United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
EMB Report No. 88-MIN-09A
January 1989
Air
unicipal Waste Combustion
uitipoEEutant Study:
Summary Report
lid-Connecticut
Resource Recovery Facility
Hartford, Connecticut
-------
DCN: 89-222-124'*4-°3 E*48 Report No. 88-MIN-09A
CDD/CDF, METALS AND PARTICULATE EMISSIONS
SUMMARY REPORT
MID-CONNECTICUT RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY
HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT
TSD Project No. 86/19
EPA Contract No. 68-02-4338
Work Assignment 21
Prepared for:
Dr. Theodore Brna, Task Manager
Air and Energy Engineering Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
and
Clyde E. Riley, Task Manager
Emission Measurement Branch
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared by:
Carol L. Anderson, P.E.
Radian Corporation
Post Office Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709
January 1989
lmo/057
-------
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, NC 27711.
lmo/034
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1-1
1.1 Introduction. 1-1
1.2 Background 1-1
1.3 Purpose and Objectives. . 1-2
1.4 Brief Process Description 1-2
1.5 Test Program 1-4
1.6 Organization 1-4
1.7 Quality Assurance/Quality Control 1-8
1.8 Description of Report Sections 1-8
2.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS 2-1
2.1 CDD/CDF Results -. . . 2-3
2.2 Toxic Metals Results 2-9
2.3 Uncontrolled Mercury Results by EPA Method 101A 2-14
2.4 Toxic Metals Mass Rates and Control Efficiencies 2-14
2.5 Particulate Loading 2-19
2.6 Ratio of Toxic Metals to Particulate Loading 2-19
2.7 CEM Monitoring of 02> C02, and N0x 2-19
3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION 3-1
3.1 Combustor Description 3-1
3.2 Air Pollution Control System 3-3
3.3 Operating Data During the Test Program 3-5
4.0 SAMPLING LOCATION 4-1
4.1 Spray Dryer Inlet 4-1
4.2 Baghouse Outlet '4-5
5.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 5-1
5.1 CDD/CDF Determination 5-1
5.2 Toxic Metals and Particulate Determination 5-2
5.3 Mercury Determination by EPA Method 101A 5-3
5.4 Volumetric Flowrate, Fixed Gas, and Moisture Determination
by EPA Methods 2, 3, and 4 . 5-3
6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL -. 6-1
6.1 Equipment and Sampling Preparation 6-1
6.2 Sampling Operations 6-3
6.3 Sample Recovery 6-3
6.4 Sample Analysis 6-3
6.5 Data Reduction 6-4
7.0 REFERENCES 7-1
8.0 METRIC-TO-ENGLISH CONVERSION TABLE 8-1
ii
lmo/034
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
1-1 Mid-Connecticut facility layout 1-3
2-1 Distribution of uncontrolled CDD/CDF congeners for the
Mid-Connecticut MWC 2-11
2-2 CEM concentration histories at the fabric filter outlet during
the test periods for the Mid-Connecticut MWC (Unit 11) 2-24
3-1 Schematic of the process line at Mid-Connecticut MWC 3-2
4-1 Mid-Connecticut MWC process line with sampling locations 4-2
4-2 Side view of spray dryer inlet sampling location at
Mid-Connecticut MWC 4-3
4-3 Traverse point location diagram for spray dryer inlet
sampling location at Mid-Connecticut MWC 4-4
4-4 Traverse Point Location Diagram for the Baghouse Outlet Sampling
Location at Mid-Connecticut MWC 4-6
iii
lmo/034
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1-1 Summary of Sampling Log for Testing at the Mid-Connecticut
Resource Recovery Facility 1-5
1-2 Summary of Sampling and Analytical Procedures for the
Mid-Connecticut Test Program 1-7
1-3 Target CDD/CDF Congeners for the Mid-Connecticut Test Program . .1-8
2-1 Summary of Mid-Connecticut MtfC Results 2-2
2-2 Summary of CDD/CDF Emissions for the Mid-Connecticut MWC 2-4
2-3 Uncontrolled CDD/CDF Flue Gas Concentrations Adjusted to
12% C02 for the Mid-Connecticut MWC 2-5
2-4 Controlled CDD/CDF Flue Gas Concentrations Adjusted to 12% CO-
for the Mid-Connecticut MWC . 2-6
2-5 Uncontrolled CDD/CDF Flue Gas Concentrations for the
Mid-Connecticut MWC 2-7
2-6 Controlled CDD/CDF Flue Gas Concentrations for the
Mid-Connecticut MWC 2-8
2-7 CDD/CDF Concentrations and Control Efficiencies for the
Mid-Connecticut MWC 2-10
2-8 Uncontrolled EMSL Metals Concentrations in the Flue Gas
Adjusted to 12% CO. for the Mid-Connecticut MWC . . 2-12
2-9 Uncontrolled EMSL Metals Concentrations in the Flue Gas
for the Mid-Connecticut MWC . . . : 2-13
«
2-10 Controlled Method 12/108 Metals Concentrations in the Flue
Gas for the Mid-Connecticut MWC 2-15
2-11 Summary of Uncontrolled Mercury Results by EPA Method 101A for
the Mid-Connecticut MWC 2-16
2-12 Controlled Mercury Results by EPA Method 101A for the
Mid-Connecticut MWC 2-17
2-13 Toxic Metals Mass Rates and Control Efficiencies 2-18
2-14 Particulate Emissions for the Mid-Connecticut MWC 2-20
iv
lmo/034
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(continued)
Table Page
2-15 Ratio of Metals to Particulate Loading for the
Mid-Connecticut MWC 2-21
2-16 Summary of GEM Results at the Baghouse Outlet,
Mid-Connecticut MWC, Unit #11 2-22
3-1 Design Operating Conditions for a Single RDF Combustor 3-4
3-2 Summary of Operating Data during the Test Periods 3-6
6-1 Summary of Equipment Calibrated in Performing Source Sampling
at the Mid-Connecticut MWC 6-2
lmo/034
-------
1.0 PROJECT OVERVIEW
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published in the Federal,
Register (52 FR 25399) an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to regulate
new municipal waste combustors (MtfC) under Section lll(b) of the Clean Air Act
and to regulate one or more designated pollutants (pollutants not regulated
under Sections 100-108 or 112), thus invoking Section lll(d) of the Subpart B
regulations. This action requires EPA to issue existing source guidelines.
Development by States of specific emission standards for existing municipal
waste combustors and development of new source performance standards for new
or modified MWCs would follow. The schedule for regulation calls for proposal
of new source standards and issuance of draft emission guidelines for existing
sources in November 1989. Promulgation of new source standards and
finalization of emission guidelines in December 1990 will follow.
The Emission Standards Division of the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards (OAQPS) is responsible for developing the technical basis for
the MWC regulations. One of the key activities in this process involves
reviewing the existing MWC emission data base, identifying gaps in the
existing data base, and generating additional information to fill any existing
data gaps. As a result, several MWC emissions tests have been performed and
several others are in the planning stages. The data gathered from these tests
will supplement the existing data base and will support regulatory
development. The four classes of air pollutants included in this study are:
criteria pollutants, organics (including chlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins [CDD]
and chlorinated dibenzofurans [CDF]), heavy metals, and acid gases.
1.2 BACKGROUND
The Mid-Connecticut Resource Recovery Facility was required by the
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection to conduct a compliance
test program to measure controlled particulate, CDD/CDF, and metals emissions
lmo/057 1-1
-------
from their three state-of-the-art refuse-derived fuel (RDF) combustor systems.
Process data were also collected as part of the compliance test program.
Limited emissions data (uncontrolled or controlled) are currently
available for state-of-the-art RDF facilities under normal operating
conditions. Thus, in order to provide data to evaluate the CDD/CDF, metals
and particulate removal efficiency of the spray dryer/fabric filter (SD/FF)
emission control system, the Mid-Connecticut facility and EPA agreed to
jointly sponsor an expanded program during the compliance test period. The
Mid-Connecticut facility sponsored measurements of the controlled emissions
that were performed by TRC, Inc. The EPA sponsored measurements that were
performed by Radian Corporation of the uncontrolled emissions prior to the
spray dryer. The test program was conducted during July 12-16, 1988.
This report combines the uncontrolled and controlled emission results
into a summary report. Detailed emission test reports were prepared
SJ
2
separately for the EPA-sponsored uncontrolled emissions results and the
controlled emissions results measured by TRC, Inc.
1.3 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
The specific objectives of the Mid-Connecticut test program were:
1. To determine the level of uncontrolled MWC emissions, including
CDD/CDF, metals, and particulate from a state-of-the-art RDF
facility.
2. To determine the control efficiency of a spray dryer/fabric filter
(SD/FF) system for CDD/CDF, metals, and particulate over the normal
operating range of the combustor.
1.4 BRIEF PROCESS DESCRIPTION
Figure 1-1 is a process diagram of one of the three combustor systems at
the Mid-Connecticut facility. The three units are designated #11, #12, and
#13. Each combustor is designed to burn a maximum of 675 tons per day (TPD)
of RDF or 236 TPD of coal and to produce 231,000 Ib/hr of steam on RDF and
192,000 Ib/hr steam on coal. After the combustion gases pass through
lmo/057 1-2
-------
Economlzaf
RDF
Combination
Distributor*
Front \
O.F.A.>»C;
Dry
Scrubber
/
•J . fc-
n
Bag
r
•MM**
,
J l_
J (_
Combustor
I.O.
Stack
Figure 1-1. Mid-Connecticut Facility Layout
-------
superheater and economizer sections, the cooled gases pass through a spray
dryer and fabric filter and exit through the stack. During this test program,
sampling was conducted at Unit #11 and 100 percent RDF was fired.
1.5 TEST PROGRAM
The test program was conducted over the period of July 12 to July 16,
1988 on Unit #11. CDD/CDF sampling was conducted on July 12 and 13. Mercury
sampling by EPA Method 101A was conducted on July 14 and toxic metals sampling
was conducted on July 15. The sampling log is summarized in Table 1-1.
There was a leak in the sampling collection system during inlet CDD/CDF
Run 2. The flue gas volume was adjusted by eight percent based on a final
leakrate of 0.2 cfm.
The measured flue gas moisture content was used as another estimate of
the amount of leakage. The moisture value for Run 2 agreed with Run 3
indicating that the leak was small.
During the metals/particulate Run 3, the sampling period included a
sootblowing cycle. Thus, the uncontrolled particulate and uncontrolled metals
results for this run are expected to be higher than those from Runs 1 and 2.
The sampling and analytical procedures used for this test program are
summarized in Table 1-2. The target CDD/CDF congeners for the flue gas
analyses are listed in Table 1-3.
1.6 ORGANIZATION
Mr. Mike Johnston of OAQPS and Dr. Ted Brna of the Air and Energy
Engineering Research Laboratory (AEERL) were the EPA program coordinators.
Mr. Gene Riley, of OAQPS, was the EPA Task Coordinator responsible for
coordinating Radian Corporation's efforts. Mr. Winton Kelly was the Radian
on-site field team leader. The test program coordinators were responsible for
lmo/057 1-4
-------
TABLE 1-1. SUMMARY OF SAMPLING LOG FOR TESTING AT THE
MID-CONNECTICUT RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY
Date
Run
Parameter
Measured
Sampling.
Period
Notes
7/12/88
7/13/88
7/13/88
7/14/88
7/14/88
7/14/88
7/15/88
7/15/88
3
1
2
3
1
2
CDD/CDF
CDD/CDF
CDD/CDF
Mercury
Mercury
Mercury
Particulate.
Toxic Metals
Particulate.
Toxic Metals
I 11:50-14:48
0 10:02-14:04
I 9:44-12:53
0 9:13-12:29
I 15:12-18:08
0 14:16-17:33
I 9:44-11:57
0 9:44-11:49
I 13:34-15:48
0 13:33-15:39
I 16:49-19:04
0 16:43-18:48
I 10:00-11:30
0 10:02-11:16
I 12:34-14:05
0 12:33-13:48
Uncontrolled CDD/CDF train
had a leak in transfer
line after Port E.
7/15/88
3
Particulate.
Toxic Metals
I
0
15:14-16:46
15:13-16:29
The sampling period
included a sootblowing
cycle from 15:25-16:07.
al - inlet; 0 - outlet.
The uncontrolled flue gas was sampled according to the draft EMSL metals
method which has 16 target metals. The controlled flue gas was sampled
according to a 'combination of EPA Methods 12 (lead) and 108 (arsenic).
The controlled samples were analyzed for lead, mercury, arsenic, nickel,
and chromium.
lmo/057
1-5
-------
TABLE 1-2. SUMMARY OF SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
FOR THE MID-CONNECTICUT TEST PROGRAM
Parameter
Sampling Method
Analytical Method
CDD/CDF
Mercury
Particulate/
•Metals
NO
CO
Moisture
Volumetric
Flowrate
Fixed Gases
(02, C02,
Environmental Standards
tfovksUuu Protocol
(December 1984 Draft)
EPA Method 101A
Draft EMSL Method (inlet)
EPA Methods 12 and 108 (outlet)
EPA Method 7E
EPA Method 10
EPA Method 4
EPA Methods 1 and 2
EPA Method 3 and 3A
High Resolution GC/MS
Cold Vapor AA
Draft EMSL Methodb
Atomic Adsorption
Chemiluminescent gas
analyzer
Nondispersive infrared
gas analyzer
Orsat, paramagnetic (0.)
infrared (O>2)
target metals are Ag, As, Ba, Be, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Mn, Ni, P, Pb, Sb, Se, II,
Zn.
Analytical Methods for uncontrolled samples:
Graphite furnace atomic absorption (GF AA): Ag, As, Pb, Se
Inductively coupled argon plasma emission spectroscopy (ICPES):
Ba, Cd, Cr, Cu, Mn, Ni, P, Sb, Tl, Zn, Be
Cold Vapor Atomic Adsorption Spectroscopy (CV AAS): Hg
Controlled samples were analyzed for As, Cr, Hg, Ni, Pb.
The fixed gases (0_, CO. and N9) samples were collected and analyzed by
TRC, Inc. * i' *
lmo/057
1-6
-------
TABLE 1-3.. TARGET CDD/CDF CONGENERS FOR THE MID-CONNECTICUT TEST PROGRAM
DIOXINS
Total trichlorinated dibenzo-p-dloxins (TrCDD)a
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 PeCDD)
Total pentachlorlnated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PeCDD)
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 dibenzQ-p-dioxins (OCDD)
FURANS
Total trichlorinated dibenzofurans (TrCDF)a
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 PeCDF)
2,3,4,7,8 pentachlorodibenzofuran (2,3,4,7,8 PeCDF)
Total pentachlorinated dibenzofurans (PeCDF)
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)
aThe controlled samples were not analyzed for trichlorinated CDD/CDF.
lmo/034
1-7
-------
coordinating the overall test program with the plant officials and ensuring
that the process and control equipment operating conditions were suitable for
testing.
1.7 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)
Thevtest program was designed and executed with emphasis on completeness
and data quality. A comprehensive QA/QC program was an integral part of
Radian's test program. The goal of the QA/QC effort was to ensure that the
data collected were of known precision and accuracy and that they were
complete, representative and comparable. Data comparability was achieved by
using standard units of measure as specified by the methods.
In addition to Radian's internal QC program, two independent CDD/CDF
audit samples prepared by EMSL were submitted for analysis along with the flue
gas samples. These results are presented in Reference 3.
1.8 DESCRIPTION OF REPORT SECTIONS
The remaining sections of this volume are organized as follows:
Section 2.0 - Summary of Results
Section 3.0 - Process Description and Operation
Section 4.0 - Sampling Locations
Section 5.0 - Sampling and Analytical Procedures
Section 6.0 - Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Section 7.0 - References
Section 8.0 • Metrie-to-English Conversion Table
The supporting data and calculations for this summary report are contained in
3 4
the emission test reports for the inlet and outlet. The emission test
reports include appendices containing field data sheets, analytical reports,
calculations and other related information.
lmo/057 1-8
-------
2.0 SUMMARY OF RESULTS
The results of the flue gas sampling at the Mid-Connecticut MWC are
presented in this section. English and metric units are used to present the
results. 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 preferable for reporting the
relatively low concentrations that were measured. The flue gas concentrations
are presented on a dry basis. For the reader's convenience, a Metric-to-
English table is included in Section 8.0.
A summary of the CDD/CDF, metals, particulate and operating data is
presented in Table 2-1. The average total tetra- through octa-chlorinated
uncontrolled dioxins concentration was 328 ng/dscm @ 12% C0« and the average
total tetra- through octa-chlorinated uncontrolled furans concentration was
668 ng/dscm @ 12% CO.. The average 2378-TCDD toxic equivalency concentration
was 11.8 ng/dscm <§ 12% CO..
For the controlled flue gas, 2378-TCDD and 2378-TCDF were not detected.
The minimum detection limit was 3 picograms for 2378-TCDD and 9 picograms for
2378-TCDF. The average total tetra- through octa- chlorinated controlled
CDD/CDF concentration was 0.646 ng/dscm adjusted to 12 percent CO.. The
average control efficiency was 99.94 percent.
The average uncontrolled particulate loading for Runs 1 and 2 was 2.409
grains/dscf @ 12% CO.. Run 3 included a sootblowing cycle and the particulate
loading was measured at 4.778 grains/dscf @ 12% CO.. The average controlled
particulate loading was 0.0040 grains/dscf adjusted to 12 percent CO.. The
average control efficiency was 99.85 percent.
For the metals, lead and zinc were measured at the highest concentrations
in the uncontrolled flue gas. The average uncontrolled lead concentration was
35,974 ug/dscm @ 12% CO, and the average uncontrolled zinc concentration was
- - A - - . -- . _ .
lmo/057 2-1
-------
TABLE 2-1. SUMMARY OF MID-Cu»«aCrICira Mac RESULTS v
Parameter
Steam load (10* Ib/hr) 7/13/88
7/14/88
7/13/88
Flue GAS CDD /CDF Concentration
(n*/d*cm « 12Z COj)
237B-TCDD
Total tetra-octa CDD
2378-TCDF
Total tetra-octa CDF
Total tetra-octa CDD t CDF
2378-TCDO Toxic Equivalent*
Partieulate Loading
(mc/dacm « 12Z C02)
(cr/d*cf « 12Z C02)
Flue Ga* Metal* Concentration
(ua/daem C 12Z COJ
Antimony
Araenia
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Total Chromium
Copper
Lead
Mangane**
Mercury (DSL Mathod)
Mercury (KPA Method 101A)h
Hickel
Phoaphorua
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Run 1
204
203
222
Run 1
1.96
366
16.0
893
1239
14.3
3.872
2.363
2,989
1.234
1.223
[174]
839
920
2.302
41.694
3,032
802
329
360
23.048
[13.3]
17.2
[14.0]
43.438
Run 2
Run 3
198 197
193 211
207 202
Uncontrolled
Run 2 Run 3
1.34 2.11
239
11.2
344
783
9.36
3,134
2.232
2,763
808
223
[117]
1,196
863
2.630
30,234
4.662
1,138
1.163
481
29,486
[14.3]
20.8
[14.6]
31,423
378
10.8
368
946
11.4
10,926°
4.778°
jaf
RR
HR
HR
n
HR
HR
HR
HR
HR
1,031
RR
HR
HR
RR
HR
HR
Average
Average
1.81
328
12.7
668
996
11.8
3,313d
2.409°
2,876
1.021
723
[146]
1,027
892
2,466
33,974
3,837
970
843
320
27,267
[13.9]
19.0
[14.3]
47,441
Run 1
[0.002]
0.603
0.028
0.769
1.37
0.0044
4.66
0.0021
[4.9]
--
.—
—
111
~
[9.9]
—
126
439
—
—
—
—
~
Cont rolled
Run 2 Run 3
[0.002]* [0.004]
0.207
[0.014]
0.337
0.364
0.0007
9.33
0.0041
[3.9]
—
. —
—
198]
—
[9.1]
—
3.3
434
' —
—
—
—
—
[0.01]
[0.003]
[0.003]
[0.01]
0.0
13.3
0.0039
[0.63]
~
—
—
[49]
—
[14]
—
16
[333]
~
—
~
—
--
Average
[0.003]
0.271
[0.009]
0.373
0.646
0.0017
9.10
0.0040
[3.8]
—
—
~
[86]
—
[11]
~
49
409
~
—
~
—
™
*O»/CDr •aoplea were colleeted on 7/12/88 for Run 1 and on 7/13/88 for Rune 2 and 3. Standard condition* are 68°F
and 1 ataj.
Particulate loadint aaoplai vere collected on 7/13/88 for all throe run*.
CThe aanpllns interval for paniculate/EMSL oetal Run 3 included a aootblovine, cycle.
The uncontrolled partieulate and metal* average* are for Run* 1 and 2 only.
*BKSL aetal* «ag»j>le* were collected on 7/13/88 In the Mae train a* the partieulate aaoplea.
Nk m not reported.
*Value« in bracket* ax* iff*"«""s detection limit* for eeeaound* that wen not detected. For ealeulational purpoie*,
not detected compound* are eenaiderd aeroa.
hth* KPA Method 101A mereury *aBple* war* collected on 7/14/88. -
2-2
lmo/037
-------
47,441 ug/dscm @ 12% CO.. Metals that were found to be below detection limits
in the uncontrolled flue gas were beryllium, selenium and thallium.
Of the five metals measured in the controlled flue gas: arsenic,
chromium, lead, mercury, and nickel, the nickel concentration was the highest
at 409 ug/dscm adjusted to 12 percent CO.. The average controlled mercury
concentration was 49 ug/dscm adjusted to 12 percent CO. and arsenic, chromium,
and lead were measured below detection limits.
The control device was most efficient at removing lead at 99.97 percent,
followed by arsenic at 99.36 percent, chromium at 86.36 percent and mercury at
93.45 percent. The control device was least efficient at removing nickel; the
average nickel removal efficiency was 4.14 percent.
2.1 CDD/CDF RESULTS
The uncontrolled and controlled CDD/CDF results are summarized with the
sampling parameters in Table 2-2. The results for the individual congeners
and the 2,3,7,8-TCDD toxic equivalents adjusted to 12 percent CO. are
presented in Table 2-3 for the uncontrolled flue gas and in Table 2-4 in the
controlled flue gas. The totals represent the sum of just the tetra- through
octa-chlorinated homologues. Not detected values are considered zero for
calculating averages, totals and toxic equivalents.
The uncontrolled flue gas samples were analyzed as front half and back
half fractions. The front half fraction includes the probe rinse, filter and
front half of the filter housing. The back half fraction includes the coil
condenser, XAD trap, teflon transfer line, impingers and back half of the
filter housing. The uncontrolled results for the front half and back half
fractions that are not adjusted to -12 percent CO. are presented in Table 2-5.
The controlled results that are not adjusted to 12 percent CO. are presented
in Table 2-6.
lmo/057 2-3
-------
TABLE 2-2. SIMURV OF COO/CDF EMISSIONS FOR THB MD-OOHHECTICUT MIC
NJ
i
Run Me.
Flue Gas Characteristics
VoUsM (as sampled (dsef)
Flue gas flow rat* (dsgfsi)
Flue (as temperature ( F)
Moisture (percent by velusw)
Isoklnetlea (percent) fc
00. (percent by voluBe, dryj
0, (percent by voluae, dry)
Process Ooeratlons
Steasi lead (10J Ib/hr)
CDD Remits*
Total CDD (nc/dsoB)
Total CDD (corrected
to 121 CO.. ns/daoB)
Control Efficiency (I)
CDF Results8
Total CDF (nc/dsoB)
Total CDF (corrected
to 121 CO., ns/dsoB)
Control Efficiency (S)
Total CDD/CPF Results8
Total CDD/CDF (ai/daea)
Total CDD/CDF (corrected
to 121 CO.. nc/dscB)
Control Efficiency (S)
2178-TCOD Tonic Equivalent*
(n|/dace> ( 121 CO.)
2
Run 1
(7-12-M)
111 50-1*1 41 10i02-14i04
Uncontrolled Controlled
62.2
•7.777
Ml
16.2
101.0
9.7
•.•
201
296
166
99.
722
•91
99.
101«
1239
99.
14.5
M.I
99.100
241
17.9
106.1
9.7
'••
Run 2
(7-11-M)
9t44-12iSl 9ill-12>29
uncontrolled Controlled
37.3'
•1.177
379
12.3
99.6
10.2
9.6
•3.7
97.000
219
17.4
101.1
10.1
9.7
.6 197.9
0.489
0.603
•1
0.621
0.769
91
1.11
1.17
•9
0.0044
201
219
99.
461
344
99.
666
7iJ
99.
9.16
0.174
0.207
91
0.101
0.137
91
0.475
0.364
91
0.0007
Run 1
(7-11-M)
uncontrolled Controlled
60.0
M.2B7
184
11.0
99.9
9.4
10.2
•1.6
100.000
241
16. •
102.4
9.4
10.1
198.6
296
178
99.
443
3M
99.
741
946
99.
11.4
HD (0.01)'
HD (0.01)
99
HD 10.003)
HD (0.003)
99
HD (0.01)
HD (0.01)
99
<0.0217
*Metrlc-to-Cn«U«h convertlon factor* are In Section (.0. Standard condition* ere 69°f and 1 atai.
These values are averasea ef data taken over the •upline period. Inlet value* vere collected according te EPA Hethod 1 with Orsat
analyal*. Outlet values are fro*) CEM data. Saepllnt and analysis was perfoned by TRC. Inc.
CDD/CDF re*ult* are adjusted for Internal standard recoveries and aeople blank remits. Totals are for tetra- through octa-
honolo(ues.
Toxic equivalency factors developed by the U.S. EPA.
*The flue e,a* sample volune we* reduced by S.02 d*ef due to a leak In the teflon transfer line during Port E.
( ) Indicate* Minima detection llnlt.
law/057
-------
TABLE 2-3. UNCONTROLLED CDD/CDF FLUE CAS COHONTRAIIOHS ADJUSTED TO 12 FSRCEHT CO. FOR THE MID-COHNECTICUT HUC
iijummii
Dionns
Mono-COD
Dl-CDD
Trl-a»
2378 TOO
Other TCDO
1237* POO
Other KDO
123*71 taCDO
123678 tttCDB
123789 BcCBD
Other HaCDD
123*678-BpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Oota-CDD
TOTAL CBO*
FORAN8
Mono-CDF
Ol-CDT
Tri-coF
2378 ICOr
Other TCDP
12378 PCDT
23*78 PCDT
Other POT
123*78 bCDT
123678 bDCT
23*678 BsCDT
123789 BMCDt
Other BBfi&r
123*678-HpCDr
123*789-flpd>r
Other Bepta-CDF
Oeta-CDP
TOTAL cor"
TOTAL CDD+CW*
(ni/dsc*
HOT i
[0.09JJd
0.903
10.3
1.96
9*. 9
9.*3
69.7
*.89
7.49
6.*1
8*.l
»«.*
38.0
*6.7
366
(0.099)
7.*2
117
16.0
313
2*.l
27.2
219
36.0
18.2
2*. 7
l.*8
113
32.9
6.29
27.7
1*.0
8*3
1299
CONCENTRATION
, adjusted to 12 paceaac 00.)
ROT 2° ROB 3 AVUUBS
(0.036]
(0.106]
8.2*
1.3*
20.9
*.01
39.3
3.71
9.32
7.39
*8.9
39.8
28.3
48.1
239
(0.039]
[0.168]
170
11.2
172
12.2
19.9
116 •
28.8
19.0
18.8
1.43
69.9
47.9
9.26
23.9
11.4
9*4
783
[0.096]
(0.267J
[*-89]
2.11
38.4
9.18
46.2
6.79
8.13
11.6
7*. 7
62.6
*8.2
7*.*
378
[0.079]
[0.»S*J
90.9
10.8
206
12.3
22.0
179
[32.2]
(".»)
[28.3]
0.869
11.8
63.7
9.22
38.7
17.6
968
9*6
0.0
0.168
6.19
1.81
38.0
*.87
90.9
9.12
6.98
a.**
69.2
*8.3
38.2
96.4
328
0.0
2.»7
113
12.7
230
16.2
21.7
170
21.6
11.1
1*.9
1.26
63.4
94.7
6.92
30.0
14.}
668 .
996
2378-TCDD
Toato
Equivalency
Factor
0
0
0
1.0
0.01
0.900
0.009
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.0004
0.001
0.00001
0
_..-.
0
0
0
0.100
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 TOXIC BQOXVALEHCtES
(BB/daeB, adjuatad to 12 percent O>2)
ROB i HOT 2° nm 3 AVDUCI
0
0
0
1.96
0.949
2.71
0.349
0.194
0.300
0.296
0.034
0.046
0.000
0
0
0
0
1.60
0.313
2.41
2.72
0.219
0.360
0.182
0.247
0.019
0.011
0.093
0.006
0.000
0
14.9
0
0
0
1.3*
0.209
2.01
0.177
0.1*9
0.213
0.29*
0.020
0.036
0.000
0
0
0
0
1.12
0.172
1.22
1.99
0.116
0.288
0.190
0.188
0.01*
0.007
0.0*7
0.009
0.000
0
9.36
0
0
0
2.11
0.38*
2.39
0.231
0.272
0.329
0.462
0.030
0.063
0.000
0
0
0
0
1.08
0.206
1.23
2.20
0.179
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.009
0.001
0.06*
0.009
0.000
0
11.*
0
0
0
1.81
0.380
2.4*
0.292
0.209
0.279
0.338
0.028
0.0*8
0.000
0
0
0
0
1.27
0.230
1.62
2.17
0.170
0.216
0.111
0.1*3
0.013
0.006
0.099
0.007
0.000
0
11.8
'Standard condition* an 68°F and 1 ata.
bTosle equivalency factor* developed by U.S. DA.
°Avera«e of dta?llcata analyse*. The flue gaa leapl* valua* vaa reduced by 9.02 daef due to a leak In the teflon
transfer line durln* Poet B.
O - aunlaui detection IKUt (MIL). () - eatla»tad
considered seroa for calculatlonal purpose*.
'Totals are for tetra- through octa- hoaDlogues.
Ion/097
> possible concentration (EKFC). ML* and EKPCs are
2-5
-------
TABLE 2-4.
CONTROLLED CDD/CDP FLOE GAS CONCENTRATIONS ADJUSTED TO 12 PERCENT 00. FOR THE MID-CONNECTICUT MWC
Congener
DXOKXHS
Moao-CDD
Dl-CDD
Trl-CDD
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Otter PCDO
123478 HsCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Otter BsCDD
1234678-BpCDD
Otter Bepta-CDD
Oeta-CDD
iWAf vcnn*
1UUU« Jrl«M/
FDRAHS
Mono-CDT
Di-CDF
Trl-CDF
2378 TCDF
Otter TCDF
12378 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Otter PCDF
123478 HxCDF
123678 HxDCT
234678 HxCDF
123789 HxCDF
Otter HxCDF
1234678-HpCDF
1234789-HpCDF
Otter Hepta-CDF
Oota-CDF
TOTAL PCDF*
TOTAL PCDD+PCDF
(ns/dsom.
Run 1
HRC
HR
«,
[0.002]°
0.022
[0.016]
[0.167]
[0.021]
(0.020)
[0.026]
0.074
0.160
0.350
[0.220]
0*n«
• DUeT
HR
tOL
HR
0.028
0.339
[0.010]
[0.039]
0.190
0.060
[0.007]
[0.015]
[0.019]
0.132
[0.088]
[0.042]
[0.105]
[0.144]
0.769
1.37
OOMCEHTfU
adjusted
Rim 2
nt
HR
nt
[0.002]
[0.003]
[0.005]
[0.005]
[0.004]
[0.004]
[0.005]
0.026
0.091
0.091
[0.160]
09(17
. AU/
nt
nt
nt
[0.014]
0.119
[0.004]
[0.004]
0.050
0.033
[0.002]
[0.002]
[0.004]
0.036
0.055
[0.006]
0.065
[0.015]
0.357
0.564
kTIOH*
to 12 p«r
Run 3
nt
nt
nt
[0.004]
[0.015]
[0.028]
[0.028]
[0.031]
[0.029]
[0.037]
[0.032]
[0.147]
[0.147]
[0.366]
Onno
• uwu
nt
HR
nt
[0.003]
[0.009]
[0.018]
[0.018]
[0.018]
[0.015]
[0.015]
[0.018]
[0.024]
[0.018]
[0.047]
[0.069]
[0.055]
[0.368]
0.000
0.000
cent CO.)
Average
nt
nt
HR
0.000
0.007
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.033
0.084
0.147
0.000
0971
• */*
nt
nt
nt
0.009
0.159
0.000
0.000
0.080
0.031
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.056
0.018
0.000
0.022
0.000
0.375
0.646
2378-TCDDb 2378 TOXIC EQUIVALENCIES
Toxic
Equivalency
-------
TABU 2-5. OBCOHTROLUD COO/COP FLUB GAS COICBHTAIIOHS FOR IBB Mm-COHHBCTICOI MIC
N>
I
an i
OOKBBnUTIH (n*7d*oa>. a* measured)
nun 2 A RUM 3
AVERAGE
OQMGEHER
Dianas
Mooo-CDD
Dl-CDD
Trl-CDD
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 BrfDD
123678 BxCDD
123789 BcCOD
Other BxCDD
1234678-BpCDD
Other Bepta-CDD
Oota-CDD
TOTAL COD*
FURAHS
Mono-CDF
Dl-CDP
Trl-CDF
2378 TCDP
Other TCDP
12376 PCDF
23478 PCDF
Other PCDF
123478 BlCDF
123676 BxDCF
234676 BxCDF
123769 BsCDP
Other BxCDF
1234678-HpCDP
1234789-BpCDP
Other Bepta-CDF
Oeta-CDF
TOTAL CDF*
TOTAL CDO4CDP*
'standard condition
k
Front Balf
(0.075)°
0.407
7.04
1.59
38.3
4.14
51.2
3.75
6.06
4.70
64.3
35.7
28.8
34.8
273
(0.048)
5.99
83.1
12.4
223
18.6
20.2
154
25.3
13.4
17.2
1.19
73.6
38.3
4.56
20.4
11.3
637
911
• are 68°F i
Back Bal<
(0.129)
(0.150)
1.31
(0.031)
6.06
0.247
5.19
0.171V
'(0.279)
0.479
3.68
1.80
1.92
3.00
22.6
(0.107)
(0.308)
11.3
0.538
27.7
0.854
1.73
23.3
3.73
1.31
2.78
(0.174)
13.6
4.46
0.523
2.02
(1.138)
84.8
107
md 1 at*.
TOTAL
(0.073)
0.407
6.35
1.59
44.4
4.39
56.4
3.92
6.06
3.18
68.0
37.5
30.7
37.6
296
(0.048) .
5.99
94.4
12.9
253
19.3
22.0
177
29.1
14.7
20.0
1.19
91.3
42.6
5.09
22.4
11.3
722
1018
The value*
Front Balfb Back B«lfb
(0.031)
(0.090)
7.00
1.14
17.7
3.41
30.1
3.16
4.52
6.25
41.5
30.0
23.5
39.1
200
(0.033)
(0.143)
143
9.33
146
10.3
13.5
96.2
24.4
12.7
16.0
1.22
35.5
40.2
4.47
19.9
9.69
462
662
presented
(0.100)
(0.290)
(0.585)
(0.013)
0.017
(0.269)
(0.269)
(0.285)
(0.282)
(0.340)
(2.699)
0.463
0.541
1.81
2.63
(0.103)
(0.455)
(0.171)
(0.011)
0.131
(0.160)
(0.171)
0.104
0.040
(0.156)
0.037
(0.273)
0.223
0.178
(0.361)
0.037
(0.358)
0.752
3.58
la this table
TOTAL
(0.031)
(0.090)
?.oo
1.14
17.7
3.41
30.1
3.16
4.32
6.25
41.5
30.3
24.0
40.9
203
(0.033)
(0.143)
143
9.33
146
10.
13.
98.
24.
12.
16.
1.22
35.7
40.4
4.47
20.0
9.69
461
666
have not
Front Balf
(0.075)
(0.209)
(3.83)
1.65
30.0
4.06
36.2
3.32
6.37
9.03
38.5
49.0
37.7
38.3
296
(0.062)
(0.340)
39.9
8.47
161
9.63
17.2
137
(25.2)
(13.8)
(22.2)
0.681
9.16
49.8
7.22
30.2
13.6
444 '
740
been adjusted
Back Balf
(0.041)
(0.115)
(0.167)
(0.006)
(0.045)
(0.075)
(0.075)
(0.063)
(0.036)
(0.073)
(0.096)
(0.088)
(0.088)
(0.204)
0.00
(0.040)
(0.218)
(0.118)
0.024
0.273
(0.053)
(0.039)
(0.186)
(0.012)
(0.026)
(0.043)
(0.030)
0.071
0.096
(0.068)
0.116
(0.112)
0.380
0.580
to a standard
TOTAL
(0.075)
(0.209)
(3.634)
1.65
30.0
4.06
36.2
5.32
6.37
9.05
56.5
49.0
37.7
58.3
296
(0.062)
(0.340)
39.9
8.49
162
9.63
17.2
137
(25.2)
(13.8)
(22.1)
0.681
9.24
49.9
7.22
30.3
13.6
445
741
Front Balf Back Balf TOTAL
HD* HD
0.136
4.68
1.46
28.7
3.87
39.2
4.08
5.65
6.67
54.6
38.2
30.0
44.0
257
HD
2.00
89.3
10.1
177
12.9
17.0
130
16.6
8.72
11.1
1.03
46.8
42.8
5.42
23.3
11.6
314
771
CO concent rat Ion
HD
0.436
HD
2.03
0.082
1.73
0.037
HD
0.160
1.23
0.735
0.822
1.60
8.46
HD
HD
3.76
0.187
9.37
0.283
0.578
7.87
1.26
0.436
0.941
HD
5.30
1.58
0.174
0.726
HD
28.7
37.2
(I.e.. 12X
HD
0.136
3.12
1.46
30.7
3.95
40.9
4.13
3.65
6.83
56.0
39.0
30.8
43.6
265
HD
2.00
93.1
10.3
187
13.2
17.6
137
17.8
9.16
12.0
1.03
32.1
44.4
5.59
24 12
11.6
543
808
CO,).
Average of duplicate aoaljreea. The flue sea laapla voluM We* reduced by 5.02 d*ef due to a leak In the teflon transfer during Port B.
(] ~ •Inlauei detection llalt (M>L). () • eetlaeted ataMlau* poselble concentration (EMPC). M>La and EMPC* are considered caro* for celculatlonal purpose*.
d
ND - not detected.
Total* are for tetra- through octa- bomologue*.
lao/057
-------
TABLE 2-6. CONTROLLED CDD/CDF FLUE GAS CONCENTRATIONS
FOR THE MID-CONNECTICUT MtfC
CONGENER
FURANS
Mono-CDF
Di-CDF
Trl-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 Hepta-CDF
Oeta-CDF
TOTAL PCDF*
TOTAL PCDD+PCDF*
Run 1
CONCENTRATION*
(ng/dscm, as measured)
Run 2 Run 3
Average
DIOXINS
Mono-CDD
Dl-CDD
Trl-COD
2378 TCDD
Other TCDD
12378 PCDD
Other PCDD
123478 HxCDD
123678 HxCDD
123789 HxCDD
Other HxCDD
1234678 -HpCDD
Other Hepta-CDD
Octa-CDD
TOTAL PCDD*
X
NR°
NR
NR
[0.002]C
0.018
[0.013]
[0.135]
[0.017]
[0.016]
[0.021]
0.060
0.129
0.283
[0.178]
0.489
NR
NR
NR
[0.002]
[0.004]
[0.004]
[0.004]
[0.003]
[0.003]
[0.004]
0.022
0.076
0.076
[0.135]
0.174
NR
NR
NR
[0.003]
[0.012]
[0.022]
[0.022]
[0.024]
[0.023]
[0.029]
[0.025]
[0.115]
[0.115]
[0.443]
0.00
NR
NR
NR.
NDd
0.006
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
0.027
0.069
0.120
ND
0.221
NR
NR
NR
0.022
0.290
[0.008]
[0.048]
0.154
0.048
[0.006]
[0.012]
[0.015]
0.107
[0.071]
[0.034]
[0.085]
[0.116]
0.621
NR
NR
NR
[0.012]
0.100
[0.003]
[0.003]
0.042
0.027
[0.002]
[0.002]
[0.003]
0.030
0.046
[0.005]
0.054
[0.013]
0.301
0.475
NR
NR
NR
[0.002]
[0.007]
[0.014]
[0.014]
[0.014]
[0.012]
[0.012]
[0.014]
[0.019]
[0.014]
[0.037]
[0.054]
[0.043]
[0.288]
0.000
0.000
NR
- NR
NR
0.007
0.130
ND
ND
0.065
0.025
ND
ND
ND
0.046
0.015
ND
0.018
ND
0.307
0.529
aStandard conditions are 68 F and 1 atm. The results in this table have not
been adjusted to a standard CO, concentrations (i.e., 12% CO,).
v ^
NR - Not reported by TRC, Inc.
c[ ] indicates minimum detection limit (HDL). MDLs are considered zeros for
calculational purposes.
dND - Not detected.
*Totals are for tetra- through octa- homologues.
lmo/057
2-8
-------
Since Che controlled flue 6as contained little or no CDD/CDF, the control
efficiencies were high, rhe control efficiencies were calculated for each
individual tetra- through octa- chlorinated homologue which are presented in
Table 2-7. The control efficiencies ranged from 99.08 to 99.99 percent
indicating high removal efficiency for all congeners.
The CDD/CDF congener distributions were calculated for the uncontrolled
flue gas samples only since the controlled flue gas contained little or no
CDD/CDF. The distributions are based on mole fractions of each congener which
are plotted in a bar graph for easy comparison in Figure 2-1.
For the uncontrolled CDD congeners, about 50 percent of the congeners
were hexa, hepta, and octa-CDDs. For the uncontrolled CDF congeners, about
70% of the congeners were tri-, tetra- and penta-CDFs.
2.2 TOXIC METALS RESULTS
The uncontrolled toxic metals results adjusted to 12 percent CO. are
presented in Table 2-8. Results are presented only for Runs 1 and 2, because
the front half fraction of Run 3 was lost during analysis due to analyst
error. Lead, zinc, and phosphorus were found in the highest concentrations
while beryllium, selenium and thallium were found to be below detection
'limits.
The uncontrolled flue gas samples were analyzed as three fractions: 1)
the front half, 2) the first three impingers, and 3) the fourth impinger. The
first two fractions were analyzed for all sixteen metals and the third
fraction was analyzed for mercury only as specified in the method. The
results are presented for each fraction that are not adjusted to 12 percent
CO. in Table 2-9. Most of the metals were collected in the front half
fraction although mercury was measured in all three fractions.
Due to the configuration of the inlet sampling location, Port A was not
traversed and the first point of the remaining ports was moved in six inches
lmo/057 2-9
-------
UBLt 2-7. CDO/CDr COKEBTRATIOHS ARD CONTROL EFFICIEBCIBS FOR THI MID-COHHECTICOT HHC*
K>
M
O
,
RUB 1
Concentration (na;/d*OB, Reduction
adjueted to 121 002) Iff latency
OOHCEHn Uncontrolled Controlled (X)
OIOXIH8
Mono-CDD
Dl-CDD
Trl-COO
2J7« TCDO
Otter TCDO
12378 PCDO
Otter PCDO
123478 HxCDD
12)678 BxCDO
1237*9 HxCDO
Otter HxCDO
12)4*78-RpCDD
Otter Bepta-CDD
Oeta-CDD
TOTAL PCDD4
Mono-CDF
Dl-CDP
Trl-CDP
237« TCDF
Otter TCDF
12)78 PCDF
2)478 rear
otter rear
12)478 BxCDr
12)«78 B*DCr
2)4678 BxCDT
12)789 BsCDr
Otter HjtCDF
12)4678-BpCDr
12)4789-BpCDr
Otter Bepta-CDF
Oota-€0r
TOTAL PCDTd
TOTAL PCDD+rCDf*
(0.09»b
0.303
10.)
1.96
34.9
3.4)
•9.7
4.83
7.49
•.41
84.1
4*. 4
M.O
4*. 7
)*•
(0.0591
7.42
117
1».0
313
24.1
27.2
219
M.O
18.2
24.7
1.48
11)
32.9
•.29
27.7
14.0
•93
1259
«'
HR
181
(0.0021
0.022
(0.01*1
(0.1*71
(0.02t|
(0.0201
10.02*1
0.074
0.1*0
0.350
(0.2201
O.*05
HR
HR
HR
0.028
0.359
(0.010)
(0.059)
0.190
0.0*0
(0.007)
(0.015)
(0.019)
0.1)2
(O.OM)
(0.042)
(0.105)
(0.144)
0.7*9
l.)7
HR
HR
HR
99.99
99. M
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.91
99.45
99.08
99.99
99.8)
HR
HR
HR
99.8)
99.89
99.99
99.99
99.91
99.8)
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.88
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.91
99.89
ROB 2
Concent ration (nf/daca.
adjiuted to 121 002)
Uncontrolled Controlled
(O.OMP
(0.10*1
•.24
1.3*
20.9
4.01
35.3
3.71
5.32
7.33
a. •
)3.8
2*. 3
4*.l
2)9
(0.0)9]
(0.1*81
170
11.2
172
12.2
15.9
11*
28.8
15.0
1*.*
1.43
«3.5
47.5
5.2*
23.3
11.4
544
7.)
HR
HR
HR
(0.002)
(0.005)
(0.005)
(0.005)
(0.004)
(0.004)
(0.005)
0.02*
0.091
0.091
(0.1*0)
0.207
HR
HR
HR
(0.014)
0.119
(0.004)
(0.004)
0.030
0.0))
(0.002]
(0.0021
(0.004)
O.OM
0.035
(0.00*|
0.0*5
(0.015)
0.337
0.364
Reduction
tfflclencr
(X)
HR
m
HR
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.95
99.75
99.61
99.99
99.91
HR
HR
HR
99.99
99.9)
99.99
99.99
99.96
• 99. *9
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.94
99. M
99.99
99.72
99.99
99.9)
99.9)
RUB 3
Concentration (n*/d*oB. Reduction
adjusted to 12X CO2) Efficiency
Uncontrolled Controlled (I)
(0.096)
(0.267)
(4.194)
2.11
M.4
5.1*
46.2
6.79
•.13
11. •
74.7
*2.6
*«.2
74.4
"*
(0.079)
(0.434)
50.9
10.*
20*
12.)
22.0
175
(«.«
(17.7J
(2*.))
0.*69
11.*
6). 7
9.22
M.7
17. •
56*
94«
•ft
HR
HR
(0.004)
(0.013)
(0.02B)
(0.02*1
(0.0)11
(0.0291
(0.0)7)
(0.0)2)
(0.147|
10.147J
10.5**]
0.000
HR
HR
HR
(0.00))
(0.009)
(0.01I)
(0.01*|
(0.01*)
(0.013)
(0.013)
(0.01*)
(0.024)
(0.01*1
(0.047]
(0.0*9)
(0.055)
(O.M*)
0.000
0.000
HR
HR
HR
9».99
99.99
19.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
HR
HR
HR
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
HD*
BD
BD
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
Average
Reduction
Efficiency
(X)
HR
HR
HR.
99.99
99.98
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.99
99.95
99.80
99.58
99.99
99.92
HR
HR
HR
99.94
99.94
99.99
99.99
99.95
99.8*
99.99
99.99
19.99
19.94
99.95
91.99
91.90
99.99
99.95
99.94
"Standard condition* are M°r and 1 at..
() Indicate* minlmm detection limit (HDL). MDLa are considered caroa for caleulatlonal purpo*ea.
CHR • Hot reported by TEC, Inc.
Total* are for tetra- throufb oct*-hoe»loaue*.
*HD " Hot detected.
lno/057
-------
0.4 -
0.3 -
0.2 •
0.1 •
a
Average CDD • 328 ng/dscm * 12 % C02
Jft
In
?
<
f
c
(
<
A • C 0 I
0.4 •
0.3 •
0.2 •
0.1 •
*
*
^
M
X ^
*/
M .
"/
x ' *Y( ffiX £f\
7
t
t
/ IT
/ Jj
/ HJ
/ I/
/ B<
- 1
J
/
X
t
'
F Q H 1 J K L
K
l>
K
M
_^
* ^
«<
* *
* /
*'
*/
N
a
Average CDF • 668 ng/dscm * 12 % CO2
.
M
1
*
'
<
' vn
/
f
.
*
*
+
\
1
' B. i
^tfl
l-l PI
K,
; I
' K ** K E'
r
^
iB
-nl
R
fl
rf
HI
«.llliil CM
• •OMBO
D»Mr»4kae
J* IMTIMtMSO
RienvMae
i»im»m»m
M*ea«riiew
• •ixurce
f.OMS*
(•oaorTGBT
T'lt»Ti»lCO>
*• iis4ti nicer
l.ttMTMMBT
V'tMtTMMt?
2«1llT*Mli^V
M.ovvrnar
M.ttMtTMpaF
*** *
M*OtMr NCV
M*om»cv
O P 0 M • T U V W X Y ZAAABACADAI
•• HUN 1 gggl RUN 2 P73 "UN 3
Averages Include only tetra- through octa- homologues.
Figure 2-1. Distribution of uncontrolled CDD/CDF congeners
for the Mid-Connecticut MWC
2-11
-------
TABLE 2-8. UNCONTROLLED EHSL METALS CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FLUE GAS
ADJUSTED TO 12 PERCENT CO. FOR THE MID-CONNECTICUT MWC
DATE
TIME
RUN 1 RUN 2
7-15-88 7-15-88
10:00-11:30 12:34-14:05
RUN 3 AVERAGE
7-15-88
15:14-16:46
SAMPLING PARAMETERS:
Volume of flue gas sampled (dscm)
Flue gas flow rate (dscmm)
Flue gas temperature (F)
Moisture (percent by volume)
Isokinetics (percent)
CO- (percent by volume, dry)*
0. (percent by volume, dry)
0.890
2405
371
15.1
100.9
10.6
9.1
0.877
2360
373
15.8
101.5
10.3
9.4
0.886
2400
369
15.7
100.6
10.3
9.3
0.884
2390
371
15.5
'
10.4
9.3
CONCENTRATION IN THE FLUE GAS
(ug/dscm adjusted to 12% CO.)
PARAMETER
RUN 1
RUN 2
RUN 3
AVERAGE
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Total Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury (d)
Nickel
Phosphorus
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
2989
1234
1225
[174]
859
920
2302
41694
3052
802
560
25048
[13.5]
17.2
[14.0]
43458
2763
808
225
[117] ,
1196
863
2630
30254
4662
1138
481
29486
[14.3]
20.8
[14.6]
51423
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2876
1021
725
[146]
1027
892
2466
35974
3857
970
520
27267
[13.9]
19.0
[14.3]
47441
aC09 and 0, analysis by EPA Method 3 (Orsat) was performed by TRC, Inc.
b
NR- not reported.
Run 3 included a sootblowing cycle. The Run 3-Front half sample was lost during
analysis due to analyst error.
In calculating averages not detected compounds are considered zero. The average
is for Runs 1 and 2 only.
nercury results are for the EMSL metals train.
Into/057
2-12
-------
TABU 2-9. OHOORROLLED KMSL METALS COHCEnRATIOHS III THE ILOB CAS FOB THE MID-COHHECIICUT MHC
ro
i
DATE
TIME
SAMPLIBG PARAMETERS i
Volume of flu* ga* aamplad (dacm)
Flu* ga* flow rat* (d*c*n)
Flu* ga* temperature (F)
Molatur* (percent by volume)
laoklnetlc* (percent)
CO (percent by volume, dry)
O. (percent by volume, dry)
RUH 1
7/13/88
lOi 00-11 1 30
0.890
2403
371
15.1
100.9
10.6
9.1
RUH 1
PARAMETER
Antimony
Aramlo
Barium
Berylllua
Cadmium
Total Chrcmitmi
Copper
Lead
Mangan***
Mercury
Hlckel
Phoapboru*
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
lino
FROHT
HALF
2640
1090
1079
(154]
755
809
2034
36823
2694
584
494
22022
(2.70)
13
(12.4]
38377
IMPIHGERS
1. 2, t 3
(12.1]
[0.367]
3.16
(0.364]
3.39
3.52
(11.71
6.83
1.21
120
[2.67]
103
(11.9]
(0.016]
[3.71]
11.2
COH
IMPIBGBR K
4
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
4.25
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
TOTAL
2640
1090
1082
(154]
758
813
2034
36830
2696
709
494
22126
(11. »)
13.2
(12.4)
38388
CEHTRATIOI
FROHT
HALF
2372
693
187
(100]
1026
741
2258
25966
3943
789
413
23200
(2.74]
17.8
(12.31
39838
RUH 2
7/13/88
12i34-14i05
0.877
2360
373
13.8
101.5
10.3
9.4
1 IH FLUE GAS (ug/dao
RUH 2
IMPIBCERS
1. 2. t 3
(12.4]
0.662
5.86
[0.374]
[0.748]
[0.997]
(12.0)
1.53
38.6
183
(2.74)
109
(12.3)
0.027
(3.86)
4280
RUH 3
7/13/88
13il4-16t46
0.886
2400
369
15.7
100.6
10.3
9.3
B, dry bad*, aa neaaured)
RUH 3°
IMPIBGBR
4
HA
HA
HA
. HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
2.83
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
TOTAL
2372
694
193
(100)
1026
741
2258 •
25968
4002
977
413
23309
(12.3)
17.8
(12.5)
44138
FROHT
HALF
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
IMPIBCERS
1. 2, 1 3
(12.2)
(0.368]
2.79
[0.363]
[0.728]
[0.971]
(11.6)
2.93
0.607
129
(2.68]
108
(12.0)
[0.016]
[3.70]
6.33
IMPIKCER
4
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
4.27
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
HA
h
TOTAL
HC
HC
HC
HC
HC
BC
HC
HC
HC
HC
RC
HC
HC
RC
HC
HC
AVERAGE
0.884
2390
371
13.5
10.4
9.3
AVERAGBb'd
TOTAL
(Run* 112)
2506
892
637
0.00
892
777
2146
31399
3349
843
434
23717
0.00
16.3
0
41263
CO and O analyila by EPA Method 3 (O»at) v»« performed by TRC, Inc.
b
In calculating total* and average* not detected compound* are considered taro. Hot detected compound* are Indicated by bracket*.
Run 3 Included • aootblovlng cycle. The Run 3-Front half *a*pl* wa* loit during analyal* due to analyst error.
d
Average la for Run* 1 and 2 only.
HA • fraction not analysed for thla metal.
HC • total not calculated ilnce value* for the front half war* not available.
lmo/037
-------
during the uncontrolled toxic metals sampling. The relatively constant
velocity profile of the inlet duct indicated that the emission concentrations
measured are representative.
The controlled toxic metals results are presented in Table 2-10. The
controlled flue gas samples which were collected by TRC using EPA
Method 12/108, were analyzed for arsenic, chromium, lead and nickel only.
Nickel was found in the highest concentration with arsenic, chromium, and lead
at or below minimum detection limits.
2.3 MERCURY RESULTS BY EPA METHOD 101A
The uncontrolled mercury results by EPA Method 101A are presented in
Table 2-11. The concentration measured during Run 1 was about 30 percent of
Runs 2 and 3. Although not measured simultaneously, the uncontrolled mercury
results measured using the EMSL method and EPA Method 101A agree within about
10 percent, confirming that the EMSL metals results are valid.
The controlled mercury results determined by EPA Method 101A are
summarized in Table 2-12. The mercury concentration for Run 1 was higher than
Runs 2 and 3, which is not consistent with the uncontrolled mercury
concentrations.
2.4 TOXIC METALS MASS RATES AND CONTROL EFFICIENCIES
The mass rates and control efficiencies for arsenic, chromium, lead,
mercury and nickel are summarized in Table 2-13. Arsenic, chromium, lead and
nickel were measured simultaneously at the spray dryer inlet and baghouse
outlet on 7/15/88. The uncontrolled flue gas was sampled using the EPA draft
EMSL protocol, while the controlled flue gas was sampled using EPA Method
12/108. Mercury was sampled at both locations using EPA Method 101A on
7/14/88.
The average control efficiencies ranged from 99.97 percent for lead to
4.14 percent for nickel. The average control efficiencies for arsenic,
chromium and mercury were 99.36, 86.36 and 93.45 percent, respectively.
lmo/057 2-14
-------
TABLE 2-10. CONTROLLED METHOD 12/108 METALS CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FLUE GAS FOR THE MID-CONNECTICUT MWC
Run:
Date:
Time :
Sampling Parameters:
Volume of flue gas sampled (dscm)
Flue gas flow rate (dscmm)
Flue gas temperature (F)
Moisture (percent by volume)
Isokinetics (percent)
1* CO. (percent by volume, dry)
01 0- (percent by volume, dry)
Metals :
Arsenic
Total Chromium
Lead
Nickel
1
7/15/88
10:02-11:16
1.83
2,809
245
17.0
103.6
10.6
9.1
ug/dscm
ug/dscm @ 12% CO.
[4.4] [4.9]
98 111
[8.7] [9.9]
388 439
2
7/15/88
12:33-13:48
1.78
2,727
246
17.7
103.9
10.3
9.4
ug/dscm
ug/dscm @ 12% CO.
I
[5.0] [5.9]
[84] [98]
[7.9] ' [9.1]
390 454
3
7/15/88
15:13-16:29
1.78
2,767
247
17.7
102.5
10.3
9.3
ug/dscm
ug/dscm @ 12% CO.
[0.56] [0.65]
[42] [49]
[12] [14]
[287] [335]
Average
--
2,768
246
17.5
--
10.4
9.3
ug/dscm
ug/dscm @ 12% CO.
[3.3] [3.8]
[75] [86]
[9.5] [11]
355 409
Standard conditions are 68 F and 1 atm. Values In brackets are minimum detection limits for compounds that were
not detected. Not detected compounds are considered zeros for calculational purposes.
lmo/057
-------
TABLE 2-11. samaa or UHCOHTROLLED MERCURY RESULTS BY EPA METHOD IOIA FOR THE MID-COHIBCTICUT MUC*
SAMPLUB PARAMETERS
Volume of flu* (a* aanplad (d*cn)
Flu* -taa f lovrat* (daeoa)
Flue gaa tanparatura (F)
Molature (pareaat by voluM)
laoklMtlea (pareaat)
COj (pareaat by voluaa, dry)
O (pareaat by volum*, dry)
Run: RUH 1
Oatat 7/14/89
Tlaai 9:44-11:57
1.363
2431
369
14.9
101.2
10.0
9.7
RUH 2
7/14/89
13 1 34-13 1 48
1.328
2372
376
14.8
101.7
10.1
9.7 .
RUH 3
7/14/89
16: 49-19i 0*
1.323
2363
382
13.2
101.7
10.1
9.8
AVERAGE
—
2393
376
13.0
10.1
9.7.
PARAMETER ROM
MERCURY 01 267
02 979
03 884
AVERAGE 710
MEASURED CONCENTRATIOHS
S-SJ <-«-.
320 0.000117
1163 0.000428
1031 0.000386
845 0.000310
(tr/daef
•12X C02)
0.000140
f*
0.000308
0.000439
0.000369
(ppONf) .
0.0319
0.117
0.106
0.0849
EMISSION RATE
!12x"cO ) <«/hr> 2 and 02 analysis by EPA M*thod 3 (Oriat) waj parfoxMd by TRC, Inc.
effarr • part* per Billion by volvna, dry ba*l*.
2-16
lao/037
-------
TABLE 2-12. COHTROLLED MERCURY RESULTS BY METHOD 101A FOR THE MID-COHNECTICUT MWC (7/14/88)
Run
Data
Tin
ROB 1 ROH 2 RUB 3
7/14/88 7/14/88 7/14/88
9:44-11:49 13133-13i39 16t43-18:48
AVERAGE
SAMPLIBG PARAMETERS:
Volucn of flua fa* *aoplad (
-------
IABLK 1-1$. TCKJC KRALS MASS lATH AH> COnROL imCIBBUS
to
I
oo
MASS RATB (Ib/hr)
(fatal
Annie
ChraaliBi
Lead
tfarcuiy4
•lck«l
Uncontrolled
0.1*7
O.M9
11.7
O.OMS
0.137
lun I
Controlled
*rcury vere collected tulns ETA Method 12/10*.
lao/037
-------
2.5 PARTICULATE LOADING
The partlculate loading results are presented in table 2-14. The
uncontrolled particulate samples were collected in the same train as the EMSL
metals samples, thus a sootblowing cycle was sampled during Run 3. The
uncontrolled particulate loading for Run 3 is about twice that of Runs 1
and 2.
The controlled particulate was collected concurrently in the EPA Method
12/108 train. The controlled particulate loading for Run 3 which included a
sootblowing cycle was somewhat higher compared to Runs 1 and 2. The control
efficiencies ranged from 99.79 percent to 99.90 percent with an average
efficiency of 99.85 percent.
2.6 RATIO OF TOXIC METALS TO PARTICULATE LOADING
The ratio of the metals concentration to the corresponding particulate
loading concentration was calculated for each metal and is presented in
Table 2-15. The ratio was calculated using the total train metals results and
the front half fraction particulate results.
For the uncontrolled flue gas, zinc had the highest average ratio at 8.68
mg/g followed by lead at 6.49 mg/g. Phosphorus was the only other metal above
1 mg/g at 5.0 mg/g.
For the controlled flue gas, nickel had the highest average ratio at
71.5 mg/g. The average uncontrolled ratio for nickel was 0.094 mg/g.
2.7 GEM MONITORING OF 02, CO^ CO AND N0x AT THE OUTLET STACK
Carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, oxygen, and carbon dioxide were
continuously monitored during the test periods on July 12 and 13. The
parameters were monitored by TRC, Inc., and the data were recorded as
five-minute averages. The five-minute averages were averaged for each test
period. The results are presented in Table 2-16.
lmo/057 2-19
-------
TABLE 2-14. PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FOR THE HID-CONNECTICUT MWC
8
Run No. — > Run 1
Date ---> 7/15/88
Uncon- Con-
trolled trolled
Sampling Parameters
Volume gas sampled (dscf)
Flue gas flow rate (dscfn)
Flue gas temperature (°F)
Moisture (percent by volume)
Isokinetlcs (percent) .
CO. (percent by volume, dryl
0. (percent by volume, dry)
Process operations
Steam load (103 Ib/hr)
Parttculate Results6
Front Half Catch
(Probe, cyclone, and filter)
mg - mass
gr/dscf
gr/dscf (corrected to 12% CO.)
ng/dscn
mg/dscm (corrected to 12% CO.)
Ib/hr
kg/hr
Control Efficiency (%)
.
31.4
85.000
371
15.1
100.9
10.6
9.1
4616.41
2.266
2.565
5,187
5,872
1,652
749
64.6
99,200
245
17.0
103.6
10.6
9.1
222
7.62
0.0018
0.0021
4.12
4.66
1.6
0.726
99.90
Run 2
7/15/88
Uncon- Con-
trolled trolled
31.0
83.200
373
15.8
101.4
10.3
9.4
207
,
3880.04
1.933
2.252
4,424
5.154
1,380
626
63.0
96,300
246
17.7
103.9
10.3
9.4
14.3
0.0035
0.0041
8.01
9.33
2.9
1.32
99.79
Run 3b
7/15/88
Uncon- Con-
trolled trolled
31.3
84.700
369
15.7
100.6
10.3
9.3
8308.87
4.101
4.778
9,378
10,926
2,980
1,352
63.0
97,700
247
17.7
102.5
10.3
9.3
202
20.7
0.0050
0.0059
11.4
13.3
4.3
1.95
99.86
Average '
Uncon- Con- '
trolled trolled
84.300 97
372
15.5
--
10.4
9.3
215
--
2.100 0.
2.409 0.
4,806
5.513
1,516
688
99.85
1
j
,700
246
17.5
--
10.4
9.3,
1
--
0034
0040
7.8*
9.W
2.9
1.52
"standard conditions are 68°F (20°C) and 1 atm (1.01325 x 105 Pa).
Run 3 included a sootblowing cycle.
£
Uncontrolled average is for Runs 1 and 2 only.
CO. and 0. sampling and analysis by EPA Method 3 (Orsat) was conducted by TRC, Inc.
Results are adjusted for blanks.
-------
TABLE 2-15. RATIO OF METALS TO PARTICULATE LOADING FOR THE MID-CONNECTICUT MVC
Parameter
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Phosphorus
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Ratio
Run 1
Uncon- Con-
trolled trolled
0.509
0.210 [1.07]
0.209
[0.030]d
0.146
0.157 23.8
0.392
7.10 [2.11]
0.520
0.137
0.095 94.2
4.27
[0.0005]
0.003
[0.002]
7.38
(mg metal per gram of particulate)
Run 2 Run 3
Uncon- Con-
trolled trolled
0.536
0.157 [0.624]
0.044
[0.023]
0.232
0.167 [10.5]
0.510
5.87 [0.986]
0.905
0.221
0.093 48.7
5.72
[0.0006]
0.004
[0.0037]
9.98
Uncon- Con-
trolled trolled
..
[0.049]
* • • •
--
[3.68]
..
[1.05]
..
.-
[25.2]
..
..
..
..
..
a
Avert
Uncon-
trolled
0.523
0.184
0.127
[0.027]
0.189
0.162
0.451
6.49
0.713
0.179
0.094
5.00
[0.0006]
0.004
[0.003]
8.68
c
Con-
trolled
• *
[0.847]
— —
--
[17.2]
[1.55]
--
--
71.5
-•
--
--
--
--
aThe ratio is calculated using the total train metals results and the front half
particulate results. Ratio (mg/g) - concentration of metal (ug/dscm) * concentration
of particulate (mg/dscm).
The front half portion of the Run 3 was lost during analysis due to analyst error.
Therefore, ratios are not calculated for this run.
uncontrolled average is for Runs 1 and 2, only.
Brackets indicate that metal was not detected. Ratio was calculated using minimum
detection limit.
lmo/057
2-21
-------
TABLE 2-16. SUMMARY OF OEM RESULTS AT THE BAGHOUSE OUTLET,
MID-CONNECTICUT MWC, UNIT #11
Run:
Date:
Parameter3 Time :
Carbon monoxide (ppmv)
Maximum value (ppmv)
Minimum value (ppmv)
(ppmv adjusted to 7% 0.)
(ppmv adjusted to 12% CO,)
Nitrogen oxides (ppmv as NO.)
Maximum value (ppmv)
Minimum value (ppmv)
(ppmv adjusted to 7% 0.)
(ppmv adjusted to 12% CO.)
Oxygen (percent)
Maximum value (ppmv)
Minimum value (ppmv)
Carbon dioxide (percent)
Maximum value (ppmv)
Minimum value -(ppmv)
1
7/12/88
10:05-14:05
141.8
384.0
80.1
179.2
175.4
150.1
176.7
112.8
189.7
185.7
9.9
12.4
6.8
9.7
12.3
7.3
2
7/13/88
9:15-12:30
198.4
1286
89.0
244.0
233.4
156.9
182.6
115.6
193.0
184.6
9.6
13.2
4.7
10.2
14.4
7.0
3
7/13/88
14:20-17:30
130.1
396
84.2
170.6
166.1
154.5
192.0
108.5
202.6
197.2
10.3
13.1
7.0
9.4
12.1
7.0
Average
156.6
--
--
197.7
191.4
153.4
--
194.6
188.7
9.9
-•
--
9.8
--
--
aAll results are on a dry basis. CEM data were collected by TRC, Inc. Results
are an average of five-minute averages.
lmo/057 2-22
-------
To illustrate the variability during each run and between runs, the five-
minute averages were plotted against time and are presented in Figure 2-2.
Carbon monoxide normally varied between 100 to 200 ppm, except for occasional
excursions. Oxygen correspondingly decreased during these CO excursions. The
highest CO excursions occurred during Run 2 at 9:45 when the. CO was measured
at 1286 ppmv.
The emission of low levels of CO from municipal waste combustors is
associated with the implementation of efficient combustion which is related to
the destruction of potentially toxic organic pollutants, including CDD/CDF.
In general, it is known that high CDD/CDF emissions are associated with high
•CO emissions and low CDD/CDF emissions are associated with low CO emissions.
However, available data indicate that CO and CDD/CDF emissions do not
correlate as well below 100 to 200 ppm of CO.
The CO emissions from the Mid-Connecticut MWC during the test program
were moderately high, averaging 191.4 ppmv (adjusted to 12% CO.), with
occasional excursions. Based on CO and CDD/CDF relationships for MWC, this
level of CO emissions would suggest the high uncontrolled CDD/CDF emissions
which were observed (996 ng/dscm adjusted to 12% CO.). However, the test data
also indicate the effectiveness of the application of the SD/FF for post
combustion control of CDD/CDF. The SD/FF, operated at low SD outlet
temperatures (270°F) and achieving high acid gas removal efficiencies, was
able to remove 99.9 percent of the CDD/CDF from the flue gas.
lmo/057 2-23
-------
CO (ppmv)
NOx (ppmv) MO
MO
Run 1 Run 2
7/12/88 Peak otj286 ppmv 7/13/88
Run 3
7/13/88
IOLB 110 ItdO UtiO 1MB 1MO
UJO 1*00 HO MOO tOdO lllOO
24 hour clock
MOD IMP UOO ttjOO 1«UO IMO 1TUO
I
Figure 2-2. CEM concentration histories at the fabric filter outlet during the
test periods for the Mid-Connecticut MWC (Unit 11)
2-24
-------
3.0 PROCESS DESCRIPTION AND OPERATION
3.1 COMBUSTOR DESCRIPTION
The Mid- Connecticut Resource Recovery Facility was designed and built
by Combustion Engineering, Inc. The facility startup occurred in late fall
of 1987 and commercial operation began in October 1988. The facility
consists of three spreader stoker-fired boilers each designed to fire a
maximum of 675 TPD RDF or 236 TPD coal. Each RDF combustor is designed to
produce 231,000 Ib/hr of steam at 880 psig and 825°F while firing 100% RDF.
A total of 68.5 MW of electricity is produced by two turbine generators. A
schematic of the process is shown in Figure 3-1.
Municipal solid waste (MSV) is received from trucks and is deposited
onto the tipping floor. After inspection to remove bulky items and
hazardous material, the MSV is directed to a flail mill. Iron and steel are
then removed by drum- type magnetic separators and the rest of the waste is
conveyed to large rotary trommel screens. The trommel screens allow
non- combustible residue such as glass and sand to be removed. The second
stage of the trommel screens separates the combustible fractions and
oversized material is conveyed to a 'hammermill shredder for final size
reduction.
RDF is conveyed from the storage area to surge bins located in front of
the combustors. Vibrating pan feeders are used to feed the RDF uniformly to
each combustor, where four pneumatic distributors spread the RDF across the
grate. The grate is specially designed to allow self -cleaning of fused or
cl inker ed ash during normal grate operations.
Multiple undergrate air romos provide controlled air flow to ten areas
of the grate. The «verfire air system is separate for coal and RDF firing.
Four tange***xal overfire air windbox assemblies located at the furnace
comers are used during RDF firing. Overfire air ports (O.F.A.) for coal
lmo/057 3-1
-------
ro
RDF
Combination
Distributor*
Front
O.F.A.
CombuMor
Figure 3-1. Schematic of the Process Line at Mid-Connecticut
-------
combustion are located on the,^°nt wall (one row) and rear wall (two rows).
combination of the- <=«b overfire air modes is possible. The combustion air
is preheated in a preheater located downstream of the economizer.
The spreader stokers are equipped with natural circulation waterwall
boilers. The furnace dimensions are 20 feet wide by 19 feet deep by 77 feet
high. The upper furnace contains widely spaced water-cooled screen panels
which cool the combustion panels to approximately 1600°F. The cooled gases
then enter the superheater, generator, and economizer sections. The
superheater has two stages and operates with parallel steam and gas flow.
Steam sootblowers are located between the two stages.
. ** " "
The generating bank is a two-drum design. Two-inch diameter tubing is
arranged between a 48-inch lower water drum and a 60-inch upper steam drum.
Steam sootblowers are located at the generating bank inlet and in the center
cavity between the steam drums. The economizer consists of two horizontal
banks of tubing with rotary sootblowers located between the banks and at the
economizer outlet.
Bottom ash, economizer ash, and stoker grate siftings are combined into
one stream. Baghouse ash and air heater ash are combined, conditioned in a
pug mill and then combined with the first stream. The ash mixture is then
transported to a three-sided storage bin. Design data for the combustor
system are shown in Table 3-1.
3.2 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL SYSTEM
The flue gas cleaning system consists of a spray dryer absorber
followed by a fabric filter. Lime slurry is prepared for the spray dryer by
.slaking pebble lime and partially diluting the slaked lime with water.
"• '^.'a
Water of high, quality (potable) is used for slaking. However, ponded water
from coal pile runoff, lime slaker cleaning, and slurry lime flushing is
used to dilute the concentrated slurry in the atomizer feed tanks. Grit is
removed from the concentrated slurry and the slurry is stored in a separate
lmo/057 3-3
-------
TABLE 3-1 DESIGN OPERATlNC"Cs*ij>iTlONS FOR SINGLE RDF COMBUSTOR
Parameter Design ValueA
RDF firing rate (Ib/hr) 56,300
Steam generation rate (Ib/hr) 231,000
Steam temperature at superheater outlet (°F) 825
Steam pressure at superheater outlet (psig) 880
Superheater pressure drop (psi) 102
Feedwater temperature (°F) 384
Feedwater temperature leaving economizer ( F) 476
Economizer pressure drop (psi) 5
Gas temperature leaving boiler (°F) 776
Gas temperature leaving economizer (°F) 603
Gas temperature leaving air heater ( F) 333
Gas flow leaving boiler (Ib/hr) 412,000
Air flow entering furnace (Ib/hr) 364,000
Excess air (percent) 50
lmo/034 3-4
-------
tank. . The concentrated slurry is delivered to the spray dryer feed tanks
where it is diluted with water. The diluted slurry is atomized into the
spray dryer absorber vessel. The slurry rate and dilution water rate are
controlled according to the required flue gas temperature and S0_
concentration at the spray dryer outlet.
The flue gas flowrate through the spray dryer is controlled to maintain
near design flue gas velocity in the spray dryer vessel. This is
accomplished through use of a multi-louvered damper.
The fabric filter following the spray dryer is reverse*air and has 12
compartments. Each compartment contains 168 teflon-coated fiber glass
filter bags arranged in 12 rows of 14 bags. The filter bags are
automatically cleaned using a pressure and/or timed cycle. The compartments
are cleaned sequentially, with one compartment off-line while the others
remain on-line.
3.3 OPERATING DATA DURING THE TEST PROGRAM
Combustor and air pollution control process operating data were
monitored during the testing periods. The data were recorded every 15
minutes. The collected data are summarized in Table 3-2. Both the average
and relative standard deviation over each test run are presented.
Combustor operation remained fairly consistent across the various runs.
The total combustion air flow entering the furnace averaged 397,000 pounds
per hour (Ib/hr) and ranged from 372,000 to 429,000 Ib/hr. The overfire air
flow for coal remained zero during all the tests. The boiler oxygen content
remained fairly consistent, averaging 8.0 percent. During the EMSL
metals/particulate-Run 1, the oxygen concentration did fall to the minimum
observed, 6.5 percent, and in Method lOlA-Run 1, the highest oxygen
concentration was observed, 9.2 percent. The steam flow ranged from
197,900 Ib/hr for CDD/CDF-Run 2 to 221,500 Ib/hr for EMSL
metals/particulate-Run 1 and averaged 204,400 Ib/hr. For each of the test
runs, the flue gas temperature at the boiler convective pass was
lmo/057 3-5
-------
TABLE 3-2. SUMMARY OF OPERATING DATA DURING THE TEST PERIODS FOR THE MID-CONHECTICUT MUG (UNIT 11)
Paranatara
Main ataaa flow
(10* Ib/hr)
Main ataaa taaparatura
Main ataaa pnaaura
Faad watar flow
(10 Ib/hr)
Total air flow
(10 Ib/hr)
Laft alda undarflra air
Flow
(10 Ib/hr)
Taaparatura
Fraaaur*
(In. US)
Right alda undarflra air
Flow
(10 Ib/hr)
Taaparatura
Praaiura
(In. WB)
RDF Injection air flow
(Ib/hr)
Ovarflra air flow
(Ib/hr)
Run 1
7/12/88
11: 50-14 i 48
203.6
(7.3)
830.1
(0.9)
833.3
(3.1)
213.6
(12.2)
240.8
(2.2)
71.8
469.3
(0.3)
2.3
(6.8)
69.1
(1.9)
465.3
(0.3)
1.1
(19-2)
10639
(1.2)
0.0
(0.0)
COD/CDF
MERCURY-METHOD 101 A
Run 2 Run 3
7/13/88 7/13/88
9:44-12:33 15:12-18:08
197.9
(15.6)
826.7
(1.8)
799.0
(1.1)
208.2
229.1
(2.8)
66.2
(5.6)
463.9
(0.8)
2.8
(16.8)
69.1
(1.9)
461.1
(0.9)
1.2
(23.6)
10698
(1.8)
0.0
(0.0)
198.6
(17.8)
837.4
(2.3)
796.1
(1-1)
208.1
(20.9)
228.1
(1.5)
63.6
(1.2)
471.6
(0.8)
2.4
(10.6)
69.6
(2.2)
468.9
(0.8)
1.1
(21.4)
10673
(0.5)
0.0
(0.0)
Run 1
7/14/88
9:44-11:57
202.5
(20.3)
822.8
(1.0)
803.0
(1.3)
201.8
(22.2)
239.7
(2.6)
71.0
(2.4)
438.5
(0.6)
3.7
(24.6)
78.7
(2.9)
437.7
(0.6)
2.1
(6.0)
10736
(0.4)
0
(0.0)
Run 2
7/14/88
13:34-15:48
195.0
(19.9)
818.1
(0.9)
793.5
(1.3)
199.3
(13.7)
233.4
(2.3)
72.2
(1.*)
464.7
(0.5)
3.3
(7.3)
69.3
(1.6)
461.6
(0.5)
1.3
'(14.8)
11307
(0.7)
0
(0.0)
Run 3
7/14/88
16:49-19:04
211.2
(9.6)
821.0
(0.4)
802.1
(1.3)
213.0
(11.1)
233.0
(1.3)
73.1
(1.7)
473.7
(0.4)
3.0
(20.8)
69.6
(1.3)
470.2
(0.4)
1.4
(12.6)
11310
(0.5)
0
(0.0)
PARTICULATB/EMSL METALS
Run 1
7/15/88
10:00-11:30
221.5
(12.0)
826.1
(1.4)
858.2
(4.5)
224.0
(10.0)
248.3
(1.3)
79.7
(1.3)
466.4
(0.7)
2.7
(6.3)
71.3
(1.8)
461.0
(0.7)
1.8
(10.9)
10139
(0.4)
0
(0.0)
Run 2
7/15/88
12:34-14:05
207.3
(8.1)
820.7
(1.8)
834.8
(4.8)
191.5
(6.0)
254.8
(2.3)
80.7
(1.2)
468.2
(0.3)
3.0
(7.5)
73.3
(2.4)
463.0
(0.3)
2.2
(8.9)
10369
(0.9)
0
(0.0)
Run 3
7/15/88
15:14-16:46
202.1
(26.8)
806.3
(2.3)
793.9
(2.4)
225.6
(13.1)
261.9
(1.6)
80.2
(0.9)
464.6
(1.2)
2.9
(11.4)
76.3
(2.3)
459.8
(1.1)
2.2
(14.5)
10467
(0.9)
0
(0.0)
• . 1
Total
Avaraga
204 . 4
• (3.9)
823.3
(1.0)
812.7
(2.9)
209.7
(5.3)
241.0
(4.9)
i
73.2
(8.3)
466.8
(0.97)
2.9
(14.7)
71.9
(5.0)
463.2
(0.90)
1.6
(30.4)
10704
(3.7)
0
(0.0)
lmo/051
-------
TABLE 3-2. SUMMARY OP OPERATING DATA DURING THE TEST PERIODS FOR THE MID-CONNECTICUT MUC (UHIT 11)* (Continued)
Parameter*
Boiler oiygen
(percent)
Boiler convectlve pass gaa teep.
Unper left
(*>)
Upper center
Upper right
Middle left
Middle center
Middle right
Lower left
Lower center
Lower right
Peed water to eeonomlcer teop.
Econoolser outlet gas tenperature
Alrheater air outlet pressure
(In. WC)
Run 1
7/12/88
11 I 50-14 I 48
7.9
(9.1)
1073.3
(2.9)
1149.8
1137.8
(1.7)
1143.8
(2.2)
1147.1
(1.8)
1060.1
(2.1)
1021.9
(2.3)
998.2
(1.8)
903.7
(2.0)
360.3
(1.3)
643.0
(1.2)
10.7
(2.9)
CDD/CDP
Run 2 .
7/13/88
9i 44-12! S3
8.7
(18.7)
1098.4
(4.2)
1144.6
(2.7)
1097.7
(4.5)
1139.2
(3.1)
1129.3
(3.6)
1025.2
(4.5)
1010.1
(4.1)
966.5
(3.3)
892.2
(3.3)
352.8
(1.9)
633.0
(1.7)
9.1
(4.6)
MERCURY-METHOD
Run 3
7/13/88
13il2-18i08
9.1
(15.2)
1101.9
(4.1)
1145.4
(2.5)
1106.7
(3.7)
1140.2
(3.3)
1134.0
(3.3)
1033.3
(4.4)
1021.6
(3.1)
978.0
(4.1)
903.2
(3.7)
350.3
(2.4)
644.6
(1.8)
9.1
(3.4)
Run 1
7/14/88
9i44-lliS7
9.2
(15.3)
1116.1
(9.8)
1151.1
(1.6)
1117.1
(5.4)
1142.1
(2.6)
1192.0
(5.2)
1097.9
(4.4)
1001.9
(4.5)
967.9
(9.7)
892.6
(9.6)
942.9
(9.9)
635.0
(1.8)
9.1
(3.8)
Run 2
7/14/88
15i94-15i48'
8.6
(20.1)
1101.6
(5.9)
1150.1
(1.9)
1126.0
(9.0)
1144.8
(2.7)
1195.1
(9.9)
1040.6
(*.S)
1004.7
(*•!>
969.1
(9.4)
894.7
(9.1)
952.1
(1.8)
643.2
(1.7)
9.1
(2.5)
101A
Run 9
7/14/88
16t49-19i04
8.0
(11.4)
1190.0
(1.7)
1158.2
(0.0)
1146.9
(1.9)
1158.2
(0.0)
1156.2
(0.6)
1058.2
(2.0)
1029.8
987.7
(1.7)
908.3
(1.6)
357.5
(0.6)
6S6.0
(0.7)
9.2
(2.7)
PARTICULATB/EKSL METALS
Run 1
7/15/88
10iOO-lli30
6.5
(28.4)
1105.0
(4.4)
1157.6
(0.0)
1157.7
(0.0)
1155.2
(0.4)
1157.6
(0.0)
1115.3
(3.1)
1040.4
(9.1)
1003.6
(1.8)
934.3
(2.7)
356.3
(2.0)
646.9
(1.8)
10.2
(1.6)
Run 2
7/15/88
12 i 34-14i 05
6.7
(15.3)
1071.3
(9.9)
1155.9
(1.0)
1154.9
(0.6)
1199.9
(2.8)
1144.9
(2.2)
1091.7
(9.5)
1016.2
(9.7)
991.5
(9.0)
911.0
(9.0)
351.8
(1-7)
6*2.5
(1.5)
11.0
(2.1)
Run 3
7/13/88
15>14-16i46
6.9
(47.3)
1069.1
(4.0)
1146.6
(2.4)
1143.4
(2.7)
1133.4
(4.7)
1133.0
(4.9)
1086.3
(3.9)
981.9
(6.0)
978.1
(4.6)
889.4
(4.2)
365.5
(3.2)
633.8
(1.8)
11.6
(3.2)
Total
Average
8.0
(12.9)
1096.3
(1.9)
1150.8
(0.43)
1132.3
(1.9)
1144.0
(0.7)
1141.2
(0.9)
1061.2
(2.9)
1014.2
(1.7)
982.4
(1.4)
903.5
(1.5)
354.4
(1.8)
6*2.2
(1.1)
9.9
(10.0)
Imo/OSl
-------
TABLE 3-2. SIMMRY OF OPERATING DATA DURING TUB TEST PERIODS FOR THE MID-CONMECTICUT MHC (UNIT 11) (Continued)
Parana tera
Alrheater air outlet teoperature.
Alrheatar gaa outlet teoperature
Alrheater gaa aide AP
(In. HC)
Spray dryer AP
(In. HC)
Spray dryer outlet temperature
( F)
Slurry rate to feed tank
Atomizer (lurry flow
(8P>)
Lime *lurry denalty
(Ib/gal)
Baghou(a outlet teoperature
Baghouae total AP
(In. HC)
Air pollution control
ayateoi total A?
(In. UG)
Run 1
7/12/88
Ut30-14i48
487.6
(0.4)
378.7
(0.5)
2.2
(11.7)
1.7
(11.0)
269.7
(0.6)
3.4
(10.3)
30.3
(0.2)
11.6
(0.2)
240.6
(0.8)
2.3
(14.3)
9.8
(3.6)
COD/CDF
Run 2
7/13/88
9i44-12iS3
483.5
(1.0)
374.6
(2.3)
2.1
(6.2)
1.3
(9.9)
265.3
(1.3)
4.9
(13.4)
30.2
(0.2)
11.5
(0.2)
234.0
(1.0)
3.8
(8.0)
11.3
(2.9)
MERCURY-METHOD
Run 3
7/13/88
13 1 12-18 1 08
491.1
(0.9)
384.4
(1.0)
2.0
(3.3)
1.6
(11.0)
276.7
(0.9)
5.4
(2.2)
30.1
(0.3)
11.6
(0.2)
230.3
(10.4)
3.8
(3,8)
10.9
(2.3)
Run 1
7/14/88
9t44-lliS7
477.2
(0.8)
368.2 •
(0.8)
2.0
(3.4)
1.5
(9.5)
288.5
(8.8)
5.0
(5.9)
25.1
(19.8)
11.6
(0.1)
254.1
(4.3)
3.7
(4.7)
11.1
(1.9)
Run 2
7/14/88
13t34-15:48
483.8
(0.7)
374.4
(0.8)
1.9
(3.3)
1.3
(7.7)
277.6
(1.5)
3.6
(7.4)
27.0
(1.0)
11.6
(0.2)
244.1
(1.7)
3.9
(7.5)
11.5
(3.1)
101A
Run 3
7/14/88
16i49-19i04
492.0
(0.6)
381.3
(0.7)
2.1
(6.2)
1.5
(5.5)
284.8
(0.8)
2.8
(8.6)
26.4
(0.4)
(0.1)
253.9
(1.1)
3.8
(4.3)
10.9
(2.3)
PARTICUIATE/EMSL METALS
Run 1
7/15/88
10iOO-lli30
483.1
(0.9)
369.6
(1.0)
2.0
(6.3)
1.4
(9.3)
273.3
(0.8)
4.3
(67.6)
26.6
(0.1)
11.6
(0.1)
240.0
(0.7)
3.9
(13.0)
11.3
(3.6)
Run 2
7/13/88
12 i 34-14 i 03
484.2
(0.4)
371.2
(0.4)
1.9
(2.3)
1.4
(6.3)
275.9
(0.4)
3.3
(14.3)
26.9
(0.6)
11.6
(0.1)
242.7
(0.3)
3.7
(3.7)
12.0
(1.7)
Run 3
7/15/88
15i 14-16: 46
479.2
(1.3)
369.1
(1.6)
1.9
(5.4)
1.5
(11.3)
277.8
(0.3)
3.5
(11.8)
27.1
(0.6)
11.6
(0.4)
241.9
(2.0)
3.6
(7.7)
11.4
(8.2)
Total
Average
484.6
(1.0)
374.6
(1.5)
2.0
(5.5)
1.5
(5.5)
276.7
(2.5)
4.3
(23.8)
27.7
(7.0)
11.6
(0.3)
244.6
(2.8)
3.6
(14.3)
11.2
(5.4)
Average value pretexted with relative standard deviation given In parentheaea below the average value.
lmo/051
-------
consistently near 1,000°F for the nine monitoring thermocouples located
left, center and right of the upper, middle and lower portions of the boiler
convective section.
The air pollution control system also operated consistently. The spray
dryer outlet temperature ranged from 265.5 to 288.5°F and averaged 276.7°F.
The lime slurry feed rate to the spray dryer atomizer averaged 27.7 gal/min.
During CDD/CDF-Runs 1 to 3, the slurry feed rate ranged from 30.1 to 30.3
gallons/minute, while during the rest of the runs the rate ranged from 25.1
to 27.7 gallons/minute. The lime slurry density averaged 11.6 pounds/gallon
for each run.
lmo/057 3-9
-------
4.0 SAMPLING LOCATIONS
Sampling was conducted at two locations, the inlet to the spray dryer and
the baghouse outlet. These locations are discussed below.
4.1 SPRAY DRYER INLET
Sampling was conducted by Radian at the inlet to the spray dryer. The
inlet sampling location is shown on the process line schematic in Figure 4-1.
The parameters that were measured at the spray dryer inlet sampling location
included CDD/CDF, metals, particulate loading, volumetric flowrate, moisture,
02 and C02.
A side view of the spray dryer inlet sampling location is shown in
Figure 4-2. The inlet sampling location has five four-inch I.D. ports
arranged horizontally across the face of the rectangular duct between the exit
to the air heater and the entrance to the spray dryer (dry scrubber). The
internal duct dimensions are 7'5" wide by 6'5" deep. The insulation is 4"
deep.
EPA Method 1 was used to select the number and location of the traverse
points iri the duct. The ports are located approximately 5.7 equivalent duct
diameters (39') downstream of a narrowing of the duct and approximately 1.7
equivalent duct diameters (12') upstream of a 90 bend in the duct. Following
EPA Method 1 procedures, 20 traverse points are required. However, a 5 x 5
matrix was used for a more balanced traverse point layout. The traverse point
location diagram is presented in Figure 4-3.
During metals/PM sampling, the use of teflon transfer line between the
heated box and the impinger bucket was discontinued due to the significant
time delays caused by its use. However with the heated box and impinger
bucket as one unit, the safety rail prevented the traversing of Port A, and
lmo/057 4-1
-------
Economizer
*•
i
RDF
Combination
Distributors
Inlet Sampling
Location
Tubular ,
Air Heater
^>.
"\
c
c
"::
IV."
Combustor
Outlet Stack
--Samplirg
Location
SteU
Figure 4-1. Mid-Connecticut MWC Process Line with Sampling Locations
01
2
in
-------
Spray
Dryer
Inlet to
Spray Dryer
I
12'
(1.70eq)
46'
39'
(5.7 0 «q)
Duct - 6*5" Deep x 7'5' Wide (1.0.)
4" Insulation All Sides
Equivalent Diameter (0 eq) » 6.7'
Row
•Ports
Platform
Prom Air
Heater
Figure 4-2. Side View of Spray Dryer Inlet Sampling Location at
Mid-Connecticut MWC
4-3
-------
97
4" Insulation
C
I
,
iM
i^
<
76.
i
1
75"
l
A
b c
. i
••
k
^
•
B
.
•i^HBB
C
b c
.
m*f*m
D
•—
—
1
1
83.08'
67.
t
72"
1
52.37
'
37.02
i
21.68
»
*
l-T f
'
»
M
f
w
" P!
Figure 4-3. Traverse Point Location Diagram for the Spray Dryer Inlet
Sampling Location at Mid-Connecticut MWC
4-4
-------
the first point for the remaining ports was moved in to 27.68 inches
(referring to Figure 4-3).
A cyclonic flow check was conducted according to EPA Method 1 which
requires that the average degree of rotation should be equal to or less than
10 degrees. The results of the cyclonic flow check determined that the
average degree of rotation at the inlet to the spray dryer was 0.15 degrees.
Thus, the location meets the EPA Method 1 criteria.
The volumetric flowrate during the test program averaged 84,800 dscfm at
370°F. Moisture was an average of 15.5 percent by volume. The static
pressure at this point was -5.0 inches of water.
4.2 BAGHOUSE OUTLET
The baghouse outlet sampling ports are located in the exhaust stack
approximately 3 equivalent duct diameters downstream from the last flow
disturbance. The duct is rectangular and the five sampling ports are located
on the 72-inch-wide vertical face of the duct that is 70 inches deep (equi-
valent diameters 71 inches). The ports are 2.7 equivalent diameters (192
inches) downstream and 1.8 equivalent diameters (132 inches) upstream from the
nearest flow disturbances. In accordance with EPA Method 1, 25 traverse
points (five per port) were used at this location. The traverse point
location diagram is presented in Figure 4-4.
lmo/057 4-5
-------
F
L
0
D
* ,o
« 40
*
= 30
r°
1 10
1 o.
I
ItV
'-"Kid Cp
Environmental £PA M«thOd 1
inset ieut RRF Total Tnvert* Point
OfOtiOf1 ii"''-3"" OutU- 11/12 Number of Port* <
iameters U
iameters D
MINIMUM N'J
Duct Ola
.5
•MM* Ml*
Samp
f
s Require
"6E» OF TRAVERSE POINTS FOR PARTICULATE
AND NONPARTICULATE TRAVERSES
meters Upstream from Flow Disturbance
(Distance A)
1.3 1.5 2.0
i i i > i i
• .
,„,_„ "i"" .
f 4 «r »• C 1\ 0«WM«ei
.........
1 •« ^" *
I_1S__
1 or Vert
/^
\\
•— 70
. . .
r— 7
!• and Velocity Trav«r»««
or Stationary Soureat
* ?<
ka1)>
••mmH
~N
^
"
•
1
tTJCIMMMTtl*«J*T«*Jl.n»MM
' 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Duct Diameters Downstream from Flow Disturbance
(Distance B)
LOCATION OF TRAVERSE POINTS IN CIRCULAR STACKS
Point
Number
On A
Hameter
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
(Percent of stack diameter from
inside wall to traverse point)
Number Of Trja verse Points On A Diameter
46 8 10 12
6.7 4.4 3.2 2.6 2.1
25.0 14.6 10.5 8.2 6.7
75.0 29.6 19.4 14.6 11.8
93.3 70.4 32.3 22.6 17.7
85.4 67.7 34.2 25.0
95.6 80.6 65.8 35.6
89.5 77.4 64.4
96.8 85.4 75.0
91.8 82.3
97.4 88.2
93.3
97.9
D •
Utq
»•
orizor.ia.'
•
\
132'
f Sample. J
/ Port *
•1
41
1
T
•JJ.
192"
^
CROSS-SECTIONAL LAYOUT
FOR RECTANGULAR STACKS
Total
Traverse Points Matrix
9 3x3
12 4x3
16 4x4
20 5x4
25 5x5
0
f
1
1
"\-^
s
TRAVERSE POINT LOCATIONS
„• Distance
IW- From Hall
1 7
2 21
3 35
4 49
5 63
6
7
8
9.
10
11
12
Nipple
Size
Total
Distance
Figure 4-4. Traverse Point Location Diagram for the Baghouse Outlet
Sampling Location at Mid-Connecticut MWC
4-6
-------
5.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
The sampling at Che spray dryer inlet was performed by Radian Corporation
and the sampling at the outlet stack was performed by TRC, Inc. There were
some differences in the sampling protocols used by Radian and TRC. These
differences are discussed in this section.
The sampling and analytical methods used for Mid-Connecticut MWC were
based on accepted EPA protocols. Modifications were made to suit the needs of
the test program. The sampling methods and pertinent modifications are
discussed below. Additional details of the sampling and analytical procedures
are included in the emission test reports. '
5.1 CDD/CDF DETERMINATION
CDD/CDF sampling 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. Modifications made by Radian to the sampling
protocol were:
1) Inlet samples were analyzed as separate front half and back half
fractions.
2) Due to limited clearances at the sampling location, a flexible,
heated Teflon transfer line was used between the filter and coil
condenser for the CDD/CDF runs at the inlet and the outlet. The
Teflon line was recovered as part of the back half filter
housing/coil rinse fraction.
3) The laboratory proof blank was archived pending the analytical
results from the field blank. Since the field blank results were
acceptable (see Section 6), the proof blank was not analyzed.
4) The XAD traps were spiked with the surrogate compounds: Cl-TCDD
and C.j-HxCDF prior to sampling.
5) 2378-TCDF confirmation analyses were performed for both the inlet
and outlet CDD/CDF samples.
lmo/057 5-1
-------
There were some differences between the CDD/COF protocols followed by Radian
and TRC. These differences were:
1) To clean the glassware prior to sampling, TRC soaked the glassware
in a chromic acid cleaning solution. Radian bakes the glassware for
2 hours at 450 F because chromic acid soaks are suspected of leaving
residuals which may react with the native CDD/CDF in the samples.
2) TRC used a stainless steel nozzle in their CDD/CDF sampling train.
Radian used a glass nozzle.
3) TRC recovered the samples from the sampling train using a 1:1
mixture of methylene chloride and methanol. Radian used acetone
followed by methylene chloride to recover the CDD/CDF samples.
4) TRC analyzed for the tetra- through octa- CDD/CDF congeners. EPA
.also included the mono* through tri-CDD/CDF congeners as their
target compounds.
5.2 TOXIC METALS AND PARTICULATE DETERMINATION
Different protocols were used to sample the uncontrolled and controlled
flue gas for toxic metals. For the uncontrolled flue gas, Radian followed a
draft EPA/EMSL method which was not a validated EPA Method. This method is
applicable for the determination of mercury, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead,
zinc, phosphorus, copper, nickel, manganese, selenium, beryllium, thallium,
silver, antimony and barium emissions as well as particulate loading. The
method is based on EPA Reference Method 5.
For the controlled flue gas, TRC combined EPA Method 12 and EPA Method
108 into a single train and analyzed for lead, arsenic, nickel, and total
chromium, only. Both the uncontrolled and controlled protocols were a
modification of EPA Method 5 with the difference being the collection media in
the impingers. The draft EPA/EMSL method used a mixture of HNO_ and H^O. in
the first two impingers and acidic KMnO, in the third impinger. The EPA
Method 12/108 train used distilled water in the first two impingers followed
by HNO_ in the third impinger.
Sampling of the uncontrolled flue gas was conducted as described in the
Radian test plan except that only twenty of the twenty-five traverse points
lmo/057 5-2
-------
were sampled. As discovered during CDD/CDF sampling, the flexible, heated,
transfer line caused considerable delays during setup. Thus for the metals
sampling, the transfer line was eliminated and the sampling location was
re•configured. However, the handrail could not be removed due to safety
considerations. Thus, Port A could not be traversed at all, and Point 1 of
the other ports was moved in six inches. However, the emission concentrations
were not expected to be affected, since the velocity profile was relatively
uniform.
5.3 MERCURY DETERMINATION BY EPA METHOD 101A
Mercury concentratation in the flue gas was determined by EPA Method
101A. Mercury was also measured using this method since data based in a
validated method were desired by EPA. The method is based on EPA Reference
Method 5 except acidic potassium permanganate is used as the impinger
solution. No modifications were made to this method.
5.4 VOLUMETRIC FLOVRATE, FIXED GAS, AND MOISTURE DETERMINATIONS BY EPA
METHODS 2, 3 AND 4
Volumetric flowrate and moisture determinations were made according to
EPA Methods 2 and 4, respectively. These samples were collected concurrently
with the flue gas sampling trains.
Integrated bag samples were collected for fixed gas determinations by
EPA Method 3. The samples were analyzed by ORSAT. The ORSAT analyses were
performed by TRC personnel.
lmo/057 5-3
-------
6.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)
Completeness and data quality were emphasized during the test program by
both Radian Corporation and TRC Environmental Consultants, Inc. at the
Mid-Connecticut HWC. 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 performed
by both Radian and TRC during the test program. The detailed procedures and
8 9
results -are include in the emission test reports. '
6.1 EQUIPMENT AND SAMPLING PREPARATION
Sampling equipment was cleaned, checked out, and calibrated before each
use in the field. Table 6-1 summarizes the equipment that was calibrated for
each method. Calibration data were recorded on data sheets included in the
appendices of the emission 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 the equipment arrived in the field, a laboratory proof blank was
collected for each set of sampling glassware. 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.
In addition, field blanks were collected for each method. A field blank
was collected from a train which had been used to collect a flue gas sample
and then recovered. Then, the train was reloaded, left at the sampling
location for the duration of the sampling period and recovered. The field
blank quantifies contamination from the combined effect of sampling location,
handling, reagents and recovery efficiency. One field blank was analyzed for
each method.
lmo/057 6-1
-------
TABLE 6-1. SUMMARY OF EQUIPMENT CALIBRATED IN PERFORMING SOURCE SAMPLING AT THE MID-CONNECTICUT MWC
to
Parameter
Volumetric Flue Gas
Flow Rate
Gas Phase Composition
Moisture
Molecular Weight
CDD/CDF
PM/Toxic Metals
Mercury
Method
EPA 1 & 2
EPA 4
EPA 3
ASME/EPA
Protocol
Draft EMSL
EPA Methods
12 and 108
EPA 101A
Calibrated Equipment Used to Measure Parameters
Type "S" Temperature '
Pltot Measuring Dry Gas
Tube Manometer Device Orsat Nozzles Balances Meter
XXX
XXX XX
X
X X XX X XX
X X X X X X X
• X X X X X X X
lmo/057
-------
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.
6.2 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 2 CDD/CDF train at the spray dryer inlet,
was a leak rate correction required, as specified by the sampling method.
6.3 SAMPLE RECOVERY
Reagent blanks were collected and archived for a potential 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.
6.4 SAMPLE ANALYSIS
The sample analyses were performed by laboratories familiar with the
analytical procedures. The accuracy of the analyses was evaluated by
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.
lmo/057 6-3
-------
For the CDD/CDF samples, the internal standards and surrogate recoveries
were within the QC criteria of 100 + 50 percent. The reagent and method
blanks contained CDD/CDF at or below minimum detection limits which was
considered acceptable. The CDD/CDF results were not adjusted. The duplicate
analyses agreed closely.
For the uncontrolled mercury (Method 101A) samples, the reagent blanks
contained mercury at less than minimum detection limits. The matrix spikes
were recovered at 96.1 and 94.4 percent.
The toxic metal and particulate results were adjusted for reagent blanks.
The reagent blanks contained low levels of silver, barium, lead, manganese and
zinc. . -
6.5 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.
lmo/057 6-4
-------
7.0 REFERENCES
1. Anderson, C.L., D.J. Holder and H.A. Vane11 (Radian Corporation)
Uncontrolled CDD/CDF. Metals, and Particulate Emissions Test Report:
Mid-Connecticut Resource Recovery Facility. Hartford. Connecticut.
Volumes I and II. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. January 1989.
2. TRC Environmental Consultants. Mid-Connecticut Resource Recovery
Facility Air Emissions Compliance Report. Volumes I and II. Prepared
for Combustion Engineering, Windsor, Connecticut. August 19, 1988.
3. Reference 1.
4. Reference 2.
5. Procedures for Estimating Risks Associated with Polychlorinated
Dibenzo-p-dioxins and Dibenzofurans (CDD and CDF). Prepared by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. April 1986.
6. Reference 1.
7. Reference 2.
8. Reference 1.
9. Reference 2.
lmo/057 7-1
-------
8.0 METRIC-TO-ENGLISH CONVERSION TABLE
Metric
2.8317 x 10"2 dscm -
2.8317 x 10" 2 dscmm -
4.5359 x 10"1 kg/hr -
1 ng/dscm -
1 mg/dscm -
°C
1.01325 x 105
1 ng/kg
1 ng/g
1 mg/g
English
1 dscf
1 dscfm
1 Ib/hr
.10
4.3699 x 10 grains/dscf
4.3699 x 10"4 grains/dscf
(°F - 32°F) 5/9
1 atm
6.9998 x 10"9 grains/lb
6.9998 x 10"6 grains/lb
6.9998 x 10" 3 grains/lb
lmo/057
8-1
------- |