AGENDA VERTAC INCINERATOR EVALUATION TEAM MEETING 2/27/91 I. Introduction and Objectives (9:30 - 9:45) II. Report from Team Members - approx. 20 min. each (9:45 - Noon) Lunch Break (Noon - 1:00) III. Informal Roundtable Discussion (1:00 - 2:30) mechanisms for presence of dioxins/furans in stack emissions ^ mechanisms for increased frequency of dioxin detects in ^ ambient air monitors during production burn ^0 • mechanisms for presence of dioxins/furans in salt and ash residuals 0 0 mechanisms for presence of metals in the salt and ash residuals Break (2:30 - 2:45) IV. Discuss and Prioritize Recommendations (2:45 - 4:30) V. Timetable for Implementing and Testing Recommendations (4:30 -5:30)
53
Embed
AGENDA VERTAC INCINERATOR EVALUATION TEAM MEETING … · AGENDA VERTAC INCINERATOR EVALUATION TEAM MEETING 2 ... DATE 12/17/tO 12/1B/W 12/30/BO 12/31/80 1W1 ... • Mass balance around
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
AGENDAVERTAC INCINERATOR EVALUATION
TEAM MEETING 2/27/91
I. Introduction and Objectives ( 9 : 3 0 - 9 : 4 5 )
II. Report from Team Members - approx. 20 min. each ( 9 : 4 5 - Noon)
. DETECTABLES IN RANGE OF 0.353 TO 0.639 pg/m3 - 9 ^
3 3 °. DUPLICATE ANALYSIS OF 0.639 pg/m3 GAVE 0.440 pg/m3
. SINGLE HIGHEST CONCENTRATION - 1.902 pg/m3
. SITE ACTION LIMIT - 3.0 pg/m3
. NO OBSERVED EFFECT LEVEL (NOEL) - 5.5 pg/m3
• 6 OF 9 HITS DURING SAME 3 DAY PERIOD
. UNUSUAL TO GET HITS IN ALL DIRECTIONS(TORNADO THEORY)
* NOTE: DUPLICATE SAMPLES NOT INCLUDED INSTATISTICS
17
V£/?-TI.LOK(
2./^/^P-^ i
Table 1. Comparison of Available Data on Total TCDD Concentrations in Solid Residues, Stack Gas Emissions, and Ambient Airat Vertac Superfund Site
DATE
1880
08/17/80
08/23/80
08/2W80
10/01/80
10/11(80
10/13/80
11/01/80
11/02/80
11/03/80
11/04/80
11/07/80
11/08/80
11/08/80
11 /11 /80
11/13/80
11/14/80
11/18/80
11/21/80
11/23/80
11/26/80
11/20/80
11/27/80
11/21/80
11/28/80
11/30/80
12/01(80
12/02/80
12/03/80
12/04/80
12/06/80
12/00/80
12/07/80
12/OJ/80
12/10/00
12/12/80
12/14/80
12/16/80
SALT
Told
TCOO
(ppl)
33.2
B».7
30.2
34.0
133
31 «
818
2140
33.2
31.8
88.6
1280
34.7
22.7
101
61.1
47.3
7»»
40.3
40.2
18.8
66.8
13
AmTold
TCOO
(ppl)
34.3
SM
•
2340
1740
1f80
812
•40
1070
STACK OAS
TomPCOOiPCOF
(n^dicq
O.OfX
0.131
0.023
0.183
1.368
0.313
0.643
1.178
1.401
1.300
0.070
0.»»4
0.414
0.3B7
078B
0.36*
2,»,7,*-TCOO
(pll/dttcm)
N0(212)
NO (31B)
N0(10«)
N0(212)
N0(202)
N0(264)
N0 (242)
N0(272)
N0(284)
N0(142)
NOW
N0 (14)
N0(6)
N0(30
ND (10)
N0(7)
AMBIENT AIR (Totel TCOO)
TRAILER
(py/curn^
Q.07
O.OB
WEATHER
(pg/eum)
6.43
0.30
ww(py/wm)
SOUTH
(pg/eum)
0
WATER TWR
(pg/ou m)
0.32
0.03
0 0 6
WATER TWR
(py/cu m)
6 ?
QHEQORV
(p9/cu m)
COMMENTS
BaghouM/iprydryt cl«an«d 11/16/80
Baghour/lpray dryr d*an*d 11/20/80
Tilal Burn Tct 1 - 1
Trial Burn T*«l 1-2
Trial Burn TMI 1-3
Vfr/<.~ l a.' u-i n. i
2/^a/yz^"yZ
Table 1. Comparison of Available Data on Total TCDD Concentrations in Solid Residues. Stack Gas Emissions, and Ambient Airat Vertac Superfund Site
DATE
12/17/tO
12/1B/W
12/30/BO
12/31/80
1W1
Oe/31/81
08/17/81
08/21/81
OW26-28/8)
08/2«-10f04/81
10/01-04/81
10/04-07/81
10/08-12/81
10/08/81
10/10/91
10/11/81
10/12-16/81
10/16-r/ttl
10/1B-21/81
10/21-24/81
10/24-27/81
10/27-30/81
10/30-11/02/81
11/02-06/81
n/d6-o»/»i
u/oe-u/8.
1802
01/04-07/82
01/07-10/82
01/10-13/82
01/13-11/82
01/10-18/02
01/18-21/82
01/22-26/82
01/23-21/92
01/28-30/82'"'
BALT
Total
TCOO
(ppl)
71.1
38.2
•a.e
102
136
3«
ASH
Total
TCOO
(ppl)
76
U7.0
•
8TACKOA8
Total
PCOO/PCOF
(ng/d>cl)
3.12
2.a.7.»-TCOO
(pg/d«am)
ieaeo
AUBIENTAM (Total TCOO)
QmH* LocJUon*
TRAM-EB
(p0/cu ml
<028«
<o.2ai
<0.28«
<027t
<0.274
<0.278
HIS
<0.278
<0.2B2
<0.27B
<0.276
<o.zo«
<0.24«
<0.204
<0.261
<0.228
<0.2»6
<0.277
<0.2M
0.438
<0.2«4
HIS
1.802
<0.2«1
WEATHER
(PQ/CU m)
<0.2<6
<o.2e«
<0301
<0.2(«
<0.2»4
<OZBO
<0.212
<0.2(7
<0.27B
<0.27«
<0.278
<02B»
<02M
<0.2fl3
<0.262
<0.2«6
<0.2U
HIS
0.360
0.3M
<0.260
<02BI
<0.2t7
<02aa
WEST
(pg/ou m)
<0316
<0.322
<0.328
<0.31«
<0.320
0.1>««
<0.460
<027»
<0267
<0.262
<o.2ai
<03W
<0241
<0.244
<0.272
<0.27«
<0282
<027«
<0.272
O.M9
<0.262
<0.2&8
<0.2fll
<038*
SOUTH
(pg/cu m)
<0.348
<0.274
<0.203
<0.262
<0.262
<0.2M
<0.261
<o.2aa
<6.380
<0.2«Z
<0.203
<0.263
<0.243
<0.24«
<0.261
<0.24«
<02B7
<0.27<
<0.266
0.40«
<0.244
N/8
<0.261
<0.2W
WATER TWR
(pg/cu in)
<02«7
<0270
<0.27B
<0.2o3
<0.261
<0.2W
<0.26)
•C0.264
<0.283
<0.323
<0.304
<0.301
<0.284
<0367
<0.286
<026«
<02fll
<0.2«3
<0.2B»
. 0.«3«
<0.248
<02M
<0.271
•» iaik26g-U U 0 f
WATER T\AIR
(pd/Gu in)
<0300
<0288
<0,306
<0.281
<027«
<0280
<0273
<0.212
<0.280
<0.20C
<02BO
<0.264
<0.24«
•C0.247
<0.247
<0261
<0263
<02t1
<0266
0.440
<0.262
<0.284
<0.272
' <»263
0-4————
Qpcaom(pg/cu m)
<0.30»
<0.314
<0.31«
N/8
<0.310
<0.311
•CO 300
<0.302
<0.287
<0.286
<0.308
0.282
<0.268
•C0.243
<0.260
<0.2W
<0.273
<02ea
<O.SM
O-Ki
<0.261
<0272
<0.274
<0.268
COMMENTS
Baghour/>pry <liy*r ctoantd 12/28 ft 30/80
Trial Burn TMI 2-1
Trud Burn Tot 2-3
Trial Burn THI 2-4
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS
. ANALYTICAL CHEMIST
. TOXICOLOGIST/RISK ASSESSMENT SPECIALIST
18
VERTAC SUPERFUND SITEASSESSMENT OF INCINERATION
OPERATIONS
PREPARED FOR:
* U.S.EPAREGION VI
DALLAS, TEXAS
PREPARED BY:CHsMHILL
DENVER, CO&
EER CORPORATIONDURHAM, NC
?rgyQVironmental FEBRUARY 27,1992research Corporation
0 0 0 6 6 6
OBJECTIVES
• Identify approaches for eliminating or mitigating ambient air hits for traceorganics and toxic metals
• Suggest operational and/or equipment modifications at the VERTACSuperfund site to reduce emissions and improve solid waste residuecharacteristics
• Identify near term testing that could help facilitate above objectives andmitigate public concern
?rgyQvironmental
research Corporation
0 0 0 6 6 7
PRESENTATION OUTLINE
• Mass balance around incineration facility to define relative fluxes• Comparison of effluent characteristics with ambient air data• Identify probable sources of ambient hits• Identify hardware and operational changes with high potential to reduce
ambient hits• Suggest near term testing activities
yironmental
esearch Corporation
0 0 0 6 6 8
DATA LIMITATIONS
• Lack of complete data during trial bum periods• Incomplete dioxin and furan analysis during many tests• Feed composition uncertain; only single sample collected and analysis
reported
rgyivironmental
e5earch Corporation
0 0 0 6 6 9
Dioxin/Furan Basics
• Generally considered toxic if there is chlorine in the 2,3,7, and 8 positions• Most toxic compound is dioxin with four chlorines in the 2,3,7,8 position• Toxic congeners are only a fraction of the total dioxins and furans• Often observe congener and homolog shifts as material passes through
combustor and APCD
d(7) d(3)
2,3,7,8 - Tfctilorodibwizotufn
?rgynyironmental
research Corporation
0 0 0 6 7 0
INPUT/OUTPUT ASSESSMENT
• Input - solid wastes, organic wastes, and aqueous wastes fed into kiln• Outputs - ash, salt, and stack gases STACK 4
0 0 0 6 7 1
WASTE FEED CHARACTERISTICS
• Selected data from October '91 trial bum as basis for mass balancecalculations
• Total stack flow rate available from trial bums• Total CDD/CDF congener distribution available for trial bum 2 only• For trial bum 1, only toxic cogeners of CDD/CDF were reported (octa
CDD/CDF not included)• Total CDD/CDF for trial bum 1 estimated by taking ratios from trial bum
• Chromium and cadmium concentration in salt == 5 ppm• Conclusions:
• fugitive salt emissions are unlikely explanation for metal hits• stack fume emissions are a more likely source of metal hits
Lvironmental
esearch Corporation
0 0 0 6 8 6
HOW DO WE REDUCESTACK CDD/CDF?
yironmental
esearch Corporation
0 0 0 6 8 7
DIOXIN EMISSIONS IN STACK GAS
Contributing factors:1. Failure to destroy CDD/CDF in waste2. Furnace formation from organic intermediates (2,4 D is anexcellent dioxin precursor)3. Low temperature formation in paniculate control device4. Bifurcation between salt & gaseous effluent from baghouse5. Capture in venturi scrubber/baffle scrubber
ivironmental
esearch Corporation
0 0 0 6 8 8
1&2. FAILURE TO DESTROY ANDFURNACE FORMATION
• High levels of CDD/CDF destruction currently achieved• Improvement in combustion conditions (eliminating CO spikes) did not
reduce stack emissions• Modifications to combustion process (kiln or afterburner) unlikely to yield
significant reduction in stack CDD/CDF or ambient hits
stack CDD/CDF
^\\\, 4.7E-6 Ib/hr
feed CDD/CDF PC^ rT"b\
6.6E-3 Ib/hr
ash CDD/CDF
0.4E-6 Ib/hr
salt CDD/CDF
4.1E-6 Ib/hr srgyoyironmental
(esearch Corporation
0 0 0 6 8 9
3. LOW TEMPERATURE CDD/CDFFORMATION IN THE BAGHOUSE• Strongly dependent on particulate loading and temperature• Formation should be moderate at 440°F• Order of magnitude reduction in CDD/CDF possible if baghouse
temperature can be decreased significantly• Sorbent materials appear to interfere with formation
EPA ORD lab data suggests strong coupling of CL. to CDD/CDFformation process (Dr. Brian Gullet at EPA/ORD/AEERL)Sorbent injection as a dry powder or added through a spray dryer hasproven effective in application with up to 1000 ppm HC1 - No strong database for high Cl applications
2 w
I CO
200 SCO 1000 2000 3000
HC1 conctnt'otion (ppml
1000 2000
Cl* concentration I ppm)3000
rgy[vironmental
esearch Corporation
0 0 0 6 9 1
CDD/CDF CONDENSATION
• If CDD/CDF is in the gas phase it will not condense as a liquid to surfaceof particulate
• CDD/CDF may be chemisorbed to surfaces
60 100 1SO 200 230 300 390
TKnpfMUK'F
1 tm-1.01 x10*P«
rgylyironmenta)
esearch Corporation
0 0 0 6 9 2
4. CDD/CDF BIFURCATION INBAGHOUSE
• Carbon provides excellent surface for chemisorbtion of organics• Lack of carbonaceous paniculate leads to increased CDD/CDF in gaseous
effluent• Injection of small quantities of activated carbon dramatically increases
fraction of CDD/CDF retained on collected solids
LVironmenta)
esearch Corporation
0 0 0 6 9 5
5. CDD/CDF COLLECTION IN THE WETSCRUBBER
• CDD/CDF leaving baghouse is probably in the gas phase - not attached toparticulate matter
• Condensation of CDD/CDF is not expected• Low level CDD/CDF removal expected in venturi/baffle scrubber• Expect to see majority of stack CDD/CDF in the back half of the-sampling
train• Expect low CDD/CDF concentration in brine
rgyLvironmental
esearch Corporation
0 0 0 6 9 4
THINGS TO CHECK
• Fingerprint of CDD/CDF on ambient samples• Front half/back half split of stack concentration• measure CDD/CDF concentration in brine (also measure metals
concentration)
rgyLVironmental
esearch Corporation
0 0 0 6 9 5
SUGGESTED SYSTEM ADJUSTMENTS
• Add some caustic to spray drier instead of venturi for partial HC1 captureand possible reduction of Cl^ concentration in baghouse
• Adjust baghouse temperature to lowest possible level without undueoperational problems
• Inject activated charcoal into duct prior to baghouse• Anticipate stack CDD/CDF concentration to be reduced to " 10 ng/dscm
@ 7% 0,• If there is CDD/CDF in brine - add a carbon filter to brine flow prior to