flow for a sufficient time to allow
complete combustion. However, an excessively large chamber absorbs additional
2-2
-------
heat, making adequate temperatures In the combustion zone difficult to
maintain. ,
Incinerators may also be designed with two combustion chambers.
Two-chamber incinerators have a secondary chamber to combust the gases
produced from incomplete combustion in the primary chamber. Secondary
chambers are beneficial because they allow better mixing of the volatile
combustion gases and increase the retention time of the combustibles. They
also permit higher temperatures in the primary combustion chamber by delaying
the Introduction of excess air until uncombusted gases enter the secondary
chamber.
Auxiliary burners must be provided to sustain the combustion if the
heating value of the waste Is insufficient to be self-sustaining. Even
when the waste 1s capable of sustaining combustion, auxiliary burners are
generally used during startup to Ignite the waste and heat the combustion
chamber.
The oxygen necessary for combustion, which 1s provided by air from
outside the combustion chamber, can be supplied by either natural or
mechanical draft. A mechanical system can use either forced draft or
Induced draft fans. In Induced draft systems, the fan is usually located
between the incinerator and the stack. In these cases, the hot gases must
be cooled to protect the fans.
Air can be supplied to the combustion process from either above or
below the Incinerator grate. Underflre air 1s supplied to the incinerator
under the grate supporting the waste; the air then passes through the
waste. In this configuration, the air helps to dry moist waste, but care
must be exercised not to supply too much air to avoid entrapment of
2-3
-------
particulate matter in the gas stream. Overfire air, on the other hand, is
distributed over the waste charge. In addition, some air is usually provided
in the secondary chamber for secondary combustion and for additional mixing
of the combustion gases.
Providing the amount of oxygen required to achieve stoichiometric
conditions is difficult; because it is impossible to mix the waste, oxygen,
and fuel completely, air must be supplied in excess of stoichiometric
requirements. The amount of excess air in the combustion chamber can be
varied to control the temperature--!'.e. , the more excess air, the lower the
temperature in the combustion zone. The excess air required may be intro-
duced into the primary combustion chamber; however, in practice, less than
the required amount of air is introduced into this chamber. This "starved
air condition" in the primary chamber results in incomplete combustion.
The incomplete combustion products are then combusted in the secondary
chamber where additional air is supplied.
In the secondary chamber, proper mixing of the volatiles and excess
air is required; otherwise, some of the volatiles may pass through the
chamber without being combusted. Therefore, the incinerator is designed to
create turbulence through a series of baffles or constrictions which prevent
stratification of the gas mixture. The directional and velocity shifts
2
produced by baffles cause the volatiles and oxygen to mix. Turbulence can
also be created by introducing the combustion air tangentially into either
combustion chamber, causing a cyclonic gas stream flow.
2.2.1 Design Classification by Combustion Air Supply
Incinerators may be classified according to the method of supplying
the combustion air. Combustion air can be supplied by either natural draft
or mechanical draft.
2-4
-------
Natural Draft. In natural draft units, the negative pressure in the
exhaust stack draws the combustion air into the combustion chamber. Since
the natural draft units depend on the rising of hot gases in the stack to
draw in the combustion air, the air supply cannot be effectively controlled.
Therefore, in a natural draft unit, the amount of combustion air varies
considerably and ranges from excess air to starved air conditions.
During startup these units have difficulty achieving desired combustion
temperatures because more air is introduced than is necessary for combustion.
Since the air supply cannot be controlled, most of the air is supplied to
the primary combustion chamber. Thus, not only is the combustion zone
cooled, but the velocity of the gas stream in the primary chamber is also
increased, causing excessive entrainment of particulate matter.
Mechanical Draft. Mechanical draft units operate with combustion air
supplied by either forced draft or induced draft fans. Because the air is
supplied mechanically, it can be controlled and varied as required. As
noted earlier, the amount of air is varied not only to supply excess air,
but also to control the temperature in the incinerator. As a result of
this ability to control air flow, mechanical draft incinerators are more
efficient and emit fewer air contaminants than comparable natural draft
units.
Mechanical draft units can be operated as either starved air or excess
air units. In a mechanical draft starved air unit, the combustion air to
the primary combustion chamber is limited to a fraction, typically 25 percent,
of the required air. This low input of air allows the proper primary
chamber temperature to be maintained, keeps the gas stream velocity low to
prevent entrainment of particulate matter, and results in incomplete
2-5
-------
combustion. The products of the incomplete combustion then pass into the
secondary chamber where complete combustion occurs. Nearly all the noncom-
bustibles remain in the primary chamber. This design, as shown in Figure 2-1,
precludes the use of the single-chamber physical design that is described
4
later in this report.
Alternatively, mechanical draft excess air units provide enough air or
slightly more air than is required to achieve stoichiometric conditions.
This method allows proper combustion with less entrainment of particulate
matter than can result in natural draft units.
2.2.2 Design Classification by Physical Structure
The existing population of industrial incinerators represents several
major physical design types. These designs are grouped by paths which the
gases and wastes follow through the incineration system. The path of the
gases is generally controlled by the number of combustion chambers. The
paths of the waste both before and after combustion are controlled by
movement of the hearth or kiln or by the number of hearths. These different
types affect retention times, waste handling capabilities, and the interac-
tion between the gaseous and solid or liquid phases flowing in the system.
Each design category will be described separately.
Single-Chamber. The typical single-chamber incinerator consists of a
furnace box containing a combustion chamber and ash pit which are divided
as shown in Figure 2-2 by a grate. Waste is fed and ignited through the
charging door located above the grate. A natural gas burner and ash cleanout
door are located below the grate. The charging door is designed for overfire
air and the cleanout door for underfire air.
2-6
-------
CTi
-------
o
o
I
-------
The advantages of the single-chamber incinerator are its simplicity
and low cost. However, the disadvantages are inherent in the design,
including inadequate mixing of combustion gases, short retention time,
extreme temperature fluctuations, and, under some conditions, entrainment
of particulate matter in the flue gases. Incomplete combustion also results
in excessive emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. The incomplete
combustion of hydrocarbons in single-chamber incinerators often results in
characteristic dark smoke and foul odors. Because of increasingly stringent
air pollutant emission standards, the market for single-chamber incinerators
has been decreasing. Several State air pollution control agencies (Georgia,
Texas, New Jersey, Montana, California and Mississippi) have banned single-
chamber incinerators outright. Although these incinerators may be improved
by adding afterburners and temperature air controls, operational and
maintenance problems have negated most such attempts.
Multiple-Chamber. Multiple-chamber incinerators generally consist of
two or three interconnected refractory-lined chambers designed for maximum
combustion of the waste fired. The typical multiple-chamber incinerator
has a primary or ignition chamber, which is divided into a combustion
section and an ashpit. The ashpit is positioned by a grate on which the
refuse is burned. The primary chamber is provided with both overfire and
underfire air controls. The mixing or downpass chamber, which adjoins the
primary chamber, is separated from the primary chamber by the bridge wall.
At the top of the bridge wall is an opening called the flame port, which
allows the combustion gases to travel from the primary into the mixing
chamber. The mixing chamber is provided with secondary air ports to supply
required secondary combustion air. The secondary combustion chamber, the
2-9
-------
last chamber, is separated from the mixing chamber by the curtain wall.
The curtain wall contains a port at the bottom which allows the combustion
gases to pass from the mixing chamber into the secondary combustion chamber.
The combustion process in a multiple-chamber incinerator proceeds in
two stages—the primary or liquid/solid fuel combustion in the primary
chamber, followed by secondary or gaseous-phase combustion in the mixing
and secondary combustion chambers. Ignition and combustion of the liquid
or solid refuse occur in the primary chamber. As burning proceeds, the
moisture and volatile components of the fuel are vaporized and partially
oxidized in passing from the ignition chamber through the flame port con-
necting the ignition chamber with the mixing chamber. From the flame port,
the volatile components of the refuse and the products of combustion flow
down through the mixing chamber into which secondary air is introduced.
The combination of adequate temperature and additional air, augmented by
mixing chamber or secondary burners as necessary, assists in initiating the
second stage of the combustion process. Turbulent mixing, resulting from
the restricted flow areas and abrupt changes in flow direction, furthers
the gaseous-phase reaction. In passing through the curtain wall port from
the mixing chamber to the final combustion chamber, the gases undergo
additional changes in direction accompanied by expansion and final oxidation
of combustible components. Fly ash and other solid particulate matter are
collected in the combustion chamber by wall impingement and simple settling.
The gases finally discharge through a stack or a combination of a gas
5
cooler (for example, a water spray chamber) and induced draft system.
Most multiple-chamber incinerators sold today are modular package
units, generally consisting of metal shells lined with castable refractory.
2-10
-------
A typical modular package unit is shown in Figure 2-3. Thus,
multiple-chamber incineration is well suited for the combustion of all
solid organic wastes, including trash, x-ray film, and wire. The better
mixing of combustion gases, longer retention time, and more constant tempera-
tures allow multiple-chamber incinerators to generate fewer air pollutants
than single-chamber incinerators. Particulate emissions from multiple-chamber
incinerators are typically one-tenth to one-fourth those from single-chamber
units burning the same type and amount of waste.
Rotary Kiln. The rotary kiln is a cylindrical, horizontal,
refractory-lined shell mounted at a slight incline which rotates slowly
o
when in operation. A typical rotary kiln incinerator is shown in Figure 2-4.
Rotary kiln incineration is well suited for the combustion of all organic
waste, including sewage sludge and hazardous wastes. Solid waste is charged
at the higher end and travels the length of the kiln because of the revolving
and tumbling motion of the inclined kiln. Liquid and gaseous wastes can
Q
also be added through auxiliary nozzles; The waste is combusted while
passing through the kiln, and the noncombustible waste drops out the lower
end. The tumbling action of the rotary kiln results in continuous removal
of ash and continuous exposure of new surfaces for oxidation. The discharge
end of a rotary kiln is often hooded so that collected combustion gases are
exhausted to a secondary combustion chamber.
The retention time of the charge can be controlled by varying the
rotational speed of the kiln. Retention time of the gas stream and oxygen
supply are varied as required by the air supply controls. A relatively
constant temperature can be maintained by varying the feed rate of waste
and by directly controlling the auxiliary burners. Mixing of the combustion
2-11
-------
o
o
Figure 2-3, Package incinerator.
2-12
-------
CM
CO
O
O
I
AFTERBURNER
CHAMBER
COMBUSTION AIR IN
WASTE TO
INCINERATOR
AUTO-CYCLE FEEDING SYSTEM:
FEED HOPPER,
PNEUMATIC FEEDER/
SLIDE GATES
SELF-COMPENSATING
I NSTRUMENTAT I ON-CONTROLS
\ REFRACTORY-LINED/
\ ROTATING CYLINDER
\
WET SCRUBBER PACKAGE:
STAINLESS STEEL,
CORROSION-FREE WET SCRUBBER.
GAS OUENCH
AUTO-CONTROl
BUPNFR PACKAGE:
PROGRAMMED
PILOT BURNER
COMRtlSTIOM AIR I N
EXHAUST
FAN
AND
STACK
SUPPORT
PIERS
^
~^—
SUF
P
PIERS
RECYCLE WATER,
FLY ASH
SLUDGE COLLECTOR
Figure 2-4. Rotary kiln incinerator.
2-13
-------
gases is achieved through the tumbling action of the kiln and the turbulence
caused by directional changes as the gas stream travels from the kiln to
the secondary combustion chamber. Since the requirements of combustion
(retention time, turbulence, air supply and temperature) are all controllable,
they can be manipulated as required for complete combustion.
The inner diameter of the kiln must be designed sufficiently large to
keep the velocity of the gas stream traveling through it low enough to
prevent entrainment of particulate matter. Most rotary kiln incinerators
are sold as package equipment and are equipped with wet scrubbers for
additional control of air pollutants.
An advantage of rotary kiln incineration is that the rotation of the
kiln reduces the number of refractory repairs necessitated by flame impinge-
ment and slagging. Since the refractory surface is continually changing
spatially, there is no prolonged flame impingement on one specific portion
of refractory. Unfavorable aspects of this type of incineration include
erosion and thermal spall ing of the refractory. Waste material tumbling
inside the kiln causes abrasion, which in turn erodes the refractory.
Thermal spalling, which occurs at the discharge end of the kiln, is caused
by the thermal shock created by the inrush of air at the end plate seal.
This spalling requires periodic replacement of a small section of refractory.
Neither erosion nor spalling results in excessive maintenance.
Rotary Hearth. The rotary hearth incinerator, shown in Figure 2-5,
consists of a circular combustion chamber with a rotating hearth. The
waste is charged on the hearth which slowly rotates while the waste is
combusted. The retention time of the waste charge can be controlled by the
rotational speed of the hearth. At a point in the rotation, the uncombusted
2-14
-------
ro
ro
O
O
i
Figure 2-5. Cyclonic rotary hearth incinerator.
2-15
-------
ash drops from the hearth into the ash discharge pit. The rotation of the
hearth allows continuous feeding with a uniform bed on the hearth. The
feed and rotational rates can be adjusted to maintain optimal constant
temperature. The oxygen supply to the hearth is often controlled to make
the rotary hearth incinerator operate as a pyrolyzing unit. The combustion
chamber is equipped with auxiliary burners to supplement heating needs.
Rotary hearth units are usually designed so that combustion gases follow a
cyclonic path through the combustion chamber to the outlet. This cyclonic
action provides the necessary turbulence to mix the combustion gases com-
pletely.
Rotary hearth units usually burn either solid or liquid waste and are
well suited for burning sewage sludge. Units burning solid waste are
charged on the outer perimeter of the hearth, and the waste is carried
around the combustion chamber where it is combusted. When waste material
is added, the partially burned waste is moved toward the center and along a
spiral path toward the central ash discharge pit. Typically, liquid and
semi liquid wastes are uniformly sprayed by nozzles across the hearth. The
unburned residue is scraped off the hearth into the ash pit by a plow
mechanism.
Multiple-Hearth. The multiple-hearth incinerator consists of a
refractory-lined cylindrical steel shell containing several hearths arranged
in a vertical stack and a hollow central rotating shaft with rabble arms.
12
A multiple-hearth unit is shown in Figure 2-6. Operating capacity is
related to total hearth area. The number of hearths varies from 4 to 13
with diameters ranging from 1.4 to 7.6 m (5.4 to 25 ft). Capacities of
multiple-hearth incinerators vary from 90 to 3,600 kg/hr (200 to
8,000 Ib/hr).
2-16
-------
o
o
COOLING AIR DISCHARGE
FLOATING DAMPER
SLUDGE INLET
FLUE GASES OUT
RABBLE ARM
AT EACH HEARTH
DRYING ZONE
COMBUSTION ZONE
COOLING ZONE
ASH DISCHARGE —
COMBUST I ON
AIR RETURN
hRABBLE ARM
DRIVE
COOLING AIR FAN
Figure 2-6. Multi-hearth incinerator.
2-17
-------
Multiple-hearth incineration is suitable for the combustion of most
organic wastes. Solids are normally fed directly to the top hearth, greases
and tars through side ports, and liquid and gaseous wastes through auxiliary
nozzles. Incineration occurs in three phases. Waste material is first fed
to the outer perimeter of the top hearth and is raked slowly by the rabble
arms in a spiral path toward the center. Here it falls to the second
hearth and is raked by the rabble arms to the outer perimeter. The waste
then drops to the third hearth and is again raked to the center. The
uncombusted ash finally falls from the bottom of the incinerator into the
ash removal system. As shown in Figure 2-6 the three phases of incineration
occur at different levels in the multiple-hearth unit. The upper hearths
permit evaporation of moisture and oxidation of volatiles. The middle
hearths burn the remaining wastes, and the bottom hearths cool the noncom-
busted ash prior to discharge. The rabble teeth continuously agitate the
waste by turning it over to expose new surfaces for evaporation of moisture
and oxidation of volatiles. Adequate mixing of combustion gases is ensured
by the stirring of the rabble arms and the constant change in the direction
of the gas stream as it travels around the hearths (which act as baffles
for the gas stream).
The hollow central shaft is cooled by forced air vented out the top.
A portion of this preheated air from the central shaft is piped to the
lowest hearth and is further heated by the hot ash and combustion as it
passes up through the furnace. The gases are then cooled as heat is absorbed
by the incoming waste, evaporating any moisture present. The countercurrent
flow pattern of air and waste causes the central shaft to operate as a heat
exchanger, reducing heat losses and increasing incineration efficiency.
2-18
-------
Liquid Injection. Liquid injection incinerators consist of either a
vertical or horizontal combustion chamber in which atomized liquid waste is
burned. Liquid injection incineration is limited to waste composed of
liquids and slurries which can be pumped. To increase the rate of vaporiza-
tion and thus of combustion, the liquid wastes are atomized to present a
heat transfer surface area as large as possible. The waste is usually
atomized as it enters the combustor, by mechanical means, internal mixing
nozzles, two-phase nozzles, or pressure nozzles. Droplet size is less than
40 microns in diameter. If viscosity precludes atomization, heating and
mixing or other means may be necessary to reduce apparent viscosity. A
forced draft is usually supplied to the combustion chamber to produce the
necessary mixing and turbulence. Turbulence is also provided by firing the
atomized waste tangentially to cause a cyclonic effect in the combustion
chamber. Additional heated, pressurized air can be injected near the
combustion chamber discharge to create an afterburner effect. The required
oxygen is contained in the compressed air used for atomizing the waste.
Auxiliary burners in the combustion chamber provide additional heat as
needed.
Conical. Conical incinerators, also known as teepee or wigwam burners,
consist of a cone-shaped steel shell topped with a dome-shaped spark arrestor
screen. A typical conical incinerator is shown in Figure 2-7. Conical
incinerators usually contain a raised grate on which fuel is dropped from a
conveyor system. Overfire air is provided by natural draft through ports
in the side of the shell and is often supplemented by underfire air blown
under the grate by a forced air fan. Conical incinerators are not usually
equipped with auxiliary burners.
2-19
-------
un
CO
o
o
I
THERMOCOUPLE
BLOWER
FORCED DRAFT
UNDERFIRE
AIR SYSTEM
PYROMETER
OVERFIRE
AIR INLET
Figure 2-7. Conical incinerator.
2-20
-------
Conical incinerators are typically used to incinerate wood and
agricultural waste. The quantities and types of pollutants emitted from
conical burners vary considerably with the type of waste burned, moisture
content of the waste, combustion air, and temperature. Because of poor
maintenance, poor operation and low temperatures caused by too much excess
air, conical incinerators are usually characterized by relatively high
pollutant emissions.
Conical burners can be modified in several ways to reduce pollutant
emissions caused by incomplete combustion. For example, the addition of an
air supply control system will provide a means for maintaining high tempera-
tures and supplying the correct amount of combustion air required. Providing
a tangential entry for the overfire air will cause a cyclonic effect,
resulting in increased turbulence and better mixing of the combustion
gases. Finally, the addition of auxiliary burners will maintain adequate
combustion temperatures, especially during startup.
Fluidized Bed. The fluidized bed incinerator consists of a
refractory-lined cylindrical metal shell with a grid in the lower section
which supports a bed of inert granular particles, such as sand. A typical
fluidized bed incinerator is shown in Figure 2-8. Blower-driven air
enters at the bottom of the unit and travels upward through the grid and
the bed. The force of the air agitates and expands or "fluidizes" the bed
and causes it to act like a boiling liquid. Wastes are injected into the
bed pneumatically, mechanically, or by gravity. Rapid and relatively
uniform mixing of wastes and bed material occurs.
During the combustion process, combustion heat is transferred from the
bed to the injected waste. Typical bed temperatures range from 760° to
2-21
-------
vo
on
o
o
SIGHT GLASS
EXHAUST
SAND FEED-
PRESSURE TAP-n£
ACCESS DOOR
t=3
•FLUIDIZED SAND-Cp
.':•>:•:.•-:• :.--v:e
PREHEAT BURNER
THERMOCOUPLE
SLUDGE INLET
_ij^
FLUIDIZING
AIR INLET
Figure 2-8. Fluidized bed incinerator.
2-22
-------
870° C (1400° to 1600° F). Because of the high heat capacity of the bed
material, the heat content of the fluidized bed is approximately
142,000 kg-cal/m3, which is about three orders of magnitude greater than
the heat capacity of flue gases in typical incinerators operating in the
same temperature range. Because of this large heat capacity, fluidized
bed incinerators are often self-sustaining and need no auxiliary fuels
after startup. The heat from combustion is transferred back to the bed
material. Solid materials remain in the bed until they become small and
light enough to be carried off with the flue gas as particulate matter to
be removed by the particulate emission control equipment. Auxiliary burners
are used to -heat the bed to the required combustion temperature during
startup and to provide auxiliary heat when needed.
Enough fluidizing air must be supplied to fluidize the bed and provide
the necessary oxygen for combustion. However, too much excess air blows
bed material and products of incomplete combustion out with the flue gas
and depletes stored heat energy from the bed.
The fluidized bed reactor has a minimum of mechanical components and
is relatively simple to operate. The bed acts as a large heat reservoir
which minimizes the amount of fuel required to reheat the system following
shutdown. This feature of fluidized bed incinerators makes them very
attractive for intermittent operation. Since the reactor exhaust temperatures
exceed 760° C, an afterburner and supplemental fuel are not required to
comply with air pollution regulations, as may be required of other incinerators
in some areas. The fluidized bed incinerator will incinerate all organic
waste, but it is especially suited for liquids.18
2-23
-------
2.3 DESCRIPTION OF NONCONVENTIONAL INCINERATION TECHNIQUES
Stimulated by the needs for energy, the shortages of acceptable landfills,
and the rapidly increasing volume of solid waste, a number of nonconventional
incineration techniques are under development or have recently become
commercially available. These emerging technologies are described on the
following pages.
Cement Kilns. It is currently common practice to add chlorides to
some cement kilns to reduce the alkali content of the cement product. By
burning chlorinated hydrocarbons, both the chlorine and energy are recovered
from the waste, thus reducing the cement plant's need for chlorides and
fossil fuel.
In 1977, TRW conducted a study for EPA's Office of Solid Waste Management
to determine the effectiveness of using cement kilns for the destruction of
19
chemical wastes. In this study, several chlorinated hydrocarbons were
incinerated in a cement kiln owned by the St. Lawrence Cement Company. The
kiln owned by St. Lawrence, illustrated in Figure 2-9, is 124 meters long
with a diameter of 3.5 meters. Its nominal capacity is 863 megagrams
(950 tons) per day.
Gases from each kiln pass through a six-section electrostatic precipitator.
Gases from the precipitators are then exhausted through a common stack.
Number 6 fuel oil is burned in a single burner at the center of the burner
pipe. For these tests, chlorinated hydrocarbons were fed just above and to
one side of the center using different sizes of nozzles for proper atomization
at different flow rates. Tests were performed burning chlorinated aromatics
and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). In general, the TRW data indicated
that no detectable levels of organic waste constituents were in either
2-24
-------
CO
o
o
no
ro
01
SLURRY FEED —^| \
PRECIPITATOR
Www
V
KILN
i
PRECIPITATOR DUST SCREW
DUST RETURN
FUEL
FILTER
VCLINKER COOLER I
^
CLINKER
Figure 2-9. Cement kiln.
-------
effluent or solid samples, and that no significant differences between any
of the samples were caused by addition of the chlorinated hydrocarbon
wastes to the wet process cement kiln. Organic combustion efficiencies
were reported as 99.989 percent for the chlorinated aromatic waste burns
and as 99.986 percent for the waste burns containing PCBs and other chlori-
nated hydrocarbons. These efficiency percentages are based on total
hydrocarbon content of kiln emissions.
Infrared Incineration. An infrared incinerator consists of an
all-electric furnace which uses infrared lamps and an electric heat source.
Recent developments in infrared lamps, coupled with the advent of silicon-
controlled rectifiers, semiconductor controls, and ceramic reflector materials,
have provided an economical means for applying and controlling radiant
energy.
In an infrared incinerator, a high-temperature belt conveyor carries
the waste through a drying zone into a combustion zone. A battery of
infrared lamps initiates and maintains the combustion in the combustion
zone, which is mounted just above the belt. The conveyor belt then discharges
the ash into a hopper at the end of the machine. The lamps and end seals
are cooled by drawing in outside air through cooling air ducts. This air,
which becomes heated, is then used as combustion air. Combustion air is
exhausted through a wet gas scrubber or other air pollution device. Since
the infrared incinerator does not use oil or gas as an auxiliary fuel, it
requires significantly lower volumes of air than other types of incinerators.
The infrared unit is designed to use only the amount of air actually required
for the process itself, and this amount is automatically controlled by
electronic sensors. Thus, the size requirements for air handling and
20
pollution control equipment can be drastically reduced.
2-26
-------
Molten Salt Incineration. Molten salts have long been used in the
metallurgical industry to recover metals, especially aluminum. The molten
salt process is now being adapted to the disposal of gaseous, liquid, and
solid wastes. The molten salt combustion chamber consists of a refractory-
lined chamber partially filled with a molten salt. A schematic view of a
molten salt combustion process is shown in Figure 2-10.
In the basic molten salt concept for waste disposal, the waste is in-
jected below the surface of a molten salt bath. The waste is added in such
a manner that any gas formed during combustion is forced to pass through
the molten salt before it is emitted into the atmosphere. Typically, salt
is composed of 90 percent sodium carbonate and 10 percent sodium sulfate.
In the reactor, temperatures are usually maintained at some point in the
?1
range of 810°-980°C (1500°-1800°F). Lower temperatures can be achieved
by using a lower melting point salt such as potassium carbonate. The
heating value of most highly organic waste is sufficient to liberate enough
thermal energy to heat the reactants. Pyrolysis of the feed material
occurs first, and, depending on the oxygen input and the reactor temperature,
the pyrolyzed gases may be combusted in the reactor or in an afterburner.
In most cases, the pyrolyzed gases are combusted in the reactor.
Sodium carbonate is alkaline and reacts instantly with acidic gases
such as HC1 and S02. As a result, air pollutant emissions from molten salt
processes are generally low.
Total Incineration (Slagging). Total incineration is characterized by
the conversion of all waste to solidified slag and flue gases. In contrast
to conventional incineration, which produces ash at temperatures around
1800°F, all or part of a total incineration system must operate at
2-27
-------
00
n
o
o
STACK
, 02
WASTE
I
WASTE
TREATMENT
AND FEED
AIR
MOLTEN SALT
FURNACE
SALT RECYCLE
WASTE AND AIR
SPENT MELT
REPROCESSING
OPTION
J
n_iB • • — • • • - —
l_p
SPENT MELT
DISPOSAL ASH
Figure 2-10. Molten salt incinerator.
2-28
-------
temperatures approaching 3000°F in order to convert the ash residue to a
22
liquid slag that can be drained from the furnace and solidified. There
are several different total incineration systems; however, Union Carbide's
PUROX® system and the Carborundum Company's TORRAX® system represent typical
total incineration processes. The PUROX® and TORRAX® systems are shown in
Figures 2-11 and 2-12. The key element in the typical total incineration
process is a vertical shaft furnace, which somewhat resembles a cupola.
Typically, waste is charged to the top of the furnace, and oxygen is injected
into the bottom hearth section. The furnace is kept full of waste which
continually descends through the shaft. As the waste moves downward it is
first dried and then pyrolyzed. The char which remains after pyrolysis
continues downward to the hearth where it is combusted by the oxygen,
providing the heat necessary to melt the noncombustible materials. The
molten material flows out of the furnace where it is cooled and solidified
into slag. This slag represents the smallest volume possible for the
initial volume of waste. The pyrolyzed gases are drawn from the furnace
and either combusted in a secondary combustion chamber or used as fuel in
another process. The combustion of the pyrolyzed gas usually preheats the
combustion air. The absence of excess air in the furnace, which allows for
the pyrolysis of the waste into a gaseous fuel, does not cause the cooling
effect as the addition of excess air would and thus does permit the high
temperatures required for total incineration. The smaller volume of air
used also permits a reduction in the size of required air pollution control
equipment. The total incineration technique is especially interesting
since it is a method for converting solid waste into gaseous or liquid
fuel, and thus reduces the volume of residue to the landfill by as much as
97 percent.
2-29
-------
CO
O
O
REFUSE \
FEED HOPPER ~*
SEAL
FEEDLOCK—*/
SEAL
OXYGEN
FUEL GAS PRODUCT
i
COMBUSTION
ZONE
MOLTEN
MATERIAL
HATER QUENCH
fiAS CLEANING
TRAIN
WASTE WATER
RESIDUE
i W i
Figure 2-11. Total incineration (Purox^ system)
2-30
-------
o
o
GASIFIER
BY-PRODUCT FUEL GAS
TO INDUSTRIAL PROCESSES
OR UTILITY BOILER
I,D, FAN
PULVERIZER
SECONDARY
COMBUSTION
CHAMBER
INERT
S LAC-
PROCESS
AIR
TO POLLUTION
CONTROL
EQUIPMENT
Figure 2-12. Total incineration (Torrax^ system)
2-31
-------
2.4 ALTERNATIVES TO INCINERATION
This section discusses three other technologies that may prove to be
alternatives to incineration that are not commonly in use today. They are
briefly discussed here because of their potential future impact on the
industrial incinerator population.
Wet Oxidation. Wet oxidation is a physical/chemical treatment process
capable of breaking down water-soluble organics through hydrolysis and
flameless oxidation. The process is carried out in an enclosed reactor at
temperatures of 150°-340° C (300°-650° F) and high pressures of
3103-17,236 kilopascals gauge (450-2500 psig). Waste entering the system
must be capable of being readily pumped at the temperatures and pressures
used in the process. The waste is preheated to the reaction temperature
via a waste heat exchanger and auxiliary heater. When injected into the
aqueous solution in the reactor, complex hydrocarbons are broken down into
simple hydrocarbons by hydrolytic reactions. Compressed air injected into
the reactor oxidizes the simple hydrocarbon compounds to alcohols, alde-
hydes, acids, and ultimately to carbon dioxide and water. Once the reaction
is underway, the oxidation may produce enough heat to sustain the reaction,
and the auxiliary heaters may be shut down.
The exhaust gas from the unit should contain carbon dioxide, oxygen,
and nitrogen. Sulfur, halogen compounds, and any remaining solids will
remain in the liquid solution.
Plasma Destruction. Plasma destruction is a technique which uses
microwave energy to destroy waste materials. Microwave energy is applied
to a carrier gas (such as helium or air) to excite its molecules and raise
its electron energy levels. Essentially, very reactive free radicals are
2-32
-------
formed. The gas in this high energy condition is called plasma. The
excited electrons transfer their energy to break the chemical bonds of
nearby materials. Carbon-carbon bonds are among those most susceptible.
Thus, theoretically, any organic waste--!iquid, solid, or gas—placed into
the plasma can be degraded to intermediate or ultimate products, perhaps
destroying their toxic properties. Work to date has been confined to
gaseous materials (though the concept is believed to be applicable to
24
liquids and solids) and has been limited to laboratory scale units.
Pyrolysis. Pyrolysis is the thermal decomposition of organic waste
materials into solid, liquid, and gaseous components. Typically, organic
waste is charged into a reactor and heated to 480°-810° C (900°-1500° F) in
25
the absence of oxygen. The intense heat decomposes the chemical compounds
and evaporates the volatile components of the waste material. The pyrolysis
of organic waste yields organic liquids, fuel gas, and char. The char con-
tains any mineral ash or other noncombustible material present in the waste
plus what is termed "fixed carbon," which represents the carbonaceous
fraction of the waste that did not volatilize. The organic liquids are a
complex mixture of compounds often called pyroligneous acids. The fuel gas
is a mixture of combustible gases including carbon monoxide, methane,
26
hydrogen, ethylene, and other higher hydrocarbons.
Depending on the waste material, all three products can be used as
fuel. The major attraction of pyrolysis is its potential for recovering
useful fuels from waste materials. A pyrolysis system is shown in
Figure 2-13.
2.5 DOMESTIC MANUFACTURERS OF INDUSTRIAL INCINERATORS
The number of firms in the incinerator manufacturing industry has
declined over the last 10 years. This decline is due to product line
2-33
-------
O
O
I
—
»
RECYCLE FUEL GAS
}
t
—
—
53
i
•*~\
/ i
M-'
PIICl
__
TO COMBUSTION
SYSTEM/BOILER
VST////////////////////////////*
I g
REFUSE
FEED
— FIREBOX
1 .
iPYROLYSIS REACTOR (RETORT)
GAS
CHAR DISGORGE
Figure 2-13. Pyrolysis system (rotary kiln)
2-34
-------
changes, business consolidations, and business failures. A listing of the
manufacturers who were contacted directly or who appeared in the literature
reviewed in the course of this study is presented in Table 2-1. The listing
is not comprehensive, but it does include most of the manufacturers. Firms
known to be out of business were not included. However, time constraints
did not allow a thorough check of all the firms mentioned in the literature
to ascertain whether they still exist. Table 2-1 also designates at least
one source for each design discussed in this section. A source for
single-chamber units is not known, as they are not believed to be available.
2-35
-------
Table 2-1. DOMESTIC MANUFACTURERS OF INDUSTRIAL INCINERATORS
Availability of designs
Manufacturer Multiple-
chamber
Rotary Multiple- oth
kiln hearth ULner
Consumat Systems, Inc. X
Econo-Therm Corp. X
Environmental Control
Products X
C & H Combustion X
Combustion Engineering
X Suspended cyclonic
George L. Simonds Co. X
Comtro, Div. of Sunbeam X
Lucas American
Recyclers, Inc.
Rockwell International
Shirco, Inc.
Dorr-Oliver, Inc.
Envirotech Corp.
Copeland Systems, Inc.
Pickands Mather & Co.
John Zink Co.
Rotary hearth
Molten salt
Infrared
Fluidi zed bed
X X
Fluidi zed bed
Liquid injection
Liquid injection
Selco Products, Inc. X
Kelley/Hoskinson X
Brule, Inc. X
2-36
-------
2.6 REFERENCES
1. Mantel!, C. L. Solid Wastes: Origin, Collection, Processing, and
Disposal. New York, John Wiley and Sons. 1975. p. 17-19.
2. Cross, F. L. Handbook on Incineration. Westport, Connecticut, Technomic
Publishing Company, Incorporated. 1972. p. 7.
3. English, J. A. Design Aspects of a Low Emission, Two-Stage Incinerator.
In: Resource Recovery Thru Incineration. Proceedings of 1974 National
Incinerator Conference. New York, The American Society of Mechanical
Engineers. 1974. p. 312.
4. Witnessing Report for the Third EPA-Sponsored North Little Rock
Facility Test. DSI Resource Systems Group, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts.
November 1978. p. 8.
5. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, 2nd edition. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Publication No. AP-40. May
1973. p. 439.
6. Kelley/Hoskinson. Incinerators. Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 1974.
Manufacturer's literature.
7. Reference 5, p. 444.
8. C. E. Raymond/Bartlett-Snow. The Bartlett-Snow Tumble-Burner.
Bulletin #119. Chicago, Illinois, n.d. Manufacturer's literature.
9. Scurlock, A. C., A. W. Lindsey, T. Fields Jr., and D. R. Huber.
Incineration in Hazardous Waste Management. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Publication No. EPA/530/SW-141. 1975. p. 5.
10. Lofy, R. J., M. Caponigro, M. Gilbert, H. Lam, R. Marsh, R. P. Stearns,
and B. West. Comprehensive Sludge Study Relevant to Section 8002(g)
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (P. L. 94-580).
SCS Engineers. Reston, Virginia (for U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Contract No. 68-01-3945). p. IV-163.
11. Kim, B. C., R. B. Engdahl, E. J. Mezey, and R. B. Landrigan. Screening
Study for Background Information and Significant Emissions from Major
Incineration Sources. Battelle-Columbus Laboratories. Columbus, Ohio
(for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-02-0611).
January 1974. p. 160-161.
12. Devitt, T. W., and N. J. Kulujian. Inspection Manual for the
Enforcement of New Source Performance Standards: Sewage Sludge
Incinerators. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington,
D. C. Publication No. EPA/340/1-75-004. February 1975. p. 3-3.
2-37
-------
13. Clark, J. W., W. Viessman Jr., and M. J. Hammer. Water Supply and Air
Pollution Control, 3rd edition. New York, Harper and Row. 1977.
p. 696-699.
14. Reference 9, p. 7 and 43-53.
15. Boubel, R. W. Wood Residue Incineration in Tepee Burners. Oregon
State University Engineering Experiment Station. Corvallis, Oregon.
Circular No. 34. July 1965. p. 3.
16. Reference 10, p. IV-156.
17. Reference 9, p. 58-61.
18. Reference 9, p. 9.
19. Burning Waste Chlorinated Hydrocarbons in a Cement Kiln. Office of
Solid Waste Management, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D. C. Publication No. SW-147c. 1978. p. 3.
20. Cost Effective Solutions to Disposal Problems. Shirco, Incorporated.
Dallas, Texas, n.d. 5 p.
21. Yosim, S. J., K. M. Barclay, and L.F. Grantham. Destruction of
Pesticides and Pesticide Containers by Molten Salt Combustion.
Reprinted from ACS Symposium Series, No. 73 Disposal and Decontamination
of Pesticides. Rockwell International. Canoga Park, California.
1978. p. 119.
22. Zinn, R. E., C. R. LaMantia, and W. R. Niessen. Total Incineration.
In: Proceedings of 1970 National Incinerator Conference. New York,
The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. May 20, 1970.
p. 116-127.
23. Reference 9, p. 11 and 66-68.
24. Reference 9, p. 12 and 70.
25. Reference 9, p. 15 and 82.
26. Lewis, F. M. Thermodynamic Fundamentals for the Pyrolysis of Refuse.
In: Proceedings of 1976 National Waste Processing Conference. New
York, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers. May 1976.
p. 19-40.
2-38
-------
3. EXISTING REGULATIONS
In this section existing State and Federal air emission regulations that
apply to industrial incinerators are compiled and summarized. A typical State
regulation, which was derived from the data, was used to estimate current
nationwide incinerator emissions and to project future emissions at the level
allowed by State implementation plans (SIPs). Only particulate and visible
emission regulations were addressed by this study, since State incinerator
standards generally limit only those emissions.
3.1 STATE REGULATIONS
No single, common definition for an incinerator is used by all States.
Air pollution control regulations generally define an incinerator as "any
device, apparatus, equipment, or structure used for destroying, reducing, or
salvaging by combusting any material or substance." The State definitions
• t
usually encompass units used for volume reduction, toxicity reduction, and
resource recovery. Several States regulate conical units under a separate
emission standard. Particulate and visible emission standards for incinera-
tors do exist in all 50 States; Tables 3-1 and 3-2 list these standards. The
particulate emission standards are based on either the weight of the waste
charged or the flue gas volume or mass. To compare the particulate emission
standards, the various units of measurement on which the standards were based
were converted to a common unit. The unit used most commonly in State regula-
tions is grains/dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) corrected to 12 percent
carbon dioxide (C02). A typical industrial waste composition was not found,
but for purposes of this study, to convert all the units to gr/dscf, a waste
composition of 50 percent cellulose and 50 percent water and a heating value
3-1
-------
Table 3-1. OPACITY REGULATIONS FOR NEW AND EXISTING COMMERCIAL
AND INDUSTRIAL INCINERATORS
tefuUdoii l*il»4lont
IUU V4lM
1 AlOMM M
a
2 Alnta 40
a
1 «*»•* IN**
a
4 ArtMU* K*. 1
•0. 1
M. 2
1 ColorMi a
7 COMWCtlCUt 40
a
i odMr*. a
i outnct of C4iu»^*/W Bid 'U
""•'— "
.imiM 20
i OMdty ) Bin 41iCfl4rfoy*0 Bin 40
f OMdty oil otMr tlOM a
1 OMdty a
(OMdty 40
IfawlMM »y(1t ifUr.K10/72 a
imwlMm eu«1t kofor* 2/10/72 40
1 OMdty 10
1 OMdty 20
f OMdty 1 Bin 4lKfi4r*«/M dn a
(CMCllWM)
3-2
-------
Table 3-1. (continued)
SUM
H MM HMNKIr*
11 Do* Jonor
U NO»MMICP
U NOT 'or* (tuul
(IUM)
(city)
14 Dortti CiroMm
n lortn OiMU
M «1o
17 OklIMM
H OrotM
» ttmoylvMli
40 ftjort* ««
41 OMM IiloM
41 tart* CiivHM
4] Iowa Oiua
a TOMMMM
41 TOIM
a MM
47 VOffJOMt
41 VtFfimi
4f UitlilMtM
u urn yiFfima
11 HI4CMCIII
U U*MW4«M
viluo
NO. 1
M. 2
NO. 1
NO. 1
40
20
NO. 1
N*. 1
NO. I
M
20
NO. 1
10. 1
40
20
20
20
M
20
M. 1
20
M
20
U
20
N0.1
40
20
20
20
>to
NO. 1
20
20
(Ml II
.<^IM
llHMlMM
llHMlMflK
MnMlmi
toMctty
t oMdty
•HiMlMii
ItllMllM*
IIHMlMM
1 OMClty
S OMClty
UflMlMMI
UntolBM
t OMClty
'. OMClty
S OMclty
t OMClty
(OMCtty
I OMClty
H«MlMI
t OMClty
I OMClty
1 OMdty
1 OMClty
S o*tdty
MllMlOWM
t OMdty
I OMClty
I OMctty
1 OMClty
t OMdty
KlHMlCMI
t OMClty
I OMClty
M»Ut,*
4*M1t<«M
1^4,*-^«..,
] comoeuttvo •imut
ill oOur t1«M
2 «lii 41*ciur«/M •("
1 «1n 41icMr(c/M •<•
4 *\n 41U)ur«/<0 «ln
411 oawr S1«M
1 triii oMtdurw/M •<»
ill otoor tlMi
ill oowr el«M
1 U\» 4l«ciui^*/<0 •!«
1 «1» 41fCIMr«/M «l«
1 «1« 41UMrM/M •«*
1 «120
20
built «rtor 4/1/72 20
20
3-3
-------
Table 3-2. PARTICIPATE EMISSION LIMITATIONS FOR NEW AND
EXISTING INCINERATORS
Regulation
State
1 Alabama
2 Alaska
3 Arizona
4 Arkansas
5 California
6 Colorado
7 Connecticut
8 Delaware
9 Florida
10 Georgia
11 Hawaii
12 Idaho
Value
0.1
»>
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.15
0.08
0.4
0.2
1.0
2.0
5.0
0.08
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.08
0.2
0.2
Units
lbs/100 Ibs
charged
Ibs/1. 00 Ibs
charged
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
lbs/1000 Ibs
Ibs/hr
1bs/hr
Ibs/hr
Ibs/hr
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
lbs/100 Ibs
charged
lbs/100 Ibs
charged
Corrected to
12* C02
12* co2
125 C02
121 C02
12% C02
m co2
121 C02
m co2
12* C02
12* C02
50* excess air
50* excess air
50* excess air
12* C02
12* C02
12* C02
12* C02
12* C02
Process conditions
>50 TPO
<50 TPO
^200 Ibs/hr
200-1000 Ibs/hr
>1000 Ibs/hr
2200 Ibs/hr
<200 Ibs/hr
typical of the 43
APCO's
100 Ibs/hr
500 Ibs/hr
1000 Ibs/hr
3000 Ibs/hr
250 TPO
250 TPO
-------
Table 3-2. (continued)
Regulation
State
13 Illinois
14 Indiana
15 Iowa
16 Kansas
17 Kentucky
18 Louisiana
19 Maine
20 Maryland
21 Massachusetts
22 Michigan
23 Minnesota
Value
0.08
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.2
0.35
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.08
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.03
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.05
0.65
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.15
0.1
Units
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
lbs/1000 Ibs
gas
lbs/1000 Ibs
. gas
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
lbs/1000 Ibs
gas
lbs/100 Ibs
gas
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
Corrected to
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
501 excess air
502 excess air
12* COZ
121 C02
121 C02 -
12% C02
12% C02
12* C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% CO-,
50% excess air
50% excess air
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
12% C02
Process conditions
2000-60,000 Ibs/hr
<2000 Ibs/hr
£2000 Ibs/hr
>ZOO Ibs/hr
<200 Ibs/hr
2.1000 Ibs/hr
<1000 Ibs/hr
<200 Ibs/hr
200-20,000 Ibs/hr
>20,000 Ibs/hr
£50 TPD
>50 TPO
<2000 Ibs/hr
>2000 Ibs/hr
<200 Ibs/hr
>200 Ibs/hr
0-100 Ibs/hr
>100 Ibs/hr
<200 Ibs/hr
200-2000 Ibs/hr
>2000 Ibs/hr
<200 Ibs/hr
200-2000 Ibs/hr
>2000 Ibs/hr
Equivalent
Validity Common regulation
(gr/dscf 9 12% C02)
0.08
built before 4/15/72 0.2
built after 4/15/72 0.1
0.19
0.32
0.2
0.35
0.3
0.2
0.1 -
0.2
0.08
0.2
0.2
built after 1/17/72 0.1
built after 1/17/72 0.03
built before 1/17/72 0.3
built before 1/17/72 0.2
existing 0.1
new 0.05
0.42
0.19
existing before 8/17/71 0.3
existing before 8/17/71 0.2
existing before 8/17/71 0.1
new
(built after 8/17/71) 0.2
new
(built after 8/17/71) 0.15
new
(built after 8/17/71) 0.1
(continued)
3-5
-------
Table 3-2, (continued)
Regulation
State
24 Mississippi
25 Missouri
26 Montana
27 Nebraska
28 Nevada
29 New Hampshire
30 New Jersey
31 New -Mexico
32 New York
33 North Carolina
Value
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
Units
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
Corrected to
121 C02
121 C02
121 C02
121 C02
121 C02
121 C02
12* C02
121 CO?
121 C02
3.0 Ibs/ton charged
variable E
0.3
0.2
0.08
0.2
0.2
only opacity
0.08
O.S
0.5
variable
(e.g., 0.3)
variable
(e.g., 3.0)
variable
(e.g., 7.5)
0.2
0.4
1.0
2.0
4.0
- 40.7 x 10"5 C
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
regulations
gr/dscf
lbs/100 Ibs
charged
lbs/100 Ibs
charged
Ibs/hr
Ibs/hr
Ibs/hr
Ibs/hr
Ibs/hr
Ibs/hr
Ibs/hr
Ibs/hr
C.E • Ibs/hr
121 C02
12* C02
121 C02
121 C02
121 C02
12S C02
Process conditions
Design Capacity
New Sources Near
Residential Areas
^200 Ibs/hr
<200 Ibs/hr
>200 Ibs/hr
£200 Ibs/hr
<2000 Ibs/hr
^2000 Ibs/hr
<2000 Ibs/hr
>2000 Ibs/hr
£200 Ibs/hr
>200 Ibs/hr
>50 TPO
<2000 Ibs/hr
all others
£50 TPD
>50 TPO
>2000 Ibs/hr
£2000 Ibs/hr
£100 Ibs/hr
91000 Ibs/hr
03000 Ibs/hr
0-100 Ibs/hr
9200 Ibs/hr
9500 Ibs/hr
91000 Ibs/hr
22000 Ibs/hr
Equivalent
Validity Common regulation
(gr/dscf f- 121 C02)
existing before 9/5/75
existing before 9/5/75
all others
built after 4/20/74
type 0,1,2,3 waste only
new
(built after 8/17/71)
built between 4/1/62
and 1/1/70
built between 4/1/62
and 1/1/68
built after 1/1/68
built after 1/1/68
built after 1/1/70
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.18
0.05
0.3
0.2
0.08
0.2
0.1
-
0.08
0.6
0.6
0.36
0.36
0.3
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
0.24
(continued)
3-6
-------
Table 3-2. (continued)
State
34 North Dakota
35 Ohio
36 Oklahoma
37 Oregon
38 Pennsylvania
39 Rhode Island
40 South Carolina
41 South Dakota
42 Tennessee
43 Texas
44 Utah
45 Vermont
46 Virginia
47 Washington
48 West Virginia
49 Wisconsin
Value
variable
0.1
0.2
variable
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.16
0.08
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.1
variable
0.08
0.1
0.14
0.1
8. 25
5.43
0.2
0.3
0.5
Units
Ibs/hr
lbs/100 Ibs
charged
lbs/100 Ibs
charged
Ibs/hr
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
lbs/106 8tu
lbs/100 Ibs
charged
X of charge
t of charge
Ibs/hr
gr/dscf
lbs/100 Ibs
charged
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
Ibs /ton
Ibs/ton
lbs/1000 Ibs
exhaust gas
lbs/1000 Ibs
exhaust gas
lbs/1000 Ibs
exhaust gas
Regulation
Corrected to Process conditions
0100 Ibs/hr
91000 Ibs/hr
93000 Ibs/hr
2100 Ibs/hr
<100 Ibs/hr
0100 Ibs/hr
01000 Ibs/hr
03000 Ibs/hr
^100 Ibs/hr
>200 Ibs/hr
>200 Ibs/hr
12* C02
12* C02 <2000 Ibs/hr
Ul C03 ^2000 Ibs/hr
910 nw 8tu/hr
£2000 Ibs/hr
>2000 Ibs/hr
01000 Ibs/hr
03000 Ibs/hr
12t C02 >50 TPO
12% C02
7t 02
<200 Ibs/hr
>200 Ibs/hr
12S C02 500-4000 Ibs/hr
121 C02 £500 Ibs/hr
12* C0? >500 Ibs/hr
(continued)
3-7
Equivalent
Validity Cownon regulation
(gr/dscf 0 12t C02)
0.4
0.31
0.24
0.12
0.24
0.48
0.31
0.21
0.3
built before 6/1/70 0.2
built after 6/1/70 0.1
0.1
0.16
0.08
0.27
0.24
0.24
0.12
0.41
0.27
0.08
0.12
0.14
0.11
0.5
0.33
built after 4/1/72 0.11
built after 4/1/72 0.17
built before 4/1/72 0.28
-------
Table 3-2. (continued)
Regulation Equivalent
state Value Units Corrected to
0.6 lbs/1000 Ibs
exhaust gas 12J C02
0.1S lbs/1000 Ibs
exhaust gas 12X C02
50 Wyoming 0.2 lbs/100 Ibs
charged
Process conditions Validity Common regulation
(gr/dscf 9 12« C0?)
<500 Ibs/hr built before 4/1/72 0.34
_>4000 Ibs/hr built after 4/1/72 0.08
0.24
3-8
-------
of 10.37 x 106 J/kg (4462 Btu/lb) were assumed. The conversion factors based
on these assumptions are presented in Table 3-3.
Some States have particulate emission standards that prescribe a fixed
emission limit for all incinerator classifications. Other States have variable
limits such as one based on capacity for some or all incinerator classifications.
Forty-five States have only fixed emission limits, and they range, as adjusted,
from 0.1 gr/dscf @ 12 percent C02 to 0.27 gr/dscf @ 12 percent C02. A typical
emission limit value would be 0.2 gr/dscf.
Several States have different limits for new incinerators than for existing
incinepators. The limit is typically 0.1 gr/dscf @ 12 percent C02 for new
units and 0.17 gr/scf @ 12 percent C02 for existing units. The differentiation
of emission limit requirements between existing and new sources and the
!
occurrence of a stricter standard for new units is not commonplace enough
nationwide to justify basing a typical SIP emission limitation on existing
standards in States with special emission limitations for new units.
Thirty-one of the 50 States have fixed emission limits for incinerators
but different ones for different classifications depending on the capacity or
charge weight of the unit. The individual State standards vary not only in
emission limits for a definite capacity size but also in the capacity size
ranges for the limits. The most typical standard is:
t 0.3 gr/dscf @ 12 percent C02 for units firing less than 200 Ibs per
hour,
• 0.2 gr/dscf @ C02 for units between 200 and 2000 Ibs per hour,
0 0.1 gr/dscf @ 12 percent C02 for units firing more than 2000 Ibs per
hour but less than 50 tons per day, and
• 0.08 gr/dscf @ 12 percent C02 for units firing more than 50 tons per
day.
3-9
-------
Table 3-3. CONVERSION FACTORS'
gr/dscf
@ 12% C02
gr/dscf
@ 12% C02 1
gr/dscf
@ 50% EA 1.137
lb/1000 Ib
of flue gas 0.640
@ 50% EA
lb/1000 Ib
of flue gas 0.559
@ 12% C02
lb/100 Ib
of charge 1.20
gr/dscf.
@ 50% EAD
0.8795
1
0.5629
0.4916
1.055
lb/1000 Ib
of flue gas
@ 50% EA
1.563
1.777
1
0.873
1.876
lb/1000 Ib
of flue gas
@ 12% C02
1.789
2.034
1.145
1
2.147
lb/100 Ib
of charge
0.833
0.9471
0.533
0.465
1
aEnglish to SI unit conversions were not made because in an effort to
minimize the number of conversions and the impact of assumptions, all
values were converted to the most commonly used units (gr/dscf @ 12% C02),
EA = Excess air.
3-10
-------
Several States have specific participate emission limits for emissions
from conical burners. These standards range from 0.1 gr/dscf @ 12 percent
C02 to 0.48 gr/dscf @ 12 percent C02 with an average of 0.25 gr/dscf @
12 percent C02.
Visible emissions from incinerators are limited to 20 percent opacity in
two States and to 40 percent opacity in five States. Eight States allow
40 percent opacity from existing sources and 20 percent opacity from new
sources. The limits for the remaining States range from 10 percent to
30 percent opacity.
3.2 TYPICAL SIP STANDARD
In some States, the SIP level of particulate emissions from an
industrial incinerator is dependent upon the capacity of the unit, the type of
waste, and the age of the incinerator. Therefore, a typical incinerator must
be defined before a typical standard can be determined. For this study, it
was assumed that the typical incinerator is subject to regulations covering
new sources. New sources are generally defined for SIP purposes as units
installed after 1972. Based on data,presented in Section 4, the typical
waste is industrial waste (types 5 and 6). The capacity of the typical incin-
erator is 277 kg/hr (610 Ib/hr). Standards applicable to this incinerator are
presented in Figure 3-1. The most common emission level is 0.20 gr/dscf.
Most SIP levels are nearer 0.20 gr/dscf (at the higher end of the scale) than
0.1 gr/dscf (or the lower end); therefore, 0.20 gr/dscf is selected as the
typical SIP level.
3.3 FEDERAL REGULATIONS
The two new source performance standards which limit emissions from
incinerators are contained in Title 40, Part 60, Subparts E and 0. Subpart E
3-11
-------
IZl—
Number
of
States
o
o>
o
ol
i
8
5
12
10
0.08 0.1 0.11-0.IS 0.16-0.19 0.20 0.24 0.25*
Allowable Participate Emissions (gr/dscf)
Figure 3-1. SIP emission levels for particulates
3-12
-------
applies to incinerators burning more than 50 tons per day of solid waste that
were constructed after August 17, 1971. Solid waste is defined as refuse,
more than 50 percent of which is municipal type waste consisting of a mixture
of paper, wood, yard wastes, food wastes, plastics, leather, rubber, and other
combustibles, and noncombustible materials such as glass and rock. This
standard specifies a particulate emission limitation of 0.08 gr/dscf corrected
to 12 percent C02. Subpart 0 contains Standards of Performance for Sewage
Treatment Plants, which apply to sewage sludge incinerators constructed after
June 11, 1973, and which burn sludge produced by municipal sewage treatment
facilities. The emission standard limits particulate emissions to 1.3 Ibs per
ton of dry sludge input and visible emissions to 20 percent opacity. Neither
standard discussed above applies to the industrial incinerator source category.
3-13
-------
4. POPULATION AND GROWTH TRENDS
In this section the existing industrial incinerator population is
described in terms of its size, ownership, capacity, use, and age. Factors
that affect growth of this population are then summarized and used to
project the population characteristics in 1983. The section also discusses
industrial incinerators that have been classified as major sources. Some
special incinerator populations outside the industrial segment are briefly
discussed.
4.1 PRESENT POPULATION
To simplify the analysis in this section, the industrial incinerator
population is divided into two major categories: incinerators that are
physically associated with a manufacturing facility and those that are not.
For purposes of this chapter, a manufacturing facility is either an establish-
ment that generates waste as a byproduct or one that uses waste as a raw
material. In the first case the incinerator is used for waste reduction
and/or detoxification; in the latter case the unit is used for resource
recovery. Generally, incinerators in these groups handle waste streams
generated on site; however, there are exceptions such as wire incinerators
and incinerators burning film and photographic materials for silver recovery.
These units, if used by metal scrap yards, generally recover waste streams
generated off site. Wire incinerators used by a wire company recover waste
streams generated on site.
Incinerators not physically associated with a manufacturing facility
consist of those owned by companies in the business of industrial waste
disposal. These units are used almost exclusively for waste detoxification.
4-1
-------
They are always located off site where they can handle the wastes of many
establishments at one centralized location. In the remainder of the report
these units are referred to as off-site incinerators.
4.1.1 Available Data
Minimal data are readily available on the characteristics of the
present population of industrial incinerators. One reason for this is that
the owners of these units are reluctant to report waste stream quantities
and compositions for fear that these parameters will reveal marketing
strategies or proprietary process information. Even when the information
is requested on State permit applications, it is usually left blank or
answered incompletely because failure to supply the data usually does not
preclude approval of the application.
Most incinerator research studies have concentrated on the greater
than 1890 kg/hr (50 ton/day) municipal scale units, but the majority of the
industrial incinerators are in the intermediate size category of
45-1,890 kg/hr (1 to 50 ton/day). A few studies have dealt with inter-
mediate size units or specifically addressed industrial type wastes. These
studies include the Quad-City Solid Waste Project (1968); Brinkerhoff
(1973); Battelle-Columbus Laboratories (1974); and Hofmann (1976).-1"4 Even
these studies do not give a comprehensive picture of the industrial incinerator
population. They generally deal with an entire population that includes
institutional, commercial, and residential incinerators, or they concentrate
on specific types of industrial incineration.
The National Emissions Data System (NEDS) operated by the National Air
Data Branch (NADB) of EPA was considered as a source of population data.
This system summarizes State data bases and describes incinerators by
4-2
-------
owner, design, and, in some cases, by type of waste. However, the State
agencies that provide the inputs to the NEDS system are not required to
report sources that have uncontrolled emissions of less than 90.9 Mg
(100 tons) a year. Most industrial incinerators fall below this break-
point and may not be included in the system. The NEDS should include all
large incinerators and the small units that happened to be located at a
facility with another reportable source. The information in the NEDS was
considered to be biased toward large units and therefore inappropriate for
characterizing the national industrial incinerator population.
The Office of Solid Waste Management (OSWM) of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) in Washington, D.C. was also contacted for popula-
tion data. Persons contacted in the land disposal division and the resource
recovery division acknowledged that no comprehensive study characterizing
waste streams by industrial classification and handling has been done. '
Since national population data were not available for the source
category, it was necessary to compile the basic information. The industrial
incinerator population is large and widely dispersed, so an actual count of
the number of units in the population was not possible within the time
frame and economic constraints of this phase of the project. Therefore, at
the onset of this project, it was decided to use a sampling procedure to
characterize the national population. After the sample was collected and
analyzed, however, it was decided that sufficient data had not been compiled
to conclusively characterize the segment of the industrial incinerator
population used for resource recovery. To correct this deficiency, supple-
mental data on resource recovery units were collected from incinerator
owners, incinerator manufacturers, resource recovery and related trade
4-3
-------
associations, and air pollution control agencies. Also, visits were made
to five operators and one manufacturer of these units.
4.1.2 Data and Data Sources for the Sample
Selection of Sample. Although most industrial incinerators are not
classified as reportable sources for the NEDS system, most State regula-
tions require that operating permits for them be obtained from the State
agency. These requirements have resulted in State records that contain a
comprehensive listing of incinerators within their jurisdictions. These
listings were judged to constitute the most readily available information
to be used in constructing a sample.
Listings of incinerators, containing varying amounts of data, were ob-
tained from North Carolina, Georgia, Illinois and Ohio.8" Listings were
also obtained from Texas and New York.12'13 The Texas Air Control Board, ,
however, does not require permits for sources existing prior to
September 29, 1971.14 Therefore, Texas was not included in the sample that
was used to determine the size and ownership of the source category. The
Texas listing did contain the most comprehensive information on incinerator
use; therefore, although they were slightly biased toward new installations,
these data were employed to characterize the population in terms of use.
The listings from New York and New York City did not contain comprehensive
data and were considered to be significantly out of date. In addition, New
York was divided into smaller Air Quality Regions and all incinerators were
not accounted for at the State level. Therefore, the New York data were
not used to project the size of the national population but were used to
determine other population characteristics.
4-4
-------
Several criteria were applied in selecting the States to include in
the sample. Recommendations were solicited from the EPA regional offices
and the NADB on which States kept the most current and accessible records.
In addition, a State's records had to be computer retrievable and to include
records from the entire State, especially from areas where local agencies
had jurisdiction. Finally, the State's incinerator regulations had to be
intermediate, i.e., neither excessively stringent nor lenient when compared
to the regulations of other States. Based on the summary of State incinera-
tion regulations in Chapter 3, "intermediate" was judged to be 0.1 to
0.2 grains per dry standard cubic foot.
Data Availability. Available data varied from State to State. The
most commonly available information was the ownership, design, capacity,
use, and permit date. Information on two parameters of special interest,
auxiliary fuel and control equipment, was not readily available. The type
of data obtained from the listings, directly or indirectly, is shown in
Table 4-1. Because the data base was a function of the particular datum of
interest, the sample varied with the specific population characteristic
being observed. Therefore, in each graphic or tabular representation of
the data, the sample upon which the information was based is noted.
Problems with Data. A number of problems encountered when using State
data should be noted. These problems involve the timeliness of the data,
misuse of the codes, and lack of a consistent incinerator definition.
While some areas, such as Chicago, require that an operating permit be
renewed annually, in Ohio and North Carolina the renewal period is three
years, and in Illinois excluding Chicago it is five. In most cases a
permit is valid indefinitely. Thus, many States have no means of knowing
4-5
-------
Table 4-1. DATA AVAILABILITY MATRIX
State
North
Carolina
Georgia
Illinois
Ohio
New York
Texas
SIC
code
Aa
A
A
A
A
A
Design
Ac
Ab
Ac
Ab
Ab
Ac
Permit date
Capacity Use Applied Issued
A
Ab A A
ABA
B
A
A A
NOTE: A = Data available for over 50% of the incinerators.
B = Data available for 15-49% of the incinerators.
aDerived from State manufacturing directories.
Derived from incinerator manufacturer's name and model number.
C0erived from SCC codes.
4-6
-------
when an incinerator ceases to operate. When the timeliness of the data was
suspect, it was verified. In one State 25 percent of the reportedly existing
incinerators were found to have been removed from the site, or the establish-
ment was no longer in business.
A very common error found in all State data was misuse of the Standard
Industrial Classification (SIC) Code and Source Classification Code (SCC).
The SIC is a four-digit number used in the classification of establishments
by type of activity in which they are engaged. The code provided the only
means of describing the ownership of the population. The level of errors
found in applying the codes ranged from 10 to 90 percent. In some States
telephone contacts and State manufacturing directories were used to verify
SICs when a high level of errors was suspected. The SCC, an eight-digit
number, identifies the type of emission source. In the absence of design
data or manufacturer's information, the SCC which is used by some States
could provide appropriate data. It usually takes more than one SCC to
describe an incinerator. One is needed to describe the design, another for
the auxiliary fuel, and sometimes one for the waste. In approximately
90 percent of the cases when SCCs were used, only one was given. In addition,
Catalytic and Direct Flame Afterburners were frequently misclassified as an
incinerator SCC. The level of SCC errors was reduced by subjectively
comparing the name of the owner or process with the codes that were given.
A significant number of incinerators as defined in this report are
difficult to retrieve from the State data systems because there is not a
generally accepted definition that clearly differentiates them from process
equipment and waste-fired boilers. To improve the comprehensiveness of the
data obtained from the States, several different computer retrievals were
4-7
-------
done for each State's data base. For example, in Georgia codes are not
used to describe the type of emission point; each, type is given a name
instead. The computer was capable of doing alphanumeric sorts, so retrie-
vals were done on the words "incinerator," "refuse," "waste," "furnace,"
and "trash." This way a "refuse disposal system" that was also an
incinerator would not be overlooked. The extensive effort to cross-reference
and verify the data obtained from the States should result in a sample that
is timely, comprehensive and representative.
Limitations of Sampling Methodology. In order to use a sampling
procedure it must be assumed that industrial incinerators are randomly
distributed in the population of each industrial category. This is a
reasonable assumption for the manufacturing segment of the population but
not for the off-site segment. Off-site incineration is conducted by waste
disposal firms. These firms have a number of alternatives from which to
choose when selecting a waste disposal method. Incineration is an economic-
ally viable option only in sections of the country that have excessively
high volumes of toxic waste streams. Therefore, nationally the number of
waste disposal firms that select the incineration option is small. These
firms are generally located in New Jersey, Louisiana, and Texas. Because
they are not randomly distributed throughout the population, the sampling
methodology would not be appropriate and was not used. Instead, information
on the off-site segment of the population was obtained from available
literature and from owners of off-site units.
The Sample. The number of establishments in the sample and the fraction
of the national population represented are shown in Table 4-2. An establish-
ment is an economic unit, generally at a single physical location where
4-8
-------
Table 4-2. THE MANUFACTURING SAMPLE
SIC code
20 Food
21 Tobacco
22 Textile
23 Apparel
24 Lumber
25 Furniture
26 Paper
27 Printing
28 Chemical
29 Petroleum
30 Rubber, plastic
31 Leather
32 Stone, glass, and
clay
33 Primary metal
34 Fabricated metal
35 Machinery
36 Electric
machinery
37 Transportation
equipment
38 Instruments
39 Miscellaneous
manufacturing
TOTAL
Number of
establishments h
in nation (1978)°
18,195
167
5,990
20,016
28,881
7,639
4,259
45,528
8,407
1,494
12,450
2,428
13,385
5,477
27,453
42,139
13,144
9,078
6,308
16,052
288,490
Number of
establishments h
in sample (1978)°
3,367
40
2,650
2,176
4,904
1,584
1,199
7,097
2,150
355
2,830
240
2,784
1,353
7,005
3,565
2,065
1,179
1,132
1.974
55 .649
Percentage
Included in
sample
19
24
44
11
17
21
28
16
26
24
23
10
21
25
26
20
16
13
18
12
W8i^.-^K
19
aSample consists of all manufacturing establishments in North Carolina, Georgia,
Illinois, and Ohio.
Projected from 1967 and 1972 census of manufacturers.
4-9
-------
industrial operations are performed. The U. S. Department of Commerce,
Bureau of the Census, conducts a Census of Manufacturers every five years
for the years ending in "7" and "2." Data are compiled for all manufacturing
establishments with one or more paid employees. The latest available
census figures at the time of this study were for the years 1967 and 1972.
The number of establishments in 1978 was estimated from those two years.
At the time this report was done, the 1977 census was not available. As a
result of having selected some very heavily industrialized States, 19 percent
of the industrial establishments in the nation were represented in the
sample which consisted of only four States. The sample was limited to
establishments with SIC codes 20 (food manufacturing) through 39
(miscellaneous manufacturing) which includes all establishments classified
by the Department of Commerce as manufacturing firms. Conical incinerators
that burn wood waste were not included in this sample because it is generally
agreed that they are a decreasing population because of State regulations
and alternative uses for the wood. ' Conical incinerators that burn
something other than wood were included, as were nonconical designs that
burn wood. Data on wood-burning conicals were collected from other sources
and are included later in this report.
The incinerator population size was extrapolated from the sample based
upon the number of establishments in the sample and in the nation. The
extrapolation was corrected for under- or over-representation of a particular
industry in the sample. Any incinerator owned by an establishment that
could not be classified by a single two-digit SIC code was counted as a half
or a third of an incinerator in each of the ownership categories. This was
only necessary for 6 of the 633 incinerators found in the sample. A detailed
4-10
-------
explanation of the procedure used to calculate the size of the population
is presented in Appendix C.
4.1.3 Characteristics of the Manufacturing Population
Most industrial incinerators are owned by manufacturing firms. This
section describes these units in terms of ownership capacity, design, use,
and age. The total number of industrial incinerators owned by manufacturing
firms nationally is estimated. Except for the units that are used for
resource recovery, all the population statistics presented in this section
were estimated from the sample. For resource recovery units, statistical
data were available from both the sample and the supplemental data collected.
Whenever data on a particular characteristic of the resource recovery
population were available from both data sources, the supplemental data
were used. This approach was used because the supplemental data were more
comprehensive and believed to be more accurate than the data collected by
sampling.
Incinerator Ownership. A preliminary projection of the size of the
manufacturing segment of the national industrial incinerator population is
3,043 units. The distribution of these units by ownership is shown in
Table 4-3. This projection of the national population is based upon the
permitting records of four State agencies. It is expected that some smaller
incinerator units are not included in the State records because of either
oversight or exclusion from the permitting requirements, so a national
population of 3,043 units is probably conservative. Incinerators which are
used for removing varnish from electric motor windings and debonding the
asbestos linings from drum automobile brakes are typically smaller units
and are not adequately represented in the sample. The predominant owners
4-11
-------
Table 4-3. MANUFACTURING SEGMENT OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL INCINERATOR
POPULATION
SIC code
35 Machinery
34 Fabricated metal
20 Food
36 Electric
machinery
39 Miscellaneous
manufacturing
27 Printing
28 Chemical
33 Primary metal
37 Transportation
equipment
24 Lumber
23 Apparel
25 Furniture
30 Rubber, plastic
j2 Stone, glass, and
clay
26 Paper
38 Instruments
22 Textile
29 Petroleum
21 Tobacco
31 Leather
TOTAL
Number of
Incinerators
in sample*
94
93
64
66
32
29
53
57
26
19
11
15
20
13
14
11
11
4
1
0
633
Preliminary
projection of
incinerators
in nation
475
366
338
313
255
194
190
180
167
113
88
78
77
58
54
46
30
16
5
0
3043 b
aSample consists of all manufacturing establishments in
North Carolina, Georgia, Illinois, and Ohio.
bTh1s is not an estimate of national population because it
does not adequately represent smaller units. A national
population estimate is given in Table 4-10.
4-12
-------
of these units are the electric machinery and transportation equipment
manufacturing groups, SIC Codes 36 and 37, respectively. Therefore, the
ranking of these two groups is probably underestimated in Table 4-3. A
more comprehensive population estimate which was derived from both the
sample and additional data collected is presented later in Table 4-10.
The leading owners of incinerators, based on the sample, are the
machinery, fabricated metal, food, and electric machinery industries. A
broad breakdown of how each of the industries uses its incinerators is
shown in Table 4-4. The volume reduction category consists of any wastes
that are not "toxic" or not being combusted to recover a product. It in-
cludes paper, trash, wood, and cloth. The toxicity reduction category
includes anything "toxic" that was not being combusted to recover a product.
No attempt was made to rigorously categorize substances as "toxic" or
"hazardous" based upon any available definitions. The small amount of data
and the poor descriptions of the waste given did not justify such a detailed
approach. Any substance that consisted of a combustible liquid, a solvent,
or explosive, or which contained a hydrocarbon such as paint was placed in
the toxicity reduction category. The resource recovery category includes
anything combusted to recover a product. It includes copper wire, catalysts,
steel drums, brake shoes, x-ray film, and electric motors. In most of the
industrial classifications, volume reduction was the predominant use.
Notable exceptions to this were the chemical and petroleum industries,
where toxicity reduction predominated, and the primary metal, electric
machinery, transportation equipment, and instrument industries, where
resource recovery predominated.
4-13
-------
Table 4-4. USE DISTRIBUTION BY OWNERSHIP FOR SAMPLE3
SIC code
35 Machinery
34 Fabricated metal
20 Food
36 Electric
machinery
39 Miscellaneous
manufacturing
27 Printing
28 Chemical
33 Primary metal
37 Transportation
equipment
24 Lumber
23 Apparel
25 Furniture
30 Rubber, plastic
32 Stone, glass, and
clay
26 Paper
38 Instruments
22 Textile
29 Petroleum
21 Tobacco
31 Leather
TOTAL
Incinerators
in sample
4
9
7
16
1
2
35
13
5
3
1
0
5
4
1
1
c
1
0
0
116
Volume
reduction
75
78
100
25
100
100
43
23
20
100
100
N/A
100
75
100
0
80
0
0
' N/A
Niiiiii^iiiiiiif
^JISiKilfe'Svfa!*^
52
Use (percent)
Toxicity
reduction
25
0
0
6
0
0
54
0
0
0
0
N/A
0
0
0
0
20
100
0
N/A
«^fe!ivSsSit toii$?x
20
Resource
recovery
0
22
0
69
0
0
3
77
80
0
0
N/A
0
25
0
100
0
0
0
N/A
it!»Jlyi!s*
28
'Sample consists of incinerators in Georgia, Illinois, and Texas with use data
available.
4-14
-------
The capacity is broken down by ownership in Table 4-5. If the tobacco
industry unit is deleted, because the sample is too small to provide any
significant data, the table is more informative. The modified table shows
that the largest mean capacity, 708 kg/hr (1,560 Ib/hr), was found in the
lumber industry, where the units are used for the reduction of wood waste.
The transportation industry had the second largest mean, 411 kg/hr (904
Ib/hr). These units are primarily used to recover the metal brake shoes
from discarded bonded brakes by debonding the used asbestos pad. Smaller
mean capacities of 74 and 110 kg/hr (163 and 242 Ib/hr) were found for the
primary metal industries. In the primary metal group the predominant use
is the recovery of silver halide salts from exposed x-ray films. In the
printing group the predominant use is for volume reduction of paper and
trash.
Design. Information from the State data on the design of incinerators
was very limited, and available information was not very accurate. States
that used words as descriptors usually went only so far as "incinerator."
Those that used codes merely broke the design types into single, multi-,
and other. Discussions with State agency officials have established that
the definition of a controlled air incinerator varies. Because of these
problems, the accuracy of the design information was considered to be
questionable. Whenever possible, manufacturer's name and model numbers
were used to find missing design data or to corroborate information that
was given. Given design data were categorized in the following manner.
Anything designated "starved air" was classified as a mechanical draft,
starved air unit. Units referred to as "controlled air," with no additional
descriptors, were classified as mechanical draft, excess air units. Units
4-15
-------
Table 4-5. CAPACITY DISTRIBUTION BY OWNERSHIP IN SAMPLE*
SIC code
20 Food
21 Tobacco
22 Textile
23 Apparel
24 Lumber
25 Furniture
25 Paper
27 Printing
28 Chemical
29 Petroleum
30 Rubber, plastic
31 Leather
32 Stone, glass , and
clay
33 Primary metal
34 Fabricated metal
35 Machinery
36 Electric
machinery
37 Transportation
equipment
38 Instruments
39 Miscellaneous
manufacturing
TOTAL
Incinerators
in sample
39
1
8
4
8
8
9
20
45
0
11
0
5
26
49
54
40
13
11
22
376
Cecity (K)
Range
9-2722
(20-6000)
N/A
9-454
(20-1000)
45-272
(100-600)
9-2835
(20-6250)
36-862
(80-1900)
9-454
(20-1000)
27-272
(60-600)
9-1279
(20-2820)
N/A
45-644
(100-1420)
N/A
109-261
(240-575)
9-2041
(20-4500)
1-907
(2-2000)
18-989
(40-2180)
9-680
(20-1500)
3-1361
(6-3000)
45-2268
(100-5000)
18-1814
(40-4000)
1-2835
(2-6250)
Mean
294
(647)
907
(2000)
263
(580)
159
(350)
708
(1560)
312
(688)
141
(311)
110
(242)
277
(610)
N/A
238
(524)
N/A
208
(459)
74
(164)
158
(349)
179
(395)
152
(336)
411
(904)
308
(678)
179
(395)
282
(621)
aSample consists of incinerators
New York with capacity data.
in North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio and
4-16
-------
denoted "uncontrolled" or "excess air" were classificed as natural draft
units. "Uncontrolled" in this group refers to the incinerator design, not
the air pollution control equipment. Units in the "other," "unknown," or
"had no information given" categories were all classified as ''design unknown."
The design distribution of incinerators in the existing population is
shown in Figure 4-1. The single-chamber design constituted 8 percent of
the units in the sample. This percentage shows a decline from the 10
18
percent Brinkerhoff estimated for the 1972 population. Brinkerhoff's
study was based on the sales records of the Incinerator Institute of America.
The drop in the fraction of single-chamber units in the population from
1972 to 1978 is substantiated by the new installation activity shown in
Figure 4-2. The percentage of new single-chamber incinerators has declined
steadily since 1964. There were no permits issued for single-chamber units
in Georgia, Illinois, or Ohio in 1978. The capacity distribution of the
single- and multi-chamber units varied only slightly, as shown in Figure 4-3.
The most noticeable difference was the higher percentage of low capacity
units in the single-chamber design. Both major physical design types were
found in the three general use categories. The combustion air design
distribution is shown in Figure 4-4. The data are given to show what had
been derived from the State records; however, these data are not expected
to be very reliable.
Capacity. Capacity data were generally available. When possible,
capacities were derived from manufacturer's model number. If several
capacities were given for a unit (which is possible because the capacity
does vary with the Btu content of the waste), the highest value given was
used.
4-17
-------
o
i
Percent
of Sample
100 _
80
60
40
20
91
Sample = 363 units in Georgia, Illinois
and Ohio with design data available
8
Multi-Chamber
Single-Chamber
Other
(fluidized bed,
rotary kiln)
Figure 4-1. Physical design distribution in sample,
4-18
-------
100_
HO
60
4 '
c
01
O
40
20
ItY INCINLKA10K SAL£Sd
a>
u
ai
a.
100
80
ai
•5. 60
ID
40
20
BY PERMIT DAK IN SAMI'Ltb
Sample Size = 226
Acurex Study
196/1
1972
CM
CT>
O
I
<£.
PRIOR 19/0
1976
1977
l'J7H
Siiigle-Chdmher
Hul 1i-Chamber
''brinkerhotf Study
Sample consists of incinerators in Georgia, Illinois, and Ohio with design and penult data
avdilable.
'•Remainder of sample (U) was conical.
Remainder of sample (6'Z) was fluidi^cd-hed.
Figure 4-2. Design distribution.
-------
m
en
o
i
«=C
60 _
Percent
of Sample
20
20
48
Single-chamber incinerators in Georgia,
Illinois and Ohio with design and capacity
data available.
20
12
t 45 46-226
(99) (100-499)
Waste Capacity
227-453
(500-999)
£ 454
(1000)
60
40
Percent
of Sample
20
14
54
Multiple-chamber incinerators in Georgia,
Illinois and Ohio with design and capacity
data available.
20
14
45
(99)
46-226
(100-499)
227-453
(500-999)
i 454
(1000)
Waste Caoacity
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
Figure 4-3. Capacity distribution by design,
4-20
-------
en
o
-------
The capacities of the units in the sample ranged from 1 to 2,835 kg/hr
(2 to 6,250 Ib/hr), as shown in Table 4-5. On the average, the larger
units are owned by the lumber industry and the smaller units by the primary
metal and printing industries. Lumber had the largest capacities even
though conical units were not included in the sample. This was checked by
contacting most of the lumber companies included in the sample and verifying
the design of their unit. The 20 largest industrial incinerators found in
the sample are listed in Table 4-6. This table includes the largest units
in the six States from which listings were obtained. A more comprehensive
treatment of the large industrial incinerators based upon NEDS information
is given later in the report.
The capacity distribution is shown in Figure 4-5. Eighty-five percent
of the units had capacities of less than 454 kg/hr (1,000 Ib/hr). Units
used for volume reduction had the lowest mean capacity, 210 kg/hr (462 Ib/hr);
those used for toxicity reduction had the highest mean capacity, 587 kg/hr
(1,290 Ib/hr). Waste streams handled by the smallest units included trash
and pathological wastes. The largest units processed toxic solid wastes.
These results are shown in Table 4-7.
Use. The waste stream descriptions available in the State records were
quite vague. In order to have a reasonable amount of waste data, it was
necessary to make some intuitive decisions about the type of waste. For
example, wastes described as "organic," "liquid," or "hydrocarbon" were
assumed to be organic hydrocarbons and were classified as Toxicity Reduction,
Liquid Waste. In classifying these waste streams, the name of the company
or its business activity was considered. The composition of waste streams
was never assumed or guessed from the name or business activity of the
4-22
-------
Table 4-6. TWENTY LARGEST INDUSTRIAL INCINERATORS FOUND
IN MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY SAMPLE3
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Waste
capacity
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
2841
(6250)
2727
(6000)
2272
(SOOO)
2272
(5000)
2045
(4500)
1818
(4000)
1364
(3000)
1364
(3000)
1282
(.2820)
1282
(2820)
1136
(.2500)
1136
(2500)
1136
(.2500)
991
(2180)
909
(.2000)
909
(2000)
909
(.2000)
909
(.2000)
909
(2000)
909
(2000)
SIC
24
20
20
38
33
39
37
37
28
28
20
37
37
35
24
21
20
20
34
20
State
NC
IL
NC
IL
IL"
OH
OH
NY
NC
NC
NC
OH
NY
IL
NC
NC
NC
IL
IL
NC
Permit
date
N/A
1974
N/A
1972
1973
1974
1977
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1977
1975
N/A
• N/A
N/A
1973
1973
1974
Design
Single-chamber
Multi-chamber
Conical
N/A
Multl -chamber
Multl- chamber
Multi -chamber
N/A
N/A
N/A
Conical
Multi-chamber
Multi-chamber
N/A
Single-chamber
Multi -chamber
Conical
Multi -chamber
Multi -chamber
Conical
Waste
Wood
N/A
Peanut
h-ulls
N/A
Wire
N/A
"Solid/
liquid"
"Type 1"
N/A
N/A
Peanut
hulls
N/A
"Type 2"
N/A
Wood
N/A
Peanut
hulls
N/A
N/A
Peanut
hulls
*Sample consists of Incinerators 1n North Carolina, Georgia, Illinois,
Ohio, New York and Texas with capacity data available.
4-23
-------
LO
o
I
60
50
40
Percent 30
of Sample
20
10
0
-
-
15
145
(99)
Samnlp = 3flf) inHnoratnrs in fiporaia.
50
Illinois, New York, North Carolina
and Ohio with capacity data available
20 15
45-226 227-453 * 454
(100-499) (500-999) (1000)
Waste Capacity
Figure 4-5. Capacity distribution in sample,
4-24
-------
Table 4-7. CAPACITY DISTRIBUTION BY USE IN SAMPLE4
Primary use
Volume
reduction
Toxldty
reduction
Resource
recovery
Waste
Wood
Solid
Trash
TOTAL
Solid
Liquid
Sludge
TOTAL
Copper
wire
Electric
motor?
Steel
drums
X-ray
film
Brake
shoes
Other
TOTAL
Sample
size
3
4
13
20
43
5
1
49
6
0
2
0
0
5
13
Capacity distribution (it/hr)
Ranqe
182-455
(400-1000)
137-327
(300-720)
18-409
(40-900)
18-455
(40-1000)
120-1364
(264-3000)
18-681
(40-1500)
137
(300)
18-1364
(40-3000)
13-2045
(300-4500)
N/A
9-764
(20-1680)
N/A
N/A
1-455
(1.8-1000)
1-2045
(1.8-4500)
Mean
326
(717)
206
(455)
172
(378)
202
(445)
495
(1090)
325
(716)
137
(300)
368
(310)
485
(1068)
N/A
386
(850)
N/A
N/A
105
(232)
324
(712)
aSample consists of Georgia, Illinois, Ohio, and Texas with capacity and use
data available.
N/A No data available.
4-25
-------
company when no waste data were available. Additional data on the sources
19
and types of industrial wastes are shown in Table 4-8. Comprehensive use
or waste data were available for Georgia only; limited data were available
for Illinois. The combination of these two States provided a very small
sample. Therefore, although biased toward new installations, the Texas
data, which contained very comprehensive waste information, were added to
the sample.
The use of each incinerator was divided into three distinct cate-
gories: volume reduction, toxicity reduction, and resource recovery. The
percentages of the present population operated for these uses are shown in
Figure 4-6. Volume reduction was by far the most common use. Each use
category was divided into major waste streams.
The volume reduction category was divided into trash, wood, and solid
industrial process waste streams. Trash included packaging, office waste,
and pallets. Wood included wood waste from a furniture or lumber plant; it
did not include wooden pallets. The distribution in the present population
of the volume reduction category is shown in Figure 4-7.
The toxicity reduction category was divided into liquid, solid, and
sludge waste streams. The distribution of the toxicity reduction category
is shown in Figure 4-8. The toxic liquids were processed in 71 percent of
the units in the sample; these liquids consisted entirely of organic chemicals.
The resource recovery category was divided into copper wire, electric
motor, x-ray film, steel drum, brake shoe, and "other" categories. The
"other" category included units used to burn off paint and those used to
recover catalysts. The breakdown in the present population is shown in
Figure 4-9.
4-26
-------
Table 4-8. SOURCES AND TYRES OF INDUSTRIAL WASTES
Code SIC group classification
Waste generating processes
Expected specific wastes
17 Plumbing, heating, air conditioning
Special trade contractors
19 Ordnance and accessories
20 Food and kindred products
22 Textile mill products
23 Apparel and other finished products
24 Lumber and wood products
25 Furniture, wood
25 Furniture, metal
26 Paper and allied products
27 Printing and publishing
28 Chemicals and related products
29 Petroleum refining and related
industries
30 Rubber and miscellaneous plastic
products
31 Leather and leather products
32 Stone, clay, and glass products
33 Primary metal industries
34 Fabricated metal products
Manufacturing and Installation in
homes, buildings, factories
Manufacturing and assembling
Processing, packaging, shipping
Weaving, processing, dyeing and
shipping
Cutting, sewing, sizing, pressing
Sawmills, mill work plants, wooden
container, misc. wood products,
manufacturing
Manufacture of household and office
furniture, partitions, office and
store fixtures, mattreses
Manufacture of household and office
furniture, lockers, bedsprings,
frames
Paper manufacture, conversion of
paper and paper-board, manufacture
of paperboard boxes and containers
Newspsper publishing, printing
lithography, engraving, printing,
and bookbinding
Manufacture and preparation of in-
organic chemicals (ranges from
drugs and soups to paints and
varnishes, and explosives)
Manufacture of paving and roofing
materials
Manufacture of fabricated rubber and
plastic products
Leather tanning and finishing; manu-
facture of leather belting and
packing
Manufacture of flat glass, fabri-
cation or forming of glass; manu-
facture of concrete, gypsum, and
plaster products; forming and
processing of stone and stone
products, abrasives, asbestos, and
misc. nonmineral products
Melting, casting, forging, drawing,
rolling, forming, extruding
operations
Manufacture of metal cans, hand
tools, general hardware, non-
electric heating apparatus, plumbing
fixtures, fabricated structural
products, wire, farm macninery and
equipment, coating and engraving of
metal
Scrap metal from piping and duct
work; rubber, paper, insulating
materials, misc. construction,
demolition debris
Metals, plastic, rubber, paper,
wood, cloth, chemical residues
leats, fats, oils, bones, offal
vegetables, fruits, nuts and snells,
cereals
Cloth and fiber residues
Cloth, fibers, metals, plastics,
rubber
Scrap wood, shavings, sawdust; in
some instances metals, plastics,
fibers, glues, sealers, paints
solvents
Those listed under Code 24; in
addition, cloth and paddln.
residues
Metals, plastics, resins, glass,
wood, rubber, adheslves, cloth,
paper
Paper and fiber residues, chemicals,
paper coatings and fillers, inks,
glues, fasteners
Paper, newsprint, cardboard, metals,
cnemlcals, cloth, inks, glues
Organic and inorganic chemicals,
metals, plastics, rubber, glass,
oils, paints, solvents, pigments
Asphalt and tars, felts, asbestos,
paper, cloth, fiber
Scrap rubber and plastics, lamp-
black, curing compounds, dyes
Scrap leather, thread, dyes, oils,
processing and curing compounds
Glass, cement, clay, ceramics,
gypsum, asbestos, stone, paper,
abrasives
Ferrous and nonferrous metals scrap,
slag, sand, cores, patterns,
bonding agents
Metals, ceramics, sand, slag, scale,
coatings, solvents, lubricants,
pickling liquors
(continued)
4-27
-------
Table 4-8. (continued)
Code
SIC group classification
Waste generating processes
Expected specific wastes
35 Machinery (except electrical)
36 Electrical
37 Transportation equipment
38
Professional, scientific controlling
Instruments
39 Miscellaneous manufacturing
Manufacture of equipment for con- Slag, sand, cores, metal scrap,
structlon, mining, elevators, moving wood, plastics, resins, rubber,
stairways, conveyors. Industrial
trucks, trailers, stackers, machine
tools, etc.
cloth, paints, solvents, petro-
leum products
Manufacture of electric equipment,
appliances, and communication
apparatus, machining, drawing,
forming, welding, stamping, winding.
painting, plating, baking, firing,
operations
Manufacture of motor vehicles,
truck and bus bodies, motor
vehicle parts and accessories, air-
craft and parts, ship and boat
building and repairing motorcycles
and bicycles and parts, etc.
Manufacture of engineering, labora-
tory, and research Instruments and
associated equipment
Manufacture of Jewelry, silverware,
plated ware, toys, amusement,
sporting and athletic goods, cos-
tume novelties, buttons, brooms,
brushes, signs, advertising displays
Metal scrap, carbon, glass, exotic
metals, rubber, plastics, resins,
fibers, cloth residues
Metal scrap, glass, fiber, wood,
rubber, plastics, cloth, paints,
solvents, petroleum products
Metals, plastics, resins, glass,
wood, rubber, fibers, abrasives
Metals, glass, plastics, resins,
leather, rubber, composition,
bone, cloth, straw, adheslves,
paints, solvents
4-28
-------
Toxicity
Reduction
Resource
Recovery
Sample = 97 incinerators in Georgia, Illinois and Texas with use
data available.
Figure 4-6. Use distribution in sample
4-29
-------
CTi
O
Solid Industrial
Process Waste
41%
Sample - 46 incinerators in Georgia, Illinois and Texas with
waste data available.
Figure 4-7.
Waste distribution in sample of the volume reduction
category.
4-30
-------
Liquid Industrial
Process Waste
65%
Solid
Industrial
Process
Waste
26%
00
o
Sample = 23 incinerators in Georgia, Illinois and Texas with
waste data available.
Figure 4-8.
Waste distribution in sample of the toxicity reduction
category.
4-31
-------
en
en
o
i
Photographic
Film
Recovery
5.
Copper
Wire
Recovery
23%
Electric
Motor
Recovery3
58%
Recovery
2.3%
Brakea
Recovery
2.3%
(large units)
Based on supplemental data collected for all subcategories except
"other" which is based upon a sample consisting of incinerators
in Georgia, Illinois and Texas with waste data available.
Figure 4-9. Waste distribution in resource recovery category.
4-3?
-------
The breakdown shown in Figure 4-9 for all the subcategories except
"other" is based upon the supplemental data collected on resource recovery
units rather than a statistical breakdown of the sample. The "other"
subcategory was based on the sample.
• Wire Incinerators. The existing wire incinerator population is
estimated to be 200-400 units. Since there are no national statistics on
the population of these units, this estimate is based upon sales data
collected from manufacturers. Two firms sell wire incineration equipment.
One has sold nine units in the last 10 years. The other firm estimates it
has sold 400 units over the last 9 years. The latter firm is believed to
20
account for all sales of wire units today. Although a year-by-year
estimate of sales would not be provided, data collected from incinerator
operators, air pollution control agencies, and trade associations seem to
indicate that a large proportion of the 400 units was sold in the early
part of the 9-year period. In addition, a significant fraction of the 400
units is assumed to no longer be in service. The existing population
estimate reflects these assumptions.
• Motor Incinerators. The population of motor incinerators is estimated
at 800-1,000 units nationally. The units are typically owned by small
electric motor repair shops with 5-10 employees. The typical unit processes
about 400-500 pounds of motors per day, with approximately 2 percent of
21
this weight being combustibles. This amount is usually well below the
capacity of the unit because the owners do not normally stockpile motors.
Their objective is to incinerate motors as soon as they receive them in
order to repair them quickly for their customers.
4-33
-------
• X-ray Film Incinerators. The population of x-ray film incinerators
is estimated at 100 units nationally.22'23
• Steel Drum Incinerators. The population of steel drum incinerators
is estimated at 39 units according to the study released by the Industrial
Environmental Research Laboratory (IERL), April 1978.24
• Brake Shoe Incinerators. Remanufacturers of drum brakes range in
production from a small firm that processes only 200 brakes per month to a
or
large one that processes 250,000 brakes over the same time period. The
small operation typically relies on a small package incinerator that utilizes
a 55-gallon steel drum as its primary chamber. The units are sold with an
26
afterburner in the stack as standard equipment. No estimate was available
on how many units are in the existing population, but it is suspected that
they number in the hundreds. The large unit typically processes 200-250
27
brakes/hour in either a batch or continuous operation. The population is
po
estimated at 30-40 units.
Equipment Utilization. The mean number of hours the incinerators
in each major waste stream classification operate each year is shown in
Table 4-9. The units used for volume reduction have the lowest annual use
rate, 2,820 hours or approximately one 8-hour shift every day of the year.
The lowest mean was 867 hours for units used to reduce the volume of trash,
while the highest mean was 7,305 hours or nearly three 8-hour shifts every
working day. This highest value represented the units used for toxicity
reduction.
Size of the Manufacturing Population Excluding Conicals. The projected
size of the manufacturing population excluding conicals is 3,800 units.
This value was calculated by summing projected populations for each of the
4-34
-------
Table 4-9. EQUIPMENT UTILIZATION DISTRIBUTION BY INCINERATOR
USE IN SAMPLE3
Use
Volume
reduction
i
Toxlcity
reduction
Resource
recovery
Waste
stream
Solid
Wood
Trash
TOTAL
Volume reduction
Solid
Liquid
Sludge
TOTAL
Toxicity reduction
Wire
Motors
Film
Drums
Brakes
Other
TOTAL
Resource recovery
Sample
size
22
5
19
46
5
15
2
22
12
6
3
1
2
4
28
Hours
of annual
operation
3941
3016
867
2510
5891
7834
8568
7480
3412
1071
3107
2080
5448
5434
3264
3Sample consists of incinerators in Georgia, Illinois, and Texas with
annual operation and use data.
4-35
-------
three use categories. Two different methods were used to derive the
number of units in each use category. The estimate for the volume and
toxicity reduction categories was based on the sample, since it is believed
that those categories are adequately represented in the sample. The values
were derived from the preliminary population estimate in Table 4-3 and the
use distributions shown in Figures 4-6 through 4-8.' The units used for
resource recovery are not believed to be adequately represented in the
sample because of the underrepresentation of electric motor and brake shoe
units which are typically small in capacity. Therefore, the number of
units in the resource recovery category was based on supplemental data
collected on the number of units processing each waste stream. This was
done for all the resource recovery waste streams except "other" which was
extrapolated from the sample. The population segments and sizes presented
in Table 4-10 will be used in Section 5 and later in this section to deter-
mine current and future nationwide emissions and the future population.
*
4.1.4 Conical Wood Incinerators
In a 1974 study by Battelle, the total number of active conicals in
29
1978 was estimated at 490. This number was based on a survey done in
five States (California, Georgia, Louisiana, Oregon, and Washington) in
1973. Battelle assumed the number of conicals in the rest of the United
States to be 50 percent of the number in the five States surveyed, and
estimated the total number of conicals in the United States in 1973 at 835.
The national conical incinerator population in 1978 was derived based on
growth trends in conicals in Oregon and California between 1968 and 1973.
4.1.5 Off-site Incineration
Off-site incineration is practiced by private waste disposal firms
which centrally process the waste stream of many establishments. Industry
4-36
-------
Table 4-10. MANUFACTURING SEGMENT OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL
INCINERATOR POPULATION BY USE CATEGORY
Use
Waste
stream
Units in
nation
Volume
reduction
Solid
industrial
process
Wood
Trash
TOTAL
Volume reduction
620
260
620
1500
Toxicity
reduction
Solid
industrial
process
Liquid
industrial
process
Sludge
TOTAL
Toxicity reduction
170
420
50
640
Resource .
recovery*
Copper wire
Electric motors
X-ray film
Steel drums
Brake shoes
Other
TOTAL
Resource recovery
400
1000
100
40
40
130
17001
TOTAL POPULATION
3800*
a
Population figures given are maximums of expected range.
}This figure does not equal the sum of its components because
it is rounded to 2 significant figures.
4-37
-------
generates about 35 million megagrams of hazardous residues yearly,
approximately 80 percent of which is disposed of on site while the remaining
20 percent is shipped to private waste handlers.30 The private firms
operate about 100 hazardous waste sites, which have a total capacity (as of
1976) of 7.3 million megagrams/year. It is estimated that these firms
utilize fewer than 10 incinerators. The bulk of the waste is disposed of
by landfill, deep well injection, and land farming.
Approximately half the wastes generated by industry cannot be
31
incinerated. Either these substances are noncombustible or they contain
toxic elements such as arsenic or lead that would be released to the atmos-
phere. In order to provide their customers with a complete waste disposal
service, private firms offer several disposal alternatives. Land disposal
techniques provide the most versatility at this time. Firms that incin-
erate wastes must rely on land techniques for the ultimate disposal of the
residues. When incinerators are used by these firms, rotary kilns are
commonly employed because of their high capacities and versatility. Rotary
kilns can handle liquids, solids, gases, and sludges, including some of the
containers in which these wastes are shipped.
Off-site incineration offers several advantages over on-site process-
ing. Generally, larger quantities of waste are processed, allowing the
owner to take advantage of some economies of scale resulting in lower
incineration costs per pound of waste. Because off-site incineration
involves wastes from several sources, off-site operations enable blending
of wastes to control the Btu content. Such blending decreases the need for
auxiliary fuel. Because off-site units generally operate 24 hours a day.
the emissions and maintenance problems associated with startup are minimized.
4-38
-------
An example of an off-site incinerator owner is Rollins Environmental
Services. Rollins is the largest private disposal firm that specializes in
handling hydrocarbon wastes at disposal facilities in Bridgeport, New
Jersey; Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and Houston, Texas. These plants serve
customers in 32 States. Each Rollins plant maintains facilities for the
treatment of wastes utilizing thermal, chemical, and biological treatment
systems. Since 1969, Rollins estimates they have handled 10,000 different
wastes.
The incineration system at Rollins' Houston facility consists of a
rotary kiln and a liquid injection system, both feeding a common after-
burner. The system is shown in Figure 4-10. The main burner is for liquid
wastes only and is of the vortex horizontal type. The waste liquid burner
flajie temperature is approximately 1500°C. Flame temperature in the kiln
i
is normally 1300°C. Afterburner temperature is typically 1300°C. Overall
retention time of the incinerator and afterburner is from two to three
seconds at an average temperature of 1400°C. The total heat release rate
is 100 GJ/hr (95 x 106 Btu/hr). Solid wastes, usually packed in fiber
drums, are fed into the rotary kiln by a conveyor. Liquids and sludges may
also be pumped into the kiln. Liquid wastes that can be burned in the
waste liquid burner are fed directly from tanks into the burner. Both the
kiln and the waste liquid burner are equipped with natural gas igniters and
gas burners for initial refractory heatup, flame stability, and supplemental
heat, if necessary. Supplemental heat can also be provided by burning No.
2 fuel oil. As shown in Figure 4-10, the effluent gases from the incinerator
are passed through a duct into a wet venturi scrubber, absorption trays,
and a mist eliminator before entering the stack. The exhaust stack is
4-39
-------
-p»
o
CONVEYOR
FIIER PACKS
MIST EUMINATC*
ASH RESIDUE
SAMfU
FEED WASTE UQUtD IURNERS
EXIT GAS
SAMPU
KILN EXIT DUCT
AHERIURNER
HOT DUCT
LOOOIY
(WASTE UQUO WtNER)
NYDRATEO UME
SLURRY FEED
DISCHARGE
SOUUERWATU
O
o
CNJ
o
I
Figure 4-10. Schematic of Rollins Environmental Services incinerator.
-------
30 meters high. Lime is used in the absorbent to neutralize the acid gases
from the gas stream. Used absorbent, typically containing 10,000 ppm calcium
and 10,000 ppm chlorides, is discharged into settling ponds where it is
33
analyzed and further treated, if necessary, before final discharge.
4.1.6 Major Sources
This section enumerates industrial incinerators that are major sources.
A major source is one that has the potential to emit over 100 tons of a
criteria pollutant per year. Table 4-6 listed the 20 largest incinerators
in the six States from which data were obtained. Only two of these are
major sources.
Unlike incinerators in general, major sources must be reported to the
NEDS information base. Assuming that the NEDS data are complete, the records
will produce a listing of all the major industrial incinerators in the
nation. A listing was requested from NADB of all the emission points in
the NEDS described by an SCC beginning with "5" (incinerators) and emitting
99 tons or more of a criteria pollutant per year.
The NEDS listed the potential emissions for each emission point it
contained. This information was not available for the data collected by
sampling. Therefore, in order to determine if any major sources were found
in the sample, it was necessary to estimate the potential emissions of the
34
incinerators by using the AP-42 emission factors. The factors used are
presented in Table 4-11. The factor in the table for conical units is the
one given in AP-42 for unsatisfactory operation. This factor was used
because generally the operation of conical units is described by State air
pollution officials as unsatisfactory.
4-41
-------
Table 4-11. EMISSION FACTORS FOR REFUSE INCINERATORS WITHOUT CONTROLS'
incinerator uype
Industrial /commercial
Multiple chamber
Single chamber
Conical6
Participates
Ib/ton
7
15
7
kq/Mq
3.5
7.5
3.5
Sulfur oxides
Ib/ton
2.5
2.5
0.1
kq/Mq
1.25
1.25
0.05
Carbon monoxide
Ib/ton
10
20
130
kq/Mq
5
10
65
Hydrocarbons0
Ib/ton
3
15
11
kq/Hq
1.5
7.5
5.5
Nitrogen oxides
Ib/ton
3
2
1
kq/Mg
1.5
1
0.5
-£»
-fe
ro
aAverage factors given based on EPA procedures for incinerator stack testing.
Expressed as sulfur dioxide.
Expressed as methane.
Expressed as nitrogen dioxide.
eFactor is for wood waste assuming unsatisfactory operation.
-------
The major sources found in the NEDS and in the sample are presented in
Table 4-12. Conical incinerators that burned wood were excluded from the
sample as well as from the compilation of the NEDS.
4.1.7 Other Incinerator Groups
Data have been collected on several incinerator groups that are not
strictly defined as industrial units but do have many similarities to such
units. They have been briefly examined because they are not presently
subject to a new source performance standard (NSPS) and, due to the
similarities, it might be reasonable to include them in the industrial
incinerator source category.
Cotton Gin Waste. Cotton gin waste is burned in a specialized
single-chamber incinerator called a jug incinerator. These units are used
for the disposal of burrs and trash generated from cotton ginning. Incinerators
are operated during the harvesting season which lasts 6 to 8 weeks. Operation
of jug incinerators produces emissions that have resulted in a continual
enforcement problem for State agencies. In Texas and California, jug
incinerators have been successfully phased out in favor of alternative
means of disposing of cotton ginning wastes, such as composting and land
filling. In other States, large smoke emissions from these units can be
35
seen billowing plumes many miles in length.
A modified jug incinerator is shown schematically in Figure 4-11. The
incinerator, a hearth-type unit without grates, is equipped with an after-
burner assembly to control emissions of particulates and smoke. The combus-
tion chamber consists of a brick-lined cylindrical section and a cone-shaped
roof. Burrs and screened trash are blown into the incinerator through a
cyclone collector located on the roof. All of the combustion air is supplied
4-43
-------
Table 4-12. MAJOR SOURCES
SIC corfe
29 Petroleum
28 Chemical
28 Chen leal
24 Lunfcer
49 Disposal
20 Food
Unknown
28 Chemical
28 Cheat cal
49 Disposal
28 Chemical
49 Disposal
Unknown
28 Che-leal
30 Rubber
Unknown
Unknown
28 Chemical
28 Chemical
Owner
Continental Oil Co.
Kaiser Agricultural
Pitt Consolidated Chemical
Futrell Lumber
Liquid Waste Disposal
Gillian Brothers
Peanut Shelters
Mateo
Dow Badische
Dow Badische
Rollins
Pitt Consolidated Chemical
Rollins
Tennessee Eastman
3-M
Uni Royal
3-M
S. C. Johnson
Mobile Chemical
Union Carbide
State
LA
FL
NJ
NC
HI
NC
NJ
TX
TX
NJ
NJ
TX
TN
HN
CN
11
Ml
TN
TX
TOTAL
luiissiuis. wegagrams/year (tons/year)
I'M
410
(4bl)
357
(393)
188
(207)
186
(205)
184
(203)
149
(164)
141
(155)
140
(154)
140
(154)
130
(143)
130
(140)
116
(128)
100
(110)
100
(no)
83
(91)
7
(8)
2560
(2816)
so2
1100
(1210)
27
(30)
U
(9)
855
(941)
855
(941)
102
(113)
45
(50)
393
(433)
2
(2)
36
(40)
1173
(1290)
567
(624)
683
(751)
5235
(5758)
M0x
134
(147)
81
(89)
50
(55)
50
(55)
22
(24)
55
(60)
2
(2)
4
(4)
19
(21)
289
(318)
455
(500)
455
(500)
103
(113)
1716
(1888)
HC
5
(6)
81
(89)
22
(24)
55
(60)
4
(4)
19
(21)
64
(12)
2
(2)
198
(218)
CO
4
(4)
268
(295)
1
(1)
1
(1)
75
(80)
181
(200)
14
(15)
64
(70)
1
(1)
3
(3)
609
(670)
Air
pollution
controls
Centrifugal
collector
Wet
scrubber
Wet
scrubber
Wet
scrubber
Venturi
Efficiency
911
87Z PH
SOX S02
851 PM
99.51 PH
95S PH
sot so?
Design
Multl-
r lumber
Multi-
chamber
Single-
chamber
Liquid
Conical
Hulti-
chamber
Hulti-
chawber
Rotary
kiln
Multi-
chamber
Single-
chamber
Liquid
li,i id
source
NCOS
NEDS
NEDS
Sample
NEDS
Sample
NEDS
NEDS
NEDS
NEDS
NEDS
NEDS
NEDS
NEDS
NEDS
NEDS
NEDS
NEDS
NEDS
-------
o
CVJ
o
I
52'
HEAT
RESISTANT
MASONRY
LINING
THREE
1-1/2 MILLION
BTU BURNERS
a c o
o o
coo
CAPPED
FEED/AIR
SOURCE OF COMBUSTION' AIR
FIRE BRICK
LINING
-ONLY
Figure 4-11. Modified jug incinerator.
4-45
-------
with the feed. Three 1.5 x 106 Btu burners are used as afterburners; one
is operated continuously, and the other two are thermostatically controlled.
In a 1974 Battelle study, the annual production of cotton was estimated
36
at 13 million bales per year. The quantity of wastes generated from
cotton ginning depends on the method of harvesting employed. Machine
picking, for example, produces 40 kg (89 Ib) wastes/bale, and machine
stripping produces 350 kg (776 Ib) wastes/bale. For the purpose of esti-
mating waste generation rates, it was assumed by the authors of the Battelle
study that 75 percent of the harvesting is done by machine picking and the
remainder is done by machine stripping. Based on this assumption, the
total waste generation for 1978 is 1.6 million megagrams (1.7 million tons)
per year. It was estimated in the Battelle study that there are 712 jug
incinerators in the existing population, with estimated particulate emissions
of 820 megagrams (900 tons) per year. There are six cotton gins in the
37
United States that recover process heat from cotton gin waste. These
units can meet 100 percent of the heat requirements of ginning operations.
Development of these gins is still in the experimental stage. Difficulty
in controlling emissions and the energy economics that favor the use of
natural gas are two major barriers to widespread use of these units. The
existing units generally are operating under a variance from State agencies
because they are classified as innovative technology.
Peanut Hulls. Peanut hulls are not commonly incinerated because they
serve several valuable purposes. Peanut hulls are used in cattle feed,
mulch, mushroom production, activated charcoal, brick, domestic cat litter,
38
and fiberboard manufacture, and as an oil slick absorbent. Some
incineration was reported in North Carolina and in a waste-fired boiler in
4-46
-------
Georgia which operates a 20,000 pound steam boiler fired with hulls. The
latter facility is a food processing plant that uses the heat in peanut
39
roasters and candy-making processes.
Rice Hulls, Walnuts. Alternate uses for rice hulls, primarily as a
chemical feed and as a low-cost landfill, generally preclude incineration.
A waste-fired boiler at a rice mill in Texas meets 100 percent of its
energy demands with rice hulls. In Arkansas a rice company formerly
incinerated rice hulls to recover a silica abrasive from the ash. The ash
wore out the incinerator, bringing the experimental operation to an end.
According to NEDS data, an establishment in Kansas incinerates "green"
walnut waste in a conical incinerator.
4.2 TRENDS AND ESTIMATES OF FUTURE POPULATION
This section includes a discussion of factors that may affect the size
of the industrial incinerator population. These factors, in light of the
growth trends found in the states that were sampled, are used to project
the 1983 industrial incinerator population.
4.2.1 Factors Affecting Growth
Industrial incinerator growth is affected by energy costs, incentives
to recycle solid wastes and government regulations. An in-depth study of
the interactions of these factors, their cost tradeoffs and their relation-
ships to specific sites and wastes could not be completed within the time
frame of this study. What follows is a qualitative discussion of these
factors and how they will influence new installation activity.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), 42 USC 6901, is the first comprehensive
regulation of solid waste. The objectives of RCRA include insuring the
4-47
-------
environmentally safe disposal of both hazardous and non-hazardous wastes
while promoting resource conservation and the recovery of materials and
energy from solid waste. With respect to industrial incinerators, the
areas of major interest are Subtitle D, the regulations for the land dis-
posal of waste that is not hazardous, and Subtitle C, the regulations for
hazardous waste management.
Land disposal of non-hazardous wastes will be regulated by the States
with certain Federally imposed constraints. Subtitle D mandates that all
open dumps will be either upgraded to a sanitary landfill or closed. All
disposal is required to be in a sanitary landfill. This mandate will raise
the cost of land disposal. Generally, the economics of land disposal
versus incineration favor land disposal at this time. Even though the
results of Subtitle D may raise landfill ing costs significantly, a shift of
the economic balance to the point where incineration will become the cheaper
alternative is not expected.
Subtitle C, the hazardous waste management provisions, is more detailed
than Subtitle D and provides the greater degree of regulation necessitated
by the properties of hazardous wastes. Subtitle C provides for the ''cradle
to grave" regulation of the wastes as well as an identification and listing
of hazardous wastes according to specified criteria. Rules under Subtitle
C were proposed in the FEDERAL REGISTER on December 18, 1978. Public
hearings were held in early 1979. Final promulgation is expected in late
1979 or early 1980.
The sections of Subtitle C that have particular relevance to growth
trends in the incinerator population are Sections 3002 and 3004. Section 3002
requires all who handle hazardous waste to comply with a manifest system,
4-48
-------
to ensure that the wastes are transported from the waste generator to an
acceptable disposal facility. The manifest is a special form of shipping
paper that is filled out by the waste generator. It directs and tracks the
movement of the wastes from the point of generation to ultimate disposal.
This comprehensive tracking system will increase the costs involved in
offsite disposal and may promote onsite disposal. For firms with inappro-
priate waste or insufficient land, the onsite alternatives would include
incineration, use as a fuel, or recycling. For other firms, onsite land-
filling may be the most feasible alternative. A precise estimate of which
of these options will be selected is difficult to make because a firm's
actions will be highly waste- and site-specific. Factors that will influence
the decision will include the combustibility of the waste, the energy needs
and cofiring capability of the company, the recycling potential of the
waste, and the willingness of the company to monitor and maintain a landfill
for a period of 20 years after facility closure. Generally, Section 3002
is expected to provide a moderate incentive for growth in the population of
units used for incineration of toxic substances, but these positive incentives
may be outweighed by the negative one in Section 3004.
Section 3004 contains standards of performance for those who store,
treat, or dispose of hazardous waste. This section dictates how a hazardous
waste landfill should be located, designed, constructed, and operated to
prevent direct contact between the landfill and water resources. These
requirements alone would mean the section promotes incinerator growth.
However, the section also requires stringent standards of performance for
incinerators. The incinerator regulations require trial burns for each
significantly different waste, continuous monitoring for CO and 02, and a
4-49
-------
combustion efficiency of 99.9 percent. Units are also required to have
automatic controls that will shut off the device in the event of a system
malfunction. A 99.99 percent destruction efficiency is required. The
maximum allowable emissions are 0.08 grains per dry standard cubic foot
corrected to 12 percent carbon dioxide (C02). In addition, an incinerator
used to degrade a hazardous waste containing more than 0.5 percent halogens
must be equipped with emission control equipment capable of removing 99
i
percent of the halogens from the exhaust gases.
Section 3004 will increase the cost of incinerating and landfill ing
hazardous waste. This will result in a new set of cost tradeoffs between
the two waste processing techniques. The technique that will be favored
will be site- and waste-specific. Generally, landfilling is expected to
remain as the favored disposal method.
As initially written, RCRA creates some major barriers to burning
hazardous waste in industrial boilers. The residence time of 2 seconds and
the combustion temperatures of 1200°C for halogenated aromatics and
1000°C for other hazardous wastes preclude the use of boilers. However,
within Section 6002 of the Act are requirements that Federal agencies using
fossil fuel as a primary or supplementary fuel in systems that have the
technical capability of using recovered material and recovered material-
derived fuel must use such fuel capability to the maximum extent practicable.
The proposed regulatory residence and temperature requirements are based
upon assuring that worst case wastes are destroyed efficiently. The dilemma
provided by the conflicting goals of waste destruction and energy recovery
may be resolved by having intermediate operating parameters for more easily
destroyed wastes. The mechanism for doing this on a case-by-case basis is
4-50
-------
provided by Section 3004, which allows incinerators to operate under
alternate combustion criteria provided an equivalent degree of combustion
is demonstrated.
Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of 1978. The Power Plant Act,
P.L. 95-620, penalizes new installations of boilers greater than 29.3
megawatts (100 x 106 Btu per hour) if they are not capable of burning coal.
The penalty is in the form of a tax collected by the Internal Revenue
I
Service on annual usage of gas and oil.> The Act will provide an incentive
for installing intermediate size coal-fired boilers.
The proliferation of coal-fired units will provide more sites with the
option of cofiring their waste streams in a boiler. In North Carolina,
17 percent of the sites that had an industrial incinerator also had a
boiler greater than 29.3 megawatts. Over 49 percent of the sites that had
an industrial incinerator also had some type of boiler.
The Power Plant Act will promote a decrease in the segment of the
industrial incinerator population used for volume reduction. These wastes
can easily be prepared for energy recovery by shredding. Unlike municipal
waste, the industrial volume reduction streams have a low moisture content.
State and Local Regulations. State and local regulations have generally
tipped the economics of disposing of non-hazardous wastes in favor of land
disposal. Units operated for volume reduction comprised 55 percent of the
existing units installed prior to 1976. During the last 3 years, 42 percent
of the new installations were for volume reduction, as shown in Figure 4-12.
State regulations prohibiting open burning have provided an incentive for
installing incinerators to be used for resource recovery. Formerly, insulated
wire and paint hooks used to hold parts in a spray booth were frequently
4-51
-------
PERMIT DATE PRIOR TO 1976
Sample3 Size = 85
PERMIT DATE 1976-1978
Sample9 Size = 84
Toxicity
Reduction
18°;
Resource
Recovery
Volume
Reduction
55%
Toxicity
Reduction
Resource
Recovery
Volume
Reduction
42%
aSample consists of incinerators in Georgia, Illinois, Ohio and
Texas with use and date data available.
Figure 4-12. Use trends in sample.
4-52
-------
burned in the open at metal scrap yards, wire plants, and some of the
establishments that paint parts. Figure 4-12 shows that 27 percent of the
incinerators installed prior to 1976 in the existing population are used
for resource recovery. One-third of the installations made during the last
3 years consist of units for resource recovery.
Recycling Incentives. Recycling incentives are reducing waste streams
destined for volume and waste reduction incinerators and increasing the
amounts of waste processed in resource recovery units. The National Energy
Act provides incentives for recycling by allowing a 20 percent tax credit
for purchases of equipment used to process materials for recycling. The
credit applies to equipment placed in service on or after October 1, 1978,
41
and covers nonferrous metals, paper, textiles, rubber, and other materials.
Changing economic situations have made new and lower grades of materials
candidates for recycling. For example, particleboard started as a low-grade
substitute for plywood. Today, when the lumber and furniture industries
are generating less wood waste, a seller's market exists for wood waste
because of the multitude of uses for particleboard. The unique characteris-
tics of this material have created some uses that cannot be met by plywood.
The demand for wood waste as a raw material or energy source will continue
to curtail incineration of wood waste.
Plastics are also being removed from industrial waste to some extent.
Various secondary plastic processing operations include waste generation
as an inherent part of the process. Markets for the materials for use in
lower-grade plastic products such as flower pots and septic tank drain
lines have taken some of these materials out of industrial waste streams.
4-53
-------
Energy Incentives. The rising cost of both energy and waste disposal
has resulted in a lowering in the cost breakpoint where energy recovery
becomes an attractive alternative to incineration. Additional incentives
are provided by tax credits for installing equipment that will prepare
waste for energy recovery and tax penalties that will promote the installa-
tion of units capable of handling solid wastes.
It is estimated that 99 percent of the large waste combustion units
and 75 percent of the small waste combustion units sold by major incinerator
manufacturers will have heat recovery. (The size ranges included in
"large" and "small" were not elaborated.) All of these manufacturers offer
units with heat recovery. Two alternatives offered by manufacturers for
42-43
recovering heat are shown in Figures 4-13 and 4-14. One installation
of this type is a tube bundle heat exchanger mounted on an incinerator
stack. In this case the hot flue gases flow on the inside of the tube
bundle, and plant air passes on the outside of the tubes. The temperature
of the resulting hot air is controlled by adjusting the air flow rate
44
through the exchanger. Such steam generators would be addressed through
other NSPS regulations.
Investigations have shown that chlorine, as hydrochloric acid (HC1)
and/or solid chloride deposits, contributes significantly to high- and
low-temperature corrosion of structural materials in incinerators and
waste-fired boilers. This may slow the trend toward energy recovery from
industrial waste. Some of these problems can be resolved by changes in
boiler materials with regard to construction, waste segregation, or raw
material switching. The total amount of chlorinated organic residues is
estimated at 472,000 megagrams in 1978. This is small relative to the
approximately 17 million megagrams of combustible waste generated by industry.
4-54
-------
o
CM
O
I
INCINERATOR '
Figure 4-13. Flue gas-to-steam heat recovery.
4-55
-------
INCINERATOR EXHAUST STACK
TO EXHAUST
INDUCED
DRAFT FAN
COLD AIR FAN
THERMAL
REACTOR
SOLID WASTE
FEEDER
INCINERATOR
EXHAUST STACK CONNECTION
TUBE BUNDLE ASSEMBLY
TUBES
AIR FLOW
OVER TUBES
HOT FLUE GASES
FROM INCINERATOR
INSPECTION DOOR
INCINERATOR STACK CONNECTION
O
C\J
o
i
Figure 4-14. In stack gas-to-air heat exchanger.
4-56
-------
4.2.2 Future Growth
There are wide variations in the design, size, and uses of industrial
incinerators. Correspondingly, the potential for growth is not the same
for every segment of this heterogeneous population. The major factors that
influence growth are government regulations, energy recovery, and resource
recovery. The impact of each of these factors is dependent on the type of
waste being burned. Therefore, segmentation by use and waste streams will
be used as the framework for discussing growth trends.
A quantitative measure of growth trends in the industrial incinerator
population cannot be derived directly from the data compiled from the six
States in the sample because the number of incinerators with both adequate
installation data and use data was minimal. Therefore, it will be necessary
to determine growth trends by inference from other statistical breakdowns.
These growth trends are presented in Figures 4-15 through 4-17.
None of the States sampled had comprehensive information on the age of
the incinerators they had permitted. The only source of this type of
information was the records of the City of Chicago Department of Environ-
mental Control, presented in Figure 4-15. These data are very current
because Chicago requires annual permit renewal and licensing fees. There-
fore, units that are shut down are promptly removed from the permitting
systems. One incinerator in Chicago was 27 years old. The figure shows,
however, that the number of units still in operation sharply dropped prior
to the group installed in 1966. This implies a typical incinerator lifetime
of approximately 13 years. The trend in new installations in the city is
obvious: from an average of nine new units per year from 1966 to 1972 to
only one new installation in the last 3 years. The average number of new
4-57
-------
vo
o
CM
O
15 r.
Nuinber
of
Incinerators
10 -
5 -
en
00
0 u
-
10
1 1 1
PMO.J.62 63
2
64
4
11
4
7
12
7
11
11
2220 | 1 | 0 |
65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 '
The four oldest units In this group were installed in 1951, 1954, 1956, and 1957,
Figure 4-15. Age of the existing industrial incinerator population
in the City of Chicago.
-------
160 _
no
120
o
-------
00
o
CM
O
I
-------
units installed from 1966 to 1972 could be even higher because units that
were installed during this period and since taken out of service are not
included.
In the absence of installation date information from the States, the
date operating permits were requested has been compiled. This information
was available in Illinois and Texas. Illinois did not begin requiring
permits until 1971 when requirements were placed on both new and existing
sources. The number of permit applications in the earlier years is an
agglomeration of both new and existing sources and tells very little about
new installations. The trend in the last five years, however, is obvious
and a good representation of new installation trends. In 1974, 36 new
units were installed. The number of new units dropped every year thereafter
until it reached a low of two new installations for the entire State of
Illinois in 1978. This information is presented in Figure 4-16. Permit
applications that were denied are not included in the data.
The State of Texas does not require operating permits for existing
sources. The requests for incinerator operating permits are shown in
Figure 4-17. The trend in Texas is not as obvious as the others, although
there is a consistent decrease in new installations each year from 1976 to
1978. Two hypotheses are given for the inconclusiveness of the Texas data.
First, Texas has a sliding scale for determining allowable particulate
emissions. This scale results in a more lenient emission standard than in
Illinois and Chicago for units in the industrial size range. Second, Texas
and its large chemical industry have a greater need for toxicity reduction
units, which, according to Figure 4-12, are responsible for a growing share
of new installations.
4^61
-------
The Illinois data will be used to represent the national trend in
incinerator population changes for two reasons. First, of the six States
sampled, Illinois was the only one that had the needed information and a
large enough incinerator population to determine trends. Second, the
Illinois data are supported by qualitative statements on new installations
made by officials in the Office of Solid Waste Management and several State
agencies.47-48'6-49
The Illinois data consisted of 259 units, with two installations in
1978. Thus, new installations in 1978 equalled 0.8 percent of the existing
population. In projecting growth trends, an optimistic 1 percent of existing
population will be used for the annual number of new installations each
year. Based on the 13-year lifetime derived from the Chicago data, 8 percent
of the existing 1978 population will be used as the number of units that
go out of service each year.
Volume Reduction. New installations of incinerators used for volume
reduction are expected to follow the general trends for incinerators. This
means that the population would experience an 8 percent loss annually due
to units taken out of service and only a 1 percent gain in new installations,
or approximately an annual decrease of 7 percent between 1980 and 1985.
Several factors could increase the downward trend in volume reduction
units:
• Incentives for resource recovery removing wood, paper, and plas-
tics from these waste streams. Tax credits for resource recovery
equipment compound the effect of these incentives.
• Higher energy costs, which provide incentives to use the materials
in waste-fired boilers, and the increased availability of boilers
capable of cofiring wastes.
4-62
-------
• Discouragement of replacement or modification in States with more
stringent emission regulations for new sources.
• Increased demand from the growing refuse-derived fuel (RDF)
business for these waste streams.
One factor that could possibly reverse this trend is RCRA's requirement
that all open dumps be replaced with sanitary landfills, which will raise
the cost of landfill ing. However, no evidence was found to indicate that
in areas where States had implemented RCRA-type requirements there was an
increased activity in incinerator installations. Landfill ing is expected
to remain more cost-effective than incineration.
Toxicity Reduction. New installations of incinerators for the purpose
of toxicity reduction are expected to follow the general trend for incinera-
tion. Growth projections for this segment of the population assume that
existing units will go out of service at a rate of 8 percent per year, and
new installations each year will equal 1 percent of the population in the
previous year. This will result in roughly a 7 percent annual decrease in
total population from 1980 through 1985. The following factors support
these assumptions or provide an incentive for a more rapidly declining
population:
• Resource recovery efforts, including solvent recycling firms and
industrial waste exchanges, which reduce the amount of these
waste streams.
• Higher energy costs, which provide incentives to use the materials
in waste-fired boilers, and the increased availability of boilers
capable of cofiring wastes.
4-63
-------
• Discouraging of replacement or modification in States with more
stringent emission regulations for new sources.
Factors that may provide incentives for an increase in the population
include the following:
• The possibility that RCRA may discourage the combustion of hazardous
substances in waste-fired boilers.
• The possibility that incineration could be less expensive than
landfill ing if the hazardous waste landfill regulations are
adopted and the incineration regulations are not.
Resource Recovery. New installations of incinerators for the purpose
of resource recovery are expected to follow the general trend for incineration.
Initially, because of the various incentives for recycling discussed earlier,
this major use category of incinerators was expected to exhibit considerable
new installation activity. Due to these expectations and the potential for
a high NSPS benefit, this use grouping was analyzed in more depth than the
other two use groupings. From the analysis, however, it was concluded that
the trend is away from resource recovery incinerators, primarily because of
the high cost of operating an; afterburner for emission control and the
availability of alternative recycling processes. The only exception to
this trend is in the subcategory of motor incinerators. New motor incinerators
will be installed at an estimated rate of 100 units per year between 1980
and 1985.
The population of resource recovery incinerators is broken down for
analysis, by the materials they process, into the following major subcate-
gories: copper wire, electric motors, x-ray film, brake shoes, and steel
drums. Changes in each subcategory are influenced by a unique set of
4-64
-------
costs, market incentives, and process alternatives. Therefore, each
subcategory is discussed individually.
• Wire Incineration. Contacts have been made with groups knowledgeable
about the demand side of the wire incinerator market, including owners,
trade associations, and State agencies. These contacts revealed that
incineration is no longer the preferred method for recovering copper from
scrap wire. It can also be inferred from changes in the supply segment of
the marketplace that the manufacturers of incinerators have responded to a
small demand for the units by owners and operators.
Many factors are discouraging the use of incineration. Most of them
are directly related to the costs of obtaining usable metal from the scrap.
Despite increasing prices for copper, the net profit margin on a pound of
copper for the owner of an incinerator has declined steadily for the last
14 years. ' As a result, owners of recovery facilities now prefer two
mechanical processes—wire chopping and stripping. Chopping is the total
granulation of the insulated wire followed by air classification. Stripping
is the forcing of insulated wire through a set of gears and rollers that
remove the insulation. Stripping is applicable to only large diameter
wires. It can be accomplished at a cost of 2.8 to 6.1 cents per pound of
copper, depending on the diameter. Chopping is sufficient for most types
and sizes of wire. Material can be processed at a cost of 6.3 to 9 cents
52
per pound of copper, depending upon equipment utilization. In some
cases, the processing cost of stripping and chopping is not significantly
lower than incineration. However, these mechanical processes result in a
much cleaner copper product which commands a 10 cents per pound premium
over the output of an incinerator. Some owners of these units are also
able to obtain additional revenue by selling the insulation.
4-65
-------
The plastic insulation is easier to market than the plastic backing of
x-ray film, to be discussed in a later section, because the insulation is
generally made from polyethylene, polypropylene, or polyvinyl chloride
(PVC). These three plastics have a variety of uses that do not require
close product or processing tolerances such as flower pots, septic tank
drain pipes, and shoe soles. The plastic material that comprises the x-ray
backing is polyester, which is generally used in products or processes that
demand close tolerances, such as gears and films, and which tend to limit the
applicability of recycled materials.
In conjunction with the availability of less costly processes, the
following factors discourage new wire incinerator installations:
The cost of fuel is increasing. Incineration is an energy inten-
sive process. Fuel for the afterburner, and in some cases the
primary chamber, has a significant impact on total operating
cost.
54
The use of PVC as a wire insulation is more prevalent. PVC is
difficult to burn, requiring additional heat input to the primary
chamber. Emissions from burning this type of insulation include
chlorine, acid gases, phthalic anhydrides, and phosgene, all of
which necessitate a scrubber. ' The need for more sophisti-
cated equipment requires an initial investment of $90,000 versus
$30,000 for a unit which is not designed for PVC. The resulting
processing cost is about 12 cents per pound of copper.
Aluminum is replacing copper in many wire applications. The
aluminum wire precludes the use of incineration because of the
co
low melting point of the metal. Owners of incinerators who now
4-66
-------
handle aluminum wire from utility companies expect their
incineration operations to decrease in the future.
All the common insulations are derived from oil. Therefore,
their cost has followed the price of petroleum. Some processors
have been able to find markets and additional revenue from plastic
59
waste. When incineration is used, all the plastic is destroyed.
The typical copper wire incinerator processes 1,000 pounds of insulated
20
wire per hour. The units range in capacity from 500 to 3,000 pounds per
hour. No new large installations are foreseen in the near future. For
small units, a very limited number—fewer than 10 per year in 1980 declining
to no new installations by 1985—is projected. The Wire Association Inter-
national concurs with this assessment. One-third of the owners of inciner-
ators contacted (owners who have permits from the State) indicated that
their units were no longer in use. ' ' ' None of the owners who still
used their units intended to replace them because they expected the unit to
last indefinitely if they periodically replaced the refractory, which costs
only one-third as much as a total new unit. »
Some insulated wires are difficult to process mechanically because
they contain a jelly-like filling, a wax coating, or an insulating material
that will not separate from the metal after the wire has been processed.
These types of wire do not comprise a major fraction of the total amount of
wire recycled each year. Incineration will continue to be used to process
them; however, no new units are expected to be installed specifically to
recover these materials. As incineration costs continue to rise, the wires
that cannot be mechanically processed either will no longer be recycled or
will be shipped out of the country for processing. These materials are
4-67
-------
already exported on a large scale to places where they can be either burned
without pollution controls or manually disassembled by low-paid foreign
labor.66
• Motor Incineration. Motor incinerators are used to remove varnish,
epoxy, or a thermoplastic coating from the windings of electric motors.
Contacts with owners and manufacturers of motor incinerators have indicated
continued growth in new installations of these types of units. However,
these units are typically very small and are very rarely operated at capacity.
Some competing processes for handling the motors involve chemical
stripping. These processes involve the use of hazardous materials. The
trend seems to be away from the chemical method and toward incineration.
New installations are estimated at 100 units per year. This figure is
based on the sale of new units reported by one manufacturer. Other manufac-
turers of these units have not been located. Every owner we contacted
owned a unit manufactured by this company; therefore, it appears to dominate
the market and is perhaps the sole source of the units. The owners contacted
67 6ft
expected their units to last 12-25 years. ' Half the owners expected to
purchase a replacement unit eventually, and the remainder expected to
replace the refractory periodically but to use the same unit indefinitely.
Some motors that are to be discarded rather than repaired are incinerated
at scrap yards. Based on only one contact, these motors are believed to be
processed in a wire incinerator.
• X-ray Film Incineration. A more detailed look at x-ray film
incineration has indicated that there will not be any new installations of
this type. Any units that are built will have heat recovery and, therefore,
will fall within the realm of the waste-fired boiler standard.
4-68
-------
The high price of silver has provided an impetus for recovering the
precious metal from scrap materials. Medical and industrial x-ray material
are two high-grade sources. Photographic and lithographic papers are two
low-grade sources. Both grades of sources have historically been recovered
by incineration. The trend for high-grade waste is away from incineration
fiQ 7fl 71 7? 73
and toward wet processing. ''•' There are currently two wet
silver recovery processes. One is based on caustic and the other relies on
enzymes to break up the organic emulsion that contains the silver halides.
The wet system offers the processor several advantages. Typically,
incineration results in a loss of 15-25 percent of the silver through the
stack because of vaporized metal halides. A wet system precludes losses of
this type. Incineration destroys the plastic film base. The wet process
yields a clean plastic film that is potentially marketable. Based on the
current price of virgin polyester resin, the plastic recovered may be worth
more than the silver recovered per pound of x-ray film. No one contacted
was able to report any current uses for the recovered plastic, but contacts
22
indicated that there is great interest. However, in the near term, the
plastic may be landfilled.
The low-grade materials will continue to be recovered by incineration
because no alternatives exist. The wet process is not applicable. These
scrap materials are not sold as are the higher quality sources, but are
frequently given away. The low quantities of silver obtained usually do
not justify significant capital investments. The material may, therefore,
be open burned or processed in an existing incinerator. It is not likely
that a new incinerator would be purchased unless it is used to provide
energy for the site.
4-69
-------
No new installations are expected. One manufacturer of a wet system
stated that he now has orders from seven owners of incinerators who want to
switch to his wet process. These orders alone would result in a 7 percent
decrease in the incinerator population.
The conclusion that there will not be any new installations is supported
by the small number of equipment suppliers. Only two are known. One has
sold seven units in the last four years. The second has 40 units in the
field and expects to sell three to five units per year over the next 4 years.
The latter firm's sales estimate is believed to be overly optimistic and is
not reflected in the new installation forecast.
• Steel Drum Incineration. Most drum incinerators are either custom
made or home built. They range from batch units that process one drum at a
time to units that continuously process 700 drums per hour. Based on an
EPA/Industrial Environmental Research Laboratory (lERL)-Cincinnati study,
the average drum incinerator processes 125 drums per hour. The steel
drum incinerator population will remain constant with very little new
installation activity. The total population size is very small, and expan-
sion is being stifled by high energy cost and alternative processing methods.
Used drums can be reclaimed by either cleaning with a hot caustic
solution or incineration. The caustic process is the preferred method
because it is cheaper. Incineration is generally reserved for drums with a
residue that cannot be dissolved by the caustic process.
Drum incineration is expensive because of the high cost of operating
the afterburner which is essentially for compliance with State regulations.
Even with the afterburner, occasional smoke violations occur. The National
Barrel and Drum Association has undertaken a study to prove to the Ohio EPA
4-70
-------
that occasional smoke violation is unavoidable because of the nature of
drum reclamation. The results of the study will not be out until July or
August 1979. Since afterburners are used on all the resource recovery
incinerators located during this study, the impact of the auxiliary fuel
cost seems to be more significant when the product is steel drums than when
it is copper or silver.
The national population is estimated at 39 units according to the IERL
study released in April 1978. No new installations are projected, and a
decline in the number of units is expected. Owners of one drum incinerator
report that they have not used the unit in 1*$ years because it is too
expensive, and they only process drums that can be washed with the caustic
<
78,79
method. All the owners with units in operation who were contacted planned
to replace the refractory periodically and use the same unit indefinitely.
One owner had a 20-year-old unit and could not foresee replacing it. One
drum incinerator manufacturer stated that a large market never existed for
the units, and their use was discouraged by pollution regulations and fuel
shortages.
• Brake Shoe Incineration. The use of incineration to recover the
metal structure that supports the brake pad is on the decline as a result
of change in the type of brakes being used. In addition to the bonded drum
type, riveted drum and disc brakes comprise the major categories of brakes.
Incineration can be used to recover only the metal shoe from the bonded
drum type.
The following factors have reduced the need for brake incinerators:
Historically, 80 percent of the drum brakes have been bonded.
81
Now only 50 percent are bonded; the rest are riveted.
4-71
-------
Drum brakes are no longer standard equipment on the front wheels
of many new cars.
Because of the decline in demand for bonded brakes, no noticeable
numbers of new units are projected for this population.
Off-site Incineration. Growth in the off-site reduction of hazardous
wastes by incineration at centralized facilities is not expected to increase
30
to the point where new facilities will be-constructed. A predominant
problem in establishing a new facility is that community opposition to the
facilities is mounting and in some cases is threatening their operation.
In Bridgeport, NJ, residents are seeking to restrict or shut down a
25-acre treatment facility owned by Rollins Environmental Services, Inc.
30
Opposition to existing facilities has been reported around the nation.
RCRA's incinerator requirements may also lessen the economic attractiveness
of incineration. However, since these firms generally utilize larger
incinerators, the additional control requirements will probably have less
economic impact on these units than on their on-site counterparts. In
addition, the manifest system requirements of Section 3002 of RCRA further
complicate the procedure and raise the cost of this waste reduction method.
Cement kilns which have shown great promise as a waste disposal means
appear to be a more likely growth scenario than expansion of existing
off-site facilities. Therefore, no growth is projected for the centralized
waste reduction segment of the industrial incinerator population.
Conical Incinerators. Data on wood-fired conicals were not compiled.
82
A recent study of these units has estimated population through 1978.
These estimates have been extrapolated to 1980 and 1985. The estimates in
Table 4-13 generally agree with opinions of State enforcement officials
4-72
-------
Table 4-13. ESTIMATES OF NATIONWIDE POPULATION AND AIR CONTAMINANT
EMISSIONS FROM CONICAL INCINERATORS
Emission rate,3 1000
Number of conical s
Parti culates
Carbon monoxide
Hydrocarbons
Polynuclear hydrocarbons
1968
3330
374
1400
105
0.116
1973
835
65
255
17
0.020
1978
490
14
69
1.7
0.0044
Year
1980
360
10
51
1.3
0.0032
ton/yr
1983
163
5
23
0.6
0.0015
1985
30
0.9
4
0.1
0.0003
Based on an average burning rate of 3.5 units/hr and an operating schedule
of 16 hrs/day, 5 days/week, 50 weeks/yr. One unit of wood wastes, containing
around 50 percent moisture, weighs 2,000 Ibs (1 ton). Estimated emissions
from 1968 to 1978 assumed improving control technologies. Level of control
was assumed to be constant from 1978 to 1985.
4-73
-------
regarding the trends in conical population. In view of demands for wood
waste as a raw material and energy source, the population is probably
overestimated.
4.3 SUMMARY OF POPULATION AND GROWTH TRENDS
The 1980 population of industrial incinerators is estimated to be 4200
units, and it is expected to decline to 3700 units by 1985. The use distri-
butions of the present and future populations are presented in Table 4-14.
The general trend is away from incineration in most use categories because
of the availability of economically attractive alternatives. Competing
processes include land disposal techniques and those that allow either
materials or energy to be recovered. The only exceptions to the general
trend in reduced incinerator demand are two types of resource recovery
units. They are copper wire and electric motor incinerators.
Even though the total population of incinerators in use for volume
and toxicity reduction is declining, some new installation activity is
expected. Over the next 5 years, 63 new volume reduction and 32 new toxicity
reduction units are forecasted. In the resource recovery group no noticeable
new installation activity is foreseen for units handling steel drum, x-ray,
and brake shoe waste streams. Between 1980 and 1985 new installations of
copper wire and electric motor incinerators are expected to number 25 and
500, respectively. The emissions and the potential benefit from an NSPS
are discussed in the next section.
4-74
-------
Table 4-14. FIVE-YEAR PROJECTED INDUSTRIAL
INCINERATOR POPULATION
Population segment
Volume reduction
(other than conical wood)
Toxicity reduction
Resource recovery
Off- site
Conical (wood)
Total
Year
1980
1500
640
1700
10
360
4200a
1985
990
420
2200
10
30
3700a
This value does not equal the sum of its com-
ponents because it is rounded to two significant
figures.
4-75
-------
4.4 REFERENCES
1. Mantell, C. L. Solid Wastes: Origin, Collection, Processing, and
Disposal. New York, John Wiley and Sons. 1975. p. 20.
2. Brinkerhoff, R. J. Inventory of Intermediate-size Incinerators.
Pollution Engineering. 5(11):33-38. November 1973.
3. Kim, B. C., R. B. Engdahl, E. J. Mezey, and R. B. Landrigan. Screening
Study for Background Information and Significant Emissions from Major
Incineration Sources. Battelle-Columbus Laboratories. Columbus, Ohio
(for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-02-0611).
January 1974. 174 p.
4. Ross Hoffman Associates. Evaluation of Small Modular Incinerators in
Municipal Plants. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington,
D.C. Publication No. SW-113C. 1976. 145 p.
5. Telecon. Gardner, R. I., Acurex, with Mann, C., EPA, National Air Data
Branch. November 13, 1978. SOTDAT data.
6. Memo from Gardner, R. I., Acurex, to Acurex Industrial Incinerator
File. December 7, 1979. Meeting with D. Sussman, EPA, Office of
Solid Waste Management.
7. Memo from Gardner, R. I., Acurex, to Acurex Industrial Incinerator File.
January 15, 1979. Minutes of December 7, 1979, meeting with J. Perry,
et aj. EPA, Office of Solid Waste Management, Washington, D.C.
8. Computer printout of incinerator listings. Obtained from North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development by
S. Smith, Acurex. December 1978.
9. Computer printout of incinerator listings. Obtained from Georgia
Environmental Protection Division by R. I. Gardner, Acurex. December
1978.
10. Computer printout of incinerator listings. Obtained from Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency by R. I. Gardner, Acurex. December
1978.
11. Computer printout of incinerator listings from Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency. Obtained by R. I. Gardner, Acurex, from GCA/
Technology Division. December 1978.
12. Computer printout of incinerator listings from New York Department of
Environmental Conservation. Obtained by R. I. Gardner, Acurex, from
GCA/Technicology Division. December 1978.
4-76
-------
13. Telecon. Gardner, R. I., Acurex, with Texas Air Control Board.
December 1978. Incinerator listings.
14. Telecon. Gardner, R. I., Acurex, with McMurtry, A., Texas Air Control
Board. January 2, 1979. Incinerator data, explanation of computer
codes.
15. Telecon. Gardner, R. I., Acurex, with Anderson, L., EPA.
November 22, 1978. Industrial incinerators, States to visit for data.
16. Reference 3, p. 74-96.
17. Telecon. Upchurch, J. , Acurex, with Pettit, K. , United Incinerator
Company. April 3, 1979. Industrial incinerators, wire incinerator
data.
18. Reference 2, p. 35.
19. RLC Corporation. 1978 Annual Report. Wilmington, Delaware. 1978.
p. 8-9.
20. Telecon. Smith, S., Acurex, with Miller, S. , Coreco. April 3, 1979.
Industrial Incinerators.
21. Telecon. Gardner, R. I., Acurex with Beckett, C., Bayco. April 16, 1979.
Bayco motor burnoff incinerators.
22. Memo from Gardner, R. I., Acurex, to Rosensteel, R., EPA. April 23,
1979. Trip report on Keltek.
23. Eastman Kodak Company. Recovering Silver from Photographic Materials.
Kodak Publication Number J-10. Rochester, New York. 1972.
24. Earley, D. E., K. M. Tackett, and T. R. Blackwood. Source Assessment:
Rail Tank Car, Tank Truck, and Drum Cleaning. State of the Art.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cincinnati, Ohio. Publication
No. EPA-600/2-78-004g. April 1978. p. 20.
25. Profile: Know Your Rebuilder Suppliers. Warehouse Distributor News.
May 1974. p. 34.
26. Letter and attachments from Grigg Company, Huntington Park, California,
to Gardner, R. I., Acurex. 1978. Manufacturer's literature.
27. Telecon. Smith, S., Acurex, with Colvin, J., Raybestos-Manhattan.
March 26, 1979. Industrial brake debonding incinerators.
28. Economic Analysis of Proposed Effluent Guidelines: The Asbestos Product
Manufacturing Industry. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D.C. Publication No. EPA-238/1-74-030. July 1974.
p. 10-19.
4-77
-------
29. Reference 3, p. 87.
30. Ricci, L. J. Hazardous-Waste Disposers Feel Down in the Dumps. Chemical
Engineering. 85:54. May 1978.
31. Telecon. Gardner, R. I., Acurex, with Beard, H., EPA. January 30,
1978. Incinerators.
32. Reference 29, p. 9.
33. Shih, C. C., J. E. Cotter, D. Dean, S. F. Paige, E. P. Pulaski, and
C. F. Thome. Comparative Cost Analysis and Environmental Assessment
for Disposal of Organochlorine Wastes. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington, D.C. Publication No. EPA-600/2-78-190.
August 1978. p. 10-12.
34. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Publication
No. AP-42. 1977. p. 2.1-3 and 2.3-2.
35. Telecon. Gardner, R. I., Acurex, with Lalor, W. F. , Cotton Incorporated.
January 2, 1979. Waste-fired gin dryers.
36. Reference 3, p. 113.
37. Lalor, W. F., J. K. Jones, and G. A. Slater. Test Results from Waste-
Fired Gin Dryers. Agro-Industrial Report, Cotton Incorporated. 4(7):
3-15. June 1977.
38. Telecon. Marimpietri, A. B., Acurex, with Green, J., Southeastern
Peanut Association. January 24, 1979. Incineration of peanut hulls.
39. Emission test data. Obtained from Georgia Environmental Protection
Division by R. I. Gardner, Acurex. December 1978.
40. Telecon. Marimpietri, A. B., Acurex, with (unknown), Rice Millers
Association. January 24, 1979. Uses of rice hulls.
41. Group Hails Tax Incentive for Buying Recycling Equipment. The Bureau
of National Affairs, Inc. Environment Reporter. 9(27): 1265.
November 3, 1978.
42. Letter and attachments from Kelley/Hoskinson to Gardner, R. I., Acurex.
December 1978. Manufacturer's literature.
43. Letter and attachments from C and H Combustion to Gardner, R. I.,
Acurex. December 1978. Manufacturer's literature.
44. Anguil, G. H. Using Solid Waste as a Fuel. Plant Engineering.
November 27, 1975.
45. Reference 33, p. 1.
4-78
-------
46. Computer printout of incinerator listings. Obtained from Chicago
Department of Environmental Control by R. I. Gardner, Acurex.
December 1978.
47. Memo from Gardner, R. I., Acurex, to Acurex Industrial Incinerator
File. January 15, 1979. Minutes of December 11, 1979, meeting with
W. Linna, Chicago Department of Environmental Control.
48. Telecon. Gardner, R. I., Acurex, with Bernaski, B. , New York Department
of Environmental Conservation. December 8, 1978. Incinerator population
data.
49. Memo from Gardner, R. I. , Acurex, to Acurex Industrial Incinerator
File. January 10, 1979. Minutes of December 4, 1979, meeting with
K. Bauges, Air Pollution Division, Indiana State Board of Health.
50. Greenberg, W. B. Effect of Escalating Energy Costs on Metal Recovery
from Wire Scrap. Recycling Today, p. 80. August 1978.
51. Copper Recycling Need Not Pollute. Iron Age. 214(2):60. July 1974.
52. Reference 50, p. 80-82.
53. Nonferrous Scrap. American Metal Market. 87(67):9. August 1979.
54. Telecon. Smith, S., Acurex, with Berry, B., Electro-Extraction.
March 30, 1979. Resource recovery, wire incinerators.
55. Reference 50, p. 84.
56. Air Pollution Aspects of the Brass and Bronze Smelting and Refining
Industry. U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Raleigh,
North Carolina. Publication No. AP-58. November 1969. p. 10.
57. Telecon. Smith, S., Acurex, with Harvey, D., Summet and Company.
March 20, 1979. Resource recovery, wire incinerators.
58. Reference 50, p. 86.
59. Reference 50, p. 82.
60. Telecon. Gardner, R. I., Acurex, with Mr. Collins, Wire Association
International. April 3, 1979. Wire incinerators.
61. Telecon. Smith, S., Acurex, with Mr. Weiss, Harry Davis and Sons.
March 20, 1979. Resource recovery incinerators.
62. Telecon. Smith, S., Acurex, with Adams, R., Frank Adams and Company.
March 20, 1979. Wire resource recovery incinerator data.
63. Telecon. Gardner, R. I., Acurex, with Weiscopf, K., Massachusetts
Environmental Protection Agency. March 30, 1979. Incinerator permits.
4-79
-------
64. Telecon. Smith, S. , Acurex, with Senser, S. , Senser Metal Company.
March 20, 1979. Wire resource recovery incinerator data.
65. Telecon. Smith, S., Acurex, with Greenspoon, N., Sherwin Metal
Reclamation. March 20, 1979. Wire resource recovery incinerator
data.
66. Memo from Gardner, R. I., Acurex, to Rosensteel, R., EPA.
April 23, 1979. Trip report on H. Kasden and Sons, Incorporated.
67. Telecon. Smith, S., Acurex, with Etchison, B., Valley Armature and
Electric Company. March 26, 1979. Electric motor recovery incinerator
data.
68. Telecon. Smith, S., Acurex, with Morgan, J. R., Central Electric
Company. March 23, 1979. Electric motor recovery incinerator data.
69. Telecon. Smith, S., Acurex, with Leyman, P., New Orleans Silversmiths,
Incorporated. March 28, 1979. X-ray film, silver recovery incinerators.
70. Telecon. Smith, S., Acurex, with Welch, H., Fairchild Industries.
March 29, 1979. Silver recovery incinerators.
71. Telecon. Smith, S., Acurex, with McCain, G. E., Hancock Chemical
Company. March 29, 1979. Silver recovery from incineration of
photographic materials.
72. Telecon. Gardner, R. I., Acurex, with Ramsey, J., Keltek Processing.
March 29, 1979. Resource recovery incinerators.
73. Telecon. Gardner, R. I., Acurex, with MacKay, M., B. R. MacKay and
Sons, Incorporated. March 29, 1979. Resource recovery incinerators.
74. Letter and attachments from Morris, 0. P., TR Systems Incorporated, to
Smith, S., Acurex. April 3, 1979. Manufacturer's literature.
75. Reference 24, p. 25.
76. Telecon. Upchurch, J., Acurex, with Krinov, S., Queen City Barrel
Company. April 3, 1979. Drum incinerators.
77. Telecon. Smith, S., Acurex, with Amberik, D., Ohio Drum Conditioning.
March 22, 1979. Drum incineration.
78. Telecon. Smith, S., Acurex, with Mr. Hussong, Dayton Industrial
Drum. March 22, 1979. Drum incineration.
79. Telecon. Smith, S., Acurex, with Curtis, J., Cincinnati Drum Service
Company. March 21, 1979. Drum incineration.
80. Telecon. Smith, S., Acurex, with Brennan, J., Jarvis Company,
Incorporated. March 21, 1979. Drum incineration information.
4-80
-------
81. Telecon. Upchurch, J., Acurex, with Mr. Drislane, Friction Materials
Standards Institute. March 30, 1979. Brake drum reclamation.
82. Reference 3, p. 90.
4-81
-------
5. SOURCE TESTING AND EMISSION ESTIMATES
This section discusses readily available source test data collected
during this study. The data are classified by waste streams and summarized
in tables that enable some comparison to be made between the controlled
and uncontrolled emission levels found in the data and those given in
Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42). The emission
collection and analysis procedures used on incinerators are described.
Finally, the nationwide emissions of all the criteria pollutants are
estimated for the year 1978 and 1983.
5.1 SOURCE TEST DATA
This section presents a compilation of the readily available emission
data on the principal pollutants expected to be found in the flue gas of
an industrial incinerator. Data on nonindustrial units were also compiled
for use in case the control technology is determined to be transferable
to the industrial sources. Test data on both criteria air pollutants
and other air pollutants were assembled.
Whenever possible, the various types of units used to report measured
emissions were converted to common units, usually the same units as those
of the AP-42 emission factor. However, the information necessary to make
this conversion was often not available in test records, and time constraints
did not allow contacts with personnel involved in field tests in order to
5-1
-------
obtain the necessary information. Because participates were expected to be
the primary pollutant of concern, their emission data are dealt with more
thoroughly than those of the gaseous pollutants. Most of the particulate
data collected were converted to g/kg (Ib/ton) of feed using the conversion
factors in Table 3-3 (Chapter 3). Using these factors required that some
assumptions which are discussed fully in Section 3 be made.
As the tables indicate, the data often show higher emission levels for
controlled sources than for uncontrolled sources. This incongruity is
usually due to the fact that tests on uncontrolled and controlled sources
were conducted on different sources.
5.1.1 Sources of Data
Sources of incinerator emission data were identified through an exten-
sive literature search of EPA documents, test reports published by State
air pollution control agencies, and manufacturers' specifications. In
)
addition, EPA regional offices, State air pollution control agencies, and
local air pollution control district (APCD) offices were contacted by
telephone. Additional telephone contacts were made with universities and
private companies involved in studies on waste disposal and incineration.
Most of the emission data summarized in this section were obtained
from State air protection agencies and local enforcement offices (APCD's).
The other data were obtained from EPA offices and published field test
reports. Data were collected on a total of 513 emission tests performed on
159 sources.
Data were most readily available for the pathological, general indus-
trial refuse, and trash incinerators. Particulate matter (PM) was the
pollutant most often tested. Generally, PM is the pollutant of concern
5-2
-------
when the unit's compliance with a State's air regulations is in question.
Therefore, PM emissions are often tested to ensure compliance with local
environmental standards. Emission test data on NO , CO, HC, S02, and C12
rt
reported in this study are limited. Data have been requested from additional
sources, but have not yet been received. A general summary of the data
collected is presented in Table 5-1.
A rigorous breakdown of the data by incinerator design was not possible,
since no standard definition exists which differentiates among various
incinerator designs, and because the incinerator descriptions in the test
records were incomplete. Because the most readily available and explicit
test parameter was the waste processed, the test results were grouped by
incinerator use or waste. All the data compiled were compared to AP-42
emission factors. For some wastes, AP-42 listed a different emission
factor for each design type. Because the emission data were categorized by
waste type and not by design, several emission factors were found to apply
to a given category. When this situation occurred, the data were presented
as a range in the summary tables.
5.1.2 Municipal Refuse Incinerators
Table 5-2 summarizes emission test data from municipal refuse
incinerators. Source test information was acquired primarily from reports
for 13 incinerators by Environmental Engineering, Inc. and the GCA Technology
Division. The largest incinerators in the group are located in New York
City. They consist of a bank of four furnaces with a total capacity of
1000 tons of refuse per 24 hours. Combustion air is supplied at a number
of locations, and unburned hydrocarbons are combusted in a secondary chamber.
Then a combination of water sprays, multi-clones, venturi scrubbers, and
mist eliminators treat the flue gases, primarily for PM removal.
5-3
-------
Table 5-1. COMPILED TEST DATA FROM INCINERATORS
en
•£»
Waste burned
Municipal
Pathological
Municipal and
industrial sludge
Industrial process
waste3
Trash and rubbish
Agricultural
(gin waste)
No. of
sources
13
37
21
23
64
1
No. of
tests
42
137
71
82
171
10
Pollutants
sampled
PM, S02. NOX, HC,
IIC1, CO
PM, CO, NOX. HC
PM. S0?. NO,,. CO.
HCf. Hg7
Carbonyls aldehydes
PM. S02> NO CO.
Cl. HC
PM, NOX, S02. CO
PM
Range in incinerator
waste feed capacity
kg/sec (10* Ib/hr)
0.32 - 20.8
(2.5 - 165)
0.01 - 0.37
(.050 - 2.9)
0.06 - 1.26
(0.5 - 10.0 dry sludge)
.009 - 0.5)
(0.07 - 4.0)
0.01 - 0.63
(0.1 - 5.0)
0.32
(2.5)
References
5-1, 5-2. 5-3. 5-4.
5-5, 5-6, 5-7. 5-8, 5-9
5-1, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10,
5-11
5-1. 5-2. 5-3. 5-4. 5-5
5-6. 5-7, 5-8
5-1. 5-8, 5-9, 5-11.
5-12. 5-13, 5-15
5-1. 5-9. 5-12. 5-16.
5-1?
5-12
Industrial process waste includes waste oil and liquid waste, paint racks, film, wood, wire, electrical products, and
explosive products.
-------
Table 5-2. SUMMARY OF EMISSION TEST DATA FROM MUNICIPAL INCINERATORS,
SI UNITS (ENGLISH UNITS)
Pollutant
Particulates
»x
4
S02
HC
HC1
CO
No. of
sources
tested
13
3
2
1
3
1
Uncontrolled emissions
[mean]
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
feed ppm
0.2 - 19.5
[5.8]
[0.3 - 38.1)
1 [U.6] J
48
10.7 - 16.0 316-438
[13.0] [372]
[21.32 - 32.0)
[ [26.0] ]
30
1.0 - 3.5 98
[2.7]
|2.0 - 7.0)
\ [5.35] ]
6-33
[19]
AP-4?
emission factor
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
7.5 - 15.0
(15.0 - 30.0)
1.0
(2.0)
1.3
(2.5)
0.8 - 7.5
(1.5 - 15.0)
10.0 - 17.5
(20.0 - 35.0)
Controlled emissions
[mean]
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
0.37 - 0.91
[0.48]
[0.73 - 1.82)
1 [0.97] j
4 ppma
References
5-1. 5-3, 5-4,
5-5, 5-6, 5-7,
5-8, 5-9, 5-18
5-5, 5-7
5-2, 5-7
5-5
5-2, 5-5
5-5
1-0069
en
aSulfur content of fuel or waste was not given so it Is not known If this Is a result of the controls of low sulfur feed.
-------
Uncontrolled PM emissions for the municipal data compiled were generally
lower than the AP-42 emission factor, although the emissions varied both
above and below the factor. The mean controlled PM emissions were approxi-
mately one-tenth of the uncontrolled level. Nitrogen oxide (NO ), sulfur
/\
oxide (SO ), hydrocarbon (HC), hydrochloric acid (HC1), and carbon monoxide
(CO) emissions were also tested. Only a few tests were available on NO
/\
emissions, which averaged 48 ppm and could not be compared to AP-42 factors
because of different units of measurement. Average SO emissions were
A
roughly 10 times the AP-42 factor. However, this situation cannot be
considered representative because of two factors. First, only two test
reports were used to obtain the SO data. Second, both units were burning
/\
an unspecified amount of residual oil together with the municipal waste.
Emissions of HC, HC1, and CO were tabulated, but, again, because of different
units of measurement, these cannot be compared with AP-42 factors.
5.1.3 Pathological Waste Incinerators
Incinerators that burn hospital waste, or Type 4 wastes, were grouped
together as pathological units. Usually these wastes consisted of bandages,
dressings, and animal remains. Occasionally other wastes were burned. The
majority of the emission data were obtained from the Illinois EPA. Additional
sources included the Indiana State Board of Health, State of Georgia, City
of Chicago, State of California, and the Fresno, California Air Pollution
Control District. These sources provided a significant amount of particulate
emissions data, but only a limited amount of information on CO, NO , and
f\
HC.
The emissions data collected on pathological incinerators are summarized
in Table 5-3. A total of 85 test runs were compiled, of which 89 percent
5-6
-------
Table 5-3. SUMMARY OF EMISSION TEST DATA FROM PATHOLOGICAL INCINERATORS,
SI UNITS (ENGLISH UNITS)
Pollutant
Participates
NX
HC
CO
No. of
sources
tested
37
2
11
20
Uncontrolled
emissions
[mean]
0.52 - 16.3 kg/Mg
C3.ll]
(1.04 - 32.6 lb/ton\
1 C6-23] ]
141.2 - 222.1 g/m3
[132.4]
[18.0 - 97.0 gr/scf \
\ [57.8] J
0 - 397 ppm
[87.8]
0 - 341 ppm
[190.3]
AP-42
emission factor
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
4.0
(8.0)
1.5
(3.0)
0.0
0.0
Controlled
emissions
[mean]
0.05 - 17.1 kg/Mg
[2.98]
f 0.1 - 34.2 Ib/ton^
I [5.97] |
0 - 397 ppm
[19.7]
0-60 ppm
[17.6]
References
5-1, 5-8,
5-10, 5-11
5-1, 5-9,
5-10
5-10
5-10
T-0070
en
i
-------
were tests on units with control equipment, including 10 units with scrubbers
and possibly afterburners and 28 with only afterburners. The particulate
emissions from units controlled with scrubbers ranged from 0.035 to 4.22
g/kg (0.07 to 8.44 Ib/ton), with a mean of 1.74 g/kg (3.48 Ib/ton). Two of
the scrubber tests reported particulate removal efficiencies of 75 percent
and 84 percent. The units controlled with only afterburners had particulate
emissions ranging from 0.05 to 17.1 g/kg (0.10 to 34.2 Ib/ton), with a mean
of 3.43 g/kg (6.86 Ib/ton). The uncontrolled particulate emissions ranged
from 0.52 to 16.3 g/kg (1.04 to 32.6 Ib/ton), with a mean of 3.11 g/kg
(6.23 Ib/ton). The upper emissions level for incinerators controlled with
only an afterburner is close to the upper emissions level for uncontrolled
units, which could indicate that the dependability of afterburners as a
control device is questionable.
5.1.4 Emissions from Sludge Incinerators
Emissions data were obtained for three general classes of sludge
incinerators:
• Multiple-hearth, fired with sewage sludge
• Fluidized-bed, fired with sewage sludge
• Other designs, fired with either sewage or industrial sludge
The major sources of emissions data were the San Francisco Bay Area
Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the State Air Control Agencies
of Indiana, Illinois, and Georgia. Data from 44 tests made on 24 sludge-
burning incinerators are summarized in Table 5-4. The data indicated that
emission control equipment for sludge incinerators usually included venturi
or wet cyclonic scrubbers.
5-8
-------
Table 5-4. SUMMARY OF EMISSION TEST DATA FROM SLUDGE INCINERATORS, SI UNITS (ENGLISH UNITS)
in
i
vo
Design type/
waste fuel
Multiple-hearth
burning
sewage sludge
Fluidized-bed
burning
sewage sludge
Other incinerator
designs burning
sewage or
industrial sludge
Pollutant
Particulates
CO
"x
S02
Hg
Particulates
S02
"Ox
Particulates
S02
NMHC
No. of
sources
tested
(no. of tests)
S
(9)
5
(6)
6
(12)
7
(M)
1
(3)
4
(12)
4
(7)
4
(9)
3
(20)
1
(2)
1
(3)
Uncontrolled
Missions
kg/Mg (lb/ton)a
feed
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data
no data
1.3 - 7.3
(2.6 - 14.6)
no data
no data
AP-42
enission factor
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
burned
SO.O
(100.0)
0
2.5
(5.0)
0.5b
(1.0)
50.0
(100.0)
0.5
(1-0)
2.5
(5.0)
50.0
(100.0)
0.5
(1.0)
-
Controlled
emissions
[•ean]
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
0.14 - 2.0
[0.84]
0.28 - 4.0\
[1.68] j
0
11.5 - 271.6 ppn
[77.1]
2.0 - 14.3 ppn
[5.3]
0.00012 - 0.0030
[0.00114]
f 0.00024 - 0.0060\
[ [0. 00228] 1
0.35 - 2.8
[1.3]
0.70 - 5.6\
[2-6] J
0 - 200 ppn
[64.6]
0 - 173 ppm
[76]
0.09 - 3.3
[0.86]
/0.18 - 6.6\
\ [1.72] ]
16 - 43
[29]
0 - 9.5 ppn
[3.2]
References
5-1, 5-3,
5-5
5-1, 5-4
5-2, 5-4
5-1. 5-2.
5-4
5-3
5-1. 5-2.
5-4
5-1, 5-2,
5-4
5-1. 5-2,
5-4
5-1, 5-6,
5-7, 5-8
5-1
5-1
••' • • • i-uu/i
akg/Mg (Ib/ton) refers to kilograms (pounds) of pollutant ewitted per Mg (ton) of dry sludge charged.
bTotal SOX.
-------
The most detailed information available was on multiple-hearth
incinerators, which accounted for nearly two-thirds of all sludge incinerator
test data found. Twenty-eight tests and 12 sources contributed to the data
for fluidized-bed incinerators burning sewage sludge. Although the ranges
were nearly identical, particulate emissions per ton of dry sludge charged
averaged 56 percent higher than multiple-hearth design emissions. Though
sufficient test data were available to standardize particulate emissions to
the units of grams/kilograms (Ib/ton), in most cases SO and NO emissions
f\ ^
were available only in terms of concentration. The other types of sludge
incinerators include all those of unspecified design and one with vortex-
corner suspended firing. A total of 24 tests were made on four sources
burning both sewage and industrial sludges. Controlled particulate emis-
sions for this category averaged slightly higher than for the multiple-hearth
category but less than for the fluidized-bed design. The average controlled
S02 emissions for this third category fell between the other two categories.
Emissions of non-methane hydrocarbons were generally low, less than 10 ppm.
Some emission control systems consisted of wet scrubbers as the primary
particulate control equipment used in combination with a cyclone. In all
cases, some control equipment was used. Nearly half the sludge incinerator
test reports contained auxiliary fuel data. Sixty-one percent indicated
that gas was used as the fuel; 39 percent indicated distillate oil as the
fuel.
AP-42 lists only one category of sludge incinerators and does not give
factors for different design types. Therefore, the AP-42 factor is listed
as the same for each design category.
5-10
-------
5.1.5 Trash Incinerators
Trash incinerators burn a variety of wastes ranging from 100 percent
cardboard to widely mixed refuse, including rubber, plastics, animal fats,
foodstuffs, and wood wastes (pallets). Many data sources did not adequately
define the composition of the wastes they incinerated, but instead used
only general terms such as "refuse," "garbage," or "mixed solid wastes."
The emission data collected and compiled are summarized in Table 5-5. The
Illinois EPA was a major information source; Oregon, Indiana, Georgia, and
Chicago contributed significant amounts of additional emission data. Other
sources of information were the EPA Source Test Data System (SOTDAT) and
the Fresno APCD.
The majority of the controls were afterburners (some with cyclones),
venturi scrubbers, and wet impingement scrubbers. Particulate emissions
ranged from 0.008 to 0.487 gr/dscf, which is equivalent to 0.07 to 4.1 g/kg
(0.133 to 8.10 Ib/ton). This equivalency assumes a waste of 50 percent
water and 50 percent cellulose. The emissions of the gaseous pollutants
were reported in parts per million and therefore could not be compared to
AP-42.
5.1.6 Agricultural Waste Incinerators
Test reports were found for only two agricultural waste incinerators,
and both of those burned only cotton gin waste. The data, which are sum-
marized in Table 5-6, were obtained from the California Air Resources Board
and EPA's Source Test Data System (SOTDAT). One incinerator was equipped
with a cyclone; the other source used no flue gas controls. The mean level
of particulate emissions from the controlled unit exceeded the mean level
of the emissions from the uncontrolled unit. This incongruity was due
5-11
-------
Table 5-5. SUMMARY OF EMISSION TEST DATA FROM TRASH INCINERATORS, SI UNITS (ENGLISH UNITS)
en
ro
Pollutant
Participates
S02
MX
CO
No. of
sources
tested
64
1
1
31
Uncontrolled
emissions
[mean]
0.06 - 4.05 kg/Mg
[0.67]
[0.13 - 8.11 lb/ton^
I [1-35] )
-
-
0 - 500 ppm
[104]
AP-42
emission factor
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
3.5 - 7.5
(7.0 - 15.0 )
1.25
(2.0 - 5.0)
1.0 - 1.5
(2.0 - 3.0)
5.0 - 10.0
(10.0 - 20.0)
Controlled
emissions
[mean]
0.35 - 1.0 kg/Mg
[0.62]
0.7-2.0 lb/ton\
[1.24] J
5.1 - 10.6 ppm
[7.9]
9.6 - 14.9 ppm
[12.3]
26.0 - 313.0 ppm
[182]
References
5-1, 5-9,
5-12, 5-16
5-17, 5-18
5-17
5-17
5-1, 5-9,
5-16
T-007Z
-------
Table 5-6. SUMMARY OF EMISSION TEST DATA FOR INCINERATORS BURNING AGRICULTURAL WASTE FROM COTTON GINNING
PROCESS, SI UNITS (ENGLISH UNITS)
cji
CO
Pollutant
Participates
MX
HC
CO
No. of
sources
tested
[no. of tests]
1
[9]
1
[4]
1
[4]
1
[4]
1
[4]
Uncontrolled
emissions
[mean]
4.38 - 9.84 kg/Mg
[6.72]
[8.78 - 19.73 1b/ton\
1 [13.44] ]
1243 - 1801 ppm
[1615]
9.7 - 11.7 ppm
[10.4]
0
AP-42
emission factor
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
3.5 - 7.5
(7.0 - 15.0)
3.5 - 7.5
(7.0 - 15.0)
1.0 - 1.5
(2.0 - 3.0)
1.5 - 7.5
(3.0 - 15.0)
5.0 - 10.0
(10.0 - 20.0)
Controlled
emissions
[mean]
9.25 - 12.7 kg/Mg
[11.5]
18.5 - 25.4 Ib/ton]
[23.0] j
a
a
a
References
5-12
5-10
5-10 .
5-10
5-10
T-0073
-------
primarily to the scarcity of test data on agricultural waste incinerators.
Because the control device was a cyclone, the controlled level would not be
expected to be dramatically lower than the uncontrolled level.
Emission rate variations were due primarily to differences in the size
and frequency of batches. Emissions were of NO , CO, and HC reported in
^
units of flue gas concentration (ppm) and thus cannot be compared to AP-42
emission factors. Furthermore, the NO concentration level was surprisingly
/\
high. It is not clear whether this level was caused by waste combustion or
by the auxiliary fuel used. Both units used natural gas as an auxiliary
fuel.
5.1.7 Industrial Incinerators
The bulk of the emission test data on industrial incinerators were on
wire and electrical motor incinerators. Other waste categories with rela-
tively large quantities of assembled emission data were chemical liquids
and wood. Table 5-7 lists the various wastes and summarizes the emissions
test data obtained on each of these categories.
Wire and Electrical Motor Incinerators. Industrial incinerators
include incinerators used for reclaiming scrap wire as well as for salvaging
electric motors. In each case, insulation is burned away so that the metal
can be recovered. For motors the insulation is an enamel or varnish, and
for wire it is usually a plastic, generally polyvinyl chloride, but sometimes
polyethylene.
Most of the data on wire incinerators were obtained from the Chicago
Department of Environmental Control and the Illinois EPA. Table 5-8 sum-
marizes emissions from wire incinerators. Both controlled and uncontrolled
emissions data are listed for PM, S02, and C12. Emission rates varied with
5-14
-------
Table 5-7. COMPILED TEST DATA FROM INDUSTRIAL INCINERATORS
en
01
Haste burned
Liquid chemical
wastes
Paint racks
Waste oil
Film
Wood waste
Wire and electrical
motors
Explosive
products
No. of
sources
5
1
1
2
3
14
1
No. of
tests
43
6
28
8
6
84
1
Pollutant
sampled
particulate, Clo
NQX, HC. CO, S0£
particulate, CO
particulate, CO,
HC, NOX, S02, HC1
particulate, CO
particulate, CO
particulate. HC1,
C12, NOX. S02, CO.
HC
particulate
Range in
incinerator capacity
kg/sec (10? Ib/hr)
0.04-0.51
(0.3-4.0)
0.009
(0.070)
NA
0.0)
(0.07)
0.28-0.49
(2.2-3.85)
0.02-0.61
(0.12-4.8)
NA
References
5-1. 5-8
5-13
5-1
5-1
5-1, 5-8
5-1. 5-12
5-1. 5-8.
5-9, 5-11
5-15
5-1
-------
Table 5-8. SUMMARY OF EMISSION TEST DATA FROM INCINERATORS BURNING WIRE INSULATION, SI UNITS (ENGLISH UNITS)
Pollutant
Parti culates
S02
MX
HC
C12
CO
No of
sources
tested
11
1
2
1
2
5
Uncontrolled emissions
[mean]
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
feed
7.7 - 12.4
[10.5]
15.5 - 24.9^
[21.0] J
0.15 - 1.03
[0.67]
[0.3 - 2.07\
1 [1-34] j
0.15 - 1.75
[1.2]
[0.3 - 3.5]
1 [2-«] J
20.2 - 39.1
[28.8]
[40.3 - 78.2]
1 [57.7] J
-
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
combustible
36.1 - 122.5
[58.8]
[72.2 - 245.0]
[ [117.6] |
'
3.22
(6.43)
1.85 - 15.5
[5.4]
[3.7 - 31. 0}
\ [10.8] J
104.7 - 121.0
[113.0]
[209.4 - 242.1]
1 [226.1] J
-
AP-42
emission factor
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
3.5 - 7.5
( 7.0 - 15. 0)
1.25
(2.5)
1.0 - 1.5
(2.0 - 3.0)
1.5 - 7.5
(3.0 - 15.0)
NA
5.0 - 10.0
(10.0 - 20.0)
Controlled emissions
[mean]
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
feed
0.63 - 7.45
[3.43]
[1.26 - 14. 9\
I [6.86] |
1.06 - 1.65
[1.39]
[2.12 - 3.3]
\ [2.79] ]
5.85 - 13.3
[9.5]
(11.7 - 26.5)
74 - 3100 ppma
[1020]
kg/Mg (Ib/ton
combustible
12.9 - 28.5
[21.7]
{25.8 - 57.1
( [43.4]
32.3 - 40.0
[37.1]
[64.6 - 80.0
\ [74.2]
-
References
5-1, 5-8,
5-9, 5-12,
5-15
5-8
5-8
5-8
5-8
5-1, 5-8
en
i
aAt 50% excess air.
T-0074
-------
batch size, frequency of charging, rate of auxiliary fuel use (usually
natural gas), and the type of insulation burned (PVC, neoprene, rubber,
cloth). Emission factors listed in Table 5-8 are given on a total weight
feed basis as well as on a combustible feed basis. Typically, 25 to 30
percent of the weight charged to the wire incinerators was combustible.
The average uncontrolled particulate emission factor of 58.8 g/kg (117.6
Ib/ton) of combustible feed was calculated from test information on five
incinerators. One source in particular, a combination aluminum sweat
furnace and wire incinerator, emitted particulates as high as 122.5 c/k-j
(245.0 Ib/ton) of combustible feed. The data compiled indicate that uncon-
trolled particulate emissions from wire incinerators are significantly
higher than the AP-42 emission factors of 3.5 to 7.5 g/kg (7 to 15 Ib/ton)
for general industrial incinerators.
Afterburners and wet scrubbers, sometimes using caustic water, served
as control equipment. The particulate emissions from wire incinerators
that used a scrubber for emission control ranged from 0.03 to 7.45 g/kg
(1.26 to 14.91 Ib/ton). The particulate emissions from units having only
afterburner controls ranged from 2.33 to 4.15 g/kg (4.67 to 8.30 Ib/ton).
Therefore, of the two control technologies, scrubbers produced both the
highest and the lowest emission control levels. This inconsistency can be
rationalized by several hypothetical scenarios such as different scrubber
designs or different wastes; however, no information that could resolve the
question was given in the test report.
Because polyvinyl chloride is often used in insulation, chlorine emis-
sions, along with PM, S02, NO and NMHC emissions, were measured. Uncon-
^
trolled C12 emissions averaged 28.8 g/kg (57.7 Ib/ton) of total feed;
controlled emissions averaged 33 percent of the uncontrolled rate.
5-17
-------
Most of the test data on electric motor incinerators were obtained
from the Air Protection Branch of the Georgia Environmental Protection
Division. Emissions from these incinerators are summarized in Table 5-9.
None of the tests measured controlled emissions. The nature of the waste
feed and the different types of insulation used on motor windings cause
combustibles to average 2 percent by weight of the total incinerator feed.
Particulate matter emissions ranged from about 1.5 to 5 g/kg (3 to 10
Ib/ton) of combustible feed. Average emisson rates for PM, S02, HC, and CO
are all lower than the emission factor ranges reported in AP-42. The NO
/\
emissions are higher by a factor of 4 than those reported in AP-42.
Liquid Waste Incinerators. Liquid waste incinerators dispose of a
variety of liquid wastes, primarily polychlorinated waste, waste oil, and
various other hydrocarbon liquids. Table 5-10 presents data on five liquid
waste incinerators. Most of the emission data gathered in this category
were obtained from the Illinois and Georgia State agencies and from published
test reports. Uncontrolled particulate emissions fell within the range of
AP-42 emission factors for single- and multi-chamber industrial incinerators.
These emissions were controlled with a variety of equipment, including
venturi scrubbers, cyclones, quench towers, and packed ring towers. Average
controlled PM emissions were 50 percent of the uncontrolled emissions.
Test data were lacking or inconclusive for the other pollutants. For
example, controlled HC1 emissions averaged higher than uncontrolled emissions,
primarily because two of the three sources tested were in either the uncon-
trolled or controlled mode of operation, but not in both. Therefore, the
effectiveness of a control device cannot be identified without additional
data. Additional test data have been identified by the EPA Region V Office.
5-18
-------
Table 5-9. SUMMARY OF UNCONTROLLED EMISSION TEST DATA FROM ELECTRIC
MOTOR INCINERATORS, SI UNITS (ENGLISH UNITS)
en
Pollutant
Parti culates
so,"
«,'
HC
CO
No. of
sources
tested
11
10
9
8
8
Emissions9
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
[mean]
1.5 - 5.22
[2.62]
3.0 - 10.44\
[5.24] ]
0.95 - 0.22
[0. 185]
0.19 - 0.44\
[0.27] ]
2.23 - 4.68
[3.18]
4.46 - 9.36\
[6.36] )
0.385 - 0.53
[0.54]
0.77 - 1.06^
[1.08] |
1.08 - 2.38
[2.5]
2.17 - 4.67\
[5.00] |
AP-42
emission factor
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
3.5 - 7.5
(7.0 - 15.0)
1.25
(2.5)
1.0 - 1.5
(2.0 - 3.0)
1.5 - 7.5
(3.0 - 15.0)
5.0 - 10.0
(10.0 - 20.0)
References
5-8
5-8
5-8
5-8
5-8
I-00/b
aBased on combustible feed.
Additional test data show emissions of 2.14-30.0 ppm S02.
Additional test data show emissions of 38.7-48.4 ppm NOX-
-------
Table 5-10. SUMMARY OF EMISSION TEST DATA FROM LIQUID WASTE INCINERATORS, SI UNITS (ENGLISH UNITS)
Pollutant
Particulates
S02
N0x
HC
HC1
CO
No. of
sources
tested
5
1
2
2
3
1
Uncontrolled
emissions
[mean]
4.15 - 7.63 kg/Mg
[5.8]
8.3 - 15.26 lb/ton\
[11.6] ]
180.0 - 933.0 ng/J
[417.0]
|o.42 - 2.17 lb/106 Btu|
I [0.27] 1
0.36 - 0.81 kg/Mg
[0.59]
(0.72 - 1.61 1b/ton\
1 [1.191] J
-
AP-42
emission factor
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
3.5 - 7.5
(7.0 - 15.0)
1.75
(2.50)
1.0 - 1.5
(2.0 - 3.0)
1.5 - 7.5
5.0 - 10.0
(10.0 - 20.0)
Controlled
emissions
[mean]
0.09 - 9.72 kg/Mg
[2.91]
|0.18 - 19.44 lb/ton\
1 [5.81] |
1.07 - 3.06 kg/Mg
[1.92]
(2.14 - 6.51 lb/ton\
1 [3.85] ]
0.35 - 3.2 kg/Mg
[1.26]
[0.71 - 6.45 Ib/ton]
1 [2.53] J
0.65 - 3.46 kg/Mg
[1.68]
(1.31 - 6.92 Ib/ton^
1 [3.36] |
13 - 20 ppin
9 50% excess air
References
5-1, 5-8,
5-13, 5-14
5-13
5-1, 5-13
5-1, 5-8
5-1, 5-8,
5-13
5-1
T-0076
CJI
I
ro
o
-------
However, these data were not received in time to be incorporated into this
report.
Paint Racks, Wood, and Film Incinerators. Data were obtained on
additional incinerators burning wastes such as paint racks, waste filters,
waste wood, and paper. Table 5-11 summarizes emissions from these sources.
Sources of data included the state agencies of Georgia and Illinois.
Uncontrolled PM emissions comprise most of the data; carbon monoxide was
the only other pollutant tested. Grain loading was the most common method
of reporting emissions from these sources.
Summary of Particulate Data. The particulate emission data have been
summarized in Table 5-12. All emission measurements not previously converted
to g/kg (Ib/ton) were converted for this table based on the conversion
factors in Table 3-3.
5.2 SUMMARY OF EMISSION COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS PROCEDURES
Several test methods were used to measure emissions from incinerators.
All these methods for measurements of criteria and noncriteria pollutants
were separated into the following five categories:
• Tests approved by the EPA
• Modified EPA-approved tests
• Tests using continuous monitoring instrumentation
• Not EPA-approved tests
• Not specified tests
Table 5-13 lists the number of tests gathered in this program for each of
the five categories.
The "EPA-approved" category includes those tests which were performed
using EPA-approved sampling, measurement, and analysis methods. For example,
5-21
-------
85F/I
1-28-80
Table 5-11. SUMMARY OF EMISSION TEST DATA FROM OTHER INDUSTRIAL INCINERATORS,
SI UNITS (ENGLISH UNITS)
en
•U
ro
Pollutant
Participates
CO
Waste
paint
racks
film
wood
scrap
paper.
drums
paint
racks
wood
scrap
No. of
sources
tested
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
AP-42
emission factor
kg/Mg (Ib/ton)
3.5 - 7.5
(7.0 - 15.0)
3.5 - 7.5
(7.0 - 15.0)
3.5 - 7.5
(7.0 - 15.0)
(7.0 - 15.0)
3.5 - 7.5
(7.0 - 15.0)
5.0 - 10.0
(10.0 - 20.0)
5.0 - 10.0
(10.0 - 20.0)
Mean
uncontrolled
emissions
0.10 g/m3
(0.044 gr/scf)
3.1 kg/Mg
(6.2 Ib/ton)
0.06 g/m3
(0.027 gr/scf)
0.41 g/m3
(0.18 gr/scf)
556 ppm
556 ppm
Mean
controlled
emissions
-
-
0.07 g/m33 a
(0.031 gr/scfa)
-
-
310 ppm
References
5-1
5-8
5-1
5-1
5-1
5-1
T-0077
Sfet spray collector, a low efficiency collection device.
Paper drums burned with smokeless powder and activated charcoal
-------
Table 5-12. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE EMISSION DATA COLLECTED
Incinerator
use
Municipal v
Pathological
Sludge
Trash
Gin waste
W1rea
Wire"
Motors
Liquid waste
Paint rack
Film
Wood
Uncontrolled
kg/Mg
(Ib/ton)
0.15-19.0
(0.3-38.1)
0.52-16.3
(1.04-32.61)
1.3-7.3
(2.6-14.6)
0.06-4.05
(0.13-8.11)
4.38-9.84
(8.78-19.73)
7.7-12.4
(15.5-24.9)
36.1-122.5
(72.2-245)
1.5-5.22
(3.0-10.44)
4.1-7.63
(8.3-15.26)
0.36
(0.73)
3.1
(6.2)
0.22
(0.45)
Controlled
kg/Mg
(Ib/ton)
0.37-0.91
(0.73-1.82)
0.05-17.1
(0.10-34.2)
0.09-3.3
(0.18-6.6)
0.35-1.0
(0.70-2.0)
13.23-18.3
(26.27-37.57)
0.63-7.45
(1.26-14.91)
12.9-28.5
(25.8-57.11)
-
0.09-9.72
(0.18-19.44)
-
-
0.26
(0.52)
AP-42
kg/Mg
(Ib/ton)
7.5-15
(15-30)
4
8
50
100
3.5-7.5
7-15
3.5-7.5
7-15
3.5-7.5
7-15
3.5-7.5
7-15
3.5-7.5
7-15
3.5-7.5
7-15
3.5-7.5
7-15
3.5-7.5
7-15
3.5-7.5
7-15
aper Mg(ton) feed
per i^g(ton) combustible
5-23-
-------
Table 5-13. SUMMARY OF TEST METHODS - INCINERATORS
Source type
Municipal
refuse
incinerators
Pathological
incinerators
Sewage and
ind. sludge
incinerators
Agricultural
refuse
incinerators
Trash and
rubbish
incinerators
General
ind. refuse
incinerators
TOTAL
PERCENT
OF TOTAL
Modified
EPA- EPA-
approved approved
37 2
47 7
20 0
10 0
107 4
55 2
276 15
54 2
Number of tests
Continuous
monitoring
0
0
1
0
0
1
2
1
Not
EPA
approved
3
8
8
0
26
7
52
10
Not
specified
0
75
42
0
34
17
168
33
5-24
-------
participate emissions were measured using Test Methods 1 through 5 published
by EPA in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Similarly, S02 and N0x
emissions were tested using EPA-approved Methods 6 and 7, also published in
40 CFR 60 App. A.
The large majority of incinerators burning municipal waste, agricul-
tural refuse, trash and rubbish, and general industrial refuse were tested
with EPA reference methods. Overall, 54 percent of the incinerators were
reported to have been specifically tested with EPA reference methods.
Modified EPA-approved tests included those tests that specifically
reported using equipment and/or procedures similar to but not exactly the
same as those approved by the EPA. The deviations were often suggested by
the State air pollution agencies responsible for the tests. For example,
in a few instances, the impinger section of the equipment assembly for
particulate emission testing was modified to allow for combined sampling of
PM and S02 and noncriteria pollutants such as Hg or C12. The combined
pollutant sampling procedures, however, represent approved deviations from
the specified EPA Test Method 5. Particulate emission sampling using
modified EPA equipment and procedures comprised only 2 percent of the
total. Often, detailed information on field test procedures and equipment
was not available. Only those tests which specifically reported some
deviation from EPA methodology were counted as something other than EPA-
approved.
Continuous monitoring instrumentation is often used to measure gaseous
emissions of pollutants such as NO , CO, and, at times, S02. Even though
^
the FEDERAL REGISTER requires wet chemical analysis for most of these
pollutants, continuous monitoring with electronic instrumentation is also
5-25
-------
approved as a reliable measurement technique. For incinerator emission
data summarized in this report, continuous monitoring was used primarily to
measure emissions from sludge and industrial refuse incinerators. Only 2
percent of the tests specifically reported using continuous monitoring.
This low percentage reflects the small number of tests performed to measure
emissions of pollutants other than particulates.
The non-EPA approved category primarily included all particulate tests
using the ASME Method. Before 1971, the ASME method of PM measurement was
generally used because the EPA had not yet standardized its procedure. The
ASME Method measured in-stack PM at the actual stack temperature. However,
EPA Test Method 5 measures PM at a constant 121°C (250°F) regardless of
actual stack temperature. In addition, Test Method 5 includes filter specifica-
tions which are considerably more stringent than ASME filter specifications.
The implications are that although the two methods may give nearly identical
measurements of uncontrolled emissions, their measurements of controlled
emissions may differ significantly, especially if the stack temperature is
relatively low.
Approximately 35 percent of all field test data did not specify either
the equipment or the procedure used. However, it can be assumed that, in
most cases, EPA-approved or modified-approved test methods were probably
used because much of the data were obtained by State and local air pollution
control agencies, which generally follow accepted test procedures in deter-
mining regulatory compliance of a source. Thus, the methods used in most
tests with unspecified equipment or procedures were acceptable to the State
agency and probably to the EPA.
5-26
-------
The EPA test methods, as published in the FEDERAL REGISTER, are generally
applicable to the measurement of air pollutants from incinerators. Municipal
incinerators are similar in size and operation to stoker-fed industrial-sized
boilers burning coal.
EPA sampling procedures have been used successfully to report represen-
tative emissions from those sources. However, the applicability of EPA
Method 5 (PM measurement) to the accurate measurement of emissions from
much smaller industrial and commercial incinerators, such as those burning
trash and general refuse, may be in question for two reasons. First, the
stacks from small incinerators may not be long enough to permit sampling at
the necessary distance (either upstream or downstream) from a disturbance
in stack gas flow. Second, the inner diameter of many stacks may be so
small that wall effects (on gas flow) can be significant, thus invalidating
the test procedure. However, these comments are only speculative because
the time constraints of this program did not allow an in-depth analysis of
field test procedures; therefore, potential sources of error that might
invalidate the data could not be identified.
5.3 LOCAL AMBIENT IMPACT
One criterion for determining priorities in establishing an NSPS is
the extent to which the pollutants from the source category may reasonably
be anticipated to endanger public health. This criterion has been evaluated
by estimating the local impact for a typical new industrial incinerator.
Results are presented here only for motor and small capacity wire incinerators
because they are the only ones that will be manufactured in any noticeable
quantities in the future. Table 5-14 summarizes the maximum 24-hour average
ground level concentrations.
5-27
-------
Table 5-14. MAXIMUM 24-HOUR AVERAGE GROUND LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS OF
PARTICULATE MATTER
(Subcategories with New Installation Activity)
Population
segment
Classification
Estimated
ground level
concentration
(ug/m3)
Electric motor
Typical
500
16
Copper wire
Typical
1000
26
5-28
-------
The local impact of an incinerator was evaluated by calculating ground
level concentrations by the procedures in Turner's Workbook of Atmospheric
Dispersion Estimates. The methodology in the workbook is most applicable
to gaseous pollutants. However, the particulate emissions are assumed to
be light enough to behave similarly to a gas. In actuality, the heavier
particulates will fall out of the plume. So this approach will tend to
overestimate concentrations.
To estimate the maximum probable impact, some worst case assumptions
have been made. It is assumed that the units will operate at full capacity
and that they run continuously for 8 hours. Generally none of these units
runs at the maximum capacity. Motor incinerators typically only run at 20
percent of their capacity. An emission level of 0.2 grains/dscf was used
for all the units that were modeled. This emission level was selected
because 62 percent of all States and an even higher percentage of heavily
industrialized States have an emission limitation equal to or less than
0.2 gr/dscf. Most resource recovery incinerators are subject to a
0.1 gr/dscf emission standard. Very low vertical mixing was assumed and
class F stability was selected. These conditions occur only with high cloud
cover and 2-3 mile per hour winds. All these assumptions should provide an
overestimate of the maximum ground level concentrations.
The stack parameters which are summarized in Table 5-15 chosen for each
of the incinerators were values that were given for actual units in test
reports, permit applications, and manufacturers' literature. The maximum
value of 26 micrograms per cubic meter is 10 percent of the 24-hour national
primary ambient air quality standard for particulate matter. In light of
all the worst case assumptions made in deriving the concentration, the local
impacts of these units do not provide a strong reason to develop a standard.
5-29
-------
Table 5-15. STACK PARAMETERS
Stack
parameters
Height (m)
Diameter (m)
Temperature (°K)
Velocity (m/s)
Volumetric flow (m3/s)
PM emissions (g/s)
Copper wire
incinerator
7.62
0.61
422.0
2.43
0.708
0.324
Electric motor
incinerator
4.57
0.26
449.0
4.57
0.233
0.107
5.4 NATIONWIDE EMISSIONS AND POTENTIAL BENEFIT
J To assess the relative importance of present development of an NSPS
for this source category, total nationwide emission rates were estimated
for the entire population of industrial incinerators. The potential
benefit from an NSPS has also been estimated as the total tons of
particulate matter a standard would have the potential to prevent from
entering the atmosphere each year.
For 1978 and 1983, the SIP estimates were based on the typical SIP
level of 0.2 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) for all
incinerators except conical units. The conical national emissions estimate
was obtained directly from available literature. The typical SIP emission
level based on conversion factors given in Chapter 3 is equivalent to 1.67 kg
of particulate matter per megagram (Mg) of waste (3.33 Ib/ton). The 1978
and 1983 SIP emission levels for the volume reduction, toxicity reduction,
5-30
-------
and off-site segments were calculated as the product of the total waste
processed and the 1.67 kg/Mg emission factor. The total waste processed by
the volume reduction and toxicity reduction population segments was calculated
as the product of the number of units in Table 4-14, the mean capacities in
Table 4-7, and the mean annual hours of operation in Table 4-9. The results
are presented in Table 5-16.
Table 5-16. PROJECTED WASTE PROCESSED ANNUALLY IN INDUSTRIAL INCINERATORS
Waste processed annually in thousands of megagrams
(thousand tons)
Population ——
segment
Volume reduction 760 550
(840) (610)
Toxicity reduction 1800 1200
(2000) (1300)
The annual amount of waste processed at a typical off-site incinerator
was estimated from available literature at 23,420 Mg (26,762 tons) per
19
year. The number of units has been estimated at 10 for both 1980 and
1985, giving a total annual amount of waste processed of 234,000 Mg
(267,000 tons).
The national emissions from the resource recovery segment of the
population were estimated by disaggregating the group into its six major
subcategories—copper wire, electric motor, x-ray film, steel drum, brake
shoes, and other. The SIP level emissions for typical copper wire and
electric motor units are 3.3 and 0.23 Mg (3.6 and 0.2 tons) per year,
5-31
-------
respectively. This assumes typical capacities of 230 kg/hr (5001b/hr) for
electric motor units and 450 kg/hr (1,000 Ib/hr) for copper wire units.
The nationwide emissions for these two subcategories were estimated as the
product of the annual SIP level emission factor for a typical unit and the
population estimates from Chapter 4. The nationwide emissions of the
remaining subcategories of resource recovery units were estimated as the
product of the 1.67 kg/Mg (3.33 Ib/ton) emission factor, the average capacity,
the annual hours of operation for the resource recovery segment as shown in
Tables 4-7 and 4-9, and the population estimates for each subcategory
discussed in Chapter 4.
The projected 1980 and 1985 nationwide particulate emissions for
the industrial incinerator population are summarized in Table 5-17. A
60 percent drop in total particulate emissions is projected over the next
5 years, due almost entirely to the shrinking population size, because of
minimal new installations and rapid obsolescence of existing units. The
only population segment for which an increase in nationwide emissions is
projected is the resource recovery unit population. This segment will
experience a 30 percent increase in population size and only a 5 percent
increase in total emissions. This disproportionate change in emissions
is a result of expansion in the population of resource recovery units
attributable almost entirely to electric motor incinerators. These units
typically emit 0.23 Mg (0.25 tons) of particulate matter per year, a
relatively small amount compared to the 1978 average emissions for all
resource recovery units of 1.2 Mg (1.3 tons).
5-32
-------
Table 5-17. PROJECTED NATIONWIDE PARTICULATE EMISSIONS,
MEGAGRAMS/YEAR (TONS/YEAR)
Population
segment
Volume reduction
Toxicity reduction
Resource recovery
Off-site
Conical
TOTAL
Emission
1980
SIP
1300
(1400)
3000
(3300)
2100
(2300)
390
(430)
9100
(10000)
16000
(18000)
level
1985
SIP
920
(1000)
2000
(2200)
2200
(2400)
390
(430)
820
(900)
6300
(6900)
5-33
-------
The potential benefit from an NSPS has been measured in terms of
the amount of particulate matter a standard would have the potential to
prevent from entering the atmosphere each year. The uncontrolled, SIP,
and potential NSPS emissions are summarized in Table 5-18 for the total
new installation population and typical individual units. The segments
for which new installations are expected are the volume reduction,
toxicity reduction, electric motor, copper wire, and other subcategories of
the resource recovery segment. The maximum benefit from an NSPS is the
pollutant reduction that can be obtained in addition to what the SIPs
already require. The expected reduction for typical units is 0.42 Mg
(0.46 ton) for volume reduction and 1.7 Mg (1.8 tons) for toxicity
reduction. This reduction is estimated at 0.23 and 3.3 Mg (0.25 and
3.6 tons) of particulates per year for electric motor and copper wire
incinerators, respectively. This would result in a maximum nationwide
particulate matter benefit for the entire new installation population
of only 250 Mg/yr (280 tons/yr).
Regulations for the operation of hazardous waste incinerators that
were proposed December 18, 1978, under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) limit the emissions from affected incinerators to
0.08 gr/dscf. If these regulations are promulgated, they would reduce the
benefit to be derived from an NSPS. If RCRA were to be applicable only
to the off-side and toxicity segments, the benefit of an NSPS would be
reduced to 200 Mg (220 tons) of particulate matter to be prevented from
entering the atmosphere each year by 1985. However, the hazardous
5-34
-------
Table 5-18. NATIONWIDE EMISSIONS FROM NEW INDUSTRIAL INCINERATORS
Population
segment
Volume
reduction
Toxic Hy
reduction
Resource
recovery
Subcategory
All
All
Electric
motor
Copper
wired
Typical
capacity
kg/hr
(Ib/hr)
202
(445)
368
(310)
230
(500)
450
(1000)
No. of new
installa-
tions
(1978-1983)
63
32
500
25
Particulate matter
emissions, meqagrams/year
Typical unit
Uncontrolled
3.2
(3.5)
21
(23)
3.3
(3.6)
41
(45)
SIPb NSPSC
0.70 0.28
(0.77) (0.31)
2.8 1.1
(3.0) (1.2)
0.23 0.018
(0.25) (0.020)
3.3 0.36
(3.6) (0.40)
Note: The values In this table do not sum exactly because of unit conversions,
rounding, and the maintenance of two significant figures.
Maximum
(Ts - Tn)
0.42
(0.46)
1.7
(1.8)
0.21
(0.23)
2.9
(3.2)
TOTAL
(tons/yr)a
Total
Uncontrolled SIPb
(Ts)
200
(220)
670
(700)
1700
(1900)
1100
(1200)
3700
(4000)
44
(49)
90
(96)
110
(120)
82
(90)
330
(360)
population
NSPSC
(Tn)
18
(20)
35
(38)
9
(10)
9
(10)
71
(78)
Maximum
(Ts - Tn)
26
(29)
54
(58)
100
(no)
73
(80)
250
(280)
U1
I
CO
tfl
aAssumes 7480 hours of operation annually at full capacity for toxicity reduction units and 2080 hours of
operation annually at full capacity for all other units.
bTypical SIP level of 0.2 gr/dscf.
cBased on hypothetical NSPS of 0.08 gr/dscf for volume and toxicity reduction units and the lowest emission rate
per weight of feed found In available test data for resource recovery units.
The values are for small capacity units; no new installations of large units are expected.
-------
waste incinerator regulations may apply to a cross-section of the
industrial incinerator population. If so, the benefit to be derived
from an NSPS would be reduced even further.
Some of the same factors that are reducing the potential benefit
that can be expected from an industrial incinerator NSPS are increasing
the potential benefit from a nonfossil-fueled boiler (NFFB) NSPS.
Nonfossil-fueled boilers and land disposal techniques are, in some
cases, economically attractive alternatives to incineration. As RCRA
requirements and decreasing land availability attach additional
economic burdens to land disposal, and as increased fossil fuel costs
improve the economics of nonfossil fuels as an energy source, there
will be additional incentive for nonfossil-fueled boiler new installation
activity. The greater this new installation activity, the greater will
be the potential benefit of an NSPS for NFFBs.
5-36
-------
5.5 REFERENCES
1. Emission test data. Obtained from Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency by Gardner, R. I., Acurex. December 28, 1978.
2. Eastman Kodak incineration test data obtained by GCA/Technology Division.
November 9, 1978.
3. Shannon, L. J., and M. P. Schrag. Environmental Impact of Waste-to-
Energy Systems. MRI Report. October 1976.
4. Emissions data. Obtained from Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
Air Quality Division, Grosse Point-Clinton Refuse Disposal Authority,
by Gardner, R. I., Acurex. June 8, 1977.
5. Source test report of South Shore Incinerator. Brooklyn, New York.
Entropy Environmentalists. Undated.
6. Source Test Report, 73rd Street Municipal Incinerator. New York,
New York. Environmental Engineering Incorporated. Gainesville,
Florida. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Test No. 71-C1-14.
1971.
7. Source Test Report, S. W. Brooklyn Municipal Incinerator, New York,
New York. Environmental Engineering Incorporated. Gainesville,
Florida. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Test No. 71-C1-15.
1971.
8. Emission test data. Obtained at Georgia Environmental Protection
Division, Air Protection Branch, by Gardner, R. I., Acurex.
December 1978.
9. Emission test data. Obtained at Chicago Department of Environmental
Control by Gardner, R. I., Acurex. December 1978.
10. Emission test data. Obtained from State of California, Air Resources
Board, by Gardner, R. I., Acurex. December 1978.
11. Emission test data. Obtained from Fresno County Air Pollution Control
District, California, by Gardner, R. I., Acurex. December 1978.
12. Letter and attachments from Cuffe, S. T., U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, to Watson, J. J., Acurex. December 22, 1978.
SOTDAT computer data printout.
13. Steiner, J., D. Smith, and M. L. Jacobs. Destruction of Organochlorine
Wastes by a Liquid Waste Incinerator. Acurex Corporation. Mountain
View, California (for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency). Acurex
Final Report No. 78-281. March 1978. p. 42-53.
5-37
-------
14. Clausen, J. F., R. J. Johnson, and C. A. Zee. Destroying Chemical
Wastes in Commercial Scale Incinerators. Facility Report Number I -
The Marquardt Company. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Washington, D.C. Publication No. SW-122c. April 1977. p. 71.
15. Emission test data. Obtained from San Francisco Bay Area Air Pollution
Control District by Wasilewski, J., Acurex. December 1978.
16. Emission test data. Obtained from Indiana State Board of Health by
Acurex. December 1978.
17. Emission test data. Obtained from Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality by Wasilewskiv J., Acurex. December 1978.
18. Ross Hoffman Associates. Evaluation of Small Modular Incinerators in
Municipal Plants. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Solid Waste Management, Washington, D.C. Publication No. SW-113c.
1976. p. 83-91.
19. Shih, C. C., J. E. Cotter, D. Dean, S. F. Paige, E. P. Pulaski, and
C. F. Thome. Comparative Cost Analysis and Environmental Assessment
for Disposal of Organochlorine Wastes. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Washington, D.C. Publication No. EPA-600/2-78-190.
August 1978. p. 13.
5-38
-------
6. CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
Particulate matter is the only air pollutant emitted from incinerators
for which control devices are generally applied. The other air pollutants
normally associated with incinerators—visible emissions and odoi—are con-
trolled by proper operation of the incinerator. Gaseous air pollutants, such
as NO and S02, are generally not emitted from incinerators in sufficient
^\
quantity to have warranted control to date. The sulfur content of the material
generally being incinerated is usually low, and the combustion temperature is
usually too low to create large amounts of NO . Exceptions are incinerators
A
that burn materials high in sulfur or nitrogen content and slagging incinera-
tors that reach combustion temperatures above 3000°F, at which substantial
amounts of NO are formed.
6.1 CURRENT CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
Current particulate control technologies for industrial incinerators
include afterburners, scrubbers, and baghouses. Afterburners are used on all
the units for which the controls are known and were located during this study.
No uncontrolled units were located; apparently, existing regulations have been
effective in implementing minimum controls at least on units included in the
State records. The supplemental data collected on resource recovery units
revealed some operating incinerators equipped with air pollution controls in
addition to afterburners. Sources of the supplemental data on resource recov-
ery incinerators included numerous manufacturers and owners, 22 State air
pollution agencies, and 16 local agencies. The operating control technologies
are summarized in Table 6-1.
6-1
-------
Table 6-1. DEMONSTRATED CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
Population
segment
Copper wire
Electric motor
X-ray film
Steel drum
Brake shoes
Control technology
Wet
Afterburner scrubber
X X
X
X X
X
X
Fabric
filter
X
Afterburners are used to control particulates on all resource recovery
units located during this study. Tests using afterburners have shown particu-
late emission reductions in excess of 90 percent on wire, brake, and motor
incinerators. This control device is usually sufficient to meet SIP emission
limitations, and, since afterburners have historically been the least expensive
control method, they have been universally applied for regulatory compliance.
From an existing population of over 1,000 units, 12 operating units were
located with additional controls downstream from the afterburner. No brake,
motor, or drum units equipped with additional controls were located. One
owner of a drum incinerator tried to control emissions with a scrubber, but
2
the system failed because of poor design and is no longer in use.
6-2
-------
Scrubbers have been demonstrated on both wire and x-ray incinerators.
They are used in conjunction with, rather than in place of, the afterburner.
Both wire and x-ray incineration can result in some emissions of acid gases
and chlorine. The scrubbers are installed primarily to control those pollu-
tants rather than the particulate matter.
Six units with scrubbers were located with the help of State agencies.
The State records did not contain any design data. The contacts at two sites
refused to submit any information over the telephone. Three other sites were
visited. All three scrubbers were low efficiency systems, bubblers and spray
chambers, with pressure drops of less than 10 inches of water. No test data
3
were obtained for any of the scrubbers.
The high price of auxiliary fuel motivated one owner of a wire incinerator
to try to replace an afterburner with a scrubber to control particulates. The
unit controlled by the scrubber alone was unable to meet the State visible
emissions regulation and had to be shut down. The failure was attributed by
the operator of the facility to a poorly designed scrubber rather than to the
A
inability of the technology to attain compliance.
On the incinerators surveyed, baghouses are in use only on x-ray units
and have been installed only in conjunction with an afterburner, a waste heat
boiler, and a scrubber. A package system including all the controls is now
being sold by one supplier. The location of one unit is known, and six other
undisclosed installations exist. One scrap yard tried to use a baghouse to
control the emissions from a wire incinerator, but because of problems with
visible emissions, the incinerator is no longer in use.
6-3
-------
6.2 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGY
Most of the established control technologies for fossil-fueled combustors,
such as ESPs and baghouses, have already been applied to municipal inciner-
ators. Most are likely to be applicable to the industrial incinerator category
as well because of waste and equipment similarities. Also, research is being
conducted on fabric filter design in an effort to produce a fabric filter that
can withstand the temperature excursions encountered in incinerator applications.
Emerging technologies for fossil-fueled combustors are candidates for additional
technology transfer. For instance, fluidized bed combustion is currently an
emerging technology for fossil-fueled combustors and is at least a proven
technology for certain types of waste for incinerators. Phenol and methyl
methacrylate wasles have been destroyed in an FBC incinerator.
Some new control techniques being used in limited applications with
waste-fired combustors could also be used on incinerators. Dry scrubbers or
gravel-bed filters are being used on some wood waste-fired boilers with vary-
ing degrees of success.
6-4
-------
6.4 REFERENCES
1. Air Pollution Engineering Manual, 2nd edition. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. Publication No. AP-40. May 1973.
p. 496-531.
2. Telecon. Upchurch, J., Acurex, with Krinov, S. , Queen City Barrel
Company. April 3, 1979. Industrial incinerators.
3. Memo from Gardner, R. I., Acurex, to Rosensteel, R., EPA. April 23, 1979.
Trip report on Keltek.
4. Memo from Gardner, R. I., Acurex, to Rosensteel, R. , EPA. April 23, 1979.
Trip report on Suisman and Blumenthal.
5. Letter and attachments from Norris, D. P., TR Systems Incorporated,
to S. Smith, Acurex. April 3, 1979. Manufacturer's literature.
6. Telecon. Gardner, R. I., Acurex, with Weiscopf, K., Massachussetts
Environmental Protection Agency. March 30, 1979. Industrial
incinerators.
7. Destroying Chemical Wastes in Commercial Scale -Incinerators, Final
Report - Phase II. TRW Defense and Space Systems Group (for
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Contract No. 68-01-2966).
November 1977. p. 78-87.
.4
8. Memo from Watson, J. , Acurex, to Acurex Waste-Fired Boiler File.
January 4, 1979. New Bern, Weyerhaeuser Pulp Mill plant trip.
6-5
-------
7. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results of this study, the following recommendations are
made:
1. EPA should not move toward promulgating a new source performance
standard for industrial incinerators based on data collected at the
time of this study. This recommendation is based on the conclusion
that an NSPS would not have a substantial impact on future emissions
from this source category because:
a. New installation activity is very limited except for very small
capacity units which have relatively insignificant emissions.
b. Existing SIPs effectively limit particulate emissions to
90 percent of the uncontrolled level. Containing the remaining
10 percent (theoretical limit) of particulate emissions from
the new installations that are projected over the next 5 years
is a small maximum benefit when compared to the potential benefit
from developing NSPS for other categories.
c. Incinerators are being phased out in favor of landfills and
nonfossil fuel-fired boilers.
2. In the event background data are collected for a standard, the
industrial incinerator source category should be further classified
into subcategories based on incinerator use because the economic,
energy, and environmental factors that will influence the respective
impact analyses will be highly dependent upon the unit's use.
Different emission limits should be considered for each subcategory.
The proposed classifications are:
7-1
-------
a. Volume reduction incinerators.
b. Toxicity reduction incinerators (on- and off-site).
c. Resource recovery incinerators.
3. OAQPS should remain abreast of discussions and tests relevant to the
use of cement kilns as a detoxification technique for chlorinated
hydrocarbons. If this incineration approach becomes an acceptable
practice, EPA should consider the need for a more stringent NSPS or
a NESHAP for cement kilns.
4. OAQPS should consider that factors that are decreasing the new
installation activity of industrial incinerators may serve as an
impetus for new NFFB installations, resulting in increased benefits
from an NSPS for NFFBs.
5. Future investigations into incinerators should continue to treat the
industrial segment separately from the commercial segment of the
population because of the significant differences in the character-
istics of each segment's waste stream.
7-2
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-450/3-80-13
2
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Source Category Survey:
Industrial Incinerators
7. AUTHOR(S)
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
May 1980
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANJZATION NAME AND ADDRESS -
Acurex Corporation
Route 1, Box 423
Morn svi lie, NC 27560
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
DAA for Air Quality Planning and Standards
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, N. C. 27711
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-3064
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/200/04
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The report contains background information which was used for determining the
need for new source performance standards (NSPS) for industrial incinerators
in accordance with Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. The industrial incinerator
population is surveyed and categorized by process type, capacity, class of owner,
and other factors. Incinerator designs, control strategies, and state and local
regulations are discussed. The impact of a potential NSPS on particulate
emissions is calculated.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Air Pollution
Pollution Control
Incinerators
Industrial Waste
Waste Disposal
Resource Recovery
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDI riON is OBSOLETE
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Air Pollution Control
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
c. COSATI Held/Group
13B
21. NO. OF PAGES
190
22. PRICE
------- |