r c c

SUMMARY OF TRIAL BURN RESULTS AT THE SCA INCINERATORTABLE OI-' CONTENTS

mary of Trial Burn Uesultsthe SCA Incinerator

^t-Scale Investigation ofrrogate Means oftermining POHC Destruction

Scrubbing of Hazardousste Incinerator Flut: GasSpray Dryer Absorption

recting Problems in thejration of Wet ScrubbersHazardous Waste Incinerators

ifications to Decrease Pinerticulate Emissions from a^ardous Waste Incinerator:Case Study

;>ling and Analytica 1 MethodsL Assessing Toxic and/.ardous Organic Emissions-jin Stationary Sour c us--Ai tical Review of Currentcliods and Practices

sible and Latent Heat Recovery.jin Hazardous Waste Incineratoriuust Gases

P. G. Gorman, G. J. 1-Hennon, G. S. Rush

Larry J . Waterland 24

Jens Thousig Holler, 40Ove B. Christiansen

Kenneth C. Schifftner 69

Boyd T. Riley, Harry «3Freemanj John Trapp

Andrew J. Polcyn, 95'Howard E. llesketh

Jack D. Brady 1tJ

P. G. GORMAN'G. J. HENNON "

MIDWES-T RESEARCH INSTITUTEKANSAS CITY, MISSOURI

G. S. KUSH .SCA CHEMICAL SERVICES INCORPORATED

SOMMERVILLE> MASSACHUSETTS '

PRESENTED AS PAPER #84-9.2 AT THE 77™ANNUAL MEETING OF THE AIR POLLUTIONCONTROL ASSOCIATION

j*W*-NcIntroduction

SCA Chemical Services, Inc., began construction of a large hazardouswaste incinerator facility, located in south Chicago, Illinois, in the

- of 1981. Initial shakedown operation began in July 1982, and sev-eral trial burn tests were conducted throughout the period of July IM2 toMarch 1983 by SCA and Midwest Research Institute (HRI). Data from these testsserved as the basis for the operating permits that were subsequently issuedto SCA for incineration of hazardous wastes, including permits for inciner-ation of solid and liquid wastes containing PCBs.

Eleven trial burn test runs conducted by HRI are discussed in thispaper. Seven of the runs involved different uon-PCB waste feeds at. a va-riety of operating temperatures and heat input rates.l'2"3 These tests wereprimarily intended to determine:

Destruction and removal efficiency (ORE) for principal organichazardous constituents (POHCs).

Particulate emissions.

Hydrogen chloride removal efficiency.

The remaining four test runs were conducted when burning liquid andsolid wastes containing PCBs, primarily to determine DR£s for the PCBs,particulate emissions, and dioxin/furan emissions.*'slfi

Results from all 11 test runs, as well as problems encountered, aiediscussed in this paper. The organization of the paper follows:

Facility DescriptionSampling and Analysis MethodsORE Results for POHCsDR£ Results for PCBs and Dioxin/Furan EmissionsParticulate Emission ResultsHC1 Removal Efficiency ResultsConclusions Drawn from This Work

Facility Description

The SCA incinerator is rated at a total heat input rate oE 126 x 106kJ/h (120 x 106 Btu/h) and can incinerate both liquids and solids. A sche-matic diagram of the incinerator is presented in Figure 1.

Solids are fed into a rotary kiln, usually ia plastic or fiber drums.Effluent gases from the rotary kiln pass into a large secondary combustionchanber that provides a nominal residence time of 2 to 3 sec at 1100°C(2000*F) and at 1200°C (2190°F) when burning PCBs. Liquid wastes are firedinto the secondary combustion chamber through two air-atomized nozzles.Hot gasea from the secondary combustion chamber are quenched and then arescrubbed with lime slurry in two parallel packed towers for IfCl removal.

W-9.2

The gases. undergo final cleanup in fom parallel, ionizing wet scrubbers(IWS) before entering the induced dralL fan:, and being discharged into'L^.estack. • ' . - . '

• • Some particulate removal probably take-s place in the two packed .towfi s.although they !a> re primarily intended for 1IC1 scrubbing. Liquid-flsjw fatta.to each scrubber are about 2,800 L/mm (/5J) gpraj, yielding a liquid-to-.g<*s•ratio ot near 6.2 L/lfa-1 (A7 gal/10.1 s e l l - The J.35-a (li-ft)' diameter of'the scrubbers provides a 'superficial ^as velocity uf about 1.23 in/sec(*."0 ft/Sec). " - - • ' . ' - .

Four ionizing wet scrubbers .(CeiKuteft) are the primary means of par-ticulate removal. This scrubbing aystiMi iclies on a combiiui i.on of elec-trostatic and inpaction mechanisms to achieve high-'e If ic lency partieulatucontrol over a wide range of par Licit si/ts. Tlie dii'ty ^as iLieaiu 'en.te 11the scrubber's ionizing section, which is comprised yf di schai-£*:• electroiicshaving'negative polarity and wetted plates Lha-t-act as p o s i t i v e l y charge!grounds. The particles'' receive a negative' chirge in the' ionizing sectio.iand are removed from the gas st.-ream' rn the: subsequent scrubber *e'ctiorr,whi-cb is comprised of wetteJ-plastic Tel IcretteW pack ing - La rger- pa'rticliaare removed by impaction'-and smaller p a i t i c l e a (< 3 ^m) are attracted elec-troatatically to the neutral surfaces uf Hie put-king. The particles atewashed from Mis packing by a constant w-iLer. flow.

Sampling and Analysis Methods •

Extensive sampling and analysis were involved in each trial.burn 'testrun. This section presents a brief description of these-method*, used-.todetermine DREs foe the' POHCs and PCB's, as well as for particulate «id-HClemission), " ' . ._••.- - ' - -.-•" "; •

POHCs

DREs were determined for all selected POHCs ia each run by sam'pHnjand- analysis of all the input wastes and the'stack effluent.*

For input liquid, waste, samples were takea every 15 min during eacr,run, and composited. For drummed .solid wJst«, representative bacrtls-c-each type were sampled, and the re-suiting composite saioples -of each.typt !waste were analyzed separately.. 'All'ut iliese sanlptes vere anal.yied . f 01volatile .and s«mivolatile POHCs as described in Refereuce- 2 (Appendix Lusing GC/HS techniques for quanti Cation. Associated QA/QC procedure's , 'Wt ,^:

included use of authentic standards for all POHCs and spiking of sap.pl-; -,with surrogates, are also described in Reference 2. . •

For stack effluent", two types of sampling were used for deteruins* i :;"of POHCs. For seaivolatile POHCs, a Modified.' Method 5 (-HM5) train (*(-Figure 2V waa operated over a 6-h period during each test tun, and CO.T; -acnes of the MH5 train were extracted and analyzed by GC/HS. for vol-j'.. *POHCs, three integrated gas-bag samples (TedlariS bags) were, taken, -**.:t-a 1- to 2-h period (see Figure 3).- Ailer Lliese samples were teturnea

crtfil l.S L of 8ai fronl each of ltle Lhree baKs WiiS l>as;>tl(l through a Tenax/charcoal adsorption trap. Tiie contents of each trjp wure then thermallydesorbed and analyzed by CC/MS foe v o l a t i l e PGIICs . Blank bag samples were»lso taken by f i l l i n g a Tedlar® bag with prepure nitrogen (N2) and insert-ing the bag into d sample box that was then taken up lo the sampling plat-fun*. These bUuk bag samples were analyzed along w i t h the actual samplebags, yielding very important results, as discussed l a t e r .

PCBs and Dioxina/Furans

DREa for i'Chs were also determined from sampling and analysis of thewaste feeds anJ Uie stack effluent. Waste feeds were sjiiipltd using the sjme•ethods as for uie non-PCB tests. J;tack effluent was sampled by a MM5 t r J i n .This train, shown schematically in f i g u r e 4, is s i m i l a r lo that used in thenon-PCB runs, but includes a Florist I trap.

Analysis for fCfls, as well as i^r dioxins and fur-ins, requires sophis-ticated analytical techniques. Analysis of PCBs is c o m p l i c a t e d by the f a i tthat they consist of homologous s e r i e s of several d i f f e r i - n t compounds ratherth*n one specif1t compound. Thus, <letect ion and q u a n t 1 I a t ion of the indi-vidual compounds within each series are required. The a n a l y t i c a l techniqueswhich HKI used tor the analysis ot samples were in accordance with ERADocument 560/5-82-0067 and are described b r i e f l y in the following paragraph.

Each of the components of the stack sampling train (participate filter,coadeusate water, XAD-2 adsorbent resin, Florisil, and rinses) was ex-tracted separately with hexane, and the extract* were combined and concen-trated for analysis. The sample extracts were-analyzed by low resolutionGC/MS using selected ion Monitoring (SIM) to provide the necessary sensi-tivity for specific PCB isomers.

Stack effluent samples from the PCB test runs were analyzed Cor dioxinand furao enissions because these compounds were also of interest. Initialanalysis of the combined HH5 stack sampling train extracts indicated a back-ground interference. The interfering compounds were removed from the sam-ples by column chromatography on alumina, and the samples were reanalyzedby low resolution GC/MS-SIM. Quantification of dioxins add furans in the• aatplea was based on the SIM response of each compound relative to an .iso-topically libeled internal standard. Because of a positive response fortetrachlorodibenzodioxin, the sample from Run 11 was analyzed by high reso-lution MS, which confirmed the presence of tetrachlorodibenzodioxius (TCDDs)(but not a specific isomer). To check whether the TCDD present in the sam-ple was the 2,3,7,8-isouer, the sample was analyzed on a 60-m glass capil-lary coloan coated with a special liquid phase capable of separating the2,3,7,8-isoner froia all the other isomers of TCUD.

Particulate Emissions

During each test run two 2-h Method 5 (M5) trains were used in sequenceto determine particulate emission concentrations. This H5 train is similarto that shown in Figure 2, but did not include XAD-2 resin traps.

Hydrogen Chloride Emissions

Three sets of data on chloride emissions were obtained fur *-ach t r i a lburn test run. That is, each of the two. 2-h H5-trains .md ilm t>-Ei MM 5 trainincluded an impinger containing potassium liydtux ide (KOfl) solution. Samplesfrom this iwuinger ami the collected condcusaic impuigci- were analyzed for -Cl by an automated colorimetric procedure (ti'A Mulliod J^5.^).8

V/as'te .feed samples were also analyzed for ihlortnc in unit: to1 calcu-late HC1 removal efficiency. The analytical methods .-tat tlit-sf sjaiplt-s(ASTH 0-2361-66(1988) wr D-HOB-63(-I976.) ) ba(,i.:jlly iiw«|vt cumt OSL iuh jt ;the ' iiample and lial i<h; tit rat ion of the -resul L nig cuiulm:. I i un gj:> t>jin|> 1 eS .

Discussion of Results .

Destruction and Removal Efficiency for- POIK's l ' i.' J

The first series of six t r i a l burn test I'uns .was pi unjr i t y Lo-deier- ..mine URE for POIICs , HCI removu I e f f i c i ency , JIH! 'pjrt 11 LI Lit e ci i ssions .. .These'six runs were uVsignated a"s Runs 3, 4', 5, o,. 7, <iml si.' (K .us 1 and 2.' -were preliminary invest i gat ion i~nua . ) A 'seventh tun, 'similar U; the aliovesix, was carried out Jjter, afLtr the PCB t e s t n , a.nd was >lesiKii^Led hun 16.''

To help in interpreting the ORE results lor these seven xesi runs, thedifferent waste types and test conditions' for eavh test are described be.'low.

Both solid and liquid wastes were fed during -aM except Runs 5 -and 6,'• when only liquid waste was fed'. The composition of the feeds, the. hedt in-'.put rat*, and the operating temperature of the incinerator varic.| from run *to run. •' Foe each of .the teats, a tabulation ot' these d-ifferent parameters' 'is shown, in Table I. In general, the heat input to the kil'n wjs about 25» ..of the total heat input. The 'solids were fed to the kiln one Iruin at a :tine, but the drums varied in wei ght and in heating value u t" I lie wa's te. 'Thus, on i short term basis, the kiln hea't input' ra.te nijy exieeJ the aver-age value of 251, especially when I lie drummed waste is highly ci/.iibust iule. '

An overall weighted average for the concentration ot the PinLCs.in jll'the waste feed-s is shown' in Table'11. It should be notcM here, Jiid in sub- . ;sequent tables, that the POHCs in Run 16 we-re sumevhal cliffcrenL becausedifferent waste feeds were used. . '

ORE results for each of the POHCs ip each ruu are shown in Table I I I - .Hazardous waste incineration regulations require a minimum DRE of Q(J.')9%for each POHC selected. As can lie seen from tliU data in r^ii^l e_ 1II Dht j e-sults exceeded 99^99% for all POIiCs except benzene jn-Runa ^ £nd 7 .

ORE results shown in Table III were not blank-corrected (01 two rej-sons. firstj in several instances the POHC concent rat i .>iu in - t i e stackeffluent were below the detection limit, so results tunM o -t :n bljuk-cortecled.. In 'these cases, it was necessary to express tjit- niu^.^ions Ji j"less than"'value (i.e., "less than" the detection l i m i t ) . Sei'oiul, for sumsv o l a t i l e POHCs, the analyses of the bag samples in'dicaied concenU-jt ions

c84-9.2

** .•

that were not signif icaotly different fro* those in the corresponding blankbag samples. In these cases, blank correction would have Wen i njputupr ijt

For these reasons, none of the POHC stack emission results were blank-corrected, and consequently, the results nay ovt-istjte the emission rates,yielding DKEs that are conservatively low.

of the blank bags showed benzene concentrations that wereabout the sjme as in the sample bags, except in Run 4. Analytical resultsfur Run & indicated that the benzene concent rat tun was a bunt Ib 1 1 lues higherthan iu the corresponding blank bag. Therefore, ouly data from Hun t wereconsidered valid foe calculating a benzene UHE , which was found to be below99.991-

Examination of test conditions did not reveal <iny sueci t i c reason, torthe higlier benzene emissions (and lower ORE) during Kun 4. However, labora-tory studies have indicated that benzene may be a mii.noii prudm. t o I incom-plete c ambus l ton (PIC). If benzene is a product uf incomplete combus-tion, this cisuld cause Ui gher stack concent rations , tesnl t ing in lower UKEs .The formation of benzene, or any PIC, may be affected by several variables,aauy of which may not be quantifiable.

Eve a wiih the low DR£, the highest 5CA stack concentration was onlyabout five tinea higher than the benzene ambient air level . reported forChicago. The benzene Minion r»te for Run 4 was 0.036 g/min, equivalentto a benzene concentration of 40 ng/L. Iu comparison, concentrations re-ported for benzcM ia urban Mb lea t air range fro* 4-18 flg/L, including alevel of 8 ng/L for urban asbieat air in Chicago.11 Consideration of ac-tual yearly avetltg* concentrations of benzene in the Waste feeds would re-duce the stack concentration to near the ambient air level reported forChicago. Furtberaoie, all of the benzene concentrations noted above arefar below the-NIQSH recomended exposure limit of 3,200 ng/1. (1 pun).

Another interesting aspect of the ORE results is associated withRun 16. The two POHC& in .the waste in Run 16 which were aUb present inthe other sin runs were chloroform and tetrachloro«tthyle.ae . Tlie DRE of99.99% was achieved for both compounds, but the emission rates for- the twocompounds were higher in Run 16 than in any of the previous six runs, eventhough the input rates were lower than in some of the previous runs. Possi-ble reasons for the higlier emission rates were investigated iu depth. Noabsolute reason was identified, but the most likely reason appeared to bepoorer atomization of the liquid than in the other runs. As data in Table I• how, the total liquid feed rate during Run 16 was only 26 kg/min,. comparedto feed rates ranging from 54 to 115 kg/win in the earlier six runs. Fur-thermore, other data showed that the flow of liquid watte to the kiln washigher in Kun 16 than in the other runs, so the flow rate 'to the burners inthe secondary combustion chamber wat even lower than the flow reportedabove. Based on this information', it appeared that the turndown ratio forthe two liquid feed burner Dazzles in the secondary combustion chamber inRun 16 was too high for proper atomization. (Turndown ratio defined asdesign flow rate divided by actual flow rate.) A second factor contributingto the problem was that the viscosity of the liquid feed was higher inRun 16 (104 SSU) than in the earlier runs (36 to 77 SSU). .

. Al though -it may be unusual to conduct a t r ial bu rn at 1 iu.ii id ' f low fat .esconsiderably lower than tie sign f l u w ra te* , these resul ts i n d i c a t e ih«. •i i t t i 'or-tance of goad atowiza-t ion for h i g h . DUE. Opera t ing t o i i d i l i q n s l i s t e d in

. 'envi ro.riinenla 1 permi-ls should t here.) ore specify mi j t i m i i u i Mow riles io • .vis^u ' i '•proper a torn iz.lt ion . - . • .

Destruction and Removal. E f f i c i e n c y for fCBs and '• . , : :D i i > x i n / f u r a n Eotiss iotis* ' V6 •

The tests conducted when burning PCBs were s.imilar to the" ha-zardoiiswaste tests discussed in the previous suct ion . The main ob jec t ive W B S ' . L Odeleruiiie DUE for the PCHs . These- PCB tests consis ted of two tests whei i .burning both 1 i quid and • s'oliil wastes conlaining PC 6s a-ad ,lwo test s vlienburning only l i q u i d wastes containing PCBs.

The four PCB tests discussed herein, were designated as Runs 10, 11,12 ,' and 13. RUII 9 was 411 v a l i dated due to noniSukini_-[ tc samuliiig-. • " Run 14was. conduct eii but is not discussed because of -. technical problems cltuL a'roseduring sample jaa lys is . 1-jter, .after the PC8 tests, Kun 15 was done bittwas, only a p r e l i m i n a r y p a r t i c t i l a t e emission test"- • This preceded Kun .I*.

•which was conducted as part of ttie non-pCfl testing ' discussed ear l ier . . .

Average operating temperature In- the secondary combusLiqo ."chamber fa 's ,maintained at 1200 ± 10'C'in all ftfur of the PCB t^sts . When, burning 'thesolid PCfia, the .rotary kiln was geoeratly operated at a lower temperature 'but a higher total heat input* These and other iwpoi cant process condi^ioH*for the PCB tests arc shown ia Table .IVV. including -the overal l coacerit.rat.ionof PCBs in the waste feed*. . . ' . ' . , '

DRK' results for the PCB tests are shown "in Table V,. j lorig w i t h massf low rates of PC3a in the. input wastes and stack e f f l u e n t . ' ' 'lljgsg j a L j ^ s h g wtbat.^tjj* jygtgai achjeved^DREs _Jjet_te_r_th_a_ii ^9/9999^' for^-PCBs . in 1 J - f u r ' r \ in-^ . -

Other results from these same tests showed - t h a t the -sys tem alsoachieved DKEs exceeding 99.99H for t - r icJ i lornbci iz t ' i ie cL-uLd med in Lhe PCJiwaste-feeds and' met the required coijtbust ion et f-it i e n u y of 9*. 9% w h i c h - iscalculated from the CO and CO^ . conci-ritraL iu i i s in the s t J c k e K l o c n t .

Samples from the PCB test runs '.were a lso ana lyzed lor J i u x i n s and fu"rans- Thes* results are presented in T a d l e - V I ' , winch s > l i u w i L i t e coi iceiUrjtioos and emission rates of the compounds. Because i ui r a L t i l u r o d i b e n z f i -

. dioxids • (TLDDs) were found to be pt'-esent 1 1> all s jwp It's , UK.- s jn ip le f . r mRun II was subjected to f u r t h e r a u j l y s i s . K t s i i l t s of l l u Lthat the TCDD was present as a s ing le TCUI) iso'nicr, u t j i r h iDJ1,2,3,8-, 1,^,4,6-, or 1 , 2 , 4 , 9 - i somer . ' More i m p o r t j i i l i yshowed that although TCDP was p res r i t t , it was t in t [n.--,i-ntwhich is genera l ly considered tu be Lhe most to\ic tut\a >,(

i u l y s i s showedbe.' Lhe l j ' 2 ,3 ,?the rest i lLs2 , 3, 7 , S-o x n i .. '

Table VII compares the TCDD and t e t r a c l i l o r o d i b . e n z o f u r d i i (TCUF) concentrations at SCA wi th results, for other ' i n c i n e r a t o r s . IVDD Luiiceiit-rati-onsat SCA were higher than those reported for - two other nui JILT j t o r s burn ing

c84-9.2

C rPCBi but were about the same as a municipal refuse incinerator, For'TCDF,the concentrations at the SCA incinerator were lower than those for theother sources.

SCA engaged Chas. T. Main, lac., of Boston, Massachusetts, to performao environmental risk assessment of PCBs at the Chicago inciueraXor. Thepurpose was to assess the potential for adverse health effects from inciner-ating PCBs. The assessment considered the emission of the waste constit-uents (PCBs and trichlorobenzene) and products of incomplete combustion(polychlorioated dibenzo furaos and polychlorinated dibenzo dioxius).

The health impact from PCB incineration was estimated foe the totalpopulation inside a 20 tun radius of the facility. The worst case estimateof the increased lifetime cancer risk to this exposed population is 1 in20.7 million. In other words, id the actual population of 2,069,310 insidethis area, no adverse health effects are expected 1'rom emissions of PCBsand products of incomplete combustion at the SCA Chicago incinerator.

Paniculate Emission Results

Two 2-h Method 5 (MS) trains were used in sequence during each run todetermine paniculate emission concentrations. Results of these tests arepresented in Table VIII, for both the non-PCB runs and the PCB runs.. Asshown in Table VIII, the particulate concentration did not meet tbe particu-late emission limit of 180 »(/dscm in any of the first six uon-PCB ruqs-

Ftilore to meat th* p»rticnlata **i»iioa limit in the first series ofruns (Run* 3-8) cattmcd Considerable concern. SCA attempted to determinetb« reason for the feifh emissions and to correct the problem. This effortwat not entirely successful until later, after the PCB runs. -The particu-late limit was net in three of the four PCB runs, but the PCB'feeds wereusually lower in ash content than the wastes in the. non-PCB runs. Othersupplemental tests indicated that the problem probably had not been cor-rected to the extent necessary fur wastes like those used in Runs 3 to 8.

A probable cause of the problem was finally identified. The design ofthe SCA system included scrubbing liquid discharge lines from the i|Uenchsection, HC1 absorber, and ionizing wet scrubber (IWS). All oi ttii'.-ii- li.jiudlines were count c Led to one ma in iHide (ground I me leading to a cunuuuti sumptank. In the oi i giual design, the large under ground 11 lie was to l>e com-pletely full of liquid. However, it was found that the lint- prohatily wasnot completely full, which would allow particulate-laden gas to bypass downthrough the drain line and then pass up into the gas outlet duct from the1WS. Thia IWS gas outlet is the point of lowest pressure in the systemlince it is at the inlet to the induced draft fan. When this situation wasrealized, U-traps were installed on the liquid discharge lines from the [WSand the ID fan drain lines. Initial tests (Run 15) indicated tliat this hadeffected a great improvement in the paniculate emission concentrai i ons.Run 16 was subsequently carried out and the idi|irovcim'iit w.is conf i riued, show-ing an average pj 111 cuUte emission of only 62 mg/ds>m.

Removal Efficiency for Hydrogen Chloride Emi-ssiuns ' ':•'

Three sets-of data on chloride emissions and removal efficiencies weredetermined for each trial burn test. Chloride was. mun-itcre<l in each of. L he-two 2-h H5 tests and in the 6-h HM5 test. HtKtiltS • of Hit' three: sets oi .emissions tests for each run and the resulting 'removal ei I ic.ii'iicies atresummarized in Table IX. • • .

Tbe EPA standards specify a maximum em is s,um of 4 Ib/h (."10 g/min) -of.hydrochloric'acid or, if this limit is exceeded.1 a mininuun removal effi-ciency of 99%. Average emissiotjs exceeded' Dl) g/min onl'y in Run !>^ however';*a removal efficiency of 99-5X-was achieved. ' KiulHerwo'r.e , reiuuvj ) "el f icien-cies in all of the other tests were greater than 99%. There (ore, .'a 11 tria'Lburn tests -met the standard for HC1 removal.

Conclusions Drawn from This Work

1. Results of the tests conducted at the SCA inci iterator have shownthat it achieved the required, destruction .and removal efficiencies' for PCBsand for all selected POHCs with the possible exception of. benzene. . No, '•specific reason Was identified for • the benzene. IJREs below t(»: requi-red' .99.99V, but. *ay have been related to the" occurrence oi 'Ii.tnzcne as a common'product 61 incomplete cowbustiun. •. . '.

2. _ Other results reported h.erein sh«wed that the. SCA' system, achievedthe required 8C1 emission limit* or remqval efficiency in all-tests. • •. .-

3. - the participate concentration limit of 180 »fc/-dscra was not met i'n'.any of the non-PCB tests until.after modifications were maJe to the system, •but was met thereafter in Run 16. "' ' • . ,

4. Multiple trial burn' tests provide a much better data base to ac-cess the capabilities of a new incinerator facility And provide regulatoryagencies with sufficient information to establish proper u[n.>.raL ing param-eters for environmental permits.- .

c84-9.2

C c C84-9.2

References

3-

6.

7.

8.

9.

10,

11

HiJveSt Research Institute, "Sampling and Analysis (or POHCs DuringTrial Burns at the SCA Chemiial Services, Inc., Chicago Incinerator ,"Final Report: Fait 1 - Technical Summary (January 26, 1983).

Midwest Research Institute, "Sanplinfc and Analysis for POHCs DuringTrial Burns at ttie SCA Chenical Services, Inc., Chicago Itn.iner4t.or,"Final Report: Part II - Supporting Data (March 16, 198'3).

Midwest Research Institute, "Sampling and Analysis for POHCs. During - .Trial Burns at the SCA Cbenical Services, Inc., Chicago Incinerator,"Final Report: Rim 16 - Conducted March 4, 1983 (A[>ril 18, 1983).

Midwest Research Institute, "Determination of Destruction of -PCBs atSCA Cheaical Services, Inc.., Chicago (nc hn-rator, "Kiual Report:Part I - Technical Sunwary (January 21, 1983).

tlidvest Research Institute, "Determination of Destruction of PCBs atSCA Chemical Services, Inc., Chicago Incinerator," Final Report:Part II - Supporting Data (March 10, 1983).

Hi4w*st Research Institute, "Determination of Destruction of PCBs. atSCA Che»ic»l Services, Inc., Chicago Incinerator," Corrections to FinalReport: Part I • Technical Summary, memo dated March 29, 1963.

Erickson, H. 0., et al., "Analytical Methods Cor By-Product-PCBs -.Preliminary Validation and Interim Methods," U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, EPA-560/5-B2-OU6, October 1982.

Hethodsfor Chemical Analysis of Uater^ and Wastes, EPA-60i)/4-79-02e,March 1979.

Kramlich, J. C., et al., "Laboratory-Scale Flame-Mode Study of HazardousWaste Incineration." A paper prepared by Energy and tnviroiuiienl.il Re-search Cocporat ion in Irvine, California, tor presentation at the 1963Fall Meeting of the Western States Section of the Combustiun Instituteat the University of California, Los Angeles.

Results of internal research by Midwest Research Institute using alaboratory scale incineration test unit, and personal communicationwith others conducting combustion research and testing.

Singh, H. B., et al., Environ. Sci. Tectmo t_:-, 16(12), 874 (1982).

12. "PCB Disposal by Thermal Destruction," a final report by the U.S. En-vironmental Protection Agency, Region VI, Dallas, Texas. EPA-906/9-82-003, PB82-2M860, pp. 7, 8, and 9, February 1982.

13. Haile, C. L., J. S. Stanley, et al., "Comprehensive Assessment of theSpecific Compounds Present in Combustion Processes - Volume 1-" A re-port prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EP5-83-004, pp. 100-101, June 1983.

1C

o oo ou-i f~

in - -r-- • o -tCN f-l —— (-J

<n -o O

— a — ••-• a" uo -« a

eoo

ee

«

-au

•o«

sM

3

C

-IS §-|?•^ias* 0^ j^ ^ •*j< ^ **^ .—- «j •' • « O 10

O < £ =CC• ' *™j-

o;" t-

ajE

t-

Vu-5•vnV

a;:

"OI.1

S1

.£sou

ratu

r

v .&

' u. t~

~*L^

3

1

u^

h.T

coyj-.

ratlin

iiCL

^

Vjj1X

3C

u.^o•3

tJl

]

C•c

11

TABU II

3 4

Weighted Average POHC Concenlratiuns (LIP /«

Benzene

Carbon tetrachloriOe

Chloroform

flethylene chloride

Tetrachloroethylene

Toluene

1,1, 1-Trichloroe thane

TrichloroeLhylene

Hexachlorocyclopentadiene

Octachlorocyclopentadiene

Bronodichlorome thane

Nitrodiphenylamine

Toluene diisocyanate .

• w r-i'

980

33,000

850

11,000

5,500

33,000

27,000

1,800

4,800

15,000

.

ja-i

] ,200

28,000

5,300

11,000

22,000

33,000

53,000

32,000

6,000

24,000

1 1 —n ui rwni

5

I.fiOO

27,000

470

11, 000

13.000

45,000

30,000

17,000

2,000

3,500

,s IN WASTE

Run Uo.6

2,500

52,000

6,300

22,000

14,000

60,000

13,000

19,000

23,000

12,000

FEEDS

7

5,000

31,000

10,000

2*., 000

25,000

36,000

26,000

8,100

29,000

a

f Qfl4BU

4,100

40,000

9,100

26,000

24,000

27,000

23,000

13,000

41,000

- •

-

-

i£

30,000

3,700

-

990

19,000

I', 000.

Note; Dashes indicate concentration less than 100 jJg/g.

Han

<./.,M)

(X)

(«/-.»)

1,3)00.016It . 99»

1670 OOil

**-.•»»;

*s 7. .•' I) I.IKli.W.9.V9I.

TABLE IV

TEST COKDITIONS FOB FCB RUNS

Feed Rates fkg/minjSolidsLiquidFuel oil

Wed. Avg. Cone.in Watte Feeds

Cl (X)Ash (X)HHV (Btu/lb)

(kJ/Kg)PCBs (X)

Total Heat Input(106 Btu/h)(10s kJ/h)

Residence Tine in SecondaryCombustion Chamber (sec)

Kiln Temperature (°C)

Secondary Combustion ChamberTemperature (°C)

Stick Flow Rate(dscm/min)

02 Concentrationin Stack (X)

Run No.10

0512-3

28.50.4312,40028,90011.0

8792

2.7

1,210

1,200

il

11SO2.2

21'*.1.28*13,30031,00015.9

111117

2.S

950

1 , 190 .

I2.

0452.0

21.91.0212,80029,8007.0

8084

3.1

1,160

1,200

13

22451.6

24.62.09811,20026,10026. 1

103108

2.8

990

1,200

860

10-2

910

9.8

750

9.9

830

9.3

Ash concentration in waste £e«ds does not include metal casing portion of the solids (capacitors),wlvicli were about l*Q\ ei«tal by veight.

PQHC

Total PCBs*

TABLE V

SLffflARY OF ORE DATA FOB PCBs

Det-ermiqaUon

M»ss input rate (g/m

Emissions (g/min)

D(J£ (X)

Run 10

/<nin) . 5,6OO

0.00)14

99.99998

Run 11

9,670

0.00119

. 99.9.9999

Run 12

3,160

0.00157

.99.99995

Run 13

17,700-

0.00105

.99.99999

Total PCBs based on all individual isom'ers detected.

TABLE VI

RESULTS OF ANALYSIS FOR DIOXI!fS_*HP FURAHS

fmticbtcrtdibrniixd lo<t*t

n»noCht.r<Mllb*.»(H,.n.

D.rt.l«r«lifc.«»r«f.ii.

TrKbUrtftou*!..!..

Delicti 1 o ro(w*ioH i 01 i mllnirhletodilicniafiiraM

Oc 1 1 c h I o rod i lieu toil i ** 1 n>

Run 10

2.* i 10~*

ND

ND

HD1.9 i 10 '

HD

HDHD

NDHD

7.J x 10**ND

ConcrntriNun M

ND

2-1. <

ND2.1 I

ND

HDND

HDND

HD

ition In Slich C*. <i/i1 Ryn 12

I0"« 3 i . 10"'

HI)

ID ' HD

10 * MU

HD

HDHD

HDHD

K.4 a 10~»

lie.)Run (i

7.S • I0"*I.S » 1»"*

HDJ.S » ID *

HDHP

HD1.3 I 10 •

HD

HDHD

HD3.1 i 10 •

3.1 i 10"*7.S • 10"»

lun >D

I 06 . |0'«I.J3 » 10"'

HD

n>HD

HD1.* • 10 *

M1.* » 10**

Ml)NO

Hn

«.: i 10"*

Halt 1*1. .ienRun M

1.1* i 10"'I.SS i 10"*

NO4.J • 10"*

NDI.I* n 10 >

HDl.» i 10 *

NO

NDND

HDM)

trn

" fcw." ll " "

2.4 i 10"*

HD

NDND

NDND

ND

tmmwND

6.3 • 10~"

Run n

NDHI)

ND1 » • 10 *

HI)

NDNt>

ND3 1 i 10 *

3. 1 • IO'1

Sett: HI) :

• e FI I I

o oA -

.*.*2 5

moo%-

k

•if! — D\

M 1C •. o

3 «

K* Kl —• ~~

O B O O ^nl

a. n» wf\B "1

O

SOB)

—-u CO

GUIO O

OS LnO O

-• *

^- 50)

TABLE IX

Cl lof>Cl liipCl Up

ftt* Cl

mi ctMSB Cl

ms cims ci

A*|.' Cl

r —

*m * Liquid nix* ((/•>»>«L - Solid w»lr (|/Bin>ul - Tot.1 ((/•ink

EB)*«IOBI (('•"!*Rcw>v»l Eflicirncy (X)

Laini*n> (t/Bin)hwntl Elliiicnry (1)

Ealtiiani (f/»inthpM>vil El(>riri<r<r It)

LMiiiiunt.Rcwvll Cllificncy (t)

„ ———————————— .,.„

Run 3

1,100i.600

10, roc

It99.1

H99. B

3499.7

-26'• 99.1

9.BM3,500

11,300

1299.91

1199.93

' 2099. IS

» • •99.19

K

9.000n

9,000

3399 .6

60 ' .99.3 •

31 '99.6

4*99. S

lon-fCB T*il*fcitnj RgjiJ

11.100 IJ.ON0 l.MQ

II, WO It.MO

«99

J99

i.99.

'• 4,»9.

.2 1)

.91 n.«t.7 14.*! «.*i

r i n96 i n.W

T ' .<« .96 99. «*

K.tOO1.400II, ZOO

10.)99-94

3.799 41

12.1' '99.93

9.199:9S

l.ilO430

1,940

2.399.9

2.J. 99.9

7.0 '

3.9

Rur jO

14.3000

I4.SOO

0.19' L99.99J9

0 . 9499.9«S

.0.17

0.90

PCB5un_I>10, Mu2.700

13.000

1.194.9TS

5 1"99.9SI

3-199.961

4.1 '99 963

Ten*tajLJj

9,9000

'9,900

. 0.6699.9733

0.9299.990)

99 . 9910

99 992J

ItUII JJ

10,1006.&00

1.499.9*9

6.199.950

99 9SS»•« nrttfed J I,.|,

PackedTowers

(2J Fuel Oil

(T) Uquid Watte

Blower

Blower

Notes:Numbers indicate campling locationsIWS indicates ionizing wet scrubbers (Ceikote)

1. Schematic diagram of th* SCA incinerator.

Figure 2. Semlvolatllp POHC t rain.

Teflon Li

roro

MidgetImptnger

Figure 3: Gas bag sampling train.

VacuumTubing

rFlow Meler

Condcnwr

F i g u r e - 4 . ' _ PCS. stack sajnpling- t r a in .