BSEN40110

Advanced Air Pollution Air pollution in the incineration industry

Luke Martin

4/27/2015

The incineration of municipal solid waste has become a popular waste disposal method because of the reduction in emissions compared to landfill and the energy recovery associated with this technology. By incorporating a number of modern abatement methods into their design, incinerators can safely come under the emissions limits set out by the E.U. Focusing primarily on the Irish incineration industry; and subsequently European and US examples, the dispersal of pollutants emitted by these facilities are assessed to determine their potential impact on human health. The study shows that all facilities come under the respective emissions limits and that modern gas-cleaning technology can reduce emissions by 65%.

1

UCD Assessment Submission Form Student Name

Luke Martin

Student Number

14200324

Assessment Title

Air pollution model of an incinerator

Module Code

BSEN40110

Module Title

Advanced Air Pollution

Module Co-ordinator

Dr. Tom Curran

Date Submitted

27 April 2015

Date Received

Grade/Mark

A SIGNED COPY OF THIS FORM MUST ACCOMPANY ALL SUBMISSIONS FOR ASSESSMENT. STUDENTS SHOULD KEEP A COPY OF ALL WORK SUBMITTED. Procedures for Submission and Late Submission Ensure that you have checked the School’s procedures for the submission of assessments. Note: There are penalties for the late submission of assessments. For further information please see the University’s Policy on Late Submission of Coursework, (http://www.ucd.ie/registrar/) Plagiarism: the unacknowledged inclusion of another person’s writings or ideas or works, in any formally presented work (including essays, examinations, projects, laboratory reports or presentations). The penalties associated with plagiarism designed to impose sanctions that reflect the seriousness of University’s commitment to academic integrity. Ensure that you have read the University’s Briefing for Students on Academic Integrity and Plagiarism and the UCD Plagiarism Statement, Plagiarism Policy and Procedures, (http://www.ucd.ie/registrar/) Declaration of Authorship I declare that all material in this assessment is my own work except where there is clear acknowledgement and appropriate reference to the work of others. Signed…Luke Martin…………………………………… Date ……24/04/2015…………………………………..

2

Contents

1) Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 4

2) Literature review ................................................................................................................ 6

Incineration ............................................................................................................................ 6

Pollutants ............................................................................................................................... 7

Abatement Techniques to Limit Pollutant Emissions .......................................................... 10

3) Site Description ................................................................................................................. 13

Indaver, Carranstown, Co. Meath ........................................................................................ 13

Covanta, Poolbeg, Co. Dublin .............................................................................................. 14

Tersa, Montcada, Barcelona ................................................................................................ 15

Babcock & Wilcox, West Palm Beach, Florida ..................................................................... 16

4) Modelling Methods .......................................................................................................... 17

5) Results ............................................................................................................................... 19

Sulphur Oxide Emissions ...................................................................................................... 19

Nitrogen Oxide Emissions .................................................................................................... 20

Dioxin and Furan Emissions ................................................................................................. 22

Sensitivity Analyses .............................................................................................................. 24

6) Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 26

Interpretation ...................................................................................................................... 26

Limitations............................................................................................................................ 29

7) Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 30

Reference List ........................................................................................................................... 31

3

Figure 1: Number of MSW incinerators in various countries across Europe and the US (ISWA, 2012) . 4

Figure 2: Typical layout of a modern moving grate incinerator (Murdoch University, 2014) ................ 6

Figure 3: Electrostatic precipitator (Holbert Faculty, 2003) ................................................................. 11

Figure 4: Chemical Scrubber (intech, 2014) .......................................................................................... 11

Figure 5: Gas filtration system (Tri-Mer, 2013) ..................................................................................... 11

Figure 6: Indaver panoramic view and map showing the facility location (Indaver) ............................ 13

Figure 7: Poolbeg incinerator speculative image and location (Covanta, 2015) .................................. 14

Figure 8: Tersa incinerator birds-eye view and location (Tersa, 2015)................................................. 15

Figure 9: West Palm Beach incinerator image and location (Tersa, 2015) ........................................... 16

Figure 10: Terrain profile taken from the alternate transect at the Carranstown site ........................ 18

Figure 11 (a): Air Dispersion of SOx emissions in the direction of prevailing wind .............................. 19

Figure 12(a): Air dispersion of NOx emissions according to prevailing wind conditions. ..................... 21

Figure 13: Air Dispersion of Dioxins and Furans in the prevailing wind direction ................................ 22

Figure 14 (b): Air dispersal of dioxins and furans in the alternate wind direction ............................... 22

4

1) Introduction

In the past few decades, the incineration of municipal solid waste (MSW) has become a

popular method for waste disposal. Some studies even go so far to suggest that modern

incineration facilities are crucial to sustainable waste management hierarchies to be in

adherence with EU DIRECTIVE 2000/76/EC targets (Hjelmar, 1996; Van Gervan et al, 2005).

These facilities take preference over the archaic landfill disposal methods due to a

significant reduction in the volume of waste as well as overall emissions reductions

(Cherubini et al, 2009).

Figure.1 taken from ISWA (2012) shows the number of incinerators currently operating in a

number of developed countries across Europe and the US. With the successful completion

of the Carranstown incinerator in 2011, Ireland is finally beginning to follow European

protocol however is still lagging behind its neighbours.

Figure 1: Number of MSW incinerators in various countries across Europe and the US (ISWA, 2012)

While the scientific evidence is unequivocally in favour of incineration as a waste disposal

technique, the potential of detrimental health effects from stack emissions are of major

public concern (Meneses et at, 2004). Up until 2011, Ireland has resisted the use of

incinerators largely due to the phenomena such as “NIMBYism” and lack of trust in planning

authorities (Davies, 2004; Cavazza, 2013). In an attempt to allay or justify the public’s

5

concerns, this study investigates the true impact these facilities have on human health. This

will be achieved by;

Identifying the key pollutants emitted by an incinerator,

Outlining the specific effects these emissions potentially have on human health,

Explaining the concentrations that these pollutants are harmful to human health,

Analysing the dispersion of these pollutants from several incinerators with samples

from Ireland, Europe and the USA.

This project uses Lakes Environmental’s air dispersion modelling software “Screenview” to

assess the dispersion of pollutants from these facilities.

6

2) Literature review

Incineration

Incineration, or under its green-washed pseudonym “thermal treatment”, of municipal solid

waste involves the destruction of waste by heating it to high temperatures in the range of

850-1100°C. This is carried out in a controlled environment to limit the release of emissions

to the environment. The main appeal of this treatment method is that it reduces the volume

of waste to one-tenth of its initial size (Sabbas et al, 2003) and the heat from flue gases can

be utilized to run a steam turbine to generate electricity or used directly for district heating.

Figure 2: Typical layout of a modern moving grate incinerator (Murdoch University, 2014)

Figure.2 depicts the typical layout of a modern, state of the art, moving grate incinerator.

This type of incinerator is preferred for treating MSW as they are considered most reliable

for dealing with mass quantities of non-homogenous waste streams. All four facilities

studied in the project utilise this type of mass burn incinerator. Waste is received into a

storage bunker (A). A grabber, (B) controlled by an operator in the control room, transfers

waste into a hopper (C). This step allows for the extraction of potentially hazardous wastes

unsuitable for thermal treatment which is particularly important from an emissions

7

perspective as an anomalous piece of waste could lead to a higher release of pollutants than

expected. The hopper then gradually feeds the waste into a moving grate incinerator (D).

This moving grate shifts waste gradually through the drying stage (<100°C), hydrolysis stage

(<700°C) and combustion stage (700-1000°C) (E). The combustion stage results in the

production of a flue gas which is directed by a combustion chamber chute (F), towards a

boiler system. The heat from the flue gas heats water in the boiler creating steam, which is

channelled to a turbine to generate electricity. Flue gases then continue on to an

economiser (H) where heat is recycled either for on-site usage, or for supplementary heat to

the incineration cycle itself.

While the quantities of pollutants are significantly reduced using this waste management

technique over others, the release of some of these pollutants to the atmosphere is

inevitable. This is where the public’s main concern comes in according to Meneses et al

(2004). Modern incinerators are legally obliged to incorporate a number of abatement

technologies (Best Available Techniques) to restrict the emissions of pollutants to an

acceptable level to avoid affecting human health. Figure.3 illustrates the inclusion of a wet

scrubber/evaporating spray reactor (I), an electrostatic precipitator and bag filter system

(J), and dioxin filtration system (K) consisting of a catalytic fibre to oxidise dioxins. These

technologies are elaborated on in the “abatement techniques” section. Finally the stack

height (L) is of importance to ensure adequate dispersal rates of pollutants in the

atmosphere which in turn, dilutes their respective concentrations. Provided these

abatement techniques are properly utilized, the health risks associated with incineration are

estimated to be five times lower than those associated with landfill (Moy et al, 2008).

Furthermore, Cangialosi et al (2008) has claimed that the health impacts which may arise

from inhalation, dermal contact or soil and food ingestion of pollutants emitted from

incinerators are well below background levels of these pollutants.

Pollutants

The principal air pollutants emitted from a municipal solid waste incinerator are acid gases;

consisting of sulphur dioxides and nitrogen oxides, organics; such as dioxins and furans and

heavy metals; including lead, mercury, cadmium and arsenic. Each of these toxins has their

8

own inherent detrimental effect on human health when experienced in acute or chronic

concentrations.

Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)

NOx is one of the most abundant pollutants found in incinerator flue gases. These chemicals

form during the combustion phase of the incineration process when the waste is heated

above 850°C to “crack” the strong molecular bonds of furans and dioxins (DEFRA, 2010).

NOx gases can penetrate deep into the lungs causing, or aggravating existing respiratory

illnesses while particularly high concentrations can be fatal (EPA (a), 2015). According to

WID 2000/76/EC, limits the daily emission of NOx to 200mg/m³ for plants exceeding an

input of 6 t/hr.

Sulphur Oxides (SOx)

These sulphuric compounds form in any process which involves burning. SOx pollutants also

affect the respiratory system and aggravate a number of illnesses such as asthma, bronchitis

and emphysema (EPA (a), 2015). Modern incineration plants cannot exceed daily emissions

of 50mg/m³.

Dioxins and Furans

These pollutants account for all polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (WID,

2000/76/EC). These compounds form either from incomplete combustion of the feedstock

or through de novo synthesis due to an inconsistency in furnace temperature (DEFRA,

2010). Davies (2004) identifies these pollutants as central to most incinerator objections and

with good reason. Benzene, the key component of these compounds can cause dizziness,

drowsiness, headaches and unconsciousness following acute exposure and chronic exposure

has been linked with causing cancer (EPA (a), 2015). Due to their potency these substances

are strictly limited to 0.1 ng/m³.

Mercury

Mercury emissions are associated with combustion of any type. Exposure to humans can

occur either directly through inhalation or indirectly through consumption of fish or animals

who have in turn incorporated into their system through consumption. Mercury emissions

can cause damage to the brain, heart, kidneys and immune system to people of all ages

(EPA, 2015). People with chronic exposure to this substance can exhibit psychosocial

9

symptoms such as shyness, depression, insomnia and irritability. The severity of this toxin

means incinerators are limited to daily emissions of 0.05 mg/m³.

Cadmium

Cadmium can be emitted in a variety of forms from an incinerator in compounds such as

CdO, CdCl₂, CdSO₄ or Cd(NO₃)₂. According to the EPA (2015) cadmium is extremely

carcinogenic and can also induce a number of other illnesses. This substance is limited to a

daily level of 0.05 mg/m³.

Lead and Arsenic

Lead and arsenic are the most abundant heavy metals emitted from a typical incinerator.

Lead in chronic doses is associated the retardation of mental development in children while

arsenic can have detrimental effects on the respiratory, cardiovascular and neurological

systems (EPA, 2015).

This project intends to focus primarily on NOx, SOx, Dioxin and Furan pollutants. Table.1

summarises the emission limits for these pollutants to allow for ease of reference during the

interpretation stage.

Table 1: Summary of emissions limits for NOx, SOx and Dioxins and Furans

NOx SOx Dioxins/Furans

Units mg/m³ mg/m³ ng/ m³

EU.Maximum

Emission Conc.

200 50 0.01

Annual Average

Daily Emission

Conc.

180 40 0.05

10

Abatement Techniques to Limit Pollutant Emissions

In Ireland, under the “Protection of the Environment Act”, (2003) operators of any facility

which emits pollutants such as those aforementioned above are required to apply best

available techniques to their facilities to limit their release into the environment. This means

a spare-no-expense approach must be employed when building facilities such as a mass-

burn incinerator. There a number of technologies and techniques which minimize the

amount of pollutants emitted by these facilities. Each one generally specializes in the

abatement of one or a few specific types of pollutants.

Incinerator design features

The first step in limiting hazardous emissions begins with the operation of the facility itself.

This technically begins at the source of the waste assuming polluters are responsible to sort

waste appropriately. Operators are obliged to omit certain hazardous wastes prior to

feeding the hopper; this is carried out by the operator of the grabber (B) in figure. 2.

The next few emission-limiting steps occur in the furnace itself (D). According to DEFRA

(2010) temperature must be increased gradually to inhibit the development of cold pockets

or gas channelling. Failure to do so results in the incomplete combustion of the waste which

facilitates the release of undesirable, harmful emissions further downstream. The

temperature of the flue gases (E) must be brought between 850-1100°C to facilitate the

cracking of dioxins and furans into nitrogen oxides. At least one after-burner, additional

units added depending on the size of the furnace, must be included according to WID

2000/76/EC. This is to prevent the formation of dioxins and furans de novo synthesis due to

a temperature drop.

Skipping past the downstream gas-cleaning technologies for a moment, there are a number

of features at the point of flue gas exit which limit harmful release of emissions. The height

of the stack can ensure that fumes are taken efficiently away from the source without

affecting any of the immediate population in close proximity to the facility. As a rule of

thumb, DEFRA (2010) recommends that the chimney stack (L) should be 70m in height for

this plant considering 250,000 tonnes of waste are expected per year (DEFRA (b), 2007). In

addition the volumetric flow rate of the exiting gas along with its temperature can also have

11

a significant impact on pollutant dispersal. These aspects will be discussed in the “sensitivity

analysis” section.

Electrostatic precipitator

The main function of this device is to divert fly-ash out of the

flue gas stream and send it into a containment area where it

can be disposed of safely. As illustrated in fig.3 the precipitator

achieves this goal by using positively charged plates to attract

the negatively charged particles as the flue gas passes through.

These can come in two types, wet and dry gas models and are

popular due to their high efficiencies at removing dust or

sludge’s from the flue gas. The downside to this technology is

that if the flue gas particles achieve high resistivity, the electrodes become less efficient at

extracting them (Holbert Faculty, 2003). This can be overcome by regulating flue gas

temperature, increasing its moisture content or adding conditioning agents to it.

Chemical Scrubber

These devices are extremely useful at removing acids such

as HCl, and HF; and acid gases such as NOx and SOx from the

flue gas stream (DEFRA, 2010). Typically this technology

function by administering a scrubbing liquid to capture

particulates and gases as shown in fig.4 (Pollution Systems,

2014) .This technology can facilitate “selective non-catalytic

reduction” by injecting in various reagents to react with and

nullify hazardous compounds (Zandaryaa et al, 2001). As this

technology’s main objective is to remove acidic components from the flue gas a major

disadvantage is that it is susceptible to corrosion, leading to costly maintenance and repairs.

Filtration systems

These units are particularly adept at removing particulate matter from the gas stream by

trapping particulates as the flue gas passes through in their mesh-like structure. They can

consist of fabric or ceramic filters the former which needs to be replaced every 24-36

months, while the latter can last for 5-10 years (Tri-Mer, 2013). The ceramic filters can be

Figure 4: Chemical Scrubber (intech, 2014)

Figure 3: Electrostatic precipitator (Holbert Faculty, 2003)

Figure 5: Gas filtration system (Tri-Mer, 2013)

12

deployed in the treatment of high temperature flue gases

while the fabric type requires the gases to be cooled first.

These filtrations can assist in the limitation of SOx, HCL, NOx

and dioxins.

13

3) Site Description

This study will consider four sites to assess the effects of pollutant dispersal associated with

incinerators. Each of these incinerators specializes in the thermal processing of non-

hazardous municipal solid waste and commercial solid waste.

Indaver, Carranstown, Co. Meath

The Carranstown facility was completed by

Indaver, a predominantly Dutch company in

2011. It is situated in a rural area and

surrounded by a relatively flat landscape.

Wind data was compiled from 2012-2015

records provided by MetEireann (2015). The

prevailing wind for the site was found to be a

south westerly and figure.3 illustrates that

these winds are likely to carry emissions from

the stack over a flat landscape towards

Drogheda town some 6 km away. The

“alternate wind” path shows the second most

frequent wind direction at this site, a south

easterly. This transect will carry emissions

past a cement factory approximately 700m

downwind followed by a sharp rise in terrain, above the stack height in places,

approximately 2,300m downwind.

Specifications:

The facility consists of a moving grate incinerator and has an annual capacity of 200,000 t.

Flue gases are emitted through a single stack which is 40m in height. Abatement

technologies at this facility consist of an ammonia solution injection, an evaporating spray

reactor, a baghouse filter and an electrostatic precipitator with an activated carbon/dry lime

injection system.

Prevailing wind

(SW, 260)

Alternate

wind (SE, 140)

Figure 6: Indaver panoramic view and map showing the facility location (Indaver)

14

Covanta, Poolbeg, Co. Dublin

The Poolbeg incineration project is being

built by an American waste management

company known as Covanta. It is anticipated

that this facility will commence operations

in late 2017 (Dublin Waste-to-Energy, 2014).

This incinerator is approximately three times

larger than the Indaver project treating

600,000 t of waste per annum. The site is

located at the eastern periphery of Dublin

City on an old brownfield site in the

docklands. The surrounding landscape is flat

predominantly however there is an

abundance of tall buildings with the

potential to create turbulent air flow. It was appropriate to use the same meteorological

data as the Carranstown facility for this site as it was extrapolated from Dublin Airport.

Hence the prevailing and alternate winds at this site are SW and SE. Figure.4 highlights the

path of the prevailing wind which would carry emissions across Dublin Bay, towards the

elevated peninsula of Howth and Sutton. The alternate wind direction would transport the

emissions from stack exhausts across the north side of the city towards Fairview and Santry.

Specifications:

This facility is expected to consist of a moving grate incinerator with two 100m high stacks

to emit flue gases. Air quality infrastructure include an evaporating spray reactor for NOx

reduction, fabric filter to limit particulate matter release, a two-stage wet scrubber for the

reduction of HCL and SOx and activated carbon and lime are added to bind dioxins out of

solution (Dublin Waste To Energy, 2006).

Figure 7: Poolbeg incinerator speculative image and location (Covanta, 2015)

Prevailing wind

(SW, 260)

Alternate wind

(SE, 140)

15

Tersa, Montcada, Barcelona

This facility was originally opened in 1975

with a capacity for 15 t/hr (ISWA, 2012).

The site was then renovated in 1996 to

upgrade its gas-cleaning system and bring

its emissions more in-line with the various

air quality legislation in Europe at the

time. The best available technique act (EU

Directive 96/61/EC) would have forced

the site operators hand in carrying out

these works. The site was upgraded and is

now currently run by “Tersa”, a European

company consisting of a number of

stakeholders from a variety of E.U nations. The prevailing wind of SW, 255 at this site

conveniently carries emissions away from the densely populated city of Barcelona. The

“alternate wind” pattern was modelled to assess the impacts of pollutants if blown across

this urban landscape.

Specifications:

This facility consists of a moving grate incinerator with a total of three stacks enclosed in

one point source which stands at 48m high. Up until 1996 the principal gas-cleaning

technology consisted of one electrostatic precipitator. The plant upgrade saw the

incorporation of a wet scrubber configured for HCl and SO2 as well as metal limit reduction.

In addition an active-carbon, fabric filter was included to target dioxin and furan emission

reductions (Meneses et al, 2004).

Figure 8: Tersa incinerator birds-eye view and location (Tersa, 2015)

Prevailing wind

(SW, 255)

Alternate wind

(SEE, 100 )

16

Babcock & Wilcox, West Palm Beach, Florida

This project was commissioned by the

solid waste authority of Palm Beach and

built by an American engineering firm

called Babcock and Wilcox. This Is a

42t/hr facility located in a relatively

obscure area surrounded by marshland

and forests on its west side where its

prevailing wind carries pollutant

emissions. The alternate wind would

carry wind towards a number of

residential areas approximately 4km to

the south east of the facility.

Specifications:

“State-of-the-art emissions control systems” are included in this facility including a selective

non-catalytic reducer system, a baghouse filter, a spray-dry absorber and a venturi-style wet

scrubber (Babcock & Wilcox, 2012). The facility has 2 94.49 meter high stacks combined

together in one point source as shown in figure.9.

Figure 9: West Palm Beach incinerator image and location (Tersa, 2015)

Prevailing wind

(E, 90)

Alternate wind

(NW, 320)

17

4) Modelling Methods

The first step taken to accurately model the four chosen sites was to obtain the relevant

input data required by the modelling software. This was acquired from a number of sources

within the literature such as environmental impact statements, journal articles and similar

air pollution studies. This was input into “Lakes Environmental” Screenview software in the

format outlined in table.2.

Table 2: Model Inputs

Unit Indaver Poolbeg Florida Montcada

(2001)

Montcada

(1996)

Stack height m 40 100 94.49 48 48

Stack Diameter m 2 4.52 4.26 1.77 1.77

Stack exit velocity m/s 20.5 20.3 20.12 8.9 8.0

Stack gas exit

temperature

K 373 328 413.7 448.15 509.55

Rural/Urban Rural Urban Rural Urban Urban

SOx emission rate g/s 1.049 7.6 68 (lb/hr) 1.052 n/a

NOx Emission rate g/s 6.459 30.6 173.3 (lb/hr) 3.0702 n/a

Dioxin/Furan

Emission rate

fg/s 0.42 1.53 n/a 0.199 0.592

Capacity t/hr 27 68 42 15 15

Additional data was required for sites surrounded by complex terrain. This data was

collected by taking two transects per site and determining the terrain elevation profile in

relation to distance from the site. This allowed the creation of ground profiles such as that

in figure.3. The elevation data was extracted from Google Earth and the corresponding

distances were found using the ruler function in google Earth. The two 5km transects were

selected for each site on the basis of:

18

I. Prevailing Wind

II. In order to capture a particularly complex train to consider the worst case scenario

of each site.

Figure 10: Terrain profile taken from the alternate transect at the Carranstown site

The output data was compiled into a spread sheet and the data was expressed as the four

sites contribution to a particular emission.

19

5) Results

This study has narrowed its focus onto three significant pollutants released from

incinerators. Sulphur Dioxide and Nitrogen oxides were selected on the basis of a gravity

analysis in which these two emissions ranked highest among all the pollutants emitted from

a MSW incinerator (Indaver, 2015). Dioxins and furans were selected for study in this project

on the premise that they have the potential to cause serious damage to human health and

are the prime subject of controversy between the public on incinerators.

Sulphur Oxide Emissions

Figure.11 (a) and (b) shows sulphur dioxide emissions for all four study sites. In both wind

direction scenarios the Poolbeg facility releases the highest amount of this pollutant

doubling the emissions of the other sites in some cases. Pollutant concentrations all seem to

peak between the 800 to 1000 m mark and trail off gradually to lower concentrations as

distance increases from the source. The Carranstown site performs particularly well relative

to the other sites with the lowest pollutant emissions out of the four sites.

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

SOx

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (μ

g/m

³)

Distance From Point Source (m)

Prevailing Air Dispersion of SOx emissions

Carranstown

Poolbeg

Montcada(2001)

Florida

Figure 11 (a): Air Dispersion of SOx emissions in the direction of prevailing wind

20

Figure.11 (b) illustrates the effects of pollutants taking a different path following release

from the stack. The Poolbeg sites peak pollutant emissions are muted slightly in this

scenario however instead of gradually trailing off to lower concentrations, this time

emissions rise again at ~2700 m away from the source. The Carranstown emissions rise

slightly relative to their prevailing wind concentrations while the Montcada emissions also

rise slightly relative to their prevailing counterparts. The Florida site appears to be

unchanged in both scenarios.

Nitrogen Oxide Emissions

The Poolbeg facility also comes in as the highest polluter with respect to NOx, registering its

highest emissions at approximately 68µg/m³; doubling the average concentrations emitted

from the other three facilities (figure. 12 (a)). The Carranstown facility does not perform as

well in limiting Nitrogen emissions as it does Sulphur, ranking second highest in this

scenario. Interestingly, the Florida site almost mirrors the dispersion profile of the

Carranstown site albeit at slightly lower concentrations. The Montcada site performs

greatest at limiting NOx in this scenario.

-2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

SOx

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (μ

g/m

³)

Distance From Point Source (m)

Alternate Air Dispersion of SOx emissions

Carranstown

Poolbeg

Montcada(2001)

Florida

Figure 11 (b): Air Dispersion of SOx emissions in the alternate direction chosen for each site.

21

In Figure.11 (b) the slight rise at the end of the NOx emissions profile for the Poolbeg site is

witnessed once more. The Carranstown emissions display a delayed peak at ~ 900 m as

opposed to ~300m in fig.12 (a). The Montcada profile, on the contrary peaks earlier in the

alternate wind scenario than it did in the prevailing wind scenario. The Florida site sees a

slight increase in its peak emissions in the alternate wind scenario however its profile

remains superficially the same.

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

NO

x C

on

cen

trat

ion

(μ

g/m

³)

Distance From Point Source (m)

Prevailing Air Dispersion of NOx emissions

Carranstown

Poolbeg

Montcada(2001)

Florida

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

NO

x C

on

cen

trat

ion

(μ

g/m

³)

Distance From Point Source (m)

Alternate Air Dispersion of NOx emissions

Carranstown

Poolbeg

Montcada(2001)

Florida

Figure 12(a): Air dispersion of NOx emissions according to prevailing wind conditions.

Figure 12 (b): Air dispersion of NOx emissions according to alternative wind conditions.

22

Dioxin and Furan Emissions

These pollutants have gained a particular degree of notoriety due to being linked with

causing cancer hence emissions must be strictly limited below emissions limits. Thankfully

this was the case at the three facilities studied in this project hence their concentrations are

measured in femtograms (1e-15 grams). Notice the change from µg/m³ to fg/m³ on the

graphs. The Florida site did not provide data on the emissions of these toxins hence is

omitted from this portion of the study. Data could however be found on the Montcada site

before it underwent renovations in 1996 (Meneses et al, 2004). This could provide an

interesting perspective on quantitative effects the respective gas cleaning methods

mentioned in section.2 have on reducing emissions.

In figure 13 (a), it seems the Poolbeg facility has finally met its match in terms of big

emitters however it is the pre-renovated Montcada, 1996 site which is shadowing the

Poolbeg’s giant profile. The Carranstown site peaks early at ~300m as it has done in all other

prevailing wind scenarios. The upgrades carried out to the Montcada site have clearly been

successful as it has brought the site from the being the highest polluter to the lowest one in

comparison to the two Irish sites studied.

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Dio

xin

/Fu

ran

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

fg/m

³)

Distance From Point Source (m)

Prevailing Air Dispersion of Dioxins/Furans

Carranstown

Poolbeg

Montcada(2001)

Montcada(1996)

Figure 13: Air Dispersion of Dioxins and Furans in the prevailing wind direction

23

The Montcada (1996) site well and truly takes over the top spot of highest emitters from the

Poolbeg site in this scenario (fig 13, b). The Poolbeg site, as with the previous emissions

profiles shows an upward inflection at the 2.7km mark. The Indaver site exhibits its “delayed

peak emissions” characteristic of the alternate wind direction scenario while the Montcada

(2001) maintains its position as lowest Dioxin emitter.

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000

Dio

xin

/Fu

ran

Co

nce

ntr

atio

n (

fg/m

³)

Distance From Point Source (m)

Alternate Air Dispersal of Dioxins/Furans

Carranstown

Poolbeg

Montcada(2001)

Montcada(1996)

Figure 13 (b): Air Dispersion of Dioxins and Furans in the alternate wind direction

24

Sensitivity Analyses

Three sensitivity analyses were carried out to serve a dual function of testing the model

consistency and demonstrating the effects that stack height, volumetric flow and exit gas

temperature on pollutant dispersal. Figure.14 and tables 3 and 4 all use the prevailing NOx

concentration for the Carranstown site as a parameter for the analysis.

Figure 14: Stack height variation

Figure.14 shows that the lower the stack height, the higher the associated emissions. While

an increase in stack height reduces overall emissions concentrations. However the rate of

lowering emissions slows once reaching a stack height of 60m. This analysis revealed that

the mean peak point for this parameter occurs at approximately 800m from the site source.

This point was utilised in the following sensitivity analyses.

Table.3 shows the effect of altering the volumetric flow of the model. The NOx emissions

steadily decrease from 39.86µm/m³ to 27.08µm/m³ as the flow rate increases in increments

of 10m³/s. Table.3 also notes a slight but steady increase in the buoyancy flux and an almost

exponential rate of increase of momentum flux mirror an increase in volumetric flow.

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

10

0

20

0

30

0

40

0

50

0

60

0

70

0

80

0

90

0

10

00

11

00

12

00

13

00

14

00

15

00

16

00

17

00

18

00

19

00

20

00

NO

x C

on

cen

trat

ion

(µ

m/m

³)

Distance from Point Source (m)

Senstivity Analysis for Stack Height

20m

40m

60m

80m

100m

25

Table 3: Volumetric Flow Sensitivity Analysis

Volumetric Flow m³/s 30 41.94 50 60 70

NOx Conc. µm/m³ 39.86 38.43 37.64 32.46 27.08

Buoyancy Flux m^4/s³ 20.084 28.073 33.473 40.168 46.863

Momentum Flux N·s·m−2·s−1 71.631 139.996 198.975 286.524 389.991

Table.4 shows an increase in exit gas temperature results in a decrease in emission dispersal

at 800 m. Gas temperature increases also results in a buoyancy flux increase however

momentum flux is lowered with an increase in temperature.

Table 4: Gas Temperature Sensitivity Analysis

Gas Temp K 300 373 400 500 600

NOx Conc. µm/m³ 73.04 38.43 37.31 22.18 17.7

Buoyancy Flux m^4/s³ 3.055 28.073 35.019 54.197 66.983

Momentum Flux N·s·m−2·s−1 174.062 139.996 130.546 104.437 87.013

26

6) Discussion

To reiterate, the main objective of this study was to allay or justify the public’s concerns

with regards to the incineration of municipal solid waste. Collectively, the results show that

all four sites lie within the emission limits outlined in table.1 by many orders of magnitude.

The results were of sufficient resolution to make a number of inferences about the nature of

pollution dispersal within the incineration industry. The interpretation will look at each site

individually to highlight these.

Interpretation

Carranstown Site, Indaver

Out of the two Irish incinerators, the Indaver facility performs better on an all levels despite

having a stack 60% lower than the projected Poolbeg site. This is likely due to the fact is

located in a sparsely populated area and is correctly sized. Perhaps these concerns which

were reported in the Irish Independent (2014) are justified. Why site an incinerator in the

middle of the country’s most densely populated area? Why pay in excess of €600 million to

Covanta when Indaver have already successfully built an incinerator on Irish soil and have

offered to build a smaller sized plant at Poolbeg for FREE (Irish Independent, 2014). It

appears more than public health and air quality are on the agenda for this project.

Looking at greater depth at the Indaver plant, it has the best performance in limiting SOx

emissions with the exception of one high peak at ~400m. This would indicate that the

baghouse filter and evaporating spray reactor is performing particularly well at this facility.

This peak appears ain the same location for all 3 pollutants as shown in figures 11,12 and 13

(a). This initial peak is most likely due to a cement factory approximately 400m downdraft of

the site. Evidently, the building dimensions may trap pollutant emissions, elevating their

concentration briefly. This peak is still with safe limits for all three pollutants.

Nitrogen and Dioxin/Furan concentrations are also relatively low highlighting the

effectiveness of the ammonia injection and ceramic filters at the facility. It could also be a

testament to an efficient incineration of waste, preventing dioxins to reform de novo

synthesis.

27

In the alternate wind scenarios (fig 11,12,13 (b)), the peak emissions have consistently

moved on to ~900m downdraft. This is most likely due to the absence of the cement factory

on this transect to disrupt pollutant dispersal. The emissions profiles in the alternate

scenarios witness a slight rise from 1800m to around 2600m. This is most likely due to the

complex terrain to the NE of the site which is higher than the stack in places.

Poolbeg Site, Covanta

The main reason the Poolbeg site has a higher relative emissions (fig. 11, 12, 13 (a)) profile is

because it is has a much larger capacity than the other facilities at 68t/hr according to

table.2. However this does not excuse the site from emitting more pollutants. The Florida

plant is a similar sized facility but has a considerably lower eco-impact. The similarities don’t

stop there; the stacks are also of a similar dimension as well as gas flow velocities and

temperatures. The main parameter these two sites differ on is their location. The Florida

site is located in a rural area while the Poolbeg facility will sit in a site with sea on one side

and a city on the other. This raises the concerns again over why the planning authorities are

so insistent in siting the facility here.

Another alarming comparison is when this facility is compared to the Montcada (1996)

facility in figure.13 (a). The state-of-the-art Poolbeg plant is performing as poorly as an

archaic incinerator with only an electrostatic precipitator as a gas cleaning technology in

preventing dioxin and furan releases. Although the concentrations are well below the limits,

shouldn’t a monstrous incinerator be performing better than a 40 year old treatment plant?

In defence of the Poolbeg project, the input values used are based on estimated data while

the rest of the studies rely on empirical data. In addition, given that the prevailing wind

carries emissions out to sea, the exceptionally high peak of emissions may be down to

marine temperature inversions which trap pollutants, hence raising their concentrations.

Looking at the alternate scenario for Poolbeg, the wind is now taking emissions across the

city instead of out to sea. An upward inflection in all pollutant concentrations from about

2.7 km is most likely due to the presence of a number of residential buildings at Fairview

and Santry. These are more likely to trap emissions, increasing their concentrations of

28

pollutants. The urban heat island could also come into effect here, which can affect the

buoyancy of the air, causing emissions to linger for longer.

Montcada Site, Tersa

The prevailing profile of this facility has a similar shape to the Poolbeg one albeit at much

lower concentrations across the board. This is most likely because this facility is also located

on the coast and its stack emissions may also be under the influence of a marine

temperature inversion. The alternate wind scenario (fig 11,12,13 (b)) also takes this facility’s

emissions across the city and this causes the emissions profile to warp considerably. At

<200m distance the profile peaks and then troughs again at 500m and then steadily rises up

until 2000m before trailing off. This is explained by the presence of particularly high

buildings at ~350 m, 1,100m and 1700m which were modelled in Screenview.

Moving on to the most interesting part of the Montcada site; Figure.13 (a) and (b) show the

Dioxin/Furan emission profiles and include the Montcada facility before and after

renovations to upgrade the gas clean-up infrastructure. Taking the peak of both profiles in

both prevailing and alternate scenarios, this represents an emissions reduction of 65%. This

figure can be directly attributed to the addition of a wet scrubber and active-carbon fabric

filter and their effectiveness at preventing the release of these highly problematic emitters

(Meneses et al, 2004).

Florida Site, Wilcox & Babcock

The stand out feature of this site was the complete omission of dioxin and furan

concentrations in any of the associated literature. There was not a single mention of these

highly hazardous pollutants in the air modelling report for the site (Solid Waste Authority of

Palm Beach County, 2010). Interestingly, there is no use of the term “incinerator” in this

report either with the 42 tonne per hour plant being referred to as a “renewable energy

facility”. It was quite evident this report was guilty of green washing.

Nonetheless the facility appears to perform resonably well in minimizing emissions. While

an American facility would greenwash their product in a heart-beat in order to secure more

sales, one could be sure that the facility will have the most advanced levels of technology.

29

The facility is surronded by a similar landscape 360° and did not show much variation in

emmsions between the two scenerios figures. 11 and 12 (a) and (b).

Limitations

There are a number of limitations associated with this study yielding lower resolution data

for each site and causing higher uncertainty in the results.

Input data:

The data obtained for the model inputs has, for the most part been sourced from

documentation provided by the operators of the respective facilities. Obviously it is within

these company’s interests to present emission limits which remain within the legislative

limits. Had the activity data been sourced from an unbiased organisation such as the EPA,

and was based on empirical measurements, the integrity of the model would be greatly

enhanced.

Modelling Software:

The “Screenview” software offers a very limited range of data-manipulation features which

prevents the user from creating a model that is consistent with the real life scenario. The

software does not allow simultaneous use of urban terrain and shoreline fumigation which

was required for the Poolbeg and Montcada scenarios. Furthermore it is not possible to

model the concentration of emissions on terrains higher than the overall stack height. The

modelling function has a very linear nature in the sense that it utilises very simple input data

on a single transect and outputs extremely simplified results on a graph based on the

distance from the source. More advanced models such as “AERMOD” overlay results on a

raster file of the given geographical area giving 360° emission concentrations from the

source based on variable wind speeds.

30

7) Conclusions

The results of this study show a strong argument that the incineration of waste is

safe for human health.

The concentrations of NOx, SOx and Dioxins/Furans were found to be several orders

of magnitude lower than emissions limits illustrated by the waste incineration

directive (WID 2000/76/EC).

By comparing the results of a renovated incineration plant in Barcelona, it was

shown that modern gas-cleaning technologies can reduce the emission of cancer-

causing Dioxin/Furans by 65%.

Despite being intimately located in the heart of Ireland’s largest population centre;

the Poolbeg incinerator is appears to be well below the prescribed emissions limits.

However an alarming comparison was made between it and a 1975 standard

incinerator which performed almost exactly the same with respect to preventing

dioxin/furan release.

The major limitation of this study lies on the source of its data; considering most

data was sought from the respective companies which built the infrastructure in the

first place, they are hardly going to publish data which does not look well for the

company’s reputation.

31

Reference List

Babcock & Wilcox (2012) Palm Beach County Renewable Energy Facility No. 2. Available from: http://www.babcock.com/library/Documents/sp-585.pdf [accessed 24 April, 2015].

Cangialosi, F. Intini, G. Liberti, L. Notarnicola, M. Stellacci, P. (2008) “Health risk assessment of air emissions from a municipal waste incineration plant – A case study”, Waste Management, 28, 885-895.

Cavazza, N. & Rubichi, S. (2014) “Ways of thinking about the incinerator: A typology of citizen’s mind-sets”, The Social Science Journal, 51, 422-430.

Cherubini, F. Bargigli, S. Ulgati, S. (2009) “Life cycle assessment (LCA) of waste management strategies: Landfilling, sorting plant and incineration”, Energy, 34, 2116-2123.

Covanta. (2015) Covanta.com Available from: <http://www.covanta.com/about-covanta/sustainability.aspx> [Accessed 09 February 2015].

Davies, A. (2010) “Waste wars – public attitudes and the politics of place in the waste management strategies”, Irish Geography, 36(1), 77-92.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). (2007) “Advanced thermal treatment of municipal solid waste”. London, DEFRA.

Dublin Waste to Energy. (2015) dublinwastetoenergy.ie. Available from: http://dublinwastetoenergy.ie/?page_id=318 [Accessed 09 February 2015].

EPA (a). (2015) Environmental Protection Agency Ireland. Available from: http://www.epa.ie/air/quality/monitor/#.VTkGwyFViko [Accessed 25 March 2015].

European Council Directive 96/61/EC (1996) Best Available Techniques : Council Directive 96/61 concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC).

Hjelmar, O. (1996) “Waste Management in Denmark”, Waste Management, 16, 389-394.

Holbert Faculty. (2003) Holbert.faculty.adu. Availabble from: http://holbert.faculty.asu.edu/wise/electrostaticprecip.html [Accessed 16 April 2015].

Indaver. (2009) “Environmental impact statement for the Meath waste management facility”. Available From: http://www.epa.ie/licences/lic_eDMS/090151b28031ebd2.pdf [Accessed 14 November 2014].

Indaver. (2015) Indaver.ie. Available From: http://sustainabilityreport.indaver.com/index.php?id=289 [Accessed 14 April 2015].

Intech (2014) Intechopin.com. Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/waste-management-an-integrated-vision/greenhouse-gas-emissions-from-housing-and-manure-management-systems-at-confined-livestock-operations [Accesses 14 April 2015].

Irish Independent. (2014) Independent.ie. Available from: < http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/firm-offers-to-build-incinerator-for-free-26819683.html> [Accessed 20 April 2015].

ISWA (International Solid Waste Association). (2012) Waste-to-energy: State of the art report. Statistics 6th Edition, RAMBOLL, Denmark.

32

Meneses, M. Schuhmacher, M, Domingo, J.L. (2004) Health risk assessment of emissions of dioxins and furans from a municipal waste incinerator: comparison with other emission sources. Environmental International, 30, 481-489.

Moy, P. Krishnan, N. Ulloa, P. Cohen, S. Brandt-Rauf, P.W. (2008) “Options for management of municipal solid waste in New York City – A preliminary comparison of health risks and policy implications”, Journal of Environmental Management, 87, 73-79.

Murdoch University. (2014) see.murcdoch.edu. Available from: <http://www.see.murdoch.edu.au/resources/info/Tech/waste/> [Accessed 12 November 2014].

Pollution Systems. (2014) pollutionsystems.com. Available from: http://www.pollutionsystems.com/wet-scrubbers.html [Accessed 15 April, 2015].

Protection of the Environment Act. (2003) Irish staute book. Available from: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2003/en.act.2003.0027.pdf [Accessed 6 April, 2015].

Sabbas, T. Polettini, A. Pomi, R. Astrup, T. Hjelmar, O. Mostbauer, P. Cappai, G. Magel, G. Salhoffer, S. Speiser, C. Heuss-Assbichler, S. Klein, R. Lechner, P. (2003) “Management of municipal solid waste incineration residues”, Waste Management, 23, 61-88.

Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County. (2010) “Class 1 Air Dispersion Modelling Report: Palm Beach Renewable Energy Facility No.2. Malcolm Pirnie, Plantation, Florida.

Tri-Mer (2013) tri-mer.com. Available From: http://www.tri-mer.com/particulate-control-PM25.html (Accessed, 15 April 2015).

Van Gervan, T. Geysen, D. Stoffels, L. Jaspers, M. Wauters, G. Vandecasteele, C. (2005) “Management of incinerator residues in Flanders (Belgium) and in neighbouring countries. A comparison”, Waste Management 25, 75-87.

Waste Incineration Directive (WID 2000/76/EC). (2000) Directive 2000/76/ec of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 december 2000 on the incineration of waste, Official Journal of the European Communities, 332, 91-111.

Zandaryaa, S. Gavasci, R, Lombardi, F. Fiore, A. (2001) “Nitrogen oxides from waste incineration: control by selective non-catalytic reduction”, Chemosphere, 42, 491-497.