United States Office of Air Quality EMB Report No. 86-MIN-03A
Environmental Protection Planning and Standards September 1988
Agency Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Air
Municipal Waste Combustion
Multipollutant Study
Summary Report
Marion County
Solid Waste-to-Energy Facility
Ogden Martin Systems of Marion, Inc.
Brooks, Oregon
-------
DCN No. 87-222-124-15-06 EMB Report No. 86-MIN-03A
SUMMARY REPORT
CDD/CDF, METALS, HC1,
SO-, NO , CO AND PARTICULATE TESTING
£ X.
MARION COUNTY
SOLID WASTE-TO-ENERGY FACILITY, INC.
OGDEN MARTIN SYSTEMS OF MARION
BROOKS, OREGON
ESED Project No. 86/19
EPA Contract No. 68-02-4338
Work Assignment 15
Prepared for:
Clyde E. Riley, Task Manager
Emissions Measurement Branch
Emission Standards and Engineering Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared by:
Michael A. Vancil
Carol L. Anderson
Radian Corporation
Post Office Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
September 1988
lmo/033
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the
Emission Standards and Engineering Division of
the Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, EPA, and approved for publication.
Mention of trade names or commercial products is
not intended to constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use. Copies of this report
are available through the Library Services
Office (MD-35), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711.
lmo/033
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
FOREWORD vi
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Background 1-2
1.2 Objectives 1-3
1.3 Brief Process Operation and Description 1-3
1.4 Emission Measurement Program 1-5
1.4.1 Test Matrix 1-5
1.4.2 Sampling Locations 1-5
1.4.3 Sampling Methods 1-7
1.4.4 Laboratory Analysis 1-8
1.5 Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) 1-12
1.6 Description of Report Contents 1-12
2.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 2-1
2.1 CDD/CDF Results 2-1
2.1.1 CDD/CDF Emissions Results 2-1
2.1.2 Emission Control System Control
Efficiency for CDD/CDF 2-4
2.1.3 CDD/CDF Cyclone Ash and Baghouse Ash Results . . .2-4
2.1.4 CDD/CDF Homologue Distribution 2-9
2.2 Particulate Results 2-13
2.3 Metals Emissions Results 2-13
2.3.1 Flue Gas Metals Results 2-13
2.3.2 Metals Analyte-to-Particulate Ratio 2-17
2.3.3 Cyclone Ash and Baghouse Ash Metals Results. . . . 2-20
2.3.4 Lime Slurry and Tesisorb® Metals Results 2-23
2.4 Acid Gas Emissions Results 2-24
2.4.1 SO- Emissions Results 2-24
2.4.2 HCI Emissions Results 2-27
3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION 3-1
3.1 Process Description 3-1
3.2 Emission Control System 3-3
3.3 Combustor and Emission Control System Operating
Conditions 3-6
4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 4-1
4.1 CDD/CDF Sampling and Analysis 4-1
4.2 HCl/Particulate Flue Gas Sampling and Analysis 4-3
4.3 Metals Sampling and Analysis 4-3
4.3.1 Lead/Cadmium/Particulate Sampling and Analysis . .4-3
4.3.2 Hexavalent and Total Chromium/Nickel Sampling
and Analysis 4-4
4.4 CEM Sampling and Analysis 4-4
4.5 Cyclone Ash and Baghouse Ash Sampling and Analysis. . . . 4-5
4.6 Lime Slurry and Tesisorb* Sampling and Analysis 4-5
lmo/033
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Section
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC) 5-1
5.1 Manual Methods QA/QC 5-1
5.1.1 Equipment and Sampling Preparation 5-1
5.1.2 Sampling Operations 5-3
5.1.3 Sample Recovery 5-3
5.1.4 Sample Analysis 5-3
5.1.5 Data Reduction 5-5
5.2 CEMs QA/QC 5-5
6.0 REFERENCES 6-1
7.0 ENGLISH-TO-METRIC CONVERSION TABLE 7-1
APPENDIX A - GEM AND PROCESS DATA
A.I Printout of 5-minute Averages of Outlet GEM Data A-l
A. 2 SO- Removal Efficiency Data A-15
A. 3 Selected Process Data A-23
APPENDIX B - CDD/CDF HOMOLOGUE DISTRIBUTIONS B-l
APPENDIX C - SAMPLE CALCULATIONS C-l
APPENDIX D - CORRECTIONS TO RUN 6 (9-30-86) OUTLET STACK Pb/Cd RESULTS . D-l
lmo/033 ii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1-1 Marion County MWC Process Line 1-4
2-1 Flue Gas CDD/CDF Homologue Distributions at the
Marion County MWC 2-10
2-2 Baghouse Ash and Cyclone Ash CDD Homologue Distributions
at the Marion County MWC 2-11
2-3 Baghouse Ash and Cyclone Ash CDF Homologue Distributions
at the Marion County MWC 2-12
2-4 Effect of Uncontrolled SO- Concentrations on Removal
Efficiency and Controlled SO- Concentration 2-26
3-1 Marion County MWC Process Line 3-2
3-2 Steam Load, Top of Combustor Temperature and
Combustion Air Flow Variability During Testing at
the Marion County MWC 3-9
3-3 Outlet Stack Flue Gas CO, 0-, and NO Concentrations
at the Marion County MWC . . . . * 3-13
lmo/033 iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1-1 Overall Sampling Matrix for the Marion County MWC Test Program. . 1-6
1-2 Summary of Sampling Log for Testing at the Marion County MWC. . . 1-9
1-3 CDD/CDF Congeners Analyzed for the Marion County MWC
Test Program 1-11
2-1 Summary of CDD/CDF Emissions for the Marion County MWC 2-3
2-2 Uncontrolled and Controlled Flue Gas CDD/CDF Concentrations and
2378-TCDD Toxic Equivalencies at the Marion County MWC . . . .2-5
2-3 CDD/CDF Removal Efficiency Across the Emission Control System
at the Marion County MWC 2-6
2-4 CDD/CDF Cyclone Ash Concentrations and 2378-TCDD Toxic
Equivalencies at the Marion County MWC 2-7
2-5 CDD/CDF Baghouse Ash Concentrations and 2378-TCDD Toxic
Equivalencies at the Marion County MWC 2-8
2-6 Summary of Particulate Emissions at the Marion County MWC .... 2-14
2-7 Summary of Uncontrolled EPA Specific Metals Emissions at
the Marion County MWC 2-15
2-8 Summary of Controlled EPA Specific Metals Emissions at
the Marion County MWC 2-16
2-9 Summary of EPA Specific Metals Emissions at the
Marion County MWC 2-18
2-10 Ratio of Metals to Particulate Mass at the Marion County MWC. . . 2-19
2-11 Metals Results for Baghouse and Cyclone Ash at the
Marion County MWC 2-21
2-12 Metals Results for Lime Slurry and Tesisorb® at the
Marion County MWC 2-22
2-13 Summary of S0_ Results at the Marion County MWC 2-25
2-14 Summary of Flue Gas Chloride Concentrations at the
Marion County MWC 2-29
lmo/033 iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
3-1 Air Pollution Control System Design Specifications for the
Marion County MWC 3-5
3-2 Average Process Data for the Marion County MWC 3-7
3-3 Average Quench Reactor/Fabric Filter Operating Data for
the Marion County MWC 3-8
3-4 Average CEM Data for Controlled Flue Gas at the
Marion County MWC 3-12
4-1 Sampling Methods and Analytical Procedures Used for
the Marion County MWC Test Program 4-2
5-1 Summary of Equipment Used in Performing Source Sampling
at the Marion County MWC 5-2
lmo/033
-------
FOREWORD
The data contained in this report represent
the operating conditions of the facility at the
time of the test program. Since completion of the
test program, however, a program of screening the
waste received at the facility and removing
materials which resulted in high SO^ emissions has
been implemented. Because of this action, SO^
emissions are believed to have decreased from the
values reported here.
lmo/033 vi
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has published in
the Federal Register (52 FR 25399) an advance notice of proposed rulemaking
which describes upcoming emission standards development for new and existing
municipal waste combustors (MWCs) under Section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
This Federal Register notice follows more than a year's preparation of EPA's
Report to Congress on MWCs. The Report to Congress was a joint effort
involving the Offices of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Solid
Waste (OSW), and Research and Development (ORD).
The Emission Standards and Engineering Division (ESED) of OAQPS, through
its Industrial Studies Branch (ISB) and Emissions Measurement Branch (EMB), is
responsible for reviewing the existing air emissions data base and gathering
additional data where necessary. As a result of this review, it was
determined that insufficient data were available on controlled emissions from
quench reactor/fabric filter (QR/FF) systems. Therefore, several MWC emission
tests are being performed to support the emission standards development which
is underway.
The emissions that are being studied by EPA are the criteria
pollutants--particulate matter (PM), sulfur oxides (SO ), nitrogen oxides
X
(NO ), carbon monoxide (CO) and total hydrocarbons (THC); other acid gases,
X
such as hydrogen chloride (HC1); chlorinated organics including chlorinated
dibenzo-p-dioxins (CDD) and chlorinated dibenzofurans (CDF); and specific
metals including arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), mercury (Hg),
nickel (Ni), lead (Pb) and beryllium (Be).
This report summarizes CDD/CDF, SO-, HC1, NO , CO, Cr, Ni, Cd, Pb and
£- X
particulate data collected at the Marion County Solid Waste-to-Energy Facility
in September 1986. The Marion County Facility has a mass-burn MWC with a
QR/FF control system.
lmo/033
1-1
-------
1.1 BACKGROUND
Ogden Martin Systems of Marion, Inc., was required by the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) to conduct a compliance testing
program to measure controlled particulate, CDD/CDF, metals, HC1 and SO-
emissions at their Marion County Solid Waste-to-Energy Facility in Brooks,
Oregon. Process data were also collected as part of the compliance testing
program.
In order to provide additional data to evaluate the CDD/CDF and metals
removal effectiveness of the QR/FF emission reduction system, Ogden Martin
Systems and EPA agreed to jointly sponsor an expanded test program during the
ODEQ-required tests. Ogden Martin Systems sponsored measurements of the
controlled emissions from the facility. EPA sponsored measurements of the
flue gas at the boiler outlet prior to the emission control system, as well as
sampling of the cyclone flyash, baghouse flyash, Tesisorb*, and lime slurry.
Radian Corporation, under contract to the Emissions Measurement Branch,
performed the EPA-sponsored testing. The Ogden Martin Systems-sponsored
testing was performed by Ogden Projects, Inc. The test program was conducted
on Unit 1 in September 1986 with fewer than 120 days of operation from this
Unit's first fire of solid waste in May 1986, i.e., a relatively fast
start-up.
This report summarizes the data collected during the joint sampling
program. The uncontrolled and controlled flue gas data were analyzed to
determine removal efficiencies for CDD/CDF, metals, HCl, SO- and particulates.
The results are summarized in this report. The baghouse ash, cyclone ash,
lime slurry and Tesisorb® results are included. Additionally, the combustor
and control device operating data and the facility's continuous emissions
monitoring data are presented and evaluated in this report.
The details of the testing program are not presented in this summary
report, but are described in separate test reports. The results of the
EPA-sponsored testing are reported in Reference 1. The results of the test
program sponsored by Ogden Martin Systems are reported in References 2, 3, and
4.
lmo/033
1-2
-------
1.2 OBJECTIVES
The main objective of the EPA-sponsored test program was to obtain
uncontrolled flue gas emission data that could be compared with the Ogden
Martin-sponsored controlled flue gas emission data. Specifically, the
EPA-sponsored test program was designed to:
Coordinate sampling at the control device inlet (EPA sponsored) with
sampling at the control device outlet (Ogden Martin sponsored) to
determine the efficiency of the control device for comparable
CDD/CDF, trace metals, SO,,, HC1 and particulate emissions.
Evaluate the uncontrolled and controlled characteristics and
interrelationship of the particulate matter, CDD/CDF, and trace
metals flue gas concentrations.
Determine the CDD/CDF and trace metal content of the baghouse ash
and cyclone ash. Determine the trace metal content only of the lime
slurry and Tesisorb*.
Characterize process operations for each test run by recording
combustor and control device operating data as well as refuse
feedrate.
The Marion County facility was selected by EPA because the facility
is a well-designed and operated mass-burn, waterwall, resource recovery system
with a state-of-the-art emission control system. The results from the Marion
County facility have been incorporated into a data base in support of future
regulatory development for the MWC source category.
1.3 BRIEF PROCESS OPERATION AND DESCRIPTION
Figure 1-1 presents a process diagram of one of the two identical
combustor systems at the Marion County facility. The combustor system is a
reciprocating grate, mass-burn type combustor with a waterwall boiler that
produces superheated steam. The flue gas passes from the combustor into
convection, superheater, and economizer sections before being treated by a
quench reactor and fabric filter emission control system. Unit 1 was tested
during this program.
lmo/033
-------
To Atmosphere
Combuslor
Boiler Superheater Economizer
Quench Reactor/ Tesisorb
Acid Gas Feed
Scrubber Hopper
Quench
Pit
i
0={
I.D. Fan stack
Figure 1-1. Marion County MWC Process Line
-------
The refuse is typical residential and commercial solid waste. No sorting
or shredding is performed prior to incineration. The refuse is brought to the
enclosed tipping area by truck and unloaded into the refuse pit. A manually
operated overhead crane transfers the refuse from the refuse pit to the
combustor charging chute. An inclined grate and ash discharge system designed
by Martin GmbH is used at the Marion County facility.
The process description and operation discussion (Section 3) in this
report were prepared by EPA/ISB. The process data recorded during the
test program are also summarized there.
1.4 EMISSION MEASUREMENT PROGRAM
1.4.1 Test Matrix
The emission measurement program at the Marion County facility was
conducted from September 22 to 30, 1986. Table 1-1 presents the overall test
matrix that was developed by EPA and Ogden Martin Systems for the program and
the organization that sponsored each type of sample. Sampling at the boiler
outlet and stack was conducted simultaneously for parameters measured during
the test program. Ogden Projects and Radian followed the same sampling
protocols and shared reagents when necessary to maintain and ensure data
comparability. Test Runs 1, 2, and 3 were designed to measure CDD/CDF and
HC1/PM concurrently. Test Runs 4, 5, and 6 were designed to measure
particulate matter, lead, cadmium, nickel, total chromium and hexavalent
chromium concurrently. Additional test runs were conducted the next week by
Ogden Projects to measure the controlled emissions of NO , S0_, CO, beryllium,
mercury, HC1, and particulate matter. The results of these later tests are
included in References 5 to 7.
1.4.2 Sampling Locations
Flue gas sampling was conducted at two locations during the test program.
The boiler outlet sampling location (uncontrolled flue gas) was located
lmo/033 1-5
-------
TABLE 1-1. OVERALL SAMPLING MATRIX FOR THE MARION COUNTY MWC TEST PROGRAM
Sample
CDD/CDF
Boiler Outlet
Outlet Stack
Partlculate Loading
Boiler Outlet
Outlet Stack
Pb/Cd
Boiler Outlet
Outlet Stack
Cr(VI)/Cr(III)/N1
Boiler Outlet
Outlet Stack
Hydrochloric Add
Boiler Outlet
Outlet Stack
Sulfur Dioxide
Boiler Outlet
Outlet Stack
Cyclone Ash
Baghouse Ash
L1me Slurry
Teslsorb
Run 1
EPA
Ogden Martin
EPA
Ogden Martin
—
—
—
—
EPA
Ogden Martin
EPA
Ogden Martin
EPAa
EPAa
—
—
Run 2
EPA
Ogden Martin
EPA
Ogden Martin
—
—
—
—
EPA
Ogden Martin
EPA
Ogden Martin
EPAa
EPAa
—
—
Run 3
EPA
Ogden Martin
EPA
Ogden Martin
—
—
—
—
EPA
Ogden Martin
EPA
Ogden Martin
EPA3
EPA3
—
—
Run 4
—
—
EPA
Ogden Martin
EPA
Ogden Martin
EPA
Ogden Martin
—
— —
—
Ogden Martin
EPAb
EPAb
EPAC
EPAC
Run 5
—
—
EPA
Ogden Martin
EPA
Ogden Martin
EPA
Ogden Martin
—
— •"•
—
Ogden Martin
EPAb
EPAb
EPAC
EPAC
Run 6
—
~
EPA
Ogden Martin
EPA
Ogden Martin
EPA
Ogden Martin
—
— ••
—
Ogden Martin
EPAb
EPAb
EPAC
EPAC
CDD/CDF analysis.
Analysis for total chromium by atomic
total chromium, cadmium and nickel by
absorption (AA), hexavalent chromium by colorlmetrlc method, and arsenic,
neutron activation analysis (NAA).
"Analysis for arsenic, total chromium, cadmium, and nickel by NAA.
-------
in the vertical ducting between the economizer outlet and the cyclonic inlet
to the quench reactor. The outlet stack sampling location (controlled flue
gas) was located approximately 13 equivalent duct diameters (60 ft) downstream
of the breeching to the outlet stack. Both sampling locations met the minimum
requirements for EPA Reference Method 1.
The baghouse ash was collected from a screw conveyor before the baghouse
ash mixed with cyclone ash. The cyclone ash was collected before mixing with
the baghouse ash.
Lime slurry samples were collected from the recycle hose on the lime
slurry mixing tank. Tesisorb® samples were collected from the feed hopper to
the injection system.
1.4.3 Sampling Methods
To obtain as much data as possible during the sampling effort, the
sampling trains for the parameters studied were combined when possible. The
sampling trains were combined only if the precision and accuracy of the data
obtained for each parameter would not be affected. For this test program, HCl
and PM; lead, cadmium and particulate; and chromium and nickel were collected
in combined sampling trains. Particulate samples were collected in the HCl
train for Runs 1, 2, and 3 and in the Pb/Cd train for Runs 4, 5, 6.
During Runs 1 to 3, CDD/CDF and HCl/PM sampling were conducted simulta-
neously at the boiler outlet and control system outlet stack. Also, the
uncontrolled flue gas S0_ and 0- concentrations were measured by continuous
emissions monitoring (GEM). For the controlled flue gas, SO-, CO, NO , and 0-
concentrations were monitored by CEMs. Baghouse ash and cyclone ash samples
were collected for CDD/CDF analysis. The CDD/CDF flue gas sampling was
conducted according to the December 1984 draft of the Environmental Standards
Q
Workshop protocol for sampling chlorinated organic compounds. The protocol
was developed jointly by EPA and the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
lmo/033
1-7
-------
Sampling for HC1 and PM was conducted according to EPA Reference Method 5 with
modifications. Sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrous oxides, and oxygen
were measured according to EPA Methods 6C, 10, 7E, and 3A, respectively.
During Runs 4, 5, and 6, Pb/Cd/PM and Cr/Ni sampling were conducted for
both uncontrolled and controlled flue gas. At the outlet stack (controlled
flue gas) SCL, CO, NO , and 0_ were monitored by GEM. Baghouse ash, cyclone
ash, lime slurry, and Tesisorb® samples were collected for metals analysis.
9
The draft EPA cadmium protocol was followed for the Pb/Cd/PM sampling.
Chromium/nickel sampling was conducted according to the draft EPA protocol for
emissions sampling of hexavalent and total chromium. The sampling
procedures are discussed in Section 4 of Reference 11.
A summary of the sampling log for the test program is presented in
Table 1-2. The summary identifies the samples collected as well as any
problems that occurred. A more detailed log is provided in Appendix H of
Reference 11.
1.4.4 Laboratory Analysis
The laboratory analyses were performed by four organizations: Triangle
Laboratories, Inc., North Carolina State University, Brown and Caldwell
Laboratories, and Radian Corporation. The CDD/CDF analyses were performed by
Triangle Laboratories, Inc., Research Triangle Park, NC. The metals analyses
of the uncontrolled flue gas samples were performed by Radian's Laboratory in
Research Triangle Park, NC and Nuclear Energy Services, Department of Nuclear
Engineering, North Carolina State University. The uncontrolled flue gas
particulate samples were also analyzed by the Radian Laboratory located in
North Carolina. The controlled flue gas metals samples were analyzed by Brown
and Caldwell Laboratories in Emeryville, CA.
The CDD/CDF samples were analyzed by high resolution gas chromatography
and high resolution mass spectrometry (GC/MS) according to the December 1984
12
draft of the Environmental Standards Workshop Protocol. The congeners that
lmo/033 -
-------
TABLE 1-2. SUMMARY OF SAMPLING LOG FOR TESTING AT THE MARION COUNTY MWC
September 22-30, 1986
Date
Run
Samples
Collected
Sampling
Period
Notes
9/22/86
Controlled and Uncontrolled:
CDD/CDF, HC1/PM, SO .
Controlled only: CO, 0 , NO .
Baghouse and Cyclone Ash
13:16 - 17:36
SO data for uncontrolled flue gas were not
collected for 25 percent of sampling period due to
a malfunction In the gas conditioner. No facility
operating problems occurred during sampling period.
9/23/86
Controlled and Uncontrolled:
CDD/CDF, HC1/PM, SO .
Controlled only: CO, 0 , NO .
Baghouse and Cyclone Ash
13:51 - 18:26
No sampling or facility operating problems
occurred during sampling period.
9/24/86
Controlled and Uncontrolled:
CDD/CDF, HC1/PM, SO .
Controlled only: CO, 0_, NO .
2 x
Baghouse and Cyclone Ash
10:13 - 14:49
No sampling or facility operating problems
occurred during sampling period.
9/26/86
Controlled and Uncontrolled:
Pb/Cd/PM, Cr/Nl.
Controlled only: CO, 0 , NO , SO .
Baghouse and Cyclone Ash,
Tesisorb and Lime Slurry
7:15 - 13:35
Pb/Cd/PM train for uncontrolled flue gas collected
sample for 350 minutes instead of 360 minutes due
to high vacuum in train. No facility operating
problems occurred during sampling period. Baghouse
was bypassed from 10:45 - 10:50, making controlled
data suspect.
9/29/86
Controlled and Uncontrolled:
Pb/Cd/PM, Cr/Ni.
Controlled only: CO, 0 , NO , SO .
Baghouse and Cyclone Ash,
Tesisorb and Lime Slurry
10:40 - 20:25
Crane malfunctions from 10:42 - 11:27 and 12:25 -
13:00. Stopped testing from 10:50 - 14:00. No
sampling problems occurred.
9/30/86
Controlled and Uncontrolled:
Pb/Cd/PM, Cr/Ni.
Controlled only: CO, O , NO^,
Baghouse and Cyclone Ash,
Tesisorb and Lime Slurry
9:30 - 16:20
Sample volume of Pb/Cd/PM train for uncontrolled
flue gas was corrected for a final leakrate above
0.02 ft /min. Correction was 0.4 percent of total
sample volume. No facility operating problem
occurred during the sampling period.
*The sampling period Includes time for port changes and other down time periods that occurred during sampling.
During a baghouse bypass, the flue gas passes directly from the quench reactor outlet to the stack.
lmo/033
-------
are reported are listed in Table 1-3. The total mono- through
octa-chlorinated homologues are reported, along with all the individual
2378-substituted CDD/CDF isomers such as 2378-TCDD. The samples were analyzed
separately as front half and back half fractions. This was done to meet EPA's
quality assurance/quality control requirements for these analyses. The front
half of the sample train included the probe rinse, cyclone, front half filter
holder rinse, and the filter. The back half included the back half filter
holder rinse, coil condenser rinse, XAD* trap, and impinger contents and
rinses. The analytical procedures are discussed in Section 5 of Reference 13.
For the flue gas samples collected for metals analysis, atomic absorption
(AA) was used for lead, cadmium, nickel, and total chromium analysis. For
hexavalent chromium, the diphenylcarbizide colorimetric technique was used by
Radian and AA by Ogden Projects. The precision for both AA and colorimetry
analysis methods is generally +10 percent. The Pb/Cd particulate samples were
prepared for AA analysis by a hydrofluoric/nitric acid digestion in a Parr
bomb apparatus. The Pb/Cd impinger samples were concentrated and dissolved
with hydrofluoric/nitric acid. For the Cr/Ni samples, the entire sample was
concentrated prior to digestion in an alkaline solution. The resulting
alkaline solution was filtered through a paper filter. An aliquot of the
filtrate was removed and acidified for nickel analysis by AA. A second
aliquot was removed for hexavalent chromium determination. The paper filter
and residue were digested in a sulfuric/hydrofluoric acid solution prior to
analysis for total chromium and nickel by AA. The baghouse and cyclone ash
samples were analyzed for total chromium and hexavalent chromium only, using
the methods described above. The analytical procedures are presented in
Section 5 of Reference 13.
As part of an EPA in-house study, aliquots of the digested trace metal
samples of baghouse ash and cyclone ash, as well as samples of lime slurry and
Tesisorb® were sent to the Nuclear Services Laboratory at North Carolina State
University for neutron activation analysis (NAA). Selected NAA results are
summarized in this report, although NAA is not an EPA reference method. The
details of the NAA analysis and results are reported in Reference 14.
lmo/033 1-10
-------
TABLE 1-3. CDD/CDF CONGENERS ANALYZED FOR THE
MARION COUNTY MWC TEST PROGRAM
DIOXINS
Monochloro dibenzo-p-dioxin (MCDD)
Total dichlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxlns (DCDD)
Total Trichlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (TrCDD)
2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (2,3,7,8 TCDD)
Total Tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (TCDD)
1,2,3,7,8 Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,7,8 PCDD)
Total Pentachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD)
1,2,3,4,7,8 Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDD)
1,2,3,6,7,8 Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDD)
1,2,3,7,8,9 Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDD)
Total Hexachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (HxCDD)
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDD)
Total Heptachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (HpCDD)
Total Octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (OCDD)
FURANS
Monochloro dibenzofuran (MCDF)
Total dichlorinated dibenzofurans (DCDF)
Total Trichlorinated dibenzofurans (TrCDF)
2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzofurans (2,3,7,8 TCDF)
Total Tetrachlorinated dibenzofurans (TCDF)
1,2,3,7,8 Pentachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,7,8 PCDF)
2,3,4,7,8 Pentachlorodibenzofuran (2,3,4,7,8 PCDF)
Total Pentachlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF)
1,2,3,4,7,8 Hexachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,4,7,8 HxCDF)
1,2,3,6,7,8 Hexachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,6,7,8 HxCDF)
2,3,4,6,7,8 Hexachlorodibenzofuran (2,3,4,6,7,8 HxCDF)
1,2,3,7,8,9 Hexachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,7,8,9 HxCDF)
Total Hexachlorinated dibenzofurans (HxCDF)
1,2,3,4,6,7,8 Heptachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,4,6,7,8 HpCDF)
1,2,3,4,7,8,9 Heptachlorodibenzofuran (1,2,3,4,7,8,9 HpCDF)
Total Heptachlorinated dibenzofurans (HpCDF)
Total Octachlorinated dibenzofurans (OCDF)
lmo/033 1-11
-------
1.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)
Completeness and data quality were emphasized during the test program at
the Marion County MWC. The QA/QC measures were incorporated into each
sampling or analytical task. The details of the QA/QC procedures and results
are included in the test reports. ' ' ' A summary of the QA/QC
procedures and results is presented in Section 5 of this report.
1.6 DESCRIPTION OF REPORT CONTENTS
The summary of results is presented in Section 2. The combustor and
emissions control device operating data are included in Section 3. Summaries
of the sampling methods and QA/QC procedures are presented in Sections 4 and
5, respectively. References are in Section 6 and an English-to-metric
conversion table is included in Section 7.
lmo/033 1-12
-------
2.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The results of the emission test program conducted at the Marion County
Solid Waste-to-Energy Facility during September 22 to 30, 1986, are summarized
in this section. The performance of the emission control system is evaluated
using the uncontrolled and controlled flue gas data. The combustor and
emission control system were operating under normal conditions throughout the
test program.
Both English and metric units are used in this section. Typically,
results of the sampling parameters (such as volumetric flowrate) are presented
in English units and concentrations of pollutants are reported in metric
units. Metric units are preferred for reporting the relatively low
pollutant concentrations measured. For the reader's ease, an English-to-
Metric conversion table is included in Section 7. Selected supporting data
and example calculations are included in the appendices of this report. The
19 20 21
appendices of the test reports ' ' include the supporting data for the
results presented in this report.
2.1 CDD/CDF RESULTS
2.1.1 CDD/CDF Emissions Results
Uncontrolled and controlled flue gas was sampled and analyzed for CDD and
CDF during Runs 1, 2 and 3 of the Marion County MWC test program. Because of
extremely low internal standard recoveries in several of the samples, some of
the data were not used. The uncontrolled flue gas data from Runs 1 and 3 were
not used because the front half fraction internal standards recoveries were
low. The poor recoveries were believed to have been caused by matrix effects.
The recoveries ranged from 0.01 percent to 0.84 percent, with most of the
values near 0.01 percent. The internal standards recoveries for the front
half of the Run 2 sample were less than 4 percent, but Triangle Laboratories
considered the data usable. The back half fractions of the uncontrolled flue
lmo/033 _ .
-------
gas samples did not exhibit the same losses of internal standards as observed
with the front half fractions. The combined (front half plus back half)
sample concentration was not estimated from the back half results because
greater than 80 percent of the CDD/CDFs were recovered in the front half
fractions, as observed for Run 2. Thus, the uncontrolled flue gas results
were available from Run 2 only.
The controlled flue gas CDD/CDF data from Run 1 were not used because the
internal standards were not recovered from the back half fraction of the
sample. Although the corresponding front half internal standards recoveries
were acceptable, the combined sample results for Run 1 were not estimated.
The internal standards recoveries from the rest of the controlled flue gas
samples were considered acceptable under the established quality control
criteria.
For the CDD/CDF isomers that were not detected, the detection limits were
not added to the results. At the time the CDD/CDF analyses were performed,
only detection limits were reported by Triangle Laboratories. Estimated
maximum possible concentrations (EMPCs) were not reported until July 1987.
The CDD/CDF results are presented in Table 2-1. The uncontrolled total
CDD concentration for Run 2 was 26.5 ng/dscm at 12 percent CO The
uncontrolled total CDF concentration was 44.2 ng/dscm at 12 percent CO,.. The
controlled CDD/CDF data were significantly lower than uncontrolled. The
controlled flue gas sample from Run 2 yielded a total CDD concentration of
1.34 ng/dscm at 12 percent CCL and a total CDF concentration of 1.42 ng/dscm
at 12 percent CO-. The Run 3 controlled flue gas data yielded total CDD and
total CDF concentrations of 0.685 and 0.966 ng/dscm at 12 percent CO
respectively.
Emission factors were determined for the different runs for which data
were available. The uncontrolled total CDD/CDF emission factor was 249 ng/kg
refuse. The total uncontrolled CDD/CDF emission factor expressed as a
2378-TCDD toxic equivalent was 5.17 ng/kg refuse. The total CDD/CDF emission
factor for controlled flue gas was 11.5 ng/kg refuse. The total controlled
lmo/033
2-2
-------
TABLE 2-1. SUMMARY OF CDD/CDF EMISSIONS FOR THE MARION COUNTY MWC
u>
Run 1
(9-22-86)
Run No. Uncontrolled Controlled
Flue Gas Characteristics
Flow rate (dscfm) 29,200 36,300
Temperature (°F) 403 250
Moisture (percent by volume) 16.3 17.9
CO (percent by volume) 10.3 9.6
0 (percent by volume) 9.0 10.2
Process operations
Steam load (103 Ibs/hr) 64
Refuse Feed Rat* (10 Ibs/hr) 20.3
CDD Results
Total CDD (nc/dscm) e e
Total CDD (corrected
to 121 CO , nc/dscm) e e
CDF Results
Total CDF (nc/dscm) e e
Total CDF (corrected
to 12X (X>2, nc/dscm) • •
CDD/CDF Results'*
Total CDD/CDF (nc/dacm) • e
Total CDD/CDF (corrected
to 12X CO , nc/dscm) • e
2378-TCDD Toxic Equivalent
(nc/dscm at 12X CO.)
Emission Factors (ng/kg refuse)
Total CDD
Total CDF
Total CDD/CDF
2378-TCDD Toxic Equivalent
Run 2
(9-23-86)
Uncontrolled Controlled
29,100
395
17.9
9.8
9.8
21.7
26.5
36.1
44.2
57.8
70.8
1.22
93.5
156
249
5.17
conditions are
35,500
249
17.9
9.5
10.3
65
25.3
1.06
1.34
1.13
1.42
2.18
2.76
0.031
5.57
5.94
11.5
0.163
68°F (20°C) and 1
Run 3
(9-24-86)
Uncontrolled Controlled
28,000 36,700
384 249
16.1 10.7
10.0 9.8
9.6 10.2
65
20.7
e 0.559
e 0.685
e 0.789
• 0.966
• 1.35
• 1.65
0.094
3.71
5.24
8.94
0.624
atm (1.01325 x 10 Pa).
Calculated moisture content was 10.7 percent. However, the simultaneous HC1 sampling yielded a moisture content of 15.0 percent,
which Indicated that the CDD/CDF train moisture was low compared to previous data. Therefore, a correction factor of 15.0/10.7 was
applied to the CDD/CDF data.
CThese values are averages of data taken over the sampling period. Samples were collected according to EPA Method 3 with
Orsat analysis.
CDD/CDF results are adjusted for Internal standard recoveries and sample blank results.
"Values not presented because front half fractions of uncontrolled flue gas samples and back half fractions of controlled flue gas
sample were not used. Extremely low Internal standard recoveries Invalidated the data.
-------
CDD/CDF emission factor expressed as a 2378-TCDD toxic equivalent was
0.163 ng/kg refuse.
The 2378-TCDD toxic equivalency was calculated for each set of flue gas
CDD/CDF data using the following steps. The concentration of each congener
00
was multiplied by a 2378-TCDD toxic equivalency factor developed by EPA.
Each factor expresses the toxicity of the specific congener relative to
2378-TCDD. The factors range from zero for the octa-CDD and CDFs to 0.5 for
12378-PCDD. The equivalencies of the congeners are then summed, resulting in
a total 2378-TCDD toxic equivalency for a given CDD/CDF analysis.
Table 2-2 presents the 2378-TCDD toxic equivalency results along with the
concentration data for the individual CDD/CDF congeners. The uncontrolled
flue gas 2378-TCDD toxic equivalency for Run 2 was 1.22 ng/dscm at 12 percent
COy. The corresponding controlled flue gas toxic equivalency for Run 2 was
0.031 ng/dscm at 12 percent CO-.
2.1.2 Emission Control System Control Efficiency for CDD/CDF
The removal efficiency of CDD/CDF by the emission control system is
summarized for Run 2 in Table 2-3. The removal efficiency is shown separately
for each congener. The removal efficiency was greater than 89 percent for 14
of the 31 congeners listed. Five of the congeners were removed at
efficiencies in the range of 20 to 83 percent. The remaining twelve congeners
were not detected, so the removal efficiency for these could not be
quantified. For 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF, the control efficiencies were
94.0 percent and approximately 100 percent, respectively. The removal
efficiencies for total CDD and total CDF were 94.0 percent and 96.2 percent,
respectively. Based on these data, positive removal efficiencies can be
obtained across a QR/FF emission control system for an MWC. The removal
efficiencies were calculated based on mass flow rates of CDD/CDF.
2.1.3 CDD/CDF Cyclone Ash and Baghouse Ash Results
The CDD/CDF results for cyclone ash and baghouse ash are summarized in
Tables 2-4 and 2-5, respectively. The CDD/CDF results are also expressed as
lmo/033
2-4
-------
TABtE 2-2. UNCONTROLLED AND CONTROLLED FLUE GAS CDD/CDF CONCENTRATIONS
AND 2378-TCDD TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES AT THE MARION COUNTY MWC
CONCENTRATION (ng/dscm norm, to
12 I C02)a
Uncontrolled Controlled
ISOMER
DIOXINS
Mono-CDD
Dl-CDD
Tri-CDD
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678 HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL CDD
FURANS
Mono-CDF
Di-CDF
Trl-CDF
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678 HpCDF
1234789 HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Oeta-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD+CDF
Run 2
[0
0
0
0
0
.006]
.081
.114
.410
.566
[0.048]
0
to
0
[0
9
3
4
7
26
1
0
26
5
4
to
2
1
[0
to
1
[0
0
to
[0
[0
0
44
70
.494
.061]
.031
.012]
.04
.81
.05
.94
.5
.82
.551
.1
.15
.65
.024]
.52
.61
.031]
.033]
.76
.040]
.000
.061]
.081]
.069]
.063
.2
.8
Run 2
[0.001]
0.040
0.033
0.021
0.194
0.008
0.069
[0.002]
[0.002]
[0.003]
0.084
0.100
0.086
0.700
1.34
[0.001]
[0.489]
0.899
[0.094]
0.435
0.008
0.023
0.017
[0.001]
[0.001]
[0.002]
[0.001]
[0.001]
[0.002]
[0.003]
[0.003]
0.042
1.42
2.76
Run 3
[0.001]
[0.002]
[0.004]
0.093
0.013
[0.002]
0.016
[0.003]
[0.004]
[0.004]
0.127
0.122
0.000
0.313
0.685
[0.001]
[0.203]
0.769
[0.030]
0.149
o.ooa
[0.010]
0.021
[0.002]
[0.002]
[0.002]
[0.002]
0.019
[0.003]
[0.004]
[0.004]
[0.008]
0.966
1.65
Average
[0.001]
0.020
0.017
0.057
0.104
0.004
0.042
[0.003]
[0.003]
[0.004]
0.105
0.111
0.043
0.507
1.01
[0.001]
[0.346]
0.834
[0.062]
0.292
0.008
0.011
0.019
[0.002]
[0.002]
[0.002]
[0.002]
0.009
[0.003]
[0.004]
[0.004]
0.021
1.19
2.20
2378-TCDD
Toxic 1
Equivalency
Factor
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
00000
00000
00000
00000
01000
50000
00500
04000
,04000
,04000
.00040
.00100
.00001
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.10000
.00100
.10000
.10000
.00100
.01000
.01000
.01000
.01000
.00010
.00100
.00100
.00001
.00000
Total
2378-TCDD
Equivalent
2378-TCDD TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
(ng/dscm, norm, to 12X CO )
Jncontrolled Controlled
Run 2
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.410
0.006
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.004
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ooo
0.515
0.005
0.000
0.252
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.018
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.22
Run 2
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.021
0.002
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.031
Run 3
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.093
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
o.ood
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.094
Average
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.057
0.001
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.063
Values in brackets are minimum detection limits (MDL) of not-detectable congeners. These are considered
as zeroes in calculating averages and toxic equivalencies. Each not-detectable result has a unique
MDL that is a function of the sample matrix and specific congener analyzed.
Factors are from Reference 22.
1 mo/033
2-5
-------
TABLE 2-3. CDD/CDF REMOVAL EFFICIENCY ACROSS THE EMISSION
CONTROL SYSTEM AT THE MARION COUNTY MWC
ISOMER
Dioxins
Mono-CDD
Di-CDD
Tri-CDD
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678 HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
Furans
Mono -CDF
Di-CDF
Tri-CDF
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678 HpCDF
1234789 HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Total CDF
Total CDD/CDF
Uncontrolled
(ng/dscm at
[0.006]b
0.081
0.114
0.410
0.566
[0.048]
0.494
[0.061]
0.031
[0.012]
9.04
3.81
4.05
7.94
26.5
1.82
0.551
26.1
5.15
4.65
[0.024]
2.52
1.61
[0.031]
[0.033]
1.76
[0.040]
0.00
[0.061]
[0.081]
[0.069]
0.063
44.2
70.8
RUN 2
Controlled
12% C02)
[0.001]
0.040
0.033
0.021
0.194
0.008
0.069
[0.002]
[0.002]
[0.003]
0.084
0.100
^0.086
0.700
1.34
[0.001]
[0.489]
0.899
[0.094]
0.435
0.008
0.023
0.017
[0.001]
[0.001]
[0.002]
[0.001]
[0.001]
[0.002]
[0.003]
[0.003]
0.042
1.42
2.76
Control Efficiency4
(percent)
IN C
+41.8
+65.2
+94.0
+59.3
--
+83.5
IN
+100
IN
+98.9
+96.9
+97.5
+89.6
+94.0
+100
+100
+95.9
+100
+88. 9d
--
+98.9
+98.8
IN
IN
+100
IN
IN
IN
IN
IN
+21.3
+96.2
+95.4
Control efficiencies were calculated based on mass rates.
Not detected. Detection limit given in brackets.
°IN - Indeterminate because both uncontrolled and controlled concentrations
are not detected; there is no basis to assume removal or non-removal.
uncontrolled concentration is not detected and controlled concentration is
greater than zero, but is less than the uncontrolled minimum detection limit.
Therefore, the removal efficiency may not necessarily be negative.
lmo/033
2-6
-------
TABLE 2-4. CDD/CDF CYCLONE ASH CONCENTRATIONS AND 2378-TCDD TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES AT THE MARION COUNTY MWC
ISOMER
DIOXINS
Mono-CDD
Dl-CDD
Tri-CDD
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678 HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL CDD
FURANS
Mono-CDF
Dl-CDF
Tri-CDF
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678 HpCDF
1234789 HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
Concentration (ng/g=ppb)
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average
[0
0
0
0
0
0
0
[0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
[0
[0
0
0
0
0
0
0
[0
[0
[0
[0
0
[0
[0
[0
0
0
.001]
.02
.02
.02
.05
.04
.46
.002]
.08
.20
.85
.43
.39
.46
.02
.001]
.333]
.35
.15
.12
.02
.08
.10
.001]
.001]
.001]
.001]
.07
.001]
.001]
.001]
.05
.94
[0.001]
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.15
0.05
0.53
0.05
0.13
[0.001]
1.35
0.59
0.55
0.81
4.28
[0.001]
[0.130]
0.34
0.16
0.18
0.03
0.08
0.11
[0.001]
[0.001]
0.08
0.01
0.02
[0.016]
0.01
0.01
0.08
1.11
[0.001]
0.04
0.09
0.02
0.22
0.04
0.37
0.04
0.10
[0.001]
1.20
0.44
0.39
0.49
3.44
0.02
[0.444]
0.69
0.19
0.33
0.04
0.07
0.06
0.03
[0.002]
0.05
[0.001]
0.01
0.03
[0.002]
0.03
0.05
1.60
[0.001]
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.14
0.04
0.45
0.03
0.10
0.07
1.13
0.49
0.44
0.59
3.58
0.01
[0.300]
0.46
0.17
0.21
0.03
0.08
0.09
0.01
[0.001]
0.04
0.00
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.06
1.22
Toxic
Equivalency
Factor
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.01000
.50000
.00500
.04000
.04000
.04000
.00040
.00100
.00001
.00000
.00000
.00000
.00000
.10000
.00100
.10000
.10000
.00100
.01000
.01000
.01000
.01000
.00010
.00100
.00100
.00001
.00000
Total
2378-TCDD Toxic Equivalent
Concentration (ng/g=ppb)
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.020
0.001
0.020
0.002
0.000
0.003
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.015
0.000
0.002
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.020
0.002
0.025
0.003
0.002
0.005
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.016
0.000
0.003
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.020
0.002
0.020
0.002
0.002
0.004
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.019
0.000
0.004
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.020
0.001
0.022
0.002
0.001
0.004
0.003
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.017
0.000
0.003
0.008
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2378-TCDD
TOTAL CDD+CDF
3
.96
5.39
5.04
4.80
Equivalent
0.080
0.086
0.082
0.082
*Values in brackets are minimum detection limits (MDL) of not-detectable congeners. These are considered as
zeroes in calculating averages and toxic equivalencies. Each not-detectable result has a unique MDL that is
a function of the sample matrix and specific congener analyzed.
b
Factors are from Reference 22.
lmo/033
2-7
-------
TABLE 2-5. CDD/CDF BAGHOUSE ASH CONCENTRATIONS AND 237S-TCDD TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES AT THE MARION COUNTY MWC
ISOMER
DIOXINS
Mono-CDD
Dl-CDD
Tri-CDD
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678 HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL CDD
FURANS
Mono-CDF
Dl-CDF
Tri-CDF
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678 HpCDF
1234789 HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
TOTAL CDD-WDF
Concentration (ng/g=ppb)
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average
[0.001]
[0.001]
0.26
0.03
0.34
0.07
0.94
0.07
0.12
[0.002]
1.52
0.52
0.53
0.58
4.98
0.04
[0.470]
1.20
0.59
0.57
0.08
0.22
0.29
[0.001]
[0.001]
0.19
[0.001]
0.00
[0.001]
0.03
0.00
0.05
3.26
8.24
[0.001]
0.09
0.12
[0.001]
0.20
0.06
0.72
0.07
0.15
[0.003]
1.81
0.73
0.72
0.99
5.66
0.01
0.79
1.49
0.62
0.58
0.06
0.23
0.23
[0.001]
[0.001]
0.23
[0.048]
0.00
[0.001]
[0.001]
[0.001]
0.11
4.35
10.0
[0.001]
0.04
0.11
0.02
0.20
0.04
0.34
0.03
0.07
0.14
0.78
0.40
0.37
0.56
3.04
[0.001]
[1.317]
1.18
0.38
0.45
0.07
0.12
0.17
0.01
[0.002]
0.10
[0.017]
0.00
[0.002]
0.02
0.01
0.06
2.52
5.55
[0.001]
0.04
0.16
0.02
0.25
0.06
0.67
0.06
0.11
0.05
1.37
0.55
0.54
0.71
4.56
0.02
0.26
1.29
0.53
0.53
0.07
0.19
0.23
0.00
[0.001]
0.17
[0.022]
0.00
[0.001]
0.02
0.00
0.07
3.39
7.93
Toxic
Equivalency
Factor
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
1.00000
0.01000
0.50000
0.00500
0.04000
0.04000
0.04000
0.00040
0.00100
0.00001
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
O.OQOOO
0.10000
0.00100
0.10000
0.10000
0.00100
0.01000
0.01000
0.01000
0.01000
0.00010
0.00100
0.00100
0.00001
0.00000
Total
2378-TCDD
Equivalent
2378-tCDD Toxic Equivalent
Concentration (ng/g=ppb)
Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Average
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.030
0.003
0.035
0.005
0.003
0.005
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.059
0.001
0.008
0.022
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.174
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.030
0.004
0.003
0.006
0.000
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.062
0.001
0.006
0.023
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.140
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.020
0.002
0.020
0.002
0.001
0.003
0.006
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.038
0.000
0.007
0.012
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.113
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.017
0.002
0.028
0.003
0.002
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.053
0.001
0.007
0.019
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.142
"Values in brackets are minimum detection lunits (MDL) of not-detectable congeners. These are considered as
zeroes in calculating averages and toxic equivalencies. Each not-detectable result has a unique MDL that is
a function of the sample matrix and specific congener analyzed.
Run 3 is the average of duplicate analyses.
Factors are from Reference 22.
lrao/033 2-8
-------
2378-TCDD toxic equivalents. The results are not adjusted for dilution of the
ash by Tesisorb* or lime.
For the cyclone ash, the average total CDD concentration was 3.58 ng/g
and the average total CDF concentration was 1.22 ng/g. The average 2378-TCDD
toxic equivalent for cyclone ash was 0.082 ng/g.
For baghouse ash, the average total CDD concentration was 4.56 ng/g and
the average total CDF concentration was 3.39 ng/g. The average 2378-TCDD
toxic equivalent for baghouse ash was 0.142 ng/g.
Considering the analytical accuracy of the CDD/CDF method (+ 50 percent),
both the cyclone ash and baghouse ash results were consistent between runs.
2.1.4 CDD/CDF Homologue Distribution
The CDD/CDF homologue distributions were determined for the flue gas,
cyclone ash, and baghouse ash samples. The uncontrolled and controlled flue
gas distributions are shown in Figure 2-1. The ash distributions are shown in
Figures 2-2 and 2-3. The distributions in a tabular form are included in
Appendix B.
The flue gas CDD/CDF distribution appears to have changed slightly across
the emission control device. While both the uncontrolled and controlled flue
gas CDDs primarily consisted of hexa- through octa-CDD homologues, the
controlled flue gas contained a relatively high molar fraction of tetra-CDD.
The CDF homologue distributions were similar for both uncontrolled and
controlled flue gas. Tri-CDF was the predominant homologue present; in each
flue gas sample, the tri-CDF molar fraction was greater than 0.6.
The baghouse ash and cyclone ash CDD and CDF distributions were similar.
The higher chlorinated CDD congeners were the most prevalent in the ash. This
trend was also evident in the flue gas CDD distribution. The ash CDF
distributions contained predominantly lower chlorinated congeners. This CDF
distribution was also seen in the flue gas results.
lmo/033 2-9
-------
CDD
Li.
—
"3
U.D -
0.45 -
0.4 -
0.35 -
0.3 -
0.25 -
0.2 -
0.15 -
0.1 -
0.05 -
£
I
£
t
B*
A B C D E
.9 ~
0.8 -
0.7 -
0.6 -
0.5 -
0.4 -
0.3 -
0.2 -
0.1 -
r
I .
"T — ™i "r
I
'
s
/
'
'
f
>
'
t
'
S
. C
' B
' K
k
, C
If
'' "i "T*
/
S
/
^
0 P Q R S T
1
1
P
P
<£
i
\ ® |
3 C'' K
-------
Cyclone Ash
0.35 -
0.3 -
- 0.25 -
o
a
1 0.2 -
SJ
"a
* 0.15 -
0.1 -
0.05 -
n _
^^
«J^ mM ^^ iV
K7
*n
><
$3
< /
^
^ I
y 1
$ 1
s
/
/
s
/
/
/
'
/
/
/ 77
/I J^i
1*0
^ Kn ?P
KEY
Code Congener
Dtorins
^ Kxi ^ A Mono-CDO
|||
B Di-CDD
C Tri-CDD
D 2378 TCDD
E Other TCDD
F 12378 PCDD
0 ' : s ' ' 11 : : i : v- Q Other PCDD
ABCDEFGHI J KLMNH 123478 HxCDD
I 123678 HxCDD
Baghouse Ash j 123789 HXCDD
n , K Other HxCDD
U."* ~T
0.35 -
0.3 -
s 0.35 -
o
w
o
a
> 0.2 -
***
—
a
3 0.15 -
0.1 -
0.05 -
0 -
H
yl
•
^P
•^
• (71 K
r
f
/
f
/
' K^i
3
5-71
*
\ /
/
J
!3
/
!/ rl
5 ^^71 rJ
X V9n IH/i M
^
J
s
/ $£
/j (X
(py
^^s
•S
BJJ
vs
• >
^^
vs
Kj
^ i — i 1 1 r — ~ T r i i
L 1234678 HpCDD
M Other HpCDD
N Octa-CDD
ABCDEFGHI JKLMN
•H Run 1 1V>O) Run 2 V/A Run 3
CM
Ol
CM
Figure 2-2. Baghouse Ash and Cyclone Ash CDD Homologue Distributions
at the Marion County MWC
2-11
-------
Cyclone Ash
U.D
0.5 -
0.4 -
s
a
u
£ 0.3 -
—
S
0.2 -
0.1 -
o -
fi
0
/
'
/
' _ n
b
i'
/ •>'
/ m,
'f w
^
t
K
|
i<
I
/
/
/
/
' 1
' •?] fe
P Q R S T U
K
K
1 K
'I ft
'
V
?1 •
3RL I ^^
n KM r, 1^, [71 ^ --W ^
KEY
Code Congener
Furans
O Mono-CDF
P Di-CDF
Q Tri-CDF
R 2378 TCDF
S Other TCDF
T 12378 PCDF
W X Y Z AA AB AC AD AE U 23478 PCDF
V Other PCDF
Baghouse Ash w 123478 HXCDF
n R
l/.O
0.5 -
0.4 -
s
a
w
s,
>
>
£
>
P
flfiifi1
/
/
S
'
/
/
^
/
,
i
/
' r
' ?
|
p
/
_ /
-------
2.2 PARTICULATE RESULTS
Particulate data were collected for uncontrolled and controlled flue gas
during the test program. Uncontrolled flue gas particulate results were
available for Runs 1 to 6. The controlled flue gas particulate results were
available for Runs 1 to 3. During Runs 1 to 3, the particulate samples were
collected in a combined HCl/particulate train. During Runs 4 to 6, the
particulate samples were collected in a combined Pb/Cd/particulate train.
The controlled flue gas samples for Runs 4 to 6 were not analyzed for
particulate. This was to ensure strict compliance with EPA Method 12 sampling
procedures.
The results of the particulate analyses are summarized in Table 2-6. The
average removal efficiency of the particulate matter was 99.7 percent, based
on mass flow rates. The average uncontrolled particulate concentration was
2020 mg/dscm at 12 percent CO- with a corresponding particulate mass flow rate
of 82.2 kg/hr. The uncontrolled flue gas particulate concentration ranged
from 1690 mg/dscm at 12 percent CCL to 2560 mg/dscm at 12 percent CO-. The
average controlled particulate concentration was 5.19 mg/dscm at 12 percent
C09 with a corresponding mass flow rate of 0.281 kg/hr. The controlled flue
gas particulate concentration ranged from 2.97 mg/dscm at 12 percent C0? to
8.47 mg/dscm at 12 percent C0«.
2.3 METALS EMISSIONS RESULTS
2.3.1 Flue Gas Metals Results
The uncontrolled and controlled flue gas metals emissions results are
summarized in Tables 2-7 and 2-8, respectively. The target metals included
lead, cadmium, total chromium, hexavalent chromium, and nickel.
The average lead concentration in the uncontrolled flue gas was
20,000 ug/dscm at 12 percent CO- and the average cadmium concentration was
1,090 ug/dscm at 12 percent CO.. The average total chromium concentration in
lmo/033 2-13
-------
TABLE 2-6. SUMMARY OF PARTICULATE EMISSIONS AT THE MARION COUNTY MWC
I
I—1
-p-
Run 1
9-22-86
Uncon- Con-
Run Number trolled trolled
b
Flue Gas Parameters
Flow Rate (dscfm)
o
Temperature ( F)
Moisture (percent by volume)
CO (percent by volume)
0 (percent by volume)
Process Operations
Steam Load (103 Ibs^hr)
Refuse Feedrate (10 Ibs/hr)
Parttculate Results
Front Half Catch
(Probe, cyclone, and filter)
mg - mass
gr/dscf
gr/dscf
(corrected to 12X CO )
mg/dscm
mg/dscm
(corrected to 12X CO )
Ibs/hr
Kg/hr
Removal Efficiency (X)
29,700
404
16.8
10.3
9.0
64
20.3
8300
0.896
1.05
2050
2400
228
103
38,900
250
17.1
10.6
9.2
53.0
0.0033
0.0037
7.55
8.47
1.10
0.499
99.5
Run 2
9-23-86
Uncon- Con-
trolled trolled
30,000
399
18.5
9.8
9.8
65
25.3
8740
0.916
1.12
2100
2560
236
107
36,100
249
16.6
9.3
10.5
17.1
0.0014
0.0018
3.20
4.12
0.420
0.191
99.8
Run 3
9-24-86
Uncon- Con-
trolled trolled
27,600
388
16.6
10.0
9.6
65
20.7
5290
0.617
0.740
1410
1690
146
66.3
36,100
249
15.0
10.2
9.6
15.5
0.0011
0.0013
2.52
2.97
0.340
0.154
99.8
Run 4
9-26-86
Uncontrolled
27,400
390
17.1
10.0
9.6
66
21.4
8630
0.701
0.848
1600
1940
164
74.6
Run 5
9-29-86
Uncontrolled
28,300
399
18.1
10.0
9.6
65
24.9
8550
0.659
0.791
1510
1810
160
72.6
Run 6
9-30-86
Uncontrolled
29,200
398
17.4
10.0
9.6
66
23.5
8270
0.616
0.739
1410
1690
154
69.9
Average
Uncon- Con-
trolled trolled
28,700
396
17.4
10.0
9.5
65
22.7
__
0.734
0.881
1680
2020
181
82.2
37,000
249
16.2
10.0
9.8
—
0.0019
0.0023
4.42
5.19
0.620
0.281
99.7
"Average uncontrolled results are from Runs 1 through 6. Average controlled results are from Runs 1 through 3.
b
English-to-metric conversion factors are included in Section 7.0. Standard conditions are 68°F (20°C) and 1 atm (1.01325 x 10 Pa).
°Moisture determined by EPA Method 4.
dThese values are averages of data taken over the sampling period. Samples were collected according to EPA Method 3 with Orsat analysis. Uncontrolled
and controlled results agree within accuracy of analysis of + 20 percent.
CResults are adjusted for blanks. Values normalized to 12Z C02 using Orsat CO2 measurements.
-------
TABLE 2-7 . SUMMARY OF UNCONTROLLED EPA SPECIFIC METALS EMISSIONS AT 1HE MARION COUNTY MWC
Run No. Run 4
Date 09-26-86
Pb/Cd Cr/Nl
Type Emissions train train
Flue Gas Characteristics
Flow Rate (dscfm) 27,400 29,000
Temperature (°F) 390 396
Moisture (percent by volume) 17.1 17.6
CO (percent by volume) 10.0
0 (percent by volume) 9.6
Process Operations
Steam Load (10 Ibs/hr) 66
Refuse Feedrate (10 Ibs/hr) 21. A
c d
Specific Metals Results '
Concentration
(ug/dscm corrected to 12X CO )
Lead 16,400
Cadmium 1,150
Chromium (+VI)* ND
Total chromium 453
, Nickel 16.5
h^
01 Mass Rate (lb/hr)f
Lead 1.40
Cadmium 0.0977
Chromium (+VI) 0
Total Chromium 0.0408
Nickel 0.00148
Run 5
09-29-86
Craft fr.?A ?raft
28,300 29,200 29,200
399 404 398
18.1 18.4 17.4
10.0
9.6
65
24.9
19,400 24,200
1,180 950
ND
262
4.5
1.72 2.20
0.104 0.0863
0
0.0238
0.000409
Run 6
09-30-86
Cr/Nl
train Average
29,100 28,700
401 398
17.3 17.7
10.0 10.0
9.6 9.6
66 66
23.5 23.3
20,000
1,090
ND ND
520 412
15.3 12.1
1.77
0.0960
0 0
0.0472 0.0373
0.00139 0.00109
English-to-metric conversion In Section 7.
Standard conditions are 68°F (20°C) and 1 atm (1.01325 x 10 Pa).
These values are averages of data taken over the sampling period. Samples were collected according to EPA Method 3 with Orsat analysis.
°Adjusted for blank results. Values normalized to 12X C02 using Orsat C02 measurements.
Total train results.
6ND » not detected. The minimum detection limit for Cr (+VI) In the uncontrolled flue gas was 8.0 ug/dscm at 12)! C02-
fMass emission rate (Ib/hr) is the product of the concentration (ug/dscm) and the volumetric flow rate of the flue gas (dscfm) and a conversion factor
(3.746 x 10 ).
lmo/033
-------
TABLE 2-8. SUMMARY OF CONTROLLED EPA SPECIFIC METALS EMISSIONS AT THE MARION COUNTY MWC
Run No.
Date
Type Emissions
Flue Gas Characteristics
Flow Rate (dscfm)
Temperature ( F)
Moisture (percent by volume)
CO, (percent by volume!
0 (percent by volume)
Process One rations
Steam Load (10J Ibs/hr)
Refuse Feedrate (10 Ibs/hr)
Specific Metals Results '
Concentration
(ug/dscm corrected to 12% CO.)
Lead
Cadmium
Chromium (+VI)8
Total chromium
tsj Nickel
hi- Mass Rate (Ib/hr)1
<* Lead
Cadmium '
Chromium (-t-VI)
Total Chromium
Nickel
Run 4
09-26-86
Pb/Cd
train
36,400
250
18.2
9.5
10.3
66
21.4
180
17
0.020
0.0018
Cr/Nl
train
35,700
250
18.2
9.5
10.3
o.oih
ND
1.5
-6
1.7 X 10
0
0.00015
Run 5
09-29-86
Pb/Cd
train
37,500
252
18.4
9.8
10.0
65
24.9
14
2.8
0.0016
0.00032
Cr/Ni
train
35,500
251
18.7
9.8
10.0
ND h
0.12
3.0
0 .5
1.3 x 10
0.00032
Pb/Cd
train
35,000
251
18.0
9.6
10.2
21
2.2
0.0022
0.00024
Run 6
09-30-86
Cr/Ni
train*
35,700
251
18.0
9.9
10.1
66
23.5
ND
0.19
2.9
° -5
2.1 x 10
0.00031
Average
36,000
251
13.2
9.7
10.2
66
23.3
f
25f
NDf
0.16
3.0
f
0.0019
Of00028
0 f
-5
1.7 x 10
0.00032
Sampling was performed for 260 of 360 minutes scheduled.
English-to-metric conversion in Section 7. Standard conditions are 68°F (20°C) and 1 atm (1.01325 x 10 Pa)
°These values are averages of data taken over the sampling period. Samples were collected according to EPA Method 3 with Orsat analysis.
Results are reported to two significant figures only because laboratory analysis results were to two significant figures. Results for Pb/Cd and
Cr/Nl trains agree within accuracy of analysis of ± 20 percent.
"Total train results. Results are adjusted for blanks. Values normalized to 12X C02 using Orsat C02 measurements.
Average of results are from Runs 5 and 6 only. Run 4 included a baghouse by-pass which caused higher controlled emissions.
8ND « not detected. The minimum detection limit for Cr (+VI) in the controlled flue gas was 0.012 ug/dscm at 12X O>2 and for total chromium was
0.12 ug/dscm at 12X CO .
Analyte detected at detection limit.
1Mass emissions rate (Ib/hr) Is the product of the concentration (ug/dscm) and the volumetric flow rate of the flue gas (dscfm) and a conversion
factor (3.746 x lo"9).
lmo/033
-------
the uncontrolled flue gas was 412 ug/dscm at 12 percent CCL. The nickel
concentration in the uncontrolled flue gas was relatively low, averaging
12.1 ug/dscm at 12 percent CCL. Hexavalent chromium was not detected in the
uncontrolled flue gas. The uncontrolled flue gas detection limit for
hexavalent chromium was 8.0 ug/dscm at 12 percent CO-.
The metals concentrations decreased significantly across the emission
control device. The average controlled lead concentration was 18 ug/dscm at
12 percent CO,.. The cadmium concentration decreased to an average of
2.5 ug/dscm at 12 percent CO.. Nickel concentrations in the controlled flue
gas averaged 3.0 ug/dscm at 12 percent CO- and the average total chromium
concentration was 0.16 ug/dscm at 12 percent C0_. Hexavalent chromium was
again not detected in the flue gas. The higher results for lead and cadmium
during Run 4 were caused by a baghouse by-pass episode during the run.
Because of this known process upset, the average controlled results include
only Runs 5 and 6.
Metals removal efficiencies are presented in Table 2-9, with the average
values again calculated from the results of Runs 5 and 6 only. Removal
efficiencies for total chromium, lead, and cadmium ranged from 99.7 percent to
99.9 percent. Nickel removal efficiencies averaged 50.2 percent and ranged
from 23.0 percent to 89.7 percent for the three runs. Of the target metals,
nickel was measured at the lowest concentration. Because hexavalent chromium
was not detected in the samples, the removal efficiency could not be
determined for this metal.
2.3.2 Metals Analyte-to-Particulate Ratio
The metals analyte-to-particulate ratios are summarized for the
uncontrolled and controlled flue gas in Table 2-10. The uncontrolled ratio
was calculated for each of Runs 4, 5, and 6 and the ratios were averaged. The
controlled ratio was calculated from the average controlled metals
concentrations from Runs 5 and 6 and the average controlled particulate
concentration from Runs 1, 2, and 3. Controlled particulate data were not
lmo/033 2_17
-------
TABLE 2-9. SUMMARY OF EPA SPECIFIC METALS EMISSIONS AT THE MARION COUNTY MWC
Concentration (ug/dscm Corrected to 12X CO )
N>
1
00
Element
Lead
Cadmium
Chromium (+VI)
Total Chromium
Nickel
Run 4
Uncon- Con-
trolled trolled
16,400 180
1,150 17
ND . 0.01
[8.0]d
453 [0^2]
16.5 1.5
Uncon-
CEXC trolled
98.6 19,400
98.1 1,180
ND
[8.0]
100 262
89.7 4.5
Run 5
Con-
trolled
14
2.8
ND
[0.012]
0.12
3.0
Uncon-
CEX° trolled
99.9 24,200
99.7 950
ND
[8.0]
99.9 520
23.0 15.3
Run 6
Con-
trolled CEX°
21 99.9
2.2 99.7
ND
[0.012]
0.19 99.9
2.9 77.4
Average
Uncon-
trolled
20,000
1,090
ND
[8.0]
412
12.1
Con-
trolled
18
2.5
ND
[0.012]
0.16
3.0
CEX°
99.9
99.7
_
99.9
50.2
"controlled results are reported to two significant figures because laboratory analytical results were calculated to only
two significant figures.
Average from Runs 5 and 6 only. Run 4 controlled data not included because a baghouse by-pass occurred during the run.
Control efficiencies (CE) were calculated based on mass flow rates.
Detection limits given in brackets.
-------
TABLE 2-10. RATIO OF METALS TO PARTICULATE MASS AT THE MARION COUNTY MUG
3. b c
mg metal per gram of particulate ' '
Average , Average ,-
Element Uncontrolled Controlled '
Lead
Cadmium
Chromium (+VI)
Total Chromium
Nickel
11.2
0.602
NDS
0.229
0.0067
3.2
0.46
ND
0.029
0.54
Katios are calculated with total train results for the metals and front half
train results for the particulates.
The ratio (mg/g) is obtained by dividing the concentration (ug/dscm) by the
particulate loading (mg/dscm).
c
Since almost all of the lead and cadmium were collected in the front half of
the sampling trains and almost all of the nickel and chromium were collected
in the particulate side of the sampling trains, the total train metals
results were used to calculate the metals to particulate ratios. A separate
calculation of the ratio using only the front half metals results was not
performed.
Average of ratios calculated for Runs 4, 5, and 6.
Calculated from average metals concentrations from Runs 5 and 6 and average
particulate concentrations from Runs 1, 2, and 3. Controlled particulate
data were not available from Runs 4, 5, and 6.
Results are reported to two significant figures because laboratory
analytical results for metals were calculated to only two significant
figures.
%D - not detected. Detection limit for uncontrolled chromium (+VI) was
0.004 ng/g and for controlled chromium (+VI) was 0.002 ng/g.
lmo/033 2'19
-------
available from Ogden Projects for Runs 4, 5, and 6 and the Run 4 controlled
metals data are outliers because the baghouse was by-passed during the run.
For lead, the uncontrolled ratio was 11.2 mg/g, while the controlled
ratio was 3.2 mg/g. The ratio for cadmium decreased slightly from an
uncontrolled value of 0.602 mg/g to 0.46 mg/g, controlled. The total chromium
analyte-to-particulate ratio for uncontrolled flue gas was 0.229 mg/g and for
controlled flue gas was 0.029 mg/g. For nickel, the uncontrolled ratio was
0.0067 mg/g and the controlled ratio was 0.54 mg/g.
2.3.3 Cyclone Ash and Baghouse Ash Metrals Results
The cyclone ash and baghouse ash were analyzed by three methods: AA,
colorimetry, and NAA. The ashes were processed and analyzed for trivalent
chromium by AA and for hexavalent chromium by colorimetry. Aliquots of the
hexavalent and trivalent chromium fractions were analyzed by NAA for chromium,
arsenic, cadmium, and nickel.
The results of the metals analyses are presented in Table 2-11. The
colorimetric analysis results for hexavalent chromium are not reported because
of very low spike recoveries. The low recoveries are believed to have
occurred because the metals bound irreversibly with compounds in the sample
matrix.
In the cyclone ash, the average total chromium concentration was 0.186
mg/g by NAA and 0.174 mg/g by AA. The relative difference between the two
results was 7 percent. Hexavalent chromium, arsenic, cadmium, and nickel were
generally not detected by NAA. When detected, the concentrations were near
the detection limits observed for the other runs. The values for the
detection limits and the measured concentrations were averaged. Since the
metals were generally not detected, these averages are reported in Table 2-12
as detection limits. The average detection limits observed were on the order
of 0.02 mg/g for arsenic, 0.05 mg/g for cadmium, 0.1 mg/g for nickel, and
0.002 mg/g for hexavalent chromium.
lmo/033 2.20
-------
TABLE 2-11. METALS RESULTS FOR BAGHOUSE AND CYCLONE ASH AT THE MARION COUNTY MWC
NJ
Metals Concentration (mg/g)
Run 4
09-26-86
Ash
Cyclone Ash
Haxavalent Chromium
Total Chromium
Arsenic
Cadmium
Nickel
Banhouse Ash
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Chromium
Arsenic
Cadmium
Nickel
NAA
AA Fraction A
0.234 0
[0
[0
[0
0.0183 0
0
0
{0
.280
.00467]
.0248]
.0910]
.0193
.0871
.123
.0718]
Fraction B
0.00152
[0.0130]
[0.0606]
[0.0265]
[0.00193]
[0.0125]
[0.0717]
[0.0280]
Run 5
09-28-86
NAA
Fraction A Fraction B
0.151 0
[0
[0
0
0.0177 0
0
[0
[0
.126
.0202]
.0524}
.125
.0188
.0632
.0391]
.0837]
[0.00142]
[0.0140]
[0.0676]
[0.0223]
0.00220
0.181
[0.136]
[0.0180]
Run 6
09-30-86
NAA
"" Fraction A Fraction B
0.138 0.152
0.0551
0.0389
[0.105]
0.0194 0.0260
0.0385
[0.0381]
0.0135
[0.00185]
0.0407
[0.0634]
[0.0292]
[0.00189]
[0.0167]
[0.0722]
[0.0248]
Average
b
NAA
"" Fraction A
0.174 0
[0
[0
[0
0.0185 0
0
[0
[Q
.186
.0267]
.0387]
.107]
.0213
.0629
.0667]
.0563]
Fraction B
[0.00160]
[0.0226]
[0.0639]
[0.0260]
[0.0020]
[0.0700]
[0.0933]
[0.0236]
AA • Atomic absorption analysis results. NAA - neutron activation analysis results.
Fraction A • Chromium (III) fraction of processed ash sample.
Fraction B - Chromium (VI) fraction of processed ash sample.
Brackets indicate metal not detected. Detection limit given.
Average is reported as not detected when the compound was not detected in two or more of the runs. Averages include detection limit values.
CTotal chromium results by AA include chromium (III) only. NAA results include hexavalent and trivalent chromium.
lmo/033
-------
For the baghouse ash, the average total chromium concentration was
0.0185 mg/g by AA and 0.0213 mg/g by NAA. The relative difference between the
two results was 14 percent. Hexavalent chromium was not detected in Runs 4
and 6 and measured slightly above the detection limit at 0.00220 mg/g for
Run 5. The average detection limit for hexavalent chromium was 0.002 mg/g.
Arsenic was detected by NAA in the trivalent chromium fraction of the
baghouse ash samples for all three runs. The average concentration was
0.0629 mg/g. Arsenic was detected in the hexavalent chromium fraction for
Run 5 only, at a concentration of 0.181 mg/g. This concentration is
approximately 10 times the detection limit found for the same sample fractions
in Runs 4 and 6. There is no apparent reason for these inconsistent results.
Cadmium and nickel were generally not detected in the baghouse ash sample
extracts. When detected, the concentrations were near the detection limits
observed for the other runs. The average detection limits for cadmium and
nickel were on the order of 0.08 mg/g and 0.04 mg/g, respectively.
2.3.4 Lime Slurry and Tesisorb® Metals Results
The lime slurry and Tesisorb® were analyzed for metals by NAA. The
samples were composited for Runs 4 to 6. The results for total chromium,
arsenic, cadmium, and nickel are reported in Table 2-12.
For the lime slurry, total chromium was detected at 0.000172 mg/g and
arsenic at 0.000323 mg/g. Cadmium and nickel were not detected with
minimum detection limits of 0.000282 mg/g and 0.00180 mg/g, respectively.
Total chromium was the only metal detected in the Tesisorb® sample; the
concentration was 0.0475 mg/g. Arsenic, cadmium, and nickel were not detected
with minimum detection limits of 0.00414 mg/g, 0.0214 mg/g, and 0.150 mg/g,
respectively.
lmo/033 2_22
-------
TABLE 2-12. METALS RESULTS FOR LIME SLURRY AND
TESISORB AT THE MARION COUNTY MWC
Concentration (mg/g)
Metal _.. _ . ,
Lime Slurry Tesisorb
Total Chromium
Arsenic
Cadmium
Nickel
0.000172
0.000323
[0.000282]
[0.00180]
0.0475
[0.00414]b
[0.0214]
[0.150]
ilesults from NAA of composite sample. Samples composited for
Runs 4, 5, and 6.
Not detected. Detection limit in brackets.
lmo/033 2'23
-------
2.4 ACID GAS EMISSIONS RESULTS
x
2.4.1 SO- Emissions Results
-r—
The SCL concentration in the flue gas was continuously monitored at the
boiler outlet and baghouse outlet stack during Runs 1, 2, and 3. The SO-
removal efficiency was calculated for the emission control device based on
these data. During Runs 4, 5, and 6, only the controlled flue gas SO-
concentration was monitored; these data are not presented because there are no
corresponding uncontrolled data.
In Table 2-13, the average SO- and 0- concentrations and SO^ removal
efficiency for Runs 1 through 3 are presented. The average uncontrolled and
controlled SO,, concentrations were 183 ppmv at 7 percent 0? and 31.4 ppmv at 7
percent 0-, respectively. The average SO,, removal efficiency, based on mass
flow rates, was 82.9 percent. The efficiency ranged from 68.2 to 92.6 percent
for the individual runs.
The S0? removal efficiency, the uncontrolled SO. concentration, and the
controlled SO- concentration are plotted for Runs 1 through 3 in Figure 2-4.
The removal efficiency for the plots was calculated from the normalized S09
concentrations instead of mass flow rates, since continuous volumetric
flow rate data were not collected. All the reported S0_ concentrations in
this section are on a dry basis and normalized to 7 percent 0-.
It is generally understood that the SO- control efficiency of QR/FF
systems is related to the uncontrolled acid gas (HC1 and S02> concentration,
the lime feed rate, and the approach to saturation temperature. The
uncontrolled SO- concentration is mostly a function of the composition of the
refuse. The combined effect of the acid gas concentration and lime feed rate
can be expressed by the reactant ratio. The reactant ratio is the molar ratio
of lime to acid gases (HC1 and SO-). At the Marion County MWC, the lime rate
remained approximately constant during the test program. Any increase in the
uncontrolled acid gas concentration lowered the reactant ratio, making the SO-
lmo/033 2-24
-------
TABLE 2-13. SUMMARY OF SO,, RESULTS AT THE MARION COUNTY MWC
N>
Ul
Date Run
9-22-86 1
9-23-86 2
9-24-86 3
Average 1,2,3
Parameter
S02 (ppmv @ 7% 02;
02 (% vol)
S02 (ppmv @ 7% 02;
02 (% vol)
S02 (ppmv @ 7% 02]
02 (% vol)
S02 (ppmv @ 7% 02;
02 (% vol)
Average
> 117
9.1
> 181
8.8
1 250
9.1
1 183
9.0
a b
Uncontrolled '
Standard
Deviation Max.
34 214
0.8 12.0
162 635
0.7 11.1
174 819
0.7 12.0
123
0.7
Min. Average
74.4 7.8
7.9 10.7
28.3 20.8
7.2 10.5
78.4 65.5
7.0 10.4
31.4
10.5
Controlled3 >C
Standard
Deviation Max. Min.
1.3 10.5 5.0
0.6 13.1 10.1
28.3 104.5 5.5
0.5 12.5 9.8
99.3 398.3 8.1
0.6 13.0 9.3
43.0
0.6
CE%d
92.6
87.9
68.2
" "
82.9
™ *
aResults are reported on a dry basis. The results have been adjusted for daily instrument drift and SO,,
quenching effect.
Test run averages for the uncontrolled flue gas are the mean of 1-minute averages. The data acquisition system
scans each channel 180 times per minute and saves a 1-minute average on floppy disk.
°Test run averages for the controlled flue gas are the mean of 5-minute averages.
Control efficiency (CE) based on mass flow rates.
-------
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
to
I
14:00 15:00 16:00 14:00
Results are reported on a dry basis.
16:00
Time (24 hour clock)
18:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00
Figure 2-4. Effect of Uncontrolled SO2 Concentration on Removal Efficiency
and Controlled SO2 Concentration
IT
CM
§
r-.
CO
-------
control less effective. The average reactant ratios for Runs 1, 2, and 3 were
2.53, 2.17, and 1.86 respectively.
From evaluation of the 1-minute data for Runs 1, 2, and 3, the typical
levels for the uncontrolled and controlled S0? concentrations were 100 ppmv
and 10 ppmv, respectively. The QR/FF control efficiency was about 90 percent
at an estimated reactant ratio of 2.5. During Run 1, the average SO- removal
efficiency was 93 percent and varied from about 88 to 98 percent. Although
the uncontrolled S0? concentration peaked as high as 200 ppmv, the controlled
concentrations remained steady at 8 ppmv.
For the first 2 hours of Run 2, the S0_ concentrations were similar to
Run 1; however, at 1630 a significant decrease in uncontrolled SO.
concentration corresponded to a decrease in the control efficiency to 70
percent. There is no apparent reason for this occurrence. The uncontrolled
S0_ concentration returned to a concentration of 100 ppmv, before increasing
at 1815 to a peak of 600 ppmv. Correspondingly, the controlled S0«
concentration increased to a peak of 100 ppmv and the control efficiency
decreased to about 80 percent. The increase in uncontrolled SO., concentration
is believed to be due to the feed composition. At the peak of the increase
(600 ppmv), the estimated reactant ratio decreased to 1.03.
During the beginning of Run 3, the uncontrolled S09 concentration peaked
three times over a 2-hour period at 700 ppmv, 600 ppmv and 350 ppmv. The
control efficiency decreased correspondingly to between 40 and 60 percent.
During the highest peak (700 ppmv), the estimated reactant ratio decreased to
0.91. At the end of the event, uncontrolled SO- concentrations decreased to
below 200 ppmv and controlled S0_ concentrations returned to about 10 ppmv.
2.4.2 HC1 Emissions Results
Uncontrolled and controlled flue gas was sampled for HCl concentrations
during Runs 1, 2, and 3. The results from the manual sampling were used to
evaluate the control efficiency of the emission control device.
lmo/033 2_2?
-------
The results of the HCl sampling and analysis are presented in Table 2-14.
The average HCl concentration in the uncontrolled flue gas was 721 mg/dscm
(489 ppmv, dry). The HCl concentration was reduced to an average of 20
mg/dscm (13 ppmv, dry) in the controlled flue gas. The control efficiency for
HCl ranged from 91.9 to 99.2 percent, with an average of 96.6 percent. This
is greater than the design removal efficiency of 90 percent. The control
efficiency for HCl decreased with increasing uncontrolled SCL and HCl
concentrations, which decreased the reactant ratio for constant lime feed.
Because changes in the uncontrolled SO- concentration were relatively large
compared to those for HCl, uncontrolled SO. had a larger effect than HCl on
the reactant ratio and corresponding HCl removal efficiency. The average HCl
concentrations for each run were fairly consistent.
lmo/033 2-28
-------
TABLE 2-14. SUMMARY OF FLUE GAS CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION
AT THE MARION COUNTY MWC
Run
Uncontrolled
Controlled
Chloride
Concentration
(mg/dscm)
Concentration
of HC1
as Chloride
(ppmv @ 7% O)
Concentration
Chloride of HC1
Concentration as Chloride
(mg/dscm) (ppmv @ 7% O_)
CE %
1
2
3
Average
695
713
756
721
550
605
630
595
4.4
7.4
47
20
3.6
6.7
39
16
99.2
98.8
91.9
96.6
ilesults are corrected for the laboratory proof blank.
Controlled HC1 results are reported to two significant figures only because
the laboratory analytical results were calculated to two significant figures.
Based on chloride detected in impingers only.
HC1 concentration in ppmv at 7 percent 0_ calculated from chloride
concentration in mg/dscm by the folloing equation:
_ _ „ .„, ., . 0.0241 dscm g
ppmv @ 7% 02 - (X mg/dscm) x g.molex ^ mg
g-mole Cl
35.453 g Cl"
10 ppmv
mole ratio
20.9 - 7%
20.9 - Y
where
X - chloride concentration in mg/dscm
Y = measured 0_ concentration in percent
"CE - control efficiency calculated from mass flow rates.
lmo/033
2-29
-------
3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
3.1 PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Ogden Martin operates two mass-burn waterwall combustors at the Marion
County Solid Waste-to-Energy Facility. Each unit has a design capacity of
250 Mg/day (275 tpd) of municipal solid waste. The furnaces are equipped with
Martin reverse reciprocating stoker grate systems. The combustion chambers
are refractory-lined to a level of 9 m (30 ft) above the stoker.
Figure 3-1 presents a cross section of the Marion County process line.
Refuse is trucked to the facility and dumped into an enclosed refuse pit. It
is subsequently transferred to each combustor by overhead cranes. The solid
waste passes downward through the feed chute and is pushed onto the stoker
grate by a hydraulically operated ram feeder.
The system is designed to operate at 90 percent excess air. Underfire
air is supplied via five air plenums and controlled by the pressure drop
across the grate bars. Overfire combustion air, 25 to 30 percent of the total
air, is injected through rows of nozzles above the stoker at the front and
rear walls of the combustor at pressures exceeding 4980 Pa (20 in w.c.).
The combustion chamber is designed to sustain a flue gas temperature of
980°C (1800°F) for 2 seconds when solid waste is present on the stoker,
including startup and shutdown. To ensure that these time and temperature
specifications are maintained, each combustor is equipped with natural gas
auxiliary burners with an individual capacity of 13 MW (45 million Btu/hr)
located above the combustion chamber refractory lining.
The boiler system is a multi-pass design with a gas-tight membrane
waterwall design. From the top of the combustion chamber, the flue gas flows
downward through an open radiation pass before entering the evaporator tubes
in the two-drum, boiler convection section. Superheater and economizer
lmo/033 3~1
-------
To Atmosphere
I
N3
Combuslor
Boiler Superheater Economizer
Quench Reactor/ Tesisorb
Acid Gas Feed
Scrubber Hopper
Lime Slurry Dry
Mixing Tank Venlurl
Quench
Pit
'Distributor
t
Q=
I.D. Fan stack
Figure 3-1. Marion County MWC Process Line
-------
sections follow, each in its own pass. Each combustion unit generates a
maximum continuous steam output of 30,000 kg/hr (66,400 Ib/hr) at a pressure
of 4520 kPa (655 psig) and temperature of 370°C (700°F). The steam is
delivered to a 13.1 megawatt (45 million Btu/hr) turbine generator. The
electricity produced flows into the Portland General Electric Company grid.
The Martin combustion system consists of an oxygen (CL) controller that
controls the feeder and the grate speed, and a steam load controller that
controls the underfire air dampers. When the 0- level is above a given set
point, waste feeding begins, and when the 0? level is low, feeding stops. As
the feed rate increases, steam flow increases and underfire air dampers
gradually close, reducing the flow of ()„. As the 0_ level is lowered, the
feeding rate slows. This system is self-modulating and is representative of
state-of-the-art combustion controls.
Bottom ash and grate sittings are discharged into a water quenched
residue system. The ash disposal system includes vibrating conveyors and belt
conveyors, which transport the residue to an enclosed storage area where it is
eventually trucked to an ash monofill for separate and final disposal. Ash
from the the baghouse and cyclone is collected separately and conveyed in
enclosed systems to the ash quench system where it is wetted and disposed of
together with the bottom ash.
3.2 EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM
The air pollution control system at the Marion County Solid
Waste-to-Energy Facility consists of a quench reactor, a dry venturi, and a
baghouse. The flue gases leave the boiler economizer section at temperatures
between 199°C to 270°C (390°F to 515°F) and enter the bottom of the quench
reactor vessel through a cyclonic inlet where removal of oversize particles
takes place. Gas flow rates vary between 1636 m /min (57,750 acfm) at 225 C
(440°F) and 1885 m3/min (66,560 acfm) at 270°C (515°F). Slaked pebble lime
slurry is injected through an array of five two-fluid nozzles near the bottom
of the reactor vessel. The lime slurry feed rate is varied to maintain the
lmo/033 3"3
-------
quench reactor outlet temperatures within an operating range of 125-149°C
(258-300 F). The stoichiometric ratio of lime to HC1 is maintained at
approximately 2 to 2.5 to ensure that upset peaks are sufficiently controlled.
The system is designed so that the quench reactor outlet temperatures and
stoichiometric ratios are not independent.
The lime concentration in the slurry is held nearly constant. Therefore,
as the slurry feedrate increases so does the dry lime feedrate. Dry lime is
fed by screw feeder to the slurry mixing tank every five minutes. The screw
feeder is turned on until sufficient lime has been fed to the tank to yield
the desired lime concentration in the slurry. The dry lime feed rate varies
between 57 and 193 kg/hr (125-425 Ib/hr) on a per unit basis.
After the lime slurry is mixed, it is screened to remove large solids,
thereby maintaining a relatively stable specific gravity. The slurry is
pumped to a distribution loop where a portion of it is distributed to the five
nozzles and the remainder is recycled to the slaker.
A low pressure drop dry venturi is located between the quench reactor and
the baghouse. Tesisorb* is injected into the venturi at a rate of 24 kg/hr
(53 Ib/hr).
An Amerthem® fabric filter is installed downstream of the dry venturi for
particulate matter collection. Each unit consists of six compartments with
120 bags in each. The fabric filter has a gross air-to-cloth ratio of 1.69:1
(net 2.31:1). The filter bags are made of a fibrous glass material suitable
for flue gas temperatures up to 268°C (515°F). The PM, lime, and Tesisorb®
form a cake on the bags, which are cleaned every 60 to 70 minutes. The
unspent reagent in the filter cake also acts to further neutralize the acid
gas collection.
PM emissions including ODEQ condensibles are required to be controlled to
a level of 69 mg/dscm (0.03 gr/dscf) at 12% CO Design data for the air
pollution control system are listed in Table 3-1.
lmo/033 3"4
-------
TABLE 3-1. AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS
FOR THE MARION COUNTY MWC
Item
Design Specifications
Effective Removal
Particulate Matter
Outlet Emissions, mg/dscm
HC1, percent removal
S09, percent removal
Quench Reactor
Lime feed rate, kg/hr
Flue gas flow rate,
3
inlet, m /min
HC1, inlet, ppmv, dry
SO., inlet, ppmv, dry
Particulates, inlet,
mg/scm @ 20°C
Outlet temperature, C
69
90
70
57 (normal), 193 (max.)
1740 @ 225°C
1885 @ 270°C
234 (normal), 700 (max.)
130 (normal), 385 (max.)
2.2 - 2.5
125
Dry Venturi
Tesisorb® feed rate, kg/hr
24£
Fabric Filter
Cleaning System
A/C Ratio
Reverse air
1.69:1 (gross)
2.31:1 (net)
3Total Tesisorb® feed rate to Units 1 and 2. Tesisorb® feed rate to
each unit is 12 kg/hr (26.5 Ib/hr).
lmo/033
3-5
-------
3.3 COMBUSTOR AND EMISSION CONTROL SYSTEM OPERATING CONDITIONS
Combustor and air pollution control system operating data were monitored
during the sampling periods by plant personnel. The following combustor
process parameters were recorded every 15 minutes: steam load; steam drum
pressure; steam temperature; middle of combustor temperature, first pass; top
of combustor temperature, first pass; economizer (econ) outlet temperature;
primary air temperature and flow; secondary air pressure (front, upper and
lower rear walls); I.D. fan inlet temperature; and stack opacity. The middle
and top of combustor temperatures were measured using uncalibrated
thermcouples; therefore, the accuracy of these results could not be
quantified. Table 3-2 presents the average values of the recorded process
data during testing.
The following emission control system operating parameters were recorded
every 15 minutes: quench reactor inlet and outlet pressures and outlet
temperature; lime feed rate; dry venturi differential pressure; Tesisorb® feed
rate; and baghouse differential pressure, outlet temperature and cleaning
cycle. Table 3-3 lists the average process data for the air pollution control
system recorded during testing runs.
The combustion air flow, steam load, and top of combustor first pass
temperature are plotted for the six test runs in Figure 3-2. Of the
parameters monitored, these, along with CO and 0«, are the parameters most
indicative of combustor conditions.
The combustor conditions remained fairly steady throughout the runs. The
average steam load was 65,000 Ib/hr and ranged from 54,000 Ib/hr to
69,000 Ib/hr during Runs 1 to 6. The range of primary combustion air flow
rate was 40,000 Ib/hr to 88,000 Ib/hr and the top-of-combustor first pass
temperature ranged from 1380°F to 1686°F. The average primary combustion air
flow rate was 67,000 Ib/hr and the average combustor temperature was 1589 F.
The largest excursion in the parameters was observed in Run 1. During Run 1,
the steam load and top-of-combustor temperature decreased to 54,000 Ib/hr and
lmo/033 3"6
-------
TABLE 3-2. AVERAGE PROCESS DATA FOR THE MARION COUNTY MWC
Parameter
Refuse Feed Rate (103 Ib/hr)
Steam Load (103 Ib/hr)
Steam Drum Pressure (psig)
Steam Temperature (°F)
Middle of Combustor Temperature3
1st pass (°F)
Top of Combustor Temperature3
1st pass (°F)
Econ. Outlet Temperature (°F)
Primary Air
Temperature (°F)
Flow (103 Ib/hr)
Secondary Air
Pressure (in. W.C.)
Combustor Front
Combustor Upper Rear
Combustor Lower Rear
I.D. Fan Inlet Temperature (°F)
Stack Opacity (%)
Run 1
9/22/86
20.3
64
620
702
1715
1567
403
299
69
14.6
0.0
13.4
255
0.0
Run 2
9/23/86
25.3
65
601
702
1726
1563
392
301
65
10.9
0.3
11
254
0.2
Run 3
9/24/86
20.7
65
600
699
1782
1607
380
305
53b
11.3
0.3
10.8
255
0.0
Run 4
9/26/86
21.4
66
605
702
1759
1604
387
307
70
11.7
0.2
10.7
256
0.1
Run 5
9/29/86
24.9
65
600
701
1706
1583
398
294
72
10.8
0.0
10.1
257
0.0
Run 6
9/30/86
23.5
66
610
701
1729
1607
397
291
71
11.5
0.1
10.3
258
0.0
Average
22.7
65
606
701
1736
1589
393
300
67
11.8
0.2
11.0
256
0.1
aThe middle and top of combustor temperatures were measured using uncalibrated thermocouples; therefore the
accuracy of these results could not be quantified.
This data point is considered questionable. Other parameters measured during this run do not show evidence
of the effects of low primary air flow.
-------
TABLE 3-3. AVERAGE QUENCH REACTOR/FABRIC FILTER OPERATING DATA FOR THE MARION COUNTY MWC
i
oo
Quench Reactor
Run
1
2
3
4
5
6
Date
09/22/86
09/23/86
09/24/86
09/26/86
09/29/86
09/30/86
Average
Inlet
Pressure
In W.C.
-3.0
-3.0
-2.6
-3.2
-3.0
-3.0
-3.0
Outlet
Pressure
In W.C.
-5.5
-5.0
-4.9
-5.1
-5.2
-5.2
-5.2
Outlet
Temp.
°F
270
272
272
271
272
272
272
Lime Feed
Rate
Ib/hr
220
220
215
215
225
225
220
Dry Venturl
Dlff.
Pressure
In W.C.
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.1
Teslsorb
Feed Rate
Ib/hr
26.5
26.5
26.5
26.5
26.5
26.5
26.5
Dlff.
Pressure
In W.C.
5.4
5.2
4.6
5.0
5.8
6.1
5.4
Banhouse
Temp.
Ins Lde
Unit
°F
258
255
260
260
260
260
260
Cleaning
Cycle
Mln.
60
60
75
60
60
60
60
-------
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Run 5
Run 6
T3
CO -C-
CD
03
o
••-^
co £
ECO .—.
>- n
O
-------
1,370 F, respectively. The combustion air flow had a corresponding increase
to 88,000 Ib/hr. The steam load remained in the target range from 90 to
110 percent for the remainder of the test program. The low combustion air
flow observed at the start of Run 3 did not have any corresponding changes in
steam load or combustor temperature, indicating that the data may have been
recorded incorrectly.
At the outlet stack, the flue gas was monitored by Ogden Projects, Inc.,
for CO, NO , and 00. These results are summarized in Table 3-4. The average
X ^
CO concentration was 7.3 ppmv, dry, and the average NO concentration was 285
X
ppmv, dry, normalized to 7 percent 0^. The NO results are normalized to 7
£* X,
percent 0_ because no CO^ data were available. The average 0~ concentration
for the six runs was 10.6 percent by volume.
The concentrations for CO, NO , and 0. are shown graphically in
X £
Figure 3-3. The data were recorded by Ogden Projects, Inc., as 5-minute
averages and are reported on a dry basis. As shown in Figure 3-3, combustor
operation was similar throughout the six runs. Although there were some daily
variations in CO, NO , and 0_, the magnitude of those variations was
X £,
consistent from run to run. The peaks that exceeded the daily variations in
concentration are discussed below.
The CO concentration ranged from 2 ppmv to 47 ppmv. The highest CO peak
occurred during Run 6. There was no apparent reason for the peak, as it did
not correspond to changes in the monitored combustion parameters.
The NO concentration ranged from approximately 300 ppmv at 7 percent 0^
to 500 ppmv at 7 percent Q^. The highest peak (500 ppmv) occurred during Run
4 and was preceded by a decrease in NO to about 150 ppmv. Both CO and 0?
X £•
also showed corresponding erratic behavior. A baghouse bypass at 1045 is
believed to have caused these variations. For approximately 10 minutes, the
flue gas passed directly from the quench reactor outlet to the outlet stack.
3-11
lmo/033
-------
TABLE 3-4. AVERAGE GEM DATA FOR CONTROLLED FLUE GAS AT THE MARION COUNTY MWC
Parameter Run 1 Run 2 Run 3 Run 4 Run 5 Run 6 Average
CO (ppmv) 8.9 8.0 6.6 6.7 6.0 7.3 7.3
NO (ppmv @ 7% 00) 294.0 297.8 283.3 268.8 286.4 279.3 284.9
X £*
0_ (% by volume) 10.7
1Q.5 10.4 10.6 10.6 10.6 10.6
-------
Run 1
Run 2
Run 3
Run 4
Run 5
Run 6
c
o
15
If
II
O
o
o
c
o
o S^
o
O
50
20-
15-
10-
600-
O *-
c «
o >
O E
X Q-
OS
400 —
200-
~r—i 1 1 1—
18:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00
—I
12:00 14:00
—I
18:00
1
1
1 1 1—
14:00 15:00 16:0014:00
Results are reported on a dry basis.
1
16:00
8:00
10:00
16:00
20:00 10:00 13:00
16:00
Time (24 hour clock)
Figure 3-3. Outlet Stack Flue Gas CO, O2, and NOx Concentrations
at the Marion County MWC
CO
o
-------
The 0_ concentration ranged from 8 percent by volume to 16 percent by
volume. The highest peak was during Run 4 and corresponded to the baghouse
by-pass. The 0. concentration appears to correspond with combustor parameter
excursions during Runs 1 and 2. The peaks in CL at 1430 for Run 1 and 1630
for Run 2 correspond to increases or decreases in combustion air flow,
combustor temperature, and steam flow. These parameters are related to 0
because of the oxygen controller and the steam load controller used to operate
the combustor system. With this system, the oxygen controller controls the
feeder and grate speed and the steamload controller controls the underfire air
dampers. Ideally, as steam load increases, the 0.. concentration, combustion
air flow, and feed rate should decrease. During Run 1, the decrease in steam
load corresponded to a peak in 0,,, but the combustion air flow decreased
unexpectedly. There is no apparent reason for this occurrence. Additionally,
the combustor temperature increased concurrently with the steam load decrease,
also the opposite of the change expected. For Run 2, the interactions between
process variables were as expected. The decreased steam load corresponded
with increased 0_ and combustion air flow as well as decreased combustor
temperature. During Run 3, a peak in 0_ was observed at about 1200, but the
combustor data were unavailable for comparison.
3-15
lmo/033
-------
4.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
The sampling at the boiler outlet was performed by Radian Corporation and
the sampling at the outlet stack was performed by Ogden Projects, Inc. For
some parameters, Ogden Projects and Radian used different sampling and
analytical methods. However, when possible, the same methods and reagents
were used. Differences are noted for each method in the following
subsections.
The sampling and analytical procedures used for the Marion County test
program were the most recent versions of the published methods. In some
cases, the methods were modified to incorporate the most recent developments
that.have been accepted by the sampling community. In this section, the
sampling and analytical methods are briefly presented, with site-specific
modifications described. A summary of the methods is provided in Table 4-1.
The detailed sampling and analytical methods are described in
References 23 to 25.
4.1 CDD/CDF SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
CDD/CDF sampling and analysis followed the December 1984 draft protocol
for the determination of chlorinated organic compounds in stack emissions.
The protocol was developed by the Environmental Standards Workshop sponsored
by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) and EPA. The method is
based on EPA Reference Method 5.
The sampling trains for both the boiler outlet and outlet stack were
loaded and recovered by Radian personnel. The same reagents were used for the
sampling trains. The sampling trains used by Radian contained modified
Greenburg-Smith impingers with ball and socket connectors and the trains used
by Ogden Projects used Sovirel connectors. The samples were analyzed
separately as front half and back half fractions to meet EPA's QA/QC
requirements. Additional details of the sampling and analytical protocol are
described in Section 5.1 of Reference 25.
4-1
lmo/033
-------
TABLE 4-1. SAMPLING METHODS AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
USED FOR THE MARION COUNTY MWC TEST PROGRAM
Parameters
Sampling Method
Analytical Method
CDD/CDF
HC1/PM
Pb/Cd/PM
so2
°2
CO
NO
x
Baghouse ash and
Cyclone ash
Tesisorb and Lime
Slurry
Molecular weight
Moisture
Velocity
Temperature
ASME/EPA Environmental
Standards Workshop
(Dec. 1984)
EPA Method 5
with modifications
Draft EPA Protocol for
hexavalent and total
chromium (Feb. 22, 1985)
Draft EPA protocol for
cadmium
EPA Method 6C
EPA Method 3A
EPA Method 10
EPA Method 7E
Composite of grab sample
Grab samples
EPA Method 3
EPA Method 4
Method 2
Type K thermocouple
High resolution GC/MS
HC1: Ion chromatography (Radian)
HC1: Mercuric Nitrate Titration
(Ogden Projects)
PM: Gravimetric
Cr(+VI): Colorimetry (Radian)
Cr(+VI): Atomic Absorption (AA)
(Ogden Projects)
Cr(+III): AA
Ni: AA
Pb and Cd: AA
PM: gravimetric
Non-dispersive, infrared
continuous analyzer
Thermox or Paramagnetic
Non-dispersive infrared
Chemiluminescent
CDD/CDF: ASME/EPA protocol
Metals:
Hexavalent and total chromium
by colorimetry and AA,
respectively
Neutron Activation Analysis
(NAA)
Metals: NAA
Orsat apparatus
Gravimetric
Method 2
4-2
-------
4.2 HC1/PARTICULATE FLUE GAS SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
HCl/particulate sampling followed the procedure specified in EPA
Reference Method 5. The method was modified to allow collection of HC1
samples in the back half of the sampling train. Particulate matter was
captured in the front half of the train on a glass fiber filter. The
combination HCl/particulate train was used to reduce the number of separate
tests required since the HC1 and particulate results are not affected by using
a combined train.
The modifications to the Method 5 train included:
Replacing the water in the impingers with 0.1N NaOH and
Pre-cleaning the glassware.
The same NaOH solution was used in the impingers for both boiler outlet
and outlet stack sampling. Ogden Projects used the mercuric nitrate tritation
analytical method to determine the chloride concentrations. Radian used ion
chromatography for the chloride analysis. The detailed sampling and analysis
protocols are described in Section 5.2 of Reference 25.
4.3 METALS SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
Flue gas was sampled and analyzed for lead, cadmium, nickel, total
chromium, and hexavalent chromium during the test program. For each run, one
sampling train was used to collect the lead and cadmium sample and another
sampling train was used to collect the nickel and chromium sample.
4.3.1 Lead/Cadmium/Particulate Sampling and Analysis
Flue gas sampling and analysis for lead, cadmium, and particulate matter
followed the draft EPA protocol for the determination of cadmium. This method
is based on EPA Reference Method 5. The protocol was modified to add an empty
impinger as the first impinger to collect extra moisture. The extra impinger
4-3
lmo/033
-------
volume was needed because of the high moisture content in the flue gas and the
relatively long sampling period.
The front half of the train was analyzed for particulate matter. Both
the front and back half fractions of the train were analyzed for lead and
cadmium. The metals samples were analyzed by atomic absorption (AA).
The distilled water loaded into the impingers was provided by Ogden Projects
for both the boiler outlet and outlet stack sampling trains. The distilled
water used for sample recovery was also supplied by Ogden Projects. Details
of the sampling and analytical protocol are provided in Section 5.3 of
Reference 25.
4.3.2 Hexavalent and Total Chromium/Nickel Sampling and Analysis
Chromium and nickel sampling and analysis followed the draft EPA protocol
for hexavalent and total chromium emissions. The protocol was modified by EMB
to exclude the glass fiber filter in the sampling train. A filter was used
in the outlet stack sampling train during Runs 5 and 6. Water used for
equipment rinses was supplied entirely by Ogden Projects. Atomic absorption
was used to analyze the samples for total chromium and nickel. Hexavalent
chromium was analyzed by diphenylcarbazide colorimetry by Radian and by AA by
Brown and Caldwell Laboratories, a California certified hazardous waste
laboratory under contract to Ogden Projects, Inc. Details of the sampling and
analytical protocol are included in Section 5.4 of Reference 25.
4.4 CEM SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
Continuous emission monitors (CEMs) were used to analyze flue gas at the
boiler outlet and the outlet stack. At the boiler outlet, SO- and 0,, were
monitored during Runs 1, 2 and 3. At the outlet stack, S0_, CO, NO , and 0-
were monitored for Runs 1 to 6. S0_, CO, NO , and 0- were measured according
to EPA Methods 6C, 10, 7E and 3A, respectively. The details of the sampling
and analysis are provided in References 25 and 26.
4-4
lmo/033
-------
4.5 CYCLONE ASH AND BAGHOUSE ASH SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
Cyclone ash and baghouse ash were sampled and analyzed according to the
same procedure. The grab samples collected by Radian were split with Ogden
Projects. The ash samples were analyzed for CDD/CDF for Runs 1, 2 and 3 using
the ASME/EPA analytical protocol. The ash samples for Runs 4 to 6 were
analyzed for hexavalent and total chromium by colorimetry and AA,
respectively. Aliquots of the hexavalent and total chromium fractions were
also analyzed by neutron activation analysis (NAA) to obtain arsenic, cadmium,
nickel, and chromium results. Details of the sampling and analytical
procedure are in Section 5.5 of Reference 27.
4.6 LIME SLURRY AND TESISORB® SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
Lime slurry and Tesisorb® were sampled and analyzed according to similar
procedures. The lime slurry and Tesisorb* samples were analyzed for
background metals including cadmium, chromium, nickel, and arsenic. Samples
from Runs 4 to 6 were analyzed by NAA. Sample aliquots were shared with Ogden
Projects. Details of the sampling and analytical procedures are provided in
Section 5.5 of Reference 27.
4-5
lmo/033
-------
5.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)
Completeness and data quality were emphasized during the test program at
the Marion County MWC. The QA/QC measures were incorporated into each
sampling or analytical task. For manual methods, these included equipment and
sampling preparation, sampling operations, sample recovery, sample analysis,
and data reduction. The QA/QC measures were incorporated into CEM sampling as
well. This section briefly summarizes the procedures and results for QA/QC
during the test program. The detailed procedures and results are include in
the test reports, References 27 to 30.
5.1 MANUAL METHODS QA/QC
5.1.1 Equipment and Sampling Preparation
Sampling equipment was cleaned, checked out, and calibrated before each
use in the field. Table 5-1 summarizes the equipment that was calibrated for
each method. Calibration data were recorded on data sheets included in the
appendices of the test reports.
Following the cleaning procedure specified by each method, the sampling
train and recovery glassware were cleaned and capped prior to shipment to the
field. Once in the field, a laboratory proof blank was collected for each set
of sampling glassware. One blank for each method was analyzed. The purpose
of the laboratory proof blank is to quantify background contamination in the
cleaned glassware. Sets of sampling glassware were dedicated to each method
and sampling location to prevent cross-contamination.
For CDD/CDF sampling, additional preparation QC steps included cleaning
and blanking the XAD* resin and filters. The final rinse of the solvents used
for cleaning the XAD* and filters were analyzed for total chromatographable
organics by gas chromatography/flame ionization detection. A travel blank of
the XAD* resin was taken by Ogden Projects.
lmo/033 5_1
-------
TABLE 5-1. SUMMARY OF EQUIPMENT USED IN PERFORMING SOURCE SAMPLING AT THE MARION COUNTY MWC
I
ro
Parameter
Volumetric Flue Gas
Flow Rate
Gas Phase Composition
Moisture
Molecular Weight
CDD/CDF
Pb/Cd/Part1culates
Method
EPA 1 4 2
EPA 4
EPA 3
ASME/EPA
Protocol
Draft
Cadmium
Protocol
Calibrated Equipment Used to Measure Parameters
Type "S" Temperature
P1tot Measuring
Tube Manometer Device Orsat Nozzles Balances
XXX
XXX X
X
X X X X X X
X X X X X X
Dry Gas
Meter
X
X
X
Cr/N1
HCl/Part1culates
Draft EPA X
Protocol for
samplIng
hexavalent and
total chromium
EPA Method 5 X
with modifications
-------
All the CDD/CDF sampling trains were prepared and recovered by Radian
personnel. The reagents in all the sampling trains were shared by Radian and
Ogden Pro j ects .
5.1.2 Sampling Operations
The QA/QC procedures for sampling operations included performing
leakchecks before and after each port change, following detailed checklists
during sampling to ensure each step was properly completed, and requiring
qualified personnel to perform the sampling operations.
The sampling operations met all leakcheck and isokinetics QC criteria
except for one run. Only in the Run 6 Pb/Cd train at the boiler outlet was a
leak rate correction required, as specified by the sampling method.
5.1.3 Sample Recovery
A recovery efficiency blank was collected for each method to quantify the
efficiency of the recovery procedure and any contamination that may have
occurred during recovery. Reagent blanks were taken to check for background
contamination. Sample recovery procedures were carried out in a
controlled- atmosphere, enclosed trailer to minimize contamination.
Each sample bottle was assigned a unique alphanumeric identification code
that was recorded in a logbook and on the sample label. Chain-of -custody
sheets were filled out and packed with the samples.
All the CDD/CDF sampling trains were recovered by Radian personnel.
Reagents were shared by Radian and Ogden Projects.
5.1.4 Sample Analysis
The sample analyses were performed by laboratories familiar with the
analytical procedures . The accuracy of the analyses was evaluated by
lmo/033
_ 3
-------
submitting blind audit samples prepared by independent laboratories along with
the field samples. Precision was evaluated by performing duplicate analyses
of selected samples in each batch. For the CDD/CDF analyses, internal
standard and surrogate recoveries were also determined.
The internal standard recoveries were extremely low for several of the
CDD/CDF samples. Because of this, the data from Runs 1 and 3 for the
uncontrolled flue gas and the data from Run 1 for the controlled flue gas
could not be used. However, the CDD/CDF internal standard recoveries were
acceptable for the ash and QC samples. The CDD/CDF audit results met the QC
criteria. The CDD/CDF recovery efficiency was shown to be greater than
93 percent effective for those congeners detected and the laboratory proof
blank contained low levels of OCDD. No correction was made to any of the
results.
The HC1 analysis met the QA/QC criteria. The uncontrolled flue gas
blanks contained nondetectable amounts of chloride. The analyses of the audit
samples by Radian were all within 10 percent of the true value. No
information was available on the QA/QC results for the controlled flue gas
analyses.
The particulate sampling for all runs met the isokinetics QA/QC criteria
of 100 + 10 percent. Particulate results were adjusted for acetone blanks.
The QA/QC results for the metals analyses included blanks and audit
samples. For the uncontrolled samples, the laboratory proof blank results
were used to adjust the results for background contamination. Lead and
cadmium were not detected in the laboratory proof blank for that train.
Trivalent chromium and nickel were detected in the laboratory proof blank for
that train and the results were adjusted. The controlled blanks for chromium
and nickel also contained some of the target analytes and the results were
adjusted. The initial audit results for all the metals were low, but this
occurred because an incorrect extraction procedure was used. The correct
extraction protocol, tested on another set of audit samples and used for all
the field samples, yielded acceptable audit results.
lmo/033 5-4
-------
5.1.5 Data Reduction
The QA/QC procedures for data reduction included using computer programs
to generate tables of results. Data input files and equations were double
checked by a second person and tables of results were spot checked by hand.
In addition, any data points that appeared to be outliers were double checked.
5.2 GEMS QA/QC
Several procedures were followed for QA/QC checks of the CEM systems.
Bias checks, response times checks, daily drift checks, and multi-point
calibrations were performed with the Radian CEM equipment. Daily drift and
linearity checks were performed with the Ogden CEM equipment. Calibrations
were performed prior to and following each run at each sample location. The
CEM results met the QC criteria.
lmo/033
5-5
-------
6.0 REFERENCES
1. Anderson, Carol L., William P. Gergen, J. William Mayhew and
Phyllis O'Hara (Radian Corporation). Emissions Test Report for GDP/CDF.
Metals. HC1. SO and Particulate Testing at the Marion County MWC.
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. September 1987. Radian DCN 87-222-124-06-16.
EPA/EMB Report No. 86-MIN-3.
2. Zurlinden, Ronald A., Henry P. Von Dem Fange and Jeffrey L. Hahn (Ogden
Projects, Inc) Compliance with Permit Conditions for Marion County Solid
Waste-to-Energy Facility: September 22 - October 8. 1986. Prepared for
Ogden Martin Systems of Marion, Inc. Emeryville, California.
November 21, 1986. Report Number 107.
3. Zurlinden, R.A., H.P. Von Dem Fange and J.L. Hahn (Ogden Projects, Inc.)
Engineering Data: Heavy Metal Emissions for the Marion County Solid
Waste-to-Energy Facility. Prepared for Ogden Martin Systems of Marion,
Inc. Emeryville, California. Report number 117. January 6, 1987.
4. Memorandum from Hahn, Jeffrey L., Ogden Projects, Inc., to Riley, C.
Gene, U.S. EPA. March 20, 1987. Addendum to Report No. 117.
5. Reference 2.
6. Reference 3.
7. Reference 4.
8. Sampling for the Determination of Chlorinated Organic Compounds in Stack
Emissions: Draft Protocol. Prepared by Environmental Standards Workshop.
Sponsored by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers of the U.S.
Department of Energy and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
December 31, 1984.
9. Draft EPA Method for the Determination of Cadmium from Stationary
Sources. Prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina. May 16, 1986.
10. EPA Protocol for Emissions Sampling for Both Hexavalent and Total
Chromium. Prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. February 22, 1985.
11. Reference 1.
lmo/033 6-1
-------
12. Analytical Procedures to Assay Stack Effluent Samples and Residual
Combustion Products for Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-Dioxins (PCDD) and
Polychlorlnated Dlbenzofurans (PCDF). Prepared by Environmental
Standards Workshop. Sponsored by the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers of the U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. December 31, 1984.
13. Reference 1.
14. Letter Report from Carol L. Anderson, Katherine L. Wertz and
William P. Gergen, Radian Corporation to C. E. Riley, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Metals Analysis by NAA Results for the Marion County
Emissions Test in September 1986: Revised. October 20, 1987.
15. Reference 1.
16. Reference 2.
17. Reference 3.
18. Reference 4.
19. Reference 1.
20. Reference 2.
21. Reference 3.
22. Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated With Chlorinated
Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Dibenzofurans (CDD and CDF). Prepared by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. April 1986.
23. Reference 2.
24. Reference 3.
25. Reference 1.
26. Reference 2.
27. Reference 1.
28. Reference 2.
29. Reference 3.
30. Reference 4.
lmo/033 6-2
-------
7.0 ENGLISH-TO-METRIC CONVERSION TABLE
Metric
English
0.028317 dscm
0.028317 dscmm
0.45359 kg/hr
1 ng/dscm
1 mg/dscm
°F
101325 Pa
1 ng/kg
1 ng/g
1 mg/g
1 dscf
1 dscfm
1 Ib/hr
,-10
4.3699 x 10 grains/dscf
4.3699 x 10"4 grains/dscf
(°C x 9/5) + 32°F
1 atm
-9
6.9998 x 10 grains/lb
6.9998 x 10"6 grains/lb
6.9998 x 10"3 grains/lb
7-1
-------
APPENDIX A - GEM AND PROCESS DATA
A.I Printout of 5-minute Averages of Outlet GEM Data
(Data provided by Ogden Projects, Inc.)
A.2 S02 Removal Efficiency Data
A.3 Selected Process Data
-------
APPENDIX A.I
Printout of 5-minute Averages of Outlet CEM Data
(Data provided by Ogden Projects, Inc.)
A-l
-------
RUN 1 OUTLET
DATA
Time
13:20
13:25
13:30
13:35
13:40
13:45
13:50
13:55
14:00
14:05
14:10
14:15
14:20
14:25
14:30
14:35
14:40
14:45
14:50
14:55
15:00
15:05
15:10
15:15
15:20
15:25
15:30
15:35
15:40
15:45
15:50
15:55
16:00
16:05
16:10
16:15
16:20
16:25
16:30
02
(% vol)
10.6
10.4
10.6
10.3
10.2
10.3
10.5
10.4
10.9
10.7
10.6
11.1
11.5
12.4
13.1
12.0
10.7
11.1
10.4
10.6
10.6
10.4
10.4
10.2
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.6
10.3
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.5
10.7
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.5
10.6
S02
(ppmv)
5.7
4.3
5.5
5.7
6.2
5.9
6.2
5.5
5.5
5.3
6.9
6.2
5.7
5.9
4.1
5.3
3.7
4.3
5.7
6.4
6.2
5.7
5.0
4.3
4.1
7.1
6.2
7.8
7.3
7.1
6.6
4.6
5.3
6.2
6.4
5.7
5.0
6.2
5.0
CO
(ppmv)
8.7
7.5
7.5
7.7
5.6
6.2
7.1
8.2
11.3
10.4
9.5
11.8
11.9
15.7
18.4
16.9
13.2
12.9
9.0
9.7
9.9
8.1
6.7
6.0
7.3
6.1
7.3
7.4
7.1
5.3
6.2
5.5
8.1
8.4
8.4
7.0
6.6
10.0
7.1
NOx
(ppmv)
219.0
228.0
224.7
227.7
236.0
221.7
219.5
221.7
223.2
237.7
229.0
217.5
202.2
171.5
157.2
193.2
217.2
198.2
223.2
225.7
210.0
212.0
219.2
215.0
217.5
221.7
215.7
223.2
235.7
234.0
219.7
216.0
204.7
204.2
219.5
228.5
218.0
205.5
211.7
NOx
(ppmv @ (
7% 02)
295.5
301.8
303.2
298.6
306.6
290.7
293.4
293.5
310.2
323.9
309.0
308.5
299.0
280.5
280.1
301.7
296.0
281.1
295.5
304.6
283.4
280.6
290.2
279.3
290.7
299.2
293.9
301.2
309.1
301.2
285.4
283.2
273.6
278.3
290.6
302.5
288.6
274.7
285.7
S02
ppmv 9
7% 02)
7.7
5.7
7.4
7.5
8.1
7.7
8.3
7.3
7.6
7.2
9.3
8.8
8.4
9.6
7.3
8.3
5.0
6.1
7.5
8.6
8.4
7.5
6.6
5.6
5.5
9.6
8.4
10.5
9.6
9.1
8.6
6.0
7.1
8.4
8.5
7.5
6.6
8.3
6.7
Average
10.7
5.7
8.9
216.0
294.0
7.8
A-3
-------
RON 2 OUTLET CEM DATA
Time
13:52
13:57
14:02
14:07
14:12
14:17
14:22
14:27
14:32
14:37
14:42
14:47
14:52
14:57
15:02
15:07
15:12
15:17
15:22
15:27
15:32
15:37
15:42
15:47
15:52
15:57
16:02
16:07
16:12
16:17
16:22
16:27
16:32
16:37
16:42
16:47
16:52
16:57
17:02
17:07
17:12
17:17
17:22
17:27
17:32
17:37
17:42
17:47
17:52
02
(* vol)
10.9
11.1
10.8
10.4
9.8
10.1
10.4
10.4
10.9
10.4
10.1
10.2
10.2
10.2
10.3
10.4
10.3
10.1
10.2
10.2
10.0
10.1
10.0
10.2
10.2
10.4
10.1
10.6
10.7
10.8
11.3
12.5
11.5
10.2
10.1
10.1
10.5
10.6
10.9
10.7
10.6
10.3
9.8
10.1
10.1
9.8
9.8
10.0
10.2
S02
(ppmv)
9.9
9.7
5.7
7.2
6.5
6.1
6.3
5.9
5.7
5.5
6.3
6.7
6.1
5.1
5.3
4.9
5.7
6.3
5.5
5.3
5.9
5.7
6.3
6.1
6.7
6.5
5.5
5.1
5.9
4.2
6.1
5.7
5.9
4.2
5.3
4.4
5.5
6.1
6.3
5.7
6.1
5.7
5.7
7.2
13.9
44.5
46.8
75.1
70.9
CO
(ppmv)
7.5
7.6
8.5
5.1
3.2
5.2
7.4
7.7
9.1
8.4
5.5
6.9
8.3
7.0
7.1
9.1
6.8
6.9
7.8
6.9
6.6
5.7
5.8
7.2
7.8
7.5
7.2
7.9
6.9
9.4
10.1
14.8
14.9
13.4
11.1
9.6
11.4
9.8
10.9
12.0
9.7
4.9
5.1
4.9
4.1
4.5
6.1
4.9
6.6
NOx
(ppmv)
202.5
190.0
200.2
214.0
205.5
203.7
214.0
213.7
211.0
238.0
256.7
250.5
249.2
243.7
237.7
227.7
227.7
235.0
229.0
250.2
250.7
250.2
242.2
230.7
225.0
226.5
226.2
218.7
210.7
208.7
195.5
154.2
195.0
230.5
222.2
227.7
220.7
221.5
202.7
232.7
262.2
281.2
263.0
253.7
241.2
226.5
222.2
221.0
222.0
NOx
(ppmv 9
7% 02)
281.5
269.5
275.5
283.3
257.3
262.2
283.3
282.9
293.3
315.1
330.4
325.4
323.7
316.6
311.7
301.4
298.6
302.5
297.5
325.0
319.7
322.0
308.9
299.7
292.3
299.8
291.1
295.1
287.1
287.2
283.1
255.2
288.4
299.4
286.0
293.1
295.0
298.9
281.8
317.1
353.8
368.7
329.3
326.5
310.4
283.6
278.3
281.8
288.4
S02
(ppmv @
7% 02)
13.8
13.8
7.8
9.5
8.1
7.9
8.3
7.8
7.9
7.3
8.1
8.7
7.9
6.6
7.0
6.5
7.5
8.1
7.1
6.9
7.5
7.3
8.0
7.9
8.7
8.6
7.1
6.9
8.0
5.8
8.8
9.4
8.7
5.5
6.8
5.7
7.4
8.2
8.8
7.8
8.2
7.5
7.1
9.3
17.9
55.7
58.6
95.8
92.1
A-4
-------
RUN 2 OUTLET GEM DATA
Time
17:57
18:02
18:07
18:12
18:17
18:22
18:27
02
(% vol)
10.1
10.4
10.6
10.6
10.9
11.6
11.8
S02
(ppmv)
61.2
61.4
71.5
77.4
50.6
27.6
CO
(ppmv)
7.2
9.8
9.1
9.0
11.3
9.8
7.6
NOx
(ppmv)
210.2
210.2
216.7
213.7
206.7
194.5
202.5
NOx
(ppmv 9
7% 02)
270.5
278.3
292.4
288.4
287.3
290.7
309.3
S02
(ppmv ®
7% 02)
78.8
81.3
96.5
104.5
70.3
41.3
Average
10.5
15.7
8.0
223.9
297.8
20.8
A-5
-------
RUN 3 OUTLET GEM DATA
Time
10:20
10:25
10:30
10:35
10:40
10:45
10:50
10:55
11:00
11:05
11:10
11:15
11:20
11:25
11:30
11:35
11:40
11:45
11:50
11:55
12:00
12:05
12:10
12:15
12:20
12:25
12:30
12:35
12:40
12:45
12:50
12:55
13:00
13:05
13:10
13:15
13:20
13:25
13:30
13:35
13:40
13:45
13:50
13:55
14:00
14:05
14:10
14:15
14:20
02
(% vol)
9.84
9.45
9.71
9.84
9.97
9.45
9.71
9.71
9.25
9.90
9.84
9.77
10.61
10.81
10.49
10.36
10.42
10.81
11.00
11.91
12.95
10.94
11.85
11.46
10.55
10.81
10.94
10.87
10.81
10.68
10.36
10.23
10.29
10.36
9.97
10.23
10.36
10.55
10.55
10.49
10.23
10.49
10.23
10.29
10.29
10.36
10.10
10.42
10.23
S02
(ppmv)
272.44
328.11
268.65
188.10
93.41
112.82
147.40
224.37
244.82
149.09
53.56
59.04
29.52
23.19
38.16
88.77
43.22
52.08
24.25
17.29
11.17
11.80
9.91
9.91
10.33
11.80
13.28
15.39
11.38
8.64
8.01
7.80
7.80
6.11
6.95
7.80
7.80
8.22
7.80
7.80
9.06
7.18
6.74
7.38
7.59
6.32
8.01
7.16
9.27
CO
(ppmv)
2.725
3.087
3.250
2.962
2.175
2.437
2.287
1.875
2.025
1.450
1.600
2.337
5.150
8.150
5.412
3.050
4.287
2.250
3.700
7.975
13.038
10.875
15.638
10.525
7.187
6.150
6.237
8.887
9.525
11.025
9.637
8.225
6.987
7.937
9.037
7.812
8.687
8.825
9.787
7.862
6.312
7.387
7.762
7.275
7.987
8.300
6.487
6.100
7.262
A-6
NOx
(ppmv)
227.7
227.7
213.7
185.0
176.0
195.0
192.7
191.5
180.7
170.2
186.5
191.2
185.2
206.5
206.0
203.2
169.5
143.7
151.7
159.5
160.5
195.7
168.5
188.0
215.2
220.0
227.0
214.0
211.2
218.7
233.5
252.0
247.2
242.2
241.5
233.7
230.5
230.0
230.0
233.7
238.7
230.0
249.0
246.7
244.2
243.5
245.7
237.7
228.5
NOx
(ppmv @
7% 02)
286.17
276.42
265.45
232.50
223.82
236.72
239.37
237.88
215.60
215.07
234.39
238.79
250.17
284.47
275.06
267.98
224.81
197.96
212.99
246.61
280.62
273.12
258.80
276.82
289.01
303.07
316.80
296.57
290.95
297.45
307.94
328.28
323.85
319.41
307.12
304.45
303.98
308.89
308.89
312.05
310.96
307.11
324.38
323.20
319.92
321.12
316.22
315.27
297.67
S02
(ppmv 9
7% 02)
342.40
398.32
333.71
236.40
118.79
136.96
183.10
278.71
292.10
188.40
67.31
73.73
39.88
31.95
50.95
117.07
57.32
71.75
34.05
26.73
19.53
16.47
15.22
14.59
13.87
16.26
18.53
21.33
15.68
11.75
10.56
10.16
10.22
8.06
8.84
10.16
10.29
11.04
10.48
10.41
11.80
9.56
8.78
9.67
9.94
8.33
10.31
9.50
12.08
-------
RUN 3 OUTLET GEM DATA
Time
02
(% vol)
S02
(ppmv)
CO
(ppmv)
NOx
(ppmv)
NOx
(ppmv 9
7% O2)
S02
(ppmv @
7% 02)
14:25 10.49 9.06 6.000 229.5 306.44 12.10
14:30 10.36 7.80 5.750 237.7 313.48 10.29
14:35 10.16 8.64 6.937 244.0 315.79 11.18
14:40 10.23 25.30 8.175 243.2 316.82 32.96
14:45 10.36 27.62 8.750 241.5 318.49 36.42
14:50 10.74 8.475 220.5 301.67
Average 10.4 51.8 6.6 213.4 283.3 65.5
A-7
-------
RUN 4 OUTLET GEM DATA
Time
07:30
07:35
07:40
07:45
07:50
07:55
08:00
08:05
08:10
08:15
08:20
08:25
08 : 30
08:35
08:40
08:45
08 : 50
08:55
09:00
09:05
09:10
09:15
09:20
09:25
09:30
09:35
09:40
09:45
09:50
09:55
10:00
10:05
10:10
10:15
10:20
10:25
10:30
10:35
10:40
10:45
10:50
10:55
11:00
11:05
11:10
11:15
11:20
11:25
11:30
02
(% vol)
13.14
10.68
10.61
10.36
11.26
10.94
10.68
11.13
10.68
11.2
11.07
10.81
11.07
10.55
10.03
10.36
9. a
9.97
10.23
10.29
10.42
10.42
10.29
10.23
10.42
10.42
10.81
10.68
10.03
9.77
9.71
10.55
10.61
11.78
8.54
15.99
12.04
10.49
10.42
9.77
9.51
9.84
10.23
10.23
10.49
9.77
10.49
10.81
S02
(ppinv)
13.28
21.08
31.20
43.01
43.86
41.33
36.05
31.63
40.27
43.86
45.54
40.69
31.84
26.57
31.20
44.70
40.48
33.10
21.93
26.14
17.71
14.12
11.80
14.55
15.60
18.76
38.37
35.84
30.99
28.04
26.99
23.82
CO
(ppmv)
4.600
12.413
5.575
5.850
5.650
7.000
7.525
6.637
8.425
8.312
7.800
7.237
8.487
6.687
7.362
6.787
3.050
3.225
3.587
5.087
4.700
5.650
5.000
5.337
5.450
6.487
5.825
8.175
6.537
4.375
3.862
3.350
3.412
6.100
9.212
6.662
18.438
9.850
8.175
7.312
7.187
7.462
5.487
4.487
5.212
5.912
2.987
3.875
4.900
A-8
NOx
(ppmv)
205.7
200.2
200.7
199.7
182.2
201.0
204.2
187.2
197.7
187.7
166.5
180.2
187.5
187.7
200.5
201.0
212.0
230.5
214.0
195.2
199.5
196.0
201.2
208.7
200.0
207.5
199.7
238.5
226.0
193.0
165.0
156.2
174.0
164.7
133.5
191.0
192.2
211.5
227.0
243.7
242. 0
227.0
224.5
227.7
226.5
240.7
199.7
177.0
NOx
(ppmv @
7% 02)
368.46
272.29
271.11
263.36
262.72
280.51
277.73
266.33
268.89
268.97
235.44
248.24
265.13
252.08
256.39
265.08
267.89
293.13
278.78
255.73
264.60
259.96
263.59
271.88
265.27
275.21
275.11
324.38
289.00
241.03
204.96
209.78
235.04
251.02
150.13
540.71
301.53
282.41
301.08
304.35
295.33
285.29
292.46
296.63
302.44
300.60
266.65
243.84
S02
(ppmv <8
7% 02)
16.78
26.81
40.64
56.35
58.17
54.82
47.23
41.20
53.41
58.17
62.74
55.34
40.72
33.18
38.76
60.03
54.68
50.45
24.66
74.00
27.78
18.85
15.65
18.17
19.04
23.58
49.99
46.69
41.38
35.02
36.04
32.81
-------
RUN 4 OUTLET GEM DATA
Time
11:35
11:40
11:45
11:50
11:55
12:00
12:05
12:10
12:15
12:20
12:25
12:30
12:35
12:40
12:45
12:50
12:55
13:00
13:05
13:10
13:15
13:20
13:25
13:30
13:35
13:40
13:45
13:50
13:55
Average
02
(% vol)
10.42
10.55
11.33
11.33
11
11.2
10.87
10.42
10.29
10.1
10.36
10.29
10.16
10.49
10.61
10.68
10.94
11.13
11.13
10.55
10.16
10.23
10.36
10.49
10.49
10.87
10.61
10.68
10.68
10.6
S02
(ppmv)
19.82
16.87
14.55
13.07
9.48
8.22
7.59
6.32
5.48
7.16
5.06
3.58
4.63
4.63
4.85
5.48
4.63
4.42
3.79
3.58
4.00
4.21
4.42
3.79
3.16
3.37
2.53
2.74
2.10
18.8
CO
(ppmv)
7.325
6.275
11.838
17.263
10.175
13.125
10.063
6.475
4.237
2.125
4.275
5.325
5.650
5.750
5.212
5.412
7.350
9.587
7.837
6.350
4.937
4.662
4.850
5.712
7.087
9.975
8.575
8.112
7.520
6.7
NOx
(ppmv)
185.0
185.7
163.2
163.0
162.2
170.0
190.0
208.2
211.5
169.0
169.7
160.2
169.7
177.7
179.0
192.2
201.7
189.0
199.0
200.0
216.5
210.7
215.2
207.5
197.5
202.5
212.0
207.2
212.7
196.9
NOx
(ppmv @
7% 02)
245.37
249.39
237.04
236.75
227.74
243.61
263.31
276.14
277.08
217.51
223.80
209.88
219.63
237.27
241.80
261.41
281.49
268.89
283.12
268.60
280 . 20
274.48
283.80
277.07
263.71
280.63
286.38
281.81
289.29
268.8
S02
(ppmv @
7% 02)
26.29
22.66
21.13
18.98
13.31
11.78
10.52
8.38
7.18
9.22
6.67
4.69
5.99
6.18
6.55
7.45 -
6.46
6.29
5.39
4.81
5.18
5.48
5.83
5.06
4.22
4.67
3.42
3.73
2.86
25.6
A-9
-------
RUN 5 OUTLET CEM DATA
Time
10:40
10:45
10:50
10:55
11:00
11:05
11:10
11:15
11:20
11:25
11:30
11:35
11:40
11-. 45
11:50
11:55
12:00
12:05
12:10
12:15
12:20
12:25
12:30
12:35
12:40
12:45
12:50
12:55
13:00
13:05
13:10
13:15
13:20
13:25
13:30
13:35
13:40
13:45
13:50
13:55
14:00
14:05
14:10
14:15
14:20
14:25
14:30
14:35
14:40
02
(% vol)
10.68
10.61
11.07
10.81
11.20
10.81
10.55
9.32
10.29
9.12
8.15
10.68
9.58
9.19
11.20
11.39
13.01
11.52
11.07
10.87
10.55
10.74
10.61
10.36
10.61
10.74
10.68
10.68
10.55
10.42
10.68
10.42
10.55
10.55
10.55
10.29
10.29
10.42
10.29
10.42
10.55
10.61
10.49
10.61
10.81
S02
(ppmv)
6.32
6.11
7.16
18.13
17.5
15.81
14.76
11.8
10.96
10.33
11.38
10.33
8.85
10.12
10.96
11.17
11.38
10.54
12.65
12.02
10.96
9.27
10.12
10.12
9.27
8.22
14.76
11.17
9.27
9.91
10.33
10.33
8.85
CO
(ppmv)
3.375
4.175
4.312
3.900
3.750
3.187
3.387
1.775
2.087
2.675
1.450
1.562
1.600
1.425
1.125
6.400
6.125
9.275
9.350
9.187
8.825
8.937
8.850
6.887
6.637
6.075
4.975
7.862
10.113
9.787
10.538
11.188
9.400
6.900
8.050
10.200
9.525
5.225
3.675
4.450
5.050
5.650
4.862
8.337
6.412
7.475
8.087
A-10
NOx
(ppmv)
171.0
202.7
216.0
219.5
243.7
226.2
224.7
226.5
227.7
205.2
208.2
200.2
199.2
203.5
207.5
213.5
212.5
204.0
203.2
214.7
213.7
223.7
229.0
210.5
200.7
205.2
216.2
221.5
216.2
NOx
(ppmv 8
7% O2 )
301.3
300.4
305.4
304.2
327.3
309.5
303.5
298.7
307.6
280.7
283.2
272.3
267.5
269.9
282.2
283.2
285.4
274.0
272.9
281.3
280.0
296.7
300.0
279.2
269.5
277.2
288.7
299.2
297.8
S02
(ppmv 9
7% 02)
30.8
23.4
20.9
16.4
14.7
14.1
15.4
13.6
12.0
13.8
14.9
15.2
15.3
14.0
17.2
15.9
14.7
12.4
13.6
13.3
12.1
10.9
19.3
14.8
12.4
13.4
13.8
14.0
12.2
-------
RON 5 OUTLET GEM DATA
Time
14:45
14:50
14:55
15:00
15:05
15:10
15:15
15:20
15:25
15:30
15:35
15:40
15:45
15:50
15:55
16:00
16:05
16:10
16:15
16:20
16:25
16:30
16:35
16:40
16:45
16:50
16:55
17:00
17:05
17:10
17:15
17:20
17:25
17:30
17:35
17:40
17:45
17:50
17:55
18:00
18:05
18:10
18:15
18:20
18:25
18:30
18:35
18:40
18:45
02
(% vol)
11.13
11.46
10.74
10.68
10.81
10.81
10.68
10.61
10.87
11.07
10.61
10.68
11.20
11.13
10.74
10.42
10.61
10.16
9.90
10.29
10.10
10.36
10.55
10.68
10.61
10.61
11.07
11.07
11.13
11.52
11.33
11.26
10.87
10.74
10.74
10.55
10.68
10.94
10.87
10.42
10.36
10.49
10.55
10.55
10.55
10.29
10.23
9.90
10.03
S02
(ppmv)
9.48
9.91
9.7
9.91
9.48
9.91
8.85
9.91
11.17
9.7
10.54
9.48
9.06
10.33
10.33
9.06
9.48
9.06
10.12
9.06
10.33
10.54
11.17
11.59
11.17
10.96
12.65
13.49
13.28
11.17
11.59
10.33
11.17
10.54
10.75
10.33
10.54
11.17
9.06
8.64
9.27
10.33
9.48
10.33
10.54
10.12
10.96
10.96
12.02
CO
(ppmv)
7.612
7.387
6.375
7.662
6.600
7.475
7.312
6.650
7.700
8.162
8.612
9.550
9.725
10.125
11.800
6.062
4.262
3.462
3.637
3.587
3.600
3.287
5.837
6.437
4.975
4.412
4.750
4.900
5.837
7.987
6.712
8.062
6.225
6.600
7.912
8.225
9.050
7.037
6.900
5.100
4.750
4.650
6.262
6.200
6.162
4.950
5.312
4.762
3.200
A-ll
NOx
(ppmv)
201.7
202.5
217.0
214.5
210.0
202.0
209.5
205.5
210.0
204.7
204.5
199.5
187.7
186.2
208.2
221.7
197.5
205.7
201.2
197.7
209.2
202.0
203.0
191.5
197.7
200.5
206.2
221.5
218.5
206.0
196.2
200.5
245.2
238.5
230.5
220.0
217.0
230.0
228.0
237.5
242.7
220.2
204.0
213.5
228.7
214.7
209.2
220.5
203.0
NOx
(ppmv « (
7% 02)
287.0
298.2
296.9
291.7
289.3
278.3
284.9
277.6
291.0
289.5
276.2
271.3
269.0
264.9
284.8
294.0
266.8
266.2
254.2
259.0
269.2
266.4
272.6
260.5
267.1
270.8
291.6
313.2
310.9
305.3
285.0
289.1
339.8
326.3
315.3
295.5
295.1
321.0
316.0
315.0
320.1
294.0
274.0
286.7
307.1
281.3
272.5
278.6
259.6
SO2
ppmv 9
7% 02)
13.5
14.6
13.3
13.5
13.1
13.7
12.0
13.4
15.5
13.7
14.2
12.9
13.0
14.7
14.1
12.0
12.8
11.7
12.8
11.9
13.3
13.9
15.0
15.8
15.1
14.8
17.9
19.1
18.9
16.6
16.8
14.9
15.5
14.4
14.7
13.9
14.3
15.6
12.6
11.5
12.2
13.8
12.7
13.9
14.2
13.3
14.3
13.8
15.4
-------
RUN 5 OUTLET GEM DATA
Time
18:50
18:55
19:00
19:05
19:10
19:15
19:20
19:25
19:30
19:35
19:40
19:45
19:50
19:55
20:00
20:05
20:10
20:15
20:20
20:25
02
(% vol)
9.90
10.10
10.03
10.49
10.36
10.42
10.55
10.36
10.49
10.61
10.55
11.00
10.87
10.68
10.68
10.87
10.81
10.81
10.87
10.81
S02
(ppmv)
11.17
12.23
13.07
14.97
16.65
15.6
16.65
16.44
16.44
17.29
17.08
17.29
16.44
15.6
14.97
13.49
13.07
12.44
12.02
12.65
CO
(ppmv)
3.475
3.600
4.237
4.525
4.687
4.600
5.200
4.262
2.787
3.512
5.887
6.950
6.300
5.312
5.850
6.325
6.525
4.562
4.850
5.687
NOx
(ppmv)
199.0
196.5
200.7
196.5
203.2
208.5
204.7
207.2
205.5
204.0
200.7
201.7
210.2
223.5
217.5
210.7
216.2
219.5
209.7
206.5
NOx
(pprnv 8 i
7% 02)
251.5
252.9
256.6
262.4
268.0
276.5
274.9
273.3
274.4
275.6
269.5
283.2
291.3
304.0
295.8
292.0
297.8
302.4
290.6
284.5
S02
[ppmv 9
7% 02)
14.1
15.7
16.7
20.0
22.0
20.7
22.4
21.7
22.0
23.4
22.9
24.3
22.8
21.2
20.4
18.7
18.0
17.1
16.7
17.4
Average 10.6 11.4 6.0 210.7 286.4 15.7
A-12
-------
RUN 6 OUTLET GEM DATA
Time
09:30
09:35
09:40
09:45
09:50
09:55
10:00
10:05
10:10
10:15
10:20
10:25
10:30
10:35
10:40
10:45
10:50
10:55
11:00
11:05
11:10
11:15
11:20
11:25
11:30
11:35
11:40
11:45
11:50
11:55
12:00
12:05
12:10
12:15
12:20
12:25
12:30
12:35
12:40
12:45
12:50
12:55
13:00
13:05
13:10
13:15
13:20
13:25
13:30
02
(% vol)
11.00
10.74
10.87
10.74
10.55
10.81
10.10
10.49
10.68
10.61
10.55
10.61
10.68
10.87
10.94
11.07
11.00
10.81
10.81
10.68
10.42
10.68
10.94
10.74
10.61
10.49
9.84
10.23
10.42
9.97
10.23
10.29
10.49
10.42
10.03
10.68
10.74
11.00
11.13
10.61
10.36
10.55
10.16
10.74
11.07
11.13
11.00
10.49
10.23
S02
(ppmv)
13.07
14.12
12.02
9.91
8.22
8.43
9.27
18.34
55.88
124.84
156.68
167.22
174.60
237.02
225.84
201.60
178.82
146.98
115.56
99.32
83.29
67.05
50.60
39.64
32.26
30.36
48.50
114.08
110.29
86.45
68.11
53.35
43.01
34.79
CO
(ppmv)
7.812
8.625
8.200
6.125
6.262
6.500
4.962
5.075
5.975
5.100
6.462
7.825
7.637
7.900
7.737
6.937
3.237
2.962
3.675
3.800
4.425
4.200
2.462
2.712
2.462
2.475
3.637
4.637
15.988
11.700
4.937
4.112
NOx
(ppmv)
215.0
215.2
197.5
192.5
205.5
185.5
181.0
173.2
197.7
215.7
215.5
217.2
202.0
190.5
210.5
242.5
206.5
210.2
206.2
207.5
196.5
182.7
171.2
162.2
164.2
1S9.0
171.7
137.2
116.5
179.7
198.0
218.2
242.5
247.0
241.0
204.7
208.5
211.2
225.2
274.5
286.0
227.7
238.0
212.0
199.5
217.2
233.7
270.2
275.2
NOx
(ppmv 9
7% 02)
301.9
294.4
273.7
263.4
276.0
255.5
233.0
231.3
268.9
291.4
289.4
293.4
274.7
264.0
293.8
342.9
289.9
289.6
284.1
282.2
260.6
248.5
238.9
221.9
221.8
225.7
215.8
178.7
154.5
228.5
257.9
285.9
323.8
327.6
308.2
278.4
285.3
296.5
320.4
370.8
377.2
305.8
308.0
290.0
282.1
309.0
328.1
360.8
358.5
S02
(ppmv 9
7% 02)
18.48
19.83
16.56
13.65
11.18
11.18
12.61
25.59
76.45
168.64
209.21
210.16
227.45
314.37
287.21
262.63
234.27
196.26
153.27
127.01
113.28
91.73
71.04
56.40
43.58
40.04
65.14
147.65
150.89
122.24
96.90
74.91
57.43
45.32
A-13
-------
RUN 6 OUTLET GEM DATA
Time
13:35
13:40
13:45
13:50
13:55
14:00
14:05
14:10
14:15
14:20
14:25
14:30
14:35
14:40
14:45
14 : 50
14:55
15:00
15:05
15:10
15:15
15:20
15:25
15:30
15:35
15:40
15:45
15:50
15:55
16:00
16:05
16:10
16:15
16:20
Average
02
(% vol)
10.42
10.55
10.36
10.61
10.49
10.42
10.16
10.10
10.81
10.74
10.74
10.55
10.49
11.07
10.87
10.87
10.61
10.49
10.29
10.23
10.68
10.23
10.61
10.23
10.23
10.49
10.42
10.49
10.49
10.49
10.6
S02
(ppmv)
28.67
25.51
22.98
21.93
19.19
19.40
17.50
18.76
18.55
19.40
18.76
18.13
16.65
15.60
14.55
13.70
17.08
24.88
37.32
51.87
54.40
49.97
44.28
39.22
34.79
27.41
25.09
22.56
17.08
11.38
12.44
9.70
55.0
CO
(ppmv)
3.837
20.375
39.300
46.813
11.863
4.012
3.037
3.212
4.975
6.587
5.512
6.125
5.987
8.587
7.912
6.012
5.950
7.437
6.325
5.762
6.912
7.387
6.425
4.475
4.950
6.987
6.087
5.075
5.187
5.150
4.987
7.3
NOx
(ppmv)
246.7
221.5
221.2
203.2
209.5
211.0
201.7
182.5
178.0
182.2
200.7
201.5
200.2
196.5
217.2
229.5
228.2
208.0
213.0
206.0
206.0
217.0
227.0
229.5
238.2
231.2
224.2
231.0
219.5
188.7
86.7
207.8
NOx
(ppmv @
7% 02)
327.2
297.5
291.7
274.5
279.7
279.9
261.0
234.9
245.2
249.3
274.6
270.6
267.3
277.9
301.0
318.1
308.3
277.7
279.0
268.4
280.2
282.7
306.6
299.0
310.3
308.7
297.4
308.4
293.1
252.0
282.1
S02
(ppmv 9
7% 02)
38.03
34.26
30.31
29.62
25.62
25.73
22.65
24.14
25.55
26.54
25.67
24.35
22.23
22.06
20.16
18.99
23.07
33.22
48.89
67.57
73.99
65.10
59.81
51.09
45.32
36.35
33.50
30.12
76.7
A-14
-------
APPENDIX A.2
SO
- Removal Efficiency Data
(The inlet S09 data were converted to 5-minute
averages to correspond with the outlet data)
A-15
-------
RUN 1 INLET, OULET S02 AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
HOURS MINUTES
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Inlet
S02
(ppmv ®
7% 02)
95.97
93.34
96.46
100.38
99.32
135.58
161.10
164.59
162.44
123.31
99.78
89.66
87.84
83.06
79.43
88.10
166.95
197.15
127.14
136.40
107.91
97.27
82.89
87.37
83.17
120.29
129.51
98.26
99.61
95.57
148.23
122.39
100.60
84.44
85.16
104.62
176.41
203.35
Outlet
S02 Removal
(ppmv 9 Efficiency
7% 02) (X)
7.69
5.69
7.42
7.47
8.05
7.74
8.29
7.28
7.65
7.22
9.31
8.79
8.43
9.65
7.31
8.28
5.04
6.10
7.55
8.64
8.37
7.55
6.62
5.59
5.48
9.58
8.45
10.53
9.57
9.14
8.57
6.03
7.08
8.45
8.47
7.55
6.62
8.29
6.75
91.98
93.90
92.31
92.55
91.89
94.29
94.86
95.58
95.29
94.14
90.67
90.19
90.40
88.38
90.80
90.60
96.98
96.91
94.06
93.67
92.25
92.24
92.01
93.61
93.41
92.03
93.48
90.70
91.39
93.69
95.22
93.10
91.58
91.06
92.23
92.08
96.18
A-17
-------
RUN 2 INLET, OUTLET S02 AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
HOURS MINUTES
13
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
16
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
52
57
2
7
12
17
22
27
32
37
42
47
52
57
2
7
12
17
22
27
32
37
42
47
52
57
2
7
12
17
22
27
32
37
42
47
52
57
2
7
12
17
22
27
32
37
42
47
Inlet Outlet
S02 SO2 Removal
(ppmv 9 (ppmv ® Efficiency
7% 02) 7% 02) (%)
119.86
113.93
111.10
108.05
100.97
95.59
94.75
97.85
100 . 70
94.01
90.89
92.60
91.60
88.55
87.54
95.37
93.42
101.77
101.94
106.40
121.63
153.71
143.44
146.44
112.52
100.51
96.64
84.09
82.27
62.82
44.12
29.74
51.08
83.58
98.94
120.99
99.89
78.44
75.55
78.38
81.39
92.00
162.58
228.91
307.99
370.11
462.06
444.55
A-18
13.76
13.76
7.84
9.53
8.14
7.85
8.34
7.81
7.92
7.28
8.11
8.70
7.92
6.63
6.95
6.49
7.47
8.11
7.14
6.89
7.52
7.34
8.03
7.92
8.70
8.60
7.08
6.88
8.04
5.78
8.83
9.43
8.72
5.46
6.82
5.66
7.35
8.23
8.76
7.77
8.23
7.47
7.14
9.27
17.89
55.73
58.61
95.77
88.52
87.92
92.94
91.18
91.94
91.79
91.20
92.02
92.13
92.26
91.08
90.60
91.35
92.52
92.06
93.20
92.00
92.03
92.99
93.53
93.81
95.23
94.40
94.59
92.26
91.44
92.68
91.82
90.23
90.80
79.98
68.29
82.92
93.47
93.11
95.32
92.64
89.51
88.41
90.09
89.89
91.88
95.61
95.95
94.19
84.94
87.32
78.46
-------
RUN 2 INLET, OUTLET S02 AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
Inlet Outlet
S02 S02 Removal
HOURS MINUTES (ppmv 9 (ppmv 9 Efficiency
7% 02) 7% 02) (%)
17 52 529.34 92.10 82.60
17 57 488.02 78.77 83.86
18 2 447.87 81.28 81.85
18 7 510.24 96.49 81.09
18 12 565.65 104.45 81.53
18 17 598.78 70.33 88.25
18 22 457.03 41.25 90.97
18 27 373.45
A-19
-------
RUN 3 INLET, OUTLET S02 AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
HOURS MINUTES
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
14
14
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
0
5
10
15
Inlet
S02
(ppmv 9
7% O2 )
556.53
662.34
701.65
671.53
490.47
440.33
446.63
437.57
595.69
582.70
462.10
356.06
302.55
254.26
307.98
317.66
350.39
283.04
243.96
209.57
186.19
183.09
187.79
193.87
179.14
187.28
188.17
189.94
169.77
136.36
47.55
105.02
116.08
128.58
141.09
126.79
112.94
102.33
105.98
101.64
106.63
99.49
113.02
109.82
97.91
91.67
89.67
112.11
Outlet
S02 Removal
(ppmv ® Efficiency
735 02) (%)
342.40
398.32
333.71
236.40
118.79
136.96
183.10
278.71
292.10
188.40
67.31
73.73
39.88
31.95
50.95
117.07
57.32
71.75
34.05
26.73
19.53
16.47
15.22
14.59
13.87
16.26
18.53
21.33
15.68
11.75
10.56
10.16
10.22
8.06
8.84
10.16
10.29
11.04
10.48
10.41
11.80
9.56
8.78
9.67
9.94
8.33
10.31
9.50
38.48
39.86
52.44
64.80
75.78
68.90
59.00
36.31
50.96
67.67
85.43
79.29
86.82
87.44
83.46
63.15
83.64
74.65
86.04
87.24
89.51
91.01
91.89
92.47
92.26
91.32
90.15
88.77
90.77
91.38
77.78
90.32
91.20
93.73
93.74
91.99
90.89
89.21
90.12
89.75
88.93
90.39
92.23
91.20
89.84
90.91
88.50
91.53
A-20
-------
RUN 3 INLET, OUTLET S02 AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
Inlet Outlet
S02 SO2 Removal
HOURS MINUTES (ppmv 9 (ppmv 9 Efficiency
7% 02) 7% 02) (X)
14 20 109.39 12.08 88.96
14 25 119.18 12.10 89.85
14 30 114.83 10.29 91.04
14 35 143.84 11.18 92.23
14 40 219.38 32.96 84.98
14 45 302.48 36.42 87.96
14 50 286.07
A-21
-------
APPENDIX A.3
Selected Process Data
(15-minute readings of combustion air
flow, steam flow, and combustor temperature.
Data was recorded every 15 minutes by
Marion County personnel.)
A-23
-------
RON 1 PROCESS DATA 9-22-86
Top
1st Pass
Combustion Steam Combustor
Time Air Flow Flow Temp.
(1000 Ibs/hr) (1000 Ibs/hr) (deg. F)a
1330
1345
1400
1415
1430
1445
1500
1515
1530
1545
1600
1615
1630
1645
1700
1715
1730
66
70
70
78
88
68
64
68
70
64
70
68
60
64
64
70
72
64
64
66
64
54
64
64
66
66
66
65
66
66
65
65
65
62
1572
1600
1564
1526
1380
1653
1576
1616
1617
1612
1585
1596
1583
1596
1593
1590
1466
aThermocouples measuring this temperature were not calibrated, so accuracy
is uncertain.
A-25
-------
RUN 2 PROCESS DATA 9-23-86
Top
1st Pass
Combustion Steam Combustor
Time Air Flow Flow Temp.
(1000 Ibs/hr) (1000 Ibs/hr) (deg. F)a
1400
1415
1430
1445
1500
1515
1530
1545
1600
1615
1630
1645
1700
1715
1730
1745
1800
1815
62
60
70
70
70
60
70
62
62
65
68
70
64
60
50
56
70
72
66
66
65
65
65
64
65
65
66
64
60
64
63
64
66
66
65
64
1579
1602
1582
1595
1607
1574
1592
1563
1554
1544
1465
1552
1522
1557
1612
1624
1565
1531
Thermocouples measuring this temperature were not calibrated, so accuracy
is uncertain.
A-26
-------
RON 3 PROCESS DATA 9-24-86
Time
1015
1030
1045
1100
1115
1130
1145
1200
1215
1230
1245
1300
1315
1330
1345
1400
1415
1430
1445
Combustion
Air Flow
(1000 lbs/hr)b
40
44
46
42
42
44
50
62
60
48
58
60
56
60
60
60
62
Steam
Flow
(1000 Ibs/hr)
67
67
65
66
65
68
65
64
64
66
66
66
65
65
64
65
65
Top
1st Pass
Combustor
Temp.
(deg. F)a
1677
1673
1664
1680
1614
1606
1605
1588
1577
1584
1596
1571
1595
1573
1572
1565
1573
Thermocouples measuring this temperature were not calibrated, so accuracy
is uncertain.
Data from 1015 to 1145 may have been incorrectly entered and are
questionable.
A-27
-------
RON 4 PROCESS DATA 9-26-86
Time
Combustion
Air Flow
(1000 Iba/hr)
. Steam
Flow
(1000 Ibs/hr)
Top
1st Pass
Combustor
Temp.
(deg. F)a
715
730
745
800
815
830
845
900
915
930
945
1000
1015
1030
1045
1100
1115
1130
1145
1200
1215
1230
1245
1300
1315
1330
1345
62
68
64
68
64
70
72
70
62
78
74
68
82
64
72
68
66
64
72
75
68
73
72
85
70
68
72
66
64
64
65
65
66
68
65
66
64
68
68
64
66
66
68
69
64
66
65
66
66
65
64
66
66
66
1623
1644
1588
1535
1567
1565
1612
1624
1617
1609
1581
1657
1632
1574
1602
1524
1686
1641
1596
1582
1659
1644
1627
1552
1609
1595
1568
Thermocouples measuring this temperature were not calibrated, so accuracy
is uncertain.
A-28
-------
RUN 5 PROCESS DATA 9-29-86
Time
Combustion
Air Flow
(1000 Ibs/hr)
Steam
Flow
(1000 Ibs/hr)
Top
1st Pass
Combustor
Temp.
(deg. F)a
1400
1415
1430
1445
1500
1515
1530
1545
1600
1615
1630
1645
1700
1715
1730
1745
1800
1815
1830
1845
1900
1915
1930
1945
2000
2015
68
70
64
80
76
78
78
82
70
66
70
68
69
82
72
76
70
74
70
66
68
70
68
78
74
74
65
65
66
63
65
65
64
63
69
64
65
65
65
65
64
67
66
65
67
65
65
64
65
65
65
65
1599
1609
1583
1556
1564
1570
1570
1530
1601
1623
1623
1589
1589
1552
1565
1563
1581
1578
1575
1620
1622
1603
1611
1594
1556
1547
Thermocouples measuring this temperature were not calibrated, so accuracy
is uncertain.
A-29
-------
RUN 6 PROCESS DATA 9-30-86
Time
Combustion
Air Flow
(1000 Ibs/hr)
Steam
Flow
(1000 Ibs/hr)
Top
1st Pass
Combustor
Temp.
(deg. F)a
930
945
1000
1015
1030
1045
1100
1115
1130
1145
1200
1215
1230
1245
1300
1315
1330
1345
1400
1415
1430
1445
1500
1515
1530
1545
1600
1615
76
68
70
74
76
86
72
76
70
68
72
68
74
69
76
70
70
74
68
70
68
70
68
64
70
68
68
82
:====== = r= = rrr = :
65
65
69
66
65
65
66
65
68
68
67
68
66
68
69
66
67
66
67
66
67
66
68
64
66
66
64
60
1585
1606
1645
1633
1585
1555
1568
1583
1609
1670
1664
1669
1623
1647
1663
1608
1617
1602
1622
1629
1608
1584
1625
1590
1612
1607
1580
1446
Thermocouples measuring this temperature were not calibrated, so accuracy
is uncertain.
A-30
-------
APPENDIX B
CDD/CDF HOMOLOGUE DISTRIBUTIONS
-------
TABLE B-l. CDD/CDF HOMOLOGUE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR FLUE GAS
SAMPLES AT MARION COUNTY MWC
ISOMER
DIOXINS
Mono-CDD
Di-CDD
Tri-CDD
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678 HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL CDD
FURANS
Mono-CDF
Di-CDF
Tri-CDF
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxDCF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678 HpCDF
1234789 HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
TOTAL CDF
MOLECULAR
WEIGHT
218.64
253.08
287.53
321.97
321.97
356.42
356.42
390.86
390.86
390.86
390.86
425.31
425.31
459.75
202.64
237.09
271.53
305.98
305.98
340.42
340.42
340.42
374.87
374.87
374.87
374.87
374.87
409.31
409.31
409.31
443.76
MOLI
-UNCONTROLLED-
Run 2
0.000
0.005
0.006
0.020
0.027
0.000
0.022
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.361
0.140
0.149
0.269
1.000
0.056
0.014
0.597
0.104
0.094
0.000
0.046
0.029
0.000
0.000
0.029
0.000
0.029
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.001
1.000
: FRACTIONS
<~T\
L/U
Run 2
0.000
0.047
0.035
0.019
0.181
0.007
0.058
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.064
0.071
0.060
0.457
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.666
0.000
0.286
0.005
0.014
0.010
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.019
1.000
NTROLLED
Run 3
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.173
0.025
0.000
0.027
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.195
0.172
0.000
0.408
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.820
0.000
0.141
0.007
0.000
0.018
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.014
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.000
«
Average
0.000
0.035
0.026
0.060
0.140
0.005
0.050
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.099
0.097
0.045
0.444
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.717
0.000
0.238
0.006
0.009
0.013
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.013
1.000
B-l
-------
TABLE B-2.
CDD/CDF HOMOLOGUE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR
CYCLONE ASH AT MARION COUNTY MWC
ISOMER
DIOXINS
Mono-CDD
Di-CDD
Tri-CDD
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678 HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
Mono-CDF
Di-CDF
Tri-CDF
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678 HpCDF
1234789 HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Molecular
Weight
218.64
253.08
287.53
321.97
321.97
356.42
356.42
390.86
390.86
390.86
390.86
425.31
425.31
459.75
202.64
237.09
271.53
305.98
305.98
340.42
340.42
340.42
374.87
374.87
374.87
374.87
374.87
409.31
409.31
409.31
443 ..76
Mole
Run 1
0.000
0.010
0.009
0.008
0.020
0.015
0.170
0.000
0.027
0.067
0.287
0.133
0.121
0.132
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.421
0.160
0.128
0.019
0.077
0.096
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.061
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.037
Fractions
Run 2
0.000
0.004
0.013
0.006
0.044
0.013
0.139
0.012
0.031
0.000
0.323
0.130
0.121
0.165
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.355
0.148
0.167
0.025
0.067
0.091
0.000
0.000
0.060
0.008
0.015
0.000
0.007
0.007
0.051
Run 3
0.000
0.018
0.036
0.007
0.078
0.013
0.118
0.012
0.029
0.000
0.348
0.117
0.104
0.121
1.000
0.018
0.000
0.476
0.116
0.202
0.022
0.039
0.033
0.015
0.000
0.025
0.000
0.005
0.014
0.000
0.014
0.021
Total CDF
1.000
1.000
1.000
B-2
-------
TABLE B-3.
CDD/CDF HOMOLOGUE DISTRIBUTIONS FOR
BAGHOUSE ASH AT MARION COUNTY MWC
ISOMER
DIOXINS
Mono-CDD
Di-CDD
Tri-CDD
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678 HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
Total CDD
FURANS
Mono-CDF
Di-CDF
Tri-CDF
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678 HpCDF
1234789 HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Molecular
Weight
218.64
253.08
287.53
321.97
321.97
356.42
356.42
390.86
390.86
390.86
390.86
425.31
425.31
459.75
202.64
237.09
271.53
305.98
305.98
340.42
340.42
340.42
374.87
374.87
374.87
374.87
374.87
409.31
409.31
409.31
443.76
Mole
Run 1
0.000
0.000
0.070
0.007
0.081
0.015
0.203
0.014
0.024
0.000
0.299
0.094
0.096
0.097
1.000
0.018
0.000
0.408
0.178
0.172
0.022
0.060
0.079
0.000
0.000
0.047
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.007
0.000
0.010
Fractions
Run 2
0.000
0.025
0.029
0.000
0.043
0.012
0.141
0.012
0.027
0.000
0.323
0.120
0.118
0.150
1.000
0.003
0.220
0.361
0.133
0.125
0.012
0.045
0.045
0.000
0.000
0.040
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.016
Run 3
0.000
0.020
0.048
0.008
0.078
0.014
0.120
0.010
0.023
0.045
0.252
0.119
0.110
0.154
1.000
0.000
0.000
0.504
0.144
0.171
0.024
0.041
0.058
0.003
0.000
0.031
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.006
0.003
0.016
Total CDF
1.000
1.000
1.000
B-3
-------
APPENDIX C
SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
-------
C.I CONTROL EFFICIENCY
The control efficiency (CE) of the control device was calculated for SO^
using two different methods. Using CEM 5-minute data, control efficiency was
calculated based on SO- concentrations normalized to 7 percent 0.. Using
overall average data, control efficiency was calculated based on mass rate.
The two methods should be equivalent since both normalization of concentration
and mass rate are used to account for any inleakage of air across the control
device. CE was calculated based on normalized concentration for CEM data
because continuous flue gas flowrate data were unavailable to calculate mass
rates.
Using GEM Data (CE by concentration data)
CE (%) - Cinlet ' Coutlet x 100
Cinlet
where
C. .. = S0« concentration at the inlet sampling location
(ppm by volume normalized to 7 percent 0^)
C — SO^ concentration at the outlet sampling location
(ppm by volume normalized to 7 percent 0~)
The normalized concentration is calculated by multiplying the observed
concentration by the fraction ((20.9 - Reference %0~)/(20.9 - %0. measured)).
The percent 09 measured is from the CEM data corresponding to the S0? data.
The reference % 09 would equal 7 percent for this report.
Using Overall Average Data (CE by mass rate data)
To calculate CE by mass rate, the mass rate must first be calculated.
M - V x C x 10 Ib-mole/lb-mole x Ib-mole x MW x 60 min/hr
ppmv 385 dscf
where
M = mass rate of SO (Ib/hr)
V = Volumetric flowrate of flue gas (dscfm)
lmo/033
C-l
-------
C = Concentration of SO- (ppm by volume , as measured)
MW - Molecular weight of SC>2 (-64.06) (Ib/lb-mole)
Control efficiency calculated using mass rates.
CE (%) = Minlet ' Moutlet x 100
Minlet
C.2 RATIO OF ACTUAL LIME TO STOICHIOMETRIC LIME (Reactant Ratio)
The calculation is based on the lime feed rate and the flow rates of SCL
and HC1 into the. quench reactor.
Inputs :
M^ - Lime feed rate (Ib/hr CaO)
V__ = Volumetric flow rate of flue gas (dscfm)
rd
Cu_n - HC1 concentration in flue gas (ppmv)
nCl
Cc — SO- concentration in flue gas (ppmv)
oO- i
Ca
Ratio =« Actual Lime _ — _ A
Stoichiometric Lime Ca
O
Stoichiometric Lime - Ca - theoretical lime required to react completely with
incoming HCl and SO
By stoichiometry of the reactions of S0_ and HCl with CaO, one (1) mole of CaO
reacts with one (1) mole of S0_ and one (1) mole of CaO reacts with two (2)
moles of HCl.
For HCl only,
Ca_ - 1/2 x V^- x Cu_.. x Ib mole x 60 min x 10"
S FG HCl
« Ib-mole CaO
CaA"MLX 56.08 Ib
For S02 and HCl,
C*S - 'FG * KWV*) + <' «
lmo/033
-------
C.3 CDD/CDF SAMPLE CALCULATIONS
2378 -TCDD Toxic Equivalency
The 2378 -TCDD toxic equivalency is calculated by multiplying the
concentration of each dioxin and furan isomer by its specific toxic
equivalency factor. The factors used for these analyses are those prepared by
the U.S. EPA. This procedure and the equivalency factors are outlined in
Table C-l.
CDD/CDF Homologue Distributions (MF)
The amount in terms of mass (ng) of each isomer is converted to moles .
Then, the mole fraction is determined by dividing the moles (N) of the
individual isomer by the sum of moles for all the isomers.
where
N - M (ng) x 10"9 g/ng r MW
i - any of the mono through octa CDD or CDF homologues
M - Amount (ng) of CDD/CDF detected
MW - Molecular weight of the CDD or CDF homologue
C.4 CALCULATION OF EMISSION FACTOR
The calculation is based on the concentration in the flue gas, the
volumetric flow rate of the flue gas and the f eedrate of the refuse .
Inputs :
F = Emission factor (ng/kg refuse)
V__ = Volumetric flowrate (dscmm)
FG
C. - Concentration (ng/dscm for CDD/CDFs)
- Refuse feed rate (kg/hr)
F - (VpG) (CJ -r MR (60 min/hr)
lmo/033 C-3
-------
TABLE C-l. EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF 2378-TCDD TOXIC
EQUIVALENCY USING U.S. EPA FACTORS
Isomer
Mono-CDD
Di-CDD
Tri-CDD
2378-TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HcCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678 HpCDD
Other HpCDD
Octa-CDD
Mono -CDF
Di-CDF
Tri-CDF
2378 TCDF
Other TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxCDF
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Other HxCDF
1234678 HpCDF
1234789 HpCDF
Other HpCDF
Octa-CDF
Column A
(Concentration)
[0.103]
0.035
0.203
(0.003)
0.282
0.040
0.261
0.024
0.046
0.074
0.364
0.290
0.278
0.437
0.019
2.33
4.25
0.520
2.27
0.172
0.145
0.786
0.156
0.076
[0.066]
[0.003]
0.064
0.236
[0.018]
0.078
[0.064]
Column B
(Toxic
Equivalency
Factor)
0
0
0
1.0
0.01
0.5
0.005
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.0004
0.001
0.00001
0
0
0
0
0.1
0.001
0.1
0.1
0.001
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.0001
0.001
0.001
0.00001
0
2378-TCDD Toxic
Equivalency :
a
Column C
(Product of
Concentration
and Factor)
0
0
°b
0 °
0.0028
0.020
0.0013
0.0010
0.0018
0.0030
0.00015
0.00029
0.0000028
0
0
0
0
0.052
0.0023
0.0172
0.015
0.00079
0.0016
0.00076
h
0
0.000006
0.00024
0
0.0000008
0
0*1 O f\
. J.20
aThe values for a given isomer in column C is the product of the values in
columns A and B for that same isomer.
Concentrations of isomers which are reported as detection limits (in
parentheses) or EMPCs (in brackets) are considered zero when multiplying by
the toxic equvalency factor.
C2378-TCDD toxic equivalency is the sum of the values in column C for all the
isomers.
lmo/033
C-4
-------
C.5 CALCULATION OF DETECTION LIMIT FOR HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM
This example is for the uncontrolled flue gas samples. The analytical
detection limit was 0.2 ug/ml. The final sample volume of the filtrate was
100 ml. A 25 ml aliquot was diluted to 50 ml for analysis, so the dilution
factor was 4:1. The average volume of gas sampled was 6.05 dscm. The average
C0_ normalization factor was 1.2.
) (50 al) (4) 6" 2)
^ANAL X VANAL X FDIL X FNORM
FG " V__ ~ 6.05 dscm
rG
- 8.0 ug/dscm at 12 percent CO.
where
MDL., — minimum detection limit in the flue gas (ug/dscm at 12% CO^)
MDLN - analytical minimum detection limit (ug/ml)
V — volume of sample analyzed (ml)
F - dilution factor
FM^nu ~ COo normalization factor
NORM 2
V — volume flue gas sampled at standard conditions
(68°F and 1 atm).
For the controlled flue gas samples, the sample detection limit was
0.1 ug/sample for Cr(-fVI) and 1.0 ug/sample for Cr(+III). The same dilution
factor applied. The average volume of gas samples was 10.1 dscm. The average
CO- normalization factor was 1.2. The resulting calculated detection limits
in the flue gas were 0.012 ug/dscm at 12 percent C02 for Cr(+VI) and
0.12 ug/dscm at 12 percent CO. for Cr(+III).
C.6 HC1 CONCENTRATION IN THE FLUE GAS
The HC1 concentration in the flue gas is reported in two units in this
report: (1) mg/dscm, and (2) ppmv. To convert from mg/dscm to ppmv, the
following equation is used:
,«-3 e g-mole 0.024 dscm 1A6
Cone. HC1, ppmv - Cone. HC1, mg/dscm x 10 _* x | 453 x E_mole x 10
(as chloride) (as chloride) & • & e
lmo/033 c_5
-------
APPENDIX D
CORRECTIONS TO RUN 6 (9-30-86)
OUTLET STACK Pb/Cd RESULTS
-------
APPENDIX D
Corrections to Run 6 (9-30-86) Outlet Stack Pb/Cd Results
The flue gas sample volume and volumetric flow rate for the Run 6
(9-30-86) Pb/Cd outlet stack sample were incorrectly reported by Ogden
Projects, Inc. This caused the calculated lead and cadmium concentrations and
mass flow rates to be incorrect. The corrected sample volume and flue gas
volumetric flow rate were used to calculate the lead and cadmium results for
this report. On Table D-l, the original and corrected results are presented.
TABLE D-l. CORRECTED OUTLET STACK Pb/Cd RESULTS FOR RUN 6 (9-30-86)
Parameter
Original
Value
Corrected
Value
Sample Volume (dscf)
(dscm)
Flue Gas Volumetric
Flow Rate (dscfm)
227.8
6.45
35,900
354.4
10.0
35,000
Concentration (ug/dscm at 12% CO.)
Lead
Cadmium
Mass Rate (Ib/hr)
Lead
Cadmium
33
3.4
0.0036
0.00038
21
2.2
0.0022
0.00024
D-l
------- |