EPA/600/A-94/211
U.S. EPA APPLIED RESEARCH IN HAZARDOUS WASTE THERMAL DESTRUCTION
by
George L. Huffman
and
Gregory J. Carroll
For Presentation during the Incinerator Basics Course given
at the 1994 International Incineration Conference held
in Houston Texas on May 9-14, 1994
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Waste Minimization, Destruction and Disposal Research Division
Thermal Destruction Branch
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
NOTICE
This document has been subjected to the U.S. EPA's peer and adminis-
trative review process and has been approved for publication. Mention of
trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page Number
• Notice - - ii
• Summary - 1
• Introduction 1
• Major Testing Programs - - 3
• Soil Decontamination Studies at the IRF 3
• Evaluation of Incinerability Ranking at the IRF- 9
• Metals Partitioning/Metals Control at the IRF -- 11
• Investigation of Boiler "Hysteresis" in
Williamsport 21
• Simulated Solar Destruction "Mini-Pilot" Tests
in Kansas City - 30
• Conclusion --- - 34
• References - 35
i i i
-------
U.S. EPA APPLIED RESEARCH IN HAZARDOUS WASTE THERMAL DESTRUCTION
George L. Huffman and Gregory J. Carroll
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio
SUMMARY
In this Paper, the results of five major testing programs of the U.S.
EPA's Cincinnati-based Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) are
described. Three of the five programs were carried out at RREL's Incineration
Research Facility (IRF), a fully-permitted pilot plant operation located in
Jefferson, Arkansas. The fourth program was conducted at a full-scale boiler
site in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, while the fifth series of tests were done
on the "mini-pilot" scale in Kansas City, Missouri. All five testing programs
featured various aspects of the thermal destruction of hazardous wastes [the
first on soil decontamination, the second on evaluating the recently-developed
EPA/RREL Incinerabi1ity Ranking Index, the third on metals partitioning during
incineration, the fourth on investigating the "hysteresis" phenomenon
associated with boilers, and the fifth on simulated solar destruction (one of
several innovative technologies under development by RREL)].
INTRODUCTION
Past inadequate disposal of waste has caused various types of
environmental damages such as: (1) pollution of groundwater; (2)
contamination of soils and surface waters; (3) pollution of the air; (4) fires
and explosions; and (5) poisoning of humans and animals via either direct
contact or via the food chain. In dealing with the problems of these
environmental damages, both the Federal government and the States have enacted
various laws of unprecedented scope and impact since the 1960s.
-------
In implementing these laws, both EPA and industry have often found that
incineration is the best available technology for disposing of various waste
streams, when compared to other treatment technologies.1 Compared with other
treatment technologies, incineration has the following major advantages: (1)
volume reduction (the reduction rate depends on the ash content of the waste
incinerated); (2) detoxification (incineration can achieve nearly 100%
destruction of any pathogenic, toxic or hazardous substance; (3) potential
energy recovery (it has been a general practice for many industries to recover
energy from waste incineration processes); (4) no long-term liability (once a
waste is incinerated, the problem will not re-surface again as it often does
when landfills are used); and (5) effectiveness (it only takes seconds to
destroy what landfills may take years to decompose). However, waste
incineration may produce trace amounts of unwanted combustion by-products
(CBPs) such as partially burned ash and toxic air pollutants which may include
particulate and dioxins and furans (PCDD and PCDF), particularly if the
incinerators are not well designed and operated.
The general issue of CBPs has been one of the major technical and
sociological issues surrounding the implementation of incineration as a waste
treatment alternative. In addition, the public has developed the so-called
"NIMBY" (not in my back yard) attitude which makes the siting of an
incineration facility extremely difficult.2 Nonetheless, as shown in Table 1
Table 1. Hazardous Waste-burning BIFs and Incinerators
Permitted to Operate in the U.S. (as of July 1, 1993)3
CEMENT
LIGHT-WEIGHT
OTHER
TOTAL
TOTAL
REGION
PLANTS
AGGREGATE
BIFS
BIFS
INCINERATOR
KILN PLANTS
FACILITIES
1
0
0
7
7
2
N
2
1
4
7
21
III
3
2
11
18
18
IV
7
3
17
27
30
V
7
0
17
24
27
VI
6
1
53
80
60
VU
8
0
4
12
12
VM
1
0
0
1
6
IX
1
0
2
3
10
X
0
0
2
2
4
TOTALS
35
7
117
159
190
2
-------
and Figure 1 below, there have been approximately 350 commercial (off-site)
and noncommercial (on-site) hazardous waste-burning incinerators and BIFs
(boilers and industrial furnaces) permitted to operated in the 10 EPA Regions
across the U.S.3
To support this permitting activity, EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering
Laboratory (RREL) is charged by its Office of Research and Development with
the responsibility of carrying out pilot- and full-scale R&D to determine the
emission characteristics and potential for effective emission control of
hazardous waste thermal destructors (incinerators, boilers, furnaces, kilns
and other types of innovative thermal processes). To meet this mission, RREL
employs all types of mechanisms to perform these research studies ---
contracts, cooperative agreements, interagency agreements and in-house
research. This Paper will describe and discuss the results from five selected
contractual efforts, each aimed at defining and eventually solving the
environmental pollution problems associated with the incineration or thermal
destruction of hazardous waste.
MAJOR TESTING PROGRAMS
SOIL DECONTAMINATION STUDIES AT THE IRF
To respond to its mission and charge, RREL began in 1982 to construct
its initial (3,000 ft2) pilot plant operation which was later to become known
as the "Incineration Research Facility" (IRF) on the grounds of FDA's National
Center for Toxicological Research in Jefferson, Arkansas. It was designed to
be a Government-owned/Contractor-operated facility. In July 1984, the "RCRA
Part B" and air permits were issued by the State of Arkansas. Operations
began in September of 1985 when the first "listed waste" (F020) was tested.
The IRF was expanded to its present 15,000 ft2 in 1988. A major (RCRA) permit
modification was approved in September 1990 and a TSCA R&D permit was granted
in February of 1991.
The IRF houses two pilot-scale incinerators, a Rotary Kiln System (RKS)
and a Liquid Injection System (LIS), and a bench-scale one called the "Thermal
Treatability Unit" (TTU). Figure 2 gives a schematic of the RKS at the IRF.
The design characteristics of the RKS are given in Table 2.4
3
-------
Commercial Incinerator and
BIF Facilities by EPA Region
"•giofl I
Region II
Region IH
Region IV
Reglori V
Region VI
Region VII
Region VW pSH 3
Region IX 11SHI 3
Region X
10
1S
n lndn«r»tors
¦ 8IF»
21
19
20
Hunber of Facilities [Total (Commercial) = 87]
25
Noncommercial Incinerator and
BIF Facilities by EPA Region
Region I
Region n
Region II
Region IV
Region V
Region VI
Region VI
w—i \tmtm
Region Ve
Region IX
Region X
10 20 30 40
Number of facilities (Total CMonconwerciaU * 262]
Figure 1. Number of Commercial and Noncommercial Incinerator and BIF
Facilities Permitted to Burn Hazardous Waste in the U.S.3
4
-------
{x3— ^^3——ExJ-
• PM
f*i owam
n«ra
Mkm |
ROTARY KILN
INCINERATOR
MODULAR WWMARYAIR
POLLUTION CONTROL
OCVICCS
REDUNDANT AIR ,
POLLUTION CONTROL
SYSTEM I
Figure 2. Schematic of the IRF Rotary Kiln System
5
-------
Table 2. Design Characteristics of the RKS at the IRF
Characteristic! of the
Length
Diameter, outside
Diameter, inside
Chamber volume
Construction
Refractory
Rotation
Solids retention time
Burner
Primary fuel
Feed system:
Liquids
Sludges
Solids
Temperature (max)
Kill Mala Chamber
2.49 m (8 ft-2 in)
1J7 m (4 ft-6 in)
Nominal 1.00 m (3 ft-3-5 in)
1.90 m} (67.3 ft1)
0.95 cm (0.375 in) thick cold-rolled steel
18.7 cm (7.375 in) thick high alumina castable refractory, variable depth to produce
a frustrocooical effect for moving solids
Clockwise or counterclockwise, 0.2 to 1J rpm
1 hr (at 0.2 rpm)
North American burner rated at 800 kW (2.7 MMBtu/hr) with liquid feed
capability
Natural gas
Positive displacement pump via water-cooled lance
Moyno pump via front face, water-cooled lance
Metered twin-auger screw feeder or fiberpack ram feeder
10HTC (1850*F)
Characteristics of the Afterburner Chamber
Length
Diameter, outside
Diameter, inside
Chamber volume
Construction
Refractory
Gas residence time
Burner
Primary fuel
3.05 m (10 ft)
1.22 m (4 ft)
0.91 m (3 ft)
1.80 m1 (63.6 ft1)
0.63 cm (0.25 in) thick cold-rolled steel
15.2 cm (6 in) thick high alumina castable refractory
0.8 to 2-5 s depending on temperature and excess air
North American Burner rated at 800 kW (2.7 MMBtu/hr) with liquid feed
capability
Natural gas
Temperature (max) 1200*C (2200*F)
Characteristics of the Ionising Wet Scrabbcr APCS
System capacity,
inlet gas flow
Pressure drop
Liquid flow
pH control
85 mVmin (3000 acfm) at 78*C (177F) and 101 kPa (14.7 ptia)
1J kPa (6 is W.C.)
230 L/min (60 gpm) at 345 kPa (50 ptig)
Feedback control by NaOH solution addition
Characteristics af Km Ventari/ftacfced Colnan S crabber APCS
System capacity,
inlet gat flow
Pressure Drop
Venturi scrubber
Packed column
Liquid flow
Venturi scrubber
Packed column
pH control
107 mVmin (3773 acfm) at 120CC (2200T) and 101 kPa (14.7 pda)
7.5 kPa (30 in. W.C.)
1.0 kPa (4 in W.C)
712 L/ain (20.4 gpa) at 60 kPa (10 pug)
116 L/min (30.6 gpa) at 69 kPa (10 ptig)
Feedback control by NaOH solution addition
6
-------
Some early tests done at the IRF, arid their chief thrust, are listed in
Table 3.
Table 3. "Listed Waste" Treatability Tests Done at the IRF
a Tests focused on the evaluation of incineration as a potential
"Best Demonstrated Available Technology [BOAT]" for the
treatment of "land-ban" wastes
a Tests were conducted to support EPA's Office of Solid Waste
(OSW) in their development of Land Disposal Restriction (LDR)
Rules
4 Tests focused on the quality of residues (ash, scrubber water)
generated during incineration under typical operating
conditions
a Tests were performed for the following wastes:
• K001-PCP (wood preserving waste)
• KO24 (distillation bottoms from phthalic anhydride
production)
• K037 (wastewater treatment sludge from disulfoton production)
• K086 (solvent washes/sludges from ink production)
• K087 (decanter tank tar sludge from coking operations)
• K088 (spent potliner from primary aluminum reduction)
Table 4 lists the recent "Superfund Treatability" (i.e., Soils
Decontamination) tests done at the IRF, as well as the process parameters that
they were intended to measure. As can be seen there, wastes/soils from some
12 sites were investigated for seven of the ten EPA Regional Offices.
7
-------
Table 4. Superfund Treatability/Soils Decontamination Tests Done
at the IRF4"6
4 Tests were designed to measure the following parameters as a
function of operating conditions:
• Organics; decontamination effectiveness (ash vs. feed);
contaminant destruction and removal efficiencies (OREs)
• Metals: partitioning (split between ash, scrubber water, stack
emissions); leachability (ash vs. feed); scrubber collection
efficiencies
• Other: Compliance with particulate and HC1 emission standards
a Sites for which studies have been conducted:
. VERTAC (Region VI) - 2,3,7,8-TCDD
• Bridgeport Rental and Oil Services (Region II) - PCBs, lead
• Baird-McGuire (Region I) - organic pesticides; arsenic; lead
• Purity Oil Sales (Region IX) - lead; organic constituents
• McCol1 (Region IX) - refinery wastes; sulfur
• Drake Chemical (Region III) - semivolatile organics; trace metals
• New Bedford Harbor (Region I) - PCBs; PAHs; trace metals
• Chemical Insecticide Corporation (Region II) - organic pesticides;
arsenic
• Bofors-Nobel (Region V) - volatile, semivolatile organics; trace
metals
• Scientific Chemical Processing (Region II) - PCBs; pesticides;
trace metals
• Popi1e (Region VI) - pentachlorophenol; PAHs
• American Creosote (Region VI) - pentachlorophenol; PAHs
Hazardous constituents included dioxin, PCBs, PAHs, PCP, pesticides, lead,
arsenic and a whole host of other metals (some trace, some not). Destruction
and Removal Efficiencies (DREs) have typically been over 99.99 percent and the
99.9999 percent required for PCBs and dioxin has been shown to be achievable
in the RKS at the IRF.
8
-------
EVALUATION OF INCINERABILITY RANKING AT THE IRF
Another study carried out at the IRF involved the determination of the
relative destructibility of Principal Organic Hazardous Constituents (POHCs)
that may be contained in various hazardous waste incinerator (HWI) feeds.
EPA's performance standards for HWIs specify a minimum ORE that must be
achieved for each constituent that is designated as a "POHC" in the feed
during trial burns aimed at justifying the granting of a permit (by a State or
other granting authority) for long-term operation of a proposed HWI or other
thermal destructor (such as a boiler or industrial furnace, BIF). The
selection of the appropriate POHCs was often based on early indices of
incinerability, such as the use of the heat of combustion method or of auto-
ignition temperatures. To improve on this selection procedure, EPA/RREL
supported the University of Dayton Research Institute (UDRI) in carrying out
bench-scale research aimed at establishing a thermal stability-based
Incinerabi1ity Ranking Index for the approximately 333 compounds listed in
Appendix VIII in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The
objective of the study done at the IRF was to generate pilot-scale
incinerability data so that it could be compared to UDRI's bench-scale data.
The approach utilized was to incinerate mixtures of POHCs spanning the
Index from most- to least-difficult-to-destroy (UDRI's Class 1 to Class 7,
respectively) under several incinerator operating modes: (1)
baseline/typical; (2) thermal failure (quenching); (3) mixing failure
(overcharging); (4) matrix failure (low H/Cl ratio in the feed); and (5) a
"worst case" combination of the three failure modes. Then, these relative
POHC DRE results would be compared to those measured (or predicted) by the
UDRI Ranking Index.7
Table 5 gives the 12 POHCs that were tested at the IRF, their
concentration levels in the two mixtures that were run, and their UDRI-derived
T99's (i.e., the temperature required to achieve 99 percent destruction in two
seconds of residence time in a bench-scale unit operating under pyrolytic
conditions).8,9 It also gives the UDRI Rank and Stability Class.10 [The
results for nicotine were not reported, and diphenyl disulfide was substituted
for benzenethiol.] Figure 3 gives the results of the mixing failure test. As
can be seen, incineration failure was not achieved in that the DREs during
this test were uniformly above 99.99 percent. In Figure 4, the results from
9
-------
Table 5. POHC Levels
Tested and
Their Tw's,
Rank and CI
I ass
CormntmMon(Wt%)
Component
Malum 1
High WO
Mixlum 2
Lowhua
y2) rcj
Rank
StaMly
Ckm
Bmzmw
8
4
1,150
3
1
Chbrotmumw
8
4
990
22
1
T0tmchk>rotO)ww
8
33
890
43
2
12.2-Ttkhloto-
hU-TrifkHWlharm
(Fmon 113)
8
4
TOO
92
3
Bmnmthiai
8
4
725
122
3
NHmbmmm
8
4
855
150/151
4
Htmehbfoeyeiohtxum
(UfK$V»)
10
$
845
159
4
btemcMorMtm/m
10
25
58S
213
5
1.1,l-TricMorc»tham
10
5
545
233
5
p-Oim»myiaminomzobmmm
(mtttyl yicw)
10
5
-400
288
8
Nicetim
10
5
«320
288 » 289
7
N-n*rom>-dH\-buty1 amim
2
2
<320
318 IB 331
7
WCi(makM}
3.6
12
the "worst case" combination of failure mode conditions (i.e., the kiln was
run at only 640°C, the waste feed charging size was doubled to promote mixing
failure, and the chlorine content in the feed was elevated to promote matrix
failure). In this test, 8 of the 11 POHCs reported were detectable in the
kiln exit flue gas. Their DREs ranged from about 99.8 to almost 99.999
percent. Lindane had the highest ORE, and Freon 113 and 1,1,1 -
trichloroethane exhibited the lowest.10
a;
1 *1' '1* '£< W 'X' ;r P"-' vb $
^ 'm* ts* iM* 4{Mi iii
fm* 'B' >5 * *CC * ^ Jq 4 J J 4 *
StabMtyQm*
Figure 3. Kiln Exit POHC DREs for Mixing Failure Test
10
-------
11 234455«t7
Stability Ciam
H Dwwam POHC Not Dfcfd
Figure 4, Kiln Exit POHC DREs for "Worst Case" Test
The following was concluded from these tests10:
• Incineration failure was not achieved in the baseline, mixing
failure and matrix failure tests;
• The thermal failure and "worst case" tests did result in kiln POHC
destruction failure --- consequently, these results could be
compared with the UDRI Incinerability Ranking Index; in general, a
good correlation was found between observed and predicted ranking
order (a statistically significant correlation existed at the 95 to
97.5 percent confidence level); and
• Deviations from the expected were:
• Class 1 and Class 2 compounds were less stable (had greater
DREs) than the Class 3 compound Freon 113; and
• 1,1,1-trichloroethane was more stable than expected (perhaps
due to its formation as a PIC, a Product of Incomplete
Combustion).
METALS PARTITIONING/METALS CONTROL TESTS AT THE IRF
In a third series of pilot-scale tests conducted at the IRF, the
disposition of trace metals fed to a rotary kiln incinerator (the RKS) was
studied. The tests are summarized/highlighted in Table 6. A venturi scrubber
followed by a packed bed scrubber was tested in the first series of "metals"
tests, a single-stage ionizing wet scrubber (IWS) for the second, and a
Calvert Flux-Force/Condensation Scrubber System for the third.4"6,11 For
11
-------
purposes of brevity, only the first and second series of tests will be
reported upon here.
The objectives of the tests were to: (1) measure the distribution of
trace metals among kiln ash, scrubber liquor and flue gas; (2) determine the
distribution of trace metals in the flue gas particulate by particle size
Table 6. Metals Partitioning/Metals Control Tests Oone at the IRF
* Were conducted in a pilot-scale rotary kiln system using three different
primary air pollution control systems (APCSs):
• Venturi Scrubber/Packed-Column Scrubber (1988)
• Single-Stage Ionizing Wet Scrubber (1989)
• Calvert Flux-Force/Condensation Scrubber System (1991)
* Feed was a waste (clay-based sorbent spiked with organics and trace
metals):
• Organics: toluene, tetrachlorethylene, chlorobenzene
• Hazardous metals: arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury
• Nonhazardous metals: bismuth, copper, magnesium, strontium
* Variables tested were:
• Kiln temperature
• Afterburner temperature
• Feed chlorine content
• Scrubber pressure drop
range; (3) determine scrubber removal efficiencies for the trace metals; and
(4) investigate the effects of kiln temperature, afterburner temperature and
waste feed chlorine content on trace metal distributions.
The test variables and their ranges of study were:
• Kiln exit temperature: 1500, 1600, 17000F
(816, 871, 927°C)
• Afterburner exit temperature: 1800, 2000, 22000F
(952, 1093, 12040 C)
• Waste feed chlorine content: 0,4,8 percent
• Constant excess air
The average feed metal concentrations were as depicted in Table 7 (mercury was
not fed in the first two test series, but was in the third).11
12
-------
Table 7. Average Integrated Feed Metal Concentrations
Concentration (ng/kg)
Metal
Venturi/packed-coiunn
scrubber test series
Single-stage ionizing wet
scrubber test series
Arsenic
44
48
Barium
53
390
Bismuth
150
330
Cadmium
8
10
Chromium
87
40
Copper
470
380
Lead
52
45
Magnesium
17,200
18,800
Strontium
280
410
13
-------
Trace metal "volatility temperature" was used as a measure of a metal's
tendency to volatilize. It is defined as the temperature at which the
combined equilibrium vapor pressures of all species containing the metal is
10'6 atmosphere. The lower the volatility temperature, the more volatile the
metal is expected to be.12
Figure 5 gives the trace metal amounts found in each RKS venturi/packed
bed effluent stream (kiln ash, flue gas and scrubber liquor), normalized as a
percentage of the total amount found in all three streams, as a function of
that metal's volatility temperature. Figure 6 gives the same data for the IWS
tests. With the exception of arsenic, the average normalized kiln ash
percentage generally increased with increased volatility temperature.11
Figure 7 shows the effect of kiln exit temperature on the distributions
of cadmium, bismuth and lead for the IWS tests. As kiln temperature
increased, there was a significant decrease in the percentage of these metals
found in the kiln ash, with corresponding increases in the amounts of these
metals found in the flue gas and scrubber liquor. Kiln temperature had no
significant effect on the discharge distributions of the remaining metals.
The venturi/packed bed test series exhibited a less pronounced effect of kiln
temperature on the volatilities of the metals. Afterburner temperature had
essentially no effect on metals distributions for either test series
(venturi/packed bed or IWS).11
Figure 8 shows the effect of waste feed chlorine content on lead and
copper distributions during the venturi/packed bed tests. The IWS tests
showed, however, no effect on metal discharge distributions due to feed
chlorine variability.11
Figures 9 and 10 show the "apparent collection efficiency" (ACE) for
each metal as a function of volatility temperature for the venturi/packed bed
and IWS tests, respectively. The ACE is defined as the ratio of the
normalized metal fraction measured in the scrubber liquor to the sum of the
normalized metal fractions measured in the scrubber liquor and in the scrubber
exit flue gas.11
Figure 11 shows the fractions of the particulate metal found in the
less-than-10-micron size range during the IWS test series as a function of
kiln exit temperature.11
14
-------
KJLN ASH
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
VOLATILITY TEMPERATURE CO
SCRUBBER EXIT FLUE GAS
1600
200 400 600 100 1000 1200 1400
volatility temperature CO
1600
SCRUBBER LIQUOR
e
UJ
m
Z{
Z '
2
i
late
<
UJ
! 2
*
100
ao
;3 so
40
20
-
-
.Cd 7
Pb
-Ba
£A» ,
Bi i
I 1"
L i
200 400 800 100 1000 1200 1400
VOLATILITY TEMPERATURE CO
1600
Figure 5, Distribution of Metals in the RKS Discharge Streams
in the Venturi/Packed Bed Scrubber Tests
15
-------
*
2
100
80
60
40
20
0
KILN ASH
I*
•pd J ;
: 1
Or
«r
Ba
1
r Cy
-
m
' Cd
« -L
L 1
200 400 600 800 1000 1200
VOUmtfTY TEMPERATURE fC)
SCRUBBER EXIT FLUE OAS
1400
1600
O 80
"l
400 800 tOO 1000 1200
VOUmUTY TEMPERATURE fC)
•GRUBBER UOUOR
is
VCXATUTY TEMPERATURE fC)
1400
1600
Figure 6. Distribution of Metals in the RKS Discharge
Streams in the Single-Stage Ionizing Wet Scrubber
(IWS) Tests
16
-------
CA0MUM DtSCMAAGE DtSTOttUTlOMS
*
a
£
UJ
a
e
&
u. o
100
90
§
ft ao
70
KILN ASH S£ FLUE OAS UQUOR
BISMUTH WSCHARQC DtSTWSUTIONS
itrc
#71 *C
t2rc
KILN ASH 8C FLUE GAS
LIQUOR
L1AO OttCHAHQI OtlTWUmOMS
¦30
•ire
•71-C
MLMA3H «aU€OAS
LIQUOR
Figure 7. Effects of Kiln Temperature on the Discharge Distributions
of Cd. Bi and Pb in the IWS Tests
17
-------
3-
o
LU
tr
3
CO
<
yj
2
LEAD DISCHARGE DISTRIBUTIONS
O
*-
U.
o
« 20 -
s
c
KILN ASH SE FLUE GAS LIQUOR
COPPER DISCHARGE DISTRIBUTIONS
KILN ASH
SE RUE GAS
LIQUOR
Figure 8. Effects of Feed Chlorine Content on the Discharge
Distributions of Cu and Pb in the Venturi/Packed Bed Tests
18
-------
500 1000 1500
VOLATILITY TEMPERATURE f C)
2000
Figure 9. Apparent Collection Efficiencies (ACEs) for Metals During the
Venturi/Packed Bed Tests
500 1000 1500
VOLATILITY TEMPERATURE (*C)
2000
Figure 10. ACEs for Metals During the IWS Tests
19
-------
~ As
nCd
it
Bio
gPb
$
PCu
~ Ba
$ 816*C (1500*F)
• 871*0 (1600*F)
Q92TC (1700*F)
~ Mg
Sr q
1
if
vCr
SAMPLE
500 1000 1500
VOLATILITY TEMPERATURE (*C)
2000
Figure 11. Trace Metals in the Flue Gas Particulate that are
Less-Than-10-Microns for Varying Kiln Temperatures: IWS Tests
20
-------
Conclusions from these "metals" tests were:11
• Cd and Bi were relatively volatile (they averaged less
than 40 percent to the kiln ash);
• As, Ba, Cu, Cr, Mg and Sr were relatively non-volatile {>75 percent
to kiln ash);
• Pb averaged 20 percent to the kiln ash during the venturi/packed bed
tests, but 82 percent during the IWS tests (difference may be due to
the strong effect that chlorine has on lead's volatility
temperature);
• The relative metal volatilities agree with vapor
pressure/equilibrium predictions, except for As, which was much less
volatile than expected (perhaps it forms a thermally stable compound
in the kiln or becomes physically bound in the solid matrix);
• The non-volatile behavior of As is consistent with other IRF
treatability studies;
• The volatility of Cd, Bi and Pb increased with increasing kiln
temperature;
• The volatility of Cu and Pb increased with increasing chlorine
content in the waste feed (but only during the venturi/packed bed
tests);
• Afterburner temperature had no effect on metal discharge
distributions;
• Average metals removal efficiencies during the venturi/packed bed
tests ranged from 31 to 88 percent (overall average was 57 percent);
during the IWS tests, they ranged from 22 to 71 percent (overall
average was 43 percent); and
• Scrubber efficiencies were generally higher for the less volatile
metals.
INVESTIGATION OF BOILER "HYSTERESIS" IN WILLIAMSPORT
The "hysteresis" effect associated with boilers that co-fire hazardous
waste (that is, their reported tendency to release organics from the stack
even after co-firing has ceased) was studied in detai1 by EPA/RREL and their
contractor, the Midwest Research Institute (MRI), during tests carried out at
a full-scale 17.5 million (MM) Btu/hour boiler site owned by Tampela/Keeler in
Wi11iamsport, Pennsylvania. The objective of the tests was to evaluate the
21
-------
sorption and desorption of organic compounds on combustion-generated soot
during the co-firing of hazardous organics with fuel oil in a full-scale
boiler. The tests were accomplished by firing a watertube package boiler at
very low load, actually under a "smoking", sooty condition, while spiking
moderate levels of hazardous organic compounds into the fuel.13
Figure 12 shows a schematic of the test unit. Table 8 summarizes the
test conditions, run length, experimental design and sampling matrix utilized
during the tests. Figure 13 depicts a schematic of the soot probes used.
These probes were used in addition to soot collection shields that were
attached to the boiler tubes. Soot scrapings were also taken after the tests.
Key process conditions are given in Table 9. Run 1 was a background
test on natural gas only. Run 2 was the baseline test on fuel oil only. Run
3, which lasted 24 hours, featured the co-firing of POHCs in a non-sooting
mode, while Run 4 was for 51 hours in the sooting condition. The hysteresis
run followed that, as Run 5, and lasted for 73 hours without any co-firing of
POHCs. Run 6 was during a cold furnace situation, which of course followed a
furnace cooldown period. The test results are shown in Figure 14 for the
various Runs ^except for Run 6). It gives the stack gas concentrations, in
nanograms/1 iter, of the two POHCs tested, trichloroethylene (TCE) and
monochlorobenzene (MCB), as a function of run length (the concentrations
having been gotten by use of EPA's Volatile Organic Sampling Train, the
"VOST"). As can be seen from the blow-up of Run 5, the measured POHC
concentrations during the hysteresis period (Run 5) were much lower than
during the "normal" POHC co-firing periods, both Runs 3 and 4. In fact, the
results showed that the ratio of mass emitted during hysteresis to the mass
emitted during soot formation was 10.5 percent for TCE and 5.5 percent for
MCB.13 Because these ratios were so small, it is considered that hysteresis
would have little effect on the overall process of determining ORE after the
boiler's co-firing operation is re-started.1
22
-------
Figure 12. Keeler Watertube Package Boiler: Top View
r
Collectors ( Numbered )
Ma
s.
nzir
* t"
I VMM
(Fmim
¦
Figure 13. Soot Probe Schematic
23
-------
Tab1e 8, Experimental Design and Sampling Matrix
Ran N«,Aa*i comditxm
1, Ntaral fm
(background)
Z No.« Moil
(baeiprxind)
Ran Imfth
4 h
«h
VOST
Or» *0- h iMB
of Moil ami
» -
Mfmni •*
r*c I Moot-
•Kh POHC for
oolWnf
ran (tannb*
owk 4*f of
ma. 4 h
MiwlMB
fpoai hoOor tal*
wWi ae
ooflrtat
^rato4tkla*B
r««(Wio*taf
ndUli«
«io«Mi
MfllM-
«
wtra|
taf 23kta»
IBM)
n>
IM|K«
71 h
Oa 40-mfci aanpla
1taiH
2 groepe o# $ ¦*
.
fOBCaQvwmto)
(0Olw^ 10.) A. 3A. aa4 23 A. mpaattvoiy}.
QCaMiatyofnrtt MfAKJW ikr POUC« ^NNlMMMi mmtwIMmmtfimi) mi mkmmi HCa.
V09T-Vot«ai areata aMrtacvatafcrTofcdbPOtiCaaMlPICKMMMOOW). T*i **<§ *mmyttyfci «'iii iirtteHlw
—h*. «*fla mm mi ¦¦In »>»— wp ¦¦!)¦¦¦ (ilitm* mt. 3640. mi tUO\.
IOI3 ¦ Mi M1M MaOad 5 tm a—|i nMI» PtCt (Httmd 0810), tmifwti fcy Ift^mi ttTO.
Sooc ® T^wa tyyoa of
1, S«MMpii|MMMMMfiotaa*Me4My-MicallK«a*m. Tlwapabw J— Ifcwlywitiam—pftg louHw (ftimaw and floa).
Boa>**a»*of aaayjoa w»*w«f—i wawwulwlaprato. CoSmmb aon faiakJ} imnilM ta iMm proto «d carafalty MMadantil
mmirh
2> Srialii w*ow claw^poi o^o axirtR^ toilia tofcoa frtor so tfca iwt fcr oaSaalloB af aoo< tfcrowjlwaf fea •riw wrtafc
). of mm t«B *a «iIk>h bo4hr wmn cotiaomhl* >>i im kfwmmrn —teg.
torn* m Om M «4I ¦>> ¦ «oba naiyaad. mi arfiithwl —»>aa wfli to «*>»»¦<¦ fOHC aaraplaa »ffl to afrti*o4
24
-------
Table 9. Key Process Conditions
Rao NoV
Appro*,
duration
Pamaca
temp.*
Nominal
toad*
Faai
flow
POHC
faad rato (fcA)
POHC cofirinf
ratt-volamttric
bvi« (% loui)
Opacity
Taat condition
(b)
<°F)
(Ib/b)
raM*
TCE
MO
TCE
MCB
Total
<*>
1. Nataralpa
(bacfcfroaad)
4
930-U30
3000
39 eft
(N.O.)
0
0
0
0
0
o'
2. PaalotJ
(bactfroasd)
6
963-1090
3000
0
0
0
0
0
0*
3. POHC cofirinf
(noaaooting)
24
933-1007
3000
»«j*
16.7
1X4
4J
4.4
I.I
6-8
4. POHC eoflriag
(aootiag)
31
934-1061
2700
apk
164/M*
13J/7-4*
4J/130
4M.T*
9.1/3 J*
11-22
3. NmraJ (a
(byataraaia)
73
910-1070
2300
40 eft
(NX3.)
0
0
0
0
0
0-10
'Moaitorad at wet proba poadoaad mm Mbr Um. Notr Th« Am pm MpMM mmltmti Mlocaricaof boilar oaUttaoot
pnta, ranjad boa 330 to 376°F.
'Nominal Mum pitoaaii wa 100 paif.
*No. (Moil anbaa aotad"N.O." for MtarsJ gm.
baaaHae drift otwcrvd.
•initially. cofirinj ram for Ran 4 caatfciaad m rtn Mm ratu m taring Ran 3. After (boat 3 h. coflriaf »¦ Moppad for aboat 4 K.
tea raaaawd at aboat JO* oi
-------
1100
wm
1000 -
900 -
800 -
700 -
m
Run 4
600 -
500 -
400 - Baseline
Conditions
300 - (Runs 1-2)
2qq p,
• m
Run 5
Run 3
100 -
Nat
130
150
90
110
70
50
30
-10
10
30
Tim# Mir Start of Coflring (h)
TrtehIoro«thyline Monochlorobenzen#
Figure 14. POHC Stack Gas Concentrations from VOST
26
-------
The DREs during Runs 3 and 4 are given in Table 10. During the sooting
period(s), the average DREs ranged from 99.986 to 99,9913 percent. During the
non-sooting condition, POHC DREs averaged 99.9945 percent.
The average stack gas concentrations of total POHCs and total PICs are
given in Figure 15. Note that the total volatile PICs were found at levels
similar to the POHCs; interestingly, benzene made up much of the total PICs.13
Note also that total POHC emissions during the sooting period were almost
twice what they were during the non-sooting period; total PICs were
approximately six times greater.
The average levels of major PICs (other than benzene) are shown in
Figure 16. The highest levels of volatile PICs occurred during the sooting
period; they were benzene, 1,1-dichloroethylene (DCE), methylene chloride
(MeCl2), dichlorobenzenes (DCBz's) and toluene. The major semi-volatile PICs
were naphthalene and phthaiic anhydride.
Some of the conclusions from these "hysteresis" tests were;15
• The hysteresis effect is real and is measurable (however, the
ratio of mass of POHCs emitted during hysteresis to the mass
emitted during the POHC co-firing/sooting period was found to be
only 5 to 10 percent);
• The extent of hysteresis is compound-specific, apparently relating
to physical and chemical properties such as volatility or
molecular size.
27
-------
Table 10. DREs During POHC Co-firing
Ran
No.
Te* coodttwa
No. of
umpla
pain
Tnchloratfrytew (TCE) MooocMorofeeaseot (MCB)
3
POHC
M>firin#/T>of»«Kjn|
11
99.9*7 (99.mi-99.9975)
99.9943 (99.9913-99.9974)
4a
POHC
cofirinf^oothg*
3
99.9904 (99.9I7-99.9945)
99.9913 (99.989-99.9929)
4%
POHC
co A i n0ootB|^
27
99.916 (99.931-99.9972)
99.917 (99.970-99.9972)
New Th» iwmb« of DRE dMMminaifcm w» in unm m mmkm of VOST nmpti pain far aach M ceadMm Each DUE w» baaed
apoa tm POHC o*tpm ma from oaa VOST pa* and *• POHC inprt raa froai 4m claim mmHmj *k parted wt* faad date.
*MM tufthm nM noniniBy tlw mom m Km 3.
coflrini mi to (^proxiBMNiiy 50% Ami
-------
Run 2 Run 3 Run 4A Run 40 Run 5A Run SB Run 5C
Total POHCsdD Total Vol. PIC»E=! Benzene czx Total SemiVol. PICs
Figure 15. Average Stack Levels of POHCs and PICs
Run 2 Run 3 Run 4A Run 48
OCE GZSZS MeCl2 mm OCiz't CZZ3 Toiuent
Run 5A Run 58 Run 5C
Naph. S3Z3 Phthalic Anhdride
Figure 16, Average Stack Levels of Major PICs
29
-------
SIMULATED SOLAR DESTRUCTION "MINI-PILOT" TESTS IN KANSAS CITY14
EPA's Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) is also involved in
developing innovative thermal destruction technologies, both for
"conventional" hazardous wastes and for contaminated soils (i.e., Superfund
wastes). RREL has a large program aimed at this latter group of wastes; it is
called the "Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation" (SITE) Program. Table
11 lists two such studies (demonstration tests) which have been or will be
carried out at RREL's pilot facility in Jefferson, Arkansas --- i.e., at the
IRF.
Table 11. IRF's "SITE" Tests
Process Developer Process/Thrust When (To Be) Conducted
•American Combustion "Pyretron" (Oxygen-enhanced Dec '87 - Jan '88
combustion)
•Sonentech Acoustically-enhanced (Apr '94 - May '94)
combustion
Other innovative "thermal" technologies under RREL development and/or
evaluation include:
• Horsehead's Flame Reactor Technology;15
• Babcock & Wilcox's Cyclone Furnace
Vitrification Technology;16
• Retech's Plasma Process;17 and
• Midwest Research Institute's Solar Soil
Detoxication Technology.14
This latter innovative technology will be highlighted below.
A Tri-Agency effort was initiated in 1991 to develop solar technology
for the destruction of hazardous wastes. The three Agencies are DOD
(USATHAMA), DOE (NREL) and EPA (RREL). To do their part, RREL contracted with
the Midwest Research Institute (MRI) to design, build and test a Mini-Pilot
Solar Reactor System (MSRS). The MSRS was to be tested at MRI's facilities in
Kansas City, Missouri, in a non-solar mode (to de-bug the unit, learn how to
operate it, solve any sampling and analysis problems that may arise, etc), and
then transported to DOE's "High-Flux Solar Facility" located at the National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colorado, so that testing in the
"on-sun" mode could be accomplished.
30
-------
One of the primary purposes of the tests done on the MSRS was to
show that the solar technology offers clear advantages over conventional
incineration in destroying hazardous waste --- namely, better (higher) DREs
and lower levels of PICs in the exhaust gases. To show these advantages, a
dual chamber MSRS was chosen. The MSRS is shown schematically in Figure 17
and a section view of the Solar Detoxification Reactor is shown in Figure 18.
This EPA/RREL project did not envision the direct use of solar energy to
desorb organics from contaminated soils. Instead, it was decided to use solar
energy to destroy the organics already driven off of soil by the use of
conventional low-temperature soil desorption techniques, with recovery of the
desorbed organics in 1iquid form. This concept allows all kinds of soils to
be decontaminated where they exist, with the recovered desorbed organics
shipped as a liquid to the places where it makes economic sense to locate
effective solar destructors. It also allows the soil desorption operations to
be continuous and not subject to the intermittent characteristics of (most)
solar energy systems. It also permits the solar destructor to be fairly
small, because it only must treat the small amount of organics recovered from
the soil in liquid form.14
The results of the "off-sun" tests by MRI in Kansas City are given in
Table 12, along with the results of their "simulated solar" tests done there
by using an artificial UV (ultraviolet) light. The shaded areas of Table 12
shown the four UV-light tests as compared to the six "conventional incinera-
tion" ones.14
Major conclusions from these "Simulated Solar" and "conventional HWI"
tests were:14
• DREs for the four POHCs tested were all above 99.999 percent;
• It will be possible to quantify any significant decrease in
emissions (when the solar/"on-sun" tests are done at NREL) of
volatile/semi-volatile PICs and of 2 of the 4 POHCs tested (CC14 and
DCB) [but not for toluene and naphthalene]; and
• Tests with artificial UV light showed a significant decrease in
emissions of volatile PICs when operating in the single-chamber mode
(but not in the dual-chamber mode, though the PIC levels were a lot
lower in this mode); they did not show a significant decrease for
semi-volatile PICs, nor for any of the four POHCs tested.
31
-------
CommtiMKl Air
liquid Organc Few ^ j-^~
til ChamD«f
1 c
J c_
2n<3 Chamoer
\y
Qwm
i Window
Gat Effluent
Discharge
Gat Pump
Carbon
Bad
Gas
Cootar
rcw
Alumina
NaOM
Water
Separator
Figure 17. Schematic Diagram of the Mini-Pilot Solar Reactor System
10 000 DIA
8j
to 500 DU
36 000
¦ ii m au ttiMTi iwaai
Figure 18. Solar Detoxification Reactor (Section View)
32
-------
Table 12. Summary of Results from the MSRS Tests (Runs 31 through 40)
Dual chamtaat
Un*«
Run 3t
Hun 34
fen 32
Hun 33 «un 35'
Run 3a|
Bun37| «UB»t
Oommna Corxitons
Sacondvy iimow
Liquet oi^rac low rate
UVM«
o,i
»ima
iBtfThlnfiilt
VotoMai tamnunl (X on* tip P—>
Canon Mnuiofai
loktana
TattfPtCi
Sam««4aliat
DEHoKJbaiuana
Tout PtCi
MM5 umpt* voluma
POHC and PIC ooncanlratanj
Oa*tm and fmani
Ftaam
Tot*
Blank*
Carbon iMiacNotKto
lokiana
Volaaia PlCt
DcNorotMnjrana
Naphthalana
SarowoiaUa PICs
Ooim
Ftxan
Low tow Low (a
melmn 4 14 423
inlAntn 4 10 4 82
Vm at Mo No No
% 83 SO
am J1 7 0
%
%
%
%
"0
"0
"8
Law fc)W
43*
*2*
YW
M
M
a.
WiMMwO
784
785
No
123
4 0
7 44
7 45
No
tit
4,2
H^iflow
•,17
Yaa
4.0
iwi ftftftAea rm mMUMi
Mr wMMRSO OTP XPMRMm
m AMAC4 oaoaooM
99999997$ 999999965 99990MM
99.99040 WWH*
BO 000611 90009010 06.990829
B00S0005 90.900838
Low (our
4.38
4 10
No
42
133
09 099081
00000885
H^h now
784
7 77
No
87
78
H^llOl
in
?8»
Ym
9.7
IB
u&m
¦is*
rn
m i
I
«
09099049 90900014
09999035 00000041
99 '
909009024 909999944 909900077
90 00043 9099949
m OOBBO fat tMi QQOtlUtrt Qfi
IK* WIMMJ&IV KinRHMKI PfVnWOT
9999049 9099835
Vrfuma aanylad L
POHC and PIC concanfaaon* p^dicm
MO
MO
M
diem
lagntKm
HO
M
M
"9
"0
"9
M0
CO
M0
HO
HO
21 0
58
4,685
18 12
280
022
3 70
1.560
0617
2,535
<40
<40
85
006
4 32
225
0000618
0 0000776
372
81 2
8,882
1880
370
0 38
7 72
3.248
0812
5.320
0 00181
000871
0 01032
<40
< 52
tu
%*n
1M4
H
ft*
in
3L354
0.494
4.7)9
124 0
235
4.824
2087
238
088
800
4.018
0 751
5.362
8.J
58
<40
<40
469
41 8
5.827
16 76
315
068
7 72
2.014
0815
2.481
0 00316
002102
002508
<40
<40
158.7
191
1.823
1894
108
0-30
780
3.714
0824
4.517
136
15 1
779
19 20
42
021
555
2,148
0604
3.566
< 4.0
<4,4
<40
76
40 9
220
885
1929
50
0 45
909
3,579
0 726
4.943
000655
0 04470
005125
<40
<40
129J
278
1079
1918
84
0.1$
S*t
2,331
0801
24118
001082
007802
008884
<40
7.7
wwwMn
99J8981 .
230.0
M .r
1.088
19 4$
1.M
5.7S
14271
0802
17*09
000026
004134
0M7S*
<40
<40
**u«lat» lual (luel ot) was bad m Hunt 35 arid 36 to mamlam oparamg lampwaluta Our mo Btasa last* with UV Ughl in ma singla chambef mod#
(Piopana was had in tha aaoond chambar m Hum 37. 38 and 39 to mamtan fta oparatng lampaialuta « *i» sacand chambat
(VotaMa POHC/P1C concanaafons (VHP •"*» 42 370 wXdicm. winch n aquvalanl lo 0 010 0 088 ppm. (atiummg an appfowmaia «v«aga MW ol 100)
fSamwolaMa POMC/PIC amcanvalions tango trom 2,481 17.803 M0«licm. wNch it aquwalarM id 0 40 ? 88 ppm, (aisumino an appioitmala avwaga MW ol I50|
-------
CONCLUSION
Recent research directed by EPA's Cincinnati-based Risk Reduction
Engineering Laboratory in the Hazardous Waste Thermal Destruction area has
been discussed in this Paper, Five major Testing Programs have been
described; they centered on: (1) Soil Decontamination; (2) Incinerabi1ity
Ranking; (3) Metals Partitioning/Metals Control; (4) Hysteresis; and (5)
Simulated Solar Destruction. Test results and conclusions have been provided
for each Program,
34
-------
REFERENCES
1. Dempsey, C.R., and Oppelt, E.T.", "Incineration of Hazardous Waste: A
Critical Review Update," Journal of Air and Waste Management, Vol 43,
January 1993.
2. Lee, C.C. and Huffman, G.L., "Minimization of Combustion By-products:
Regulatory Framework", Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials. Vol. 8,
No. 4, 1991.
3. Fact Sheet: Hazardous Waste Combustion in the U.S. (as of July 1,
1993), handout from EPA's "Combustion Roundtable" Meeting held in
Washington, D.C., November 17-18, 1993.
4. Operations and Research at the U.S. EPA Incineration Research Facility:
Annual Report for FY90, partial report of work done under Contract No.
68-C9-Q038 by Acurex Corporation. EPA/600/9-91/010, April 1991.
5. Operations and Research at the U.S. EPA Incineration Research Facility:
Annual Report for FY91, partial report of work done under Contract No.
68-C9-0038 by Acurex Corporation. EPA/600/R-92/051, March 1992.
6. Operations and Research at the U.S. EPA Incineration Research Facility:
Annual Report for FY92, partial report of work done under Contract No.
68-C9-0038 by Acurex Environmental Corporation. EPA/600/R-93/087,
June 1993.
7. Carroll, 6.J., et al, "Pilot-Scale Evaluation of an Incinerability
Ranking System for Hazardous Organic Compounds," Journal of Air and
Waste Management. Vol. 42, No. 11, November 1992.
8. Taylor, P., et al, "Development of a Thermal Stability-Based Ranking of
Hazardous Organic Compound Incinerabi1ity, " Environmental Science &
Technology, Vol. 24, No. 3, 1990.
9. Lee, C.C., Huffman, G.L. and Sasseville, S., "Incinerability Ranking
Systems for RCRA Hazardous Constituents," Hazardous Waste & Hazardous
Materials. Vol. 7, No. 4, 1990.
10. Lee, J.W., et al., "Project Summary: Pilot-Scale Evaluation of the
Thermal Stability POHC Incinerability Ranking", EPA/600/SR-92/065, May
1992.
11. Fournier, O.J., Carroll, G.J., et al., "The Behavior of Trace Metals in
Rotary Kiln Incineration: Results of Incineration Research Facility
Studies," in Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual RREL Hazardous Waste
Research Symposium. EPA/600/9-91/002, April 1991.
35
-------
12. Barton, R.G., et al., "Fate of Metals in Combustion Systems." Paper
presented at the First Congress on Toxic Combustion By-Products, Los
Angeles, California, August 1989. Accepted for publication: Combustion
Science and Technology.
13. Hinshaw, G.D., Huffman, G.L., et al., "Sorption and Desorption of POHCs
and PICs in a Full-Scale Boiler Under Sooting Conditions," in
Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual RREl Hazardous Waste Research
Symposium, EPA/600/9-90/037, August 1990.
14. Gorman, P., Ball, E., et al., "Soil Detoxification Using Solar
Technology: The Result of EPA's Part of the Tri-Agency Effort," in
Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual RREL Hazardous Waste Research
Symposium. EPA/600/R-93/040, April 1993.
15. Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc., Flame Reactor Technology:
Applications Analysis Report, EPA/540/AS-91/005, May 1992.
16. Babcock & Wilcox Cyclone Furnace Vitrification Technology: Applications
Analysis Report, EPA/540/AR-92/017, August 1992.
17. Retech, Inc., Plasma Centrifugal Furnace: Applications Analysis Report,
EPA/540/A5-91/007, June 1992,
36
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before compl
1 REPORT NO. 2.
EPA/600/A-94/211
«
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
U.S. EPA Applied Research in Hazardous Waste Thermal
Destruction
5. REPORT DATE
March 1994
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION COOE
?. AUTHOR(S)
George L. Huffman and Gregory J. Carroll
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
In-house
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT ANO PERIOD COVEREO
Published Paper
14. SPONSORING AGENCY COOE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
For questions or comments, contact G.L. Huffman (513/569-7431) Pages 1-36
Presented at the Basics Course at the 1994 Incineration Conference,*Houston TX,May 1994
18. ABSTRACT
In this Paper, the results of five major testing programs of the U.S.
EPA's Cincinnati-based Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) are
described. Three of the five programs were carried out at RREL's Incineration
Research Facility (IRF), a fully-permitted pilot plant operation located in
Jefferson, Arkansas. The fourth program was conducted at a full-scalp boiler
site in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, while the fifth series of tests was done
on the "mini-pilot" scale in Kansas City, Missouri. All five testing programs
featured various aspects of the thermal destruction of hazardous wastes [the
first on soil decontamination, the second on evaluating the recently-developed
EPA/RREL Incinerability Ranking Index, the third on metals partitioning during
incineration, the fourth on investigating the "hysteresis" phenomenon
associated with boilers, and the fifth on simulated solar destruction (one of
several innovative technologies under development by RREL)].
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b. IOENTIF1ERS/OPEN ENOED TERMS
c. cosati Field/Group
Hazardous waste incineration research,
thermal destruction, soil decontamina-
tion, metals, solar destruction
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO THE PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
40
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (R«*. 4-77) previous edition is obsolete
------- |