Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />The Relationship Between Chlorine in Wane Strums and Dioxin Emiuioos from Waste Combustor Sucks <br />Approach <br />Data were assembled from in-house sources, original test reports, and summaries appearing in <br />the open literature. PCDD/F, chlorine and relevant process information were entered into a <br />database for Municipal Waste Combustors [MWC], Medical Waste Incinerators [MWI], Haz- <br />' azdous Waste Incinerators [HWI], Hazardous Waste Fired Boilers [HWB], Cement Kilns <br />[CK], Biomass Combustors [BMC] and laboratory-, Bench- and Pilot-scale Combustors <br />' [LBP] <br />' All database entries were checked for transcription and data reduction errors and statistical <br />outliers were flagged. The data were standardized to USEPA reference conditions (i.e., 20°C, <br />1 atm, 7% Oz, dry) and expressed in common units (ppmdv, mg/dsm3, rag/dsms, etc.). <br />PCDD/F concentrations were expressed as moles rather than nanograms (mass) for statistical <br />analyses as required by chemical equilibrium and kinetics. For similar reasons, the logs of <br />emission measurements and chlorine concentrations were used in evaluations to minimize the <br />adverse statistical effects of data non-normality. <br />Two objective hypotheses were studied to address the central study question (i.e., what is the <br />relationship between chlorine and gaseous PCDD/F concentrations from waste combustors?). <br />They are: <br />^ Dces the distribution of PCDD/F congeners and homologues (signature) change <br />within a source category as the amount of chlorine present vanes, and <br />^ Dces the amount of PCDD/F in flue gases change as the chlorine content in feed <br />varies? <br />If the answer to both of these testable questions is no, then there is no discernible relationship <br />between stack gas PCDD/F concentrations and feed stream chlorine content. <br />The statistical analyses needed to objectively answer the above questions were first performed <br />at the individual plant level and then for groups of like facilities. Confounding variables (i.e., <br />sampling location, flue gas temperature, intentional experimental changes, salt versus <br />organochloride spiking, design differences, etc.) were controlled to the extent possible in all <br />analyses. <br /> <br />3 <br />