&EPA
Research
itory
Cincinnati OH 45268
Research and Development
Assessment of
Bacteria and Virus
Emissions at a
Refuse Derived Fuel
Plant and Other
Waste Handling
Facilities
Executive Summary
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7. Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the "SPECIAL" REPORTS series. This series is
reserved for reports targeted to meet the technical information needs of specific
user groups. The series includes problem-oriented reports, research application
reports, and executive summary documents. Examples include state-of-the-art
analyses, technology assessments, design manuals, user manuals, and reports
on the results of major research and development efforts.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/8-79-010
August 1979
ASSESSMENT OF BACTERIA AND VIRUS EMISSIONS AT A REFUSE DERIVED
FUEL PLANT AND OTHER WASTE HANDLING FACILITIES
Executive Summary
by
D. E. Fiscus
P. G. Gorman
M. P. Schrag
L. J. Shannon
Field Programs Section
Midwest Research Institute
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
Contract No. 68-02-1871
Project Officer
Carlton Wiles
Solid and Hazardous Waste Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFITCE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendations for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increas-
ing public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the
health and welfare of the American people. Noxious air, foul water, and
spoiled land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural en-
vironment. The complexity of that environment and the interplay between
its components require a concentrated and integrated attack on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solu-
tion, and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and search-
ing for solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops
new and improved technology and systems for the preservation and treatment
of public drinking water supplies and to minimize the adverse economic,
social, health, and aesthetic effects of pollution. This publication is
one of the products of that research, a most vital communications link be-
tween the researcher and the user community.
In St. Louis, the City of St. Louis, Union Electric Company and EPA
first demonstrated the use of solid waste as a supplementary fuel in coal-
fired power plant boilers for generating electricity. In addition to the
demonstration, research tasks were conducted to evaluate the relative levels
of airborne bacteria and viruses at the St. Louis Refuse Processing Plant
and other waste handling facilities for purposes of comparison.
This report was prepared as an executive summary of the report entitled
"Assessment of Bacteria and Virus Emissions at a Refuse Derived Fuel Plant
and Other Waste Handling Facilities," EPA 600/2-78-152, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, August 1978. This executive summary presents the results
and conclusions of these evaluations.
Francis T. Mayo, Director
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This report is an executive summary of results of a program to compare
relative levels of selected airborne bacteria and viruses within and around
various waste handling facilities. Facilities included were an incinerator,
a waste transfer station, a wastewater treatment plant, a landfill, and the
St. Louis Refuse Processing Plant. The work also tested the bacteria re-
moval efficiency of a mobile fabric filter.
The results showed that uncontrolled bacteria levels, both in-plant and
at the property line, are generally higher for the refuse processing plant
than for the other facilities tested. The fabric filter significantly re-
duced the levels of bacteria in the dust emissions from the refuse plants'
air density separator.
This report is of interest to consulting engineers, planners, and gov-
ernment officials involved in resource recovery. A complete discussion of
the entire research program is contained in the report entitled "Assessment
of Bacteria and Virus Emissions at a Refuse Derived Fuel Plant and Other
Waste Handling Facilities," EPA-600/2-78-152, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, August 1978.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-02-1871 by
Midwest Research Institute under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ill
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables vii
Acknowledgment viii
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions and Recommendations 3
Conclusions ..... 3
Recommendations 4
3. Test Plan 5
Bacteria and Viruses. . 5
Trace Metals 7
Asbestos 7
4. Results and Discussion 9
Bacteria and Virus Hi-Vol Test Results 9
Statistical Analysis of Hi-Vol Sample Results 21
Bacteria and Virus Andersen Imoactor Test Results .... 23
Statistical Analysis of Andersen Impactor
Sample Results 26
Bacteria and Virus EPA Mobile Filter Test Results .... 26
Trace Elements 27
Asbestos 29
Literature Search ... 31
References 33
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 In-plant Hi-Vol samples (total bacteria count ) . . . 11
2 In-plant Hi-Vol samples (total coliforra) 12
3 In-plant Hi-Vol samples (fecal coliform) 13
4 In-plant Hi-Vol samples (fecal Streptococci) .... 14
5 Ambient Hi-Vol samples (total bacteria count) ... 15
6 Ambient Hi-Vol samples (total coliform) . 16
7 Ambient Hi-Vol samples (fecal coliform) 17
8 Ambient Hi-Vol samples (fecal Streptococci) .... 18
9 Summary of statistical differences between plants . . 22
10 Andersen data for upwind and downwind locations
(bacteria - total plate count) 24
11 Andersen data for in-plant locations (bacteria -
total plate count) 25
vi
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Subject Bacteria and Viruses 7
2 Hi-Vol Sampler Locations 10
3 Ranking of Plants Based on Average Bacterial
Levels in Descending Order for Hi-Vol
Testing Sites 20
4 Mobile Filter Results 27
5 Trace Elements Concentrations for Hi-Vol Ambient
Air Samples • 28
6 Trace Elements Results for Air Classifier
Discharge Samples 30
vii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared by Midwest Research Institute for the Munici-
pal Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, under EPA Contract No. 68-02-1871. The project officer
for EPA was Carlton C. Wiles. It is intended to be an executive summary
of the final report describing the assessment of aerosolized microorganisms
at several waste processing facilities.
This report was written by Messrs. D. E. Fiscus, P. G. Gorman, M. P.
Schrag, and Dr. L. J. Shannon.
viii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
Midwest Research Institute (MRI) has been involved in testing and eval-
uating the St. Louis-Union Electric Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF) Demonstra-
tion Project for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) since December
of 1973. Environmental evaluations were conducted at the refuse processing
plant and the power plant where the RDF was burned. Measurements were for
particulates, gases, and trace metals. The tests on particulate emissions
at the refuse processing plant also included a preliminary analysis for
bacteria and viruses (B&V). Since these particulates consist basically of
municipal solid waste (MSW), it was suspected that bacteria might be present
in the emissions. These preliminary tests confirmed the presence of micro-
organisms in the emissions. Therefore, it was decided to conduct a more
detailed and definitive investigation.
The objective of the test program was to obtain data that would permit
a comparison of the bacterial and viral levels at different types of waste
handling facilities and provide a means of evaluating the relative signifi-
cance of refuse processing operations. In addition to the St. Louis refuse
processing plant, for comparative purposes, B&V tests were conducted at
four other waste handling facilities; a municipal incinerator, a waste
transfer station, a sanitary landfill and a wastewater treatment plant.
Tests were conducted at the property line of the processing plant and
at certain in-plant locations, as well as at other types of waste handling
facilities. In addition to the field test program, a literature search was
conducted to assist in interpreting the test results.
In addition to B&V tests, trace element concentrations were determined
at the St. Louis Refuse Processing Plant for the discharge of the air clas-
sifier system and for upwind/downwind ambient property line locations. The
air classifier discharge at St. Louis was assayed for asbestos fibers.
Test results of the B&V trace element and asbestos investigations are
presented in summary form in this report. A complete and detailed presenta-
tion of all the St. Louis investigations are contained in the following
three reports.
1. St. Louis Demonstration Final Report: Refuse Processing Plant
Equipment, Facilities, and Environmental Evaluations, Report EPA 600/2-77-
155a, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, September 1977.
1
-------
2. St. Louis Demonstration Final Report: Power Plant Equipment, Faci-
lities and Environmental Evaluations, Report EPA 600/2-77-155b, U.S, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, December 1977.
3. Assessment of Bacteria and Virus Emissions at a Refuse Derived Fuel
Plant and Other Waste Handling Facilities, Report EPA 600/2-78-152, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, August 1978.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The primary purpose of the B&V test program was investigative; i.e.,
to obtain basic data on levels of B&V in and around waste handling facilities
and to perform sampling and analysis for selected trace elements. From the
experience gained in acquisition of data and interpretation of results,
certain conclusions and recommendations can be presented.*
CONCLUSIONS
Airborne bacterial levels, both in-plant and at the property line,
were generally higher for the RDF plant than for the other types
of waste facilities that were tested*
. A literature search disclosed that there is insufficient informa-
tion, data, or relevant standards to determine the levels of micro-
biological contaminants that might be considered "hazardous."
Asbestos emissions from the RDF plant were below the threshold limit
value (TLV).
. Property line concentrations for most airborne particulate containing
trace metals were below 1/100 of the TLV,
. Property line concentrations for Pb contained in the particulate
collected were near or exceeded 1/100 of the TLV at the RDF plant,
incinerator, and waste transfer station.
. A fabric filter system applied to the primary source of dust emis-
sions (air classifier) at the refuse processing plant can signifi-
cantly reduce particulate and bacteria concentrations. The filter
(baghouse) tested had better than 99% removal efficiency for both
particulates and bacteria.
These conclusions are based on a test program consisting basically of
only three test days at each plant, taking seven 6-hr Hi-Vol filter
samples and five short-term Andersen samples each day.
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
Waste handling facilities which may emit airborne particulates should
be designed and equipped to minimize emissions. Suitable control
systems could include process modifications, operating procedures,
and dust collection and control equipment.
There is a need for development of standardized sampling and analysis
methodology for airborne microorganisms and other pollutants (e.g.,
trace metal vapors).
Further research should be conducted to investigate possible en-
vironmental effects of airborne microorganisms associated with
waste handling facilities.
Additional research programs should be conducted at waste handling
facilities over longer time periods (e.g., months, years) to better
characterize emissions and evaluate any possible environmental or
health effects.
-------
SECTION 3
TEST PLAN
BACTERIA AND VIRUSES
The sampling and analysis plan (test plan) was developed through the
joint efforts of EPA and MRI* The test plan was also submitted for review to
10 selected experts in the field. The facilities selected for testing were:
• A municipal refuse incinerator
• The St* Louis Refuse Processing Plant
• A sewage treatment plant
• A refuse transfer station
• A sanitary landfill
In addition to the above plants, testing was carried out in downtown
St* Louis* Bacterial levels were also ascertained for a refuse collection
packer truck. Tests at the refuse processing plant included sampling to
determine B&V removal efficiency of a mobile fabric filter (baghouse)* This
baghouse was tested using a slipstream from the air density separator (ADS)
cyclone exhaust duct*
Actual field testing took place in November and early December 1976,
with 3 days of testing at each of the above five waste handling facilities*
Two types of sampling equipment were used during the three test days at
each plant* Hi-Vol ambient air samplers were used which provide high sam-
pling rates of approximately 19 liters/sec (40 cfra). These air samplers
were supplemented by Andersen agar plate impactors with backup impingers to
obtain information on the size distribution of the bacteria-containing
particles and to determine if any viruses penetrated the impactor into the
impinger*
The locations of the equipment at the test sites were as follows: (a)
Hi-Vol samplers, one upwind and three downwind, (b) Hi-Vol with precyclone
samplers, three in-plant; and (c) Andersen impactors, one upwind, one
-------
downwind, and three in-plant. All upwind and downwind locations were at the
property lines*
The placements of the downwind Hi-Vol samplers were: a primary location
directly in line with the wind direction from the plant and two secondary lo-
cations, one on each side of the primary location to include approximately a
30-degree angle from the upwind location* This placement allowed for normal,
slight variations in wind direction* The wind direction was constantly mon-
itored by a strip chart recorder which was checked hourly by the test crew*
When a major change in wind direction occurred, the Hi-Vols were moved to be
in line with the wind* The Andersen impactor samples were taken at the same
locations as the upwind and primary downwind Hi-Vols*
The locations of the in-plant Hi-Vols were selected for each test site
to sample the areas where the B&V counts were suspected to be at the highest
levels* The Andersen impactors were operated at the same in-plant locations
as the Hi-Vols« One Andersen sample was taken at each of the three in-plant
locations on each test day*
The sample period for the Hi-Vols was approximately 6 hr at all loca-
tions* The sample period for the Andersen impactors was 10 min for the up-
wind and downwind locations and 30 sec for the in-plant locations* The sam-
pling times for the in-plant and property line Andersen impactors were
different because of the suspected higher concentrations of in-plant bacteria
and because it is undesirable to overload the agar plates in the Andersen
sampler*
During the sampling periods for the incinerator and the processing
plant, additional Hi-Vol samples were taken at 12th and Clark Streets in
downtown St* Louis, Missouri* This location is a busy intersection with
normal downtown city pedestrian and vehicle traffic* These samples were
taken as representative of an urban location* Also, two Hi-Vol samplers
were attached to the back of a 15 m3 (20 cubic yards) packer truck and were
operated on 3 days when the crew was picking up MSW on three different col-
lection routes*
Tests to define the performance of the mobile fabric filter on the ADS
exhaust stream were also conducted during the sampling activity at the
processing plant* These tests involved:
• A Hi-Vol sampler in the ADS exhaust duct*
• Impinger samplers at the inlet and outlet of a mobile filter on a
sidestream taken from the ADS exhaust duct*
. Refuse grab samples taken on the product discharged from the refuse
shredder*
-------
Selection of the B&V analyses that were to be performed on the property
line and in-plant Hi-Vol samples was an important part of the test plan
development. Ultimately, it was decided that each sample would be analyzed
for the B&V types shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1. SUBJECT BACTERIA AND VIRUSES
Bacteria
Viruses
Total aerobic plate count
Salmonellae - Most Probable
Number (MPN)
Staphylococcus aureus
(direct plate count )
Total coliform (MPN)
Fecal coliform (MPN)
Fecal Streptococci
(direct plate count )
Klebsiella sp. (estimated
Estimations of population
sizes of adenoviruses and
enteroviruses. To be done
using one cell line to deter-
mine number of plaque-forming
units (PFU) present.
from selective media)
B&V assays of the property line and in-plant Hi-Vol filters, plus the
total bacteria colony counts from the Andersen impactors, were the focal
point of this program. The primary purpose in obtaining these data was to
compare the data for the processing plant with those of the other four facili-
ties. The Hi-Vol filter sampling methodology was utilized because it pro-
vides long-term high flow rate sampling capability. However, B&V concentra-
tions must not be considered as absolute values because this type of sampling
method probably produces considerable die-off of bacteria. The data best
serve only the intended purpose, a comparison of facilities.
TRACE METALS
A portion of the sampling program involved use of part of the Hi-Vol
filters for trace element analysis. Those filters samples which were ana-
lyzed were from the upwind and downwind locations at each of the five plants
plus two downtown samples and the three air classifier discharge samples.
ASBESTOS
It was originally intended that samples taken at the air classifier
would be analyzed for asbestos content as would the upwind, downwind, and
-------
downtown Hi-Vol samples. Unfortunately, the glass fiber filter papers used
in the Hi-Vol for all analyses (bacteria and trace metals) were not suit-
able for asbestos analysis since asbestos analysis requires the use of 0.8
/nn pore size Nuclepore filter. Asbestos analysis could only be carried out
on the air classifier exhaust where a large amount of sample was collected.
-------
SECTION 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
It was intended that comparisons be made for both bacteria and viruses.
However, all virus assays were negative so no comparisons are possible. A
comparison of bacteria levels at each of the plants was carried out using
both the Hi-Vol sample results and the Andersen impactor results for four of
the seven species tested. No results are presented for Salmonella sp.,
Staphylococcus aureus, and Klebsiella sp. because all results were negative
for Salmonella, and Staphvlococcus and Klebsiella were detected in only four
samples. It is inferred that the number or viability (or both) for the latter
two species is low.
Results of the analysis of the Hi-Vol filters for the remaining four
bacteria types and the Andersen agar plate impactors are discussed next, fol-
lowed by a discussion of the results for the trace element tests, the asbes-
tos tests, and the literature search.
BACTERIA AND VIRUS HI-VOL TEST RESULTS
Hi-Vol samplers were located at the property line and in-plant at the
locations listed in Table 2. Results for all of the Hi-Vol samples are pre-
sented in graphical form in Figures 1 through 8. Figures 1 through 4 show the
in-plant Hi-Vol results while Figures 5 through 8 show the ambient (property
line) results. Each bar in these graphs shows the range of the data (highest
and lowest); the average is indicated in the bar. Each bar (and each average
value) represents only three data points (i.e., three test days). However,
for the downwind results shown in Figures 5 through 8, each bar (and each
average value) represents nine data points (i.e., three downwind samples on
each of the three test days).
Testing was carried out at the incinerator and the processing plant,
which are side by side. The processing plant was not in operation during the
tests at the incinerator, but the incinerator was required to be in opera-
tion during the tests at the processing plant. The proximity of these two
facilities is such that one cannot be sure that the downwind samplers at the
processing plant were not affected by the incinerator. However, the upwind
sampler was always at a location where it would not be affected by the in-
cinerator. '
-------
TABLE 2. HI-VOL SAMPLER LOCATIONS
Processing
plant
Upwind
Downwind (3)
Control room
Packer station
Tipping floor
Downtown
Incinerator
Upwind
Downwind (3)
Scale room
Crane
Tipping floor
Packer truck (2)
Downtown
Waste transfer
station
Upwind
Downwind (3)
Truck ramp
Tipping floor
Tipping floor
Wastewater
treatment plant
Upwind
Downwind (3 )
Primary settling
basin
Aeration basin
Pressroom
Pressroom basement
Sanitary
landfill
Upwind
Downwind (3)
Scale
Working face
Working face
Note: One sampler was used at each location unless otherwise specified by number in parentheses.
-------
1 U
106
•g 1()5
"5.
o
!C
?104
CO
VI
C
0
o
U o
103
102
10
= ' ( '
•
r-
r 4 H;
-
— .
-
-
__
TOTAL BACTERIA COUNT
A
A-2
ON i
a n
D n o \
U 4 X \
D\yxn u \\
\
~ A. Average Value, for j
Number of Samples
Shown at Bottom of
Figure. Top and
r- Bottom of Bars are
-i — i — r T — i — i—
i
KD _
r\ 1 !
A. n
]h l\
V
J 1
U u .
- Highest and Lowest
- Value.
32 44
•i ! 1
4 333 443 4444 333
i !,• iii i
o — •—
^ "3 J
>
lit iii
U V)
•£ -^ o) ^ °
S t: c c J > "J
.28 — •- E « «
.^.LLJ *• 2 K u u
o .0
J a 3 f o -• S * • ". ^ ^
•o T?T?^ :*J fr I J J ^i3
«. i '"". j i -.-.-* -. g j> e -s « » 5 5 jj
«£ o> o_ u
-J 2 f— Q.
II 1 i
PACKER RDF
o .9- .9- 2 .9-23 -c a S 2 J» -P J?
U H- H- H- H- Q-"
II III
t a! a: ^ ^ oo
1 1
WASTE INCINER- W.W.T.P. SANITARY
TRUCK PLANT TRANSFER ATOR
LANDFILL
Figure 1. In-pLant Hi-Vol sampled (total bacteria count).
11
-------
TOTAL COLIFORM
102
"O
J5
U
<
W.
O
[*>
I
10-'
1 fi^»
B
•
•
f
-
r-
-
—
-
\
A Average Value, tor
n Number of Samples
P.
1 1
A 1
i
U
/
/
k
Shown at Bottom of
Figure . Top and
j Bottom of Bars are
j Highest and Lowest
1 Value.
ft
- a
vl
l\r
\
U
1
j
f
/
/
rr
y
\
!
.
\
\
\
I
•
i
1
0
0
33 444 333 444 4444 333
I f i
t 1
i iii
= c
3 — -
•^ ^M V*1
** i
S « 1 c -
Zo ^~
. «, «" 0. S
I
U
-i c
J £ £
1 [
1 3 &
' tn ^BI
: . s =
M ^
i>- O
J > UJ
85 u o
_ da on
*^g w • V tO LL. uL
»J
-------
10J
102
-a
-£ 10
a.
o
in
1 1.0
u
10
-1
1 1 I
FECAL COLIFORM
333
Average Value, for Number
of Samples Shown at Bottom
of Figure. Top and Bottom
of Bars are Highest and
Lowest Value.
443
4444
33
JC
a>
2
•
H "*. "g
• -* t
.e- a o
i- a. U
j:
o
j
U-
K—
5
O
UJ
0
IZ
£
a.
<*
u
2
H-
j
0.
U
i
U
J
"5
u
en
c
V
00
g
_c
J
c
£
1
J
wt
£
a.
J
J
VI
£
0.
1
o
u
o
1 1
_c
o
s
UJ
o
u
O)
c
1
91
~o
u
-------
1
103
102
TJ
-S
8"
J?
w
"° 10
c
3
o
u
1.0
0.1
' i iii iii I
fc 6340^ Q
~ 2170'"'?
f N u Hi
'. n 11
: I
r u
•
. A Average Value, for
Number of Samples
Shown at Bottom of
~ F gure. Top and
Bottom of Ban are
i Jill ll||
FECAL STREPTOCOCCI J
J I
-
—
-
1 y-w L,
Highest and Lowest
Value.
33 444 333 444 4444 333
1 = -1
^ O O *; ^_
> CD 4) w*
11 1 -s i 3 •
"o'J S"SE" - • « «§ " "2 i£
OijOc OO^ O c trt _ • •
.2u>_ ^^^ J2 J xoJJ gg
1^ • ™ ^^ ^^ U_ in ^- *" "^ "^ •— ,«
"iS £•"§! .fr.S-2 .9-l"g •§»§£ J^~5
i.l i i ill iii i i i i iii
PACKER RDF WASTE INC1NER- W.W.T.P. SANITARY
TRUCK PLANT TRANSFER ATOR LANDFILL
Figure 4» In-plant Hi-Vol samples (fecal Streptococci).
14
-------
-o
J)
i-
o
<
*o
I
103
102-
I I
I II ~I|~
TOTAL BACTERIA COUNT
I I
A
A Average Value, for Number of
Samples Shown at Bottom of
Figure. Top and Bottom of
Bars are Highest and Lowest
Value.
4 12
I I
4 9
I [_
3 9
J 1
3 4
4 12
3 d
1 i
1 1
1 1
TJ
C
1 1
L !
D Q
2
RDF
PLANT
•o
I
-3
u
O- O
O O
INCINERATOR V/ASTE DOWN- W.W.T.P. SANITARY
TRANSFER TOWN LANDFILL
Figure 5, Ambient Hi-Vol samples (total bacteria count).
15
-------
102
10
-o
"5.
o
<
*o
i
u
1.0
10-1
10-2
1 \
I T
TOTAL CPU FORM
4 12
I l
3 9
-o
1 !
z> a
! I
1 1
1 I
o a
I I
RDF
PLANT
INCINERATOR
J I
A Average Value, for Number
of Samples Shown at Bottom
of Figure. Top and Bottom
of Bars are Highest and
Lowest Value.
4 12
I I
3 9
o) ~
c v
WASTE
TRANSFER
•o
c
• V C
1 I
Z> Q
1 I
W.W.T.P.
1 1
3 O
I I
SANITARY
LANDFILL
Figure 6» Ambient Hi-Vol samples (total coliform).
16
-------
10
-2
a.
a
'c
3
O
u
10-1
10-2 L
I T
I I
FECAL COLIFORM
A Average Value, for Number
of Samples Shown at Bottom
of Figure. Top and Bottom
of Bars ore Highest and
Lowest Value.
12
i
3 4
I"
4
12
A —A
3 9
CO
c
o •£
c v
11
J 5
a. o
z> a
-o
c
2 1
11
3 a
• o
c 2
RDF
PLANT
e *
il
J I
INCINERATOR V/ASTE
TRANSFER
DOV/N-
TCWN
W.W.T.P.
-o
O Q
I I
SANITARY
LANDFILL
Figure 7« Ambient Hi-Vol samples (fecal coliform).
17
-------
103
102
£
o
o
n
1 10
o
1.0
I I
FECAL STREPTOCOCCI
A Average Value, for Number
of Samples Shown at Bottom
of Figure. Top and Bottom
of Bars are Highest and
Lowest Value.
4 12
J |_
39
34
a a
4 12
I I
3 9
en
c
I I
1 I
o a
I !_
RDF
PLANT
I I
1 1
=> a
J I
•o
c
11
11
D 0
• o
U O
o o
~° ?
i I
3 a
-o
c
t I
13 Q
INCINERATOR WASTE DOWN-
TRANSFER TOWN
W.W.T.P. SANITARY
LANDFILL
Figure 8. Ambient Hi-Vol samples (fecal Streptococci).
18
-------
The layout of the two facilities and the existing wind direction during the
tests make it unlikely that the in-plant samplers at the processing plant
would be significantly affected by the incinerator*
Evaluation of the data in Figures 1 through 8 is done only for purposes
of comparison. Individual values should not be considered as absolute, pri-
marily because the long-term Hi-Vol sampling method may have resulted in
some die-off for many types of bacteria that might have been collected on the
filter during the 6 hr of sampling.
Initial examination of the Hi-Vol data on total bacteria counts (Fig-
ures 1 and 5) shows the same general trend from plant to plant, with the
processing plant having the highest average count and the landfill having the
lowest. The packer truck also had a rather high average value. For the ambi-
ent samples, the processing plant had the highest average value. However,
the processing plant also had the highest average upwind value, which makes
it more difficult to conclude that it has a greater effect on downwind bac-
terial levels than do the other facilities.
Further examination of the other figures showing ambient Hi-Vol results
(Figures 6 through 8) indicates that the processing plant had the highest
downwind levels of total coliform, fecal coliform, and fecal Streptococci.
The sewage treatment plant and the landfill generally had the lowest levels
for all four bacteria groups.
The upwind and downwind levels of microorganisms were about the same for
the sewage treatment plant and the landfill (except for total coliform).
Conversely, the average downwind values for the processing plant were always
higher than upwind values for all four bacteria groups. The average downwind
value for the incinerator was higher than the upwind value for three of the
four groups. Finally, the waste transfer station indicated an average down-
wind value that was higher for two of the groups. A rank ordering of the
plants based on the ambient Hi-Vol bacteria results is shown in Table 3 along
with a ranking based on the in-plant Hi-Vol results.
The in-plant Hi-Vol results (Figures 1 through 4) show roughly the same
relative relationship from plant to plant as the ambient Hi-Vol results.
However, the in-plant sites include the packer truck, which showed bacterial
levels comparable with the highest of other locations that were actually lo-
cated within a plant. Although workers in the processing plant may be exposed
to bacterial levels somewhat higher than at the incinerator (e.g., fecal
coliform), the levels are about the same as, or lower than, those to which
the packer truck operators may be exposed.
19
-------
TABLE 3. RANKING OF PLANTS BASED ON AVERAGE BACTERIAL LEVELS IN DESCENDING ORDER FOR HI-VOL
TESTING SITES
Total bacteria
count
RDF plant
Packer truck
Incinerator
Waste transfer
WWTP
Landfill
Total
coliform
Fecal
coliform
In-plant samples
Packer truck
RDF plant
Waste transfer
Incinerator
Landfill
WWTP
Packer truck
RDF plant
Waste transfer
Incinerator
Landfill
WWTP
Fecal
Streptococci
Waste transfer
Packer truck
RDF plant
Incinerator
Landfill
WWTP
N>
o
Ambient samples
Upwind (and downtown)
Downwind (and downtown)
RDF plant
Incinerator
Downtown
Waste transfer
WWTP
Landfill
RDF plant
Incinerator
Downtown
WWTP
Waste transfer
Landfill
RDF plant
Downtown
Incinerator
WWTP
Waste transfer
Landfill
RDF plant
Waste transfer
Incinerator
Landfill
Downtown
WWTP
RDF plant
Downtown
Waste transfer
Incinerator
WWTP
Landfill
RDF plant
Waste transfer
Incinerator
WWTP
Downtown
Landfill
RDF plant
Incinerator
Waste transfer
Downtown
WWTP
Landfill
RDF plant
Incinerator
Waste transfer
Downtown
WWTP
Landfill
-------
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF HI-VOL SAMPLE RESULTS
Although the Hi-Vol data shown in Figures 1 through 8 do show some
obvious differences between plants, it is also obvious that results at
any one location sometimes varied by several orders of magnitude. A statis-
tical treatment was applied to these data to determine if significant
differences did exist between the various plants.
Because tests at each sampling location were replicated either three
or four times, the mean (X) and the standard deviation (Sx) of the test
replications were calculated. The means were then compared to the standard
deviations using a curve fit computer program. It was found that the mean
was proportional to the standard deviation [(Sx = F (X)] with greater than
90% correlation. Therefore, the distribution was not normal as would be
the case if Sx = a constant.
Since Sx = F (X), the distribution is empirical. To stabilize its vari-
ances, the log normal transformation of the test results, as recommended
by Johnson (4), was performed. Next, an analysis of variance was conducted
on the transformed data using a computer program capable of accepting data
from unbalanced experimental designs.
For those categories that were statistically significant, as shown
by the analysis of variance, it was then necessary to perform posteriori
tests to ascertain significant differences between plants. The Newman-Keuls
method (modified Q test) as presented by Snedecor (5) was used because this
method gives good protection against erroneous claims of significance.
The analysis of variance performed on the Hi-Vol data showed that at
the 95% confidence level significant differences existed. Figure 9 presents
the results of the Q test, showing at the 95% confidence level which plants
are significantly different from each other.
The comparisons between plants show that:
Upwind counts per cubic meter of bacteria in air generally were
not affected by the individual plant. However, for total coliform
and fecal Streptococci, the processing upwind samples had statisti-
cally significantly higher counts than any of the other plants.
For total bacteria count, the processing plant was higher than all
other plants except the incinerator. The other four plants were
not significantly different from each other for any bacteria species.
What effect the higher upwind concentrations at the processing plant
had on the downwind and in-plant samples is unknown.
21
-------
PO
Trtotmtntt unoVtllhoo1 by o common lino
Tteotmenlt nol uneWllnxl by a common 1
trCCIVINO AREAi
HI-VOl SAMPLES
lotol taclrtla Cr
no dlnVtone* b*twf*M
mill
locaHom
total Coll Tom
r
—
PKTK
PKTK
_W»_
INC
_5L
1
WW
IP
F.col Collfofni
PP
WTS
INC
SL
WW
IP
FFCO! Strenloeocel
PP
INC
PKTP.
wis
SL
.
WW
TP
.
•M
n*
\
mfm
atf
do not iftffri fiom rorh ntk«r at tit* 99% con'M«»>c0 (»»»(, W
INC
llolltlleollr llirl'inantir rflllrinol ol Ifo 71% eo«llo>nr« Uvrl. Wlf
51
WWIP
PKIK
I)T
IN-fLANI IXJWNWIND
HI-VOl SAMPLFS HI-VOl SAMPLE)
Tolol 9act«r a Count
J!.
INC
Wis) SL
1
Total Colllotm
INC
PP
WI5
JL
WW
JP
.. _l 1
Frcol Collloim
PP
WTS
INC
.....
SL
WW
TP
PP
WTS
It 1C
51
IP
Tolol toclvrlo Count
PP INC
SI
WW
IP
WTS
01
lotol C ollfotm
fp INC
r
.Pp|,Nc|
I "1
,„
PP INC
_ r~r
.WIL
rc-,1 C
wis
ol Mi*
WTS
TT
DT
olllo>m
,:]
SL
WW
IP
__ . ._
:~ 1
SL
L
el
WW
ir
WW
JP _
DT
ni
i
- 1
- V
-v
-r
- E
- 1
CGINR
OF Ptoei-illng Plnnl
VntU mr>i(r>t Sl|||>»MC.
UPWIND
lll-VOl SAMPLES
Intal B>iclniln Count
WW
PP IMC WIS SI IP
ToMl ColiToim
1WW
TP
— T
Ocal Coll otm
nonl,l.,,ne.h.,.,.,,,n,n,ten,
frrol Slii-plococri
WW
PP INC WIS U TP
Figure 9, Summary of statistical differences between plants.
-------
. For downwind samples, the processing plant had significantly higher
concentrations than all other locales for all bacteria species.
For total bacteria count, and to a lesser extent for total coliform,
there were several significant differences between the other locales.
However, for fecal coliform and fecal Streptococci, there were no
statistically significant differences between the other locales,
including the downtown location.
. Analysis of the in-plant samples showed several differences between
plants for the four bacteria species. The processing plant was always
significantly higher than the sanitary landfill and the wastewater
treatment plant for all bacteria species, and it was higher than
the waste transfer station for total bacteria count. However, there
was no significant difference between the processing plant and the
incinerator for total bacteria count and between the processing
plant and the waste transfer station for total coliform and fecal
coliform. For fecal Streptococci, there were no statistically sig-
nificant differences between the processing plant and both the in-
cinerator and the waste transfer station.
• Comparison of the various receiving area locales, including the
packer truck, showed that there were no significant differences
between locales for total bacteria count• For total coliform con-
centrations at the receiving areas, there were no significant dif-
ferences between the RDF plant, the packer truck, and the waste
transfer station. There were several other differences between
plants. For fecal coliform in the receiving areas, the RDF plant was
no different from any other plant or the packer truck except the
wastewater treatment plant, which had lower concentrations. However,
for fecal Streptococcus, which is a known pathogen, the RDF plant
receiving area concentrations were not significantly different from
either the incinerator receiving area or the packer truck. The sani-
tary landfill and the wastewater treatment plant had the lowest
values.
BACTERIA AND VIRUS ANDERSEN IMPACTOR TEST RESULTS
Andersen agar plate impactor samples were taken during each test day
at each plant at the same locations as the Hi-Vol samplers in order to ob-
tain size distributions of bacteria or bacteria-containing dust particles
(total bacteria count on each stage). A summation of the counts at each
stage was made to calculate a total bacteria count per cubic meter of air
at each test location; these results are shown in Figures 10 and 11. Both
of these figures show the same general trend from plant to plant as the
Hi-Vol samples discussed earlier. The Andersen data also confirm the previ-
ous finding from the Hi-Vols, that the processing plant had the highest
23
-------
10'
a.
o
\s\
CO
1
c
* 102
10'
T I
Average Value, for Number
of Samples Shown at Bottom
of Figure. Top and Bottom
of Bars are Highest and
Lowest Value.
Note:
Data Presented is a
Summation of
Bacterial Counts
for AIL Andersen
Stages
4 4
3
i
3
i
3
I
3
_L
3
I
3
I
RDF INCINERATOR WASTE W.W.T.P. LANDFILL
PLANT TRANSFER
STATION
Figure 10. Andersen data for upwind and downwind locations
(bacteria - total plate counts)*
24
-------
105
•2 io4
I
o
u
\i
1C3
Note: Data Presented is a Summation
of Bacterial Counts for all
Andersen Stages
A Average Value, for Number of Samples Shown at Bottom of
Figure. Top and Bottom of Each Bar are
Highest and Lowest Value.
333
i i i
333
443
i i i
333
I t i
•o
c
•o
s
RDF
PLANT
•o
c
•o
c
INCINERATOR
•O
C
c
I
3
I
WASTE
TRANSFER
STATION
•o
c
•o
e
W.W.T.P.
•O
C
3
I
a
i
LANDFILL
Figure 11•
Andersen data for in-plant locations (bacteria - total plate
counts)*
25
-------
upwind values. The average upwind value at the processing plant was greater
than the average downwind value at any of the other four plant s.
In-plant Andersen data (Figure 11) indicate that the number of bac-
teria-containing particles was about the same for the processing plant,
incinerator, and waste transfer station, but was somewhat less for the sew-
age treatment plant and landfill. The pressroom basement at the treatment
plant is one very obvious departure from this. Andersen samples were taken
in the pressroom basement during the time the filter cake was being dumped,
and this activity produced the highest values of any in-plant location for
the Andersen samples.
The distribution of the counts on each stage showed, unexpectedly,
a rather erratic distribution rather than decreasing counts with decreas-
ing size. If one were measuring size distribution based on mass of particles,
there would normally be less mass of smaller particles present than of. larger
ones. At the same time, however, the number of smaller particles could still
be the same as, or greater than, the number of larger particles. Also, it
is theorized that bacteria are not free-floating but are carried in air
by "host" particulate matter. In view of this, the results should not be
unexpected because the agar impactor test is more indicative of the number
of particles containing bacteria within each size range than the mass of
particles itself. Consequently, these data tend to show that the air sam-
pled at most locations did not contain decreasing numbers of bacteria with
decreasing size. However, little can be said about the number of bacteria
associated with each particle size because the Andersen impactor data do
not indicate the number of bacteria associated with each particle. That
is, one large particle and one small particle could well contain grossly
different numbers of bacteria, but each would still produce only one colony
count on the two respective agar impactor stages.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF ANDERSEN IMPACTOR SAMPLE RESULTS
A statistical analysis of variance performed on the Andersen impactor
data confirmed that the total bacteria count is not a function of particle
size. The F-ratio calculated from the analysis of variance was 1.27 for
impactor stages, and at the 95% confidence level there was no significant
difference in counts per stage for the Andersen impactor samples. Therefore,
total bacteria concentrations in air are randomly dispersed throughout the
particle size range represented by the Andersen stages (1 urn to greater
than 7
BACTERIA AND VIRUS EPA MOBILE FILTER TEST RESULTS
The EPA mobile filter was used during the 3 days of testing at the
processing plant in conjunction with the other B&V tests. This mobile
26
-------
filter was connected to a sidestream drawoff from the ADS cyclone exhaust at
a flow rate of 0.05
The filter test results showed an inlet particulate concentration of
0.300 g/Nm3 and an outlet concentration of 0.000154 g/NnP, yielding a total
mass efficiency of 99.95%. This efficiency is about what would be expected
for a baghouse in this service, indicating that such devices are very effective
in reducing particulate emissions.
During the particulate tests on the EPA mobile filter, impinger sam-
ples were taken at the inlet and outlet of the filter. Results of those
tests, as given in Table 4, show a significant decrease in bacterial levels
across the mobile filter, indicating a removal efficiency of 99.6% for total
bacteria and at least 99.9% for total coliform, fecal coliform, and fecal
Streptococci.
TABLE 4. MOBILE FILTER RESULTS
Sample
Total bacteria Total Fecal
count coliform coliform
Fecal
Streptococci
Filter inlet
(counts/nr )
Filter outlet
(counts/nr )
Filter removal
efficiency
5.25 x 108 3.36 x 106 4.62 x 105 2.25 x 106
2.1 x
99.6%
3.57 x 102 2.3 x 102 2.1 x 103
99.99%
99.95%
99.91%
TRACE ELEMENTS
Portions of the Hi-Vol filter used in the bacteria tests were also
submitted for trace metal analysis. Elemental concentrations at the pro-
perty lines of the plants (upwind and downwind) and downtown, as given in
Table 5 allow four main observations:
. For most elements there was a significant increase in the downwind
concentration at the RDF plant and the waste transfer station.
27
-------
TABLE 5. TRACE ELEMENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR HI-VOL AMBIENT AIR SAMPLES
N>
00
Element Concentrations fiia/nm3!
Location
Incinerator
Upwind
Downwind
Downtown
RDF plant
Upwind
Downwind
Downtown
MOTES/
Upwind
Downwind
Waste Transfer
Upwind
Downwind
Landfill
Upwind
Downwind
XLV/100
Date
11/3/76
11/3/76
11/3/76
11/10/76
11/10/76
11/10/76
11/16/76
11/16/76
11/24/76
11/24/76
11/30/76
11/30/76
.Sk
Jz/
Jz/
Jz/
Jz/
Jz/
Jz/
Jz/
Jz/
Jz/
Jz/
Jz/
Jz/
0.50
As
b/
k/
< 0.008
b/
0.015
k/
b/
k/
k/
0.009
b/
b/
0.50
jta
0.00036
0.00018
0.00020
0.00017
0.00056
<0. 00010
0.00006
0.00013
0.00014
0.00022
<0. 00007
0.00020
0.02
Cd
«•••
0.0025
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.007
0.0005
0.0026
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.0015
0.0005
0.50
Cr
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
0.17
< 0.05
< 0.05
< 0.05
0.17
0.14
< 0.05
< 0.05
1.0
Cg
0.12
0.10
0.05
0.44
0.39
0.10
0.13
0.22
0.13
0.18
0.07
0.05
2.0
Hz
0.93
2.50
0.97
0.69
2.25
0.83
0.64
0.98
< 0.5
1.5
1.18
0.59
1.5
Jk
i/
Jz/
Jz/
Ji/
Jz/
Jz/
Jz/
Jz/
Jz/
V
Jz/
Jz/
0.50
Ofi
Jz/
Jz/
Jz/
Jz/
Jz/
Jz/
Jz/
Jz/
i/
Jz/
Jz/
2.0
a.
0.42
0.32
0.13
0.30
1.96
0.07
0.12
0.13
0.24
0.20
0.06
0.09
5.0
£/ Wastewater treatment plant.
b/ All values below detection limits (Sb-0.02, As-0.007, Hg-0.002, Se-0.04).
-------
• There was a significant increase in the downwind Gr concentration
at the RDF plant, and both the upwind and downwind Gr concentrations
were much higher at the waste transfer station than at all other
plants (except the RDF plant).
• There was a significant increase in the downwind Zn concentration
at the RDF plant*
• The downwind Pb concentration was higher than the upwind at all
plants except the landfill.
Since there are no ambient air standards for most of the trace elements,
it is difficult to assess the above results in terms of potential hazards.
However, if one assumes that such results can be compared with 1/100 of
TLV as an arbitrary level, then initial comparison can be made. On this
basis, the data in Table 5 show that all of the measured trace element con-
centrations were considerably below 1/100 of the respective TLVs, except
for Pb.
Concentrations of Pb were close to 1/100 of TLV even in the upwind
and downtown samples. But the downwind Pb concentrations exceeded 1/100
of TLV at the incinerator and RDF plant and were just equal to 1/100 of
TLV at the waste transfer station. It appears that operation of such refuse
handling facilities may contribute significantly to the burden of Pb in
the ambient air. This means that more emphasis must be placed on the Pb
concentration in emissions from the uncontrolled air classifier system.
Although Pb and other trace elements were not measured in the outlet from
the mobile fabric filter, the high total particulate efficiency would be
expected to also reduce the associated Pb emissions.
Table 6 shows the trace element concentrations in the particulate matter
emitted from the air classifier system and the concentration in terms of
volume of air discharged.
Examination of the air classifier discharge results in Table 6 shows
that Pb and Zn have by far the highest concentration. However, all of the
trace elements analyzed, including Pb and Zn, were below their respective
TLVs.
ASBESTOS
The results for the air classifier exhaust samples showed that 15 out
of 19 fibers were asbestos in one sample. In the other sample, 187. of the
fibers were analyzed, and all were determined to be asbestos so it was as-
sumed that all fibers were asbestos. On a weight basis, it was calculated
that the mass of asbestos fibers per mass of sample material was 1.6 and
0.46%, respectively.
29
-------
TABLE 6. TRACE ELEMENT RESULTS FOR AIR CLASSIFIER DISCHARGE SAMPLES
u>
o
1 < 5.0
2 4.2
3 7.7
1 1.3
2 1.5
3 2.1
TLV 50.0
A3
22.0
9.1
5.7
5.8
3.3
1.5
50.0
Be
0.22
0.18
0.23
0.058
0.065
0.062
2.0
Trace
Cd
19.0
7.0
4.6
Trace
5.0
2.5
1.2
50.0
element
Or
83.0
78.0
97.0
e line cnt
21.7
28.0
26.0
100.0
Cu
74.0
60.0
100.0
Pb
430.0
370.0
400.0
0
0
'0
Hg
.93
.35
.40
Se
30.0
28.0
25.0
Zn
680.0
520.0
740.0
Da
130.0
94.0
130.0
concentration (pg/m3)
19.0
21.5
27.0
200.0
113.0
133.0
107.0
150.0
0
0
.24
.13
0.11
50.0
7.9
10.0
6.7
200.0
178.0
187.0
198.0
5,000.0
34.0
33.7
34. fl
500.0
-------
Initially it appeared that the amount of asbestos being emitted from
the air classifier could be significant. The data showed the highest concen-
tration sample contained 15 fibers in 35<>6 /ug of particulate sample; but
when coupled with the particulate concentration of 0023 ^g/cc of air, it
is calculated that the air classifier was emitting 0<,10 fiber of asbestos
per cubic centimeter of air., This emission quantity is considerably below
the TLV of 5 fibers/cm (for fibers greater than 5 urn. in length) Many of
the asbestos fibers identified were less than 5 /*m in length so it is un-
certain whether comparison with the TLV is entirely valido Investigations
by the National Academy of Sciences indicate that it is not possible to
determine whether the fibrogenicity of asbestos dust is mostly confined
to fibers longer than 5 fim. With this uncertainty, the comparison of the
test data with the TLV results in the conclusion that emission of asbestos
from the air classifier system probably does not represent a potential haz-
ard for the system evaluatedo
LITERATURE SEARCH
A comprehensive literature review was conducted to survey various waste
treatment industries in order to place health problems from bacterial and
viral emissions from MSW processing plants in proper perspective. During
the course of the review, 154 references, including many foreign references,
were throughly evaluated.
Man, like other animals, is always infected by many species of microorga-
nisms, some of which under the right circumstances are capable of producing
disease» The probability of bacterial infection primarily depends on four
factors:
There must be a ready source of the infecting agent.
The source must release relatively large numbers of organisms, the
rate of release being dependent on the nature of the source.
« To be transmitted, the infective microbe must be capable of surviv-
ing in transit to a new host<,
. For a bacterial disease to occur, the host must be susceptible.
A single microbe can infect a susceptible cell. Practically, however,
large numbers of microorganisms are usually required to start an infection
because of the various protective mechanisms the human body has developed
as a defense against the invasion of microorganismSo
Unfortunately, while much is known concerning microorganisms, there
are no established or tentative standards on airborne bacteria concentrations.
31
-------
There presently is not enough epidemiological evidence to establish the
relationship between bacteria concentrations in air and the kind and degree
of response by man. The product of an atmospheric concentration and the
volumetric flow rate of breathing is the rate of delivery into the respiratory
system, but whether this is an infective dose cannot be judged.
In summary, the literature search carried out under this program re-
vealed nothing that would provide a basis for judging whether the bacteria
concentrations measured in this study or any other airborne bacterial con-
centration levels are, or are not, hazardous.
32
-------
REFERENCES
1. Fiscus, D. E., P. G. Gorman, M. P. Schrag, and L. J. Shannon. St. Louis
Demonstration Final Report: Refuse processing plant equipment, facili-
ties and environmental evaluation. Report prepared for the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency by Midwest Research Institute. Report EPA-
600/2-77-155a. September 1977.
2. Gorman, P. G., L. J. Shannon, M. P. Schrag, and D. E. Fiscus. St. Louis
Demonstration Final Report: Power plant equipment, facilities and
environmental evaluations. Report prepared for the U,S. Environmental
Protection Agency by Midwest Research Institute. Report EPA-600/2-
77-155b. December 1977.
3. Fiscus, D. E., P. G. Gorman, M. P. Schrag, and L. J. Shannon. St. Louis
Demonstration Final Report: Refuse processing plant—assessment of
bacteria and virus emissions. Report prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency by Midwest Research Institute. Report EPA 600/2-78-
152. August 1978.
4. Johnson, N. L., and F. C. Leone. Statistics and Experimental Design.
Volume II. John Wiley and Sons, New York. 1969.
5. Snedecor, G. W., and W. G. Cochran. Statistical Methods. 6th ed. Iowa
State University Press, Ames, Iowa. 1967.
33
-------
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
ASSESSMENT OF BACTERIA AND VIRUS EMISSIONS AT A REFUSE
DERIVED FUEL PLANT AND OTHER WASTE HANm.TNG FAfTI ITTFS
Executive Summary
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read launicnuns on llic rererst before completing)
. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/8-79-010
7. AUTHOR(S)
D« E« Fiscus, P. G» Gorman, M. P. Schrag nnd
9. PERFORMINGORG-VNIZATION NAME AND AT? DRESS
Midwest Research Institute
425 Volker Boulevard
Kansas City, Missouri 64110
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSI Of* NO.
G REPORT DATE
August 1979 (Issuing Date)
P. PFRF ORMIMG ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
MRI Project No. 4033-L
10 PROGRAM EL.TMENT NO.
1DG618 COS 2 Task 6.1
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-1871
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Gin., OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati. Ohio 45268
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
See also main report EPA-600/2-78-152.
Project Officer - Garlton C. Wiles 513-684-7881.
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Executive Summary
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
16. ABSTRACT ~ - ~~~ - ~ -- ~ -
This report is an executive summary of the x-rork carried out by Midwest Research
Institute for the Environmental Protection Agency to determine relative levels of
bacteria and viruses for comparison purposes at the St. Louis Refuse Processing Plant
and at four other types of waste handling facilities (i.e., an incinerator, a waste
transfer station, a wastewater treatment plant, and a landfill). This work also in-
cluded testing to determine bacterial removal efficiency of a fabric filter (bag-
house)* Tests for trace elements and asbestos were also conducted. The complete tests
are fully reported in the final report, "Assessment of Bacteria and Virus Emissions
at a Refuse Derived Fuel Plant and the Waste Handling Facilities," EPA 600/2-78-152,
U»S» Environmental Protection Agency, August 1978.
results showed that airborne bacterial levels, both in-plant and at the
property line, are generally higher for the refuse processing plant than for the
other types of waste handling facilities that v:ere tested. A fabric filter system
can significantly reduce particulate and bacteria emissions.jrrace metal tests re-
sults indicated that only emissions of lead may be of concern*
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a.
DESCRIPTORS
Bacteria
Viruses
Microorganisms
Wastes
Refuse disposal
Air pollution
b.lDENTIFIERS'OPEN ENDED TERMS
Refuse derived fuels
Waste as energy
Resource recovery
Air emissions
Ambient air
Baghouse
Pollution control
Particulates
c. COSATI Field/Group
13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclasslf ied
21. NO. OF PAGES
42
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-t (9-73)
rtwVINT PWWTING OFFICE 1979 -657-060/538Z
------- |