emisiones de incinerador.pdf

8/10/2019 emisiones de incinerador.pdf

1/14

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________Report Information from ProQuestOctober 16 2014 14:28

_______________________________________________________________

16 October 2014 ProQuest


2/14

Tabla de contenido

1. Managing Emissions During Hazardous-Waste Combustion....................................................................... 1

Bibliografa........................................................................................................................................................ 12

16 October 2014 ii ProQuest


3/14

Documento 1 de 1

Managing Emissions During Hazardous-Waste Combustion

Enlace de documentos de ProQuest

Resumen: As one of the most controversial options for treating hazardous wastes, combustion systems that

treat or use some form of hazardous waste as a primary or supplemental fuel source have undergone intense

scrutiny, regulation and public opposition over the last two decades. Yet, hazardous-waste combustion

technologies fill an essential niche in assuring that both the toxicity and volume of certain waste streams are

reduced to safe and manageable levels in accordance with legislative mandates in a number of countries. At the

heart of many corporate and government policies regarding the prioritization of waste-management options lies

what has been termed the "waste-management hierarchy." This hierarchy defines a set of priorities to help

define how best to manage existing or potential waste streams, and states a strong preference for eliminating

waste at the source prior to its generation. Nitrogen oxides are formed during combustion and must be

controlled through proper system design and operation.

Texto completo: Headnote

Proper system selection and design ensures that waste volume and toxicity are reduced to safe levels, and that

emissions meet legislative requirements

As one of the most controversial options for treating hazardous wastes, combustion systems that treat or use

some form of hazardous waste as a primary or supplemental fuel source have undergone intense scrutiny,

regulation and public opposition over the last two decades. Yet, hazardous-waste combustion technologies fill

an essential niche in assuring that both the toxicity and volume of certain waste streams are reduced to safe

and manageable levels in accordance with legislative mandates in a number of countries.

Table 1 summarizes the many types of combustion technologies that can be used to process a number of

hazardous and toxic waste streams. The table also discusses how most of these wellestablished combustiontechnologies can be adapted to suit the characteristics of a wide array of toxic and hazardous wastes streams.

Waste-management hierarchy

At the heart of many corporate and government policies regarding the prioritization of waste-management

options lies what has been termed the "waste-management hierarchy."1 This hierarchy defines a set of priorities

to help define how best to manage existing or potential waste streams, and states a strong preference for

eliminating waste at the source prior to its generation (for more on the benefits of pollution prevention, see CE,

July, pp. 59-63). This type of policy, adopted by both both governments and companies, has led to significant

reductions in the total volume of wastes produced over the past decade.2

After source reduction has been considered, the waste-management hierarchy states that recycling and reuseoptions are the next preference, followed by treatment or disposal methods that are considered to be

environmentally safe.

For example, the authors' firm recently helped a chemical facility to significantly reduce a solvent discharge to

its wastewater-treatment plant, using a recycling and reuse approach. The solvent was present in a process

vent stream that was being pumped and compressed by steam jet ejectors. This practice caused the solvent to

be lost to the wastewatertreatment system via the ejector condensate. The existing steam jet ejectors were

replaced with liquidring vacuum pumps employing the solvent as the seal fluid. With this change, the solvent

condensed from the process vent now collects in the vacuum pump separator and is returned to storage for

reuse.

Clearly, processes that can be designed to produce a higher yield, and hence a greater percentage of product

with less byproduct waste, are intuitively desirable, from both a business and an environmental perspective.

However, at some point, the tions of technology and economics affect the final manufacturing alternatives, and

16 October 2014 Page 1 of 12 ProQuest


4/14

in all but the rarest situations, some amount of waste will unavoidably be generated. When these wastes are

hazardous or toxic, proper waste-management technologies must be employed to ensure that post-treatment

residues can be safely disposed of, and that any final emissions pose no environmental threat.

A number of countries have recognized that waste combustion technologies that are properly designed,

equipped with appropriate emission-control systems, and operated responsibly by trained personnel play a key

role in maintaining environmental quality. In the U.S. for example, when the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) established the Land Disposal Restrictions Program, incineration formed the basis of both the

technologyand performance-based requirements for many organic streams containing hazardous wastes that

are regulated under the federal hazardous-waste program [I].

Over the past few years, a number of U.S. hazardous-waste-combustion (HWC) facilities, both onsite and

commercial third-party units, have been upgraded to meet new federal emissions standards.3

Today, a number of complex risk-assessment studies suggest that these upgraded facilities pose minimal

human health or environmental impact. Nonetheless, HWCs remain the subject of intense opposition, and many

installations may be forced to further upgrade their systems, depending on the outcome of additional U.S.

federal regulation.4

Regulations vary by country

Hazardous-waste incinerators and other waste-combustion systems are regulated differently in different

countries. While some countries have specific standards for these process operations, other countries regulate

waste-combustion systems and their emissions under general air emissions programs. Table 2 summarizes the

relevant regulations relating to hazardous-waste-combustion emissions for a selection of countries. While

standards vary worldwide, the U.S. and European Union programs are often used as references for the

development of new standards elsewhere.

Control approaches

Table 3 lists the pollutants that are commonly encountered in combustion systems, and shows the possible

control methods, which are discussed in detail below. For most combustion systems, hot fluegas producedduring the combustion step usually requires further treatment, to remove residual gaseous and particulate

pollutants. The temperature of the gas stream leaving the combustion zone is high (typically above 800C), and

is typically quenched to a lower temperature before it is subjected to further treatment (for more on quenching

fluegas to control particulate emissions, see CE, August, pp. 183-188). This cooling can be done by installing a

wasteheat boiler to either generate steam or hot water, or preheat combustion air that is injected into the unit to

promote oxidation.

In cases where heat recovery is not used, the gases are instead quenched to the adiabatic saturation

temperature by the injecting water into the stream. The gases then pass from the quench system through

subsequent treatment systems, such as particulate and/or acid-gas-removal devices, for further cleanup (Figure1).

Controlling nitrogen oxides

Nitrogen oxides (NOx) are formed during combustion and must be controlled through proper system design and

operation. There are generally two contributors to NOx formation during combustion:

* Conversion of nitrogen contained in the combustion air - this is usually referred to as thermal NOx

* Conversion of chemically bound nitrogen compounds that are contained in the feed - this is commonly referred

to as chemical NOx

Thermal NOx is controlled by minimizing flame temperature, typically through the use of low-NOx burners.

Chemical NOx formation can be controlled using staged combustion. The first stage of the combustor operates

with sub-stoichiometric oxygen levels at high temperatures. Excess air is then added to complete combustion of

carbon monoxide and residual hydrocarbons in the second stage.

Two other methods of NOx control could be appropriate, depending on the application. These include:



5/14

* Selective non-catalytic reduction, where ammonia or urea is injected into the fluegas. The ammonia or urea

acts as a reducing agent and converts the NOx back to nitrogen

* Selective catalytic reduction, where a catalyst is used to promote the reducing reaction. This method is

typically used in applications where the fluegas temperatures are relatively low (300-500C; for more on NOx

control, see CE, July 2001, pp. 66-71).

Controlling acid gases

Acid gases, such as HCl and S02 are removed by the use of wet scrubbers, which contact the incoming fluegas

stream with a circulating water and/or alkaline solution. The contacting device used is most commonly a column

with trays or packing, although acid gases can also be removed concurrently with particulate matter in

equipment such as venturi scrubbers. In some cases a combination of venturi and towers is used in order to

achieve acid gas scrubbing and particulate removal at the same time. Depending on the acid gas that requires

removal, calcium or sodium alkaline solutions may also be employed as a scrubbing liquid in lieu of, or in

addition to, water alone.

Acid gases can also be controlled using "dry" scrubbing techniques such as dry lime scrubbers. In such a unit, a

calcium hydroxide slimy is injected into hot, acid-gas-bearing fluegas. As the water from the slurry evaporates

(cooling the fluegas), the acidic components in the fluegas react with the calcium, forming a salt. Dry lime and

calcium salts are removed from the fluegas using a baghouse or similar device. Acid gases can also be

removed from fluegas by injection of dry powdered lime directly into a cool (200C) gas stream. Table 4 lists the

advantages and disadvantages of wet scrubbers.

Controlling heavy metals

Because of varying physical and chemical properties, the control of emissions of heavy metals require different

strategies and approaches. Heavy metals are not destroyed in combustion systems. Depending on

temperatures in various portions of the unit and other chemicals being processed, they can react and be

converted to different forms in residues and emissions. Heavy metals can be classified into three broad

groupings - volatile, semivolatile, and low-volatility - and control strategies can be developed for each group.These three groupings, and metals that are representative of them, are shown in Table 5.

Metals with lower volatility (such as beryllium and chromium) generally remain in solid or particulate form in

combustion systems. However, depending on operating temperatures and the presence of such compounds as

chlorine, certain metals can react with chlorine to form metals chlorides, which are typically somewhat more

volatile. Often, a significant fraction of the lowvolatility metals fed to combustion systems end up partitioning into

solid product or residue streams, and therefore do not end up in the fluegas stream.

Two primary strategies are important in controlling these two groups:

* Thorough characterization and control of metals fed to the combustor

* Good control of particulate matter (discussed below)Mercury, on the other hand, poses some unique control challenges, because it is highly volatile and can be

present in different physical and chemical forms in combustion gases. Mercury-control options are discussed in

detail later in this article.

Controlling particulate matter

Removal of particulate matter (PM) is usually achieved by using either dry or wet control equipment; each is

discussed in detail below:

* Cyclone type separators (dry)

* Fabric filters (dry)

* Electrostatic precipitators (dry or wet) and ionizing wet scrubbers

* Wet scrubbers (wet)

Cyclone separators. Inertial separators such as cyclones are widely used to remove medium-sized and coarse

particles. The separation mechanism works by forcing the inlet gas to rapidly change direction, so that the



6/14

inertial force of the particles causes them to continue in the original directionand hence separate from the carrier

gas - as the gas stream turns. Separation efficiency is a function of the weight of the particle, so smaller particle

sizes lead to lower removal cies. Figure 2 a typical cyclone type separator. Table 6 provides an evaluation of

cyclone collectors.

Baghouses. A baghouse is a versatile dust-removal option that consists of multiple fabric bags that are usually

contained in a vessel. These highly efficient systems remove particles spanning a wide size range.

During operation, the dust particles form a porous cake on the filter fabric, and this cake does most of the

filtration. Periodically, this cake is removed by providing a burst of air in the reverse direction of the fluegas flow,

to avoid excessive pressure drop, and possibly failure of the system. Figure 3 shows a typical baghouse. Table

7 provides further information related to baghouse operation.

Electrostatic precipitators and ionizing wet scrubbers. Electrostatic precipitators (ESP) and ionizing wet

scrubbers (IWS) are used to collect fine particulates during combustion. Each type of device works on a similar

principle, with some variation in how each is configured. The discussion in this section is limited to ESPs for the

sake of brevity. However, the principle of operation for both ESP and IWS is the same: the solid particles

suspended in the fluegas are electrically charged and then attracted to a collection surface that holds an

opposite charge. This is accomplished by creating an electrical field, or corona, within the device to charge the

particle. ESP design options include plate-wire, flat-plate, wet and tubular systems (each is discussed below).

Figure 4 shows a typical ESP. Figure 8 provides further information related to ESP and IWS operation.

Plate-wire precipitator. In this type of precipitator, the gas flows between parallel plates of sheet metal and high-

voltage electrodes that create the actual corona field. These electrodes are long, weighted wires that either

hang between the plates or are are supported by rigid frames. This type of ESP allows many flow lanes to

operate in parallel, and as a result, the device is well-suited to handle large gas volumes (>200,000 cfm). The

plates are periodically rapped to remove the collected dust.

Flat-plate precipitator. Smaller precipitators (


7/14

on which the liquid particles intercept the suspended particles. These devices are considered to be

mediumpressure-drop devices (up to 25 in. w.c.) and are generally used to collect particles in the 1-5-

micrometer range. There are several configurations for interception-based scrubbers, but in general, they

consist of a vessel that contains the filter medium, which is wetted by a recirculating stream. A blowdown

stream is periodically taken from the recirculation tank to remove the collected material (Figure 7).

Diffusion-based particle collectors (often called "candle" filters) are used to remove submicrometer-sized

particles and water-soluble aerosols (Figure 8). The gas velocity through these devices is very low (in the

laminar flow range), and they experience low pressure drop (


8/14

Several techniques can be used to accomplish this, such as: installing a temperature-control loop in part of the

process to initiate a partial quench with either fresh air or water; optimizing the existing boiler or heat exchanger

to operate at a lower outlet temperature; or modifying the boiler or heat-recovery section to extract more heat

from the fluegas, thereby reducing the outlet temperature.

Controlling mercury

Classified as a persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic compound, mercury represents a challenging constituent

in incinerator waste-feed streams. A first step in understanding mercurycontrol options is to determine whether

mercury can be eliminated from the incoming waste streams. If not, then it must be controlled in the combustion

unit itself.

In one example, where an onsite incinerator treated solid deposits from a wastewater treatment plant, mercury

buildup was discovered in the solids in plant sewers downstream of a production area where mercury was

formerly used in the manufacturing process. The solids were subsequently treated in the onsite wastewater-

treatment plant and then incinerated in an onsite incinerator. To meet new federal emissions standards, the

authors' company assisted the facility in evaluating various options to reduce mercury emissions.

The strategic removal of mercurybearing solids from the sewers upstream of the wastewater-treatment plant

and incinerator contributed significantly to the overall reduction of mercury entering the incinerator, and hence,

mercury emissions levels in the incinerator fluegas.

If control of mercury must be addressed in the combustion system, it is important to know what form of mercury

is involved. Mercury is typically present in two primary forms in HWC fluegas: as elemental mercury and salts of

mercury. In general, elemental mercury (Hg) is not water-soluble and, therefore, is not amenable to wet

scrubbing technologies. Mercury salts (Hg+2), however, are generally watersoluble and can be removed using

wet scrubbing techniques.

Although reaction to the +1 oxidation state as mercurous chloride (Hg2Cl2) is possible, in practice, nearly all of

the mercury found in incinerator fluegas is either elemental mercury (Hg) or in the +2 oxidation state as

mercuric chloride (HgCl2).The authors' company has used mercury spciation6 for stack-gas analysis, to enable process engineers to

better determine control options, since some forms of mercury are particulate-bound while others are vapor;

and, furthermore, some are water-soluble while others are not. If mercury is present in an oxidized state (i.e., as

HgCl2) it can be removed with traditional wet scrubbing technologies. Generally, a highenergy wet scrubbing

system or an absorption tower will be needed to reduce the typically low concentrations of mercury found in

stack gases (most HWC units already have low mercury limits that are controlled through limiting feed

concentrations or rates).

Where mercury is present in its reduced state (that is, elemental mercury vapor), potential removal technologies

such as adsorption on activated carbon generally emerge as the most effective removal option, although notalways the least expensive one. Both injection of powdered activated carbon (PAC) and fixed-bed activated-

carbon units have proven effective in controlling mercury to regulatory limits.

The temperature of the treated gas is an important consideration when using PAC or fixed-bed carbon systems,

as adsorption works better at lower temperatures. For example, mercury adsorption on carbon is more effective

following heat recovery at temperatures of 120-200C, that is, prior to heat recovery. Also, sulfur-impregnated

carbons, which improve mercury removal, lose their sulfur at temperatures above 85C. Pilot testing of virtually

all mercury-control technologies is the only way to determine performance for a particular waste and set of

operating conditions.

Design considerations

This section describes design aspects for certain air-pollution-control equipment that can typically be sized and

selected by the process design team itself. For the other equipment types mentioned in this article, it is typically

necessary for the design team to assemble a set of performance specifi- cations and solicit the support of



9/14

qualified equipment vendors to perform the detailed design.

Scrubber design. High-energy scrubbers are used to collect both coarse and fine particulate matter from gas

streams. A scrubber produces a separation by contacting a scrubbing liquid with a gas stream. As a result, if an

appropriate scrubbing liquid, such as water or alkaline solutions, are used, then gas-phase contaminants are

absorbed to some degree. If the primary objective is removal of gas-phase contaminants, a low-energy

scrubber with longer contact times is used.

The most common type of high-energy scrubber is the venturi, which is compact and has lower capital cost than

to ESPs and baghouses. However, scrubbers generally have higher power consumption, and therefore incur

higher operating costs than these other particulate-removal systems.

Venturi scrubbers work by accelerating a gas stream, and the particulates it contains, to a high velocity, in order

to promote collisions between individual particles and liquid droplets that are created in the venturi throat using

energy from the gas stream. If the collision occurs at a sufficiently high velocity, the droplet traps the particle.

The venturi design allows the gas and liquid to be accelerated to a high velocity in the venturi throat and then

returned to a low velocity at the outlet with a relatively low consumption of energy. The low-velocity liquid

droplets are removed from the gas stream by density differences and gravity in a downstream knockout vessel.

As a generalization, the higher the throat velocity, the smaller the particle that a venturi scrubber can collect. For

a given particle size, particle specific gravity, and throat velocity, the fraction of particles of a given size that will

be collected can be determined empirically. These data are often presented as a family of curves with fractional

collection efficiency plotted against particle diameter. Pressure drop is proportional to throat velocity squared,

and venturi efficiency curves are most commonly presented with pressure drop as the parametric variable.

For the design of a venturi scrubber, data characterizing both the gas stream and the contaminants to be

removed are needed. The operating flowrate range for the gas stream is required, as are its temperature,

pressure, water content and other physical properties. Information defining the mass loading rate, specific

gravity and particle-size distribution of the particulate to be removed must be gathered, as well. Once influent

and effluent particulate loading rates are defined, the venturi pressure drop can be calculated if efficiencycurves are available from similar scrubber applications. Removal efficiency at a given scrubber pressure drop

for each particle in the influent stream is used to calculate overall removal efficiency for the total distribution of

particle sizes in the feed.

In addition to pressure drop, the volume ratio of liquid flow to gas flow is an important venturi scrubber design

parameter. Scrubbers are commonly designed with liquid-to-gas ratios of between 7 and 12 gal. liquid/1,000

actual ft3 gas, with 10 a typical value. In order to minimize the volume of waste liquid produced by the scrubber,

it is often recycled from the effluent knockout to the venturi feed, with makeup and blowdown streams used to

control the particulate and dissolved solids content of the scrubber feed. If particulate and dissolved solids

concentrations in the scrubbing liquid are allowed to get too high, the particulate content of the gas exiting thescrubber will be impacted. As a general rule of thumb, it is necessary to limit the solids content of the

recirculated liquid to between 0.5 and 5% by weight.

The size of the venturi scrubber can be back-calculated using design pressure drop and the Calvert equation:

AP = (5 x 10-5) V2 L

where:

AP = pressure drop, in. w.c.

L = liquid rate, gal/1,000 ft3 gas

V = gas velocity in the venturi throat, ft/s

With AP and L known, the throat velocity is calculated. Throat crosssectional area is calculated from gas

velocity and the volumetric flowrate. It is important that the volumetric flowrate used for the calculation is based

on the gas volume after it is saturated with the scrubbing liquid.

Cyclone design. Cyclones are used to collect coarse particulate, or for applications where high particulate-



10/14

removal efficiency is not required. They are often used as a pretreatment step to reduce loading prior to a

second stage of particulate removal.

Particulate matter is removed across a cyclone by introducing a gas stream tangentially to a cylindrical or

conical chamber, with the gas exiting around the central axis and exiting at the top of the cylinder. The inertia of

the entering particulate matter causes it to move instead toward the wall of the cyclone, where it then falls by

gravity to a collection chamber at the cyclone's base. Increasing the gas velocity in the cyclone increases

collection efficiency. At a given gas volumetric flowrate, decreasing cyclone diameter increases velocity, and,

therefore collection efficiency. It also increases cyclone pressure drop. A single cyclone can be used to treat an

entire gas stream, or a number of small cyclones can be used in parallel.

Cyclone collection efficiency is determined using empirical curves that are specific to a particular cyclone

design. Manufacturers' curves are typically presented as percentage removal for particulate in a given size

range, with cyclone pressure drop as the parametric variable.

Materials of construction for cyclones must be consistent with both the properties of the gas and the particulate

matter. With abrasive particulates, erosion of the wall opposite the cyclone inlet can be a problem, so abrasion-

resistant metals with a high Brinell rating should be used.

Cyclones handling acid gases, such as hydrogen chloride or sulfur oxides and water vapor, are subject to

corrosion unless corrosion-resistant materials are specified for the cyclone. At high temperatures (greater than

about 425C), alloy construction becomes necessary.

Similarly, sticky particulate can foul a cyclone, reducing its operating efficiency. On the other hand, cyclones can

be operated wet in order to remove fouling materials and improve collection efficiency.

Electrostatic precipitator design. The collection efficiency of an ESP is calculated as follows:

N=l- -AWV)

where:

N = the fractional collection efficiency, unitless

A = the collecting surface, ft2V = the gas flowrate, acfs

W = the migration velocity, ft/s

The migration velocity will range from 0.03-0.6 ft/s, depending on factors such as voltage, particle size, gas

composition and system geometry. Detailed design procedures for ESPs are beyond the scope of this article,

but can be obtained from ESP vendors.

Conclusion

As global waste-incineration standards become more uniform and stringent, facility operators will need to

evaluate necessary design and operational changes to ensure ongoing compliance and environmental

protection.Whether designing new systems or modifying existing ones, an experienced, multi-disciplinary team must be

assembled. This team must determine expected fluegas quality at various points in the overall system, and

apply fundamental chemical-process design approaches to determine the best control strategies. Options to

eliminate problematic constituents from inlet streams streams should also be strongly considered.

The team must assess regulatory and technology changes, so that control solutions can be selected that cost-

effectively meet current requirements, and, to the extent possible, likely future requirements, as well. Today,

combustion-based control systems are versatile, and can be adapted for a variety of toxic and hazardous

materials, in a variety of forms.

Where existing facilities are being considered for retrofits to meet new requirements, the team should gather

actual emissions data (to support a basis of design and verify performance of new equipment), conduct pilot

testing of possible control technologies and evaluate possible risk-assessment implications. All are important

components to selecting and implementing a success solution for managing hazardous and toxic waste using



11/14

combustion technology. *

Edited by Suzanne Shelley

Footnote

1. See, for example, the U.S. Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, Title 42 USC, Chapter 133, 13101(b), and the

European Union Waste Incineration Directive (WID) 2000/76/EC).

2. See, for example, EPA's report on the progress in reduction of 17 priority chemicals at http://www.

epa.gov/minimize/meetgoal.htm).

Footnote

3. These standards were promulgated by EPA, under the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air

Pollutants (NESHAPs) program of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. They can be found in Title 40, Part

63 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Subpart EEE.

4. EPA promulgated the new NESHAPs stds. in 1999, which were subsequently litigated. As a result, the

Washington D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered EPA to publish "Interim Standards," and redevelop new stds.

that are expected to replace these over the next few years).

Footnote

5. D/Fs that are present in wastes being fed are destroyed in the combustion portion of an HWC. However, the

precense of chlorine and trace organic molecules in downstream fluegas can result in D/Fs being "reformed"

there.

Footnote

6. This technique, called the "Draft Ontario Hydro Method," uses a modified, multi-metals, stack-sampling train

that allows for discrete collection and analysis of particulate-bound elemental mercury and salts of mercury.

References

References

1. U.S. Federal Register, Volume 51, pp. 40572 et. seq., November 7, 1986, and 40 CFR 268, Appendix II.

2. U.S. Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), Title 40, Part 63, Subpart EEE (Std. conditions are 20C, 1 atm, datacorrected to 7% 02).

3. European Union WID 2000/76/EC (normal conditions are 0C, 1 atm, data corrected to 11% 02).

4. Law Concerning Special Measures Against Dioxins, Article 6; Cabinet Order for Implementation of the Law

Concerning Special Measures Against Dioxins, Article 2; Air Pollution Control Law, Articles 13,15 and 16;

Enforcement Regulation of Air Pollution Control, Annexed Table 3 (normal conditions are 0C and 1 atm).

5. Notification of the Ministry of Science, Technology and Environment B.E. 2540, 1997, dated June 17

(standard conditions for reporting in Thailand are 25C, 1 atm, data corrected to an excess air of 50% or excess

02 of 7%)

6. Decree No. 831/93, Article 33 (standard conditions are 20C, 1 atm, data corrected to 10% C02).7. U.S. Federal Register, Vol. 64, pp. 52846 and 52847, September 30, 1999.

8. The Relationship Between Chlorine in the Waste Streams and Dioxin Emissions from Waste Combustor

Stacks; CRTD, Vol. 36; American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Center for Research and Technology

Development: Washington DC, 1995.

9. Fell, J., Kombisorbon Process, A Combined Activated Carbon-Based Adsorbent for Removal of Eco-Toxic

Components Like Dioxins or Mercury from Flue Gas. Presented at the International Conference on Incineration

&Thermal Treatment Technologies, Portland Oreg., May 8-12,2000.

AuthorAffiliation

Craig Doolittle, John Woodhull and Mudumbai Venkatesh

ENSR International

AuthorAffiliation

Authors



12/14

Craig Doolittle, P.E., is a senior program manager for ENSR International (2 Technology Park Dr., Westford, MA

01886-3140; Phone: 978589-3200, ext. 3534; Fax: 978589-3100; Email: cdoolittle @ensr.com; Web: ensr.com).

He has 25+ years of experience in the environmental field, and has prepared and negotiated large RCRA Part B

permits, managed the operations of rotarykiln incineration facilities, written and managed compliance and

emissions-testing programs, and served as a spokesperson on combustion issues. He is also a past chairman

of the Board of Directors of the Coalition for Responsible Waste Incineration (CRWI). Doolittle holds both a

B.S.C.E.E and an M.S.C.E.E. from Clarkson University, and is a registered professional engineer in

Massachusetts and Ohio.

John Woodhull, P.E., is a I Bhs 1 senior program manager for 1 Hf I ENSR International (Phone: HI 978-589-

3254; Fax 978-589I I 3361; Email: jwoodhull@ensr 1 .com). He has more than 22 I years experience as a

chemical and process engineer, designing chemical plants, refineries, and waste treatment systems. Woodhull

has managed the process engineering effort for, and implementation of, waste-treatment systems for many

types of CPI facilities and refineries. He holds a B.S. Ch.E. from Worcester Polytechnic Inst, and an M.S. Ch.E.

from Tufts University. He is a registered professional engineer in five states.

Mudumbai Venkatesh, PJE., is a vice-president and general lfm manager at ENSR International H (Phone: 978-

589-3200, ext. 3253; HfWHH Fax: 978-589-3301; Email: p [email protected]), and has over 24 years of

experience JH|HpL in process design and plant op i fla erations throughout the CPI. He manages

complex, multi-dis| | ciplinary project teams involved in the process design, permitting, engineering and

construction support, and startup of wastewater-treatment, remediation and combustion operations. He holds a

B.Sc. degree in mathematics, physics, and chemistry from Osmania University, and B.S. and M.S. degrees in

chemical engineering from the University of New Hampshire.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to acknowledge the following persons, for their assistance during the preparation of this

article: Richard Ferris, Esq. (Beveridge &Diamond; Washington, D.C.), and Gabriel R. Macchiavello, Esq.

(Argentina)

Materia: Emissions control; Hazardous substances; Waste disposal;

Lugar: United States--US

Clasificacin: 9190: United States; 1540: Pollution control; 8340: Electric, water & gas utilities

Ttulo: Managing Emissions During Hazardous-Waste Combustion

Autor: Doolittle, Craig; Woodhull, John; Venkatesh, Mudumbai

Ttulo de publicacin: Chemical Engineering

Tomo: 109

Nmero: 13

Pginas: 50-57

Nmero de pginas: 8

Ao de publicacin: 2002

Fecha de publicacin: Dec 2002

Ao: 2002

Seccin: Feature Report

Editorial: Access Intelligence LLC



13/14

Lugar de publicacin: New York

Pas de publicacin: United States

Materia de publicacin: Chemistry, Engineering--Chemical Engineering

ISSN: 00092460

Tipo de fuente: Scholarly Journals

Idioma de la publicacin: English

Tipo de documento: Cover Story

Caractersticas del documento: Illustrations Tables References

ID del documento de ProQuest: 1503664060

URL del documento: http://search.proquest.com/docview/1503664060?accountid=38235

Copyright: Copyright Access Intelligence LLC Dec 2002

ltima actualizacin: 2014-05-24

Base de datos: ABI/INFORM Global



14/14

BibliografaCitation style: Council of Science Editors - CSE 7th, Name-Year Sequence

Doolittle C, Woodhull J, Venkatesh M. 2002. Managing emissions during hazardous-waste combustion.

Chemical Engineering 109(13):50-7.

_______________________________________________________________Contactar con ProQuest

Copyright2014 ProQuest LLC. Reservados todos los derechos. - Trminos y condiciones

16 O t b 2014 P 12 f 12 P Q t

Documents

emisiones de incinerador.pdf