DCN 87-239-001-30-06
EPA Contract No. 68-02-4330
Work Assignment No. 30
HOSPITAL WASTE COMBUSTION STUDY
DATA GATHERING PHASE
FINAL DRAFT REPORT
Prepared for:
Ray Morrison
Pollutant Assessment Branch
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared by:
Radian Corporation
Post Office Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
October 1987
-------
- .
'''
•j: 'ce or 4,r i_._jji:v Panning anrl Stancards
Research Triangle Pa-x. .\orrh Carolina 27711
18 •'•:/ :<
ANNOUNCEMENT OF DISTRIBUTION OF DRAFT HOSPITAL
WASTE INCINERATOR REPORT AND REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
Enclosed for your review is a copy of the final draft report entitled
"Hospital Haste Combustion Study - Data Gathering Phase" prepared for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the Radian Corporation. This
draft report summarizes readily available information on the hospital waste
combustion industry including waste characterization, industry technology,
multipoliutant air emissions data, emission control technologies, current
regulation and control strategies, and hospital waste combustor population
characteristics, including suggested model plant parameters for use in
exposure model ing.
This study of muUipollutant emissions from the combustion of hospital
waste was initiated by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
in response to increasing concerns over the potential public health impacts
from the disposal of hospital wastes, including incineration and other
methods of disposal. Hospital wastes contain many of the materials- found
in municipal waste in addition to the "red" and "orange" bag waste. These
nospita' wastes contain both potentially toxic and infectious material.
Concerns are not only for the release of toxic air emissions such as dioxins
and dibenzofurans, other products of incomplete combustion, and inorganic
pollutants such as hydrogen chloride, but also for the possibility that
infectious micro-organisms (e.g., viruses) may survive the combustion
processes.
We would like for you and your staff to review, use and comment, on
this draft hospital waste combustion report. We would like for you to
provide not only yo'ur comments and suggestions but also any additional
data or information you might have concerning facility population, trace
air emissions, process and control equipment, proposed or projected control
regulations and control technology, etc. He plan to revise the draft report
to address your comments and suggestions and include, where applicable, the
information and data you send. Since there is a general lack of information
and data pertaining to hospital waste combustion, the additional information
and data you provide will be most useful in addressing the need to regulate
hospital waste combustion emissions.
°leise forward by April ^3, 1983 your comments, suggestions and data
to: Rayourn Morrison, Acting Chief, Program Analysis and Technology Section,
'1D-12, U.S. (invironnentai 3rotection Agency, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711.
-------
If you have any questions pl'ease contact me (910-541-5330; FTS 629-
5330) or David Cleverly (919-541-5332; FTS 629-5332).
Sincerity,
Rayburn Morrison, Acting Chief
rogram Analysis and Technology Section
Pollutant Assessment Branch
Enclosure
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY 1-1
1.2 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION 1-4
1.3 REFERENCES 1-13
2.0 PROCESSES AND EQUIPMENT 2-1
2.1 INCINERATOR TECHNOLOGY 2-2
2.1.1 Excess A1r Incinerators 2-2
2.1.2 Controlled A1r Incinerators 2-6
2.1.3 Rotary Kiln Incinerators 2-10
2.2 WASTE FEED AND ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS 2-12
2.3 WASTE HEAT RECOVERY 2-15
2.4 REFERENCES 2-17
3.0 AIR EMISSIONS/FACTORS FOR HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATORS 3-1
3.1 FORMATION MECHANISMS 3-1
3.1.1 Acid Gases 3-1
3.1.1.1 Hydrochloric Acid 3-3
3.1.1.2 Sulfur Dioxide 3-3
3.1.1.3 Nitrogen Oxides 3-3
3.1.2 Particulate Matter 3-4
3.1.3 Trace Metals 3-7
3.1.4 Organic Emissions 3-8
3.1.4.1 Dioxins and Furans 3-10
3.1.4.2 Low Molecular Weight Organic Compounds 3-12
3.1.4.3 Carbon Monoxide 3-13
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section Page
3.2 EMISSIONS TEST DATA 3-13
3.2.1 Acid Gases 3-15
3.2.2 Participate Matter 3-18
3.2.3 Trace Metals 3-22
3.2.4 Organic Emissions 3-24
3.2.5 Pathogens 3-28
3.3 REFERENCES 3-31
4.0 CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES AND EFFICIENCIES 4-1
4.1 SOURCE. SEPARATION 4-1
4.2 COMBUSTION CONTROL 4-2
4.2.1 Acid Gas Control .....4-3
4.2.2 Participate Matter Control 4-5
4.2.3 Trace Metals Control 4-7
4.2.4 Polycycllc Organic Matter (POM), D1ox1n and Furans...4-11
4.2.4.1 Equilibrium Considerations 4-12
4.2.4.2 Kinetic Considerations 4-14
4.2.4.3 Fuel Effects 4-18
4.2.4.4. Air Distribution Effects in Controlled
Air Incinerators 4-21
4.2.4.5 Thermal Environment 4-23
4.2.4.6 POM, 01 oxin and Furan Summary 4-28
4.3 FLUE GAS CONTROLS 4-28
4.3.1 Fabric Filters (Baghouses) 4-29
4.3.2 Scrubbers 4'31
4.3.3 Afterburners 4-*0
4.4 REFERENCES 4'41
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Section
5.0 REGULATORY STATUS AND STRATEGIES 5-1
5.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS 5-1
5.2 STATE REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS 5-3
5.3 FOREIGN REGULATIONS 5-7
5.4 REFERENCES 5-10
6.0 HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATOR MODEL PLANTS 6-1
6.1 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS 6-1
6.1.1 Model Incinerator Stack Parameters 6^5
6.1.2 Model Incinerator Operating Parameters 6-15
. 6,2 REFERENCES 6-21
APPENDIX A - STATE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO INFECTIOUS WASTE
MANAGEMENT A-l
iii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
2-1 Multiple-Chamber Pathological Waste Incinerator 2-4
2-2 In-Line Multiple-Chamber Incinerator 2-5
2-3 Schematic for Controlled Air Incinerator 2-7
2-4 Adiabatic Temperature Versus Excess Air for a Controlled
Air Incinerator 2-9
2-5 Schematic for Rotary Kiln Incinerator 2-11
2-6 Schematic and Example Picture of a Mechanical Loading
System 2-13
3-1 Impact of Temperature and Fuel Nitrogen on NO Emissions
for Excess Air Conditions 3-5
3-2 Process Schematic for Hospital Waste Combustion.. 3-9
3-3 Hypothetical Mechanisms of Oioxin Formation Chemistry 3-11
4-1 Fraction of As and Sb Collected with Fume as a Function
of the Extent of Total Ash Vaporization (Data Points) 4-8
4-2 Concentration of Selected Elements in Ultrafine
Particulates as a Function of Reciprocal Particle
Diameter 4-10
4-3 Adiabatic Equilibrium Species Distribution 4-15
4-4 First Stage Hydrocarbon Production 4-17
4-5 One Possible Formation Mechanism for 2,4,7,8 - TCDD 4-19
4-6 Benzo(a)Pyrene Emissions from Coal, Oil, and Natural Gas
Heat-Generation Processes 4-20
4-7 Variation of Adiabatic Flame Temperature with Percent
Theoretical Air and Percent Moisture in the MSW 4-25
4-8 Hydrocarbon Breakthrough as a Function of Percent
Theoretical Air 4-27
4-9 Typical Fabric Filter System 4-30
4-10 Open Spray Tower Scrubber 4-33
iv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Figure Page
4-11 Fixed Orifice Scrubber 4-34
4-12 Baffle Impingement Scrubber 4-35
4-13 High Energy Venturi Scrubber 4-36
4-14 Teller Dry Scrubbing System 4-39
6-1 Distribution of Hospital Sizes According to Bed Number 6-3
6-2 Distribution of Incinerator Units in N.Y. Database
According to Selected Waste Feed Rate Ranges 6-4
6-3 Distribution of Incinerator Units 1n N.Y. Database with
Waste Feed Rates Less than 200 Ib/hr According to
Selected Feed Rate Ranges... 6-6
6-4 Average, High and Low Stack Heights According to Selected
Feed Rate Ranges 6-7
6-5 Average, High and Low Stack Gas Exit Temperature According
to Selected Feed Rate Ranges 6-9
6-6 Average, High and Low Stack Diameter According to Selected
Feed Rate Ranges 6-10
6-7 Average, High and Low Stack Gas Exit Velocities According
to Selected Feed Rate Ranges 6-11
6-8 Average, High and Low Stack Diameters According to Selected
Feed Rate Ranges 6-12
6-9 Annual Operating Hours According to Selected Feed Rate
Changes 6-17
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table ' Page
1-1 Hospital Waste Characterization 1-6
1-2 Canadian Characterization of Biomedical Waste 1-7
1-3 Incinerator Institute of America Solid Waste
Classifications 1-9
1-4 Ultimate Analyses of Four Plastics 1-12
3-1 Pollutants of Interest. 3-2
3-2 Test Site Design and Operating Parameters for Detailed
Tests 3-14
3-3 Data/Factors for Hydrochloric Acid Emissions from Hospital
Waste Incinerators 3-16
3-4 Data/Factors for SO- arid NO Emissions from Hospital Waste
Incinerators 3-19
3-5 Data/Factors for Particulate Emissions from Hospital Waste
Incinerators 3-20
3-6 Data/Factors for Trace Element Emissions from Hospital
Waste Incinerators 3-23
3-7 Data/Factors for Dioxin Emissions from Hospital Waste
Incinerators 3-25
3-8 Data/Factors for Furan Emissions from Hospital Waste
Incinerators 3-26
3-9 Fabric Filter Dioxin/Furan Ash Analysis 3-27
3-10 Emission Factors for Selected Organic Low Molecular Weight
Organics from Hospital Waste Incinerators 3-29
3-11 Emissions/Factors for Carbon Monoxide and Hydrocarbon
Emissions from Hospital Waste Incinerators 3-30
5-1 Guideline Emission Limits for Incinerators Burning
Hospital Waste 5-6
5-2 Acceptable Annual Ambient Concentrations Reported for
Selected Pollutants 5-8
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table
5-3 Foreign Emission Regulations for Hospital Waste 5-9
6-1 Summary of Model Incinerator Stack Parameters 6-14
6-2 Summary of Emissions Factors and Rates for Hospital
Incinerator Model Sizes 6-18
VII
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report contains the results of a study of air emissions from
hospital waste combustion. It represents an effort to gather currently
available data in a manner that will allow the EPA to assess the need for
and feasibility of regulating multipollutant emissions from hospital waste
combustion. The work was performed by Radian Corporation under contract to
EPA's Pollutant Analysis Branch of the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards
During the course of this study, information was gathered from state
and local environmental agencies, from vendors of incineration equipment,
from the open technical literature, from the American Hospital Association,
and from visits to three incineration facilities. Information was sought
concerning feed characteristics, combustor designs and operating
characteristics, emissions of-air pollutants, applied and potential control
technology, numbers and locations of hospital waste combustors, and
applicable regulations. In addition, parameters needed to model exposure
and health risk have been developed for use in EPA's Human Exposure Model.
The remainder of Section 1 is devoted to a description of the industry
(Section 1.1) and characterization of hospital waste (Section 1.2).
Section 2.0 contains information about the processes and equipment used for
hospital waste combustion. Data gathered concerning air pollutants emitted
from hospital waste incinerators and their formation in the combustion
•
process are presented in Section 3.0. Section 4.0 contains a discussion of
control techniques and possible control efficiencies. Environmental
regulations affecting hospital waste combustion are presented in
Section 5.0. Model plants suitable for EPA's use in assessing regulatory
strategies are developed in Section 6.0.
1.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE INDUSTRY
"Hospital waste incineration" refers to the combustion of wastes
produced by a hospital or hospital-type facility. These wastes include both
l-l
-------
infectious wastes (i.e., materials which come in contact with hospital
patients and which have a potential to carry disease-producing organisms)
and non-infectious or general housekeeping wastes. Based on the experience
of hospitals in Illinois, only about 15 percent of a typical hospital's
waste is considered infectious while the remaining 85 percent can be
considered to be general refuse.1 However, because of the difficulty (and
expense) in segregating infectious from non-infectious waste, the two waste
types are generally mixed together, resulting in a considerably larger
volume of waste which is considered infectious. In many States, laws have
been enacted in the past ten years which prohibit the disposal of infectious
wastes in landfills. To qualify for disposal, wastes must first be rendered
innocuous. The three methods commonly available to hospitals for
sterilization are autoclaving, treatment with ethylene oxide, and
incineration. Due to limitations associated with autoclaving (i.e., limited
capacities, handling problems, and questionable effectiveness) and ethylene.
oxide units (i.e., worker health risks), incineration has become the most
practical waste sterilization and disposal option for many hospital
2
facilities.
Incineration reduces waste volumes by up to 90 percent. Hence, the
volume and cost of ultimate disposal of residual wastes in a landfill can be
reduced significantly by this method. An additional benefit of incineration
systems, in some cases, is that they can be designed for heat recovery with
the potential to supply a portion of the hospital's steam or hot water
requirements.
The total capacity for hospital waste incinerators in the United
States is uncertain. As of 1985, there were a reported 6,872 hospitals in
the nation with 1,318,000 beds.3 Estimates of waste generation rates (taken
from References 15 and 16) range from about 8 to 13 Ib/bed/day. Using the
high end of this range and an occupancy rate of 69 percent, the total
hospital waste generation rate is estimated at about 5,900 tons per day.
However, not all of this waste is sent to incinerators, as discussed above.
To estimate total incinerator capacity, this waste rate would need to be
reduced by the amount of general waste that is segregated and sent via trash
i-2
-------
disposal to landfills. Unfortunately, it is not possible to estimate these
quantities based on the information gathered to date. As a point of
reference, however, the total capacity of municipal solid waste incinerators
in the United States in 1986 was estimated at about 49,000 tons of refuse
per day out of a total national refuse production rate of about 340,000 tons
4
per day.
With regard to geographic distribution, hospitals are located in every
State as well as the District of Columbia. At least one hospital was
located in almost all metropolitan and non-metropolitan statistical areas in
1985 according to American Hospital Association statistics in Reference 2.
Of the total number of hospitals, approximately 53 percent were located in
metropolitan statistical areas with the balance in non-metropolitan areas.
Detailed statistics are available only for community hospitals, which
comprised over 83 percent of the total hospital population in 1985. During
the 1975 to 1985 period, the number of community hospitals declined by
2.4 percent; the total number of beds increased by 6.2 percent, however,
reflecting hospital closures, mergers,-and conversion to nonacute-care
facilities. Although the occupancy rate for community hospitals declined
from 75 to about 65 percent, the number of surgical operations (which
produce higher levels of infectious waste) increased by almost 21 percent.
Taking these off-setting factors into account, the overall hospital waste
generation rate appears to have remained relatively constant over this
10-year period. No factors were identified which would significantly change
this trend in the near future.
No comprehensive information was found during this study regarding the
total population of hospital waste incinerators in the nation. One
manufacturer's representative estimated that over 90 percent of operating
hospitals have an incinerator, on-site, if only a small retort-type unit for
pathological or special wastes. The number of larger, controlled air type
incinerators operating on hospital wastes was not known. However, based on
discussions with two of the leading controlled-air incinerator
manufacturers, it is estimated that at least 1,200 of these systems have
78
been installed at United States hospitals over the past 20 years. ' This
1-3
-------
implies that there are approximately 5,000 or more retort-type incinerators
which have been installed. While some of these units have been retired, a
9
great majority are felt to be currently in operation.
Some insight into population patterns among hospital waste incinerators
was gained by examining a recent New York (NY) State database which was
developed from an in-state survey of over 400 incinerator units. This
database, and the analysis conducted by Radian Corporation during this
study, are described in detail in Section 6.1. Highlights of the analysis
are as follows:
o Almost 60 percent of the NY incinerators have design feed
capacities of less than 200 Ib/hr.
o The population distribution is bimodal with respect to feed
capacity, with peaks in the 50 to 74 Ib/hr range and in the 100 to
124 Ib/hr range.
o About one-half of the NY incinerator capacity is above 600 Ib/hr
feed rate and about one-third is above 1,000 Ib/hr feed rate.
A comparison of the New York and total U.S. hospital populations indicates
that the two populations have similar overall shapes although there is a
greater proportion of large hospitals above the 500-bed size in NY than in
the nation as a whole.
1.2 WASTE CHARACTERIZATION
Hospital waste is characteristically heterogeneous, consisting of
objects of many different sizes and composed of many different materials.
•The daily activities and procedures within a hospital can vary dramatically
from day-to-day, thus making it difficult to predict what will be thrown
away. During the course of this study, very little data were found to be
available on the composition of hospital waste. This is due to the fact
1-4
-------
that the amount of sampling and analysis required to generate representative
cha'racterization data would be extensive and costly. In addition, industry
practice for many years has been to utilize the simplified waste
classification system developed by the Incinerator Institute of America
(IIA), discussed below, rather than sample and analyze waste. Table 1-1
contains one general breakdown of the composition of typical hospital
waste.
Based on the experience of hospitals in Illinois, it is estimated that
about 85% of a hospital's waste stream can be categorized as general refuse,
while the remaining 15% is contaminated with infectious agents. This is
only a generalization, however, and actual wastes from a given hospital can
vary significantly from day to day and from hour to hour. For example,
refuse collected after a major surgical procedure, such as a heart
transplant, may contain significantly more infectious wastes and disposable,.
plastics than is usually generated in a routine operation. Also, because
of the difficulty in effectively segregating infectious and non-infectious
waste at the point of generation, the infectious waste is generally mixed
with a considerably larger portion of the hospital's general waste, thereby
12
creating more waste that is considered infectious.
Most of the public attention concerning hospital waste management has
centered on the infectious waste portion. Unfortunately, a number of
general and vague terms are used to refer to these wastes including
"pathological waste," "biological waste," "hazardous waste," "biomedical
waste," and "contaminated-waste." In Canada, the term biomedical waste is
popular and a color-code classification scheme for the waste has been
developed as shown in Table 1-2. In the United States, all these categories
14
of wastes are generally classified as "red bag" waste.
In Europe, hospital wastes are divided into the general categories of
normal housekeeping wastes and "hazardous" wastes. The latter category
consists of bacterially infected pathological waste, oil and chemical waste,
and radioactive isotopic contaminated waste. A typical cross-section of
this type of waste has included the following items:
1-5
-------
TABLE 1-1. HOSPITAL WASTE CHARACTERIZATION3
Approximate L
Product Percent by Weight
Paper 65
Plastic 30
Moisture 10
Other 5
Reference 13.
Percentages do not necessarily add to 100 since they are approximations.
1-6
-------
TABLE 1-2. CANADIAN CHARACTERIZATION OF BIOMEDICAL WASTE'
Waste Class
Component Description
Typical Component
weight percent
(as fired)
Al
(Red Bag)
A2
(Orange Bag)
A3 a
(Yellow Bag)
. A3b
(Yellow Bag)
Lab Waste
A3c
(Yellow Bag)
RID on DNA
81
(Blue bag)
Human Anatomical
Plastics
Swabs, Absorbents
Alcohol, Disinfectants
Animal Infected
Anatomical
Plastics
Glass
Beddings, Shavings,
Paper, Fecal Matter
Gagze, Pads, Swabs
Garments, Paper,
Cellulose
Plastics, PVC, Syringes
Sharps, Needles
Fluids, Residuals
Alcohols, Disinfectants
Plastics
Sharps
Cellulose Materials
Fluids, Residuals
Alcohols, Disinfectants
•Glass
Gauze, Pads, Swabs
Plastics, Petri Dishes
Sharps, Glass
Fluids
Non-infected
Animal Anatomical
Plastics
Glass
Beddings, Shavings,
Fecal Matter
95-100
0-5
0-5
0-0.2
80-100
0-15
0-5
0-10
60-90
15-30
4-8
2-5
0-0.2
50-60
0-5
5-10
1-20
0-0.2
15-25
5-30
50-60
0-10
1-10
90-100
0-10
0-3
0-10
Reference 16.
1-7
-------
Artificial linens
Paper
Flowers
Waste food
Cans
Diapers
Plastic cups
Syringes
Scalpels
Tweezers
Rubber gloves
Pathological objects
Blood test tubes
Test tubes from miscellaneous service
Petri dishes
Dropper bottles
Medicine bottles
Drop infusion equipment
Transfusion equipment
Suction catheters
Bladder catheters
Urinal catheters
Colostomi bags
The general practice in the United States is to classify wastes
according to the IIA system described in Table 1-3. The popularity of this
system is reinforced by the fact that most incinerator manufacturers rate
their equipment in terms of these categories.
While useful for general design purposes, the IIA classification scheme
does not address concerns such as the plastics content of waste or possible
hazardous components. Hospital wastes typically can contain about 20
18
percent plastics with levels as high as 30 percent being reported. The
types of plastic most commonly encountered include polyethylene,
1-8
-------
TABLE 1-3. INCINERATOR INSTITUTE OF AMERICA SOLID WASTE CLASSIFICATIONS*
Type 0 Trash, a mixture of highly combustible waste such as paper,
cardboard, cartons, wood boxes, and combustible floor sweepings
from commercial and industrial activities. The mixtures contain
up to 10 percent by weight of plastic bags, coated paper,
laminated paper, treated corrugated cardboard, oily rags, and
plastic or rubber scraps.
This type of waste contains 10 percent moisture, 5 percent
incombustible solids and has a heating value of 8,500 Btu per
pound as fired.
Type 1 Rubbish, a mixture of combustible waste such as paper, cardboard
cartons, wood scrap, foliage, and combustible floor sweepings,
from domestic, commercial, and industrial activities. The mixture.
contains up to 20 percent by weight of restaurant or cafeteria
waste, but contains little or no treated papers, plastic, or rubber
wastes.
This type of waste contains 25 percent moisture, 10 percent
incombustible solids, and has heating value of 6,500 Btu per pound
as fired.
Type 2 Refuse, consisting of an approximately even mixture of rubbish and
garbage by weight."
This type of waste is common to apartment and residential
occupancy, consisting of up to 50 percent moisture, 7 percent
incombustible solids, and has a heating value of 4,300 Btu per
pound as-fired.'
Type 3 Garbage, consisting of animal and vegetable wastes fr-m
restaurants, cafeterias, hotels, hospitals, markets and like
installations.
This type of waste consists of up to 70 percent moisture, up to
5 percent incombustible solids, and has a heating value of 2,500
Btu per pound as-fired.
Type 4 Human and animal remains, consisting of carcasses, organs, and
solid organic wastes from hospitals, laboratories, abattoirs,
animal pounds, and similar sources, consisting of up to 85 percent
moisture, 5 percent incombustible solids, and having a heating
value of 1,000 Btu per pound as fired.
1-9
-------
TABLE-1-3. INCINERATOR INSTITUTE OF AMERICA SOLID WASTE CLASSIFICATIONS5
:• (CONTINUED)
Byproduct waste, gaseous, liquid or semiliquid, such as tar,
paints, solvents, sludge, fumes, etcs., from industrial
operations. Btu values must be determined by the individual
materials to be destroyed.
Type 5
Type 6
Solid bydproduct waste, such as rubber, plastics, wood waste,
etc., from industrial operations. Btu values must be determined
by the individual materials to be destroyed.
Reference 22.
1-LO
-------
19
polypropylene, and polyvinyl chloride. Potential combustion products from
the burning of these plastics, including hydrochloric acid and toxic air
contaminants, are discussed in Section 3.1. Ultimate analyses for four
common plastics are shown in Table 1-4.
Hospital waste may contain potentially toxic components. For example,
red bag waste in the United States may contain potentially toxic compounds
generated by hospital operations that are currently exempt from regulations
20
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Such chemicals
include waste Pharmaceuticals, cytotoxic agents used in chemotherapy, and
? 1
anti-neoplastic agents. Mercury from dental clinics and other heavy
metals used in hospitals may also be air emission concerns if they enter the
combustor along with other hospital wastes.
1-11
-------
TABLE 1-4. ULTIMATE ANALYSES OF FOUR PLASTICS'
(Weight Percent)
Moisture
Carbon
Hydrogen
Oxygen
Nitrogen
Sulfur
Chlorine
Ash
Higher heating
value, Btu/lb
Polyethylene
0.20
84.38
14.14
0.00
0.06
0.03
tr
' 1.19
19,687
Polystyrene
0.20
86.91
8.42
3.96 ' '
0.21
0.02
tr
0.45
16,419
Polyurethane
0.20
63.14
6.25 •
•17.61
5.98
0.02
2.42
4.38
11,203
Polyvinyl
Chloride
0.20
45.04
5.60
1.56
0.08
0.14
45.32
2.06
9,754
Reference 23.
1-12
-------
1.3 REFERENCES
1. Brenniman, G. R., R. J. Allen, and P. J. Graham, "Disposal of Infectious
Hospital Waste: The Problems in Illinois." The Environmental
Professional. Vol. 6, 1984, pp. 250-251.
2. Reference 1.
3. American Hospital Association. Hospital Statistics: 1986 Edition.
Chicago, Illinois, 1986, p. 2.
4. Radian Corporation. Municipal Waste Combustion Study: Characterization
of Municipal Waste Combustion Inustrv. EPA 530-SW-87-021h, July 1987,
pp. 2-5.
5. Reference 3, p. xvii.
6. Private communication between E. Aul, Radian Corporation and R. Laine,
Southern Corporation, August 25, 1987.
7. Consumat Systems, Inc. Installations List. Richmond, Virginia.
Received by Radian Corporation in June 1987. p. 1.
8. Private communication between E. Aul, Radian Corporation and S. Shuler,
Ecolaire Combustion Products, Inc., August 25, 1987.
9. Reference 6.
10. Reference 1.
11. Doyle, B.W., D.A. Drum, and J.D. Lauber. "The Burning Issue of Hospital
Waste Incineration." presented at Israel Ecological Society Third
International Conference, Jerusalem, Israel, June 1986.
12. Brunner, C.R. "Biomedical Waste Incineration." Presented at the 80th
Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, New York,
June 21-26, 1987.
13. Jenkins, A.C. "Evaluation Test on a Hospital Refuse Incinerator at Saint
Agnes Medical Center, Fresno, CA." California Air Resource Board,
Stationary Source Division, January 1987.
14. Reference 12.
15. Faurholdt, B. "European Experience with Incineration of Hazardous and
Pathological Wastes." Presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Air
Pollution Control Association, New York, June 21-26, 1987.
1-13
-------
15. Doucet L G. "Controlled Air Incineration: Design, Procurement, and
Operational Considerations." Technical Document Series, Technical
Document Number: 055872, January 1986.
17. Reference 16.
18. Murnyak, G.R., and D.C. Gazenich. "Chlorine Emissions from a Medical
Waste Incinerator." Journal of Environmental Health, Sept/Oct 1982.
19. Reference 16.
20 Darling, C., R. Allen, and G. Brenniman. "Air Pollution Emissions From A
Hospital Incinerator." Presented at the International Union of Air
Pollution Prevention Associations Annual Meeting, Paris, France,
May 16-20, 1983.
21. Reference 15.
22. Reference 16.
23 Kaiser, E.R. and Carotti, A. "Municipal Incineration of Refuse with Two
Percent and Four .Percent Additions of Four Plastics: Polyethylene,
Polyurethane, Polystyrene, and Polyvinyl Chloride, "Proceedings of the
1972 National Incinerator Conference". June 1972. pgs. 230-45.
California Air resources Board. Air Pollution Control at Resource
Recovery Facilities. May 24, 1934.
.1 - L 4
-------
2.0 PROCESSES AND EQUIPMENT
The primary objectives of hospital waste incinerators are (1) to render
the waste innocuous, and (2) to reduce the size and mass of the waste.
These objectives are accomplished by exposing the waste to high temperatures
over a period of time long enough to destroy threatening organisms and by
burning all but the incombustible portion of the waste. As discussed in
Section 1.1, incineration has become the most practical sterilization and
disposal option for many hospital facilities.
The design of a hospital waste incinerator, like any combustion system,
requires consideration of a number of interrelated factors including
residence time, temperature, and turbulence (i.e., the three "T"'s of
combustion). Other factors which can influence combustion performance are
fuel feeding patterns, air supply and distribution, heat transfer, and ash
disposal.1 -Like municipal solid waste (MSW), hospital waste is a difficult
fuel to combust relative to conventional fuels such as oil, gas, coal, or
wood.' Some of the problems associated with hospital wastes which must be
considered by the combustion system designer and equipment operator are:
o Fuel of non-homogenous and variable composition - The physical and
chemical composition of hospital waste is highly variable.
Furthermore, the waste feed consists of chemically diverse
articles of different sizes and shapes. Hospital waste is seldom
pre-processed; it is burned in bulk on -. mass feed basis. These
factors pose problems in feeding, flame stability, particle
entrainment and emissions control.
o Variable ash content - Hospital waste contains varying amounts of
glass, metals and ceramics which are not consumed in the
combustion process. Fluctuations in ash composition and
combustion temperatures can lead to clinker formation, slagging
and fouling in some systems. To avoid these problems, primary
combustion chamber temperatures are generally maintained below
about 1800°F.2 However, this tends to reduce carbon burnout and
the overall energy utilization efficiency.
2-1
-------
o Low heating value - Hospital wastes often have low heating values
due to excessive moisture contents. This causes flame stability
problems and, in some cases, it becomes necessary to fire an
auxiliary fuel to maintain proper combustion conditions.
Alternately, dry waste batches (especially those with a high
plastics content) can produce high flame temperatures which result
in overheating of the hearth or other combustion system
components. To avoid these problems, the combustion conditions
(principally excess air, air distribution, and auxiliary fuel
firing rate) must be controlled closely.
o Corrosive materials - Hospital wastes contain varying amounts of
fluorine and chlorine, principally from plastics. These materials
can corrode combustion equipment, especially convective heat
transfer tubes. To avoid corrosion, it is necessary to use
corrosion-resistant materials of construction and to maintain
steam temperatures and pressures at low levels.
2.1 INCINERATOR TECHNOLOGY
There are three major types of incinerators currently used to
incinerate hospital wastes in the United States: excess air, starved air,
and rotary kiln. The design and operating principles for each of these
three major types are discussed in thi? section.
2.1.1 Excess Air Incinerators
Excess air incinerators are small modular units which typify older,
existing hospital incinerators. They are also referred to as "pyrolitic
incinerators" and "multiple chamber incinerators" in the literature. These
incinerators appear as a compact cube from the outside with a series of
chambers and baffles on the inside. The two principal design configuration
2-2
-------
far excess air incinerators, the in-line and retort types, are illustrated
in Figures 2-1 and 2-2, respectively.
In both types of excess air incinerators, combustion of the waste
begins in the primary, or ignition, chamber. The waste is dried, ignited,
and combusted by heat provided by a primary chamber burner as well as by hot
chamber walls heated by flue gases. Moisture and volatile components in the
waste feed are vaporized and pass, along with combustion gases, out of the
primary chamber and through a flame port connecting the primary chamber to
the secondary or mixing, chamber. Secondary air is added through the flame
port and is mixed with the volatile components in the secondary chamber.
Burners are also fitted to the secondary chamber to maintain adequate
temperatures for combustion of the volatile gases. Incinerators designed to
burn general hospital waste operate at total excess air levels of up to
300 percent; if only pathological wastes (i.e., animal and human remains) i:-
are combusted, excess air levels near 100 percent are more common.
For in-line incinerators, combustion gases pass in a straight-through
fashion from the primary chamber to the secondary chamber and out of the
incinerator with 90 degree flow direction changes only in the vertical
direction. The configuration of retort incinerators, on the other hand,
causes the combustion gases to follow a more "tortuous" path through the
incinerator with 90 degree flow direction changes in both the horizontal and
vertical directions. These flow direction changes, as well as contraction and
expansion of the combustion gases, enhance turbulent mixing of air and
gases. In addition, fly ash and other particulate matter drop from the gas
stream as a result of the direction and gas velocity changes and collect on
chamber floors. Gases exiting the secondary chamber are directed to the
incinerator stack.
Retort incinerators are described as "unwieldy" by one source in sizes
above 500 Ib/hr capacity while in-line incinerators are felt to be most
suitable in capacities of 750 Ib/hr or greater:
2-3
-------
VMM 111!
Source: Reference 3.
Figure 2-1. Multiple-chamber pathological waste incinerator.
2-4
-------
Source: Reference 4.
Figure 2-2. In-line multiple-chamber incinerator.
2-5
-------
2.1.2 Controlled Air Incinerators
Controlled air incineration has become the most widely used hospital
waste incinerator technology over the past 10 to 15 years and now dominates
the market for new systems at hospitals and similar medical facilities.
This technology is also known as "starved air" incineration, "two-stage"
incineration, and "modular" combustion. While there are some similarities
in operating principles between excess air and controlled-air incinerators,
overall equipment design and appearance are quite different, as illustrated
in Figure 2-3.
Like excess air incinerators, combustion of waste in controlled air
incinerators occurs in two stages. Waste is fed into the primary, or lower,
combustion chamber which is operated, as. the name implies, with less than the
full amount of air required for combustion. Under these sub-stoichiometric
conditions, the waste is dried, heated, and pyrolized, thereby releasing
moisture and volatile components. The non-volatile, combustible portion of
the waste is burned in the primary chamber to release heat while the
non-combustible portion accumulates as ash. Depending on the heating value
of the waste and its moisture content, additional heat may be provided by
auxiliary burners to maintain desired temperatures. Combustion air is added
to the primary chamber either from below the waste through the floor of the
chamber or through the sides of the chamber. The air addition rate is
usually 40 to 70 percent of stoichiometric requirements.
Because of the low air addition rates in the primary chamber, and
corresponding low flue gas velocities and turbulence levels, the amount of
solids entrained in the gases leaving the primary chamber are minimized. As
a result, most controlled air incinerators can meet current State and local
particulate matter emission limits without add-on gas cleaning devices.
Moisture, volatiles, and combustion gases from the primary chamber flow
upward through a connecting section where they are mixed with air prior to
entering the secondary, or upper combustion chamber. If the primary chamber
gases are sufficiently hot, they will self-ignite when mixed with air. A
second burner is located near the entrance to the upper chamber, however, to
2-t>
-------
QA« OWCNAHOC
MOM A flr COM»U»T10N AM »OHTS
Source: Reference 10.
Figure 2-3. Schematic for controlled air incinerator,
2-7
-------
pravide additional heat for ignition of the combustible gases and to
maintain a flame in the chamber at all times of operation. Mixing of these
gases with air is enhanced by the flow direction changes and contraction/
expansion step which the gases undergo as they pass from the lower to upper
chambers. The air injection rate in the secondary chamber is generally
between 100 and 140 percent of total stoichiometric requirements (based on
the waste feed).11 Thus, the total air added to both chambers can vary
between 140 and 210 percent of stoichiometric requirements (i.e., between 40
and 110 percent excess air).
The secondary chamber burner is located near the entrance to this
chamber to maximize the residence time of gases at high temperatures in this
chamber. Bulk average gas residence times in the secondary chamber
typically range from 0.25 to 2.0 second. Design exit gas temperatures
generally range from 1400 to 2000°F.12 Natural gas or distillate oil are
the normal fuels used for both primary and secondary chamber burners.
Temperatures in the primary and secondary chambers are monitored by
thermocouples and controlled automatically by modulating the air flow to
each chamber. Thermocouples are normally located near the exits of these
chambers. In the primary (air-starved) chamber, combustion air flow is
increased to increase temperature; in the secondary (excess air) chamber,
air flow is decreased to increase temperature. The logic for this control
scheme is illustrated in Figure 2-4. Flue gases exiting the secondary
chamber are sent either directly to a stack, to air pollution control
equipment (if required), or to a waste heat recovery boiler.
Both the primary and secondary chambers are usually lined with
refractory material. One manufacturer, however, offers a membrane water
wall in the primary chamber. Most chambers are cylindrical although some
are rectangular or box-like. Smaller units (i.e., with waste feed
capacities less than 500 Ib/hr) are usually vertically oriented with both
chambers in a single casing. Larger units generally include two separate
horizontal cylinders located one above the other. Some manufacturers
offer a third chamber for final air addition to the combustible gases and a
2-8
-------
AMABATC TEMPERATURE OF A CELLULOSE WASTE
-4O -IO 0 10 44 to (O 10O I1O
Source: Reference 15.
Figure 2-4. Adiabatic temperature versus excess air
for a controlled air incinerator.
2-9
-------
fourth chamber for gas conditioning (i.e., gas cooling and condensation of
vapors) to minimize effects on downstream heat recovery equipment.
Waste feed capacities for controlled air incinerators range from about
75 to 6500 Ib/hr of Type 0 waste (at 8500 Btu/lb). Capacities for lower
heat content wastes may be higher since feed capacities are limited by
primary chamber heat release rates. Heat release rates for controlled air
incinerators typically range from about 15,000 to 25,000 Btu/hr-ft .
2.1.3 Rotary Kiln Incinerators
Like other incinerator types, rotary kiln incineration consists of a
primary chamber in which waste is heated and volatized and a secondary
chamber in which combustion of the volatile fraction is completed. In this
case, however, the primary chamber consists of a horizontal, rotating kiln.
The kiln is incl ined. si ightly so that the waste material migrates from the
waste charging end to the ash discharge end as the kiln rotates. The waste
migration, or throughput, rate is controlled by the rate of rotation and the
angle of incline, or rake, of the kiln. Air is injected into the primary
chamber and mixes with the waste as it rotates through the kiln. A primary
chamber burner is generally present for heat-up purposes and to maintain
desired temperatures. Both the primary and secondary chambers are usually
lined with refractory brick, as shown in the schematic drawing in
Figure 2-5.
Volatiles and combustion gases from the primary chamber pass t:> the
secondary chamber where combustion is completed by the addition of
additional air and together with the high temperatures maintained by a
second burner. Like other incinerators, the primary chamber is operated at
sub-stoichiometric conditions and the secondary chamber at
above-stoichiometric conditions. Due to the turbulent motion of the waste
in the lower primary chamber, particle entrainment in the flue gases is
higher for kiln incinerators than for controlled-air or excess air
incinerators. As a result, rotary kiln incinerators generally require stack
gas clean-up to meet applicable particulate matter and/or opacity limits.
2-LO
-------
•OT»«T KK.M
Source: Reference 18
Figure 2-5. Schematic for rotary kiln incinerator.
2-11
-------
2.£ WASTE FEED AND ASH HANDLING SYSTEMS
Feed systems for hospital waste incinerators range from manually
operated charging doors to fully automatic systems. Ash removal systems
also range between periodic manual removal of ash by operators to continuous
automated quench and removal systems. In general, automated systems are
prevalent among large continuously-operated incinerators while manual
systems are employed on smaller incinerators or those which operate on an
intermittent basis. Waste feed and ash removal systems are discussed below
for each of the major incinerator design types.
For excess air incinerators, waste loading is almost always
accomplished manually by means of a charging door on the incinerator. The
charging door is attached to the primary chamber and may be located either
at the end farthest away from the flame port (for burning general wastes) or
on the side.(for units hand!ing pathological wastes such as large animals or
cadavars). As much as 10 percent of the total air supplied to excess air
units is drawn through these charging doors.19 Ash removal from excess air
units is accomplished manually with a rake and shovel at the completion of
the incinerator cool-down period. Typical operation for an excess air
incinerator calls for incinerator heat up and waste charging at the end of
the operating day, waste combustion and burnout by morning, and cool-down
and ash cleanout during the following day.
Controlled-air incinerators may be equipped with either manual or
mechanical loading devices. For units with capacities less than 200 Ib/hr,
manual loading through a charging door in the primary chamber is the
typically the only option. Mechanical loaders, on the other hand, are
standard features for incinerators with capacities above 500 Ib/hr waste.
For units between these size ranges, mechanical feed loaders are usually
available as an option.21 Most mechanical loader designs currently offered
employ a hopper and ram assembly, as illustrated in Figure 2-6. In this
system, waste is loaded into a charging hopper and the hopper cover is
closed. The fire door isolating the hopper from the incinerator opens and a
ram coires forward to push the waste into the front section of the
2-12
-------
STEP 2
RAM COMES FORWARD
STEP 3
RAM REVERSES TO CLEAR PIRE OOOB
STEPS
RAM RETURNS TO START
Source: Reference 22.
Figure 2-6. Schematic and example picture of a mechanical loading system.
2-13
-------
incinerator. After reaching the end of its travel, the ram reverses and
retracts to the point where it just clears the fire door. The fire door
closes and the ram retracts to its starting position. These operations are
normally controlled by an automatic control panel. For smaller
incinerators, waste loading into the charging hopper is usually accomplished
manually, bag by bag. Larger systems frequently use such waste loading
devices as car dumpers, conveyors, skid-steer tractors, or pneumatic
systems.
In addition to improving personnel and fire safety, mechanical loaders
limit the amount of ambient air which can leak into the incinerator during
waste feeding operations. This is important for controlled air incinerators
since excess air in-leakage can cause lower temperatures, incomplete
combustion, and smoking at the stack. Mechanical loaders also permit the
feeding of smaller waste batches at more frequent, regular intervals. As
the intervals become shorter, this, feeding procedure approximates continuous
or steady-state operation and helps to dampen fluctuations in combustion
24
conditions.
Ash removal techniques for controlled air incinerators also range from
manual to mechanical systems. For smaller units below about 500 Ib/hr
capacity (and units constructed before the mid-1970s), operators must rake
and shovel ash from the primary combustion chamber into disposal containers:
For larger systems, mechanical ash removal may be accomplished by extension
of the waste charging ram, augmented by internal transfer rams. The
positive displacement action of the rams pushes the ash along the bottom of
the primary chamber until it reaches a drop chute. Another mechanical
system offered by one manufacturer uses a "pulsed hearth" whereby ash is
moved across the chamber floor by pulsations created by end-mounted air
cushions.25 After falling through the drop chute, ash either falls into a
drop cart positioned within an air-sealed enclosure or into a water quench
trough. The drop cart is removed manually, generally after spraying the
ash with water for dust suppression. In the water trough system, quenched
ash is removed either by a drag conveyor or a backhoe trolley system.
2-14
-------
When estimating air emissions for controlled air incinerators with
- &
manual ash removal, it is important to recognize that operating, and hence
emission, rates will vary over time. A typical operating cycle for such a
27
unit is given by:
Operation Duration
Ash-clean-out 15-30 minutes
Preheat 15-60 minutes
Waste loading 12-14 hours (maximum)
Burn-down 2-4 hours
Cool-down 5-8 hours
The waste loading period of 12 to 14 hours per operating day is a maximum
value; a more typical value would be 5 to 6 hours since this corresponds to
28
waste incineration during one shift per day.
Since rotary, kiln systems operate.in a continuous mode, the waste feed
system and ash removal system which service these incinerators must also be
29
of a continuous or semi-continuous type. A charging hopper and ram system
is commonly used to load waste into the kiln. After travelling through the
kiln, ash is discharged on a continuous basis either into an ash cart or
water quench system. Both this feed system and ash removal system are
described above for controlled air incinerators.
2.3 WASTE HEAT RECOVERY
Waste heat recovery operations are generally not considered for excess
air incinerators due to the smaller gas flow rates, lower temperatures,
higher particulate matter loadings, and intermittent operations that
characterize these systems. For controlled air and rotary kiln
incinerators, however, the relatively higher stack gas temperatures and flow
rates can make heat recovery economically attractive in cases where steam or
hot water generation rates can be matched with the needs of the hospital.
For most systems, heat is recovered by passing hot gases through a waste
2-15
-------
heat boiler to generate steam or hot water. Boiler equipment can range from
a spool piece with heat exchange coil inserted in the stack to a single-drum
0-type watertube waste heat boiler. Most manufacturers, however, use
conventional firetube boilers because they are low in cost and simple to
operate.30 Options for these boilers include supplemental firing of oil or
natural gas and automatic soot-blowing systems. Outlet temperatures from
waste heat boilers are generally limited to about 400°F by stack gas dew
point considerations. As mentioned above, one manufacturer also offers a
waterwall membrane in the primary chamber to enhance heat recovery.
Other methods to improve overall system efficiency in controlled air
incinerators and, thereby, to reduce the need for expensive auxiliary fuels,
are modulating burners and air preheating. EPA-sponsored testing programs
of controlled air incinerators equipped with these types of systems have
shown that heat recovery efficiencies are typically limited to about 50 to
32
60 percent of the theoretical maximum.
2-16
-------
2.4 REFERENCES
1. Radian Corporation. Municipal Haste Combustion Study: Data Gathering
Phase. EPA Contract No. 68-02-3889. November 1986. p. 1-11.
2. Brunner, C. R. "Biomedical Waste Incineration." Presented at the 80th
Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association. New York, New
York. June 21-26, 1987. p. 10.
3. Block, S. S. and J. C. Netherton. Disinfection. Sterilization, and
Preservation. Second Edition. 1977. p. 729.
4. Reference 3. p. 727.
5. Reference 3. p. 730.
6. Reference 3. p. 728.
7. Reference 3. p. 730.
8. Doucet, L. G. Controlled Air Incineration: Design. Procurement, and
Operational Considerations. Prepared for the American Society of
Hospital Engineering. Technical Document No. 55872. January 1986. •
p. 1.
9. Reference 2, p. 11.
10. Reference 2. p. 15.
11. Reference 2, p. 11.
12. Reference 8, p. 5.
13. Basic, J. N. "Multiple Stage Combustion Design Can Minimize Air
Pollution Problems." Presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Air
Pollution Control Association. New York, New York. June 21-26, 1987.
p. 3.
14. Reference 2. p. 12.
15. Reference 2. p. 16.
16. Reference 8. p. 14.
17. Reference 14.
18. Reference 15.
2-17
-------
19\ Reference 6. p. 730.
20. Reference 2. p. 10.
21. Reference 8. p. 6.
22. Consumat Systems Inc. Consumat Waste Handling System Technical Data
Sheet. Richmond, Virginia. Received by Radian Corporation in June
1987. p. 1.
23. Reference 8. p. 7.
24. Reference 8. p. 6.
25. Reference 8. p. 8.
26. Reference 8. p. 8.
27. Reference 8. p. 14.
28. Allen, R. J, G. R. Brenniman, and C. Darling. "Air Pollution Emissions
from the Incineration of Hospital Wastes." Air Pollution Control
Association Journal. Volume 36, No. 7, July 1986.
29. Reference 2. p. 12.
30. Reference 8. p. 9.
31. Reference 8. p. 9.
32. Reference 8. p. 9.
2-18
-------
3.0 AIR EMISSIONS/FACTORS FOR HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATORS
/•.•
Many sources of information were used to collect available hospital
incinerator emissions data. A survey of pertinent literature was performed
and contacts were made within EPA, State and local government organizations,
trade organizations, and incinerator vendors.
Table 3-1 contains a list of pollutants covered by this study. The
compounds shown here are those for which emissions data could be located for
hospital incinerators. As expected, data for some pollutants was plentiful.
while few data were found for others. One large data gap in the current
hospital waste incinerator emissions data base is for lower molecular weight
organic compounds. In addition, emission data were located only for larger
controlled air incinerators; data were not located for the smaller
retort-type incinerators which comprise a large portion of the total
population by number.
This section contains brief descriptions of" formation mechanisms for
pollutants for which data were found in this study. Where applicable,
information on formation mechanisms for these compounds has been borrowed
from the municipal solid waste (MSW) literature. Next, the emissions test
data are presented along with other data which were found as part of the
study. A discussion relating emissions data to design and operating factors
follows. Finally, the emissions factors developed for each pollutant are
presented.
3.1 FORMATION MECHANISMS
3.1.1 Acid Gases
The acid gases considered in this study were hydrogen chloride, sulfur
dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. A brief description of the formation
mechanism and factors which influence their formation is presented next.
3-1
-------
TADLE 3-1. POLLUTANTS MEASURED/TESTED
Trace
Metals
Polycycllc
Organic
Matter
Low Molecular Weight
Organic Compounds
Add Gases
Others
GJ
I
ro
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chrcmlum
Iron
Manganese
Nickel
Lead
Dloxins
Furans
Ethane
Ethylene
.""ropane
Propylene
Trichlorotrlfluoroethane
Trlchloroethylene
Tetrachloroethylene
Hydrochloric Add
Sulfur Dioxide
Nitrogen Oxides
Partlculate Matter
Carbon Monoxide
Pathogens
Viruses
-------
3.1.1.1 Hydrogen Chloride. Based on thermodynamic considerations,
. ft ^^i^wi^^^™^^^^^^^^™^^^^^^^^^—^—
chlorine which is chemically bound within the hospital waste in the form of
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) or other compounds will be predominately converted
to hydrogen chloride (HC1), assuming there is hydrogen available to react
with the chlorine. Considering the high hydrogen content of hospital waste
due to its high paper, plastics, and moisture content, there should be a
ready supply of hydrogen available in most cases.
Swedish studies have found that 60 to 65 percent of the fuel-bound
chlorine in MSW is converted to HC1. There is no apparent thermodynamic
reason for the less than full conversion. HC1 has also been shown by other
2
studies to be the predominate chlorine product at high temperatures.
3.1.1.2 Sulfur Dioxide. Sulfur, which is chemically bound within the
materials making up the hospital waste, is oxidized during the combustion
process to form S02. The rate of S02 emissions is, therefore* directly .
proportional to the sulfur content of the.waste. Some SO- removal may take
place through reaction of the SO- with alkaline reagents also present within
the waste; however, the amount of removal is expected to be negligible due
to the high HC1 content of the flue gas. Because it is a stronger acid than
SO-, HC1 will react more quickly with available alkaline compounds than S02
and, because of the high HC1 content of flue gases, will likely tie-up the
alkaline compounds before they have a chance to react with SO-.
3.1.1.3 Nitrogen Oxides. Nitrogen oxides or NO represents the
A
mixture of NO and NO-. However, in combustion systems, predominantly NO is
produced due to kinetic limitations in the oxidation of NO to NO-. N0x is
formed by one of two general mechanisms. "Thermal NO " is the result of the
reaction between molecular nitrogen and molecular oxygen, both of which
enter the combustion zone in the combustion air. "Fuel NO " results from
A
the oxidation of monoatomic nitrogen which enters the combustion zone
chemically bound within the fuel structure.
3-3
-------
'" Although the detailed mechanism of thermal NOX formation is not well
understood, it is widely accepted that the thermal fixation in the
combustion zone is described by the Zeldovich equations:
N2 + 0——NO + N
N + 02—-NO + 0
The first reaction is the rate limiting step and is strongly
endothermic due to the requirement of breaking the N2 triple bond. It is
the high endothermicity of this process which has led to the term thermal
NO . The reaction rates of these equations are highly dependent on both .the
mixture stoichiometric ratio (i.e., the molecular equivalent air-to-fuel
ratio, with rich and lean describing the fuel amount) and the flame
temperature. The maximum NOX occurs at slightly lean fuel mixture ratios
due to the excess availability of oxygen for reaction within the hot flame
zone. A rapid decrease in NOX formation is seen for ratios which are
slightly higher or lower than this. The rate of thermal NOX formation is
extremely sensitive to the flame temperature, dropping almost an order of
magnitude .with every 100°C drop in flame temperature.
The mechanisms by which nitrogen compounds (primarily organic)
contained in liquid and solid fuels evolve and react to form NOX are much
more complex than the Zeldovich model, and the empirical data are less
conclusive.
The impact of temperature and fuel nitrogen on NOX emissions for excess
air conditions is shown in Figure 3-1. The figure indicates that thermal
NO formation is extremely sensitive to temperature, but fuel NOX formation
x
is not.
3.1.2 Particulate Matter
Particulate matter (PM) is emitted as a result of incomplete combustion
and by the entrapment of noncombustibles in the flue ?as stream. PM may
3-4
-------
3140 2813
T(°F)
2509 2310 2112 1941
10.00Q
1000
100
Q_
Q.
a 10
1.0
0.1
MAX
EXPECT
ED
ADIA-
BATIC
TEMP.
0.5% FUEL N
301 EXCESS AIR
r- 0.5 SEC.
THERMAL NO
FUEL N
0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70
103/T(K"1)
Source: Reference 3.
Figure 3-1. Impact of temperature and fuel nitrogen on NOX emissions
for excess air conditions.
3-5
-------
ex\st as a solid or an aerosol, and may contain heavy metals or polycyclic
organics. Depending on the method used to measure the PM in the flue gas,
lower boiling point volatile compounds (i.e., boiling point below 100 C) may
or may not be included in the measurement.
^
There are three general sources of PM :
o inorganic substances contained in the waste feed that are carried
into the flue gas from the combustion process,
o organometallic substances formed by the reactions of precursors in
the waste feed, and
o uncombusted fuel molecules.
Inorganic matter is not destroyed during combustion; most of this material
leaves the incinerator .as ash. Some, however, becomes entrained in the
stack gas as PM.
Organometallic compounds present in the waste stream which is being
incinerated can be volatilized and oxidized under the high temperatures and
oxidizing conditions in the incinerator. As a result inorganic oxides or
salts of metals can be formed from the metallic portion. Elemental analysis
of flyash from MSW incinerators has shown that particulate emissions are
largely inorganic in nature and that they are from one-third to one-half
soluble in water. The water soluble phase is principally chloride and
sulfate salts of Na, P, Ca, Zn, and NH4*. The insoluble phase is comprised
of oxides, silica, and phosphate salts of Al, Si, Ca, Pb, Zn, and Fe along
with some insoluble carbon compounds.5 To the extent that a particular
hospital waste is similar to municipal waste, the resulting ash might be
expected to be similar. (See Section 1.2 for discussion of hospital waste
composition and categorization.) The fuel molecules themselves can also
contribute significantly to PM formation. It is known that pyrolitic
reactions can lead to the formation of large organic molecules. Inorganics,
3-6
-------
wh,ich may act as nucleation sites, may then further induce growth.. The
-*• 5
result can then be an organic particle with an inorganic core.
In general, good combustion conditions which depend on residence time,
temperature, and turbulence lead to lower PM emissions. As the residence
time increases, particle size and the mass of PM tend to decrease. Smaller
particulate sizes and lower PM emissions are also associated with higher
temperatures since, at higher temperatures, oxidation rates are increased so
that more of the combustible PM is oxidized to gaseous products.
3.1.3 Trace Metals
The amount of trace metals in the flue gas is directly related to the
quantity of trace metals contained in the incinerator waste. Some of the
trace metal sources in the waste include surgical blades, foil wrappers,
plastics, and printing inks. Plastic objects made of PVC contain cadmium
heat stabilizing compounds. In addition, cadmium, chromium, and lead may
also be found in inks and paints.
Some metals are selectively deposited on the smaller particulate sizes
which are emitted. This is known as fine-particle enrichment. Although
such data were not found for hospital incinerators, metals generally thought
to exhibit fine-particle enrichment are As, Cd, Cr, Mn, Ni, Mo, Pb, Sb, Se,
V, and Zn. Results of one study performed at a MSW facility indicate that
trace metals are found predominately in the respirable particulate fraction,
even when the bulk of the particulate matter emissions are in the
g
nonrespirable fraction.
There are three general factors affecting enrichment of trace metals on
g
fine particulate :
o particle size,
o number of particles, and
o flue gas temperatures.
3-7
-------
influence of particle size on trace metal enrichment of fine particles
is thought to be due to specific surface area effects (i.e., the ratio of
particle surface area to mass). Particles with large specific surface areas
are expected to show more enrichment since there is more surface area for
condensation per unit mass of PM. The influence of the number of particles
is simply due to the increased probability of contact associated with higher
particle population. There is some evidence that less enrichment occurs at
higher flue gas temperatures.10 Higher temperatures are thought to lead to
increased activity levels which in turn makes the metals less likely to
condense and bond with PM. Mercury, due to its high vapor pressure, does
not show significant particle enrichment; rather it is thought to leave
largely in the vapor form due to high typical exit gas temperatures. For
example, the results of one study performed at a MSW facility indicated that
less than 25 percent of the mercury emissions were found to be in the
particulate phase of the stack gas. . .
3.1.4 Organic Emissions
Figure 3-2 presents a schematic of the processes which are involved
during hospital waste combustion in a two-stage incinerator. After startup,
the hospital waste is heated by the burning gases being combusted in the
primary chamber and by the natural gas or oil burner operating in that
chamber. During startup, heat is-supplied by the fossil fuel burner alone.
Upon heating, waste fragments emit steam, volatile matter, and PM. These
materials are swept from the bed by natural convection and by entrainment
with underfire air. It is the burning of volatile matter above the waste
bed which provides the heat which continues the pyrolysis and volatile
matter evolution from the waste. The amount of radiant heat transfer to the
waste is strongly dependent on the local flame temperature of the compounds
being combusted; the flame temperature, in turn, is a function of moisture
content, volatile matter heating value, and the local air stoichiometry.
Not all the volatile matter is combusted in the primary chamber. Combustion
gases are swept from the primary chamber to the secondary chamber where
3-8
-------
CO + OH — C02 +
OH + H — H20
C02. H20. 02.
OJ
I
vD
HOSPITAL-
WASTE
HIGH TEMPERATURE
HIGH 0. H. OH RADICALS
0
H + OH — CO + H20 + OH + H
-------
volatile matter combustion continues, augmented by the heat generated by a
second fossil fuel burner. The volatile matter combustion process is
controlled by chemical kinetics and proceeds through complex reactions
involving 0, H, and OH radicals. The kinetics of these processes is
strongly temperature dependent. An efficient burning process will result in
a high degree of conversion of volatile organics to C02 and H20. Failure to
achieve the requirements which lead to efficient combustion can result in
high emission rates of combustion products in an unreacted or partially
reacted state.
The unreacted or partially reacted combustion products discussed in
this report include the chlorinated isomers of dibenzo-p-dioxin (COO) and
dibenzofuran (CDF), lower molecular weight organic compounds for which
emissions data were available, and carbon monoxide (CO). A brief
description of the formation mechanism and factors which influence the
formation of these compounds is presented in the following subsections.
Other important classes (e.g., PIC.s, BaP, PCBs,-PAH, POM) are not included
due to lack of emissions data.
3.1.4.1 Dioxins and Furans. Many factors are believed to be involved
in the formation of CDDs and CDFs and many different theories exist
concerning the formation of these compounds. The best supported theories
are illustrated in Figure 3-3.12 The first theory shown involves the
breakthrough of unburned COD/CDF present in the feed.13 A few measurements
of MSW feed streams have "indicated the presence of trace quantities of
CDD/CDF in the refuse feed. . No such measurements have been maae for
hospital waste streams but some potential for CDD/CDF in the feea may exist
due to similarities in the wastes.
The second mechanism shown in Figure 3-3 involves the more plausible
combination of precursor species which have structures similar to the
dioxins and furans to form the CDD/CDF compounds. Such a reaction would
involve the combination of chlorophenols or polychlorinated biphenyls to
form CDD/CDF. These precursors can be produced by pyrolysis in
oxygen-starved zones, such as those which exist in multichamber
3-10
-------
I. DIOXIN IN REFUSE
Cl
Cl
O
Combustion
Zone
Unreacted
CDD/CDF
II. FORMATION FROM RELATED CHLORINATED PRECURSORS
OH
To
ci
Chlorophenol
Cl
} Cl
PCB
III. FORMATION FROM ORGANICS AND CHLORINE DONOR
PVC Chlorine donor
Lignin * NaCl, HC1, C12
IV. SOLID PHASE FLY ASH REACTION
Precursor
^
+ Cl Donor —
low
CDD/CDF
CDD
Source: Reference 12.
Figure 3-3. Hypothetical Mechanisms of CDD/CDF Formation Chemistry,
3-11
-------
incinerators.14 The potential for PVC-bearing wastes, a typical component
of hospital waste, to form precursors during combustion has been studied by
several researchers. '
The third mechanism shown in Figure 3-3 involves the synthesis of
PCDD/PCDF from a variety of organics and a chlorine donor. The simplest
mechanisms here involve the combination of those species which are
structurally related. Many plausible combustion intermediates can also be
proposed which lead to precursors and eventually to CDD/CDFs. Analysis of
intermediates formed during the combustion of complex fuels such as coal or
wood indicate yields of unchlorinated dioxin and furan species. These
compounds could become chlorinated in systems such as hospital waste
incinerators where high concentrations of molecular chlorine exist in the
combustion zone.
The final mechanism presented in Figure 3-3 involves catalyzed reactions
on fly ash particles at low temperatures. In research sponsored by the
Ontario Ministry of Environment, formation .of CDDs/CDFs were observed when
the thermolysis products of PVC combusted in air were heated to 300 C in the
presence of clean fly ash.18 These results are not yet published, pending
attempts to reproduce these findings.
There is a growing consensus of opinion that the formation of dioxins
and furans in combustion furnaces requires excess air. Excess air
combustion leads to lower combustion temperatures which favor in-situ
chlorine formation over HC1. The additional presence of chlorine is then
believed to promote the formation of dioxins and furans.
CDDs and CDFs may exist in both the vapor phase and as fine particulate
in hospital waste incinerator emissions. They may be split between phases
with as much as 80 percent in the vapor phase.20 At temperatures below
300°F, they condense onto the fine particulate.
3.1.4.2 Low Molecular Weight Organic Compounds. Low molecular weight
organic compounds (LC) are a product of incomplete combustion of the
volatiles which are evolved f-om the waste. They may be present due to
some of the same mechanisms previously discussed above for dioxins and furan
3-12
-------
(i-.e., they may be compounds which were present in the fuel, combinations of
precursors, or the dioxin and furan precursors themselves). LCs are
produced when the combustion conditions are other than optimal. In general,
the optimum combustion conditions can be characterized by the three T's;
time, temperature, and turbulence. Time refers to the amount of time which
the fuel is subject to combustion conditions; temperature refers to the
temperature at which the combustion takes place or that combustion products
are exposed to; and turbulence refers to the degree of mixing between oxygen
and the fuel. The longer the time, the higher the temperature, and the
greater the degree of turbulence in the zone where the organics are
combusted, the better the combustion and the lower the LC emissions will be.
3.1.4.3 Carbon Monoxide. Carbon monoxide (CO) is also a product of
incomplete combustion in the final combustion zone depicted in Figure 3-2.
As shown, CO is one chemical reaction away from being CO- which represents
complete combustion. Its presence can also be related to the time,
temperature, and turbulence conditions of combustion. In this case, the
three T's are specific to the conditions which exist above the" region in
which the LCs are oxidized.
3.2 EMISSIONS TEST DATA
Data were acquired from four comprehensive emissions tests of hospital
incineration units. ''' In addition, results of several less
detailed tests at hospital incinerator units were located through the
literature. A description of each of the four units for which
comprehensive information was obtained and the operating conditions recorded
during the emissions tests are presented in Table 3-2. As shown, all of the
units are large incinerators near the upper end of the size range for
hospital incinerators. The smallest unit for which comprehensive test
results were found is an 800 Ib/hour unit and the largest was a 2000 Ib/hr
unit. Over the period of the comprehensive emissions tests, the units
operated at 82 to 98 percent of feed rate design capacity. The Illinois
3-13
-------
TABLE 3-2.
TEST SITE DESIGN AND OPERATING PARAMETERS FOR COMPREHENSIVE EMISSION TESTS
I
1-"
4=.
. •
Incinerator Mfg.
Mc
-------
incinerator operated at 500 to 800 Ib/hr feed rate during the test; its
maximum design capacity is not known.
All of the units for which comprehensive emissions tests were conducted
are starved air incinerators with two combustion chambers. The operating
temperatures for the four units are similar. The secondary combustion
chamber operating temperature range is slightly lower for the Illinois
hospital incinerator than for the other units. It should be noted, that the
secondary chamber temperature data for the Illinois unit include both
start-up and shutdown periods. Thus, the lower end of this range most
likely corresponds to these transient operating conditions.
The stack parameters for all of the units are within what was
determined to be the normal design range (see Section 6.0). Unfortunately,
little information is available regarding the operating conditions of the
Illinois unit. No information was available regarding the characteristics
of the hospital wastes .which.were incinerated by any of these units.
No emissions data were located for the smaller retort-type incinerators
which comprise a large portion of the total population by number. In terms
of waste throughput, and hence total emissions, they represent a smaller
share. However, it is important to remember that the emission data and
factors discussed in this section are based on the performance of relatively
large controlled air incinerators. More data is needed to accurately
characterize emissions from smaller retort incinerators.
3.2.1 Acid Gases
Hydrogen Chloride. Table 3-3 contains a summary of the hydrogen
chloride (HC1) emissions data which were gathered during this study.
Emissions factors are also shown for each of the units. Additional data
beyond what is presented are also available through states which require
testing for HC1 emissions. The HC1 emissions results of Table 3-3 are
presented with the results of the comprehensive emissions tests placed above
25
those units for which information was obtained from a survey article. The
emissions data obtained from the survey article are for units located in
Canada. For the purposes of presentation, the results of the summary
3-15
-------
TABLE 3-3. DATA/FACTORS FOR HYDROGEN CHLORIDE EMISSIONS
FROM HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATORS
Hospital
Cedar Sinai3
High
1 Ml I
1 flUI
^ WV
Average
St. Agnes
High
1 nw
I.XJW
Average
Roya] Jubilee0
High
1 At
i nw
L. \J •»
Average
Illinois Unitd
High
Low
^ \J rW
Average
Athabasca
Bonnyville
Will ingdon
Lacombe
Ft. McMurray
St. Michaels
Queen El izabeth II
Queen Elizabeth II
Queen Elizabeth II
Add On
Control Device/
Heat Recovery
Fabric Filter
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
Incinerator
Feed Rate
(Ib/hr)
980
783
1,930
500-800
85
130
130
150
265
465
575
700
700
HC1
Concentra-
tion
(ppmv)
521.0
403.0
462.0
926.0
764.0
845.0
1,520.0
983.0
1,252.0
1,490.0
170.0
550.0
41.0
62.2
308.0
234.5
700.0
2,095.0
115.0
287.0
378.0
Emissions
Factor
(Ib/ton
feed)
17.6
13.7
15.7
40.2
33. T
36.7
65.7
42.5
54.1
10.6*
6-6!
_P
8.6e
68.1
16.5
24.3
14.6
48.6
99.4
22.3
19.1
25.3
3-L6
-------
TABLE 3-3. DATA/FACTORS FOR HYDROGEN CHLORIDE EMISSIONS
FROM HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATORS (CONTINUED)
Hospital
Misericordia
Misericordia
Royal Alex
Royal Alex
Foothills
Lethbridge Gen.
Univ. of Alberta
Univ. of Alberta
Add On Incinerator
Control Device/ Feed Rate
Heat Recovery (Ib/hr)
None
None
None/Yes
None/Yes
None
Wet Scrubber/Yes
Wet Scrubber/Yes
Wet Scrubber/Yes
740
740
1,160
1,200
2,500
1,060
1,400
1,400
HC1
Concentra-
tion
(ppmv)
670.0
687.3
553.0
562.0
702.0
44.6
64.7
25.4
Emissions
Factor
(Ib/ton
feed)
63.1
63.1
84.5
79.6
72.8
5.9
0.7
4.4
Reference 21.
Reference 22.
Reference 23.
Reference 24.
e8ased on emissions factors presented in Reference 24.
Reference 25.
3-17
-------
article are shown in order of ascending feed rate. As shown, there is no
•.-
correlation between the unit feed rates and the HC1 emissions. This is
understandable because, as previously stated, the level of HC1 emissions
should be directly related to the percentage of chlorine-containing
compounds in the waste fed to the unit. Unfortunately, no information was
given regarding the percent chlorine in the wastes being burned.
Two of the units for which emissions data are available have scrubbers
which are used for acid gas control. These units have the lowest emissions
rates of those shown. The type of scrubbers used was not identified in
Reference 25.
Sulfur Dioxide and Nitrogen Oxides. Table 3-4 summarizes the emissions
data and calculated emission factors for S02 and NOX- As can be seen, there
are limited data available for these compounds. The only two sources found
were the state of California test reports.
On a concentration basis, the emission rates for the pollutants in
Table 3-4 are relatively low. For the highest S02 concentration, 50 ppmv,
an equivalent SO- emissions rate of 0.15 Ib/million Btu is determined by
assuming a mean heat content of 10,000 Btu/lb for hospital waste. A mean
heating value of 5,000 Btu/lb corresponds to an SO- emissions rate of
0.3 Ib/million Btu. The corresponding maximum NOX emissions rates (based on
the 270 ppmv rate) are 0.4 and 0.8 ID/million Btu for heat contents of
10,000 and 5,000 Btu/lb, respectively.
3.2.2 Particulate Matter
A great deal of PM emissions data have been collected. Some of the most
readily available data are shown in Table 3-5. Much of this data has been
collected because many states require hospital incineration units to meet
PM emission limits. Testing is, therefore, carried out on a routine basis.
In addition, as previously stated, vendors frequently offer guarantees
regarding PM emissions.
3-L8
-------
TABLE 3-4. DATA/FACTORS FOR S02 AND NOX EMISSIONS
FROM HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATORS
Cedar Sinai
Medical Center
Los Anaeles. CA
Pollutant
Sulfur Dioxide
High
Low
Average
Nitrogen Oxides
High
Low
Average
(ppmv)
50
25
37
270
160
217
(Ib/ton
feed)
3.01
1.51
2.22
7.82
4.64
6.29
St. Agnes
Medical Center
Fresno. CA
(ppmv)
20
19
19
155
155
155
(Ib/ton
feed)
1.54
1.47
1.47
5.75
5.75
5.75
Emissions
Factor
(Ib/ton
feed)
3.01
1.47
1.85
7.82
4.64
6.02
Reference 21.
^Reference 22.
3-19
-------
TABLE 3-5. DATA/FACTORS FOR PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
FROM HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATORS9
Hospital
Cedar Sinai3
High
Low
Average
St. Agnesb
High
Low
Average
Royal Jubilee0
High
Low
Averaga
111 i no is Unit
High
Low
Average
Athabasca
Will ingdon
Bonnyville
Lacombe
Ft. McMurray
W.C. McKen.
Red Deer
St. Michaels
Queen Elizabeth II
Add -On
Control Device/
Heat Recovery
Fabric Filter/No
None/No
None/No
None/No
None/No
None/No
None/No
None/No
None/No
None/No
None/Yes
None/No
None/No
Incinerator
Feed Rate
(lb/hr)
980
783
1930
500-800
85
130
130
150
265
275
410
465
575
Particulate
Loading
(gr/dscf)
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.090
0.080
0.080
0.028
0.022
0.025
0.170
0.020
0.040
0.050
0.070
0.080
0.070
0.050
0.020
0.080
0.080
0.030
Emissions
Factor
(Ib/ton
feed)
0.10
0.05
0.07
5.45
4.S4
5.15
1.82
1.37
1.60
3.20^
2.00*
2.60e
26.92
1.69
11.85
5.87
13.28
3.20
36.49
1.70
6.12
3-20
-------
TABLE 3-5. DATA/FACTORS FOR PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
FROM HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATORS9 (CONTINUED)
Hospital
Queen Elizabeth II
Misericordia
Misericordia
Royal Alex
Royal Alex
Foothills
Lethbridge Gen.
Univ. of Alberta
Add-On Incinerator
Control Device/ Feed Rate
Heat Recovery (Ib/hr)
None/No
None/No
None/No
None/Yes
None/Yes
None/No .
Wet Scrubber/Yes
Wet Scrubber/Yes
700
740
740
1,160
1,200
2 , 500
1,060
1,400
Particulate
Loading
(gr/dscf)
0.030
0.060
0.100
0.030
0.070
0.060
0.040
0.020
Emissions
Factor
(Ib/ton
feed)
2.70
2.97
4.76
3.41
3.30
1.76
2.12
1.23
Reference 21.
Reference 22.
Reference 23.
Reference 24.
eBased on emissions factors presented in Reference 24.
fAll of the information from Athabasca to Univ. of Alberta are from
Reference 25.
gAll the incinerators identified in this table were two-stage controlled air
units. The University of Alberta unit had a rotating hearth for a primary
chamber; all other units had a fixed primary chamber.
3-21
-------
.-,, The PM emission results in Table 3-5 include the results of the
comprehensive emissions tests (the first four hospitals) and test results
obtained from the survey article.26 These units are the same units for
which HC1 data were presented. The data shown from the survey article are
arranged in order of ascending feed rate to show any effect of unit size on
PM emissions. The emission factors in Table 3-5 show no clear trend between
specific PM emission rates and unit size. It is interesting to note that
the highest emission factors (above 10 Ib/ton feed) are associated with the
smaller units (below 400 Ib/hr). Based on the information in Section 2.1,
these units may well be excess air incinerators. Unfortunately, no design
information is available to confirm this hypothesis.
Emissions results for units operating with PM control equipment are_
also shown in Table 3-5. The Cedar Sinai unit, which was installed with a
fabric filter for PM control, had the lowest PM emissions factor of those
presented. The control efficiency for the filter was 98 percent. The other
two units which had PM control equipment are the Lethbridge General and
University of Alberta units. The emissions factors for these two units are
considerably higher and are not markedly different from incinerators
operated without PM control equipment. This may be explained by the fact
that these units were operated for acid gas control and not for PM removal.
Unfortunately no inlet data were given for these units so the control
efficiency could not be determined.
3.2.3 Trace Metals
Table 3-6 contains a summary of the available trace metal emission data
for hospital waste incinerators. An emissions factor based on the waste
feed rate to the unit is also given for each of the emissions rates
presented. In addition, for the Cedar Sinai uni't, results for upstream and
downstream of the fabric filter are presented.
No additional trace metals data were identified by the study. Because
two of the reports are from California, a state recently beginning to
3-22
-------
TABLE 3-6. DATA/FACTORS FOR TRACE ELEMENT EMISSIONS FROM HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATORS
PM
Device
a d
CeJjr Slnal '
High
Low
Average
High
Low
Average
b,d
St . Agnes
High
Low
Average
Royal
• c d
Jubilee
High
Low
Average
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
As
Cd
gr/dscf Ib/con
(xlO~6)
0.103
0.112
.0.109
140
59
92
67
46
55
52.4
24.7
38.6
Ib/con
0.053
0.050
0.051
68.0
• 29.0
44.4
40.9
24.8
31.9
33.2
15.5
24.4
Cr
gr/dscf
(xlO~6)
0.069
0.016
0.046
7.46
2.15
4.09
11
5
a
30.9
16.3
23.6
Ib/con
0.032
0.008
0.021
3.63
1.02
1.98
6.07
2.88
4.69
19.5
10.2
14.9
Fe
gr/dscf
0.516
0.474
0.502
153
85
65
166
68
130
292
284
238
Ib/ton
(xlO-4>
0.245
0.227
0.238
72.6
41.2
55.3
101.6
39.8
75.1
183
180
182
Mn
gr/dscf
(xlO~6)
0.112
0.103
0.109
9.23
6.74
8.30
7
3
' 5
18.1
12.3
15.2
Ib/con
(xlO~4)
0
0
0
4
3
1
3
1
2
11
7
9
.05}
.051
.051
.37
.29
.96
.93
.58
.88
.4
.8
.6
Nl
gr/dscf
<»10~6)
0.645
0.593
0.628
2.34
2.22
2.28
5
3
4
8.0
5.8
6.9
Ib/con
0.304
0.214
0.267
1.12
1.08
1.10
2.80
1.58
2.38
5.0
3.6
4.3
PI.
gr/dscf
-------
require testing, it can be assumed that future tests will be a source for
additional data.
Analysis of the Cedar Sinai data indicate that there is a substantial
reduction in trace element emissions across the fabric filter. No
statements can be made relative to trends in the data relative to
incinerator size.
3.2.4 Organic Emissions
Chlorinated Dibenzo-D-Dioxins (CDDs) and Chlorinated Dibenzofurans
(CDFs). Tables 3-7 and 3-8 contain summaries of the available emissions
data for CDD and CDF compounds from hospital incinerators. An emissions
factor based on waste feed rate to the unit is also given for each of the
emissions rates presented. The homolog emission data from three emissions '
tests are shown. Limited isomer emission data were available for the Cedar
Sinai and St. Agnes tests. For the Cedar Sinai unit results from both
upstream and downstream of the fabric filter are presented.
At this time, these are the only reported CDD and CDF emissions test
results for hospital incinerator units which are known to exist. An
additional unit located at Stanford University Medical Center in California
was also recently tested for CDDs and CDFs.27 The results of this test were
not available as of the writing of this report. The California Air Resource
Board (CARB) has recently begun to require testing for CDDs and CDFs at
newly installed hospital 'incinerators so additional data will be avai^.ble
through CARB in the future.
Analysis of the emissions data presented for the unit at Cedar Sinai
indicates that for most of the dioxin and furan homologs, a slight reduction
occurs across the fabric filter. The subgroups for which this reduction was
not seen are the TCDD and TCDF homologs. Results of ash analyses are
presented in Table 3-9.
No statements can be made relative to trends in the data related to
unit size or operating characteristics because too little is known about the
operation of each of the facilities during testing.
3-24
-------
TABLE 3-7. DATA/FACTORS FOR CHLORINATED MMHteOFtntAttS EMISSIONS FROM HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATORS
U>
I
Ul
a d
Cedar Slnal '
Hedlcal Center
Los Angeles, CA
(Fabric Filter)
(ng/nM3)
(Tetra) TCDF
High
Low
Average
(Penta) PeCDF
High
Low
Average
(Hexa) HxCDF
High
Low
Average
(Hepta) HpCDF
High
Low
Average
(Octa) OCDF
High
Low
Average
Total PCDF
High
Lou
Average
Reference 21.
Reference 22.
Reference 23.
6
5
5
18
1*
16
27
20
23
51
49
50
39
26
32
130
129
129
.09
.85
.97
.30
.50
.40
.40
.40
.90
.10
.40
.25
.20
.50
.85
.00
.00
.50
(Ib/ton
feed)
(»10 )
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.38
0.30
0.34
0.57
0.42
0.49
1.05
1.02
1.04
0.81
0.55
0.68
2.69
2.67
2.68
Cedar Slnal
Hedlcal Center
Los Angeles. CA
(Uncont rol led)
-------
TABLE 3-8. DATA/FACTORS FOR CHLOR.NATED OH.mO-p-tm.XlH* EMISSIONS FROM HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATORS
I
N>
a d
Cedar Sinai
Hedlcal Center
Lit Aiigele*. CA
(tb/lun
f.eg)
(ng/nM ) (»10 )
(Tetra) TCUD
High
Low
Average
(Pent a) PeCOO
High
Low
Average
(Hexa) HxCDD
High
Low
Average
(Uepta) HpCOD
High
Low
Average
(Octa) OCDD
High
Low
Average
Total PCDO
High
Low
Average
67.10
56.50
61.80
101.00
80. tO
91.70
118.00
90.90
104.45
110.00
109.00
109. SO
49.10
38.00
43.55
43*. 00
106.00
270. SO
1.38
1.17
1.28
2.12
1.67
1.89
2.1.4
1.88
2.16
2/27
2.25
2.26
1.02
0.7d
0.90
8.98
8.01
8. SO
Cedar Slnal
Medical Center
Lot Angeles, CA
(ng/nM1)
79.8
3S.S
. S9.2
106.0
68.9
92.6
163.0
116.0
144.0
204.0
1S2.0
169.7
163.0
67.7
10S.1
69S.O
441.0
570.7
(Ib/ton
feed)
(.10 )
l.SS
0.65
1.12
2.06
1.91
1.74
3.03
2.12
2.71
3.79
2.82
3.19
3.03
1.24
1.97
10.74
8.09
10.74
b.d
St. Agne>
Hedlcal Center
Fresno. CA
(Uncont rol led)
(ng/nM3)
78.7
64.9
71.8
136.0
130.C
133.0
202.0
170.0
186.0
232.0
160.0
196.0
166.0
150.0
1S8.0
785.0
704.0
744.5
(Ib/ton
feed)
<«10*>
2.07
1.81
1.94
3.79
3.42
3.61
5.63
4.46
5.04
6.46
4.19
5.33
4.35
4.19
4.27
21.87
18.51
20.19
c,d
Royal Jubilee
Hospital
Victoria. BC
(Unconc rol led)
(ng/nM*)
34.9
18.9
26.975
53.1
48.3
46.175
57.5
29.8
42.925
35.4
20.8
25.725
27.7
7.7
13.8
196.5
117.3
155.6
(Ib/lon
feed)
(»10 )
0.93
O.SO
0.73
1.45
0.90
1.24
1.51
0.82
1.15
0.96
0.55
0.70
0.75
0.21
0.37
5.36
3.25
4.19
Crnls* lun»
Factor
(Uncoil! rol led)
(Ib/ton Iced)
(niu")
201
0.50
1.26
3.79
0.90
2.20
5.63
0.82
2.97
6.46
0.55
3.07
4.35
0.21
2.21
21.87
3.25
11.71
'Reference 21.
b
Reference 22.
°Reference 23.
High and low values'ace result* of Individual test. runs.
-------
TABLE 3-9. FABRIC FILTER DIOXIN/FURAN ASH ANALYSIS
FOR CEDAR SINAI INCINERATOR3
Loadings
(ng/g)
Dioxins
Tetra
Penta
Hexa
Hepta
Octa
Total PCDD
Furans
Tetra
Penta
Hexa
Hepta
Octa
Total PCDF
1.6
3.7
8.9
33.6
65.7
114.0
13.6
19.0
22.6
42.2
43.5
141.0
Reference 21.
3-27
-------
. Low Molecular Weight Qrqanics. Table 3-10 contains emissions factors
for the low molecular weight organics for which emissions results were
identified. These factors were determined from information collected at
three of the comprehensive test sites.
Carbon Monoxide. The CO emissions data which were identified during
this study are presented in Table 3-11. Also presented are the hydrocarbon
(HC) data which were found. It should be noted that the HC data are
reported as propane. The CO concentrations measured were below the
detection limit of 50 ppmv and are, therefore, reported as less than
50 ppmv.
A comparison of the HC emissions factors of Table 3-11 to the LC
factors of Table 3-10 suggests that only a small portion of the total HC
measured is comprised of the compounds listed in Table 3-10. A definitive
conclusion can not be reached, however, because the results presented are
from different tests.
3.2.5 Pathogens
As part of a recent test, 15 samples were taken from the stack of a
hospital waste incinerator which had been charged with hospital waste
containing pathogenic material28. Bacteria with a mean concentration of
231 colonies/m3 of gas sampled were found in the stack as opposed to an
ambient mean level of 148 colonies/m3. However, due to experimental
uncertainty, no statistically significant difference could be found between
the two measurements.
In another study, a two-stage hospital incinerator was charged with
known concentrations .of bacterial colonies in order to determine the minimum
operating temperature required to prevent the release of bacteria or their
spores to the environment29. The conclusions reached by the study were
that, to prevent release of viable organisms to the atmosphere, a primary
chamber operating temperature of 1400°F is required and a secondary chamber
operating temperature of 1600°F is needed.
3-28
-------
TABLE 3-10. EMISSION FACTORS FOR SELECTED ORGANIC LOW MOLECULAR WEIGHT
ORGANICS FROM HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATORS
Ethane
Ethylene
Propane
Propylene
Tri chl orotri fl uoroethane
Tetrachl oromethane
Trichloroethylene
Tetrachl oroethylene
Emissions Factor
(Ib/ton feed)
<0.003
<0.02
<0.024
<0.022
8.25 x 10"5
9.91 x 105
2.39 x 105
2.49 x 104
Reference
Source
23
23-
23
23
21, 22
21, 22
21, 22
21, 22
3-29
-------
TABLE 3-11. EMISSIONS/FACTORS FOR CARBON MONOXIDE AND HYDROCARBON
EMISSIONS FROM HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATORS
Cedar Sinai
Medical Center
las Anaeles. CA
Pollutant
Carbon Monoxide
High
Low
Average
HC (as Propane)
High
Low
Average
(ppmv)
<50C
<50
<50
7
3
4
(Ib/ton
feed)
<1.32
<1.32
<1.32
0.29
0.12
0.17
St. Agnes
Medical Center
Fresno, CA
(Ib/ton
(ppmv) feed)
<50 <1.69
<50 <1.69
<50 . <1.69
4 0.21
1 0.05
2 0.11
Emissions
Factor
(Ib/ton
feed)
<1:69
<1.32
<1.51 .
0.29
0.05
0.14
Reference 21.
Reference 22.
C8elow the lower detection limit of 50 ppmv
3-30
-------
3.. 3 REFERENCES
1. Kaiser, E. R. and Carotti, A. "Municipal Incineration of Refuse with Two
Percent and Four Percent Additions of Four Plastics: Polyethylene,
Polyurethane, Polystyrene, and Polyvinyl Chloride, "Proceedings of the
1972 National. Incinerator Conference". June 1972. pp. 230-245.
California Air Resources Board. Air Pollution Control at Resource
Recovery Facilities. May 24, 1984.
2. Reference 1.
3. Heap, M. P., Lanier, W. S. and Seeker, W. R., "The Control of NO
Emissions from Municiple Solid Waste Incinerators," Energy and
Environmental Research Corporation.
4. Edwards, J. B. Combustion: Formation and Emission of Trace Species. Ann
Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1977. (Second
Printing), p. 65-68. California Air Resources Board. Air Pollution
Control at Resource Recovery Facilities. May 24, 1984.
5. Henry, W. M., R. L. Barbour, R. J. Jakobsen, and P. M. Schumacher.
Inorganic Compound Identification of Fly Ash Emissions from Municipal
Incinerators. PB 83-146175. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. October 1982.
6. California Air Resources Board. Air Pollution Control at Resource
Recovery Facilities. May 24, 1984.
7. Reference 6.
8. Jacko, R. 8. and D. W. Neuendorf. "Trace Metal Particulate Emission Test
Results from a Number of Industrial and Municipal Point Sources." APCA
Journal Volume 27, No. 10, October 1977. p. 989.
9. Reference 6.
10. Block, C. and R. Dams. "Inorganic Composition of Belgian Coals and Coal
Ashes," Environmental Science and Technology. Vol. 9, No. 2, February
1975. pp. 146-150 as cited in reference 23.
11. Gallorini, M., et al. CEP Consultants Ltd. Heavy Metal Contents in the
Emission of Solid Waste Refuse Incineration. 1981. p. 56.
12. Reference 3.
13. Germanus, 0. "Hypothesis Explaining the Origin of Chlorinated Dioxins
and Furans in Combustion Effluents." Presented at the Symposium on
Resource Recovery, Hofstra University, Long Island, New York, 1985.
3-31
-------
14. Axelrod, 0., MO. "Lessons Learned from the Transformer Fire at the
* Binghampton (NY) State Office Building." Chemosphere 14 (6/7),
p. 775-778.
15. 01ie, K., M. V. 0. Berg, and 0. Hutzinger. "Formation and Fate of PCDD
and PCDF Combustion Processes." Chemosphere 12 (4/5), p. 627, 1983.
16. Hutzinger, 0., M. J. Blumich, M. V. 0. Berg, and K. 01ie. "Sources and
Fate of PCDO and PCDFs: An Overview." Chemosphere 14 (6/7), p. 581,
1985.
17. Reference 3.
18. Technical Report, "Municiple Waste Combustion Study; Recycling of Solid
Waste," Prepared by Radian Corporation for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. EPA Contract 68-02-4330, p. 5-6.
19. Remarks of Dr. T. Galdfarb at the Conference "Health, Environmetnal and
Financial Impacts of Trash Incineration" George Mason University
November 15, 1986, Fairfax, Virginia.
20. Doyle, B. W. Drum, D. A., and Lauber, J. D., "The Smoldering Question of
Hospital Waste," Pollution Engineering Magazine,.July 1985.
21. Jenkins, A., "Evaluation Test on a Hospital Refuse Incinerator at Cedar
Sinai Medical Center. Los Angeles, CA," California Air Resources Board,
April 1987.
22. Jenkins, A., "Evaluation Test on a Hospital Refuse Incinerator at Saint
Agnes Medical Center, Fresno, CA," California Air Resources Board,
January 1987.
23. Bumbaco, M. J., "Report on a Stack Sampling Program to Measure the
Emissions of Selected Trace Organic Compounds, Particulates, Heavy
Metals, and HC1 from-the Royal Jubilee Hospital Incinerator. Victoria,
B.C." Environmental Protection Programs Directorate. April 1983.
24. Darling, C., Allen, R., Brenniman, G., "Air Pollution Emissions from a
Hospital Incinerator," Proceedings from the Vlth World Conference on Air
Quality, May 1983, p. 211.
25. Powell, F. C., "Incineration of Hospital Wastes the Alberta Experience,"
Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Volume 37, No. 7,
July 1987, p. 836.
26. Reference 25.
27. Meeting Notes from Ecolaire Presentation, August 4, 1987, at Radian
Corporation.
3-32
-------
28. Kelly, H., Brenniman, G., and Kusek, J., "An Evaluation of Bacterial
.'" Emissions from a Hospital Incinerator," Proceedings from Vlth World
Conference on Air Quality, Vol. 2, May 1983, pp. 227-234.
29. Barbcitto, M. S., Shapiro, M., "Microbial Safety Evaluation of a Solid
and Liquid Pathological Incinerator," Journal of Medical Primatology,
July 1977, pp. 264-273.
3-33
-------
4.0 CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES AND EFFICIENCIES
To date, hospital waste incinerators have operated largely without
requirements for add-on pollution control equipment or special combustion
modification techniques. Municipal waste incinerators, on the other hand,
have received closer scrutiny in recent years and consideration has been
given to potential emission control techniques. The process equipment and
systems used to incinerate these two types of wastes are similar in design
and operation, at least for the larger controlled air incinerators. This
section extrapolates knowledge which has been gained from municipal waste
incinerators to hospital waste incinerators and considers the applicability
of various emission control techniques.
There are three broad categories of methods which may be applied to "the
control of emissions from waste incinerators:
(1) Source Separation,
(2) Combustion Control, and
(3) Flue Gas Controls (add-on control devices).
The application of each of these categories of emission control to hospital
waste incinerators is addressed in this section.
4.1 SOURCE SEPARATION
Source separation refers to both the segregation of infectious and
non-infectious wastes and the removal of specific compounds from the waste
stream prior to incineration. As discussed in Section 1.2, it is estimated
that about 85 percent of a hospital's waste stream can be categorized as
general refuse, while the remaining 15 percent is contaminated with
infectious agents (according to the experience of hospitals in Illinois).
Thus, segregation of wastes at the point of generation can reduce the volume
of infectious waste significantly. During a visit of project personnel to
the Iredale Hospital in Statesville, North Carolina, such waste segregation
practice was observed through the use of colored trash bags. The extent of
infectious waste reduction was not known.
4-1
-------
After segregation of infectious and non-infectious wastes, further
segregation of the non-infectious portion could be possible. Plastics and
metal-containing components of the waste could be segregated and possibly
lower HC1, polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDDs), polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-furans (PCDFs), and trace metal emission rates. However, no data
are available on the effectiveness of such practices at hospital waste
incinerators in lowering these emissions. Another approach to possibly
lower HC1 and PCDD/PCDF emission rates would be to use low chlorine content
plastics within hospitals. This could be accomplished if the health care
industry were to use plastics such as polyethylene and polystyrene in place
of polyvinyl chloride, which contains over 45 weight percent chlorine.
Again, no data are available to indicate the effectiveness of such practices
on emissions from hospital waste incinerators.
4.2 COMBUSTION CONTROL
Data presented in Section 3 illustrate that there is significant
variation in the uncontrolled emission rates from hospital incinerators.
These variations are partially due to variability in chemical and physical
properties of hospital wastes, partially due to variations in incinerator
design, and partially due to variation in operating practices. This section
addresses how waste combustion processes influence emission rates for the
pollutants of interest and how combustion process control may be used as an
emission control strategy, The general format is to address each pollutant
group separately, discussing how combustion processes influence the emission
rate and how the adjustable process parameters may be used to reduce
emissions and achieve emission control.
The following sections provide discussions of the relationships between
combustion processes and emissions of major pollutants-of concern, namely:
o acid gases,
o particulate matter,
o trace metals, and
o polycyclic organic matter (including dioxin and fr.rans).
4-2
-------
4.2.. 1 Acid Gas Control
The primary acid gas that will be emitted from a hospital waste
incinerator is hydrochloric acid. As stated in Section 3.1, based on
thermodynamic equilibrium considerations, any chlorine content in the waste
will be effectively converted to HC1, assuming that there is sufficient
hydrogen available. Therefore, based on the thermodynamic and kinetic
consideration presented in Section 3.1, combustion modification does not
appear to be a viable control approach for hydrochloric emissions from
hospital incineration units.
From a combustion control standpoint, emissions of S02 are similar to
HC1. Therefore, combustion modification is not a viable approach for SO-
emissions.
The NO emissions from a hospital waste incinerator are relatively low
A
when compared to those from a pulverized coal-fired boiler (0.9 to 1.0
Ib/million Btu, uncontrolled). NO emissions from hospital waste
A
incinerators are low because of their low combustion temperatures and
two-staged combustion design. The low temperatures decrease the thermal NO
A
production and the two-staged design helps to reduce the fuel NO which is
formed. However, in some regions even the NO levels which are shown in
Section 3.0 are of concern. In such cases there are two potential control
options which may be considered.
The two options available control NO emissions in the combustion zone
where they are created. Neither are presently being applied to hospital
incinerators but both could potentially be used. The first is flue gas
recirculation (FGR) which retards NO formation; the second is reburning
which destroys the NO which is created in the combustion zone.
Flue gas recirculation is a technology which has been used for the
control of NO in boilers. FGR introduces a thermal diluent and reduces
combustion temperatures. However, lowering of flame and furnace
temperatures could be counter to the control of PCDD/PCDF. The significance
of the detrimental impact of reduced bulk temperatures on PCDD/PCDF
emissions has yet to be determined. Testing recently completed on the
4-3
-------
Pittsfield MSW incinerator by the State of New York could provide
information addressing the impacts of FGR when they become available.
Information gained from this test and other future tests could be used to
further evaluate the potential application of FGR to hospital incinerator
units.
Reburning is a term used for a control technique which uses a
hydrocarbon-type fuel as a reducing agent. Hydrocarbon radicals react with
NO to form nitrogen-containing radicals which, in turn, form N2 by reaction
with NO in the absence of oxygen. This control technology is being
developed for use in fossil fuel-fired boilers because only minor
modifications are required to the main heat release zone. Thus, with
reburning the main heat release zone can be optimized for efficient
combustion, eliminating problems with impact on PCDD/PCDF emissions. The.
effectiveness of reburning for NOX control in boilers has been shown to be a
function of:
Initial NO level: the reduction decreases as the initial NO level
decreases.
Fuel type: nitrogen-free reburning fuels are most effective,
particularly at low initial NO levels.
Temperature: reburning effectiveness increases as the temperature
of the reburning zone increases.
Residence time: gas residence time in the reburning zone of
approximately 0.5 seconds is required to maximize the
effectiveness of reburning.
Two aspects of the reburning process make it attractive for hospital
incinerators. First, it is a relatively effective control technique,
providing NO reductions on the order of 50 percent. Second, the process of
burning the secondary fuel results .in a significant increase in the
4-4
-------
concentration of 0, H and OH radicals. Even though the local stoichiometry
is fuel-rich the high.radical concentrations drive the gas speciation
towards the equilibrium state. Thus, reburning not only provides an
approach for destroying NO, it also creates an environment which should
destroy any dioxins or furans created in the primary flame zone. Extensive
research and development efforts would be required to develop reburning for
hospital incineration but the potential exists for a multi-purpose
combustion control technology.
4.2.2 Particulate Matter Control
As stated previously, particulate matter exiting the furnace consists
of both inorganic material entrained into the combustion gases and organic
materials which were not completely burned. In evaluating the influence of
combustion control on PM emissions, it is necessary to separate the organic
and inorganic fractions and to distinguish between the volatile and
non-volatile inorganic contributions.
When waste is fed into an incinerator, it is heated by radiant energy
from the hot furnace walls and from burning combustion products above the
bed. The waste is dried and, as the temperature increases, a
devolatilization (pyrolysis) process begins. The released volatile matter
is entrained by the underfire air and begins to burn. Heat transfer from
the burning volatiles to the bed material helps to ignite the waste in the
bed and sustain the combustion process. The non-volatile, inorganic
constituents of the waste yenerally remain in the ash pit. Non-volatile
inorganics can contribute to the PM emission rate if an ash-containing
particle is entrained by the underfire air and bed combustion products as
they pass through the waste bed into the primary chamber.
An ash-containing particle in the bed will be subjected to a series of
forces including a drag force tending to accelerate the particle to the
local air velocity and a gravity force tending to hold the particle in the
bed. The drag force is proportional to the frontal area of the particle
times the velocity differential squared. The opposing gravity force is
4-5
-------
simply gravitational acceleration times particle density times particle
volume. Assuming a spherical particle, the gravity force varies with the
diameter cubed. The ratio of drag force to gravity force will vary
inversely with particle diameter. Thus, particles with relatively large
surface-to-volume ratio are more likely to be entrained into the primary
chamber flow field.
If it is assumed that the ash content of hospital waste is
approximately 25 percent and that emitted PM is totally inorganic, then the
uncontrolled PM emission rate data presented earlier in Table 3-5 may be
used to estimate the extent of entrainment. The PM emission rates were
shown to vary from 36.5 to 1.37 Ib/ton refuse. This indicates that between
92.7 and 99.7 percent of the ash remains in the ash pit.
Before addressing the volatile inorganic and organic fractions, it is
important to place the PM emission rate data into perspective. As discussed
above, available data .indicate that less than 10 percent-of the input ash
exits the furnace as PM and, in some instances, that fraction is less than
one percent. In a pulverized coal-fired utility boiler, however,
approximately 80 percent of the coal ash exits the furnace as fly ash. Even
accounting for the lower ash content and higher heating value of coal
relative to hospital waste, the PM emission rates (on either a gr/DSCF or
lb/106 million Btu basis) will be much lower for a hospital incinerator than
for a utility boiler.
The volatile inorganic material.in the feed will also contribute to the
total PM emission rate, 'it is convenient to discuss combustion control of
this PM fraction in the context of trace metal emission even though all of
the trace metals emitted may not be associated with the particulate. A
discussion of trace metal emissions is presented in Section 4.2.3.
Finally, organic compounds are also associated with emitted PM. The
organic components are generally heavy hydrocarbons such as soot, products
of incomplete combustion (PICs), or polycyclic organic matter (POM). An
extensive discussion of POM emissions and potential combustion control is
presented in Section 4.2.4. Combustion phenomena responsible for POM,
dioxin, and furan formation are also responsible for the formation of soot.
4-6
-------
Thus, combustion modifications to minimize PCDD and PCDF emissions should
also be effective for other organic particulate emissions.
4.2.3 Trace Metals Control
In Section 3.G, the available trace metal emissions data from hospital
incinerators were discussed and it was pointed out that many of the volatile
metals of concern tend to selectively deposit on the smaller particles. The
physical processes responsible for these phenomena are extremely complex, as
is the potential influence of combustion processes on the associated
phenomena. The following will provide only a brief review of key features
which may be significant relative to hospital incineration combustion
control.
The majority of the available research concerning the process of fine •-.
particle metal enrichment has been performed on pulverized coal-fired
utility boilers. Those conditions are somewhat different than the
conditions found in hospital incinerators but the basic processes should be
similar in both systems. It has been found that the distribution of
volatile metals among the different size fractions of ash is influenced by
the amount of ultra-fine particles produced during combustion. Figure 4-1
illustrates this point in a plot of the fraction of arsenic and antimony
collected with the ultra-fine particles (referred to as fume) versus the
fraction of the total ash appearing in the ultra-fine mode. A surface
deposition model to interpret these data was developed and its predictions
for the amount of trace metal deposited in the small size mode is presented
as the solid lines on Figure 4-1.
The issue of how uniformly the metals are distributed as a function of
particle size has health effect implications as well as being an issue of
engineering significance. Based on the probable mechanism of fine
particulate formation, it was suspected that the trace metals would tend to
concentrate on the surface of fine particles rather than being uniformly
distributed throughout the particle size range. The reasoning was that
refractory oxides which were vaporized in the flame would be the first
4-7
-------
0.02
0.04 0.10 0.14
rr»ct1« of Toul AM
0.18
Source: Reference 1.
Figure 4-1 Fraction of As and Sb collected with fume as a
function of the extent of total ash vaporization
(data points).
4-8
-------
species to condense and would become the nuclei for the fine participate
matter. As the combustion gases cooled, volatile salts of alkali metals and
other volatile trace species would be expected to condense on the outer
surface of these particles. A group at MIT, led by Professor Adel Sarofim.
has confirmed this theory in several experimental studies. Figure 4-2
illustrates their findings in a plot of the concentration of selected
species versus reciprocal particle diameter. The elements Fe and Mg, which
form the core of the particles, show no size dependence while those present
as a surface coating show concentration variation proportional to 1/d. Note
that the trace metals of concern for hospital incinerators were largely
present as surface coatings.
The key to the above observation is that the ultra-fine particles
present a very high specific surface area and thus receive a
disproportionate share of the condensing elements. Any process that
enhances refractory oxide vaporization would be expected to increase the
number of sub-micron particles and to enhance the fine particle enrichment
process. It has been speculated that fuel-rich combustion,, used for NO
A
control in boilers and also used in controlled air incinerators, could
increase the refractory oxide vaporization rate. The basis of this
speculation was contained in models used to successfully predict the extent
of refractory oxide vaporization under excess air conditions. These oxides
(SiCL, MgO, CaO, Fe-O,) were assumed to vaporize at combustion conditions as
a result of chemical reduction to the more volatile suboxide (SiO) or metal
(Mg, Ca, Fe) within the locally reducing atmosphere within a coal particle.
These models assumed that the following reaction reached equilibrium
M0n + CO »• M0n_1 +• C02
at the surface of mineral inclusions and that the reduced oxide or metal
(MO ,) then diffused to the char particle surface. Under fuel-rich
conditions, the gases surrounding the coal particle would be reducing, which
should accelerate the vaporization process. Experiments to confirm this
speculation were performed. They measured the aerosol size distribution in
4-9
-------
10*
10'
40 20
O *
» 10
'0.00 0.03 0.06
ln»«rt» 01«Mt«P
0.09
0.12
Source: Reference 1.
Fiure 4-2. Concentration of selected elements
in ultrafine particulates as a function
of reciprocal particle diameter.
4-10
-------
the convective section of a well-defined pilot scale facility operated under
a variety of combustion conditions. Their results indicate that staged
combustion conditions increased the sub-micron particulate matter
concentration by 50 percent when firing lignitic coals.
The above information provides important clues relative to the
mechanisms responsible for trace metal enhancement on sub-micron
particles. It does not, however, define a combustion control approach to
minimize trace metal emissions. Incinerators operated with-extremely high
temperatures in fuel-rich zones should have relatively higher concentrations
of sub-micron particles which could potentially increase the trace metal
enrichment process. Therefore, the use of controlled air, or two-stage,
incineration with its lower primary combustion temperatures should reduce or
minimize trace metal emissions.
4.2.4 Polycvclic Organic Matter (POM). PCDDs. and PCDFs
Available data from MSW incinerators indicate that the PCDD and PCDF
emission rate is closely related to efficiency of the combustion process.
Generally speaking, when the flame temperature and combustion efficiency are
increased, PCDD and PCDF emission rates are seen to decrease. Due to the
overriding toxiological importance of these pollutant species, an extensive
discussion will be presented on how poor combustion conditions can lead to
POM, dioxin and furan emissions and how the combustion process may be
controlled to minimize these emissions.
The vast majority of the information on dioxin and furan emissions has
been obtained only recently and primarily consists of stack emission rate
measurements from municipal waste combustors. This information is taken
primarily from testing results at large industrial and municipal
incinerators; little work has been done on smaller hospital waste
incinerators. There is also essentially no data from experimental programs
specifically designed to identify the combustion processes responsible for
PCDD/PCDF formation or to verify the effectiveness of proposed combustion
control approaches. In the absence of direct data, discussion of how
4-11
-------
combustion modification may be used to control PCDO or PCDF emissions must
be' considered theoretical in nature.
The PCDD and PCDF compounds are dicyclic, nearly planar, aromatic
hydrocarbons within the broad category of POM. Polycyclic organic matter
emissions have been the subject of intense investigation for many years with
multi-ring compounds such as benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) being the primary species
of interest. Therefore, the following discussion is based on available
information on how POM emissions are influenced by the combustion process
and makes the implicit assumption that variation in POM emission implies
variation in dioxin and furan emission.
4.2.4.1 Equilibrium Considerations. If waste material is mixed with
air and allowed to react for sufficient time, the concentration of the
resultant products is determined by the elemental composition of the mixture
(moles of C, H, N, 0, Cl, etc.), the reaction temperature, and the
thermodynamic properties of the species. Consider first the case of
oxidizing conditions (excess air) in which the overall oxidation process is
represented by:
Waste
where rij, r\2 and n3 are the stoichiometric coefficients required to balance
the reaction and are dependent on the chemical structure of the waste. The
equilibrium level of the unreacted waste in the combustion products is
related to the concentrations of C02> 02 and H20 by the equilibrium
constant:
K
P ~ "
P
02
4-12
-------
wh,ere P represents the partial pressure of a given constituent and K is the
equilibrium constant. The equilibrium constant is related fundamentally to
a measurable thermodynamic property called the Gibbs free energy (Ac) by:
K = EXP (&G/RT)
where T is temperature and R is the universal gas constant. Gibbs free
energy values are compiled in many sources. For typical stack gas CO^, ^0
and 0- concentrations of 8 percent, the Gibbs free energy required for there
to be 1 ppb equilibrium level of waste at 1,000°K is roughly 40 Kcal/mole.
The Gibbs free energy of furan at 800°K is reported to be 492 Kcal/mole.
Thus, Gibbs free energy considerations predict an equilibrium furan partial
pressure of less than 10 . The Gibbs free energy values for dioxins are
even larger than that for furan; thus, the equilibrium concentration under
oxidizing conditions is even less. These considerations show.that given
sufficient reaction time and mixing, the fundamental equilibrium limit for
dioxins and furans may be considered zero for overall fuel-lea.i conditions,
even at moderate incineration temperatures.
Since PCDDs and PCDFs can be formed in hospital incinerator:, it is
important to identify conditions where their presence is thermodynamically
favored. An obvious area to examine is the high temperature, oxygen starved
environment which is characteristic of isolated regions within poorly mixed
combustion processes. An initial area to examine is high temperature
pyrolysis without air whtch is the limit case for poor mixing.
TRW, Inc. performed an extensive series of equilibrium calculations for
4
incineration of military pesticides. An initial set of calculations
indicated that solid carbon (graphite) was a predominant species.
Recognizing the kinetic limitations of graphite formation, a second set of
calculations were performed eliminating graphite as a possible product
species. Those results indicated greater than 1 ppm concentrations of a
wide variety of POM species as well as chlorobenzenes and chlorophenols
(potential precursors to dioxins and furans).
4-L3
-------
The issue of poor mixing can also be addressed by examining the
equilibrium product distributions for various chlorinated benzene/air
mixtures.5 Sample results are shown in Figure 4-3 as concentration versus
percent theoretical air assuming that the mixture is at the adiabatic flame
temperature. With at least 45 percent theoretical air, formation of light
hydrocarbon gases (CH4, C2H2> etc.) is avoided. At 20 percent theoretical
air, the formation of benzene or toluene as equilibrium products is avoided.
This leads to the postulation that POM, dioxins and furans are
thermodynamically favored only if the incinerator creates very fuel-rich
(and hence oxygen-poor) pockets of gas at low temperatures in the presence
of chlorine.
The above discussion illustrates two significant aspects of combustion
control for POM. First, existence of these species
(either in the flame or the exhaust) indicates a combustion process
characterized by insufficient mixing and by local fuel-rich pockets of gas.
These are the conditions which characterize the primary combustion chambers
of controlled air incinerators. However, at reasonable temperature levels,
there is no thermodynamic barrier to achieving essentially zei=o emission
levels for these species and their precursors.
4.2.4.2 Kinetic Considerations. However, at reasonable temperature
levels, there is no thermodynamic barrier to achieving emission levels for
these species and their precursors that are below the current limits of
detection (i.e., part per trillion levels). The preceding discussion
addressed equilibrium formation of POM under excess air and starved air
conditions. It is important to recognize that combustion of any fuel
proceeds through a complex series of reaction steps leading toward (but not
necessarily reaching) the product distribution predicted by equilibrium
calculations. Some of these steps may be kinetically limited, however,
causing certain reactions to be effectively terminated at an intermediate
state.
Consideration of equilibrium conditions (?ee Figure 4-3) indicate that
light hydrocarbon gases are thermodynamically not favored at mixture ratios
4-14
-------
0 20
60 80 100 120
PERCENT THEORETICAL AIR
163 180 200
Source: Reference 5.
Figure 4-3. Adiabatic equilibrium species distribution.
4-15
-------
above 45 percent theoretical air. Chemical kinetic limitations may,
however, result in substantial concentrations of unburned hydrocarbon at
stoichiometric ratios well above 45 percent. Experimental data obtained in
the development of the EPA's low-NOx heavy oil burner may be used to
illustrate this fact.6 Figure 4-4 indicates the measured total hydrocarbon
(THC) concentration exiting the fuel-rich zone of a two-stage heavy oil
flame. As shown, substantial THC was detected at first stage stoichiometric
ratios below 80 percent theoretical air. The principal factor responsible
for this hydrocarbon breakthrough was depressed flame temperature due to
heat loss through the furnace walls. The kinetic rates of chemical
processes vary exponentially with local temperature. Similar experiments,
conducted in a higher temperature environment, showed negligible THC
concentrations until the fuel-rich zone stoichiometry was less than about"
60-65 percent theoretical air.
In the above tests, the transition from fuel-rich to fuel-lean
conditions was achieved through the use of multiple air jets designed .to
achieve thorough mixing of air with the effluent from the fuel-rich zone.
By changing the split between primary and secondary air, it was possible to
vary the fuel-rich zone stoichiometry while maintaining a constant overall
excess air condition. In many respects, this is similar to the basic design
in a controlled air incinerator. An important observation is that whenever
the primary zone stoichiometry was sufficiently fuel-rich to cause
hydrocarbon breakthrough in the primary zone exhaust, there was a
precipitous increase in the boiler exhaust smoke level. The important point
relative to hospital incineration is that the presence of substantial
hydrocarbon concentrations in fuel-rich regions can easily result in the
formation of soot and organic particulate matter. The secondary chamber
must be designed to accommodate these materials to achieve complete
burn-out.
Equilibrium product distribution calculations for very fuel-rich
conditions indicate ppm level concentrations of chlorobenzenes and
chlorophenols. In one study, the likely chemical kinetic processes leading
to formation of PCDDs was reviewed and it was concluded that the prime
4-16
-------
10,000
•3
V
a
a
3 1000
a
o
-------
diojtfn precursors are chlorinated phenols.7 They suggested a kinetic path
for forming 2,4,7,8-TCDO, as illustrated in Figure 4-5. The process
proceeds by removal of hydrogen from the OH group; joining of two phenols to
form a reactive 2-phenoxyphenol; followed by an elimination reaction to form
dioxin.
The above discussion provides several important insights into the
combustion processes controlling the formation of POM, dioxins and furans.
Those same insights indicate important incinerator design and operating
parameters which can be used to minimize emission of those species.
Equilibrium and kinetic considerations both indicate that an essential
feature required for the formation of POM, dioxin or furans is a fuel-rich
pocket of gas. Defining how rich that pocket must be to form these species
will depend on the local gas temperature. Increased temperature reduces the
thermodynamic stability of the species (and their precursors) as well as
.accelerating the kinetic rate of destruction reactions. The discussion
suggests that these POM compounds are, in all likelihood, formed in the
primary chamber of controlled'air hospital incinerators. However, these
compounds must pass through the secondary chamber before being emitted to
the atmosphere. The residence time and temperature characteristics of this
second chamber will dictate, in large measure, the extent to which these
materials are destroyed before flue gases are emitted.
4.2.4.3 Fuel Effects. A third issue to be examined is whether the
chemical form of hospital waste has a significant impact on POM, dioxin or
furan emissions. It is difficult (if not impossible) to accurately quantify
the chemical form of this waste being fed into an incinerator over the time
period required to extract a sample for POM analysis. There are, however,
data quantifying POM emissions from gas, oil and coal-fired boilers.
Figure 4-6 shows benzo(a)pyrene (BaP) emission data from different size
boilers firing coal, oil or natural gas. The shaded area in this figure
represents coal-fired boiler results. Units with heat inputs greater than
1010 cal/hr were utility boilers while units in the 107 cal/hr range were
small stoker-fired or hand-stoked coal furnaces. The measured BaP emissions
4-18
-------
OH
Cl
Cl
Cl
II
o '"•
Cl
Source: Reference 7.
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Vci:..
Cl
I »
' ii; o
* UCI
Figure 4-5. One possible formation mechanisn for 2,4,7,8 - TCDD.
-------
105
OCOAL
COIL
4 CAS
< EMISSION LESS
«. THAN VALUE PLOTTED
>TESTS ON SAME
J UNIT
10-2
101 109 1Q10
GROSS HEAT INPUT TO FURNACE. olAr
Source: Reference 3.
Figure 4-6. Benzo(a)pyrene emissions from coal, oil, and
natural gas heat-generation processes.
4-20
-------
from gas and oil-fired boilers were generally on the same order as those
from coal-fired utility boilers.
Utility boilers burn pulverized coal in large diffusion flames which
are very similar to the flame types in gas- and oil-fired boilers. The
flame produced by a hand-stoked boiler is similar to that in a poorly
designed and operated mass fed MSW incinerator.
As noted in Figure 4-6, the BaP emission rates from gas-, oil- and
o
coal-fired boilers with similar flame shapes are generally below 1 g/Mcal.
For comparison with other data in this report 1 g/Mcal is approximately
equal to 500 ng/m which is on the same order as the PCDD and PCDF emission
rates indicated in Tables 3-7 and 3-8 for hospital incinerators. The BaP
emission rates from the hand-stoked coal boilers are as much as 5 orders of
magnitude above the levels produced by the diffusion flames. These
comparisons suggest that the chemical structure of the fuel may have a
relatively minor influence on POM emissions but that other parameters
related to the manner in which the fuel is burned can have a significant
influence. This underlines the fact that combustion controls, throucn
careful incinerator design and operation, have the potential to achie.e
significant PCCD and PCDF emission reductions.
Using the waste burning process description of Section 3.1.4.1 in
conjunction with the equilibrium, chemical kinetic, and fuel composition
considerations of this section, it is possible to identify a variety of
combustion control approaches for POM, PCDD and PCDF emissions. A
discussion of the design or operating conditions which lead to the formation
of the fuel-rich pockets which improve the potential for POM, PCDD and PCDF
formation follows.
4.2.4.4 Air Distribution Effects in Controlled Air Incinerators.
Controlled air incinerators will be used for the purpose of discussing air
distribution effects on combustion control techniques for control of POM,
PCDD, and PCDF. This type unit is chosen because of its wide use in the
past 10 to 15 years and because currently it is the most widely sold design
type. These units are also similar to excess air incinerators because of
4-21
-------
their two-stage design. This discussion will therefore also have some
relevance to excess air units. The discussion will be presented by
discussing the design and operation of these units by combustion stage.
Primary Combustion. As stated in Section 2.1.2, waste is fed into the
primary combustion chamber which is operated with less than the full amount
of air required for combustion. The air addition rate is usually 40 to 70
percent of stoichiometric requirements. Under these sub-stoichiometric
conditions the waste is dried, heated, and pyrolized, thereby releasing
moisture and volatile components. The primary chamber can therefore be
considered a large fuel-rich pocket from the standpoint of POM, PCDD and
PCDF formation. The production of these compounds and their precursors can
therefore be considered optimum in the primary stage.
Waste is fed to the primary combustion chamber by either manual or
mechanical loading devices. Manual loading is done by charging a bag at a
time into the primary chamber while most mechanical loaders employ a hopper.
and ram assembly. Both feed mechanisms are non-continuous feed processes
which deliver the feed in a batch-type manner. Therefore, the potential for
an extremely fuel-rich system exists when waste is initially charged to the
incinerator. A dynamic air supply system which can follow the transient is
required if the system is to maintain its stoichiometric set point. Failure
to maintain a consistent air fuel ratio will make control in the secondary
combustion chamber more difficult.
Most incinerators control combustion in the primary combustion chamber
by measuring the temperature in the primary chamber and adjusting the air
flow rate to that chamber to meet a temperature set-point. When
temperatures are too low, air is added to accelerate the burning process.
Conversely, the air rate is decreased when the temperature is too high.
In conclusion, the operation of the primary combustion chamber is such
that a fuel-rich combustion environment exists. Smooth control of the
air-to-fuel ratio, accounting for transients due to the feed mechanism, are
needed in order to minimize the amount of fluctuation in the gas rate and
conditions entering the secondary combustion chamber.
4-22
-------
Secondary Combustion. Moisture, volatiles and combustion gases from
the primary chamber flow upward through a connecting section where they are
mixed with air prior to entering the secondary combustion chamber. If the
gases from the primary chamber are hot enough they will self-ignite when the
additional air is added. However, a burner is located near the entrance to
the secondary chamber to provide additional heat when it is needed. The air
injection rate into the second chamber is generally between 100 and 140
percent of total stoichiometric requirements. Thus, the total combustion
process in the incinerator operates at between 40 to 110 percent excess air.
If operation of the secondary air flow is kept at design levels, the
amount of oxygen added to the combustion process is sufficient to complete
the combustion process without exceeding the lean fuel flammability limits.
The critical issue is that the fuel-rich exhaust from the primary chamber
must be mixed on a molecular level for the complete destruction of all POM,
PCDD and PCDF, and potential precursors to be destroyed. Simply blowing
additional air into the secondary chamber is not sufficient to insure high
combustion efficiencies. Consequently, great care must be taken in
designing the secondary air chamber such that complete and thorough mixing
will occur. One design approach to increase mixing currently in use is to
introduce air at right angle to the flow of primary chamber gases and to use
a series of staggered manifolds on either side of the gas. A second design
approach is the enlargement of the secondary combustion chamber. This
approach leads to greater residence times at temperature while also
increasing the chance for mixing.
From an operational standpoint, the primary air flow rate control,
proportionment of combustion air between the primary and secondary chambers,
and the extent of mixing in the secondary chamber, all could have a
significant impact on POM, .PCDD and PCDF emissions. Further research is
required to better understand how design and operating parameters influence
these emissions.
4.2.4.5 Thermal Environment. In the EPA's Tier 4 study, it was
observed that trends in PCDD and PCDF emissions could be detected based on
4-23
-------
the combustion temperature (see Reference 9). It was also noted in this
report that MSW incinerators burning high moisture content waste tended to
have low combustion temperatures and higher PCDO/PCOF emissions. The
following discussion considers the theoretical relationship between
temperature and emission rates for PCDDs, PCDFs, and other POMs.
Thermal environment and chemical kinetic processes are intimately
related to each other. Flame temperature rise is the result of chemically
converting fuel to combustion products while the rate of the chemical
reactions is exponentially dependent upon the local temperature. In the
discussion of equilibrium considerations it was shown that formation of
fuel-rich pockets of gas was an essential ingredient for production of POM,
PCDD and PCDF. Figure 4-3 illustrated that the equilibrium total
hydrocarbon concentration was less than 1 ppm for mixtures with more than
45 percent theoretical air. In the discussion of kinetic processes,
Figure 4-4 showed that substantial hydrocarbons can persist in 80 percent.
theoretical air mixtures if there is heat .extraction from the fuel-rich
gases. Thus, removing heat from combusting gases tends to increase the
stoichiometric ratio at which hydrocarbon species will persist".
An important set of variables influencing flame temperature is the
excess oxygen level in the combustor and the moisture content of the waste.
To illustrate these effects, a series of adiabatic flame temperature
calculations were performed as a function of percent theoretical air. To
demonstrate that flame temperature is controlled by combustion of waste
volatile matter, methane was used as the fuel for these calculations. To
simulate the moisture content of the waste, various quantities of liquid
water (0-40 percent) was added to the "fuel." Results from these
calculations are presented in Figure 4-7.9 As shown, increasing the
combustion air from 150 to 200 percent of the theoretical requirement
decreases the adiabatic flame temperature by approximately 300°C (540 F).
At 150 percent theoretical air (50 percent excess air), increasing the
moisture content from 0 to 40 percent decreases the adiabatic flame
temperature by approximately 150 C (270 F).
4-24
-------
Adiabatic Flame Temperatures
of CH4/H-0(1) - Air
Mixtures: L, • 298K
1000
50
100
150 200
Percent Theoretical Air
250
300
Source: Reference 9.
Figure 4-7. Variation of adiabatic flame temperature with
percent theoretical air and percent moisture
in the MSW.
4-25
-------
The important operational consideration is to maintain the excess air
in a range which is h'igh enough to insure that oxygen is available for fuel
burnout but low enough to prevent excessive depression of the flame
temperature. The requirement for operation within an excess air window is
illustrated in Figure 4-8 which shows the measured total hydrocarbons in the
exhaust of a highly cooled laboratory furnace as a function of excess air
level.10 It should be noted that the data in this figure are
hardware-specific and that the acceptable excess air operating window will
vary with both incinerator design details and characteristics of the waste
being burned (e.g., heating value, moisture content and halogen content).
The moisture content of hospital waste is dependent on the daily
operation of the hospital. As illustrated in Figure 4-7, adjusting the
excess air level can offset the thermal influence of large variations in
moisture content. The thermal influence of adding 40 weight percent water
to the fuel may be offset by decreasing excess air level by about 20
percent. From a combustion control standpoint, hardware could be developed
to continuously monitor the exhaust gas H20 content and that data used in a
control system to appropriately adjust the excess air level. Research is
required to define the proper mode of excess air control but it is likely
that minimum POM, dioxin and furan emissions control would be achieved by
adjusting excess air rates in the primary and secondary chambers.
An additional operational consideration influencing thermal environment
and possibly having a major impact on POM, PCDO and PCDF emissions is the
unit start-up procedure.' Some facilities may have greatly different warm-up
periods depending on operator awareness. Based on considerations presented
earlier in this section, extensive warm-up using auxiliary fuel (natural gas
or distillate oil) should be the preferable operating procedure. The
start-up period may have little impact on steady-state emission rates but a
substantial mass of POM, PCDD and PCDF could be emitted during start-up with
cold walls. By the same token, sufficient air and temperature levels should
be maintained during burn-down periods to assure complete combustion.
4-26
-------
4000-
2000-
CM
O
O
4->
-------
. 4.2.4.6 POM. Dioxin and Furan Summary. The above discussion
illustrates that emissions of POM, PCDD and PCDF are the products of
incomplete combustion. A critical component in the pollutant formation
process is formation of fuel-rich pockets of gas. The primary combustion
chamber in a controlled air incinerator is operated as a large fuel-rich
pocket. To maximize the extent of combustion, the following steps can be
taken:
o Control the combustion air supply to the primary chamber to
minimize transients in the outlet flow rate and composition;
o Proportion combustion air between the primary and secondary
chambers to maintain desired temperatures; and
o Promote efficient mixing of air and combustion gases in the
secondary chamber.
Each of these combustion parameters are adjustable during' the
incinerator design and/or as part of the unit operating procedure. The
assertion that PCDD and PCDF emission reduction can be achieved by
combustion control is clear but the types of modifications likely to be
effective will depend upon the specific design and operating conditions of a
given model and size. That is, combustion modifications must be tailored to
the specific type of incineration hardware under consideration. Appropriate
control strategies for existing facilities must be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis and some processes may require extensive hardware
modification and/or altered operational procedures.
4.3 FLUE GAS CONTROLS
Add-on devices may be employed for post-combustion treatment of flue
gas. As shown in Section 3.0, two devices presently in use on hospital
incinerators are fabric filters (baghouses) and wet scrubbers. Due tn
4-28
-------
economic reasons, these techniques are presently only applied to units at
the high end of the incinerator size range, if at all. Another potential
add-on control not presently in use would be dry scrubbers. Dry scrubbers
provide acid gas and organic emissions control and, when coupled with fabric
filters, offer good particulate control as well. In addition, after-burners
are potential controls for organic compound emissions.
4.3.1 Fabric Filters (Baqhouses)
Fabric filters offer very high efficiencies for particle removal from
flue gas with attainable efficiencies greater than 99.9 percent. At least
one study concluded that baghouses are the best PM control device for refuse
incinerators. Currently, there are at .least four conventional incinerator
installations utilizing baghouses in the U. S. Similar efficiencies would
be expected for hospital waste incinerators because of the similar nature of
the wastes.
Fabric filters rely on porous glass fabric to facilitate removal of
very fine PM. Figure 4-9 shows a typical arrangement. Collected PM is
"shaken," either mechanically or by air, from the bag and disposed of with
bottom ash from the incinerator. Some advantages and disadvantages of
12
baghouses are as follows:
Advantages
1. High PM removal efficiencies can be obtained.
2. High efficiencies for finer PM means good removal of those metals
which concentrate on fine PM.
3. There are no wastewater disposal requirements.
4. Variations in flue gas flow rate or chemical composition do not
usually affect fabric filter performance.
4-29
-------
I ( Iff I ! l
Dirty Air
Fabric Flltara
Claan Air
Compraasad Air
Claan Air PUnum
Oust Conveying Rotary
Syatam Dlacharga
Figure 4-Q. Typical fabric filter system.
4-30
-------
. 5. Submicron particle collection improves as the thickness of the
dust layer on the collection surface increases.
Pi sadvantages
1. Fabric filters are designed only for PM control and do little to
control gaseous pollutants.
2. High pressure drops may occur if bags become plugged with solids
which could lead to large power requirements.
3. The upper temperature limit of most widely used filter media is
about 260°C (500°F).
4. Sparks carried by the flue gas can cause fires in the fabric
filter.
5. The dew point of the 'flue gas must be considered. An excursion
below the dew point can result in condensation and hence blinding
of bags. In addition, due to the typically high HC1 content of
hospital waste incinerator flue gases, condensation can lead to
the formation of corrosive HC1 acid.
4.3.2 Scrubbers
Wet scrubbers currently in use offer lower efficiencies for the
collection of PM but higher efficiencies for acid gas removal. Wet
scrubbers basically use liquid to effect transfer of pollutants from a gas
to a liquid stream. Scrubber design and the type of liquid solution used
largely determine contaminant removal efficiencies. Plain water
efficiencies for the removal of acid gases are in the range of 30 percent,
while the addition of Ca(OH)2 to the scrubber liquor has been shown to
4-31
-------
result in efficiencies of 93-96 percent.13 In general, high gas-side
pressure drops must be used to obtain high efficiencies for PM control.
There are basically three types of wet scrubbers:
(1) low energy (spray tower),
(2) medium energy (impingement scrubbers such as packed column, baffle
plate, and liquid impingement), and
(3) high energy (venturi).
Low energy scrubbers (spray towers) are usually circular in
cross-section (see Figure 4-10). The liquid is sprayed down the tower as
the gases rise. Large particles are removed by impingement on the liquor
pool, and finer particles are removed as the flue gas rises through the -
tower. Low energy scrubbers mainly remove particles in the 5-10 micron
range.
Medium energy devices mostly rely on impingement to facilitate removal
of PM. This can be accomplished through a variety of configurations, two of
which are diagrammed in Figures 4-11 and 4-12.
High energy scrubbers utilize a venturi mechanism for PM removal
(Figure 4-13). The flue gases impinge on the liquor stream in the venturi
section. As the gases pass through the orifice, the shearing action
atomizes the liquor into fine droplets. As the gas leaves the venturi
section it decelerates, resulting in further contact between particles and
liquid droplets. The droplets are then removed from the device by the
centrifugal action in the de-entrainment section.
Like baghouses, wet scrubbers offer both advantages and disadvantages.
Some of the major advantages and disadvantages of wet scrubbers are:
Advantages
1. Particle collection and gas absorption can be accomplished
simultaneously with proper design.
4-32
-------
CUan Q«»
Outlet
Liquid
Distributor
Dirty
Qa» lnl«t
Liquor
Drain
Figure 4-10. Open spray tower scrubber.
4-33
-------
Clean
Outlet
Dirty Qaa
Inlet -H
Constant-Level^
Flow Nozzle
R«turn«d
Entralnad
•Droplata
.Centrifugal
D«-Entralnm«nt
Section
Fixed
Orifice
Liquor Outlet
Liquor
R.tervolr
I
Liquor
Drain
1
Figure 4-11. Fixed orifice scrubber.
4-34
-------
lmplng«m«nt
Baffl* Pl«t«
Olrty Q««
lnl«t
Cl««n
Outl«t
0«-Entralnm«nt
Section
Liquor
InUt
Humldlfleatlon
Wattr
Sprayt
Figure 4-12. Baffle impingement scrubber.
4-35
-------
Claan Oaa
Outlat
Dirty Oaa
Liquor
Inlat '
.Liquor
Olitrlbutlon
W«lr
Vanturl
Section
0«-Cntralnm«nt
Section
Liquor to
fUclrculatlon
Pump and Olapotal
Figure 4-13. High energy venturi scrubber.
4-36
-------
2. High collection efficiencies can be obtained for any particle size
range with sufficient energy input.
3. Viscous materials can be collected without plugging.
4. High temperature gaseous effluent streams can be handled.
5. Moisture content and/or dew point of the effluent gas is not
critical to scrubber operation.
6. Heat transfer, chemical reactions, and evaporation are
characteristics of wet scrubber operations that can be varied to
improve pollutant removal efficiencies.
7. Capital costs are relatively low.
Disadvantages
1. High energy input is required for collection of the finer dust
particles.
2. Corrosion and erosion are characteristic of all wet processing.
3. An effluent liquor disposal system is required.
4. Discharge of a water-saturated gas stream can produce a visible
steam plume.
5. Re-entrainment of PM may be a problem.
6. Wet scrubbers are not effective for control of insoluble gaseous
organics.
4-37
-------
Dry scrubbers combined with fabric filters applied to MSW incinerators
have received considerable attention recently. In these systems, a lime
slurry is injected into the scrubber where it contacts the flue gas. The
water is evaporated and dry salts result from the reaction of lime with
constituents of the flue gas. The salts, unreacted lime, and particulate
matter are collected in fabric filters downstream of the reactor. It has
been theorized that filter cake build-up provides available reaction sites
for continued reaction with pollutants from the flue gas.
Test results from MSW incinerators for dry scrubbing/fabric filter
systems show enhanced PM emission reduction in all particle size ranges
compared to wet scrubbers operating with even larger pressure drops. Acid
1 7 — ? 1
gas and metal removal efficiencies have also been high. " Also of
interest are the low dioxin/furan emissions from the dry scrubbing system.
A diagram of a commercially available system, the Teller System, is
shown in Figure 4-14.22 In this system a dry venturl is located between the
dry scrubber (quench reactor) and the baghouse. The dry venturi reportedly
causes agglomeration of small particles formed in the dry scrubber which
results in reduced pressure drop in the baghouse. This reduced pressure
drop translates to longer cleaning cycles which are associated with higher
removal efficiencies for small particles.
Advantages cited for dry scrubbing followed by fabric filtration
include the following:
(1) Insensitive to 'changes in inlet particulate loading or
characteristics within the combustion chamoer.
(2) Effective and efficient particle capture in the submicron range.
(3) Efficient S02 and HC1 removal.
(4) Produces agglomerated, dry particulates that can easily be
disposed.
4-38
-------
omen
IIICI0I
III ,
I
UJ
VD
riui us
SOtlDS
WIICI
HMf
USISOII SOLIDS
III
Source: Reference 23.
Figure 4-14. Teller dry scrubbing system.
-------
'-. (5) Because flue gas is not saturated with moisture, there is no
visible plume exiting the stack.
(6) Reduction of organic emissions due to low operating temperatures.
Disadvantages cited include the following:
(1) Exit gases are reduced by an average of 180°F and this can affect
gas plume rise, thus affecting pollutant dispersion.
(2) Reagents can be costly.
4.3.3 Afterburners
A third combustion chamber on some incinerators acts as an afterburner.
This control device can be expected to further reduce organic emissions.
The most likely location for such a device would be before the scrubber.
Direct flame afterburners operating at a 2,000°F temperature and 1.0 second
residence time can typically achieve greater than 98 percent destruction
even for chlorinated organics.
4-40
-------
4.4, REFERENCES
1. Haynes, 8. S., M. Neville, R. J. Quann, and A. F. Sarofim, J. Colloid.
Interface Sci.. 87, 266-278 (1982)
2. Linak and Peterson (1985).
3. Stull, R. 0., E. F. Westrum, and G. C. Sinke: The Chemical
Thermodynamics of Organic Compounds, Wiley (1969(.
4. Shih, C. C., R. F. Tobias, J. F. Clausen, and R. J. Johnson: Thermal
Degradation of Military Standard Pesticide Formulations, TRW Report
24768-6018RU-00, U. S. Army Medical R&D Command, (December 1974).
5. Kramlich, J. C., W. D. Clark, W. R. Seeker, and G. S. Samuelsen,
Theoretical Evaluation of Exhaust Emissions of CO and THC as Indicators
of Incineration Performance, Final Report, Work Assignment 3, EPA
Contract No. 68-02-3113, 1984.
6. England, G. C., M:. P. Heap, D. W. Pershing, J. L. Tomlinson, and
T. L. Corley, "Low-NO Combustors for High Nitrogen Liquid Fuels,"
Proceedings of the Joint Symposium on Stationary Combustion of NO
Control. Vol. V, Fundamental Combustion Research and Advanced
Processes. EPA Report No. IERF-RTP-1087a, 1980.
7. Shaub, W. M. and W. Tsand, "Dioxin Formation in Incinerators," Environ.
Sci. Technol.. 17, 1983, pp. 721-730.
8. National Environmental Research Center, "Scientific and Technical
Assessment Report on Particulate Polycyclic Organic Matter (PPOM),"
EPA-600/6-74-001, March 1984.
9. Final Report. "Municiple Waste Combustion Study Data Gathering Phase,"
prepared for Morrison, R., EPA, by Radian Corporation, November 1986.
10. Reference 5.
11. California Air Resources Board. Air Pollution Control at Resource
Recovery Facilities. May 24, 1984.
12. Devitt, T. W., et al. PEDCo Environmental, Inc. Air Pollution
Emissions and Control Technology for Waste-As-Fuel Processes.
October 1979.
13. Reference 10.
14. Reference 11.
4-41
-------
15. -..Reference 11.
16. Reference 11.
17. Cleverly, David H. Emissions and Emission Control in Resource
Recovery. Office of Resource Recovery, NYC Department of Sanitation.
December 9, 1982.
18 Teller, A. J. Dry System Emission Control for Municipal Incinerators.
Proceedings of National Waste Conference, 1980. ASME. New York, as
cited in Reference 109.
19. Teller, A. J. The Landmark Framingham, Massachusetts Incinerator,
presented at The Hazardous Materials Management Conference,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. June 5-7, 1984.
20. Teller, A. J. New Systems for Municipal Incineration Control.
National Waste Processing Conference, 1978. ASME., as cited in
Reference 109.
21. Teller, A. J. Teller Systems Incineration - Resource Recovery Flue Gas
Emission Control. Presented at Acid Gas and Dioxin Control for Waste
. to Energy Facilities. Washington, D.C. November 25-26, 1985.
22. Reference 9.
23. F.R. (October 21, 1983.) 48:48932. Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources: VOC Emissions from the SOCMI Air Oxidation Unit
Processes.
4-42
-------
5.0 REGULATORY STATUS AND STRATEGIES
Regulatory strategies in the United States to control air emissions
from hospital waste incinerators have not been addressed to date at the
Federal level but have been a focus of attention at the State level.
Because of their relatively small size, emissions from hospital waste
incinerators are not subject to Federal regulations which control emissions
from larger MSW incinerators and solid waste-fired boilers. Instead,
hospital waste incinerators are subject to a "patchwork quilt" of State and
local guidance and regulations. Currently, most States recommend, but do
not require, the control of particulate matter (PM) emissions and opacity
for hospital waste incinerators. However, with the growing public concern
over handling and disposal of hospital wastes, several States have developed
emission limit regulations for incinerators which are now in the proposal
stage.
This section discusses the current regulatory environment for hospital
waste incinerators at both the Federal and State level. The information
presented on State programs is accurate as of June 1987. However, due to
the rapidly changing nature of these programs, this information is expected
to become quickly out-of-date.
In addition to Federal and State regulations in the United States, this
section also reviews regulations which have been established for hospital
waste incineration in Canada and European countries.
5.1 FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS
New Source Performance Standards
Hospital waste incinerators are not currently a source category subject
to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). However, they would be subject
to NSPS for industrial, commercial, and institutional steam generating units
(i.e., boilers) at 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart Db if units have a heat input
capacity above 100 million Btu/hr and recover heat to generate steam or heat
5-1
-------
water (or other heat transfer media). At 8,500 Btu per pound of Type 0 (see
Table 1-3) waste, a hospital incinerator must be sized to feed over 11,700
Ib/hr of waste to be subject to the boiler NSPS. The largest system offered
for on-site hospital waste incineration is approximately 6,000 Ib/hr
capacity, and most units are well below this size. Hence hospital waste
incinerators will not be impacted by the current boiler NSPS.
EPA is currently evaluating NSPS for smaller boilers with capacities
below 100 million Btu/hr. The lower size cutoff is one of the factors to be
determined during the rulemaking process although boilers as low as 10
million Btu/hr are being actively evaluated. A lower size cutoff below 50
million Btu/hr would affect at least a fraction of new, modified, or
reconstructed hospital waste incinerators. The pollutants being evaluated
for the small boiler NSPS are PM, opacity, NOX, and S0r Proposal of this
standard is scheduled for June 1989.
NSPS limiting PM emissions to 0.08 gr/dscf (equivalent to about 0.18
Ib/million Btu) corrected to 12 percent C02 have been promulgated at 40 CFR
Part 60 Subpart E for incinerators having a design capacity of 50 ton/day
(i.e., 4,167 Ib/hr) or greater and which burn more than 50 percent municipal
type waste. This waste is defined as "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."
Although hospital waste would seem to qualify under this definition, the
size limit for Subpart E would apply to only the largest of hospital waste
incinerators.
National Emission Standards for the Hazardous Air Pollutants
Of the 12 NESHAPs promulgated pursuant to Section 112 of the Clean Air
Act, which address seven hazardous pollutants, none pertain to hospital
incinerators.
5-2
-------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Requirements
As a first step in fulfilling the Congressional mandate to establish a
hazardous waste management system, EPA published proposed regulations in the
Federal Register on December 18, 1978, which included a proposed definition
and treatment methods for infectious waste. During the public comment
period for this rulemaking, EPA received approximately sixty comments which
specifically addressed the infectious waste provisions of the proposed
2
regulations.
On May 19, 1980, EPA published the first phase of the hazardous waste
regulations. The Agency stated in the preamble to the regulations that the
sections on infectious waste would be published when work on treatment,
storage, and disposal standards was completed; While the Agency has
evaluated management techniques for infectious waste, considerable evidence
that these wastes cause harm, to human health and the environment is needed
to- support federal rulemaking.
Prevention or Significant Deterioration Requirements
Hospital waste incinerators are not among the 28 named prevention of
significant deterioration (PSD) source categories. Even though waste
generation rates vary among hospitals, emissions from incinerators are
typically less than 250 tons per year. Therefore, in most states best
available control technology (BACT) is not required for emitted pollutants.
Pennsylvania is one of the few states that require BACT for all sources.
5.2 STATE REGULATIONS AND PROGRAMS
State Requirements for Waste Handling
Most states have requirements for licensing of hospital that may
include general requirements for infectious waste disposal. Usually, these
general requirements are limited in scope and do not apply to other sources
5-3
-------
of.infectious waste, such as crematoria. The only restriction on the
pathological or biomedical waste incinerators in many states is that they
not create a public nuisance. That has meant that no odors are to be
generated and that the opacity is to be low.
A majority of states have passed hazardous waste legislation to control
the treatment, storage, and disposal of infectious waste (as part of their
hazardous waste program). Some states have already promulgated regulations
controlling infectious waste, while other states are preparing such
regulations. Since there is no unanimity of opinion on the hazards posed by
infectious waste and appropriate techniques for safe disposal of these
wastes, state control varies. Most states do not have specific
requirements for hospital incineration that limit pollutant air emissions.
To determine what efforts different states have taken to regulate
infectious wastes, the National Solid Wastes Management Associations (NSWMA)
Infectious Waste. Task Force surveyed the state health and environmental
agencies in January 1987. The general purpose of the survey was to
determine where treatment and disposal of infectious waste are subject to
regulations distinct from those that apply to municipal solid waste (MSW).
The survey's results indicated the following:
o The solid waste and/or health departments in 28 states do define
infectious waste items and subject these items to special rules or
recommendations in management.
o Some states such as Massachusetts and Louisiana expect to revise
their definitions soon to capture all generators of infectious
wastes and not just hospitals.
o In general, hospitals and health-care facilities are prevented
from disposing of wastes in a landfill without rendering the
wastes non-infectious.
o Thirteen states have written or endorsed specific guidelines or
requirements for transporting untreated infectious wastes.
5-4
-------
State Air Emission Requirements
Radian has contacted several states to clarify their infectious waste
management requirements; the information collected from the states is
presented in Appendix A. The appendix contains an updated list of
infectious waste regulations and requirements as well as a list of state
offices that may be contacted for additional information. Where data were
missing from non-contacted states, data available from the EPA Guide for
Infectious Waste Management were listed. Most states did not list a
specific regulation concerning the incineration of hospital or infectious
waste.
Pennsylvania has recently established best available control technology
guidance for hospital infectious waste incineration. These guidelines
require stack emission limitations on particulate matter, carbon monoxide,
hydrochloric acid and visible air contaminants. The guidelines are listed
in Table 5-1 along with guideline emission limits set by New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut, and Illinois.
State Air Toxics Programs
A majority of states and localities use some form of ambient guidelines
or standards for the control of emissions of toxic air pollutants from
hospital incinerators. Several states regulate new hospital waste
incinerators in a manner similar to that required by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste incineration
regulations, i.e.; 100 ppm CO, 90% control or 4 Ib/hr HC1 emissions, and
Q
0.08 gr/dscf (corrected to 12 percent C02) for particulates. The city of
Philadelphia is requiring that new hospital incinerators have scrubbers,
which are used to control acid gases and toxic air contaminants.
The State of Pennsylvania also requires ambient impact analyses for
arsenic, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, lead, mercury, nickel,
polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins, and polychlorinated dibenzofurans. The
acceptable ambient air concentrations for these pollutants are listed in
5-5
-------
fAUI.t b-l. OIIDEIINL tMISSION LIMITS FOR INClNlRATORS 11URNING HOSPITAL HASTE"
State/Foe Ulty
York
Hartlculatu Hatter
0.10 gr/dscf (at 12*
Pollutant
Opacity
hourly averaje <10X;
maximum continuous'
6-mlnute average <20X
IC1
CO
SO
i.. -
I'cnnsylvanla
(Facility Mitt)
Capacity <300 Ib/hr)
I'onnsylvanla :
(Facility with capacity
>iO(t Ib/hr. <1000 Ib/hr)
0.08 gr/dscf (at 12X
0.02 gr/dscf («t 7»
hourly average <10X;
maximum continuous
3-mlnute average <30X
hourly average <10S;
maximum continuous
3-mlnute average <30*
<41b/hr or shall
be reduced by 90*
by weight
30 pprov hourly
average (at 7* 0_)
or shal 1 be reduced
by 90S by weight
100 ppmv hourly
average (at 7* 0
100 ppmv hourly
average (at 7S 0^)
30 ppmv huii i I y
average (at '* 0.,)
or shal I be i-uiiuri.il
by 70S by wui.jlil
tn
i
I 'enn sylvan I a
(FacUlty with
capacity >1000 Ib/hr)
0.015 yr/dsc» (at 7»
hourly average <10X;
maximum continuous
3-mlnute average <30t
30 ppmv hourly
average (at 7* 0.)
or shal 1 be reduced
by 90S by weight
100 ppmv hourly
average (at 7* 0^,1
30 ppmv hourly
average (at H 0.,)
or shal I bo i uducu.
by 70S by wul.|lil
How Jersey
0.02 gr/6000 Ib/lu )
0.05 yr/scf (at 12*
30*
IIllnuls
(I acll Ity tilth capac Ity
,2000 Ib/hr. <6000 lL/t,r)
O.Ob .ji/scf (at 12X
30*
500 ppm at 5(1*
air
Illinois
(I act I Ity wltli
.opacity <2000 Ib/lu )
0.1-0.20 (jr/icf (at
30%
-------
Table 5-2. The values listed were extracted from data submitted by State
agencies to Radian Corporation for this study.
The State of New York has drafted operating guidelines for hospital
waste combustion. These guidelines require stack emission limitations for
particulate matter, carbon monoxide, hydrochloric acid, and visible air
contaminants. Also, continuous monitoring and recording of temperature in
the secondary chamber are required to show an exit temperature of at least
1600°F.
New York State generally requires emission tests for priority pollutant
plus 10 toxic air contaminants (including dioxins). In addition, the State
requires demonstration of compliance with acceptable ambient air quality
levels for toxic air contaminants (or acceptable risk assessments for
1112
carcinogens) under its Air Guide policy (see Table 5-2). '
In the State of California each local air quality district can
establish its own emission limit requirements. Presently, guidelines, on
emission limits MSW and hazardous waste facilities are serving as guidelines
for hospital waste incineration. However, California is in the process of
developing new restrictions that pertain directly to hospital waste
incineration.
5.3 FOREIGN REGULATIONS
In Canada, air pollution regulations are established by each provincial
government. Table 5-3 lists emission limits established in Alberta, Canada
and technical requirements established in European countries. This study
did not include the investigation per se of foreign procedures or
regulations. However, the data presented in Table 5-3 were extracted from
References 13 and 14.
5-7
-------
TABLE 5-2. ACCEPTABLE ANNUAL AMBIENT CONCENTRATIONS
REPORTED FOR SELECTED POLLUTANTS3
Metal /Compound
Arsenic and Compounds
Cadmium and Compounds
Hexavalent Chromium
and Compounds
Lead and Compounds
Mercury and Compounds
Nickel and Compounds
2,3,7,8-TCDDC
Pennsylvania
0.23 x 10"3
0.56 x 10"3
0.83 x 10"4
0.50
0.08
0.33 x 10"2
0.30 x 10"7
New York
0.67
2.0
0.167
1.5b
0.167
3.3
_d
References 20 and 21; all concentrations in ug/m .
bFederal standard for lead; not yet officially adopted by New York State,
but currently being applied to determine compliance status.
cTetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin equivalents
Emission sources of chlorinated dibenzofurans and dibenzodioxins are
reviewed on a case-by-case basis by the Department of Health (DOH). The
NY State OOH has determined that basing an acceptable ambient level on
TCDDs does not adequately represent.publ :c health risks for the dioxin
compounds.
5-8
-------
TABLE 5-3. FOREIGN EMISSION REGULATIONS FOR HOSPITAL WASTE1
Pollutant
Alberta, Canada
European3.
Particulate matter
0.20 kg/1000 kg .
of gaseous effluent
0.60 kg/1000 kg
of gaseous effluent
200 mg/Nm dry
at 7% CO- maximum
HC1
100 ppm at 50%
excess air
300 mg/Nm dry
at 7% CO- maximum
CO
500 mg/Nm dry
at 7% CO- maximum
SO,
200 mg/Nm dry
at 7% CO- maximum
HF
5 mg/Nm dry
at 7% CO- maximum
Opacity
Not to exceed 30%
References 22 and 23.
3For incinerators with a capacity of greater than 227 kg/h.
"For incinerators with a capacity of less than 227 kg/h.
5-9
-------
5.-.4 REFERENCES
1 EPA Guide for Infectious Waste Management. Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. EPA-530/SW-86-014 Washington, DC. May, 1986.
2. Reference 1.
3. Reference 1, p. VI.
4. Referece 1, p. 1-3.
5 Vogg H., Metzger M., Stieglitz E., "Recent Findings on the Formation
and Decomposition of PCDD/PCDF in Solid Municipal Waste Incineration
presented at International Solid Waste and Public Cleansing Association
specialized seminar on Emissions of Halogenated Organics form Municipal
Solid Waste Incineration, January 22, 1987, Copenhagen, Denmark.
6. Reference 1, p. 1-3.
7. Pettit, C. L., "Infectious Waste State Programs Survey." Waste Age,
April 1987, pp. 115-128.
8. Reference 7.
9. Reference 5.
10. Lauber, J.D., "Controlled Commercial/Regional Incineration of
Biomedical Wastes." Presented at the Incineration of Low Level
Radioactive and Mixed Wastes, 1987 Conference, St. Charles, Illinois,
April 21-24, 1987.
11. Reference 10.
12. New York State Air-Guide-1. N.Y.S. P^artment of Environmental
Conservation 1985-86 Edition, July, 1986 printing.
13 Powell, F.C., "Air Polutant Emission from the Incineration of Hospital
Wastes, The Alberts Experience." J. Air Pollution Control Association,
Vol. 37, No. 7, July 1987.
14 Faurholdt, B., "European Experience with Incineration of Hazardous and
Pathological Wastes." Presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of the Air
Pollution Control Association, New York, New York, June 21-26, 1987.
15. BAT and Chapter 127 Plan Approval Criteria Hospital/Infectious Waste
Incinerators, Draft. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resource
Bureau of Air Quality Control. Harrisburg, P.A. June 9, 1987.
5-10
-------
16.. Regulation of Medical Care Waste - Incineration Memorandum from
' Mr. Hovey (Originiator: W. Sonntag). New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation. Albany, NY, January 1, 1987.
17. Reference 10, p. 14.
18. Environmental Register No. 230: Proceedings of Illinois Pollution
Control Board, December 18, 1980.
19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Register 39:20792,
1974.
20. Reference 15.
21. Reference 12, p. 27 to 31.
22. Reference 13, p. 837 to 838.
23. Reference 14, p. 0-4.
5-11
-------
6.0 HOSPITAL WASTE INCINERATOR MODEL PLANTS
One of the objectives of this study was to develop input parameters for
modeling hospital incinerator units. The parameters developed in this study
will be used as inputs to EPA's Human Exposure Model (HEM). Results of the
HEM analysis will then be used to provide a preliminary estimate of chronic
exposure to emissions from hospital waste incinerators. This objective was
accomplished by developing input data for model incinerators which are felt
to be representative of the general population instead of using actual
hospital incinerator sites and stack parameters. This approach was taken
because of the difficulty involved in characterizing the capacity and
location of all hospital incinerators on a national level.
The approach used was to analyze a segment of the population for which
detailed information could be obtained regarding unit capacity, stack
parameters, and operation. In this case, a recent database of hospital
incinerators in the State of New York was located during the study and used
as a population segment. Through analysis of the distribution of
incinerator capacities in the New York population, model plants were
identified. The appropriate stack parameters (height, diameter, gas
velocity, and temperature) were then determined by further evaluation of
this data set. Finally the emissions factors of Section 3.0 were applied to
to these model plants to estimate the short term and long term emissions
rates.
This section contains a brief discussion of the relationship between
hospital populations and incinerator populations. Next, the model
incinerator capacities and stack parameters are determined. Finally, the
corresponding emissions rates for pollutants of concern are presented for
the model plants.
6.1 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
As discussed in Section 1.1, there are currently over 6,000 hospitals
in the United States (US) and it is estimated that over 90 percent of these
6-i
-------
facilities operate incinerator equipment of some kind, if only a small
retort-type unit. The population of controlled air incinerators is smaller
but still substantial. The development of a national inventory of hospital
incinerators was not feasible for this study. Instead, an analysis of a
subset of the population for which the necessary information was available
was performed. A recent New York (NY) State database was located during the
study which contained information gained through an in-state survey of
incinerator units.1 This database contained unit size, location, annual
operation, and stack parameters for 433 incinerators located in NY.
To estimate the "representativeness" of the NY hospital population
relative to the US population, the distribution of hospital sizes was
examined. The distribution of hospital sizes according to bed number is
presented for both NY and the US in Figure 6-1.2 Both these distributions
have similar shapes for hospital sizes between 0 and 500 beds. There is a
greater proportion of hospitals above the 500 bed size in NY than in the US
population. This is probably due to the fact that NY has several densely
populated areas. Therefore, a model incinerator capacity which corresponds
to hospitals with greater than 500 beds is needed since there are several
densely populated areas in the U.S. and the potential impact of these
incinerator units on the associated populations will likely be of interest
to EPA.
No information was found during this study which relates hospital size
to the use of incinerator or to incinerator capacity. Therefore, a
correlation between hospital size and incinerator capacity could not be
developed. A study of the population distribution of incinerator units
within the NY incinerator database was therefore undertaken. Figure 6-2
presents the results of this investigation. As shown, 59.6 percent of the
population are units with design feed capacities of less than 200 Ib/hr.
Assuming that there is some correlation between hospital size and
incinerator capacity this would indicate that an even greater majority of
the national population of incinerators have capacities in this range. A
model incinerator should therefore be chosen from within the less than
POO Ib/hr capacity range.
6-2
-------
U>
z
o
I
0.
o
0.
u
u
K.
U
0.
6-49
/ . \
/ , . X
/ . . \
I//N
50-99
100-199 200-299 300-399 400-499
NUMBER OF BEDS
New Yorfc
i500
U.S.
Figure 6-1. Distribution of hospital sizes according to bed number.
-------
z
D
L.
o
UJ
Ill
u
u
Q-
34
32 -
30 -
28 -
26 -
24 -
22 -
20 -
18 -
16 -
14 -
12 -
10 -
8 -
6 -
4 -
2 -
0
I
0-99
Fiyure 6-2.
27.0
10.4
8.3
7.9
7.4
6.5
100-199 200-299 300-399 400-599
WASTE FEED RATE (Ib/hr)
600-999
ilOOO
Distribution of incinerator units in N.Y. database according to selected
waste feed rate ranqe-.
-------
A further breakdown of the NY incinerator population by unit capacity
is'shown in Figure 6-3. As can be seen, the population is bimodal in this
capacity range with peaks for units between 50 and 74 Ib/hr and 100
and 124 Ib/hr. A detailed analysis of these two size ranges reveals that
the majority of units in each of the ranges are 50 and 100 Ib/hr,
respectively. Since a 100 Ib/hr feed rate is closer to the median of this
population segment than the 50 Ib/hr feed rate, a model incinerator of 100
Ib/hr capacity was chosen to represent the small incinerator population.
A study of the capacity distribution for the incinerators in the NY
database was also undertaken. Figure 6-4 presents the results of this
investigation. As can be seen, incinerator units which burn 1,000 Ib/hr or
greater make up 33.5 percent of the incineration capacity. Units which burn
600 Ib/hr or greater make up 52 percent of the incineration capacity. A
model unit size of 1,000 Ib/hr was chosen to represent this half of the
incineration population. The 1,000 Ib/hr model size was chosen because it
represents the. median point within the population of units with feed rates
of 600 Ib/hr or above (see Figure 6-2) and is an order of magnitude greater
than the 100 Ib/hr model incinerator capacity.
6.1.1 Model Incinerator Stack Parameters
The stack parameters required as inputs to the HEM include stack
height, diameter, and exit gas temperature and velocity. The NY incineator
database was used to determine values for each of these stack parameters.
The approach taken was to evaluate a given stack parameter as a function of
the previously presented incinerator capacity ranges of Figure 6-2. From
this analysis, the variation of a given parameter was evaluated as a
function of unit capacity. If the given stack parameter appeared to be a
function of unit capacity, then a value based on units in a similar capacity
range to the model was chosen. If the parameter of interest was not a
function of unit size, then a mean value based on the entire population of
units was used.
D-D
-------
I
o-.
i
D
U.
o
U
O
U
U
a:
u
a.
50-74 75-99 100-124 125-149 150-174 175-199
WASTE FEED RATE (Ib/hr)
Figure 6-3. Distribution of incinerator units in N.Y. database with waste feed rates less than
200 Ib/hr according to selected feed rate ranges.
-------
U
f
O
U
O
I
U
U
ft
U
0.
34
32 -
30 -
28 -
26 -
24 -
22 -
20 -
18 -
16 -
14 -
12 -
10 -
8 -
6
4 -
2 -
0
33.5
6.0
12.0
18.5
12.6
9.3
8.1
r • ' f • •——i • • r • •——r
0-99 100-199 200-299 300-399 400-599 600-999
WASTE FEED RATE (Ib/hr)
f
21000
Figure 6-4. Capacity distribution of incinerator units in N.Y. database
according to selected feed rate ranges.
-------
-, Stack Height. The average, high, and low stack height values for a
given feed rate range are shown as a function of feed rate ranges in
Figure 6-5. The data shown are for incinerators with feed rates ranging
from 1 to 2,700 Ib/hr. As can be seen, stack heights vary greatly within a
given capacity range. In fact, within a given capacity range, low stack
height values of 8 feet were observed within the database. Although this
height appears to be unrealistic, no reasons were identified which could be
used to discount its use. One possible explanation is that this is the
height of the stack above the nearest adjacent building and not above the
base of the incinerator. Its inclusion as part of an average value for HEM
modeling purposes should not be a concern, however, because of its
conservative effect on the stack height estimates. A lower stack height
should correspond to higher exposure levels for the population and therefore
a conservative estimate of the associated risk.
The results presented in Figure 6-5 show little variation in the
average stack height across the range of unit capacities. The highest of
the average stack heights is 87 feet and the lowest is 66 feet. An average
stack height of 78 feet is therefore recommended as the HEM input value
regardless of unit size.
Stack Gas Temperature. The average, high, and low exhaust gas
temperature values within a given feed rate range are shown as a function of
feed rate ranges in Figure 6-6. As can be seen, the low in all cases is
400°F. Analysis of the NY database indicated several vent streams with exit
gas temperatures of less th?n 400°F. Because it was known that outlet
temperatures for units which have heat recovery equipment are limited to
approximately 400°F by the stack gas dew point, units with exit gas
temperatures which were below 400°F were excluded from analysis. A high
value of 2,220°F is shown. Little variation is seen in the average exhaust
gas temperatures over the entire capacity range. For the entire population,
the high value of the average temperatures is 1,237°F and the low value is
1,081°F. The average stack gas temperature for the entire database is
1,144°F. This temperature is recommended for both the 100 and 1,000 Ib/hr
model incinerators. Because heat recovery is known to be employed on larger
6-8
-------
cr.
\
o
u
I
*
o
£
V)
400
350 -
300 -
250 -
200 -
150 -
100 -
50 -J
66
/\
I
0-99
z
84
/\
I
71
/\
82
T7I
87
/\
69
/\
100-199 200-299 300-399
y /\ HIGH
WASTE FEED RATE (Ib/hr)
r\T\] AVERAGE
400-599 600-999
V77X LOW
I
87
ilOOO
Fiyure 6-5. Average, hijh arid low stack lieicjhts according lo selected feed rate ranges.
-------
2.6
CT.
I
"£
K c
P o
s *
23
LJ r
Q.F
2^
0-99
V /\ HIGH
WASTE FEED RATE (Ib/hr)
IX \J AVERAGE
Figure 6-6. Averaye, high and luw stack gas exit temperature according to selected feed rate ranges.
-------
130 -
120 -
110 -
100 -
7 9°-
•
X 80 -
**
>»-
x_/
£ 70-
I_
U
0 60 -
^
1-
X
Ll 40 _
30 -
20 -
10 -
0 -
71
t
£
^
/
/,
/
/
/
8.0
\^
V
\
'/
Y,
x
Y,
Y
K
^
^
/
/,
/
/,
/
/
/
6.5
O
V
i
0-99 100-1
//
/
X
/
y
1
9.6
vn
O
^
i
>
77*
/
/,
/
y,
'/
a.E
$
^
\
\
/
//
/
/
/
7.B
\^
V
i
TZ\
/;
/
/,
/
/
^
x
/
^
/
/,
/
'$
/
,
»31
A
^
V
\
f .
Y
/
/,
/
/,
y,
y,
/
!6.0
|
K\ ... __
'/,
1
99 200-299 300-399 400-599 600-999 ilOOO
V /\ HIGH
WASTE FEED RATE (Ib/hr)
AVERAGE
VTA LOW
Figure 6-7. Average, high arid low stack gas exit velocities, according to selected feed rate ranges
-------
01
I
to
c
\^f
oc
1
i
o
150 -
140 -
130 -
1 OO -_
I^U
110 -
100 -
90 -
60 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
n -
f
\
/:
s
//
\
/ y
/
'/
/
26
S
\;
r77l
I
$
\
V,
1
/ ,
/
X
?
?f>
s:
^
^
''*,
'1.
',
\
/ ,
/
/ .
'',
30
\.
^
^
\
'*,
\
/
\\\\\\N
r /
r/
v,
Y,
?9
V
$
^
'%
v\\\\V
V
/,
2b
$
^
%,
'*.
',
\\x\\v
r /
/
'',
r /
32
N~
Rj
^ \
7\
%,
s /
\
/
/
i
',
34
. \
\
^
^
0-99
100-199
V/\ HIGH
200-299 300-399 400-599 600-999
WASTE FEED RATE (!b/hr)
IX \l AVERAGE V77A LOW
21000
Figure 6-8. Average, high and low stack diameters according to selected foed rate ranges.
-------
units, an additional 1,000 Ib/hr model unit with an exit stack gas
temperature of 450°F is recommended to reflect this situation. An exit gas
temperature of 450°F is chosen because it provides a comfortable margin
above the 400°F acid dew point. This temperature also corresponds to a
known unit located at the University of Michigan.
Stack Gas Exit Velocity. The average, high, and low stack gas exit
velocities for a given feed rate range are shown as a function of feed rate
ranges in Figure 6-7. Once again, the variation within a given capacity
range is quite large. In general, the average stack velocities shown also
increase with the capacity of the unit. This is understandable in view of
the increasing volumetric flow rate of stack gases with increasing
incinerator capacity and the need to maintain adequate draft and a slight
negative pressure in the primary chambers of most incineraors. Therefore",
the average stack gas velocity that applies to the selected model
incinerator will be used. Exit gas velocities of 16.4 and 32.1 ft/sec are
recommended for the 100 and 1,000 Ib/hr model incinerators, respectively.
The exit gas velo.city for the 1,000 Ib/hr heat recovery model is assumed to
be the same as the non-heat recovery unit.
One might expect to see a decrease in the exit gas velocity for the
model incinerator equipped with heat recovery. This is assumed not to be
the case because of the need to maintain adequate draft and a slight
negative pressure in the primary combustion chamber. Instead, stack
diameter is reduced to maintain adequate velocity and, hence, draft.
Stack Diameter. The-average, high, and low stack diameter values for a
given feed rate range are shown as a function of feed rate ranges in
Figure 6-8. As was the case for the other stack parameters, the stack
diameters vary greatly within a given size range.
If the same approach used to determine the velocities is used to
determine the stack diameter, diameters of 25 and 34 inches for the 100 and
1,000 Ib/hr models are determined, respectively. Unfortunately, these
diameters are not realistic when the volumetric flow rate associated with
the two models are considered; the volumetric flow for a 1,000 Ib/hr unit is
expected to be 10 times greater than the volumetric flow from a 100 Ib/hr
6-13
-------
TAHLE 6-1. SUMMARY OF MODEL INCINERATOR STACK PARAMETERS
Stack Heights
100 Ib/hr Model
Incinerator With
Ho Meat Recovery
(24)
1,000 Ib/hr Model
Incinerator With
No Heat Recovery
?Q
(24)
1.500 Ib/hr Model
1,000 Ib/hr Modt.1 Univ. of Michigan
Incinerator With Incinerator With
Heat Recovery Heat Recovery
?8
(24)
227
(69)
o\
Exit Gas Temperature
1,144
(891)
1,144
(891)
450
(506)
cn
450
(506)
Exit Gas Velocity
(ft/sec)
(m/s)
17.1
24.5
24 5
.,
35
Stack Diameter
(In)
(m)
(0.0635)
66
(1.676)
(0.940)
(0.610)
-------
unit. Instead, the diameter for the 100 Ib/hr model was chosen as a base
tf
point. The diameter for the 1,000 Ib/hr unit was then determined by
assuming a gas flow rate 10 times greater than the velocities previously
determined. The resultant diameter for the 1,000 Ib/hr model unit is 66
inches. For the case of the 1,000 Ib/hr heat recovery model, the diameter
was again adjusted for temperature while holding the velocity constant. The
resultant diameter using this procedure is 37 inches.
The results of the stack parameter analysis of the NY database are
summarized in Table 6-1. In conclusion, model incinerators of 100 and
1,000 Ib/hr, with two cases for the 1,000 Ib/hr model, are recommended. The
recommended stack height, stack exit gas temperature, and velocity values
for each of these models are shown in the table. For comparison purposes,
the stack parameters used in model.ing a 1,500 Ib/hr controlled air
incinerator operated by the University of Michigan (UM) hospitals are also
presented in this table. This unit was equipped with a waste heat firetube
boiler. Most of the UM parameters are.within the general range of the
recommended model incinerator stack parameters; the exception to this rule
is stack height where the UM parameter is well above the recommended model
values. Based on the NY database, manufacturer literature, and site visits
conducted during this study, the UM stack height appears unusually high.
One possible explanation is that the UM incinerator was located on the top
of the hospital, as is sometimes done, and that the total height above the
ground was used as the stack height.
6.1.2 Model Incinerator Operating Parameters
The operating parameters required as inputs to the HEM include the
annual operating hours and hourly and yearly emissions rates. In order to
determine values for each of these operating parameters, the NY incinerator
database was used to determine the annual operating hours associated with
each of the model incinerators. Next the hourly emissions rates were
determined for each of the models by combining the emissions factor of
Section 3.0 with the model capacities previously developed. Finally the
6-15
-------
yearly emissions rates for each of the models was determined by applying the
annual operating hours to the hourly emissions rates.
Annual Operating Hours. The average annual operating hours for a given
feed rate range are shown as a function of feed rate ranges in Figure 6-9.
As can be seen, the number of annual operating hours increases with
increasing unit capacity. Smaller units (less than 200 Ib/hr), which
operate approximately 1,000 hrs/year, can be characterized as operating five
days a week for about 4 hours each day. Larger units (greater than
600 Ib/hr), which operate approximately 2,350 hrs/year, can be characterized
as operating five days a week for 8 to 10 hrs each day. Therefore, annual
operating operating hours of 1,000 and 2,350 are recommended for the 100 and
1,000 Ib/hr model sizes, respectively.
Hourly Emissions Rates. The emissions factors previously developed in
Section 3.0 are shown in Table 6-2 along with the corresponding hourly and
yearly emissions rates for each of the model incinerators. High and low
emissions rates are given for each of the compounds for'which data exist.
For compounds where only one datum point exists, only one rate in shown.
Different particulate matter (PM) emissions rates were used for the two
model capacities because, as previously stated, for units of less than 400
Ib/hr capacity a larger variation in PM emissions was seen over those of
larger units. The high and low emission rates corresponding to this
breakpoint are shown. A controlled PM emissions rate is also shown. This
rate is based on the baghouse data from the St. Agnes emission test. It
should be noted, that the yearly emissions rates are ba?3d on annual
operation of 1,000 and 2,350 hrs/year for the 100 and 1,000 Ib/hr model
. incinerators, respectively.
6-16
-------
en
I
to
K
D
O
I
z u
w «
Q.O
of
Z
1414
1910
2157
2088
' f
0-99 100-199 200-299 300-399 400-599 600-999 ilOOO
WASTE FEED RATE (Ib/hr)
fiijure 6-9. Annuu'l opera tiny hours according to' selected fe«.-d r'dte changes.
-------
IAUU 0-2. SUMMARY 01 (MISSIONS FAUUKS AND RAUS FOK HOSPITAL IHCINLKATOR MOl.tl. Sl/i:
01
CD
Hourly Lmlsilons Rates (kg)
Group/Compound
Add Qflstis.
Hydrochloric Add
High
Low
Sulfur Dioxide
Hlyh
Low
Nitrogen Ox Idea
High
Low
Articulate MalLm:
Uncontrolled (100 Ib/hr)
High
Low
Uncontrolled (1.000 Ib/hr)
High
Low
Controlled (all size*)
High
Low
Trace Hotdls (tlncontrol lud)
Arsenic
High
Low
Cadmium
High
LOW
Chromium
Hlyh
Low
Iron
High
Low
Hlyh
Low
Nickel
High
Low
Factor
(kij/Mg lend)
49.700
3.300
1.505
0.735
.3.910
2.320
13.460
0.845
2.725
0.685
0.025
0.005
1.07 x 10"*
3.55 x IO"3
1.40 x 10"?.
1.24 x 10"J
3.04 x 10~*
5.10 x 10
9.15 x IO"3
1.99 x 10
5./0 x 10~*
7.90 A 10'5
2.50 x 10"*
5.40 A 10
100 Ib/hr
Model
2.2564
0.1498
0.0683
0.0334
0.1775
0.1053
0.6111
0.0384
0.0011
0.0002
4.86 x 10~j?
1.61 x 10"°
1.54 x 10"*
5.63 x 10
1.38 x lO"*
2.32 x 10"°
4.15 x 10"*
9.03 x 10"'
2.59 x Id"*
3.59 x 10"°
1.14 x 10"S
2.45 x 10'°
1,000 Ib/hr
Model
22.5638
1.4982
0.6833
0.3337
1.7751
1.0533
1.2372
0.3110
0.0114
0.0023
4.86 x 10"*
1.61 x 10~s
1.54 x 10"*
5.63 x 10"'
1.38 x 10"*
2.32 x 10"5
4.15 x 10~3
9.03 x 10
2.59 x lo"r
3.59 x 10"J
1.14 x id"*
. 2.45 x I0's
Yearly Inilbbluns Rate* (kg)
100 lb/lud
Modul
2.256.J8
149.82
66.33
33.37
177.51
105.33
611.08
38.36
1.14
0.23
4.86 A lo"3
1.61 x 10"J
1.54 x 10"'
5.63 x 10"
1.38 x 10"^
2.32 x 10"J
4.15 x lo"'
•j.03 x 10
/.59 A lo"^
3.59 A If."3
1.14 A In"2
2.45 > in"'
1,000 lb/hib
Mode 1
53.024.93
3.520.77
1.605.68
784.17
4.171.58
2.475.21
2.907.30
730.83
26.67
5.33
2.14 x 10"'
3.79 x 10"'
3.63
1.32
3.24 x 10"'
5.44 x 10"*
9.76
2.12
t>.0tt x 10"'
8.43 x 10
2.07 x 10"'
•j./6 x IO"2
-------
TAULt 0-2. SUMMAKY 01 IMIbSIONS FACIOKS AHU KAIES FOK IIOSIM1AL INC1NERA10H MODEL SUtS (CONl ItJUtl))
O\
Group/Compound
Lead
Htijh
Low
Ploxlns
(Tutrd)TCDD •
High
Lou
(Penta)HCUD
High
Lou
(Mexa)HxCOD
High
Lou
(Hepta)H«£DD
High
Loo
(Octa)DCDO
High
LOM
Total PCOD
High
Low
Furans
(Tetra)TCDF
High
Lou
(Penta 1PCOF
High
Lou
(Hoxa)HxCDF
High
Low
(H6pta>HeCI>F
High
Lo«
(Octd)DCUF
High
I OK
lotdl PCDF
Hlijh
LOH
Emissions
factor
(kg/My feoU)
2.80 * 10"^
1.52 x 10"'
5.35 x 10"'
.2.00 x 10"°
3.80 x 10"'
5.50 x 10"°
7.60 x 10"'
1.35 x 10"'
1.92 x 10"^
1.60 x 10"'
2.74 x 10~(j
1.70 x 10"'
0.26 x 10~!j
7.15 x 10"'
1.04 x 10"!j
2.50 x 10"'
1.90 x 10"6,
4.50 x 10"'
2.82 x 10~!)
4.10 x 10"'
3.23 x 10"!j
2.7b x 10"'
2. IB x 10~*
l.llb « 10"'
l.uy A 10~*
l.l.i * 10"°
Hourly Emissions
100 Ib/lir
Model
1.27 > 10"^
6.90 x 10"'
2.43 x 10^
9.08 x 10 lu
1.73 x 10-*
2.50 x 10
3.45 x 10'|!
6.13 x 10"a
8.69 x 10~jj
7.26 x 10"S
1.24 x 10"'
7.72 x ia"9
2.84 x ID''
3.25 x 10"U
4.70 x 10"^
1.14 x 10"U
8.60 x 10"^
2.04 x 10"°
l.'d x 10"?
1.86 x 10'°
1.47 x 10"'
1.25 x 10"°
9.b7 x 1U~"
4.77 x 10"y
4. 'Jo A 10"'
/.3H x 10"B
Rdtes (kg)
1.000 Ib/hr
Model
1.7V x 10"^
6.90 x 10"'
2.43 x 10"'
9.08 x 10~*
1.73 x 10"'
2.50 x 10"°
3.45 x 10"'
6.13 x 10"u
8.69 x 10"'
7.26 x 10"°
1.24 x lO'Ji
7.72 x 10"°
2.84 x 10"^
3.25 x 10"'
4.70 x 10"'
1.14 x 10''
8.60 x 10"?
2.04 x 10"'
1.28 x 10"^
1.86 x 10"'
1.47 x 10"^
1.25 x 10"'
9.87 x 10"'
4.77 x 10-8
4.96 x lll"!j
7.38 x 10"'
Yearly Emissions
100 lu/hr
Model
1.2700
6.90 * 10"1
2.43 x 10"^
9.08 x 10"'
1.73 x 10"^
2.50 x 10""
J.45 x 10"-!
6.13 x 10"°
8.69 x I0"ji
7.26 x 10"°
1.24 x 10"*
7.72 x 10"°
2.84 x 10"*
3.25 x 10~*
4.70 x 10~J!
1.14 x 10"S
B. 60 x 10" J!
2.04 x 10"b
1.2B x 10"*
1.U6 x 111"1
1.47 * 1()~*
1.25 x \U~*
-------
at
I
to
o
I ABLE 6-2.
Sl«MARY OF EMISSIONS FACTORS ArC RATE'. FOR .OSPITAL INCINERATOR MODEL SIZES (U1NTINUFD)
Hourly Emissions Rates (kg)
Group/Compound
|ft- Holbziildl Oruanlca
Ethane
Ethylene
Propane
Propylone
Trtchlorotrll luoroelhylene
Tetrachlorome thane
TrlchJoroethylene
Tetrachloroothylene
Carbon Monoxide
High
1 ON
Emissions
Factor
(krj/Mg (ecu)
0.001S
0.0100
0.0120
0.0110
4,13 x \Q-_l
4.96 x 10 I
1.20 x 10 j!
l.?5 x 10~5
0.85
0.66
100 Ib/hr
Model
O.OU01
O.UOOS
O.OOOS
0.0050
1.87 x 10"£
2.2S x 10~°
5.43 x 10'' .
5.65 x 10''
0.03b4
0.0300
1.000 Ib/hr
Model
0.0007
0.0045
0.0054
0.0050
1.87 x 10"*
2.25 x 10"*
5.43 x 10"?
5.65 x 10"°
0.3836
0.2996
Yearly Emissions Rdtos (kg)
100 Ib/lir*
Model
0.07
0.45
0.54
0.50
1.87 x 10,
2.25 x 10~2
5.43 x 10"*
5.65 x 10
38.36
29.26
1.000 lb/l.ib
Mudel
l.oO
10.67
12.80
H./4
4.40 x 10",
s.29 x 10";
1.27 x 10";
1.33 x 10"z
901.53
704.15
— . • — •
*Based on 1.000 hours of yoarly operation.
bBased on 2,350 hours of yearly operation.
-------
5.2 REFERENCES
1. Private communication between T. Moody, Radian Corporation and Howe,
Gordon, and Sontag, New York State Department of Environment
Conservation, June 9, 1987.
2. Summary Report, Hospital Statistics, American Hospital Association.
1986 Edition.
3. Doucet, L. G., and Maiuka, P. C., Hospital Incinerator Emissions. Risk
and Permitting - A case Study. Presented at the 80th Annual Meeting of
APCA, New York, New York, June 21-26, 1987.
6-21
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
AI'I'LNUIX A
STATE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO INFECTIOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT
Slate
Alaba
Alaska
Arkansas
Statutory Authority and
Regulation Citation
1975 Code of Alabama.
Section 22-21-20. Alabama Sta
Board ui' Health Kules and
Regulations for Nursing Hume*
and Hospitals.
No regulations.
Laws ol Alaska, Title 44.
Chapter 46; Title 46.
Chapter 3.
Arizona Hi-vised Statutes,
Title 3o. Article 2.
General Hospitals. Regulation
R9-10-220, Environmental Seivices,
Subsect Ion E.
Act 414 of 1961. as amended by
Act 444 of I96!> and Act 454 of
1965. Rules and Regulation* for
Hospitals and Related
lust ituL iuiis In Arkansas.
Suimiary of Requirements
All infectious waste generated
by nursing homes and hospitals
must be incinerated on site.
Policy is to recommend treatment
of infectious waste prior to
disposal.
All Infections waste generated
by medical and veterinary
facilities must be incinerated
prior to final disposal.
The state has statutory authority
to legulate infectious waste,
but has not yet promulgated
regulat ions.
All infectious waste must be
either (1) autoclaved and
disposed of In an approved
sanitary landfill, or
(2) Incinerated In an approved
Incinerator. Variances are
given fur disposal of untreated
waste when there is Insufficient
treatment capacity.
All infectious waste generated
by hospitals and related
instliutions must be Incinerated
or Jispused uf by other approved
methods. Revisions are expected
III I'JBG. '
State Agency
Bureau of I.Lceiisure an>l Cert ll'icat lun
State Health Department
Room b)2
State Office Building
Montgomery, Alabama 361JU-17U1
(205) 261-MUb
Alabama Department uf Environmental
Management
Land Division
1/bl Federal Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
(205) 271-I7UU
Air and Solid Uaste Management
Department of Environmental Conservation
Pouch O
Juneaii. Alaska
(907) 46i-'JLGb
Bureau of Health Care Institution
Liceilsure
Arizona Department ut Health Service's
1740 Uest Adams Street
Phoenix, Arizona BbUU/
(602) 2i5-llli
Department ut Heullh
Division ot Ik-ulili Fj.:iliiies
4815 U. M..il.li...ii lili.-^-i
LitUv Kuck. Aikuu^a^ /J2UJ-^
(iUl) ool :-j.j|
-------
APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)
Scat*
California
Colorado
I
10
Connect Icut
Dalaware
Statutory Authority and
Regulation Citation
Suiimary of Requirements
The Solid Uaste Management Act
(23/) of 1971. Arkansas Hazardous
Uaste Management Act of 1979
(Act 406 of 1979).
California Health and Safety Code
Chapter 6.i, Article 2.
Section 21117.5 California
Administrative Code. Title 22.
Division 4. Chapter 10: Minimum
Standards for Management of
Hazardous and Extremely Hazardous
Uastei Infectious Waste RegulalIons.
effective November 16. 1985.*
Colorado Revised Statutes, 1973. as
amended: Title 25. Article 15.
Parts 1, 2. and 1: Hazardous Uaste
Management Act.
Chapter 4. Regulations Governing
General Hospitals.
Connecticut General Statute* of
197V. Public Act 79-605.
Code 22A-4481 and 22A-115.
Delaware Code. Title 7, Chapter 60:
Solid Uaste Act. Delaware Solid
Uaste Disposal Regulations.
August 1974.
The state has statutory authority
to regulate Infectious waste as a
hazardous waste, but has not yet
promulgated regulations.
Infectious waste must be
incinerated. sterlUzed or treated
by other approved method*.
The state has statutory authority
to regulate Infectious waste as a
hazardous waste, but has not yet
promulgated regulations.
Pathological waste must be
Incinerated. Otf-slte disposal In
approved sites Is possible.
The state has statutory authority
to regulate Infectious waste as a
hazardous waste, but. has not yet
promulgated regulations.
Infectious waste disposal is
approved on a case-by-case basis.
Hone has been allowed to go to
landfills untreated since the
approval process was Initiated.
Revised regulat luiis have been
pruuused.
State Agency
Solid Uaste Management Division
Department of Pollution control and
Ecology
P.O. Bon 9581
8001 National Drive
Little Rock, Arkansas 12219
(501) 562-7444
California Department of Health
Services
Hazardous Materials Management Sectlun
714/744 P Street
Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 124-1798
Uaste Management Division
Colorado Department of Health
4210 E. llth Avenue
Denver. Colorado 80220
(101) 120-8111 Ext. 4164
Division of Health Facilities
Regulations
Colorado Department of Health
4210 E. llth Avenue
Denver. Colorado 8022O
(101) 120-8111 Ext. 6106
Hazaidous Uaste Management
Department of Environmental Protection
State Office Building
165 Capitol Avenue
Hartfurd. Connecticut 06106
(201) 566-4H6V or 566-5712
Uaste Management Suction
Department ot Natural Resources and
Eiivi roiuiieui •* I Com i-ol
89 KIIIC Highway
P.O. box HOI
lli.vc.'. Del..ujiu I'J'JIU
CJ02) /J6 Wttl
-------
APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)
State
District of
Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Statutory Authority and
Regulation Citation
Summary of Requirements
District of Columbia Hazardous
Waste Management Act of 1977.
O.C. Law 2-64.
Florida Resource Recovery and
Management. Act (Florida Statutes
Annotated. Title 21. Public Health,
Chapter 403, Part IV. Enacted by
the Laws uf 197*. Chapter 342. as
amended). Florida Resource
Recovery and Management Regulations:
Rule* of the Department of
Environmental Regulation,
Chapter 17-7.04.*
Code of Georgia. Annotated,
Title 4). Chapter 43-16: Solid
Uaste Management Act of 1972, as
amended. Georgia Department of
Natural Resources Rules and
Regulations for Solid Uaste
Management, Chapter 391-3-4, 1972.
as amended through 19/4.
Hawaii Environmental Laws and
Regulations. Vol. I, Title 19,
Chapter 342, Part V. as amended
by Chapter 230. Laws of 1974.
Title II, Department of Health,
Chapter »H. Solid Ua*te
Management Control kvgulation*,
November 1981.
Idaho Code, Title 39. Chapter I.
Idaho Solid U^atu M.*liai;eilu.'liL
Regulations, Title I, Chapter o.
The District has statutory
authority to regulate Infectious
waste as a hazardous wa*te. but
has not yet promulgated
regulation*.
Infectious waste must be
Incinerated or treated by an
approved treatment method before
being placed la a landfill.
Infectious waste Is considered a
special waste. Policy Is to
.require Incineration or
autoclavlng before land disposal.
All Infectious waste must be
treated or otherwise rendered
safe before disposal. Double
bagging Is considered a means of
rendering an untreated waste
safe.
All &olid wa*te must lme managed
to prevent health hazards.
public nui&duce*. and pollution
of the environment during
treatment, storage and disposal.
Policy is LO recuiunend' that-
infectluu» u^sie be double
bagged prior to di^pu&al.
State Agency
Department of Consumer and Regulatory
Affair* and Environmental Control
Division
5010 Overlook Avenue, SU
Washington, DC 20032
(202) 767-8414
Solid Uaste Management Program
Department of Environmental Regulation
Twin Tower* Office Building, bill Klour
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee. Florida 32301
(904) 48o-030U
and
Department of Health and Rehatii 1 itat Ive
Services
1317 Winewood Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
(904) 488-2905
Land Protection Branch
Environmental Protection Division
Department of Natural Resources
Room 724
270 Uashington Street. SU
Atlanta. Georgia 30334
(404) 656-2833
Air and Solid Uaste Permit Section
Department of Health
Amelco Building. 3rd Floor
641 Halekau Uila Street
Honolulu. lUwuii 40313
Hazardous M^tcri^l* bureau
Department ol Health jiiJ Ucll'are
Slalu Hou^i.-
Uoiie. Ul^hu lli/JU
(2Ud) J3
-------
APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)
State
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Statutory Authority and
Regulation Citation
Summary of Requirement*
State Agency
Illinois Revised Act 101-105,
January 1985. State of Illinois
Rule* and Regulations 35.
Subtitle G. Subpart F.
Sectlona 700.601-700.605. .
Indiana Code. Title 11. Article 7.
Environmental Management Act.*
Refuse Disposal Act: Recodlfled
a* Indiana Solid Waste Disposal
Law 1C-16-9-30. Rule 310 IAC 4.
Iowa Code 1985. Section 4S5B.304.
900—100.3(2) Iowa Administrative
Code (IAC)
Kansas Statutes Annotated.
Chapter 65, Article 14. as amended.
Kansas Administrative Regulations.
Title 28. Public Health.
Article 29. Regulation 27.
Effective Hay 1984.
Kentucky Revised Statutes.
224.005(227)(a).
All Infectious hospital waste must
be rendered limocuo/us by
sterilization or Incineration
before disposal.
The state has statutory authority
to regulate Infectious waste as a
hazardous waste, but has not yet
promulgated regulations.
Regulations are being drafted.
Written approval must be obtained
before disposal of Infectious waste
In a sanitary landfill. A 5-year
permit system was established In
April. 1987.*
Land disposal of Infectious waste
Is prohibited unless a special
waste authorization Is granted
that requires autoclavlng or
formalin treatment before land
disposal.
Infectious waste must be
Incinerated, treated before land
disposal, or ground to the sewec.
Untreated Infectious waste may be
sent to a hazardous waste land
disposal facility or to • sanitary
landfill with authorization from
the Department.
The state has statutory authority
to regulate Infectious waste as a
hazardous waste, but has not yet
promulgated regulations.
Division ot Land Pollution Control
Environmental Protection Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield. Illinois 62706
(217) 782-6762 or 782-6760
Division of Land Pollution Control
State Board of Health
1110 West Michigan Street
Room A104
Indianapolis. Indiana 46206
(117) 241-9100
Air and Haste Permit Branch
Program Operations Division
Iowa Department of Uater.
Air and Waste Management
Henry A. Wallace Building
900 East Grand Street
DCS Koines, Iowa 50119
(515) 281-8692
Solid Waste Management Section
Department of Health and Environment
Forbes Field, Building 121
Topeka. Kansas 66620
(911) 862-91bO. Ext. 109
Division of Waste Management
Cabinet of Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection
18 Rellly Road
Frankfort. Kentucky 4U601
(502) 564-6710
-------
APPENDIX A (CUIITINUKD)
Statutory Authority and
Regulation Citation
Suiunary of Requirements
Slate Agency
Louisiana
I
Ui
Maine
Maryland
Cert I t'icate of Heed and LlCtrnsure
Law. an revised, (originally
eftecllve January 1, 1473).
"02 Kentucky Administrative
Regulat ions. 20:009. Hospital
Facility Regulation.
Louisiana Revised Statutes,
Act t49. 30: 1133,
Environmental Affairs Act.*
Title 3d ot Main Revised
Statutes Allliulated.
Annotated Maryland Coe'e Healili
Environment Article, Si c: ions
9-210(g) and 9-229. effective
July 1. 19B4.
Amended Guidelines for the Dispo
uf Infectious Waste, elfeclive
July 1. I'jfl*.
Hospitals must have an incinerator
capable uf destroyInn infectious
waste. Hospitals which satisfy
the treatment, packaging, and
transpoitattun requirements can
secure waivers to incinerate the
waste in city facilities. Revised
rcgs effective 6/4/8S require that
shaip waste (needless, glass, etc.)
be separated from other Infectious
waste. Sharp waste Is to be
packaged In rigid containers fur
either incineration or disposal in
approved landfills.
The state has 'statutory authority
to regulate Infectious waste as a
hazardous waste, Lint has not yet
promulgated regulations. Policy
Is to allow disposal of treated
Infectious waste in selected
sanitary landfills. Revisions
are expected.
The state has statutory authority
to regulate Infectious waste as a
hazardous waste, but has not yet
promulgated regulations.
Int'eui
of in
a landfill.
aiuiot be disposed
lncinuraii.nl is the preferred
method of liealmeut.
Division for Licensing and Regulation
Department of Human Resources
273 E. Main Street
Frankfort. Kentucky 40601
(502) S64-2bOO
Hazardous Waste Division
Department uf Natural Resources
P.O. Box ttObu
Baton Rouge. Louisiana 7UH04
-------
APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)
Since
Michigan
'Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Massachusetts
Statutory Authority and
Regulation Citation
Massachusetts General Lavs.
Chapter 111, Subjections 1 aiul
51-16. and Chapter 111D.
105 CMK 110.154 and 110.154.
Hazardous Infectious Uaste Disposal
Regulations) and 105 CMR 180.275.
Regulation for Disposal of
Infectious Materials from
Independent Laboratories.
Massachusetts General Laws.
Chapter 21-C.*
Massachusetts General Laws.
Chapter 21-C.*
Minnesota Statutes Annotated.
Chapters 115A and 116. inacted
by Laws of 1980. fes amenoed.
Minnesota Code of Agency Rules.
Title 6. Part *. as amended
SU1-12 and SU6-2vlll.
Ho laws or regulations pertaining
to Infectious waste management.
Missouri Hospital Licensing l.t,u.
Chapter 191 of Missouri Revised
Statutes. Kules and Regulatinns
for Hospitals.
Summary of Requirements
State Agency
Infectious waste must be
Incinerated ur treated before
disposal.
The state has statutory authority
to regulate Infectlous waste as a
hazardous waste, but has not yec
promulgated regulations.
As of December 28. 1985. Michigan
deleted Its list of Infectious
wastes from the regulations.
Land disposal of Infectious waste
Is prohibited.
Infectious waste generated by
hospitals must be either
Incinerated or auiocleved bel'ore
being sent to a landfill permitted
to accept the ujsle. Uaste Is
required to be treated, on site.
The stale expects to revise
Massachusetts Department of Public
Health
150 Tremont Street
Boston. Massachusetts 02111
(617) 727-270U
Division of Solid and Hazardous Uaste
1 Uinter Street
boston. Massachusetts 02108
(617) 292-5582
Office of Hazardous Uaste Management
Michigan Derailment of Natural Resources
P.O. Bo> 30018
Lansing. Michigan 48909
(517) 171-12>u
Division of Solid and Hazardous Uaste
Minnesota Pollution Control
1915 Uest County Road B-2
Roseville. Mliuwsota 55111
(612) 296-7J7J
Division of Solid/Hazardous Uaste
Management
Bureau of Pollution Control
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Bon 10185
Jacksuii. Mississippi 1920V
(601) 961-5171
Missouri Deuai-luieiit ot Health
Bureau of Husuital 1.in-using
P.O. BOM 570 '
Jefferson Guy. Missouri 65102
(1U) 751-27TJ
-------
APPENDIX A (CONTINUED).
State
Statutory Authority and
Regulation Citation
Summary of Requirements
Missouri Hazardous Waste Management
l.au. Chapter 26U ol Revised
Statutes at Missouri. 1*35, as
amended.
The state has statutory authority
.to regulate infectious waste as a
hazardous waste, but has not yet
promulgated regulations.
State Agency
Waste Management Program
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 176
Jefferson City, Missouri b51u2
(314) 751-3241
Montana
I
-J
Nebraska
Missouri Solid Waste Management
Law. Chapter 260.200 of Revised
Statutes of Missouri. 197b.
Missouri Solid Waste Management
Rules and Regulations, 10CSRBO.
Chapters 1-5.
Montana Solid Waste Management
Act of 1976. Administrative Rules
of Montana, Title 16. Chapter 14.
Subchapter i. Solid Waste
Management/Refuse Disposal.
Montana Hazardous Waste Act of
1981.
Nebraska Environmental Protection
Act. Section 81-1501 through
81-1540.
Sterilized infectious waste may be
disposed of in any permitted
solid waste landfill.
Policy is Co recomnend treatment
of Infectious waste before Land
disposal.
The state has statutory authority
to regulate infectious waste as a
hazardous waste, but has not yet
promulgated regulations.
The state has statutory authority
to regulate infectious waste as a
hazardous waste, but has not yet
promulgated regulations.
.Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management Bureau
Department of Health and Environmental
Sciences
Cogswell Building. Room B201
Helena. Montana 59620
(406) 444-2821
Land Quality Division
Department of Enviruiuiiental Control
State House Station
P.O. Box 94877
Lincoln. Nebraska 68509
(402) 471-2186
Nevada
Nevada Revised Statutes,
Chapter 459, Hazardous Waste
Disposal and Solid Waste Disposal.
Regulations Governing Solid Waste
Management, Effective 1977.
The state has statutory authority
to regulate infectious waste as a
hazardous waste, but has not yet
promulgated regulations.
Division of Environmental Protection
Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources
Capital Complex
Carson City. Nevada B'J/10
(702) 88S-467U
Infectious waste generated by
hospitals may be placed in a land
disposal facility only under
approval of the Department. (
-------
APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)
State
Hew Jersey
I
OO
Hew Me«lco
Hew York
Statutory Authority and
Regulation Citation
Summary of Requirement*
State Agency
Hew Hampshire
New Hampshire Revised Statutes
Annotated lit-. 1979. Health
facilities Rulei and Regulations.
effective February 198*. Cener.l
Requlcementi for all Facilities.
HEP-801.
Hew Jersey Statues Annotated.
Title 13: Conservation and
Development. Chapter 1E-1.
Hew Jersey Administrative Code.
Title 7. Chapter 26. as amended.
Hew regulations dealing with
hazardous wastes enpected.*
New Jersey Health Care Facilities
Planning Act. New Jersey
Administrative Code B:43-B-3.6.«
Hazardous Uaste Act. Section
74-4-3. as amended through 1981.
Environmental Conservation Law.
Article 27. Title 6 NCRR
part 364. Collection and Transport
of Industrial. Commercial, and
Certain Other Uastes.*
Parts 219 and 222: General
Regulation of Refuse and Uaste
Incineration.*
Infectious waste generated by
health care facilities must be
Incinerated.
Infectious waste inust be rendered
nonlnfectlous In accordance with
the standards of the New Jersey
Department of Health.
All Infectious waste generated
by hospitals must -be treated before
land disposal. Infectious waste
that Is not autoclaved or
Incinerated can be double-bagged
for land disposal by a method
approved by the Department of
Environmental Protection.
No specific regulations on
Infectious waste. Incineration
or sterilization of Infectious
waste followed by land disposal
Is recommended.
Anyone transporting a hospital
waste off-site (including
Infectious waste) must have a
waste transporter's permit.
These regulations limit emissions
of paniculate matter and smoke.
Bureau of Health Facilities
Administration
Division of Public Health
Department of Health and Welfare
6 Hazen Drive
Concord. New Hampshire 03101
(603) 271-4492
Division of Uaste Management
Department of Environmental Protection
33 East Hanover Street
Trenton. Hew Jersey 0862i
(609) 292-9877
Hew Jersey Department of Health
Division of Health Facilities Evaluation
CN 370
Trenton. Hew Jersey 0862S
(609) 292-783*
Solid and Hazardous Uaste Management
Programs
Health and Environment Department
P.O. Bon 968
Santa Fe. Hew Mexico 87*04-0968
(505) 827-5271 or 827-0020
Division of Solid and Hazardous Uaste
Department of Environmental Conservation
SO Uolf Road. Room 417
Albany. New York 12233
(518) 457-3254
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
50 Uolf Road
Albany. New York 12233
(518) 457-561U
-------
APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)
State
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio .
Ok1ahoma
Oregon
Statutory Authority aiui
Regulation Citation
10 NYCKR 405.1(b)(S): Handling of
Potentially Infections Waste.'
North Carolina Solid and Hazardous
Waste Act, as revised, July l'JU3.
10 NCAC IOC, Solid Waste Management .
July 1. 1985.
No governing statute or regulations.
Ohio Revised Code. Title 37,
Chapter 14, as amended. Ohio
Administrative Code, Regulations
3745-27 and 371.5-37, effective
July 24. 1976.
Oklahoma Statues, Title 63, 1'JUl,
Section 1-2001 et seq., Oklahoma
Controlled Industrial Waste
Disposal Act.'
Oregon KevlseJ Statutes,
(Jhaulei1 45'J, as amended. Oiegmi
AJminl^liul tve Rules. Chapter 114U.
Uivi:. ion 61.
Suinnary of Requirement!
Slate Agency
The various categories of
potentially Infection* waste and
acceptable methods of disposal
for each are presented. All
waste must be autoclaved or
Incinerated prior to disposal.
Iiitectlous waste must be treated
by an approved method prior to
disposal In a landfill.
Policy is to require autoclaving
or incineration of all infectious
waste generated by hospitals and
nursing homes. No untreated
infectious waste may be disposed
of in a landfill. Every hospital
and nursing home must have access
to a double-chambered, approved
Incinerator in order to be
1Icensed.
The state has statutory authority
to regulate Infectious waste as a
hazardous waste, but has not yet
promulgated regulations.
The state has statutory authority
to regulate infections waste as a
hazardous waste, but has not yet
promulgated regulations. Current
policy is based on CDC guidelines.
Infectious waste regulations are
being drafted.
Land disposal ot infectious waste
is controlled through the
pern.! 11 ing process for land
disposal facilities. '
New York State Department of Health
Office of Health Services Management
Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plazd
Corning Tower. Room 1821
Albany. New York 12217
(518) 474-2121
Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management Bianch
Division of Health Services
Department of Human Resources
P.O. Box 20*1
Raleigh. North Carolina 27602
(919) 733-217B
Division ot He.ilih Facilities
Department of Health
State Capitol Building
Blsmark. North Dakota 5B5U5
(701) 224-2152
Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
161 East Broad Street
Columbus. Ohio 43215
(614) 466-7220
Institutional Services, Medical
Facilities
Department of Health
P.O. 5J551
100U N.E. lUth Street, 4th Floor
Oklahoma City. Oklahoma 73152
(405) 271-6811
Hazardous -i I id ^ol 1>I Wjile Division
lii-pai iinciii ul Hisvir iu--m.il Quality
P.O. box ltou
I'ui'l land, inutuli VI'Ml
-------
APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)
Scat*
Pennsylvania
I
I—
o
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Scutli Dakota
Statutory Authori~.y and
Regulation Cll..t.on
Pennsylvania Statutes,
b2 PS 901-1059, Public Ueltaie
Cod*. Pennsylvania CoJe. Title 28.
Chapter 1*7.7*, Pennsylvania Stale
Health Department Regulation*:
Disposal of Bacterial and
Pathological Hastes that arc •
Generated In Hospitals and Medical
Care Facilities.*
25 Pa. Code 127.12(a)(5)«
Rhode Island Hazardous Waste
Management Act of 197B.
Hazardous Uaste Rules and
Regulations for Hazardous Uaate
Generation, Transportation.
Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Effective July 18. 198*.
Cude of Laws of South Carolina,
1976, Sections **-56-10 through
**-So-l*0, Hazardous Wastes.
South U.kuia Cudit'led Laws,
Chapter 3*A-6-2, Solid Uaste
Disposal Act.
Summary of Requirements
State Agency
Current policy l»'to allow off-slt«
sterilization of infectious waste.
New regulations are being drafted.
Best Available Technology
requirements for hospital/
Infections waste Incinerator
facilities Include stack emission
limitations, ambient Impact
analyses, operating, testing and
monitoring requirements. Tnese
regulations are in draft review.
effective June 9, 1987'.
Infectious waste Is regulated as
a hazardous waste.
The state has statutory authority
to regulate Infectious waste as a
hazardous waste, but has not yet
promulgated regulations. The
stale recommends that Infectious
hospital waste be Incinerated or
otherwise treated before land
disposal.
The state has statutory authority
to regulate Infectious waste as a
hazardous waste, but l-as not yet
promulgated regulations.
Bureau of Uaste Management
Department of Environmental Resources
Fulton Building. 8th Floor
P.O. Bo« 2063
Harrlsburg, Pennsylvania
(717) 787-6239
Bureau of Air Quality Control
Department of Environmental Resources
Fulton Building, 18th Floor
P.O. Bo* 2061
Harrlsburg. Pennsylvania 17120
(717) 787-*32*
Division of Air Hazardous Materials
Department of Environmental Management
20* Cannon Building
75 Davis Street
Providence. Rhude Island 02903
(401) 277-2797
Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Uaste
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South CarolIna 29201
(801) 75B-50B1
Office of Air Quality and Solid Ua»le
Department of Uater and Natural
Resources
Joe Fuss Building
523 East Capitol AVUIIIIU
Pierre. South Uakut..
(605) 173 3153
-------
APPEIIU1X A (CONTINUED)
State
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Ve rmont
Statutory Authority and
Regulation Citation
Tennessee Hazardous Waste
Management Act of 1977. as amended.
Tennessee Solid Waste Disposal Act.
as amended.*
Tennes»ee Code Annotated,
6011-201 through 217 Minimum
Standards and Regulations for
Huspltals, 1974.*
Revised Civil Statutes of the
State of Texas Annotated, Article
4477-7 Texas Solid Waste Disposal
Act: and Article 4477-1, Texas
Sanitation and Health Protection
Law, as amended. Texas
Administrative Code 325.136(b)(1),
Texas Department of Health,
Municipal Solid Waste Management
Regulations, effective July 1483,
as amended.*
Utah Code Annotated. Title 2o,
Chapter 14, Utah Solid and
Hazardous Waste Act, Effective
June, 1981.
Vermont Statutes Annotated.
Title 10, Chapter 159. Hazardous
Waste Management Regulations. a»
amended September 13. 1984,
Section o6(J2C2)(a).(l4) .
Code of Vn-ginia. Title 32.1.
Chapter t>. Article 3. Virginij
Kegulal iuii:» Governing Disposal •
of Solid Waste, April, 1971.
Summary of Requirements
State Agency
The state is initiating rulemaklng
actlun.
All Infectious waste generated
by hospitals must be Incinerated
in closed incinerators on
elevated platforms.
Infectious waste is regulated as a
special waste. Incineration Is the
preferred method of treatment.
Untreated waste may be double
bagged and disposed of In a Type I
municipal landfill.
The stale has statutory authority
to regulate Infectlous'waste as a
hazardous waste, but has not yet
promulgated regulations.
Infectious waste Is regulated as a
hazardous waste.
Infectious wastes are. not as
regulated us hazardous wastes.
W..:.ie generators must have special
peimlssiuii to dispose of
iu>iununici|>.il waste. Kules do
not piedudc land disposal of
untreated intention's waste.'
Division ot Solid Waste Management
Tennessee Department of Public Health
and Environment
Customs House, 4th Floor
601 Broadway Street
Nashville. Tennessee 371M9-5403
(615) 741-3424
Hospital Licensing Boar.t
283 Plus Park
Nashville, Tennessee 37210
(615) 367-6200
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
Texas Department of Health
1100 West 49th Street, T601A
Austin. Texas 78756 - 3199
(512) 458-7271
Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste
Department of Health
P.O. Box 45500
Salt Lake City. Utah 84145-0501
(801) 533-4145
Hazardous and Solid Waste Management
Division
Department of Water Resources and
Environmentjl Engineering
Agency of Environmental Conservation
State Office Building
Montpelier. Vermont u5bU2
(802) 828-33M5
Division ot Solid iiiJ Hazardous Wa^iu
Management
Department ui Health
M.mrui- building. Ilih Floor
1U1 Ho rill Ulh Si .-eel
Kiclnii.JiiJ. Viiciiiia .'JL'I'J
(tlU'i) i^5-L'ou/
-------
APPENDIX A (CONTINUED)
State
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
I
h-
to
Wyoming
Statutory Authority and
Regulation Citation
Summary of Requirements
State Agency
Revised Code of Washington.
Hazardous Waste Disposal
Chapter 70.105.
Revised Code of Washington,
Hospital Licensing and Regulation
Statute, Chapter 70.41.
Washington Administrative Code.
248-180-170, Hospital Rules and
Regulations.
Code of West Virginia. Chapter 20,
Article SE. Effective July 7, 1981.
Wisconsin Statutes Annotated,
Chapter 144, a» amended.
Chapter NR 181, and guidance
summary 'Handling and Disposal
of Pathological Waste.'
No regulations pertaining to
Infectious waste, management.
The state has statutory authority
to regulate Infectious waste as a
hazardous waste, but has not yet •
promulgated legulatlonst
Infectious waste generated by
hospitals oust be Incinerated or
disposed of by other approved
methods. Approved methods Include
autoclavlng, retorting, or double
bagging before land disposal.
Infectious waste must be autoclaved
and/or-Incinerated before land
disposal. Infectious waste
regulations are being revised.
The state has statutory authority
to regulate infectious.waste as a
hazardous waste, but has not yet
promulgated regulations.
Policy Is to recommended
Incineration of Infectious waste.
Infectious waste'which as been
autoclaved or sterilized may be
bagged anil disposed of In an
engineered landfill.
Hazardous Waste Section
Department of Ecology
Mall Stop PV-11
Olympla, Washington 98504-8711
(206) 459-6322
Department of Social and Health Services
Facility Licensing Certification Section
of the Health Services Division
Mall Stop ET-31
Olympla, Washington
(206) 753-7039
State Health Department
1800 Washington Street. East
Charleston, West Virginia 25305
(304) 348-2970
Bureau of Solid Waste Management
Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Bon 7921
Madison, Wisconsin 53707
(608) 266-2111
Solid Waste Management Program
State of Wyoming
Department of Environmental Quality
Herschler Building
122 West 25th Street
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002
(307) 777-7752
Department of Health and Social Services
Division of Health and Medical Services
4th Floor Hathaway Building
Cheyenne. Wyoming 84U02
(307) 77V-7121
'Denotes regulatlou> as of June. 1987.
------- |