Re: Terms used in incineration

["Jon Campbell" <jon@cqs.com>]

Sharon,

   The electrostatic precipitators on MSW incinerators are the ones I am
talking about as the probable source of massive dioxin formation, though at
this point it is not proven. At the Columbus, Ohio incinerator, the highest
producing incinerator probably in world's history (nearly 1000 gram dioxin
TEQ per year, a significant percentage of the total dioxin emissions of the
US!), it was thought to be the hot electrostatic precipitator that was the
catalyst on which the dioxins were formed. (The Columbus incinerator was
closed as a result of public pressure by residents).

      The ESP was originally thought to be a good device for trapping
particulates, but it has been discovered that in addition to being a
possible source of dioxin, the baghouse filter is now used as the primary
mechanism for particulate removal. I believe the ESP is being removed from
the Wheelabrator unit we are fighting in No. Andover, MA as a part of their
EPA-reg retrofit.

regards
Jon
----- Original Message -----
From: Ede, Sharon (DEHAA) <SEde@dehaa.sa.gov.au>
To: Multiple recipients of list DIOXIN-L <dioxin-l@essential.org>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 1999 3:38 PM
Subject: RE: Terms used in incineration


> Hi, I am an Environmental Planner with the South Australian Environment
> Protection Agency, and I am new to this list.
>
> There is currently a proposal for a magnesium smelter in a regional city
in
> my state, which will use an electrolytic process, and I understand that
this
> process has the potential to produce dioxin and other toxic by-products. I
> have been working to make sure people are aware of the dioxin issue
> (persistent in environment, bioaccumulative, health effects from exposure
to
> very low levels, UN activity to ban dioxin production etc), and this
> proposal falls under the Major Projects provisions of our planning
> legislation - there are no third party appeal rights under this section!
> (Democratic, eh?!)
>
> The Guidelines produced by Planning SA (state government) for this
magnesium
> smelting proposal require that consideration be given to different
smelting
> technologies.
>
> Can anyone assist me with, or refer me to, some basic information as to
> whether there are any alternative technologies which can achieve a similar
> result (magnesium smelting) without the potential production of dioxin and
> other toxic by-products?
>
> Any help you can offer would be very much appreciated.
>
> Also, I forwarded Jon's information to our Principal Air Quality Advisor,
as
> we had recently discussed electrostatic precipitators in relation to
> Adelaide's Railway Station:
>
> Hi Tom,
>
> I came across some information which said that electrostatic precipitators
> were potentially a source of dioxin production. Is this the case?
>
> He sent the following response:
>
> No. They don't represent a source of combustion of aromatics in the
presence
> of chlorine compounds.  ESPs are used to control very small particles, and
> work at high temperatures, so they tend to be used to control  emissions
> from municipal waste incinerators, ore smelting furnaces and cement kilns,
> all of which themselves can generate dioxins at varying rates.
>
> ESPs actually catch the particles on which dioxins attach themselves, so
> they reduce emissions of dioxins.
>
>
> Since I do not have technical expertise in this area, could someone please
> clarify this for me?
>
> Kind regards
> Sharon
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jon Campbell [mailto:jon@cqs.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, 15 September 1999 6:54
> > To: Multiple recipients of list DIOXIN-L
> > Subject: Re: Terms used in incineration
> >
> >
> > add to that: pyrolysis, gas pyrolysis, plasma, plasma torch,
> > pelletized
> > waste fuel, baghouse filter, "water wall" combustor (just a
> > fancy, polluting
> > way of protecting the walls of the combustion chamber), electrostatic
> > precipitator (where a lot of dioxin is believed to form)...
> >
> > Jon
>