EPA/600/D-89/116
PERFORMANCE OF EMISSIONS CONTROL SYSTEMS ON MUNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
Theodore G. Brnaa, Michael G. Johnston13, Clyde E. Riley11, and Charles C. Masser3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Regulations for municipal waste combustors (MWCs) are being developed by
EPA under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. To support this effort, data on
gaseous pollutant emissions from MWCs and emissions control by flue gas clean-
ing systems are being collected and evaluated. Several EPA-supported field tests
on modern MWCs have been performed and are reported here. The results are re-
ported in terms of acid gas, trace organic, trace heavy metal, and particulate
matter reductions for units having lime spray dryer/fabric filter (SD/FF) and
lime spray dryer/electrostatic precipitator (SD/ESP) controls. Both control
technologies achieved over 90% removal of HC1 in the four tests reported. The
three SD/FF systems removed 99% of the entering chlorinated dioxins/furans. The
SD/ESP achieved 62% removal of the entering dioxins/furans. Metals (except
mercury) and particulate matter control by the SD/FF systems was greater than
98%, while similar measurements were not made for the SD/ESP system.
Presented at the
1989 Annual Meeting of the Air & Waste Management Association
Anaheim, CA.
June 25-30, 1989
This paper has been reviewed in accordance with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's peer and administrative review policies and approved for presentation
and publication.
a Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
b Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
-------
NOTICE
This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S, Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
89-109.2
INTRODUCTION
In July 1987, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) announced its intent to regulate municipal waste combustors
(MWC's) under Section ill of the Clean Air Act.1 This
announcement was made concurrently with the issuance of a Report
to Congress' on MWC's which summarized information gathered by
EPA on the population and distribution of MWC's, MWC emissions,
good combustion practices, flue gas cleaning technologies,
sampling and analysis methods, and risk assessment. The
emissions data base in this study focuses on four air pollutant
categories: acid gases (HC1, SO,), trace organic compounds
(primarily dioxins and furans), trace metals, and particulate
matter. The report influenced the structure of an EPA field test
program by revealing areas where additional data were needed to
support EPA's regulatory development effort. The report also
provided information on sites where modern MWC technology was
being used.
Major components of the on-going EPA field test program are
to characterize and to determine the performance of flue gas
cleaning systems used with modern MWC units in the U. S. Work
reported here focuses on results of emission tests conducted
across several flue gas cleaning systems. In the EPA program,
effective flue gas cleaning is being studied as a complement to
efficient municipal solid waste (MSW) combustion for minimizing
air pollutant emissions as well as emissions to other media. The
fact that modern flue gas cleaning systems can effectively reduce
pollutant emissions from MWC's should not preclude minimizing
combustor emissions through the employment of good combustion
practices*1
In the United States, state-of-the-art MWC units now often
use a lime spray dryer absorber (SD) for acid gas control in
conjunction with either a fabric filter (FF) or an electrostatic
precipitator (ESP) for particulate matter control. These dry
scrubber combinations are also effective in removing the other
pollutants such as toxic organics (dioxins/furans) and metals.
Field test results are reported here for three SD/FF systems and
one SD/ESP system. Test objectives at each test site were
identical and included (1) characterization of selected pollutant
emissions leaving the combustors, and (2) evaluation of the
performance of the SD/FF's and SD/ESP on the selected pollutants.
TEST PROGRAM
The EPA field test program for MWC's currently encompasses
five sites and involves three mass burn (KB) and two refuse-
derived fuel (RDF) units. A description of each test site and
the scope of emissions testing is discussed below.
2
-------
89-109.2
Two of the mass burn units for which EPA tests have been
completed (Marion County, OR, and Millbury, MA) are conventional
waterwall energy recovery units. The Marion County facility is
owned and operated by Ogden Martin Systems, Inc., and consists of
two 275-tpd* combustors with an SD/FF (Teller) control system.
Testing at Marion County at the inlet and outlet of the SD/FF for
dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDD), chlorinated diben2o-furans (CDF), heavy
metals, and particulate matter, as well as outlet only
measurements for acid gases (S02 and HCl), carbon monoxide (CO),
and nitrogen oxides (N0X), was conducted in September 1986 under
normal combustor and SD/FF operating conditions.' Similar tests
under start-up and shutdown conditions were conducted in June
1987.5-* Because of low internal standard recoveries in the
CDD/CDF analysis for samples at the spray dryer inlet in EPA's
September 1986 test, additional inlet gas samples were collected
in February 1987.
Further testing at Marion County was to consist of two
planned phases, characterization and performance. The
characterization phase was completed in June 1987 and consisted
of an evaluation of the combustor and the SD/FF under a variety
of operating conditions. The performance test phase was not
undertaken because modifications to the spray dryer system to
allow independent control of the approach to saturation
temperature and reagent (stoichiometric) ratio were not completed
by the facility.
The tests at Millbury, MA, on one of the two 750-tpd mass
burn units were made during permit compliance testing in February
1988.7 The unit is equipped with an SD/ESP. The EPA sponsored
the collection of CDD/CDF samples at the inlet to the SD and the
facility, owned and operated by Wheelabrator Environmental
Systems, Inc., sponsored the collection for similar samples at
the outlet of the ESP. All tests were performed by the same
contractor.
The third mass burn unit, Montgomery County South in Dayton,
OH, is a municipally owned refractory wall unit with three
300-tpd rotary kiln combustors. The incinerator includes a
primary ignition and combustion chamber, a rotary kiln, a
secondary mixing chamber where combustion is completed, and a
spray quench chamber followed by an ESP. Limestone is injected
into the furnace for acid gas control. The EPA testing at Dayton
began in October 1988 and was completed in December 1988. Tests
were conducted at different ESP temperatures and sorbent addition
rates, both into the furnace and into the duct, to evaluate the
*The Appendix provides English to metric unit conversions.
3
-------
89-109.2
effects of temperature and sorbent rate on the control of the
full range of MWC air emissions. Results will be available in-
August .
Emissions testing at the two RDF units were conducted
simultaneously with permit compliance tests. Tests at the Maine
Energy Recovery Company 600-tpd (2 units) Biddeford, ME, facility
were performed in December 1987*, and those on the Combustion
Engineering 2000-tpd (three units) Mid-Connecticut facility in
Hartford were performed in July 1988.' Both facilities were
tested at the inlet and outlet of the SD/FF control system.
Extensive characterization and performance tests on the Hartford
unit were also performed in January and February 1989 as part of
a joint Environment Canada/EPA project. The acid gas test
results of the characterization test were recently reported but
are not discussed here.
The samples collected during the test program may be placed
into two main categories: flue gas samples and process stream
samples. The emission measurements were obtained from the flue
gas samples by both manual methods and instruments, and from the
process stream samples (ash, residue, lime slurry, and Tesisorb).
An integral part of all testing was the monitoring and
recording of combustor and control device operating data.
Combustor operating conditions typically monitored included
underfire and overfire air flows, gas temperatures at selected
points, steam flow, CO, Oz, and CO,. Air pollution control device
operating conditions monitored included inlet and outlet gas
temperatures, sorbent feed rates, inlet SO, concentrations,
fabric filter pressure drop, and ESP electrical conditions. The
operating data were generally obtained in part from facility
measurements and in part from measurements using test contractor
or EPA equipment. In most cases air emission test measurements
were subject to EPA quality control and quality assurance
requirements.
DISCUSSION OF DATA AND RESULTS
CDD/CDF
Results of the CDD/CDF measurements obtained during normal
operation at each site are given in Table I. Comparison of the
average uncontrolled CDD and CDF results shows that the
uncontrolled CDF values were at least twice the CDD values at
each site. The RDF units equipped with SD/FF's had the highest
uncontrolled CDD and CDF emissions (about 900 ng/dscm) and the
highest removal efficiencies (>99%). With the exception of
Millbury, CDD removal exceeded 96%, CDF removal exceeded 99%, and
total CDD+CDF removal exceeded 98% at all sites tested.
4
-------
89-109.2
Millbury, which had the lowest uncontrolled organic emissions
recorded, achieved the lowest average removal efficiencies, 66.6,
60.5, and 62% for CDD, CDF, and CDD+CDF, respectively. With the
exception of Millbury, total controlled CDD+CDF emissions were
less than 5 ng/dscm for all sites. The CDD + CDF outlet
concentration at Millbury was 62 ng/dscm.
The results obtained clearly demonstrate that SD/FF systems
applied either to mass burn or RDF combustors are very effective
in controlling CDD + CDF emissions. All three systems tested
achieved better than 98% control. In contrast, the SD/ESP tested
achieved only 62% control. Although the ESP operated at 255°F
and was demonstrated to be an effective particulate collector
achieving an outlet concentration of 0.002 gr/dscf (conditions
favoring good CDD/CDF control), the SD/ESP was not as effective
as the SD/FF in reducing CDD + CDF emissions. It can be
speculated that some additional control of organics is achieved
by the FF's as a result of the adsorption of condensible organics
on the particulate cake collected on the FF bags.
It should be noted that combustion conditions at Biddeford
and Mid-Conn were not optimized. Biddeford was experiencing
problems with the RDF feed conveyor, resulting in some temporal,
non-uniform combustion conditions as evidenced by periodic
increases in CO emission levels. Also, Mid-Conn had not
completed all of their combustor performance tests to optimi2e
the RDF combustor. The less than optimum combustion conditions
at Mid-Conn were evidenced by relatively high CO levels. Valid
comparisons of relative furnace emissions between RDF and mass
burn combustors should be attempted only after optimum operating
conditions are obtained in RDF combustors.
Acid Gases
Data on HC1 concentrations in the flue gas were collected
at all sites. Performance data for each run (corrected to
12% COj), including measured inlet/outlet concentrations and
removal efficiencies achieved, are shown in Table II. The
overall removal efficiency across the SD and FF averaged 90.7%
for the baseline tests at Marion County when the HC1 inlet
concentration averaged 639 ppmv and the SD outlet temperature was
300°F. About 75% of the total HC1 removal occurred in the SD.
During tests when the SD outlet temperature was varied from the
baseline value of 300°F, the overall HCl removal changed as
expected. It decreased to 78 and 71.5% at 330 and 360°F,
respectively, and increased to 97.5% at an outlet temperature of
262°F. The HCl removal across the SD during these test runs
ranged from 58 to 78%.
5
-------
89-109.2
Although the average inlet HC1 concentrations at the three
other test sites were different than at Marion County, higher at
Hillbury, and lower at Biddeford and Hartford, the overall HC1
removals were higher than at Marion County. Each sample run at
all three sites recorded better than 98% removal, and the average
of all sample runs for all three sites exceeded 99%. A likely
contributing factor to the better performance demonstrated at
these three sites is the SD outlet temperature. The SD outlet
temperatures and particulate collector outlet temperatures were
lower at the three sites than at Marion County. The average SD
temperature at Millbury, which has an SD/ESP system, was the
lowest at 255°F. The SD temperatures at Biddeford and Hartford,
both SD/FF systems, were 278 and 27i°F, respectively. Another
factor could be differences in the quantity of sorbent added.
However, because sorbent stoichiometric ratios at Marion County
and Biddeford could not be determined accurately, performance
related to sorbent variations cannot be compared.
Table III presents SO, data for the Marion County,
Biddeford, and Millbury tests. No SO, removal data were obtained
during the Hartford tests. At baseline conditions, the SD/FF
unit at Marion County achieved an overall SO, removal of 44%,
with about 33% SO, removal in the SD, at an average inlet SO,
concentration of 429 ppmv (dry, corrected to 12% CO,). The lime
slurry feed to the SD is prepared at a fixed solids
concentration, and the slurry feed rate is used to control the SD
outlet temperature. Thus, increasing the lime slurry feed rate
at a given unit steam load increases the reagent (stoichiometric)
ratio and simultaneously decreases the SD outlet gas temperature.
The flue gas cleaning systems at Biddeford, Millbury, and
Hartford are designed to control the reagent ratio and SD outlet
temperature independently. The average SO, removals measured for
all runs at Biddeford and Millbury were 77.6 and 79.4%,
respectively, with Biddeford having an average inlet so,
concentration of 91.9 ppmv and Millbury a concentration of 285
ppmv (both corrected to 12% CO,). It should be noted that about
45 minutes after Run 2 at Biddeford began, the plant operator
doubled the slurry feed rate after learning that the so, removal
was below the desired value. This change raised the overall
removal fron 65.9% in Run 1 to 72.4% in Run 2 and 89.5% in Run 3.
The SO, inlet concentration at Millbury ranged from 243 to 307
ppmv, and the average overall SO, removal achieved ranged from
76.7 to 81.7%. As noted in the discussion on HCl removal
earlier, the average SD outlet temperature at Marion County,
Biddeford, and Millbury was 300, 278, and 255°F, respectively.
6
-------
89-109.2
Particulate
Particulate data are listed for each site in Table IV. As
indicated, all three SD/FF systems achieved greater than 99.5%
control efficiency. The average outlet particulate emission
ranged from 0.0023 gr/dscf at Marion County to 0.0144 gr/dscf at
Biddeford. Marion County also had the lowest particulate loading
at the SD inlet, averaging 0.881 gr/dscf while the two RDF units
had higher loadings, as expected because of semi-suspension
firing of the RDF. The inlet loading averaged 3.21 gr/dscf at
Biddeford and 2.52 gr/dscf at Mid-Conn.
Metals
Table V summarizes the metals emission data collected at
Marion County, Biddeford, and Hartford, each eguipped with an
SD/FF. Lead was the predominant metal measured at the SD inlets.
As shown in Table V, the SD/FF's all achieved over 98% control of
the heavy metals measured, except during Run 4 at Marion County
when the FF was bypassed and during Run 1 at Hartford when the
mercury removal was only 61%. Since RDF units have higher
particulate emissions from their combustion chambers than mass
burn units, comparison of metal emissions from these different
corabustor types should consider metal emission rates as
percentages of total particulate emissions. Another factor that
has to be considered in comparing metal emissions is furnace feed
rate. In the tests reported here, the MSW and RDF feed rates
were not measured; therefore, metal emissions per unit of feed
are not available.
In addition to determining trace metals air emissions, also
determined at Biddeford were trace metal concentrations in the
ashes/residues. The lead concentration in the FF residue
averaged 1,680 ng/g and ranged from 537 to 2,800 tig/g for the
three test runs. The cyclone ash averaged 2,300 jig lead/g ash
and ranged from 2,200 to 2,400 \iq/q. The mercury content varied
from <28 iig/g in the cyclone ash to 19.5 and <16 jig/g in the FF
solids and bottom ash, respectively. Heavy metal concentrations
in the lime slurry feed were low, the maximum concentration being
3 .8 ixg/g for arsenic.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on results from compliance and characterization tests
at four modern MWC's, it is concluded that:
7
-------
89-109.2
1. SD/FF and SD/ESP systems are effective in controlling
acid gas emissions (HC1, S03) when operated within
their design limits. These systems can remove 90% or
more HC1 and 70% or more S02.
2. The SD/FF systems attained an average CDD removal of
98.7% and an average CDF removal of 99.5% for an
average overall removal of 99,4%. The SD/ESP removed
less than 70% of these pollutants although operating
with a lower SD outlet gas temperature.
3. The total CDF concentrations, both uncontrolled and
controlled, were generally greater than the total CDD
values. The inlet total CDD concentrations for the RDF
units were several times greater than those of the mass
burn units. However, effective operation of their flue
gas cleaning systems resulted in low controlled
emissions, even lower than those during some test runs
for the mass burn units.
4. Limited trace metal results were obtained, the most
extensive set being for the Biddeford unit. Lead was
the dominant metal, having the highest concentrations
at the inlet to the spray dryer. Cadmium and total
chromium alternated as the next highest concentrations
at the Marion and Biddeford units, respectively. The
flue gas cleaning systems were effective in removing
all metals studied by over 98%, except mercury whose
removal ranged from 60.6 to 99.7%.
5. All flue gas cleaning systems were effective in
removing particulate matter. The average removal
efficiencies exceeded 99% for all test runs. The mass
burn units, as expected, had lower inlet particulate
loadings than did the RDF units.
Table VI summarizes the removal efficiencies for the
different pollutants at the facilities tested.
8
-------
89-109.2
REFERENCES
1. Environmental Assessment of Municipal Waste Combustor
Emissions Under the Clean Air Act (40 CFR, Part 60), Federal
Register, Vol. 52, No. 129, Tuesday, July 7, 1987, pp.
25399-25408.
2. Municipal Waste Combustion Study: Report to Congress,
EPA/530-SW-021a (NTIS PB87-206074), June 1987, U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste,
Wa shi ngton, DC.
3. Municipal waste Combustion Study: Combustion Control of
Organic Emissions, EPA/530-SW-021c (NTIS PB87-206090), June
1987, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid
Waste, Washington, DC.
4. Municipal Waste Combustion Multipollutant Study: Summary
Report, Marion County Solid-Waste-to-Energy Facility, Ogden
Martin Systems of Marion, Inc., Brooks, OR, EMB Report No.
86-MIN-03A, September 1988, U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, NC.
5. Municipal Waste Combustion Multipollutant Study:
Shutdown/Startup Emission Test Report, Marion County Solid-
i Waste-to-Energy Facility, Ogden Martin Systems of Marion,
Inc., Brooks, OR, EMB Report No. 87-MIN-04A, September 1988,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
6. Municipal Waste Combustion Multipollutant study:
Characterization Emission Test Report, Marion County Solid-
Waste-to-Energy Facility, Ogden Martin Systems of Marion,
Inc., Brooks,OR, EMB Report No. 87-MIN-04, September 1988,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
7. Municipal Waste Combustion Multipollutant Study: Emission
Test Report, Wheelabrator Resource Recovery Facility,
Millbury, MA, EMB Report No. 88-MIN-07, 1988, u. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
9
-------
89-109.2
8. Municipal Waste Combustion, Multi-Pollutant Study, Emission Test Report,
Maine Energy Recovery Company, Refuse Derived Fuel Facility, Biddeford,
Maine, Volume I, Summary of Results, EPA-60G/8-89-064a, July 1989, U.S
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, DC.
9. Municipal Waste Combustion Multipollutant Study: Refuse-Derived Fuel
Summary Report, Mid-Connecticut Resource Recovery Facility, Hartford, CT.
EMS Report No. 88-MIN-09A, January 1989, U, S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory and Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.
10. Air Emissions Compliance Test Results and Related Data at the Mid-Connecticut
Resource Recovery Facility, Hartford, CT, Report (August 18, 1988) prepared
by TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc., for Combustion Engineering, Inc.,
Windsor, CT.
10
-------
o
<
o
C-J
o
CJ
•
u-
0J
ao
fs.
CZ
Lk.
G
oc
LO
¦
U
•
*
¦
+
00
a>
CM
c
0-
Ch
wo
Q
CJ>
H
•
CM
lT)
U">
>
U.
«
•
•
O
O
c
OI
c
E
O
10^
ar-i
wc
cc
co
lO
vc
O
«
•
•
O KC
VO
o]o%
a>
UD
to
U.
1
C
O
VO
vo
1
1
O
O
CVJ vo
CO
ir> 0
CM 00
+•
• •
•
•
• •
• • '"¦*"»
tn
Os
B
CVj ^
Cu
C">
CNj O
i/y
O
O
•w
«w-
^5 —
>r»•
O
O
E
LU
C\J
TJ
1
+-*«»
<3;
Ch
<\i
1 ^
1 <^>s-
*—
4->
— as
0^
in
VOOIS
u.
• •
•
•
• •
• • •
O
Of
f-4 O
CM
C\i CO
rs n
L.
E
cj]
•w
f n N
W
u
>—«
C
01
O
*0
O
*¦%.
C7>
1
c
1 ^
1
CO CVI *t
«J
0
• •
•
•
« •
• « •
O
0
^-i 0
»¦*
»—1
a^o
h-
3
2
c
o
r--
IACCS
C\J •
u
oc
_ •* «o
ukn
r-w f) p^.
r-^ f> in
CO 00 Ch
O O V
u> ir>
SO* CM
co «
cm cm m
oi
*>
»
O >fi l-
X. C i/l E *
Oi 4 3
„ — O +J t.
¦r- O CL.O
c <0 t_ «e cm
« NM
¦o
L (.
o ai
u_ xi
4> E
'U1J «
• ec "O u
: uj i-
vO CI ^
r- c*
oo «
e.
t3
* wfl
—- C
^ 3
+-> —
-T3
e >
»— -a
jc —
o —
i- o
«j (—
U 4J
c
*j c
OJ u
"O
~> io
o a
jc t-
*J J3
a>
¦o t—
— u
• c tj eo
O C C Ot
JC o o —
§5
u u
aj
O) —
w0 C
*3 U
4-»
¦c
I c
w 3
o etc
oo
u
C c
T3 O
^ u
—
C +->
ir 1,3
x u
c a.
— o
o —
c
3
^
O —
U
ts
«/»
o c.
-J <1»
*o
c
• 3
VC
00 w>
0> 4-i
4/*
Or
e oo
4-» —4
CL
0> >»
V) L.
C 3
' 0»
U V)
c 0>
cr
T>
4J L.
O 41
C >
m
o
ho 0i
L.
_ *
o y
01
"O 3
O
4-»
W
o>
*^5 a»
o —
c
Cl KO
CO
C CTk
C
° ^
S>, s
t. w
**- Xi
o; Cp<
w
u
0) c
^ 49 C »—
> 3 »—
O
O
S|
c o
L.
W0 4J
^ s
3 O
O
09 £
> 3
«D ^5
O)
o>
ai
>
*o
Of
V9
4J 4->
JZ V)
•*j a/
c w
a;
w a/
A3 tU
a. u
«- 3
O <
W CL
UJ
(*)
*c
c
*5 "O
0i
CM W
u
0 c c
^ T3 o
a> 4->
> c
TJ "O
c c o
O ^ TJ
r m
W) VI w
*3 *0
^ jO
"^4/0*
^ L. C.
QJ fQ
3
-¦CD
<0 ai at
> *J 4->
**- u u
O f- -p-
x:
4> C C
c
m sa *A
t It 5)
3 3
QJ
JC *0 (Q
-C
L.
a.
>.
T3
E
c
2
O
.c
on
CL
*0
>
£
l/>
3
cr
c
•5
c
3
O
c
0J
L.
o
u- •
c >
E -O
c JZ
3
E "O
4) Oi
t- 4-1
AO
•o —
c 3
"0 u
VI Its
o> u
3
— 0>
o
3 L.
m <*-
U T3 Qt
11
-------
a.
oo
UJ
a.
U
^_
u.
O
4->
0
u»
£
0J
u.
L_
Z3
4^
1-
T3
a;
t_
-c
TJ
Of
L.
4n->
Q_
G
cu
e
r—
a.
-C
j—
c
3
o
01
c.
a>
Ill
uj
>>
(.
CJ
c:
>
a>
O
(-0
u
w
Uj
L.
*¦—
u
xs
>
T5 a>
c_
c
«- >.
o
£
Ol L_
\n
CL
co o
£1
CC
<
cv
• c
c
o
-F- ¥4
4-» CM
fQ
L.
¦w Q&
c
OJ
£ ?
o *o
— >
O E
ZC QJ
u. a. +j
t-o or
u uj •—
•p- ^
<_ l_ 3
c cc
>i
L.
CM
I/)
V
w
o
c
o
c coc^^ ^
xoccoirc n
cm cm co cm co po
c o c cm o ©
— C C ^ n
m ro m n m
— ev > e
OON
• U CD
O *ffi
z c in —
O Jf
4-1 *—¦ O
«- c. o
E ig I. .
3 X « "5
0)
c
XX X x
vO '^O sC
CM C\i CM CM
^ 0C CC
^¦s. r-w j-h.
Cv. CM Cvj CM
rv ^ cO rv
CO ON ON O"*
& ch a* a*
•o
CM C
—* ON O^
CO
CO vc
CM
• •
• • •
•
* •
u>
»
\T> r-«
00 r- 00
00
CO
i
CO
\n r-*
\G r**. s£i
un
00 ON
o^
as co u*>
irnvo^n
CVi oc o ® o>
cm *-* cm *-* cm m
CD O
«r <
SO 00 N N
*3- *T fO *•
\J~> \J*i if)
<\l CM CM CM
«-0 lt; t-TJ
i/"5 (/I uO
CNJ CSJ Cv. CSJ
a ^ m n
r-)<- m
00 *T CO ~+
CO &
on &\ on
4g
< < < <
cm cm o ac
• • • •
o> «r e in
— «T © CM
T3
CO CC —¦• V©
\C CO
CO VO O CO
r». vO *** CM
*T it> \f> &
& cn
* cm n >
x$
iZ
O 9J
< H- .O
4> £
uu? «
£ IU f- »J
z> i oo a
< < < «c
TM ^ O ^ pa n th
iO NN is fy f»> IT tfl
r*- IS> <£ <¦«¦««¦
0>
iNn >
L < X
O X <*
N M ¦-«
"0 '
. u >, >,
O A t- c
z *i a
— <->
. C -O ®
c c L.
ZOO **4
o -«-
*J I *> >>
— T3 (^ —
C * « 3
=J X X O
•»¦ CO T3
e « c
T3 -c
01 0)
t. T3 —
«- o
t- > —
(- *J
O L «1
w 5 4
< O
« S u
c
s
c
£
cn
vi
(L
T3
>
c
Z3
3
JZ
Ci£
¦o
. •¦
c
-C
4->
4-1
4->
*c
VI
T5
01
c
L*
>*-
o
O
a;
u-
c
u
0/
E
u
T3
C
«—
C
0)
»*-
a
4-J
•
"4-
u
0J
01
c
»—
jQ
AD
o
U
>
on
O
e
>»—
o
r*
E
3
c
>%
a.
0j
w—
-r—
u
CL
(L
c
m
>
a;
*
¦a
~ «
-f—¦
CM
±j
c
E
~
o
O
: a
"t?
c
t-
> c
C
H—
>
•4-
fO
u
a«
L £
4»
o
3
o»
trt I-
C -Q
3 «
*p
> x:
o>
*» CTl W*
o >
XJ
4)
<0
2 I
> ^
^ O?
< lw
W. 01
ii-
CU w
cr.^-
"C
(_
0/ >>
> T3
< e
12
-------
a>\
CC '
a.
tn
Lxi
4-J
o
o
C Csj (\ *i
X
cc cc
cc
¦cr
^r
o»
CO
cc
CO tn
CS c*^
sC
in
un
iri
U-
C
CM
CM
CM CM
CJ
wo
o a
O \0
m kO
*-v
kP
uO
vT
E
«e
4->
n
m
CM
CM CM CM
CM
CM
CM CM
to
<
3
i—
O
a#
a>
cr
>.
i«i
c_
a
w
a.
CJ
CM
o
^ VC «T —»
>>
m
m
m m
cn ud
CO
>J
<9 (H
O
o
t- ^
X
• c
& u>
UJ
a;
> >i
cr
O OO
u
g
t-
CJ
CO
c- JS
z
O e
O
t3
O
»—i
>
u>
O
jQ
<
E
C «t
QC
CD
a.
H-
2
00
O
Cm>
o
(/>
oa
i
N
cn O
C C-J
o
—- H
4-» C\J
#-*
C
<4-> ^
c
CD ^
u H
C L-
o -a
w —
CM >
O E
i «
rj o ^ co ^ ^
cco*rox^
co cm —• ^ w+
a* •«• vq
• • « •
U"J CM fs
iCrsoDN
< < < ¦*-
tf*^^WOCO
in c*i * cn *- +-*
CM O*© <-¦
> •¦* ^ •-*
O O r^.
o" -8
z c *
U ° O #
•*• L O C
c JS i: 3
S * S3 "3
££££
n rs
• • > •
VO a
O in G CO
a> co
(/> k i/>
co cr\
(*) \fi iT
co •— cr>
> cm co a*
>
< «* «C -£
zz zz
rs n rfiu)
O © CO
ro cm cn cm
d CVJ
>
<
I r* op
CO L < w
CT> O X CT>
' — CM 4-> <-H
L. <-
O to
< *- J3
C £
u t 0;
r-ai3 U
C U ^
sznC
• u >, >i
O jQ t. C.
z
•i»
L.
X
3
jt
tn
a-
*
E
t/>
3
•
-C
•
4-J
a>
•
• •
—-
U-
o
a;
cr
av
c
c
L.
*a
c
C
3
o
O
•#»
L.
4-1
*
a>
t-
e
XJ
o
d-
#—
oj
u
-a •
«/>
4->
0; 'O
3
«
td a>
O
4->
V>
CJ to
v>
c
t_
c
o
a; *—
9
M
E
4->
v> o
L_
OJ L.
L.
w
>-
W
C
U
c
01 —
c
T-
£
u
L.
3
a>
> VI
4^
L.
o a>
TJ
3
E 3
OJ
*A
to *~
E
«S
e-
>
O
E
"O
« 4->
c i
W
O
^ 5
c ai
c
•^- 3
v> *•-
o *o
-o
C
CL
»
T5 V)
w
— a»
*
^ W
E —
c
> JC
o
as
V* «3
**** l*v
m L
• f—
3
si
c.
O 4->
i/*
H c
C L.
^ 01
M-
-------
«
A
i
—
T3 LP
LU
> C
a
O 0/
E
$
a' cn
L_ »—
00 > ^
3
L.
X o
© c
UJ
0^
4J
>»x:
QC L
«ti c
UJ
1- o
»— a.
GL
f—
jO
5
<
LU
>—
&\ &*¦ Q> o%
o> cr a> ot
rv ao ro
ro ^ cm
© © © ©
o o o o
• • t •
© © © o
un cm
o\ ^
©
© ©
~ •
o ©
cr «*
© ©
• •
© ©
TJ
m co ^ co
© —« 00
• • • •
¥~* © ©
cm 00 un cm
# ¦ • •
co cm co co
oi
iwr) >
cr»
>
3
I
us
c —
"• 3 e* -
O O «-
• CJ 4)
O -XI
c§»i
*J t- O *¦>
¦<• l o a
c « c a>
3Xea(«
*J t_!
— oe
e lu
X cc
* «¦—•
-o
L t-
O 01
«*- -Q
0/ E
-c ai
^ u
0*
CD ©
cr oc co
o> c o* ^
CT> CP CTv «3>
— O"* ©
cm ^ tr> ^
o © © o
© © © ©
» « 4 t
© © © ©
u -o
n m a* w
>n n n ^
• ii»
M N sr N
c.
o
~»
•
i.
TD
o
a
jO
4->
CO
M
o
•¦»
u—
U
-c
vn
«0
4~>
T3
TJ
L.
jr
C
OJ
>>
o>
L.
T7
cr
o
m
t-
>>
**-
•
O
L-
>»
O.
TT
iSt
4->
C
T3
O
a>
4U
*
»—
1—4
(/>
VI
a*
*u
r*.
<—
c.
•
3
oj
a
irfl
0)
,+-
•
(.
•r>
cc
T3
^T
W
CO
0»
>»
*
©
c
E
>»
• •
VJ
C
C
»T5
*
t-
>
U
g
*
•
o»
•tr
c
o>
c
c
•»»
o;
c
£X
*
jr
3
e
o
4->
cn
*
O CO
««-
-g
(A O
Of £
3 +->
— a*
*o
>
o>
i-^ CM CO >
<
wi
Crt
I
qj
e
i/>
o c
—' o
» 00
•o 00
_ 4- 0>
O O rH
O '*-*
4-» ¦ W >>
— -o t-
C -r U D
© X X ^
O
o
VI
"O
a>
T3
3
C *D •—
O ^
*«-
Or L.
3 1*
— O
•<- u
"O
c
§15
t -w
If- <£)
o
a; o
X c W
X *3 p *0
> L (U
c *- 0) e>
0 4-> 3
O 0>
*o o* *o —
01 a.
%a c/> 4-» c
« U O 3
£ LZtt
a *—
3 U
c
X3
v»
E
4»
co
C QC
0;
3 vn
a- «
*/>
o c
° 3
«/» a:
c
0> O
-o
3 *0
-------
*—
OS
u.
>
c
<
u. o
TJ »—
»
m
• OS
c
c •
c *-
UJ u
i en
*C '—
CM
X
<3C
-co
r— Cn
p» <—4
CM
©
+J >*
O
—
C 3
=5 -3
CM
•—
O
w
•
"O
UU
cn
&>
>
4->
O
«
3
3
a at
o oe
tj —¦
§$
OS
L fh
* fc
E
a;
4-> 4p»
••- a.
c i>
© co
vo
m
OS
vo
CM
CM
in
to
CO
*T
V
nr
V
*t
o\
CO
V
o
CN
<->
in
P*H^
sO
00
*n
V
CM
V
OS
©
V
m o m
tfl O M n
*> • #
— cm ac
•-* o
a o
ooo
U") ~
v
SO
o\ m cm
U") V H
CH CM (Jt
C\j p-O 00
» ¦ « M «
CM 00 CO
CO O Ut
03 rs CO CO CO
* * * I—I ~
rj in in cm
m co *—
is n ri Ch 00
• i • i «
CM CM CM ©
f^.
r*v
\o cm O
© «
t • » *
© in — co
so
« OS
os m ^ co
* « ¦ •
CT* OS 0> Os
O* 0> OS OS
00 Os Ot
os cr> ch
OS 0^ OS
00 0* OS
(Jv 0> <7*
Os Oi OS
00 OS OS
• « *
OS O CT>
Os Os OS
»n <
• 1
00
OS
00
as
XJ
0^
¦ *
s
"C
• •
0/
*—
u
E 3
>»
c
u
o
*
3 t:
L.
c
•
L_
— E
c
^ S
3
»—
©
O
+J
u
OJ
E 5
T3
U
o
4->
2T
c
*-> xn
*o t-
m
L.
L.
¦*->
o
X
u
>0 -c
3
c
OI
o
u
H-
Q£
©
a
o
-M V)
aj -o
o E =
c~i
4 £ 3 D
w> tj <- «o
«_
>>
f— u
a
¦o y
is L
a> v
< uu _iX
c — s
$«?
c
3
oc
os
c
•l>
=3
•o
0^
wn
US
Q.
>>
-C
0)
"O
C
+->
OJ
TJ
CO
u
o>
TT
SJ\ -O
c
^
•M
4
L.
£
0)
'O
>
c
i
c
c
£
u
>-
u
c
a
3
u
*
u
T>
4->
co
c
C_
C
t:
a
w
a
o
o
sc
c
c
TJ
U
*o
c
vrt
a.
o
a.
m
CO
15
-------
C
c
0
u.
u.
0
u.
0
1
a:
X
0
on
QJ
1—-
3
«—«
c/*>
Lu
X
UJ
"C
H-
a>
on
>
>-
.p—
00
c_
£
1
"D
u.
•—
CL
O
u-
Z
\J>
W
<
O". Z
X ors
c c* cr*
^ cr>
o> r-.
&• f-*»
^ ^
^ CTt
CO
o»
ON
«c < c
o
00
o> 0
0> r^
WO in ^
O <*>
o> *f
00 fsj 00
« • •
^ ^ 00
(T1 O*
< < < < ^
0>
o>
00 cr> &
• « •
< ^ ^ S
ZOiO^^Z
V)
QJ
Vi
o
C
o
CL
Or
o
X
0J
VI
cc
2
5
v>
>
a
3
4-i
t/>
>>
t/*>
Cr
c
*#-
c
C
O
a>
O
i~-
4*>
0
»/5
*n
y
tP
+J
<0
u
CO
C
CD
<~»
0
O
—1
cr
T3
3
-r—
Qi
«-*
a
u
CL
•*»
3
<
>*
c
O
*—
z>
Li.
O.
£
41
fu
4->
©
13
*
—¦
*c u
c &
«* —
s <
16
-------
89-109.2
APPENDIX
CONVERSION FACTORS
yields Metric Unit
tonne/day
ng/dscm*
* c
English Unit
ton/day = tpd
gr/dscf
° F
Times
9.07 x 10_l
2.288 x 10'
5/9 f'F - 32)
* dscra = dry standard cubic meter
17
-------
.p„Dt „ r-d TECHNICAL REPORT DATA . .
A tj h, rt i . " i 0 D'l (Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA/60n/n-89/116
3.R PB 90-113077
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Performance of Emissions Control Systems on
Municipal Waste Combustors
5. REPORT DATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORISE
Theodore G. Brna, Michael G. Johnston*, Clyde E.
Riley*, and Charles C, Masser
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO ADDRESS
See Block 12
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
NA (Inhouse)
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
EPA, Office of Research and Development
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Published paper; June 1989
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/13
15. supplementary NOTES AEERL project officer is T. G. Brna, Mail Drop 65, 919/541-
2683. (*)Johnston and Riley are with EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Stan-
dards. Presented at AWMA meeting, Anaheim, CA, 6/25-30/89.
i6.abstractpaper discusses the performance of emissions control systems on
municipal waste combustors (MWCs). Regulations for MWCs are being developed by
EPA under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act. To support this effort, data on gaseous
pollutant emissions from MWCs and emissions control by flue gas cleaning systems
are being collected and evaluated. Several EPA-supported field tests on modern
MWCs have been performed and are reported here. The results are reported in
terms of acid gas, trace organic, trace heavy metal, and particulate reductions for
units with lime spray dryer/fabric filter (SD/FF) and lime spray dryer/electrostatic
precipitator (SD/ESP) controls. Both control technologies achieved over 90% removal
of HC1 in the four tests reported. The three SD/FF systems removed 99% of the en-
tering chlorinated dioxins/furans. The SD/ESP achieved 62% removal of the entering
dioxins/furans. Metals (except mercury) and particulate control by the SD/FF sys-
tems was greater than 98%; however, similar measurements were not made for the
SD/ESP system.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Pollution Hydrocarbons
Emission Fur an s
Wastes Calcium Oxides
Combustion Spray Drying
Heterocyclic Com- Electrostatic Precip-
pounds itators
Pollution Control
Stationary Sources
Municipal Waste Com-
bustion
Dioxins
Lime Spray Drying
Fabric Filters
13B
14G
14E 07B
21B 07A.13H
07C 131
J8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
19
20- SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
/fc> 2.
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-7J)
REPRODUCED SY
1 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NATIONAL TECHNICAL INFORMATION SERVICE
SPRINGFIELD, VA. 22161
------- |