United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA/600/SR-97/134
March 1998
Project Summary
Evaluation of Emissions from the
Open Burning of Household
Waste in Barrels
Paul M. Lemieux
The report gives results of a detailed
emissions characterization study to ex-
amine, characterize, and quantify emis-
sions from the simulated burning of
household waste materials in barrels.
The study evaluated two experimental
conditions: that of an avid recycler, who
removes most of the recyclable con-
tent from the waste stream prior to
combustion; and that of a non-recy-
cler, who combusts the entire stream
of household waste. Estimated emis-
sions were developed in units of mass
emitted per mass of waste burned. Con-
tinuous gas samples were analyzed for
oxygen (O2), carbon monoxide (CO),
carbon dioxide (CO2), nitric oxide (NO),
and total hydrocarbons (THCs). Gas-
phase samples were collected using
SUMMA® canisters and analyzed by
gas chromatography/mass spectrom-
etry (GC/MS) for volatile organic com-
pounds (VOCs). Extractive samples
from the combined particulate- and gas-
phase were analyzed for semivolatile
organic compounds (SVOCs), polycy-
clic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlo-
robenzenes (CBs), polychlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated
dibenzofurans (PCDDs/PCDFs), alde-
hydes and ketones, hydrogen chloride
(HCI), hydrogen cyanide (HCN), and
metals. Emissions of particulate matter
(PM) with aerodynamic diameters of 10
m or less (PM10) and of 2.5 urn or less
(PM25) were also measured. Ash resi-
due samples were analyzed for SVOCs,
PCBs, PCDDs/PCDFs, and metals.
For most of the non-chlorinated com-
pounds, including VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs,
and aldehydes and ketones, emissions
from the non-recycler were higher, both
on a per mass burned basis and on a
per day basis (using waste generation
estimates from New York State). How-
ever, emissions of many of the chlori-
nated organics, particularly CBs and
PCDDs/PCDFs, were higher from the
avid recycler, on a per mass burned
basis. From estimates of waste gener-
ated each day by New York households
for the avid recycler and non-recycler
scenarios, emissions per day of PCDDs/
PCDFs are significantly higher for the
avid recycler. Emissions of PCBs were
higher from the non-recycler: although
its cause is not known for certain, this
phenomenon is likely the result of sev-
eral factors, including the higher mass
fraction of PVC in the avid recycler's
waste. It is also possible that some
component of the non-recycler's waste
may poison the metallic catalysts be-
lieved to be responsible for enhancing
formation rates of PCDDs/PCDFs. Re-
sults from HCI sampling indicated much
higher HCI emissions from the avid re-
cycler, which is consistent with the
higher emissions of chlorinated organ-
ics, and ash residue analysis indicated
that the avid recycler's residue had
more copper, which could contribute
to higher emissions of PCDDs/PCDFs.
The temperature at the base of the burn-
ing bed was significantly lower for the
avid recycler than for the non-recycler.
Gas-phase emissions of metals were
-------
not a strong function of the test condi-
tions. PM emissions were much higher
from the non-recycler. Almost all of the
PM emissions from both test condi-
tions were < 2.5 ujnin diameter.
This Project Summary was developed
by the National Risk Management Re-
search Laboratory's Air Pollution Pre-
vention and Control Division, Research
Triangle Park, NC, to announce key
findings of the research project that is
fully documented in a separate report
of the same title (see Project Report
ordering information at back).
Introduction
In many areas of the country, residen-
tial solid waste disposal practices consist
of open-burning using barrels or other simi-
lar devices instead of, or in addition to,
disposal to municipal landfills or municipal
solid waste combustors. The motivations
for households that open-burn their gar-
bage may include convenience, habit, or
landfill and cost avoidance. Some com-
munities have regulations which ban the
open burning of garbage. Emissions from
backyard burning of residential solid waste
are released at ground level resulting in
decreased dilution by dispersion. Addition-
ally, the low combustion temperature and
oxygen-starved conditions associated with
backyard burning may result in incom-
plete combustion and increased pollutant
emissions. In contrast, modern refuse com-
bustors have tall stacks and specially de-
signed combustion chambers, which pro-
vide high combustion temperatures, longer
residence times, and better waste agita-
tion while introducing air for more com-
plete combustion.
The New York State Departments of
Health (NYSDOH) and Environmental Con-
servation (NYSDEC), as well as regula-
tory agencies in other states, requested
that the EPA's Control Technology Center
(CTC) characterize emissions due to open
burning of residential waste in burn bar-
rels using techniques that would minimize
the limitations of previous studies. The
CTC, NYSDOH, and NYSDEC performed
a cooperative study to: 1) characterize
and fabricate the waste to be burned (in
duplicate), 2) measure the emission rates
of many pollutants of concern, 3) mea-
sure these pollutant concentrations in the
residual ash (except for the VOCs), 4)
measure the volume of ambient air enter-
ing the burn facility, and 5) be representa-
tive of the combustion conditions typically
found in a backyard burner. The study
was conducted under the direction of the
EPA's National Risk Management Re-
search Laboratory, Air Pollution Preven-
tion and Control Division (APPCD). The
combustion tests were conducted by
APPCD's on-site contractor, Acurex Envi-
ronmental Corporation with the oversight
of representatives from APPCD and
NYSDOH. Analytical chemistry work was
divided between Acurex and NYSDOH
staffs.
Experimental Approach
The study qualitatively identified and
quantitatively measured the emissions of
hazardous air pollutants from the open
burning of household residential refuse in
barrels. A secondary objective was to
evaluate the concentrations of hazardous
compounds in the residual ash. The tar-
get audience for this work is the scientific
community at large as well as state and
local regulatory agencies. The major in-
tended end use of the data is to place the
emissions from these processes in proper
perspective with respect to other point and
area sources and to provide estimated
emissions values that can serve as inputs
to a risk assessment for the barrel burn-
ing process. This work is intended to pro-
vide a sufficiently broad survey of the emis-
sions from this process to allow evalua-
tion of the need for further study of this
practice. It should be noted that most risk
assessment exercises currently include
sources of uncertainty so great that the
true risk can only be stated to be within a
range of one or more orders of magni-
tude. Thus, the formal data quality objec-
tive for this study was stated as follows.
Emissions from two categories of waste
were analyzed in this study (Table 1):
waste from avid recycling and non-recy-
cling families of four. To reduce the amount
of different types of material to be col-
lected for the tests, percentages for like
materials were combined (e.g., percent-
ages for newspaper, books, and office
paper have all been combined) and per-
centages for "miscellaneous" items for
each category were added to the items
that make up the largest percent for that
category. Household hazardous waste
(e.g., household chemicals, paint, grease,
oils, tires and other vehicle parts) were
not included in the waste to be burned.
For the recycling and non-recycling sce-
narios, 6.4 - 13.6 kg (14 - 30 Ib) of waste
were combusted (in duplicate) in a spe-
cially designed vessel in the EPA's Open
Burning Simulation Test Facility. The pol-
lutants targeted in this study were VOCs,
HCN, HCI, PM25, PM10, aldehydes, com-
bined particulate- and vapor-phase SVOCs
(including PAHs, PCBs, and PCDDs/
PCDFs), particulate-phase metals, and
vapor-phase mercury. Additionally, SVOCs
(including PAHs, PCBs, and PCDDs/
PCDFs), and metals were measured in
the residual ash. Continuous emission
monitors (CEMs) for O2, CO2, CO, THCs,
and NO were also operated. Measured
concentrations were related to dilution air
volumes and measured net mass of de-
bris combusted to derive emission rates.
Emission rate data and ash sampling re-
sults are intended to be useful in evaluat-
ing the potential exposure due to pollutant
emissions associated with the backyard
burning of household refuse in barrels.
Results
For most of the non-chlorinated com-
pounds, including VOCs, SVOCs, PAHs,
and aldehydes and ketones, emissions
from the non-recycler were higher, both
on a per mass burned and on a per day
basis (based on waste generation statis-
tics provided by NYSDOH). However,
emissions of many of the chlorinated or-
ganics (on a per mass burned basis), par-
ticularly chlorobenzenes and PCDDs/
PCDFs, were higher from the avid recy-
cler. Emissions of PCBs were higher from
the non-recycler, although the cause of
this phenomenon is not known. On a per
day basis, emissions of PCDDs/PCDFs
are significantly higher for the avid recy-
cler. This phenomenon is likely due to
several factors, including the higher mass
fraction of PVC in the avid recycler's waste.
It is also possible that some component of
the non-recycler's waste may poison the
metallic catalysts believed to be respon-
sible for enhancing formation rates of
PCDDs/PCDFs. Results from HCI sam-
pling indicated much higher HCI emissions
from the avid recycler, which is consistent
with the higher emissions of chlorinated
organics; and ash residue analysis indi-
cated that the avid recycler's residue had
more copper, which could contribute to
higher emissions of PCDDs/PCDFs. The
temperature at the base of the burning
bed was significantly lower for the avid
recycler than for the non-recycler. Gas-
phase emissions of metals were not a
strong function of the test conditions. PM
emissions were much higher from the non-
recycler. Almost all of the PM emissions
from both test conditions were < 2.5 |im in
diameter.
It may be useful to compare emissions
from open burning of household waste to
emissions from a full-scale municipal waste
combustor (MWC) operating with good
combustion and flue gas cleaning tech-
nology. Based on data from a field test at
a MWC, and averaging the "Normal Good"
PT-08, PT-09, and PT-11 test conditions
described in a detailed field test published
in 1994, using the samples taken at the
pollution control device outlet, the data in
Table 2 were generated. For the results
-------
Table 1. Composition of household wasted prepared by EPA.
PAPER
Newspaper, books and office paper
Magazines and junk mail
Corrugated cardboard and kraft paper
Paperboard, milk cartons, and drink boxes
PLASTIC RESIN3
PET#1 (bottle bill)
HOPE: #2, LDPE #4, and PP #5
PVC: #3
PS: #6
MIXED #7
FOOD WASTE
TEXTILE/LEATHER
WOOD (treated/untreated)
GLASS/CERAMICS
Bottles/jars (bottle bill)
Ceramics (broken plates and cups)
METAL-FERROUS
Iron - cans
NON-FERROUS
Aluminum - cans (bottle bill), foil, other
Other non-iron (wire, copper pipe, batteries)
TOTAL WEIGHT GENERATED PER HOUSEHOLD
FOR DISPOSAL IN BURN BARRELS (kg/day)
Non-Recycler (%)
Avid Recycler (%)
32.8
11.1
7.6
10.3
0.6
6.6
0.2
0.1
0.1
5.7
3.7
1.1
9.7
0.4
7.3
1.7
1.1
4.9
3.3
61.9
10.4
4.5
0.3
0.3
3.7
6.9
4.0
1.0
3.7
1.5
aPET=POLYETHYLENE TEREPHTHALATE; HDPE=high-density polyethylene; LDPE=low density
polyethylene; PP=polypropylene; PVC=polyvinyl chloride; and PS=polystyrene
Table 2. Comparison between open burning of household waste and controlled combustion of
municipal waste in a MWC; emissions are in |ig/kg waste burned.
Avid Recycler
Non-Recycler
MWC
PCDDs
PCDFs
CBs
PAHs
VOCs
46.7
222.9
1 ,007,450
23,974.7
2,052,500
38.25
6.05
424,150
66,035.65
4,277,500
0.0016
0.0019
1.16
16.58
1.17
from this study, concentrations of all tar-
get VOCs were summed to give total VOC
emissions (concentrations below detection
limit were set at zero). A similar treatment
was taken for PAHs, CBs, PCDDs/PCDFs,
and PCBs. Figure 1 graphically depicts
these results.
It is readily apparent that even the sig-
nificant differences between the avid re-
cycler and non-recycler's emissions are
minor in comparison to the difference be-
tween open burning of household waste
and the controlled combustion of munici-
pal waste at a dedicated MWC facility.
The emissions from open burning can be
several orders of magnitude higher than
controlled combustion.
As an additional comparison of open
burning versus controlled combustion in a
properly designed combustion device,
Table 3 was created by calculating the
total air pollutants produced per day using
the estimated emissions from Table 2, the
waste generation rates described in Table
1, and comparing those values to a hypo-
thetical 182,000 kg/day (200 ton/day) MWC
facility emitting air pollutants at the rate
described in Table 3. (NOTE: This size
facility processes the equivalent waste
from 37,000 non-recycling and 121,000
recycling households.) By dividing the daily
estimated emissions from the MWC by
the daily estimated emissions from open
burning, it is possible to estimate how
many open-burning households it would
take to equal the air pollution produced by
a moderately sized MWC facility. The num-
ber is surprisingly low; in fact, for certain
pollutants such as VOCs and CBs, a single
household that burns their trash in barrels
produces more pollutants than a full-scale
MWC facility.
Table 4 illustrates which test condition
resulted in higher emissions. The first two
columns are based on the mass/mass
emissions, and the second two columns
are based on mass/day emissions, using
the waste generation rates reported by
NYSDOH in Table 1. For the ash residue,
estimates per person were based on both
the waste generation rates reported by
NYSDOH and the mass of material re-
maining after combustion.
Table 5 summarizes all the test data,
showing the average results for the vari-
ous pollutants that were measured, along
with the ratio between the avid recycler
and the non-recycler.
Emissions from backyard burning of resi-
dential solid waste are released at ground
level, resulting in decreased dilution by
dispersion. This could potentially exacer-
bate potential impacts beyond what is ap-
parent from the magnitude of the emis-
sions alone. The large magnitude of the
emissions, coupled with the concentration
of these emissions in the local neighbor-
hoods due to poor dispersions, will lead to
increased direct inhalation exposure.
Another issue related to this particular
source is that it could potentially be a
significant overall source of PCDDs/
PCDFs. A 1994 EPA document attempted
to conduct a mass balance for dioxin emis-
sions in the U.S. and identified a signifi-
cant gap between current deposition esti-
mates and emission estimates, with the
former considerably higher than the latter.
EPA speculated that this indicated that
there were unknown dioxin emission
sources. The dioxin emissions from burn
barrels may be a missing link to help
account for the gap between measured
deposition rates and emission inventories.
-------
Total VOCs
Total PAHs
Total chlorobenzenes
Total PCDFs
Total PCDDs
c
c
c
D MWC
CH Non-recycler
| | Avid recy^pr
1
1
1
i
I
I
•
I
|
I
i i i i i i i i i
! 9 d 2 o 8 o 8 o c
i - ° 8 8 8 g
° 8 8
T- O
Estimated emissions (|ig/kg)
Figure 1. Composition between open burning and controled combustion.
Table 3. Number of open-burning households to equal the air pollution from a full-scale MWC facility3
Avid Recycler Non-Recycler
PCDDs
PCDFs
CBs
PAHs
VOCs
4.15
1.03
0.14
83.8
0.07
1.55
11.65
0.10
9.31
0.01
aUsing refuse generation rate supplied by NYSDOH, shown in Table 1; MWC burns 182,000 kg/day
(200 tons/day)
Table 4. Which test condition resulted in higher emissions?
Mass Emitted/Mass Burned
Mass Emitted/Person3
Pollutant
Gas-Phase
VOCs
SVOCs
PAHs
PCBs
CBs
PCDDs/PCDFs
Aldehydes & ketones
HCI
HCN
PM
Metals
Ash Residue
SVOCs
PCBs
PCDDs/PCDFs
Metals
Recycler
X
X
X
-
X
X
-
Non-Recycler
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
-
Recycler
X
X
X
-
X
-
Non-Recycler
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
-
*Using refuse generation rate supplied by NYSDOH, shown in Table 1.
-------
Tables. Summary of all test
Parameter
WASTE COMPOSITION
total daily waste (kg)
PVC in waste (kg)
paper waste (kg)
all plastics (kg)
food (kg)
textiles, leather (kg)
wood (kg)
glass/ceramics (kg)
metals (kg)
COMBUSTION RESULTS
max. bed temp (°C)
fractoin burned (%)
unburned residue (kg)
data
Recycler
1.5
0.07
0.98
0.23
0
0
0.06
0.1
0.14
370
66.7
0.50
AIR CONTAMINANT EMISSIONS
benzene
acetone
styrene
total TICsa
naphthalene13
phenol
dichlorobenzenes
trichlorobenzenes
tetrachlorobenzenes
pentachlorobenzene
hexachlorobenzene
acenaphthylene
naphthalene0
phenanthrene
aldehydes & ketones
total PCDD
total PCDF
total PCB
PM10
PM2.5
HCI
HCN
RESIDUALS IN ASH |im
PCDD, ng/kg
PCDF, ng/kg
PCB, |ig/kg
Cr
Cu
Pb
Zn
725
190
310
4000
40
85
320
400
140
100
48
3.4
5.2
3.3
140
0.047
0.22
0.97
5800
5.3
2400
200
(or ng) per kg ash
14851
34040
220
300
4910
164
11500
Average, per mass lost
Non-Recycler
4.9
0.01
3.02
0.36
0.28
0.18
0.05
0.5
0.49
740
49.1
2.49
(mg/kg burned)
1240
940
740
14400
48
140
160
110
74
53
22
11
18
7.3
2800
0.038
0.0061
2.86
19000
17.4
284
468
1556
5800
122
92
343
32
721
Ratio
0.31
7.00
0.32
0.64
0.00
0.00
1.20
0.20
0.29
0.50
1.36
0.20
0.58
0.20
0.42
0.28
0.83
0.61
2.00
3.64
1.89
1.89
2.18
0.31
0.29
0.45
0.05
1.24
36
0.34
0.31
0.30
8.47
0.43
9.54
5.87
1.80
3.26
14
5.13
16
Recycler
1.5
0.07
0.98
0.23
0
0
0.06
0.1
0.14
370
66.7
0.50
725
190
310
4002
40
85
320
400
140
100
48
3.4
5.2
3.3
140
0.047
0.220
0.97
5803
5.3
2401
200
Average, per household
Non-Recycler
4.9
0.01
3.02
0.36
0.28
0.18
0.05
0.5
0.49
740
49.1
2.49
(mg/household-day)
2983
2262
1780
34645
115
337
385
265
178
128
53
26
43
18
6737
0.091
0.015
6.87
45712
42
682
1126
Ratio
0.31
7.00
0.32
0.64
0.00
0.00
1.20
0.20
0.29
0.50
1.36
0.20
0.24
0.08
0.17
0.12
0.35
0.25
0.83
1.51
0.79
0.78
0.91
0.13
0.12
0.19
0.02
0.51
15
0.14
0.13
0.13
3.52
0.18
tentatively identified (VOC) compounds.
bSemi-volatile organics analysis.
CPAH specific analysis.
-------
Paul M. Lemieux is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report consists of two volumes, entitled "Evaluation of Emissions from
the Open Burning of Household Waste in Barrels:"
Volume 1. Technical Report (Order No. PB98-127343; Cost: $25.00)
Volume 2. Appendices (Order No. PB98127350-; Cost: $31.00)
The above reports will be available only from: (cost subject to change)
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Air Pollution Prevention and Control Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Center for Environmental Research Information
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
BULK RATE
POSTAGE & FEES PAID
EPA
PERMIT No. G-35
EPA/600/SR-97/134
------- |