PB87-208336
Waste Incineration and
Emission Control Technologies
(U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, HC
Jul 87
J
-------
EPA/600/D-87/U7-S
July 1987
WASTE INCINERATION ANJ EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
by
T. G. Brna and C. B. Sedman
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
AIR AND ENERGY ENGINEERING RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE Of RESEARCH AND DEVEIOPNENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 2V711
-------
TECHNICAL HE
ft9m JlttSVrJMMf OR tNf
. REPORT NO.
EPA/600/D-87/U7-S
2.
». RECIPIENTS ACCESSION1 NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Waste Incineration and Emission Control Technologies
I. REPORT OATI
July 1987
It PERFORMING ORGANIZATION COD*
.AUTHOR IS)
T. G. Brna and G, B. Sedman
i. PSRFORMIHO ORGANIZATION REPORT MO.
PER*OI*MING OMOANIZATION NAME AND ACDREI
I ELEMENT NOT
See Block 12.
11. CONTRACT/QUANT NO.
NA (tnhouse)
X. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME ANO ADOf ;SS
EPA, (Xficc of Research and Development
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
ix TYPS Of REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Published Paper; March 1987
14. •PONSOHINO AOENCT COOC
EPA/600 A3
•, •W^LEMCNTAMV NOTES AEERL project officer is Theodore G. Brna. Mail Drop 61. 918 /
541-2683. Supersedes EPA/600/D-87/147 (PB37-191623/AS)
. ABSTRACT.
The paper gives results of a survey of available waste incineration and
emission control technologies in the U. S.. Japan, and Western Europe. Increasing
concern over landfills as a waste management option and the decreasing availability
of sites have focused attention on incineration for destruction of hazardous wastes
and volume reduction of other wastes in the U. S. Incineration requires the control
of air pollutant emissions, which can be minimized by combining in-furnace and
post-combustion control technologies. Since future potential regulation of both hazar-
dous air pollutants and acid rain precursors may cause extensive retrofit or early
termination of existing waste incineration installations, planning for new or modified
installations should recognize the various control technologies available in order to
minimize future outlays if regulations are tightened*
7.
KEY WOMOS ANO DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
OCSCMIPTOffS
hJOf MTIPIimvOrtN IttOCOTtl
Pollution
Incinerators
Waste Disposal
Emission
Toxicity
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Hazardous Waste
13B
15E
14G
08T
IS. OtSTMISUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
IS. MCUNITY CLASS fTMl Wp*ftJ
Unclassified
at. NO. Of PAGES
20
tO. SECURITY CLASS
Unclassified
I IS»TS|
-------
NOTICE
This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade itaaes
or comercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recovendation for use.
ii
-------
HASTE INCINERATION AND EMISSION CONTROL
TECHNOLOGIES
T. 6. Brnt
C. B. Sednan
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park. NC 27711
ABSTRACT
The Increasing concern over landfills as a waste
•anagenent option and the decreasing availability of
sites have focused attention on Incineration for de-
struction of hazardous wastes and volume reduction of
ether wastes In the U.S. The use of Incineration
requires the control of air pollutant emissions,
which can be Minimized by cocbinlng 1n-furnace and
post-co«ibust1on control technologies. Since future
potential regulation of both hazardous air pollutants
and acid rain precursors Bay cause extensive retrofit
or early terei nation of existing waste Incineration
installations, the planning for new or Modified
Installations should recognize the various control
technologies available In order to minimize future
outlays If regulations are tightened. A survey of
available technologies in the U.S., Japan, and Western
Europe Is presented for consideration.
For presentation at the International Congress on
Hazardous Materials Management, Chattanooga, TM,
Jane 8-12, 1987.
This paper has been reviewed In accordance with
with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
peer and administrative review policies and approved
for presentation and publication.
-------
INTRODUCTION
Generators of hazardous wastes, substantial vol-
umes of non-hazardous wastes, or Mixtures of both
have several available disposal options, all of which
promise to become Increasingly expensive In the future.
long-term storage and landfllHng have Inherent
liabilities and steadily Increasing costs as available
sites diminish and regulations drive up operating costs.
Except for limited recycle/reuse opportunities, the
majority of thermalIjr destructible wastes will probably
be Incinerated In special purpose furnaces, or Mixed
with fossil fuels and/or larger volume combustible wastes
and burned 1n conventional steam boilers or water-wall
Incinerators. In Many cases, cogeneratlon of steam
and electricity from waste combustion will be the
•ast economically attractive long-term waste disposal
option.
In reducing waste volume and destroying potentially
hazardous components, air pollution 1s an unavoidable
by-product. Nearly complete destruction (99.991) of
hazardous wastes by combustion Is now required. However,
trace quantities of products of Incomplete combustion,
especially dloxlns and furans, are not currently regu-
lated by the U.S. EPA. Further, high destruction
efficiencies require high temperature and Increased
turbulence (good mixing). Both of these promote
Increased oxides of nitrogen (NOX)V which are acid rain
precursors. Oxidation of fuel nitrogen, sulfur, and
halogens produces additional NO, as well as sulfur
oxides (SOX) and acid gases, all suspected contributors
to acid rain. Non-combustibles such as trace metals
(especially mercury, lead, arsenic, and chromium) are
all potentially emitted with fly ash.
Given the potential for these classes of pollu-
tants—trace hazardous organlcs, add gases, trace
heavy metals, and fly ash—the air pollution control
strategy selected must have the capability of multi-
pollutant control In order to minimize costly retrofit
or upgrading to meet possible future regulations.
The residues, although small In volume relative to
onburncd wastes, contain concentrated pollutants which
mast be disposed of In an environmentally saft manner,
but residue disposal Is not addressed here.
CURRENT REGULATORY STATUS
Requirements of the Individual states differ, and
the U.S. lags behind other Industrial nations In
regulating emissions from waste combustion as shown
-------
In Table 1. Local regulations or permit conditions
frequently determine the types of combustor and emission
controls required. In the U. S.. for example, only
participate matter Is currently regulated by Federal
Standard, but typical permits at the local or state
level have limited carbon monoxide. SOX, and NOX emiss-
ions, and more recently have covered trace metals,
hydrocarbons (particularly dloxlns). and acid gases
(hydrochloric and hydrofluoric acids). Recent Install-
ations In the U. S. have Included technologies spec-
ifically targeted to reduce unburned hydrocarbons In
the furnace as well as tall-end processes to remove
add gases. SOX» and partlculate matter. Partlculate
matter controls are currently being permitted at 20 to
25X of the allowable emissions under current Federal
Standards, reflecting growing concern over trace metals
which tend to partition In the finer particles. One
recent U.S. Installation has also Included an 1n-furnace
reduction technique for reducing NOR.4
In Western Europe, particularly West Germany,
similar technologies have been Installed for nearly a
decade due to local permit requirements and national
standards which were recently set by Federal regulations
summarized In Table 1. Many of the technologies current-
ly offered In the U.S. and described later In this
paper are licensed from European vendors such as NIRO.
Flakt, and Deutsche Babcock. Japanese Installations
have shown similar trends to those In Europe but add-
itionally feature an add-on, catalytic reduction step
for NOX removal, using Japanese technology developed
originally for steam electric generators.'
EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
•:*£.-
In-Furnace Techniques
Of paramount concern Is the destruction of combust-
ible and hazardous components which also diminish the
•mounts of potentially hazardous products of Incomplete
combustion, or toxic organlcs. A program 1s now under-
way within the U.S. EPA to develop combustion guidelines
for Incinerators within the next year. The goals of
the program Include establishing minimum time/tempera-
ture relationships for efficient combustion, air/fuel
mixing criteria, air Injector designs, excess air and
turndown restrictions, startup and shutdown procedures.
and monitoring to verify compliance with these guide-
lines.
For NOX control, one In-furnace technique Is curr-
ently In use In Japan and at one Installation In the
-------
TULf 1. SUECTID EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR NASTE INCINERATORS
Sol 1 4 »art1c«1ato Hattar.
Carton MoMtldo, ppa
NydrofM Chlortda
U.S.I California* Comnctkut* Michigan* Mt«t C«nMny2.3
0.08
(200)
•••
•••
0.01*
(25)
...
30 ppw
(wot or dry
icnibbort
0.015
(37.5)
—
901
reduction
0.015
(37.5)
113124-hr avaj
901
0.013*
(32.5)
87
17 pp_
(50«9/Nir))
0.01C
(25)
...
•0 **
S«1f«r Otntda. *•
OleilM Noaturad at
I. 3.7.1 - tatra-
chlorodlbtflto-p'dloilM
(TOO)
Tout Orfaolct.
Nwcvrv » Ca*rt«i »
•f/mJ |fiKl«4a« tapors)
170
38 , KM SO} 11«1t»
(200 •9/N»») rtdwt all acids
0.5-2.0 n«y
Ntv
0.1
'20
0.2
Sat
m coi in co2
m coj
dry
m toz
dry
tit 02
dry
•caiirtmn rtgniatioM ptndt Mn ttrtMtut local Itarfu. Two ttato tvidtllMt art rtaortad: 0.91 fr/dtcf (25
•«/•>) for total Mild MrtfcvlatM (TS») and 0.008 jr/dwf (20 •»/»J) for parttcltt IMS VIM I va).
•TMt IK tfto local oftM aptllad Halt. alUwwgd tho nattonal Itatt ft 0.02 r/^Kf (50 a*/*?).
«Tfilt 1f«lt and thoto »a1o« aro fro* tfco Sutdlsh Envtromtntal ProUctlon Board's 'fo^orary Earftslo* fioals.*
July 1981.
•Sto CMTCRt 255-1 for Iteltt.
•PollNtMt control ro*itrM MM of tko BM! Available Control Ttcfinology (8ACT). althovgh M tachnolov ha* ytt »at«
rfho MM of dry fat Mrvokan and baohonwt ft oiptcttd to tnorovo rtMfal.
-------
U.S.
Known as Theraal DeNOx,
in the upper furnace to
It involves Injecting
achieve selective reduc
The »««onU/NO, reactions
ton o X see gure . he »««onUNO, reactions
are extrevely sensitive to temperature so that the injec-
tion location Must be carefully selected. Also there
Is generally so«e slip of
does not react with NOX).
a»»onia (i.e.. aMonia which
NHj/UREA
STOICH10METRIC RATIO
tSRI
SR3-1.S
OVERF1RE AIR
REBURNING FUEL
Figure 1. Reburning and thermal DeNO applied to a waste
incinerator.
Another promising HOX control concept is returning
with an auxiliary fuel such as natural gas. The process
could potentially be applfed to waste Incinerators as
shown In Figure 1. The Individual stoiehiOMtric ratio
CSR|) ter»s In this figure refer to the air/fuel steich-
fOMtric ratio (SR) with SR less than 1.0 representing
fuel-rich conditions. Enough returning fuel should be
injected at a location low in the furnace to create a
hot. slightly oxygen-starved zone. The overfire air is
Injected above the reburninj zone to complete the com-
bustion process. Reburning can be combined with aaaonla
or urea injection to optivize 10X reduction. In addition
-------
to NOX reduction, returning has the potential for
destroying organic compounds dye to the high flame temp-
erature and high concentration of flame radicals existing
In the returning zone.6
Paniculate Hatter Control
Partlculate Matter control for solid waste combus-
tors 1s practiced In all technologically advanced coun-
tries, The dominant system In the U. S. 1s the electro-
static preclpltator (ESP), accounting for about 75S of
all systems. Hlth ESPs, very low emission levels are
achievable; < 45 «g/M«3 (< 0.02 gr/dscf) at high ratios
of collector plate surface area to gas flow volume;
I.e.. In the range of 170 01n./m (52 mln./ft) or
greater.
Net scrubbers (Venturis) are relatively Ineffective
for particle control, removing 80 to 951 at normal oper-
ation. Very high pressure losses are required to remove
fine particles* and the erosion and corrosion potential
1n acidic gas streams make the venturl a poor choice
from economic and reliability perspectives.
Fabric filters are seldom used unless upstream
sorbent Injection Is practiced, because of the perceived
failures caused by hot gases, spark carryover, or sticky
particles. However, fabric filters are capable of
control to < 45 mg/Nn3 without the operational upsets
due to varying fuel and ash composition that adversely
affect ESPs.
6ai Control
Control of acid gases (HC1. HF, and SOjJ requires
scrubbing or devices for gas/liquid or gas/solid contact.
Mater alone Is a reasonably effective sorbent for very
reactive add gases such as HC1 and HF, but an alkali
sorbent (or control of liquid pH to 5 or higher) Is
necessary for substantial SO; control. Totally dry
sorbents require substantial residence time In the gas
for effective acid gas control. Injection of sorbent
Into a duct must be complemented by a fluid-bed reactor.
humldlf Icatlon. a fabric filter dust collector, or
combinations of these to be effective. Figures 2 and 3
Illustrate typical dry sorbtnt Injection systems In use
1n Western Europe.
Spray drying or semi-dry Injection of sorbent Is
more effective than dry Injection, with Increasing acid
gas control as the approach to saturation temperature
Is decreased, either by waste heat recovery or water
1nject1on/hum1d1f1cat1on. The most effective control
-------
1. FURNACE AND BOILER
2. FRECOLLECTOR
1 WASTE HEAT BOILER NO. 1
4 REACTOR
ft. ELECTROSTATIC FHECIF1TATOH
ft FABRIC FILTER
7. WATTE HEAT BCHLER NO. 2
ft LIME SILO
•. LIME FEEDING
10. LIME RECIRCULATION
11. COARSE DUST CONVEYING
12. FINE OUST CONVEYING
12, OUST SILO
14. DUST HUMIDIFIER
1ft. OUST UN
Figure 2. Dry absorption system, Maino, Sweden.
of add gases 1s by *U*11 scrubbtrs operating at
saturation (wet scrubbing), but this has to be weighed
against the aaount of waste water generated and Its
treatment. Figure 4 Illustrates a typical spray dryer
systea for acid gas removal.
-------
LIME
PLUf i
1. UMtSllO
I. REACTOR
X CYCLONE
4. DUST COLLECTOR
•.STACK
I WASTESILO
DRY WASTE
Figure 3. Circulating fluid-bed absorption (dry) process.
1. LIME FEEDER
2. LJME SLAKE*
3. PEED TANK
4. HEAD TANK
ft. SPRAY ABSORBER
f. DUSTCOLLfCTO*
7. STACK
•»-—PARTICLE RECYCLE
DRY WASTE
Figure 4. Spray absorption (semi-dry) process.
Combined *««1-dry/dry scrubbers control «cfd fates
perhaps »ore effectively than once-through spray drying
and are probably similar In effectiveness to spray dry-
Ing with recycle* depending on the approach to saturation
temperature. Combined seml-dry/wet systems* such as
spray dryer/renturHs) combinations* are potentially
the most effective systems for acid gas control but
become Increasingly complex as the number of targeted
8
-------
pollutants increase*. Table 2 summarizes the above dis-
cussion. The reader Is cautioned that the reagent
requirements and solid/liquid wastes produced are net
considered, and this table only reflects the systems as
operated. Any of these techniques may be enhanced by
•ore reactive sorbents or operation at more favorable
temperatures. Figures S and 6 Illustrate the combina-
tion seml-dry/dry and seal-dry/wet scrubbing systems.
TABLE 2. EFFECTIVENESS OF ACID GAS CONTROLS (S REMOVAL)
Control Systea
Dry Injection * Fabric Filter
Pollutant
HC1
(FF)a 80
Dry Injection * Fluid-Bed Reactor * ESP*> 90
Spray Dryer * ESP
(Recycle)c
Spray Dryer * Fabric Filter
(Recycle )c
Spray Dryer * Dry Injection *
Met Scrubber*
Spray Dryer + Met Sentbber(s)
» T 16C-WC (32Q-356*F)
b T 230*C (446*F)
C T 140-160*C (284-320*F)
* T 2*JO*C (39TF)
t T 40-50'C (104-122"F)
T the temperature at the
95*
(95*)
95+
(95+)
ESP or FFd 95+
95+
+ ESP or FF« 95*
HF
98
99
99
(99)
99
(99)
99
99
99
507
50
60
50-70
(70-90)
70-90
(80-95)
90*
90*
90*
exit of the control device.
In summary, effective control of acid gases 1s
possible n1th dry, seal-dry. and wet scrubbers. HC1
and HF are relatively easy to control* while SOj control
Is more difficult and Is favored by wet or seal-dry
systems with lower flue gas temperatures. Although not
discussed due to lack of data, very effective sulfur
trloxlde control seems possible with a spray dryer.
-------
AIR
FLUE GAS
N*- WATER
SOLIDS U-UMi U-
SOLIDS
-CALCIUM SILICATE
1. QUENCH REACTOR 1ST PAY DRYER)
2. DRYVENTURI
3. BAOHOUSE
4. STACK
Figure 5. Setri-dry/dry scrubber.
Should SOj control also becoae a concern, systems which
contact the gas with wet or dry sorbent prior to a par*
tlculate control device should be encouraged. "This
approach Is suggested because* after alkali scrubbing,
503 apparently becomes an aerosol and Is amenable to
capture. Control systems with particle collectors up-
trean of the scrubber have historically reported poor
SOj control effectiveness.
Po«t-CoBbust1on M0« Control
Probably the »ost difficult and expensive pollutant
to control 1s MOX. primarily dat to uareactlve RO which
comprises 951 or «ore of the total ^controlled MOX. Tht
•ost effective control 1s selective cataiytlc reduction
(SCR) which currently Bust be preceded by acid gas and
heavy aetals control to be effective If the thermal
penalties are acceptable, the* SCI c> -e»ove 80-901 of
NOX with a NH3/MO aolar ratio of 1.0 . * about S ppav NNa
10
-------
1. PLUEOAS
2. IXHAUSTOAt
& SPRAY DRYER
4. ELECTROSTATIC PRECIPITATOR OR FABRIC FILTER
ft. OAS-OAS MIAT EXCHANGER
ft VENTURISCRUBBER
7. NEUTRALIZATION TANK
8. SLUDGE TANK
9. LIME SILO
10. LIME SLAKER
11. SODIUM HYDROXIDE STORAGE
12. SODIUM AIR TANK
13. DRV WASTE
Figure 6. Semi-dry/wet scrubber.
-------
slip. Use of special lower temperature, HCl-res1stant
catalysts In the future can Hake SCR even nore attrac-
tive.* Potentially less effective and acre complicated
NOX control aay be achieved by an oxidation step Inte-
grated Into sodium- or aagneslua-based net scrubbing.
Due to the liquid waste potential, this May be best
applied to the combination seml-dry/wet scrubber system
shown 1n Figure 6, and NO* control of 30 to SOS would
be expected. Figure 7 Illustrates SCR as applied to
Incineration flue gas In japan.
Post-Combustion Organic Pollutant Control
Control of dloxlns and furans. as well as other
trace organic compounds. 1s not well understood because
the aechanlsa of capture Is not known. Likely, conden-
sation and capture as a particle Is significant, and
attack and capture by caustic reagents 1s also probable.
These capture phenomena-are best-addressed by-lowering
flue gas temperatures, subjecting flue gas to caustic
sorbent, and collecting the product In a highly effic-
ient particle collector. Halted data show that spray
drying followed by fabric filtration Is very effective
for organic vapor control and superior to the spray
drying/ESP systea. Also lower flue gas temperatures
favc Increased control of organlcs. Reference 8 1s
a good dlscusslcn of these observations. The results
are suaaarlzed In Table 3, where CDD refers to chlor-
inated dibenzo-para-dloxins and CDF to chlorinated
dlbenzofurans.8
Halted data have been collected on control device
efficiencies for dloxlns and furans, with only outlet
concentrations being reported for aost tests. Unfort-
unately, test data and Methodologies are lacking to
coapare the effectiveness of various control systeas
for organic pollutants. However, the superiority of a
sorbent on a fabric filter for control 1s evident froa
Table 3. The data shown were based on tests In a
single pilot plant, and thus should be used with
caution.9
Heavy Metals Control
The control of heavy aetals Is slallar to organic
pollutant control In that effective control of par-
ticles and low five gat teaperatures are major factors.
Sorbents, however, are not suspected to play a major
role. Toxic aetals enter the collectors as solids,
liquids, and vapors and, as the flue gas cools, the
vapor portion converts to collectible solids and
liquids. Figure 8 Illustrates various heavy aetals
as they appear 1n flue gas and their relative
12
-------
-V)
PM/HCI
JL
CONVENTIONAL SCR (WITH
HCI RESISTANT CATALYST!
U-
A/P
PM/HCI
JL
SCR WITH LOW TEMPERATURE
CATALYST
SCR WITH EXTENSIVE GAS REHEAT
I * INCINERATOR
A/P - AIR PREHEATER
PM/HCI • ESP/SCRUBBER, ETC.
GGH - GAS GAS HEAT E XCHANGER
B- REHEAT BURNER
Figure 7. SCR options for municipal incinerators.
-------
theoretical concentrations (vapor pressures) as a func-
tion of flue gas temperature.?
TABLE 3. SPRAY DRYER CONTROL OF SELECTED ORGANIC POLLUTANTS'
Control System (I Removal)
Compound
Dloxlns;
tetra COD
penta COD
hexa COD
hepta COD
octa COD
Furans
SD + ESP SD + FT • High Temp. SD + FT • Low Teap.
48
51
73
83
89
52
75
93
82
NA
> 97
> 99.6
> 99.5
> 99.6
> 99.8
tetra CDF
penta CDF
hexa CDF
hepta CDF
octa CDF
65
64
82
83
85
98
88
86
92
NA
> 99.4
> 99.6
> 99.7
> 99.8
> 99.8
Fro* Figure 8, It can be deduced that decreasing
the flue gas temperature below 200*C (392*F) and high
efficiency paniculate collection should result 1n a
very large reduction of Metals, except for Mercury
(Hg). arsenates (As20a)2* and selenium (Se02 and See)*
Corresponding reductions of these compounds proceed
dramatically as temperatures are lowered. Kith the
metals at their saturation temperature*, each 1s ex-
pected to be reduced by 90S for each additional temp-
erature drop of 11 to ire (20 to 30*F). If this
temperature effect Is true, then wet scrubbing or
wet/dry scrubbing which operates at saturation [~ 40*C
(104*F)J should be highly effective for total heavy
metals control, while most dry and semi-dry systems
should be just as effective for practically all metals
except mercury, arsenic, and selenium. The dry and
semi-dry systems should achieve some capture of mer-
cury, arsenic, and selenium, with the degree of cap-
ture Increasing with decreasing flue gas temperature.
14
-------
Measured Hg concentrations in raw gas.
Figure 8. Saturation points of «rtal and wtal compounds.9
Reported Metals control data general If snow 95-981
control or greater for »est Heavy netals except aercury.
Vapor-phase Mercury control Has been reported as: 75 to
8SS control with spray dryer pins bagbouse; and 35 to 4SS
control with spray dryer plus ESP.9 This Is Important 1n
that vapor control 1s possible with fabric filters and
ESPs. although Halted data show the for*er to be clearly
superior. Vet scrubbers would appear to be Ideal for
•ercury control, but the collection of aercury vapors via
condensation and capture Is not well documented. There*
fore, the choice of the nost effective mercury control
Is still the subject of controversy (see Reference 3}.
15
-------
SUMMARY
In destroying wastes by Incineration, several classes
of air pollutants are emitted which will likely
require control or at least consideration for control
by permitting agencies. The pollutants Include trace
hazardous organlcs, acid gases, trace heavy metals,
and partlculate matter. Various In-furnace and
post-combustion technologies are available to control
these pollutants, but the degree of control complexity
Increases with the number of pollutants to be con-
trolled. Operators of existing Incinerators should
be aware of these technologies for possible future
retrofit requirements, while those planning Incinera-
tion projects should design these facilities to embrace
as many of the concepts described as practical. In
order to meet permit requirements with minimum delay.
REFERENCES
1. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 60,
Subpart E, July 1, 1984 (36FRZ4877. 12/23/71).
2. Haste Age, November 1986, p. 17.
3. Scrubber-Adsorber Newsletter, Mcllvalne Co.,
Northbrook, IL, July 30,1986, No. 145, pp. 3-6.
4. Hurst, B. C. and C. H. White, "Thermal DeNOx: A
Commercial Selective Non-Catalytic NOX Reduction
Process for Haste to Energy Applications.* ASHC
12th Biennial National Haste Processing Conference,
Dewey, CO, June 2, 1986.
S. Ando, J., Recent Developments In S02 «nd NOX
Abatement Technology for Stationary Sources in
Japan, CPA-600/7-85-040 (NTIS PB86-110186),
September 1985, Section 5.
6. Overmoe, B. J. et al.. "Influence of Coal Combus-
tion on the Fate of Volatile and Char Nitrogen
During Combustion," Nineteenth Symposium (Int.)
on Combustion. The Combustion Institute,
Pittsburgh, PA, 1982, p. 1271.
7. Teller, A. J., "The Landmark Framlngham, MA
Incinerator," presented at the Hazardous
Materials Management Conference, Philadelphia^
PA, June 5-7, 1984.
16
-------
8. Nellsen, K. K.» J. T. Hoeller, and S. Rasaussen,
"Reduction of Dloxtns and Furans by Spray Dryer
Absorption fro* Incinerator Flut Gas,* presented
at Oloxln 85, Bayreuth, U. Germany. September
16-19. 1985.
9. Hoeller, J. T.. C. Jorgensen. and F. Fallenkamp,
'Dry Scrubbing of Toxic Incinerator Flue Gas
by Spray Dryer Absorption,* presented at CNV1TCC
83, Dusseldorf, M. Germany, February 21*24, 1983,
17
------- |